Manual of Language Acquisition 3110302101, 9783110302103

Table of contents :
0 Introduction
Language Acquisition
1 Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition
2 Research Methods
3 Language Policy, Management and Planning
4 Language Socialization
5 Languages and Identities
6 Language Acquisition Theories
First Language Acquisition
7 Children’s Multimodal Language Development
8 Bases of Linguistic Development
9 Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell
Second Language Acquisition
10 Second Language Acquisition
11 Bilingual Education
12 Plurilingual Education
13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning
14 European History of Romance Language Teaching
15 Language Teacher
16 Language Learner
17 Cognition and Emotion
18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means
Acquisition of Romance Languages: Contexts and Characteristics
19 Catalan
20 French
21 Italian
22 Portuguese
23 Rhaeto-Romanic
24 Romanian
25 Spanish
Language Acquisition in the Romance-Speaking World
26 Canada
27 France
28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions
29 Peru
30 Portugal and Brazil
31 Romania
32 Spain
Index

Citation preview

Manual of Language Acquisition MRL 2

Manuals of Romance Linguistics Manuels de linguistique romane Manuali di linguistica romanza Manuales de lingüística románica

Edited by Günter Holtus and Fernando Sánchez Miret

Volume 2

Manual of Language Acquisition Edited by Christiane Fäcke

ISBN 978-3-11-030210-3 e-ISBN 978-3-11-030225-7 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 http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover-Bildnachweis: © Marco2811/fotolia Typesetting: jürgen ullrich typosatz, Nördlingen Printing and binding: CPI buch bücher GmbH, Birkach ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Manuals of Romance Linguistics The new international handbook series Manuals of Romance Linguistics (MRL) will offer an extensive, systematic and state-of-the-art overview of linguistic research in the entire field of present-day Romance Studies. MRL aims to update and expand the contents of the two major reference works available to date: Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL) (1988–2005, vol. 1–8) and Romanische Sprachgeschichte (RSG) (2003–2008, vol. 1–3). It will also seek to integrate new research trends as well as topics that have not yet been explored systematically. Given that a complete revision of LRL and RSG would not be feasible, at least not in a sensible timeframe, the MRL editors have opted for a modular approach that is much more flexible: The series will include approximately 60 volumes (each comprised of approx. 400–600 pages and 15–30 chapters). Each volume will focus on the most central aspects of its topic in a clear and structured manner. As a series, the volumes will cover the entire field of present-day Romance Linguistics, but they can also be used individually. Given that the work on individual MRL volumes will be nowhere near as time-consuming as that on a major reference work in the style of LRL, it will be much easier to take into account even the most recent trends and developments in linguistic research. MRL’s languages of publication are French, Spanish, Italian, English and, in exceptional cases, Portuguese. Each volume will consistently be written in only one of these languages. In each case, the choice of language will depend on the specific topic. English will be used for topics that are of more general relevance beyond the field of Romance Studies (for example Manual of Language Acquisition or Manual of Romance Languages in the Media). The focus of each volume will be either (1) on one specific language or (2) on one specific research field. Concerning volumes of the first type, each of the Romance languages – including Romance-based creoles – will be discussed in a separate volume. A particularly strong focus will be placed on the smaller languages (linguae minores) that other reference works have not treated extensively. MRL will comprise volumes on Friulian, Corsican, Galician, Vulgar Latin, among others, as well as a Manual of Judaeo-Romance Linguistics and Philology. Volumes of the second type will be devoted to the systematic presentation of all traditional and new fields of Romance Linguistics, with the research methods of Romance Linguistics being discussed in a separate volume. Dynamic new research fields and trends will yet again be of particular interest, because although they have become increasingly important in both research and teaching, older reference works have not dealt with them at all or touched upon them only tangentially. MRL will feature volumes dedicated to research fields such as Grammatical Interfaces, Youth Language Research, Urban Varieties, Computational Linguistics, Neurolinguistics, Sign Languages or Forensic Linguistics.

VI

Manuals of Romance Linguistics

Each volume will offer a structured and informative, easy-to-read overview of the history of research as well as of recent research trends. We are delighted that internationally-renowned colleagues from a variety of Romance-speaking countries and beyond have agreed to collaborate on this series and take on the editorship of individual MRL volumes. Thanks to the expertise of the volume editors responsible for the concept and structure of their volumes, as well as for the selection of suitable authors, MRL will not only summarize the current state of knowledge in Romance Linguistics, but will also present much new information and recent research results. As a whole, the MRL series will present a panorama of the discipline that is both extensive and up-to-date, providing interesting and relevant information and useful orientation for every reader, with detailed coverage of specific topics as well as general overviews of present-day Romance Linguistics. We believe that the series will offer a fresh, innovative approach, suited to adequately map the constant advancement of our discipline. Günter Holtus (Lohra/Göttingen) Fernando Sánchez Miret (Salamanca) June 2014

Table of Contents 0

Christiane Fäcke Introduction 1

Language Acquisition 1

Frank G. Königs Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition

2

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss Research Methods 31

3

F. Xavier Vila Language Policy, Management and Planning

4

Kathleen C. Riley Language Socialization

5

Adelheid Hu Languages and Identities

6

Bill VanPatten Language Acquisition Theories

17

50

69

87

103

First Language Acquisition 7

Aliyah Morgenstern Children’s Multimodal Language Development

8

Josie Bernicot Bases of Linguistic Development

9

Michel Fayol Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell

123

143

162

VIII

Table of Contents

Second Language Acquisition Alessandro Benati 10 Second Language Acquisition

179

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet 11 Bilingual Education 198 Franz-Joseph Meissner 12 Plurilingual Education

217

Krista Segermann 13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

236

Marcus Reinfried 14 European History of Romance Language Teaching Birgit Schädlich 15 Language Teacher

255

274

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann 16 Language Learner 291 Hélène Martinez 17 Cognition and Emotion

308

Bernd Tesch 18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

325

Acquisition of Romance Languages: Contexts and Characteristics Joan Julià-Muné 19 Catalan 345 Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes 20 French 371 Janice M. Aski 21 Italian 390

Table of Contents

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões 22 Portuguese 412 Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke 23 Rhaeto-Romanic 433 Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner 24 Romanian 451 Francisco Moreno-Fernández 25 Spanish 472

Language Acquisition in the Romance-Speaking World Terry Nadasdi 26 Canada 495 Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth 27 France 513 Rita Franceschini 28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions Isabel García Ponce 29 Peru 555 Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva 30 Portugal and Brazil 572 Doina Spiță 31 Romania 593 Ana Halbach 32 Spain 613

Index

632

529

IX

Christiane Fäcke

0 Introduction Abstract: Language acquisition is related to different research discourses and contexts. A few of them are presented in the following introduction, for example definitions of key terms like second language acquisition and foreign language acquisition, or general research questions. Furthermore, the scope and outline focuses on the relevance of Romance languages in relation to English as a lingua franca, followed by an overview presenting short summaries of all the chapters in the book. Keywords: research discourse, context, scope, outline, overview

1 Language Acquisition – Research Discourses and Contexts* Using and acquiring one or more languages is part of human nature. We all speak at least our mother tongue (L1) and in addition many of us understand and/or speak a second language (L2) or various foreign languages. Language acquisition is strongly related to social, economic, geographical and historical conditions. For example, it makes a difference, of course, whether an individual grows up in a quadrilingual country like Luxembourg or in an officially monolingual nation like Germany. In the Grand Duchy, practising several languages and knowing foreign languages is part of life for the majority of the population, whereas in Germany, although the knowledge of foreign languages has a high reputation it is much less often put into practice. If we look at the United Kingdom, multilingualism or foreign language education seem to be even less valued. Sometimes, this disregard is accompanied by an awareness of English as a global lingua franca and of its usefulness in the context of globalization (cf. European Commission 2012). Against this background, the scientific analysis of language acquisition proves to be an interesting field which has attracted special attention since the beginning of the 20th century. Behaviouristic approaches modelled language acquisition as a stimulus-response-pattern (i.e. Skinner 1974), whereas nativist positions (Chomsky 1959) found the origins of this giftedness inside man, supposing an innate language acquisition device (Chomsky 1997). Other theories and hypotheses focus on different facets of language acquisition, for example the interlanguage hypothesis (Selinker 1972), which underlines learner languages as necessary steps in the learners’ lan-

* I would like to thank Chris Hopkins for proofreading this introduction and all the chapters in the book.

2

Christiane Fäcke

guage acquisition process, or the processability theory (Pienemann 1998) which focuses on the ways in which L2 learners restructure their interlanguage knowledge systems, and states that the stage of development of learners influences their capabilities of restructuring their L2 knowledge systems. Second language acquisition affects educational contexts and learning. It is also concerned with questions of nature and nurture. In the 1980s, the distinction between learning and acquisition (Krashen 1981) played a prominent role; nowadays the controversy remains more in the background which is due to overlaps between both notions (Königs 1992). Scientific language acquisition research is located between linguistics, psychology and pedagogy (to name but a few academic disciplines concerned). There is some confusion about the terms second and foreign language acquisition. First language acquisition research wants to find out how children acquire their mother tongue, second language acquisition research focuses on the acquisition of a second environmental language (as is the case for children with a Turkish family background in Germany or Sweden). Foreign language learning concerns idioms which are learnt in social contexts whose languages are different from the target one. Whereas both forms of acquisition are backed by strong social support, foreign language learning is often reduced to classroom activities instead of real communication. Under these terms the target language is built upon an artificial language curriculum and is not encountered in its social context. Discourses and research on second language acquisition include dimensions which are related to different national approaches or to differences in the languages being used. According to certain discourses, the acquisition of a second language and the learning of a foreign language in institutional settings are both denominated as second language acquisition. Other discourses distinguish clearly between the acquisition of a second language (French: acquisition des langues secondes) and foreign language learning i.e. in the school system (French: apprentissage d’une langue étrangère). In general, these research fields deal with questions such as: How does a child or an adult acquire/learn a first, a second, or an additional language? Which psychological, social or didactic factors impact the acquisition process? By which theories can it be explained?

2 Scope and Outline In contrast to publications for TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), this manual refers explicitly to the acquisition of Romance languages and cultures. Taking into consideration the size and diversity of the Romance-speaking world of more than 800 million native speakers and their languages, we do not make a claim for completeness. Thus, the summarizing analysis of this book will

Introduction

3

necessarily leave gaps focusing on certain core areas, i.e. certain languages and cultures. The chapters have been provided by a wide spectrum of international authors with a strong proportion of researchers with a German background. Thus, different national research discourses appear in this book: language acquisition, first language acquisition, and second or foreign language acquisition are discussed in diverse ways, as are the different classifications of second language acquisition, foreign language education, bilingual and plurilingual education, and links to languages of origin. The chapters also reflect nativist approaches in a Chomskyan tradition, sociolinguistic positions, or positions focusing mainly on foreign language education. Furthermore, these different perspectives also depend on the language to which they refer. The discourse on the acquisition of global languages which are used by a huge number of native speakers, as well an “intersociety”, differs considerably from the discourse concerning smaller languages. Whereas the discourse affecting English or Spanish often bristles with linguistic pride, the discourse on the acquisition of smaller languages living in fear for their survival may seem quite apologetic. As far as Romance languages are concerned, we can mention in this respect French and Spanish on the one hand and Rhaeto-Romanic and Catalan on the other hand. This manual is written in English, at first sight a contradiction in itself. The reason for this is the uncontested advantage of a lingua franca that works successfully as a language of communication and can be understood in many more countries all over the world than, for example, Spanish or French. Furthermore, English is very often used in the international scientific discourses of language acquisition, not only because much research is located in Anglo-American contexts and focused on the acquisition of English, but also because many researchers, whether they come from Japan, Denmark or the Netherlands, use English as a lingua franca. At the same time, publications in other languages seem to be less recognized or are almost totally ignored. Indeed, naïve observers whose reading is limited to English might believe that teaching and learning languages is only a matter for the English writing and reading world. In fact, it is not clear how far the English literature in the field represents developments in which the teaching and learning of English is less concerned. As an example of how studies in languages other than English can be neglected, we would cite the numerous works concerning Romance intercomprehension – where much research has been done during the last few decades (cf. for ex. Conti/Grin 2008). The ambiguous role of English in our discipline concerns other idioms such as metalanguages and object languages as well; not to mention what it means when future German teachers of Spanish or Russian are obliged to read and write in a language that is neither their mother tongue nor the language they teach. Thus the role of English seems to be quite controversial in the field of language learning and teaching research (Meissner 2008). Basically, we have to face the question of how to deal with norms and dominance: by resisting, that is to say, in this case, by using Spanish or French, which would put

4

Christiane Fäcke

the focus even more on Romance languages in the present book, or by maintaining the contra position, i.e. by using English as lingua franca. The latter alternative would mean a subjection to the dominant discourse and, by doing so, obtaining recognition by being constituted as a subject, as Foucault points out. He analyses clearly in Surveiller et punir (Foucault 1975) the conflicting mechanisms of control and power, and emphasizes their ambivalent consequences for punishment, discipline, and jail throughout different centuries. His thoughts about l’assujettissement and le sujet, two terms that are closely linked together, can be summarized by Blanchot: “Nous sommes toujours plus assujettis. De cet assujettissement qui n’est plus grossier mais délicat, nous tirons la conséquence glorieuse d’être des sujets et des sujets libres, capables de transformer en savoirs les modes les plus divers d’un pouvoir menteur, dans la mesure où il nous faut oublier sa transcendance en substituant à la loi d’origine divine les règles variées et les procédures raisonnables qui, lorsque nous en serons lassés, nous paraîtront issues d’une bureaucratie, certes humaine, mais monstrueuse […]” (Blanchot 1986, 40).

So what of the relationship between subjection and a subject? According to the reasoning of Foucault, subjection to the discourse is closely linked to becoming a subject, although this process goes together with unintentional double binds. In the context of the publication of this present manual this means the ambivalent decision to accept the predominance of the lingua franca and its advantages as a language of global communication. For these reasons, in the present case, the decision was made to follow the second of the above named solutions in order to strengthen the presence of Romance languages in Anglo-American discourse and worldwide.

3 Overview and Structure of the Manual 3.1 Language Acquisition The opening chapter on language acquisition intends to offer a general approach to the different scientific disciplines which deal with it. As definitions of this term differ considerably in regard to its various dimensions and contents, this also impacts on the choice of disciplines that are relevant to research in the field. Therefore, the first chapter starts with different concepts of language acquisition, followed by a discussion about the influence and promotion of language acquisition through scientific disciplines by referring to an analysis of selected research projects and by illustrating different aspects. It ends by offering suggestions for future research (↗1 Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition). How do we find out characteristics of the nature of language acquisition? Social sciences are using two opposite research approaches: a hermeneutical and an empiri-

Introduction

5

cal approach. Research methods are closely linked to methodological questions in the context of empirical studies, i.e. various possibilities of research design, research methodology, elicitation techniques, and techniques for analysing data. Both quantitative and qualitative designs are equally important. In general, research is focused on certain parts of language acquisition because of the complexity of factors involved in this process, so that a global and complex analysis of the whole language acquisition process is not possible (↗2 Research Methods). Language acquisition is closely linked to language policymaking and its sociopolitical dimension which influences private and public domains. Language policy deals with questions around language development and language establishment, dialectization and minorization, language restoration and the development of a standard language. These dimensions indicate how language and policy are mutually dependent on each other. Language standardization, to name just one example, could lead to social and cultural progress but also to linguistic and social exclusion and linguicide. Therefore, language policy needs not only a descriptive but also a critical approach to its field (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Another approach to language acquisition is the concept of language socialization, focusing on questions about, for example, the incorporation of Romance languages into the everyday lives of communities in monolingual or multilingual settings, or the relationship between language and culture, and therefore mainly analysing ideologies, socializing practices, and the transmission of these languages including the cultural knowledge or communicative competence linked to them. Research in language socialization also deals with socialization contexts, social identities and social organization. As the field of study of language socialization primarily comes from an Anglo-American background, a stronger focus on Romance languages and cultures is needed (↗4 Language Socialization). While this approach is focused on social dimensions in the context of language and culture, the following approach looks at individual dimensions in the context of languages and identities. The concept of identity, determined by essentializing or discursive and narrative theories, plays an important role for language acquisition and language learning processes, as identity and language learning influence each other. Certain theories of intercultural education especially focus on identity transformation while going through the process of language learning. These research discourses are illustrated by analysing the example of Luxembourg, a multilingual country offering complex examples which show the importance of languages and identities (↗5 Languages and Identities). The complexity of language acquisition is reflected in language acquisition theories which can be divided into three categories, i.e. linguistic/psycholinguistic, cognitive and socio-interactive theories, each of them capable of explaining and analysing different aspects of this vast field. The overview of those categories and their characteristics is completed by the basic discussion of the relevance of the three theories and their contribution to knowledge about the acquisition of languages.

6

Christiane Fäcke

Starting with the properties of null subject languages such as Spanish and using one particular example of Spanish, here null and overt subject pronouns, this approach illustrates the importance and the potential of language acquisition theories (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories).

3.2 First Language Acquisition As stated above, first language acquisition means the linguistic development during the first years in the life of a child. This acquisition of the mother tongue (L1) takes a few years. Children become competent native speakers mainly in a context of natural acquisition and without directed, explicit, and systematic teaching. According to theories of first language acquisition, the acquisition of oral language by the baby, building up parallel to its cognitive development, goes through different steps that follow a certain chronological order according to the age of the child. Children’s language development is influenced by adult input, in gestures and dialogues, leading from a gradual development to more coherent communicative processes. Children go through different steps, such as first multimodal buds containing gestures and vocal elements, then developing higher levels of complexity including creative non-standard forms and finally reaching complex and correct multimodal productions. This development is strongly linked to tense, mood and aspect and also to complex co-verbal gestures parallel to speech. The complexity of language development is illustrated by referring to the example of French (↗7 Children’s Multimodal Language Development). How do children acquire their first language? This question leads us to biological and cognitive specificities, to individual experiences, to cognition and social interaction. The bases of linguistic development can be explained by first language acquisition theories, focussing on internal factors such as biological maturation or human genetic heritage, or on external factors such as physical and social environment. These language acquisition theories focus on innate and native theories in the tradition of Chomsky, on a behaviouristic approach, on interactionist theories or constructivist theories. Another focus deals with research on language in chimpanzees or on theories of mind in order to analyse cognitive abilities (↗8 Bases of Linguistic Development). First language acquisition does not stop with oral skills and competences but also includes written language and therefore the processes of learning to read and to spell. A special focus is put on French with its complex orthography and its particular relation between phonemes and graphemes which explains the complexity of processes by which French children learn about the alphabet and obtain reading and writing skills. Their learning process comprises aspects such as referring to lexis and morphology, obtaining phonological awareness, and learning an orthographic lexicon mainly in an implicit way. As spelling words is a complex and difficult task, this

Introduction

7

often leads to the necessity of explicit teaching (↗9 Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell).

3.3 Second Language Acquisition The complexity of the field of Second Language Acquisition leads this part of the manual to start with an overview on research and theories about how languages are learned. Therefore, the first chapter points out the particularities of learning a second language in distinction to learning a first language, it outlines the development of the mind in this process, discusses the question of an innate knowledge as well as the influence of input, interaction and output. These questions lead to explanations of different language acquisition theories, such as Connectionism, Input Processing, Processability Theory, Skill Acquisition, and Universal Grammar, while pursuing linguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). Second language acquisition being used as a generic term, the following chapters outline different special cases, such as bilingual and plurilingual education. Currently bilingualism is going through a process of enhancement accompanied by a global development of increasing cultural and linguistic exchanges. The growing number of bilingual speakers invites linguists and psycholinguists to research their competences, while sociologists and sociolinguists focus on language use and questions of identity. People are not bilingual by nature which leads to a focus on the learning of two languages and bilingual education models such as “one person – one language”. This research discourse is based on a high level of personal concern on the part of the researcher and of different publics, such as bilingual parents, school teachers and other authorities (↗11 Bilingual Education). While bilingualism is focused on two languages, plurilingualism is focused on more than two languages. Plurilingualism can be related to globalization and migration, to intercomprehension between Romance languages and to foreign language education. Being plurilingual means being capable of communicating in more than two languages without necessarily communicating on a native speaker level (C2, cf. Council of Europe 2001) and if necessary using different languages in different contexts. If referring to Romance languages, plurilingual education focuses on the potential of the similarities between Romance languages to favour intercomprehension. Plurilingual education responds, at the same time, to the education policy of the European Union (↗12 Plurilingual Education). Second language acquisition is closely linked to foreign language teaching and learning in institutional contexts. How does teaching influence learning? Can scientific theory on teaching explain and be helpful for the practice of teaching? Starting with these questions, foreign language teaching has to deal with objectives, content and subject, and also with teaching methods and activities. Foreign language

8

Christiane Fäcke

teaching is influenced by the curriculum; its content and structure. Different research discourses on these subjects focus on teaching methodology or the implementation of linguistic skills and competences, while constantly trying to find better and best ways in order to realize their goal (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). Foreign language teaching is no abstract subject independent of linguistic, political or historic contexts. On the contrary, the teaching of Romance languages has to be considered in its political and historic context. The analysis of European historical dimensions shows that the most important foreign language in Europe from the 17th to the beginning of the 20th century was French; Spanish and Italian were considered to be important languages to learn, but less so than French. Freelance language tutors were teaching these languages to various learners, mainly to higher social classes, art lovers or overseas merchants, very often using the Grammar-translation method whose characteristics underwent constant change (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). One main factor in the process of foreign language teaching certainly is the language teacher, as has been recently discussed in the Hattie study (2009). The language teacher needs communicative and cultural competences in order to develop competently an elaborate setting that motivates learners to get involved in the foreign language and culture. Teacher education plays an important role in order to help teachers realize their skills and competences, while reflection on oneself is considered to be crucial. Teacher education has to be seen in context with national curricula, traditions and institutions, and also with international and European language policy, i.e. the European frameworks (↗15 Language Teacher). Who is learning a foreign language? The language learner is an abstract category meaning unlimited individual learners of a second language and culture. Different scientific fields such as social psychology, applied linguistics, and foreign language education focus on analysing these individual learners from different perspectives, for instance they focus on cognitive, social and emotional factors and their influences on learning processes or on mechanisms that contribute to support the development of the learner’s language acquisition. Mainly pursuing a social-psychological perspective, a special focus is put on the second language and culture individual-learners and explains their psychosocial states (↗16 Language Learner). Language learners and language teachers are influenced by cognitive and emotional processes which are important for teaching and learning foreign languages. Starting with the role of cognition and emotion in research, as well as with arguments against the inappropriateness of concentrating on the complexity of foreign language acquisition, cognition and emotion are discussed as a comprehensive concept. This holistic focus on language acquisition reveals consequences for teaching practices, teacher education, and for research. In addition, key areas of research in the field concerning cognition, emotion, affect, motivation, and attitudes are presented with an overview on actual studies (↗17 Cognition and Emotion).

Introduction

9

Competences, language skills, and linguistic means reflect certain approaches to language acquisition. What do learners know about a language? How can they use their knowledge and put it into practice? While Chomsky distinguished between competence and performance, current scientific discourses and language policy emphasize the integration of both terms which is reflected in the structure of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001). Its competence model is closely linked to describing and modelling individual skills and linguistic means. Those questions are illustrated by dealing with oral skills, i.e. listening comprehension and speaking (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means).

3.4 Acquisition of Romance Languages: Contexts and Characteristics The following chapters of the manual look at language acquisition from a very different point of view. While the previous chapters focused on different theoretical fields and discourse domains, the following texts take as a starting point one specific Romance language and describe its position and relevance in the world, i.e. in different countries. These chapters mainly use the following structure as an orientation: First, they describe the relevance of one Romance language as a first, second and/or foreign language in different countries in the world and choose a few examples that are considered to be important or characteristic for this particular language. Second, they analyse the characteristics and special problems of its acquisition, again with a choice of particular examples. Romance languages can be distinguished according to their status, their size in numbers of speakers, their size in geographical extension, and the number of countries in which they are spoken or used as the official language, the language of education, or as a minority language etc. Their status might even be linked to their number of second language speakers and their relevance as a language of communication and a lingua franca. This present book does not have the intention of replicating these sociolinguistic and political discourses on the status and reputation of different languages. On the contrary, we consider all Romance languages mentioned hereafter to be equally important. Therefore, the length of the chapters is more or less equal, for example Spanish, as one of the few current world languages, has the same attention as Rhaeto-Romanic, which is spoken only in a few valleys in the Alps. Catalan is one of those languages which would not gain a high status from the number of its speakers or the extent of its territory. It is spoken mainly in Catalonia and therefore cannot take pride from being used as the only state-wide language in Spain, unlike French in France. But in spite of its minor language status, Catalan can look back on a long tradition as a foreign language, for instance, in the early 20th century in Germany, and nowadays it is taught worldwide. Moreover, this chapter

10

Christiane Fäcke

focuses on the description of Catalan-speaker competence and outlines different learner strategies for the process of learning Catalan. A special focus is placed on the particular problems with which speakers of a different L1 might be confronted (↗19 Catalan). French is a global language spoken not only in Europe but on all continents. It is used as a first language in many different nations, as a second language, for example by immigrants in nations of the north and in many former French colonies in the south where French is the official language or schooling language, or as a foreign language in the whole world. Its situation is characterized by globalization and migrations in the 20th century and by an educational gap between countries in the north and in the south. A special focus is put on a differentiated analysis of the present situation of French and on particularities of French Second Language Acquisition research, theories and contexts (↗20 French). Italian is spoken in Italy and several other countries. The sociolinguistic analysis shows influences on the acquisition of Italian by the languages spoken in Italy, particularly by the immigrant population, the interactions between Italian and its dialects, and a process of re-standardization. This development has an impact on discussions about which standard of Italian should be taught in foreign language classes. Characteristics of teaching Italian as a foreign language will be shown by using the example of the United States. The focus is put on possibilities of including exemplary neo-standard Italian features in Italian teaching and Italian textbooks, which would enhance the linguistic and communicative competences of students (↗21 Italian). Portuguese is spoken in the Luso-Brazilian world and is the second Romance language in number of native speakers after Spanish. Despite this prominent position, it is also characterized by rather fragile and vulnerable efforts in its promotion and internationalization. Triggered by the growing geopolitical importance of Brazil, Portuguese is increasing in the United States. After the description of the relevance of Portuguese in the world, a special focus is put on characteristics of the language and typical problems a learner might have while learning it. A special focus is put on changes in Brazilian society and at the same time on the parametric changes in Portuguese during the last century in Brazil, but not in Portugal (↗22 Portuguese). Rhaeto-Romanic is subdivided into Friulian, Ladin and Romansh, all of them being minority languages in different parts of the Alps. Multilingualism is very important in these areas, Rhaeto-Romanic playing a very different role in each of them. In Switzerland, Romansh is an official language, but seems rather under pressure. In Italy, Friulian has not gained full legal recognition, but is used by a large part of the population, Ladin in the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano/ Bozen is spoken by a very small part of the total population, and Ladin in Veneto (Belluno Province) plays a minor role. As Rhaeto-Romanic is a minority language with differences in status, it is also characterized by different roles in administration and education (↗23 Rhaeto-Romanic).

Introduction

11

Romanian is a language spread in Southern Europe, mainly in Romania and Moldova. With Romania becoming a member of the European Union, Romanian has become one of its official languages. The chapter not only focusses on sociopolitical dimensions, but mainly on particular difficulties in learning the language, without taking into consideration the first and second languages spoken by the L3-learner of Romanian. The characteristics of this Eastern Romance language are a particular phonetic inventory, for example alternations, and a complex morphology, such as the inflectional paradigm of the verb. The diverse inflectional forms and complex operations realizing inflection might cause difficulties in learning the language (↗24 Romanian). Spanish, on the other hand, is one of the most spoken languages in the world. It is used as a first, second, or foreign language worldwide and appears in many different contexts. The chapter offers an overview of the acquisition of Spanish in bilingual Spanish-speaking environments in Europe, the United States, Brazil, Asia and Africa. Furthermore, it describes some features of Spanish that cause difficulties for many learners, and focuses on language environment, particularly on socio-educational aspects of Spanish as a heritage language, as well as systems of language teaching and their influence on language acquisition. It also presents recent research particularly orientated towards Spanish language acquisition (↗25 Spanish).

3.5 Language Acquisition in the Romance-Speaking World The previous description and analysis of different Romance languages and their acquisition is followed by the last part of this manual, namely the focus on language acquisition in different countries of the Romance-speaking world. Since a description of all countries corresponding to this definition would be too extensive, the countries listed hereafter may be considered as exemplary. These examples, presented in alphabetical order, comprise the “mother countries” of a Romance language and a few selected countries in which a Romance language plays a major part. Each chapter puts a particular main emphasis on certain topics depending on the specific linguistic and sociolinguistic frame of the country. Canada’s linguistic landscape is dominated by English and French. The acquisition of French can be differentiated according to certain contexts such as special learner populations in certain areas, who display very different linguistic and sociolinguistic competences. A distinction must be made between learners of French as a foreign language and learners in French immersion programmes, francophones in a minority situation (the Ontario and Acadian regions), and francophones in a majority situation (Quebec). The chapter focuses on linguistic features of each variety, on variation and sociolinguistic factors, as well as on language legislation in special socio-historical contexts (↗26 Canada). While Canada can look back to a long tradition of bilingual education, the situation in France is characterized by rather poor results in foreign language educa-

12

Christiane Fäcke

tion. Public opinion in France underlines the low success in language acquisition, which can be explained with normative teaching practices and also with a focus on grammar and linguistic correctness which has a long historical tradition in the school system. As a consequence, the French compared to other European countries show lower results in first and second language acquisition. The chapter gives an overview on the situation in France, on language learning in elementary and in secondary education, while taking into account different historical and geographical factors (↗27 France). Italy, on the contrary, and Italian-speaking regions such as Switzerland, Croatia and Slovenia are marked by a high amount of linguistic diversity. In these countries, Italian is recognized as an official language and is spoken alongside numerous other languages. Many regions are characterized by a multilingual setting. Further topics are language policy, language contact, the acquisition of second languages, and language minorities, as well as their complex situations of multiple language acquisition and their multilingual repertoire. Also, foreign language education in institutional settings, i.e. in school, is discussed. In general, Italian-speaking countries are very open to the integration of alloglot speakers (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions). Peru is also characterized by a highly multilingual and multicultural situation. The retrospective view, beginning with the Spaniards arriving in the 15th century in Peru, and the historical overview up till now show contexts of different varieties of Spanish and analyse the evolution of teaching the language as a second language, including its achievements and problems in Peru. Other than Spanish, the linguistic landscape of the country is marked by native languages and their peoples, whose education has been influenced by various interests and therefore has gone through many ups and downs. At the present time, language policy focuses on teaching native languages, on bilingual education, and intercultural education (↗29 Peru). Portugal and Brazil, although not the only countries of the lusophone world, still form the majority of Portuguese native speakers with more than 200 million individuals. After an overview of the linguistic situation in different countries of the lusophone world, a special focus is put on the linguistic landscapes and language acquisition in Portugal and Brazil, the only countries with Portuguese as the L1 of the entire population. The authors focus, among other things, on myths and realities about the linguistic landscape, on national linguistic policies, and on plurilingualism in both countries, while offering a critical analysis of the present situation and some innovations, for example on intercomprehension (↗30 Portugal and Brazil). Romania, located in South-eastern Europe and surrounded by Slavic-speaking countries, is the only country speaking a Romance language in this area. Using scientific studies and government databases, the chapter offers an overview of the country’s linguistic context, of its language policies and the education system. The linguistic heritage of Romania, a result of complex historic developments, helps give an understanding of objectives to protect the linguistic variety and the multilingual-

Introduction

13

ism of the country. Its linguistic landscape is an object of interest not only to the Romanian authorities, but also to European institutions which are supporting plans to realize an education system comparable to other European countries (↗31 Romania). Spain, a country with Spanish as a main official language and with Catalan and Galician as co-official languages, has a complex relationship to languages. Its rather formal approach to language is somehow similar to the situation in France, insofar as a formal and normative emphasis can produce attitudes towards language which mitigate against skillful communication or the motivation to learn languages intensely and with success. The teaching methods of both L1s and foreign languages that have been dominant to this day are beginning to move on from a focus on metaknowledge, form, and error, to an emphasis on using the language and on applying one’s knowledge, for example, in methods like CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) (↗32 Spain).

4 Objectives and Conclusion This overview and structure of the manual shows that language acquisition is a broad and interdisciplinary field of research that covers many different aspects and can certainly not be presented completely or fully analyzed in this volume. There are numerous facets which partly contradict each other, many different perspectives and points of view, as well as various discourses which are mutually dependent. Nonetheless, it is worth undertaking the task of presenting a book dedicated primarily to Romance languages even though it will never represent this field completely. The main objective of this present volume is to offer an overview of fields of language acquisition in general, on specifications with regard to first and second language acquisition, and also on perspectives that mainly refer to Romance languages and to language acquisition in the Romance-speaking world. It is addressed to researchers, students, and to everybody working in the field of language acquisition and language education.

Bibliography Blanchot, Maurice (1986), Michel Foucault tel que je l’imagine, Paris, éditions fata morgana. Chomsky, Noam (1959), A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, Language 35/1, 26–58. Chomsky, Noam (1997), Language and thought, Wakefield, RI, et al., Moyer Bell. Conti, Virginie/Grin, François (edd.) (2008), S’entendre entre langues voisines: vers l’intercompréhension, Chêne-Bourg, Georg Éd. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. European Commission (2012), Europeans and their languages. Report. Special Eurobarometer 386, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf (12.01.2014).

14

Christiane Fäcke

Foucault, Michel (1975), Surveiller et punir, Paris, Gallimard. Hattie, John (2009), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Abingdon, Routledge. Königs, Frank G. (1992), “Lernen” oder “Erwerben” Revisited. Zur Relevanz der Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung für die Sprachlehrforschung, Die Neueren Sprachen 91/2, 166–179. Krashen, Steven (1981), Second language learning and second language acquisition, Oxford et al., Pergamon. Meissner, Franz-Joseph (2008), Soll das Mammut Elefanten und Mücken fressen? Zur Weiterentwicklung des Sprachenunterrichts in der Europäischen Union, in: Claus Gnutzmann (ed.), English in Academia. Catalyst of Barrier?, Tübingen, Narr, 129–146. Pienemann, Manfred (1998), Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory, Amsterdam et al., Benjamins. Selinker, Larry (1972), Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–231. Skinner, Burrhus F. (1974), About Behaviorism, New York, Knopf.

Language Acquisition

Frank G. Königs

1 Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition Abstract: The term “language acquisition” seems to be straightforward at first sight. Only by taking a closer look and by assessing the relevant research projects, does one come (or even have to come) to the conclusion that this term is anything but straightforward. Depending on the choice of “filling” of the term with regards to content you will come to different answers to the question of which disciplines are significant for the recognition and research of language acquisition. Therefore, in the following, first the different concepts of language acquisition are addressed (1), then, the influence and promotion of language acquisition through scientific disciplines is discussed against the background of a review of selected research projects (2). The article ends with prospects for future research (3). Keywords: second language acquisition, foreign language learning, learning process, foreign language strategies, sociocultural aspects of foreign language acquisition

1 Language Acquisition: What Does It Mean? First of all, the term “language acquisition” describes the way a person acquires1 language. This definition seems to be appropriate whenever we want to determine how this acquisition generally proceeds without taking a specific language or a sequence of language into account. It describes basic processes that take place in the adaptive discussion of humans with language. Hence, the term suggests that there are similarities, which denote this acquisition, disregarding the question of first, second or foreign language acquisition or the simultaneous acquisition of two or even more languages. In order to determine these processes, one has to rely on findings from the fields of neurolinguistics and neurology: in what condition is the human brain of a newborn? How does it record ‘language’? How is the brain altered and influenced concerning its structures and functioning by means of “language”? (↗7 Children’s Multimodal Language Development) An example: the first word of a monolingual child (native French speaker) is “papa” followed by “maman”. One premature conclusion could be that the child has a stronger relationship to its father than to its mother. A neurolinguist, however, would counter that the bigger phonological opposition between /p/ and /a/ compared to /m/ and /a/ makes it easier for the child to articulate “papa” before “maman”. On the other hand, it is also known from observations of

1 The German equivalent in this case would be “aneignen”. The French equivalent could be “s’assimiler une langue étrangère”, and the Spanish equivalent could be “apropiarse una lengua extranjera”.

18

Frank G. Königs

children’s acquisition of language that these proceedings take place in relation to the linguistic information which is offered by the surroundings and that the psychological situation in which language acquisition happens plays an important role as well. By looking at these simple examples, we can see that there is no discipline fully able to describe and predict language acquisition. Therefore, one is well advised to become aware of what exactly one wants to understand by the term “language acquisition” and in what contexts this question is being discussed. The first obvious conceptual distinction can be made between the acquisition of a first language and the acquisition of additional languages. First language acquisition constitutes a special situation insofar as the human brain and also the memory are both still “vacant”: By acquiring its native language, the child gets into its first contact with the phenomenon “language”. It learns to assess the importance language has for interacting and cooperating with other humans and also what resources it holds. Linguistic studies show that first language acquisition is determined by a certain handling of mental resources as well as the physiological predisposition. In this regard, first language acquisition generally proceeds at the same time as the development of the brain and the memory. Hence, cognitive maturation and language acquisition are at least chronologically associated (↗8 Bases of Linguistic Development). A quite complex variant of first language acquisition is the acquisition of two first languages, i.e. children that grow up speaking two languages. They develop both languages more or less equally from the outset if they are exposed to both languages to approximately the same extent and if both languages have nearly the same importance for their lives. In order to underline and maintain this importance, parents, who raise their children bilingual, are advised to stick to fixed rules when it comes to contexts of language use. The child has to be aware in which communicative situations it may and should use each language. Under ideal conditions both languages have a quantitatively similar share in the linguistic life of the child. It is well known that bilingual children at certain stages tend to give up bilingualism or at least create some sort of inequality between the uses of both languages. Relevant work on individual bilingualism repeatedly points out that parents should not dissuade from the consistent division of language use situations by this reluctant behaviour. The rule that the respective regions of the human brain are largely “vacant” at the beginning of the language acquisition process also applies in the case of this “double first language acquisition”. However, empirical data also indicates that bilingual children tend to relate both languages to one another (↗11 Bilingual Education). In contrast to these forms of first language acquisition, we always have to state the fact that for all other forms of acquisition of a second or further language the acquisition process takes place against the background of the first language acquisition. Brain and memory have already gained – at least to some degree – experience in interacting with language. This does not mean that the experience has to be accessed

Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition

19

at any rate, but it can be noted that the brain and the memory are no longer unencumbered by language. One can differentiate the acquisition of a foreign (second, third, etc.) language in general as to whether this process underlies an instructional control or not. Terminologically, this has led to the distinction between foreign language learning and second language acquisition. This terminological distinction is particularly due to Krashen, who distinguishes between “learning” and “acquisition” (cf. 2003 for a summarized overview of his Theory of Second Language Acquisition). It is based on the assumption that the natural process of second language acquisition is hindered by instructional interventions (especially planned by the teacher). This would be the case if the learning individual was forced to acquire a language in a way different to the “normal” way. However, this is not the place to discuss different theories about the acquisition of foreign languages, but the question arises which disciplines are involved in order to appropriately describe and model the acquisition of a foreign language. In the following, I will take a look at different approaches concerning the study of foreign or second language acquisition. Primarily, I am doing this in order to clarify which knowledge resources were, are, or will be used in this context. The second focus lies on the questions if and to what extent the respective theories or theoretical approaches are appropriate.

2 Foreign and Second Language Acquisition: the Proportion of Different Scientific Disciplines Taking a look at older detailed descriptions regarding foreign and second language acquisition (cf. Ellis 1994; Gass/Selinker 1994; Larsen-Freeman/Long 1991), the table of content already tells you the proportion of the individual disciplines with regard to the representation of acquisition processes. These representations are namely based on a description of linguistic phenomena and structures that have been observed in the context of the acquisition of a foreign language and used to develop a theoretical approach. This does seem to be an obvious approach, because when it comes to language and the acquisition of it, it does make sense to describe this subject from the perspective of the learner. On this basis, conclusions are drawn as to how the respective process of acquisition runs. Thus, we can see in the exemplified works above that learner statements in a foreign language build the foundation on which the respective theoretical approaches are based. The representation of these statements usually follows a linguistic system. Which linguistic forms occur in the course of the acquisition and maybe also in which order (or rather constancy) they occur is described by means of linguistics. It is inherent that a mental reality is attributed to the modalities of this description. The categories that are used to describe the observed phenomena are at the same time interpreted as a reflection of those

20

Frank G. Königs

processes and procedures that went on (respectively go on) on the part of the learner. Thus, if research asserts that learners of German have difficulties with the verb-final word order in subordinate clauses, it is quite a natural assumption of research to say that this phenomenon is difficult to learn. If contrastive studies show that German learners of French have problems concerning the pronunciation of nasals, they attribute it to the fact that the German language knows no nasals.2 In other words: the observation, description and interpretation of language products of learners with the help of a linguistic description inventory almost inevitably led to a linguistic interpretation of the acquisition process. This view has generated many interesting aspects of (foreign) language acquisition, but it has also shown that this approach does not necessarily lead to reliable, and as a consequence to correct or even generalizable, statements on foreign language acquisition. In this context, I would like to raise two objections to this linguistic access: one objection refers to the principle of universal grammar (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). The idea of universal grammar goes back to Chomsky, who assumes that all human languages are subject to certain comparable categories as humans have developed these languages. Following this assumption, you can reach this statement: “The universal principle … is the principle of structure-dependency, which states that language is organized in such a way that it crucially depends on the structural relationships between elements in a sentence (such as word, morphemes, etc.). What this means is that words are regrouped into higher-level structures that are the units that form the basis of language. Intuitively, we know that this is the case” (Mitchell/Myles 22004, 62).

Concerning the development of languages you will be able to agree with this approach. However, problems show up if you want to transfer this approach to the same extent to the acquisition of languages. Do learners even care if they use the same procedure as linguists when it comes to the acquisition of language? Do learners search for words or are they looking for content that they want to express by means of linguistic signs (irrespective of the structural level)? What would a native English speaker who wants to learn Chinese do, for example, when he/she is facing the fact that the written language does not consist of letters as he/she knows it but consists of holistic characters, which he/she needs to capture and learn? And what about the native German speaker who notices when learning Spanish or English that there are no modal particles and only partly functional equivalents? Or better: does he even (have to) notice? The second objection derives from the studies of linguistically oriented language acquisition researchers themselves. If you take a closer look at the theory of Krashen, you will probably notice that the author dissociates himself from the purely linguistic ground when certain linguistic patterns of explanation are not sufficient enough to

2 At least it does not know any nasal vowels, except in foreign words or loan words.

Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition

21

explain the phenomena of language acquisition. Krashen himself belongs to the representatives of the Identity Hypothesis and thus to the direction in second language acquisition research emanating from so-called developmental sequences of acquisition that learners apply. These developmental sequences are supra individual. Individual differences can only occur in the internal order of the sequence by skipping certain developmental stages. These exceptions can be found inter alia in works of the following authors: Pienemann (1998) or Keßler/Plesser (2011). Krashen’s concept of motivation as well as his reflections on the optimal input both show that language acquisition cannot only be appropriately modelled by linguistic patterns of explanation but that individual learner variables play an important role. Obviously, in his opinion, linguistic modelling is not so binding for the process of acquisition that it could not be overridden by learner-related individual factors (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). Some empirical studies refuted the assumption regarding the developmental sequences (cf. Klein Gunnewiek 2000); others showed that non-linguistic concepts determine the process of foreign language acquisition probably in a stronger or even more generalized way (cf. the so-called “individualist hypothesis”, Riemer 1997). How has research responded to the fact that this linguistic access to language acquisition is in fact right but neither sufficient nor universal? In this context, I mainly see six lines of development in research: The first direction consists of a continuous pursuit of the originally chosen way in research. Studies on linguistic sequences of development and their linguistic description will continue to be carried out in the future. International overviews appreciate the wealth of information that is and will be given by these studies. However, they also note that one can still raise concerns over the scope of the results. The second direction is characterized by an elaboration and, respectively, expansion of the range of tools used for the collection and interpretation of data regarding language acquisition. It is no longer sufficient to structure object language data according to the linguistic surface. It is now important to understand that this data serves as evidence for the understanding of processes which internally proceeded in every learner and which cannot be measured by the mere analysis of the linguistic surface. Selinker (1972) had already taken this path with his concept of interlanguage and by doing that he stimulated research on foreign language strategies. Experiences and approaches from other research areas and disciplines were the inspiration for the expanded handling of object language data: I exemplarily refer to the discussions about introspective data, its collection and significance which was introduced 130 years ago on the part of psychology and found its way into the field of foreign language research in the 1980s (cf. Færch/Kasper 1987). With regard to new approaches for the elaboration of the existing inventory of methods I refer to examples of narrative reconstructions, which have their origin in the repertoire of sociological research methods (cf. Ohm 2012). The third developmental direction deals with issues of foreign language acquisition against the background of instructional contexts. In many places, it is pointed

22

Frank G. Königs

out that the acquisition of a foreign language via instruction differs a lot from uninstructed acquisition. Many of these differences can be attributed to the conditions of teaching; others are due to individual psychological causes. Ultimately, however, this emphasizes that the acquisition process itself is determined by teaching and its various components and thus requires an appropriate access of research. This becomes evident in detailed representations that have been worked out (Chaudron 1988; Phillipson et al. 1991; Ellis 1992). The results of research in second language acquisition are recognized as being important but not as being generalizable without further ado because they do not sufficiently meet the specific conditions of teaching. In several countries, directions in research developed that clearly see the above-mentioned direction as independent and that used different expressions in order to name the scientific approach or discipline (cf. Bausch/Christ/Krumm 42003). This development is particularly intense in Germany where an independent concept of science is connected to the advent of language teaching research (“Sprachlehrforschung”). This concept decidedly sets itself apart from research in second language acquisition, in case the latter expands its findings too quickly and unfoundedly on all contexts of acquisition. However, this development also creates its own study courses and formulates certain claims against research that depicts the acquisition of a foreign language as a special subject matter. It gains its theoretical foundation with the complexity of factors which are typical of foreign language teaching (“Faktorenkomplexion”). This causes acquisition processes not to follow pre-determined sequencing but rather to result from the combination of internal and external learner variables. It is not about questions such as “How does a learner acquire the Spanish subjuntivo?” but rather about questions like “What kind of learning process takes place on the part of the learner when he/she gets confronted with the Spanish subjuntivo, when he/she sees it in a particular textbook for the first time and practices it or even when he/she has already knowledge of French at level A2 or B1 but now sits in a learning group of 30 students?” (↗25 Spanish) Originally, the concept of the complexity of factors comes from the field of pedagogy (Winnefeld 1970) that only plays a minor role in the further development of language teaching research, although the differentiation of the complexity of factors (cf. Königs 1983) would have suggested it. Instead, on the one hand, discussions are held about a clear differentiation from the field of linguistics and from the above-mentioned sort of research in second language acquisition. On the other hand, it is also not the objective to follow a strong “cook-book approach” which can be found in the field of foreign language didactics. According to language teaching research, the field of foreign language didactics also suffers from the “virus of generalization” because it extrapolates instructional experiences without asking if there are comparable conditions for the course design in other contexts. Simultaneously, the impetus is provided for numerous empirical research projects, which expand the given methodological inventory for research by means of borrowed methods coming from the fields of psychology and/or sociology (↗2 Research Methods). This way it can not only be expanded but also elaborated and adapted. In these

Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition

23

projects, the results often confirm that generalizations in foreign language acquisition in the context of teaching are rather the exception than the rule. Methods of classroom observation and documentation as well as the accompanying data collection thus represent important instruments in the context of language teaching research. However, these instruments rather ban than allow one-dimensional causal attributions to proven learning processes. It certainly requires a more detailed discussion if we want to know whether the comprehensive approach of language teaching research (cf. Königs 2013a) has always led to the desired results or whether we do in fact know much about the teaching and learning in the foreign language classroom (cf. Königs 2013b). Against this background, the multifactorial understanding of learning processes in the foreign language classroom does not doubtlessly facilitate the interpretation of existing speech data from learners. At some point, the extreme opposition to such research areas manages to interpret object language data via one-dimensional linguistic modelling. At the same time, it bears an ‘antibody’ against generalizations: once a parameter is changed in the curricular structure, the learning outcome is not qualitatively the same anymore. In this regard, the at least conceptually envisaged connection to other scientific disciplines (e.g. linguistics, pedagogy, second language acquisition, sociology or psychology) turns out to be a stumbling block. Nevertheless, it prevents hasty and unilateral cause-and-effect attributions. The fourth line of development finally turns the direction of research towards the acquisition of a foreign or second language: while initially the language structures being produced by learners, and the clear dissociations from language structures and their embedding in a foreign language curricular context, were the starting point of (psycho-) analytical analyses, today abstract psychological concepts form the basis for research under the influence of (socio-) psychological approaches towards second language acquisition as well. Visible in the works of Skehan (1998) or Dörnyei (2009), these concepts are the foundation of considerations on how the process of foreign language acquisition takes place (or could take place). This becomes evident by looking at the topics that constitute the above-mentioned works (and many more); they are therefore quoted below. The chapters of Skehan (1998, iii) are entitled as follows: “1 Comprehension and production strategies in language learning. 2 The role of memory and lexical learning. 3 Psycholinguistic processes in language use and language learning. 4 Models of language learning. 5 A rationale for task-based instruction. 6 Implementing task-based instruction. 7 Processing perspectives on testing. 8 Research into language aptitude. 9 Issues in aptitude theory: exceptional learners and modularity. 10 Learning style. 11 Learners, learning, and pedagogy”.

Dörnyei’s (2009) central headings can be found after a conceptualizing introductory chapter: “Language and the brain, Psychological processes in language acquisition I: symbolic versus connectionist accounts, Psychological processes in language acquisition II: explicit versus im-

24

Frank G. Königs

plicit learning, The learner in the language learning process I: the dynamic interplay of learner characteristics and the learning environment, The learner in the language learning process II. The learner’s age and the Critical Period Hypothesis, The psychology of instructed second language acquisition”.

Therefore, it is not the structures of language and their description but psychological concepts that manifest through language that form the starting-point for considerations on theory formation. Of course, these concepts exist in other non-linguistic contexts, e.g. the concept of “motivation” or “attitude” or “aptitude”. With regard to the acquisition of language the methodological access to such concepts is not easy. By contrast with the earlier mentioned lines of development in research, one can no longer operate with the object language statements that come from the learner, but has to detect a significant correlation to the abstract concepts. It is by no means easy to clearly attribute a statement such as *Y O QUIERO SABER SI TU GUSTAS ESTA in Spanish to its actual cause. Is it a lack of motivation that causes a learner to formulate such a statement, or missing language aptitude or inattention, or even the reference to another language? It is not a new insight that acquiring a (foreign/second) language crucially depends on the strength of the learner’s motivation. Schumann (1978) had already developed this understanding in his Acculturation Model. Recently, Merrill Swain (2013) pointed out that one can only see language acquisition as an interplay of affective and cognitive components. It is also obvious that the integration of sociopsychological factors into the research of second language acquisition requires research methods (↗2 Research Methods) that engage the learner in reconstructing the process of acquisition. It is (and will be) probably difficult to make any reliable statements about the process of acquisition of a foreign language by analysing learner data that only relates to the linguistic surface. Empirical work with introspective learner data – in the form of learner/learning diaries, portfolios, surveys, interviews, task reviews and observations – doubtlessly represents one of the biggest challenges under these aspects. In this respect, we should remember the importance of those directions of research that dealt with the construction of identity. Not least in language acquisition contexts, in which migration is a relevant factor, the relation between the respective use of acquired languages on the one hand and the development of an own identity (↗5 Languages and Identities) on the other hand has been brought up (cf. various articles in Burwitz-Melzer/Königs/Riemer 2013 and the literature quoted in the document). Especially under socio-cultural aspects, the acquisition of a language other than the native language is being interpreted as a socially situated act, and the individuality of the acquisition process, as it is emphasized under certain psycholinguistic research aspects, loses importance and steps behind social markedness. The fifth developmental line of research addresses concepts of learning theory (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories). On the one hand, these concepts tie in with known learning theories, on the other hand, they favour more advanced basic assumptions of which the precursors were already established. In many cases, the

Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition

25

development of a learning theory is being traced which starts with a cognitive access to foreign teaching and learning. However, by doing so, it combines a conscious discussion with the learning object. This conscious discussion is carried out via the representation of the foreign language by means of traditional grammar that raises awareness of the subject. In this case, the grammar-translation method is the prototype, but, taking certain anticipations regarding learning theory into account, the Interlinear Gloss can be seen as a variant. The field of linguistics and, as a unidirectional derivation of it, the idea of learning theory led the linguistic representation to be seen as eo ipso relevant or even beneficial for learning. With the advent of behaviourism, one broke new ground concerning theory formation of foreign language learning in two ways: on the one hand, the concept of learning changed, because it was seen as a trained sequence of stimuli and responses. On the other hand, it was novel that the formation of a learning theory was based on observations of animals (cf. Pawlow’s experiments with dogs or rats). Learning was therefore understood as a universal process that depends less on the learning object but rather follows the natural disposition of living organisms to react to certain stimuli with certain responses. Both basic positions determine the development and elaboration of different teaching methods with respect to foreign languages (from the grammartranslation method via the direct method, the audio-lingual method and the audiovisual method up to the communicative approach), although, the share and the rigour of exercising these basic positions are definitely subject to fluctuations. Since the 1990s, it can be noted that learning theories and teaching concepts have again followed a basic cognitive orientation in a stronger way. This cognitive orientation, however, does not, compared to earlier phases of didactic research, relate to the learning object but strongly to the learning process. This was made possible by two developments which occurred seemingly independently of each other, but ultimately they would not have been possible without each other: due to the increased focus on the foreign language learning process, as it resulted from the various approaches in research mentioned above, the importance grew of people who (should) learn as opposed to the importance of the description attributed to the learning object. It is no coincidence that the term “learner” is used more frequently than the term “student” (↗16 Language Learner). In the context of the acquisition of foreign languages the obvious wealth of variations in the paths of mental processing led to the idea of the “autonomous learner” that was quickly spread. There is no doubt that the positive connotations of the concept of autonomy significantly contributed to this spread. At the same time, ideas of learning theories caught attention in which it was assumed that learners create their own access to the world and thereby create their own perception, but ultimately also influence their way of learning. It was also assumed that it is always the learner who “constructs” his/her view of the world, the interaction with it as well as learning itself (cf. for ex. Maturana 2001; Maturana/Varela 1987). Thus, biology and philosophy are added as further reference sciences to the disciplines that are important for the research of foreign language acquisition. They even

26

Frank G. Königs

partly determine the course of argumentation of that direction.3 In particular, radical constructivism has been discussed very critically and controversially regarding its importance for the theory formation of the teaching and learning of foreign languages (cf. Bredella 2002; Edmondson 2002; Grotjahn 2002; Hu 2002 for contra arguments and Wendt 2002 for pro arguments). However, this initially very critical reception could not prevent approaches regarding multilingual didactics from, at least implicitly, borrowing from the constructivist view on language. The goal of these approaches is to promote the partly simultaneous acquisition of typologically related languages. Today the ascertainable concentration on raising awareness of one’s own learning behaviour can be traced back to this line of development. It is assumed that this awareness raising contributes to the improvement of the process of foreign language learning. Whether and to what extent this is truly the case can only be supposed (cf. Königs 2013b). Nevertheless, this view on (meta) cognition calls attention to another line of development in research. I would like to describe the sixth line of development as a neuroscientific access to foreign language acquisition. Preceding learning theories dealt quite differently with questions of memory and its relevance to the acquisition of foreign languages. In contrast, the brain does not play such an important role in this context, because naturally, foreign language didactics does not have the means of researching the physiological conditions of the brain nor its importance for language acquisition. Medical research deals with “language” when brain injuries cause a certain restriction of its use (aphasiology or research on dyslexia). Whether and which brain areas are especially important in connection with failure-free acquisition of foreign languages has rarely been addressed by (foreign) language research. In many cases, works do not go beyond basic medical knowledge and are therefore of interest to foreign language researchers. However, they also show that neurologists and physicians cannot provide knowledge about “language” which is comparable to their in-depth knowledge regarding physiology. Earlier works that illustrated the relationship between language and the brain from the perspective of foreign language research (e.g. Götze 1997) can rather be understood as informative tutoring in the basic knowledge of medicine and physiology for foreign language researchers and possibly as a research programme (Götze 2013).4 If at all, one can only speak rudimentarily of a

3 Biology as a possible reference science for the teaching and learning of foreign languages is not “new”. Lenneberg (1967) had already given a comprehensive description of the biological bases of language at the end of the 1960s. In research into the teaching and learning of foreign languages, questions dealing with the relationship between age and language acquisition or lateralization of the human brain mostly referred to this description. 4 It is a questionable and somehow disappointing fact (from a research point of view) that still today books are published which purport to elucidate the relationship between language learning and neuroscience, yet they do not go beyond general knowledge concerning the relationship between brain and movement or structure of the brain (cf. Grein 2013; Sambanis 2013).

Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition

27

functionalization of brain physiological research for language acquisition. This can be found in few articles (cf. for example Stemmer 2010). It would certainly be revealing to see which brain activities are particularly active in dealing with which foreign language structures and operations. It would also be interesting to know which synapses and areas of the brain are permanently changed by learning or using a foreign language, and what influence the structure of a language has or can have on the characteristics of the brain. Does the brain of a Chinese learner/speaker look differently from that of a Portuguese? At least studies suggest that certain brain areas of bilingual people partly show different physiological connections than in the case of monolingual people. In fact, far more questions seem to arise than we can answer due to the current state of research. In my opinion we have to carefully consider these questions in order to talk about “neurodidactics” with a clear conscience.

3 Where Do We Go from Here – or Where Should We Go? In retrospect it can be seen that the circle of disciplines that are (or should be) involved in the study of the acquisition of foreign languages has continuously expanded in recent years. This can be traced back to both the attractiveness of this field of research and to the potential that is created via looking at a “neighbouring” discipline. It should be made clear that research on language acquisition is no longer only a matter for a discipline that is responsible for language, namely the field of linguistics. Rather, the different approaches have pointed out that it is about what individuals do with language(s) when they integrate them into their knowledge and skills inventory in addition to the native language. From the above-mentioned considerations the following conclusion can certainly be drawn: – Due to the many facets and due to the different views on the subject matter of “the acquisition of a foreign language” a more colourful, but also heterogeneous picture can be drawn. It is more complicated to find generalizations, because different sciences put different accents on factors that are important for the study of processes in foreign language acquisition. – This clearly demonstrates that the attempts of individual fields of research to generalize their results are put at a higher risk of falsification. Depending on the dominance of an aspect of acquisition one comes to different conclusions regarding the subject matter. For research, this fact makes it particularly necessary to explicitly describe upon what understanding of language acquisition the studies are based and why, as well as the methods with which those studies were conducted and why they were chosen. Premature generalizations should only be

28

–

–

Frank G. Königs

considered with great restraint when it comes to theory formation and modelling of language acquisition. The integrative interaction of different scientific disciplines and the different views on one and the same subject matter will be significant challenges for the researchers involved, but ultimately they do not have an alternative, plus they increase the transparency as well as the scope of the results achieved. One goal should be an enrichment of all the disciplines involved in the collaboration, being adequate to the subject, between different scientific disciplines. It is not about the unaudited adoption of existing (methodical) resources, but it is about the development of common research approaches to a common subject matter.

Hulstijn (2013, 517) recently referred to the integrating effect of his studies on the process of foreign language acquisition from different perspectives: “SLA [= Second Language Acquisition, F.G.K.] concerns human beings in a multitude of aspects: biological, cognitive, socio-psychological and socio-cultural dimensions. Virtually all the issues raised in the relative short life of SLA (1967 to the present day) are relevant to L2 learners and their environment. However, not all issues that are important to us, or issues that are dear to our hearts, can (yet) be scientifically studied (think of issues in the realms of religion or art, for example). With respect to SLA, it would help us all to obtain a good view of the SLA theoretical RANSP ARENCY … and this applies to A L LL L theories (models, landscape if all strived for more T RANSPARENCY approaches, frameworks) and whether we are senior, junior or even non-SLAer. The fact that the number of empirical SLA theories is large is not in itself a problem.”

From my point of view, there is nothing more to add!

4 Bibliography Ahrenholz, Bernt (ed.) (2012), Einblicke in die Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter. Baker, Colin (1993), Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Bausch, Karl-Richard/Christ, Herbert/Krumm, Hans-Jürgen (42003), Wissenschaftskonzepte zum Lehren und Lernen fremder Sprachen im internationalen Vergleich, in: Karl-Richard Bausch/Herbert Christ/Hans-Jürgen Krumm (edd.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen, Francke, 9–19. Bredella, Lothar (2002), Die Entwertung der Welt und der Sprache in der radikal-konstruktivistischen Fremdsprachendidaktik, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 13/2, 109–129. Burwitz-Melzer, Eva/Königs, Frank G./Riemer, Claudia (edd.) (2013), Identität und Fremdsprachenlernen. Anmerkungen zu einer komplexen Beziehung, Tübingen, Narr 2013. Chaudron, Craig (1988), Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning, Cambridge et al., Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Zoltán (2009), The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition

29

Edmondson, Willis J. (2002), Fremdsprachenunterricht dekonstruiert. Eine Replik auf Michael Wendt, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 13/2, 131–138. Ellis, Rod (1992), Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy, Clevedon et al., Multilingual Matters. Ellis, Rod (1994), The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford et al., Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod (1997), Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Færch, Claus/Kasper, Gabriele (edd.) (1987), Introspection in Second Language Research, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Gass, Susan M./Selinker, Larry (1994), Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum. Götze, Lutz (1997), Was leistet das Gehirn beim Fremdsprachenlernen? Neue Erkenntnisse der Gehirnphysiologie zum Fremdsprachenerwerb, Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 2/2 [online], 15 p., http://zif.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/jg-02-2/beitrag/goetze1.htm. Götze, Lutz (2013), Was sagen die bunten Bilder wirklich? Anmerkungen zum Stand der Hirnforschung und ihrer Bedeutung für den Erwerb von Fremdsprachen, Deutsch als Fremdsprache 50/1, 36–41. Grein, Marion (2013), Neurodidaktik. Grundlagen für Sprachlehrende, Ismaning, Hueber. Grotjahn, Rüdiger (2002), Informationsverarbeitungsparadigma und Radikaler Konstruktivismus: Kritische Anmerkungen zu Michael Wendt “Kontext und Konstruktion”, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 13/2, 139–163. Hu, Adelheid (2002), Skeptische Anmerkungen zu einer naturalisierten Erkenntnistheorie als Grundlage für das Lernen und Lehren von Sprachen: Eine Replik auf Michael Wendt (2002): “Kontext und Konstruktion”, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 13/2, 165–180. Hulstijn, Jan H. (2013), Is the Second Language Acquisition discipline disintegrating?, Language Teaching 46/4, 511–517. Keßler, Jörg-U./Plesser, Anja (2011), Teaching Grammar, Paderborn, Schöningh-UTB. Kielhöfer, Bernd/Jonekeit, Sylvie (1983), Zweisprachige Kindererziehung, Tübingen, Stauffenburg. Klein Gunnewiek, Lisanne (2000), Sequenzen und Konsequenzen. Zur Entwicklung niederländischer Lerner im Deutschen als Fremdsprache, Amsterdam, Rodopi. Königs, Frank G. (1983), Normenaspekte im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Ein konzeptorientierter Beitrag zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, Tübingen, Narr. Königs, Frank G. (2013a), Sprachlehrforschung, in: Michael Byram/Adelheid Hu (edd.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, London, Routledge, 654–657. Königs, Frank G. (2013b), Was hat die Sprachlehrforschung eigentlich gebracht? Plus- und Minuspunkte aus subjektiver Sicht, Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen 42/1, 7–21. Krashen, Stephen D. (2003), Explorations in Second Language Acquisition and Use, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann. Larsen-Freeman, Diane/Long, Michael H. (1991), An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research, London/New York, Longman. Lenneberg, Eric (1967), Biological Foundations of Language, New York, Wiley. Lightbown, Patsy/Spada, Nina (22004), How Languages are Learned, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Maturana, Humberto R. (2001), Was ist erkennen? Die Welt entsteht im Auge des Betrachters, München, Goldmann. Maturana, Humberto R./Varela, Francisco J. (1987), The Tree of Knowledge. The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, Boston, Mass., Shambhala. Mitchell, Rosamond/Myles, Florence (22004), Second Language Learning Theories, London, Hodder Arnold. Ohm, Udo (2012), Zweitsprachenerwerb als Erfahrung: Narrationsanalytische Rekonstruktionen biographischer Verstrickungen von Erwerbsprozessen, in: Bernt Ahrenholz (ed.), Einblicke in die

30

Frank G. Königs

Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 263–283. Phillipson, Robert et al. (edd.) (1991), Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research: A Commemorative Volume for Claus Færch, Clevedon et al., Multilingual Matters. Pienemann, Manfred (1998), Language Processing and Second Language Development. Processability Theory, Amsterdam et al., Benjamins. Riemer, Claudia (1997), Individuelle Unterschiede im Fremdsprachenerwerb. Die Wechselwirksamkeit ausgewählter Einflußfaktoren, Baltmannsweiler, Schneider Hohengehren. Sambanis, Michaela (2013), Fremdsprachenunterricht und Neurowissenschaften, Tübingen, Narr. Saunders, George (1988), Bilingual Children: From Birth to Teens, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Saville-Troike, Muriel (2006), Introducing Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Schumann, John H. (1978), The acculturation model for second language acquisition, in: Rosario C. Gingras (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, Arlington, VA, Center for Applied Linguistics, 27–107. Selinker, Larry (1972), Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–231. Sharwood Smith, Michael (1994), Second Language Learning; Theoretical Foundations, London/ New York, Longman. Skehan, Peter (1998), A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Stemmer, Brigitte (2010), A cognitive neuroscience perspective on learning and memory in aging, Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 15/1, 7–25, online: http://zif.spz.tudarmstadt.de/jg-15-1/beitrag/Stemmer.pdf. Swain, Merrill (2013), The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning, Language Teaching 46/2, 195–207. Tracy, Rosemarie (2007), Wie Kinder Sprachen lernen. Und wie wir sie dabei unterstützen können, Tübingen, Francke. Wendt, Michael (2002), Kontext und Konstruktion: Fremdsprachendidaktische Theoriebildung und ihre Implikationen für die Fremdsprachenforschung, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 13/1, 1–62. Wendt, Michael (2003), Am Anfang war die Konstruktion… Eine Erwiderung, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 14/2, 263–282. Winnefeld, Friedrich (1970), Pädagogisches Feld als Faktorenkomplexion, in: Günther Dohmen/Friedemann Maurer/Walter Popp (edd.), Unterrichtsforschung und didaktische Theorie, München, Piper.

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

2 Research Methods Abstract: This paper begins with the assumption that there is no perfect study. Rather, the process of conducting language acquisition research involves numerous decisions, each of which is accompanied by a set of strengths and weaknesses and which must be justified as appropriate to the substantive domain and the research questions being addressed. The chapter describes many of these choices and their corresponding benefits and drawbacks, illustrating key concepts and techniques with examples while making frequent reference to methodological issues and trends currently taking place in the field. In particular, we focus on major decisions related to (a) research designs, both descriptive/observational and (quasi-)experimental; (b) elicitation techniques and instruments for collecting data both linguistic (e.g., grammaticality judgment tasks) and non-linguistic (e.g., questionnaires) in nature; and (c) quantitative (e.g., analysis of variance) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory) techniques for analyzing data. Keywords: research design, quantitative research methods, qualitative research methods, language acquisition, statistics

1 Introduction 1.1 The Value of Methodological Knowledge It is difficult to overstate the importance of methods in language acquisition research. Simply put, they are the means by which empirical evidence is gathered to advance knowledge. Our understanding of language acquisition is only as strong as the methods we employ. This path toward knowledge construction is contrasted with theoretical developments which complement, instruct, and are informed by empirical work (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories). Beyond a complementary role with theory in advancing knowledge of language acquisition, the importance of understanding research methods can also be framed in relation to its value to different stakeholders in the field. Specifically, it is critical that both producers (i.e., researchers) as well as consumers (i.e., practitioners, policymakers) possess a keen understanding of research methods. With respect to the former, a conceptual and practical knowledge of how to conduct rigorous, principled, high-validity studies is key to accurately informing theory and practice. A solid methodological understanding is also critical for non-researchers. Program directors, policy makers, test developers, and practicing teachers, among others, must possess a methodological foundation in order to appraise the validity of claims in the empirical literature and to make informed decisions. More specifically, consu-

32

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

mers and others we might call “users” of empirical research must be able to attend to the many steps and decision points – along with their relative strengths and weaknesses – as presented by the author of each study. For example, recent inquiry into how language instructors seek out, interpret and use research findings in their language classrooms suggests that their use of this information is critical to the learning opportunities given to learners, and mediated by instructors’ individual characteristics including teaching experience and training (Borg 2013; GurzynskiWeiss 2013). In the broader field of applied linguistics, the importance of methodological knowledge has attracted increased attention in recent years, indicating momentum toward methodological and statistical reform (Plonsky 2014). The basic assumption underlying this movement is that methodological rigor and transparency are critical to advancing our knowledge of language learning and teaching. This broad notion as well as calls for greater attention to related but perhaps more nuanced issues (e.g., practical vs. statistical significance; the value of replication research) have been argued in meta-analyses and methodological reviews (e.g., Plonsky 2011; Plonsky/ Gass 2011), surveys (e.g., Loewen et al. in press), journal guidelines (e.g., Chapelle/ Duff 2003), and papers introducing novel techniques (e.g., Larson-Hall/Herrington 2010). The focus of this chapter is of course too broad to present a thorough discussion of the many individual issues that make up this movement. However, this paper would be incomplete without recognizing the momentum accumulating in this area. As we describe the methods of language acquisition research, we will highlight these and other positive changes taking place in the field.

1.2 Decision-Making and Trade-Offs A starting point for understanding research methods is the fact that the process of designing and conducting a study is largely one of decision-making. For example, researchers must articulate the research questions they will address, the population they are interested in studying, the types of data they hope to obtain, and an appropriate set of analyses and interpretations. The variety of methodological choices to be made is compounded by the vast number of substantive interests under the domain of “language acquisition”, an inherently interdisciplinary field with historical, theoretical, methodological, and practice-oriented ties to education, linguistics, and psychology, among other disciplines (↗1 Disciplines Relating to Language Acquisition). Having recognized these wide-ranging connections, it is worth bearing in mind that certain domains and types of research questions lend themselves more readily to certain methodological approaches. This fit between substantive interests and the methods employed to address them is what we refer to as “validity,” and will be seen throughout the chapter (cf. Mackey/Gass 2005, 106–119).

Research Methods

33

Finally, and closely related to this notion of validity, we want to stress early on that it is not productive or accurate to evaluate the choices made by a researcher as categorically “valid” or “not valid,” “good” or “bad.” Rather, each decision carries a unique set of strengths or weaknesses that must be weighed against the research questions, practical constraints, and the particular area in question. A classic example of this tension is the trade-off in lab- versus classroom-based research: Whereas research conducted in lab contexts may benefit from the ability to exercise greater experimental control over variables that might contaminate an experiment, these studies often lack ecological validity when compared to those conducted with intact groups in classroom settings.

2 Design Choices While there are myriad ways to conceptualize methodological design, some – such as organization via type of knowledge being studied (e.g., more or less explicit; receptive or productive; declarative or proceduralized) – are more theory-specific and potentially variable in interpretation than others. For the sake of clarity, we present design choices as falling into one of two broad categories: (a) observation/descriptive studies; and (b) (quasi-)experimental designs. Each will be examined in turn alongside examples demonstrating how they have been used in language acquisition research. It is important to mention that study designs can be cross-sectional, meaning that data are collected at one point in time, or longitudinal, meaning that data are collected over a period of time. Two critical decisions when designing a linguistic study are: (a) what will the research question be? and (b) how can I most robustly answer this question? (cf. Mackey/Gass 2005, 16–21). The methods and instruments used to answer a research question determine a study’s validity and, hence, its contribution to our understanding of language acquisition.

2.1 Observational/Descriptive Designs Studies that are observational/descriptive in nature seek to describe a linguistic phenomenon or set of phenomena without attempts at incurring change. These studies do not test the effects or outcomes of a treatment or intervention; they simply look to describe as systematically as possible what is occurring, interpret the occurrence within a larger context and, at times, hypothesize why the incidence is observed. Two areas of acquisition research that independently and frequently utilize these designs, amongst others, are Hispanic sociolinguistics and individual differences. In the former area, for example, researchers examine which features predict code switch-

34

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

ing within a speech community (e.g., Poplack 2001), or how children learn sociophonetic variation (e.g., Díaz-Campos 2011). Individual difference research, on the other hand, examines traits of learners, such as their working memory capacity (e.g., Mackey et al. 2010), or level of integrative motivation (e.g., Hernández 2006), and how these traits mediate language acquisition processes, such as processing novel phonological input or a student’s desire to seek out learning opportunities outside of the classroom.

2.1.1 Qualitative Research Questions and Designs Observational/descriptive studies are often qualitative in nature. Generally speaking, qualitative studies are more open and inductive than their quantitative counterparts, and often approach data holistically with open or loosely defined research questions (cf. Friedman 2011). Typically, researchers look for themes that emerge from the data and interpret them within the context in which they occur; most qualitative studies do not attempt to generalize results to other populations. The goal in qualitative research is to have sufficient data to describe a phenomenon in detail, and this often occurs via triangulation (the use of multiple data sources) to ensure comprehensive and robust data collection. An example of a qualitative descriptive study is Gurzynski-Weiss (in press), which examined how graduate instructors of Spanish make moment-to-moment feedback decisions. Data from video and audio recordings, stimulated recalls, and questionnaires were triangulated to develop a thorough understanding of instructor cognition. Many qualitative studies begin with broad research questions and, via multiple iterations of data coding and analyses (discussed below), edit their research questions based on the trends that emerge from the data. For example, Gurzynski-Weiss started with a general research question, “How do Spanish instructors make feedback decisions during non-experimental lessons?” and found that instructors continuously cited factors that influenced their decisions. These factors, based on themes emergent from the data, turned out to be both internal and external to the learners in the class, and the research questions were subsequently fine-tuned to reflect this.

2.1.2 Quantitative Research Questions and Designs Other observational designs aim to collect and describe quantitative data, centering on how much or how often a phenomenon occurs. In this type of research, the focus is still on description and contextualization of data, but related to frequency of occurrences. Ellis/Basturkmen/Loewen (2001) is a clear example of a descriptive, quantitative design. The researchers examined the quantity of naturally occurring focus on form

Research Methods

35

(grammar within meaning-based context), and the breakdown of how many instances were teacher- versus learner-initiated. Thus, this study is both descriptive in the sense that it does not try to influence the linguistic environment, and quantitative, in that it focuses on the amount and initiator of focus on form episodes. Although data in observational/descriptive research may be collected at more than one time, researchers do not compare results before and after a treatment. When researchers are interested in examining the effects of how a treatment might instill change, they turn to experimental designs.

2.2 Experimental Designs A second broad category of designs involves the provision of a treatment, the effects of which are measured comparing pre- and posttests, and which often have relevance to language teaching. In doing so, experimental research addresses questions central to both theory and practice, such as “How effective is explicit grammar instruction compared to implicit when learning the subjunctive?” (cf. Loewen/Philp 2012). Regardless of the particular questions being asked in an experimental study, there are choices to be made regarding the design. There is no perfect study, and each of these features or components may improve or detract from the findings. For the sake of brevity, three major features are described: pretesting, control/comparison groups, and delayed posttesting.

2.2.1 Pretesting The main advantages for pretesting are two-fold: First, a pretest enables the researcher to measure and compare the participants’ knowledge or behavior before and after treatment. And second, when a control or comparison group is included in the design, a pretest can be used to demonstrate group equivalence prior to the treatment. Without a pretest, it is difficult to know whether an advantage for one group can be reliably attributed to a treatment condition or to differences present prior to the intervention. In certain situations, a pretest may not be necessary or even preferable such as when all participants are assumed to be uniformly naïve to the target structure. For example, Ellis/Sagarra (2011) were interested in learners’ responses to different training conditions in Latin. Because the researchers excluded participants who had knowledge of the target language, no pretest was given. In other situations, researchers may choose not to pretest in order to avoid alerting the participants to the target feature or to avoid practice effects that may result from multiple administrations of the instrument. A third reason researchers may choose not to include a pretest in an experimental study is because they have assigned participants randomly to treatment conditions, enabling researchers to assume comparability across groups and link

36

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

posttest differences to treatment effects. Despite the benefits of this design feature, random assignment at the individual level can be difficult if not impossible in research that is classroom-based and/or relies on intact samples.

2.2.2 Control/Comparison Groups Researchers often choose to include a control or comparison group to show that the change or learning that has taken place is due to the treatment itself, isolated from other influences. Plonsky/Mills (2006) demonstrated that their treatment led to a significant change in perceptions of written feedback among college learners of Spanish. However, because there was no control group, it is unclear whether or not the change was due to the treatment. Variables such as the style of feedback provided may have also influenced students’ perceptions over time. The labels “control” and “comparison” are both used to refer to a group of participants who do not undergo the experimental treatment and whose data can therefore be compared to the treatment group. The choice of one or another, however, represents an important distinction and yet another critical design choice to be made in experimental studies. Whereas a comparison group generally receives a traditional or minimal intervention, a (true) control receives no treatment whatsoever. Choosing which condition(s) to include involves a solid understanding of the substantive domain under investigation. Early research in a particular area may warrant the use of a true control group as a means to determine whether further inquiry is warranted. Once the effectiveness of a particular type of treatment is more established, comparison groups along with the use of multiple treatment groups can be used to test variations of different conditions vis-à-vis a more typical or traditional treatment. For instance, in an attempt to isolate the effects of explicit information (EI) in processing instruction, Fernández (2008) included and compared two treatment groups: one that received the typical processing instructional with EI and another that only received structured input and no EI. In most domains, the domain is neither completely developed nor in an incipient state. In these cases, if the logistics allow, both conditions can be included. Such a design enables the researcher to estimate the effect of the treatment both as an absolute value as well as in relation to another treatment (i.e., as compared to the comparison group).

2.2.3 Delayed Posttests In addition to measuring treatment effects against a control condition, experimental researchers are often interested in the longevity of those effects as well. In such cases, a delayed posttest is used. The findings provided by a delayed posttest can have

Research Methods

37

important implications in applied contexts by informing the pace or interval at which new material should be introduced or recycled. Delayed effects can also be weighed against the resources needed to induce them (e.g., time, experimental manipulation) as a measure of their practical significance (Plonsky/Oswald forthcoming). In addition to these benefits, the choice to include a delayed posttest carries with it several choices and potential drawbacks. For example, the researcher must determine an appropriate interval for administering posttests, considering previous research, the predictions of theory, and practical constraints, among other factors. Second, as with pretests, the internal validity of delayed posttests may be compromised by practice effects. A third potential threat to internal validity involves participant attrition. The longer the study, the greater likelihood that participants will be absent or fail to complete it, thus creating a potential for bias because better performing participants are less likely to attrite. Finally, including one or more delayed posttest requires additional time. If the research takes place with intact groups, the benefit of obtaining results for delayed effects must be weighed against the loss of valuable class time. In our opinion, despite these risks, the balance generally falls in favor of the potential of delayed posttests to inform theory and practice. Nevertheless, we find this feature in a relatively small portion of experimental studies on language acquisition: only 38% in Plonsky’s (2013) review.

3 Data Elicitation Choices In this next section we present some of the main techniques, tools, and instruments commonly used, highlighting the pros and cons of each. Techniques whose primary focus is linguistic are discussed first, followed by those considered to be non-linguistic, though the categories are not always mutually exclusive.

3.1 Linguistic Focus Instruments with a linguistic focus have either been designed or manipulated to elicit a speaker or learner’s receptive or productive knowledge of a language. Receptive knowledge targets one’s ability to recognize or choose the correct form from a list of options; it is believed to come prior to productive abilities in a second language. Productive knowledge refers to one’s ability to produce the target language.

3.1.1 Grammaticality Judgment Tests Utilized by acquisition researchers of almost all theoretical backgrounds, grammaticality judgment tests (GJTs) are a metalinguistic judgment task that requires a partici-

38

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

pant to judge the grammaticality – and often the acceptability – of an isolated sentence or set of sentences. A grammatical statement adheres to the rules of a particular language or dialect. An acceptable statement or question, on the other hand, violates one or more grammatical rules but is utilized in common speech. Within the GJT instrument, methodological choices abound. GJTs are often presented via a computer visually, aurally, or in combination. Speakers judging the grammaticality of a sentence may simply be asked to press a computer button when they hear or read something ungrammatical, or they may be asked to press a certain button for a grammatical sentence, and another for an ungrammatical sentence; participants can also be asked to correct any sentences they find ungrammatical. Those asked to provide acceptability judgments can likewise be asked to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable sentences, or may be asked to rank the acceptability of a sentence on a scale. GJTs can also be presented with or without time pressure. These seemingly subtle variations of this instrument importantly differentiate the specific constructs being tested. Timed GJTs test a participant’s implicit or proceduralized knowledge of a language, as the participants are theoretically unlikely to be able to explicitly process rules, instead relying on their grammatical intuition. Untimed GJTs, on the other hand, tap into more explicit or declarative knowledge, giving participants time for thinking metalinguistically. GJTs allow a high level of control for the researcher, and ensure that all participants are tested on the same grammatical items. However, the sentences are presented in isolation of contextual information, and are often artificial or infrequent in everyday speech. Computerized GJTs are the most convenient and provide the most control over the data collection. When computers are not available, or researchers are investigating a language that is not written or asking for the participation of illiterate speakers, oral administration of GJT is used. In these cases additional care must be taken to keep the procedure as similar as possible between participants.

3.1.2 Free Constructed vs. Constrained Constructed vs. Selected Response Tasks A second frequently utilized class of instruments are known as free constructed response, constrained constructed response, and selected response tasks. They share a common goal of eliciting production of linguistic data, either in oral or written form. The manner in which speech is elicited, however, is quite different. Free constructed responses are most often communicative tasks, where participants are free to construct their own response to a prompt. For example, directing their classmate from point A to B on a map is considered to be a free constructed response task. Free constructed response tasks encourage authentic language production. That is, participants are free to utilize all linguistic tools in their repertoire, focusing on the meaning of their communicative message above grammatical form, echoing how language is used outside of experiments. However, because language production can vary con-

Research Methods

39

siderably, there is no guarantee that the linguistic target item will be produced, and the issue of how to rate such open speech is challenging (Erlam 2006). Thus, when designing instruments researchers must ensure that the linguistic items are essential to successful completion of the task. Constrained constructed responses also have a focus on participant production of linguistic output, but there is less freedom in the possible response. Participants completing this type of task are asked to fill-in-the gap(s) within a sentence (or series of sentences) with vocabulary and grammar appropriate to the surrounding context, predetermined by the researcher. For example, participants may be asked to complete a paragraph about the series of events a character did this past weekend. Because the events all happened in the past to a third person, the participant is provided cues within the text to construct their responses within the confines of a particular tense and with respect to the third person. The overall focus is still on meaning, but accurate production plays a greater role than in free constructed response. Finally, selected response provides the most controlled option in this set of instruments. These tasks ask participants to choose from a provided set of options, either within or immediately following the gap (e.g., “circle one”), or they may be given a list of options in the style of multiple choice. Giving participants a choice tests their receptive knowledge of the linguistic target, as they are simply asked to determine which response fits better in the space rather than produce evidence of their knowledge. An advantage of selected response tasks is that they offer the most control over participant response and are easy to enter into common statistical software, such as SPSS. A disadvantage to this technique is the risk that participants are not interpreting the question and/or options in the same manner, and thus their responses, while superficially congruous, could in fact be dissimilar. At the same time, an undetermined percentage of participant responses may be correct simply due to chance, thus providing an inflated view of their knowledge. For these and other reasons, pilot testing is exceptionally important for this technique (and recommended for all others, as well).

3.1.3 Elicited Imitation Elicited imitation tasks require participants to repeat a sentence, most commonly in the oral mode. The idea behind this task is that the inaccuracies in the participant’s production will reflect target features that have yet to be fully acquired. Uses of this instrument include measuring native and L2 proficiency, among others (cf. TracyVentura et al. 2014). One key component of an elicited imitation task is the length and structure of the cue sentence (the sentence to be repeated), as reconstruction is considered to be a necessary component for a true measure of proficiency, rather than rote repetition (cf. Erlam 2006; Vinther 2002). Another component that can be altered is the timing of the

40

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

repetition: immediate or delayed. Last, the main criticisms of this tool are trifold: the potential for imitation rather than reconstruction, the artificiality of the task, and the risk and variation of possible interpretations of learner errors.

3.1.4 Discourse Completion Task Discourse completion tasks are used widely in sociolinguistics and pragmatics research for both first and second language acquisition. These tasks ask a speaker or learner to respond to specific prompts, either in written, oral, multiple choice, or fillin-the-blank form (cf. Pavaresh/Tavakoli 2009). Discourse completion tasks are ideal when a researcher wants to examine a response to a specific type of speech act, or have a speaker/learner respond to a specific prompt. Due to the control offered, the researcher can manipulate various factors, such as the age, power, and gender within the discourse to which the participant is responding. This allows the researcher to measure a learner’s acquisition of L2 pragmatics and sociolinguistic variety, and provides the researcher with a valuable tool for collecting native speaker data as a baseline for comparison with learner data. Discourse completion tasks are also useful for examining dialectal and sociolectal differences within a speech community. Main criticisms of these tasks are the potential artificiality and isolation in the presentation of discourse (e.g., Golato 2003). Researchers must be careful to make the scenarios as authentic as possible and take into account potential ambiguities which may compromise results.

3.1.5 Corpora A corpus of linguistic data serves to provide a common pool of data for a variety of experiments and studies. The amount of data is usually considerable, although it varies from one corpus to another, and is usually stored electronically. The subjects of corpora can be highly specific, such as Chilean middle class radio speech, or quite broad, such as Davies’ (2012) Spanish corpus (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org), which houses over 20,000 Spanish texts (100 million words) from an 800-year period. The strengths of corpus data are both in the quantity of data, as well as in the shared nature of the database. So often in language acquisition research we are limited to small-scale studies wherein target features occur relatively few times. Corpus data, on the other hand, often allow for tracking linguistic development on a much larger scale, and permit researchers from various backgrounds to investigate the same data pool from multiple perspectives (e.g., Asención-Delaney/Collentine 2011).

Research Methods

41

3.1.6 Ethnography and Diary/Journal Studies Ethnographies are longitudinal observational studies whose aim is to acquire a rich detailed account of language use within a particular community (cf. reviews in Harklau 2005). Ethnographic researchers typically triangulate data from multiple sources, such as observations, interviews, questionnaires or surveys, and video and audio recordings. Diary/journal studies typically ask one language learner or small group of learners to journal over a certain period of time. These studies can include prompts, asking learners to write about a specific theme, have a pre-determined quantity and frequency of required production (e.g., write one page every day), or can be completely open. Diary/journal studies are also often designed in conjunction with additional data elicitation methods such as informal or semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, or pre- and post-experience measures of proficiency. This is especially useful when examining a holistic experience, such as study abroad or when attempting to identify factors that make a certain context more beneficial for learning. For example, Schmidt/Frota’s (1986) seminal study, which inspired the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 1990), employed journal entries to describe the acquisition process. By journaling his learning of Portuguese, Schmidt found his noticing of linguistic structures was what ultimately determined which aspects of the language were acquired successfully, and which were not.

3.2 Non-Linguistic Focus Instruments considered to have a “non-linguistic” focus are those that are used in many social sciences and are not specific to the study of language and language acquisition.

3.2.1 Questionnaires and Surveys Questionnaires and surveys are common elicitation instruments in many domains (cf. Dörnyei/Taguchi 22009). Although some are still administered in-person, many are being transferred to online formats. Surveys are relatively easy to create and offer myriad types of questions such as multiple choice, ranking, Likert-scale, open ended, and essay questions. Surveys, particularly those administered online facilitate efficient coding, immediate visualization of trends, and can be entered directly into software designed for qualitative and/or quantitative analysis. Questionnaires can be disseminated online via email, Facebook, and list-serves. While this ability increases the potential generalizability of the results, this distance also increases the risk that participants interpret questions differently, particularly if the instrument was piloted

42

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

in a culture different than that of the target population. For this reason, pilot testing with a diverse participant pool is vital to ensure robust data collection.

3.2.2 Measuring Reaction or Reading Time Reaction and reading time data can provide information regarding how the learner is processing information. For example, as discussed with GJTs, faster reaction times can provide an indication that the learner is tapping into implicit knowledge or has automatized knowledge. Slower reaction and reading times provide an indication that the particular linguistic structure(s) are not fully learned. How to determine what constitutes a “fast” or “slow” reaction or reading time, however, is challenging. There are individual learner or speaker differences; some people simply read faster or slower than others and there are potential differences across languages as well (cf. Jiang 2012).

3.2.3 Observations and Interviews Observations are usually characterized as open/unstructured or closed/structured. In open observations, the researcher is present in an acquisition environment, such as a classroom. The researcher often takes notes, makes audio and/or video recordings, and collects supporting information (such as a lesson plan and homework) that focuses on a specific linguistic target (e.g., the future simple), several targets (e.g., preterit versus imperfect), or on the general interactions within the space. A structured observation, in contrast, has a pre-determined scheme for collecting data, such as via a grid or chart. The COLT, Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching (Spada/ Frölich 1995) is one such option for a structured observation. The COLT contains spaces alongside key factors in classroom interaction, such as initiation of discourse and use of the target language, and the timing of each task. Open observations allow for themes to emerge naturally, while structured observation techniques allow for comparability between datasets and provide a scheme that helps the researcher stay focused on the task at hand. With observations, it is important that the researcher’s presence is not an influence (i.e., the “observer’s paradox”; Labov 1972). Interviews, on the other hand, can be categorized as unstructured, semi-structured, or structured. Unstructured/open interviews are akin to a conversation between researcher and participant. Here the interviewer does not have a specific set of questions or script to follow, but poses general questions to start the conversation. For example, in a study about language teaching experience, a broad question such as “Tell me about your teaching” may initiate the discussion. During the interview, topics of interest are explored under the guidance of the researcher. For this reason the researcher must be experienced or trained in interacting with the participant population and be clear on the research questions at hand. In semi-structured interviews the

Research Methods

43

researcher may have a few specific questions. S/he may spend more time on one topic than another and may explore allied topics that arise as well. The researcher must have adequate experience to know which topics should be explored further for the project at hand, and how to bring the interview back to the main topic. Structured interviews offer the most control and follow a pre-determined set of questions or script that is asked of each and every participant. As discussed previously, the more control the researcher has, the more guaranteed he will get the data needed to answer the research questions. Whichever technique is utilized, in order to encourage reliable, authentic data, it is paramount that the participant is comfortable with the researcher and the questions asked. They must be posed in such a way that the participant feels free to answer honestly, rather than answer in an attempt to please the researcher or match the study’s interest. Having some flexibility in the interview schemata and starting with less-personal questions can assist in ensuring this comfort. While space prohibits their discussion in detail here, for an additional retrospective measure the reader is directed to stimulated recall protocols (cf. Gass/ Mackey 2000; for concurrent introspective measures on participant within-task cognition, think-aloud protocols cf. Bowles 2010).

4 Analyzing Data Once data have been collected, researchers move on to the analysis phase. As in related disciplines, language acquisition researchers depend on wide variety of analytical approaches, most of which are well established and shared across the social sciences. These techniques are often categorized as quantitative or qualitative, although many blend the two (i.e., “mixed methods”), a decision that can yield a rich depiction of the phenomena in question (cf. Hashemi/Babaii 2013). We preserve this distinction here, nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity. It should also be mentioned that we have necessarily omitted numerous concepts and techniques. In the quantitative domain, we have focused on descriptive statistics, which are often overlooked, and on analyses comparing means, which are exceedingly common in the field. On the qualitative side, we focus on grounded theory (Glaser/ Strauss 1967), discourse analysis (Foucault 1981), and computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. For more specialized treatments of these topics, we recommend readers consult Mackey/Gass (2012), and Richards/Ross/Seedhouse (2012).

4.1 Quantitative Analyses Prior to conducting statistical analyses, researchers must calculate and examine their descriptive statistics. These include means, standard deviations (SDs), confidence intervals, and frequency counts. In many cases, tests of statistical significance con-

44

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

tribute little or nothing beyond what can be revealed in very basic summary or descriptive statistics, especially when combined with visual inspection of the data (e.g., box plots, scatter plots; Larson-Hall/Herrington 2010; Larson-Hall/Plonsky forthcoming). Imagine, for example, an experimental study comparing the effects of a traditional and novel treatment wherein the average of the experimental group’s posttest is 34 (SD = 4) and the comparison group 26 (SD = 4). It is clear without formal testing that the novel treatment is more effective. Another descriptive statistic that has received considerable attention in recent years is the “effect size”, which indicates the strength of an intervention or of a relationship between variables (Plonsky 2012). Cohen’s d, one such effect size index, expresses the mean difference between groups in SD units. (Other common indices include r, r-squared and eta-squared.) Returning to the previous example, we could quantify the difference in effectiveness between the two treatments by a d of 2.00. This result, generally considered quite large in the realm of L2 research, confirms what we were able to tell from looking at the groups’ means and SDs. Another benefit of effect sizes such as d is that they are standardized and therefore can be compared and combined across studies via meta-analysis (Norris/Ortega 2006; Plonsky/Oswald forthcoming). Finally, effect sizes can also be used to inform the design of future studies by enabling a priori power analyses (Cohen 21988). Although the importance of descriptives cannot be overemphasized, there are times when tests of statistical significance are useful in identifying patterns in the data. Specifically, such analyses help us determine whether the results are indicative of a real relationship between variables or perhaps spurious (i.e., due to chance or other factors such as instrument reliability). Statistical tests can be especially useful with multivariate datasets, when interactions between variables may be present. The remainder of this section focuses on statistical analyses for comparing means, the most common type in the field (Plonsky 2013). Although there are several analytical options for comparing means across one or more groups or independent variables, the choice of test is fairly straightforward. Assuming the data conform to a normal distribution (yet another reason to examine the descriptives), t tests are used to compare means between two groups, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used for three or more groups. Of course this is an oversimplification. There are several varieties of t tests and ANOVAs, such as independent samples (i.e., between groups) and dependent samples (i.e., one-sample / pre-post). Another variant of the ANOVA, the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), enables the researcher to control or adjust for a covariate such as a pretest score or a measure of aptitude. Still another, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), allows for simultaneous comparison of means across multiple dependent variables. Ortega (1999), for instance, used MANOVA to compare multiple measures of interlanguage performance (e.g., words per utterance, type-token ratio) of participants in two conditions (+/– planning). Because of the predominance of analyses comparing means, we feel the need to express our concern, if only briefly, over three problems associated with this analytical

Research Methods

45

approach: (a) incomplete reporting of data (often SDs to accompany means); (b) unmet and unchecked assumptions (e.g., a normal distribution); and (c) the tendency to choose statistical tests based on convention or convenience rather than for their appropriateness to the data and questions being posed (Plonsky 2013; Plonsky/Gass 2011).

4.2 Qualitative Data In addition to a thorough examination of the data after collection is complete, analysis in qualitative research usually also occurs throughout the collection process. Prior to the primary analyses, qualitative data are often transcribed using transcription conventions standard to the theory in which the study is based. These transcriptions are then coded thematically based on the research questions at hand and the theoretical orientation of study. For this reason robust operationalizations and coding protocols are paramount to predicating vigorous qualitative research designs, even more so than in quantitative studies, as there is often more room for interpretation than with studies centralized on numbers. For the sake of space, three types of qualitative data analysis will be discussed: grounded theory/content analysis, discourse analysis, and computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. Many additional analyses are available to researchers and, as the field of language acquisition is rapidly increasing its use of qualitative and mixed methods, so too are the options for analysis.

4.2.1 Grounded Theory/Content Analysis In grounded theory (Glaser/Strauss 1967), also known generally as content analysis, the coding protocol develops ground-up from within the content of the data rather than from an imposed top-down approach, and occurs via several iterations of coding. Initial coding is open, and the researcher examines and begins to code/categorize the data. In the next rounds the researcher codes across and within participants for recurrent themes. Finally, the researcher settles on a coding scheme, develops a coding protocol, and revisits the data with operationalizations that have typically emerged from the dataset. This type of analysis is highly specific and by design the appropriateness to the particular dataset is guaranteed. Additionally, if operationalized clearly, results can be discussed in relation to other studies that have examined similar themes and followed a similar grounded theory analysis.

4.2.2 Discourse Analysis A second frequent type of analysis of qualitative data is referred to as discourse analysis (Foucault 1981), which is a broad term encompassing the study of linguistic

46

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

or communicative structure of speech rather than being limited to thematic content. A researcher may examine, for example, how learners of different proficiency levels take turns during dyadic interaction, how power is established within a given speech community, or which instances of ser beginning learners of Spanish have mastered and which are still being confused with estar. As with grounded theory, transcriptions tend to be a starting point for studies analyzing discourse. During initial coding, researchers focus on contextual factors such as participants, setting, power relationships between participants, goals, and so on. The second waves of coding tend to center on linguistic and communicative structure of the interactive discourse (e.g., turn-taking, refusals). Finally, the researcher zooms in on specific patterns and features to form the analysis. An example from a study of Spanish pragmatics, for example, would be an examination of how learners who are native speakers of English negotiate an invitation refusal from a hypothetical boss (FélixBrasdefer 2008). In this speech act the learner is faced with an interaction where the target culture is different from the native culture in both what is presented (multiple, seemingly insistent invitations) and what is expected (several polite emphatic refusals about how disappointed the student is but genuinely unable to attend).

4.2.3 CAQDAS Although a full review is outside the scope of this paper, we felt the need to mention that researchers utilizing many different qualitative techniques have turned increasingly to computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS). CAQDAS software allow for data management, easy and reliable searching of terms, and assistance with coding. For a review of CAQDAS programs and a step-by-step guide to one of the most widely used programs for second language acquisition research, NVivo, cf. Baralt (2011).

5 Conclusion We have tried to emphasize throughout this chapter that conducting empirical research is, at its core, a process that involves myriad decisions. Therefore, whether taking the perspective of the individual researcher or the consumer of research, we must also judge language acquisition designs not as “good” or “bad” but, rather, in light of the strengths and weakness inherent in each technique and in the execution determined by the researcher’s theoretical orientation. To be clear, we are not suggesting a type of methodological relativism. There are certain practices or design features that yield stronger evidence than other practices or features. Meta-analyses and methodological syntheses such as those cited in this

Research Methods

47

chapter have brought many of these features and related issues to light such as the importance of pretesting, the value of effect sizes, and transparency in data reporting practices. The interest in methods brought about in these issues gives us hope for continued reform and increases in the field’s methodological knowledge. Nevertheless, great strides are still needed in training and field-wide standards (cf. Plonsky 2014), among other areas, for language acquisition to move toward and to maximize its informational potential to theory and practice.

6 Bibliography Asención-Delaney, Yuly/Collentine, Joseph G. (2011), A Multidimensional Analysis of a Written L2 Spanish Corpus, Applied Linguistics 32/3, 299–322. Baralt, Melissa (2011), Coding Qualitative Data, in: Alison Mackey/Susan M. Gass (edd.), Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide, Malden, MA Wiley-Blackwell, 222–244. Borg, Simon (2013), Teacher Research in Language Teaching: A Critical Analysis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bowles, Melissa A. (2010), The Think-Aloud Controversy in Language Acquisition Research, New York, Routledge. Chapelle, Carol A./Duff, Patricia. A. (2003), Some Guidelines for Conducting Quantitative and Qualitative Research in TESOL, TESOL Quarterly 37, 157–178. Cohen, Jacob (21988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum. Davies, Mark (2002–), Corpus del Español: 100 Million Words, 1200s–1900s, http://www.corpusdelespanol.org. (10.10.2013) Díaz-Campos, Manuel (2011), Becoming a Member of the Speech Community: Learning Sociophonetic Variation in Child Language, in: Manuel Díaz-Campos (ed.), The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 263–282. Dörnyei, Zoltán/Taguchi, Tatsuya (22009), Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration and Processing, New York, Routledge. Ellis, Nick C./Sagarra, Nuria (2011), Learned Attention in Adult Language Acquisition: A Replication and Generalization Study and Meta-analysis, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 589–624. Ellis, Rod/Basturkmen, Helen/Loewen, Shawn (2001), Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom, TESOL Quarterly 35/3, 407–432. Erlam, Rosemary (2006), Elicited Imitation as a Measure of L2 Implicit Knowledge: An Empirical Validation Study, Applied Linguistics 27/3, 464–491. Félix-Brasdefer, César (2008), Perceptions of Refusals to Invitations: Exploring the Minds of Foreign Language Learners, Language Awareness 17/3, 195–217. Fernández, Claudia (2008), Reexamining the Role of Explicit Information in Processing Instruction, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30, 277–305. Foucault, Michel (1981), The Order of Discourse, in: Robert Young (ed.), Untying the Text: A Poststructural Anthology, Boston, Routledge, 48–78. Friedman, Debra A. (2011), How to Collect and Analyze Qualitative Research, in: Alison Mackey/Susan M. Gass (edd.), Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 180–200. Gass, Susan M./Mackey, Alison (2000), Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.

48

Luke Plonsky and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss

Glaser, Barney G./Strauss, Anselm L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine. Golato, Andrea (2003), Studying Complement Responses: A Comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk, Applied Linguistics 24, 115–146. Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura (2013), Instructor Characteristics and Classroom-Based SLA of Spanish, in: Kimberly L. Geeslin (ed.), The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 530–546. Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura (in press), Graduate Instructor In-class Cognition and Feedback Provision over Time, in: Ryan T. Miller et al. (edd.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum, Somerville, MA, Cascadilla. Harklau, Linda (2005), Ethnography and Ethnographic Research on Second Language Teaching and Learning, in: Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 179–194. Hashemi, Mohammad R./Babaii, Esmat (2013), Mixed Methods Research: Toward New Research Designs in Applied Linguistics, Modern Language Journal 97, 828–848. Hernández, Todd (2006), Integrative Motivation as a Predictor of Success in the Intermediate Foreign Language Classroom, Foreign Language Annals 39/4, 605–617. Jiang, Nan (2012), Conducting Reaction Time Research in Second Language Studies, New York, Routledge. Labov, William (1972), Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Larson-Hall, Jenifer/Herrington, Richard (2010), Improving Data Analysis in Second Language Acquisition by Utilizing Modern Developments in Applied Statistics, Applied Linguistics 31, 368–390. Larson-Hall, Jennifer/Plonsky, Luke (forthcoming), Reporting and Interpreting Quantitative Research Findings: What Gets Reported, How, and Why?, in: John. M. Norris/Steven Ross/Rob Schoonen (edd.), Improving and Extending Quantitative Reasoning in Second Language Research, Malden, MA, Wiley. Loewen, Shawn/Philp, Jenefer (2012), Instructed Second Language Acquisition, in: Alison Mackey/ Susan M. Gass (edd.), Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition, Malden, MA, WileyBlackwell, 53–73. Loewen, Shawn, et al. (in press), A Discipline Formed?: An Update on Applied Linguists’ Statistical Literacy, TESOL Quarterly. Mackey, Alison/Gass, Susan M. (2005), Second Language Research: Methodology and Design, New York, Routledge. Mackey, Alison/Gass, Susan M. (edd.) (2012), Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell. Mackey, Alison, et al. (2010), Exploring the Relationship Between Modified Output and Working Memory Capacity, Language Learning 60/3, 501–533. Norris, John M./Ortega, Lourdes (2006), The Value and Practice of Research Synthesis for Language Learning and Teaching, in: John M. Norris/Lourdes Ortega (edd.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, Philadelphia, Benjamins, 3–50. Ortega, Lourdes (1999), Planning and Focus on Form in L2 Oral Performance, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 109–148. Pavaresh, Vahid/Tavakoli, Mansoor (2009), Discourse Completion Tasks as Elicitation Tools: How Convergent Are They?, The Social Sciences 4/4, 366–373. Plonsky, Luke (2011), The Effectiveness of Second Language Strategy Instruction: A Meta-analysis, Language Learning 61, 993–1038. Plonsky, Luke (2012), Effect size, in: Peter Robinson (ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition, New York, Routledge, 200–202.

Research Methods

49

Plonsky, Luke (2013), Study Quality in SLA: An Assessment of Designs, Analyses, and Reporting Practices in Quantitative L2 Research, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 655–687. Plonsky, Luke (2014), Study Quality in Quantitative L2 Research (1990–2010): A Methodological Synthesis and Call for Reform, Modern Language Journal 98, 450–470. Plonsky, Luke/Gass, Susan (2011), Quantitative Research Methods, Study Quality, and Outcomes: The Case of Interaction Research, Language Learning 61, 325–366. Plonsky, Luke/Mills, Susana. V. (2006), An Exploratory Study of Differing Perceptions of Error Correction Between a Teacher and Students: Bridging the Gap, Applied Language Learning 16, 55–74. Plonsky, Luke/Oswald, Frederick L. (forthcoming), How Big is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research, Language Learning. Poplack, Shana (2001), Sometimes I’ll Start a Sentence in Spanish y Termino en Español: Toward a Typology of Code-Switching, in: Wei Li (ed.), The Bilingualism Reader, London, Routledge, 581–618. Richards, Keith/Ross, Steven J./Seedhouse, Paul (2012), Research Methods for Applied Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book for Students, New York, Routledge. Schmidt, Richard/Frota, Sylvia Nagem (1986), Developing Basic Conversational Ability in a Second Language: A Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese, in: Richard Day (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA, Newbury, 237–326. Schmidt, Richard (1990), The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning, Applied Linguistics 11/2, 129–158. Spada, Nina/Fröhlich, Maria (1995), The Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme (COLT), Sydney, MacMillan. Tracy-Ventura, Nicole, et al. (2014), “Repeat as Much as you Can”: Elicited Imitation as a Measure of Oral Proficiency in L2 French, in: Pascale Leclercq/Amanda Emonds/Heather Hilton (edd.), Measuring L2 Proficiency: Perspectives from SLA, Bristol, Multilingual Matters, 167–190. Vinther, Thora (2002), Elicited Imitation: A Brief Overview, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12/1, 54–73.

F. Xavier Vila

3 Language Policy, Management and Planning Abstract: Language policymaking is a time-honoured human activity that shapes our linguistic reality to achieve a variety of social and linguistic ends. Although there is still no single, widely-recognized theoretical paradigm to define it, considerable progress has been made in this direction; and beyond their differences of opinion on terminology and the definition of certain concepts, most contemporary authors agree that language policymaking is a complex socio-political activity for both its private and public actors, that it takes place in all types of societies and that it should be analysed from both macro and micro approaches. This paper will examine language policy both as an activity and a discipline and will identify some of its main goals, the nature of its actors and the means by which they act, and the need for a critical approach to the subject as a whole. Keywords: language policy, language planning, language management, language development, language restoration

1 Conceptual Precisions In 813, the Council of Tours declared that the Carolingian priests should preach in the rusticam Romanam linguam so that their sermons might be comprehensible to the common people. Ironically, their ruling was an acknowledgement that Latin had ceased to be the people’s spoken language and that the Romance languages were independent entities; the ruling was also an example of language policymaking and indicates, as many other examples do, that language policy has existed in most, if not all, human societies (Haugen 1987). An eminently polysemic term, language policy has been variously used to refer to either the activities of regulating language issues or to the scientific discipline that studies these activities (which, incidentally, might be more clearly defined by the term language politology). Nor is this the only source of conceptual confusion in the field: language engineering, language management, language planning, and language treatment have all been used by different authors in ways that quite often do not coincide (Cooper 1989; Eastman 1983; Kaplan/Baldauf Jr. 1997; Lamuela 1996; Rubin/Jernudd 1971). Consider these examples: “Language planning is a body of ideas, laws and regulations (language policy), change rules, beliefs, and practices intended to achieve a planned change (or to stop change from happening) in the language use in one or more communities” (Kaplan/Baldauf Jr. 1997, 3).

Language Policy, Management and Planning

51

“The goal of a theory of language policy is to account for the choices made by individual speakers on the basis of rule-governed patterns recognized by the speech community (or communities) of which they are members. Some of these choices are the result of management, reflecting conscious and explicit efforts by language managers to control the choices” (Spolsky 2009, 1).

Notwithstanding Spolsky’s definition above, the term language policy has most generally been understood as the basic principles, goals and guidelines attributed to intervention on language, meaning the “why” and “where” of the direction we want it to take, while the other terms have been mostly connected to the more technical, less politicised aspects of a project (the know-how). Appealing as this distinction might be, however, we should remember that the borders between the two concepts are permeable and that political considerations often impinge upon the apparently more technical issues and vice versa. Choosing a script, for instance, is a technical operation that can also have symbolic meaning: when in 1860 Romania replaced its Cyrillic alphabet with a Latin-based alphabet it was attempting to strengthen its links with Western Europe, and when Moldova adopted this alphabet in 1989 it did so to signal its language unity after the fall of Communism (Ciscel 2007). Briefly, then, management and policy are often two sides of the same coin and this paper will therefore examine language policy and management (LPM) activities and theory. A further source of confusion is the ambiguity caused by the connections between policy, politics and political, as Figure 1 illustrates. Based on these distinctions and especially in the mainly Anglophone circles subsumed by Tollefson’s “neoclassical approach” to language planning (Tollefson 1991),1 many authors have supposed that there is a clear distinction between language policy, broadly defined above as a “highlevel overall plan” for language issues that brings together “the general goals and acceptable procedures, especially of a governmental body”, and language politics, which the same sources understand as “political affairs or business” about language, and describe as the “competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership…”. While the distinction between policy and politics may be self-evident in English, however, it is fraught with problems.2 On the one hand, the idea that language policy is specifically a governmental responsibility implies that other institutions (schools, universities, private firms, associations of language activism and even official language agencies) are not genuinely first-rank language policy actors. On the other, it suggests that policies, which are designed by those in power, are naturally objective and neutral, while the terrain of politics is egoistic, “artful and often dishonest”. To

1 But see also Fishman (1994). 2 In the Romance languages the terms coincide (e.g., politique in French or política in Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Italian and Portuguese).

52

F. Xavier Vila

sum up, this distinction actually depoliticises language policy – a hypothesis that is far from satisfactory for most LPM researchers. At the other end of the spectrum, Spolsky (2004; 2009) has proposed that when an alternative course of action is available, any linguistic behaviour is in fact language policy, rather like the 1970s rallying slogan “The private is political”: Figure 1: Definitions of “policy” and “politics” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) Policy

Politics

1 a: prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs b: management or procedure based primarily on material interest 2 a: a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions b: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body

1 a: the art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government 2: political actions, practices, or policies 3 a: political affairs or business; especially: competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession c: political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices 4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person 5 a: the total complex of relations between people living in society b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view

“Language policy may refer to all the language practices, beliefs and management decisions of a community or polity. […] Language policy may apply at various levels of generalization. It might be at the level of an individual linguistic unit (‘Don’t use that ugly nasal vowel!’ ‘Don’t use that dirty word!’ ‘Speak to me in full sentences!’) or refer to labelled varieties which are clusters of units (‘Don’t use dialect!’ ‘Say it in English!’)” (Spolsky 2004, 9s.).

To the degree that it paves the way for a political analysis of public and private actions, this interpretation of policy is indeed appealing. In fact, it can be said that all institutional language acts have at least some political importance, since they have an impact on their environment and directly or indirectly influence the status of the languages in the local or global ecosystem (Eastman 1983). But taken literally, this

Language Policy, Management and Planning

53

equation also regards as “political” any single utterance pronounced in a bilingual society, which as Figure 2 below suggests, may not always be the case.

Figure 2: Signs in a cafeteria in Sant Cugat del Vallès (Catalonia), © F. Xavier Vila

Figure 2 reproduces two cafeteria signs advertising an establishment’s hot chocolate served with churros.3 The sign on the left is in Catalan and the sign on the right is in Castilian, and both include indices of language contact. To be correctly spelt, the Catalan sign should read “xocolata amb xurros”. The Castilian sign, which announces “chocolate desecho con melindros”, uses the Catalan loanword “melindro” rather than the standard Castilian equivalent “bizcocho de soletilla”, which is never used in Catalonia. A further detail is the Castilian translation of “hot chocolate” as “chocolate a la taza”. The phrase “chocolate desecho” is a calque from the Catalan “xocolata desfeta”, literally ‘melted chocolate’. Unfortunately for the proprietor, in Castilian the word “melted” is spelled “deshecho”, while “desecho” happens to mean “rubbish” or “waste”. Obviously, neither sign is trying to make a political statement, and it is highly unlikely that the sign’s writers manipulated language consciously to call the customers’ attention. On the contrary, it is much more logical to believe that the authors simply made a number of language choices, unaware that these would be considered mistakes (↗19 Catalan; ↗25 Spanish). What these two signs make clear is that not all language behaviour may be regarded as language policy unless we force the meaning of this term to levels that will simply not be accepted by users themselves. In other words, especially at the LPM micro end, not all language choices are political acts. On the contrary, their degree of political load depends on the intentions and the context. And they require some

3 A local variety of the sponge cake known in England as ladyfingers or sponge-fingers.

54

F. Xavier Vila

intention to exert an influence on the linguistic ecosystem (Eastman 1983, 3). If we return to the examples above, most literate users of Catalan would consider the use of “ch” instead of “x” as simply a spelling mistake. It’s true that there is a context where using one spelling or the other might have a political intention (secessionist movements in Valencia who defend the principle that Valencian is not Catalan (cf. ClimentFerrando 2005) promote a spelling system where “ch” replaces “x” for [t∫]) but beyond those environments the use of “ch” instead of “x” would basically be understood as an indication of poor literacy. Of course, intention does not mean actual repercussion: the capacity to implement a given language policy depends on the actors’ ability and their degree of power (see below). And this leads us to the other crucial element of language policy: its context. The very same language act will be heavily loaded with political significance in one context and remain politically trivial in another. Consequently, unmarked linguistic behaviour is less politically loaded than marked behaviour, i.e. behaviour that goes against social norms. By and large, LPM activities can be defined as human behaviour intending to influence the social position of a linguistic item within a social institution or a linguistic ecosystem. We can use LP and LM as quasi-synonyms or two sides of the same coin, taking into account that policy is the preferred term for public and goalsetting activities, while management is mostly applied to private and technical endeavours. For the sake of simplicity, I will restrict the term language planning to those activities which are effectively developed in the framework of a plan. LPM actions range from on-the-spot, unpredictable reactions to the use of an apparently trivial feature, to the conscious arrangement of language choice in a multilingual institution.

2 A Discipline with a Plural Background “During the 1950s and 1960s, Western-trained linguists were engaged by many of the new nations of Africa, South America and Asia to develop grammars, writing systems, and dictionaries for indigenous languages. Scholars trained in descriptive linguistics were eager to gather data on hitherto understudied languages and advance current theories of language structure and use. Joshua Fishman […], the seminal figure in the sociology of language, saw developing nations as providing an ‘indispensable and truly intriguing array of field-work locations for a need breed of genuine sociolinguistics.’ This research was directly relevant to language planning, especially for many aspects of corpus planning” (Ricento 2006, 12).

Language politology may have not coalesced into a scientific field until the 20th century, but its history goes back much further than suggested by this and other similar accounts, which tend to attribute a clear Anglo-centric accent to the discipline (Kaplan/Baldauf Jr. 1997; Hornberger 2006; Ricento 2006; Wee 2011). The mention of historical antecedents from regions of the world where Romance languages are used

Language Policy, Management and Planning

55

suffices to call into question the contemporary, postcolonial origin of the field.4 The Roman author Quintilian reflected on the role and nature of the standard forms of Latin and on language education in Institutio Oratoria (c.95 AD), while the medieval authors Ramon Llull or Dante Alighieri proposed solutions for multilingualism, corpus planning and language acquisition.5 Humanists like Antonio de Nebrija, Leon Battista Alberti or Pietro Bembo collaborated in the standardization and grammatization of vulgar languages (Auroux 1994), a task continued by the different European language academies (Cooper 1989; Spolsky 2011a). None of these authors wrote in English, but this should not make their work any less significant, especially in language policy studies. The same Anglo-centric approach describes the first decades of LPM as rather consensualist (Williams 1992): “[…] the activities of many sociolinguists were understood (by them) as beneficial to nationbuilding and national unification; the decision of which language (i.e., colonial or indigenous) would best serve these interests was often based on which language would provide access to advanced, that is, Western, technological and economic assistance” (Ricento 2006, 13).

In this view, the spread between the 1950s and 1970s of a single language which also tended to be the colonial language was the logical, technical solution to linguistic diversity at a purely technical level. Unwittingly, perhaps, these specialists espoused a paradigm of sociological modernisation which held that in order to achieve economic progress underdeveloped nations should emulate the Western states; and that one way to do this was to adopt a single official language in an overarching diglossia, in which this language would serve all formal and official functions while the remaining languages would be harmoniously restricted to informal practices. These arrangements would be effected by the widespread social consensus to support the policies proposed by the government, which would obviously serve the common good. It was not until the 1980s that this paradigm was challenged: “Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing through the 1990s, scholars with an interest in understanding the role played by language in the reproduction of social and economic inequality, and influenced by critical and postmodern theories, began to question some of the assumptions which informed early work in LP” (Ricento 2006, 13).

This description may reflect what was happening in the US and Britain, but not everywhere. In regions of the world where Romance languages are used, for instance, deeply-seated resistance to a neoclassical, state-based approach was already being felt in the 1960s and 1970s in papers by writers like Lluís Vicent Aracil, Louis-Jean 4 I restrict my discussion to authors in regions of the world where Romance languages are used, but note that many other poles of activity are also relevant to our understanding of the discipline (e.g. the Czech structuralists and the studies of 19th- and 20th- century German minorities). 5 Viana (1995) is an excellent guide to Europe’s LPM thought before the 20th century.

56

F. Xavier Vila

Calvet, Marcel Cohen, Jean-Claude Corbeil, Robert Lafont, Jean-Baptiste Marcellesi, Rafael Lluís Ninyoles, and Francesc Vallverdú. Inspired by the intellectual tradition behind European minority language militancy and Marxism, these authors were concerned with the political repercussions of state-led LPM. The impact of the conflicts in Vietnam and Algeria and of the events in Quebec’s Quiet Revolution favoured such writers’ distrust of imperial languages. They generally emphasized the conflictive nature of multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education), condemning the consensualist discourse of post-imperial policy and decrying the use of bilingualism (↗11 Bilingual Education) and diglossia as ideological smoke screens that masked language conflict; and they urged society to react to language shift and demand that the government take measures to counteract it. These authors preferred terms like language policy, aménagement linguistique or linguistic normalization to the technical term language planning, and conceived their approach as being a more bottom-up, participatory way of influencing language practices (Aracil 1980; Calvet 1974; Cohen 1956; Corbeil 2007; Marcellesi/Gardin 1974). In other words, by the mid-1980s at least three different poles of LPM could be identified:6 the neoclassical approach, devoted to the technical aspects of language planning and based on consensualist principles; the minoritization approach, which focussed on the process whereby empires and nation-states had lowered the status of their autochthonous languages and made these minority languages; and an incipient neo-Marxist, post-structural approach which described itself as “critical” and which challenged the neoclassical hegemony in the English-language literature. While no global account of LPM is available, it can be said that during the 1990s and the first decade of the new century the distance between these traditions has been narrowed in several ways. The spread of English as the academic lingua franca has facilitated interrelation, although production in other languages has remained vibrant. In general terms, LPM studies have evolved in a number of directions: – Bilingualism and multilingualism have become the hegemonic goals of LPM, and monolingualism has lost most of the support it had. – State-exclusive views have given way to more pluralist and complex approaches that involve international and infra-state institutions, the business sector, and even private and family language policy. – LPM has broadened its interests to include the languages of migrants, internationalization and globalization. – The discipline increasingly prioritises individual rights over public policies, and there is greater interest in the area of language rights. – Economic models and rationales have made important inroads in LPM studies, and LPM businesses are an increasingly visible force.

6 A genuinely multilingual history of LPM would probably yield a more varied scenario, but here I make do with a Romance-language perspective.

Language Policy, Management and Planning

–

57

Concern about sustainability of global linguistic diversity is apparent in LPM studies.

While there are still clear ideological differences among practitioners and no common paradigm is yet available (Ricento 2006), contacts and interpenetrations are frequent. Postmodern, neo-Marxist approaches have gained force and are by now probably hegemonic, at least in the Anglosaxon literature, although more consensualist positions have by no means disappeared. Approaches to language minoritization now pay a lot of attention to language restoration (see below).

3 LPM Goals LPM may have different goals, ranging from macro to micro and affecting all facets of linguistic and communicative human life (Kaplan/Baldauf Jr. 1997, 28–58). But most of these partial goals can be subsumed under the two main topics of LPM: language development and language establishment, as well as the associated processes of dialectalization, language minorization and language restoration.

3.1 Language Development and Language Establishment Identifying the world’s languages precisely is rather complex. Varieties belonging to very distant linguistic families, like Basque, Breton or French (↗20 French), are clearly different languages – “Abstand languages” or “languages by distance”, in Kloss’s analysis (Kloss 1952). The concept of linguistic distance is also valid within a single linguistic family: features of Occitan or Sardinian, for instance, are sufficiently singular for these languages to be regarded as languages by distance (Kloss 1952). But the notion of “linguistic distance” is not easy to measure. When is a variety “different enough” to be regarded as an independent language? Portuguese (↗22 Portuguese) and Castilian (↗25 Spanish), for instance, allow for considerable intercomprehension, while many Italian dialetti do not (↗21 Italian). How is it that the two first are universally regarded as different languages, but dialetti are regarded as just dialects? The source of this problem resides in the polysemy of the term language. If in purely structural terms we define language as a natural system of human oral or signed communication then all human speech is equally “language”, whether or not it is standardized and whether it is used by peasants or engineers, because all human speech is equally made of phonemes, morphemes, words, and complex syntax. But the term language is also used with a second, different meaning when it describes only those varieties of oral or signed communication that have a preeminent position in a given region, especially in a sovereign country. This more sociological approach distinguishes between languages (in German, Einzelsprache),

58

F. Xavier Vila

which are usually standardised, and dialects, meaning varieties conceived as subsidiary to a given language. Setting up a particular language in this sense out of a linguistic continuum is a major operation of “Ausbau” or “language development” (Kloss 1952), which includes the creation of social consensus about the language name and its borders – a process which is akin to creating an “imagined community” of speakers (Anderson 1991) as well as its cultivation and use in domains beyond the Belles lettres. Occitan (Provençal) and Galician, for instance, had already been standardised by the 13th century, at least in the field of poetry, thanks to a refined literature but when their strongholds were seized by the expanding kingdoms of France and Castile, both languages were ousted from public affairs and reduced to the status of spoken vernacular languages, which they then remained for centuries. On the other hand, Portugal, Castile and France established solid, independent governments and developed their own standard languages. It is in this sense that the adage which holds that “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy” is particularly apt. The process of language development is intertwined with that of language establishment, i.e. the process whereby a given language becomes the language that guarantees the operation of a given society (Lamuela 1994; 2004). Modern societies have been organized on the principles of the nation state where one single language becomes “complete”, meaning that it assumes virtually all public roles. In historical terms, the establishment of a legitimate language (Bourdieu 1982) has meant that this variety becomes crucial for social integration, and consequently subjects all its competitors to a process of progressive marginalization via dialectalization and language minorization (see below). Recent decades have witnessed several simultaneous processes that have significantly altered glottopolitical dynamics. First, the collapse of many multinational empires has led to the birth of dozens of sovereign states with their own LPM agendas. Second, the spread of liberal and civil democracy has renewed our respect for minority communities, linguistic and otherwise. And third, globalization and information technologies (IT) have increased mobility and contact between people and products (Coupland 2010b). The mixed results of these trends mean that while at a local level many regions experience increasing linguistic diversity – some writers even speak of “superdiversity” (Blommaert 2010) – and while linguistic regimes have become more receptive to traditionally minoritized languages (Spolsky 2004), global diversity is also becoming poorer as more and more languages die out (Nettle/ Romaine 2000). Nevertheless, sovereign states still constitute at least one of the major actor groups in LPM, and it remains to be seen whether these changes will eventually affect the structural position of established languages.

Language Policy, Management and Planning

59

3.2 Dialectalisation and Minorization A variety is dialectalized7 when it comes to be regarded as subsidiary to another variety which is taken as its linguistic reference. Picard and Norman, for instance, were actively used as written languages in the Middle Ages but became integrated into the French language area as the political, cultural and economic power of Paris grew, and were increasingly regarded as dialects of French (Cohen 1973; Rey/Duval/Siouffi 2007, 101–157). They might have become independent Ausbausprache, but did not. Dialectalization affects all dimensions of language (Calvet 1987, 82): – In terms of language practices, the dialectalized variety is dislodged from formal domains and reduced to speakers’ private lives. – In ideological terms, it is conceived as a non-written language, occasionally written according to the conventions of the dominant language. – Differences between local varieties are overemphasized and local names are used to the detriment of more comprehensive terms. Dialects are usually depicted as authentic but rough, old-fashioned and ill-equipped or unsuited for the requirements of modern life. – The lack of use for formal and written functions blocks development and standardization, and innovation becomes subservient to the standard language. – Dialects are rarely included in formal education. In its most extreme form, dialectalization is known as patoisisation, after the derogatory French denomination patois.8 In the words of the reputed French politician Jean Jaurès, “On appelle ‘patois’ la langue d’un peuple vaincu”. The processes of dialectalization may even affect those “languages by distance” that have already developed their own standard variety. The process whereby a given language is reduced to a secondary or minority language is usually termed minorization or minoritization. Aracil (1983) describes the two macroprocesses involved in minorization: – Interposition: the dominant language becomes the exclusive lingua franca for the speakers of the minorized language. – Intrusion: as the process of minorization begins to have an effect on the speakers of the minorized language, these speakers start using the dominant language to interact with speakers of other varieties of the minorized language.

7 This use of the term dialectalization should not be confused with the process whereby a language breaks up into different dialects. 8 “Parler local, dialecte local, employé par une population généralement peu nombreuse, souvent rurale et dont la culture, le niveau de civilisation sont jugés comme inférieurs [my emphasis] à ceux du milieu environnant (qui emploie la langue commune)”, Petit Robert (1989).

60

F. Xavier Vila

The final destiny of most varieties subject to minorization, dialectalization and patoisisation (MDP) is eventual language shift, when speakers stop using the minorized language and embrace the legitimate language even with their own children.

3.3 Language Restoration In reaction to MDP, communities may start a process of language restoration, also variously known as language normalisation, language reintroduction, language revival, and language revitalization (Edwards 2010, 73–104). The type of language restoration that communities adopt depends on the MDP stage they experience: Portugal’s restoration of Portuguese after the country regained its independence in 1640 was probably a minor administrative issue (↗30 Portugal and Brazil), while the restoration of French as the hegemonic language in Quebec (↗26 Canada) has required much greater effort. Although there are many variants, language restoration generally takes either a politically- or a community-oriented approach: 1. Politically-oriented language restoration makes state intervention central and emphasizes the importance of entering certain public arenas to gain support for language teaching in schools and language promotion in the public sector. Achieving (co-)official status is perceived as crucial in (re-)legitimising the minoritized language, which is perceived to have lost ground because of the diglossia imposed by the (very same) state institutions. Diglossia, thus, must be left behind so that speakers appreciate the importance of (re-)learning the language and (re-)transmitting it to their children. This approach is closely associated with the recognition of national/regional minorities and has traditionally been predominant in Europe, francophone Canada and the post-Soviet area. 2. Community-oriented language restoration focuses on areas which are beyond the governmental domain. This view of language restoration has gained particular force as the result of Fishman’s model for reversing language shift (RLS) (Fishman 1991; 2001), which argues that first of all communities must secure intergenerational language transmission by maintaining intergroup boundaries and by establishing a diglossic pattern of language use that distinguishes between ingroup communication (for which the language in the process of restoration is used) and out-group communication. Only when the former domains are secured should the community attempt to address more complicated issues that involve dealing with the state, such as language use for formal education or for administrative purposes. Finally, community-oriented language restoration tends to speak in terms of “ethnic” minorities, blurring the traditional distinction between national/regional and migrant groups, and is especially popular in Englishspeaking countries.

Language Policy, Management and Planning

61

The idea that controlling the state is crucial for restoring a language is based on the success stories of most of Europe’s national languages today, although the Irish case proves that statehood is not enough for language restoration (Nic Pháidhín/Ó Cearnaigh 2008). This approach, though, sets very high standards for language restoration and presupposes a degree of tension between the minoritized language community and the state, which has already invested in another language. Conversely, the RLS proposal offers goals that are theoretically attainable for many more language groups, and is much less conflictual in nature. But when it comes to success stories, most of the groups identified as reproducing their languages without any control of the state apparatus tend to be groups that are set apart from the majorities by non-linguistic (e.g. religious) borders (Fishman 2001). It remains to be proven whether in a contemporary society language communities without this extra linguistic support may be sustainable in the long run without any state support at all.

3.4 The Development of a Standard Language Central to both language establishment and language restoration, we have the process of language standardisation, meaning the development of a relatively unified variety that serves as linguistic vehicle for formal operations and a definition of the language. Language standardization differs from koinéisation – i.e. the appearance of a new variety as a consequence of the levelling of some previous dialects – in that it includes a number of conscious operations designed to create a fully-fledged language that serves the purposes of a complete language in a modern society. Figure 3: Language standardization according to Einar Haugen (1987, 627) Form (policy planning)

Function (language cultivation)

Society (status planning)

1. Selection (decision procedures) a. Identification of problem b. Allocation of norms

3. Implementation (educational spread) a. Correction procedures b. Feedback and evaluation

Language (corpus planning)

2. Codification (standardization procedures) a. Graphization b. Grammatication c. Lexication

4. Elaboration (functional development) a. Terminological modernization b. Stylistic development

According to Haugen’s (1983; 1987) classical model, language standardization is a four-part process that starts with the selection phase, meaning that a variety is selected as the basis for the standard. In French or Castilian, whose standardization was firmly connected with a sovereign state, selection was based on the speech of the

62

F. Xavier Vila

powerful and educated groups which lived in the court, while in other languages, like Italian, German or Arabic, the basis for selection was literary and religious prestige. Haugen’s second operation is codification, which involves describing good and bad usages in spelling, grammar and lexicon. When the legitimate variety is clear, codification basically amounts to the description of the existing legitimate language. But when this is not the case, codification may become controversial and is often depicted as “artificial” by its opponents. Especially in cases where no dialect is the undeniable candidate for selection and codification, language managers must be extremely sensitive in presenting the benefits of standardization. It is often the case that standardization spurs fears of discrimination that lead to rejection and even divergent codification among non-favoured varieties. In extreme cases, disagreement may even lead to the development of two different Ausbausprachen. In historical standardizations, the legitimate language was simultaneously deployed with governmental industrialization, schools, and modern mass media. In more recent processes, the new standard variety has to be consciously learnt and put in use, often replacing the previous official language. This is the third phase of the language standardization process, the implementation phase. The rhythm and eventual success of implementation depends, therefore, on a number of variables including whether these institutions existed beforehand, the position of those already working in these institutions vis-à-vis the new standard, and the policies adopted vis-à-vis the old variety. Finally, we have the operation elaboration, which involves the stylistic and terminological deployment of the language in all specialized domains and for all purposes. Again, this phase occurred earlier in traditional standardizations, and is more complicated in cases where a previous language exists. In fact, in many postcolonial countries this phase is never reached.

3.5 Some Other Partial LPM Goals and Activities As well as the global macro processes reviewed above, a number of LPM processes are specific in nature and only affect a portion of the reality of a language or a segment of society. These include graphization and terminological modernization, which have been discussed above, and a number of others: 1. Language cultivation, which involves regularly updating a standardized language to keep abreast of such innovations as neologisms, loanwords and calques. 2. Language reform, which modifies a given aspect of an already standardized language (e.g. spelling) and which, in more thorough degrees, is tantamount to (re-)standardization. 3. Local language acquisition policies, which spread the knowledge of the local language among communities that have until a given moment remained alien to it, possibly because they spoke the imperial or colonial language.

Language Policy, Management and Planning

63

4. Language (re-)vernacularisation, by which children are raised in a language that is not their parents’ L1. 5. Language promotion, which encourages the use of a particular language in a given domain or sphere of life. 6. Literacy campaigns, which are designed to spread writing and reading skills among illiterate communities. 7. Auxiliary language acquisition policies, which encourage the learning of foreign, sacred or heritage languages in schools but also through the mass media. 8. Language awareness raising (in French, éveil aux langues), which promote both metalinguistic abilities and the awareness of the value of multilingualism. 9. Immigration-oriented language policies, which manage the linguistic mismatches between the host society and newly-arrived individuals or communities and which may either facilitate the learning of local languages or the retention and even relearning of incoming languages. 10. Emigration-oriented language policies, which facilitate the process of incorporation in a new society before migration. 11. Language management for business purposes, which involves activities deployed by private firms to determine which language or languages will be used in internal and external communication, to decide whether employees will be required to engage in language training and to identify and address the language challenges associated with business internationalization. 12. Linguistic diplomacy, which pursues language-related interests beyond language users’ borders by means of professional representatives. 13. Development of artificial languages, meaning the design and dissemination of artificially-created languages such as Esperanto.

3.6 A Classification of LPM Goals LPM activities may be classified according to the linguistic dimension they affect. Figure 3 above describes Haugen’s distinction between corpus planning (the actions dealing with the characteristics of the linguistic system itself, such as creating a spelling system or establishing the terminology of a given field) and status planning (the actual use of the language) (Haugen 1983). Cooper (1989) reframed this opposition and distinguished between form planning (corpus), function planning (status) and acquisition planning. In recent decades, the growing awareness of the role played by the language ideologies in LPM has led many authors to insist that one of the many versions of this psycho-sociological dimension – attitudes, motivation, ideology, representation, imaginaire and so on – should be added to Cooper’s tripartite model (cf. Sánchez Carrión “Txepetx” 1987; Ager 2001; Vila 2012). It can therefore be said that LPM tries to exert some sort of influence on language corpus, language functions, language acquisition and language mentalities. The four

64

F. Xavier Vila

dimensions interact with one another and are often interdependent: for instance, successfully changing the spelling of a language requires not only official approval of any formal change, but also the popular conviction that these new forms are to people’s benefit and a concerted effort to eventually change writing routines in actual use. To achieve LPM goals, therefore, actors and the means available to actors both need be taken into consideration.

4 The LPM Actors and Their Means Many LPM are carried out by public operators, but across society we can find many types of private corporate and individual LPM operators, in the business and voluntary sectors or in the entertainment industry, to name but a few examples. It is important to distinguish between the sectors characterized by activity or by ownership: many established language communities have created institutions specialized in cultivating the corpus (e.g. the Accademia della Crusca, the Académie française or the Real Academia Española) while others delegate this role to universities and private institutions (e.g. the English-speaking countries; Spolsky 2011b). Either way, however, these institutions benefit from the authority bestowed upon them by symbolic public support and by financial investment. Proponents of minoritized languages have usually been forced to build their own independent institutions without public support or recognition, when not in total clandestinity, and these institutions have therefore often lacked authority and been weakened or destroyed by disagreements. In the early decades of LPM as a discipline, and especially in more technocraticoriented circles, authors tended to conceive of LPM as a highly ordered activity comprising specific phases (Kaplan/Baldauf Jr. 1997, 123): (1) Pre-planning; (2) Survey; (3) Report; (4) Policy; (5) Implementation; (6) Evaluation.9 The perception of LPM as a highly structured process favoured the term language planning as a global label for the discipline. But the reality of the matter was more complicated (Baldauf Jr. 1993). Even when the modes of planning were highly structured, the plans themselves were hardly implemented; and changes in government, financial crises, unexpected public opposition, reluctance among presumed implementers and ill-defined goals made it evident that successful plans were one thing while successful outcomes were quite another, and that more participatory models had to be designed. It’s true that the actual assessment of LPM processes is not common; but most examples (Teso/ Crolley 2013; Vila 2007) suggest that the implementation of LPM innovations is generally an uncommon practice.

9 Taking a slightly different approach, Boix/Vila (1998, 288) propose this order: (1) Problem selection; (2) Problem definition; (3) Formulating lines of action; (4) Implementation; (5) Evaluation; (6) End or reconceptualizing of action.

Language Policy, Management and Planning

65

LPM is carried out by means of LPM actions, activities or measures, whose nature varies according to the actors. Family LPM, for instance, uses one of the most powerful mechanisms of intervention in language, namely intergenerational transmission, which cannot be reached directly by states (Curdt-Christiansen 2013). Individuals can also contribute to LPM in extra-family spheres of life by a variety of actions, ranging from resisting official norms to demonstrating in favour of a given school model or lobbying. Macro-social institutional actors have at their disposal a wide array of LPM actions, including legislation, directives and judicial sentences (for official actors), and corporate norms (for companies). Some of these LPM activities are overt, in the sense that they are formally recorded in laws, minutes or corporate handbooks. The area of language law is especially devoted to the analysis of legal procedures for the regulation of linguistic issues (Kymlicka/Patten 2003; Vernet i Llobet/Pons i Parera 2003; Mercator). But many LPM actions derive from covert LPM, meaning language policy measures that are not explicit (e.g., organizing linguistically mixed military units so that recruits learn a given language) but have clear linguistic effects (Shohamy 2012).

5 LPM Social Purposes: a Need for Critical Analysis As the main vehicle for social interaction, languages are crucial for the organization of economies and social hierarchies (Bourdieu 1982; Lamuela 1994), and the importance of this role is increasing in informational, late-capitalist societies (Coupland 2010a; Duchêne/Heller 2012). Therefore, one might argue that LPM interventions are rarely exclusively linguistic (Cooper 1989). Given its ubiquity in social life, LPM can serve a myriad of social, political and economic purposes, and there is no one-to-one correspondence between LPM goals and these purposes. In some societies, language standardization and establishment have historically promoted social cohesion, equal opportunities, and socio-economic and cultural progress; in other arenas, however, they have facilitated exclusion, inequality, linguicide and even genocide (Mühlhäusler 2002). Simple dichotomies are especially dangerous: linguistic purism has been associated with authoritarian regimes, but also with modernization and decolonization (Thomas 1991); bilingualism may be a tool for social justice in some contexts but can promote linguistic imperialism in others (Phillipson 1992). To sum up, it is the local sociolinguistic context that will determine the ethical adequacy of a given language policy and there are no ready-made recipes for this. Genuinely critical awareness is essential for LPM analysis. Take the choice of official language in post-colonial Africa, for instance. In many African countries, the retention of a colonial language was once legitimized because it was argued to be ethnically “neutral” and international, and yet this barely masked the manner in which that language excluded most of the local communities and perpetuated coloni-

66

F. Xavier Vila

alism (Calvet 1974). At the same time, analysts should also beware of judging intentions instead of facts: many language planners have been honestly convinced that they were working exclusively for the benefit of local communities. The bottom line is that LPM analysis should strive for accuracy and equanimity, which it can achieve by making a genuine effort to understand both the discourse and the interests of the actors in a given LPM situation in their own linguistic ecosystem.

6 Final Considerations A time-honoured activity that coalesced into a scientific field in the 20th century, LPM attempts to influence the linguistic reality of a sphere of human life to achieve a variety of (extra-)linguistic ends. Although there is still no single theoretical paradigm to define LPM, considerable progress has been made and most contemporary authors agree that it is a complex socio-political activity for both its private and public actors, that it takes place in all types of societies, and that it should be analysed from both macro and micro approaches. While all LPM exert some sort of extra-linguistic impact, it is the analysts’ task to understand how a given constellation of actors, goals and final purposes interact to yield a particular result.

7 Bibliography Ager, Dennis E. (2001), Motivation in Language Planning and Language Policy, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Anderson, Benedict (1991), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London/New York, Verso. Aracil, Lluís Vicent (1980), A sociolingüística da experiencia e da acción: o modelo galego, in: Lluís Vicent Aracil et al. (edd.), Problemática das línguas sen normalizar. Situación do galego e alternativas, Ourense, Xistral, 19–33. Aracil, Lluís Vicent (1983), Sobre la situació minoritària, in: Lluís Vicent Aracil, Dir la realitat, Barcelona, Edicions Països Catalans, 171–206. Auroux, Sylvain (1994), La révolution technologique de la grammatisation. Introduction à l’histoire des sciences du langage, Liège, Mardaga. Baldauf Jr., Richard (1993), “Unplanned” language policy and planning, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14, 82–89. Blommaert, Jan (2010), The sociolinguistics of globalization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Boix i Fuster, Emili/Vila i Moreno, F. Xavier (1998), Sociolingüística de la llengua catalana, Barcelona, Ariel. Bourdieu, Pierre (1982), Ce que parler veut dire, Poitiers, Fayard; English translation (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, Harvard, Harvard University Press. Calvet, Louis-Jean (1974), Linguistique et colonialisme: petit traité de glottophagie, Paris, Payot. Calvet, Louis-Jean (1987), La guerre des langues et les politiques linguistiques, Paris, Payot. Ciscel, Matthew H. (2007), The Language of the Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and Identity in an exSoviet Republic, Lanham, MA, Lexington Books.

Language Policy, Management and Planning

67

Climent-Ferrando, Vicent (2005), The origins and evolution of language secessionism in Valencia. An analysis from the transition period until today, Barcelona, CIEMEN-Mercator, http://www. ciemen.cat/mercator/pdf/wp18-def-ang.pdf (05.09.2013) Cohen, Marcel (1956), Pour une sociologie du langage, Paris, Albin Michel. Cohen, Marcel (1973), Histoire d’une langue: le français, 4e édition revue et mise, Paris, Éditions sociales. Cooper, Robert L. (1989), Language Planning and Social Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Corbeil, Jean-Claude (2007), L’embarras des langues. Origine, conception et évolution de la politique québécoise, Montréal, Québec Amérique. Coupland, Nikolas (ed.) (2010a), The handbook of language and globalization, Chichester, WileyBlackwell. Coupland, Nikolas (2010b), Introduction: Sociolinguistics in the global era, in: Nikolas Coupland (ed.), The handbook of language and globalization, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 1–27. Curdt-Christiansen, Xiao Lan (ed.) (2013), Monograph: Family Language Policy, Language Policy 12, 1. Duchêne, Alexandre/Heller, Monica (edd.) (2012), Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit, New York, Routledge. Eastman, Carol M. (1983), Language Planning: An Introduction, Novato, CA, Chandler & Sharp Publishers, Incorporated. Edwards, John (2010), Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, Benjamins. Fishman, Joshua A. (1991), Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Fishman, Joshua A. (1994), Critiques of language planning: a minority languages perspective, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 15, 91–99. Fishman, Joshua A. (2001), Can Threatened Languages Be Saved?: Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Haugen, Einar (1983) The implementation of corpus Planning, in: Juan Cobarrubias/Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), Progress in language Planning, Berlin, Mouton, 269–290. Haugen, Einar (1987), Language Planning, in: Ulrich Ammon/Norbert Dittmar/Klaus J. Mattheier (edd.), Sociolinguistics – Soziolinguistik, vol. I, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 626–637. Hornberger, Nancy H. (2006), Frameworks and models in language policy and planning, in: Thomas Ricento (ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method, Malden, MA, et al., Blackwell, 24–41. Kaplan, Robert B./Baldauf Jr., Richard Birge (1997), Language Planning: From Practice to Theory, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Kloss, Heinz (21978 [1952]), Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen von 1800 bis 1950, [München, Pohl], Düsseldorf, Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Kymlicka, Will/Patten, Allan (ed.) (2003), Language rights and political theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lamuela, Xavier (1994), Estandardització i establiment de les llengües, Barcelona, Edicions 62. Lamuela, Xavier (1996), Planificación lingüística, in: Milagros Fernández Pérez (ed.), Avances en lingüística aplicada, Santiago de Compostela, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 229–302. Lamuela, Xavier (2004), Instal·lació o establiment? Encara sobre els objectius de la promoció lingüística, Caplletra 37, 217–244, http://descargas.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/ 12948323249041506321435/210354.pdf?incr=1 (05.09.2013). Marcellesi, Jean Baptiste/Gardin, Bernard (1974), Introduction à la sociolinguistique: la linguistique sociale. Langue et langage, Paris, Larousse.

68

F. Xavier Vila

Mercator. Linguistics Rights and Legislation, http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/Menu_nou/index. cfm?lg=gb (05.09.2013). Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/ (05.09.2013). Mühlhäusler, Peter (2002), Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Region, New York, Routledge. Nettle, David/Romaine, Suzanne (2000), Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Nic Pháidín, Caoilfhionn/ Ó Cearnaigh, Seán (2008), A New View of the Irish Language, Dublin, Cois Life Teoranta. Petit Robert = Rey, Alain/Rey-Debove, Josette (dir.) (1989), Le Petit Robert. Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française, Paris, Le Robert. Ricento, Thomas (2006), Language policy: Theory and practice – An introduction, in: Thomas Ricento (ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method, Malden, MA, et al., Blackwell, 10–23. Phillipson, Robert (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press. Rey, Alain/Duval, Frédéric/Siouffi, Gilles (2007), Mille ans de langue française. Histoire d’une passion, Paris, Perrin. Rubin, Joan/Jernudd, Björn H. (1971), Can Language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations, Honolulu, University Press of Hawaii. Sánchez Carrión “Txepetx”, José Maria (21987), Un futuro para nuestro pasado. Claves para la recuperación del Euskara y teoría social de las lenguas, San Sebastián, no publisher (Donostia, Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” y “Adorez eta Atseginez”, 1991), http://ebook browsee.net/txepetx-un-futuro-para-nuestro-pasado-pdf-d202893192 (05.09.2013). Shohamy, Elana (2012), Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches, London/New York, Routledge. Spolsky, Bernard (2004), Language Policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, Bernard (2009), Language Management, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, Bernard (2011a), Language Academies and Other Language Management Agencies, Language Policy 10, 4, 285–287 (doi:10.1007/s10993–011–9218–3). Spolsky, Bernard (ed.) (2011b), Monograph: Language Academies and Other Language Management Agencies, Language Policy 10, 4. Teso, Elena/Crolley, Liz (2013), Gender-based Linguistic Reform in International Organisations, Language Policy 12, 2, 139–158 (doi:10.1007/s10993–012–9241-z). Thomas, George (1991), Linguistic Purism, London/New York, Longman. Tollefson, James W. (1991), Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community, London/New York, Longman. Vernet i Llobet, Jaume/Pons i Parera, Eva (edd.) (2003), Dret lingüístic, Valls, Cossetània Edicions. Viana, Amadeu (ed.) (1995), Aspectes del pensament sociolingüístic europeu, Barcelona, Barcanova. Vila i Moreno, F. Xavier (dir.) (2007), Estudis d’implantació terminològica. Una aproximació en l’àmbit dels esports, Vic/Barcelona, EUMO Editorial; TERMCAT Centre de Terminologia. Vila i Moreno, F. Xavier (2012), Algunes bases per a la recerca sociolingüística en sentit ampli, in: F. Xavier Vila i Moreno (ed.), Posar-hi la base : usos i aprenentatges lingüístics en el domini català, Barcelona, Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 11–24, http://publicacions.iec.cat/Popula Fitxa.do?moduleName=novetats_editorials&subModuleName=&idCatalogacio=17208 (05.09.2013). Wee, Lionel (2011), Language Policy and Planning, in: James R. Simpson (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics, London, New York, Routledge, 11–23. Williams, Glyn (1992), Sociolinguistics: A Sociological Critique, London/New York, Routledge.

Kathleen C. Riley

4 Language Socialization Abstract: This chapter surveys the research that has been conducted on language socialization in the Romance world. It begins with an introduction to the concept of language socialization in general and Romance language socialization in particular. Next, it looks at how Romance languages have been incorporated into the everyday lives of communities around the world and how language ideologies and socializing practices have had an impact on the transmission and transformation of these languages and the communicative competence and cultural knowledge associated with them (i.e., the language-culture complex) in both monolingual and multilingual contexts. The final section reviews research that identifies how discourse participation in socialization contexts contributes to the construction of social identities and social organization in the Romance language-speaking world. The conclusion presents a plea for further study of language socialization in the Romance world. Keywords: language socialization, language-culture complex, communicative competence, multilingualism, language ideologies

1 Toward a Definition of Romance Language Socialization Language socialization is the study of how communicative resources and strategies are acquired in culturally specific ways as well as how cultural knowledge and practices are acquired via language-specific interactions. Thus, the study of language socialization with reference to a specific language family requires that we look not only at how communicative forms are acquired as a result of the routine social interactions found within the cultural communities associated with this language family, but also at how the cultural knowledge signalled by the languages and their associated communicative practices are acquired through the everyday interactions carried out through these languages in these sociocultural contexts. In other words, studying Romance language socialization requires that we study not only the socialization of Romance languages but also of the Romance language-culture complex – i.e., the forms of communicative competence and cultural knowledge and practice associated with the entire Romance language family. However, before surveying studies of Romance language socialization, I provide in this section a short introduction to the literature on language socialization in general. In a series of jointly and individually authored publications spanning a quarter century, Ochs and Schieffelin have formulated the concept of language socialization as the mutual acquisition by individuals of language and culture via socioculturally

70

Kathleen C. Riley

embedded interactions (Ochs/Schieffelin 1984; 2012). The foci, theoretical frameworks, and methodologies of language socialization resulted from a cross-fertilization between psycholinguistic studies of language acquisition, anthropological studies of socialization, and sociolinguistic studies of the use of language in context. The psycholinguistic program for studying child language acquisition was based on the Chomskyan structuralist tenet of linguistic universality. However, some psycholinguistic researchers (cf. Slobin 1985–1997) turned to studying language acquisition cross-linguistically, attending not only to universal regularities but also to sociolinguistic variation in how children acquire particular linguistic forms and map them onto particular social meanings and practices. Ochs/Schieffelin (1979) applied the term “developmental pragmatics” to this study of how children learn not only the phonological and morphosyntactic structures of a language (Chomsky’s linguistic competence), but also how to use them in contextually appropriate ways (Hymes’ communicative competence).Then, in their seminal comparison of American, Samoan, and Kaluli language socialization routines, Ochs/Schieffelin (1984) explained the theoretical need to highlight the fact that children acquire not only linguistic resources and the ability to use them, but also a lot of other cultural knowledge that not only facilitates the acquisition of communicative competence but is itself also learned via culture-specific socialization practices. This theoretical development drew on earlier anthropological studies of socialization, yet critiqued these earlier studies for not having studied the acquisition of sociocultural knowledge and practices in sufficiently situated or micro-interactive detail. Thus, for the study of language socialization, Ochs/Schieffelin borrowed methods from linguistic anthropology (particularly the ethnography of communication and conversational analysis) to study these two interwoven processes: 1) socialization as a dynamic and language-rich process and 2) acquisition of communicative competence as a culturally coded experience. This paradigm could be (and has been) criticized for attempting to encompass and account for far too many variables and processes with far too little available data. First of all, from the perspective of conversational analysis (↗2 Research Methods), language socialization researchers appear to be imposing their own cultural frameworks when interpreting social actors’ intentions and motivations. To this critique, language socialization researchers reply that conversational analysis is mired by its own research agenda (that of analyzing how socially normative effects are achieved through routine interactions within the researchers’ own culture) and thus do not perceive the absolute necessity of teasing out cultural presuppositions when analyzing how “normal” is achieved (and socialized) against unfamiliar sociocultural backdrops. If one never applies the cultural knowledge one has learned through long-term participant observation to the analysis of a given interaction, one would be unable to function in that society as any good anthropologist comes to do. Similarly, from a psycholinguistic perspective, the data offered by language socialization researchers is sometimes considered insufficient because so much is made out of very small samples

Language Socialization

71

of transcribed interactions. The response to this is that these samples provide specific illustrations of the sorts of interactions that the researcher has come to recognize over the course of long-term ethnographic observation within a wide range of social settings (i.e., the tip of a much larger iceberg that has been analyzed but cannot all be published). Secondly, sometimes the most significant interactions do not occur frequently but, when they do, have clear consequences within the sociocultural contexts that the researcher has come to know well. Since its inception and despite these critiques, the language socialization paradigm has inspired a new generation of avid researchers, who have produced an array of articles and monographs (those looking at Romance languages will be referenced in this chapter). As much of this more recent research makes clear, the paradigm has been influenced by scholars’ developing interests in a range of semiotic forms and forces from non-verbal communication and creativity to symbolic domination and transnationalism. As a result, Ochs and Schieffelin have expanded and refined the concept most recently as follows: “Two important features distinguish language socialization as theoretical inquiry: 1) an analytic focus on speech, writing, gesture, images, music, and other signs as primary means and endpoints of the socialization process and 2) an ethnographic sensibility that accounts for the socializing force of these semiotic resources in terms of enduring and shifting socioculturally meaningful practices, events, situations, institutions, relationships, emotions, aesthetics, moralities, bodies of knowledge, and ideologies” (Ochs/Schieffelin 2012, 10s.).

This evolving definition of language socialization accounts for at least some of the following. First the term “language” has been expanded to include a wide range of expressive forms from music and dance to sign language and literacy. These “languages” are understood to be complex not only in the sense reserved by Chomsky for purely linguistic systems (i.e., as integrated systems of sub-systems – phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic), but that even those communicative systems “lacking” this form of complexity are rich in other resources and formal juxtapositions. They are complex first of all because they operate as pragmatic communicative forms within a wide array of social contexts that engage participants (human and non-human – animals, computers, spirits…) in varying moods, roles, relationships, and institutions. They are also complex because they mediate and are mediated by culture – that is they transmit and organize cultural knowledge while they are also themselves structured and facilitated by cultural practices. Perhaps most importantly, they are complex in the sense that they are not fixed and homogenous but are acquired along the fluid terrain between youth and age, gender and sexuality, social class and ethnicity, as well as regional and national frontiers. Thus, socialization may be partially understood in the traditional sense as a process of social cohesion – i.e., the means by which one generation teaches the next to understand, respect, conserve, and transmit the wisdom of the ancestors. However, socialization must also be understood as the dialogic means by which newcomers

72

Kathleen C. Riley

transform what is imparted by more knowledgeable others within liminal zones of contact. In other words, language socialization studies now probe multilingual and multimodal interactions within multi-sited and multicultural contexts by participants of all ages engaged in learning any number of practices. The strengths of such a research agenda become particularly evident when applying it to the study of a whole language family as such a study allows for the possibility of seeking commonalities at both cultural and linguistic levels and creating hypotheses about the historical transmission of similar yet transformed versions of a languageculture complex. For instance, in looking at the socialization of the French-Polynesian language-culture complex in the Marquesas, I have been interested first of all in the impact of French and Polynesian cultures on the acquisition process of the two languages – particularly, the ways in which French language ideologies about how languages should be learned and maintained (↗27 France) are affecting the structure of the French being acquired as well as how these language ideologies affect the socialization and maintenance of Marquesan as a community language (Riley 2001; 2007). Secondly, I am looking at the impact of local interactions in the two languages on the acquisition of cultural knowledge and practices, particularly how the foodways children are presently acquiring represent a syncretic fusion of French-Polynesian ways of producing, preparing, consuming, and talking about their food (Riley 2012). Thus, through this survey of how Romance language socialization has been studied, I hope to encourage future studies that may illuminate the diachronic spread and transformation of the Romance language-culture complex. First, I contrast monolingual and multilingual speech communities and look at the acquisition of various communicative acts, genres, and registers within the Romance language-speaking world. Within this section I also consider the cultural knowledge transmitted and/or organized by these forms in specific communities of practice and identify how shifting socialization practices and ideologies affect the maintenance and/or loss of specific languages and linguistic forms. Secondly, I examine the socializing role played by various participatory frameworks, stances, and strategies found throughout the Romance language world and explore how these affect the social identities and subjectivities, relationships and hierarchies indexed and constructed within the Romance language-culture complex.

2 Socializing Communicative Competence and Cultural Knowledge within the Romance Language-Culture Complex As explained above, the language socialization paradigm requires that the researcher study not only the socialization of a language but also the socialization of an entire language-culture complex. Thus, when considering the patterns of socialization

Language Socialization

73

found within an entire language family, one must also study the socialization of the communicative competence and cultural knowledge and practices associated with the entire language-culture family complex. Even more complicated, one must consider the effects of these language-culture family complexes not only in monolingual contexts – i.e., those in which one language from the language family supplies the primary medium of communication – but also in a range of multilingual societies in which the language-culture family complex has had an impact (↗5 Languages and Identities). Thus, for the purposes of this survey, the Romance language-culture complex will be understood to refer to multilingual as well as monolingual communities in which one or more Romance languages is being socialized, including standardized registers of the Romance language(s), non-standard dialects, creoles based on Romance languages, and code-switching codes involving a Romance language. However, I begin this section with a consideration of language socialization studies within primarily monolingual Romance settings.

2.1 Romance Language Socialization within Monolingual Contexts Language socialization studies that ethnographically analyze the development by young children of linguistic competence in domestic settings within the Romance language-speaking world are almost non-existent. This is due to the fact that the paradigm was first applied by Anglophone researchers to their own monolingual societies and to non-Indo-European cultures and was only more recently adopted by researchers for whom multilingualism is a de facto backdrop as well as an integral focus of their studies. However, several researchers have focused on how children acquire at home the pragmatic forms and cultural values appropriate to a specific monolingual and monocultural (Romance language) context. Additionally, a few studies have highlighted the development and usage of specific registers, genres, stances, and identities by adolescents outside of the home in monolingual Romance language settings. Monolingual Romance language socialization studies of children at home have been conducted in Italy and France by videotaping family discourse before, during, and after meals, and contextualizing its micro-analysis through the collection of ethnographic data via participant observation and in-depth interviews. My own study (Riley 2004) in a privileged suburb west of Paris focused on the socializing routines through which bourgeois children are taught to be well-behaved in their comportment while also ready to se débrouiller – i.e., to find ways around obstacles in a highly structured society. The Italian studies have looked at the socialization of specific cultural ideals and behaviours: e.g., how children learn the value of cleaning house (Fasulo/Loyd/Padiglione 2007) and how they develop their taste for a variety of foods (Ochs/Pontecorvo/Fasulo 1996). Other articles from the Italian research project focus on the acquisition of communicative competence: e.g., how during dinner, when talk becomes the sole entertainment, language games – riddles, poetic rhyming, and folk-

74

Kathleen C. Riley

tale like forms – are used to socialize children into doing casual adult conversation (Fasulo/Liberati/Pontecorvo 2002) and how discussions of “normative transgressions” teach children to contribute to the discursive shaping of the family’s moral order (Pontecorvo/Fasul/Sterponi 2001). In addition to these monolingual socialization studies of children in the home, one finds studies in schools, religious institutions, and youth centres that are constituted as monolingual spaces although the participants in these studies may themselves be bi- or trilingual. For instance, Trimaille (2003) took a language socialization approach to studying the linguistic practices of adolescents (mostly of north African ancestry) at a youth centre in Grenoble, investigating the role of horizontal (i.e., peer) as well as vertical (i.e., adult-to-child) socialization to look at the French ideologies of proper speech and behaviour which these adolescents socialize each other to resist. Vertical socialization is particularly strong in settings where school or school-like interactions between adults and children occur. For instance, Baquedano-López (1997; 2008) analyzes how teachers in Spanish-language classes devoted to Catholic religious training in Mexican communities in California entice children into an acquisition of religious knowledge through doctrina narratives. She discusses how children are socialized to incorporate not only the memorized words of sacred texts such as the Acts of Contrition but also a moral vision whose historical roots can be traced from Spanish colonization in the Americas on through the immigrant diaspora in the US today. However, horizontal socialization still plays a key role as children prove themselves as capable as adults of producing and reproducing ways of speaking and thinking about the Romance language-culture complex they inhabit. For instance, in García-Sánchez’s study in southern Spain (2012), Spanish school children play an instrumental role in interactively constructing the stigma that Moroccan children experience in the classroom (a stigma that the teachers, sometimes despite themselves, support through their distribution of attention and punishment). In all of these cases, Romance-language interactions become the vehicles of three forms of cultural knowledge and behaviours associated with Romance language-culture complexes – i.e., language ideologies concerning proper speech, the belief system and practices of the Catholic Church, and finally the centuries-old resistance to Islam in Western Europe. Many multilingual studies involving Romance languages probe these same issues of social positioning and identity construction, questions that will be discussed at more length in the third section of this chapter. But the focus of the rest of the present section is on how language ideologies affect language socializing practices which in turn influence if and how languages are acquired, maintained, or lost by individuals and whole speech communities. First of all, language ideologies that create a hierarchy of dominance due to historical, economic, and political factors (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) have an impact on which languages are valued how and thus to what degree they are used and maintained. Secondly, language ideologies about child-rearing and language-learning have a large impact on how children are engaged in acquiring and passing these languages on to the next generation.

Language Socialization

75

2.2 Socialization and Language Shifts in the Romance Language-Speaking World To appreciate the complex relationship between language ideologies, language practices, language socialization, and language shift in the Romance language-speaking world, it is important to consider the power dynamics between Romance and other languages in multilingual contexts. First of all, due to the history of European imperialism, Romance languages frequently play the role of the dominant or “high” language in many communities. For example, Spain’s early colonial conquests and long-term control in much of the new world created a context in which Spanish is now the official language in a number of countries where language socialization studies have been conducted: Mexico (Augsburger 2004), Guatamala (Reynolds 2008), Bolivia (Luykx 2003), and Chilean-ruled Rapa Nui (Makihara 2005). Similarly, due to France’s nearly 500-year colonial history, French is now the official language in a number of language socialization study sites: the Marquesas of French Polynesia (Riley 2007), Montreal (Lamarre/Rossell Paredes 2003), Cameroon (Moore 1999), and Haiti (Doucet 2003). However, the dominance of these languages in both post- and on-going colonial settings (↗20 French) does not always follow so simply from military conquest: the assumed prestige of colonial languages may be challenged by indigenous languages (e.g., in Rapa Nui, the Marquesas, and Mexico), while the prestige may be also even more seriously undermined by other global languages (e.g., Arabic in Cameroon and English in Montreal). In these cases, their continued dominance is due to the market value of these Romance languages – i.e., knowing French or Spanish is still an asset when seeking a job at national and international levels – as well as to deeply embedded institutional support at the national level (e.g., schooling and media). However, Romance languages are not always in the dominant position, as is evidenced by language socialization research conducted among Spanish-speaking Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in the US, French Canadians in Vermont and Canada, as well as French-based creole-speakers in Dominica, St. Lucia, and NYC. Most of these cases have resulted from immigration into countries where English is the official language (de facto or de jure); however, several are the result of secondary colonization by the British following French colonization (Canada, Dominica, and St. Lucia). Either way, the presence of English as the power code leads to linguistic shifts – e.g., to structural transformations in the Spanish learned by Puerto Ricans in New York (Zentella 1997) or to the total loss of the French heritage language within a single generation by French Canadian immigrants to Vermont (Williams/Riley 2001) – as well as to some pragmatic shifts in the ways in which these languages are used. For instance, in St. Lucia, children are socialized to curse in the French-based creole as a means of self-defence (Garrett 2005), while in US homes Spanish is used to teach Mexican children about teasing (Eisenberg 1986) and Haitian Kreyòl is used to support children’s acquisition of both French and English (Schieffelin 1994). Sometimes two

76

Kathleen C. Riley

Romance languages are found in the same context – e.g., French and Kreyòl (a French-based creole) in Haiti (Doucet 2003), Portuguese and French in Portuguese immigrant communities in France (Koven 2007), Corsican and French in France (Jaffe 2009), Kréyol and French in Guadeloupe (Tessoneau 2005), Catalan (↗19 Catalan) along with Castilian and several South American varieties of Spanish in Catalonia (Corona/Nussbaum/Unamuno 2013; Woolard 1997), Bergamesco and standard Italian in Italy (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions) (Cavanaugh 2006), and Nones and Trentino as well as standard Italian in Italy (Fellin 2002). In these cases, it is not always clear which Romance language holds more prestige as different forms of symbolic capital accrue to each in different ways. But one key factor is that nationstates in the Romance world have tended to choose, standardize, and impose one of the regional codes as both symbol and medium for centralizing elite power (e.g., Islede-France French in France, north-central Castilian in Spain, and the Italian of Dante and Florence in Italy). Additionally, these codes have achieved prestige as the media of global policies and internationally recognized bodies of literature. However, some of the tension over dominance between languages in multilingual settings involving Romance languages results from the recent rise of world movements to revalue and revitalize regional languages. In the Romance language world this ranges from the codes of erstwhile empires, as in the case of Catalan, to the codes constructed out of historic struggles of liberation, as in the case of Haitian Kreyòl. Doucet (2003) has produced an excellent study of the ideological tensions between the global power of French and the in-group (sometimes essentialized) power of Kreyòl. In particular, she explores the impact of these attitudes on the socializing practices of teachers and on the children’s acquisition of these two languages since the introduction of Kreyòl into schools as both an object and medium of pedagogy. Similarly, Jaffe (2009) demonstrates the socialization consequences of a power struggle between an imperial language (French) and a regional Romance language (Corsican); she has been particularly interested in the effects of this struggle in both the schools where Corsican has been claiming its place and among adult learners who are working to revitalize the language. Other identity issues play a role in the relationship between language ideologies and language socialization, which in turn influence language shift. For instance, both in Bergamo (Cavanaugh 2006) and in the Marquesas (Riley 2001), the languages are gendered such that the local ones (Bergamasco and Marquesan respectively) are associated with maleness whereas the dominant codes are associated with women. As a result, mothers and grandmothers, in the course of expressing their femininity, socialize children into the dominant code, and this despite the critique of the men who are the ones driving the revival movements in these areas. However, this gendered arrangement between an indigenous and a Romance language is not the only possibility as demonstrated by Luykx’s analysis (2003) in Bolivia where men are Spanish-dominant and women Aymara-dominant and children learn to role-play the gendered code distinction appropriately. However, as Woolard’s research in Catalonia

Language Socialization

77

shows, gendered language shift is not always driven by vertical socialization practices. In this case, gendered friendship patterns may influence the language choices that adolescents make as well as their differential acquisition of linguistic repertoires and social identities, with boys sometimes shifting to primarily Catalan and girls maintaining bilingual competence (Woolard 1997). Ethnic identity (↗5 Languages and Identities) also influences which languages children learn and how they learn to use them. In both Barcelona and New York City, new bilingual practices and code-switching codes are being constructed as a result of the socializing experiences of Spanish-speakers in their families, neighbourhoods, and schools in cities where another language is official. In NYC, Zentella (1997) studied how household structure, family employment, patterns of migration, and attitudes to do with Puerto Rican identity affect the socialization practices that produce competency in several Spanish varieties and the code-switching code referred to as Spanglish. In Barcelona, immigrant children from South America (and even elsewhere) engage in peer socialization practices that have constructed a “Latino” mix of the Spanish varieties spoken in Latin America while highlighting several features that distinguish their speech from the Castilian spoken in Catalan, even as they also acquire Catalan as the school code (Corona/Nussbaum/Unamuno 2013). Strong affiliation with a local identity indexed by a particular code can also shape the socializing practices displayed by parents and teachers. For instance, in northern Italy teachers would normally address children using the official authority code, but would resort to the regional dialect Nones when the children were not otherwise responsive. Socializing usage of this sort contributes not only to the maintenance of the language but also to the ideologies concerning the value of the language and the necessity of maintaining it (Fellin 2002). In Corsica, children and teachers are influenced by shifting language ideologies to engage in pedagogical practices (both real by the teacher and role-played by the children) that reflect the increased value of Corsican for use in formal settings, while also threatening to undermine its solidarity function now that it is being used in domains once reserved for French (Jaffe 2009). In other words, whether Romance languages play the dominant or subordinate role in a speech community has a profound impact on whether or not community members will acquire them as children, use them as adults, lobby for their use in schools and other socialization contexts, and thus transmit them to their offspring. On the one hand, children can be very sensitive to the perceived power of a language spoken within their hearing and will reach out to absorb those codes that clearly have cachet while ignoring those that appear to be useless. On the other hand, the messages that adults transmit about the languages as they use them in the presence of children are also influenced by local ideologies about child-rearing and languagelearning (cf. Paugh 2012b; Augsburger 2004). Many cultures display the belief that children will learn skills and knowledge as a result of what is referred to as legitimate peripheral participation – i.e., learning through observation and eventual participation and this in the absence of direct

78

Kathleen C. Riley

instruction. For example, in the Mandara Mountains of Cameroon, Moore examined how local strategies for learning multiple languages included peripheral participation as well as code-switching for translation purposes and informal private interaction with a competent speaker, all of which practices were absolutely disallowed in the French-language schooling context (Moore 1999). As in many other Romance language-speaking contexts, school children in Cameroon are expected to learn French via adult instruction and public correction while any usage of the local language by children to discuss the teacher’s intended instruction is punished. Communities also differ in their beliefs about whether languages grow out of children naturally (as if innate), are actively learned by the individual, or must be purposefully taught by caregivers (Augsburger 2004). Again it appears that speakers of Romance languages seem to have adopted, along with their languages, the ideology that language needs to be explicitly taught. That is, “proper” caregivers never allow “nature” to take its course, but frequently provide guidance in a more or less “school-book” format: self-consciously teaching babies the association between words and things, correcting grammar and pronunciation very early, etc. This “teacherly” approach along with the relative lack of legitimate peripheral participation as a socialization strategy in the Romance language world may be linked to the long history of Latin-language, text-based schooling in Europe (↗9 Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell), routines which have in turn been spread throughout much of the world via colonial and missionary educational systems (↗7 Children’s Multimodal Language Development). Additionally, a couple of cultural values thread their way through many of the Romance language socialization studies. First is the idea that adults deserve respect and thus children should speak to their parents as they are taught to (this by contrast with the more child-centric, live-and-let-learn ethos found in mainstream AngloSaxon cultures). Among Puerto Ricans in NYC, “respeto” should be delivered in Spanish, even though this is the subordinate language, a pattern that supports the maintenance of this language (Zentella 1997). One also finds in some Romance language settings the belief that the Romance language is a necessary underpinning to the Catholic faith and thus in need of being taught and preserved along with the faith either in the home – e.g., in Vermont where the command “Français à la maison!” was a ubiquitous socializing routine (Williams/Riley 2001) – or in religious school – e.g., the exclusive use of Spanish in Mexican doctrina schools in California (Baquedano-López 1997). Again, these notions seem embedded in the Romance language-culture complex, the result of the fact that these vernacular languages and their related cultural values all blossomed out of the Holy Roman Empire. But regardless of whether a Romance language is in a dominant or subordinate position, there is no way to absolutely predict whether the Romance language will be maintained or extinguished. In cases where the Romance language is clearly dominant, it is frequently believed that the local language (whether regional, indigenous or creole) will be “naturally” reproduced whereas the Romance language must be

Language Socialization

79

explicitly “taught”, a belief that leads to the loss of the local language in many contexts – e.g., the on-going shift from Zapotec to Spanish in Mexico (Augsburger 2004). Yet this is not always the case as in Cameroon (Moore 1999; 2012) where children rarely emerge from French-medium schools with any real linguistic competence due to the disconnect between local second-language acquisition strategies and the methods imposed at school (Moore 1999). And in still other cases such as Rapa Nui, where Spanish is dominant and gaining ground through schooling, some successful push-back from local powerbrokers has revitalized the local Polynesian language (or at least a Spanish-Rapa Nui syncretic code) through means other than schooling – i.e., through the pragmatic and everyday use of the language for political and locally significant functions (Makihara 2005). By contrast, in the Marquesas, attempts to maintain the Polynesian language have been to some degree stymied by French language ideologies acquired at school along with the French language: shamed for their incorrect usage, some children are discouraged from acquiring active competence in their home language (Riley 2007). In cases where the Romance language is subordinate to English, the outcome is perhaps more predictable. In Montreal, French was effectively reinstated as an official code through language legislation, Loi 101 (passed in 1977), and the schooling and linguistic environment that resulted from this legislation (Lamarre/Rossell Paredes 2003); in clear contrast, English-only ideologies and schooling practices effectively quashed this same language across the US border in Vermont (Williams/Riley 2001). However, sometimes the subordinate Romance language is retained as a community tongue despite messages transmitted by the parents about the need to learn the dominant language and the assumption that the children will just pick up the local language. Thus, varieties of Spanish have been retained in NYC Puerto Rican communities over several generations due to circular migration patterns that keep infusing established communities with new linguistic juice (Zentella 1997). And in Dominica the English-only policies at school, replicated by parents at home, seem only to inspire the children to seek out times and places to use, and thus preserve, Patwa (the French-based creole) among themselves (Paugh 2012a). This concludes my review of the research that studies the socialization of Romance languages, some of the cultural values associated with those languages, and some of the linguistic consequences of the relationship between these ideologies and languages. I turn now to the communicative patterns and constructions of identity that have been studied using a language socialization paradigm within the Romance language-culture complex.

80

Kathleen C. Riley

3 Communicative Acts, Stances, and Subjectivities in the Romance Language-Speaking World Language-culture complexes help shape not only what communicative forms and cultural meanings are socialized but also the metapragmatic socializing routines that contribute to specific ways of understanding and constructing social relations (hierarchy, equality, independence, interdependence…) and how to interact with others based on those relations. Notions of politeness, respect, assertion, etc., affect not only how people communicate but also how they communicate who they are in relationship to others. Also, specific language socialization practices influence the acquisition of forms of competence – from insults to literacy – with which people learn to negotiate their sociocultural identities (↗5 Languages and Identities). First of all, a range of socialization practices in Romance language-culture areas contribute to individuals’ understandings and enactments of age and authority. In one comparative study of working-class French and immigrant Wolof-speaking mothers, Rabain-Jamin/Sabeau-Jouannet (1997) discovered some interesting parallels to the practices and presumed rationales that Ochs/Schieffelin (1984) claim distinguish white American middle-class mothers from Kaluli and Samoan mothers. In both cases, the Western mothers put some physical space between themselves and their infants, engaged them in dyadic exchanges based on verbal communicative acts (though the babies were too young to respond), directed them with suggestions rather than imperatives, and adjusted empathetically to the babies’ perspective. By contrast, the non-Western mothers socialized the babies to attend to others rather than expecting the social world to revolve around them. Furthermore, some language socialization studies conducted in multilingual settings have revealed suggestive forms of play between the “overt” authority of colonial Romance languages and the “covert” power of local languages – e.g., baby talk registers are sometimes derived from the dominant Romance language (Augsburger 2004; Riley 2001) while the officially subordinate language is used as the code of domestic authority when the “softer” reprimand in the dominant Romance code is ignored. For example, Nones is used in Italy even by parents who claim that they socialize their children in standard Italian (Fellin 2002). Some studies have also revealed that the indigenous language will be used for simple imperatives whereas the colonial Romance language is used for explanations or commands that require verbal responses (Riley 2001; Augsburger 2004). Cultures throughout the world (Romance and non-Romance) make use of guided repetition in various forms to instil linguistic forms and pragmatic stances (Moore 2012). And in multilingual contexts, children may be instructed in any of the languages available using “say-it” routines or sent on errands carrying verbal messages to others (Riley 2001; Augsburger 2004). In Cameroon, the children may even be asked to deliver messages in languages they do not yet speak (they are coached by adults to

Language Socialization

81

memorize the text word-for-word), although never in French (Moore 1999). However, in the guided repetition of etiquette forms, one sees some interesting distinctions between the use of Romance and non-Romance languages. As mentioned above, Romance languages may be associated with “respect” and therefore with expressions of etiquette. For example, in Guadeloupe, children are taught very early to use French – or a form of Kréyol that is as close as possible to French – to greet adults: “Bonjour, Monsieur” with eyes lowered (Tessoneau 2005). In the Marquesas, say-it routines are used to elicit performances of French politeness routines – e.g., “Dis: ‘Merci, Madame’”. However, there are several pan-Pacific politeness rituals that existed prior to French colonization which may be prompted with Marquesan – e.g., “Ta’a: Memai, kaikai!” (‘Call: Come, eat!’). Interestingly, these do not tend to index (and therefore reinforce) social hierarchy. By contrast, Polynesian linguistic forms that signal a speaker’s subordinate status are not taught through direct instruction. In fact, only through careful transcription was I able to identify the existence of the politeness forms used in everyday conversation – e.g., small particles such as aia (when said in a soft, sing-song way means approximately ‘please’ to someone who has the power to give) and a’e (inserted mid-sentence to ask respectfully); although my assistants were able to assign social meanings to these expressions, they had not consciously thought about them before, much less thought to teach their children to say them. In other words, Romance languages do not always corner the market on etiquette and respect; it is simply that, where these languages exist, they are associated with forms of politeness that signal and socialize children into an understanding of the social consequences of age and authority (and sometimes colonial status – e.g., using “Madame” for any European woman in the Marquesas). Language socialization studies have also frequently focused on the use of teasing routines to teach children to assert or defend their place in the social order. And since the dominant language is reserved for polite conversation in multilingual settings, the subordinate language is frequently employed for both teasing and assertive responses to the teasing. Thus, teasing, which includes intimate joking, shaming, and rude insults, tends to take place in the domestic code, regardless of whether this code is an indigenous language, a Romance language, or a creole – e.g., Zapotec in Mexico (Augsburger 2004), Marquesan in the Marquesas (Riley 2001), Spanish in the US (Eisenberg 1986; Zentella 1997), Kwéyòl in St. Lucia (Garrett 2005), Patwa in Dominica (Paugh 2012a), or Kréyol in Guadeloupe (Tessoneau 2005). Sometimes, rather than assuming that these “rude” speech acts are being unconsciously acquired and produced by innocent children for the adults’ entertainment, researchers have begun to look at how children sometimes strategically transform playful teasing into actual face-threatening acts, usually in the interest of appropriating adult-like forms of power (Reynolds 2008; Paugh 2012a). Clearly, global immigration has created Romance language-culture contexts in which children are socialized to manage, camouflage, resist, or celebrate a social status based on ethnicity. A number of studies surveyed by Baquedano-López/Man-

82

Kathleen C. Riley

gual Figueroa (2012) discuss the socialization practices in home and school settings that engage Latino children and adolescents in learning to use Spanish in strategic ways in the US, sometimes for pragmatic reasons and sometimes in the interest of social identity construction. One key example is Zentella’s study (1997) of bilingual socialization practices among Puerto Ricans in El Barrio, NYC, and their consequences for the production of the code-switching code Spanglish as well as the hybrid Nuyorican identity. Other socializing practices give rise to Latino children capable of operating with great competency as translators for their immigrant parents while nonetheless sometimes “failing” at school (Orellana/Reynolds 2008). South American immigrant children in Barcelona schools can also be seen to be co-constructing through peer socialization novel linguistic repertoires for the expression of new and distinctive identities (Corona/Nussbaum/Unamuno 2013). And in the case of southern Spain (García-Sánchez 2012), Spanish-speaking children adopt authority positions, exclude immigrant children, and influence perceptions of social identity (i.e., the teacher’s negative perceptions of the Moroccan children). In her work with the immigrant Luso-French community in Portugal and France, Koven (2007) provides intriguing insights into the biographical factors that lead speakers to enact different “selves” depending on the language used and the sociolinguistic context of performance. Similarly, Trimaille (2003) analyses how North African adolescents in Grenoble acquire an array of linguistic resources to resist mainstream integration. And Loyd (2011) examines the ways in which girls in Naples, Italy, are socialized by peers and older women into “rhetorical practices of resilience” to deal with the urban poverty all around them, practices that may protect them in immediate contexts, but also help fix them within the structural inequalities into which they have been born. In many multilingual societies, acquiring the competency to choose one language rather than another depending on the context or to engage in fluent conversational code-switching represents a powerful resource. As Garrett (2007) explains in reference to bilingual English-Kwéyòl children in St. Lucia, code-switching can be used not only to negotiate one’s stance within a particular play frame, but also to construct one’s identity or subjectivity – in these cases a bilingual subjectivity. Similarly Paugh (20012a) examines how children can use multiple codes (English and Patwa – a French-based creole) during play to implement local discursive moves – i.e., to organize and negotiate social roles within the play session – while also reflecting (and thus contributing to the creation of) macro-social meanings of the codes being used. For these children, Patwa comes out when role-playing farmers or bus-drivers whereas English is used when representing teachers, but also to take discursive charge of the play setting. Similarly, Kyratzis (2010) shows how Mexican and Mexican-American pre-school girls use Spanish for domestic play frames and English to engage in play about consumer culture; however, both codes become tools for the girls to manipulate the participatory structure – i.e., who is or is not included in the play frame. Such socializing practices have consequences not only for children’s

Language Socialization

83

acquisition of languages as discussed in the previous section, but also for their abilities to use language to construct strategic conversational stances and effective social identities for themselves. Finally, as Sterponi’s (2012) review reveals, few literacy socialization studies have been conducted in monolingual Romance language settings, which is unfortunate given the roots of Western literacy in Latin beliefs and practices, spread throughout the Roman Empire and from thence to the rest of the colonized world. However, a growing number of studies of the socialization of literacy have been conducted in multilingual settings involving Romance languages (e.g., Doucet 2003; Poveda/Cano/PalomaresValera 2005; Jaffe 2009; Moore 2012); and Latin-based ideologies about literacy are certainly evident in these contexts. As in other instances where the Romance languages have more cultural capital as media of colonizing powers, the written forms of these languages, usually propagated in school settings, also index a form of symbolic force that can impel whole speech communities to feel insecure and incompetent. On the other hand, they may become resources that children and other novices appropriate and/or resist as agents in their own globalizing game. This topic has yet to be fully explored.

4 Conclusion: Future Studies of Romance Language Socialization What this brief review reveals is that Romance language socialization has been understudied and under-theorized and deserves much more attention. Such studies would be valuable not only because the Romance languages represent a wide and interesting spectrum of linguistic forms, but also because the cultures with which they are articulated have had such a wide impact on the ways in which humans communicate in the world today. A variety of interesting questions have been raised by the studies reviewed in this chapter; however, new research is needed to fully understand how the Romance languages and their associated cultures – the Romance language-culture complex as a whole – affect the processes by which individuals and communities of practice develop communicative skills and strategic resources in linguistically and culturally specific ways.

5 Bibliography Augsburger, Deborah (2004), Language socialization and shift in an Isthmus Zapotec community of Mexico, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Baquedano-López, Patricia (1997), Creating Social Identities through “Doctrina” Narratives, Issues in Applied Linguistics 8/1, 27–45.

84

Kathleen C. Riley

Baquedano-López, Patricia (2008), The Pragmatics of Reading Prayers: Learning the Act of Contrition in Spanish-Based Religious Education Classes (Doctrina), Text & Talk 28/5, 581–602. Baquedano-López, Patricia/Mangual Figueroa, Ariana (2012), Language Socialization and Immigration, in: Alessandro Duranti/Elinor Ochs/Bambi B. Schieffelin (edd.), The Handbook of Language Socialization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 536–563. Cavanaugh, Jillian (2006), Little Women and Vital Champions: Gendered Language Shift in a Northern Italian Town, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 16/2, 194–210. Corona, Víctor/Nussbaum, Luci/Unamuno, Virginia (2013), The emergence of new linguistic repertoires among Barcelona’s youth of Latin American origin, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16/2, 182–194. Doucet, Rachelle C. (2003), Language ideology, socialization and pedagogy in Haitian schools and society, PhD dissertation, New York University. Eisenberg, Ann R. (1986), Teasing: verbal play in two Mexicano homes, in: Bambi B. Schieffelin/Elinor Ochs (edd.), Language Socialization across Cultures, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 182–198. Fasulo, Alessandra/Liberati, Vivian/Pontecorvo, Clotilde (2002), Language games in the strict sense of the term: children’s poetics and conversation, in: Shoshana Blum-Kulka/Catherine E. Snow (edd.), Talking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 209–237. Fasulo, Alessandra/Loyd, Heather/Padiglione, Vincenzo (2007), Children’s socialization into cleaning practices: a cross-cultural perspective, Discourse and Society 18/1, 11–33. Fellin, Luciana (2002), Language ideologies, language socialization and language revival in an Italian Alpine community, Texas Linguistic Forum 45, 46–57. García-Sánchez, Inmaculada M. (2012), Language Socialization and Exclusion, in: Alessandro Duranti/ Elinor Ochs/Bambi B. Schieffelin (edd.), The Handbook of Language Socialization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 391–419. Garrett, Paul (2005), What a language is good for: Language socialization, language shift, and the persistence of code-specific genres in St. Lucia, Language in Society 34/3, 327–361. Garrett, Paul (2007), Language socialization and the (re)production of bilingual subjectivities, in: Monica Heller (ed.), Bilingualism: A Social Approach, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 233–256. Jaffe, Alexandra (2009), The Production and Reproduction of Language Ideologies in Practice, in: Nikolas Coupland/Adam Jaworski (edd.), The New Sociolinguistics Reader, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 390–404. Koven, Michele (2007), Selves in Two Languages: Bilinguals’ verbal enactments of identity in French and Portuguese, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Kyratzis, Amy (2010), Latina Girls’ Peer Play Interactions in a Bilingual Spanish-English U.S. Preschool: Heteroglossia, Frame-shifting, and Language Ideology, Pragmatics 20/4, 557–586. Lamarre, Patricia/Rossell Paredes, Josefina (2003), Growing Up Trilingual in Montreal: Perceptions of College Students, in: Robert Bayley/Sandra R. Schecter (edd.), Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 62–80. Loyd, Heather Michele (2011), Growing Up Fast: The Rhetoric of Resilience among Inner City Neapolitan Girls, PhD dissertation, UCLA. Luykx, Aurolyn (2003), Weaving Languages Together: Family Language Policy and Gender Socialization in Bilingual Aymara Households, in: Robert Bayley/Sandra R. Schecter (edd.), Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 25–43. Makihara, Miki (2005), Rapa Nui ways of speaking Spanish: Language shift and socialization on Easter Island, Language in Society 34/5, 727–762.

Language Socialization

85

Moore, Leslie C. (1999), Language Socialization Research and French Language Education in Africa: A Cameroonian Case Study, The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 56/2, 329–350. Moore, Leslie C. (2012), Language Socialization and Repetition, in: Alessandro Duranti/Elinor Ochs/ Bambi B. Schieffelin (edd.), The Handbook of Language Socialization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 209–226. Ochs, Elinor/Pontecorvo, Clotilde/Fasulo, Alessandra (1996), Socializing Taste, Ethos 61/1–2, 7–46. Ochs, Elinor/Schieffelin, Bambi B. (edd.) (1979), Developmental Pragmatics, New York, Academic Press. Ochs, Elinor/Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1984), Language acquisition and socialization: three developmental stories and their implications, in: Richard A. Shweder/Robert A. LeVine (edd.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion, New York, Cambridge University Press, 276–320. Ochs, Elinor/Schieffelin, Bambi B. (2012), The Theory of Language Socialization, in: Alessandro Duranti/Elinor Ochs/Bambi B. Schieffelin (edd.), The Handbook of Language Socialization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1–21. Orellana, Marjorie F./Reynolds, Jennifer F. (2008), Cultural Modeling: Leveraging Bilingual Skills for School Paraphrasing Tasks, Reading Research Quarterly 43/1, 50–65. Paugh, Amy (2012a), Playing with Languages: Children and Change in a Caribbean Village, New York, Berghahn Books. Paugh, Amy (2012b), Local Theories of Child Rearing, in: Alessandro Duranti/Elinor Ochs/Bambi B. Schieffelin (edd.), The Handbook of Language Socialization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 150–168. Pontecorvo, Clotilde/Fasulo, Alessandra/Sterponi, Laura (2001), Mutual Apprentices: The Making of Parenthood and Childhood in Family Dinner Conversation, Human Development 44, 340–361. Poveda, David/Cano, Ana/Palomares-Valera, Manuel (2005), Religious genres, entextualization and literacy in Gitano children, Language in Society 34, 87–115. Rabain-Jamin, Jacqueline/Sabeau-Jouannet, Emilie (1997), Maternal Speech to 4-month-old Infants in Two Cultures: Wolof and French, International Journal of Behavioral Development 20/3, 425–451. Reynolds, Jennifer F. (2008), Socializing “Puros Pericos” (Little Parrots): The Negotiation of Respect and Responsibility, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 18/1, 82–107. Riley, Kathleen C. (2001), The Emergence of Dialogic Identities: Transforming Heteroglossia in the Marquesas, F.P., PhD dissertation, CUNY Graduate Faculty. Riley, Kathleen C. (2004), “Encadrer” and “se débrouiller”: Socializing dialogic identity in a well-to-do suburb of Paris, Paper presented at the Language and Identity Summer School, Graduate School in Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense. Riley, Kathleen C. (2007), To Tangle or Not to Tangle: Shifting Language Ideologies and the Socialization of “Charabia” in the Marquesas, French Polynesia, in: Miki Makihara/Bambi B. Schieffelin (edd.), Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies, New York, Oxford University Press, 70–95. Riley, Kathleen C. (2012), Learning to Exchange Words for Food in the Marquesas, in: Leo Coleman (ed.), Food: Ethnographic Encounters, Oxford, Berg Publishers, 111–125. Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1994), Code-switching and Language Socialization, in: Judith Duchan/Lynne Hewitt/Rae Sonnenmeier (edd.), Pragmatics: From Theory to Practice, New York, Prentice Hall, 20–42. Slobin, Dan Isaac (ed.) (1985–1997), The Cross-linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, 5 vol., Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. Sterponi, Laura (2012), Literacy Socialization, in: Alessandro Duranti/Elinor Ochs/Bambi B. Schieffelin (edd.), The Handbook of Language Socialization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 227–246.

86

Kathleen C. Riley

Tessoneau, Alex Louise (2005), Learning respect in Guadeloupe: Greetings and politeness rituals, in: Susanne Mühleisen/Bettina Migge (edd.), Politeness and Face in Caribbean Creoles, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 255–282. Trimaille, Cyril (2003), Approche sociolinguistique de la socialisation langagière d’adolescents, thèse doctorale, Université Stendhal – Grenoble III. Williams, Robert S./Riley, Kathleen C. (2001), Acquiring a Slice of Anglo-American Pie: A Portrait of Language Shift in a Franco-American Family, in: Roseann D. González/Ildikó Melis (edd.), Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement, vol. 2: History, Theory, and Policy, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 63–90. Woolard, Kathryn A. (1997), Between friends: Gender, peer group structure, and bilingualism in urban Catalonia, Language in Society 26, 533–560. Zentella, Ana Celia (1997), Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York, Oxford, Blackwell.

Adelheid Hu

5 Languages and Identities Abstract: In this paper I will focus on the relationship between language and identity, and the role that identity plays in the context of language learning processes. First I will discuss the concept of identity itself, especially within recent developments in socio-cultural identity theory. Emphasis will be put on the distinction between, on the one hand, essentializing and, on the other hand, discursive and narrative concepts of identity, which are of special importance for the context of language learning. In the second part I will concentrate on theories of intercultural language learning where identity transformation plays a crucial role. Furthermore I will discuss socio-cultural approaches to identity and language learning – focusing here especially on the Anglo-American research context. After presenting some more practical and pedagogical implications and possibilities for the language classroom, I will finish my paper with some remarks about multilingualism in Luxembourg, a particularly interesting case concerning languages and identities – both within the society and in the school context. Keywords: language, identity, socio-cultural theory, multilingualism, language learning

1 Introduction “The French reality was a French fantasy à-la-Russe, in the country where xenophobia and xenophilia were strangely interwoven. By using its language I could penetrate into its depth, step onto its land, and become part of it. A French personality, after all, was much less confusing and safer than being a Jew in Soviet Russia. It was a beautiful Me, the Me that I liked: I spoke French without an accent. I assumed my French self” (Lvovich 1997, 8s.).

In many language biographies, language memoirs or cross-cultural autobiographies, such as Lovovich’s The multilingual self (Lvovich 1997), the relation between identity and language plays a crucial role. Language is often seen as a primary force in identity construction and transformation, especially in multilingual contexts. However, the issue of identity is becoming increasingly significant not only in research on language biographies. It is also becoming very important in approaches to second or foreign language learning; in the last 15 years, there has been an explosion of interest in the issue of identity and language learning. Identity now features in most encyclopedias and handbooks of language learning and teaching (e.g. Barkowski/Krumm 2010, Byram/Hu 2012). Based on the developments in cultural and identity theory, intercultural (Bredella 2010; Bredella/Delanoy 1999), post-structuralist and socio-cultural approaches to language and language learning (Bakhtin 1981; Firth/Wagner 1997;

88

Adelheid Hu

Lantolf 2000), researchers have examined the diverse social, historical and cultural contexts in which language learning takes place, and how learners negotiate the diverse positions those contexts offer them (Norton 2013, 327). This might appear surprising, insofar as identity belongs – as Pörksen (1989, 78) notes – to the category of so-called plastic words, which are characterized by a preponderance of connotation over a virtually non-existent denotation. Critics complain that the concept of identity possesses no defined semantic content and is not appropriate as a scientific category – especially for empirical research (↗2 Research Methods). Further confusion arises from mixing personal and social or collective identity (↗4 Language Socialization) – two forms of identity, which though not independent of each other, have very different dimensions. Others, however, continue to consider identity an indispensable concept that one should not abandon – not least because it is firmly rooted in everyday language and shapes the behaviour of a large number of individuals (Straub 2004). In spite of this extreme complexity of the concept, identity is in fact not only an important term within everyday language, but also a trans-disciplinary concept, with a central role especially in the Arts and Human Sciences and not least in research on multilingualism and language learning and teaching. This paper consists of three parts. First I will introduce a few remarks about the concept of identity within recent identity theory and I will differentiate between similar and related concepts such as, e.g., self, subject or self-concept. I will especially focus on the difference between essentializing concepts of identity and those which frame identity as discursive and narrative constructions. The latter approach in particular is crucial for the development of theories about identity and language learning, which will be discussed in the second part. Here, I will concentrate on the one hand on theories of intercultural language learning, mainly within the German research context, which are very much related to the concept of identity. On the other hand, I will focus on socio-cultural approaches to identity and language learning especially within the Anglo-American context. After some remarks on research methods and pedagogical approaches concerning languages and identities I will finish with a case where language and identity play a significant role: the discussion about identities and languages in the multilingual context of Luxembourg.

2 Some Remarks about the Concept of Identity 2.1 Identity as Mental Representation From a socio-cultural point of view, identity can be understood as a personal and social mental representation. People construct themselves as being members of several categories and groups (e.g. religious, political, linguistic groups), and – as Van Dijk puts it – these self-representations are located in episodic (personal) memory

Languages and Identities

89

and can be understood as gradually constructed abstractions from personal experiences of events (Van Dijk 1998, 118). Personal identity is related to the representation of self as a unique human being with its idiosyncratic experiences, whereas social identity refers to the representation of a social self as a collection of group memberships. If the membership criteria, norms and values are in line with those of the personal self-representation, the identification might be strong – if not, a process of dissociation might take place (Van Dijk 1998, 120). In other words, collective identity is the idea that through participating in social activities, individuals can gain a sense of belonging and, in essence, an identity that transcends the individual. Personal and social or collective identity are thus always in some way related (Straub 2004, 277; Küster 2010, 107).

2.2 Conceptual Distinctions Identity needs to be differentiated from other, related concepts. Thus the concepts of identity, subject, self, self-concept, individuality as well as autonomy are semantically close to each other. However, they are usually located in specific research discourses and thus carry particular connotations. For lack of space I will here present some essential points but for a more detailed analysis cf. Hu (1999; 2003a, 80–100; 2003b). The concept of subject which is often used synonymously with identity is a concept primarily anchored in philosophy (Nünning 2001, 613). It pertains in particular to the question of rational autonomy, but also to the opposite of this, i.e. to the subjection of the subject to a network of imaginary relations, especially language (cf. Tugendhat in Straub 1991, 52ss.). The idea of the unique individual who decides and acts autonomously, and who understands his or her identity as willed by him or herself, is primarily a concept from the theory of “individualization”, which was much-discussed in the 1980s (cf. Beck 1986), a theory which understands modern society as a society of individuals (for the distinction person – as historically and culturally embedded – and individual within the context of learning theories, especially Second Language Acquisition cf. Hu 1996, 87ss.). The concept of self which is often used in English-speaking contexts is also very close to the concept of identity. In the German context, the term Selbst (e.g. in Selbstkonzept) seems to have entered the German language mainly through translations from English, where the term appears frequently. The translation of G.H. Mead’s Mind, Self and Society (Mead 1934) into Geist, Identität und Gesellschaft (Mead 1968) reveals the close relationship between the two concepts. Nonetheless the term selfconcept belongs mainly to the psychological research paradigm and research methods. Research on identity is mostly socio-culturally oriented and emphasizes the representations that people construct about themselves (Straub 1991).

90

Adelheid Hu

2.3 Essentializing and Deconstructivist Concepts of Identity Comparing identity theory and political practice, the situation with regard to the formulation of concepts of identity shows an ambivalent development. On the one hand, there still exist – particularly in political contexts – essentialist, even almost fundamentalist concepts of identity: some nations, regions or minorities almost use their identity as a defence, e.g. to make a stand against globalization tendencies or political, religious or cultural appropriation and in order to fight for self-determination and respect. As Aleida Assmann notes: “If by identity we understand an active construction and a discursively mediated political interpretation of one’s own history, we can argue that the need for distinction has never been stronger than today” (Assmann 1994, 31s., my translation).

Concepts which essentialize identity are characterized by the notion that there are stable identities with an essence which is independent of the surrounding society and discourse. Stuart Hall for example, an important figure within identity theory, characterizes such essentializing concepts of identity as those which believe in a stable core of the self, “unfolding from beginning to end through all the vicissitudes of history without change; the bit of the self which remains always-already ‘the same’, identical through itself across time” (Hall 2000, 17). Concerning the construct of “cultural identity”, advocates of essentializing concepts would argue that people with a shared history and ancestry “can stabilize, fix or guarantee an unchanging ‘oneness’ or cultural belongingness underlying all the other superficial differences” (Hall 2000, 17). In essentializing concepts of identity, on the personal as well as on the collective level, language is one of the important factors (for the relationship between nation building, language and identity cf. Péporté et al. 2010, 229–322). Moreover, concepts of identity which emphasize the ‘sameness’ and ‘uniqueness’ of a person or society, have been criticized as being peculiarly Western concepts which are quite specific in the context of world cultures. Clifford Geertz puts it as follows: “The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgement and action, organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively against other such wholes and against a social and natural background is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world’s cultures” (Geertz 1984, 126).

It is perhaps surprising that the critique of essentialism within identity theory is by no means a recent phenomenon. A critical examination of the image of a rational and autonomous subject (Nünning 2001, 613) started with the post-idealistic philosophy of the 19th century and the beginning of psychoanalysis. Especially post-structuralist philosophers such as Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard and

Languages and Identities

91

Jacques Derrida deconstruct the idea of a substantially essentialist and self-determined subject. The idea of identity in terms of a reifiable existence of a fact becomes untenable; identity from this perspective must rather be understood, as a matter of principle, as an incomplete and unaccomplished aspiration, or, as Straub puts it, “[…] as the vanishing point of a social practice within which the individual comes to himself and orients his actions towards the horizon of the desired autonomy of the own self” (Straub 2004, 280, my translation).

2.4 Identity, Language and Discourse For Jacques Lacan, for example, the traditional idea of subject is seen from a new perspective from the psychoanalytical standpoint. Here, language becomes of central importance for the genesis of the subject. In the Lacanian view on the development of the infant, the child identifies itself, even before the acquisition of language, through its mirror image with an imaginary, holistic and autonomous self (mirror stage). However, with language acquisition, this self proves even more clearly to be unattainable. In order to become a social subject, the individual must enter the symbolic order embodied by language, which is pre-existent to him and only then offers him the opportunity to express himself and to accept a symbolic identity. In addition, the entrance into language leads to a division of the subject. The self that speaks (enunciating subject) is not the self that is represented in the discourse (subject of enunciation) (Lacan 1986; Nünning 2001, 613). Michel Foucault’s critique of classical images of the subject is less psychoanalytically than historically grounded; he undertakes a radical historicization of the category of the subject. Foucault’s approach is based on a concept of subject, which puts the moment of subjugation (lat: subicere = ‘subject’) at the centre, namely the subjugation of speaking subjects to discourses and the subjugation of discourses to the speaking individuals (Foucault 21994, 246). “The subject is produced ‘as an effect’ through and within discourse, within specific discursive formations, and has no existence, and certainly no transcendental continuity or identity from the subject position to another” (Hall 2000, 23). In many of the deconstructivist approaches to identity, discourse and language (as well as power relations) play an important role: “Precisely because identities are constructed within, not outside discourse, we need to understand them as produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific discursive formations and practices, by specific enunciative strategies. Moreover they emerge within the play of specific modalities of power, and thus are more the product of the marking of difference and exclusion, than they are the sign of an identical, naturally constituted unity – an identity in its traditional meaning (that is, an all-inclusive sameness, seamless, without internal differentiation)” (Hall 2000, 17).

92

Adelheid Hu

In the context of migration studies too, identity concepts have been systematically deconstructed. In turning away from simplifying concepts, which imply a clear overlap of self, language and cultural localization (Bronfen 1995, 10), identities are conceptualized as hybrid in parallel to the concept of hybrid cultures (Bhabha 1994). Subjects are conceived as “multiply coded, complex identities” (Bronfen/Marius 1997, 7), and the idea of identity as narrative performance plays an important role in this context. Dating back to Rushdie (Rushdie 1991), the metaphor of the “translated men” is often used (cf., e.g., Hall 1994). In explicitly narrative conceptions of identity, this aspect is emphasized even more.

2.5 Narrative Identities Narrative conceptions of identity imply that subjectivity is neither a philosophical illusion nor an impermeable substance. Rather, a narrative identity provides a subjective sense of self-continuity as it symbolically integrates the events of lived experience in the plot of the story the person tells about his or her life (Ezzi 1998). Identity and language (here understood as narrative) are closely interwoven. The link between identity and language was emphasized especially by Bruner (1990), Kerby (1991), MacIntyre (1995) and Ricœur (1985, 1996). While traditionally the essential self prevailed over language, these conceptions see the self as constituted through language: “Our own existence cannot be separated from the account we can give of ourselves. It is in telling our own stories that we give ourselves an identity. We recognize ourselves in the stories that we tell about ourselves. It makes very little difference whether these stories are true or false, fiction as well as verifiable history provides us with an identity” (Ricœur 1985, 214).

Identity will thus be constituted by stories: “On a narrative account, the self is to be construed not as a prelinguistic given that merely employs language, much as we might employ a tool, but rather as a product of language – what might be called the implied subject of self-referring utterances” (Kerby 1991, 4).

The telling of stories is thus not a mere description of events relevant for the identity, but a complex speech act with psychosocial functions, through which a performative knowledge of its own kind is expressed (Straub 2004, 286).

Languages and Identities

93

3 Identity and Language Learning 3.1 Intercultural Approaches to Language Learning and Identity In the context of foreign language education, identity and language learning has been a topic for more than 30 years. For example Schratz (1983) emphasizes the role of identity in the process of language learning and claims that identity should play a much more significant role in language curricula (Schratz 1983, 262). Also in the context of “tasked based language learning” identity becomes a crucial concept. For example, Thürmann states: “Initially, a second language is essentially like a mask, like a costume. When you dress up, you can test alternatives to your usual identity and gain new experience through your alter ego. With a second language, you can dare to risk something you might not want to risk in your primary language” (Thürmann 1994, 182s., my translation; cf. also Börsch 1986 for an early psychoanalytical approach to foreign language learning as liberation and psychological relief).

Especially in the field of Intercultural Learning within foreign or second language education the issue of identity and language has been of special significance. Buttjes (1991, 12) claims that “learner’s identities must be respected as starting points and receiving ends”, and Thürmann explains: “Landeskunde has changed into ‘intercultural learning’ in recent years. If this development is to be more than a switching of labels, not simply old wine in new bottles, then there is a need to rethink the work on collective and personal identities” (Thürmann 1994, 184, my translation, my italics).

Within the discourse on intercultural language education (especially within the postgraduate research centre Pedagogy of Intercultural Understanding at the Justus-LiebigUniversity in Giessen, cf., e.g., Bredella/Christ 1995) the issue of identity and language learning became even more relevant. Herbert Christ and Lothar Bredella in particular reflected on intercultural understanding in the context of foreign language learning. The reflections were mainly concerned with fighting the oversimplification of foreign language learning in the course of the communicative turn in foreign language teaching: “Lately, communicative teaching has been repeatedly blamed for trivialising the meaning of communication. The blame is justified in view of the fact that the communication targeted in foreign language teaching barely encouraged the learner to query what the other intended and meant by his utterance. Thus it did not trigger any interpretation process through which the learner could activate and challenge his world knowledge and his moral code. It is only when the act of interpretation is the focus that it becomes evident that understanding is an infinite, risky operation in which one can learn something about both the other and oneself” (Bredella/Christ 1995, 10; my translation).

94

Adelheid Hu

Thus, understanding is not perceived as mere “rule-governed decoding” (Bredella/ Christ 1995, 10) but rather as a creative act, which can lead to identity changes. Bredella, in particular, advocated until recently (cf. Bredella 2007) a concept of understanding that goes beyond such mere appropriation. From his point of view, understanding Otherness is an interplay between an inside and outside perspective as a “dynamic unending educational process that turns back on the understanding of self and one’s own world view” (Bredella 2007, 11, my translation). In conceptualizing language learning as part of education,1 changes of identity are a crucial part of the learning process. Identity has however also been a crucial topic for a long time in research on bilingualism and especially bilingual education. An important argument for heritage language learning has been based on the strengthening of identity of the children (e.g. Auernheimer 1995). Identity also plays an important role in the context of minority languages and minority language education (cf., e.g., Edwards 2010).

3.2 Socio-Cultural Theory, Identity and Language Learning The identity issue has become very prominent too within the Anglo-American research on SLA. The theoretical basis is, on one hand, post-structuralist theories of language which interpret language as a complex social practice through which relationships are defined, negotiated and resisted (Norton/McKinney 2011, 77; Bakhtin 1981) and, on the other hand, socio-cultural theories of learning (e.g. Lave/Wenger 1991), which emphasize the role of participation and belonging in communities of practice. For language learning, Lantolf (2000) became especially influential. From the perspective of socio-cultural theory, language learners are not seen as individually internalizing stable systems of language knowledge, but as members of social and historical collectivities, using language as a dynamic tool (Norton/Toohey 2011, 419). In a similar vein, Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) see language learning as an act of identity positioning. They highlight the fact that language learning is a process in which one becomes a member of a specific (often imagined) community: “Applying such an approach to SLA involves shifting the focus of investigation from language structure to language use in context, and to the issue of context and belonging” (Pavlenko/Lantolf 2000, 156). Based on these assumptions, the issue of identity and language learning became more and more central (for a detailed overview regarding the development of SLA research and the issue of identity cf. Block 2007). Bonny Norton is one of the most active researchers who has published intensively on the issue of language learning

1 “Education” here in the sense of the German concept of Bildung.

Languages and Identities

95

and identity. In many articles, she has emphasized the close link between language acquisition and identity: “Whereas some linguists may assume, as Noam Chomsky does, that questions of identity are not central to theories of language, we as L2 educators need to take this relationship seriously. The questions we ask necessarily assume that speech, speakers and social relationships are inseparable. […] In this view, every time language learners speak, they are not only exchanging information with their interlocutors, they are also constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world. They are in other words, engaged in identity construction and negotiation” (Norton 1997, 410; cf. also Norton/McKinney 2011; Norton/Toohey 2011; Norton 2012).

Claire Kramsch also emphasizes the role of subjectivity and self for language learning and multilingualism (Kramsch 2000; 2009). In Kramsch (2000) she points out that language learning is primarily a dialogic process of negotiation and interpretation of signs on the basis of which the self as well as the other are constantly reconstructed. She understands the learning of a language as “a dialogic process of sign making, exchanging and interpreting that constructs the self as it constructs the Other” (Kramsch 2000, 133). In Kramsch (2009) she highlights the subjective aspects of the language learning experience for multilingual persons. In her view of the subjective aspects of language learning and multilingualism, memory, emotion and imagination play a crucial role.

4 Methodological and Pedagogical Approaches What kind of research enables scholars to investigate the relationship between language learning and identity? As the individual and subjective perception of the person is the focus of interest, one of the most effective approaches is the narrative interview. Autobiographical and biographical accounts are stimulated, and the individual’s sense-making of his own experience is valued (cf., e.g., Pavlenko 2001). It can be combined with other methods of qualitative fieldwork such as ethnographic observation or diary studies. Important studies have been conducted with language learners as well as on the basis of autobiographic narratives of multilingual writers. I can name only a few: Franceschini/Miecznikowski (2004), for example, investigated linguistic trajectories of adult multilingual persons where identity plays a crucial role. Pavlenko (2001) focuses on contemporary American writers for whom English is a second language and examines ways in which these writers position and reposition themselves with regard to their multiple languages and identities in autobiographic narratives (Pavlenko 2001). Hein-Khatib (2007) analyses the autobiographic texts of two bilingual authors, Georges-Arthur Goldschmidt and Peter Weiss, and describes their linguistic development in relation to their identity development. In Hu (2005) I analysed constructions of identity in Chinese-French writers, and in Hu (2003a) the

96

Adelheid Hu

linguistic identities of multilingual senior high schools students in relationship to the foreign language instruction. While the majority of studies put the focus on adults, there are also interesting attempts to investigate children’s experience of the relationship between language learning and identity. In some cases the research methods can at the same time be pedagogical tools for an identity-sensitive language education. For instance Kolb (2007) used language portfolios in the primary school and investigated children’s subjective view of themselves and their language learning practices. Krumm (2011) used language portraits in order to reveal the identity forming functions of languages for multilingual children. For their language portraits, the children receive blank figures on which they can draw their languages with the help of coloured pencils. Languages are then distributed on the figure’s bodies in different ways because children have very different ways of representing themselves (Krumm 2011, 101). Within the language classroom, there are numerous interesting suggestions for intercultural and identity related approaches to language education, especially using literature, film and music (e.g. some contributions in De Florio-Hansen/Hu 2003), or the very recent volume about identity and language learning in the pedagogical context (Burwitz-Melzer/Königs/Riemer 2013).

5 A Specific Case: Multilingualism and Identities in Luxembourg I will, finally, give an example of a case where the identity issue plays a predominant role: the case of the officially trilingual country of Luxembourg, where at the same time almost 50% of the population are immigrants (cf. Statec 2013). How multilingualism and language learning are linked to the question of identity can be experienced particularly well in this society. On the one hand, a historical look at the development of different languages in Luxembourg (Luxembourgish, German, French, but also, for example, Portuguese, Italian and English) shows to what extent the various language policy decisions were justified by identity – here in the sense of national identity, such as the decision in 1984, to declare Luxembourgish (linguistically a Moselle Franconian language variety of West Central German with a strong French element) as the national language (cf. the relevant legal text below). Especially in recent years, Luxembourgish – specifically through the efforts of the nationally oriented Actioun Lëtzebuergesch and their journal Eis Sprooch (‘Our Language’) – has become an identity language for many people: language plays a crucial role in particular in the context of national identity building (Péporté et al. 2010, 229–322).

Languages and Identities

97

Figure 1: Memorial, Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Recueil de législation. 27 février 1984, http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/1984/0016/a016.pdf (21.5.2013)

At the same time and in parallel with these centripetal tendencies, a centrifugal discourse about the linguistic situation in Luxembourg has existed for a long time and emphasizes border crossing, European identity, in-between culture and multilingualism. In some texts it is even said that the mother tongue of Luxemburgish people is multilingualism (Berg/Weis 2005, 33). Although the multilingualism of the country is seen by many as valuable, especially in economic and cultural-political terms (Sieburg 2013a, 85), multilingualism is not always seen as an unquestioningly positive self-definition at the individual level (↗11 Bilingual Education; ↗12 Plurilingual Education). Many people in Luxembourg, especially the younger generation, do not refer to themselves as multilingual, but emphasize primarily the importance of Lëtzebuergesch, their “mother tongue”, in identity building. Their often excellent skills in other languages (especially German and French, but also to some extent English) are considered to be semi-skilled and do not play an important identity-relevant role. The ambivalent developments of identity conceptions described above can also be observed here. While in countries with a traditionally monolingual habitus the development of multilingualism is currently praised as a desirable goal and a positive value, and while EU language policy stresses strongly the importance of multilingualism for Europe, the development in a traditionally multilingual country like Luxembourg seems to go, at least in parts of the population, rather in the opposite direction: multilingualism seems to be seen as a burden, perhaps as identity debilitating, whereas the emphasis on mother tongue or national language is considered to be identity strengthening and possibly perceived as a normality (cf. also Fehlen 2009). The ambivalent development in theory and practice can also be observed in relationship to the notion of “hybrid identities”, as was shown above. While in theory “hybrid identities”, multiple identities, transculturality and similar constructs are proclaimed to be postmodern or contemporary and desirable, the people who – seen from an external perspective – correspond to this identity type seem to defend

98

Adelheid Hu

themselves against these attributions and perhaps seem to suffer from them (cf. Straub 2004). As for education at school and university, the question of languages is as a consequence highly controversial and emotionally charged. In pre-school, Luxembourgish is spoken and taught exclusively, not least in order to strengthen the Luxembourgish identity; in primary school, all children (including, for example, the children of Portuguese descent, which account for a high percentage) are taught to read and write in German. French is taught from the 2nd grade, and even from the 1st grade in some schools. The textbooks are traditionally written in German, with the exception of books for the French classes. The language of instruction is thus, in the strict sense, High German. In practice however, the teaching staff often use Luxembourgish for oral explanation of the subject matter. In secondary schools (7th to 13th grade) this practice is continued up to the 9th grade. The language of instruction is – except for languages as subjects and mathematics – High German and Luxembourgish. In the lycée classique the language of instruction is, beginning from the 10th Grade, mostly French; at the lycée technique High German remains mostly the language of instruction. English is taught from the 8th grade onwards as a foreign language (cf. Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale et de la formation professionnelle 2008). A highly emotional and especially identity-related debate is now emerging around multilingualism in school, which identifies the various grievances of each different group of students. Thus the teaching of subjects in French presents great difficulties for many of Luxembourg’s students (French tends to be rejected by many students – cf. Fehlen 2013), whereas literacy in German presents a major obstacle for many of the Portuguese-origin students. Suggestions for a parallel literacy education in French and German (Weber 2009) have so far not been implemented on a larger scale, due to a fear of division of the society. The unclear role of the Luxembourgish language is being criticized more and more and there are demands that it be strengthened. In addition, many people want to give a stronger role to the English language in addition to the three official languages of Luxembourg (for a good overview of the discussion cf. the issue 324 of the FORUM magazine, entitled “Multilingualism in School”, FORUM 2012). Multilingualism and the question of language education are in Luxembourg, both in terms of collective identity as well as personal identity, a sensitive issue of central significance.

6 Conclusion Although identity is often used as a fuzzy category (especially in everyday language), it is of key importance for the understanding of language learning processes. As identity is above all constructed through language – in fact in the context of personal as well as of collective identity formation – it also plays an important role for the understanding of language learning and language acquisition processes. The acquisi-

Languages and Identities

99

tion of a second or a third language, the conscious preservation (or non-preservation) of the language of origin in the case of migration, but also the refusal to learn certain languages, not least in the school context – all these phenomena are easier to understand in the light of identity formation processes. For research into language learning, biographical approaches have proved particularly rewarding. Pedagogically and didactically interesting methodologies are now available for use in schools, too. As the example of Luxembourg shows, identity and language play an important role, not only for the individual, but in particular also for the national self-conception. Especially in the context of educational policies the question of identity construction is of utmost topicality: language education policies and language education hold the responsibility for this highly important task, and particularly, in relation to instruction and teaching methods.

7 Bibliography Actioun Lëtzebuergesch – Eis Sprooch, http://www.actioun-letzebuergesch.lu/ (21.5.2013). Assmann, Aleida (1994), Zum Problem der Identität aus kulturwissenschaftlicher Sicht, in: Rolf Lindner (ed.), Die Wiederkehr des Regionalen, Frankfurt am Main, Campus, 13–35. Auernheimer, Georg (1995), Einführung in die interkulturelle Erziehung, 2., überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981), The dialogic imagination. Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin, Austin, TX, University of Texas Press. Barkowski, Hans/Krumm, Hans-Jürgen (edd.) (2010), Fachlexikon Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache, Tübingen/Basel, Francke. Beck, Ulrich (1986), Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Berg, Charles/Weis, Christiane (2005), Sociologie de l’enseignement des langues dans un environnement multilingue. Rapport national en vue de l’élaboration du profil des politiques linguistiques éducatives luxembourgeoises, Luxembourg, MENFP. Bhabha, Homi (1994), The location of culture, New York, Routledge. Block, David (2007), The Rise of Identity in SLA Research, Post Firth and Wagner (1997), The Modern Language Journal 91, Focus Issue (2007), 863–367. Börsch, Sabine (1986), Die Auffassung von “Identität” im kommunikativen Fremdsprachenunterricht – Lehrziele und subjektive Bedürfnisse, in: Josef Geringhausen/Peter C. Seel (edd.), Methodentransfer oder angepasste Unterrichtsformen?, München, Iudicium, 131–178. Bredella, Lothar (2007), Die Bedeutung der Innen- und Außenperspektive für die Didaktik des Fremdverstehens, Revisited, in: Lothar Bredella/Herbert Christ (edd.), Fremdverstehen und Interkulturelles Lernen, Tübingen, Narr, 11–30. Bredella, Lothar (2010), Das Verstehen des Anderen. Kulturwissenschaftliche und literaturdidaktische Studien, Tübingen, Narr. Bredella, Lothar/Delanoy, Werner (1999), Interkultureller Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen, Narr. Bredella, Lothar/Christ, Herbert (1995), Didaktik des Femdverstehens, Tübingen, Narr. Bronfen, Elisabeth (1995), Ein Gefühl des Unheimlichen. Geschlechterdifferenz und Identität in Bharati Mukjerjees Roman Jasmin, in: Michael Kessler/Jürgen Wertheimer (edd.), Multikulturalität, Tübingen, Stauffenburg, 9–30.

100

Adelheid Hu

Bronfen, Elisabeth/Marius, Benjamin (1997), Hybride Kulturen. Einleitung zur anglo-amerikanischen Multikulturalismus-Debatte, in: Elisabeth Bronfen/Benjamin Marius/Therese Steffen (edd.), Hybride Kulturen. Beiträge zur anglo-amerikanischen Multikulturalismus-Debatte, Tübingen, Stauffenburg, 1–30. Bruner, Jérôme (1990), Acts of Meaning, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Burwitz-Melzer, Eva/Königs, Frank/Riemer, Claudia (edd.) (2013), Identität und Fremdsprachenlernen: Anmerkungen zu einer komplexen Beziehung. Arbeitspapiere der 33. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, Tübingen, Narr. Buttjes, Dieter (1991), Mediating languages and cultures: The social and intercultural dimension Restored, in: Dieter Buttjes/Michael Byram (edd.), Mediating languages and cultures: Towards an intercultural theory of Foreign Language Education, Clevedon/Philadelphia, Multilingual Matters, 3–16. Byram, Michael/Hu, Adelheid (edd.) (2012), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, London, Routledge. De Florio-Hansen, Ines/Hu, Adelheid (edd.) (2003), Identität und Plurilingualität. Zur Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmung mehrsprachiger Menschen, Tübingen, Stauffenburg. Divisions des Politiques linguistiques Strasbourg/Ministère de l’éducation Nationale et de la formation professionnelle Luxembourg (2005–2006), Profil de la politique linguistique éducative Grand Duché de Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Conseil de l’Europe. Edwards, John (2010), Minority languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Ezzi, Douglas (1998), Theorizing Narrative Identity: Symbolic Interactionism and Hermeneutics, Sociological Quarterly 39, 239–252. Fehlen, Fernand (2009), BaleineBis. Une enquête sur un marché linguistique multilingue en profonde mutation. Luxemburgs Sprachenmarkt im Wandel, Luxembourg, Saint Paul. Fehlen, Fernand (2013), Die Stellung des Französischen in Luxemburg. Von der Prestigesprache zur Verkehrssprache, in: Heinz Sieburg (ed.), Vielfalt der Sprachen – Varianz der Perspektiven, Bielefeld, transcript, 37–80. Forum für Politik, Gesellschaft und Kultur (2012), Mehrsprachigkeit in der Schule, vol. 324, Forum ASBL. Foucault, Michel (21994), Warum ich Macht untersuche. Die Frage des Subjekts, in: Hubert Dreyfus/ Paul Rabinow/Michel Foucault (edd.), Jenseits von Strukturalismus und Hermeneutik, Weinheim, Beltz, 243–250. Firth, Alan/Wagner, Johannes (1997), On Discourse, Communication, and (some) fundamental Concepts in SLA Research, The Modern Language Journal 81, 285–300. Franceschini, Rita/Miecznikowski, Johanna (edd.) (2004), Leben mit mehreren Sprachen/Vivre avec plusieurs langues. Sprachbiographien/Biographies langagières, Bern, Lang. Geertz, Clifford (1984), From the Native Point of View. On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding, in: Richard A. Shweder/Robert A. Levine (edd.), Culture Theory, Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 123–136. Hall, Stuart (1994), Rassismus und kulturelle Identität, Hamburg, Argument. Hall, Stuart (2000), Who needs identity?, in: Paul du Gay/Jessica Evans/Peter Redman (edd.), Identity: a reader, London, Sage, 15–30. Hein-Khatib, Simone (2007), Mehrsprachigkeit und Biographie: Zum Sprach-Erleben der Schriftsteller Peter Weiss und Georges-Arthur Goldschmid, Tübingen, Narr. Hu, Adelheid (1996), Lernen als kulturelles Symbol. Eine empirisch-qualitative Studie zu subjektiven Lernkonzepten im Fremdsprachenunterricht bei Oberstufenschülerinnen und -schülern aus Taiwan und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bochum, Brockmeyer. Hu, Adelheid (1999), Identität und Fremdsprachenunterricht in Migrationsgesellschaften, in: Lothar Bredella/Werner Delanoy (edd.), Interkultureller Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen, Narr, 209–239.

Languages and Identities

101

Hu, Adelheid (2003a), Schulischer Fremdsprachenunterricht und migrationsbedingte Mehrsprachigkeit, Tübingen, Narr. Hu, Adelheid (2003b), Mehrsprachigkeitsforschung, Identitäts- und Kulturtheorie. Tendenzen der Konvergenz, in: Ines De Florio-Hansen/Adelheid Hu (edd.) (2003), Identität und Plurilingualität. Zur Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmung mehrsprachiger Menschen, Tübingen, Stauffenburg, 1–24. Hu, Adelheid (2005), Chinesische SchriftstellerInnen in frankophonen Räumen. Reflexionen über Mehrsprachigkeit, Identitätsverortung und literarisches Schreiben, in: Jürgen Erfurt (ed.), Transkulturalität und Hybridität. “L’espace francophone” als Grenzerfahrung des Sprechens und Schreibens, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 101–118. Kerby, Anthony Paul (1991), Narrative and the Self, Bloomington, Indiana University Press. Kolb, Annika (2007), Portfolioarbeit. Wie Grundschulkinder ihr Sprachenlernen reflektieren, Tübingen, Narr. Kramsch, Claire (2000), Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning, in: James Paul Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 133–154. Kramsch, Claire (2009), The Multilingual Subject, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Krumm, Hans-Jürgen (2011), Multilingualism and Subjectivity: “Language Portraits” by multilingual children, in: Geneviève Zarate/Danielle Lévy/Claire Kramsch (edd.), Handbook of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, Paris, Éditions des Archives Contemporaines, 101–104. Küster, Lutz (2010), Identität und Identitätsbildung, in: Carola Surkamp (ed.), Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik, Stuttgart/Weimar, Metzler, 107–109. Lacan, Jacques (1986), Das Spiegelstadium als Bildner der Ichfunktion, wie sie uns in der psychoanalytischen Erfahrung erscheint, in: Jacques Lacan, Schriften, vol. I, Weinheim/Berlin, Quadriga, 61–70. Lantolf, James Paul (ed.) (2000), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lave, Jean/Wenger, Étienne (1991), Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lvovich, Natalia (1997), The Multilingual Self. An Inquiry into Language Learning, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. MacIntyre, Alasdair (1995), Der Verlust der Tugend, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Mead, Georg H. (1934), Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Mead, Georg H. (1968), Geist, Identität und Gesellschaft aus der Sicht des Sozialbehaviorismus, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. Memorial, Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Recueil de législation. 27 février 1984, http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/1984/0016/ a016.pdf (21.5.2013). Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Formation professionnelle (ed.) (2008), Bildungsstandards Sprache. Wëssen, Kënnen, Wëllen. Plan d’action langues, Luxembourg. Norton, Bonny (1997), Language, identity, and the ownership of English, TESOL Quarterly 31/3, 409–430. Norton, Bonny (2012), Identity and language learning, in: Michael Byram/Adelheid Hu (edd.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, London/New York, Routledge, 327–332. Norton, Bonny/McKinney, Carolyn (2011), An identity approach to second language acquisition, in: Dwight Atkinson (ed.), Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Routledge, 73–94. Norton, Bonny/Toohey, Kelleen (2011), Identity, language learning and social change, Language teaching 44, 412–446. Nünning, Ansgar (ed.) (2001), Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie, Stuttgart, Metzler.

102

Adelheid Hu

Pavlenko, Aneta (2001), “In the world of the tradition, I was unimagined”: Negotiation of identities in cross-cultural autobiographies, International Journal of Bilingualism 5/3, 317–344. Pavlenko, Aneta/Lantolf, James Paul (2000), Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves, in: James Paul Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 155–178. Péporté, Pit, et al. (2010), Inventing Luxembourg: Representations of the Past, Space and Language from the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century, Leiden, Brill. Pörksen, Uwe (1989), Plastikwörter: Die Sprache einer internationalen Diktatur, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta. Ricœur, Paul (1985), History as narrative and praxis, Philosophy today 29/4, 212–225. Ricœur, Paul (1996), The Hermeneutics of Action, ed. Richard Kearney, London, Sage. Rushdie, Salman (1991), Imaginary Homelands. Essays and Criticism 1981–1991, London, Granta. Sampson, Edward E. (1989), The deconstruction of the Self, in: John Shotter/Kenneth Gergen (edd.), Texts of Identity, London et al., Sage, 1–19. Schratz, Michael (1983), Fremdsprachenunterricht als Identitätsstütze, in: Gert Solmecke (ed.), Motivation und Motivieren im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Paderborn, Schöningh, 240–270. Sieburg, Heinz (ed.) (2013a), Vielfalt der Sprachen-Varianz der Perspektiven. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart der Luxemburger Mehrsprachigkeit, Bielefeld, transcript. Sieburg, Heinz (2013b), Die Stellung der deutschen Sprache in Luxemburg. Geschichte und Gegenwart, in: Heinz Sieburg (ed.), Vielfalt der Sprachen – Varianz der Perspektiven. Zur Geschichte und Gegenwart der Luxemburgischen Mehrsprachigkeit, Bielefeld, transcript, 81–106. Statec (2013), http://www.statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=384&I F_Language=fra (1.10.2013). Straub, Jürgen (1991), Identitätstheorie im Übergang? Über Identitätsforschung, den Begriff der Identität und die zunehmende Beachtung des Nicht-Identischen in subjekttheoretischen Diskursen, Sozialwissenschaftliche Literaturrundschau 23, 49–71. Straub, Jürgen (2004), Identität, in: Friedrich Jäger/Burkhard Liebsch (edd.), Kulturwissenschaften. Ein Handbuch, vol. 1: Kontexte und Grundbegriffe, Stuttgart, Metzler, 277–303. Thürmann, Eike (1994), Handlungsorientierung im Fremdsprachenunterricht. In: Landesinstitut für Schule und Weiterbildung (ed.), Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Lehrplanarbeit, Soest, Landesinstitut für Schule und Weiterbildung, 169–194. Van Dijk, Teun (1998), Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach, London, Sage. Weber, Jean-Jacques (2009), Multilingualism, Education and Change, Frankfurt am Main, Lang.

Bill VanPatten

6 Language Acquisition Theories Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of three broad categories of theories used in (second) language acquisition (SLA): linguistic/psycholinguistic, cognitive, and socio-interactive. Using the well-known properties of null subject languages, with Spanish as the specific example, the chapter examines how each type of theory accounts for the acquisition of the various properties. In the end, a rationale for multiple theories emerges to account for the complexity that is language acquisition. Keywords: second language acquisition, second language acquisition theory, null subjects, null subject parameter

1 Introduction Language acquisition theories – as applied to the second language (L2) context – tend to be categorized into three broad domains: linguistic/psycholinguistic, cognitive, and socio-interactive (↗8 Bases of Linguistic Development). Within each type, one can find multiple theories. For example, within the linguistic/pycholinguistic domain, there is the generative approach (largely Chomskyan in nature), the functionalist approach, the processability approach, and approaches to input processing, to name some of the more well known. Within the cognitive approach, there is the emergentist approach, skill theory, and others. And within the socio-interactive approach there is Vygotskyan theory, identity theory, again among others. What characterizes these three broad groups of theories and how do they differ in their foci? What do they purport to explain in second language acquisition (SLA) (↗10 Second Language Acquisition)? What is the future of these theories and their applications to L2 research (↗2 Research Methods)? The purpose of the present chapter is to explore these questions with specific application to Romance languages, with Spanish as the sample language. The chapter is laid out in the following way. First, I will provide an overview of the three broad categories of theories and what their research foci are. In this section, I will be necessarily selective and brief given the space limitations, scope, and aims of the present chapter. Second, I will address the issue of what theories should do, focusing on how the various theories account for what we know about the acquisition of a particular aspect of Spanish, which has implications for some other Romance languages as well: null and overt subject pronouns and the linguistic properties associated with them. Finally, I will address the future of theories in SLA, offering a sketch by which we can consider why multiple theories are necessary.

104

Bill VanPatten

2 What Kinds of Theories Are There? With only a few exceptions, all contemporary theories used to research adult SLA have origins in other disciplines. That is, unlike earlier (and now largely abandoned) attempts in the 1970s to create SLA specific theories (e.g., Krashen’s Monitor Theory, Schumann’s Acculturation Theory), most theories used in SLA are imported from other disciplines. For this reason, one often hears about theories in rather than of SLA (see, for example, VanPatten/Williams 2007). As stated earlier, these theories tend to be categorized into three broad domains. The first is linguistic/psycholinguistic. The second is cognitive. The third is social/interactive. I will take each of these in turn.1 (For theoretical approaches to first language acquisition, ↗8 Bases of Linguistic Development.)

2.1 Linguistic/Psycholinguistic Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to language acquisition are characterized by their focus on formal elements of language. That is, some theoretical description of language or language processing (which presumes an interface with linguistic knowledge) is at the core of such approaches. Such approaches have dominated SLA research over the past 30 years and for this reason this subsection of the chapter is longer than others. The most widely used linguistic approach in the United States is the generative approach (GA).2 Following a Chomskyan tradition, the generative approach attempts to characterize learner competence in terms of formal operations and underlying representations (syntactic, lexico-morphological, semantic, and so on). Central to this approach is Universal Grammar (UG), an innate knowledge source that constrains but does not guarantee acquisition. UG constrains acquisition in the sense that all second language (L2) grammars must conform to the shape of natural languages, even when such linguistic systems remain non-target like. UG does not guarantee acquisition in that it is one factor among many that affect adult SLA. For example, those working within the GA acknowledge the role of the first language (L1) in acquisition, processing factors, and other non-linguistic aspects of adult acquisition that are known to affect rate and ultimate attainment. The ultimate goal of the GA, then, is to account for mental representation in adult L2 learners using the formal apparatus of Chomsk-

1 For more complete information on various theories applied to SLA, the reader is referred to VanPatten/Williams (2007) and García Mayo/Gutierrez Mangado/Martínez Adrián (2013). These volumes are particularly useful because an expert working within that theory/framework authors the overview of each chapter. 2 Arguably, the generative approach is widely used outside the United States as well but may not be the dominant approach to linguistic inquiry.

Language Acquisition Theories

105

yan theory (e.g., Gregg 1989; White 2003; Slabakova 2013) (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). A central tenet of the GA is the poverty of the stimulus (POS). A POS arises when a speaker of a language comes to know more than what could be learned from the input. A classic example is the Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC) in null subject languages (Montalbetti 1984). For example, languages like Spanish (↗25 Spanish) license null subjects, but also impose constraints on the types of antecedents that overt pronouns can take. The OPC says, essentially, that overt subject pronouns may not take quantified or negative antecedents including wh- elements (e.g., “each person”, “not a single person” “which person…?”). Thus, in (1) and (2) the overt subject pronoun él is barred from taking a quantified antecedent in Spanish. This is not the case for English. (1)

a. Cada hombrei piensa que proi/j es muy inteligente. b. Cada hombrei piensa que él*i/j es muy inteligente. c. El hombrei piensa que proi/j es muy inteligente. d. El hombrei piensa que éli/j es muy inteligente.

(2)

a. Each man thinks hei/j is very intelligent. b. The man thinks hei/j is very intelligent.

Speakers of Spanish unconsciously obey such restrictions. This is a clear POS situation because the OPC cannot be learned from the input and it certainly isn’t taught to children. Because I will discuss null subjects in the L2 context later in this chapter, I will refrain from discussing the OPC as it relates to adult SLA here. While focused on how language works, functional approaches differ from a GA in that functional approaches focus on communication and attempt to explain how language serves communicative functions (e.g., von Stutterheim/Klein 1987). Functionalists assume that forms and structures exist in language for a reason, and such forms and structures are studied in terms of functional load – what they contribute to intended meaning in an utterance. For example, one question that has been addressed in functional approaches is how learners’ expression of tense develops over time (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig 2000). That is, what linguistic devices do learners use to express temporal reference? Functionalist approaches have shown that learners begin the expression of temporal reference by relying on discourse structure and conversational scaffolding. They then move to a phase in which the major indicator of temporal reference are adverbial phrases such as ayer and mañana. During both of these stages, we see learners also tending to rely on chronological order for the presentation of events (e.g., Bill examinó el vaso. Luego sirvió el vodka.). The final stage is the slow incorporation of morphological markings, and in this stage, reverse order reports eventually emerge (e.g., Antes de servir el vodka, Bill examinó el vaso.). At each stage, the functional load of the various devices may differ. In the initial stage of temporal expression, adverbials and morphological markings have no functional load, as

106

Bill VanPatten

discourse and context provide the sole means for expressing temporal reference. In the second stage, functional load is spread across discourse and adverbials. In the third stage, functional load for expressing temporal reference is spread across even more devices. Two major characteristics distinguish a functional approach from a generative approach. The first is that functional approaches are less concerned with mental representation than the generative approach. That is, functional approaches do not focus on the purely formal apparatus of syntactic operations and their interfaces with other modules of language (e.g., the lexicon, phonology, discourse). Functional approaches tend to focus on the relationship between form and meaning/function. Because of this focus, a second major difference is that functional approaches tend to rely on communicative data to get at how these form-meaning relationships develop over time. A generative approach tends to rely on introspective data and non-production methods for gathering relevant data (e.g., truth-value tasks, reading times). There are other approaches that are, in a sense, a fusion of linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches. One such approach is input processing, one of the few current theoretical models developed specifically for SLA (e.g., VanPatten 2007; 2009). Its focus is on the principles that underlie how learners connect meaning/ function with form during the on-line processing of input strings, specifically, what guides or inhibits learners initial processing. The theory is also concerned with the primitives of syntactic parsing, namely how learners assign function to noun phrases (NPs) and their relationship to verbs. There are four main principles that guide learners, each with corollaries (note that the term “process” means to ‘link meaning with form’, not to ‘notice’ it or ‘detect’ it; for some discussion, cf. VanPatten 2004; 2009): Primacy of Content Words Principle: Learners will process content words in the input before anything else. Lexical Preference Principle: If grammatical forms express a meaning that is also encoded lexically, then learners will first process lexical items for that meaning. They will process redundant grammatical forms only after the lexical items are robustly enough represented in the grammar to be processed easily in the input. First-Noun Principle: Learners tend to process the first noun/pronoun they encounter in a sentence as the subject/agent. Sentence Location Principle: Learners tend to process items in the initial part of a sentence before processing items anywhere else. Learners tend to process items in the final parts of a sentence before those in the middle part of the sentence.

These principles may, of course, interact. For example, wh- elements such as dónde ‘where’ and cuando ‘when’ are content words and tend to appear in sentence initial position, making them prime candidates for early processing. Although input processing itself is neutral on the nature of mental representation, in a series of publications I have demonstrated my own commitment to a generative approach for understanding the nature of language in the learner’s mind/brain (e.g.,

Language Acquisition Theories

107

Rothman/VanPatten 2013; VanPatten/Rothman 2013). Thus, input processing is compatible with an articulated theory of the nature of language.3 Processability Theory is the final theory to be considered in this category, and is one of the other major theories developed specifically for SLA. Processability Theory attempts to characterize the development of output processing procedures, and its central tenet is that there is a set of such procedures that exist in a hierarchical relationship (Pienemann 2005; 2011). The procedures are organized hierarchically according to how and across what barriers grammatical information must be traded between elements in a sentence for that sentence to be native-like. The acquisition of one procedure implies the learner has acquired the procedures before it on the hierarchy but not those after. The procedures are (in their hierarchical order from easiest to hardest): Lemma Procedure: learners can access words and chunks/routines such as gato, ratón, dormir and dame (no grammatical information is exchanged); Category Procedure: learners can directly attach morphological markings to words that do not require agreement with anything else such as durmiendo and miró (no grammatical information is exchanged between –iendo, for example, and something else in the sentence); Phrasal Procedure: learners can make agreement internal to a phrase such as an NP or a VP as in dos gatos (grammatical information regarding number is exchanged between a quantifier and a noun within a NP); Sentence Procedure: learners can make agreement across phrase boundaries within a single clause as in Un gato come ratones (grammatical information is exchanged between singular 3rd person subject in the NP and the verb in the VP); Clause Procedure: learners can make agreement between elements in two distinct clauses such as El gato que come ratones llegará a ser fuerte (grammatical information is exchanged between singular 3rd person subject in the NP of one clause – gato – and the verb in a VP of another clause – come).

What this hierarchy suggests is that if a learner is able to perform the sentence procedure for making subject-verb agreement during production, for example, that learner can also make noun-adjective agreement in a noun-phrase, can case mark objects in a verb-phrase, can produce past tense marking on verbs, and so on. That learner may not, however, be able to produce subjunctive morphology in an embedded clause. The ability to produce a structure within Processability Theory refers to emergence; that is, when a leaner begins to demonstrate the ability to produce a structure in spontaneous speech. Processability is not concerned with what is traditionally

3 I have not included here a description of the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen/Felser 2006), which in essence claims that L2 learners do not process syntactic relationships to the same “depth” as native speakers. I omit it here because it is not clear that it is a theory of acquisition, although one could attempt to tie it to ultimate attainment. What is more, because it is articulated as a hypothesis and not a theory, its purpose is different from the theories and frameworks discussed in the present chapter.

108

Bill VanPatten

termed “mastery.” And because its focus is on processing procedures, Processability Theory is agnostic on how a learner’s internal grammar develops. That is, Processability Theory assumes that “linguistic information” has made its way into the grammar and is available for processing when the time comes. The grammar does not develop because of output processing. At the same time, Processability Theory makes use of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) as part of its architecture. LFG is an offshoot of generative approaches to language that focuses on how a grammar might account for actual performance, whereas a classic Chomskyan grammar is concerned solely with representation (↗10 Second Language Acquisition).

2.2 Cognitive Approaches There are two major theories that can be subsumed under the domain of cognitive approaches. The first takes what is called an emergentist position and the second is based on skill theory. Emergentist positions believe that there is a single underlying architecture for human learning regardless of the content of that learning (e.g., Elman et al. 1996). Consequently, language learning uses the same architecture as learning anything else, and no special module for language is posited in the mind/brain of the learner. Any kind of linguistic knowledge in an emergentist framework evolves over time out of the interaction of input plus the general learning architecture. In short, representation “emerges” over time; no part of it is there from the beginning. Importantly, this representation is typically not characterized as the Chomskyan kind with a UG component that constrains it. Central to emergentist positions is frequency (e.g., Ellis 2002; 2006). Frequency is central because a fundamental idea of emergentist positions is that the human mind/ brain is an excellent tabulator of the number of times a person encounters a particular stimulus in the environment. This stimulus receives something like a “frequency index” such that stimuli that are more frequent are more robustly represented in the mind/brain, and thus more easy to access and use. Such things would also be the first to be learned in language compared to other things that are less frequent. (To be sure, other factors that affect learning are considered in emergentist positions but again, for sake of brevity, I am being selective.) Also central to the emergentist tradition is a contingent network. As linguistic elements are encountered in the input, they get networked with each other and serialized depending on the frequency with which they appear together in the input. Thus, determiner phrases (DPs) are formed over time because of the frequent appearance of el/la or un/una next to a noun, and so on. Because the combination noun + el/la never appears in the input, this possible order has a frequency value of zero and thus doesn’t enter the emergent grammar of a speaker of Spanish. Thus, grammatical structures in a given language are formed over time based on the relative weights of items as determined by their frequency in the input.

Language Acquisition Theories

109

Skill theory is concerned with the development of learners’ ability to comprehend and produce language (e.g., DeKeyser 1998; 2007; Lyster/Sato 2013). Like other cognitive approaches, it eschews any mental architecture that is language specific, and instead starts from the premise that language ability is skill development like any other skill development (e.g., playing chess, typing). Major constructs within skill theory include declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and automatization of procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge is, in essence, “knowledge that” such as knowledge how to do a dance move or knowledge that verbs and subjects agree in Italian. Procedural knowledge is “knowledge how” or the ability to act on declarative knowledge and put it to use in some way. Finally, automatization is the protracted process of fine-tuning procedural knowledge so that it can be used with speed and accuracy, the importance of each defined by context of language use as well as other factors. Important to skill theory is the concept of the power law of practice. Simply put, the power law says that as learners progress through practice, time to produce a desired action diminishes rapidly until it reaches a point where it is difficult for the desired action to be produced any faster (and more accurately). Similar to emergentist positions, skill theorists do not adopt a particular theory of language nor do they necessarily believe that the construct of mental representation articulated by generative approaches, for example, is a reality. Because the emphasis in skill theory is on observable behavior, what goes on in the mind (if anything) is not particularly relevant to the theory. Declarative knowledge within skill theory is not the same as underlying mental representation in a generative approach. One reason for this is that declarative knowledge may come about through observation of expert behavior or by explicit teaching (DeKeyser 2007), which suggests that the learner is attempting to consciously reason something out before attempting the skill him or herself. Mental representation, by definition, cannot be taught or explicitly learned. Given that the emphasis in skill theory is behavior and not knowledge, it is expected that such a theory would not concern itself with matters of how language is organized in the mind/brain.

2.3 Socio-Interactive Theories Different from all previous theories are those that embed learning in a social context and attempt to determine (1) how learners are agents in their own acquisition, (2) how context and participants shape the nature of interaction, and (3) what tools learners use to mediate learning based on (1) and (2).4 The most prominent of such theories 4 I am excluding, here, what is typically referred to as the Interaction Hypothesis because, as its proponents state, it is not a theory and is not meant to account for language acquisition (e.g., Gass/ Mackey 2007). In addition, scrutiny of the Interaction Hypothesis would lead one to situate it within cognitive approaches, given its affiliation with such terms as “noticing” and “attention.”

110

Bill VanPatten

applied to SLA is standardly referred to as sociocultural theory. The central premise of sociocultural theory is that all learning is socially situated and that learning is mediated by cultural artifacts, activities, and concepts (Lantolf 2000; Lantolf/Thorne 2007). Language can be – and usually is – one of these cultural artifacts. Socioculturalists tend to study how learners and their interlocutors behave and what linguistic (and other) tools they make use of during tasks with others or during selflearning. The focus, then, is less on language and more on external and observable behaviors that use language. For example, two of the foci in sociocultural theory have been dialogic interaction and inner speech. Dialogic interaction refers to how learners co-construct conversations with each other or with another speaker of the language. Such constructed conversations are the locus for both language and language learning. Typically, such learning is explicit in that during the interaction the learner is observed to “catch on” to something, or somehow works through a learning problem with the other speaker. Inner speech refers to learners’ thought processes – vocalized or sub-vocalized – that relate to how they deal with new information.5 Sociocultural theory – and others that examine the social context of language including issues related to learner identity – does not incorporate any concern for the linguistic, psycholinguistic, or cognitive aspects of learning. It is not clear how either language or the acquisition of linguistic properties is viewed in such theories. Thus, questions such as “What constrains the shape of a learner’s grammar?” or “Why does X emerge before Y in learner output?” are simply irrelevant to the research agenda for such theories. As in the case of skill theory – while also being quite different from it – sociocultural theory is concerned with observable behaviors.

3 What Should Theories Do? A common understanding of theories in any discipline is that they should explain observable phenomena as well as make testable predictions about phenomena not yet observed (e.g., Long 1990; VanPatten/Williams 2007). While this might seem straightforward in the sciences, the endeavor is less straightforward in SLA as the fundamental questions are, “What observable phenomena do we wish to explain?” and “What kind of phenomena should be the focus of our predictions?” (cf., for example, some of the discussion in Jordan 2004, as well as Gregg 2003). Since 1990, with the publication of Long’s ideas on what a theory in SLA ought to explain, very few theories have attempted to address any list of observed phenomena directly. The lone exception is

5 I note in passing that sociocultural, if not socio-interactive theories more generally, are prevalent among those working from educational perspectives, which suggests to me there is an intent for their use that is different from, say, linguistic, psycholinguistic, and even some cognitive perspectives.

Language Acquisition Theories

111

the collection in VanPatten/Williams (2007) in which the various theories represented in that book attempt to explain a reduced set of ten observable phenomena. In this chapter, I will take a slightly different approach to what theories should do by focusing on a particular feature of Spanish – null subjects and the null subject parameter. I will first describe the linguistic phenomenon itself and what we know about the L2 acquisition of the same. I will then discuss how the different theoretical approaches might account for the acquisition data to date. Before beginning, I admit my bias by calling the phenomenon a parameter. As a scholar, I am committed to the generative endeavor in accounting for the nature of language, even though the bulk of my work has been in processing and parsing. However, what I will describe in the next section are a series of facts about Spanish. One can still address these facts with or without believing in parameters. That is, the distinction between null and overt subjects, as well as and some of the various properties of Spanish that are related to them, exist regardless of one’s theoretical orientation. This should be clear as the description progresses.

3.1 The Null Subject Parameter in Spanish As is well known, Spanish is characterized by the ability to “freely” omit overt subject pronouns in simple declarative sentences.6 Examples appear in (3) and (4). (3)

¿Toma Bill vodka? Sí, toma martinis cada noche. ‘Does Bill drink vodka? Yes, (he) has martinis every night. (4) ¿Cuándo prefieres cenar? ‘When do you (inf.) prefer to eat?’

At the same time, null subjects are required (i.e., overt subjects are prohibited) when there is no antecedent. Examples appear in (5)–(9) below. (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

weather: Está lloviendo/*Ello está lloviendo.7 ‘It’s raining’ time: Es la una/*Ello es la una ‘It’s one o’clock’ impersonals: Es imposible que…/*Ellos es imposible que… ‘It’s impossible that…’ existentials: ¿Hay café? *Allí hay café? ‘Is there coffee?’ unidentified subjects: ¡Me robaron!/*¡Ellos me robaron! ‘I was robbed!/They robbed me!’ (‘they’ refers to an unknown person or persons)

6 For discussion of the various properties related to null subjects and the null subject parameter, in addition to the citations in this section see also Liceras/Díaz/Maxwell (1998), Rothman/Iverson (2007), Holmberg (2010), VanPatten/Rothman (forthcoming). 7 I am excluding here certain Caribbean dialects of Spanish, principally located in the Dominican Republic, which are showing signs of movement toward non-null subject status (see Toribio 2000).

112

Bill VanPatten

In addition, overt subject pronouns cannot take quantified and negative antecedents. For illustration, I repeat (1) from a previous section as (10). (10) a. Cada hombrei piensa que proi/j es muy inteligente. b. Cada hombrei piensa que él*i/j es muy inteligente. ‘Each man thinks he is intelligent.’ c. El hombrei piensa que proi/j es muy inteligente. d. El hombrei piensa que él i/j es muy inteligente. ‘The man thinks he is intelligent.’

At the same time, Spanish has rich person-number morphology, with syncretism happening only between 1st-sing and 3rd-sing in limited situations (e.g., imperfect morphology, subjunctive morphology). Thus, there are unique verbal inflections for all combinations of person and number allowing for the semantic information contained in subject pronouns to be recovered by verbal inflections when these pronouns are null. This suggests there should be a correspondence between underlying knowledge of null subjects and knowledge of person-number inflections on verbs. The distribution of null and overt subjects is guided by discourse factors, such as topic shift. Thus, while both null and overt subject pronouns are possible in (11), the overt subject sounds forced as there is no topic shift. (11) ¿Qué perdió Bill? pro/Él perdió las llaves. ‘What did Bill lose? He lost his keys.’

Finally, there is evidence that speakers of Romance null subject languages prefer to link null subjects to the subject of the previous clause while overt subject pronouns are more “free” to select antecedents. I will illustrate with (12) and (13) (12) Juan vio a Carlos mientras caminaba en la playa. (13) Juan vio a Carlos mientras él caminaba en la playa. ‘John saw Carlos while he was walking on the beach.’

When asked “Who was walking on the beach, Juan or Carlos?” native speakers demonstrate about a 70% response rate selecting Juan when the stimulus is (12). However, when the stimulus is (13) the response rate is at chance, around 50% (e.g., Alonso-Ovalle et al. 2002; Jegerski/VanPatten/Keating 2011). A good deal of research has been directed at the acquisition of the properties related to null subjects in Spanish L2. Following is a list of major features of that research. – Learners quickly understand that Spanish is null subject and accept early on sentences with null subjects (e.g., Liceras 1989; Rothman/Iverson 2007). They also tend to reject sentences with overt subject pronouns where null subjects are required (e.g., Liceras 1989).

Language Acquisition Theories

– –

–

–

113

There are early OPC effects once learners have determined that Spanish is null subject (e.g., Pérez-Leroux/Glass 1999). Although learners clearly have grasped the null-subject nature of Spanish as assessed via non-production measures, L2 learners tend to violate some of the discourse/pragmatic conventions that govern their distribution in both production and non-production tasks (e.g. Liceras 1989; Lubbers Quesada/Blackwell 2009). There appears to be very late acquisition – if acquisition at all – of native-like interpretation strategies for sentences (12) and (13). In such cases, even very advanced learners of Spanish as L2 tend to overwhelmingly link both null and overt subject pronouns with the subject of the previous clause, behaving distinctly from how native speakers link null and overt subject pronouns to previous antecedents (e.g., Jegerski/VanPatten/Keating 2011). In terms of the rich morphology for person-number that licenses null subjects, L2 learners seem to have null subject grammars even when their productive abilities with verbal inflections for person-number is far from under control (e.g., Liceras/ Díaz/Maxwell 1998). Indeed, the building up in the mental lexicon of personnumber inflections may lag far behind the more narrow syntax associated with such inflections (e.g., VanPatten/Keating/Leeser 2012).

3.2 Accounting for Null Subject Phenomena in Spanish L2 How would the various theories discussed in this chapter address the acquisition of null subjects and the null subject parameter? A generative approach would say first that UG permits null subjects as an option so that the acquisition of pro as an underlying feature should not be problematic for the learner, especially given its abundant evidence in the input (although a generative approach does not address how learners process input). In addition, a generative approach would also claim that the learner’s internal grammar is constrained by UG, so that once the learner “determines” that Spanish is a null subject language, the OPC kicks in and constrains the co-indexing of overt subjects barring them from taking quantified and wh- antecedents. Also, once the internal mechanisms have determined that Spanish is a null subject language, the derived property that requires null subjects when there is no antecedent is triggered (i.e., learners would reject sentences with an overt subject pronoun where one is barred). That is, learners do not have to learn this aspect of the grammar because it falls out of the nature of null versus overt subject pronouns. At the same time, a generative approach has little or nothing to say about how learners “determine” that Spanish is a null subject language. While a generative approach would make reference to the evidence for null subjects in the input, it cannot say how it is that learners process null subjects so that UG can inform the grammar that Spanish is null subject. In addition, because the discourse/pragmatic aspect of null and overt subject alternation falls outside of the scope the syntax per se, a

114

Bill VanPatten

generative approach cannot address the difficulty learners face in acquiring these aspects of usage. However, recent claims from a generative perspective suggest that so called “interfaces” are vulnerable to late acquisition or even non-acquisition compared to more narrow syntax (e.g., Sorace 2011; cf. also Slabakova 2013). Functional approaches have little to say about the acquisition of null subjects. Because functionalist approaches applied to SLA tend to be descriptive, the question they would ask is simply this: “What means do learners have for expressing subjecthood at time X and how does subject-hood develop over time?” Thus, functional approaches would gather data on learners of Spanish to see how subjecthood is expressed and what its meaning correlates are (e.g., animacy, agency). To my knowledge, there have been no investigations using a functionalist approach to null and overt subject pronouns in a language like Spanish, although there have been pragmatic-semantic approaches to Spanish L2 null subjects (e.g., Lubbers Quesada/Blackwell 2009). Unlike linguistic approaches, processing approaches have little to say about how the grammar is constrained or organized, but may address developmental issues. Input processing, for example, would say that as the parsing mechanism searches for subjects/agents in utterances during early stage acquisition, it is confronted with the problem of an absence of overt subject-hood in null subject sentences. When this is the case, the processor is forced to posit pro so that the theta grid of the verb is satisfied (e.g., Pritchett 1992). That is, when the verb tomar ‘drink’ is encountered, the parser is looking for something to assign the role of ‘drinker’, with an optional ‘thing drunk.’ But in Sí, toma vodka, no such overt element in the sentence exists. This datum then becomes available for the internal grammar in the construction of the parametric setting. Input processing has little to offer regarding the distributional properties of null and overt subject pronouns, although input processing would predict that overt subject pronouns – being lexical and having phonetic content – would be easily acquired due to the Lexical Preference Principle. That is, null and overt subject pronouns would be acquired before person-number markings on verbs, which is what is generally seen in learner development with L2 Spanish. Processability Theory has, overall, little to say about the acquisition of null subjects, the parametric issues that surround them, and the discourse/pragmatic issues related to their use. Because its focus is on the development of output processing procedures, it does make the prediction that learners’ ability to produce subject-verb agreement in Spanish would be later than something like gender agreement on adjectives inside an NP (e.g., Johnston 1995). However, it is possible that some kind of underlying representation for subject-verb agreement exists in the grammar (the licensing issue) before the learner can actually produce subject-verb agreement. In other words, because Processability Theory is largely a theory about output processing procedures, the theory must assume that something exists in underlying representation for the learner to make use of it during production. It is not clear how the acquisition of the distribution of null subjects in L2 speech is predicted by Processability Theory because the theory does not address issues of frequency or evidence in the input.

Language Acquisition Theories

115

Cognitive approaches would first argue that there is no null subject parameter and no underlying constraints because these approaches do not accept modularity and thus do not accept UG as a uniquely linguistic aspect of the mind/brain. So, it is not clear how emergentists and skill theorists, for example, would explain OPC effects that have been found in the L2 literature. It is also not clear if cognitivists accept something like pro as an underlying feature of the grammar. However, emergentists can provide an account of the problems L2 learners have with the acquisition of the distributional properties of null and overt subject pronouns. Because emergentists use frequency in the input as a major construct within the framework, and because it is clear that distribution can be quantified, it is possible for emergentists to predict late acquisition of the discourse/pragmatic problems with null and overt subject pronoun use. Because of the contingent nature of the network that is created in an emergentist mind/brain, L2 learners of Spanish would become sensitive over time to the linking of topic shift with overt subject pronouns, for example. Cognitive approaches could also account for the emergence of person-number endings on verbs. For example, 3rd-sing is the most frequent verb form in the input and is the one evidenced in learner production first. Although no cognitive approach has attempted to relate how the rest of the person-number endings emerge in the grammar or in learner output, my guess is that there would be a moderate to strong correlation between frequency in the input and how such surface features appear and come under control over time. (The reader will recall that rich verbal agreement is related to the existence of null subjects.)8 Skill theorists would have difficulty accounting for a good deal of what we see in the acquisition of null and overt subjects in Spanish. The first problem is this: What is the declarative knowledge that underlies the eventual proceduralization and automatization of the use of null and overt subject pronouns? To my knowledge, no such declarative knowledge exists, and because of the heavy emphasis on explicit knowledge as the foundation of declarative knowledge (although, to be sure, declarative knowledge need not be explicit 100% of the time), skill theorists would have a difficult time indicating what “gets practiced.” For example, is the declarative knowledge that null subjects exist in Spanish? This knowledge does the learner little good as it does not tell the learner under what conditions null and overt subjects appear. Likewise, something like

8 Something like underspecification theory from linguistic theory would posit that 3rd-sing is a default unmarked form and hence would emerge earlier in learner speech. This would be followed by other singular forms, with plural forms to follow (cf., e.g., McCarthy 2006). In addition, cf. VanPatten/ Keating/Leeser (2012) for a study on learners’ underlying knowledge of person-number endings in Spanish. To be sure, the acquisition of the surface manifestations of person-number endings on verbs is not necessary for learners to initially project a null subject grammar. The regular appearance of pro in the input can do that. But because the licensing of null subjects is related to rich person-number morphology, it may be the case that learners grammars have an underlying abstract feature for agreement triggered by the presence of pro, and that they subsequently “seek out” rich morphology in the input to build the complete grammar.

116

Bill VanPatten

the OPC surely never enters the mind of the learner as some kind of declarative knowledge (and it certainly is never taught). Skill theorists might argue that learners get something like the following as an example of declarative knowledge: use overt subjects when there is a topic shift? This is certainly possible, but it seems doubtful. The sole area in which skill theorists clearly have something to contribute is the gradual acquisition of person-number endings on verbs. Here, skill theorists would predict that with practice, learners proceduralize and eventually automatize subject-verb agreement in their production. And this could certainly be preceded by declarative knowledge regarding the paradigmatic surface features of verb endings routinely taught to learners – and also readily observed in the input by learners. We turn now to socio-interactive theories. Quite simply, they are irrelevant to the acquisition of null subjects and the null subject parameter. That is, because they eschew linguistic description and internal mechanisms for language construction, such approaches cannot address what we know to date about how null and overt subjects develop in learners over time. Socio-interactive theories focus on matters other than language. This state of affairs does not mean that such theories cannot help us understand something about the acquisition of the properties of null subject properties. I simply mean to point out that it is not clear such approaches would want to.

4 What Is the Future of Theories in SLA? The nature of theories, theory construction, and the application of theories to SLA has been characterized by a certain rockiness. There is rockiness in that theories are often seen to be in competition with each other, with somewhat acrimonious exchanges among scholars regarding such competition (e.g., the exchanges between Kevin Gregg and James Lantolf in the late 1990s in the journal Second Language Research). The position I take in this chapter is that although there is some incompatibility among some theories, in the end there is no single theory that will account for second language acquisition (cf. also Rothman/VanPatten 2013). Roughly sketched out, to account for SLA we will need the following: – a theory of language – a theory of language input processing – a theory of language output processing – a theory of how learners “get better” over time (a skill theory or an emergentist/ connectionist type theory) The scope and utility of each of these theories was demonstrated earlier with null subjects in Spanish. A theory of language helps us to characterize the mental representation that develops: the nature of null and overt subject pronouns and how they should “behave” within a theory of language. A theory of input processing helps us to link data in the environment with the mental representation: how null and overt

Language Acquisition Theories

117

pronouns are initially acquired from the linguistic environment and “delivered” to the internal mechanisms responsible for creating language. A theory of output processing links mental representation with how learners serialize linguistic elements during speech processing: in the present case, how learners make sentences with subjects, and how agreement between subjects and verbs emerges over time. Finally, a theory of how learners get better in their use of null and overt subjects helps us understand the gradual gain in accuracy and speed that learners achieve in communicative settings. No one theory can account for the totality of what null and overt subject pronouns are, how they are distributed in a language like Spanish, and how learners both come to know what they know about the properties of these pronouns but also how they come to use them in communicative settings.9 Under this scenario, different theories play different roles in what is, to be sure, the complex process called language acquisition. As we continue to develop our understanding of how Romance (and, for that matter, non-Romance) languages are acquired, we must remember that any theory is narrow in scope, but language acquisition is not. In the future, we may see less competition among theories (and their proponents) and more circumscription about what part of acquisition they can speak to. Due to the focus of the present chapter, I have not touched on the role that theories might play in instructional practice (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). It would seem, however, that their application to practice would fall out of how theories are used to explain acquisition. Once we have a better grasp of the particular domains of their explanatory power, the use of theories for language instruction should become clearer. In the meantime, we do see such things as input processing, processability, and skill theory being used to make specific suggestions regarding praxis in instructed environments. I leave a full discussion of this area of theory development and use for others.

5 Bibliography Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, et al. (2002), Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish, Rivista di linguistica 14, 151–169. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (2000), Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use, Oxford, Blackwell. Clahsen, Harald/Felser, Claudia (2006), Grammatical processing in language learners, Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 3–42. DeKeyser, Robert (1998), Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar, in: Catherine Doughty/Jessica Williams (edd.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 42–63.

9 For an attempt to use elements of processing and emergentism, while firmly committed to the generative perspective on representation, cf. Truscott/Sharwood Smith (2004).

118

Bill VanPatten

DeKeyser, Robert (2007), Skill acquisition theory, in: Bill VanPatten/Jessica Williams (edd.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 97–113. Ellis, Nick C. (2002), Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 143–188. Ellis, Nick C. (2006), Language acquisition as rational contingency learning, Applied Linguistics 27, 1–24. Elman, Jeffrey L., et al. (1996), Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. García Mayo, María del Pilar/Gutierrez Mangado, María Junkal/Martínez Adrián, María (edd.) (2013), Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Gass, Susan M./Mackey, Alison (2007), Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition, in: Bill VanPatten/Jessica Williams (edd.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 175–199. Gregg, Kevin R. (1989), Second language acquisition theory: The case for a generative perspective, in: Susan M. Gass/Jacquelyn Schachter (edd.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 15–40. Gregg, Kevin R. (2003), SLA theory: Construction and Assessment, in: Catherin Doughty/Michael H. Long (edd.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Blackwell, 831–865. Holmberg, Anders (2010), Null subject parameters, in: Theresa Biberauer et al. (edd.), Parametric Variation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 88–124. Jegerski, Jill/VanPatten, Bill/Keating, Gregory D. (2011), Cross-linguistic variation and the acquisition of pronominal reference in L2 Spanish, Second Language Research 27, 481–507. Johnston, Malcolm (1995), Stages of acquisition of Spanish as a second language, Australian Studies in Language Acquisition 4, 6–35. Jordan, Geoff (2004), Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Lantolf, James P. (2000), Introducing sociocultural theory, in: James P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1–26. Lantolf, James P./Thorne, Steven L. (2007), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, in: Bill VanPatten/Jessica Williams (edd.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 201–224. Liceras, Juana M. (1989), On some properties of the “pro’drop” parameter: Looking for Missing subjects in non-native Spanish, in: Susan M. Gass/Jacquelyn Schachter (edd.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 109–133. Liceras, Juana M./Díaz, Lourdes/Maxwell, Denyse (1998), Null arguments in non-native grammars: the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese and Korean speakers, in: Elaine Klein/Gita Martohardjono (edd.), The Development of Second Language Grammar: A Generative Approach, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 113–149. Long, Michael H. (1990), The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain, TESOL Quarterly 24, 649–666. Lubbers Quesada, Margaret/Blackwell, Sarah E. (2009), The L2 acquisition of null and overt Spanish subject pronouns: A pragmatic approach, in: Joseph Collentine/Maryellen García, Barbara Lafford/Francisco Marcos Marín (edd.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press, 117–130. Lyster, Roy/Sato, Masatoshi (2013), Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development, in: María del Pilar García Mayo/María Junkal Gutierrez Mangado/María Martínez Adrián (edd.), Contemporary Approaches to Second language Acquisition, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 71–91. McCarthy, Corrine (2006), Default morphology in second language Spanish: Missing inflection of underspecified inflection?, in: Jean-Pierre Montreuil/Chiyo Nishida (edd.), New Perspectives on

Language Acquisition Theories

119

Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 201–212. Montalbetti, Mario (1984), After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns, unpublished PhD Dissertation, MIT. Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa/Glass, William R. (1999), Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: Probabilistic versus generative approaches, Second Language Research 15, 220–249. Pienemann, Manfred (2005), An Introduction to processability theory, in: Manfred Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1–60. Pienemann, Manfred (2011), The psycholinguistic basis of PT, in: Manfred Pienemann/Jörge-U. Kessler (edd.), Studying Processability Theory, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 27–49. Pritchett, Bradley L. (1992), Grammatical Competence and Parsing Performance, Chicago, The University of Chicago. Rothman, Jason/Iverson, Michael (2007), The syntax of null subjects in L2 Spanish: Comparing two L2 populations under different exposure, Revista española de lingüística aplicada 20, 185–214. Rothman, Jason/VanPatten, Bill (2013), On multiplicity and mutual exclusivity: The case for different SLA theories, in: María del Pilar García-Mayo/María Junkal Gutierrez Mangado/María Martínez Adrián (edd.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 243–256. Slabakova, Roumyana (2013), What is easy and what is hard to acquire in a second language: A generative perspective, in: María del Pilar García-Mayo/María Junkal Gutierrez Mangado/María Martínez Adrián (edd.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 5–28. Sorace, Antonella (2011), Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism, Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1, 1–33. Toribio, Almeida J. (2000), Settingparametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish, Lingua 10, 315–341. Truscott, John/Sharwood Smith, Michael (2004), Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 1–20. VanPatten, Bill. (2004), Input processing in SLA, in: Bill VanPatten (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Reseach, and Commentary, Mahway, NJ, Erlbaum, 5–31. VanPatten, Bill (2007), Input processing in adult SLA, in: Bill VanPatten/Jessica Williams (edd.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 115–135. VanPatten, Bill (2009), Processing matters, in: Thorsten Piske/Martha Young-Scholten (edd.), Input Matters, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 47–61. VanPatten, Bill/Keating, Gregory D./Leeser, Michael J. (2012), Missing verbal inflections as a representational problem: Evidence from self-paced reading, Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2, 109–140. VanPatten, Bill/Rothman, Jason (2013), Against “rules”, in: Alessandro Benati/Cécile Laval/María J. Arche (edd.), The Grammar Dimension in Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Theory, Research, and Practice, London, Continuum Press. VanPatten, Bill/Rothman, Jason (forthcoming), What does current generative theory have to say about the explicit-implicit debate? in: Patrick Rebuschat (ed.), Explicit and implicit learning of languages, Amsterdam, Benjamins. VanPatten, Bill/Williams, Jessica (edd.) (2007), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. von Stutterheim, Christiane/Klein, Wolfgang (1987), A concept-oriented approach to second language studies, in: Carol W. Pfaff (ed.), First and Second Language Acquisition Processes, Cambridge, MA, Newbury House, 191–205. White, Lydia (2003), Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

First Language Acquisition

Aliyah Morgenstern

7 Children’s Multimodal Language Development Abstract: Through constant exposure to adult input, in dialogue, children’s language gradually develops into rich linguistic constructions that contain multiple cross-modal elements subtly used together for coherent communicative functions. In this chapter, we retrace children’s pathways into multimodal language acquisition in a scaffolding interactional environment. We begin with the first multimodal buds children produce that contain both gestural and vocal elements and how adults’ input, including reformulations and recasts, provide children with embedded model utterances they can internalize. We then show how these buds blossom into more complex constructions, focusing on the importance of creative non standard forms. Children’s productions finally bloom into full multimodal intricate productions. In our last part, we focus on argument structure, Tense, Mood and Aspect and the complexification of co-verbal gestures as they are coordinated with speech. Keywords: language development, adult scaffolding, multimodal language, language acquisition

1 Introduction Thousands of multidisciplinary studies of first language acquisition do not reduce our capacity to be amazed by infants’ interactive skills and the speed with which children become multimodal speakers. The analysis of their first steps into language can only increase our appreciation of the importance of their interactions with adults and older siblings in the development of their multimodal language skills. Even if children have innate biological and cognitive capacities, they need to learn social and linguistic conventions from the input. They construct these capacities in parallel with other cognitive and social skills, such as the ability to follow the others’ gaze, to draw their attention, to read their intentions, to make analogies, to symbolize. Gestures, verbal productions, signs, gaze, facial expressions, and postures, are all part of our socially learned, inter-subjective communicative system. Human beings, with all their representational skills, combine modalities in order to share meaning, to refer to present and absent entities and events, to express their intentions, their desires and their inner feelings. As McNeill (1992, 2) pointed out, we might “broaden our concept of language.” Research in signed languages has helped to show how the visual modality can be used symbolically. Thanks to combinations of experimental and field studies, video recordings, specialized software, multi-language databases, theoretical approaches that include multiple levels of analyses, and thanks to rich

124

Aliyah Morgenstern

collaborations among experts from several scientific fields (↗2 Research Methods), we now have the tools to pursue the insight that “vocal language is inherently multimodal” (Muller 2009, 216). One approach to children’s linguistic knowledge is to study longitudinal naturalistic recordings of individual children and analyze both the children’s productions and the input they receive over a certain period of time. Child language research is one of the first fields in which spontaneous conversation data was systematically collected, initially through diary studies (Ingram 1989; Morgenstern 2009), and later by audio and video recordings shared worldwide thanks to the CHILDES project (MacWhinney 32000). Corpora from various languages therefore form the backbone for a large number of issues in the field. The data-centered method has allowed many researchers to confirm that in the course of their development, children make their way through successive transitory systems with their own internal coherence (Cohen 1924). This phenomenon can be observed at all levels of linguistic analysis. Following Tomasello (2003), we assume that children initially learn concrete chunks of language, linguistic gestalts that can take different sizes and shapes, in dialogue. They then generalize across those various elements in order to assemble abstract constructions (Fillmore 1988; Goldberg 1995; Michaelis 22006) in the process of creating new utterances. These linguistic constructions are units of language that contain multiple cross-modal elements used together for coherent communicative functions. Language acquisition is a fruitful field in which to apply Construction Grammar and in particular “Multimodal Construction Grammar.” As Ingram (1989, 483) reminds us: “Constructions have been in child language all the time.” The 19th-century observers of child language had already expressed their intuitions about gestalt language in their diaries about their own children (Stern/Stern 1907; Pavlovitch 1920). These intuitions were expanded on by Brown (1973), and applied by authors such as Crystal/Fletcher/Garman (1976) to assess language levels, by Peters (1980) to describe the development of language units, and by many developmental-functionalist approaches to language acquisition (Budwig 1995; Clark 2003) to relate language development to other domains of cognition and to its social, conversational anchoring. The “founding fathers” of the study of child development and language had great intuitions about the importance of gestures and their relation to language. Darwin (1877), in his notes on his son’s development, stresses the importance of observing the transition from uncontrolled body movements to intentional gestures. Romanes (1889) compares human and animal gestures. He makes new observations about qualitative differences and mentions the “gestural language of deaf people” as a sign of the universality of symbolic gestures. The starting point of language acquisition scholars’ interest in gesture, visible bodily action or object-actions (Sansavini et al. 2010) could be summarized in de Laguna’s assertion that “in order to understand what the baby is saying you must see

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

125

what the baby is doing” (1927, 91). Children’s productions are like evanescent sketches of adult language and can only be analyzed in their interactional context by taking into account shared knowledge, actions, manual gestures, facial expressions, body posture, head movements, all types of vocal productions, along with the recognizable words used by children (Morgenstern/Parisse 2007; Parisse/Morgenstern 2010). Research in language acquisition has therefore developed the tools, methods, and theoretical approaches to analyze children’s multimodal productions in context as early as the second half of the 19th century, through scientists’ diary observations of their own children, followed by audio and then video-recordings made by outside observers. The detailed follow-ups of children’s language anchored in their daily lives are a source of links between motor and psychological development, cognition, affectivity, and language. Children can internalize the language to which they are exposed; and they can extract form-function pairings, use them with sensitivity to the pragmatic and dialogue context (Halliday 1967). But they also exploit the creative potential of language (Chomsky 1959), going beyond rote learning based on situations that are fixed in advance. Children are both lumpers, as they generalize observations into patterns, and splitters, as they analyze patterns based on item-specific knowledge. Their mastery of language is marked by how freely they combine constructions and produce utterances that are accepted and understood by their interlocutors in context through negotiation of meaning as part of the social practice of conversation (Gumperz/Levinson 1996). The main factors affecting language development thus are 1) communicative intention, 2) frequency and saliency in the input, and 3) children’s very own affective, social and practical concerns. Those three main factors come into play to various degrees according to the specific linguistic item that is being acquired.

2 First Multimodal Buds 2.1 Pre-Linguistic Scaffolding and Replication Vygotsky’s theory of learning as socially co-constructed between collaborating partners within a cultural context (1934; 1978) gives a fundamental role to interaction in the cognitive and language development of children. Originally developed by Wood/ Bruner/Ross (1976) in the context of first language acquisition, scaffolding is a metaphor that is based on the Vygotskyan premise of learning as a socially constructed process (↗8 Bases of Linguistic Development). Children’s understanding of novel entities is often mediated by their interlocutors’ affective display, especially through facial expressions (Ekman 1984). This type of “social referencing” and the “affective frames” is fundamental to children’s cognitive and linguistic development (Klinnert et al. 1983; Ochs/Schieffelin 1989).

126

Aliyah Morgenstern

Children’s entry into language is therefore guided by the input and is also very much triggered by children’s eagerness to imitate their conversational partners (Gopnik/Meltzoff/Kuhl 1999). Children’s first productions are permeated with imitation and replication of the constructions heard in the adult input. In order for them to actually learn linguistic constructions, be they sound patterns, gestures, words or multimodal constructions, children must repeat and manipulate the forms, play with them, at first often on their own, in monologic cooing and babbling that serves as a kind of laboratory to test a wide range of sounds and prosodic patterns, or gestural configurations and movements. They activate them in a productive manner in interactions focusing on average frequencies and producing syllables or gestural configurations that are closer to the adult system. It begins with dialogical babbling or conversational vocalizations (Trevarthen 1977), for example, during diaper changing, when it is not really clear who, between the parent and the child, imitates the other. It continues with routines (Bruner 1983) and conventional gestures that enter the child’s repertoire around 10–11 months old either through everyday playful scripts or songs and nursery rhymes, such as “au-revoir” (waving hands), “caché” (playfully hiding face with hands), “bravo” (clapping hands), “Ainsi font, font, font les petites marionnettes” (a French song that is accompanied by hand gestures representing puppets). All those gestures derive from the culture the children are brought up in and have very strong social and symbolic values. If children take up and imitate the forms produced by their parents, parents also seize and take up the sounds and movements produced by their children, in order to endow them with as much meaning as possible, and shape them into a form that could be compatible with the adult communicative system. In the following example taken from the Forrester corpus (CHILDES database; Forrester 2008), the father takes up his daughter’s gesture, which could be interpreted by the observer as not being intentional and communicative at all, and transforms it into a game that serves as a transition toward meaning. Example 1. Ella 1;021 The father and the daughter are having breakfast *FATHER : Are you tired ? Ella whimpers and rubs her face. *FATHER : Oh a little bit. She then makes a very unexpected gesture. Her hand goes down along her hair. She hits her head and looks at her father as she produces a short vocalization. *ELLA : eh ! He takes up his daughter’s gesture and points to her head *FATHER : baby’s head. He then points at his own head. *FATHER : daddy’s head.

1 Age is indicated in [X years; Y months]: 1;02: 1 year and 2 months.

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

127

The father takes up what seems to be a non-intentional non-communicational gesture and transforms it by shaping it into a conventional pointing gesture, through which he can designate alternatively his own head and his daughter’s head. He has changed it into a social gesture which is part of the string of routinely-used pointing gestures of the various members of the family that Ella will take up and replay herself in the following sessions in the data.

2.2 Language in Action Language – a social phenomenon – is captured, internalized and reconstructed again and again by each individual child thanks to its transmission by care-givers in their daily interactions with their upspring. “Meaning comes about through praxis – in the everyday interactions between the child and significant others” (Budwig 2003, 108). Joint parent-child action/interaction provides the scaffold for children’s growing ability to grasp both what is happening around them, and what is being said in the situation. They learn to understand language and action together, each providing support for the other. Duranti explains that language is “a mediating activity that organizes experience” (1984, 36) but of course, experience is conversely a mediating activity that organizes language. To examine how children come to use language in general, one must examine the broader context in which the child experiences events and interaction. Zlatev (1997) suggests that sensorimotor schemas provide the “grounding” of language in experience and will then lead to children’s access to the symbolic function. Infants’ imitation and general production of gestures has indeed been studied as a prerequisite to construct “pre-linguistic” concepts, as a pathway into the symbolic function of language or a bridge between language and embodiment. Gestures are viewed as representational structures, constructed through imitation, that are enacted overtly and can be shared with others. Mimetic schemas for imitable actions, shared representations of objects that can be manipulated, ground the acquisition of children’s first gestures and first words or signs. In addition, evidence from brain and behavioral studies shows that language use engages motor representations (Glenberg/Kashak 2003) and that through complex imitation, manual-gestural communication in social interaction leads to language (Arbib 2012).

2.3 First Gestures and “Multimodal Constructions”2 Children’s neurological maturation enables them to control their bodily movements and transform them into gestures thanks to increasingly finer motor skills. Some of

2 This expression was used extensively with the same meaning by Andrén (2010).

128

Aliyah Morgenstern

these gestures are assigned meaning by their interlocutors. First gestures, just before the first birthday, are usually deictic: pointing at an object or waving an object to show it to the parent and attract joint attention. Pointing gestures in particular combine motor and cognitive prerequisites with the capacity to symbolize and to take up forms used by adults in dialogue. At around one year old, children produce representational gestures using their entire bodies to imitate an animal for example. Children also start using gestures that reflect those in their input around the same period (Estigarribia/Clark 2007). They develop cognitive prerequisites that allow them to take up symbolic gestures from the environment. Children’s interactive gestures have been mostly studied either in the stage called “pre-linguistic” when they are used in isolation, or when they are combined with words and are described as facilitating children’s access to first combinations. Synchrony and asynchrony have been presented as important features in multimodal multi-element communication. Kelly (2011) has observed in her data that children’s interaction skills unfold from communications across a single modality to multimodal synchronized communications. Goldin-Meadow and her colleagues have thoroughly investigated productions of gesture-speech combinations and their comprehension at the one-word stage and beyond (Özçalışkan/Goldin-Meadow 2005). They observe that children first use the two modalities to communicate about the same element like holding up a cookie and saying “cookie.” Later on, speech and gesture will together form an integrative system (Goldin-Meadow/Butcher 2003). Using two modalities for two different elements is described as preceding the onset of two-word speech. The skills to express more than one element or aspect of an event in the same turn as opposed to what Scollon (1976) calls “vertical constructions” (different elements expressed in two successive turns that are often united in parents reformulations), are necessary for children to be able to combine two words. The multifaceted character of an event is first expressed through two complementary modalities, with a gesture and a word referring to two different elements. Those word-gesture combinations have been documented in the second year and could be considered as a transition towards two word utterances (Goldin-Meadow/Butcher 2003). In the situation of book-reading for example, a care-giver will very often repeat the “multimodal construction” look (or here) plus pointing. Example 2 shows that Madeleine, a French little girl, takes up the exact same construction with the directive verbal element “regarde” and the gestural deictic element towards the illustration on the book: Example 2. Madeleine 1;01 *MER: oh regarde le petit Popi ! The mother points at a character on the magazine (Popi) with her index. Madeleine looks at the magazine. *MER: oh il met les pieds dans l’eau ? Madeleine tries to turn the page but her mother is still showing her other elements in the same picture.

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

129

*MER: regarde c’est quoi ça ? The mother is pointing at an element on the picture. *MER: c’est quoi ça ? *MER: c’est un ? *MAD: ver ( %pho : vɛʁ Madeleine turns the page. *MER: oh petit ours ! *MAD: regarde. %pho: œga She points at an element on the picture *MER: oui.

In this extract, Madeleine uses exactly the same prosodic pattern as her mother when she produces her incomplete string of phonemes “œga” for the word “regarde” (look). Children are quite skilled at using the right prosodic patterns at a very early age (Konopczynski 1990) to transmit their intentions through a range of speech acts (request, directive, comment) and it compensates for their incomplete phonological system. Prosodic patterns therefore help them make the transition from pre-linguistic vocalizations to first words. The transition from gesture-word combinations to word-word combinations is scaffolded by the adult communicative strategies, as when the mother replies to the infant’s gesture-word combination by translating it into a “unimodal” spoken utterance (Goldin-Meadow 2009).

3 The Blossoming of Multiword Utterances 3.1 A Transitional Period The transition from one to two word utterances in children’s development is usually viewed as a fundamental stage around the age of 18–24 months. Word order (Schlesinger 1971), their function and the organization into a system have been analyzed in detail. Prosody plays a very important role during this transition period. Speech is organized into prosodic units and children are particularly attentive to those patterns. Before they produce two turns in which two words could be considered as complementary, children actually produce one word utterances combined with gesture and gaze synchronously, and those Successive Single Word Utterances (Bloom 1973) do involve gaze and gesture as well. Children start producing two word utterances around 18 months but individual variations are quite important. There is a coincidence between children’s lexical explosion and the first two word utterances (Bates 1994) and an intermediary stage during which either a predication is separated by a pause and there is one single prosodic pattern or a predication is constructed over two turns.

130

Aliyah Morgenstern

Example 3. Léonard 1;10 Léonard seems to offer Aliyah a meatball. *A: Elle est à moi la boulette? Je peux la manger? Non! Elle est à toi. *L: nɔ̃ // *M: C’est la boulette de Aliyah ou c’est la boulette de Léonard *L: n : // *M: Hein? *L: nona // *M: Ouais. L is pensive. *L: alija // Everybody laughs. *M: Aliyah oui! *L: mɑ̃z // *M: Aliyah elle mange? Non!

The child has produced two separate turns that are linked both by a syntactic and a semantic relation. Léonard is not exactly constructing predications on his own; it is collaborative work with the help of adult interlocutors. The mother reformulates the whole predication by putting together in one turn what the child has produced in two separate turns. Aliyah/mange becomes “Aliyah elle mange?” (“Aliyah is eating?”). Scollon (1976) used the term “vertical constructions” for those Successive Single Word Utterances strung together in dialogue. His work showed that discourse competence developed before complex syntax, and that interaction with competent interlocutors facilitated development. Veneziano (1999) has explained the impact of adult scaffolding through their reformulation between two Successive Single Word Utterances.

3.2 Multiword Speech According to Veneziano/Sinclair/Berthoud (1990, 646) children can enter multiword speech once they have the capacity to keep more than one aspect of the event or situation in their minds and to express these simultaneous aspects through the linear arrangement of language. The child enters syntax and produces several terms with the same prosodic pattern (no pause longer than 1.5 seconds between terms, Greenfield/Smith 1976). Prosody is therefore a great part of these first syntactic structures in which several elements are integrated in a single intonational unit.3 Children’s longer utterances are often triggered by the fact that they express information that the adult does not have as in the following example.

3 For a more elaborate description of the role of prosody in a French-speaking child during this period, see Martel/Dodane (2011).

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

131

Example 4 – Léonard 2;0 His mother asks him to tell her what he did in nursery school *M : qu’est-ce que vous avez fait ? (what did you do ?) *L : fe la pɛ̃tyr (do painting) *M : vous avez fait de la peinture ! (you did painting !)

The child’s production is initiated by the mother who has not witnessed his activities in his daycare center. His utterance is fully scaffolded by the mother’s question: he takes up the predicate (fait) and adds the name of the activity (la peinture). The mother reformulates and adds the grammatical subject, which was omitted by the child, providing a model with a verbal construction that is complete. It has been found that children do not produce all the arguments at once at the beginning of multiword speech. Rather, they have a tendency to omit subjects even when they are grammatically required (Bloom 1990), and they do not produce complex constructions with two or three arguments at first. Nativist theories (Chomsky 1959, Pinker 1984) assume that despite the fact that they don’t use adult-like utterances, children operate with an abstract knowledge of grammatical categories. The “incomplete” form of young children’s productions is explained by performance limitations: the limitation in memory capacity governs their ability to realize sentence constituents overtly. Valian (1991) has argued that since children have full competence, they will avoid producing utterances that they know are wrong; instead, they will make less “complex” utterances, in particular more intransitive constructions than transitive constructions. But from a constructivist perspective, Theakston et al. (2001) have demonstrated that a clearer predictor of the sentential frames the children use with specific verbs is the frames their mothers use with the same verbs. These authors have found no significant differences between adult speech and children’s speech in terms of preference for certain verb frames for particular verbs. Indeed, “constructionist approaches emphasize the fact that languages are learned, that they are CONSTRUCTED on the basis of the input together with general cognitive, pragmatic and processing constraints” (Goldberg 2006, 3). In their conversational exchanges with adults and in the surrounding language they overhear, children are provided with information about the frequencies of various forms and seem to be extremely sensitive to that factor. They opt for the most frequent and productive affixes in word-formation, for example, and only later master the less frequently used ones (Clark/Berman 1984). Children use specific verbs only in constructions they have heard in the input (de Villiers 1983). Progressively, and in part owing to their parents’ reformulations or requests for clarification embedded in dialogue, children will tend to use standard constructions more and more. Example 5. Léonard 2;0 *L : a pœ ki klun (a afraid of the clown)

132

Aliyah Morgenstern

*M : qui a peur du clown ? *L : wi nona pœ ki klun (yes, Nona is afraid of the clown)

The child has clarified the reference of the subject, first produced as what the literature calls a “filler syllable” (Peters 2001), the vowel “a” of which the reference remains vague, and has used his own name instead of the first person pronoun “je” that enables speakers to refer to themselves. This non-standard contrastive and disambiguating use of his name instead of the first person pronoun is part of the child’s pathway into the adult linguistic system.

3.3 Emergent Categories Children produce a number of non-standard forms at the beginning of the learning process. Observers of child language have noted the recurrent “errors” produced by children between one and three, which have been referred to as “barbarisms” (Egger 1879) or “incorrect forms” (Bühler 1935). Most linguists now consider these “errors” as revealing the process of early grammaticalization in children’s speech, as in Eve Clark’s description of what she calls “emergent categories” (2003). Some of those forms illustrate how children are able to move beyond frozen expressions thanks to productive analyses of the input, and might create non-adult constructions in the process of learning form-function pairings. The deviations children make could be non-standard forms derived from overgeneralizations, such as “les chevals” instead of “les chevaux.” But they could also be standard forms used with non-standard functions such as the second person pronoun used to designate “themselves” (Morgenstern 2012). It is important to analyze the transitory aspect of the child’s productions at each stage of development and to consider each stage as an interlanguage on its own, a system that is quite unstable but with its own identity: “Emergent categories are a fleeting phenomenon, in part because children are so sensitive to the speech addressed to them and hence to the conventions of the language they are acquiring” (Clark 2003, 399). Clark explains that children grammaticalize the notion of “control,” which is the equivalent of high agentivity, by using strong pronouns. The choice of a unique form such as “moi” or “me” will then be abandoned in order to express the standard functions found in the adult system. In certain cases, some notions that the child uses are not grammaticalized in the adult system that surrounds them. They will abandon them just like they abandoned the phonemes they were able to produce when they were babies and stopped using when their phonological system followed the model of the surrounding input. Children’s productions do differ somewhat from the input for pragmatic reasons (use of imperatives in child-directed speech, infrequent in the children’s productions except in set expressions like “tiens”/“here”), cognitive-developmental reasons (missing arguments, phonologically incomplete forms) or because they create non stan-

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

133

dard forms derived from their own analysis of the input. But over time, thanks in part to their cognitive capacities, experience, and amount of exposure, and in part to the adults’ recasts, reformulations and expansions in conversational exchanges (Chouinard/Clark 2003), the children will fully acquire the adult patterns, and abandon the somewhat creative variations and deviations they have constructed in the process.

4 Language in Bloom Children have been shown to match the input and its specificities as language develops. We will focus on a few elements of language complexity: argument structure, the expression of time, mood and tense and the blossoming of co-verbal gestures.

4.1 Argument Structure Children do not produce elements for a given verb that are markedly different from what they hear. We can observe a progression from incomplete patterns to complete patterns in development. Young children have difficulties producing forms with many arguments, and this is especially true for three-argument constructions. They first tend to omit unstressed syntactic markers such as clitics, although a large number of filler syllables are produced. Children’s early productions do not demonstrate a coherent formal grammar but initially consist instead of a set of item-based constructional islands. In our study of six French constructions (Morgenstern/Parisse 2012b), we found that during a first period (up to 2;01), the three children we studied slowly entered the system with deviations of all kinds from the adult input. We noted the co-occurrence of two strategies at the same age: using fixed patterns directly replicated from the input on the one hand, and creating more elaborate constructions on the other. The following examples occur at 2;09 in Madeleine’s data. Example 6 *MAD: Faut la mettre comme ça.

In the adult’s data we find examples of this exact same utterance. Example 7 *MAD: Je vais la mettre derrière la table à langer pour les animaux.

Example 7 is more elaborate, and it only makes sense in the specific situation in which it has been produced, requiring more creativity in the child’s production. There are other original instances that demonstrate her creativity, such as when she uses tu me donnes un service at 2;04 instead of the correct adult French tu me rends un service. She has of course most likely never heard an adult produce such a

134

Aliyah Morgenstern

construction since it is not “conventional” French. Her use of donner might be seen as tinting the expression with the sense that the favor is actually a gift from the adult (the agent) to her (the recipient). At the end of the data, the children’s productions tend to resemble the adults’, but they still use fewer three-argument constructions and more two-argument constructions than the adults.

4.2 Tense, Mood, and Aspect Because time is a complex abstract notion not manifest in daily life through objective experience or direct perception, language is one of the main means by which children acquire its essence in interaction. The development of verbal temporal morphology is a domain in which children’s cognitive, communicative and language abilities are clearly intertwined. A number of cognitive prerequisites, particularly the need to remember or anticipate remote events, are essential. The specific semantic and morphosyntactic properties of the language being learned must also be taken into account. We have observed two main stages of development in the acquisition of the French temporal system (Morgenstern/Parisse/Sekali 2009): 1) Only a small subset of the large variety of forms available in French is initially used. Children produce forms that are frequent and salient in the input, using them even more frequently and systematically than the adults. 2) Later, a variety of forms appear, including forms that are infrequent in the input. Children start producing several inflections for the same verb. Children’s ability to include temporal reference in their productions is often reported as developing gradually and slowly (Bronckart/Sinclair 1973; Smith 1980). Weist/ Wysocka/Lyytinen (1991) show that children are first linguistically, semantically and cognitively limited to the immediate situation – the here and now. Then they become capable of displacement and invoke past and prospective intervals. French children for instance start to produce present forms, closely followed by passé composé and periphrastic future forms, with gradual progress in the production of the actual morphosyntactic marking. It is only later that they start using less frequent forms, such as imparfait and future. The relative infrequency of linguistic forms to express displacement from speech time is consistent with most previous research, which proposes that children mark aspect before tense and are restricted to referring to the here and now. The pace of acquisition is considered as being governed by a combination of factors, including syntactic, semantic and cognitive complexity, as well as the frequency of the forms in the input. However, children appear to be able to refer to past, present, future, and to different aspectual meanings, from quite an early age, but in order to observe this, it is necessary to go beyond language forms and to pay attention to communicative

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

135

meaning (Parisse/Morgenstern 2012). Children’s productions are interpreted in context as referring to complex events and a variety of temporal realities and situation types from very early on. Linguistic forms are not always produced and indeed not required. But in some cases, especially when shared knowledge is insufficient, explicit markers become necessary. It takes a certain amount of experience for children to use the forms borrowed from their input productively. When the value of explicit grammatical marking becomes clear to them, the children can achieve more confident agreement about meaning and function with their interlocutors. In the following example, Léonard wants to use the inflectional future in order to answer the observer’s question about what he will do at his neighbours’ place later on, but the morphology is quite unstable. Example 6. Léonard 3;0 *OBS: qu’est-ce-que vous allez faire là-bas ? *CHI: et puis et puis et puis moi je jouais. *CHI: et moi je je jouais *CHI: moi je joueRA !

Léonard’s hesitations at the level of the verbal morphology, and his inadequate selfrepairs show that he aims to produce a very precise form. By contrast, Madeleine displays a certain mastery of the use of the inflectional future at an even younger age. Example 7. Madeleine 2;09 *MOT: et est-ce-que tu as raconté nos vacances de Noël à Martine. *MOT: tu lui as raconté ou pas ? *CHI: non j(e) lui raconte pas parce que [///] c’est un secret. *CHI: [/] on lui dira quand ce s(e)ra plus un secret.

Even after children begin to produce clear grammatical forms, we must keep in mind the fact that it does not guarantee that they have the same form/function mappings as their interlocutors. Gradual co-adjustment is needed between children and adults for meaning to be co-constructed in discourse.

4.3 Co-Verbal Gestures and Complexification Gestural communication does not totally disappear with the emergence of vocal productions (Marcos 1998). Furthermore, it is still largely used by adults themselves in combination with vocal productions (Guidetti 1998). Pointing does not only remain functional but diversifies in form and function as children become skilled multimodal conversationalists. Our analyses of Madeleine’s data (Morgenstern et al. 2010; Morgenstern/Parisse 2012b) show that vocal and gestural modalities are associated and complement each other from the very onset of pointing. We categorized all Madeleine’s pointing

136

Aliyah Morgenstern

gestures and the adults’ in order to analyze their quantity and functions from their “pre-linguistic” to their co-verbal uses.

Graph 1: Rate of Madeleine and her mother’s pointing gestures over the number of utterances4

As shown in graph 1, the increase in Madeleine’s use of speech over pointing gestures is spectacular: the rate of her pointing gestures over the number of utterances is much higher at the beginning of the data until she is about 2;0 (up to 93% at 1;02) and then stabilizes around 5 to 10% as of 1;06, which is quite close to her mother’s use. In a previous study, we have shown that Madeleine’s uses of deictics is complemented by pointing gestures 100% of the time at the beginning of the data, and only 5% of the time at 2;0 (Mathiot et al. 2009). But the gross number of pointing gestures used in an hour is in fact still quite important at the end of the data. She produces 95 pointing gestures in one hour at 4;01,27 for example (graph 2). The variation is of course very much linked to situational factors (reading with her mother elicits a lot of pointing gestures). The functions of Madeleine’s pointing gestures diversify greatly over the course of the data. At first, pointing gestures are produced in isolation with either a protodeclarative (comment) or a proto-imperative (request) function. At around one year old, they begin to be complemented with vocal productions with the same overall functions. Around 1;06, pointing gestures are produced with deictics or nouns and clearly localize the objects shown or requested. The verbal productions simultaneous to pointing then become more and more complex: first with predicates, then with

4 Numbers on X Axis are child’s age. 1 ;02.14 for example correponds to 1 year 2 months and 14 days.

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

137

Graph 2: Number of pointing gestures per hour in Madeleine’s data

whole utterances. At 2;0, we find the first use of a pointing gesture with a totally different symbolic meaning that can be glossed as “beware!” The Index is vertically held in front of her chin, the tip at the height of her mouth. She is speaking to her doll and telling her “faut pas attraper froid.” She also starts pointing to absent entities. At 2;06 she points to several locations during her fictive narratives. She also starts using more diversified co-verbal gestures. At 3;0, her speech becomes extremely complex with embedded clauses and diversification of her tense system and in parallel she goes through what McNeill (2005) calls “the gesture explosion” with more and more co-verbal gestures. Madeleine enters a different stage around 3;06–4;0 when the functions of her pointing gestures become more and more diverse. For example, she points up her fingers to count the dolls she is talking about, but she also then uses her pointed fingers to embody the dolls themselves as if they were classifiers in sign language. By the age of 4;0, her pointing gestures are integrated in fluid co-verbal gesturing. Pointing can follow the rhythmic variation of her prosody: gestures and vocal productions are linked with great subtlety. She demonstrates excellent mastery of the location, the orientation and the motion of her pointing gestures, which enables her to differentiate among their functions. She uses pointing to refer to time-spans or to attenuate, to suspend the predication she is making in speech. For example, as she sets out to retrieve a costume in her room in order to disguise herself, she forbids the observer who is filming her to come with her. She lifts up her left index finger near her chin as she says je dois chercher mon déguisement. She starts to walk towards her bedroom stealthily, and her index finger continues to go upward, as in a “shushing” gesture. We interpreted that co-verbal gesture as an attenuation of the prohibition she

138

Aliyah Morgenstern

targeted at the observer, with whom her behavior is fairly deferential. This gesture is a modalization of the prohibition. The behaviour conveys the message “beware,” but in a subtle fashion. And she ends this scene by saying tu me suis pas hein? Madeleine’s very sophisticated gesturing illustrates, specifies, reinforces or modalizes the meanings of her vocal productions. Gestures thus continue to enhance the blossoming of children’s communication skills after the “pre-linguistic” and the first gesture-word combinations. They are part of an intersubjective multimodal communicative system in which it is more and more complex to tease apart gestures from speech. The performative, interactional and sociocultural nature of language involves the cooperation of both modalities, with one constantly supporting, extending or modifying the other. We need to understand not only how the vocal modality or how the visual modality are used more and more skillfully by children, thanks to adults’ scaffolding in everyday life interactions, but how the different channels and modalities work TOGETHER. This perspective will give us better insights on how children become experts in face-to-face social interaction, which is necessarily multimodal in nature.

5 Conclusion Children’s increasing capacity to analyze the input seems to guide their usage. They assemble pieces of various structures without having full control over the complexity of each grammatical marker or each construction. They elaborate creative transitory systems (Cohen 1924), which contain “errors” or discrepancies compared to the adult system, and it takes time for them to learn all the relevant conventional forms. But through constant exposure to adult input, children’s language slowly develops, gets enriched and becomes closer and closer to the model they hear. And little by little, as children internalize this model, they become more and more able to make self-repairs (Morgenstern et al. 2013), thus creating an additional locus of language elaboration and acquisition. The child internalizes the adult’s role and appropriates linguistic tools, social codes and behaviours, which are intertwined in language, in and thanks to dialogue. The multimodal construction process of gestural and vocal grammatical tools and constructions takes place through collaboration between adults and children.

6 Bibliography Andrén, Mats (2010), Children’s Gestures from 18 to 30 months, Centre for Languages and Literature, Centre for Cognitive Semiotics, Lund University. Arbib, Michael A. (2012), How the Brain got Language, the Mirror System Hypothesis, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press.

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

139

Bates, Elisabeth (1994), Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language, in: Daniel Carleton Gajdusek/Guy M. McKhann/C.L. Bolis (edd.), Evolution and neurology of language, Discussions in Neuroscience 10/1–2, 136–149. Bloom, Lois (1973), One word at a time, The Hague, Mouton. Bloom, Paul (1990), Subjectless sentences in child language, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 491–504. Bronckart, Jean-Pierre/Sinclair, Hermine (1973), Time, tense and aspect, Cognition 2, 107–130. Brown, Roger (1973), A first language: The early stages, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Bruner, Jerome (1983), Child’s talk: Learning to Use Language, New York, Norton. Budwig, Nancy (1995), A developmental-functionalist approach to child language, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. Budwig, Nancy (2003), Context and the dynamic construal of meaning in early childhood, in: Catherine Raeff/Janette B. Benson (edd.), Social and Cognitive Development in the Context of Individual, Social, and Cultural Processes, London/New York, Routledge, 103–130. Bühler, Karl (1935), From Birth to Maturity, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, & Trubner. Chomsky, Noam (1959), Review of Verbal Behavior by B.F. Skinner, Language 35, 26–58. Chouinard, Michèle M./Clark, Eve V. (2003), Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence, Journal of Child Language 30/3, 637–669. Clark, Eve V. (2003), First language acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Clark, Eve V./Berman, Ruth (1984), Structure and use in acquisition of word-formation. Language 60, 542–590. Cohen, Marcel (1924), Sur les langages successifs de l’enfant, in: Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. J. Vendryès par ses amis et ses élèves, Paris, Champion, collection publiée par la société de linguistique, XVII, 109–127. Crystal, David/Fletcher, Paul/Garman, Michael (1976), The grammatical analysis of language disability, London, Edward Arnold. Darwin, Charles (1877), A Biographical Sketch of an Infant, Mind 2, 285–294. De Laguna, Grace Mead Andrus (1927), Speech: Its function and development, New Haven, Yale University Press De Villiers, Jill G. (1983), Patterns of verb use in mother and child, Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 22, 43–48. Duranti, Alessandro (1984), Intentions, Self and Local Theories of Meaning: Words and Social Action in a Samoan Context, Center for Human Information Processing Report No. 122. La Jolla. Egger, Émile (1879), Observations et réflexions sur le développement de l’intelligence et du langage chez l’enfant, Paris, Picard. Ekman, Paul (1984), Expression and the nature of emotion, in: Klaus R. Scherer/Paul Ekman (edd.), Approaches to emotion, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 319–344. Estigarribia, Bruno/Clark, Eve Vivien (2007), Getting and maintaining attention in talk to young children, Journal of Child Language 34, 799–814. Fillmore, Charles (1988), The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”, Berkeley Linguistics Society 14, 35–55. Forrester, Mike A. (2008), The Emergence of Self-Repair: A Case Study of One Child During the Early Preschool Years, Research on Language & Social Interaction 41/1, 99–128. Glenberg, Arthur M./Kashak, Michael P. (2003), The body’s contribution to language, in: B. Ross (ed.), The Physiology of Learning and Motivation, V43, 93–126. Goldberg, Adele (1995), Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele (2006), Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

140

Aliyah Morgenstern

Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2009), How gesture promotes learning throughout childhood, Child Developmental Perspective 3/2, 106–111. Goldin-Meadow, Susan/Butcher, Cynthia (2003), Pointing toward two-word speech in young children, in: S. Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, Mahawa, NJ, Erlbaum, 85–107. Gopnik, Alison/Meltzoff, Andrew N./Kuhl, Patricia K. (1999), The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains and how children learn, New York, Collins. Greenfield, Patricia/Smith, J. (1976), The structure of communication in early development, New York, Academic Press. Guidetti, Michèle (1998), Les usages des gestes conventionnels chez les enfants, in: Josie Bernicot et al. (edd.), De l’usage des gestes et des mots chez l’enfant, Paris, Armand Colin, 27–50. Gumperz, John J./Levinson, Stephen C. (edd.) (1996), Rethinking linguistic relativity, New York, Cambridge University Press. Halliday, Michael (1967), Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Journal of Linguistics 3, 199–244. Ingram, David (1989), First langugage acquisition. Method, Description and Explanation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Kelly, Barbara F. (2011), A new look at redundancy in children’s gesture and word combinations, in: Inbal Arnon/Eve V. Clark (edd.), Experience, Variation and Generalization: Learning a first language, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 73–90. Klinnert, Mary, et al. (1983), Emotions as behavior regulators: Social referencing in infancy, in: R. Plutchik/M. Kellerman (edd.), Emotion: Theory, Research and Experience, New York, Academic Press, 257–285. Konopczynski, Gabrielle (1990), Le Langage Émergent: Caractéristiques Rythmiques, Hamburg, Buske. MacWhinney, Brian (32000), The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk, vol. 2: The Database, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. Marcos, Haydée (1998), De la communication prélinguistique au langage: formes et fonctions, Paris, L’Harmattan. Martel, Karine/Dodane, Christelle (2011), Le rôle de la prosodie dans les premières constructions grammaticales: étude de cas d’un enfant français monolingue, French Language Studies 22/1, 13–35. Mathiot, Emmanuelle, et al. (2009), Premiers pointages chez l’enfant entendant et l’enfant sourdsigneur: deux suivis longitudinaux entre 7 mois et 1 an 7 mois, in: Sandra Benazzo (ed.), Au croisement de différents types d’acquisition: pourquoi et comment comparer, AILE-LIA N°1, 141–168. McNeill, David (1992), Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. McNeill, David (2005), Gesture and Thought, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Michaelis, Laura A. (22006), Construction grammar, in: Keith Brown (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, Oxford, Elsevier, 73–84. Morgenstern, Aliyah (2009), L’enfant dans la langue, in collaboration with Sandra Benazzo, et al., Paris, Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle. Morgenstern, Aliyah (2012), The self as Other: Selfwords and pronominal reversals in language acquisition, in: Clara-Ubaldina Lorda/Patrick Zabalbeascoa (edd.), Spaces of Polyphony, “Dialogue Studies”, Amsterdam/London, John Benjamins Publishing, 57–72. Morgenstern, Aliyah/Leroy-Collombel Marie/Caët Stéphanie (2013), Self- and other-repairs in child– adult interaction at the intersection of pragmatic abilities and language acquisition, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 56, 151–167. Morgenstern, Aliyah/Parisse, Christophe (2007), Codage et interprétation du langage spontané d’enfants de 1 à 3 ans. Corpus n°6 “Interprétation, contextes, codage,” 55–78.

Children’s Multimodal Language Development

141

Morgenstern, Aliyah/Parisse, Christophe (2012a), The Paris Corpus, French Language Studies 22/1, 7–12. Morgenstern, Aliyah/Parisse, Christophe (2012b), Constructing “basic” verbal constructions: a longitudinal study of the blossoming of constructions with six frequent verbs, in: Myriam Bouveret/ Dominique Legallois (edd.), Constructions in French, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 127–154. Morgenstern, Aliyah/Parisse, Christophe/Sekali, Martine (2009), À la source du futur: premières formes verbales dans les productions spontanées de deux enfants français de 18 mois à 3 ans, Faits de Langues 33 – Le futur, 163–175. Morgenstern, Aliyah, et al. (2010), From gesture to sign and from gesture to word: pointing in deaf and hearing children, Gesture 10/2–3, 172–202. Muller, Cornelia (2009), Gesture and Language, in: Kirsten Malmkjaer (ed.), Routledge’s Linguistics Encyclopedia, London, Routledge, 214–217. Ochs, Elinor/Schieffelin, Bambi (1989), “Language has a heart”. The pragmatics of affect, Special issue of Text 9/1, 7–25. Özçalışkan, Şeyda/Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2005), Gesture is at the cutting edge of early language development, Cognition 96/3, B101-B113. Parisse, Christophe/Morgenstern, Aliyah (2010), A multi-software integration platform and support for multimedia transcripts of language. LREC 2010, Proceedings of the Workshop on Multimodal Corpora: Advances in Capturing, Coding and Analyzing Multimodality, 106–110. Parisse, Christophe/Morgenstern, Aliyah (2012), The unfolding of the verbal temporal system in French children’s speech between 18 and 36 months, Journal of French Language Studies 22/1, 95–114. Pavlovitch, Mikhail (1920), Le langage enfantin, acquisition du serbe et du français par un enfant serbe, Paris, Champion. Peters, Ann (1980), The units of language acquisition, University of Hawaii Working Papers, Linguistics 12/1, 1–72. Peters, Ann (2001), Filler syllables: what is their statuts in emerging grammar?, Journal of Child Language 28, 229–242. Pinker, Stephen (1984), Language Learnability and Language Development, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Romanes, Georges (1891), L’évolution mentale chez l’homme. Origine des facultés humaines, French translation [English original 1888], Paris, Alcan. Sansavini, Alessandra, et al. (2010), Early development of gestures, object-related actions, word comprehension and word production, and their relationships in Italian infants, Gesture 10/1, 52–85. Schlesinger, Izchak M. (1971), Production of utterances and language acquisition, in: Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar, New York, Academic Press, 63–101. Scollon, Robert (1976), Conversations with a one-year old: A case study of the developmental foundations of syntax, Honolulu, University Press of Hawaii. Smith, Carlota S. (1980), The acquisition of Time Talk: relation between child and adult grammar, Journal of Child Language 7, 263–278. Stern, Clara/Stern, William (1907), Die Kindersprache – Eine psychologische Untersuchung, Leipzig, Barth (reedition 1928). Theakston, Anna L., et al. (2001), The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verbargument structure: an alternative account, Journal of Child Language 28, 127–152. Tomasello, Michael (2003), A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Trevarthen, Colwyn (1977), Descriptive analyses of infant communication behaviour, in: H. Rudolph Schaffer (ed.), Studies in Mother-infant Interaction, London, Academic Press, 227–270. Valian, Virginia (1991), Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children, Cognition 40, 21–81.

142

Aliyah Morgenstern

Veneziano, Edy (1999), Early lexical, morphological and syntactic development in French: Some complex relations, International Journal of Bilingualism 3/2, 183–217. Veneziano, Edy/Sinclair, Hermine/Berthoud, Ioanna (1990), From one word to two words: repetition patterns on the way to structured speech, Journal of Child language 17, 633–650. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1934), Thought and Language, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press (reedition 1985). Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Weist, Robert M./Wysocka, Hanna/Lyytinen, Paula (1991), A cross-linguistic perspective on the development of temporal system, Journal of Child Language 18, 67–92. Wood, David/Bruner, Jerome/Ross, Gail (1976), The role of tutoring in problem solving, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17/2, 89–100. Zlatev, Jordan (1997), Situated Embodiment, Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning, Stockholm, Gotab Press.

Josie Bernicot

8 Bases of Linguistic Development Abstract: Language acquisition theories distinguish themselves from each other by the varying amount of importance that is attributed to the role of internal factors (biological maturation and human genetic heritage) and external factors (physical and social environment) in language development. Generative grammar, behaviourism, constructivism, social and pragmatic interactionist perspectives are presented. Both brain-language research and research on language in chimpanzees emphasize the role internal factors play, with some limitations. Theories of mind call our attention to cognitive abilities such as the attribution of beliefs to others, crucial for the functioning of language. One way to make progress is undoubtedly to take into account the natural conditions of language acquisition within the interlocutors’ goaloriented conversations. Keywords: acquisition, language, empiricism, nativism, interactionism

1 Introduction* How do children acquire language? Everyone agrees that children are born without language and that at 5 to 6 years of age, most of them have mastered the basics of their mother tongue, and continue learning at least until adolescence. Despite the knowledge that has been amassed since the 1950s, there is presently no theoretical construct to enable the complete explanation of this phenomenon. Different theories emphasize the biological or cognitive specificities of the human being, individual experience, cognition resulting from human biological specificities and an individual’s activity, as well as social interactions. To fully understand language acquisition theories (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories), it is important to have understood one of the fundamental arguments of developmental studies: the extent to which the acquisition of a behaviour depends upon human genetic heritage (internal factors) or the environment (external factors). The environment is defined as the overall set of life conditions: geographical, social, activity-based, etc. From a methodological point of view, if a behaviour exhibits the same evolution with age in different environments, it is legitimate to conclude that this behaviour is essentially linked to internal factors. Conversely, if a behaviour exhibits a different evolution with age in different environments, it is legitimate to conclude that this behaviour is linked to external factors. The most rigorous version of this argument is the method involving homozygous twins raised in the same or

* This chapter was translated by Martha Randy.

144

Josie Bernicot

different environments. In most cases, a comparison is made between groups of children considered to have an equivalent genetic heritage and raised or observed in different environments. The argument is inverted in research dealing with children who have brain injuries or genetic illnesses as compared to typically developing children: for internal factors, the children must be different, while for external factors, the children must be equivalent. If the behaviour being studied is observed to evolve differently with age, it is concluded that internal factors play a role; if the evolution is the same, it is legitimate to conclude that the behaviour is not linked to internal factors. The points of view concerning internal or external developmental factors have become far less dogmatic, and are now expressed in terms of priority instead of the unique cause.

2 The Biological Bases of Language The question is this: To what extent does language acquisition depend on human biological specificities? As language is a superior function, this leads of course to the particularities of the brain: on the one hand, the study of the relationships between human brain and language and, on the other hand, the study of language acquisition in primates, species that are phylogenetically close to humans.

2.1 The Relationships between the Brain and Language The relationships between the brain and language are complex. It has been proven that brain damage leads to language difficulties and that particularities of the brain are linked to particularities of language. Language difficulties, however, can exist without confirmed brain injury. With regard to the progressive maturation of the brain, a critical period of language acquisition is considered to exist before 12 years of age. Brain injury and language difficulties – The surgeon Paul Broca (1861) was the first to prove the existence of a relationship between the brain and language. A patient, suffering from aphasia, had only recently lost the ability to speak. He was left with the ability to pronounce but one syllable, typically repeated twice in a row. The patient answered every question with, “tan tan”. Upon carrying out the deceased patient’s autopsy, Broca found a lesion in the third frontal gyrus of the left cerebral hemisphere. He found injury in this same area of the brain in other patients with aphasia and concluded that the production of articulated language was located in the left hemisphere. Following these studies, Wernicke (1874) linked language difficulties to a lesion located in the left temporal lobe, in an area posterior to Broca’s area. Broca’s aphasia involves a deficit with

Bases of Linguistic Development

145

regard to combining phonemes (word simplification associated with phonetic disintegration) and combining words (decrease in volume of voice, stereotypy, agrammaphasia). Wernicke’s aphasia involves a deficit with regard to the level of word and phoneme selection: Patients may be very “talkative” but their production is incomprehensible and their understanding may also be altered. More recently, electroencephalographic studies (event-related potentials, ERP) and brain imaging (functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI) methods have confirmed the role played by the left hemisphere in language production and comprehension. These new techniques have made it possible to demonstrate the regions of the brain that are strongly connected to these areas, in addition to the role played by the “classic” language-related areas. A growing body of research has begun to emphasize the importance of the frontal lobes of the right hemisphere. Injury in these regions do not lead to aphasia but rather to – slight or more invasive – difficulties of the pragmatic sphere, in other words, difficulties with language usage: conversation (perseveration, digression), trouble adapting to an interlocutor or understanding language acts and non-literal language (Dardier et al. 2011). Cerebral particularities and language particularities – Williams syndrome is one example of a rare genetic illness that has been the focus of recent study, and that is due to a genetic anomaly. The neuropsychological profile of individuals with this syndrome cannot be found in other illnesses and is principally characterized by a cognition/ language dissociation, in other words, a cognitive delay accompanied by relatively preserved language (Lacroix/Bernicot/Reilly 2007). Specific cerebral characteristics have also been revealed: cortical thickness is significantly greater in an anatomical region including the perisylvian regions, which are involved in language comprehension. These regions, notably situated in the right hemisphere, deal with syntax (linguistic and musical) and prosody; areas that are relatively well-preserved where this syndrome is concerned. Furthermore, in individuals suffering from Williams syndrome, the planum temporale region of the brain exhibits a hemispheric asymmetry favouring the left hemisphere, equivalent of that of musicians with perfect pitch. This structural asymmetry could partly explain the strong level of music and language that have been described in the syndrome. Williams syndrome illustrates a specific language functioning that appears to be based both on a genetic anomaly and on cerebral particularities. Language difficulties in the absence of brain injury – It is important to note that language production difficulties can also exist in the absence of identified brain injury, and in children who have no other difficulties and whose cognitive component is intact. These language acquisition difficulties are grouped together under the term Specific Language Impairment (SLI), and mainly involve phonology and morphosyntax, but also semantics and pragmatics, despite the cognitive components being intact. A delay in the appearance of language, along with its very slow development, is observed. This difficulty affects boys more than girls (cf. Bishop 2002). Language acquisition and brain maturation: the “critical” period – The brain continues to mature until adolescence: Studies involving particular cases show that it

146

Josie Bernicot

is much more difficult, and even impossible, to acquire language after this period. The first years of life are therefore a critical period where this acquisition is concerned (Lenneberg 1967). The case of Victor de l’Aveyron, the “wild child” studied by Itard in the early years of the nineteenth century (Itard 1801), is a reference in this field. The child, who had most likely been abandoned at a very young age, lived without a human environment for several years, therefore also living without a language environment. Taken in around the age of 12 and then raised by Itard himself, Victor learned to produce certain sounds and correctly use some words; his mastery of language, however, remained very rudimentary and incomplete. There are other children with cases such as Victor’s or who have not been raised from birth in typical socialization situations (e.g., the case of Genie in the United States, cf. Crystal 1997): All of them failed in their attempt to acquire language, even in an enriched learning environment. These particular cases have been extensively discussed with regard to the impossibility of knowing whether or not these children presented a particular deficit or mental retardation at birth that could explain their difficulty acquiring language. Other approaches provide more solid proof concerning the critical period for acquisition, as is the case for research on brain injury at different ages. Research has shown that following a lesion occuring in adulthood, it is far more difficult to recuperate language than if the lesion occurs at an earlier stage of life. In this latter case, other areas of the brain take over for the damaged area. Brain imaging methods have also revealed that different areas of the brain are solicited for the learning of a second language (at a later stage, and at a less advanced level than the mother tongue). In the mother tongue, activations are essentially on the left and are easily reproducible from one subject to another; in the second language, activations are more divided between the left and right hemispheres, with a large variability between subjects. All of the brain’s neuronal connections have not taken place at birth, but are progressively constructed over the first few years of life. Therefore, in the case of injury early on in life, new brain areas can take over thanks to the support of new neuronal connections. In adulthood, however, when these connections have already been formed, it is a great deal more difficult, even impossible, for new connections to be created. Brain elasticity is far greater during the critical period, in other words up until approximately 12 years of age. If, at 6 years of age, the brain has already acquired 95% of its adult size, it will not actually reach its final size until about 14.5 years of age for boys and 11.5 years of age for girls. The human brain develops back to front. The regions that most quickly become mature are situated at the back and deal with vital sensory functions (vision, hearing, touch, etc.). The prefrontal cortex is the last part to mature. This frontal cortex is not complete until the end of adolescence, in other words after 16 years of age. Learning has been demonstrated for spoken as well as written language (Berman 2005) up until 17 years of age. The barrier of 12 years of age marking the end of the critical period should therefore be considered with a certain amount of caution.

Bases of Linguistic Development

147

The relationships between the brain and language are extremely subtle and can under no circumstances be considered in a mechanical manner with regard to a bijective relationship between one area of the brain and a given language behaviour.

2.2 Language Learning in Primates Only humans possess articulated language; this ability cannot found in a natural state, even in animals that are able to use sophisticated, efficient non-verbal communication systems that have been the subject of ethological research. Recent studies have examined the ability of primates to learn a human language: Within the animal kingdom, the biological basis of monkeys is the closest to that of humans. For example, the difference between the genetic potential of humans and that of chimpanzees is less than 1% and there is no known gene that specifically corresponds to language in humans. In the 1960s, Beatrix and Roger Gardner had an idea, considering that primates were unable to produce the same sounds as humans: to teach sign language, as used by the deaf (Gardner/Gardner 1969), to a young female monkey called Washoe. Sign language is essentially carried out using the hands, fingers, and arms and, since chimpanzees have well-developed motor skills, the choice of this language presented a certain number of advantages. Washoe began leaning American Sign Language (ASL) at one year of age. At 4 years of age, Washoe’s vocabulary included more than one hundred signs. Like children, she first used simple words, and began combining two gestures after 10 months of learning, when she was between 18 and 24 months of age. She created “two-word sentences” such as “Washoe sorry”, “more fruit”, “give flower”, “Roger tickle”, and also sentences made up of several words like “you tickle me”. She was able to ask and answer questions and make simple assertions. Like young children, she made overextensions and underextensions and, for example, was able to use the verb open to say “open the box”, but also “open the faucet” to ask for a drink. The comparison between Washoe and young children can only be made with deaf children learning sign language. Children are much faster and, while Washoe’s acquisition was in no way insignificant, it only represented a very limited mastery of sign language. Further experiments followed, with a focus on the acquisition of an arbitrary language (which is not fully the case with sign language). These studies also took great care with regard to questions of methodology, maintaining a “distance” between the animals and the experimenters: the animals were not raised like members of the experimenters’ family. Premack (1976) taught a female chimpanzee (Sarah) to read and write with plastic tokens of different shapes, sizes, textures, and colours. Each token represented an object, a verb, or an attribute: a triangular blue token represented an apple, etc. Sarah learned to produce and understand complex sentences such as “Sarah put the banana in the basket and the apple on the plate”.

148

Josie Bernicot

Savage-Rumbaugh (1990) used a special keyboard: a computer touchscreen showing different boxes corresponding to symbols (lexigrams). Each lexigram corresponded to a word. Savage-Rumbaugh taught a bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee) named Kanzi to use this tool to communicate with humans. Kanzi showed he was capable of producing and understanding sentences such as “Go to the refrigerator and take a tomato”, “Kanzi, please take the cool drink to Penny”, and “I have a surprise hidden in my shoe”. Bonobos raised like Kanzi use repetitions in dialogue in the same way as young children (to confirm, choose, comment, ask, or express a wish). Interestingly, the bonobos never made use of repetition to imitate (Greenfield/Savage-Rumbaugh 1993). Never fully successful, these attempts to teach human language to primates reinforce the idea that the existence of language is linked to the biological particularities of human beings. The nature of human language is extremely complex and is the result of a very slow evolution. However, these attempts by no means represent a failure: Washoe, Sarah, and Kanzi reached linguistic levels analogous to those of 3-to5-year-old children in terms of the indices considered. Human beings and primates can therefore share a code and establish communication in a social situation. In terms of the biological bases of language, the only certainty is that the human brain is proportionately larger than that of other vertebrates. Furthermore, the size of the human brain has continued to grow with the evolution of the human line, from homo erectus all the way to today’s homo sapiens. Under certain social environmental conditions, this is certainly an advantage for developing a set of complex cognitive abilities including language.

3 The Behaviourist Perspective or Empiricism According to behaviourism (directly related to empiricism), the key factor in learning is experience, as it enables a link to be created between the stimulus and the response. External factors, therefore, play a dominant role. With regard to language acquisition, empiricism was the prevailing perspective in the 1950s, stemming from Saint Augustine (354–430 AD). Saint Augustine described the phenomenon of language acquisition in a very simple manner. Undoubtedly alluding to his own childhood, he wrote: “When they called some thing by name and pointed it out while they spoke, I saw it and realized that the thing they wished to indicate was called by the name they then uttered. So it was that by frequently hearing words, in different phrases, I gradually identified the objects which the words stood for and, having formed my mouth to repeat these signs, I was thereby able to express my will” (Saint Augustin 1964, 23s., our translation). A modern version of the ideas of Saint Augustine can be found in the behaviourism developed by Watson at the beginning of the century (1913). According to this point of view, nothing can be considered specific to language. Like all other behaviour, language can be explained in exactly the same manner as any other set of responses to stimuli. Behaviourism is founded on the following premise: All beha-

Bases of Linguistic Development

149

viour is the establishment of an association between a stimulus and a response (S-R). This association is subject to the laws of classical conditioning: contingency, repetition, habituation, extinction, etc. A stimulus is any event, internal or external to an organism that can be sensed by its receptors and can bring about a reaction. A response is a behavioural unit placed under the control of one or more stimuli. The discoveries made by Pavlov (1927) concerning conditioned reflexes in animals had a major influence on learning theories in general, but also on theories of language acquisition in children. For behaviourists, the explanation of language behaviours (responses) must be made using observable environmental conditions (stimuli), with no consideration of internal mental processes, as they cannot be observed. According to this perspective, language is acquired by means of three mechanisms: classical conditioning, operant conditioning (Skinner 1957), and imitation. A child, then, is thought to acquire all the complexity of language, little by little, through the game of conditioning, imitation, rewards, and “sanctions”. Indeed, behaviourists essentially examined processes of learning, memorization, and forgetting, in well-controlled experimental situations in a laboratory, rather than in the language development of children in natural situations. The learning and memorization situations were typically constructed using material with no meaning (syllables that meant nothing or pseudowords). Figure 1 demonstrates how a complexlification of the S-R scheme can be used to explain the acquisition of certain simple verbal behaviours.

Figure 1: Example of an S-R scheme explaining the acquisition of a verbal form

150

Josie Bernicot

In the afternoon snack situation, the stimulus-response chain between a child and an adult is as follows: – The presence of the adult interlocutor is the non-verbal discriminative stimulus (NVDS) that provokes the verbal response of the child, “Du chocolat, s’il te plaît” (VR). – The child’s verbal response acts as the verbal discriminative stimulus (VDS) to set off the adult’s non-verbal response (NVR) which is to give the chocolate. – This non-verbal response (the child receiving the chocolate) is the non-verbal stimulus that reinforces (NVSRF) the production of the utterance and, in particular, the polite formulation “s’il te plaît”. The success of the request increases the probability that the utterance will be produced again. – This non-verbal response also acts as the non-verbal discriminative stimulus (NVDS) to the verbal response (VR) of the child, “Merci”. There is, then, an insistence on words rather than on grammar. As a result, this approach has almost completely missed the generative and combinative possibilities inherent to a syntax allowing children to regularly build sentences that they have never before heard and cannot imitate since they do not exist in adult language (i.e., pivot grammar, erroneous creations such as rier for rire or combater for combattre). However, it should be noted that the behaviourist perspective has known a certain amount of success in the area of language rehabilitation (with reinforcement techniques) in children with mental retardation or communication difficulties. The most radical critique of the behaviourist perspective, however, was to come from linguist Noam Chomsky (1957) in the form of a new nativist approach (↗10 Second Language Acquisition).

4 The Linguistic Perspective or Nativism Based on Chomsky’s (1957) generative theory, McNeill (1970) hypothesized that the organizational rules of grammar were too complex to be directly learned or simply discovered by a young child. Grammar is made up of a fixed set of rules, shared by the speakers of the same language, and allowing an infinite number of correct sentences to be generated. Grammar is not learned by the child, but is rather inborn, written in the child’s genetic potential (nativist perspective). Grammar is generative in the sense that it enables an infinite number of grammatically correct sentences to be constructed: By using the grammar rules of one’s language, one can produce and understand sentences that have never before been encountered (cf. Figure 2). Chomsky took care to distinguish between inborn potential – made up of the grammar rules allowing the speaker to construct the entire possible range of correct sentences (competence) – and what the speaker actually produces (performance). Language is grammar, the theory of which provides a formal model. When a child learns language, the child learns this grammar.

Bases of Linguistic Development

151

Figure 2: Example of rules enabling an infinite number of utterances to be created

The set of rules which are grammar can be divided into three components: the syntactic component, the phonological component, and the semantic component. The transformational component contains the rules that enable movement from the deep structure to the surface structure. The notions of surface and deep structures are explained in the example presented in Figure 3. The two surface structures: (1) Le chat attrappe la souris. (2) La souris est attrappée par le chat. Possessing the same deep structure (3)

Figure 3: Example of a surface structure and a deep structure

(1) and (2) correspond to two different surface structures: The production of sounds is different. They relate to one single deep structure (3): The events described in (1) and in (2) are identical. Children are thought to have an inborn language acquisition device (LAD) at their disposal (McNeill 1970). This system consists of language universals, such as the

152

Josie Bernicot

subject, the predicate, objects, and modifiers, and is not specific to any particular language. This LAD enables children to presuppose the existence of grammatical classes (such as nouns, verbs, etc.): These word classes exist in all languages and are acquired relatively early in children. Children can be compared to a linguist presented with a foreign language: the linguist makes hypotheses with regard to the grammar of the language he or she is hearing. One of the first hypotheses a child makes is that a sentence is a word: thus, children express themselves by utterances of only one word. Pivot grammar represents a second hypothesis that also ends up being abandoned, replaced by more complex grammar. The linguistic productions of a child’s environment allow the child to verify the hypotheses that he or she has made based on the LAD. The LAD is programmed to recognize, in the surface structure of any natural language, its deep structure or universal grammar. The LAD provides the possibility of extracting the grammar rules of a particular language, thereby enabling the speaker to correctly produce all the possible utterances in this language (cf. the notion of competence). No preliminary non-linguistic knowledge or communication with a specific interlocutor is required. All that the child needs is to be in contact with a language: fragmented samples with little contextualization suffise. The only limits on linguistic development are linked to the psychological limits of performance, such as a child’s attention and memory limits. Some experimental studies have partially confirmed this theoretical approach. According to Chomsky’s (1957) proposal, simple affirmative sentences are processed more easily than complex sentences requiring several transformations. The more transformations the affirmative sentence has (negation, passivization, interrogation), the longer and more complex the processing of the sentence, and the later its acquisition. Moreover, it has been shown that the surface structure of the sentence with its transformations is not what is most often retained, but rather the deep structure. In other words, the basic overall meaning of the sentence is what is stored in memory. Through interlinguistic and intercultural studies, Slobin (1982) also attempted to confirm this position. He compared the linguistic development of children from a variety of different cultures: Western cultures, Samoan, Kaluki, Mayan, etc. From one society to the next, parental behaviour with regard to language learning varied greatly. Some societies considered the child as a being that was gifted in verbal communication while others gave language no notice at all. It appeared that no matter what was the parents’ attitude, whether focussed on specific language training or without attention towards language, language acquisition took place according to the same principles. Slobin (1982) observed that young children had a preference for using the subject-object order, no matter the word order in the sentence of the given language. Furthermore, no matter the children’s language or culture of origin, language acquisition took place in the same order. From a child development standpoint, the structure of language is thought to derive in a certain sense from general cognitive principles. For example, the subjectverb-object (SVO) order corresponds to the order of daily life experience: The person

Bases of Linguistic Development

153

carrying out the action, the action itself, and the object to which it is applied. It is this analogy between cognitive principles familiar to the child and grammatical structures that are thought to enable the rapid learning of language. To learn a language, a person must know what the language is describing. It should be noted, however, that there are some languages in which the SVO order is not the rule. Japanese, for example, makes use of the subject-object-verb (SOV) order, and Arabic, the verbsubject-object (VSO) order. Conversely, the object-subject-verb (OSV) and object-verbsubject (OVS) order have never been found. The SOV order is preferred in 44% of languages, the SVO order by 35%, the VSO by 19%, and the VOS by 2%. In certain languages, such as Serbo-Croatian and Turkish, there are several possibilities of word order in a sentence. SVO languages include Romance languages. Two language acquisition theories have been presented here: behaviourism (or empiricism), which is impossible, and nativism (generative grammar), which is miraculous. The following theories have attempted to fill in the gap between the impossible and the miraculous (↗10 Second Language Acquisition).

5 The Cognitive Perspective: Constructivism The generativist and inborn trend is at the origins of the large interdisciplinary field of modern cognitive psycholinguistics, the initial principles of which have been adapted or reinterpreted, depending on the authors. Constructivism (presented below) and information processing with the competition model elaborated by Bates/MacWhinney (1989), in which acquisitions result from internal and external factors, are emblematic of this field. The perspective developed by Jean Piaget in Geneva at the beginning of the twentieth century has retained a certain topicality across various neo-Piagetian perspectives. For Piaget, language is one human aptitude among others that is constructed throughout a child’s development. The acquisition of language is dependent on the development of cognition, which is carried out in a progressive and interactive manner with the physical world. Children go through different stages of development, and these stages determine the progressive emergence of cognitive aptitudes and language abilities (↗7 Children’s Multimodal Language Development; ↗9 Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell). The Piagetian perspective is therefore constructivist in that it puts forth the idea that knowledge progressively grows from abilities that have already been learned. Through this interaction, children interact with the physical world and develop their cognitive abilities little by little. Thus, according to Piaget (1926; 1928), the first period of a child’s development is called the sensorimotor stage, and takes place between birth and 24 months. It is described as a pre-linguistic stage since the child has not yet acquired the mental representations necessary for the symbolic use of words. Children at this stage perceive the world uniquely through direct sensations and instinctive actions; they

154

Josie Bernicot

cannot yet distinguish the permanent existence of objects as the objects cease to exist for the child when they cannot be directly seen or touched. At 2 years of age, children acquire the notion of object permanence. The object then takes on an existence and identity independent of immediate perception. So the child searches for a hidden object, or anticipates an object being moved behind a screen thanks to the mental representation of the absent object. With the acquisition of object permanence, a child uses a symbol (the mental image) to represent the absent object – the precursor of the symbolic function of language. For Piaget, the acquisition of the first words is linked to the acquisition of object permanence. For Piagetian psycholinguists such as Sinclair de Zwart (1973), the essential aspects of language are structural and representative, and play the role of the motor in a machine. The minor aspects are contextual and communicative, playing the role of user manual for the machine. The use of formal linguistic theories is therefore indispensable, as they provide a sort of language algebra. Language acquisition is subordinate to the exercise of the symbolic (or semiotic) function. The symbolic function allows objects or events not actually perceptible to be represented by evoking them through differentiated symbols or signs. The symbolic function enables a child to perform five major kinds of behaviour, appearing in the order below: a) Differed imitation of a scene where the child was present (e.g. imitating the crying of a child who has just left) b) Make-believe (e.g. pretending to sleep) c) Drawing: graphic imagery, intermediary between play and mental imagery (e.g. drawing a person) d) Mental imagery: interiorised, reproductive, and then proactive imitation (e.g. evoking or imagining a scene) e) Language: verbal representation (e.g. “meow” for a cat). This stage precedes the use of language with its arbitrary sign characteristic when the child says “cat” (in other words, a conventional sign that is not analogous with the designated object) to point out a cat. The research by Sinclair de Zwart (1973) most accurately represents the constructivist perspective on language acquisition. These studies show how cognitive acquisition (the operations of thought) underlies the progressive acquisition of language. The acquisition of the notion of conservation, for example, is included in these progressive acquisitions. Before 5 years of age, a child will not admit that a ball of modelling clay whose appearance has been altered (several small balls have been made from one big ball, or by stretching it out, it has been turned into a long string) contains the same amount of clay as before the transformation. When two groups of children, one having acquired the notion of conservation and the other still unable to conserve, are asked to describe different pairs of objects varying in size (a small and a large stick) and number (a set of two marbles and a set of five marbles, etc.), the language of the two groups differs. The children who cannot conserve use linguistic forms such as “that

Bases of Linguistic Development

155

one there, a big one”, “that one there, a little one”, “that one has a lot”, “that one not very much”. They consider the objects independently and not in comparison to the others. They only take one dimension into account at a time. The children who can conserve use linguistic forms that take into account two dimensions such as “that one is bigger than the other one”, “that one has more than the other”, thereby comparing the two objects, and concurrently taking two dimensions into account. This type of result, as well as others that corroborate it, show that language establishes itself from the acquisition of a child’s cognitive structures, and not in an independent manner. The cognitive system is considered a necessary precursor to, and a component of, language development. For constructivists, language is acquired in the same way as other major functions (e.g., perception or memory) thanks to a person’s activity and the exchanges a person has with the physical environment. Language acquisition is thus realized by means of the interaction between internal and external factors, in other words the interaction between the genetic potentialities of the person (to which the person’s activity gives evidence) and the person’s experience (in other words, the person’s interactions with the physical environment).

6 The Social Interactionist Perspective The theories of nativism, constructivism, and information processing are based on the dependence of language on cognition. Other theories emphasize the importance of social interactions for the acquisition, as well as the functioning, of language (Bruner 1983). Vygotski’s theory is fundamental to this perspective. When the American translation of his work, “Thought and Language”, prefaced by Bruner, was published in 1962, it enabled the dissemination of his ideas. Vygotski’s texts were written in Russian between 1925 and 1934. The linguists who had given status to pragmatics, such as Peirce (1931–1935) and Morris (1946), along with the developers of speech act theories (Austin 1962; Searle 1969), were able to consolidate this approach from a theoretical point of view. The partisans of this perspective are at the crossroads of the major theoretical trends of developmental psychology. In their belief that experience plays an important role, they are close to behaviourism, but they deviate from it by introducing mental functions such as intentions or beliefs, both refused by behaviourism as impossible to test. The supporters of the social interactionist perspective are also similar to nativists in their emphasis on language as an ability that is specific to human beings; but their perspective deviates from this line of thought by considering that this ability is not that of generating universal grammatical structures, but rather of representing meaning shared with others through the use of conventional signs (whatever they may be). As in cognitivism, they accord a fundamental importance to underlying cognitive processes and to behavioural evolution; however, they take a different stance in that these cognitive processes are based on content-filled struc-

156

Josie Bernicot

tures and not on structures whose elements are defined by extremely general characteristics. According to Vygotski (1962) a linguistic sign is always, at the start, a way to achieve a social goal or to influence someone. The basic function of language, both in adults and children, is communication, and the language of a child is purely social. The meaning of a word is not immutable – it changes throughout development and is built through interaction with an interlocutor. This Vygotskian concept of the zone of proximal development, and the passing from an inter-psychological phase to an intrapsychological phase, inspired Bruner (1983). He, in turn, developed the notion of scaffolding, ritualization, and the notion of the interaction format enabling communicative behaviours of children between the ages of 0 and 2 to be explained, but also beyond language acquisition. In terms of language and communication, the interpsychological phase is a period during which one constructs the common code with one’s interlocutor, while the intrapyschological phase is when the child is able to use this code independently. In general, the zone of proximal development is defined as the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotski 1962). The fundamental role of the adult is to interpret the child’s productions, thereby sending back to the child the social meaning of the child’s utterance (Bernicot 1994). It is the adult’s interpretation that gives meaning to the child’s production, corresponding to the interpsychological phase of language acquisition. During the intrapsychological phase, children have become capable of referring to the extralinguistic reality on their own by means of linguistic signs. This is how language development is gradually built through the interaction between “novice” and “expert”. The development is the result of the interaction between the child with his or her genetic potentialities (internal factors) and the social environment (external factors). Seen from this perspective, to speak is to be engaged in a behaviour governed by rules that are not merely structural – as for the upholders of the nativist or cognitivist perspectives – but also social. Vygotski’s proposals and pragmatic theories (Bernicot 1994) converge in particular with regard to the social nature of the linguistic sign and interest in the study of consciousness or intentionality. Searle (1969), for example, considers that one of the objectives of the speech act perspective is to theorise on the extralinguistic conventions that govern language usage in the given contexts and to distinguish what is said from what it means. Nothing resembles more the position of Vygotski (1962): that one and the same thought can be expressed using different sentences, just as one single sentence can express different thoughts. The basic question remains: How does a child become sensitive to the correspondences existing between the form that utterances take and the context of communication? This notion provides a theoretical framework with which to explain all communication situations in which the interpretation of the utterances depends upon the context and requires the use of inferences on the part of both the interlocutor and the

Bases of Linguistic Development

157

listener. It is from this perspective that research was carried out taking into account the role of the input provided by the child and the role of conversation with the adult (Clark/Bernicot 2008; Veneziano 2001). An explanation is required as to why language is not transparent in a great number of situations, in other words, why there is a discrepancy between what is said and what is meant. The interactionist perspective takes this fundamental aspect of language into account by rendering operational the rules of pragmatics established by linguists. Experimental research has provided convincing results from the study of certain conditions of the comprehension and production of utterances. One theory of language usage in children includes creating categories of social objectives for utterances, of speakers and listeners, of context, and of analytical units of discourse that would enable the creation of local models, each on a specific domain. A domain is defined by a social function (request, promise, assertion, etc.) or a linguistic form (irony, idiom, metaphor, conversational implicature). These local models are multidimensional and non-linear. They are multidimensional in that the varied structural parameters of language can be taken into account: syntax, for example, but also prosody, semantics, and the organization of discourse. They are non-linear since the crucial hypothesis is not the increase in complexity of the utterances that are produced and understood with age, but the utterances’ variation in form depending on the characteristics of the communication situation. This perspective implies a language functioning that is no longer in a series where the phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic components are successively processed. Instead, it is a parallel functioning in which the pragmatic component can be at the very start of the processing (cf. Figure 4).

Figure 4: Model of parallel language functioning – Process of understanding the utterance “Il fait froid” in the context where the speaker’s intention is “Ferme la porte”

158

Josie Bernicot

7 Theories of Mind The social interactionist and pragmatic perspectives focus on the importance of intention in the functioning and acquisition of language. For the exchange (transmission of information) to take place between two individuals, each must have a “theory of the mind” of the other. To understand, or to be understood by the other, one must be able to attribute intentions to the other, or make hypotheses regarding the other’s intentions. The question is: Do children have a theory of mind, and if so, from what age? The roots of this question lie in an article published by Premack/Woodruff (1978) in which, after a series of ingenious experiments, the researchers showed that chimpanzees were capable of attributing mental states to another: They demonstrated different behaviours depending on their caretakers, one that was cooperative, and the other that was uncooperative. However, a summary of the research in this field highlighted that, unlike humans, chimpanzees attributed motivational, intentional, or attentional states, but not states of belief implying the contents of thought. Can the same split be found in the ontogenesis as in the phylogenesis? Wimmer/Perner (1983) carried out the classic protocol which would determine whether a child is able to attribute beliefs to another; it was meant for children between the ages of 3 and 9. A child was presented with miniature furniture and a child character, Maxi. Maxi put some chocolate away in one of the cupboards, X. While Maxi was away, the child’s mother removed the chocolate from cupboard X and put it away in cupboard Y (the scene was acted out in front of the child). The child was then asked where Maxi would go to get the chocolate when he came back. Wrong answer: Maxi would look for the chocolate in Y. The child attributed the child’s own representation of the situation to the other. Right answer: Maxi would look for the chocolate in X. The child was able to picture the incorrect belief of Maxi independently of the child’s own knowledge about the situation (the chocolate was in Y).

Wimmer/Perner’s (1983) study showed that children between the ages of 3 and 4 were never able to correctly designate the correct location of the chocolate in X. At 5 to 6 years of age, 57% of the children gave the right answer, and at 7 to 9 years of age, 86% was reached. It was therefore after 4 years of age (between 4 and 5) that children were able to attribute beliefs to others. Before 4 years of age, they attributed motivational, intentional, or attentional states. Since 1983, the principle of this initial finding has been refined and repeatedly confirmed. The explicative trends of the genesis of the theory of mind have been the source of very recent thought and research that cannot be reported here in a simple manner (cf. Thommen/Rimbert 2005). These trends put forward the maturation of modules determined by human genetic programming, or a psychological theory allowing judge-

Bases of Linguistic Development

159

ments to be expressed concerning the psychological state of the interlocutors, thereby anticipating their future behaviours. A third approach maintains that, by simulation, a child can picture the mind of another person by the imaginary projection of his or her own perspective into the other’s mind. For language theories anchored in social interaction, it is important to understand that children can only distinguish “their mind” from that of their interlocutor when they have reached 4 to 5 years of age.

8 Conclusion Despite all the efforts that have been made over the last half-century, the scientific community has been unable to identify the processes that would provide a complete explanation for the acquisition of language. Research has moved forward in recognizing the immense complexity of the phenomenon that involves the intervention of interconnected factors. Theories vary with regard to the amount of importance that is attributed to the role of internal factors (biological maturation and human genetic heritage) and external factors (physical and social environment) on language development. Research on the brain and language, and on language in chimpanzees, stressed the role of internal factors. Some clarifications to this should be mentioned, however: language difficulties can exist in the absence of brain injury, and, while language acquisition in chimpanzees is not complete, it closely resembles the abilities of a 4-year-old child. Generative grammar considers internal factors to be especially important while from the behaviourist perspective, external factors are paramount. For constructivists (Piagetians) and subscribers to the theory of information, it is the interaction between internal and external factors (physical environment or frequency of lexical items) that explains the advent of language development. Finally, for the social interactive and pragmatic perspective, the interaction between internal and external factors (with an emphasis on the social environment) is determinant. Theories of mind draw attention to cognitive abilities such as attributing beliefs to others, crucial for language functioning. One way to make progress is undoubtedly to take into account the natural conditions of language acquisition within the interlocutors’ goal-oriented conversations. The relationship between language forms and the communication situations in which interlocutors use them can then be understood. For both children and adults, to speak or understand language is to be engaged in behaviour governed by rules that are not only structural, but also social. After having asked the question “How does language come to children?” since the mid-twentieth century, this orientation attempts to explain language acquisition when the spoken word is useful for children.

160

Josie Bernicot

9 Bibliography Austin, John L. (1962), How to do things with words, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Bates, Elisabeth/MacWhinney, Brian (1989), Functionalism and the competition model, in: Brian MacWinney/Elisabeth Bates (edd.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 3–76. Berko Gleason, Jean (52001), The development of language, Boston, Allyn & Bacon. Berman, Ruth A. (2005), Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages, Journal of Pragmatics 37/2, 105–124. Bernicot, Josie (1994), Speech acts in young children: Vygotski’s contribution, European Journal of Psychology of Education 9, 311–320. Bernicot, Josie/Bert-Erboul, Alain (2009), L’acquisition du langage par l’enfant, Paris, Editions In Press. Bishop, Dorothy V. M. (2002), Speech and language difficulties, in: Michael Rutter/Eric Taylor (edd.), Child and adolescent psychiatry: Modern approaches, Oxford, Blackwell Science, 664–681. Broca, Paul (1861), Perte de la parole, ramollissement chronique et destruction partielle du lobe antérieur gauche du cerveau, Bulletin de la Société Anthropologique 2, 235–238. Bruner, Jerome (1983), Child’s talk: learning to use language, New York, Norton. Chomsky, Noam (1957), Syntactic structures, The Hague, Mouton. Clark, Eve V. (22009), First language acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Clark, Eve V./Bernicot, Josie (2008), Repetition as ratification: how parents and children place information in common ground, Journal of Child Language 35/2, 349–372. Crystal, David (1997), The Cambridge encyclopedia of language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dardier, Virginie, et al. (2011), Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, Frontal Lesions, and Social Aspects of Language Use: A Study of French-Speaking Adults, Journal of Communication Disorders 44, 359–378. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M./Mitchell-Kernan, Claudia (1977), Child discourse, New York, Academic Press. Gardner, Roger A./Gardner, Beatrix T. (1969), Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee, Science 165, 664–672. Greenfield, Patricia M./Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue (1993), Comparing communicative competence in child and chimp: the pragmatics of repetition, Journal of child language 20, 1–26. Itard, Jean M. (1801), De l’éducation d’un homme sauvage (Les premiers développemens physiques et moraux du jeune sauvage de l’Aveyron), Paris, Goujon. Karmiloff, Kyria/Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (2002), Pathways to Language: From Fetus to Adolescent, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Lacroix, Agnès/Bernicot, Josie/Reilly, Judy (2007), Narration and collaborative conversation in Frenchspeaking children with Williams syndrome, Journal of Neurolinguistics 20/6, 445–461. Lenneberg, Eric (1967), Biological foundations of language, New York, Wiley. McNeill, David (1970), The acquisition of language, New York, Harper. Morris, Charles (1946), Signs language and behaviour, New York, Prentice Hall. Ninio, Anat/Snow, Catherine E. (1996), Pragmatic development, Colorado, Westview Press. Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927), Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex, [London], Oxford University Press/Humphrey Milford. Peirce, Charles S. (1931–1935), Collected Papers, Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Piaget, Jean (1926), The Language and Thought of the Child, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Piaget, Jean (1928), The Child’s Conception of the World, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. Premack, David (1976), Language and intelligence in ape and man, American Scientific 64, 674–683. Premack, David/Woodruff, Guy (1978), Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1/4, 515–526.

Bases of Linguistic Development

161

Saint Augustin (1964), Les confessions, Paris, Garnier Flammarion. Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue (1990), Language acquisition in nonhuman species: Implications for the innateness debate, Developmental Psychobiology 23, 599–620. Searle, John R. (1969), Speech Acts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sinclair de Zwart, Hermine (1973), Language acquisition and cognitive development, in: Timothy Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, New York, Academic Press, 9–25. Skinner, Burrhus F. (1957), Verbal Behavior, New York, NY, Appleton-Century-Crofts. Slobin, Dan I. (1982), Universal and particular in the acquisition of language, in: Eric Wanner/Lila Gleitman (edd.), Language acquisition: The state of the Art, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 128–170. Thommen, Evelyne/Rimbert, Guillaume (2005), L’enfant et les connaissances sur autrui, Paris, Belin. Veneziano, Edy (2001), Displacement and informativeness in child-directed talk, First Language 21, 323–356. Vygotski, Lev S. (1962), Thought and language, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Watson, John B. (1913), Psychology as the behaviorist views it, Psychological Review 20, 158–177. Wernicke, Carl (1874), Der aphasische symptomencomplex. Eine psychologische Studie auf anatomischer Basis, Breslau, M. Cohn & Weigert. Wimmer, Heinz/Perner, Josef (1983), Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception, Cognition 13/1, 103–128.

Michel Fayol

9 Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell Abstract: The French orthographic system has an irregular one-to-one mapping between phonemes and graphemes. French children and adults cannot rely exclusively on phonographic regularities to read and write words: they use lexical and morphological information. Oral language, knowledge of the alphabet and phonological awareness, as well as understanding of environmental print, have an impact on later literacy achievement. Learning phoneme-grapheme correspondences enables learners to perform decoding and to acquire two types of knowledge via self-teaching: graphotactic regularities and wordforms. The orthographic lexicon is largely learned implicitly. However, the learning of conventional forms used in word spelling is a long and difficult process: explicit teaching is often required. The silent morphology of French forces children and adults to spell words correctly without any oral reference. Keywords: reading, writing, phonology, orthography, agreement

1 Learning a New Situation for Language Use Reading and writing are among the most remarkable cognitive abilities in humans. Skilled readers are able to recognize and read aloud quickly, accurately, and without effort a number of printed words, and compute their associated meanings. Reciprocally, beginning with an intention, skilled writers retrieve from memory the orthographic forms of many words and transcribe them to elaborate meaningful messages adapted to their audience. The following chapter will focus on the acquisition of these two abilities, taking French written language as an example. Just like everybody, children who are learning to read and write are confronted with a series of problems. We will examine here four of those problems. Firstly, children must discover a new mode of language use: written language as opposed to spoken language (↗7 Children’s Multimodal Language Development). Spoken language is fast and temporary; it takes place in real time. It is also frequently interrupted, and socially situated. Spoken language is associated with a great repertoire of intonation patterns and non-linguistic features. The linguistic interactions taking place in everyday life make it possible to determine quickly whether or not the listener has understood, liked what was said, or how s/he reacts to it. Nothing of the sort exists in the case of writing. Thus there is a big gap between oral and written verbal production (Shanahan 2006). During silent reading, understanding is a private activity unavailable to direct perception. At best, during oral exchanges, we know

Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell

163

when our addressee has understood something. While looking at somebody reading, there is no way to tell if the reader understands or not what is being read. In oral production, planning what to say next is generally limited to an immediate reaction, occurring quickly. Most of the time the statement is short. Secondly, the physical conditions under which adults and children process written texts are very different from those applying to the processing of speech. Reading and writing are activities that require people to visually follow from left to right lines containing clearly delimited words (not the case in oral speech) and to take account of symbols which were hitherto unknown to them such as punctuation marks, in particular. Both of these activities are relatively slow and laborious. The slow pace of reading and writing and the solitary nature of the activity are obstacles that children have to overcome at the beginner’s level. Later, these properties can be strategically exploited. On the one hand, the speed can be modulated. Unlike during oral exchanges, subjects can slow down the pace of reading and writing in order to gain greater control over the understanding of the content or over what they intend to write down. On the other hand, it is possible to go back on what one has already read or written in order to better integrate the available information or to review what has already been formulated. The conditions governing oral communication restrict these possibilities.

2 Learning a New Code Thirdly, children must learn a new code which, in the case of alphabetic systems (the only ones considered here), has systematic relations, though of varying degrees of regularity, with the oral code. An ideal alphabetic code would have strict one-to-one correspondence between letters and sound configurations. Like many other Romance languages with alphabetic systems of orthography, French (↗20 French) has an irregular one-to-one mapping between phonemes and graphemes, due to the fact that 26 letters have to be associated with about 35 phonemes. Because written French is morphophonemic, the relationship between the oral and the written modality rests on two main principles: the phonographic and semiographic principles (Jaffré/Fayol 2005). Spelling of words depends on both sound and meaning of the units they are made up with. The phonographic principle relies on correspondences between graphic units, letters or graphemes (G), and phonemes (P). The semiographic principle directly or indirectly represents the significant forms (the lexemes and morphemes) of a language. Most of the letters of the alphabet play a phonographic role (e.g., film/ film) (Catach 1980). About 85% of all the graphemes in French are phonograms. Some graphemes can be read aloud in different ways. For example, -s- is sometimes read as /s/ as in chanson and sometimes as /z/ as in raser. Many P can be spelled in several ways: / ĩ/ can be spelled in, ain, ein, en…; /ã/ can be spelled an, en, and, ant, ent… Moreover, a small proportion of the letters (about 4%) have grammatical and lexical

164

Michel Fayol

functions. Many letters do not have any phonological counterparts. For example, -s at the end of chantes, -nt at the end of chantent, -t at the end of petit, and -h- in théatre are not heard. Lastly, about 13% of all the letters used in spelling are linked to etymological traces or historical decisions and have no linguistic function (e.g., néanmoins). As a consequence, knowledge of P-G relationships is not enough to be able to read and write in French. Specific lexical knowledge is often necessary to correctly spell some words like foulard or homme; and to read monsieur or femme. As a consequence, French children and adults cannot rely exclusively on phonographic regularities as in Spanish or Italian (Jaffré/Fayol 2005). They must make use of lexical, morphological, and morpho-syntactic information. A major problem emerges in French because there are more P (about 35) than letters (n = 26) to represent them. The graphic unit is thus the G, and not the letter. A number of digraphs are used to transcribe vowels (e.g., /o/ : au) and consonants (/k/ : ck, ch, qu, cq). Gs vary depending on the strength of association to a given sound: au is systematically associated with /o/ (e.g., as in pause) but in is associated either to /ĩ/ (e.g., pin) or to /in/ (fine). In adults, reading processes require the grouping of letters into chunks. In writing, bigrams are units of production but their effect depends on the cohesion degree of the letters in the grapheme. Children thus have to learn complex G and become able to process them automatically during reading and spelling activities. In French, the GP (reading) and PG (spelling) relations are asymmetrical, with reading being easier than spelling. The GP relations are highly predictable and regular, which is not the case for the PG relations: 35 phonemes can be spelled with 130 graphemes.

3 Constraints from Oral to Written Language, and Conversely Fourthly, written language grafts itself onto oral language. Most probably, oral language characteristics impose constraints onto the conditions of learning and exercising written language. In turn, practicing written language entails some modifications of processing. Regarding French, three constraints are worth considering. First constraint to consider, French as well as Spanish and Italian has clearly defined syllable boundaries, with CV (Consonants Vowels) or CCV open syllables being more frequent that CVC syllables. Syllables are thus likely processing units in oral language, in perception as well as in production. These units are early and easily discriminated by 4- to 5-year-old children who are able to segment bi- or trisyllabic words in clapping their hands or to introduce pauses between syllables. However, the acquisition of orthographic units (G) and regularities, e.g., bigram frequencies, modifies (slightly) the processing of syllables. For example, processing units become graphosyllables (including the mute -e at the end of most French words). Adult

Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell

165

participants were presented with bisyllabic words in which phonological (syllables) and orthographic (bigram) boundaries either coincided or not. The perceptual word parsing in adults was based on both syllable units and on the statistical properties of written language. Processing units in reading are not exactly the same as in the oral modality. In written production, in order to disentangle the respective impact of syllables and graphemes on handwriting production, Kandel et al. (2011) asked adults to write from dictation words in which the position of the lowest frequency bigram either coincided or not with the syllable boundary. The adults writing durations were modulated by both bigram (written units) and syllable (phonological units) dimensions. Moreover, the morphological structure of a word also modulates the timing of motor programming in handwriting. The activation of the information necessary to write the suffix of words is spread in a cascaded fashion during the production of the root, at the letter preceding the syllable boundary. The second constraint to consider is that oral French uses word-group stress instead of word stress. The boundaries between words are thus often fuzzy in French. For example, les arbres is pronounced /lezarbr/ with a liaison phenomenon between the two words, which means that the determinant and the following noun constitute one phonological unit. Liaisons appear between two words in connected speech when the left hand word ends with a consonant and the right-hand word starts with a vowel when spoken in isolation. The final liaison consonant generally forms a syllable with the initial vowel of the following word. As a consequence, segmenting speech into words raises problems for young children (Chevrot/Dugua/Fayol 2009). The third and last constraint considered here; French oral morphology is rarely marked. We can take as an example the case of number and gender. When speaking French people say /lepulruskursyrlatεrbaty/ (les poules rousses courent sur la terre battue). In this sentence, the determinant /le/ is the only cue about number (and no cue is available about gender): neither the final -s in poules (noun) and rousses (adjective) nor the final -nt in courent (verb) are pronounced. Moreover, the final feminine inflection -e of the adjective battue is not pronounced either. Thus, children arriving at the elementary school discover that some words – nouns, adjectives, and verbs – vary in their terminal parts depending on number and gender for some of them, and even in relation to tenses for some others. This leads children to process inflections and to determine their functions, meanings and uses (Fayol/Hupet/Largy 1999; Fayol/Totereau/Barrouillet 2006). In addition, insofar as these marks have no phonological counterpart, they increase the level of processing difficulty, especially regarding attention and working memory, making spelling of inflections difficult to manage. All in all, French orthography includes a number of specificities making it sometimes difficult to read (e.g., chaos) but, most of the time, mainly difficult to spell. Indeed, Lucci/Millet (1994) report several categories of frequent errors among adults when composing brief text; e.g., omissions of final -s inflections for plural; omission (*pome instead of pomme) or addition (coulle instead of coule) of consonants.

166

Michel Fayol

4 Learning to Read and Spell: the Very Beginnings Reading and spelling are learned skills essentially “grafted onto” a (relatively) welldeveloped spoken language system. The central challenge of reading is to be related to the spoken language system. Phonological decoding (mapping a printed stimulus onto an abstract sound-based code) and phonological encoding (moving from a sound-based code to a printed form) are thus considered as a sine-qua-non dimension of reading and writing. Phonological decoding is a slow, serial and attention-demanding process. Models and observations of skilled reading and writing all assume at least two pathways to meaning from print, and reciprocally one that maps orthography to semantics (O → S) or semantics to orthography (S → O) directly, and another that relates orthography to semantics (and reciprocally) indirectly through phonology (O → P → S versus S → P → O). Despite the developmental trajectory of acquiring a spoken language system before learning a reading system, the direct O → S and S → O pathways become the most influential for the recognition, comprehension, and production tasks. Learning to read and write implies the prior acquisition of a phonologically-based processing of written language and then a move from it to the development of the direct O → S and S → O pathways, which are crucial for the transition to skilled reading and writing.

5 Phonology and Letter Knowledge In alphabetical languages, the crucial stage, while learning to read and write, occurs when the learner discovers that the sequence of letters (and graphemes) exhibits a regular – although sometimes complex – correspondence to the sound sequences (of phonemes), i.e., the alphabetical principle. Writing enables the encoding of the spoken word but not its direct meaning. Understanding the alphabetical principle starts with the ability to segment words by following, more or less, their syllabic organization and establishing an approximate match between sound segments and letters. In conjunction with the abilities involved in segmenting speech, knowledge of the names and sounds of letters allows learners to establish the first correspondences between sound configurations and letter configurations. At this stage, children have thus understood that reading/writing means coding sounds but their knowledge of phonology, the alphabet and the relations between them is still rudimentary. Gradually, through practice and instruction, children become aware of the full set of French phonemes and their associations with graphemes. These acquisitions enable them to implement, first, a decoding procedure enabling them to establish a correspondence between sound configurations and letter sequences and, second, a procedure for the letter-by-letter production (in writing) of all the phonologically mediated sound configurations. These two procedures are generative: they allow learners to read and transcribe all the written and sound sequence configura-

Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell

167

tions that they have not yet encountered, even if they result in unconventional orthographic productions. Regarding phonological skills, several correlational and longitudinal studies have established that phonological awareness and the acquisition of alphabetic skills are closely tied: children’s phonological skills before learning to read are important predictors of later word identification and word spelling. Phonological processing seems to be the core of reading acquisition. Caravolas et al. (2013) studied the potential impact of RAN (Rapid Naming), phoneme awareness, and letter-knowledge as predictors in the foundation phase of literacy development within groups of children learning to read and write in different languages (English, Spanish, Czech, Slovak). These children were re-assessed 10 months later in reading aloud, pictureword matching, letter writing, and word spelling. In this short longitudinal study, a consistent pattern emerged through the four languages: phoneme awareness, letter knowledge, and RAN were shown to be predictors of the same relative importance of early literacy skills over a 10-month period. At the very beginning of literacy learning, phonology plays an essential role whatever the consistency of the orthographic system. Regarding letters, the knowledge of letter names in children entering kindergarten was the best individual predictor of kindergarten reading achievement and the second best, after phoneme segmentation, of first-grade reading achievement. Its weight is very high when considering the relation between the very beginning of learning literacy and the achievement in both word recognition and reading comprehension two years later. More precisely, up to school entry, letter name knowledge is generally more developed and appears as a better predictor of learning to read than letter sound knowledge. Then, when knowledge of letter names reaches a ceiling in all children, developing letter sound knowledge becomes a stronger predictor of reading achievement (Foulin 2005). The implementation of the alphabetic principle and the practice of reading and writing both help to extend learners’ knowledge of Ps and their associations with Gs. The establishment of the relations between Ps and Gs develops all the more quickly if learners practice reading and writing intensely and if they do so in both directions (in both reading and writing). Whatever the methods used, teaching programmes focusing on improving phonological awareness performance both before and during the explicit learning process of reading and writing contribute to the mastery of both of these. Initially, word reading takes place via phonological mediation (= decoding) and requires more time if the item contains more letters, something that is no longer true of expert readers, at least in the case of high-frequency words. Phonological mediation comes with a high cost in terms of attention and memory, both at the level of perception and production. The cognitive cost is so high that written texts are understood and produced at a much slower pace than that which children are capable of when understanding and producing oral speech.

168

Michel Fayol

6 Impact of the Orthographic Systems The learning and development of basic decoding skills differ with the characteristics of orthographies. Seymour/Aro/Erskine (2003) assessed letter knowledge, familiar word reading, and simple non-word reading in 14 European orthographies. European children learning to read consistent alphabetic systems (e.g., Spanish, Italian) become accurate and fluent beginners before the end of the first school year. Later achievement appears with less consistent orthographies (French, Portuguese, Danish, and English). Basic literacy skills are learned more quickly in more consistent orthographies. Difficulties in the learning of literacy come from both the phonological and the orthographic dimensions. At the very beginning they are rooted in the discovery of the alphabetic principle. Then they depend on the syllabic structure of the language, the characteristics of the graphemic properties, and on the consistency of the relationships between oral and written configurations. Regarding French, the syllabic complexity influences reading and spelling only at the very beginning of apprenticeship: the CV syllables are easier to process than the CVC and CCV ones. Graphemic complexity is quickly resolved in reading: children begin by processing their constitutive letters (e.g., o u for ou) one by one but they rapidly process bigrams (or trigrams) as units. Graphemic complexity mostly affects word spelling. French children start spelling by using a simplified set of P-G correspondences with no lexical involvement. Sprenger-Charolles/Siegel/Bonnet (1998) studied the development of reading and spelling in 57 French first graders who, from January to June of the same year, were required to read and spell words (regular and not regular; frequent and rare occurrences) and pseudowords. French children relied on phonological mediation in the first phase of reading and spelling acquisition: in January, they read and spelled pseudowords more accurately than words whatever their frequency. At the end of the first grade, the frequent words were better read and spelled than pseudowords. These results attested that French children rely initially on phonological mediation (decoding) in the first phase of reading and spelling acquisition, which allows the construction of the orthographic lexicon. However, the regularity effect remains in reading and spelling as well. More importantly, in compliance with Share’s (1999) self-teaching conception, significant correlations exist between early phonological skills (pseudoword reading, regular word reading) and later orthographic skills (irregular word reading). Phonological mediation thus plays an important role in the development of reading and is compatible with results in spelling productions, but no lexicality effect was observed in June. The results suggest that both phonological and orthographic factors participate in the storage of new word spelling at the very beginning stage of this ability’s acquisition. Regression analysis searching for variables in the earlier phases (1st grade) of reading/spelling acquisition that have an impact on later phases of these acquisitions, established that mainly phonological skills significantly contributed to later skills using reading aloud, silent reading, and spelling tasks.

Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell

169

7 From PG and GP Processing to the Acquisition of Sublexical and Lexical Units The use of P G correspondences enables learners to perform decoding, reading aloud and to form two types of knowledge in memory. One relates to frequently occurring blocks of letters, morphemes or not (e.g., -anque; -iste; corresponding to so-called graphotactic regularities) and the other to orthographic forms. These orthographic representations do not consist merely of linear letter strings encoding information on letter identity and the order of their combination. Children also acquire multi-level structures that encode information on letter chunks. Some letter chunks are specific to writing, for instance graphemes (e.g., ch, ph, ou), orthographic regularities (e.g., that -eau is much more frequent after /v/ but not /f/); and the doubling of consonants. Some others are related to phonology, for example those that correspond to syllable chunks. Syllables (actually graphosyllables) become processing units in children’s reading and writing. Rieben/Saada-Robert (1991) described how very early, in kindergarten, French speaking 5- and 6-year-old children produced a text using a previous collective one as a model. At the beginning, they copied isolated letters; finally they copied chunks of letters, especially syllables, as a whole. Using a more experimental paradigm, Colé/Magnan/Grainger (1999) asked children to detect syllables in words (e.g., PA in PARADE): children were successful after only 6 months of reading apprenticeship. From first to fifth grades, young readers shifted their attentional focus from serial left to right sequence processing to the association of several graphemes into larger phonolographical structures such as syllables. Kandel/Valdois (2006) asked children from first to fifth grades to copy pseudowords and words. They recorded gaze lifts and writing durations during the activity. First- and second-graders organize their copying behavior according to the syllable structure of the item. From third grade onwards, the syllable structure remained used but its impact was not so easy to detect. In first to third grades, children can process high frequency syllables as units while processing low-frequency syllables as phoneme units. In fifth grade, both high- and low-frequency syllables are processed as units. The syllable thus appears early as a processing unit. Other processing units emerge with reading and writing practice, and some of them interfere with the syllable. For instance, children were asked to write dictated words that were mono-syllables phonologically (e.g., barque = [baRk]) but bi-syllables orthographically (e.g., barque = bar.que) or words that were bi-syllables both phonologically and orthographically (e.g., balcon = [balkõ] and bal.con). The former words were processed as bisyllable (as balcon) rather than as monosyllable words. The graphemic dimension was henceforth taken into account, syllables becoming graphosyllables. In addition, the boundaries between (some) syllables become less clear in 9–10-year-old children because spelling regularities interfere with phonological units (Kandel et al. 2011).

170

Michel Fayol

Children also acquire graphotactic regularities, i.e., frequently associated letters that can be independent of phonological regularities. One of the most characteristic examples is the doubling of consonants. In French, most consonants can be doubled or not and the format (single versus double) has no phonological effect, e.g., the strings onn and on are pronounced the same in sonne and sonore. Consonants are never doubled at the beginning or end of words but only in medial position. Some are frequently doubled (e.g., -tt- or -ll-) some others rarely (e.g., -dd- or -bb-). Pacton et al. (2001) asked first to five graders to choose between two non-words, one including a doublet in the legal (medial) position and the other a doublet in an illegal (initial or final) position and to identify which one looked most like a word (e.g., tiffol versus ttifol versus tifoll). They also explored whether children would prefer a non-word including a rare doublet (e.g., tiffol) over a frequent one (tippol), or even a word where a never doubled letter appeared (tivvol). The children know very early the legal position of double consonants in French, and also the fact that some consonants are more likely to be doubled than others. This implicit knowledge (i.e., never taught explicitly) increases slightly across grades but remains probabilistic, never becoming a rule. Such results support a statistical learning view of spelling according to which spellers rely on regularities that cannot be characterized only in terms of general rules and that are not dependent on phonology.

8 Learning Word Orthography: Word Recognition and Word Production It was long believed that decoding a word while using GP correspondences would lead to the acquisition of orthographic forms. Orthographic acquisition would be an outcome of the apprenticeship of decoding and would therefore take place implicitly, i.e., in the absence of any intention to learn or any explicit instruction, while the reader is focused on the task of reading. The successful identification of a word would be an opportunity to acquire a specific orthographic item including both the identity of the letters involved and their order of appearance. Repeated encounters with these items would help specify and consolidate the memorized representations. A number of studies have shown that decoding leads to the memorization of specific orthographic forms of words. Word recognition would then become automatic, so that readers can rapidly recognize a word when they see it and thus process it as a unit. The transition from the dominant GP and PG processing to more and more direct word recognition and production mechanisms seem to take place between the first and the second grades (Lété/Peereman/Fayol 2008). Initial studies dealing with self-teaching focused only on the effect of decoding. However, the orthography of new items is learned better when these items are written than when they are simply decoded. This result reinforces earlier findings according

Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell

171

to which the orthographic production of words has a positive effect on the ability to read the same words, thus suggesting that orthographic forms common to both reading and writing are stored in memory. However, reading and spelling abilities can be dissociated (Fayol/Zorman/Lété 2009). Spelling is a more difficult task and requires a better quality representation than reading. In Share’s paradigm, writing-to-dictation performances continue to be poor, with a success level reaching a maximum of 40% despite several encounters with the words. These results raise the question of what can lead to at least the partial memorization of orthographic forms (as attested by recognition tasks) and, at the same time, to such poor performances in a dictation task. A number of hypotheses are conceivable. The first of these relates to the characteristics of the representations in memory: these could be incomplete or even incorrect, without necessarily affecting reading. This possibility seems to be particularly plausible in French due to the presence of letters for which there is no phonological correspondence or double consonants without phonological counterpart. The second hypothesis relates to the procedures involved in accessing the orthographic forms and maintaining them temporarily during transcription. The slowness of the writing procedure and the attention it drains in young children reduce the quality of productions due to the deterioration of the memory trace resulting from the long period required for transcription (Bourdin/Fayol 1994). A third hypothesis, suggests that visuo-attentional processing makes a contribution in addition to the influence of the decoding skills. Practicing decoding does indeed lead to the formation of memory traces corresponding to the orthographic forms, but this formation requires more or less time depending on the orthographic systems. It also does not immediately result in fully stabilized representations because these representations are developing and, even among adults, orthographic forms vary (Lété/Fayol 2013). Other studies have shown that what is stored and retrieved in memory is not equivalent to a copy of the word. It is more likely to take the form of a reconstruction based on partial traces that vary as a function of the subject’s prior orthographic knowledge. This observation helps us understand why pupils are so sensitive to exposure to errors, as teachers well know, as well as why they experience difficulty in memorizing certain orthographic forms. To summarize, a large proportion of the orthographic lexicon is acquired incidentally (implicitly) due to the simple fact that pupils decode when they read. However, we only have a poor understanding of the specific knowledge acquired in this way and, in particular, the way in which it is organized in memory as new words or configurations are encountered. The acquisition of the conventional form of words is a long and difficult process, especially in the case of inconsistent words. The idea that the entire orthographic lexicon might be learned implicitly is not tenable, at least in the case of French. We must therefore undertake to design, implement and measure the effects of explicit learning on the acquisition of orthographic forms. Only a few studies, if any, are available regarding this question.

172

Michel Fayol

9 The Acquisition and Use of Morphology French includes a high proportion of morphologically complex words, about 80%. Morphemes are thus the building blocks used to produce and understand words: they include roots and affixes (inflections and derivations). Inflections have to do with the syntax of language: suffixes mark grammatical information (e.g., number, gender, tense, person). Derivational morphemes change the meaning of base words and require a large set of affixes. Children must acquire knowledge and procedures to manipulate morphemes: to decompose multimorphemic words into root words and affixes and compose multimorphemic words by adding affixes to root words. Original productions (i.e., neologisms) that cannot be attributed to imitation (e.g., *je venirai instead of je viendrai) appear very early in children. However, these productions are limited and raise the question of the existence of true morphological knowledge and procedures. Several researchers have investigated whether children rely on morphology to decode and understand words and texts, and reciprocally modify their morphological knowledge with reading and writing practice. Longitudinal studies provide evidence of reciprocal relations between early morphological processing abilities and early reading abilities and later reading and morphological processing. Training studies suggest that morphological interventions improve decoding. One question has been investigated more precisely: Do children extract morphemes in words they read and use them in writing, following rules? To answer this question, researchers have first studied the activity of reading words and pseudowords including or not including morphemes. For example, is bavard, a derivable word including a final silent consonant, read more accurately and rapidly than buvard considered as a pseudo-derived word? Researchers also used priming paradigms to determine whether the presentation of a prime word would help (or hinder) the subsequent recognition of a target. Casalis et al. (2009) compared the word recognition of target words (e.g., lavage) preceded by different primes (LAVEUR morphological prime versus LAVANDE orthographic prime versus MOUTARDE unrelated prime) in fourthgraders. Morphological information facilitated word recognition. Elementary school children thus seem sensitive to the presence of morphological features in reading. Studying the production of words helps to better understand children’s processing of morphology. Using a database of 3,430 one-syllable to six-syllable words, Lété/Peereman/Fayol (2008) examined the influence of lexical (word frequency, lexical neighbourhood) and sublexical (consistency) variables on spelling accuracy among first, second, and third-to-fifth graders. They compared the performances of students having to write words whose silent final consonants could be predicted by using a morphological spelling strategy (bavard -> bavarde) with their performance when writing words for which such strategy does not apply. The results show that the children do not rely frequently on morphological cues to spell words. Several experimental studies have been conducted that have enabled a better description of how children from elementary school deal with French morphology.

Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell

173

Sénéchal (2000) asked children to spell: 1) Morphological words that had a derived form associated to the word-final silent consonant (e.g., the words petit -> petite); 2) Opaque words that had no such related word (e.g., foulard); and 3) Regular words with no word final silent consonant (e.g., moulin). The children more accurately spelled words without a word-final consonant, and also morphological words, than they spelled opaque words. These results suggest that children refer to related words in determining the spelling of the silent endings. However, it is often difficult to disentangle the impact of different sources of effect (morphology, graphotactic regularities, etc.) on the spelling of words. Pacton/Fayol/Perruchet (2005) tried to dissociate the impact of morphology from the effect of graphotactic regularities. In written French, the transcription of the same sound (e.g., /εt/) can be constrained by morphological and graphotactic dimensions: /εt/ is always written -ette when it is a diminutive suffix and -ette is more frequent after an r than after an f. If spellers relied on abstract morphological rules (use of -ette to mark the diminutive), then there should be no effect of the graphotactic constraints. The authors compared how children and adults spelled the same pseudowords when no morphological information was available (i.e., only graphotactic regularities could be used) and when morphological information was provided. From age 7, the spelling of pseudowords was influenced by morphology: pseudowords (e.g., /vitarεt/ and /vitafεt/) were more often written with -ette when a sentence context indicated that they were used as a diminutive (e.g., une petite /vitar/ est une /vitarεt/) than when they were spelled as an isolated word. The 7- to 11-year-old children and adults were more likely to use -ette with pseudo-words such as /vitarεt/ than with pseudowords such as /vitafεt/. This difference reflected the influence of the participants’ sensitivity to graphotactic regularities. Neither children nor adults used a rule specifying that /εt/ is always spelled -ette when it represents the diminutive suffix. As a consequence, children appear to be sensitive to morphological regularities at an early age, but their spelling behaviour cannot be said to rely upon an abstract rule such as “if a word ends with /εt/ and if it is a diminutive, then it ends with -ette”. No instruction study tried to teach such a rule and tested its possible efficiency. We thus do not know the potential impact of explicit teaching on the spelling behaviour of children or adults. The impact of morphology is strongly related to the phonological transparency of written language. The difficulty increases with languages in which phonological and morphological information is mismatched. This is especially true in French because the predominantly silent morphology forces children to learn to spell words correctly without an oral reference. For instance agreement errors of attraction are more frequent with regular verbs (e.g., La flamme des bougies éclairent instead of éclaire) than with irregular verbs (e.g., la flamme des bougies éblouit). Fayol and his colleagues observed that grade-1 children frequently fail to mark the plural of nouns, adjectives, and verbs (Fayol/Hupet/Largy 1999). However, most of them rapidly understand the meaning of plural marks (i.e., -s for nouns and adjectives, and -nt for verbs), as attested by judgment tasks (matching pictures with words, plural or singu-

174

Michel Fayol

lar) (Totereau/Thévenin/Fayol 1997). They are even able to detect erroneous agreements and to edit them. By contrast, it takes them a long time before they are able to correctly use these marks, and their performance varies with the difficulty of the task: more errors of agreement occur when children compose texts than when they write dictated sentences or complete words by adding inflections at the end. Nouns are the first to be correctly inflected, then agreement extends to adjectives and verbs. When children begin to mark systematically the plural of verbs, they overextend the -s mark (of nouns) to verbs, and this generalization remains in adolescents and even adults when nouns and verbs are homophonous (e.g., timbre can be a noun a stamp or a verb to stamp, which leads to the spelling timbres (plural noun) instead of timbrent (plural verb), or the other way around). These errors rarely appear in adults when they compose texts. They sometimes arise however when a writing task becomes hard to manage or when priming happens (Largy/Fayol/Lemaire 1996) or when particular sentence forms are involved (e.g., subject-verb inversion). Learning to recognize and to use inflectional morphology in French is so difficult that explicit teaching is provided to children starting from the second grade onwards. Children are taught the agreement rules (e.g., the verb agrees with the subject), drilled through series of exercises, and regularly reminded of the rules when they are spelling words and sentences in dictation or while composing texts. This mode of teaching relies (implicitly) on Anderson’s (1983) principles: declarative knowledge is first given explicitly; then practice leads to the proceduralization of the agreement process; lastly, inflected words are memorized as such and automatically retrieved when the context requires their production. Such a way of teaching is efficient when associated with enough practice time (Fayol et al. 1999). Inflectional morphology also explains the variation in agreement type of errors in text production from childhood (second grade) to adult life. At the very beginning of the apprenticeship, secondary tasks (e.g., graphic transcription) hinder the application of the procedures and lead to omission errors (Fayol/ Hupet/Largy 1999). Later the competition between marks entails the occurrence of substitution errors (e.g., verb inflection -nt instead of noun inflection -s). Lastly, word substitutions arise depending on the item’s frequency of occurrence (Cousin/Largy/ Fayol 2002), a situation observed mainly in adults when homophones are competing. Several experiments provided evidence that agreement errors are unavoidable when the cognitive load increases, even in adults (Bourdin/Fayol 2002). As a consequence, an explicit teaching of scholar grammar (i.e., to categorize words as nouns, adjectives, verbs and to determine functions, subject of, direct object, etc.) is provided to help writers to detect and edit orthographic errors. Some strategies are also helpful, but their efficiency on large populations remains to be tested.

Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell

175

10 Conclusion: Written French Is Difficult to Spell, not to Read All in all, French orthography shows a number of specific characteristics making it sometimes difficult to read (e.g., chaos) but most of the time mainly difficult to spell. Young learners have thus to deal with three major difficulties mainly associated with written production. First children have to learn the irregular matching between phonemes and graphemes, which results in more time and attention being devoted to spelling than to reading. Then they acquire both graphotactic regularities and frequent word forms through the practice of decoding and encoding; this apprenticeship is a never-ending process with many difficulties related to the presence of frequent silent letters (e.g., théâtre). An explicit teaching is often required to learn some word forms. Lastly, learners must discover the existence of morphological marks that are most of the time silent. Moreover, due to the lack of phonological cues, they have to dedicate attention to the management of such marks while composing sentences and texts, a combination of tasks that leads to errors, even in adult experts when their memory and attention are overloaded. Explicit teaching exists to help children improve their skills in spelling morphological marks, but systematic and regular practice is necessary to prevent them from making errors too frequently.

11 Bibliography Anderson, John (1983), The architecture of cognition, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Bourdin, Béatrice/Fayol, Michel (1994), Is written language production really more difficult than oral language production?, International Journal of Psychology 29, 591–620. Bourdin, Béatrice/Fayol, Michel (2002), Even in adults, written production is still more costly than oral production, International Journal of Psychology 37, 219–227. Caravolas, Marketa, et al. (2013), Common patterns of prediction of literacy development in different alphabetic orthographies, Psychological Science 23, 678–686. Casalis, Sévérine, et al. (2009), Morphological effects in children word reading: A priming study in fourth graders, British Journal of Developmental Psychology 27, 761–766. Catach, Nina (1980), L’orthographe française: traité théorique et pratique, Paris, Nathan. Chevrot, Jean-Pierre/Dugua, Céline/Fayol, Michel (2009), Liaison acquisition, word segmentation and construction in French: A usage-based account, Journal of Child Language 36, 557–596. Colé, Pascale/Magnan, Annie/Grainger, Jonathan (1999), Syllable-sized units in visual word recognition: Evidence from skilled and beginning readers of French, Applied Psycholinguistics 20, 507–532. Cousin, Marie-Pierre/Largy, Pierre/Fayol, Michel (2002), Sometimes, early learned instances hinder the implementation of agreement rules: A study in written French, Current Psychology Letters 8, 51–65. Fayol, Michel/Hupet, Michel/Largy, Pierre (1999), The acquisition of subject-verb agreement in written French: From novices to experts’ errors, Reading and Writing 11, 153–174.

176

Michel Fayol

Fayol, Michel/Totereau, Corinne/Barrouillet, Pierre (2006), Disentangling the impact of semantic and formal factors in the acquisition of number inflections. Noun, adjective and verb agreement in written French, Reading and Writing 19, 717–736. Fayol, Michel/Zorman, Michel/Lété, Bernard (2009), Unexpectedly good spellers too. Associations and dissociations in reading and spelling French, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph series 2 – Teaching and learning writing 6, 63–75. Fayol, Michel, et al. (1999), From learning to teaching to learning French written morphology, in: Terezhina Nunes (ed.), Learning to read: An integrated view from research and practice, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 43–63. Foulin, Jean-Noël (2005), Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read?, Reading and Writing 18, 129–155. Jaffré, Jean-Pierre/Fayol, Michel (2005), Orthography and literacy in French, in: Malatescha Joshi/ P.G. Aaron (edd.), Handbook of orthography and literacy, Mahwah, L.E.A., 81–103. Kandel, Sonia/Valdois, Sylviane (2006), Syllables as functional units in a copying task, Language and Cognitive Processes 21/4, 432–452. Kandel, Sonia, et al. (2011), For a psycholinguistic model of handwriting production: Testing the syllable-bigram controversy, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 37, 1310–1322. Largy, Pierre/Fayol, Michel/Lemaire, Patrick (1996), The homophone effect in written French: The case of verb-noun inflection errors, Language and Cognitive Processes 11, 217–255. Lété, Bernard/Fayol, Michel (2013), Substituted and transposed-letter effects in a masked priming paradigm with French developing readers and dyslexics, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 114, 47–62. Lété, Bernard/Peereman, Ronald/Fayol, Michel (2008), Phoneme-to-Grapheme Consistency and Word-Frequency Effects on Spelling Among First- to Fifth-Grade French Children: A RegressionBased Study, Journal of Memory and Language 58, 952–977. Lucci, Vincent/Millet, Agnès (1994), L’orthographe de tous les jours, Paris, Champion. Pacton, Sébastien/Fayol, Michel/Perruchet, Pierre (2005), Children’s implicit learning of graphotactic and morphological regularities in French, Child Development 76, 324–339 Pacton, Sébastien, et al. (2001), Implicit learning out of the lab: The case of orthographic regularities, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130, 401–426. Rieben, Laurence/Saada-Robert, Madelon (1991), Developmental patterns and individual differences in the word-search strategies of beginning readers, Learning and Instruction 1, 67–87. Sénéchal, Monique (2000), Morphological effects in children’s spelling of French words, Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 54, 76–85. Seymour, Phillips/Aro, Mikko/Erskine, Jane (2003), Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies, British Journal of Psychology 94, 143–174. Shanahan, Timothy (2006), Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development, in: Charles MacArthur/Steve Graham/Jill Fitzgerald (edd.), Handbook of writing research, New York, The Guilford Press, 171–183. Share, David (1999), Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: a direct test of the selfteaching hypothesis, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 72, 95–129. Sprenger-Charolles, Liliane/Siegel, Linda/Bonnet, P. (1998), Reading and spelling acquisition in French: The role of phonological mediation and orthographic factors, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 68, 134–165. Totereau, Corinne/Thévenin, Marie-Thérèse/Fayol, Michel (1997). The development of the number understanding of number morphology in written French, in: Charles A. Perfetti/Laurence Rieben/ Michel Fayol (edd.), Learning to spell, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 97–114.

Second Language Acquisition

Alessandro Benati

10 Second Language Acquisition Abstract: Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is a complex phenomenon which involves the interaction of a number of processes and mechanisms. Different theories (e.g. Processability Theory, Input Processing, Skill Acquisition, Universal Grammar, Connectionism) and perspectives (e.g. Linguistics, Psycholinguistics, Sociolinguistics) have attempted to address a number of issues in this field of enquiry. The main aim of this chapter is to examine a number of these issues (Is SLA different from learning a first language?; Is there an innate knowledge?; How does the mind develop in SLA?; Do we learn what we are taught?; Can input, interaction and output affect SLA?; Is there a role for individual differences?) in order to offer a general overview of what research tells us about how languages are learned. Research and theory in this field of enquiry has also important implications for second language teaching. The conclusive part of this chapter offers some reflections of how SLA is linked to the real world of language teaching. Keywords: Input, Intake, Interlanguage, Second Language Acquisition, Instruction

1 What is Second Language Acquisition? 1.1 Definitions Second Language Acquisition is the study of how second languages are learned (Lightbown/Spada 2006). It is a field of enquiry which investigates how learners create a new language system with often a limited exposure to the second language (Gass/Selinker 2008). As outlined by VanPatten/Benati (2010, 2) “looking at the various definitions of SLA what emerges is a concern about learners and learning. The field of SLA addresses the fundamental questions of how learners come to internalize the linguistic system of another language and how they make use of that linguistic system during comprehension and speech production.” SLA “refers both to the study of individuals and groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children” (Saville-Troike 2006, 2). It includes the study of how learners come to acquire an additional language in an informal (e.g. natural context) and/or a formal environment (e.g. classroom). In a general sense, a second language (L2) refers to a language that it is acquired after the first language (L1) has been established in early childhood. Overall SLA research seeks to explore how L2 learners understand and process language input and how they tap into that information to produce the target language (VanPatten/Benati 2010). VanPatten/Williams (2007, viii) argue that SLA researchers need to continue to investigate different parts of this phenomena before we can

180

Alessandro Benati

develop a complete picture on how languages are learned and what are the mechanisms responsible for this (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories). VanPatten (2004, 27) equated SLA to the construction of a building, as in his view understanding SLA “is like understanding how a building works. There is the electrical system, the plumbing, the foundation, the frame, the heat and the air system, and so on. All are necessary; one alone is insufficient. But like those who work in house construction and are electrical contractors or plumbing contractors, in SLA some of us are in matters dealing with input. Others are interested in output.”

1.2 Main Constructs SLA researchers have argued that the formal study of SLA was initiated with Corder’s publication on the significance on learners’ errors. Corder (1967) has suggested that like children, L2 learners came equipped with something internal, something that guides and constrains their acquisition of the formal properties of a new language. He called this something “the internal syllabus” which develops implicitly and does not necessarily match the syllabus that instruction attempts to impose upon learners. He also made a distinction between input and intake, defining input as the language available from the environment – everything that one hears or reads in the environment, but intake as that language that actually makes its way into the learner’s internal system. Selinker (1972; 1992) has suggested that learners develop an internal linguistic system which he called interlanguage. This system is neither the first language nor the second language, but something in-between that learners build from environmental data.

1.3 Main Issues A great deal of the theorizing about second language acquisition (cf. Atkinson 2011; Ortega 2011; Robinson 2012; Ortega/Cumming/Ellis 2013) has been undertaken from different perspectives (linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics) to shed some light on the processes and mechanisms involved in SLA (e.g. Universal Grammar: White 2003; 2007; Krashen’s Monitor Model: Krashen 1982; Long’s Interaction Hypothesis: Long 1996; Gass 1997; 2003; Processability Theory: Pienemann et al. 2005; Connectionism: N. Ellis 2007; VanPatten’s Input Processing Theory: VanPatten 2004; DeKeyser’s Skill-Learning Theory: DeKeyser 2007; Functional Approach: BardoviHarlig 2007). Over the years, these scholars have laid the groundwork for a number of important theories in SLA (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories). In this chapter we have posed a number of broad questions related to research in SLA:

Second Language Acquisition

– – – – – –

181

Is SLA different from learning a first language? Is there an innate knowledge? How does the mind develop in SLA? Do we learn what we are taught? Can input, interaction and output affect SLA? Is there a role for individual differences?

The chapter ends with a question related to the implications of theory and empirical research on second language teaching: – How is SLA linked to the real world? The answers to these questions are not straightforward. Despite the fact that research on SLA has expanded enormously since its first conception, there is still not agreed answer/s among scholars on each of these questions. This is partly due to the complexity and the multifaceted characteristic of SLA. Studies of SLA have increased in quantity as researchers have addressed a variety of topics, asked new questions and worked within multiple research methodologies and from a variety of academic disciplines (e.g. Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, Psycholinguistics, Psychology, Education). As a result of this multidisciplinary work, we are in a better position to argue that learners acquire a second language through a number of interactive factors: exposure to language input: make use of existing knowledge of the native language; and access to universal properties.

2 Is SLA Different from Learning a First Language? VanPatten/Benati (2010, 9) have argued that one of the key questions in SLA is “to what extent are first and second language acquisition the same thing”. VanPatten (2003, 80) has sustained that “the answer is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ but rather it depends on what you look at”. Researchers have conducted numerous studies to understand the nature of first and second language acquisition. Their overall findings have indicated that there are similarities and some differences between the acquisition of the L1 (↗8 Bases of Linguistic Development) and the acquisition of a L2 (cf. Meisel 2011).

2.1 Similarities One key similarity is that both L1 and L2 learners need input to construct a language system. However, one of the questions addressed by scholars, learners and practitioners is: how is it possible that children normally master their first language with relative ease, but adults attempting to learn a second language are less likely to

182

Alessandro Benati

achieve this? Research findings have shown that for non-natives to become nativelike is possible but rare (VanPatten/Benati 2010, 20). Input is a key ingredient in L1 and L2 acquisition and as Krashen (1982) argued, it must be comprehensible and meaning bearing to have a successful impact on acquisition. However, quantitative and qualitative differences in input are one of the reasons which explain L1 and L2 disparities (Rothman/Fuentes 2010). A second similarity is that L1 and L2 learners seem to follow a predictable order in the formal features. Findings from research in both L1 (Brown 1973) and L2 (Dulay/Burt 1974) on the acquisition of grammatical morphemes (e.g. inflectional features) has indicated that there is a definite order in the acquisition of morphemes in English. There is a sequence of acquisition for a number of function words in English as an L1 (e.g. nouns, verb inflections, articles). Similarly, L2 learners acquire grammatical features of a target language in a certain order and this is regardless of their first language or the context in which they acquired them (progressive -ing is acquired before regular past tense -ed, which is acquired before third-person -s). Goldschneider/Dekyeser (2001) conducted a regression analysis on the “natural order studies” which indicated that the variation in the acquisition order of morphemes in English can be attributed to a combination of factors: perceptual saliency, semantic complexity, morphophonological regularity, syntactic category and input frequency. Another example is the acquisition of Spanish copular ser and estar. According to VanPatten (1987) learners acquire Spanish copula with one form (ser) to perform most copula functions. Subsequently their use of estar appears first with locatives and then with adjectives of condition (↗25 Spanish). A further similarity is the acquisition of certain language marked and unmarked features. Unmarked features are those that are universal or are present in most languages and which learners tend to transfer. Marked features are language specific features which the learner resists transferring (cf. Hyltenstam 1987). According to Universal Grammar (White 2003) rules such as word order are innate, governed by universal principles and accessed through the application of abstract principles of language structure. On the contrary, peripheral rules are rules that are not governed by universal principles. These rules are marked and are more difficult to learn. The research findings show that unmarked features are learned earlier and easier than marked rules in both the L1 and the L2, while unmarked forms require more time and effort by the learner.

2.2 Differences The apparent difference between children who develop almost miraculously the ability of speech, without effort, and without being taught, and adults who often struggle without (in most cases) being able to reach the same level of proficiency in the target language (fossilization) has led support to the view that L1 and L2 are

Second Language Acquisition

183

different (Fundamental Difference Hypothesis). Robert Bley-Vroman (2009) has argued that the process in which children and adults acquire language is fundamentally different. Children have an innate and internal ability to acquire the grammar which is not influenced by external factors. Adults, on the other hand, no longer have this ability, and resort to use problem-solving skills to learn a language. Bley-Vroman also suggested that SLA seems to be influenced by L1 transfer and affective factors such as inhibition and attitude. Age seems to be another factor which might influence learners. Learners’ brain seems to lose plasticity at a critical age (Critical Period Hypothesis), therefore, certain linguistic features might not be mastered after this period. In recent years a number of empirical studies have been undertaken to investigate whether or not age affects learning outcomes (Birdsong 2005). Younger learners and adults have neurological, cognitive and psychological differences that come into play in second language acquisition. Children are usually considered to be better learners than adults. They tend to have fewer inhibitions than adults and have a desire to actively participate in the social life around them that helps them to learn new languages. They do not have analytical skills and tend to process languages generally through sensory experience, and language develops from exposure to simplified and concrete input. Adult language learners are, instead, notorious for their lack of ultimate mastery of language structure. The difference context of L1 and L2 acquisition plays an important role in the acquisition process. While it is possible to learn an L2 in various contexts, L1 acquisition takes place only in a natural context and in the social group the child is growing up and where the child gets L1 input only.

3 Is There an Innate Knowledge? The behaviourist views (Skinner 1957) considered language acquisition as the training of habits. Contrastive Analysis assumed that errors made by L2 learners could be traceable to their L1s. Behaviourism became untenable after Chomsky’s (1959) acquisition arguments, and research findings showed that many of the predicted errors did not occur and could not be explained on the basis of L1 transfer (Corder 1981). A number of theorists believe that human beings are born with a built-in device which predisposes them in language acquisition. According to Chomsky (1965), a child possesses knowledge of language universals (Universal Grammar) and generates from that knowledge a series of hypotheses about the particular first language the child is learning. These hypotheses are modified and corrected in the light of the input to which the child is exposed. Chomsky sees L1 acquisition as characterised by two main factors: an internal mechanism (language acquisition device) that is innate; and the input children are exposed to in their environment. Universal Grammar consists of principles and parameters which provide children with (unconscious) innate knowledge of what is impossible in human language in general. Universal

184

Alessandro Benati

Grammar is motivated by the “poverty of the stimulus” of language acquisition which means that the input to which children are exposed is a necessary, but inadequate source of information for language acquisition. Researchers (cf. White 2003) have investigated the role that Universal Grammar and L1 play in SLA. The different theoretical positions are based on to whether and to what extent there is a transfer from L1 to L2 (No Transfer, Partial Transfer, Full Transfer) and the extent to which L2 is constrained by Universal Grammar (No Access, Full Access).

3.1 No Transfer/No Access This view discards any role of Universal Grammar as a key factor in SLA. Universal Grammar constrains L1, but L1 is fundamentally different from L2. L1 acquisition is guided by Universal Grammar, whereas language acquisition proceeds on the basis of general problem-solving skills (cf. Bley-Vroman 2009).

3.2 Full Transfer/Full Access This position argues that L2 and L1 acquisitional processes are similar. According to this view the properties of Universal Grammar are still available to the L2 learners. They are able to replace L1 properties with L2 properties (“parameter resetting”). An English speaker learning French as L2 might come to the task of acquisition not expecting verbs to raise (verb raising parameter – French allows movement and lexical verbs to raise). The value of parameter will be (– raising) but that learner will reset this parameter to (+ raising) once the evidence from subject-verb inversion, adverb placement and placement of negation is encountered. On the basis of experimental studies investigating the pro-drop parameter, White (2003) has concluded that L2 learners start out with the L1 parameter value and then reset it to the target language value.

3.3 Partial Transfer/No Access/Full Access Advocates of these views assume that parts (not all) of the L1 properties transfer to the L2. Subsequent developments might or might not be Universal Grammar constrained In some cases, learners transfer L1 properties and therefore L2 learners with different L1 backgrounds end up with different L2 grammars. Or in some cases, L2 learners reset parameters on the basis of target language input interacting with Universal Grammar properties (cf. Sorace 2003). One specific account of the Partial Transfer/Full Access’s view is Vainikka/Young-Scholten’s (1996) “Minimal Trees” account. It predicts that L2

Second Language Acquisition

185

grammars develop in much the same way as in native language acquisition and equally converge on the target language grammar. Learners would have no trouble to transfer lexicon and syntactic properties (e.g. the OV orders), but they would have more difficulties in the transfer of functional projections and feature specifications such as adverb placement, tense, agreement and so on (cf. Schwartz/Sprouse 1996).

4 How Does the Mind Develop in SLA? 4.1 Orders and Developmental Sequences SLA research has focused a great deal on interlanguage grammatical development. Interlanguage is systematic (follow rules and patterns) and changes over the course of L2 development (order and developmental sequences). Morpheme accuracy order studies indicated that L2 learners from different L1s follow an order of acquisition. The consistency of the morpheme order led to the view that SLA was a matter of “creative construction”, and an implicit learning experience, based not on rule knowledge, but rather, on an innate capacity for L2 acquisition. Developmental stages studies (Pienemann et al. 2005) on question formation have demonstrated that the acquisition of questions involves multiple stages. The first stage is characterized by the use of single words and formulaic expressions (e.g. car? what’s that?). In the second stage, L2 learners use declarative word order. In the third stage, fronting of wh- words and do begin to appear (e.g. What it is?, Does he like the food?) By the fourth stage, inversion of wh- in copular questions appears (e.g. What is it? Who are you?) The fifth stage is characterized by the appearance of inversion in questions that require do-support to lexical verbs (e.g. Do you like John? Who is talking on the phone?) In the final stage complex and less frequent used forms emerge (e.g. question tags). Developmental Sequences in L2 learners acquisition of tense and aspect, both of which involve the acquisition of morphological features, have been studied intensively in SLA in more recent years. Studies of the acquisition of tense and aspect lend strong support to the existence of developmental patterns in L2 acquisition. Bardovi-Harlig (2007) conducted a longitudinal study following the pattern: past > past progressive > present perfect > past perfect. Zyzik (2004) investigated the acquisition of Spanish clitic pronouns. She concluded that there are three stages of development for the accusative case: NP overuse > Preverbal accusative clitics become more frequent > Accusative clitics are preferred for anaphoric reference.

186

Alessandro Benati

4.2 Implicit vs. Explicit VanPatten/Benati (2010, 31) have argued that “L2 learners clearly create linguistic systems in an organized way that seem little affected by external forces such as instruction and correction”. Most researchers view SLA (cf. Sanz/Leow 2011) as a largely implicit process, principally guided by the learner’s interaction with L2 input. For these researchers, “attention” is an important construct, but mainly because it promotes understanding of meaning not because it facilitates skill learning. There is a long-standing debate on whether acquisition is an implicit and unconscious process or it is a much more explicit and conscious process. The implicit-unconscious position is the so-called “non-interface position”. According to this view, explicit learning about an L2 is possible, but this ability remains separate from the L2 underlying competence that L2 learners come to acquire. Krashen distinguishes between two autonomous processes (learning does not turn into acquisition): the learning system (conscious process) used by L2 learners to construct rules in a pedagogical context; the acquired system (subconscious and intuitive process) used when L2 learners are involved in using language in actual communication. Krashen (1982) has stated that the acquisition/learning distinction mirrors the implicit/explicit distinction. This position is consistent with nativist perspectives drawn from theories on linguistic universals (Schwartz 1998) and with Krashen’s Monitor Theory (Krashen 2009), which have been used to account for the regularities of L2 development. The so-called strong interface position (cf. DeKeyser 2007) argues that explicit L2 knowledge, attained through explicit learning, can become implicit L2 knowledge. This is generally achieved through practice in which learners deliberately focus their attention on L2 form as it encodes message meaning and work toward understanding and internalization. SLA is viewed as a skill, and its acquisition as a linguistic system is assumed to be built up gradually through processes of attention, conscious awareness and practice. Anderson (1983) distinguished two types of knowledge: declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. In his view acquisition begins with declarative (e.g. information about the language, rules) and slowly becomes proceduralized (acquired by performing a skill) through practice. A third position is known as the weak interface position. Nick Ellis (2005) has questioned how much explicit learning and explicit instruction might influence implicit learning, and has identified possible limitations for instruction. Supporters of this position assume that SLA is predominantly implicit. However, the linguistic system can be also built up through a number of instructional interventions that enable learners to notice (Schmidt 1990) crucial relationships of L2 form and meaning in the language input (Long 2007; Doughty/Williams 1998; Hulstijn 2005) and eventually process these form-meaning mappings (VanPatten 2004). Rod Ellis (2008) correctly points out that including a range of activities which focus both on form and meaning will be beneficial to most learners.

Second Language Acquisition

187

5 Do We Learn What We Are Taught? This has been a key question and a central issue in the field of SLA. Empirical research (R. Ellis 2008) conducted in the last thirty years has focused on measuring the role of instruction in affecting the route (learning of various features in a specific order); the rate (learning of features at a specific speed); and the ultimate level of second language attainment (reaching higher or lower proficiency levels). VanPatten/Benati (2010, 47–52) have provided a succinct review of the role of instruction in second language acquisition. Overall, they have identified two main views around the role of instruction. The first view is that instruction has a limited and constrained role. The second view asserts that instruction could have a beneficial role under certain conditions (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning).

5.1 Limited and Constrained Role In Krashen’s theoretical framework called The Monitor Theory (Krashen 1982), Krashen argued that instruction plays a limited role in second language acquisition. According to Krashen (1982) acquisition is an unconscious and implicit process, and learners acquire a second language through exposure to comprehensible and meaning-bearing input rather than learning grammar consciously through explicit grammatical rules (Krashen 2009). In addition to the limited role assigned to grammar instruction, Krashen also argued that L2 learners acquired grammatical features (e.g. morphemes) of a target language in a predictable order and this is regardless of their first language or the context in which they acquire them. In the English language, for example, progressive -ing is acquired before regular past tense -ed, which is acquired before third-person -s. Acquisition orders have been explored in other languages such as Spanish and German. In Spanish the subjunctive is acquired earlier than gender. Krashen concludes that instruction might be unable to alter the route of acquisition as L2 learners follow specific orders of acquisition. In the Processability Theory, Pienemann (2005) sustains the view that L2 learners acquire single structures through predictable stages. According to the Processability Theory, instruction is constrained by these developmental stages, and L2 learners follow a very rigid route in the acquisition of grammatical features which cannot be skipped. If instruction is targeted to grammatical features for which L2 learners are developmentally ready, then instruction can be beneficial in helping them to move faster along their natural route of development. Each language feature actually has stages of acquisition.

188

Alessandro Benati

5.2 Facilitative Role Rod Ellis (2008) has suggested that there is some evidence to support the thesis that instruction helps L2 learners to develop a good level of attainment particularly if opportunities to natural exposure are given. He also argued that instruction has a facilitative role when it is used for linguistic features, which are not too distant from the learner’s current level of language development. Gass (1997) has affirmed that instruction might have a facilitative role in helping learners to pay selective attention to form and form-meaning connections in the input. Learners make form-meaning connections from the input they receive as they connect particular meanings to particular forms (grammatical or lexical). For example, they tend to connect a form with its meaning in the input they receive (the morpheme ed on the end of the verb in English refers to an event in the past). VanPatten (1996; 2004) has indicated L2 learners find it difficult to attend to form and meaning simultaneously with the input they receive. Therefore, learners must be trained on how to process input more effectively and efficiently so that they are in a better position to process grammatical forms and connect them with their meanings. These theoretical views are based on the assumption that the route of acquisition cannot be altered, however, instruction might in certain conditions speed up the rate of acquisition and develop greater language proficiency. What are the conditions that might facilitate the speed in which languages are learned? A first condition is that L2 learners must be exposed to sufficient input. A second condition is that L2 learners must be psycholinguistically ready for instruction to be effective as indicated by Pienemann. A third condition is that instruction must take into consideration how L2 learners process input.

6 Can Input, Interaction and Output Affect SLA? The role of input, interaction and output has been investigated in SLA. Input is an essential ingredient and the raw data for language acquisition (Carroll 2001). Many scholars (Gass 1997; VanPatten 2004) have agreed that input is a necessary and vital factor for the development of an implicit and unconscious system. Gass (1997, 1) considers input a key variable in SLA and has argued that “no model of second language acquisition does not avail itself of input in trying to explain how learners can create second language grammars”.

6.1 Input Input is the language data that L2 learners are exposed to (hear or read). Corder defines input as what is available to the learner, whereas intake refers to what is

Second Language Acquisition

189

actually internalized by the learner (Corder 1967). In SLA research, it is agreed that L2 acquisition will not occur (even if with input at the right quantity and quality) without being internalized by the learners and becoming part of their interlanguage system. In Krashen’s theory (1982) input plays a key role and acquisition requires first and foremost exposure to comprehensible input. According to Krashen’s input hypothesis, SLA takes place when the learner understands input that contains grammatical forms that are at a higher level than the current state of the learner’s interlanguage. For SLA to take place, learners must be exposed to comprehensible and message-content input. In VanPatten’s model of input processing (1996), only part of the input is passed through intake into the developing system and eventually into output by the learner. Changing the way L2 learners process input and enriching their intake might have an effect on the developing system that subsequently should have an impact on how learners produce the L2. Input processing is concerned with those psycholinguistic strategies and mechanisms by which learners derive intake from input. In VanPatten’s theory, when learners attend or notice input and comprehend the message, a formmeaning connection is made. Developing the ability in L2 learners to map one form to one meaning is essential for acquisition. In the interaction hypothesis (Gass 1997; 2003), input is seen as a significant element/factor for acquisition without which learners cannot acquire a L2. Ellis, R (1994) distinguishes two types of input: interactional and non-interactional. In the case of interactional input (cf. also Long 2007; Pica 1994) he refers to input received during interaction where there is some kind of communicative exchange involving the learner and at least another person (e.g. conversation, classroom interactions). In the case of non-interactional input he refers to the kind of input that occurs in the context of non-reciprocal discourse and learners are not part of an interaction (e.g. announcements). In the former case, learners have the advantage of being able to negotiate meaning and make some conversational adjustments. This means that conversation and interaction make linguistic features salient to the learner. On the whole, input is absolutely necessary and there is no theory or approach to SLA that does not recognize the importance of input. However the question is: is input sufficient for language acquisition? White (2003) has argued that some forms or structures are more difficult to be acquired through positive evidence alone. This is particularly the case of a structure that is not part of the Universal Grammar. Collins/Ellis (2009) have suggested that there are a number of factors which affect the acquisition of linguistic constructions: the frequency and saliency of features of forms in oral input; their functional interpretations; and the reliabilities of their form– function mappings.

190

Alessandro Benati

6.2 Interaction Many scholars (Long 1996; Gass 1997; 2003; Gass/Mackey 2006) have indicated that conversational interaction and negotiation can facilitate acquisition. Learners sometimes request clarifications or repetitions if they do not understand the input they receive. In the attempt to facilitate acquisition, one person can request the other to modify his/her utterances or the person modifies its own utterances to be understood. In conversations involving NNSs (Non Native Speakers) negotiations are frequent. Learners (↗16 Language Learner) sometimes request clarifications or repetitions if they do not understand the input they receive. In the attempt to facilitate acquisition, one person can request the other to modify his/her utterances or the person modifies its own utterances to be understood. For example, confirmation checks (e.g. Did you say…?); comprehension checks (e.g. Do you understand?); and clarification requests (e.g. What did you say?) are often used by NNS. Long (1996, 451s.) has suggested that “negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interaction adjustments by the NS (Native Speakers) or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways”. In sum, input and interaction may have a facilitator role in the rate of acquisition and ultimate attainment.

6.3 Output Output is the language that L2 learners produce. Swain (1985) has developed a hypothesis called “the comprehensible output hypothesis” according to which, language production (oral and written) can help learners to generate new knowledge and consolidate or modify their existing knowledge. Swain (1985) assigns several roles for output: 1. Output practice helps learners to improve fluency. 2. Output practice helps learners to check comprehension and linguistic correctness. 3. Output practice helps learners to focus on form. 4. Output helps learners to realise that the developing system is faulty and therefore notice a gap in their system. Swain has pointed out that comprehensible input might not be sufficient to develop native-like grammatical competence and learners also need comprehensible output. Learners needs “pushed output” that is speech or writing that will force learners to produce language correctly, precisely and appropriately. According to Swain (1995, 249) “producing the language might be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to

Second Language Acquisition

191

successfully convey his or her own intended meaning”. Gass/Selinker (2008) summarize the four functions of output in L2 learning based on Swain’s ideas: testing hypothesis about the structures and meanings of L2; receiving crucial feedback for the verification of these hypotheses; forcing a shift from more meaning-based processing of the second language to a more syntactic mode; and developing fluency and automaticity in interlanguage production. The last significant function of output is to create greater automaticity, which is one pedagogical goal in SLA. Little effort is required to execute an automatic process, involved when the learner carries out the task without awareness or attention, as it has become routinized and automatized just as the steps involved in walking towards a bike, getting out the key, unlocking it, pushing it, getting on it and riding it, requiring little thought and less time. According to VanPatten the ability to produce forms and structures in output does not necessarily mean that forms and structures have been acquired. We need to distinguish between output as interaction with others and output as practice of forms and structures. In VanPatten’s (2003) view, learners implicit system develops as learners process the input they receive. Output promotes noticing of linguistic features in the input and conscious awareness of language and language use. It can also provide additional input to learners so that they can consolidate or modify their existing knowledge. In Van Patten’s (2003) view, the role of output is important (promotes awareness and interaction with other learners) but it does not play a direct role on the creation of the internal linguistic system. Van Patten et al. (2004, 42) have sustained that “we have little if any experimental data that clearly show that acquisition is somehow output dependent”. VanPatten (2003, 20) makes also a clear distinction between skill acquisition and the creation of an implicit system. Conscious presentation and manipulation of forms through drills and output practice might help L2 learners to develop certain skills to use certain forms/structures correctly and accurately in controlled tasks but has very little impact on the development of the implicit system responsible for acquisition.

7 Is There a Role for Individual Differences? It is also the case that “learners are not all alike nor do they attain similar degrees of knowledge or proficiency over time. It is the study of individual differences that attempts to address variation in outcome over time” (VanPatten/Benati 2010, 42). Research on the effects of individual differences in second language acquisition has focused principally on constructs such as age, aptitude, working memory, and motivation. All these factors have been considered the main predictors of second language learning success (Dörnyei/Skehan 2003). Broadly, the concept of language aptitude is related to the broader concept of human abilities covering a variety of cognitive-based learner differences (Dörnyei 2006).

192

Alessandro Benati

A number of aptitude language tests (e.g. MLAT, CANAL-FT) have been developed over the years, to predict the rate of progress and success under conditions such as motivation, opportunity to learn and quality of instruction. However, research on the role of aptitude in second language acquisition success has produced conflicting results. Working memory “is a psychological construct that refers to the processing space in the mind/brain when a person computes information” (VanPatten/Benati 2010, 167). Working memory is an essential element in developing our ability to process linguistic data and it plays a central role in language processing (ability to process symbols, store capacity and integrate information) in both comprehension and the production of language. A number of models have been developed to measure low and high span capacity in L2 learners and to establish whether they are conductive to efficient learning (cf. Baddeley 2003). Motivation is seen as a dynamic process showing a certain amount of changeability (cf. Dörnyei 2006). In Gardner’s socio-educational model (2001), motivation to acquire a second language includes three main elements: the effort undertaken by the individual to learn a language; the willingness to achieve a goal; the enjoyment in the task of learning a second language. Motivation is certainly an important construct to measure learner’s positive attitudes towards the learning of a language. It might not provide us with an understanding of the processes involved in the acquisition of another language (cf. VanPatten 2003, 91).

8 How Is SLA Linked to the Real World? Research and Theory in SLA (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories) emphasise the complexity of acquisition processes. They have provided the following insights into language acquisition: 1. Internal and implicit processes responsible for language acquisition are similar regardless of learners’ first language. Learners process grammar often following a natural order and a specific sequence (i.e. they master different grammatical structures in a relatively fixed and universal order and they pass through a sequence of stages of learning on route to mastering each grammatical structure); 2. L2 learners require extensive second language input exposure to build their internal new linguistic systems. Input needs to be easily comprehensible and message oriented to be processed effectively by learners. Research in SLA has shown that learners focus primarily on meaning when they process elements of the new language; 3. Interaction with other speakers is a key factor to promote acquisition; 4. Acquisition requires learners to make form-function connections (the relation between a particular form and its meaning/s); 5. In the view of most researchers, acquisition of a second language is primarily a matter of developing implicit knowledge;

Second Language Acquisition

6.

193

Language acquisition requires opportunities for output practice. Production serves to generate better input through the feedback that learners’ efforts at production elicit.

How is SLA linked to the real world? Research and theory in this field of enquiry has important implications for second language teaching (cf. Lee/VanPattten 22003; Benati 2013). Finding from a sub-field of SLA research called instructed second language acquisition research provides a number of guidelines/indications on how instruction might have an effective role: a) Instruction needs to be predominantly directed at developing implicit knowledge taking into consideration orders and stages of development in learners; b) Instruction needs to provide learners with comprehensible, simplified, modified and message-oriented input; c) Instruction should focus on providing opportunities for the learners to use language spontaneously and meaningfully. Corrective feedback in the form of recasting could provide more opportunities for input exposure; d) Instruction needs to create opportunities for interaction and negotiation of meaning among speakers. Interaction fosters learning when a communication problem arises and learners are engaged in resolving it through interaction and negotiation of meaning; e) Instruction needs to provide opportunities to focus on grammatical form within a communicative context. Grammar approaches that promote learning are the ones who provide a focus on form and a focus on meaning through input manipulations techniques; f) Instruction must provide learners with an opportunity to participate in communicative tasks to develop implicit knowledge. Learners need to be involved in communicative tasks (use of variety of discourse types activities such as role plays, and storytelling) which require them to take responsibilities in communication and interact with other speakers; g) Instruction must create opportunities for learners to communicate by performing communicative functions (output). Whenever learners produce language it should be for the purpose of expressing some kind of meaning.

9 Concluding Remarks This chapter’s main aim was to highlight the ways in which SLA research has addressed a number key issues to better understand how languages are learned and what processes and mechanisms are involved in the acquisition of a second language. SLA research, carried out from different perspectives (linguistic, language universals, cognitive), has attempted to shed much light on the complexities of L2 development and the role of a number of internal and external factors.

194

Alessandro Benati

Despite the various theories and hypotheses formulated in SLA research and theory, scholars have agreed (cf. VanPatten/Benati 2010, 12) that “the L1 is the starting point and that learners must ‘overwrite’ the properties (or processing routines of whatever) to create a new system.” This new system does not appear to be influenced and affected by instruction. Learners follow certain sequences and orders in the acquisition of another language. A number of factors (e.g. processability, frequency, redundancy, saliency among others) are thought to be responsible for the emergence and acquisition of linguistics features. Overall SLA is largely implicit but adults do engage with explicit learning. Input plays a crucial role in SLA, but output and interaction also have an important role. Individual differences in isolation might not have a role in providing us with an understanding of the internal processing responsible for acquisition. Perhaps the future of research on individual differences is to find possible correlations between specific individual variables and SLA processes. Findings from research and theoretical views about SLA have both influenced the way we teach or should teach a second language. In this chapter a number of implications have been outlined. As VanPatten/Benati (2010, 9) have argued, the key question underpinning SLA research is “to what extent are first and second language acquisition the same thing (i.e., involve the same learner-internal processing and acquisition mechanisms)?”. Differences (cf. VanPatten 2003, 81) can be attributed to external factors (e.g. availability to language input, interaction) and not to internal factors (e.g. internal processes and acquisition mechanisms). Many questions remain unanswered. Others are in need of more complete answers. The field has increased in size and scope, yet it is still sufficiently focused on questions of learning and teaching for many voices and perspectives to be acknowledged. The richness and complexity of SLA as a learning process and a field of study suggest that there are many perspectives to apply and many more applications to be found.

10 Bibliography Anderson, John (1983), The architecture of cognition, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Atkinson, Dwight (ed.) (2011), Alternative approaches in second language acquisition, New York, Routledge. Baddeley, Alan (2003), Working memory and language: An overview, Journal of Communication Disorders 36, 189–208. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (2007), One Functional Approach to Second Language Acquisition: The Concept-Oriented Approach, in: Bill VanPatten/Jessica Williams (edd.), Theories in second language acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 57–75. Benati, Alessandro (2013), Issues in Second Language Teaching, London, Equinox. Birdsong, David (2005), Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition: in: Judith F. Kroll/ Annette M.B. de Groot (edd.), Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic approaches, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 109–127.

Second Language Acquisition

195

Bley-Vroman, Robert (2009), The evolving context of the fundamental difference Hypothesis, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 175–198. Brown, Roger (1973), A first language: The early stages, London, George Allen & Unwin. Carroll, Susan (2001), Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Chomsky, Noam (1959), A review of B.F. Skinner’s “Verbal Behavior”, Language 35, 26–58. Chomsky, Noam (1965), Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Collins, Laura/Ellis, Nick (2009), Input and second language construction learning: frequency, form, and function, Modern Language Journal 93, 329–335. Corder, Pit S. (1967), The significance of learners’ errors, International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–170. Corder, Pit S. (1981), Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford, Oxford University Press. DeKeyser, Robert (ed.) (2007), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Zoltan (2006), Individual differences in second language acquisition: in: Kathleen BardoviHarlig/Zoltan Dörnyei (edd.), Themes in SLA Research, AILA Review, vol. 19, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 42–68. Dörnyei, Zoltan/Skehan, Peter (2003), Individual differences in second language Learning, in: Catherine Doughty/Michael Long (edd.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Blackwell, 589–630. Doughty, Catherine/Williams, Jessica (edd.) (1998), Focus on form in second language classroom, New York, Cambridge University Press. Dulay, Heidi/Burt, Marina (1974), Natural sequences in second language acquisition, Language Learning 24, 36–53. Ellis, Nick (2005), At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 305–352. Ellis, Nick (2007), The Associative-Cognitive CREED, in: Bill VanPatten/Jessica Williams (edd.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 77–95. Ellis, Rod (2008), Explicit knowledge and Second language learning and Pedagogy, in: Jasone Cenoz/ Nancy Hornberger (edd.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, New York, Springer, 143–153. Gardner, Robert (2001), Language Learning Motivation: the Student, the Teacher, and the Researcher, Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education 6, 1–18. Gass, Susan (1997), Input, interaction, and the second language learner, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. Gass, Susan (2003), Input and Interaction, in: Catherine Doughty/Michael Long (edd.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Blackwell, 224–255. Gass, Susan/Mackey, Alison (2006), Input, Interaction and Output: An Overview, in: Kathleen BardoviHarlig/Zoltan Dörnyei (edd.), Themes in SLA research, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 3–17. Gass, Susan/Selinker, Larry (2008), Second language acquisition: An introductory course, New York, Routledge. Goldschneider, Jennifer/DeKeyser, Robert (2001), Explaining the natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition in English: a meta-analysis of multiple determinants, Language Learning 51, 1–50. Hulstijn, Jan (2005), Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second language learning: introduction, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 129–140. Hyltenstam, Kenneth (1987), Markedness, language universals, language typology and second language acquisition, in: Carol Pfaff (ed.), First and second language acquisition processes, Cambridge, MA, Newbury House, 55–78. Krashen, Stephen (1982), Second language acquisition and second language learning, Oxford, Pergamon.

196

Alessandro Benati

Krashen, Stephen (2009), The comprehension hypothesis extended, in: Thorsten Piske/Martha Young-Scholten (edd.), Input matters, Bristol, Multilingual Matters, 81–94. Lee, James/VanPatten, Bill (22003), Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen, New York, McGraw-Hill. Lightbown, Patsy/Spada, Nina (2006), How languages are learned, London, Oxford University Press. Long, Michael (1996), The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition, in: William Ritchie/Tej Bhatia (edd.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, San Diego, Academic Press, 413–468. Long, Michael (2007), Problems in SLA, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. Meisel, Jürgen (2011), First and Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ortega, Lourdes (ed.) (2011), Second language acquisition, London, Routledge. Ortega, Lourdes/Cumming, Alister/Ellis, Nick (edd.) (2013), Agendas for Language Learning Research, New York, NY, Wiley-Blackwell. Pica, Tere (1994), Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?, Language Learning 44, 493–527. Pienemann, Manfred, et al. (2005), Processability, typological distance, and L1 transfer, in: Manfred Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 85–116. Robinson, Peter (ed.) (2012), Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition, New York, Routledge. Rothman, Jason/Fuentes, Pedro Guijarro (2010), Input Quality Matters: Some Comments on Input Type and Age-Effects in Adult SLA, Applied Linguistics 31, 301–306. Sanz, Cristina/Leow, Ronal P. (2011), Implicit and Explicit Bilingualism & SLA: Conditions, Processes, and Knowledge, Washington, DC, Georgetown Press. Saville-Troike, Muriel (2006), Introducing Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, Richard (1990), The role of consciousness in language learning, Applied Linguistics 11, 17–46. Schwartz, Bonnie (1998), The second language instinct, Lingua 106, 133–160. Schwartz, Bonnie/Sprouse, Rex (1996), L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model, Second Language Research 12, 40–72. Selinker, Larry (1972), Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–231. Selinker, Larry (1992), Rediscovering interlanguage, London, Longman. Skinner, Burrhus F. (1957), Verbal Behaviour, New York, Appleton-Century Crofts. Sorace, Antonella (2003), Near-nativeness, in: Catherine Doughty/Michael Long (edd.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Blackwell, 130–151. Swain, Merrill (1985), Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development, in: Susan Gass/Carolyn Madden (edd.), Input in second language acquisition, Rowley, MA, Newbury House, 235–253. Swain, Merrill (1995), Three functions of output in second language learning, in: Guy Cook/Barbara Seidlhofer (edd.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 125–144. Vainikka, Anne/Young-Scholten, Martha (1996), The gradual development of L2 phrase structure, Second Language Research 12, 7–39. VanPatten, Bill (1987), The acquisition of “ser” and “estar”: Accounting for developmental patterns, in: Bill VanPatten/Trisha Devorak (edd.), Second language acquisition-foreign language learning, New York, Newbury House, 61–75. VanPatten, Bill (1996), Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research, Norwood, NJ, Ablex.

Second Language Acquisition

197

VanPatten, Bill (2003), From Input to Output: A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition, New York, McGraw-Hill. VanPatten, Bill (ed.) (2004), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. VanPatten, Bill/Benati, Alessandro (2010), Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition, London, Continuum. VanPatten, Bill/Williams, Jessica (2007), Theories in second language acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. VanPatten, Bill, et al. (edd.) (2004), Form-Meaning Connections in Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, Erlbaum. White, Lydia (2003), Second language acquisition and universal grammar, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. White, Lydia (2007), Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition, in: Bill VanPatten/Jessica Williams (edd.), Theories in second language acquisition, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 37–55. Zyzik, Eve (2004), Encoding meaning with polyfunctional forms: the acquisition of clitics in L2 Spanish, Doctoral Dissertation, University of California Davis.

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

11 Bilingual Education Abstract: The following article examines both bilingual education and upbringing. Current research on bilingualism can be divided into two approaches: on the one hand, linguists and psycholinguists focus on the measurement of bilingual speakers’ linguistic competences. On the other hand, sociologists and sociolinguists study the impact of language use in society on individual and group identity. After a brief presentation of several concepts in their historical context, the links between language(s), the mind and psycholinguistics will be discussed. Language education (the learning of at least two languages) will be the main focus of this article. This edulinguistic approach coined by Cathomas/Carigiet (2008) will be followed by a brief analysis of bilingual teaching models, and subsequently concluded by recommendations for various publics (parents of children that are bilingual/in the process of becoming bilingual, professionals, school authorities and teachers). Keywords: bilingual education, one person – one language, edulinguistics, DEL2/ DEL3, bilingual nonagon

1 The Concept of Bilingualism In this article, bilingualism is described as regular contact with (or in) at least two languages. The term is predominantly used in general parlance to characterize two “noble” or prestigious languages in contact, whose sociolinguistic statuses are comparable.1 The adjective “bilingual” is applied in descending order: most often to people whose two languages are international languages of wider communication (German and English, for example), less often when the second language is less “prestigious” or spoken on a smaller scale, and almost never when the second language is but a “dialect” or “patois” and thus does not have a “language” status. As a result, many people who could be considered as “bilingual” from a language competence perspective are in fact not, due to the social status of their second language. Accordingly, the term bilinguisme ignoré (Hélot 2007, 89ss.) can be used to describe an individual who is neither considered by his or her peers as bilingual (exterior view), nor by him or herself (introspection). This concept could be applied to the bilingualism of migrant families, for example. Such a distinction between different 1 An OECD report (Abdallah-Pretceille 1988) describes both noble bilingualism (for certain Western languages) and guilty bilingualism. The latter is often perceived as an obstacle to learning the host country language and usually involves ethnic minority, migrant or regional languages (cf. Groux 1996, 198).

Bilingual Education

199

types of bilingualism highlights the need to study the relationships between language and society, as well as those between language use and the social structures within which individuals live. To this end, sociolinguistics describes situations of linguistic contact, the influence of political or economic power on languages and the rights attributed to them, as well as monolingualism and plurilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education) as societal phenomena. “Contact” evokes balance (Titone 1974) or, on the contrary, domination, and thus potential conflict between the two languages in contact, which in turn calls for patience and tolerance. Indeed, whether one adopts a linguistic, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, psychological, sociological, cognitive or other approach, the surrounding definitions can either complete or contradict themselves as they are all closely associated with the country and the time period of the researcher. Rather than recount minimalist2 and maximalist3 definitions of bilingualism, this article shall draw upon and emphasize its conceptualization as seen by Hamers/Blanc (1983). These two researchers consider that individual bilingualism (or bilinguality) can be likened to a psychological state in which an individual has access to more than one linguistic code. For a bilingual individual, four descriptive levels may be called into account (Cathomas/Carigiet 2008, 89s.): a mastery level of two languages or their degree of competence; the functions that the two languages perform for the individual in his or her life; the period in which the individual learned the languages (simultaneous or consecutive bilingualism); and finally, all that concerns one’s identity and emotion: does the individual identify him or herself as bilingual and/or bicultural (↗5 Languages and Identities)? Before moving on to the central themes in this chapter, it is important to take into account the following general considerations regarding the terms “bilingualism” and “bilingual education”: 1. Historically, the label “bilingualism” was not always recognized in a positive light. On the contrary, during the Middle Ages it was synonymous with “deceitful”, and was negatively considered, especially in American and German contexts, until approximately 1950. The term was then associated with conceptions of “compensation” or “insufficiency” with regard to bilinguals (they were designated as having language delays, weaker vocabularies than monolinguals of the same age, and a “manque d’aisance dans une des langues, manque d’allégeance à une seule nation”, Abdelilah-Bauer 2012, 10). It wasn’t until the appearance of American, Canadian and Belgian scientific literature in the 1960s and onward that the term began to benefit from more positive affirmations. Around the 1980s this

2 If a person has knowledge in the other language “even to a minimal degree” (Macnamara 1969, 82). 3 A person is bilingual if he or she has “native-like control of two languages” (Bloomfield 1933, 56).

200

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

newfound positive conception of “bilingualism” had more or less replaced its negative predecessor. 2. The Swiss researcher Laurent Gajo (2001, 128) outlined the real or supposed advantages of bilingual competence with his introduction of the term atout bilingue. Indeed, inspecting the pros and cons of bilingual education and upbringing is an essential feature of the literature dedicated to exploring the issue (Geiger-Jaillet 2005, 83–111, is but one example). 3. The first wave of research on bilingual upbringing commencing in the early 19th century consisted of data from parent/linguist/researchers on their own children. They were inevitably subjective in their analyses and in hindsight one can remark that they could not take into account all of the variables that we recognize today regarding bilingual upbringing. 4. Equipped with a wealth of information on couples mixtes4 (a father and mother who don’t speak the same native language), researchers later tried to extract and isolate the success factors related to familial bilingual upbringing (Mahlstedt 1996). 5. Observations and analyses from mixed couple environments have allowed the extrapolation of certain variables, such as the duration and intensity of the linguistic exposure necessary to create school systems that could more or less be characterized as bilingual. Some education systems have been bilingual for more than 100 years, for example in Luxembourg (↗5 Languages and Identities) where French (↗20 French) and German are school languages (institutional bilingualism). Others are much more recent, such as the regional language programmes that have existed in France for about thirty years. 6. We know today that it’s not enough to learn languages just for the sake of learning languages; rather, they are meant to be used as tools for communication. In addition, their learning should be adapted to learners’ ages concerning cognitive content or conveyed experiences. In other words, one must use languages in order to learn them. This line of thinking has inspired certain establishments to create “bilingual programmes” in which, contrary to a general model of foreign language teaching in secondary school, the teaching of the subjects themselves (history, geography, literature, etc.) takes place in a language other than the official school language. 7. There is no bilingual education without intercultural education, whether in a familial or school context. 8. Data in the field of language acquisition as well as promising results in brain imaging have given rise to a new line of thinking regarding the exposure to two languages, namely, that the earliest possible exposure is preferred. For bilingual families this exposure should begin at the time of pregnancy, otherwise, as early as possible in childcare facilities.

4 “Mixed couples” have been studied as research subjects since the early 1980s.

Bilingual Education

9.

201

While bilingual programmes that serve three to six-year-olds have been massively developed during the last ten years in most western European countries, immersive programmes aimed at toddlers, for example bilingual or multilingual nurseries, are still quite rare.

2 Language and the Brain (Neurolinguistics and Bilingualism) In general, the development of a language system follows a similar, non-linear framework, though it seems that particular innate, cerebral differences can explain a certain language aptitude as well as individual differences concerning the speed with which one learns a language (Cathomas/Carigiet 2008, 10). The field of neurolinguistics studies such mechanisms of the brain during the learning of one or multiple languages. It attempts to identify the impact that different factors such as age, gender, environment and learning styles have on the development of bilingualism and plurilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education). In observing how information arrives and interacts in the brains of different individuals, the fields of cognitive science and neuroscience cross paths (cf. the website Le cerveau à tous les niveaux of McGill University, INSMT). The first hypotheses concerning the location of language in the brain emerged at the end of the 19th century from observations of patients suffering from language dysfunctions or disorders. In general it can be said that Broca’s area allows an individual to produce language (an injury there would prevent the capacity to express oneself) while Wernicke’s area is responsible for the understanding of spoken language (an injury there would render an individual incapable of understanding his or her native language). Years ago it was necessary to work on brain-damaged patients, or even cadavers, in order to study the neural bases of language. With today’s technical advances, researchers can now compare different activation zones of the brain in bilingual versus monolingual task performance, using healthy patients and painless examinations. Different technical procedures, such as positron emission tomography (TEP, PET or PET scan) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), have allowed scientists to discover that language for a person whose bilingualism begins at birth (early immersion) is not stored in the manner as the language of an individual that becomes bilingual later on in life. After analysing more than a dozen TEP and fMRI studies on bilingual subjects, Pallier/Argenti (2003, 192) found: “que […] les activations pour L1 et L2 dans Broca étaient superposées pour les bilingues précoces, et séparées spatialement pour les bilingues tardifs”. Today there is a consensus with Pallier/Argenti’s (2003, 194) affirmation that the more a second language is acquired at a young age and/or is well

202

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

mastered, the more the L1 and L2 activations in the brain function in a similar manner – this holds both for comprehension as well as for production. However, the correlated variables of “acquisition age” and “degree of mastery” must be refined by further studies (cf. Grainger 2002). Taking into consideration all of the variables that come into play in the appropriation and reproduction of a language, as well as the variability of tasks and control tests used during experiments, it is difficult to generalize results, especially when such experiments are usually based on a small number of participants: ten Finnish/English bilinguals; eight French individuals who had learned English in school after seven years of age; five Chinese/English bilinguals who had learned English during puberty… (cf. Pallier/Argenti 2003). Studies on bilingualism are indeed faced with several methodological challenges. The following sub-section will examine some particular scenarios concerning infants, adopted children, the effect of music and the loss of linguistic abilities following an accident or disease. A newborn can distinguish between a language that is familiar to him/her (that was “heard” during the gestation period) and other languages. This ability can be measured from the suckling of an electronic pacifier (Petit 2001). Approximately 4,000 children from Africa, Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe are adopted by French parents each year. While the first wave of research on international adoption (often done by American researchers) was rather oriented towards international adoption rights, and subsequently towards the psychological effects of being uprooted from one’s native country, recent research has focused on the acquisition of the new L2 and the possible traces of the old L1 as shown by brain imaging. Studies have shown that Russian children adopted between the ages of four and eight start to lose their native language in three to six months following adoption, with complete loss of functional use occurring within a year.5 According to the same source, 88% of internationally adopted children come from orphanages and 57% of children adopted in the United States must be seen by speech therapists (Pollak 2000, cited in http://orthophonie.org/language-development-and-delay-in10386.html#sthash.ZIdS0tkq.dpuf). One must keep in mind, however, that in general the number of speech therapy consultations has been on the rise during the last decade, and is not just due to the bilingual demand. In the 2000s, the very first studies on possible links between international adoption and language acquisition and loss were performed in France. Ventureyra’s (2005) dissertation concerning Korean adults adopted between the ages of three and ten by French parents and having been completely isolated from their native language and culture since their arrival in France (fifteen to thirty years prior to the study), con-

5 Cf. Actualités orthophoniques, http://orthophonie.org/language-development-and-delay-in-10386. html#sthash.ZIdS0tkq.dpuf (28.12.2013).

Bilingual Education

203

firmed the linguistic attrition of young, adopted children, in showing that the L1 was quickly forgotten while the L2 was quickly assimilated. Musical studies have also produced interesting data: the act of recognizing both musical and linguistic rhythms has been shown to activate the same neural areas. In addition, musical ability due to regular listening consolidates between the ages of four to six (Levitin 2010), which is also a crucial period for language development. This can create a double advantage for bilingual children that practice musical instruments. At a medical level, bilingualism appears to act as a remedy against cognitive decline. Early bilinguals seem to have denser gray matter, which can delay the onset of memory loss and perhaps even the progressive loss of neurons that occurs in Alzheimer patients (Craik/Bialystok/Freedman 2010).

3 Languages, Emotions, Motivation and Psychology The number of plurilingual students (↗12 Plurilingual Education) is on the rise, in particular with regards to the youngest grade levels. Today we know just how important it is to welcome all students accompanied by their respective languages in the educational sphere. Their academic success depends on it. In reality, however, such an accommodation does not always occur. From an early age children can perceive the status and/or prestige differences regarding the languages that surround them, be it in a familial, institutional or everyday public setting. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, the field of sociolinguistics studies the links between language and society, such as when the social habits of a group are modified. The representations that we have of a language or a dialect – whether we speak them or not – are also objects of study. The representations that speakers have of links between language and the mind (cf. Bialystok 2001, 90–120) are examined by the field of psycholinguistics, as is the involvement of one’s psyche in the process of learning. Children must be linguistically surrounded by adults in order to have access to language, lest they become “wild children” with language delays, as was formerly the case in overpopulated orphanages. The psyche plays a role in the appropriation of the L1 as well as in the acquisition of second or foreign languages (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). We are attracted to the sounds and tones of certain languages and hesitant towards others, which cannot only be attributed to our native language but also our upbringing, the household linguistic environment, etc. Consequently, individuals can be more motivated to learn certain languages and less motivated to learn others. The more one is motivated, the faster he or she will progress. While the stages of language acquisition remain more or less the same6 (Karmiloff-Smith 1992), the speed of appro-

6 Expressions in “chunks” that stay in the short-term memory; discovery of the “regularity” of a linguistic phenomenon, for example the formation of plural markings in a language; the over-applica-

204

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

priation differs depending on the individual, their motivation, their phonetic discrimination and memorization ability, etc. A first or primary language is distinguished according to three criteria: it is chronologically the first language learned, it is the one mastered to the highest degree, and it is the one most often used. The same interpretation is applied to one’s second language. In examining the order of acquisition, simultaneous bilingualism (sometimes called double L1/L2) is distinguished from consecutive bilingualism. It is sometimes difficult for bilinguals to decide for themselves which is their L1, L2, etc., as it is complicated to determine the absolute level of proficiency versus the relative level of proficiency in each language (cf. Bialystok 2001, 226). Here, the notion of balanced bilingualism in relation to dominant (or limited) bilingualism comes into play. A refusal to use one language can sometimes be explained by personal wounds, for example being made fun of for one’s accent. Cathomas/Carigiet have made reference to “traumatisme linguistique” (2008, 34), while Kielhöfer/Jonekeit have identified cases of child language refusal following parental divorce or separation (1985, 62). Starting in the 1950s and following observations of the effect of the L2 on the L1, researchers have distinguished between additive bilingualism (typical among elites and recognized as “positive” bilingualism) and subtractive bilingualism (more common among migrants and assigned a more pejorative connotation). In the latter, the L2 has repercussions on the L1 because the L1 was instable during the moment of arrival of the L2. In cases of (double) semi-lingualism, which fortunately are infrequent, neither of the two languages are executed with a level of mastery expected of the individual in function with his or her age level. Concerning the negative connotation associated with migrant bilingualism, certain authors make mention of ignored or even denigrated bilingualism (Hélot 2007): “Part of the problem is that the American debate on bilingual education takes place in a social context that explicitly denigrates the home language of the children” (Bialystok 2001, 236). By replacing “American debate” with “the discussion in France”, the above citation would correspond to the current situation in France (↗27 France). Maintenance programmes (see the following section) have been put into place in local contexts for linguistic minorities with regard to their role in communities where a homogeneous, linguistic majority dominates, but these efforts cannot always reach all individuals and all native languages. There remains, therefore, a lack of recognition for such “ignored” children and languages. In bilingual families other problems can occur, such as (double) identity issues (see section 5). Bialystok (2001, 240) wonders: “Do we alter our identity and modify

tion of this “rule”; the discovery of irregularities, correction and refinement: it is with this phase that the verbal or written production increasingly approaches the linguistic “norm”.

Bilingual Education

205

our personality when we change our language? […] And […] do people who speak two languages command two personalities?” Many early bilinguals have recounted trying to “pass unnoticed” in both cultures, while at the same time recognizing that it is impossible to experience everything in both contexts. Aleemi (1991) has presented such identity problems since the early 1990s, and twenty years later García’s (2009) findings show that these issues are still relevant. The transmission of a language to a future generation is an emotion-filled endeavor, and sometimes can evoke feelings of guilt when parents realize that the same upbringing that “produced” a certain type of bilingualism for one child may not “produce” the same type of bilingualism for his or her siblings. Femmes transplantées (cf. Varro 1984) and bicultural families are primarily concerned, as Gabrielle Varro shows in her analysis of Franco-German families (1997). A final word on certain bilinguals’ linguistic production and the different interpretations it may prompt: many labels have been given to characterize an individual’s navigation between his or her two languages, such as Kielhöfer/Jonekeit’s langue mixte and mélange de langue (1985, 64, 68, respectively) or their Anglophone interpretation (code-mixing, language mixing), or Weinreich’s interferences. Often it is the case that a bilingual individual is expected to employ the monolingual “norm” in the use of each of his or her languages and the failure to do so provokes criticism. Researchers are starting to see that this issue may be more complex than previously thought (Lüdi/Py 32003, 140s.): “[...] souvent, le parler bilingue ne représente pas un pis-aller, choisi pour cause d’une maîtrise insuffisante de l’une ou de l’autre langue (ou des deux à la fois). Il s’agit au contraire d’un véritable choix de ‘langue’ dans la mesure où tous les interlocuteurs interprètent la situation comme également appropriéee pour l’usage des deux idiomes ou, plus précisément, pour leur usage plus ou moins simultané”.

Lüdi/Py add to this notion of language alternance the concept of marques transcodiques, which reveal the trace of influence of another language or language variety (Lüdi/Py 32003, 142). More recently, García/Kleifgen (2010, 45) have used the term multilingual classrooms translanguaging, which signifies that students can read in one language, take notes in another and even discuss in a third.

4 Language Learning in School: a Bilingual Education? In Europe there are four general educational systems: Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic and “Latin and Mediterranean” (Vaniscotte 1996). They differ in their objectives, evaluation procedures, programmes, organization and management of

206

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

children with special needs or those that must repeat grade levels. The establishment of an institutional bilingual school programme is always based upon an already existing model of a given society. Therefore, a bilingual Franco-German class in Germany (Germanic system) would never function in the same manner as a bilingual FrancoGerman class in France (Latin and Mediterranean system). Educators and curriculum planners must therefore be wary of any bilingual model “export” that “functions” in another country. For certain countries or regions, the chosen path is a bilingualism model that features a lot of exposure to the target language (total or partial immersion), preferably staffed with native speakers. For others, integrated disciplinary coursework in a second or third language (DEL2 or DEL3)7 is the favoured solution, with the main class teacher carrying out instruction. This latter scenario poses the question: would this class teacher be specialized in the discipline, in the language, or in both? Opinions on this matter vary according to country and grade level. Consequently, the qualification demands in terms of teacher training and education are quite different from country to country (ADEB 2011) as well as with regards to the age of the students: “Malgré la forte propagation de ce type d’enseignement et un dévouement indéniable des enseignants en place (pour la plupart autodidactes dans ce domaine) il y a, en Europe, très peu de formations initiales et universitaires qui préparent à un diplôme ou concours correspondants à deux disciplines dont l’une est la langue d’enseignement et l’autre la discipline à enseigner dans cette langue” (Geiger-Jaillet/Schlemminger/Le Pape Racine 2011, 14).

The focus of this article does not extend to territorial bilingualism, in which populations of certain countries or regions communicate in languages that risk disappearing without the aid of formal intervention (for example, regional languages in France, Spain, Quebec, etc.) (↗27 France; ↗32 Spain; ↗26 Canada). These minority languages are sometimes protected by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, hence the term bilinguisme de maintien. Rather, this article emphasizes programmes d’enrichissement, which tend to develop a second language, or foreign language depending on the context. Without such educational programmes, children would not be able to acquire the L2 in question. Transitional Bilingual Education constitutes the third group of institutional models. This programme instructs children who are often linguistically homogeneous in their L1, in order to increasingly expose them to an L2, with the final objective of rendering them capable of continuing their learning in classes conducted in the new L2. The teaching of foreign languages in school (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) attempts to take advantage of the natural process of language appro-

7 DEL2 = discipline enseignée en langue 2 (subject taught in a second language), DEL3 = discipline enseignée en langue 3 (subject taught in a third language), etc.

Bilingual Education

207

priation (cf. section 5), with the objective of optimizing this process via formal instruction. The field of edulinguistics tackles research questions in the domain of languages and linguistic education. During the last fifteen years, the teaching and learning of a discipline in another language (other than the official school language) has emerged as a new paradigm from the field of language didactics and has been, more or less, adopted by other core subjects. This approach has the capacity to improve language learning without detriment towards the disciplinary contents of the other subjects. School systems generally agree upon four main objectives of bilingual teaching (DEL2): A)

B)

C) D)

the disciplinary content of the subject(s) taught in L2 must be transmitted; the target language becomes a work and learning tool as well as a knowledge appropriation tool (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency- CALP); the student must understand and make him/herself understood (objective of Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills- BICS); the L2 becomes a communication and interaction tool in the class; the student must develop learning strategies for other languages and for life in general; the L2 becomes a reflective, metacognitive tool; the student must know, practice and internalize the linguistic system of the target language. Language is an object of study with its rules and regularities systems.

While there appears to be global consensus on these objectives to achieve during schooling, their level of priority nevertheless fluctuates according to stakeholders’ individual perspectives: a language teacher (↗15 Language Teacher), a core subject teacher, a student (↗16 Language Learner) and a parent will all have different opinions regarding the aforementioned objectives. In order to accommodate the varied positions of those involved, different bilingual teaching models (or DEL2) need to be developed. The establishment of a bilingual programme depends, therefore, on the choice of its objectives as well as on its type of educational system. Is the objective to promote the most balanced bilingualism possible, or simply to acquire the ability to work in a foreign language? In addition, should there be an application procedure before schooling begins, should the programme accept all children, should it become the norm for the entire country? At what age should the programme start and with what daily or weekly frequency? With regards to the age of exposure, bilingual school programmes are today distinguished between early immersion (infant or young child), middle immersion (the L2 comes after an already acquired (at least orally) L1), or late immersion (starting with secondary school). However, the weekly exposure time (whether partial or total immersion) is not the sole indicator of success. Another factor must be taken into account, namely, that what is considered “late” in 2014 was in fact “normal” in the 1970s. Even just a few years ago, “early” designated the learning of a foreign language

208

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

during primary school, while today “early” signifies the first instance of attendance in a child care establishment. In other words, before the obligation to attend kindergarten or nursery school, and up to approximately four years of age. The current European ideal is “Learn a foreign language, learn in the foreign language.” For this to happen, we must use languages to learn, and learn by using languages. Depending on the geographics of a given community (along a linguistic border, in a metropolis, in a bilingual region, etc.), different educational models can be found: in the French-speaking parts of Switzerland two languages are offered starting in primary school (Elmiger 2006), sometimes by means of a two-way or Dual Immersion programme, which involves native speakers from two linguistic communities. For example, Bienne/Biel in Switzerland or the Staatliche Europaschule8 model in Berlin. These systems generally cover an entire multiyear school cycle (elementary, middle or high school), though can sometimes span an entire K-12 academic career in an effort to ensure programme continuity. Mehisto (2012, 4) categorizes bilingual education programmes in terms of short or long term, combined with either a low or high intensity. With regard to bilingual instruction, whether the immersion is partial, equal or near complete, it is more appropriate to use the term discipline enseignée en langue 2- DEL2 (subject taught in L2), rather than CLIL, EMILE, DdNL, etc.9 This designation offers the benefit of being able to situate the subject in the order of languages used, according to students’ school curriculum: DEL2, DEL3, DEL4, etc. It is important to address here certain specificities of DEL classes. In many countries there is a lack of teachers specialized in both a foreign language and a core subject, hence the need to train and educate teachers in the field of bilingual instruction of core subjects. Rather than teaching entire disciplines in a foreign language, certain school programmes use thematic units featured in the L2, for example in history, geography, social sciences, biology, etc. These units are limited in their duration, such that the usage of the L2 in this context is considered as a functional usage. In other words, the L2 is not only the target language but above all the language of communication and of knowledge transfer. In order for students to be motivated in DEL classes, one must not underestimate their cognitive abilities by supplying them with handouts and materials that are inappropriate or inadequate for their age group. Often this is the case when teachers fear that they may not have the L2 linguistic skills necessary for the class. Indeed, finding the right pedagogical material for each class can prove problematic – sometimes the adaptation or translation of L1 materials is necessary, or even the procura-

8 Several sections exist: German–French, German–English, German–Turkish, etc. in: Info-Portal SESB http://www.sesb.de/ (14.2.2014). 9 Cf. Geiger-Jaillet/Schlemminger/Le Pape Racine (2011, 20ss.): CLIL= Content and language integrated learning; EMILE= L’enseignement d’une matière par l’intégration d’une langue étrangère; DdnL= discipline dite non linguistique.

Bilingual Education

209

tion of authentic materials from target language countries. Slowly but surely, the establishment of DEL teaching methodologies are being put into place in certain countries. Geiger-Jaillet/Schlemminger/Le Pape Racine (2011, 15) have assembled a recent inventory of DEL teaching methodologies in French, English and German. Another bilingual education issue that requires reflection and development is CALP in L2. In other words, being able to participate in L2 interactions in which “high” cognitive activity is engaged and for which the individual must convey elaborate, disciplinary knowledge (cf. Cathomas/Carigiet 2008, 59s.). A specific bilingual didactic transposition is also necessary. For example, concerning the conception of student worksheets, curriculum planners/teachers must not only take into account students’ abstraction levels in relation to their age/level, but also incorporate new materials and aids (visual, methodological, linguistic) for the learning and usage of the L2. With this in mind, Geiger-Jaillet/Schlemminger/Le Pape Racine (2011) have developed a teaching tool, the nonagone bilingue, which helps teachers become fully aware of the different elements that come into play in the creation of a handout. The aid takes into consideration the type of DEL2, the teaching methods suitable for both scientific disciplines and the L2, the age of the students and the kinds of linguistic materials needed (Geiger-Jaillet 2011, 163s.).

Figure 1: Le nonagone bilingue (Geiger-Jaillet 2011, 164)

Additionally, regarding bilingual education methodology, it can be challenging to address students’ literacy in their native, and subsequently, foreign, languages. A child must have already learned to segment words in their L1 before learning to read

210

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

and write in their L2. Bialystok (2001, 69) suggests starting reading and writing with the more transparent system, that is, the one whose written form is closer to its sounds, as this may facilitate L2 learning: “For bilingual children […], there may be an advantage when children learn the less transparent system because of their experience with the simpler (more transparent) system”. The question of evaluation in bilingual classes creates another hurdle for teachers and administrators. Indeed, depending on the organizational models and objectives (cf. above) of the programme, the evaluation may focus solely on the subject matter without taking into account students’ language levels. In sum, the majority of educational systems with bilingual sections offer these sections in the form of bilinguisme d’enrichissement directed at a small number of children, without really taking advantage of the plurilingual potential of the families in the area (↗12 Plurilingual Education). The links between socio-economic/cultural level and academic success are undeniable. Bilingual school models often rely upon the contributions of bilingual children from “mixed couples” in which two or more “prestigious” languages are spoken. However the instruction of a DEL2 or 3 could also be the result of historical events (colonization, for example). Mehisto (2012) has assembled a list of “effective practices” versus “ineffective practices” in DEL education. The particular feature of DEL teaching is that in order to understand school content in an L2 or L3, the language must be mastered for cognitive-academic purposes (objective A, see above). This mastery of this language register can be compared with the interpersonal, communicative purpose that the language may also serve in a familial context (objective B, see above). Indeed, a “school bilingual” may be able to acquire a certain mastery of academic language (CALP), but without extramural contact he or she won’t be able to understand oral/informal language, humor, cultural innuendos used within the family of a pen-pal, etc., and will be limited in his or her BICS competence. From the inverse perspective, a student that is only orally bilingual may very well not know how to write in his or her L2. For example, a child living in France that speaks Arabic with certain members of his or her family may choose not to take private Arabic lessons nor choose Arabic as a third foreign language in school. The capacity to understand and use written information in everyday communication in Arabic would therefore not belong to this student’s plurilingual skills (↗12 Plurilingual Education).

5 Bilingualism in the Family: Being Raised by and in Different Languages For the last twenty years, data in linguistics and neurolinguistics on bilingual individuals have been supplemented by publications aimed at the general public (especially parents). These books have meant to act as guides for raising bilingual children. One

Bilingual Education

211

of the oldest exists in English: The Bilingual Family: A Handbook for Parents (HardingEsch/Riley 1986), while two recent publications in German and French include Zweisprachigkeit/Bilingualität: Ein Ratgeber für Eltern (Chilla/Fox-Boyer 2011) and Guide à l’usage des parents d’enfants bilingues (Abdelilah-Bauer 2012), respectively. All current guides affirm that even if family bilingualism appears natural, it is not easy to accompany one’s child in two languages, and that this endeavour indeed has a “cost” (Abdelilah-Bauer 2012, 41). That is, that the individual bilingualism is likely to always be unbalanced due to the fact that the situations experienced are not symmetrically divided between the two languages. The more recent books emphasize the psychologically difficult situation for the “weak language” parent, as they may find themselves with a child that does not speak or understand this parent’s native language. This is a more recent issue, as previous perspectives dealt solely with the child and their road to achieving balanced bilingualism. Some common bilingual upbringing methods used include: one person one language or one parent – one language (OPOL), in which each parent speaks to the child in their respective native language; one area – one language, where one language is spoken at home and the other is spoken, for example, at school; one activity – one language, in which one language is spoken during bathtime or gametime, while the other is spoken during homework or eating meals. Such methods allow children to quickly become aware of their nascent bilingualism. Taking a step back, when it comes to bilingual upbringing or education, there is always a weak language in relation to a strong language. The strong language is the one present within the individual’s entourage, the one used at school, the one in which games are played with peers and siblings. Before parents have children they choose a couple/relationship language, which could be the same as or different from the later family language. (In actual everyday practice, couples rarely change languages, even if their exterior context changes.) The child grows accustomed to a functional separation of languages: he or she knows in which language to speak depending on the context and the person. The switching between languages is therefore carried out according to the situation and those present. The major challenges in a bilingual upbringing are therefore the identification of the weak language and the establishement of clear usage rules while at the same time making an effort to reinforce and support the weak language. The following eleven success factors of bilingual family upbringing were identified by Susanne Mahlstedt after having completed a comprehensive study of the linguistic biography of 32 families as well as the entirety of pre-1995 family bilingualism literature (1996, 207s.). 1. 2.

Both parents are competent in both languages, and are indeed themselves bilingual, which consequently provides a motivating model for their children. The language not used in the environment is chosen by the couple to be the partner and family language. Such a choice creates a counterweight in relation to the pressure of the environment language.

212

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

3.

The person who represents the non-environment language uses his or her language according to the “one person one language” principle, or, the family language is the one not present in the environment. 4. Both languages are of an equal or comparable status/prestige. 5. Both parents, as well as their friends/entourage, have a positive attitude towards bilingualism and a bilingual upbringing. 6. The parents don’t have an ethnocentric identity, but rather a bicultural identity, which they try to pass on to their children. 7. The parents have strong personalities and consciously strive for the development of their children’s bilingualism. 8. The parents intensely attend to their children, including in the linguistic domain. 9. The parents don’t give up when faced with occasional difficulties, even when their child (or children) temporarily refuses to speak one of the languages. 10. The family often travels to the country (or countries) of the lesser represented language, so that the children can experience it as an environment language. The family also welcomes visits from people who speak the lesser represented language. 11. The child (or children) interacts with people who speak the lesser represented language in the area in which he or she lives.

Even if the variable one person one language seems to be the key to success, it appears to play a bigger role during early childhood when the child is still mostly in a family environment. As soon as an exterior influence comes into play, be it childcare outside of the home or even a change in the composition of the family with the arrival of a new sibling, the older child will be able to incorporate the environment language into the familial context. According the OPOL principle, the sharing of languages becomes more and more difficult, especially when the child begins to realize that the parent representing the “weaker language” is indeed capable of using the environment language at the store, at school, during public transport, when hosting guests, etc. We know today, in 2014, that the linguistic biographies of siblings are generally quite different, as learning and speaking strategies change over time (cf. Abdelilah-Bauer 2012, 76); indeed, the most balanced bilinguals are usually the oldest siblings. By way of conclusion, the following includes practical advice from different guide books. Almost thirty years ago, Kielhöfer/Jonekeit (1985, 95) began emphasizing the importance of the functional separation of the two languages, in that each one should have a specific usage for the child. Cathomas/Carigiet (2008, 52) underline that “language must be a pleasure” and that the child “must be encouraged, reinforced, pushed, stimulated, especially when the language is less frequently spoken in everyday life.” According to Cathomas/Carigiet, “non systematic use of languages” and “emotional distance” (ibid., 56) are some of the more typical errors. For AbdelilahBauer (2012, 60ss.) “the ingredients for successful bilingualism” are a rich and diverse language, frequent and intense exchanges, well thought-out strategies that qualify as “linguistic policy”, and all of this supplemented by continuity and perseverance. Bialystok affirms that “[m]onolingual and bilingual children move in different cognitive worlds, experience different linguistic environments, and are challenged to com-

Bilingual Education

213

municate using different resources, remaining sensitive to different abstract dimensions” (2001, 88). Just like children with high IQs compared to their peers, bilingual children don’t just simply have one “extra” language, rather, they are fundamentally different from monolingual children.

6 Looking Ahead In the strict sense of the term, a bilingual is someone that masters two linguistic codes (cf. Béziers/Van Overbeke 1968, 25). This competence can be acquired in a familial setting when the parents are a “mixed couple” or expatriated (individual bilingualism), in a country or region (social bilingualism) or through schooling (educational bilingualism). This article does not focus on the official bilingualism of certain countries or regions (territorial bilingualism), rather, it emphasizes individual bilingualism and how it is achieved. Two possibilities lead down this path: a bilingual familial upbringing or a bilingual education in school. In the former, mixed couples often allow contact between two distinct nationalities and cultures, with the woman usually deciding to settle in her partner’s country (Varro 1984). Some families may be “mobile”, whether expatriates or migrants, and employ the practice of speaking both a family language and an environment language. And finally, for families who don’t fall under either category (whose children are not “born bilingual”), there is the option of allowing their children to become bilingual in a school context (Geiger-Jaillet 2005). Different programmes or models are offered according to country, though each one is limited to the rules and regulations of the educational system already in place, which itself is historically anchored in the society in question. This explains the large disparities that exist between programmes in terms of objectives, means, evaluations, obtained results, motivation, prestige and languages likely to be the object of study versus those in which courses are conducted. In order to help advance the current cause of bilingual teaching, there must be deep reflection with regard to language and bilingual practice, applied programmes and pedagogies (cf. Mehisto 2012), without neglecting the involvement of parents and community members (cf. García/Kleifgen 2010). As outlined in the preceding pages, a bilingual family upbringing is no simple task, nor is it insurmountable. The key to success lies in identifying the weak language and subsequently creating strategies to reinforce and strengthen it. Steiner/Hayes (2009, 65) refer to “creating your bilingual action plan”. While much research has been done on L1-L2 grammatical interferences or lexical interferences (or lexical loans, for a more bilingual perspective), it must be noted that oral language, as opposed to written, has been the greater priority. Bilingual literacy is indeed only in its early stages (cf. DeRosa 2007). The emphasis in this article is, above all, on the bilinguisme d’enrichissement within school programmes in international schools or immersion sections. Contrary to family bilingualism where bilingual or plurilingual identity is a serious issue, participating in

214

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

bilingual school programmes generally doesn’t seem to affect students with relation to their identity (↗5 Languages and Identities). Nevertheless, attendance at such a school is by no means insignificant. García/Kleifgen (2010, 124–135) propose certain recommendations for bilingual advocates, researchers, policy makers and educators. The focus here on the two main paths of becoming bilingual (being “born” bilingual or via schooling) is largely due to all that they have in common with one another. In a familial context, the child is a child and the adults are the parents. In a school context, the child becomes a student and the adult in charge become the teacher. He or she can be native or non-native, express her or himself in his or her weak or strong language, just like in certain familial settings. In both systems cultures exist with their own rules: the family culture influences the choice of the child’s name, religion and cultural practices, while the school culture of a given country also obliges its members to know its rules and codes in order to be able to take part in the growing and learning within its walls. Within the scale of a predominantly monolingual Europe, discussions of bilingualism make sense, but on a global scale discussions of bilingual and plurilingual education/upbringing are now needed (↗12 Plurilingual Education). For a bilingual individual each one of his or her languages could be a key to access a different culture. “Si ce biculturalisme provoque des sentiments de déséquilibre, ceci n’est pas dû aux langues impliquées, mais à des conflits de prestige entre des réalités et cultures différentes” (Kielhöfer/Jonekeit 1985, 88). The final word shall be left to a “grande dame” of bilingualism, Claudine Leralu, known for having created bilingual education in the Basque Country. “Une école plurilingue n’est pas une école où l’on apprend des langues, mais une école dont le fonctionnement est fondé sur les langues: celles qu’elle a choisies, celles des familles, celles de l’environnement social. Une telle école organise ses espaces et son temps en fonction des langues dont la place, ni accessoire ni prioritaire, est tout simplement le ciment de la vie scolaire” (Leralu 2006, quoted from Cavalli 2011, 9).

7 Bibliography Abdallah-Pretceille, Martine (1988), Les politiques multiculturelles et les conséquences pour les enseignants, Paris, Rapport de l’O.C.D.E. Abdelilah-Bauer, Barbara (2012), Guide à l’usage des parents d’enfants bilingues, Paris, La Découverte. Actualités orthophoniques (professional journal for speech therapists), Toulon, http://orthopho nie.org/language-development-and-delay-in-10386.html#sthash.ZIdS0tkq.dpuf (20.10.2013). ADEB = Association pour le Développement de l’Enseignement Bi/plurilingue (2011), Enseignement bilingue: Le professeur de “Discipline Non Linguistique”. Statut, fonctions, pratiques pédagogiques, http://www.adeb.asso.fr/publications_adeb/ADEB_brochure_DNL_12_2011.pdf (20.10.2013).

Bilingual Education

215

Aleemi, Janet (1991), Zur sozialen und psychischen Situation von Bilingualen. Persönlichkeitsentwicklung und Identitätsbildung, Frankfurt am Main et al., Lang. Baker, Colin (2001), Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Béziers, Monique/Van Overbeke, Maurits (1968), Le bilinguisme: Essai de définition et guide bibliographique, Louvain, Librairie universitaire. Bialystok, Ellen (2001), Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bloomfield, Leonard (1933), Language, New York, Holt, Reinhard & Winston. Cathomas, Rico M./Carigiet, Werner (2008), Le plurilinguisme, une chance unique. L’éducation bi- et plurilingue dans la famille et à l’école, Fribourg, Office cantonal du matériel scolaire. Cavalli, Marisa (2011), L’éducation bilingue selon Claudine Leralu, Éducation et sociétés plurilingues 30, 3–9. Chilla, Solveig/Fox-Boyer, Annette (2011), Zweisprachigkeit/Bilingualität: Ein Ratgeber für Eltern, Idstein, Schulz-Kirchner. Craik, Fergus I.M./Bialystok, Ellen/Freedman, Morris (2010), Delaying the onset of Alzheimer disease. Bilingualism as a form of cognitive reserve, Neurology 75, 1726–1729. DeRosa, Raffaele (2007), Lesen und Schreiben bei mehrsprachigen Kindern. Theoretische und praktische Ansätze mit konkreten Beispielen, Bern, Haupt. Elmiger, Daniel (2006), Deux langues à l’école primaire: un défi pour l’école romande, avec la collab. de Marie-Nicole Bossart, Neuchâtel, Institut de recherche et de documentation pédagogique (IRDP). Gajo, Laurent (2001), Immersion, bilinguisme et interaction en classe, Paris, Didier. García, Ofelia (2009), Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A global perspective, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell. García, Ofelia/ Kleifgen, Jo Anne (2010), Educating emergent bilinguals: policies, programs, and practices for English language learners, New York, Teachers College Press. Geiger-Jaillet, Anemone (2005), Le bilinguisme pour grandir. Naître bilingue ou le devenir par l’école, Paris, L’Harmattan. Geiger-Jaillet, Anemone (2011), Conception de fiches d’élève, in: Anemone Geiger-Jaillet/Gérald Schlemminger/Christine Le Pape Racine (2011) (edd.), Enseigner une discipline dans une autre langue: méthodologie et pratiques professionnelles, Wien, Lang/Conseil de l’Europe/CELV, 163–169. Geiger-Jaillet, Anemone/Schlemminger, Gérald/Le Pape Racine, Christine (2011) (edd.), Enseigner une discipline dans une autre langue: méthodologie et pratiques professionnelles, Wien, Lang/ Conseil de l’Europe/CELV. Grainger, Jonathan (1987), L’accès au lexique bilingue: vers une nouvelle orientation de recherche, L’année psychologique 87/4, 553–555, http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/ article/psy_0003-5033_1987_num_87_4_29235 (20.10.2013). Grainger, Jonathan (2002), Structure et fonctionnement du lexique bilingue, in: Agnès Florin/José Morais (Collectif) (edd.), La maîtrise du langage. Textes issus du XXVIIe symposium de l’Association de Psychologie Scientifique de Langue Française (APSLF), Presses universitaires de Rennes 2, 41–59, http://sites.univ-provence.fr/wlpc/pagesperso/grainger/chapitre/Grainger-2002.pdf (20.10.2013). Groux, Dominique (1996), L’enseignement précoce des langues, des enjeux à la pratique, Lyon, Chronique Sociale. Hamers, Josiane F./Blanc, Michel H. A. (1983), Bilingualité et bilinguisme, Bruxelles, Mardaga. Harding-Esch, Edith/Riley, Philip (1986) (22003), The Bilingual Family: A Handbook for parents, Cambridge University Press.

216

Anemone Geiger-Jaillet

Hélot, Christine (2007), Du bilinguisme en famille au plurilinguisme à l’école, Paris, L’Harmattan. Info-Portal SESB (Staatliche Europa-Schule Berlin), http://www.sesb.de/ (14.2.2014). INSMT = Institut des neurosciences, de la santé mentale et des toxicomanies/Institut de recherche en santé du Canada, Le cerveau à tous les niveaux: Préférence manuelle, langage et latéralisation cérébrale, http://lecerveau.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_10/d_10_cr/d_10_cr_lan/d_10_cr_lan.html#3 (20.10.2013). Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (1992), Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Kielhöfer, Bernd/Jonekeit, Sylvie (1985), Éducation bilingue, Tübingen, Stauffenburg. Leralu, Claudine (2006), Continuons le débat!, Éducation et sociétés plurilingues 20, 92–94. Levitin, Daniel J. (2010), De la note au cerveau. L’influence de la musique sur le comportement, Paris, Héloïse d’Ormesson. Lüdi, Georges/ Py, Bernard (32003), Être bilingue, Bern/Frankfurt am Main, Lang. Macnamara, John (1969), How Can One Measure the Extent of a Person’s Bilingual Proficiency?, in: Louis G. Kelly (ed.), Description and Measurement of Bilingualism: An International Seminar, University of Moncton, University of Toronto Press, 79–97. Mahlstedt, Susanne (1996), Zweisprachigkeitserziehung in gemischtsprachigen Familien: eine Analyse der erfolgsbedingenden Merkmale, Frankfurt am Main, Lang. Mehisto, Peeter (2012), Excellence in Bilingual Education: A Guide for School Principals, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Pallier, Christophe/Argenti, Anne-Marie (2003), Imagerie cérébrale du bilinguisme, in: Olivier Étard/ Nathalie Tzourio-Mazoyer (edd.), Cerveau et Langage. Traité de Sciences Cognitives, Paris, Hermès Science, 183–198. Petit, Jean (2001), L’immersion, une révolution, Colmar, Jérôme Do Bentzinger. Steiner, Noemi/Hayes, Susan L. (2009), 7 steps to raising a bilingual child, New York et al., AMACOM. Titone, Renzo (1974), Le bilinguisme précoce, Bruxelles, C. Dessart. Vaniscotte, Francine (1996), Les écoles de l’Europe – Systèmes éducatifs et dimension européenne, Paris, INRP/Toulouse, IUFM. Varro, Gabrielle (1984), La femme transplantée?: une étude du mariage franco-américain en France et le bilinguisme des enfants, Lille, Presses universitaires de Lille. Varro, Gabrielle (1997), Zwei Kulturen eine Familie. Paare aus verschiedenen Kulturen und ihre Kinder, am Beispiel Frankreichs und Deutschlands, Opladen, Leske + Budrich. Ventureyra, Valérie (2005), À la recherche de la langue perdue: étude psycholinguistique de l’attrition de la première langue chez des coréens adoptés en France, PhD dissertation, Paris, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, http://www.pallier.org/papers/Ventureyra.thesefinal.pdf (20.10.2013).

Franz-Joseph Meissner

12 Plurilingual Education Abstract: The following paper outlines plurilingual education with regard to the heterogeneous sociolinguistic situation in today’s societies, to Romance languages as foreign languages, and to foreign language learning and teaching. After defining plurilingualism, it details some prejudices about bi- and plurilingualism and the positive turn registered in the last decades. As plurilingual education comprises various categories of languages, immigrant languages and education are included. Of course, fostering plurilingualism cannot take place without the learners concerned. Thus, the article relates central findings affecting European pupils’ experiences with language learning and the ideas about their future plurilingualism. Some promising innovations, due to the European Union’s education policy, are discussed: especially the orientation toward language learning competence and intercomprehension. At the end of the article, the reader will find a short recommendation list concerning further enhancement of the teaching and learning of Romance languages. Keywords: plurilingualism, immigration languages, Romance language learning and teaching, intercomprehension, orientation toward competencies

1 Definitions of Plurilingualism and Neighbouring Concepts It is not easy to define what plurilingualism and plurilingual education actually mean. The lack of perspicuity is due to at least ten factors underlying the term: 1) The number of languages that must be mastered before a person can be called plurilingual. According to the mainstream literature, plurilingualism encompasses at least three languages. 2) The level of competence that must be achieved in each of these languages.1 This topic is related to the unfruitful discussion about whether bilingualism (↗11 Bilingual Education) means equal (native-like) competence in both languages or not. 3) The profile and width of competence in the languages concerned: including reading, listening, speaking, writing, linguistic varieties, but also non-linguistic knowledge domains and interculturality (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means).

1 In accordance with the FRePA (Candelier et al. 2012), we define competence (competency) as the “(ability to activate or the) activation of resources needed to master a situation”.

218

Franz-Joseph Meissner

4) A terminological confusion between plurilingualism and multilingualism. Whereas plurilingualism refers to individuals, multilingualism is a societal phenomenon. It concerns the huge number of minority languages within a given territory, i.e. those belonging to its linguistic heritage; like Catalan in Spain, Sorbian in Germany, etc. or those related to immigration like Turkish, Spanish, or Wolof… in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. 5) A lack of distinction between language and linguistic variety. Linguists have no consensus about what actually makes the difference between a language and a variety; even if it is clear that languages comprise varieties but varieties do not comprise languages. It is a matter of fact that the status of a variety is due to a political decision and the power to impose it. That is why states always have “official languages” (not varieties). To provide an example: after the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the new Republics declared ancient varieties or languages to be official languages; Bosnia-Herzegovina/Bosnian (with Croatian, Serbian as co-official languages); Croatia/Croatian; etc. The history of creole languages, too, gives a lot of striking examples illustrating the decisive influence of politics on emancipating varieties becoming languages. 6) The degree of similarity or mutual transparency between languages or varieties. Dialects of the same language are intercomprehensible but those of different languages, especially when belonging to another linguistic family, are not.2 7) The uncertain historical status of languages. In a diachronic perspective, what “language” properly means is decisive for understanding how plurilingual education could be conceived in the past (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). For many centuries, Latin was the language of European scholarship par excellence, functioning as an adstratum side by side with the vernaculars. An overwhelming proportion of the literate people read, wrote and spoke Latin. Another point must be mentioned. In terms of linguistic proximity, the different vernaculars did not have the same distance to Latin, vulgar or colloquial Latin on the one hand and early Romance on the other hand. The so-called latino maccheronico gives a striking example. Obviously, we do not exactly know from what moment on, historical persons can be called bi- or plurilingual, because nonstandardized varieties are concerned. In the time of Dante, it frequently happened that terms like volgare, fiorentino, toscano, italiano were used as synonyms (Migliorini 1978, 265). As to Dutch and German, it is worthwhile remembering that in Dutch classrooms, German as a foreign language could only be taught after Dutch was no longer considered as a variety of German (Glück 2002, 2). Obviously, languages were/are taught in foreign language classrooms, varieties are not.

2 “[…] les dialectes sont des formes de langue voisines les unes des autres, dont les utilisateurs se comprennent plus ou moins et, par opposition à d’autres, ont l’impression d’appartenir à une même communauté linguistique” (Dubois et al. 1973, 149).

Plurilingual Education

219

8) The uncertain social status of a language, as it is felt by the people. People who speak a lingo or a low prestige variety often even hide their bi- or plurilingualism. Studies about diglossia distinguish vernaculars, spoken by a part of the population, from a more highly valued vehicular language. 9) Languages between national and foreign language politics (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). “National language politics” implies the promotion of a state’s own language (la politique de la langue),3 whereas “foreign language politics” supports foreign languages within one’s own territory (la política de las lenguas). Traditionally, foreign language politics is part of national education programmes. Obviously, foreign language education demands considerable financial investment in terms of teacher formation, teaching organization, teaching assessment, etc. EU data reveal that in European schools only a few languages are taught to a considerable extent (English, French and German, and, in the East, Russian) (INRA 2001, 3). Nevertheless, learning foreign languages at school is by far the most important factor fostering plurilingualism within the European Union (Androulakis et al. 2007, 278). 10) The linguistic heterogeneity of the European context. It is worthwhile casting a glance at language policy, as it is defined by the European Union in regard to the current number of its official languages with full rights within the Union’s territory. Furthermore, there are the heritage languages (langues du patrimoine, with or without co-official status) and the languages of immigration (without official European status). As the Union is based upon mutual respect and equality between its member states and nations… and their languages, most of the member states have signed the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages (Council of Europe 1992). The charter considers the heritage languages, but is quite reluctant about immigration languages, even if the number of their speakers considerably exceeds that of heritage varieties or languages (Turkish or Russian in Germany for example in comparison with Frisian). This reluctance affects multilingualism. It is a truism, that national education programmes focussing only on monolingualism can no longer meet the future needs of citizens in our globalized world: in terms of economy, the ELAN-study (2006) highlights the necessity of plurilingual learning. But of course, plurilingualism enriches life in many ways, going beyond the economic aspects, as cultural and everyday life experiences (psychic income) are involved. How plurilingualism should be understood in terms of education was defined by an international group of applied linguists in 1989:

3 For example the funding of language promotion by the Institut français, Cervantes, etc.; legislation, too, can regulate language use (Canada, Turkey, etc.).

220

Franz-Joseph Meissner

“Aussi faut-il commencer par faire comprendre que par plurilinguisme on n’entend pas l’égale maîtrise de plusieurs langues. On peut déjà considérer comme plurilingue celui qui, sur la base de sa langue maternelle, possède des connaissances limitées dans au moins deux autres langues dans des domaines de discours semblables ou différents (par exemple pour établir des contacts humains oralement ou par écrit, pour lire des textes ou encore pour pouvoir conduire des discussions spécialisées)” (Bertrand/Christ 1990, 44s.).

These words make clear that plurilingual education concepts have to avoid maximalism and need to be feasible. There is no doubt that plurilingual training is a matter of long life learning.

2 From Monolingual Ideologies to Plurilingualism: the Positive Turn “… que siempre la lengua fue compañera del imperio”, as the Spaniard Antonio de Nebrija had put it so well in 1492 (1989, 109), explains why – with the rise of industrialism and nationalism, the establishment of national education systems and the spread of colonialism – European governments felt compelled to impose their national languages; very often at the expense of a population’s regional idiom. To a large extent, the growth of European monolingualism, which can be described in terms of cultural violence (Galtung 1990), went hand in hand with depreciation for regional and exotic idioms. The tendency impacted public and private life in many ways. One of the numerous examples is provided by the “scientific” controversy about what plurilingualism really means for children’s mental development. The debate did not leave public opinion without an effect, so that we still can find the persisting stereotypes of what was/is called a balanced and a double-semibilingualism. More recent works stress that both notions do not work and are incorrect (Skutnabb-Kangas 1981, 224s.): Whereas balanced bilingualism (plurilingualism) must be considered as an idealized concept, semibilingualism often was portrayed negatively, associated with split identities, cognitive deficits, etc. There is much evidence that “beliefs” about bilingualism and education contaminated concepts of plurilingualism. Another relevant issue is related to the conjunction between integration – bilingualism – majority’s language proficiency. Advocating for the maintenance of multilingualism within our societies, Roche (2009) articulates that further empirical studies are necessary. Persistent prejudices against plurilingualism hypothesize that the acquisition of more than one (or two) foreign language provokes negative effects on the performance in one or each of them. Even solid empirical studies which combine subjective theory approaches with quantitative methods cannot always escape the risk of contributing to false stereotypes. This happens when no clear distinction is made between facts, that can be the measurable results of a new learning model, and learners’ or teachers’ beliefs, which originate in individual experiences and wrong stereotypes coming from

Plurilingual Education

221

former pedagogical concepts and teaching practice. A striking example is given by studies about the relationship between the acquisition of “more languages” and “false friends”. In these cases beliefs, which derive from monolingual-oriented and outdated theory and teaching practice, are erroneously taken for unchangeable facts. As for plurilingual pedagogy, it must be remembered that language learning theory and practice come from a dogmatic tradition of a target language-related monolingualism. In the light of the representative Swiss inquiry (Nationales Forschungsprogramm 56) (Werlen/Rosenberger/Baumgartner 2011), the argument cannot work. The Swiss findings stress clearly: the more languages an individual knows, the higher is his/her selfestimated average proficiency in each of them.4 Historically, monolingualism is not in the mainstream tradition of our occidental Republic of Letters, because Western civilization and science are largely founded on plurilingual reading competence. This observation affects the prestigious vehicular languages of Latin and Greek as well as modern vernaculars and the most eminent authors and scientists as well. Linguistically, the influence on our modern languages is largely documented in the vocabulary by the so-called learned words like enthusiasm, enthousiasme…, melancholy, Melancholie…, gramática, грамма'тика…, humour, umore, humeur/humour…, affect, afectar, afetar, … as well as modern creations like oxidation, liberalism, emancipation, progress-orientated, etc. Whereas the word forms go back to Latin or Greek (democracy < δημοκρατία), the semantic properties are quite younger (human rights, sovereignty of the people, political representation…). The history of European words makes clear that the era of national language politics covers a quite shorter period than that of multi- and plurilingualism. Obviously, monolingualism is not actually compatible with the overall European genius and the construction of a European identity (Meißner 2013). In the last decades however, the interpretation of multi- and plurilingualism has taken a positive turn. Mainly, the shift is due to globalization and to migration phenomena. Against this background, numerous documents underline linguistic minority rights. The UNESCO Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (18.12.1992) stipulates: “States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories, and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities […] have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination” (UNESCO 1992).

4 The fact must be interpreted in the light that higher foreign language competence is connected with more reliable rates of self-assessment (Peschel/Senger/Willeke 2006).

222

Franz-Joseph Meissner

As to states and languages, article 4 specifies: “2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards. 3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue” (UNESCO 1992).

The non-governmental Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (Follow-up Committee 1996) – signed by eminent scientists, artists and internationally reputed leaders (including Yassir Arafat, José Carreras, Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Octavio Paz, Shimon Peres, etc.) – underlines that all idioms are part of the patrimony of mankind. The Universal Declaration particularly includes idioms threatened with extinction like the numerous indigenous languages (cf. Nettle/Romaine 1998).

3 The Promotion of Plurilingualism At the beginning of the common European politics in the field of language education, we find the European Cultural Convention, ratified in 1954. It served to substitute bilateral conventions between its contracting parties and to foster the “study of the languages, history and civilisations of the others and of the civilisation which is common to them all”. In the eyes of the Commission of the European Communities (2008, 5), multilingualism is an “asset for Europe and a shared commitment”. Consequently, European language policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) focusses “[…] on people: their ability to use several languages, their opportunity to access culture and participate as active citizens, to benefit from better communication, inclusiveness and wider employment and business opportunities. The main objective is therefore to raise awareness of the value and opportunities of the EU’s linguistic diversity and encourage the removal of barriers to intercultural dialogue. A key instrument in this respect is the Barcelona objective – communication in mother tongue plus two languages. More effort is needed towards achieving this objective for all citizens” (ibid.; emphasis in the original)”.5

To achieve its objectives, the Commission pursues an overall “inclusive” approach:

5 A lot of official European documents define the formula as a “linguistic minimum” and add “at least”.

Plurilingual Education

223

“[…] to ensure that, within existing resources, multilingualism is ‘mainstreamed’ across a series of EU policy areas, including lifelong learning, employment, social inclusion, competitiveness, culture, youth and civil society, research and the media. […] widening the scope of multilingualism to social cohesion and prosperity, i.e. to foster successful companies, including SMEs, competitive business and trade, employability, and integration, wellbeing and leisure in one’s daily life and surroundings”.

A second important criterion which makes the aforementioned difference between individual plurilingualism and societal multilingualism is that plurilingualism can be promoted by educational planning, whereas multilingualism is the result of immigration and includes “uncountable” languages. That is why the topic of plurilingual education needs to be treated in regard to the status of the languages concerned. So it must be distinguished between national majority or dominant languages, national minority languages, regional languages, languages of heritage, of the environment, of immigration, of instruction and foreign languages. As for individuals, each of these can be considered as a mother tongue, a second or a foreign language. Semantically, there is no clear separation between the terms. Building a culture of plurilingualism is a core point of EU educational policy (Beacco/Byram 2007; Beacco et al. 2010). In addition to the aforementioned EU guideline that “at least” two foreign languages should be learned by as many European citizens as possible, the document Plurilingual Education in Europe – 50 years of international co-operation (Council of Europe 2006, 6) puts it in seven points: “1. Language learning is for all: opportunities for developing their plurilingual repertoire is a necessity for all citizens in contemporary Europe. 2. Language learning is for the learner: it should be based on worthwhile, realistic objectives reflecting needs, interests, motivation, and abilities. 3. Language learning is for intercultural communication: it is crucial for ensuring successful interaction across linguistic and cultural boundaries and developing openness to the plurilingual repertoires of others. 4. Language learning is for life: it should develop learner responsibility and the independence necessary to respond to the challenges of lifelong language learning. 5. Language teaching is coordinated: it should be planned as a whole, covering the specifications of objectives, the use of teaching/learning materials and methods, the assessment of learner achievement, and the development of appropriate convergences between all languages that learners have in their repertoire or wish to add to it. 6. Language teaching is coherent and transparent: policy makers, curriculum designers, textbook authors, examination bodies, teacher trainers, teachers and learners need to share the same aims, objectives and assessment criteria. 7. Language learning and teaching (LLT) are dynamic lifelong processes, responding to experience as well as changing conditions and use”.

224

Franz-Joseph Meissner

4 Multilingual Environments and Plurilingual Education To understand the fundamental importance of the multilingual challenge, it is necessary to remember the demographic impact. A situation like that of multilingual Venice is far from being atypical in European societies: in the lagoon city, we do not only find the dialetto veneziano, a sub-variety of the lingua veneta, but also heritage varieties which do not belong to the Italian language: Provençal, Franco-Provençal, Ladin, German, Serbo-Croatian, Greek and Catalan. It is noteworthy that the enumeration does not mention the languages of immigration, although the number of immigrants currently in Italy already exceeds 5 million individuals (Caritas Dossier 2012, 4). Following Italy’s democraphical previsions, in 2065 the total of the current resident population of 61.3 million residents will have decreased by 11.5 million to 49.8 (birth rate of 28.5 million and mortality rate of 40 million). At the same time, there will be an increase due to immigration of 12 million (17.9 million incomings and 5.9 outgoings). The new incomers will then add up to 19.4% of the future resident population, in which high naturalization and small birth rates of the “former natives” will have been one of the most outstanding demographic features during the last six decades. To prevent misinterpretations, it seems appropriate to remember observations like that of the Rome-based Eurispes Research agency’s president, Gian Maria Fara (2000) who, watching the birth rate halve since the 1960s, sums up “that Italy (yearly, F.-J. M.) needs at least 200.000 immigrants just to keep the status quo”. Of course, the migrants’ languages aspects are part of questions that concern European language policy and plurilingual education in general (see below). Quantitative figures hide the fact that languages are closely related to identity construction, identity crises and (the fear of) identity loss (↗5 Languages and Identities). Often, identity phenomena go hand in hand with the assimilation of individuals or minority groups in the so-called host society. Integration into the majority culture, which cannot take place without mastering the majority language, can either be desired by the immigrants themselves or imposed by politics. It can consequently be the result of individual choice or of social coercion toward a minority group. The last pattern explains why, in the eyes of Turkey’s president Erdoğan, “(imposed) assimilation is a crime against humanity” (2010). In fact, identity construction does not result from a simple either-or decision. Instead, it is nourished by a multitude of references affecting gender, age, ethnicity, culture, religion, education, schooling, social environment, cross-cultural experiences… as well as a region, a nation or two, or even a continent (Europe or Latin America). The multitude of variables explains why self-construction goes together with fuzziness and often changes in the course of life. It is clear that in this field, political decisions have to respond to different environmental conditions. But always, the language dimension remains involved in identity construction (Beacco 2005).

Plurilingual Education

225

Whereas there is no doubt about the need of mastering the language of instruction at a native-like level, the role of mother tongue tuition for immigrant pupils remains less clear (in spite of numerous official documents stressing the importance of the languages of origin). European immigrants had to wait until the year 2004, when Eurydice published the first study concerning migrant languages and migrant families. It placed emphasis on proficiency in the language of origin: “The Council of Europe recommends that action concerned with the immigration of immigrant children into the education system should be taken in three areas as follows: adapting the system to their special educational needs; including lessons on the language and the culture of the country of origin in mainstream school curricula; and promoting intercultural education for all”.

Regardless of the importance given to immigrants’ proficiency in their languages of origin, some countries and federal German states abolished the provision for tuition in the mother tongues and reduced and marginalized its position in regular school curricula. This explains in part why so much is left to voluntary and private initiatives which sometimes are supported by local or central authorities. Generally, political decision-making tends to see a strong relationship between immigrant children’s school underachievement and their early bilingualism (↗11 Bilingual Education). An OECD study observes: “[…] it is not unexpected to find that in the majority of countries where there are significant differences in performance between immigrant and native students […], the performance disadvantage is larger for immigrant students who do not speak the language of instruction at home […]” (OECD 2006, 48).

In 2000 and 2003, the PISA studies detected significant performance gaps between immigrant and native background students (OECD 2004, 176). It was stressed that the deficits were due to “the degree to which students with a migrant background are disadvantaged in terms of their socio-economic and educational background”. The question remains whether the discussion was sufficiently sensible to British findings of the 1960s and 1970s. In the United Kingdom, Hawkins’ concept of language awareness (1987) was put forward as a bridging element to remove three failures from the British school system: “illiteracy in English, failure to learn foreign languages, and divisive prejudices” (Hawkins 1999, 1). The situation was somewhat comparable to the conclusions of the PISA study. “Among children from manual labouring homes, 48% were poor readers at age 7, despite two years of infant schooling against only 8% of the children from the administrative class” (Hawkins 1999, 126). Of course, the British government took educational measures to enhance the lamentable situation. But, as Hawkins put it, the UK responses did not actually work, as far as only simple “monolingual” reading courses in English were given. The lack of success was mainly due to two errors: firstly, poor readers often do not understand the syntax of written

226

Franz-Joseph Meissner

English, and secondly, they do not have the majority’s cultural potential of inferring which is needed to grasp and interpret the information given by host cultural texts and host cultural assessment tests. It is worthwhile remembering that in the German primary school context, bilingual children with a Turkish background achieved better results in the receptive skills when the possibility of bilingual information processing was given (Rehbein 1987). It is a truism that concrete responses to learning demands must be in accordance with the findings of empirical research in the field of language specialized didactics. Indeed, immigrants do need acceptance and appreciation concerning their cultures and languages of origin, and native citizens must acquire intercultural competence. Bridging both positions is the objective of the early cultural and language awareness raising programmes. The Eveil aux langues-project is quite in this line (Candelier 2003). In an overall European context, these objectives have, at least to some extent, been integrated into the European Language Portfolio-concept which explicitly supports learner autonomy, plurilingualism and intercultural awareness and competence. Whereas in German primary school contexts, language and cultural awareness raising-concepts have largely been substituted by curricula-based and achievement-oriented programmes (mostly for learning English) (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means), pre-school and kindergarten education still leave more space for initiatives which directly target multicultural awareness and plurilingualism. There is statistical evidence that the drop out-rates of pupils who finish school without any diploma continues to be significantly higher among the immigrant population than among the native one. German figures affecting the 15–20 years age group add up to 15.4% in comparison to the 6.7% of the native sample (Klemm 2010, 15). It was said that the gap cannot exclusively be explained by insufficient proficiency in the host language. Although “The language spoken at home” is only one of six (alleged) deficit-causing components and its share between the effects of studentlevel factors on performance in mathematics is quite low (OECD 2004, 175), immigrant students’ school underachievement continues to be considered as derived from a low proficiency in the language of instruction. When the German minister Maria Böhmer (2013) emphasized the need for improving German language tuition as soon and as effectively as possible, she mentioned a component that is easier to control than the cultural behaviour-related variables of different social backgrounds. All in all, the situation is far from satisfying. With regard to the German school situation, Gogolin (1994) coined the expression “monolingual habitus”. In 2004, Hu stressed the necessity of developing a pedagogical approach responding to the learners’ “environmental plurilingualism” (lebensweltliche Mehrsprachigkeit). It goes without saying that didactical concepts concerning environmental plurilingualism must be far reaching: comprising kindergarten and school education, integration into the host society and adult transmigration or return migration as well. Thus, the instrumental and methodological needs related to the “didactics of environmental

Plurilingual Education

227

plurilingualism” go far beyond language education. Thürmann (42003, 168) deplored a paradoxical phenomenon: within the same discourse, immigrant languages were regarded as causing educational deficits, whereas the national languages and cultures of the EU were considered as a source of mental enrichment and as a precondition of European integration.

5 How Pupils Experience Class Room Language Learning and How They See Their Plurilingualism In spite of the increasing importance of fostering plurilingualism throughout Europe, the question remains whether European school systems sufficiently exploit the asset of multilingual environments for LLT and whether they respond to the pupils’ demand for more plurilingualism. This is one of the major findings of the international study Pour le multilinguisme: Exploiter à l’école la diversité des contexts européens (Androulakis et al. 2007). The inquiry deals with pupils’ attitudes toward languages, experiences with class room LLT, plurilingual and intercultural communication and ideas about their future language learning. The sample was drawn from pupils of about 10 and 15 years of age from Belgium, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and Poland. The study is neither representative for the countries nor for the NUTS (Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques) but for the urban and rural regions where data had been elicited. Among the main outcomes related to the age group of 15 years: (1) English gets the highest experience-based scores for “affectivity” (ibid., 258) as well as for “instrumentality” (ibid., 262); (2) pupils spend more time and invest greater efforts to learn English than to acquire other languages (ibid., 256); (3) auto-evaluation gives higher scores for English than for other idioms (ibid., 257); (4) external pressure to learn English is higher than that concerning other languages (ibid., 268); (5) the languages pupils would like to learn exceed by far those belonging to school curricula (ibid., 266); (6) the interest in language learning is largely motivated by the desire to communicate with native or international speakers (focus on listening comprehension and speaking) (ibid., 269s.). To what extent do these factors explain pupils’ motivation towards language learning? The way pupils experience LLT is a decisive factor in attitude formation in 7 of 9 zones: interest and self-efficiency are highly involved. The number of languages learned as well the number of hours of regular tuition amount to 13.3% of the variance concerning foreign language choice in Berlin, but only to 1.2% in the Polish NUTS of Grunwald. In 8 of 9 zones, gender is one of the variables explaining attitudes toward language learning (in favour of girls) (ibid., 279). But, perhaps, the most important finding is delivered by the comparison of some results with data gathered by the Deutsch-Englisch Studie International (DESI) (Assessment of Student Achievements in German and English as a Foreign Language) (Klieme/Beck 2007) (Meißner/Beckmann/Schröder-Sura 2008, 105). It affects what Düwell (2003,

228

Franz-Joseph Meissner

348) calls “motivational interference”. The term means that pupils usually compare their experiences provided by first, second or third foreign language learning. The comparisons are related to each idiom concerned, to experiences with learning itself and intercultural communication. The associations mainly affect personality variables like self-efficiency, practical use, psychic income, etc. Unfortunately, (not only?) with regard to the German context, there is some evidence to suggest that second or third foreign language teaching hardly takes notice of pupils’ motivational interference. As English generally is the first foreign language in European school curricula and as English offers a maximum of intercultural applicability, experiences with English deliver the main points of comparison. In most cases, these comparisons give poor results related to the second foreign language (after English). The issue of motivational interference seems crucial to learning and teaching foreign languages after English. As the “external pressure” of knowing English is higher than that of any other foreign language, teachers of a foreign language after English have to apply compensatory strategies. They must take into account that the individual experience of language learning goes beyond single school-languages. LLT should be considered as a whole and be linguistically (and “interlinguistically”) transparent to the learners (↗16 Language Learner). It must be clear that the overall objective is plurilingualism, and not English or German; etc. only for this, teachers of different languages should cease teaching their different target languages back-to-back.

6 EU Tools to Promote Plurilingualism: Language Learning Expertise Needs Insight into Language Acquisition Processing The aforementioned seven EU-guidelines are derived from five overall EU objectives of language education: fostering plurilingualism, linguistic diversity, mutual understanding, democratic citizenship and social cohesion (Beacco et al. 2010, 4). Their putting into practice covers a broad spectrum of concrete measures affecting in particular student and teacher formation, exchange programmes for young people, teaching methods and materials, curricular development, learning concepts like early foreign language education, content language integrated learning, competence orientation, intercomprehension or the integrated approach (or didactics) covering lifelong language learning. Looking back on the last decades, one can state that, apart from the fundamental developments in the field of technological supports for LLT, some of the most sustainable innovations are due to EU initiatives. Among the numerous outstanding projects, the minima-inventories and threshold level-projects of the 1970s should be mentioned (Niveau seuil 1976; Nivel Umbral 1979; Livello Soglia 1981; etc.) which replaced to some extent the more traditional basic word lists (Meißner 2006). The criteria governing

Plurilingual Education

229

data selection were determined by the “communicative needs” of European publics. Consequently, the inventories were focussed on pronunciation and intonation, grammar, words and subjects. In the 1990, the threshold project was updated (van Ek/Trim 1990, 107), including chapters like “learning to learn” or “compensation strategies”, etc. More recently, we find the Common European Framework for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001). In the proportion of their compatibility with the more general objectives of school education, the CEFR-criteria have been integrated in European school curricula and examination regulations. Another main objective of the CEFR is fostering plurilingualism. To exclude the risks of reductionist teaching, too much focussed on “teaching to the test”, further initiatives were established. They target less the scalable outcomes but the competence-producing language learning processes. One of the important initiatives concerns the European Language Portfolio (ELP), which was already mentioned in regard to young children’s language education. Needless to say, that the ELP is a tool to advance adults’ language learning monitoring, too. A main difficulty of putting the CEFR into the heterogeneous practices derives from the ambiguous term “competence”, which during the last 25 years has become an overall leading principle in school education. In the field of languages, competencies are closely connected to communicative skills. To facilitate the integration of competencies into LLT and to promote plurilingualism, a description of how competencies can be modelled and operationalized seemed conducive. With the Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FRePA) (Candelier et al. 2012), the EU tried to fill the gap. The FRePA targets multi-language consciousness and Eveil aux langues, intercomprehension and intercomprehensively based LLT, intercultural learning and the aforementioned “integrated didactics”. Whereas the CEFR is standard-setting for the evaluation of linguistic skills, the FRePA can be considered as a tool to assess language learning activities with regard to plurilingual, intercultural and language learning competence-building. That is why it can serve as an instrument of process auditing in the scope of school-development as well as a practical guidance for planning and assessing language lessons. Another innovation affects the intercomprehensive approach and integrated learning and teaching. Regarding the cited European guideline that “at least” two foreign languages should be learned by the greatest possible number or European citizens, intercomprehension has its role to play. In short, intercomprehension means “understanding a foreign language that has not been learned or acquired in its native context”. Intercomprehension is a natural phenomenon quite older than modern languages. It is based on (real or presumed) interlinguistic analogies: transparent forms, decipherable significations, identifiable functions. During the last decades, much research was done concerning intercomprehensibility, as to different target languages and to speakers of different languages (most recently Meißner et al. 2011). Some EU documents show a tendency to confine intercomprehension to idioms of a same linguistic family. The delimitation turns out

230

Franz-Joseph Meissner

to be problematic for the following reasons: (1) With regard to different European language families, intercomprehension is not given to the same extent: Between Catalan and Castilian intercomprehension is high, between Norwegian bokmål or nyorsk and German it is low, etc. (2) As interlinguistics shows, European languages share large parts of so-called “bases of transfer” which are in no way restricted to the lexicon, but concern semantic (progress, progrès, Fortschritt, прогре'сс) and functional representations (j’ai peur qu’il ne vienne/tengo miedo de que venga, for example), too. It is a matter of fact, that the European “koine” (Greek-Roman heritage, Christianity, renaissance, enlightenment, democracy, etc.) exceeds the borders that separate European language families from one another. Consequently, intercomprehension is neither restricted to linguistic families nor to native speakers of those languages which mostly provide bases of transfer: Using our mother tongues, we already meet different languages, as Wandruszka (1979, 39) highlights. Whereas intercomprehension education between languages of the Romance family can limit its guidance to what is different between a source and the target language(s), intercomprehension beyond language families must go further to organize interlingual identification transfers. That is why The Seven Sieves (McCann/Klein/ Stegmann 2002) filter the Romance languages material so that pan-romanic bases of transfer are listed. The term eurocomprehension, which appears in the subtitle of the French version …avec une introduction à la didactique de l’eurocompréhension (Meißner et al. 2004) signals that the EuroCom-project targets intercomprehension beyond language families. Recent studies with German learners and Dutch, English, French and Italian as target languages prove that already at the age of 10, secondary level pupils succeed in exploiting intercomprehension-based strategies (Morkötter 2014). This means that intercomprehension is teachable to young learners. The condition is that they are sensitive to linguistic patterns. It is needless to call to mind that in adults’ language learning expert learners regularly apply plurilingual and intercomprehension-grounded strategies (Martinez 2010). In secondary-school education, intercomprehension is a promising strategy to promote/acquire plurilingualism and language-learning competence. That is why language and learning awareness-oriented LLT needs to integrate intercomprehensive strategies into its methodological repertoire, namely for the following reasons: (1) The intercomprehensive event shows the learner’s interlanguage in the very moment of its formation. As interlanguage is idiosyncratic, individual and dynamic and as language acquisition is always based on interlanguage processing, intercomprehension-analysis is a powerful strategy for identifying the individual’s plurilingual and learning processing patterns. (2) As intercomprehension cannot take place without relevant previous knowledge being mobilized, learners experience self-efficiency with language acquisition and plurilingual learning.

Plurilingual Education

231

(3) As intercomprehension is based on intelligent guessing, i.e. comparing linguistic patterns belonging to a target language and/or the source language(s) which provide bases of transfer, consciousness-raising is highly concerned. It affects linguistic and individual language learning knowledge. In other words, intercomprehensive strategies link cognitive to meta-cognitive knowledge. (4) There is much evidence that intercomprehensive learning enhances the image of foreign languages and foreign language learning that pupils have in mind (Bär 2009, 528), which often is crucial for the first foreign language after English. (5) By intercomprehension, theoretical linguistic and learning-related knowledge can be transferred into practical knowledge and vice versa.

7 What the Teaching and Learning of Romance Languages Can Do to Provide Plurilingual Education: Toward a Syllabus All over the world, Romance languages enjoy high and enduring rates of demand. All in all, they count roughly 800 million native speakers, and the population continues to grow. The number of speakers who use a Romance language as a second or a foreign language cannot be estimated with precision. What does this mean in terms of plurilingualism promotion? What are the central points for future learning and teaching of Romance languages? – Of course, the following issues integrate into the aforementioned topics which characterize contemporary foreign LLT. (1) As Romance languages are mostly learned after English (and as all learners have a mother tongue), the teaching of English as well as that of Romance languages must create regular and broad synergy effects. The objective requires plurilingual awareness in the field of the mother tongues, English and Romance (or other) languages as well. (2) As (apart from those contexts where a Romance language is that of regular instruction and with the exception to English) it cannot be foreseen whether a child will really need the respective Romance language in its future life, the teaching of French or Spanish… should prepare and facilitate the learning of Italian or Portuguese…, and vice versa. The topic is also addressed in the next point. (3) The high degree of inter-romance transparency allows the first Romance foreign language to develop reading skills in various Romance languages: thus the first Romance language can function as a door-opener to other idioms of this linguistic family. (4) Because transferring is mobilized by linguistic and self-guidance-related knowledge, LLT must lead to an automatic pro- and retroactive plurilingual processing and monitoring. It should be recalled that intercomprehensive processing is a powerful strategy to create awareness of the risk of “false friends”.

232

Franz-Joseph Meissner

(5) The teaching of foreign languages must take into account the decisive role of motivational interference, especially in the field of second foreign language teaching after English. (6) Curricula of second foreign Romance languages should abandon the traditional concept of teaching all skills in parallel, which in reality, slows down competence building enormously and reduces the target language-related input. Instead, they should start with focussing on reading, and build productive skills upon much more reading intake in the target language. In addition, and on the basis of empirical research, methodological models should be developed to allow the rapid formation of an overall competence-profile starting from reading proficiency. (7) Last but not least: As Romance intercomprehension cannot work without a minimum threshold of related linguistic and didactical knowledge, studying one modern Romance language should be compulsory in non-Romance school-contexts. In terms of the CEFR, the overall competence level to be achieved is at least B1.

8 Bibliography5 Androulakis, Georges, et al. (2007), Pour le multilinguisme: Exploiter à l’école la diversité des contextes européens. Résultats d’une étude internationale, Liège, Éditions de l’Université de Liège, http://www.uni-giessen.de/rom-didaktik/Multilingualism/download/facette1%20inte gral.pdf. Bär, Marcus (2009), Förderung von Mehrsprachigkeit und Lernkompetenz. Fallstudien zu Interkomprehensionsunterricht mit Schülern der Klassen 8 bis 10, Tübingen, Narr. Bausch, Karl-Richard/Christ, Herbert/Krumm, Hans-Jürgen (edd.) (2003), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen/Basel, Francke. Beacco, Jean-Claude (2005), Languages and Language Repertoires: Plurilingualism as a way of life in Europe, Strasbourg, Council of Europe. Beacco, Jean-Claude/Byram, Michael (2007), From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe, Strasbourg, Council of Europe. Beacco, Jean-Claude, et al. (2010), Guide pour le développement et la mise en œuvre de curriculums pour une éducation plurilingue et interculturelle. Document préparé pour le Forum politique Le droit des apprenants à la qualité et l’équité en éducation – Le rôle des compétences linguistiques et interculturelles. Genève, Suisse, 2–4 novembre 2010. Bertrand, Yves/Christ, Herbert (coord.) (1990), Propositions pour un enseignement des langues élargi, Le français dans le monde 235, 44–49. Böhmer, Maria (2013), Immer mehr Migrantenkinder brauchen Sprachförderung, http://www.spiegel. de/politik/deutschland/boehmer-warnt-vor-deutsch-defizit-bei-migranten-kindern-a-899400. html.

5 All electronic addresses have been checked on 09/09/2013. As the web pages of official organizations like EuroStat/Eurydice, OECD, Council of Europe, etc. are regularly modified, readers are asked to google the documents under their titles.

Plurilingual Education

233

Candelier, Michel (2003), Evlang – l’éveil aux langues à l’école primaire. Bilan d’une innovation européenne, Bruxelles, De Boek/Duculot. Candelier, Michel, et al. (2012), FREPA - A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures – Competences and resources, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, in http:// carap.ecml.at/ Caritas Dossier (2012), Dossier Statistico Immigrazione. 22° rapporto, http://www.caritasitaliana.it/caritasitaliana/allegati/2908/Dossier_immigrazione2012_cs_ finale.pdf. Commission of the European Communities (2008), Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment (Com 2008 566 final). Council of Europe (1992), European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2006), Plurilingual Education in Europe – 50 years of international co-operation, Language Policy Division. Dubois, Jean, et al. (1973), Dictionnaire de linguistique, Paris, Larousse. Düwell, Henning (2003), Fremdsprachenlerner, in: Karl-Richard Bausch/Herbert Christ/ Hans-Jürgen Krumm (edd.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen/Basel, Francke, 347–352. ELAN = CILT (2006), ELAN: Auswirkungen mangelnder Fremdsprachenkenntnisse in den Unternehmen auf die europäische Wirtschaft. Erdoğan, Recep Tayyip (2010), Speech given in Cologne, Süddeutsche Zeitung (18.05.2010). European Council (2004), European Language Portfolio (internet publication). European Cultural Convention (19-12-1954), retrieved from Council of Europe: European Treaty Series 18, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/018.htm. Eurydice (2004), Integrating immigrant children into schools in Europe, Brussels, Eurostat. Eurydice (2009), Integrate Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe. Measures to foster: Communication with Migrant Families – Heritage language teaching for immigrant children, (April 2009), Brussels, Eurostat. Eurydice (2012), Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe, Brussels, Eurostat. Fara, Gian Maria (2000), BBC News (19, April 2000), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/719423.stm. Follow-up Committee (1996), Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, http://www.linguisticdeclaration.org/versions/angles.pdf. Galtung, Johan (1990), Cultural Violence, Journal of Peace Research 27, 291–305. Glück, Hans Helmut (2002), Deutsch als Fremdsprache in Europa vom Mittelalter bis zur Barockzeit, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter. Gogolin, Ingrid (1994), Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule, Münster, Waxmann. Hawkins, Eric W. (1999), Foreign Language Study and Language Awareness, Language Awareness 8 (3&4), 124–142. Hu, Adelheid (2004), Fremdsprachenunterricht und Migrationsgesellschaft. Perspektiven von Lehrer(inne)n und Schüler(inne)n vor dem Hintergrund didaktischer und kulturwissenschaftlicher Theoriebildung, Tübingen, Narr. INRA (2001), Les Européens et les langues. Eurobaromètre 53. Special, Language Policy Division. Klemm, Klaus (2010), Jugendliche ohne Hauptschulabschluss. Analysen – regionale Trends – Reformansätze. Im Auftrage der Bertelsmann-Stiftung, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann-Stiftung. Klieme, Eckhard/Beck, Bärbel (edd.) (2007), Sprachliche Kompetenzen. Konzepte und Messung, DESI-Studie, Weinheim, Belz. McCann, William F./Klein, Horst G./Stegmann, Tilbert D. (2002), EuroComRom. The Seven Sieves. How to read all the Romance languages right away, Aachen, Shaker.

234

Franz-Joseph Meissner

Martinez, Hélène (2010), Plurilingüismo, intercomprensión y autonomización: el papel de la tercera lengua en el desarollo de la autonomía, in: Peter Doyé/Franz-Joseph Meißner (edd.), Lernerautonomie durch Interkomprehension/Promoting Learner Autonomy Through Intercomprehension/L’autonomisation de l’apprenant par l’intercompréhension, Tübingen, Narr, 146–160. Meißner, Franz-Joseph (2006), Le Français Fondamental et les vocabulaires de base en Allemagne, französisch heute 37, 336–347. Meißner, Franz-Joseph (2012), À la recherche des origines d’une didactique du plurilinguisme, in: Bernard Colombat/Jean-Marie Fournier/Valérie Raby (coord.), Vers une histoire générale de la grammaire française. Matériaux et perspectives. Actes du colloque international de Paris (HTL/ SHEL 27–29/1/2011), Paris, Champion, 533–550. Meißner, Franz-Joseph (2013), Sprachen kennen und können zwischen individuellen, nationalen und europäischen Identitätsangeboten, in: Eva Burwitz-Melzer/Frank G. Königs/Claudia Riemer (edd.), Identität und Fremdsprachenlernen: Anmerkungen zu einer komplexen Beziehung. Arbeitspapiere der 33. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, Tübingen, Narr, 194–207. Meißner, Franz-Joseph/ Beckmann, Christine/Schröder-Sura, Anna (2008), Mehrsprachigkeit fördern. Vielfalt und Reichtum in der Schule nutzen (MES). Zwei deutsche Stichproben einer internationalen Studie in den Klassen 5 und 9 zu Sprachen und Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen, Narr. An updated electonic version is available under: http://www-uni-giessen.de/rom-didaktik/ Multilingualism. Meißner, Franz-Joseph, et al. (2004), EuroComRom. Les sept tamis. Lire les langues romanes dès le départ. Avec une introduction à la didactique de l’eurocompréhension, Aachen, Shaker. Meißner, Franz-Joseph, et al. (coord.) (2011), Learning, teaching, research. Apprentissage, enseignement, recherche. Lernen, Lehren, Forschung. Akten des Europäischen Netzwerks Interkomprehension (REDINTER) im Rahmen des 3. Bundeskongresses des Gesamtverbandes Moderne Fremdsprachen, Universität Augsburg, 16.-18.9.2010, Tübingen, Narr. Migliorini, Bruno (1978), Storia della lingua italiana, Firenze, Sansoni. Morkötter, Steffi (2014), Förderung von Sprachlernkompetenz zu Beginn der Sekundarstufe durch Interkomprehension, Tübingen, Narr. Nebrija, Antonio de (1989) [1492], Gramática de la lengua castellana, estudio y edición Antonio Quilis, Madrid, Centro de estudios Ramón Areces. Nettle, Daniel/Romaine, Suzanne (1998), Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press. OECD (2004), How Student Performance Varies between Schools and the Role that Socio-economic background play in this. Learning for Tomorrow’s World. Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. OECD (2006), Where immigrant students succeed. A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/38/36664934.pdf Peschel, Jens/Senger, Ulrike/Willige, Janka (2006), Fremdsprachenkenntnisse – Subjektive Einschätzung und objektiver Test, HISPUS online-panel. Kurzbericht Nr. 12, Hannover HIS, 1–63. Rehbein, Jochen (1987), Diskurs und Verstehen. Zur Rolle der Muttersprache bei der Textverarbeitung in der Zweitsprache, in: Ernst Apeltauer (ed.), Gesteuerter Zweitsprachenerwerb, München, Hueber, 113–171. Roche, Jörg (2009), Zur Problematik von Sprachstandserhebungen in der Migrationsforschung – illustriert am Beispiel der Integrationsstudie von H. Esser, Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 14/2, 3–12. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (1981), Bilingualism or not: The Education of Minorities, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

Plurilingual Education

235

Thürmann, Eike (42003), Herkunftssprachenunterricht, in: Karl-Richard Bausch/Herbert Christ/HansJürgen Krumm (edd.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen/Basel, Francke, 163–168. UNESCO (1992), Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (GA-Resolution 47/135). Van Ek, Jan A./Trim, John M. (1990), Threshold 1990, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Wandruszka, Mario (1979), Die Mehrsprachigkeit des Menschen, München, Piper. Werlen, Iwar/Rosenberger, Lukas/Baumgartner, Jachin (2011), Sprachkompetenzen der erwachsenen Bevölkerung in der Schweiz, Zürich, Seismo Verlag.

Krista Segermann

13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning Abstract: The article deals with directed language acquisition within the conditions of educational settings. After debating the relationship of teaching and learning as well as the so-called theory-practice-problem, the main issue of teaching methodology is attacked in a systematic way, first discussing the leading role of objectives in foreign language teaching/learning, then the definition of content or subject matter and finally the teaching activities and their impact on learning. The argument circles around theoretical views on language acquisition and their implications for selection and gradation in the syllabus design as well as in the didactic processing of the linguistic means in presentation/introduction and implementation/training. The overview examines essential possibilities to enhance the efficiency of foreign language teaching thus meeting the ever growing exigencies of society. Keywords: theory-practice-problem, objectives, content/subject matter, teaching activities, language learning theories

1 Introduction Although overlapping seems to be inevitable, there are several good reasons to discuss foreign language teaching in a separate article, apart from second language acquisition. First, foreign language teaching has its own underlying research domain which, in most of the European and Anglo-American countries, constitutes an autonomous, integrative and applied discipline (since the sixties resp. seventies of the nineteenth century) though under various terms.1 The subject of research is language acquisition directed by teaching, organized within the conditions of educational settings from childhood to adult. As such it covers multiple factors which relate to a variety of other disciplines like pedagogy, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities and cultural studies (↗1 Disciplines relating to Language Acquisition). It is the specific task of didactics of foreign language teaching/learning – and indeed a very challenging one – to build its own theory by taking into consideration the results of all these related disciplines without becoming dependent on them. The research objective is not merely to describe and analyse teaching, but to improve its outcomes by examining the basic assumptions of the actual teaching activities. Therefore the adopted research methodology is empirical-hermeneutical, but it is claimed to consist 1 For example in Germany: Fremdsprachendidaktik or Sprachlehr-/-lernforschung, in France: Didactique des langues étrangères, in Great Britain: Applied Linguistics, in the USA: Language Teaching Methodology or Theory of Second Language Teaching (cf. Larsen-Freeman 1990, 261–270; Larsen-Freeman/Long 1991).

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

237

not only of a quantitative-qualitative analysis and interpretation of observed data, but involves also creativity in developing new conceptions and testing them in contrasting studies.

2 The Relationship of Teaching and Learning As the title indicates, teaching and learning a foreign language are closely connected in the way that there is a continuous interaction between the two processes which can yet clearly be distinguished. Teaching is an intentional act of impact on someone else’s learning process by means of consciously chosen tasks and strategies which can be at least partly documented. The learning process however – as anyone can notice – takes place in the individual brain of the learner and is inaccessible as such, but can at most indirectly be judged by the results of testing (cf. Allwright 2000). It is this strong dependency which – in directed learning – does not allow giving a definite answer to the question how a foreign language is acquired. What a student learns in classroom instruction is highly dependent on the classroom activities. The teacher as initiator of the students’ learning activities can undoubtedly make them do things which affect their brains in some manner or another. The remaining question is whether these different processes have a positive effect on the declared objectives of learning. Possibly a student can learn something despite the teaching given, but the fact that classroom procedures might be more or less useful in achieving communicative competence, makes it necessary for the teacher to know what he/she is doing and why he/she is doing this and not something different. The discipline which accounts for the underlying assumptions must necessarily model foreign language learning as a process which can be influenced by teaching. Otherwise the two processes need not be correlated and teacher work as a whole would become rather irrelevant with regard to acquiring a foreign language.2

3 Theory and Practice Therefore, the field of didactics as the academic discipline meeting directly the needs of teaching is focused on the theoretical basis of teaching decisions, thus filling the often proclaimed gap between theory and practice (VanPatten/Benati 2010, 6; Lightbown 1985). The relationship between researchers and teachers is not viewed as unidirectional. Practitioners are not expected to apply the results of research findings

2 This statement seems to be necessary with regard to some questions and answers in the field of SLA, for example: “Does instruction make a difference?” (cf. VanPatten/Benati 2010, 47–57).

238

Krista Segermann

as such. Besides, the theoretical and empirical findings in the academic field are far too diverse and often contradictory to encourage application in the classroom. Instead, the two parties are viewed as partners of mutual dependency in such a way that theory must be practice-oriented and practice must be theory-oriented, i.e. willing to reflect and challenge the foundations of what’s going on in the classroom. These mutual obligations might solve the so-called theory-practice-problem (Segermann 2012, 9–15).

4 A Systematic Approach to Teaching Methodology It is the field of practice out of which the questions of research must be taken in order to find useful answers. Therefore the approach adopted in this article is neither historical (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching) nor organized around the so-called methods, but tries to proceed systematically around the fundamental decisions which have to be made before starting the teaching process. These decisions concern: 1. objectives, 2. content or subject matters, and 3. teaching activities. The first two decisions lie only partly in the responsibility of the teacher who is working with the objectives set by officially established boards of curriculum-builders and with a syllabus which is mostly fixed in manuals or textbooks. Only the third decision area is genuinely that of the teacher.

4.1 The Leading Role of Objectives What is to be taught and how it is to be taught depends highly or even exclusively on the purpose of teaching. Official teaching/learning objectives are the result of a socially reliable agreement on the needs, values and reflections of the community. Although objectives changed in history with varying circumstances, communicative competence has always played a role in the concert of goals (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). In today’s pedagogical settings (represented by the official curricula) there is a common consensus on oral and written communication as the predominant objective of foreign language teaching/learning. It is to the merit of the Council of Europe to have defined and filled this goal with the necessary substance in elaborating the so-called Threshold Level in the 1970s: “The Threshold Level was the first attempt to set out in systematic detail just what such an objective implies in terms of the situations the learners might have to deal with and what they should be able to do by means of language in these situations – what feelings and ideas they would need to express, or ask about, or argue about and in general conduct personal relations in daily life” (Van Eck/Trim 1991, 1).

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

239

With the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR), elaborated in the years 1995 to 1997,3 the Council of Europe continued its “revolutionary”4 work of establishing communicative competence as the central objective of language teaching by describing the linguistic skills: reading, listening, speaking, writing5 in six ascending levels of foreign language proficiency. The notion of communicative competence, however, comprises not only the linguistic means of expression, but also strategic competence, socio-cultural competence, as well as cognitive and affective development of the learner’s personality. In an educational environment these general pedagogical objectives are nowadays to be found in all official curricula and are considered as equally important as the communicative goals. They have an impact on the course in the way that they should be realized within the methodology of the language classroom (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means).

4.2 The Definition of Content or Subject Matter in Foreign Language Teaching/Learning In discussions of the objectives one easily intrudes on the field of content. This is due to the specific character of language teaching/learning which in fact has no “material” content to be taught. The content of communication (information, news, opinions, ideas, feelings, arguments exchanged) is surely not the subject matter of teaching (besides perhaps literary or cultural information). Linguistic competence being the goal, linguistic means could be the content. But then the greatest challenge lies in the definition of these “means”. Are they corresponding to the entries of lexicon and grammar, i.e. words and grammatical features? But if they are to be taught and learned as means of communication and not as “ends in themselves” (cf. note 4) they must be considered within their communicative surroundings, that is to say connected to topics, situations, roles, speech acts and having functional and pragmatic meaning in language use. So the nature of the language item which – in directed learning – is to be taken as the teaching and learning unit seems to present the crucial 3 On the website of the Council of Europe the aim is phrased as follows: “It was designed to provide a transparent, coherent and comprehensive basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses and curriculum guidelines, the design of teaching and learning materials, and the assessment of foreign language proficiency. It is used in Europe but also in other continents and is now available in 39 languages” (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp). 4 In the revised version of Threshold Level (1991) the responsible authors van Eck and Trim stated as “revolutionary for language teaching” the fact that “the apparatus of sentence formation, the grammar and lexicon, were not seen as ends in themselves, but as means to communicative ends” (Van Eck/ Trim 1991, 69). 5 There is a fifth skill, the so-called “mediating” between two partners who do not understand the language of one another.

240

Krista Segermann

point of decisions concerning the content of a syllabus and hence a language course.6 In discussing this point we will come upon different views of language and language acquisition which influence the choice of teaching/learning units.

4.2.1 The Teaching/Learning Unit of a Syllabus Since language as means of communication works only by connecting the right phonological or written forms to the right conceptual meanings in appropriate situations, every possible unit, regardless of its size or nature, must submit to these three dimensions. In analysing the possible units we have to bear in mind that their value should be measured along the scale of usefulness to achieve the overall objective of communicative competence.

4.2.1.1 Words and Grammatical Features The idea of basing the teaching/learning process upon words and grammatical features is as old as language teaching and is one of the least challenged principles in syllabus design. Words are (and have always been) the first items to come to mind when thinking of linguistic competence. For the purpose of understanding and translating foreign languages, they are (and have always been) collected in bilingual dictionaries so that the meaning could be conveyed through the word in the mother tongue. As the lexical meaning does not say anything about how the word works in a sentence the lexicon must be supplied by grammar. Grammar provides the forms for the grammatical categories of person, genus, number, casus, tempus, modus, aspect etc. In the Romance Languages, this means information about the endings (suffixes or morphological inflections) of nouns, adjectives, pronouns, determiners and verbs. In addition grammar provides syntactical information, i.e. word order, sentence types, negation, voices etc. The question now is how useful this information coming from different domains of linguistics (phonology, semantics, morphology, syntax) is for a non-native speaker/writer to accomplish a communicative purpose. There is very much to learn and – what is still more troublesome – there are many things, mostly concerning the idiomatic correctness of language, which cannot be found either in the lexicon or in grammar. Moreover the connection of all these forms with meaning is rather abstract and – at least for the learner – not quite obvious. Furthermore the processing of (spoken) language in realistic conversation seems impossible since there is by far not enough time to retrieve isolated words and simultaneously realize the inflectional and

6 This is the most important difference to undirected learning (by living in a foreign language speaking community) which needs no syllabus decisions and where the input cannot be calculated.

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

241

syntactic rules to put them together. Nevertheless the idea that “grammar and lexicon” are “the apparatus of sentence formation” (Van Eck/Trim 1991, 69) persists among most of the people concerned with practical language teaching/learning – curriculum builders, course designers and practitioners. It should be said that this view on language might be supported by a linguistic theory running back to the 1960s which still has an impact – though disputed – on current development in linguistics and language acquisition research, the “nativist” theories.7 They postulate the innateness of a specific language capacity in the human mind, thought of as a set of principles and parameters of a universal grammar (UG) which in the course of language acquisition are filled with the specific forms of the input heard in a specific language environment. But supposing learners of foreign languages could be expected to find help for sentence formation in their inherited language capacity8 there remains the problem that the forms of foreign languages can no longer be learned unconsciously (as is obviously the case with forms of the mother tongue), but only with great, conscious effort. The question is, then, whether there cannot be found larger linguistic units than words which reduce the cognitive load while giving access to the systematicity of language without explicit rule learning and which at the same time refer to meanings relevant for expressing communicative needs.

4.2.1.2 Enlarged Learning Units: Lexico-Grammatical Building Blocks The idea of enlarging the units to facilitate learning is a recognized psychological principle.9 Concerning language, there is hope of finding evidence for larger units in the light of recently emerging and prospering constructivism theories as part of “Cognitive Science”, where linguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, neurobiology, as well as researchers in second language acquisition, focus on “a functional-developmental, usage-based perspective on language” (Ellis 2003, 63). According to this view the linguistic system does not emerge from an innate language learning mechanism, but as a “lifetime analysis of the distributional characteristics”, the “regularities of association”, the “recurrent patterns” or the “sequential dependencies” of the language input (ibid., 63ss.). Thus “the acquisition of grammar is the piecemeal learning of many thousands of constructions and the frequency-biased abstraction of regularities within them.” (ibid., 67) This (more or less unconscious)

7 The various theoretical issues are associated with the name of Noam Chomsky (1968; 1995); cf. also Jackendoff (2003). 8 A strong argument against the nativist theory is that “innate linguistic representations are neurologically implausible” (Ellis 2003, 79). 9 Cf. the chunking idea to broaden the limits of the processing capacity (Miller 1956); Newell states: “A chunk is a unit of memory organization, formed by bringing together a set of already formed elements […] and welding them together into a larger unit […] Chunking appears to be a ubiquitous feature of human memory” (Newell 1990, 7).

242

Krista Segermann

noticing would result in units of different size and complexity, from “formulas” (i.e. fixed expressions) through “low-scope patterns” to (complicated) “constructions” which taken as a developmental sequence could explain syntactic acquisition observed in child language learning and L2 learning in a naturalistic environment (ibid., 68, 72). What are we to do then with these hypothesized units to make them profitable in instructed language learning? For teaching purposes there has to be found a formmeaning-use-unit which is both clearly describable and controllable. We will relate here a recent attempt (Segermann 2006) to create those units by relying on the functionality of language which lies in the formal expression of important aspects of human survival strategies. In making use of the well-known w-questions (Who/what does what with whom where when why in which circumstances?10) we come across elements of an utterance which constitute functional meaning. These constituents11 such as agent (subject), participant/receiver/patient (object), action (verb), circumstances (manner, place, time) of the action, consist rarely of single words, but mostly of word groups with morphological inflections or adverb phrases, prepositional phrases and clauses. In considering these word groups as a whole or a single chunk, we get a lexico-grammatical unit with functional meaning which could serve as the basic constructional element or “building block” (Segermann 2006) of a communicative utterance: Subject-Block (Paul, la maison, ses grands-parents, ce geste généreux, plusieurs photos), Direct Object-Block (de travail, du pain, faim), Indirect Object-Block (à mon copain, du piano, au foot), Verb-Block (rêvait, sont montés, n’a jamais vu, s’y occupaient) and Circumstance-Block (souvent, vite, en ville, avec beaucoup d’effort, en la regardant). Nouns in these building blocks can be specified by the Attribute-Block (au manteau noir, d’une beauté exceptionnelle), and the complement of the Verb-Block “to be” (or the like) is represented by the Predicate-Block (très beau, charmant, extrêmement choqué, un scandale, à l’aise). There must also be a Question-Block (qu’est-ce que, de quoi, où, à quel endroit) and a Connection-Block to combine sentences whether subordinate or main by means of conjunctions (et, mais, que, avant que, quoique). What remains of “grammatical” forms can be put into building blocks which are more or less didactically motivated. As in the Romance languages pronouns (their sometimes homophone forms and their changing places) are an intriguing learning problem,12 they could be bound together with the verb form in a PronounVerb-Block (French: je ne comprends pas, elle a beaucoup souffert, ce n’était plus, tu t’en souviendras, on me l’apporterait; Spanish: no entiendo, me lo traerán).13 The infinitive has to be taken as a separate Infinitive-Block because the variety of its functions would be too confusing to match with other building blocks (vivre, de le 10 11 12 13

Cf. the rhetoric dictum: Quis quid ubi quibus auxiliis cur quomodo quando. Cf. the constituents of the ‘phrase structure grammar’ or ‘constituency grammar’. In several Romance languages the subject-pronoun is altogether missing. The Pronoun-Verb-Block can consist of a whole utterance or be a part of it.

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

243

faire, avoir réalisé, être entrés, à y passer).14 There is one building block type left which has to take into account the fully idiomatic aspect of some utterances.15 If an utterance turns out to be a whole which cannot be analysed and substituted in its elements and which therefore is not “productive”, i.e. of no creative use, it could be presented as a single formulaic unit16 and hence be named Idiom-Block (Ça ne te regarde pas, Ne t’en fais pas, C’est-à-dire, Au revoir, Ça va).17 The examples show that all the puzzling tiny words such as articles, pronouns, prepositions as well as small adjectives or adverbs are bound into a larger unit so that they emerge in the right place and cannot get lost or confused. Thus the cognitive load is evidently minimized. To fulfil the claim of contextual communicative relevance, the lexico-grammatical building blocks are combined in sentence structures.18 The structure of a sentence, which carries the meaning of a complete utterance, reveals itself as a specific sequence of functional building blocks – maybe of different colours when the building blocks are thus marked. The possible number of such sentence structures is surely great, but not unlimited (cf. the attempt of Le Goffic/Combe McBride 1975 to list those structures, but in a thoroughly formal and abstract manner). The coloured string not only captures the propositional meaning of the utterance, but also reveals aspects of highlighting, focussing, salience and perspective taking which reflect the perception and categorization of the world’s phenomena by the speaker. In realizing the semantic and pragmatic meaning of the whole utterance the morphological inflections and syntactic regularities of the building blocks can be brought to life by representing not so much formal grammatical categories, but important aspects of world experience, such as whether there is a face to face conversation or an exchange about third persons (PERSON), whether one has to deal with one person or several (NUMBER), with male or female (GENUS), whether the action, state or development is taking place in the present, the past or the future (TEMPUS). When conscious of the vitally significant differences between affirmative and negative statements, questions, commands and exclamations (SENTENCE FORM) as well as what will be highlighted (VOICES), the various forms of sentence structure will become interesting while communicatively important. Examples for structure types (coloured strings of building blocks), modelled on the Lexico-Grammar of French (Segermann 2014):

14 The building blocks especially match the Romance languages. For Germanic languages like English or German different didactic criteria certainly have to be found. 15 This “strong” form of idiomaticity is to distinguish from the fact that in some respect all language is idiomatic as long as it corresponds to the current usage constraints which can only imperfectly be covered by lexical or grammatical information (cf. Wray 2002; 2008; 2012). 16 There exists a vast literature about formulaic speech, cf. bibliography in Wray (2012). 17 This building block also includes proverbs, metaphoric expressions and the like. 18 Unhappily the structure-term is quite ambiguous since it is sometimes also relayed to the grammatical features.

244

Krista Segermann

Figure 1: Examples for structure types, www.Lexiko-Grammatik-Französisch.de

The examples show that within most of the building blocks there are several possibilities for filling the “slots” with different lexemes which belong to a semantic group sharing a more or less abstract meaning which corresponds to specific syntactic constraints.19 It is this mutual dependency of syntactic and lexical “meaning”, the crossing of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in the lexico-grammatical functional building blocks and the sentence structures which reveal the underlying regularities of the language by the cognitive processes of analogizing, analysing20 and generalizing and thus allows for productivity and creativity. For neither the building

19 Categorical meanings of verb groups such as ‘transferring s.th. to so.’ (Je leur ai donné/ acheté/ apporté/ envoyé/ offert/ prêté/ vendu – tout), ‘communicating s.th. to s.o.’ (Je le leur ai dit/ appris/ écrit/ expliqué/ répété/ demandé/ annoncé/ avoué/ confié/ démontré/ prouvé/ rappelé – sans délai), ‘having an impact on s.o.’ (Tu les as incités/ invités/ amenés/ décidés/ obligés/ forcés/ aidés/ provoqués/ autorisés/ encouragés/ condamnés/ habitués à faire …) etc. have a constraining effect on the choice of the grammatical complements, or as Ellis puts it: “[…] syntactic patterns are controlled by lexical items” which “provide cues to functional interpretations for sentence comprehension and production” (Ellis 2003, 83). 20 Analysing the internal components of the building blocks is essential to the teaching/learning process in order to enable the creative use of the building blocks. After the analysis they might be stored as a whole in the mind of the learner so to reduce the cognitive load. This procedure distinguishes teaching from natural processing where – according to Wray’s principle of the so-called “Needs Only Analysis” – analysis of multi-word wholes is restricted to items which cover different

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

245

blocks nor the structures are to be seen as mere idiosyncratic form-meaning-useassociations, but also as abstract patterns and types or schemas which can serve as a model for similarly constructed expressions.21

4.2.2 Selection and Gradation in a Syllabus After having examined the two main conceptions of the possible teaching/learning units underlying a syllabus the next decisions to be discussed concern selection and gradation,22 which means answering two questions: 1. What should be selected out of language as a whole? and 2. In which order should it be presented? The following distinctions are to be seen on a three-dimensional scale of form, function and content where each of the three dimensions of language is actually highlighted.

4.2.2.1 Form-Based Decisions: Grammatical Features Up to date most of the foreign language courses are built on words and grammatical features as pivot of decisions – as the leading textbooks clearly reveal. Consequently the most important teaching/learning instruments are the grammar book and vocabulary inventories. As grammar must be illustrated by examples and words be put into sentences, there are texts composed around them which try to match the grammatical forms with communicative functions, situations or speech acts and which at the same time can serve as basis of content understanding and of knowledge about the people23 and the culture of the target language. The various functions attributed to the texts in these manuals (with introducing grammatical and lexical forms in the head) are perhaps responsible for a certain “artificiality” which – by lack of motivation – can rather inhibit the promotion of comprehension as a language skill (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). The grammatical features are sequenced in an

meanings (cf. Wray 2008). Whether the building blocks can match up to Wray’s units of formulaic language is yet to be seen. 21 The didactic conception of building blocks as teaching/learning units of a syllabus might be supported by constructivist linguists like Langacker (1999) for whom “rules […] are templatic schemas” (ibid., 144) and who describes language as “a structured inventory of conventional linguistic units […] which are either directly manifested as parts of actual expressions, or else emerge by the processes of abstraction (schematization) and categorization” (ibid., 98). 22 The notions of selection and gradation are – besides presentation (to convey form and meaning) and repetition (to make the use of the language unconscious) – the leading pivots of Mackey’s Language Teaching Analysis of 1965, a first approach to a systematic description of foreign language teaching/learning. 23 The fictive personages of the school book reflect the concerns and problems of children or adolescents in everyday life so as to enable some identification with them despite the different cultural background.

246

Krista Segermann

order which roughly follows the pedagogical principle of linguistic complexity (i.e. from the easier to the more difficult)24 and which is mainly justified by tradition. This grammatical progression is then (and has always been) the main guideline for the teaching/learning process and the guarantee of a controllable development of the language course. The sequencing of grammatical features (as demonstrated in the text books) might possibly be challenged by recent research on language acquisition in L1 and L2. There seems to be a more or less fixed, predictable and universal order in which the linguistic means are acquired. The empirical findings come out of the observation and analysis of data from child language, but also from second language acquisition in a naturalistic environment (Meisel 2011; Pienemann 2005). The details are not to be discussed here (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). The question to deal with is whether the observed acquisition orders should have an impact on the syllabus decisions of foreign language teaching. There are several reasons why the answer must be negative. Certainly selection and gradation of the input to be taught must match the mechanisms of mental processing, but this is not a convincing argument for glossing over the crucial differences in the contexts of acquisition, namely the time factor and the mental state factor. In directed acquisition there is – in contrast to L1 and L2 acquisition25 – only a minimum of time available for the learner to internalize the systematicity of the foreign language. Given the relatively small amount of input, transferring the natural developmental sequences of acquisition into instructed learning would sentence the teaching to even poorer results. Concerning the mental state factor, the schooled learners of a second language have already achieved a more or less sophisticated cognitive competence including grammatical features, abstraction, hierarchical categorization, conceptualization, inferring from knowledge of the world etc. on which instruction can rely and which would liberate the students from the constraints of any natural orders whatsoever in the acquisition of the grammatical features.

4.2.2.2 Function-Based Decisions: Speech Acts A syllabus can also be built upon speech acts (Austin 1962; Searle 1969) or language functions,26 i.e. “what people do by means of language” (Van Eck/Trim 1991, 27) to achieve communicative purposes. The elaboration of a so-called functional/notional

24 The progression goes from singular to plural forms, from present to past to future tenses, from article to pronominal determiners, from main clauses to subordinate clauses etc. The idea seems to be that each new form feature needs the preceding ones as basis for the building of the whole system. 25 The naturalistic input in both L1 and L2 coming randomly out of daily life situations can hardly be imitated in the classroom which above all lacks the vital motivating need to communicate. 26 The term “function” is here used as synonym for speech act and not in the meaning of sentence constituents.

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

247

syllabus (Wilkins 1976) matches perfectly with the shifting of the emphasis to communicative competence: “Instead of starting from language forms and their meanings, it starts from a systematic classification of communicative functions and of notions, divided into general and specific, and secondarily deals with forms, lexical and grammatical, as their exponents” (Council of Europe 2001, 116).

It cannot be denied that the organization of meaning is a very demanding logical challenge. A look into the (original) English version of “Threshold Level” specifying the language functions in six broad categories (here with sub-categories of the second category) reveals the puzzlingly abstract character of the classification: “1. imparting and seeking factual information; 2. expressing and finding out attitudes (factual: agreement, etc. – factual: knowledge, etc. – factual: modality – volitional – emotional – moral); 3. getting things done (suasion); 4. socializing; 5. structuring discourse; 6. communication repair” (Van Eck/Trim 1991, 27).

The French version in the Niveau-Seuil (Coste et al. 1976) is even more sophisticated, confronting the reader with a jungle of multiple sub-categories of Actes de parole which need more than 140 pages. Although a comprehensible formulation of the speech acts is rather thorny the problem does not lie there. A logical classification be it as exhaustive as possible does not necessarily justify gradation by language functions. Even to sort out the most salient speech acts as, for instance, “requesting information”, “asking for help”, “apologizing”, “expressing gratitude” etc. would not be sufficiently motivating to grade a course. The third problem which becomes evident when compared to a formbased syllabus is the lack of systematization of the linguistic forms. The simple fact that the functions as well as the general notions such as time, space, quantity, quality etc. can be expressed in different, more or less elaborated ways seems to lead to a formal mess which makes it impossible for the learner to assimilate the linguistic system. All three problems contributed to the failure of the few manuals (most of them established outside the normal classroom) which tried to follow the functional syllabus.

4.2.2.3 Content-Based Decisions: Topics While it is true that content cannot reasonably be put into a logical or systematic order there is on the other hand general agreement that content is a strong motivational factor if it matches the learner’s interests. The reason why content-based curricula have so far played a rather insignificant role in foreign language teaching,27 especially in institutional settings, lies in the apparent lack of control over the progression of the

27 The so-called bi-lingual courses in which certain subject matters are given in the foreign language do not really follow a content-based syllabus because they presuppose basic language competence which is normally achieved in the traditional manner.

248

Krista Segermann

linguistic means.28 But suppose there exists – as is supported by constructivist views of language learning (cf. 4.2.1.2) – another possibility to assimilate the lexical and grammatical system, a content-based course conception might come into view. Due to the double faceted character of the above introduced lexico-grammatical building blocks as units of teaching/learning, we have got an instrument which meets both the requirements of functional meaning and of formal construction in a wellorganized system. In combining the building blocks in sentence structures the inherent linguistic means (grammar and lexicon) are introduced according to the communicative demands of the learners. The contingency of the appearance of the various forms does not at all cause a problem because schooled students are already acquainted with the existence of grammatical features, nor does the varying linguistic complexity as such provided that the learners want to express themselves in a way which corresponds to their cognitive development in thinking.29 The chosen expressions to be learned have however to be confirmed by frequency results of corpus analysis – a claim which yet has to be met by the Romance languages.30 Thus not only a content-based, but also a “learner-generated” syllabus becomes possible in which the students decide about the sequence of topics they want to treat, hence about “what it is they want to be able to say in the target language” (LarsenFreeman 1987, 6).31 The grading of the course based on topics or domains chosen by the learners are classified into themes, sub-themes and more restricted contextual meaning concepts, differentiated according to speech situations. Syllabus building must furthermore contain models of the potential dialogues the learners (↗16 Language Learner) will engage in – as a guideline for the teacher (↗15 Language Teacher), but with no imposing character.

28 There are some so-called alternative or non-conventional methods which rely on content wanted by the learners, i.e. the “Community Language Learning”, the “Linguistic Psychodramatising” and the “Relational Approach” (Dufeu 1996). Dufeu himself admits that progress in acquiring the linguistic means is doubtful (ibid., 175). 29 The level of linguistic complexity will vary more according to the intellectual capacity and the age of the learners than according to the course progressing. That’s also the reason why the constructivist view of a developmental sequence from “formulae through low-scope patterns to constructions” (Ellis 2003, 63ss.) observed in natural language acquisition (cf. above, 4.2.1.2) does not apply to directed acquisition. It is a characteristic feature of teaching not to wait for what the learners can do by themselves (as happens necessarily in a naturalistic environment), but to help above all those who are less brilliant in noticing the regularities of the language and therefore tend to restrict their utterances to easily memorized formulae and patterns and shrink back from more complicated constructions as long as they are unable to analyse them. 30 A parallel to the COBUILD project of 1990/1995 (Moon 2009) is still missing. 31 Larsen-Freeman (1987, 6) uses the expression “learner-generated” in relation to “Community Language Learning”.

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

249

4.3 Teaching Activities and Their Impact on Learning Teaching activities are generally associated with methods. They have been changing in the course of history, depending on the objectives as well as on the syllabus building including manuals (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). The third influential factor is foreign language learning theory which – for the individual teacher – mostly corresponds more to his/her own subjective thoughts than to any elaborated theories of the research fields concerned. According to the systematic approach of this chapter we will not discuss the various methods here, but stick to the fundamental decisions to be taken in the teaching process. Teaching activities can be divided into two main sections corresponding to the processing of the linguistic means of the foreign language. The teaching/learning units have first to be presented or introduced to the students and then they have to be implemented and repeatedly used (cf. Mackey 1965, note 22).

4.3.1 Presentation/Introduction Without generalizing too much it can be said that to-date the majority of classroom teaching in the first – let’s say – four years introduces new language items by relying on texts in manuals. The teacher makes sure that the texts and their new words and grammatical features are understood so as to enable the learners to answer textrelated questions, thus furthering both comprehension and production (↗15 Language Teacher). There exist various methodological possibilities to explain the meaning of words (by equivalents in L1 or other foreign languages,32 by defining or circumscribing, by situation and context, by antonyms, hyponyms and word grouping, derivation etc.) and the formation and functioning of grammatical features (inductive, deductive, contrastive etc.). These activities rely necessarily on the leading role of the teacher and require careful and skilful preparing. In adopting the idea that lexicon and grammar might also be introduced by lexico-grammatical units which are not subject to any sequential constraints, teaching activities could become much more learner-centred. For example students – after having chosen a specific topic – would decide on the sequence of questions and answers. When the dialogue is put into language (in oral and written form) students make use of the former patterns of building blocks and types of sentence structures. Only the new elements or patterns which cannot be transferred from what they have already learned are given and explained by the teacher who acts as a flexible, but controlling adviser having in mind a model of the potential dialogue (cf. above,

32 The problem of interferences from one lexical system to the other represents an additional and well-known learning handicap.

250

Krista Segermann

4.2.2.3). This strategy is doubtless much more challenging (concerning analytical thinking and memorizing), but enhances at the same time the readiness of the students to learn the appropriate foreign language forms – no matter which grammar they contain – in associating them with their actual communicative needs. The introductory role of the text is reversed in so far as it is produced by the students themselves instead of being understood.33 The students’ texts of – let’s say – the first two years constitute the documented progress of the course thus replacing the manual-based texts which – liberated from the constraints of grammatical progression – can now fully accomplish the function of developing the competence of written and oral comprehension (cf. below, 4.3.2) (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means).

4.3.2 Implementation and Training The newly introduced linguistic means must be integrated in the already existing stock in order to be spontaneously at the disposal of the learners to fulfil their communicative purposes. The conditions of classroom teaching with a restricted timetable require carefully chosen activities which efficiently serve the intended goal. Most manual writers as well as teachers agree on the idea that there has to be separate training for vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation/orthography and communication. The latter relies on the transfer of knowledge acquired through the practice of the previous, progressing from declarative to procedural knowledge (Anderson 1983; Wolff 1990). Thus vocabulary learning34 and grammar-rule learning35 precedes exercises which – within a communicative context – focus on words and grammatical features. The learner is made to replace, complete, enlarge, combine, match or translate given elements in written texts to train the application of his/her lexical and grammatical competence. Pronunciation and orthography are trained by repeating (words, word groups, sentences), reading aloud and dictation writing (mostly of texts). It is, however, often regretted that these necessarily form-oriented teaching measures do not leave much time for content- and learner-oriented communication training. Yet there is an increasing multitude of possibilities of how to engage students in communicative activities where they can take an active role in deciding on what to

33 The question whether input/intake and/or output are indispensable to install the linguistic system of the target language is discussed controversially in SLA theories (cf. VanPatten/Benati 2010, 36–41). In instructed learning, however, this question seems somehow irrelevant since both directions of communication are components of the aimed language competence. 34 In spite of various other techniques (mind-mapping, networking, derivation, defining, circumscribing, finding a context etc.) the predominant strategy for vocabulary learning is still the association with the equivalent in L1, sometimes also in English as the most known foreign language. 35 The meta-linguistic rule formulation is assisted by signalizing and exemplifying procedures.

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

251

say/write, following their own rhythm and learning style (for instance those content-, action- and task-driven teaching procedures such as role playing, simulation, acting out, translating/interpreting, station-learning, project-work etc.). Here the problem still remains how to fill the gap between guided and more or less free communicative actions, that is to say how to make students apply their formerly acquired linguistic knowledge appropriately and effectively, especially in oral production. Hardly much more time is left for training the receptive competences in listening and reading. In the first years mostly graded texts are used, which on the whole match the production capacity of the learners. The understanding is assured by explaining the unknown words and by translating into the mother tongue. Again, proceeding to authentic texts in following courses often rouses the problem of insufficient preparation, especially for listening comprehension. Let us now have a look on what might change in the teaching and learning process when relying on building blocks instead of words and grammatical features. There would on the whole be a significant shift from teacher-bound to learneroriented activities. By acquiring lexico-grammatical building blocks combined in sentence structures in oral and written form, all separate form-oriented exercises could be left out and time would be gained for training the productive and receptive communicative competences from the very beginning. Speaking and writing in the foreign language becomes possible because the mind of the learner is filled with lexico-grammatical units which are neurologically (Lamb 1999) connected to conceptual and functional meaning thus permitting their adequate use in idiomatically correct sentences respecting the contextual and grammatical constraints (cf. 4.2.1.2). In firstly repeating and varying the introductory dialogues and then gradually composing more ambitious texts about various themes of interest the learning units are continually activated, retrieved and repeated growing to a reliable stock of linguistic means. Substituting the separately stored mental lexicon (Kersten 2010) and the system of grammatical features, the lexico-grammatical building blocks constitute a new organization of language in the mind of the learner. By analysing the functional building blocks as constituting strings of specific sentence structures, thus noticing formal analogies and the schematic character of them, students gain insight into the lexical and grammatical system of the foreign language. As a result they can work creatively36 even with a minimum of means which are continually enlarged.37

36 Needless to say that creative students commit errors which are surely to be corrected by the teacher in an encouraging, not a reproachful way. But on the basis of their amount of stored multi-word-units their interlanguage (Selinker 1992) will on the whole be fairly correct. 37 Instead of using lexicon and grammar to help with constructing there is now an electronic lexicogrammar for French (ELG) available (www.Lexiko-Grammatik-Französisch.de) which offers only idiomatically correct sentences to go with the demanded content.

252

Krista Segermann

To accelerate the retrieving of elements, especially for oral production, a certain number of frequently occurring sentence structures (with complex internal construction) might be offered in addition, to go through a process of quasi automatization. These exercises may remind one of the former habit formation (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching; referring to the Audio-lingual method), but this time they are consciously connected with self-chosen meaning in minimal-dialogues.38 Another suggestion shall be made here concerning tables of phoneme-graphemecorrespondences in the foreign language in contrast to the mother tongue. They could be the basis for special systematic exercises instead of separated training in pronunciation and spelling.39 Finally the receptive competences in listening and reading could also benefit from the use of lexico-grammatical building blocks. By analysing the text in order to reveal the functional building blocks and by shifting the focus from the unknown (vocabulary) to the known or guessed meaning of sentences and paragraphs the range of comprehensibility could be considerably enlarged. Authentic texts lying significantly above the production level of the learners could be used much earlier and the sophisticated strategies proposed by recent research on language reception (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means) like analysing, inferring, schema-realizing, relying on the knowledge of the world etc. could be applied much more efficiently, provided the oral and written texts offer substantial contents interesting enough to be decoded willingly.40 Thus motivation to develop the receptive competences will to a larger extent be related to students’ self-activation and responsibility while the teacher is acting more and more as a supervisor. These challenges of changing roles have to be met in teacher education since it is the teacher and his/her subjective theory of teaching and learning who finally accounts for the success in foreign language learning. To cope with testing this success there is nothing more promising than to practice in class what will be tested in examination. By matching the assessment procedures with the relaxed and constant training of speaking, writing, listening and reading activities the psychological strains on the students can certainly be reduced.

38 The initial utterance or the reactive utterance contains the same structure which is repeated with different lexemes, like Je ne lui ai pas encore parlé/écrit/répondu; Ils se sont souvent plaints/ souciés/ méfiés/ étonnés/ moqués – de toi/ de lui/ d’elle; Il ne faut pas – tout – leur refuser/ interdire/ défendre/ permettre. 39 Such a table is already available for the French phoneme-grapheme-correspondences in contrast to German, cf. Homepage of the author (www.romanistik.uni-jena.de) where a description and evaluation of language classes working with lexico-grammatical building blocks are documented. 40 These comprehension texts have to bring all the literary knowledge and cultural information about the people and the country of the target language which are necessarily lacking in the texts produced by the students themselves.

Foreign Language Teaching and Learning

253

5 Bibliography Allwright, Dick (12000, 22012), Classroom research, in: Michael Byram (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, London, Routledge, 115–118. Anderson, John R. (1983), The Architecture of Cognition, Mahwah, NJ, Psychology Press. Austin, John L. (11962, 21975), How to do Things with Words, Oxford, Clarendon. Chomsky, Noam (1968), Language and Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam (11995, 21996), The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Coste, Daniel, et al. (1976), Systèmes d’apprentissage des langues vivantes par les adultes. Un Niveau Seuil, Strasbourg, Conseil de l’Europe. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dufeu, Bernard (1996), Les approches non conventionelles des langues étrangères, Paris, Hachette. Ellis, Nick C. (2003), Constructions, Chunking and Connectionism: The Emergence of Second Language Structure, in: Catherine Doughty/Michel H. Long (edd.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Blackwell, 63–103. Jackendoff, Ray (2003), Foundations of language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Kersten, Saskia (2010), The Mental Lexicon and Vocabulary Learning, Tübingen, Narr. Lamb, Sidney M. (1999), Pathways of the Brain: The neurocognitive basis of language, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Langacker, Ronald W. (1999), Grammar und Conceptualization, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, Diane (1987), From unity to diversity: Twenty-five years of Language-teaching methodology, English Teaching Forum, 1–6. Larsen-Freeman, Diane (1990), On the need of a theory of language teaching, in: Richard Lutz (ed.), Classroom shock: the role of expectations in an instructional setting, Washington/DC, Georgetown University Press, 261–270. Larsen-Freeman, Diane/Long, Michael H. (1991), An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research, Amsterdam, Addison-Wesley Longman. Le Goffic, Pierre/Combe McBride, Nicole (1975), Les constructions fondamentales du français, Paris, Hachette & Larousse. Lightbown, Patsy (1985), Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching, Applied Linguistics 6, 173–189. Mackey, William F. (1965), Language Teaching Analysis, London, Longman. Meisel, Jürgen (2011), First and Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Miller, George A. (1956), The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review 63, 81–97. Ministère de L’Éducation Nationale (11958, 41972), Le Français fondamental (1er degré), Paris, Institut National de Recherche et de Documentation Pédagogiques. Moon, Rosamund (2009), Words, grammar, text: revisiting the work of John Sinclair, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Newell, Allen (1990), Unified Theories of Cognition, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. Pienemann, Manfred (2005), An Introduction to processability theory, in: Manfred Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1–60. Searle, John R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, London, Cambridge University Press. Segermann, Krista (2006), Ein fremdsprachenunterrichtliches Reformkonzept auf lexiko-grammatischer Grundlage, in: Dirk Siepmann (ed.), Wortschatz und Fremdsprachenlernen, Landau, Verlag Empirische Pädagogik, 97–143.

254

Krista Segermann

Segermann, Krista (2012), Fremdsprachendidaktik alternativ – Ein Dialog zwischen Theorie und Praxis, Landau, Verlag Empirische Pädagogik. Segermann, Krista (2014), Lexiko-Grammatik des Französischen, www.Lexiko-Grammatik-Französisch.de (12.02.2014). Selinker, Larry (1992), Rediscovering interlanguage, Harlow, Longman. Van Eck, Jan A./Trim, John L. M. (1991), Threshold Level, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. VanPatten, Bill/Benati, Alessandro G. (2010), Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition, London/ New York, Continuum International Publishing Group. Wilkins, David A. (1976), Notional Syllabus, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wolff, Dieter (1990), Zur Bedeutung des prozeduralen Wissens bei Verstehens- und Lernprozessen im schulischen Fremdsprachenunterricht, Die Neueren Sprachen 89/6, 610–625. Wray, Alison (2002), Formulaic language and the lexicon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Wray, Alison (2008), Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wray, Alison (2012), Formulaic language, in: Peter Robinson (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition, London, Routledge, 252–256.

Marcus Reinfried

14 European History of Romance Language Teaching Abstract: The article focuses on the three main Romance languages, French, Italian and Spanish. From the 17th century and right up to the beginning of the 20th century, French was the most widespread foreign language in Europe; particularly among the higher social classes, it had gained the status of a modern lingua franca for a certain period of time. Even Italian and Spanish were seen as important foreign languages from the Early Modern Period onwards. In many European countries, they were being learnt without interruption despite the fact that they were preferred by specific groups of learners such as art lovers or overseas merchants and that the number of the learners could vary considerably depending on the particular century. All three foreign languages were very often taught by freelance language tutors up to the 19th century. The basic features of the two main approaches for teaching languages to beginners, the grammatical deductive and the text-based imitative methodology, could be observed even in the 17th century. These approaches remained to be the main directions for a considerable period of time, even though they were constantly being refined in their characteristics. Keywords: foreign language learning needs (in the past), history of language teaching, media of language instruction (in the past), native and non-native teachers, teaching methods

1 How French, Italian and Spanish Developed to Become Established as European Foreign Languages During the Late Middle Ages and in the Early Modern Period, the Romance languages were gradually growing further and further apart from one another; this trend was also reflected in their increasing divergence from Latin. At the beginning of that time, the teaching of Romance languages was confined to two bilingual European regions (England and Flanders) and to a few commercial cities in Italy and Germany. It was at the end of 13th century that the first French grammars appeared in England and, in the 15th century, the first French collection of dialogues (cf. Stengel/Niederehe 21976, 19, 167ss.). In 1477, Adam of Rottweil’s Venetian-Bavarian dictionary entitled Introito e Porta was printed in Venice. This was the first practical course book for Germans wanting to learn Italian (or even for Italians learning German). The dictionary, which contained bilingual dialogues, was translated into eight other languages during the

256

Marcus Reinfried

next one and a half centuries and reached 90 editions (Pellandra 2007, 31s.). Antonio de Nebrija’s famous Gramática de la lengua castellana, which appeared in 1492, is notable not only for becoming a reference work for the correct usage in Spanish applicable to large parts of the Iberian Peninsula but also for its simplified version of the grammatical rules in the 5th book, which became the first Spanish course designed for learning foreign languages (Sánchez Pérez 1992, 7s.; Suso López 2009, 38). Apart from Nebrija’s grammar, which was the product of a humanist professor, who chose to serve the cause of propagating the Castilian language, the teaching of modern languages, at least during its initial phase, received a considerable boost from the countries outside the Romance language areas and, in particular, from northern Europe. The people interested in learning Romance languages were often nobles, overseas merchants and sometimes even scholars whose first language belonged to the Germanic language area or occasionally to the Slavonic family of languages. If they lacked any basic foundation in their target language and were thus incapable of making themselves understood at even the most rudimentary level via Romance intercomprehension (↗12 Plurilingual Education), these different groups of people would follow a language course in preparation either for making international contacts or for undertaking a cultural tour abroad. It was, however, only during the course of the 17th to the 19th centuries that modern foreign language instruction became established on a larger scale – though dependent on the respective European country or region – as there are differences, for example, between north and south, and between central Europe and the more peripheral European territories (which, however, have still not been quantitatively researched to a greater degree of exactitude). French (↗20 French), even up to the 20th century, was the most widespread foreign language in Europe (cf. Schröder 1980, XIII). Based on the number of grammars printed in different places, French tuition must have been taking place in a variety of German towns and cities as early as the first half of the 17th century (cf. Stengel/Niederehe 21976, 1ss.). In Italy, the intensified teaching of French began in the second half of the 17th century (cf. Minerva/Pellandra 1997, 1ss.), in Spain, in the last third of the 18th century (cf. Suárez Gómez 2008, 141ss.; Caravolas 2000, 197), and in Bulgaria, probably only from the 19th century onwards. Alongside French, Italian was also a widespread foreign language in large parts of Europe, but quantitatively to a much lesser degree; however, more than was the case with French, Italian (↗21 Italian) was the language of a cultural elite interested in the Fine Arts, music and literature. In comparison to French and Italian, which were being learned without interruption from the Early Modern Period right up to the 19th century and which were relatively evenly distributed throughout Europe, interest in Spanish showed a much wider fluctuation, which was dependent on the region and on the century. In this early stage of European foreign language teaching (which lasted in Prussia almost to the end of the 18th century, whereas in some other European countries it continued right into the second half of the following century), all three languages were generally taught outside the set curriculum of secondary

European History of Romance Language Teaching

257

and higher education. Usually, modern language instruction (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) was an optional subject carried out within an ancillary school or university facility or even on the basis of group or individual private tuition. A very large number of language tutors who, or whose parents, had left France either from the middle of the 16th to the end of 17th century as Protestant refugees for religious reasons or as émigrés from the French Revolution for political reasons, took up residence in Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Switzerland. These approximately 200,000 exiles had created a huge manpower potential; in Germany almost two thirds of the language teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) came from their ranks and their task was not only to teach the French language and culture, but sometimes even to teach other Romance languages (cf. Reinfried 22008, 151). During the Renaissance, Italian culture held the leading role throughout the whole of Europe, until the 17th century when it was overtaken by the creative potential of French culture – in the context of a translatio studiorum, i.e. a shift in the cultural centres (cf. Minerva/Reinfried 2012, 23s.). This shift also had its consequences with regard to the teaching of foreign languages: in Schröder’s Linguarum recentium annales (1980, VIIs.), a collection of German source material, an index lists almost as many entries for Italian as for French in the 16th century. Italy was at that time not only resplendent with regard to the arts and sciences, but it was also the leading force in commerce, banking and fashion. As a result, merchants, craftsmen and artists, students and scholars as well as young aristocrats invested in a stay abroad in Italy whether it was to gain further qualifications or to extend their training, or simply to raise their level of their general culture (Gorini 1997, 20, 24, 34). In the 17th and 18th centuries, lessons in Italian (↗21 Italian) were offered on a regular basis by specialist language teachers in a few German cities such as Frankfurt am Main. The lessons were given either within the framework of private tuition, or as a fee-paying extra-curricular activity at a few Latin schools. However, only the knight academies accepted modern foreign languages as part of the main curriculum (cf. Reimann 2009, 17s.). On the whole, during the early period of foreign language teaching in Germany, there were quite clearly fewer course books for learning Italian than there were for French (Gorini 1997, 35) – this was a trend that was to become even more pronounced from the 18th century onwards. Nevertheless, during the Early Modern Period, Italian had not lost its relatively high status as a foreign language in all the European nations: in the 17th century, the people of the Low Countries began to show a great interest in Italian culture, particularly with regard to painting, and this factor also had its impact on the learning of Italian (Caravolas 1994, 261); in addition, Italian was being learnt in certain parts of Switzerland simply on account of Italy’s geographical vicinity (Pellandra 2007, 41); in France and especially in England, Italian was a foreign language which became increasingly popular, particularly with highly cultured ladies as evidenced by the long list of course books available in these countries during the 18th century (Caravolas 1994, 211ss.; 2000, 34ss., 99ss.).

258

Marcus Reinfried

Spanish (↗25 Spanish) first came into demand in the 16th century when Spain had grown under Emperor Charles V to become a great political and economic power in Europe, and Spanish fashions and customs were being copied in Germany – particularly in those regions which bordered the Spanish Netherlands (cf. Voigt 1998, 31). Nevertheless, even in the 16th century the teaching of Spanish never reached the importance of French or Italian by a long way, as is once again evidenced by the index in Schröder’s Linguarum recentium annales (1980, VIIss.). This was partly due to a lack of Hispanophone language teachers, which was also the case in the next century in Germany, and partly due to the shortage of course books available in Germany so that the courses often had to be obtained from abroad (cf. Voigt 1998, 26ss., 31, 33). German interest in Spanish waned during the course of the 17th and 18th centuries (cf. Schröder 1982, XIII; 1983, XI). However, Spanish still retained its primary status as the most important foreign language for a considerable length of time in the southern Italian dual monarchy of Naples and Sicily, which had been under Spanish rule for over 250 years, and similarly, this was the case in Wallonia, the part of Belgium which also belonged to the Spanish Crown (Caravolas 1994, 51s.; 2000, 175). Even in France and England, where there was a greater number of Spanish teachers than in Germany, the language continued to be learned during the 18th century although the number of learners was considerably smaller than was the case with Italian (Caravolas 2000, 36, 103ss.). In most European countries, French (↗20 French) became one of the most important modern foreign languages in the 17th century. Similarly, in Germany, it developed into the language of the nobility and of many overseas merchants; it was taught in court schools and knight academies. French became the language of international diplomacy, commerce and banking, on account of several factors such as the sporadic French hegemony in Europe, the leading role of France in technology and administration, and the country’s great wealth (cf. Christ 1996, 65; Dietze 1927, 16, 56). The number of people learning French continued to increase in the 18th century, particularly during the second half of the century. At this time the learning of French became popular not only with the affluent upper-middle classes but also to a certain extent even amongst the tradesmen and lower middle classes. It reached the status of a major subject within the curriculum of exclusive institutes of education for young ladies and in the first schools designed for the middle and upper middle classes as well as in the continental “Realschulen”. Large parts of the educated classes in Germany were reading French literature in French: in the 1760s, the books written in French recorded in trade fair catalogues (for the German book trade) stood at 13.1% of all the available titles (Paulsen 31919, 627).

European History of Romance Language Teaching

259

2 Methodological Approaches in Foreign Language Teaching of the Early Modern Period The earliest example of teaching French in Germany with teaching materials still being preserved to the present day, goes back to the year 1496 and to the Ernestine princely court in the Saxonian city of Wittenberg. The Saxonian Elector Frederick III, who a few decades later became the protector of the theologian Martin Luther from the Catholic Inquisition, took private tuition at the age of 33 in lessons given by a monk called Bernhardin Pfot, who had learnt French during his studies, which included several years at the Sorbonne in Paris. The French texts for the beginners’ stage comprised the Dicta Catonis, which Pfot had taken from a widely circulated medieval Latin reader and which he had translated into French on a manuscript. These moralizing aphorisms, arranged as an interlinear version, would have been well known to Frederick III from his own Latin tuition during his childhood. They were translated word for word from French into Latin by Frederick and his tutor Pfot. Some French sentences or phrases could be understood by their lexical and grammatical similarities to Latin, whereas the items diverging more from Latin were probably first translated by Pfot and afterwards repeated by Frederick. At a later stage it is very likely that parts of the Latin text would be translated back into French (retroversion). In addition, the French text would be read aloud by Pfot and then by his “pupil” Frederick – notes on the pronunciation of individual words are still to be seen on the manuscript standing above the French lines. There were no grammar books to support this method of teaching French, as the first edition in the German-speaking domain was probably not available until 1532 (cf. Stengel/Niederehe 21976, 20s., 171); the manuscript contains very sparse and unsystematic grammatical points, which had been added by Pfot. Fables and anecdotes were included for more advanced tuition in French, and finally a chronicle of the French and Ernestine rulers alongside several courtly romances were both read and translated (Kuhfuß 2011). From these early beginnings of French tuition during the course of the 16th and 17th centuries, two main methodological approaches came to the fore in Germany, which could also be observed in other European countries such as in the methods for teaching Italian and Spanish: 1) A deductive approach inspired by the teaching of Latin, based on a practical mastery of this ancient language and the knowledge of the grammatical categories (cf. Streuber 1914, 20–40). The teaching began by learning grammatical rules by heart (which were, especially in Germany, still often formulated in Latin during the whole 17th century) together with their respective exemplary sentences in French. Within this methodology, the reading of texts could only take place at an advanced stage. 2) A more imitative direction “sine latino”, which began either with written dialogues or more elementary French texts (Kuhfuß 2014, 647; Streuber 1914, 113, 165). This approach allowed only a very measured input of grammar during the beginner stage. The choice of methodology was, of course, highly

260

Marcus Reinfried

dependent on the type of learners: the deductive approach was adopted by university lecturers and also perhaps in the supplementary courses at academic secondary schools whereas the imitative method was used more often with children, women and young ladies and also in beginners’ courses for merchants. As early as the 17th century, the imitative approach to foreign language teaching (using texts from the very beginning) was upheld in German-speaking areas by two theoreticians: Wolfgang Ratke, who developed a radically new method for the teaching of classical and modern languages by placing oral presentations of plays at the very beginning of the language curriculum (Caravolas 1994, 135ss.), and Jan Amos Comenius, a Bohemian pedagogue and theologian, who argued for a visual approach which relied on an easily assimilable input and reduced the role of grammar. He became intensely involved in this field, in which he wrote several important theoretical works. He also wrote a series of multilingual course books for practical teaching purposes (↗12 Plurilingual Education); his Orbis Pictus became a highly successful and sustained best-seller. It was the first extensively illustrated presentation of life in general in the Early Modern Period to be designed for children and adolescents. During the next few centuries, it had been translated into most European languages and had reached 250 editions (most ranging from bilingual to quadrilingual editions) (ibid., 339ss.; Reinfried 1992, 33ss.). Although there were diverse opinions among the various foreign language teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) of the early period as to the value of teaching grammar, it must, however, also be pointed out that the prime didactic goal for almost all language tutors was to acquire practical communication skills in the various Romance languages (cf. Weller 1980, 146, 149s.). Two basic didactic strategies had been promulgated in this context: ex usu (proceeding by routine) and per praecepta (proceeding by rules). In his book Exposition raisonnée pour apprendre la langue latine (1722), the French grammairien philosophe César Chesneau Dumarsais, who had contributed numerous articles on linguistics for Diderot’s and d’Alembert’s Encyclopédie, but who also earned his daily bread as a private tutor, was one of the first theoreticians to analyse the differences between these two didactic positions. Whereas Dumarsais intended to combine the two basic approaches, learning par usage and learning par règles in his didactic methodology based on the interlinear version, Claude François Lizarde de Radonvilliers, his successor in linguistic didactics in France, who was also heavily reliant on the interlinear version, argues in his book De la manière d’apprendre les langues (1768) exclusively for the par usage language learning approach. He maintained that any introduction to foreign language learning must take place by the reading of texts and he vehemently rejected any input of a grammar in a “course at the elementary level” (Caravolas 2000, 58, 64). An evaluation of the ex usu and per praecepta learning approaches can be found in a preface to a grammar written by François Roux, a lector at the University of Jena in Thuringia (1746, as quoted from Streuber 1914, 94s.). Roux defined the first way to learn a language as language acquisition “without rules, but with daily contact with

European History of Romance Language Teaching

261

people who are fluent [in a target language], and from their speech words can be learnt together with their meanings, their modifications and their connections with other words.” The second way was, however, to be undertaken “with the aid of a few rules, […] according to which the various changes and connections of the words can be worked out in conjunction with each other.” Roux’s evaluation of the scope for the grammatical didactic approach differs from those of Dumarsais and Radonvilliers: “The first way to learn a language [ex usu] is suitable for children who lack the skill to deduce the particular in sentences from the general [the grammar rules], but this way is the easiest even though the learning of the language proceeds at a rather slow pace. For adults, however, the latter way [per praecepta] is the surest, safest, shortest and the best” (quoted from Streuber 1914, 95). There was only a limited range of teaching techniques readily available for many language teachers; even as late as the 18th century, beginners’ courses in every European country were dominated by various forms of translation activities (translation from and into the target language, retroversion as well as both literal and free translation). The possibilities for professional training or extended education were still rather limited at that time as language tutors were often relatively isolated from one another and even when starting their careers, they were not always in a position to receive feedback from experienced colleagues on their practical realization of lessons. Before the 18th century, there were very few teaching guides for modern languages and these were generally limited to offering a few hints in the prefaces of course books. Seidelmann’s Tractatus philosophico-philologicus de methodo tractandi linguas exoticas, which appeared in Germany in 1724, was probably the first methodological work in Europe specially written for the teaching of modern languages. Seidelmann deals with clause analysis in detail and recommends a grammar-based synthesis of rules in order to formulate sentences in the target language, but there is still relatively little reference to any speaking or writing exercises, and no reference whatsoever to any method for the inductive acquisition of grammar. Until the arrival of the Grammar-translation method, Seidelmann’s approach to presenting a foreign language course of elementary grammar had suffered mainly from a failure to provide sufficient grammar exercises in the course books and there was inadequate coordination between grammar rules and grammar exercises. However, before the advent of the Grammar-translation method towards the end of the 18th century in Germany, which then spread to other European countries, there were two other teaching methods which had been put into practice, and which came under the category of the ex usu approach to foreign language instruction: the reading-translation method (this was already in existence in a rudimentary form with Ratke and other language teachers of the preceding centuries) and the sense-based holistic method. This now completes the general picture of the main methods of the 18thcentury (Berré/Besse 2012, 68s.). These two methods trace their origins to theoretical impulses which came from France. They attempted to attain to an education and upbringing in conformity with nature. A series of new books appeared, which argued

262

Marcus Reinfried

against grammar-based teaching for beginners. Their authors included Noël-Antoine Pluche and Pierre-Joseph-François Luneau de Boisgermain (Caravolas 2000, 70s., 84s.). In this approach, the proposed form of teaching languages to beginners starts off from the premise that original narrative texts, dialogues or even comedies should be read and then translated into the mother tongue. One often used variant of this methodology, which in the 19th century developed into the “analytical method” as represented by James Hamilton and Joseph Jacotot, made use of the technique of “multi-layered translation” (i.e. the combination of literal with free versions, including the mirroring of the target language by the mother tongue, cf. Reinfried 2010, 70ss.). With regard to the various books and articles on foreign language teaching (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) already mentioned, the movement which originated in France for an education in harmony with nature received little attention in Germany, but its basic idea became generally well known via the international bestseller, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s novel Emile ou de l’éducation, even though foreign language pedagogy is hardly mentioned in this work. The German Philanthropic Reform Pedagogues were enthusiastic readers of the novel. In 1774, Johann Bernhard Basedow founded a Reform school in Dessau (in Saxony-Anhalt) where they first tried to teach French and Latin only by using the respective target language as far as possible. Christian Heinrich Wolke, who taught at this school, was the staunchest defender of the monolingual approach. He devised a series of teaching techniques to illustrate the meanings of foreign words by applying a systematic use of pictures. This “Versinnlichungsmethode” (‘holistic teaching via the senses’), as coined by the Philanthropists, went completely out of vogue at the beginning of the 19th century on account of the powerful influence of neo-humanism in the secondary schools and institutes of higher education where teaching began with grammar and translation (cf. Reinfried 1990). 1783 marked the beginning of the Grammar-translation method with the publication of Meidinger’s Practischer Französischer Grammatik. Most of the elements of this thick volume were by no means unusual: the front part consists of grammar, which is structured according to the ancient tradition of dealing with the parts of speech; the back part, which was aimed at advanced learners, comprises the usual elements of a so-called “complete course book” (model letters, dialogues, stories, and a classified vocabulary list). The innovative element of this course book is to be found in the division into short grammar lessons, usually about one page in length, and the translations into the target language, which were double the length of the grammar explanations. This allows for intensive practice of the relevant grammatical learning goals: thus “a book consisting of nothing but grammar [at least in the front part] has developed into a book of practical grammar exercises” (Macht 1986, 47). However, the disadvantage is that there are no texts in the target language in the front part of this course book. Nevertheless, by the middle of the 19th century, the various editions of the course book reached a turnover of 250,000 copies in Germany and Austria alone.

European History of Romance Language Teaching

263

In Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, its basic structure was successfully imitated by other language course writers and was applied to the learning of several other languages.

3 Romance Languages at State Schools during the Modern Period During the last third of the 18th century, French (↗20 French) had become a modern lingua franca in several European countries. Nonetheless, it was only at relatively few secondary schools that this language attained the status of a compulsory subject, as the tradition of learning classical languages was still too entrenched within the curriculum. However, after the introduction of the Abitur (school-leaving examination) in 1788 to the Prussian Latin schools (grammar schools), hundreds of pupils were already writing French essays on historical, literary or philosophical topics (cf. Kuhfuß 2014, 591–598). This trend for learning French became even more pronounced during the Napoleonic era when an increasing number of European regions were either conquered by or allied to the French. In Italy (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking regions), which had been under Napoleonic occupation from 1796 to 1814, the status of civil servant was granted only to applicants who had both a good oral and written command of the French language; the number of new or reprinted French course books had risen by a factor of two and a half in comparison to the previous eighteen years (Pellandra 2007, 66). However, a counter movement set in after Napoleon’s final defeat: for a certain period of time, French was once again losing its relatively important status, and in Prussia, the francophobic nationalistic movements became so strong that French was no longer allowed to be taught in state schools (except for Westphalia) between 1816 and 1825. In 1837, French was, however, made into a compulsory subject in the Prussian grammar schools (Christ 1983, 99), and in Spain, in 1857 (García Bascuñana 1999, 118), whereas this happened in Italy only in 1889 (Minerva 1995, 23). Nevertheless only between six and twelve lessons during the whole school period were devoted to this subject. It was not until the introduction of Realschulen (secondary schools with less emphasis on classical languages) in the second half of the century that a fundamental change took place as these schools also taught up to the university matriculation level, but with a much greater emphasis on modern languages: for example, from 1882, 34 lessons in total for the whole secondary education were devoted to French at the Prussian Realgymnasien (at which Latin and at least one modern language were part of the curriculum), and at the Oberrealschulen (secondary grammar schools with no Latin and at which two modern languages were part of the curriculum) as many as 56 lessons in total for the whole secondary education comprised the French curriculum (Christ/Rang 1985, VII, 85, 129).

264

Marcus Reinfried

In 1810, Prussia introduced an academic examination for teachers. At the beginning of the century, the students were still studying theology, classical philology or occasionally mathematics, and they also generally attended extra courses in the studium generale. In the first half of the 19th century, the state examination tested candidates mainly for in-depth general education whereas in the second half of the century, university students specialized in specific subject areas: either classical philology and perhaps German studies, or in mathematics and science, or in history and geography (Haenicke 1982, 32, 40). It was not until the 1870s that it was possible for Realschulen to allow specialization in modern languages, and not until the 1890s for the same to apply to the Gymnasien (grammar schools); the main modern language subjects were French and English (ibid. 46, 50). From the 1860s onwards, professorships in modern languages were established in Germany (Hassler 2005, 34), in the 1880s, in the Netherlands and France (Kok Escalle 1999, 85; Pellandra 2007, 132), from 1900, in Italy (Pellandra 1995, 116), and from the 1930s, in Spain (Roig Morras 1999, 228). A year of practical teacher training (Studienreferendariat) became obligatory in Germany at the end of the 19th century (Christ 2005, 58), but not until 1945, in the Netherlands (Kok Escalle 1999, 100). At the beginning of the 20th century, French was the main modern language to be taught in the secondary schools of many countries in southern and western Europe. This also applied to Spain where French held its place as the dominant modern foreign language right up to the second half of the 20th century despite the support of the Franco regime for Germany during the Second World War (cf. Ipland García 2002, 455; Bruña Cuevas 2001, 307s.); it applied as well to Portugal where French still remained the dominant foreign language despite the country’s turbulent period involving frequent political upheavals (cf. Salema 2001, 255s.); and even in Italy, French remained the main foreign language over a large part of the 20th century despite the fact that the Fascist reforms of 1924 and 1939 led to a reduction of this subject in the school curriculum on account of an increased diversification policy for modern foreign languages (Mandich 2002, 141). However, the position of French was somewhat weaker in the Nordic countries: in Sweden and in Finland, French had its status as the most important modern foreign language replaced by German as early as the middle of the 19th century (cf. Hammar 2001, 159s.; Koskensalo 2002, 318). At the beginning of the 20th century, there was supposed to have been a long-lasting equal balance between French and German in Russia and Estonia (Ogorodnikova 2002, 337; Koskensalo 2002, 328). In Bulgaria, French took the first place as the main modern foreign language from 1885 to 1923 until it was overtaken by German (Tschavdarova 2002, 399). In Germany, French remained the undisputed leading foreign language until the beginning of the First World War as it had retained the largest slice of the modern language curriculum. The pent-up hatred towards enemies from this war was mainly directed at the French rather than at the British, which led to public demands for the reduction, or even the abolition of French from the school curriculum. From 1922

European History of Romance Language Teaching

265

onwards, the language policy both in Prussian schools and in many other German states became more flexible, and French was increasingly losing ground; at the end of the 1920s, English was more or less tying with French as the first foreign language although it is difficult in this context to determine with any degree of accuracy as to which factors had contributed the strongest influence to this development: whether it was the anti-French feelings, which had become more intense amongst many Germans as a result of the Treaty of Versailles and the harsh implementation of the reparations’ policy, or whether it was the growing importance of the American and British economies. However, during the last years of the Weimar Republic, a stop was put to this development by an education committee representing the various German Länder (states), in which it was decided that French should be reinstated as the first foreign language – at least in the majority of the German states. But in 1938, a few years after the seizure of power by the National Socialists, French was finally demoted to become the third foreign language for ideological and racist reasons and was on offer in only a few secondary schools, thus falling behind English and Latin. Besides, French was allowed to be replaced by its Romance sister languages Spanish and Italian, which, as the languages of allied political regimes, were more sympathetic to the National Socialists (Reinfried 2013, 32ss.). The main beneficiaries of the Second World War were, on the one hand, the USA, as the largest economic power on the earth, which had also become the greatest military power, and, on the other hand, the Soviet Union, which had then been able to extend its area of state control by its territorial gains and to build up a huge area of influence in parts of eastern Europe. As early as 1950, this led to Russian becoming the first obligatory foreign language in almost all the Socialist countries in the Communist bloc whereas English became – at the latest in the 1970s – the most important foreign language in almost all the democratic countries of Europe within the capitalist world. This development proved to have had a deleterious effect on the Romance languages: French (↗20 French), traditionally the first modern foreign language of Europe, was from then on, even in the best cases, consigned to becoming the prototypical second foreign language; its prime position has been retained up till now only in the Flemish speaking part of Belgium and in Great Britain and Ireland (Eurydice 2012, 4). Spanish (↗25 Spanish), which, in the 1920s and the 1930s, had first become a school subject in Prussia and in the German Hanseatic cities, experienced at first a “dramatic setback” after the Second World War (Voigt 1998, 45); but from the 1980s, after the end of the Franco era, it once again enjoyed a new period of popularity. Even Italian (↗21 Italian) had its own slight boom period in Germany and in other European countries in the 1970s and 1980s (cf. e.g. Krings 1989, 315), but then this was followed by phases of stagnation and decline. Up to the 1990s, these two languages were often the third foreign language option, which enjoyed only a very limited clientele in the secondary schools. Nevertheless, during the previous decade, Spanish has clearly improved its position in the minds of the European population. In a questionnaire carried out in 2012 as to the two most useful foreign languages, 20% of Europeans chose French (after

266

Marcus Reinfried

English), but 16% went for Spanish, whereas only 2% chose Italian (European Commission 2012, 75). Despite these results, for the school year of 2009/10, the Europewide quota for learners of Spanish (including both the primary and secondary levels) was only 6%, whereas it was 16% for French (Eurostat 2011, 1), and 3% for Italian. At that time in 8 out of 31 European countries, French was the second most frequently learned language after English (including Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Rumania and Spain), Spanish came second in 4 countries (France, Great Britain, Norway and Sweden), and Italian was in second position in Austria and Malta. Although the number of pupils learning two or more foreign languages in the whole of Europe between 2004 and 2009 increased by 14% (Eurydice 2012, 2), in a few countries there are moves to considerably reduce the number of hours to be spent on learning a second foreign language or even to limiting the obligatory part of the secondary curriculum to one foreign language, which would be English.

4 Methods, Media and Cultural Aims in the Modern Language Curriculum The acceptance of modern foreign languages (originally limited to French) into the secondary school curriculum involved changes not only in methodology, use of media and syllabus content, but also in the teacher workforce. In the course of the 19th century, the foreign language tutor (whether with or without a migration background) came to be replaced by specialist teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) who had passed exams set by the state in one or more foreign languages aimed for teaching at a particular kind of school. Especially in the grammar schools of Germany and Italy, where almost half of the curriculum was given over to Latin and Greek, the French syllabus was originally set within a dominantly neo-humanist context, in which grammatical analysis enjoyed great esteem as a discipline for developing formal reasoning or, in other words, for promoting abstract thought. Within Meidinger’s Grammar-Translation Method (as described above), the coordination of grammatical explanation with related exercises took the form of a course book. At the elementary level, there was no provision for texts written in the target language, and consequently there were no translation exercises from the target language into the mother tongue or even any reading exercises (Christ 1993, 6), which was still a serious deficit. However, in the first half of the 19th century this weakness was rectified by Johann Heinrich Philipp Seidenstücker, Heinrich Gottfried Ollendorff and Karl Ploetz, all of whom prefixed grammar exercises planned as translations into the mother tongue to grammar exercises as translations into the foreign language. Thus, the didactic principle of first treating lexical and grammatical acquisition as a receptive process for the pupils, before applying the rules as active skills, was recognized. The quantitative and qualitative high point of the Grammar-translation method was reached with

European History of Romance Language Teaching

267

the course books for French, Italian and Spanish (and other foreign languages) written by Ollendorff, who enjoyed international success, and with Ploetz’s French course books which were in Prussia, in the 1880s, in use in two thirds of all secondary schools. Both authors had replaced the traditional classification of grammatical aspects according to parts of speech by implementing a didactic progression (“from easy to difficult”), which had already been recommended by Comenius in his theoretical deliberations. From 1834 onwards, an even wider international distribution was reached by Johann Franz Ahn’s course books which were (after his death in 1865) constantly being revised by his son Franz Heinrich Ahn, even into the 20th century, also appearing on the American continent. They had a total circulation of at least one million copies. Johann Franz Ahn adopted Seidenstücker’s teaching method for beginners, in which grammatical structures were ordered according to a didactic progression, but which were applied only in a “covert” way by means of exercises (consisting mainly of translations in both directions); grammatical rules were excluded in his elementary course. As with Ploetz, in many of his lesson units, the exercises consisted mainly of disconnected sentences in order to practice the relevant grammatical learning goals – though in a purely imitative fashion. However, towards the end of the 19th century, this relatively mechanical approach became (like the methodologies of Ploetz and Ollendorff) increasingly challenged by many critics, who argued for a text-based foreign language curriculum from the very beginning – not least for the sake of providing a content that would motivate pupils more effectively. With the Modern Language Reform Movement, language teaching (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) shifted into a more holistic direction with the emphasis being placed on the development of oral skills. The Modern Language Reform Movement, which started off in Germany, was preceded by the recruitment of many young foreign language teachers into the school system, who had become disillusioned by the Grammar-translation method. The beginning of the Reform Movement is often dated at 1882 with the publication of a controversial pamphlet entitled Der Fremdsprachenunterricht muss umkehren! (Language Instruction Must Do an About-Face!) which appeared under the pseudonym Quousque tandem. The pamphlet’s author was, in fact, Wilhelm Viëtor, a linguist who specialized in English, and who was interested in the methodology of foreign language teaching. A central principle of the Reform Method, which became known as the Direct Method at the turn of the century, was the monolingual principle: lessons should be held as far as possible exclusively in the foreign language. This was to be achieved by using monolingual lexical semanticization techniques even though the results were not always devoid of ambiguity. In Germany these techniques at the end of the 19th century were integrated in handbooks for teachers (cf. Reinfried 22008, 154s.). At the beginning of the 20th century, they were described systematically and in great detail in France by Charles Schweitzer and Emile Simonnot. In addition, wall pictures in large format depicting scenes taken from everyday life were introduced into the classrooms (cf. Reinfried 1992, 103ss.). Their methodological approach was in

268

Marcus Reinfried

the tradition of the “Versinnlichungsmethode” (‘holistic teaching method via the senses’) used by the Dessau Philanthropists (already mentioned in the context of the 18th century). Language exercises such as writing a précis, short re-narration exercises, answering questions in the foreign language were already being integrated at the beginners’ stage. As articulatory phonetics had become a scientific discipline by the end of the 19th century, which was also incorporated into the teacher training programmes in an intensive form at some universities, new kinds of pronunciation exercises were being developed (cf. Galazzi/Reinfried 2012, 150ss.). At the end of the 19th century, the Modern Language Reform Movement had spread as far as Scandinavia and (to a certain extent) it had also influenced Great Britain. In 1901, the Direct Method was prescribed by decree to be used for foreign language teaching in all French schools. Starting from France (↗27 France), the movement reached Italy (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions), Portugal (↗30 Portugal and Brazil) and (after a certain delay) Spain (↗32 Spain) and other southern European countries. However, there was not a single region where this method was established comprehensively and in all types of school; in some European regions, it had virtually minimal representation in the foreign language classrooms. After a temporary lull in the popularity of the monolingual principle, there was a renewal of interest in the Direct Method for some time in the second half of the century. Two main factors had led to this renewed interest: one was the Audio-lingual Method, which came from the USA in the 1950s and 1960s, and the other was the Audiovisual Method, which had been developed in France and had become popular during the same period of time. These two methods were a result of the technical progress which had been made in teaching aids (by improved tape recorders and by connecting the equipment in language laboratories, by the combination of taped dialogues with a corresponding series of slides). A common error has been to treat the two methods as if they were nearly one unit; the theoretical roots are very different (Behaviorism for the Audio-lingual Method, and situative holism for the Audiovisual Method, cf. Galazzi/Reinfried 2012, 154ss.). Within the European mainstream modern language curriculum, the Audio-lingual Method had for a certain period of time exerted a very strong influence on the construction of grammatical exercises (“Pattern Practice”), whereas the Audiovisual Method (which was only rarely applied in its original form, but instead was combined with the Direct Method) influenced the increasingly practical application of illustrations in the foreign language teaching materials of the 1970s. The last all-embracing methodological approach to come into vogue at the same time was the Communicative Method, which had been developed mainly in the AngloAmerican context. It was very much based on speech act theory, which led to a new progression of speaking activities in the various language teaching materials. Authentic exercises now became the new desideratum, and these were supposed to reflect language exchange within the foreign target culture as realistically as possible. During the transfer stage of lesson units, role-play activities were supposed to cater for the communicative application of thoroughly learned speaking materials (Reinfried 22008,

European History of Romance Language Teaching

269

156s.). A whole series of new teaching principles and forms appeared in the mid-1980s, which can be described as the “second wave” of the Communicative Method and which can be defined as the “Neo-communicative Method” (cf. Reinfried 2001). Cognitive science was the reference discipline for this modified methodological paradigm, learner- and process-oriented learning, learning strategies, learning awareness and learner autonomy (↗17 Cognition and Emotion) became the new key concepts. Task based language learning was combined with an increased emphasis on content and was manifested in the didactic trend for replacing form-based language exercises by miniprojects. After the turn of the millennium, there was an increased interest in many European countries in the external assessment of pupil performance, which was also sometimes equated with teacher performance. After defined language reference levels for all the language skills had been made available by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001), a trend developed to apply norm-referenced standards to schools and to use external assessment as regularly as possible (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). At the end of the 19th century, the integration of modern foreign languages in secondary schools with the increasing exchange of didactic ideas between the individual countries led to new aims and new content for the language learning process. The input of fictional texts was replaced by more cultural descriptions of the specific country. However, up till now, there has been relatively little research undertaken concerning the reciprocal international influences for the cultural studies’ aspects in foreign language teaching. At the beginning of the 20th century, the subject Realienkunde appeared in Germany, which mainly implied geographical, historical and political knowledge of facts about the foreign target cultures. After the First World War, this concept transformed itself into the subject of Kulturkunde, which aimed at interpreting literary works and works of Fine Art from the perspective of differing mentalities (cf. Reinfried 1999). Similar attempts had also been made in Italy at that time with regard to the learning goals for Realienkunde as well as for the quest for the “génie de la nation étrangère” (Kulturkunde) (Minerva 2002, 125s.). From the 1970s onwards, a cultural studies approach based on the everyday life of the target cultures came to the fore in many European countries, which mainly from the 1990s onwards acquired quite a sound base in intercultural theories. Although, during the course of several centuries, the dialogue regarding didactic and methodological aspects in the context of both the individual modern foreign languages and among the various European regions has been on the increase and so, a movement towards convergence has taken shape. A clear diversification, which manifested itself in teaching and learning techniques as well as in exercises, learning tasks and in the use of media, can nonetheless be observed throughout the history of modern language teaching. In addition, as a result of the gradual development of didactical fields – evolving from practical areas of knowledge to scientific disciplines –, the awareness of learning, cultural and linguistic concepts which are related to approaches of language teaching has quite clearly gained a much sharper focus.

270

Marcus Reinfried

5 Bibliography Berré, Michel/Besse, Henri (2012), Méthodes, techniques d’enseignement du français comme L2: éléments pour une reflexion historiographique, in: Marie-Christine Kok Escalle/Nadia Minerva/ Marcus Reinfried (edd.), Histoire internationale de l’enseignement du français langue étrangère ou seconde: problèmes, bilans et perspectives, Paris, CLE International, 62–77. Bruña Cuevas, Manuel (2001), L’enseignement du français mis au service du régime de Franco (1936–1940), in: Marie-Christine Kok Escalle/Francine Melka (edd.), Changements politiques et statut des langues. Histoire et épistémologie 1780–1945, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 303–323. Caravolas, Jean-Antoine (1994), La didactique des langues 1450–1700. Précis d’histoire I, Tübingen, Narr/Montréal (Québec), Les Presses de l’Université. Caravolas, Jean-Antoine (2000), Histoire de la didactique des langues au siècle des Lumières. Précis et anthologie thématique, Tübingen, Narr/Montréal (Québec), Les Presses de l’Université. Christ, Herbert (1983), Zur Geschichte des Französischunterrichts und der Französischlehrer, in: Anneliese Mannzmann (ed.), Geschichte der Unterrichtsfächer, vol. I, München, Kösel, 94–117. Christ, Herbert (1993), De Meidinger à Ploetz, en passant par Seidenstücker, Ahn et Ollendorff, ou le cheminement de la méthodologie synthétique, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 12, 5–10. Christ, Herbert (1996), L’Enseignement du Français en Allemagne entre 1648 et 1815, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 18, 63–83. Christ, Herbert (2005), Du Maître de langue au “Neuphilologe”. La formation des enseignants de français en Allemagne au cours du 19e siècle, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 33/34, 47–62. Christ, Herbert/Rang, Hans-Joachim (1985) (edd.), Fremdsprachenunterricht unter staatlicher Verwaltung 1700 bis 1945. Eine Dokumentation amtlicher Richtlinien und Verordnungen, vol. VII: Der Fremdsprachenunterricht in Stundentafeln, Tübingen, Narr. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dietze, Hugo (1927), Geschichte der fremdsprachlichen Ausbildung des Kaufmanns, in: Hugo Dietze, Methodik des fremdsprachlichen Unterrichts an Handelsschulen, Leipzig, Glöckner, 7–56. European Commission (ed.) (2012), Europeans and their languages. Report, http://ec.europa.eu/ public_opinion/index_en.htm, (03.10.2013). Eurostat (2011), Pressemitteilung: Europäischer Tag der Sprachen, 09/2011, http://www.bpd.de/ nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/europa/135813/fremdsprachen (03.10.2013). Eurydice (ed.) (2012), Schlüsselzahlen zum Sprachenlernen an den Schulen in Europa 2012, acea.ec. europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/Key_data_series/143_DE_HI.pdf (03.10.2013). Frijhoff, Willem/Reboullet, André (edd.) (1998), Histoire de la diffusion et de l’enseignement du français dans le monde, Paris, CLE International. Galazzi, Enrica/Reinfried, Marcus (2012), Supports visuels, supports auditifs, enseignement du Français langue étrangère, in: Marie-Christine Kok Escalle/Nadia Minerva/Marcus Reinfried (edd.), Histoire internationale de l’enseignement du français langue étrangère ou seconde: problèmes, bilans et perspectives, Paris, CLE International, 146–159. García Bascuñana, Juan (1999), L’institutionnalisation du FLE dans l’enseignement public espagnol après la Loi Moyano (1857): avatars et conséquences, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 23, 108–123. Gorini, Umberto (1997), Storia dei manuali per l’apprendimento dell’italiano in Germania (1500–1950). Un’analisi linguistica e socioculturale, Frankfurt am Main, Lang. Haenicke, Gunta (1982), Zur Geschichte des Faches Englisch in den Prüfungsordnungen für das Höhere Lehramt 1831–1942, Universität Augsburg.

European History of Romance Language Teaching

271

Hassler, Gerda (2005), Les maîtres de langues et la constitution de la philologie romane en Allemagne, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 33/34, 22–46. Hammar, Elisabet (2001), L’essor et le déclin du français, de l’allemand et de l’anglais en Suède 1807–1946, in: Marie-Christine Kok Escalle/Francine Melka (edd.), Changements politiques et statut des langues. Histoire et épistémologie 1780–1945, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 145–160. Ipland García, Jerónima (2002), Formen und Funktionen des Unterrichts der modernen Fremdsprachen im Spanien des 20. Jahrhunderts, in: Elmar Lechner (ed.), Formen und Funktionen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 451–467. Kok Escalle, Marie-Christine (1999), Le français aux Pays-Bas dans la deuxième moitié du XIXe siècle, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 23, 83–107. Koskensalo, Annikki (2002), Formen und Funktionen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts in Finnland im Laufe des 20. Jahrhunderts, in: Elmar Lechner (ed.), Formen und Funktionen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 309–326. Krings, Hans P. (1989), Italienisch, in: Karl-Richard Bausch/Herbert Christ/Hans-Jürgen Krumm (edd.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen, Francke, 314–318. Kuhfuß, Walter (2011), Wie und warum lernte Friedrich der Weise Französisch? Überlegungen zu den Anfängen des deutschen Französischunterrichts, französisch heute 42, 57–64. Kuhfuß, Walter (2014), Eine Kulturgeschichte des Französischunterrichts in der frühen Neuzeit. Französischlernen am Fürstenhof, auf dem Marktplatz und in der Schule in Deutschland, Göttingen, V&R unipress. Macht, Konrad (1986), Methodengeschichte des Englischunterrichts, vol. 1: 1800–1980, Universität Augsburg. Mandich, Anna (2002), Les grammaires pour l’enseignement du français pendant la période fasciste (1923–1943), Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 15, 135–152. Minerva, Nadia (1995), Le débat sur l’introduction des langues étrangères dans les lycées italiens (fin XIXe–début XXe siècle), Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 15, 23–37. Minerva, Nadia (2002), France/Italie: une identité d’emprunt ou une identité en partage?, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 28, 119–134. Minerva, Nadia/Pellandra, Carla (edd.) (1997), Insegnare il francese in Italia. Repertorio analitico di manuali pubblicati dal 1625 al 1860, Bologna, CLUEB. Minerva, Nadia/Reinfried, Marcus (2012), Les domaines à explorer et l’évolution historique, in: MarieChristine Kok Escalle/Nadia Minerva/Marcus Reinfried (edd.), Histoire internationale de l’enseignement du français langue étrangère ou seconde: problèmes, bilans et perspectives, Paris, CLE International, 14–28. Ogorodnikova, Ira (2002), Grundzüge der Entwicklung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts in Rußland, in: Elmar Lechner (ed.), Formen und Funktionen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 337–359. Paulsen, Friedrich (31919), Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur Gegenwart. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den klassischen Unterricht, vol. 1: Der gelehrte Unterricht im Zeichen des alten Humanismus 1450–1740, Leipzig, von Veit. Pellandra, Carla (1995), Pietro Toldo et l’institution de la première chaire de langue et de littérature françaises dans l’université italienne, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 15, 116–128. Pellandra, Carla (2007), Le radici del nostro mestiere: storia e storie degli insegnamenti linguistici, Bologna, CLUEB. Reimann, Daniel (2009), Geschichte des Italienischunterrichts und Sprachenpolitik. Zur Entwicklung des schulischen Italienischunterrichts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in: Daniel Reimann

272

Marcus Reinfried

(ed.), Italienischunterricht im 21. Jahrhundert. Aspekte der Fachdidaktik Italienisch, Stuttgart, ibidem, 13–51. Reinfried, Marcus (1990), Les origines de la méthode directe en Allemagne, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 6, 126–156. Reinfried, Marcus (1992), Das Bild im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Eine Geschichte der visuellen Medien am Beispiel des Französischunterrichts, Tübingen, Narr. Reinfried, Marcus (1999), Von der Realien- zur Kulturkunde. Frankreichkundliche Paradigmen als dialogische Konstrukte im deutschen Französischunterricht, in: Herwart Kemper/Siegfried Protz/ Detlef Zöllner (edd.), Schule – Bildung – Wissenschaft. Dia-Logik in der Vielfalt, Rudolstadt, Hain, 199–234. Reinfried, Marcus (2001), Neokommunikativer Fremdsprachenunterricht: ein neues methodisches Paradigma, in: Franz-Joseph Meißner/Marcus Reinfried (edd.), Bausteine für einen neokommunikativen Französischunterricht. Lernerzentrierung, Ganzheitlichkeit, Handlungsorientierung, Interkulturalität, Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik, Tübingen, Narr, 1–20. Reinfried, Marcus (22008), Der Unterricht des Französischen in Deutschland, in: Ingo Kolboom/ Thomas Kotschi/Edward Reichel (edd.), Handbuch Französisch: Sprache, Literatur, Kultur, Gesellschaft. Für Studium, Lehre, Praxis, Berlin, Schmidt, 148–159. Reinfried, Marcus (2010), Zwischen wörtlichem und sinngemäßem Verstehen. Muttersprachenbasierte Semantisierungstechniken in der Fremdsprachenvermittlung des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 39, 68–87. Reinfried, Marcus (2013), Die romanischen Schulsprachen im deutschen Schulwesen des Dritten Reichs: Sprachenpolitische Maßnahmen und bildungsideologische Diskurse, in: Friederike Klippel/Elisabeth Kolb/Felicitas Sharp (edd.), Schulsprachenpolitik und fremdsprachliche Unterrichtspraxis. Historische Schlaglichter zwischen 1800 und 1989, Münster, Waxmann, 29–47. Roig Morras, Carmen (1999), Le débat méthodologique sur l’enseignement des langues étrangères dans les pages du “Boletín” de l’Institución Libre de Enseñanza (BILE), Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 23, 227–247. Salema, Maria José (2001), De la monarchie à la Première République, l’évolution dans la continuité: l’enseignement du français au Portugal de 1894 à 1926, in: Marie-Christine Kok Escalle/Francine Melka (edd.), Changements politiques et statut des langues. Histoire et épistémologie 1780– 1945, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 253–264. Sánchez Pérez, Aquilino (1992), Historia de la enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera, Madrid, SGEL. Schröder, Konrad (ed.) (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985), Linguarum recentium annales. Der Unterricht in den modernen europäischen Sprachen im deutschsprachigen Raum, Universität Augsburg. Seidelmann, Christian (1724/1984): Tractatatus philosophico-philologicus de methodo recte tractandi linguas exoticas – speciatim gallicam, italicam et anglicam, facsimilated, translated and edited by Franz Josef Zapp and Konrad Schröder, Universität Augsburg. Stengel, Edmund (21976), Chronologisches Verzeichnis französischer Grammatiken, vom Ende des 14. bis zum Ausgange des 18. Jahrhunderts nebst Angabe der bisher ermittelten Fundorte derselben, reedit. with an appendix by Hans-Josef Niederehe, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Streuber, Albert (1914), Beiträge zur Geschichte des französischen Unterrichts im 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert, vol. I: Die Entwicklung der Methoden im allgemeinen und das Ziel der Konversation im besonderen, Berlin, Ebering. Suárez Gómez, Gonzalo (2008), La enseñanza del francés en España hasta 1850. ¿Con qué libros aprendían francés los españoles?, edited, presented and annotated by Juan F. García Bascuñana and Esther Juan Oliva, Barcelona, PPU. Suso López, Javier (2009), Les “Reglas Gramaticales para aprender la Lengua Española y Francesa” de Antonio de Corro, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 42, 29–47.

European History of Romance Language Teaching

273

Tschavdarova, Albena (2002), Der Fremdsprachenunterricht in Bulgarien im 20. Jahrhundert. Zwischen Kenntnisvermittlung und Ideologie, in: Elmar Lechner (ed.), Formen und Funktionen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 393–418. Voigt, Burkhard (1998), Zur Geschichte des Spanischunterrichts in Deutschland, in: Burkhard Voigt (ed.), Spanischunterricht heute. Beiträge zur spanischen Fachdidaktik, Bonn, Romanistischer Verlag, 23–52. Weller, Franz-Rudolf (1980), Skizze einer Entwicklungsgeschichte des Französischunterrichts in Deutschland bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, Die Neueren Sprachen 79, 135–161.

Birgit Schädlich

15 Language Teacher Abstract: Language teaching as a profession has become an issue of particular importance in the last few years. The relevance of language skills and intercultural competence has become more and more important in the heterogeneous societies of the globalized world, and language teachers play a central role in developing these competences with their students. This article deals with institutions and curricula of teacher education before describing language teachers’ skills and competences. A focus is put on European frameworks and empirical research on teacher professionalization. Communicative and cultural competences are defined as being main issues in teaching and learning languages and therefore as important objectives in teacher education. The article calls for a reflective approach in teacher education, combining theoretical, declarative knowledge and practical, procedural skills in order to enable language teachers to create pedagogical settings that can foster their students’ linguistic and cultural learning. Keywords: language teaching, teacher education, communicative competence, reflective practice, European language policy

1 Introduction A language teacher is a person whose profession is teaching languages to learners of different ages, at different levels, and with different aims; helping them to develop their linguistic and cultural competence in one or more than one language. Language teachers may come from different educational backgrounds and hold different certifications. They may teach their own language as native speakers or teach a language they learned as their second or as a foreign language. They work in public and private schools, high schools and universities, in cultural institutes and a wide range of corporations. Teaching as a profession draws on various types of knowledge and skills – many of which are implicit – and requires the capacity for decision making in highly complex pedagogical situations and an acute awareness for linguistic as well as cultural content in order to reflect on the teaching and learning processes. Due to the complexity of the linguistic learning process, language teacher education necessarily follows a multidisciplinary approach, since no claim can be made as to presenting the theory or didactics for good language teaching. Its quality resides precisely in the alignment of different knowledge areas and all approaches have to tackle the task of targeting the concrete needs of learners within the framework of specific policies, curricula and syllabi. There is no silver bullet approach to

Language Teacher

275

teacher education and corresponding research remains a field of little empirical evidence. As language teaching and learning, and the academic structures in which teacher education takes place, are strictly linked to local or national educational systems and pedagogical practices, an overview claiming to be internationally pertinent is difficult to depict. The following article mainly stresses the European perspective, referring to the German, French and Spanish educational systems.

2 Language Teacher Education: Institutions, Phases and Curricula Language teaching and learning takes place in the context of public educational systems, the semi-public sector of cultural institutes, and the private sector; each of them implying different roles for language teachers and requiring different sets of skills and qualifications. There are as yet no international standards concerning the institutions in which teacher education takes place, the diploma language teachers have to provide, and which curricula they have to prepare for. Political decision making (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) takes place in ministries of education, of science or culture, in ministries of the interior or immigration as well as in cultural institutes (Institut français, Istituto Italiano di Cultura, Instituto Cervantes, Instituto Camões, Institut Ramon Llull, etc.). Language learning policies cover public schools, first, second and heritage languages as well as the traditional foreign language teaching and they may provide guidelines for immigrant language learning programmes. Associations like the Fédération internationale des professeurs de français (FIPF), the Federación Internacional de Asociaciones de Profesores de Español (FIAPE), or the Associazione internazionale dei professori di italiano (AIPI) work on the national and local level to develop and implement specific language learning policies and curricula. In the last few years, teacher education in Europe has been discussed more and more within a comparative framework (e.g. Baillat/Niclot/Ulma 2010; Vega Gil 2003). European and international organizations like The Association for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE), the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have tried to compile different policies for teacher education aimed to further comparability and international standardization. The European Eurydice network provides statistical information like, for example, the Key Data on Teachers and School Leaders (European Commission 2013), giving a comparative overview on the different structures of initial teacher education, recruitment methods, working conditions and pay in the EU countries. The Eurypedia website provides a comprehensive overview of the European educational systems.

276

Birgit Schädlich

Teacher education is usually organized as a continuum comprising three phases: initial teacher education, induction, and continuing professional development. Length, contents, and methods vary in the different educational systems. In most countries all over the world, consecutive and concurrent models can be identified as the basic approaches (cf. European Commission 2013, 23): the consecutive model schedules first academic studies in a specific subject and adds the teaching qualification in a second phase, whereas the concurrent model tries to connect the two steps immediately. The third phase aims for the personal development of the teachers, conveying the knowledge, abilities and skills needed for their teaching practice. Teacher education takes place in universities, universities of education, Pädagogische Hochschulen, Instituts Universitaires pour la Formation des Maîtres (IUFM), Centres de formation professionnelle or facultades de filología (Vega Gil 2003, 182). Cultural institutes often offer their own teacher training departments collaborating with institutions of higher education, as is the case with the Instituto Cervantes, which works with various Spanish universities. Worldwide, diploma and certificates cover a wide range of qualifications. Recently, a shift from national examinations (such as the German Staatsexamen or the Spanish Certificado de Aptitud Pedagógica) to internationally comparable bachelor’s and master’s degrees can be observed (European Commission 2013). Yet the access to the public educational system in many countries continues to depend on national competitive examinations, as in the case of the French agrégation and Certificat d’aptitude au professorat de l’enseignement du second degré (CAPES) (Vega Gil 2003). Reforms in teacher education in the last two decades have mainly been influenced by a general change in academic structures due to the Bologna Process. The programmes have been revised and geared towards competence orientation, modular structures and core curricula (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). The question of teacher education is closely linked to the organization of the different phases, as well as to the choice of content and the methods applied to foster the development of professional knowledge. Usually, prospective language teachers enrol in linguistics, literature, area and cultural studies as well as in educational sciences, while developing their own linguistic skills. Since the second half of the 20th century, research disciplines that can be subsumed under the notion of subject didactics have been integrated into many teacher education curricula. Though existing in nearly every educational system, both the term and research matters are anything but homogenous: terms like applied linguistics, educational linguistics, foreign language methodology, second/third language acquisition, Sprachlehr- und -lernforschung, Fremdsprachendidaktik, didactique des langues étrangères, didattica delle lingue straniere, glottodidattica show different research interests and traditions, each case being conspicuously anchored in national educational systems and thus complicating the possibility of singling out common research currents. There is research on first language teaching, on second language

Language Teacher

277

teaching – addressing mainly younger migrant pupils (français langue seconde, español como lengua segunda, italiano come seconda lingua, português como segunda língua) – and foreign language teaching (français langue étrangère, español como lengua extranjera, italiano come lingua straniera, português como língua extrangeira) targeting either pupils in secondary education or adult learners. There is no consensus on which disciplinary knowledge should be referenced in teacher education programmes due to the fact that the elements in teacher education have developed historically from different philological, linguistic and pedagogical research traditions. As the subject matter is itself difficult to define, there are in fact “essentially competing ‘versions of English’” (Grossmann/Schoenfeld/Lee 2005, 213) that pertain to language teaching according to the different understandings of language use. They might refer to the social dimension of language (language as behaviour), the artistic one (language as a vehicle for creativity) or take a philosophical perspective (Pennycook 2004, 279). Painting with a broad brush, one could state that the relics of grammar translation methods and formative, neo-humanistic approaches are today reflected in the philological orientation of language teacher education for public schools, and that this is taught primarily in the humanities departments of universities, whereas curricula in teacher education for adult learners or second language teaching rather has incorporated applied linguistics, theories of language acquisition (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories) or psycholinguistics as well as learning psychology into their syllabi.

3 Language Teachers’ Kinds of Knowledge: Research, Competences, Frameworks 3.1 Research Fields in Teacher Education One of the main difficulties in developing frameworks and curricula for teacher education consists in manoeuvring between the need for normative policies and binding standards on the one hand, and the lack of empirical evidence surrounding the efficiency of most pedagogical decisions on the other hand. A large research area covers descriptive and interpretive approaches trying to reconstruct the status quo of educational practices via qualitative and often ethnographic research methods (↗2 Research Methods). A lot of investigations in this field centre on teachers’ epistemological beliefs (cognitions, creencias, représentations, Subjektive Theorien) or their biographies. In the context of a general shift to competence orientation in the educational field, teacher education research focused in the last two decades mainly on modelling and assessing professional competences. Theories of expertise and research on it, or competence models from educational psychology, focus on the contents and processes of professionalization and their

278

Birgit Schädlich

psychometric assessment. In comparison to the quite large amount of studies on mathematics, the sciences or reading literacy (cf. Bransford/Darling-Hammond/LePage 2005, 18ss.), research on second or foreign language competence and the competence of language teachers remains quite rare (cf. the overviews in Hüttner et al. 2012). Though a number of studies have shown the impact of teacher behaviour on students’ achievements, very little is yet known about what kind of knowledge teachers can exactly benefit from in the instructional process. One of the crucial concepts for this question is the notion of pedagogical content knowledge (cf. Grossman/Schoenfeld/ Lee 2005; Hüttner et al. 2012). In the tradition of John Dewey’s psychological approach of connecting disciplinary knowledge to students’ experience, Shulman (1986) developed the notion of pedagogical content knowledge: teachers need to know “how students tend to understand (and mis-understand) their subjects; they know to anticipate and diagnose such misunderstandings; and they know how to deal with them when they arise” (Grossmann/Schoenfeld/Lee 2005, 205). Therefore, teachers need to be aware of what potentially could be difficult for their students and align their teaching accordingly (cf. Biggs/Tang 2003). As Hattie (2009) was able to show with his metaanalyses of over 50,000 studies, the teacher seems to be the most crucial part of student achievement. It is less structural concerns (as class size, school choice or social promotion) that affect students’ learning, but definitely teaching concerns (Hattie 2009, 1). Though teaching is a highly individual matter, some issues can indeed be named that characterize good teaching (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). Stressing the importance of the teachers’ own learning process, Hattie argues for teaching as a constant learning process about the question of “what works”, structured by systematic feedback between teachers and students: “It is teachers seeing learning through the eyes of students, and students seeing teaching as the key of their ongoing learning. The remarkable feature of the evidence is that the biggest effects on student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching, and when students become their own teachers” (Hattie 2009, 22).

3.2 Communicative and Cultural Competence in Teacher Education When modern languages became part of the curriculum in public schools in the 19th century, the first curricula basically transferred the model for teaching classical languages with an emphasis on grammar analysis, translation and reading of canonized literature to the modern languages (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). The teacher’s main task consisted in providing “insight into the way the language ‘worked’” (Willems 2004, 603). This model was linked to language teaching as part of a general liberal arts education in the context of Humboldtian neohumanistic thought – and not intended for practical purposes, being based on the

Language Teacher

279

belief in the formative value of Latin grammar study “as means of mental training” and the belief that studying classical literature would provide “fortitude of spirit and broad humane understanding of life” (Titone 2004, 264). Though historically, communicative and immersive approaches to language teaching and learning always existed (cf. Fernández Fraile 2005), methods emphasizing a living contact with spoken languages take off only in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. Since the 1970s, the communicative approach has become worldwide the dominant point of reference for language learning policies and teacher education issues. Communicative competence (Hymes 1972) goes far beyond the construction of grammatically correct sentences: it develops in action by doing something with language and is tightly linked to the acquisitional interaction hypothesis and speech act theory in linguistic pragmatics. Language teachers need a fluent command of the target language(s), reaching near native proficiency, mastering linguistic, pragmatic and discourse competence as well as the ability to reflect on language as a system (Willems 2004, 606). Nevertheless, a heavily discussed topic since the beginning of language teaching is the question of whether native speakers are intrinsically better language teachers than non-natives. The question is highly relevant in so far as in many educational systems non-native speakers teach languages they learned themselves as a foreign language. On the other hand, many “small” languages are not part of institutionalized language teaching at all and are therefore excluded from the bulk of academic studies, native speakers remaining the only possibility of contact to such languages. From a sociolinguistic perspective, the idea of any “pure” language and linguistic competence has been questioned, characterizing the native speaker as a theoretical abstraction belonging to the realms of structural linguistics (cf. Derivry 2004, 189). The advantage of the non-native teacher might lie in his or her access to two or more cultures and the fact of sharing the first language with most of his/her learners (Willems 2004, 607), enabling him/her to anticipate difficulties and errors from their shared linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Since the 1990s, the cultural and intercultural component of language learning is more and more emphasized (cf. Sercu/Bandura/Castro 2005; Byram/Hu 2009), directly linking linguistic and cultural competence, as developed in Byram’s model of intercultural and communicative competence (Byram 1997). It comprehends attitudes (such as an empathic openness towards otherness), knowledge (such as sociocultural knowledge about the countries where the target language is spoken), skills of interpreting and relating (the interpretation of cultural artefacts from an emic perspective), skills of discovery and interaction (development of language competence via intercultural encounters) and critical cultural awareness (the ability to evaluate practices and products in different cultures) and goes far beyond the linguistic competence of the native speaker who does not necessarily develop the respective skills and attitudes. In this sense, the notion of the “intercultural speaker” offers a new vision of communicative language learning as a rival model to the former ideal of the native speaker (cf. Kramsch 1998). Intercultural speakers are able to mediate between two (or

280

Birgit Schädlich

more) languages and cultures reaching a high degree of metalinguistic awareness allowing them to communicate appropriately in intercultural encounters and to anticipate and negotiate potential misunderstandings (↗5 Languages and Identities). Though general frameworks for teaching competences have been developed in the last decades, the transfer of general competences to specific language teaching competences is still a research desideratum. The pertinence of linguistics, literature and cultural studies for language teachers is evident, and subject matter knowledge is equally crucial for teacher effectiveness (cf. Bransford/Darling-Hammond/LePage 2005, 25). But the transformation of linguistic, literary and cultural knowledge tailored for the specific needs of teaching and learning situations is not entirely predictable and has to be constructed via systematic reflection, taking into consideration the dynamics between subject matter and the constraints of the students’ cognitive development and the respective curricula: “It is not just academics who produce results for teachers or student teachers who then, in turn, translate them into practice; it is also teachers who produce theory while reflecting upon the circumstances and rationales of their practice” (Hüttner et al. 2012, xv). Based on in-depth knowledge of literature, linguistics and culture/civilization, teachers need to know about the key terms and the history of their subject matter and its teaching. Curricula, materials and textbooks inevitably privilege a particular definition of the subject matter and teachers must be able to recognize key concepts and historical relatedness by critically analysing the texts that frame their teaching practice. Besides being able to analyse the pertinence of linguistic knowledge for grammar teaching and of literature for reading and writing (cf. Hüttner et al. 2012, 57ss.), teachers need to know what it means to develop proficiency in a language, what proficiency “looks like” (Grossman/Schoenfeld/Lee 2005, 208) and how it can be assessed. Involving procedural, conceptual and strategic knowledge, language proficiency can hardly be evaluated as a whole. Teachers need to know formative and summative assessment criteria, tools and standards, including knowledge about language diploma and proficiency tests (such as DELF/DALF for French, DELE for Spanish, CILS for Italian or CAPLE for Portuguese), their provenance and testing methodology. The Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) tries to establish standards for proficiency tests and conducts research in the field.

3.3 Frameworks for Teacher Education – the Example of European Language Policy The European language policy may be cited as an example in order to show the degree to which teacher education follows general linguistic and educational paradigms. Since the 1970s, researchers and policy-making institutions of the European Commission have been working on models and standards of communicative language skills that resulted in 2001 in the publication of the Common European Framework of

Language Teacher

281

Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001). Most of the European Union member states and many other countries are influenced by the CEFR and reference it in their curriculum design, their assessments, textbook development and teacher education. Though the CEFR is not intrinsically linked to a specific teaching method, the underlying notion of communication as actional problem solving in intercultural encounters has had quite an impact on the way languages are taught as is reflected in activating and negotiating approaches (approche communicative / actionnelle; enfoque comunicativo / orientado a la acción; approccio comunicativo / azionale) and methods like task based language learning (enfoque por tareas, approche par tâches, l’approccio basato sui compiti). The CEFR’s importance to language teacher education can be summed up in three points: a) it provides a definition of language learning from the learners’ perspective making it possible to deduce what teachers should be able to do to foster students’ learning, b) it provides a methodological and empirical approach to competence development and assessment by proposing level scales and can-do descriptors for linguistic outcome and c) it offers an approach to standardization and therefore allows for comparability to other competence models and standards. Recent competence profiles mostly derive from empirical field studies involving practitioners’ expertise, as is also the case for the European Profile for Language Teacher Education (Kelly/Grenfell 2004). This framework has been developed by an expert group commissioned by the European Commission. Using a structured communication technique (Delphi-method) which relies on a panel of experts answering questionnaires in three rounds of investigation (cf. Kelly/Grenfall 2004, 107ss.), the Profile addresses policy makers and language teacher educators in Europe and corresponds clearly with the CEFR. The text is based on four pillars (structure, knowledge and understanding, strategies and skills, and values) formulating forty items about efficient teacher education. The specific impact of the Profile stems from being anchored in case studies and providing numerous examples: every item is associated to larger explanations and concrete descriptions of best-practice-examples offering up strategies of implementation and application.

4 Approaches to Professionalization: towards an Integrated Construction of Knowledge and Reflective Practice Like other professions (such as medicine, law, engineering or architecture), teaching is a highly complex ability with large parts of tacit, proceduralized knowledge going far beyond declarative knowledge about the pertinent contents. Over large periods in history, teachers mainly learned in a master-model approach by watching and imitating experienced practitioners. The power and efficiency of observational learning and the immediate influence of models is ineluctable, as

282

Birgit Schädlich

expressed in the dictum “teachers teach how they were taught, not as they were taught to teach”. Yet, in the master approach quality depends exclusively on the model, and therefore not only helpful practices are being adopted but also those which rather do not foster students’ learning (↗16 Language Learner). The “blind routines” of purely imitative learning find their opposite in an overemphasis on academic knowledge. The tenet that declarative knowledge about teaching can simply be transmitted to future teachers in advance (Johnson 2009, 12) is known as the applied science model and underlies many teacher education programmes, even though its efficiency can be called into question: educational research in fact debunked the idea of accumulated knowledge to be “applied” to real-worldsituations as fundamentally wrong, being defined by Tarone/Allwright (2005, 12) as the “academic fallacy”. A stock of declarative knowledge does not necessarily ensure its activation in situations of urgent decision-making like the teaching situation is.

4.1 Teacher Training and Teacher Education From a sociocultural perspective on teacher education, Johnson (2009) stresses the importance of any cognitive development through societal interaction. In fact, professional expertise develops through experience in order to adapt to specific cases of teaching and learning situations by negotiating their meaning in interaction. The terms of teacher training versus teacher education are in this context themselves the subject of large debates: while “training” refers to routines and concrete skills acquired by practice and “training on the job”, “education” must be understood in a wider sense, comprehending (theoretical) reflection on the practice alongside the development of the teacher’s identity. In the 1930s, Dewey’s distinction between routine versus reflective action and the triad of “knowing-in-action”, “reflection-inaction” and “reflection-on-action” – later on developed by Donald Schön’s notion of the “reflective practitioner” (1983) – stressed the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge for professional behaviour. The quantity of field experiences, e.g. via practicum courses, has been enhanced during the last decades in many teacher education curricula even though recent research findings pointed out that the mere quantity does not necessarily ensure the desired effects in teaching skills when the experience remains tacit and without any further, criteria-based reflection (cf. Hascher 2012). In the same sense, the reflected work with cases in teacher education classes can lead “from simplistic perspectives about the causes of classroom events to much more expert understandings […]” (Bransford/Darling-Hammond/LePage 2005, 31), while looking at cases alone “failed to move candidates decisively from novice ideas to more mature understandings of students and teaching” (Bransford/Darling-Hammond/LePage 2005, 31). Though some research (e.g. Biggs/Tang 2003) points out the importance of didactics in higher education for teacher education, there is no infallible way to show

Language Teacher

283

how prospective and in-service language teachers should acquire the skills they need to professionalize their pedagogical behaviour in the language classroom. In this context, many approaches are based upon the idea that prospective teachers need to be trained by experiencing for themselves a broad repertoire of techniques and practices suitable for use in the classroom. Learning about a technique and discussing its relevance for specific learning situations, contents or groups, derives in this approach from the very experience students are exposed to by working with or in the technique. Woodward (1991, 14) calls this method loop input using the metaphor of the Möbius strip, which represents the equality of content and process in teaching and learning scenarios.

4.2 Reflective Practice in Teacher Education Considering the fact that neither imitative craft models nor academic knowledge are sufficient for the development of teaching skills, reflection on and inquiring in one’s own experience with a high degree of critical distance has become one of the crucial objectives in teacher education. Reflective approaches aim to explain the individual’s own teaching behaviour according to the individual’s learning biography and beliefs about foreign language teaching and learning. Ideally, this should then lead to the development of well-founded alternative teaching and learning scenarios. Important methods in reflective practice are, for example, guided observations (cf. Lasagabaster/Sierra 2004) that follow certain criteria such as verbal interaction, student and teacher talking time, dealing with errors, feedback, degrees of participation and learner activity, the use of the target language and other languages, or the role of conscious grammar explanations, etc. Observations can refer to pre-recorded video material or to material created via simulations or microteachings (cf. Leblanc/ Ria 2010), these two being in themselves important methods for reflective teacher education. Both work with teaching tasks in real student groups or with fellow students (peer teaching), creating authentic pedagogical situations as well as a data corpus for observation and analysis. Microteachings and simulations can have positive and long-term effects concerning the acquisition of behavioural patterns as well as their transfer into teachers’ professional practice (Klinzing 2002). Another approach in reflective learning is the work with portfolios as instruments for data collection, documentation and assessment (cf. contributions in Baillat/ Nicolt/Ulma 2010, 155ss.; González Argüello/Pujolà Font 2008). To cite an example, the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (Newby et al. 2007) encourages language students’ reflection on their didactic competences: the Portfolio includes descriptors for self-assessment, grouped in categories like context (comprehending subcategories regarding the teacher’s role or institutional resources and constraints), methodology (covering skills and teaching methods for spoken and written interaction, listening, reading, grammar, vocabulary and culture), resources

284

Birgit Schädlich

and lesson planning (objectives, contents, organization), conducting (interaction with learners, classroom management, classroom language), independent learning (project work and virtual learning environments), and finally assessment of learning (types and tools of assessment, error analysis). Descriptors like “I can evaluate and select a range of meaningful speaking and interactional activities to develop fluency (discussion, role play, problem solving etc.)” (Newby et al. 2007, 21) allow for making the teaching experiences explicit, making abstract terms and didactic principles concrete by way of examples drawn from one’s own practical experience. Another crucial element, particularly in the third phase of continuing professional development, are approaches relying on action research which combine authentic teaching situations with research via systematic data collection and analysis by the teachers themselves. Aiming to improve the teaching practice in one specific group, action research often integrates different perspectives and triangulated data analysis (e.g. questionnaires, field notes, diaries, tests), and is designed as a collaborative setting bringing together teachers and researchers (cf. Burns 1999). Regarding collaboration, many teacher education programmes (cf. Kelly/Grenfell 2004) stress the importance of working with mentors and experienced teachers in peer networks, capable of giving feedback and providing best-practice teaching models. The importance of mobility and exchange programmes, combining experience abroad with reflective instruments such as diaries or portfolios to foster intercultural competence, is also highly valued in many teacher education programmes.

5 Outlook and Research Desiderata 5.1 The Impact of Globalization on Teacher Education One of the most important issues in contemporary research is the investigation into the impact of globalization on language teaching and learning and its consequences for teacher education. Creating, on the one hand, standardization and homogenization, the processes of globalization on the other hand decentralize and mix up territorial boarders, creating new (and often virtual) communicative communities. The economic, demographic or geopolitical importance of language skills has grown very much over the last decades and languages are more and more learned for economic and utilitarian purposes. Pluralism and individualization, learner autonomy and the use of information and communication technologies have all led to an increasing variety in language teacher profiles. Language as a subject and means of communication of cross-curricular importance is reflected in approaches like Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Enseignement d’une matière par l’intégration d’une langue étrangère (ÉMILE), Aprendizaje integrado de contenidos y lenguas extranjeras (AICLE) and the rising interest in languages for specific purposes (cf. Sánchez Lobato/Santos Gargallo 2004, 1109–1279).

Language Teacher

285

Language teachers are directly bound to educational policies and concrete language planning (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) affecting frameworks and objectives of language education. The perpetually growing societal and individual multilingualism questions the relationship of mother tongues, second or foreign languages and national languages, as can be seen by the growing number of immersion programmes and the ongoing investigation on plurilingual teaching and learning environments (↗12 Plurilingual Education), emerging from situations like societal bilingualism (↗11 Bilingual Education), as, for example, in Catalonia. The language(s) of schooling and official national languages might be in conflict with other spoken languages, especially in contexts of decolonization (cf. Pennycook 2004, 276) or with the mother tongue(s) of an increasing number of pupils for whom the language of schooling is a second or foreign language. These differences make it necessary to think about specific designs of teacher education programmes accounting for the ever-growing plurilingual learning groups by strengthening the dialogue between the didactics of first, second and foreign language teaching (cf. Auger 2009). Language education policies (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) are often criticized for reflecting a neoliberal and purely economic stance. In this sense, the link between the global spread of English alongside the “marketization of methods and the homogenization of textbooks” (Pennycook 2004, 279) has not gone unnoticed. Communicative, actional didactics have become approaches that have left a considerable mark on teacher education programmes worldwide. Research might ask in which way these globalized approaches mix with the historically rooted teaching and learning cultures and how they eventually alter local practices. On the one hand, on an international scale policy makers refer to the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001) as an instrument of language governance (cf. Byram/ Parmenter 2012), but on the other hand, attempts at transferring the CEFR to other cultures bring out its being anchored in a European context and raise the question of its compatibility with non-European languages (e.g. the problem of teaching and learning Chinese characters and tones). Yet, the CEFR cannot be considered as “belonging” to one particular country or representing one particular educational or linguistic culture: “What makes the CEFR special is that it has no national ‘ownership’, but is an international document ‘owned’ by the member states of the Council of Europe. […] the dissemination of the CEFR is not a case of the tradition of borrowing from one country to another” (Byram/Parmenter 2012, 446).

For this reason investigation might focus on comparative education trying to look into who exactly adapts certain aspects and ideas, guided by specific purposes, from a text that is accessible worldwide via the internet. This would make clear how the text could not be possibly hinged upon a shared practical or cultural centre. Equally, historical aspects need to be reconsidered as an essential field of investigation: the history of language teaching (↗14 European History of Romance Language

286

Birgit Schädlich

Teaching) has basically been viewed from a European and a North American perspective, pointing out a (historically presumed) teleological qualitative progression to current communicative approaches, leaving other educational traditions out of consideration (cf. Pennycook 2004). In the context of globalization and the paradigmatic shift to post-methodism, Canagarajah (2002) opens up new research perspectives by asking if “[t]his is perhaps the right moment to empower the local knowledge of teachers, deriving from their years of accumulated experience, wisdom, and intuitions about what works best for their students.” (Canagarajah 2002, 140)

5.2 Coordinating Plural Perspectives in Research and Curriculum Design Further knowledge about the teaching and learning cultures that underlie teacher education programmes is an urgent research desideratum as well as the discussion about pertinent disciplinary contents in the light of these differing cultures. As an example, Lenoir (2010, 11) states the incompatibility of approaches concerning the role attributed to practical and theoretical parts in pre-service curricula: the French “epistemological perspective” accentuates the primacy of (disciplinary) knowledge, whereas the American “functional perspective” focuses on pragmatic knowledge and the primacy of experience-oriented savoir-faire (Lenoir 2010, 26). These different cultures are closely linked to the contents of the academic parts championed in preservice teacher education. The localization of teacher education programmes in the humanities’ departments of philologies, as is the case in Germany, France, Spain and in many Spanish- or French-speaking countries, is indicative of the inherent conflict between the inner requirements of the respective subject matter and its philological research on one hand, and the management of specific needs and practical support for future language teachers on the other. The general difficulty when it comes to questioning the pertinence of research in humanities, and the “silence of humanities” (Kämper-van den Boogaart 2004, 383) concerning teacher education, makes it difficult to find an answer to the epistemological question about what language teachers should actually know and be able to do. As there is very little evidence-based research on teacher education, its design, the implementation and evaluation of programmes, its contents and respective methods are still in dire need of more research. The claim for an “evidence-based practice” (Bransford/Darling-Hammond/LePage 2005, 15) however is not a task of simple application: from a systemic point of view, it seems impossible to develop in the first step evidence-based principles of “good” teacher education and in a second step apply them to the practice of language teacher education curricula. Neither can research be done completely outside the field to find out “what (always) works”, nor is there such a thing as “the” practice. Educational research has to handle the constant gap between quantitative and representative studies (as large scale assess-

Language Teacher

287

ments) on one hand, and interpretative studies (as action research scenarios, classroom ethnography, case studies, etc.) on the other hand. With the aim of building up a common base of professional knowledge, research should rely on mixed method designs using experimental and non-experimental approaches (↗2 Research Methods). Observation and personal experience are capable of providing a grounded judgment in those complex situations that often require decision-making beyond quantitative probability: “Research by practitioners is also a source of evidence for practice” (Bransford/Darling-Hammond/LePage 2005, 16). A single case’s evidence might be, in its complexity, as helpful as evidence provided by representative, psychometric approaches. This is why teachers need to know about current research (problems, methods and findings) and, at the same time, need to be enabled to actively participate in processes of data collection, analysis and evaluation based on their own experience and expertise.

6 Conclusion Starting from the assumption that language teaching as a profession is a field of conflicting interests, little empirical evidence, and an ongoing struggle for binding standards and contents, the present article tried to determine structures and subject matters of academic teacher education, central research questions, as well as methods and techniques used in teacher training syllabi. Language teaching and learning nowadays involves communicative skills going far beyond linguistic knowledge. They cover a fluent command of the target language(s), pragmatic skills, as well as cultural and intercultural sensitivity. In most cases, the process of professionalization comprehends the acquisition of declarative knowledge in linguistics, literature, cultural or area studies and educational sciences, the continuous improvement of the teachers’ language proficiency as well as field experience in real or simulated teaching situations. Teacher education involves a constant development of a critical and enquiring attitude towards teaching and learning: prospective language teachers need to be prepared for intercultural experience and to work with partners abroad. They need to acquire knowledge about language teaching methodologies, including the use of information and communication technology, historical knowledge about curricula, syllabi and textbooks as well as about assessment methods. Though research on teaching competence and professional expertise has provided some evidence in the last years, further investigation should explore implementation processes of innovative approaches to teacher education and their efficiency. Considerably more work will also need to be done to define the subject matters and contents of teacher education programmes. Finally, linking higher education pedagogy to teacher education issues appears to be important in order to investigate the effects of teaching techniques used in teacher training courses.

288

Birgit Schädlich

“Teaching and teacher training are both complex events. They bring together, in a cluster, an enormous number of features such as people, places, times, materials, content, processes, course types, and aims. These features meet and jostle in a spontaneous kaleidoscope coloured by the past histories, present speculations, and future possibilities of all the features at the event” (Woodward 1991, 139).

7 Bibliography Auger, Nathalie (2009), Le débat autour des catégories en Didactique des Langues-Cultures dans un contexte interculturel et plurilingue, französisch heute 40/4, 172–176. Baillat, Gilles/Niclot, Daniel/Ulma, Dominique (edd.) (2010), La formation des enseignants en Europe. Approche comparative, Bruxelles, De Boeck. Biggs, John/Tang, Catherine (2003), Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does, Berkshire/New York, Mc Graw Hill, Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press. Bransford, John/Darling-Hammond, Linda/LePage, Pamela (2005), Introduction, in: Linda DarlingHammond/John Bransford (edd.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, 1–39. Burns, Anne (1999), Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Byram, Michael (1997), Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Byram, Michael/Hu, Adelheid (edd.) (2009), Interkulturelle Kompetenz und fremdsprachliches Lernen. Modelle, Empirie, Evaluation / Intercultural competence and foreign language learning: models, empiricism, assessment, Tübingen, Narr. Byram, Michael/Parmenter, Lynne (2012), AG 12: The Common European Framework of Reference: cultural politics and educational influences, in: Markus Bär/Andreas Bonnet/Helene DeckeCornill (edd.), Globalisierung – Migration – Fremdsprachenunterricht, Baltmannsweiler, Schneider Hohengehren, 443–446. Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2002), Globalization, methods, and practice in periphery classrooms, in: David Block/Deborah Cameron (edd.), Globalization and Language Teaching, London/New York, Routledge, 134–150. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Derivry, Martine (2004), Enseignants “natifs” et “non natifs”: deux profils professionnels en concurrence sur le marché des langues, in: Geneviève Zarate/Danielle Lévy/Claire Kramsch (edd.), Précis du plurilinguisme et du pluriculturalisme, Paris, Éditions des archives contemporaines, 189–191. European Commission (2013), Eurydice: Key data on Teachers and School leaders in Europe, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/ eurydice/documents/key_data_series/151EN.pdf (13.07.2013). Fernández Fraile, Eugenia Maria (2005), Du maître de langues au professeur: parcours sémantique d’une évolution sociale et professionnelle, Documents pour l’Histoire du Français Langue Étrangère ou Seconde 33/34, 110–119, http://dhfles.revues.org/1724 (29.05.2013). González Argüello, Vicenta/Pujolà Font, Joan-Tomàs (2008), El uso del portafolio reflexivo del profesor (PRP) para la autoevaluación en la formación continua, in: Susana Pastor Cesteros/Santiago Roca Marín (edd.), La evaluación en el aprendizaje y la enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera y segunda lengua, Alicante, Universidad de Alicante, 290–298.

Language Teacher

289

Grossmann, Pamela/Schoenfeld, Alan/Lee, Carol (2005), Teaching Subject Matter, in: Linda DarlingHammond/John Bransford (edd.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, 201–231. Hascher, Tina (2012), Lernfeld Praktikum – Evidenzbasierte Entwicklungen in der Lehrer/innenbildung, Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung 2, 109–129. Hattie, John (2009), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Abingdon, Routledge. Hüttner, Julia, et al. (2012), Theory and Practice in EFL Teacher Education: Bridging the Gap, Bristol, Multilingual Matters. Hymes, Dell (1972), On communicative competence, in: John Bernard Pride/Janet Holmes (edd.), Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 269–293. Johnson, Karen E. (2009), Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective, New York, Routledge. Kämper-van den Boogaart, Michael (2004), Fachwissenschaftliche Ausbildung aus geisteswissenschaftlicher Sicht, in: Sigrid Blömeke et al. (edd.), Handbuch Lehrerbildung, Kempten, Westermann, 383–397. Kelly, Michael/Grenfell, Michael (2004), European Profile for Language Teacher Education. A Frame of Reference, University of Southampton, http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/ profil-broch_en.pdf (14.07.2013) Klinzing, Hans Gerhard (2002), Wie effektiv ist Microteaching? Ein Überblick über fünfunddreißig Jahre Forschung, Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 48/2, 194–214. Kramsch,Claire (1998), The Privilege of the InterculturalSpeaker, in: Michael Byram/Mike Fleming(edd.), LanguageLearning in Intercultural Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress, 16–31. Lasagabaster, David/Sierra, Juan Manuel (edd.) (2004), La observación como instrumento para la mejora de la enseñanza-aprendizaje de lenguas, Barcelona, ICE Horsori. Leblanc, Serge/Ria, Luc (2010), Observatoire de l’évolution de la professionnalité enseignante et dispositifs de formation de simulation vidéo, in: Gilles Baillat/Daniel Niclot/Dominique Ulma (edd.), La formation des enseignants en Europe. Approche comparative, Brussels, De Boeck, 206–213. Lenoir, Yves (2010), Conception de l’éducation scolaire en France et aux États-Unis: une perspective sociohistorique comparative, in: Gilles Baillat/Daniel Niclot/Dominique Ulma (edd.), La formation des enseignants en Europe. Approche comparative, Brussels, De Boeck, 17–32. Newby, David, et al. (2007), European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL), Graz, European Centre for Modern Languages, http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/fte/pdf/C3_Epostl_E.pdf (13.07.2013). Pennycook, Alastair (2004), History: after 1945, in: Michael Byram (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, London/New York, Routledge, 275–282. Sánchez Lobato, Jesús/Santos Gargallo, Isabel (edd.) (2004), Vademécum para la formación de profesores. Enseñar español como segunda lengua (L2)/lengua extranjera (LE), Madrid, SGEL. Schön, Donald (1983), The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, New York, Basic Books. Sercu, Lies/Bandura, Ewa/Castro, Paloma (edd.) (2005), Foreign language Teachers and Intercultural Competence (An International Investigation), Clevedon et al., Multilingual Matters. Shulman, Lee S. (1986), Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher 15/2, 4–14. Tarone, Elaine/Allwright, Dick (2005), Second Language Teacher Learning and Student Second Language Learning: Shaping the Knowledge Base, in: Diane J. Tedick (ed.), Second Language Teacher Education. International Perspectives, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 5–23. Titone, Renzo (2004), History: The nineteenth century, in: Michael Byram (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, London/New York, Routledge, 264–270.

290

Birgit Schädlich

Vega Gil, Leoncio (2003), Los sistemas educativos europeos y la formación de profesores. Los casos de Francia, Reino Unido, España y Finlandia, Revista de Educación 336, 169–187. Willems, Gerard (2004), Teacher education, in: Michael Byram (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, London/New York, Routledge, 603–608. Woodward, Tessa (1991), Models and Metaphors in Language Teacher Training (Loop input and other strategies), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

16 Language Learner Abstract: The second language and culture “individual-learner” corresponds to a complex and multifaceted entity composed of social, emotional, cognitive and discourse-based variables. On a pedagogical level, as the implementation of educational endeavours consists in putting tools at the service of individual-learners to foster language and culture 2 acquisition, it seems necessary to explore the conditions under which bridges could be built between social psychology, applied linguistics and second language teaching and learning. Our choice has been to address these individual-learners’ language-based, core components, from a social-psychological perspective. This paper will define who the second language and culture individuallearners are and account for the psychosocial states that the learning process may trigger in them. Keywords: language learning, language learner, sociocultural language acquisition model, educational endeavour, individual socio-psychological variable

1 Introduction When learning a second language, the learner is first and foremost a social actor, i.e. “un produit constamment restructuré des influences présentes, ou passées des multiples agents de socialisation” (Dubar 2002, 109) whose aim, ultimately, is to gain fluency in and mastery of a given target language-culture (henceforth L/C 2), according to the discursive standards “in force” in the area(s) – geographical, social, political, or other – in which this code is in use. As such, the L/C 2 “individu-apprenant”1 (Bogaards 1991) corresponds to a complex and multifaceted entity composed of social, emotional, cognitive and discourse-based variables whose singularity embraces features as varied as his/her own particular identity, personality or cognitive styles and whose purpose is to try to move towards a linguistic and cultural reality which is different from his/her source language(s). On a pedagogical level, implementing educational endeavours consists in putting tools at the service of the individual-learner (henceforth IL) to foster L/C 2 development. As such, the consideration of the ILs’ unique variables appears to be “fundamental” (Robinson 2002, 124) for instructional designers and teaching staff when developing and setting up pedagogical artefacts since ILs precisely hold a central place within them, as users (Brockett/Hiemstra 1991).

1 Throughout this chapter, the “individu-apprenant” (Bogaards 1991) will be referred to as “individual-learner”.

292

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

In this respect, it seems necessary to study the conditions under which bridges could be built between social psychology, applied linguistics and second language teaching and learning. Our choice has been to address those links from a sociopsychological perspective. This paper will be an attempt to define – as far as possible – who the L/C 2 ILs are and to account for the psychosocial actions that the learning process requires from them.

2 Social Psychology and the L/C 2 Acquisition – Learning Process According to Morin/Nair’s conception of society (1997, 37), the socialization process induces ILs to gradually adopt specific sets of behaviours in order to become social actors of a social group and to be recognized as such by their peers (Gardner/Lambert 1972; Bogaards 1991, 53). The process of socialization thus implies an interaction with a given social environment. Through this “language socialization” (↗4 Language Socialization), ILs are exposed to the language of their social group – which they eventually may acquire. Developing the competence to use a language – whether it be an L1 or L2 – therefore is a social acquisition (Atkinson 2002). As such, language acquisition contributes to the development of one’s own social identity (↗5 Languages and Identities) by leading the individual to learn and internalize the social and cultural aspects of a given community and to integrate them into the structure of his/ her personality in order to adapt to the social environment in which he/she lives (Rocher 1969, 105). Let us review these concepts and analyse their implications on the second language acquisition process.

2.1 Identity Cohen-Émerique/Hohl (2002, 200) understand identity as a twofold concept which encompasses, on the one hand, a personal, self-identity, and, on the other hand, a social one. Both types are involved in one’s identity construction and may thus reflect and refer to language-based aspects of the IL.2 – Personal identity alludes to active and adaptive cognitive functions by virtue of which the IL may come to terms with his/her own person and the world around him/ her. This dimension derives both from heredity and neurophysiological maturation

2 Language and identity influence one another (↗5 Languages and Identities). Our conviction is that a second language modifies the link between language(s) and identity that operates within an individual (Norton/Toohey 2011).

Language Learner

–

293

on the one hand and, on the other hand, from personal experience. Personal identity has to do with the morphological, physical and physiological characteristics all individuals are endowed with. Personal identity includes, for instance, the ability that human beings have to manipulate language and which requires, in addition to verbal and linguistic aspects both para-verbal elements (e.g. intonation, rhythm of speech and the use of silence) and non-verbal elements (e.g. postures, gestures or attitudes) which play an important structuring and monitoring role in interactional contexts (Forgas 1985). These physical attributes give ILs the opportunity to identify themselves, and, in doing so, to grow and to “act” in their environment; Social identity is related with the power relationships which lie at the heart of all social environments, such as those associated with the language learning processes (Norton/Toohey 2011).

However, in order to interpret and act upon their social worlds, to come to terms with the social environment in which they live, and to direct their social practices, ILs will be sensitized to the social and cultural aspects of the community, in order to accommodate them (Rocher 1969, 105). Such accommodation does not necessarily entail the ILs’ adherence to specific practices or values, but, rather, their capacity to identify these as such, even though they may however decide not to implement them.

2.2 Personality The ILs’ personality can be characterized as a consistent, fundamental set of traits or tendencies (Allport/Odbert 1936) which account for ways of functioning socially, regardless of time or context. In turn, the personality traits will influence the way in which individuals perceive events and their environment. The personality traits of an IL have an impact on him/her when learning an L/C 2, not only in terms of the way s/he will perceive the L/C 2, but also as regards his/her attitude towards it.3 The integration of the theories of personality within a language learning pedagogical framework seems convenient to avoid the consequences that the various traits can have on the L/C 2 teaching and learning practices: – Bogaards (1991, 61), for example, indicates that oral comprehension is related to an individual’s enterprising and sociable character, to extroversion and the absence of neuroticism, and that rather outgoing and stable ILs tend to get the best results in oral comprehension and expression. It follows that extroversion would be an important asset to reach a “good” performance level in oral expression (Brown 1973, 236; cited by Bogaards 1991, 64);

3 We do not regard “second language-culture” as two separate elements, but, rather, as a twofold, mutually determining ensemble.

294

–

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

In contrast, ILs showing introverted personalities (Cheng/Horwitz/Shallert 1999), and who would not manifest a particular “willing(ness) to communicate” in their first language(s) would be even less prone to do so in an L/C 2 (MacIntyre 2007).

These examples suggest that the personality traits are part and parcel of a complex system built around the ILs, and include self-based constructs such as one’s selfconcept, attitude and beliefs, which ILs have about themselves and whose influence on the L/C 2 acquisition process is now beyond a doubt (Arnold 2006).

2.3 Self-Based Constructs Three self-based constructs will be taken into account for our characterization of the ILs. These are: self-concept, attitude, and self-esteem.

2.3.1 Self-Concept Godefroid (2001, 626s.) defines the “self-concept” as the self-knowledge the individual possesses, which grants him/her “une certaine stabilité interne, en la protégeant contre les changements, mais également une flexibilité suffisante la rendant capable de s’adapter, lorsqu’elle est confrontée à son environnement social ou qu’elle est amenée à prendre des décisions” – what Norton/Toohey (2011) call “investment” in the case of L/C 2 learning. Any learning experience entails a process of personal development, which may have an impact on the IL’s self-concept. It is up to the actor who occupies the tutoring position to account for this, in order to develop a mediating pedagogy suitable for the IL’s objectives – namely by accompanying the discovery of his/her very self-concept(s).

2.3.2 Attitude and L/C 2 Teaching-Learning The concept of attitude includes emotions (↗17 Cognition and Emotion) – which fall within the area of affect (Triandis 1980) – such as joy, pleasure, disgust, discontent and hatred – which ILs will associate with certain behaviours and which will influence their psychological disposition to act toward a given object, namely an L/C 2. The IL’s behavioural intent is besides also determined by his/her subjective standards concerning a given behaviour s/he would happen to adopt within an L/C 2-use situation. If we refer to Fishbein/Ajzen’s theory of reasoned action (1975), this belief-based mechanism would have a direct effect on the IL’s attitude and on his/her behavioural intention(s) (cf. Figure 1) – as suggested in the figure below:

Language Learner

295

Figure 1: The theory of reasoned action by Fishbein/Ajzen (1975)

According to Castellotti/Moore (2002, 11), the negative image a learner may have about a specific community – the authors suggest the negative attitude that French learners may have towards Germany as a country – may support the negative vision of an L/C 2 that is difficult to learn. On the opposite, Jones (1991) shows how intensive courses of Welsh – mainly addressed to young learners who strongly feel they belong to the Welsh community – may lead to higher levels of acquisition in comparison with neutral L/C 2 contexts – where a lesser feeling of belonging would be observed. As a matter of fact, the IL’s feelings and judgements influence the way s/he will collect, integrate, and make sense of any situation and any learning object.

2.3.3 Self-Esteem Self-esteem is primarily emotional (Leary/Downs 1995, 134). If one individual’s cognitions about his/herself are not consistent with what that individual’s actions suggest as his/her current competences in a given matter/practice, there is a great chance that the IL’s self-esteem will not reflect reality (Epstein 1991). For example, an individual can lack self-esteem and thus forget about his/her strengths, e.g. when an IL reckons s/he is experiencing L/C 2 learning difficulties at school while s/he is instead having difficulties making a difference between two sounds,4 the IL could thus be led to underestimate the other skills s/he has because of this particular problem. The 4 For instance, native Spanish-speaking learners of French find it difficult to distinguish [u] and [y]. This difficulty concerns both their ability to perceive the acoustic and articulatory differences between the two phonemes, and consequently to implement such differences into their own production – both on segmental and supra-segmental levels.

296

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

influence of an IL’s beliefs on his/her learning process is significant (Cotterall 1995, 195). As the ILs’ self-esteem and beliefs can also predict their learning outcome (Harter 1983), it is important, on a pedagogical level, that the IL’s self-knowledge be as accurate as possible, possibly through the mediation of a tutoring third party.

2.4 Social Psychology, L/C 2 Acquisition and Pedagogical Implications Whatever the nature of the educational artefact, Bogaards (1991, 100) reminds “qu’il y ait apprentissage ou non, cela dépend de l’apprenant” and that “l’enseignant ne peut que mettre en place les conditions favorisant l’apprentissage […] se mettre au service de l’apprenant qui, lui, peut profiter de ses services, ou non”. As an IL’s profile – behavioural, discursive, psychological, social – may vary over time, the particular social and psychological constructs discussed above may be more or less salient and their influence on a learning situation may evolve. Nonetheless, it is useful, for pedagogical supervision purposes to take into account these constructs, as well as the ILs’ beliefs and attitudes, in order to positively accompany their development. This may be achieved by giving them the opportunity to be in situations where they will do well, particularly at the early stages of the learning process (Bandura 1995). Indeed, the first attempts when learning an L/C 2 are the most delicate ones, insofar as they play a key role in one’s construction of a sense of competence and, in turn, determine the ILs’ subsequent involvement in similar tasks (Kanfer/Ackerman/Heggestad 1996) (cf. Figure 2). Measuring these variables, as well as their likely influence all along the L/C 2 development process, is consistent with pedagogical approaches based on sociocultural theories, which adhere to a non-linear, complex, and evolving characterization of all learning processes (Larsen-Freeman/Cameron 2008).

Figure 2: Beliefs and L/C 2 learning-teaching (cf. Rogers 1961)

Language Learner

297

Figure 2 shows that, following Rogers (1961), having a positive self-image helps to gain confidence and be successful in a learning situation and that, conversely, a negative self-image causes low self-esteem and failure. Teaching ILs how to “selfregulate” (Wenden 1998), that is to say, take control of their learning process and procedures, appears to be an educational approach to promote since becoming responsible for one’s learning process favours autonomy.

3 Individuation/Socialization vs. L/C 2 Teaching-Learning So far, we have characterized the language learner as an individual whose social and psychological traits determine whatever language-learning endeavours. We have suggested the link among such social-psychological constructs and any learning experience. A learning process of a “foreign” language and a culture, different from those said to be the native ones, may thus be defined as yet another process of internal change5 which may lead – or aim – not only to develop new skills, but also to promote changes in the IL’s constructs, values and beliefs (Mezirow 1981). The development process of an L/C 2 is currently described by second language acquisition (SLA) emergentism theories as a dynamic system (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories). The focus is on all the elements which integrate the system, rather than on isolated parts of it. Any changes undergone by one of the identified variables will affect the whole system. The only thing that can be predicted about the system is that it will be led to change. Consequently, according to emergentist theories, the only thing that can be predicted about a language learning process is that learning there will be – it remains difficult to predict what will become the object of such learning, when this learning will take place, or by virtue of which actions it will be brought to happen (Larsen-Freeman/Cameron 2008).

3.1 Models of L/C 2 Learning: Language-Based and Individual-Centred Approaches to SLA Learning an L/C 2 implies for the ILs not only managing new sets of discourses and practices, but also operating in a field of action whose social and cultural structure are different from the one(s) in which they originally developed. This, in turn, may lead to a certain destabilization. Learning an L/C 2 therefore induces having one’s personal identity undergo a process of acculturation (Schumann 1978), i.e. gradually moving

5 One of the first being the learning of the mother tongue(s).

298

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

from a sense of belonging to a group (associated with cultural practices and a cultural background) with which the learner self-identifies to a more open one including (an) other group(s) normally representing otherness. The result of this process is a “new” sense of belonging and a multiple identification. As a matter of fact, learning an L/C 2 requires the ILs to “renegotiate” themselves, by integrating into their self-concept (formed in one or more L1) the vast notion of otherness, namely the variables “foreign language” and “foreign culture” of the L/C 2, to which they attempt to be open. In this respect, two major trends can be distinguished in SLA: a cognitive SLA model and a sociocultural one (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). According to Foster/Ohta (2005, 402ss.) cognitive SLA perceives learning as a mental process through which morphosyntactic, phonological and lexical structures are integrated, while, in the sociocultural perspective, learning is seen as a social process in which the context and the participants are inseparable. In effect, scholars within the social-cultural theories paradigm draw on Vygotski’s (1978) notion of scaffolding to explain the pedagogical bond between two individuals. By virtue of this bond, the learner may undergo a learning experience (Bruner 1998) (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories).

3.1.1 The Cognitive SLA Model of L/C 2 Learning According to Firth/Wagner (2007), the pedagogical approaches originating from cognitive SLA models may fail to address the complex relation between learning and identity. Learning an L/C 2 may accordingly be seen as detrimental to “l’image de soi, à la conscience de soi en tant qu’être unique en continuité avec soi-même” (CohenÉmerique/Hohl 2002, 199s.). It follows that the L/C 2 learning outcome – in acquisitional terms – depends, in addition to factors inherent to the ILs, on how they conduct and are involved in their learning process, on the way they are led to learn, or on their beliefs regarding the target L/C 2. A clarification of the role of the personality variables and their influence on the ability to succeed in an L/C 2 learning endeavour is necessary because non-cognitive influences would have an impact which would be, in this approach, at the very least equal, not to say more important in the L/C 2 learning process (Sparks/Ganschow 2001, 100). In effect, Firth/Wagner (2007, 801) are critical towards cognitive models. According to these authors, such models mainly focus on the linguistic and pragmatic failures of the ILs – who are regarded as faulty interlocutors, insofar as their only identity choices are to be made among native and non-native (Firth/Wagner 1997, 292).

Language Learner

299

3.1.2 The Sociocultural SLA Model of L/C 2 Learning Sociocultural SLA models take into account not only language and discourse-related phenomena, but also social and psychological factors. For those who adhere to sociocultural SLA models, L/C 2 learning requires the implementation of specific, specialized (Firth/Wagner 1997, 292) social practices, and also the carrying out of human actions, the performance of social practices and the embodiment of identities (Mondada/Pekarek Doehler 2004, 504). A process which goes beyond abstract, linear and cumulative perspectives on language learning (Firth/Wagner 2007, 804), and which requires a permanent construction, which is accomplished collectively and publicly through one-off activities, within social contexts (ibid., 807). Close to this position, Ellis (2003, 181) highlights how sociocultural SLA – through the concept of scaffolding – offers a more complete view of learning than cognitive SLA: while the second view focuses exclusively on the cognitive aspects involved in the L/C 2 learning process, the first also encompasses emotional or personal aspects, which highlights, once more, the possible influence which self-image might have on cultural patterns in the case of a theory for learning an L/C 2.

3.2 The L/C 2 Learner at the Heart of an Autonomous Learning Process The distinction aforementioned between cognitive and sociocultural models of SLA will induce us to reflect on what may be acquisitionally and pedagogically appropriate L/C 2 learning environments – which account for both psycholinguistic and social-psychological constructs and processes. These environments will lead us to focus on the tutors’ responsibilities within institutional learning contexts.

3.2.1 ILs’ Self-Based Constructs, Autonomous Learning and Socioconstructivism From a sociocultural point of view, the role of teachers and education, as far as ILs are concerned, is to help accompany the latter towards autonomous practices liable to assist them in their own learning processes (Narcy-Combes 2005). In the case of L/C 2 teaching-learning, this entails having ILs to: – be actively in charge of everything that is related to the learning process, that is to say its definition, its management and its evaluation (Holec 1991) and this is all the more true for adult learners since, for them, self-learning and personal responsibility are strongly encouraged (Candy 1991); – take the responsibility for their own learning – i.e., the ILs’ personal commitment to act according to specific social values that favour a collective endeavour, such as an institutional learning process. As such, a learning environment based on a

300

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

collaborative pedagogical approach, calls for a contract that binds the teacher and the learners. In this respect, we agree with Henri/Lundgren-Cayrol (2001), for whom collaborative learning is a “démarche active par laquelle l’apprenant travaille à la construction de ses connaissances”, situated within a learning environment which must comply with certain principles: – the knowledge is to be explored and broken down into distinct elements, rather than become an object that learners take in as a whole; – learning is to take place within realistic, authentic situations; – the ILs are to actively and continuously interact with one another; – their autonomy and interactive efficiency must be developed progressively; – the higher-level competences – analysis, synthesis, problem solving, etc. – should be encouraged; – the (meta)cognitive strategies are to be fostered in order to exploit efficiently the cognitive resources available; – the ILs are to engage within the group, and to share common objectives; – they are expected to support each other. The last of the above principles is reminiscent of Jermann’s (1996) characterization of a “good” learning environment, which allows for the learners to access a community of experts able to guide and counsel them and where knowledge is co-constructed within real experiences, by means of language, accounting for the interactants’ personal development (Bucheton/Bautier 1996). This raises the questions of feedback and mediation in the SLA process.

3.2.2 Collaborative Learning and Mediation Mediation is a central tenet to the constructivist approaches to learning (Vygotski 1978). As regards L/C 2 learning, two levels of mediation may be distinguished: – between the knowledge and the learners; – among the learners themselves. Mediation requires a third party to accompany the ILs’ reflective process(es). It seems appropriate to gauge the mediation according to the competences the learners have already acquired. These may, in effect, not only be the starting point for the mediator’s task, but also contribute to ensuring that the ILs engage within an active process of personal development – we consider that all learning is a process of personal development. The mediator’s role in this perspective is not only to encourage the scaffolding process (Bruner 1998) but also to invite the ILs to surpass it, so they may engage within a collective process of knowledge construction.

Language Learner

301

3.3 Situated Learning and L/C 2 Learning According to Lave/Wenger (1991), learning is a social practice, which results from the interaction and negotiation carried out by the members of a particular community of practices. As regards L/C 2 learning, this theory suggests that learning may only occur if the learners engage within a socially and culturally structured context. Interactions may thus allow ILs to identify the meaningful characteristics of the L/C 2, the differences between their mother tongue(s) and the L/C 2, but also between their present capacities and the L/C 2 norms, as observed in the input to which they are exposed (Robinson 2002). If learning is understood as a situated practice, it follows that it results from the accomplishment of activities which have been collectively determined by all participants. This position accounts for the social constructivist approach of the human and of social interaction.

3.3.1 Situated Learning and Information and Communication Technologies Information and communication technologies (ICT) seem to be relevant tools to materialize situated learning. ICT make it possible to design and implement complex, authentic and meaningful situations, which enable the learners to draw on their resources in order to construct collectively their knowledge, solve problems and develop their competences, as they position themselves within a common realm of knowledge and practice by using the same communication code (both verbal and non-verbal) which will enable their recognition as members of the community by the other participants. The learners gradually construct their own learning process as they “thrive” within a given community of practice. Provided that the learners are able to manage the changes, this will, in due time, make their integration within the community possible (Lave/Wenger 1991).

3.3.2 Situated Learning and Pedagogical Implications Considering what has been stated so far, and from an institutional, educational level perspective, it appears that setting up knowledge-construction communities (Hewitt/ Scardamalia 1998) where the learners may adequately co-construct their own knowledge, is appropriate as far as learning facilitation is concerned. In order to recreate the required authenticity within institutional learning environments, it is possible to situate teaching within macro-contexts that favour the exploration of knowledge from multiple points of view (Spiro et al. 1992). A project-based approach to teaching is coherent with a social-psychological characterization of ILs, insofar as it accounts for the ILs as “‘social agents’, i.e. members of a society who have tasks (not exclusively

302

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

language-related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action” (Council of Europe 2001, 11). The table below synthesizes the different pedagogical implications resulting from our alignment with the social constructivist theories. Table 1: Social constructivism and L/C 2 learning/teaching Learning

Pedagogical implications

The objective of the ILs must be at the heart of an environment that learning situation is to aims for the integration and acquisition of both have the ILs deeply content-knowledge and skills (Holec 1991). restructure their former knowledge (Fabre 1999). The institution must aim for the learners’ autonomy (Duquette 2002).

Learners’ functioning It is not possible to predict in which ways the learners will/may learn (Beillerot 1989).

The learning environment must help create a favourable context which facilitates learning.

ILs are expected to actively take the responsibility for their learning (Holec 1991). As for the teacher, s/he keeps the chief responsibility for setting up the learning environment, as well as for gradually accompanying the learners towards an acceptance of their own responsibility (Smith 1990). The learners are expected to renegotiate themselves, i.e., they are expected to integrate within their core, personal, structure – built from other language(s) – the “language” and “culture” based elements associated with the L/C 2 (cf. Schumann’s 1978 acculturation theory). Within the context of Motivation plays a key role in the process of a teaching-learning learning an L/C 2 (Dörnyei 2007). environment, the potentially favourable conditions must be made available, which may counterbalance any anxiety-related reactions from the ILs, as they attempt to use the L/C 2 (Horwitz/ Horwitz/Cope 1986; Young 1986)

Learning an L/C 2 has consequences on both the ILs’ self-conscience and self-image (CohenÉmerique/Hohl 2002, 199s.)

Language Learner

Learning

Pedagogical implications

303

Learners’ functioning

Collaboration and scaffolding-based learning theories (Bruner 1998), seem an adequate pathway to set up pedagogical environments aiming at making language ego boundaries more permeable (Guiora/Acton 1979). A pedagogical approach based on the collaboration and scaffolding, makes it necessary for an external agent to mediate between the learner and the learning process (Vygotski 1978). ICT help set up authentic, situated, learning environments. The learners who take part in these environments may mobilize their resources, as well as co-construct new knowledge, and develop their skills. Such a development process may in turn grant them the acceptance of those who are recognized as full-time members of the community of practices for which the L/C2 learners aim.

4 Conclusion This paper has portrayed the IL as an actor who functions socially, categorizes and is categorized in more than one language. As such, the IL has particular ways to situate her/himself within the different communities of practice to which s/he belongs, and also within which s/he aims for. The ILs are thus able to: – process (receive, decode, encode, produce, retrieve, mistake, repair, contrast, compare, …) temporary, constantly changing information in real time; – modify, adapt, develop the (material, cognitive, social, human, strategic, economic, knowledge-based, technical, language-based) means by which they are able to process temporary, constantly changing information; – functionally occupy a place and play specific roles within (a) given (geographical, political, historical, moral, ethical, social, communitarian, economical) evolving context(s); – locally position themselves (ideologically, emotionally, politically, morally, ethically, psychologically) in relation to the temporary context(s) they happen to occupy, in which they may play roles, and relate such position(s) and role(s) to former, parallel, other position(s) they may occupy and roles they may play; – locally and sustainably imagine, construct, choose, renew, refuse, try out, implement, attempt, succeed, fail, attempt anew, abandon, export, import, (personal, collective) objectives within the local context(s) they happen to occupy; – locally and sustainably modify, adapt, develop the (material, cognitive, social, human, strategic, economic, knowledge-based, technical, language-based) means by which they imagine, construct, choose, renew, refuse, try out, implement,

304

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

attempt, fail, attempt anew, abandon, export, import (personal, collective) objectives within the local context(s) they happen to occupy. This point having been made, it follows that the characterization of any language learner may not ignore personal and psychological aspects such as the IL’s identity development. The identity development process includes complex aspects such as psycho-social constructs (e.g. gender, surname and first name, profession, age, etc.), the beliefs that the individual may integrate consciously (of a religious or ideological nature, for example), the psycho-cultural practices which the individual will regard in a certain manner (e.g. customs and rituals, cultural expressions and codes, etc.), the personal stories which shape the IL’s life experience or the beliefs about one’s personal traits (personality, intelligence, aptitudes, skills), physical appearance (health, physical condition, attractiveness), social relations (with family members, friends, work colleagues, and even with opponents), and also about the roles that the IL recognizes as his/her own (student, learner, accountant, teacher, engineer, …). From a general learning perspective and, consequently, from a culture and language learning point of view, it is crucial to integrate these social and identityrelated aspects within a learning environment (↗5 Languages and Identities), for any social situation will provoke an emotional response from the individual, which s/he may recognize as adequate and specific to the situation in course (for example, learning or using an L/C 2 within an institutional learning environment) (NarcyCombes 2005, 12). Consequently, the complex, individual and social networks depicted in this article shall be taken as the departure point for all educational endeavours, particularly when adults are concerned. Learning an L/C 2 is not only a matter of learning linguistic aspects, but also social, pragmatic, civilization-related, diachronic, or synchronic ones, for example, as it supposes a process of personal development along which the IL will broaden aspects of his/her own identity and personality. The depiction of language learning that we have attempted here is more encompassing insofar as it takes into account the identity-development process, which has an impact on both the teaching and learning tasks, and as a consequence, on the L/C 2 acquisition process.

5 Bibliography Allport, Gordon Willard/Odbert, Henry Sebastian (1936), Trait names: a psycho-lexical study, Psychological Monographs 47/211, 171–220. Arnold, Jane (2006), Comment les facteurs affectifs influencent-ils l’apprentissage d’une langue étrangère?, Études de Linguistique Appliquée 144, 407–426. Atkinson, Dwight (2002), Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition, The Modern Language Journal 86, 525–545. Bandura, Albert (1995), Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies, in: Albert Bandura (ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1–45.

Language Learner

305

Beillerot, Jacky (1989), Savoir et rapport au savoir, Paris, Bégédis, Éditions Universitaires. Bogaards, Paul (1991), Aptitude et affectivité dans l’apprentissage des langues étrangères, Paris, Crédif-Hatier, collection LAL. Brockett, Ralph G./Hiemstra, Roger (1991), Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice, New York, Routledge. Brown, Roger (1973), A First Language: The Early Stages, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press. Bruner, Jerome (1983/1998), Le développement de l’enfant: savoir faire, savoir dire, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Bucheton, Dominique/Bautier, Élisabeth (1996), Interactions: co-construction du sujet et des savoirs, Le français aujourd’hui 113, 24–32. Candy, Philip (1991), Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Castellotti, Véronique/Moore, Danielle (2002), Représentations sociales des langues et enseignements. Guide pour l’élaboration des politiques linguistiques éducatives en Europe. De la diversité linguistique à l’éducation plurilingue. Étude de référence, Strasbourg, Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe. Cheng, Yuh-show/Horwitz, Elaine/Schallert, Diane (1999), Language Anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components, Language Learning 49, 417–446. Cohen-Émerique, Margalit/Hohl, Janine (2002), Menace à l’identité chez les professionnels en situation interculturelle, in: Colette Sabatier/Hanna Malewska-Peyre/Fabienne Tanon (edd.), Identités, acculturation et alterité, Paris, L’Harmattan, 199–228. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cotterall, Sara (1995), Readiness for autonomy: investigating learner beliefs, System 23/2, 195–205. Dickinson, Leslie (1995), Autonomy and motivation: A literature review, System 23/2, 165–174. Dörnyei, Zoltan (2007), Creating a motivational classroom environment, in: Jim Cummins/Chris Davidson (edd.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching, New York, Springer, 719–731. Dubar, Claude (32002), La socialisation, constructions des identités sociales et professionnelles, Paris, Colin. Duquette, Lise (2002), Analyse de données en apprentissage d’une L2 en situation d’autonomie dans un environnement multimédia, ALSIC 5/1, 33–53. Ellis, Rod (2003), Task-based language learning and teaching, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Epstein, Seymour (1991), Cognitive-experiential self-theory: an integrative theory of personality, in: Rebecca Curtis (ed.), The relational self convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology, New York, Guildford Press, 111–137. F abre, Michel (1999), Situations-problèmes et savoir scolaire, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Firth, Alan/Wagner, Johannes (1997), On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research, The Modern Language Journal 81/3, 285–300. Firth, Alan/Wagner, Johannes (2007), Second/Foreign Language Learning as a Social Accomplishment: Elaborations on a Reconceptualized SLA, The Modern Language Journal 91/1, 800–819. Fishbein, Martin/Ajzen, Icek (1975), Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research, Reading (MA), Addison Wesley. Forgas, Joseph (1985), Interpersonal Behavior: The Psychology of Social Interaction, Oxford, Pergamon. Foster, Pauline/Snyder Ohta, Amy (2005), Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms, Applied Linguistics 26/3, 402–430. Gardner, Robert/Lambert, Wallace (1972), Attitudes and motivation in second language learning, Rowley (Mass.), Newbury House.

306

Jose I. Aguilar Río and Cédric Brudermann

Godefroid, Jo (2001), Psychologie: Science humaine et science cognitive, Bruxelles, De Boeck. Guiora, Alexander/Acton, William (1979), Personality and language behaviour: a restatement, Language Learning, 29/1, 193–204. Harter, Susan (1983), Developmental perspectives on the self-system, in: Eileen Mavis Hetherington (ed.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and social development, New York, Wiley, 275–386. Henri, France/Lundgren-Cayrol, Karin (2001), Apprentissage collaboratif à distance. Pour comprendre et concevoir des environnements d’apprentissage virtuels, Sainte-Foy, Presses de l’Université du Québec. Hewitt, Jim/Scardamalia, Marlene (1998), Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes, Educational Psychology Review 10/1, 75–96. Holec, Henri (1991), Autonomie de l’apprenant: de l’enseignement à l’apprentissage, Éducation permanente 107, 59–66. Horwitz, Elaine/Horwitz, Michael/Cope, Joann (1986), Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety, The Modern Language Journal, 70/2, 125–132. Jermann, Patrick (1996), Conception et analyse d’une interface semi-structurée dédiée à la co-résolution de problème, Mémoire de DES STAF, FPSE, Université de Genève. Jones, Christine (1991), The Ulpan in Wales: A study in Motivation, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 12/3, 183–193. Kanfer, Ruth/Ackerman, Phillip/Heggestad, Eric (1996), Motivational skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective, Learning and Individual Differences 8/3, 185–209. Larsen-Freeman, Diane/Cameron, Lynne (2008), Research Methodology on Language Development from a Complex Systems Perspective, The Modern Language Journal 92/2, 200–213. Lave, Jean/Wenger, Étienne (1991), Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Leary, Mark/Downs, Deborah (1995), Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: The selfesteem system as a sociometer, in: Michael Kernis (ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem, New York, Plenum, 123–144. MacIntyre, Peter Daniel (2007), Willingness to Communicate in the Second Language: Understanding the Decision to Speak as a Volitional Process, The Modern Language Journal 9/4, 564–576. Mezirow, John (1981), A critical theory of adult learning and education, Adult Education 32/1, 3–24. Mondada, Lorenza/Pekarek Doehler, Simona (2004), Second Language Acquisition as Situated Practice: Task Accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom, The Modern Language Journal 88/4, 501–518. Morin, Edgar/Nair, Sami (1997), Une politique de civilisation, Paris, Arléa. Narcy-Combes, Jean-Paul (2005), Didactique des langues et TIC: vers une recherche-action responsable, Paris, Ophrys. Norton, Bonny/Toohey, Kelleen (2011), Identity, Language Learning, and Social Change, Language Teaching 44/04, 412–446. Robinson, Peter (ed.) (2002), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Rocher, Guy (1969), Introduction à la sociologie générale, vol. 1: L’action sociale, Montréal, Hurtubise HMH. Rogers, Carl (1961), On Becoming a Person, Boston, Houghton Mifflin. Schumann, John (1978), The acculturation model for second language acquisition, in: Rosario Gingras (ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, Arlington (VA), Center for Applied Linguistics, 27–50. Smith, Robert (1990), The promise of learning to learn, in: Robert Smith (ed.), Learning to learn across the lifespan, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 98–122.

Language Learner

307

Sparks, Richard/Ganschow, Leonore (2001), Aptitude for Learning a Foreign Language, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21, 90–111. Spiro, Rand, et al. (1992), Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism, and Hypertext: Random Access Instruction for Knowledge Acquisition in Ill-Structured Domains, in: David Jonassen/Thomas Duffy (edd.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Hillsdale (NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 57–75. Triandis, Harry (1980), Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behaviour, in: Monte Page (ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Beliefs, attitudes and values, vol. 1, Lincoln (NE), University of Nebraska, 195–259. Vygotski, Lev (1978), Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes, Harvard, Harvard University Press. Wenden, Anita (1998), Metacognitive knowledge and language learning, Applied Linguistics 19/4, 515–537. Young, Dolly (1986), The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral proficiency ratings, Foreign Language Annals 19, 439–445.

Hélène Martinez

17 Cognition and Emotion Abstract: Now that the concepts of emotion and cognition have been placed in the discourse of foreign language didactics, and now that their value has been established for teaching and learning foreign languages, this article will take a further look into the dimensions of emotion and cognition. Here it will be shown that the exclusive concentration on cognitive aspects of foreign language acquisition is inappropriate and that the conceptual pairing of emotion and cognition must be understood as an overarching concept, narrowing the conceptualization of each individual term. This results in an imperative to embrace language acquisition in a holistic manner, revealing consequences for teaching, teacher education, and not least for research. Furthermore, this article thematically outlines the relevant fields of research and concludes with an overview of studies from these fields. Keywords: cognition, emotion, affect, motivation, attitudes

1 The Role of Cognition and Emotion in Research on Language Teaching and Learning At the end of the 1960s, the cognitivist-rationalist paradigm replaced the empiricalbehaviourist one in foreign language pedagogy. Its emphasis on the mental processes of foreign language acquisition came at the cost of emotional-affective factors. Zimmermann had already noted in 1982 that previous learner-focused research in foreign language acquisition and pedagogy was primarily centred on the cognitive dimension. He pointed to isolated studies on motivation and attitudes that show that researching learner cognition does not alone capture the complexity of language acquisition. He concludes, “we know […] from tests performed in biology on the interaction between the central and autonomic nervous system […], from experiments within the framework of the ‘Attribute Treatment Interaction’ and from psychological action theory […] that learner actions are, to a large degree, accompanied or even determined by feelings” (1982, 129).

In foreign language pedagogy and research (↗2 Research Methods), this paradigm shift in learning theory was accompanied by the learner-oriented turn, or the “relocation of interest from the perspective of teaching to the perspective of learning” (Bausch 1982, 12). While the postulate of learner-centredness can be seen in general as an intensified interest in the learner’s personality traits and their effects on foreign language acquisition, it is defined more precisely by its focus on the learner’s internal cognitive

Cognition and Emotion

309

processes, like filtering, processing, assigning and making decisions during foreign language acquisition and use, with the concrete goal of better understanding performance (Vollmer 1982, 109s.). This shift is connected to the realization that the learner (↗16 Language Learner) plays an active role and that foreign language learning is a process of information processing (storing and retrieving language data) that is dependent on individual learner variables. From the psychological perspective, the reception of the Interlanguage Hypothesis (Selinker 1972) (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories) was particularly crucial for this shift, because it “place[d] the language learning process in a complex network of linguistic, (learner-)psychological, social and methodological factors and […] shift[ed] the learner, his individual stages of learning and its related processes and strategies into the center of interest” (Rattunde 1982, 538). As a result, the more-or-less static concept of language, which was based on the linguistics of language systems, was replaced by a productive and dynamic concept of language learning, accentuating the process dimension of the learner language. Based on linguistic utterances, conclusions on strategies and processes of foreign language learning were drawn. In organizational information processing theory, individuals are primarily considered as information processing systems analogous to computers. In addition to the classical models of information processing, which are based on a three storage system, Anderson’s Adaptive Control of Thought (ACT) Model and connectionist models played a crucial role. They form varying foundations for the description of strategic knowledge and use (Grotjahn 1997) and for much of the research on mental lexicon. They are also foundationally important for reading research as well as for models of language production. As a result, concepts like language learning strategies, learner training and learner autonomy became central orienting concepts in the 1980s and 90s (Königs 2013). The height of this focus on cognitive aspects in research on foreign language teaching and learning (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) in Germany lies in the adoption of the epistemology of radical constructivism that took place in the 1990s. The discussion of (radical) constructivism and the instruction vs. construction debate (Glasersfeld 1989; Wendt 2000) led to a stronger emphasis on the selfreferential cognitive subject. This transfer led to a fierce debate in foreign language pedagogy (cf. Reinfried 1999) as well as to a rejection of the absolute supremacy of the subject. This cognitive science orientation of research on foreign languages neglected approaches and research that centred on emotions and affect. As Garrett/Young (2009, 209) point out, “affect and emotion are terms that have been in the shadows of discussions of classroom language learning, where the primary focus has been on the development of knowledge and use of the new language” (cf. Geisler/HermannBrennecke 1997, 81). Zimmermann (1998, 211) concludes “that the cognitive paradigm, as a research schema, tends to concentrate on research topics and typical data

310

Hélène Martinez

collection methods, and obscures or minimizes” the importance of deviating perspectives – like for example the emotional dimension. The lack of research on emotion in foreign language teaching and learning correlates to the lack of appreciation researchers have of emotional-affective factors in the generally accepted conception of methods. Although the function of emotion is recognized in the communicative-pragmatic approach, communicative competence tends to be reduced to speech acts with little reference to feeling (cf. Geisler/Hermann-Brennecke 1997, 80; for exceptions cf. Legutke/Thomas 1991). Only the alternative methods of the late 1970s that developed under the influence of humanistic thought address the subject of emotion. Suggestopedia, Silent Way, Community Language Learning and Total Physical Response “embody affect-sensitive principles such as the following [though they differ in theory and practice]: – Language learning should take place in a low-anxiety atmosphere; – Opportunities for learners to succeed and thus raise their confidence should be built into classroom activities; – The learner should be considered holistically: cognitive, emotional and physical aspects; – Language learning should involve personally meaningful experience; – Learner knowledge and resources should be drawn upon, and autonomy is to be favored and developed” (Arnold 2011, 12). Christ (1996, 50) reminds us that “an important result of learner-orientation [is] the consideration of the learner’s motivation, attitude, and interests in research and practice”. He stresses that “[i]n the years following the first approaches in the 1960s […], an abundance of investigations emerged that connected to concrete teaching and learning situations […]”. Worth mentioning are research studies on affective variables that emerged predominantly within the framework of the individualization approach (Altmann 1977; Valette/Disick 1972) and humanistic approaches (Moskowitz 1978; Stevick 1980). Other studies refer primarily to the concept of motivation and attitudes (Lambert et al. 1976) from the student perspective. For French language pedagogy in Germany, Düwell’s empirical study on motivation (1979) is still influential (cf. Solmecke 1976; Düwell 2002). Even though we cannot yet speak of an “emotional turn” – at least not in foreign language research,1 a shift in meaning took place in the mid-1990s after it was recognized that a cognitive science orientation that ignored emotion was limited (cf. Börner/Vogel 2004). According to Schwerdtfeger (2000), foreign and second language acquisition (↗10 Second Language Acquisition) research runs the “risk of losing sight of the holistic nature of the learner, of focusing only on the ‘head’ and ‘corporality’ as

1 Largely inspired by the work of Damasio (1999), 21st-century psychologists have begun to research the relationships among emotion, cognition, memory and consciousness.

Cognition and Emotion

311

a result of the ‘cognitive turn’, of completely disregarding the physical and emotional basis” (cited in Vollmer 2001, 56). This new interest in emotion, however, also develops out of the very nature of the complex object matter, which is characteristic of foreign language pedagogy (Christ 1998, 52s.): teaching and learning a foreign language always occurs against the background of “the other, the opposite, a person who communicates and a person with whom one communicates or would like to communicate”, against the background “of the other language that contrasts, correlates, interferes with one’s own” and not least “of the cultural load of one’s own language and the foreign one, and the reference to one’s own outer world and the foreign one”. This interest in emotion reflects the fact that subjectivity and emotion play an important role in the teaching and learning of a foreign language, that cognition is always also emotion. This is, as already suggested, especially visible in the work on understanding the “other”, on intercultural learning (↗5 Languages and Identities), and in the didactics of literature (amongst others Zarate 1987; Bredella/Christ 1995; Fäcke 2012). This complies with the principles of a new method paradigm, the socalled neo-communicative foreign language classroom (Reinfried 2001), and which is characterized by action-orientation, interdisciplinary learning and plurilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education), and not least holistic language experience as well as learner orientation. This increasing interest accompanies the subjectivization of research methodology (↗2 Research Methods): in accordance with (and as a logical consequence of) learner orientation (↗16 Language Learner), research on foreign language teaching and learning experienced a subjective turn (De Florio-Hansen 1998, 4), which can be identified by an increased interest in the learner’s perspective (Kajala/Barcelos 2003; Kallenbach 1996) as well as qualitative research instruments, like questionnaires, diaries, narrative journals, etc. (among others, Mercer 2006).

2 Cognition and Emotion: Conceptual Approach and Functions According to Le Ny (1999, 161), “la cognition recouvre à la fois l’ensemble des activités qui concourent à la connaissance […] et l’ensemble des produits de ces activités, qu’il s’agisse de connaissances proprement dites, d’erreurs franches, de représentations et de croyances approximatives ou partiellement inexactes”. In the framework of cognitive psychology, cognition is viewed as “l’ensemble des processus au moyen desquels les entrées sensorielles sont transformées, codées, élaborées, stockées, retrouvées et utilisées” (Neisser 1967, cited in Huteau 1985, 172). In other words, cognition comprises “[p]henomena of information processing, like the

312

Hélène Martinez

processes of noticing, learning, storing, remembering, abstracting and problem solving” (Mandl/Huber 1983, 3). If the focus of cognition is on the foreign language teacher (↗15 Language Teacher) and the actions of teaching, then the concept especially encompasses the teacher’s subjective expectations and perceptions of foreign language learning and teaching. Cognition, in this sense, refers to teacher cognition, or more specifically to teacher beliefs and subjective theories, with their respective cognitive and emotional traits (Borg 2003; Grotjahn 1991). The concept of emotion is difficult to define since there are differing approaches (cf. Pekrun/Jerusalem 1996, 4). Traue (1992, 82, cited in Cronjäger 2009, 25) notes that “neither a unified theory nor an interdisciplinary definition” exists for the concept of emotion. Psychology normally differentiates between two forms of emotional states: emotional impulses (also known as emotion, cf. Pekrun/Jerusalem 1996, 11), which are short term and are triggered by a specific event, like excitement, sorrow or joy, and moods, which are longer lasting emotional impulses that “produce the basic affective conditions of behavior” (Düwell 2002, 172). However, the similarity between both phenomena, as the examples above show, hinders a clear division. This leads Düwell (2002, 172) to recommend that “both, in their similarities and differences, [… should be] embedded on a continuum of affective states”. Pekrun also criticizes this conventional dichotomization of the concept of emotion into feelings and moods. He sees this as two parts of the same “multidimensional space of emotion” (Pekrun 2006, 316, cited in Cronjäger 2009, 24). Furthermore, there is the additional differentiation of disposition. Disposition is “a character trait and thus a long term emotional makeup” (Donnerstag 2010, 45s.). For Kieweg, “emotions as mental phenomena [… consist of] a component for current condition and one for general disposition.” He explains further, “Thus, for example, a reader’s momentary emotional aversion to a foreign language text can be traced back to both the text’s unattractive content as well to the reader’s general aversion to handling a lexically difficult text that requires a lot of individual effort” (Kieweg 2003, 4). In English-speaking countries, the term “affect” is used as an overarching category that encompasses moods, feelings and emotions. Thus Arnold/Brown (1999, 1) define “affect” as “aspects of emotion, feeling, mood or attitude which condition behaviour.” The term “emotion” has up to now rarely been used in foreign language research. Instead, “affective variables”, “affective factors” or “affect” (in French “affectivité”, Boggards 1988; in Spanish “la dimensión afectiva”, Arnold 2000) are used to discuss individual learner traits in foreign language learning. Affective factors include attitudes, positions, motivation and anxiety, where these dimensions are often observed in their interdependency (Bogaards 1988, 48ss.). Sociocultural aspects of affective factors include constructs like “empathy” and “intercultural processes” (cf. Finkbeiner 2001, 73). Finkbeiner (2001, 69) speaks of a “conceptual heterogeneity” that complicates a precise empirical understanding of the concept of emotion (Beermann/ Cronjäger 2012, 114s.).

Cognition and Emotion

313

Thus recent empirical studies (Cronjäger 2009; Beermann/Cronjäger 2012) fall back on a multi-componential description of emotions (Pekrun/Jerusalem 1996; Götz 2004) that contains reciprocal dimensions and allows for conceptual differentiation. In these studies, emotion comprises grosso modo 4 components: – affective components (feelings) – cognitive components (thoughts) – motivational components (action tendencies) – physiological components (body/organism). This four-component approach to emotion clearly shows that a separation of cognition and emotion is impossible. According to Schumann (1994, 232) “affect is an integral part of cognition”. For Pekrun/Jerusalem, both concepts are overlapping: cognition can be an element of emotion (e.g. anxiety over failing tests). Yet both concepts also overlap the concept of motivation: “traditional conceptions of motivation include ‘mental powers’ that underlie the objectives, intensity and persistence of behavior” (Pekrun/Jerusalem, 1996, 4). Conversely, attitudinal and affective factors can be seen as “special types of cognitive structure” (Finkbeiner 2001, 65). In accordance with Mandl/Huber (1983), it can be assumed that there are no affective states and processes without some cognition, and no cognitive states without some affect (cf. Finkbeiner 2001; Blanc 2001). For Bown/White (2010, 433), “[e]motions are defined as valenced responses to external stimuli and/or internal mental representations that involve changes across physiological, experimental, and behavioral response systems. Contemporary researchers conceive of emotions as tools by which we appraise experiences and prepare to act on situations: emotions facilitate decision-making, promote learning, and alert individuals to mismatches between their goals and the environment”.

According to Pekrun/Jerusalem (1996, 11), one can assume that the following 4 classes of processes can influence learning and performance in terms of emotion: (1) strategies for processing information; (2) processes of long term memory (information storage and recall); (3) processes of working memory; (4) learning and performance relevant motivation. (On the role of emotion in [foreign language] learning, cf. Kieweg 2003; Arnold 2011). Furthermore, Pekrun/Jerusalem (1996, 12s.) differentiate between (a) positive emotions, like pleasure in learning and hope or pride in anticipation of positive performance, which have a positive effect on motivation, learning and performance, (b) activating negative emotions like anxiety and frustration, which reduce attention as well as intrinsic motivation, leading to less learning and lower performance, and (c) deactivating negative emotions like hopelessness or boredom, which hinder learning, performance, as well as deep information processing. It can be said that emotionally positive learning experiences are strongly linked to intrinsic motivation and joy in learning, which in turn set the stage for frequent use

314

Hélène Martinez

of productive learning strategies and can lead to a more successful learning process (Schmitz/Wiese 1999, cited in Stecher/Maschke 2010, 91). Geisler/Hermann-Brennecke (1997) focus on the correlation between cognition and emotion in foreign language learning, specifically during the task solving process and they show that the personal willingness to learn is dependent on both affective value judgments (degree of interest and relevance of the task for the learner) as well as on cognitive value judgments (estimation of learning effort, of one’s own ability, etc.). This willingness to learn is in turn dependent on the attention given to the task, and is related to the learning context and the classroom atmosphere, the quality of the foreign language classroom, the interest it awakens in the students, as well as to the learning task’s attractiveness. These cognitive and affective factors determine the process of task solution, and they influence the depth of language processing. Furthermore, the evaluation of the learning outcome is also both cognitive and affective, and decisively influences the course of the individual’s learning history as well as his (fundamental) attitude to language and language learning (cf. Geisler/ Hermann-Brennecke 1997, 85–89; cf. also Egbert 2003).

3 Key Areas of Research in the Field of Cognition and Emotion Emotion and cognition must be understood as being reciprocally related. They are “distinguishable but inseparate” (Schumann 1994, 232). In the following, key research areas will be highlighted to serve as examples. Here, cognition and emotion will be handled as separate constructs.

3.1 Cognition “Getting to know a second language is an act of cognition par excellence. […] ‘Cognitive Approaches to SLA’ highlight the goals of cognitive psychologists who search for explanations for second language cognition in terms of mental representations and information processing” (Ellis 1999, 22). This research area includes studies on interlanguage, the processes of interlanguage construction (Selinker 1972; Kielhöfer/Börner 1979), as well as “interlingual processes” (Dechert/Raupach 1989), and it relates to the distinction between different types of knowledge (implicit vs. explicit knowledge) and the role of consciousness or attention (Schmidt 1995) (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). It involves psycholinguistic skill learning models (Levelt 1989) and highlights the role of monitoring, i.e. metacognition. Cognitive-oriented research is thus process oriented. It focuses on learner, learning and/or communication strategies (e.g. O’Malley/ Chamot 1990; Ox-

Cognition and Emotion

315

ford 1990; Díez/Fernández/Halbach 2004), on strategies and learner training, as well as on self-directed learning and learner autonomy (Holec 1980; Dickinson 1987; Benson 2001; Martinez 2008a, 2008b). It refers to plurilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education) and intercomprehension (cf. Meißner 2005), and it tries to explain individual differences among learners (for studies on cognitive learning styles, cf. Reid 1995; Grotjahn 1998, and studies on learner beliefs and teacher cognitions, cf. Kajala/ Barcelos 2003; Borg 2003; Caspari 2003; Holec 1989; Wenden 1999).

3.2 Emotions On the subject of emotions, research areas are much less homogenous. The three following sub-areas (motivation, foreign language classroom anxiety, attitudes and beliefs about SLA) will be delineated in the following as exemplary. The “emotional” variable that has been most extensively researched in SLA is language learning motivation (among many others, Dörnyei 2012). The motivation to learn foreign languages can “be defined [as] the unfolding of a willingness to learn, in order to attain a competence in one or more target languages” (Reinfried 2002, 183). This definition includes three components that form the core of the foreign language related learning construct: 1) the linguistic learning target; 2) the learning volition; and (3) the learning act, in which the learning volition is conveyed. These three components are influenced by cognitive assumptions and affective evaluations, which can be categorized into three areas: a) the linguistic and cultural-related area, which includes subjective judgments about the foreign language and the target culture (e.g. the assumed usefulness, the aesthetic evaluation or attitudes towards the target culture or society); b) the learner-related area (↗16 Language Learner), which includes the learner’s personality traits (e.g. work ethic or self-confidence); and c) the classroom context (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning), which can be seen in different aspects (e.g. didactic-methodological aspects, teacher behaviour, student behaviour) (cf. Reinfried 2002). Learners’ attitudes and intercultural contacts are often viewed as necessary precedents to motivation. According to MacIntyre (2002), however, attitudes alone do not support motivation; researchers thus need to take a further look into the emotions students experience during language learning in order to more fully comprehend what exactly engages learners (cf. Garrett/Young 2009; for a good overview, cf. Dewaele 2011). One negative emotion that has been focused on in foreign language research is foreign language classroom anxiety. There is a relatively long tradition of this in the Anglo-American sphere (cf. Oxford 1999). Foreign language use anxiety is a particular form of anxiety in the foreign language classroom and is described by Horwitz/ Horwitz/Cope (1986, 129) as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors […] arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process”.

316

Hélène Martinez

Different expressions of anxiety have been researched (cf. Oxford 1999), in which performance anxiety and anxiety during or before oral production have received special attention (cf. Cronjäger 2009). They correlate to other factors, like self-esteem, tolerance of ambiguity, risk-taking, competitiveness, social anxiety, beliefs, etc. To approach the role of anxiety in the foreign language classroom, Horwitz/Horwitz/Cope (1986) developed a questionnaire: Foreign Language classroom anxiety Scale (for a critique of construct validity cf. Rodríguez/Abreu 2003, cited in Cronjäger 2009, 47). Studies on test anxiety prove that negative feelings about learning and performance “have a negative influence on overall school performance, reduce the willingness to exert effort and increase the expectations for failure” (Pekrun 1999, cited in Stecher/ Maschke 2010, 91). According to Grotjahn, foreign language anxiety is one of the best predictors concerning the success of learning a foreign and second language. Foreign language anxiety can have a negative influence on all levels of language processing, storage and production, and correlates, amongst other things, to problems of listening comprehension, lexical acquisition, production, as well as to lower performance on standardized tests or bad grades in language courses (Horwitz 2001). Some studies have shown that anxiety surrounding the foreign language has multiple contributing factors, including the learner’s personality, traits, attitudes towards the target language and the language teacher, gender, age and knowledge of other foreign languages (ibid., 27). Other studies, for example Marcos-Llinás/Juan Garau (2009), show that foreign language classroom anxiety is not always negative, and that anxiety “may contribute to keeping learners’ motivation high” (for example, cf. Marcos-Llinás/Juan Garau 2009). Cronjäger’s study on learner emotion in the French foreign language classroom was able to empirically show “that, concerning classroom emotions in French, beginning language learners experienced both positive emotions joy […] and pride […] far more intensely than negative ones. Interestingly, anxiety is at this point the least pronounced emotion […] and is experienced as weakly as the other negative emotions frustration […], shame […] or boredom” (Cronjäger 2007, 23). Cronjäger concludes that the predominant preoccupation with the emotion of anxiety in beginning French classes is not justified (ibid., 23). This study also refuted the thesis that anxiety is especially experienced during oral communication. Rather, it reported that anxiety is experienced most intensely during listening activities (ibid., 25). In the context of attitudes, research interest in languages focuses on specific language stereotypes, individual language behaviours and on attitudes towards members of a different language community (Düwell 1979). This research relies on a three dimensional model which integrates the following components: a cognitive component, consisting of knowledge about the attitude object, which is further subcategorized as objective knowledge and subjective beliefs; an affective component, referring to feelings towards the attitude object; and finally a behavioural component (desiring, acting), referring to behaviour towards the attitude object, which is in turn differentiated as behavioural disposition/dispositional affect (desiring) and explicit behaviour (acting) (Heinerth 1979, cited in Finkbeiner 2001, 70).

Cognition and Emotion

317

Learner attitudes towards a foreign language, the corresponding language community, and foreign language classes can be influenced by the attitudes of the learner’s family. Parents’ and siblings’ positive and negative experiences concerning French language acquisition result in attitudes that learners can adopt from their home environments. Regarding student attitudes towards foreign languages, Candelier and HermannBrennecke’s (1993) empirical study on the one hand, and the European study Pour le multilinguisme: Exploiter la diversité des contextes européens (Androulakis et al. 2007) as well as the German version of this study (Meißner/Beckmann/Schröder-Sura 2008) on the other hand are particularly important. All studies point out that students in Europe – independent of the school form – are open to Europe’s linguistic diversity. Most students in the fifth grade have a positive attitude towards the foreign language classroom. In grade nine, the general attitude (affectivity) towards the language being learned varies according to language and/or zone. The comparison of both grade levels shows that in 10 of the 15 cases there is a reduction in popularity. This is especially the case for German in all zones, for French in Greece and for Dutch in Herstal, Belgium. In contrast, the evaluation of English remains in most cases stable. Concerning research on attitudes towards the process of foreign language acquisition, Valette and Disick developed in 1972 the 5-leveled taxonomy presented below. They show the different degrees of affective link that learners (↗16 Language Learner) have to the language they are learning: – Receptivity: Learners are willing to learn the foreign language. Their attitude towards learning the language is relatively neutral. They are aware of the existence of languages and cultures other than their own and that there are differences between them (awareness). Learners conduct their language learning with particular attention (attentiveness). – Responsiveness: Learners react positively with regard to learning the language and culture. They show tolerance vis-à-vis the foreign language and its culture (tolerance) and participate in language classes with interest and enjoyment. – Appreciation: Learners begin to appreciate the value of language learning and of gaining information about the target culture. They actively participate in language classes and make use of language learning activities outside the classroom. Subcategories of this step are valuing, i.e. learners consider language learning to be valuable and important, and involvement with foreign language activities both within and beyond the classroom. – Internalization: Based on personal language learning experiences, learners begin to internalize the language learning. While doing so, a conceptualization for the values of

318

–

Hélène Martinez

language learning is developed. Learners show a special commitment to foreign language acquisition through intense engagement with the language. Characterization: The intense engagement with the foreign language affects the learner’s life. Learners integrate the target culture’s system of values into their own system (integration) and take on a leadership role in the development of the foreign language class (cf. Valette/Disick 1972, 48; Düwell 1979, 27).

This taxonomy ranges “from student’s neutrality towards foreign languages, culture and literature to his voluntary seeking them out. It moves from teacher-directed activities to student self-direction. It progresses from values Existing outside the student to his internalization of those values” (Valette/Disick 1972, 43s.).

3.3 Cognition and Emotion The link between cognition and emotion is best exemplified in the framework of the discussion on learner autonomy, where a strong account of cognitive processes (especially of strategies) in the past has pushed the affective dimension of learner autonomy into the background. The statements offered by students interviewed in Martinez’s study underline that learner autonomy can only unfold when a desire (a motive) to learn the foreign language is present (Martinez 2008a). This desire, which can also be seen as the “subjective involvement in the learning process” (Ushioda 1996, 50), depends on different affective and volitional factors, especially on the positive self-concept of the learner. The self-regulation of motivation, which is identified as a cognitive dimension of emotion, is based on the subjective, self-estimation of the learner’s own competence: “In this respect, what learners believe about themselves is crucially important to their capacity for self-motivation” (Ushioda 1996, 55; cf. also Brewer 2013). Oxford/Nyikos (1989) review the relationship between different factors and the use of learning strategies, and conclude that there is a strong correlation between motivation and strategy use. Their results suggest that increased motivation and selfesteem improve effective strategy use, and that effective strategy use in turn increases motivation and self-esteem. Williams/Burden (1997, 155) emphasize that studies on metacognition also point to the dialectic relationship between cognition and emotion: “Metacognition [which is central to effective learning: HM] includes not only a knowledge of mental processes, as they are necessarily linked to and affected by emotions and feelings. It must also encompass a knowledge of factors relating to the self, and the ways in which these affect the use of cognitive processes. Thus an awareness of one’s personality, feelings, motivation, attitudes and learning style at any particular moment would be included within such a concept of metacognitive awareness”.

Cognition and Emotion

319

4 Conclusion and Outlook These discussions on the reciprocating role of cognition and emotion in foreign language learning lead to the conclusion that both dimensions should be given proper attention in the classroom and in classroom research. This means that the role of the teacher (↗15 Language Teacher) must also be reconsidered, which naturally has implications for teacher training and continuing education. “Along with this diversification of objectives for the language classroom comes a new view of the language teacher. From the point of view of affective language learning, being is just as important as doing; a good language teacher knows and does but most essentially is” (Arnold/Brown 1999, 4; for an overview of the role of teachers in creating a good emotional atmosphere in the classroom, cf. Dewaele 2011). Equally important is an encouraging and interactive learning environment in which the teacher plays a supporting role: “Pertinent and appealing subject matters combined with non-threatening techniques create a positive language learning experience, support and promote group solidarity and lower levels of foreign language anxiety in the classroom” (Dewaele 2011, 28). The design of suitable (learning) tasks should not be underestimated (cf. Arnold 2011). Eckert/Riemer (2000, 237) point to the interdependence of cognitive processes and affective mental states of learners and draw attention to the fact that a learner-oriented perspective of task research implies “an expanded concept of ‘learning task’ that emphasizes the affective causes of the investment of focused attention on the part of the learner during the processing of foreign language input”. The concept of competence, as it was modelled in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001), can be seen as a further development in the shift in meaning that took place in the mid-1990s (compare Part 1). It provides a new chance for both the foreign language classroom and its research that incorporates and respects both dimensions. Competences are generally considered to be problem-solving skills that allow individuals to carry out certain actions in specific domains (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). At the same time, the CEFR differentiates between “general competences” and “communicative language competences” in the area of languages. Communicative-language competences include linguistic, sociolinguistic as well as pragmatic competences. General competencies are those which are “less closely related to language” (Council of Europe 2001, 101), encompassing “existential” competences (savoir-être), including attitudes, motivation, ideals, beliefs and other personality factors. With the differentiation between “general competences” and “communicative language competences”, the CEFR underlines that both specific language-related communicative competence as well as general – including also personality based – skills are necessary to carry out communicative intentions. In other words, communicative intercultural competence includes not only a language dimension but also sociocultural awareness, intercultural skills, self-regulating factors and not least

320

Hélène Martinez

affective, motivational competences. As a result, A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches (FREPA) (Candelier et al. 2012) was developed to describe and determine these general competences, and offers a list of descriptors for savoir, savoirfaire and savoir-être.

5 Bibliography Altman, Howard B. (1977), Individualized foreign language instruction and systems thinking: Symbiosis and Synergism, System 5/2, 76–83. Androulakis, Georges, et al. (2007), Pour le multilinguisme. Exploiter à l’école la diversité des contextes européens, Liège, Éditions de l’Université de Liège. Arnold, Jane (ed.) (2000), La dimensión afectiva en el aprendizaje de idiomas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Arnold, Jane (2011), Attention to Affect in Language Learning, Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 22/1, 11–22. Arnold, Jane/Brown, Douglas H. (1999), A map of the terrain, in: Jane Arnold/Douglas H. Brown (edd.), Affect in language learning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1–24. Bausch, Karl-Richard (1982), without title, in: Karl-Richard Bausch et al. (edd.), Das Postulat der Lernerzentriertheit: Rückwirkungen auf die Theorie des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Arbeitspapiere der 2. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, Bochum, Seminar für Sprachlehrforschung der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 12–16. Beermann, Christian/Cronjäger, Hanna (2012), Emotionales Erleben im Französischunterricht der Sekundarstufe I – Exemplarische Analyse der Mehrebenenstruktur, in: Christiane Fäcke/Hélène Martinez/Franz-Joseph Meißner (edd.), Mehrsprachigkeit. Bildung – Kommunikation – Standards, Stuttgart, Klett, 111–121. Benson, Phil (2001), Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning, London, Longman. Blanc, Nathalie (2001), Émotion et cognition: quand l’émotion parle à la cognition, Paris, In Press. Boggards, Paul (1988), Aptitude et affectivité dans l’apprentissage des langues étrangères, Paris, Hatier. Borg, Simon (2003), Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review on research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do, Language Teaching 36/2, 81–109. Börner, Wolfgang/Vogel, Klaus (edd.) (2004), Emotion und Kognition in der Fremdsprachenforschung, Tübingen, Narr. Bown, Jennifer/White, Cynthia J. (2010), Affect in a self-regulatory framework for language learning, System 38/3, 432–443. Bredella, Lothar/Christ, Herbert (1995), Didaktik des Fremdverstehens, Tübingen, Narr. Brewer, Stephen-Scott (2013), Entre émotions et contrôle de soi: un enjeu essentiel pour l’autonomie dans l’apprentissage des langues, Lidil 48, 189–208. Candelier, Michel/Hermann-Brennecke, Gisela (1993), Entre le choix et l’abandon: les langues étrangères à l’école, vues d’Allemagne et de France, Paris, Didier. Candelier, Michel, et al. (2012), CARAP/FREPA: A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches, Graz, ECML. Caspari, Daniela (2003), Fremdsprachenlehrerinnen und Fremdsprachenlehrer: Studien zu ihrem beruflichen Selbstverständnis, Tübingen, Narr. Christ, Herbert (1996), Lehren und Lernen fremder Sprachen und ihre Erforschung, in: Karl-Richard Bausch et al. (edd.), Erforschung des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen. Zwischenbilanz und Perspektiven, Tübingen, Narr, 44–52.

Cognition and Emotion

321

Christ, Herbert (1998), Die Bedeutung der “Kognition” für die Erforschung des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen, in: Karl Richard Bausch et al. (edd.), Kognition als Schlüsselbegriff bei der Erforschung des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen. Arbeitspapiere der 18. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, Tübingen, Narr, 50–59. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cronjäger, Hanna (2007), Erfassung von Lernemotionen im Fremdsprachenunterricht Französisch, in: Sabine Doff/Torben Schmidt (edd.), Fremdsprachenforschung heute. Interdisziplinäre Impulse, Methoden und Perspektiven, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 13–28. Cronjäger, Hanna (2009), Emotionen im schulischen Fremdsprachenunterricht: Bedingungen, Wirkungen und Veränderungen im ersten Lernjahr Französisch, Jena, Universität. Damasio, Antonio R. (1999), The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness, New York, Harcourt Brace. Dechert, Hans W./Raupach, Manfred (edd.) (1989), Interlingual processes, Tübingen, Narr. De Florio-Hansen, Inez (1998), Zur Einführung in den Themenschwerpunkt oder: Subjektive Theorien von Fremdsprachenlehrern – wozu?, Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 27, 3–11. Dewaele, Jean-Marc (2011), Reflections on the emotional and psychological Aspects of foreign language learning and use, Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 22/1, 23–42. Dickinson, Leslie (1987), Self-instruction in language learning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Díez, Mercedes/Fernández, Raquel/Halbach, Ana (edd.) (2004), Debate en torno a las estrategias de aprendizaje / Debating learning strategies, Frankfurt am Main, Lang. Donnerstag, Jürgen (2010), Emotion, in: Carola Surkamp (ed.), Metzler Lexikon Fremdsprachendidaktik, Stuttgart, Metzler, 45–46. Dörnyei, Zoltán (2012), Motivation in language learning, Shanghai, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Düwell, Henning (1979), Fremdsprachenunterricht im Schülerurteil: Untersuchungen zu Movitation, Einstellungen und Interessen von Schülern im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Schwerpunkt Französisch, Tübingen, Narr. Düwell, Henning (2002), Motivation, Emotion und Motivierung im Kontext des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen, französisch heute 33/2, 166–181. Eckert, Johannes/Riemer, Claudia (2000), Awareness und Motivation: Noticing als Bindeglied zwischen kognitiven und affektiven Faktoren des Fremdsprachenlernens, in: Claudia Riemer (ed.), Kognitive Aspekte des Lehrens und Lernens von Fremdsprachen. Cognitive aspects of foreign language learning and teaching. Festschrift für Willi Edmondson zum 60. Geburtstag, Tübingen, Narr, 228–246. Egbert, Joy (2003), A Study of Flow Theory in the Foreign Language Classroom, The Modern Language Journal 87/4, 499–517. Ellis, Nick (1999), Cognitive approaches to SLA, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19, 22–42. Fäcke, Christiane (2012), Wie können Lernaufgaben zur Vermittlung interkultureller Kompetenz beitragen? Literaturdidaktische Überlegungen im Zeichen von Kompetenzorientierung, Zeitschrift für romanische Sprachen und ihre Didaktik 6/2, 9–20. Finkbeiner, Claudia (2001), Untersuchungsfeld 2: Attitudinale und affektive Aspekte, in: Helmut J. Vollmer et al. (edd.), Lernen und Lehren von Fremdsprachen: Kognition, Affektion, Interaktion. Ein Forschungsüberblick, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 12/2, 65–76. Garrett, Paula/Young, Richard F. (2009), Theorizing affect in foreign language learning: An analysis of one learner’s responses to a communicative Portuguese course, The Modern Language Journal 93, 209–226.

322

Hélène Martinez

Geisler, Wilhelm/Hermann-Brennecke, Gisela (1997), Fremdsprachenlernen zwischen Affekt und Kognition – Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektivierung, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 8/1, 79–93. Glasersfeld, Ernst von (1989), Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching, Synthese 80, 121–140. Götz, Thomas (2004), Emotionales Erleben und selbstreguliertes Lernen bei Schülern im Fach Mathematik, München, Utz. Grotjahn, Rüdiger (1991), The Research Program Subjective Theories: A new approach in second language research, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13/2, 187–214. Grotjahn, Rüdiger (1997), Strategiewissen und Strategiegebrauch. Das kognitionspsychologische Informationsverarbeitungsparadigma, in: Ute Rampillon/Günther Zimmermann (edd.), Strategien und Techniken beim Erwerb fremder Sprachen, Ismaning, Hueber, 33–76. Grotjahn, Rüdiger (1998), Lernstile und Lernstrategien: Definition, Identifikation, unterrichtliche Relevanz, Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Französisch 32/34, 11–15. Heinerth, Klaus (ed.) (1979), Einstellungs- und Verhaltensänderung: ihre Theorie und Praxis in der klinischen und pädagogischen Psychologie, München, Reinhardt. Holec, Henri (1980), Autonomie et apprentissage des langues étrangères, Strasbourg, Conseil de l’Europe. Holec, Henri (1989), L’autonomisation de l’apprenant: incidences sur les représentations de l’apprentissage, in: Martin Müller/Lukas Wertenschlag /Jürgen Wolff (edd.), Autonomes Lernen und partnerschaftliches Lernen: Modelle und Beispiele aus dem Fremdsprachenunterricht, Berlin, Langenscheidt, 13–21. Horwitz, Elaine K. (2001), Language anxiety and achievement, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21, 112–126. Horwitz, Elaine K./Horwitz, Michael B./Cope, Joann (1986), Foreign language classroom anxiety, The Modern Language Journal 70/2, 125–132. Huteau, Michel (1985), Les conceptions cognitives de la personnalité, Paris, PUF. Kajala, Paula/Barcelos, Ana Maria Ferreira (edd.) (2003), Beliefs about SAL: New research approaches, Dordrecht et al., Kluwer. Kallenbach, Christiane (1996), Subjektive Theorien: was Schüler und Schülerinnen über Fremdsprachenlernen denken, Tübingen, Narr. Kielhöfer, Bernd/Börner, Wolfgang (1979), Lernersprache Französisch. Psycholinguistische Analyse des Fremdsprachenerwerbs, Tübingen, Niemeyer. Kieweg, Werner (2003), Die Rolle der Emotionen beim Fremdsprachenlernen, Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 3, 4–10. Königs, Frank G. (2013), Was hat die Sprachlehrforschung eigentlich gebracht? Plus- und Minuspunkte aus subjektiver Sicht, Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 42/1, 7–21. Lambert, Wallace E., et al. (1976), A Study of the roles of attitudes and motivation in second language learning, in: Gert Solmecke (ed.), Motivation im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Paderborn, Schöningh, 85–103. Legutke, Michael K./Thomas, Howard (1991), Process and experience in the language classroom, London, Longman. Le Ny, Jean-François (1999), Cognition, in: Henriette Bloch et al. (dir.), Grand dictionnaire de la psychologie [nouvelle éd.], Paris, Larousse, 161, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ bpt6k1200503m/f184.image.r=Christophe%20colomb.langFR (31.07.2013). Levelt, Willen J.M. (1989), Speaking: From intention to articulation, Cambridge, MIT Press. MacIntyre, Peter D. (2002), Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition, in: Peter Robinson (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 45–68.

Cognition and Emotion

323

Mandl, Heinz/Huber, Günter L. (1983) (edd.), Emotion und Kognition, München, Urban & Schwarzenberg. Marcos-Llinás, Mónica/Juan Garau, Maria (2009), Effects of Language Anxiety of Three ProficiencyLevel Courses of Spanish as a Foreign Language, Foreign Language Annals 42, 94–111. Martinez, Hélène (2008a), Lernerautonomie und Sprachenlernverständnis. Eine qualitative Untersuchung bei zukünftigen Lehrerinnen und Lehrern romanischer Sprachen, Tübingen, Narr. Martinez, Hélène (2008b), The subjective theories of student teachers: Implications for teacher education and research on autonomy, in: Terry Lamb/Hayo Reinders (edd.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 103–124. Meißner, Franz-Joseph (2005), Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik revisited: über Interkomprehensionsunterricht zum Gesamtsprachencurriculum, Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 34, 125–145. Meißner, Franz-Joseph/Beckmann, Christine/Schröder-Sura, Anna (2008), Mehrsprachigkeit fördern. Vielfalt und Reichtum Europas in der Schule nutzen (MES). Zwei deutsche Stichproben einer internationalen Studie in den Klassen 5 und 9 zu Sprachen und Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen, Narr. Mercer, Sarah (2006), Using journals to investigate the learners’ emotional experience of the language classroom, Estudios de lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 6, 63–91. Moskowitz, Gertrude (1978), Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class, Rowley, MA, Newbury House. Neisser, Ulric (1967), Cognitive psychology, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts. O’Malley, Michael J./ Chamot, Anna U. (1990), Learning strategies in second language acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Oxford, Rebecca L. (1990), Language learning strategies. What every teacher should know, Boston, Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, Rebecca L. (1999), Anxiety in the language learner: new insights, in: Jane Arnold/Douglas H. Brown (edd.), Affect in language learning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 58–67. Oxford, Rebecca/Nyikos, Martha (1989), Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students, The Modern Language Journal 73, 291–300. Pekrun, Reinhard (1999), Sozialisation von Leistungsemotionen: Eine kritische Literaturübersicht und ein sozialkognitives Entwicklungsmodell, Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 19/1, 20–34. Pekrun, Reinhard (2006), The control-value of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice, Educational Psychology Review 18, 315–341. Pekrun, Reinhard/Jerusalem, Matthias (1996), Leistungsbezogenes Denken und Fühlen: Eine Übersicht zur psychologischen Forschung, in: Jens Möller/Olaf Köller (edd.), Emotionen, Kognitionen und Schulleistung, Weinheim, Beltz, 3–22. Rattunde, Eckhard (1982), Vorwort, Die Neueren Sprachen 81/6, 538–539. Reid, Joy M. (1995), Learning style in the ESL/EFL classroom, Boston, Heinle & Heinle. Reinfried, Marcus (1999), Der Radikale Konstruktivismus: Eine sinnvolle Basistheorie für die Fremdsprachendidaktik?, Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 28, 162–180 English: Can Radical Constructivism Achieve a Viable Basis for Foreign Language Teaching? – A Refutation of the “Wolff-Wendt” Theorem, Erfurt Electronic Studies in English 8/2000, http:// webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic20/marcus/8_2000.html/, (31.07.2013). Reinfried, Marcus (2001), Neokommunikativer Fremdsprachenunterricht: ein neues methodisches Paradigma, in: Franz-Joseph Meißner/Marcus Reinfried (edd.), Bausteine für einen neokommunikativen Französischunterricht. Lernerzentrierung, Ganzheitlichkeit, Handlungsorientierung, Interkulturalität, Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. Akten der Sektion 13 auf dem 1. Frankoromanistentag in Mainz, 23.–26.09.1998, Tübingen, Narr, 1–20.

324

Hélène Martinez

Reinfried, Marcus (2002), Motivationsförderung im Französischunterricht, französisch heute 33/2, 182–197. Rodríguez, Máximo/Abreu, Orángel (2003), The stability of general foreign language classroom anxiety across English and French, The Modern Language Journal 87, 365–374. Schmidt, Richard (1995), Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning, in: Richard Schmidt (ed.), Attention & awareness in foreign language learning, Honolulu, HI, University of Hawai’i Press, 1–65. Schmitz, Bernhard/Wiese, Bettina S. (1999), Eine Prozeßstudie selbstregulierten Lernverhaltens im Kontext aktueller affektiver und motivationaler Faktoren, Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 31/4, 157–170. Schumann, John (1994), Where is Cognition? Emotion and Cognition in Second Language Acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 231–242. Schwerdtfeger, Inge C. (2000), Anthropologisch-narrative Didaktik des fremdsprachlichen Lernens, Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 29, 106–123. Selinker, Larry (1972), Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics 10/2, 209–231. Solmecke, Gert (1976), Motivation im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Paderborn, Schöningh. Stecher, Ludwig/Maschke, Sabine (2010), In der Schule: vom Leben, Leiden und Lernen in der Schule, Wiesbaden, VS-Verlag. Stevick, Earl W. (1980), Teaching languages: A way and ways, Rowley, MA, Newbury House. Traue, Harald (1992), Emotionen, in: Uwe Tewes/Klaus Wildgrube (edd.), Psychologie Lexikon, München, Oldenburg, 82–86. Ushioda, Ema (1996), Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation, Dublin, Authentik Language Learning Resources Ltd. Valette, Rebecca M./Disick, Renée S. (1972), Modern Language Performance Objectives and Individualization. A Handbook, New York, Harcourt. Vollmer, Helmut J. (1982), without title, in: Karl-Richard Bausch et al. (edd.), Das Postulat der Lernerzentriertheit: Rückwirkungen auf die Theorie des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Arbeitspapiere der 2. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, Bochum, Seminar für Sprachlehrforschung der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 109–117. Vollmer, Helmut J. (2001), Untersuchungsfeld 1: Kognitive Aspekte, in: Helmut J. Vollmer et al. (edd.), Lernen und Lehren von Fremdsprachen: Kognition, Affektion, Interaktion. Ein Forschungsüberblick, Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 12/2, 43–61. Wenden, Anita (1999), An Introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Beyond the basics, System 27/4, 435–441. Wendt, Michael (2000), Konstruktion statt Instruktion. Neue Zugänge zu Sprache und Kultur im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Frankfurt am Main et al., Lang. Williams, Marion/Burden, Robert L. (1997), Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Zarate, Geneviève (1987), Enseigner une culture étrangère, Paris, Hachette. Zimmermann, Günther (1982), without title, in: Karl-Richard Bausch et al. (edd.), Das Postulat der Lernerzentriertheit: Rückwirkungen auf die Theorie des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Arbeitspapiere der 2. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, Bochum, Seminar für Sprachlehrforschung der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 127–132. Zimmermann, Günther (1998), Rolle und Funktion der Begriffe “Kognition” und “Emotion” bei der Erforschung des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen, in: Karl-Richard Bausch et al. (edd.), Kognition als Schlüsselbegriff bei der Erforschung des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen. Arbeitspapiere der 18. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts, Tübingen, Narr, 207–217.

Bernd Tesch

18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means Abstract: The concept of “competence” has been established in applied linguistics for decades, beginning with Chomsky’s momentous distinction between competence and performance. In this article, I will briefly consider some definitions of the concept of competence, one of the German educational researcher Weinert and one of the French organizational psychologist Le Boterf. I will next elicit the competence model of the Common European Framework for Languages before passing over to current construct descriptions and learning models of individual skills and linguistic means. I will deal in greater detail with listening comprehension and speaking which represent the major part of authentic communication. Final remarks comment briefly on the integration of competences, i.e. the fact that in language use and language learning competences are not only interrelated but always interact or interplay. Keywords: definitions of competence, Common European Framework, language skills, linguistic devices, integration of competences

1 Definitions of “Competences” The term competence is a buzz word, both in scientific and in everyday language, where mention is made, for example, to a competent contact partner (efficient and/or endowed with great knowledge and abilities) or a competence team (a team of experts). The fact that almost all sciences have adopted this term has led to its semantic diversification and the consequential attempt to organize and classify different concepts. In spite of some scientifically justified objections (Sophian 1997), Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance1 (Chomsky 1965) provided a simple and comprehensive model of a complex issue, that is the existence of an underlying hidden ability or pre-disposition and on the other hand the visible effect of this ability or pre-disposition. In other words: performance can be observed, competence cannot. It can only be inferred. Furthermore, Chomsky’s distinction implies that high levels of competence do not automatically produce high levels of performance. Performance can be inhibited or completely blocked by limiting factors;

1 The origin of the concept of performance goes back to the development of the speech act theory (J. Austin 1962).

326

Bernd Tesch

a decisive factor for the successful realization of competence is motivation (↗10 Second Language Acquisition). What is the current definition of competence used in academia? From the great number of definitions available, I would prefer to select two which seem, due to their functionality, to fit particularly the area of interest of this article. The German educational researcher Weinert defines competences as “[…] cognitive abilities and skills possessed by or able to be learned by individuals that enable them to solve particular problems, as well as the motivational, volitional and social readiness and capacity to use the solutions successfully and responsibly in variable situations” (Weinert 2001, 27, translated by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 2008, 25).

Obviously, Weinert’s concept of competence is a comprehensive concept, embracing not only the common conceptional pair of “cognitive skills and abilities”, but, furthermore, pre-dispositions and abilities to use problem-solving skills. What in Weinert’s definition causes difficulties from a psychometric point of view, namely the attributes “motivational”, “volitional” and “social”, becomes attractive from a pedagogical and didactical point of view i.e. these attributes are powerful factors in learning. Also the French work- and organizational psychologist Le Boterf (1994) defends an action-oriented and task-based concept of competence. In addition, he points out that a competence is “un savoir-agir, c’est-à-dire un savoir intégrer, mobiliser et transférer un ensemble de ressources (connaissances, savoirs, aptitudes, raisonnements, etc.) dans un contexte donné pour faire face aux différents problèmes rencontrés ou pour réaliser une tâche, la compétence ne réside pas dans les ressources (connaissances, capacités, …) à mobiliser, mais dans la mobilisation même de ces ressources. La compétence est de l’ordre du ‘savoir mobiliser’” (Le Boterf 1994, 16).

Also Weinert – speaking of “cognitive abilities and skills possessed by or able to be learned by individuals that enable them to solve particular problems” – alludes to what le Boterf describes as “competence of mobilization”. However, “competence of mobilization” offers a handy linguistic image for what competences stand in practice.2 Within the “ensemble de ressources” alluded to by Le Boterf, also “attitudes” should be mentioned. An attitude can be a personal view or stance, and it can also mean a profound belief about something, e.g. the belief amongst German pupils that French is more difficult than English. I will now focus on competences in the field of applied linguistics and present domain-specific meanings of the concept of competences. Hence, it is necessary to refer to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council

2 Perrenoud (1999) criticizes Le Boterf and his concept of “competence of mobilization” arguing that there might be no general ability of mobilization of resources (CARAP 2009, 14).

Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

327

of Europe 2001) competence model which is currently the most influential competence model in language teaching.

2 The Competence Model of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) The concept of communicative competence (Hymes 1972), crucial for the development of the CEFR, includes the grammatical, psycholinguistic, sociocultural and practical knowledge available to a speaker (or learner) (↗16 Language Learner), as well as the ability to use a language based on it. Further development of this approach led to the distinction of grammatical competence (words and rules), sociolinguistic competence (appropriateness) and strategic competence (appropriate use of communication strategies) by the Canadian researchers on language immersion Canale/Swain (1980) and to Bachmann’s model of communicative language ability (1990). In the CEFR, the following concepts of competences are used: – Competences are the sum of knowledge, skills and characteristics that allow a person to perform actions. – General competences are those not specific to language, but which are called upon for actions of all kinds, including language activities. – Communicative language competences are those which empower a person to act using specifically linguistic means. – Context refers to the constellation of events and situational factors (physical and others), both internal and external to a person, in which acts of communication are embedded. – Language activities involve the exercise of one’s communicative language competence in a specific domain in processing (receptively and/or productively) one or more texts in order to carry out a task. – Language processes refer to the chain of events, neurological and physiological, involved in the production and reception of speech and writing. […] (Council of Europe 2000, 9s., sections as in the text). Here “knowledge”, “skills” and “competences” are put together in a somewhat confusing way, but later (Council of Europe 2000, 11) some adjectives are used which shed light on the matter: “knowledge” is linked with “declarative” alluding to the inventory level of language proficiency, “skills” is linked with “procedural” alluding to the application and processing level, and “existential competence” is linked with personality traits. In addition, the term “abilities” is used in connection with cognitive pre-conditions. The question is whether or not the distinction between personality traits and cognitive pre-conditions is always clear-cut. The following figure depicts the hierarchy of competences within the CEFR:

328

Bernd Tesch

general competences knowledge (savoir)

skills and know-how (savoir-faire)

ability to learn (savoir-apprendre)

existential competence (savoir-être)

communicative language competences linguistic competences

sociolinguistic competences

pragmatic competences

language activities reception

production

interaction

Mediation

Figure 1: The CEFR-model of competences (Council of Europe 2001, 11–14)

The figure does not include the layers of “context”, “language processes”, “text”, “domain”, “strategy” and “task” for reasons of clarity, but it becomes evident that the competence model of the CEFR is not just one single model, but appears as a hierarchy of several stratified models. Within the CEFR model competences are arranged in both a horizontal and a vertical dimension. They include descriptions of levels assigned to a hierarchical structure of stages from the lowest (A1, “waystage”) to the highest (C2, “mastery”). Although the empirical basis and the precision of the scales are partially subject to criticism, this model constitutes the prime reference for didactical and political developments with regard to foreign language education in schools as is demonstrated by the fact that all textbooks and teaching materials have followed the CEFR competence and level descriptors. Also all European language certificates (e.g. DELF-DALF, DELE, Cambridge ESOL) have been linked to the CEFR descriptors.

3 Skills and Linguistic Devices The term skills had prevailed in the didactical discourse until the beginning of the last decade. Then, it sometimes became substituted by the term competence as skills appeared too closely related to (vocational) training. Under the influence of constructivist approaches didactics tended to renounce on behaviouristic connotations such as training and consequently the training of skills. Nonetheless, in language testing it is still usual to speak of skills although, influenced by the CEFR, an increasing use of the term competence instead of skill can be observed here, too.

Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

329

Language testing is focused on four linguistic skills: listening and reading comprehension, writing, and speaking. In the educational context, mediation and audiovisual comprehension have to be added, whereas grammar, lexis, pronunciation/ intonation, spelling and punctuation are mostly considered as linguistic devices. Given the limitations of space here, a reasoned choice has to be made. I will, therefore, deal in greater detail with listening comprehension and speaking which represent the major part of authentic communication. As far as linguistic devices are concerned, I will comment briefly on grammar, lexis and pronunciation/intonation which can also be considered as integrative skills.

3.1 Listening Comprehension Compared to reading, writing and speaking, and in terms of the percentage of time it takes up in everyday communication, listening might be the most important linguistic activity. Feyten (1991, 174) puts forward the following percentages: listening 45%, speaking 30%, reading 16% and writing 9% (cited from Grotjahn/Tesch 2010, 125). For a long time and in spite of its factual importance, the training and evaluation of listening comprehension had been neglected in the language classroom. There now appears to be a more positive development as the German example illustrates (Grotjahn 2012). Correspondences between reading and listening results are reported in the scientific literature (e.g. Field 2008, 27s.). Those correspondences at the level of reception may not necessarily be based on the same processing. Listening comprehension in foreign languages is generally described as an interplay of data-driven processing and processing guided by knowledge (= bottom-up vs. top-down processing) (Zydatiß 2005, 97; Meißner 2006, 258). Data-driven processing refers to decoded chunks on a phonological, syntactical or lexical level which have to be linked to a semantic decoding. On the other hand, processing guided by knowledge relies on hierarchically higher linguistic knowledge and world knowledge (cf. Wolff 2003; Field 2008). In other words, listening comprehension consists of a process in which acoustically perceived verbal data initiate the construction of meaning. Grotjahn (Grotjahn/Tesch 2010, 126) gives the following example of the interplay of data-driven and knowledge-guided processing. If in the sentence “C’est vous qui jetez les vieux journaux?” is pronounced rapidly and out of context, the string “qui jetez” is pronounced as [kiʃte], then even very proficient learners of French generally do not understand it correctly, contrary to native speakers. Learners mostly understand “qui achetez” instead of “qui jetez”. Not only difficulties on the level of phonetic decoding (bottom-up-processing) may be the origin of the misunderstanding, but also semantic difficulties (top-down-processing). Learners might not be familiar with the use of “jeter” in the sense of “throw away” referring to “vieux journaux”, so that they misinterpret the string [kiʒte] top-down as “qui achetez”.

330

Bernd Tesch

There is evidence in psycholinguistic research (↗2 Research Methods) that efficient bottom-up-processing is extremely important in listening comprehension, especially with a view to rapid and correct word recognition (cf. e.g. Hulstijn 2003; Poelmans 2003). Tsui/Fullilove (1998) found that low achievers in listening use top-downprocessing to compensate deficits in their bottom-up-processing, which frequently leads to inadequate comprehension (Grotjahn/Tesch 2010). Meißner (2006, 267), therefore, pleads for the training and evaluation of listening recognition. The main difference between listening and reading lies in the fact that listening is real-time processing. The auditive signal is temporary, in contrast to the visual impression in reading. Cognitive processing and memory capacity are significantly lower compared to reading. Also, the speed of presentation depends generally on the speaker and not on the listener. Contrary to a reader, a listener has much less control of the text, so that inadequate comprehension can rarely be repaired (cf. Grotjahn/ Tesch 2010). Grotjahn/Tesch (2010) point out another important difficulty of listening: the segmentation of the word flow. Spoken texts are continuous acoustic signals, whereas written texts consist of discrete units (letters, words). The marking of word boundaries being mostly vague, especially in a language like French (cf. Meißner 2006, 261), the word flow may be hard to analyse. Characteristics of spoken texts are also discussed in Buck (2001, 32ss.). The author mentions the following features which might seriously inhibit listening comprehension in foreign languages: phonological modification (cf. above, the example given by Grotjahn/Tesch 2010), unfamiliar accents and dialects, prosodic characteristics, the speaker’s voice speed and volume, delays and pauses, discourse structure (radio programmes, lectures and speeches, station announcements etc. have completely different degrees of complexity), non-verbal signals. Just like reading comprehension, listening comprehension is a purpose-oriented activity. Listeners may change their listening purpose while listening, they might, for example, start with the purpose of understanding the text globally and then change to the purpose of identifying certain details. Thus, each listening purpose guides the way a listener processes a text and which listening strategy he chooses. In the scientific literature, there are distinctions among listening purposes in analogy to reading purposes: listening for orientation (cursory listening), listening for details, selective listening, listening for global or listening for total understanding (cf. also literature listed by Grotjahn 2005). Rost (1990, 5s.) proposes an interesting classification of listener roles in different communicative situations based on the extent of cooperation between speaker and listener: a) participant with the same right to speak b) person being addressed by the speaker but not having the same right to answer (e.g. a student listening to a lecture) c) auditor being addressed but not having the possibility, or merely a very restricted right, to answer (e.g. radio programme or train station announcement)

Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

331

d) coincidental listener not being addressed and not being expected to answer (e.g. passengers in the train overhearing someone’s mobile phone conversation). Different roles imply different listening demands. Especially the role of an active partner in communication requires a significantly more complex cognitive activity than, for example, the role of listener in a lecture (cf. also Council of Europe 2000, 73–82; Field 2008, 69s.). As an interactive participant in a conversation the listener may negotiate meanings and evaluate his own comprehension on the basis of the reactions of his conversation partners. At the same time, the planning of his own speech might restrict the comprehension of the utterances of other participants (Grotjahn/Tesch 2010).

3.2 Audio-Visual Comprehension For decades educational media research has been addressing the question of how effective the learning of certain learning contents using the combination of text and image is, and how audio-visual receptive processing works. In 1986, Paivio introduced the theory of dual coding based on two separate, although communicating, cognitive systems of language and image. Following up on Paivio and other researchers, Baddeley (2007), Mayer (2001) and Schnotz (2005) introduced theoretical models which describe the cognitive processing of both text and image (cf. Porsch/Grotjahn/ Tesch 2010). Along with the theory of dual coding, following Paivio, all researchers proceed from the assumption of a limited working memory and share the opinion that the recipient actively steers processing. These models are based on empirical studies conducted mostly with native speakers. They show that the reception of both text and visual information can facilitate or complicate processing or learning under certain conditions. These findings have been confirmed by Porsch/Grotjahn/Tesch (2010) with regard to foreign language learning. A distinction has to be made between context visuals and content visuals. Context visuals provide, for example, information about the speakers and may facilitate the assignment of voices to speakers. Content visuals have different functions. They can, for example, replicate, illustrate, structure or complete audio material (cf. Porsch/ Grotjahn/Tesch 2010; Suvorov 2011). Considering the training and assessment of audio-visual comprehension, distinctions also have to be made with regard to the use of single still images and sequences of still images and videos. Interaction with the type of text (e.g. watching an oral interaction between several speakers or listening to a TV newsreader) has to be taken into account (cf. Suvorov 2011).

332

Bernd Tesch

3.3 Reading Comprehension Some important differences between listening and reading have already been indicated above. In the literature on psycholinguistics, similarities are pointed out as far as processing is concerned: reading comprehension is also described as a permanent interaction between data-driven bottom-up processing and top-down processing guided by expectations (Alderson 2000; Koda 2005; Lutjeharms 2007). Hypotheses about meanings are generated in a process, in which different sources of knowledge (linguistic knowledge, text and context knowledge, strategic knowledge) interact. The so-called “schema theory” is based on the assumption of linked mental structures, in which most of a person’s knowledge is said to be stored through abstractions (schemas) of reality, and new information has to be processed within existing schemas during the process of reading. However, the schema theory is open to dispute as its assumptions are applicable above all on higher levels of comprehension, whereas lower and primary processes are hard to explain using the schema theory: how is completely new information processed for which no existing schemas are available? Alderson (2000, 34–36) elicits factors influencing reading: the reading purpose (intentional or incidental), the reading motivation and the reader’s emotional or affective state (↗17 Cognition and Emotion). With a view to the text, Alderson names variables such as topic, content, type of text, genre, text organization and typographic familiarity. Comparative linguists also collect data on morphology and verbal valence which are particularly interesting for French. English centered research had not focused on the syntactic level of processing as, in English, word order is almost the only stimulus for syntactic processing (Lutjeharms 2007, 111; Iluk 2010). With regard to the relationship between reading in the mother tongue (↗9 Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell) and reading in a foreign language, in the specialist literature the opinion has been established that, in spite of the obvious interdependencies of first and second or foreign language processing, the foreign language proficiency takes precedence, in other words a certain level in foreign language proficiency must be gained in order to make full use of mother tongue potentials (threshold theory, cf. Cummins 2000). Learners of a foreign language rely on their mother tongue knowledge and the knowledge of other languages acquired to gradually build up strategies (“intercomprehension”) (↗12 Plurilingual Education) in order to become more and more familiar with reading in a foreign language and to decode different types of texts and genres according to their reading interests. Another central component of progress in foreign language reading is the construction and the mobilization of lexical (and syntactical) structures. However, the elegant metaphor of a “mental lexicon” must not be used in the way that readers just call up structures from a database. As a matter of fact it relates to a highly complex form of processing. According to the current state of research (cf. Lutjeharms 2007), increasing foreign language competence leads to a progressive automation of decod-

Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

333

ing processes. Inexperienced readers spend considerable time decoding on the level of single words and are obliged to have recourse to strategies of guessing and predicting, whereas proficient readers are able to use expectations concerning the text content in a flexible way and according to their reading purpose. In the case of literary reading, in addition, interpretive skills are stimulated which are strongly influenced by “cultural practice” (Hurrelmann 2002) and which are extremely difficult to measure. As suggested above, language teaching and learning in the educational context is oriented to several levels of reading awareness. Particular interest lies in the awareness of reading purposes, reading behaviours and reading strategies, systematic work on vocabulary, and the consideration of emotion and motivation through attractive tasks. Reading strategies can be built up systematically by tasks and exercises. The reading purposes “get an idea of” and “reading for gist” can be linked to the reading behaviour of cursory or global reading generally supported by the strategy of skimming. If the reading purpose is to find specific information, “search reading” is the appropriate reading behaviour supported by the strategy of scanning, whereas the behaviour of “detailed reading” corresponds with the purpose of processing all the information. “Argumentative reading” corresponds with a deep, interpretive processing of a text (Ehlers 42003, 290s.).

3.4 Speaking Oral production in a foreign language integrates a receptive (listening) and a productive (speaking) skill so that, in a complex way, different components of knowledge and activity have to be engaged depending on the most varied methods of cognitive processing (Fulcher 2003; Luoma 2004). The most well-known psycholinguistic model of speech production goes back to the modular model of Levelt (1989), modified by De Bot (1992) to a bilingual production model (for a psycholinguistic model of language use in dialogues cf. Clark 1996; Garrod/Pickering 2007). According to Levelt, speech production proceeds in stages from a conceptual preparation to articulation. The speaker first perceives the conditions of a linguistic utterance, then matches those conditions with his communicative intentions. Then he starts planning and selecting from a variety of cognitive links. Only at the next stage of speech production, the stage of formulation, lexical concepts, lemmas, morphemes and phonological words come up. The last stage is articulation. Finally, the consequences of an utterance and the reactions to it are noticed, stored and eventually processed in a new production of meaningful words. What here appears as a sequence happens, in real communication under time pressure, within fractions of a second. Psycholinguists debate whether or not the processing is parallel or sequential, and what kinds of knowledge are being activated. Levelt’s model seems to be a regulatory circuit in which stages of speech production

334

Bernd Tesch

are fed back to the listening system and to the knowledge storage system (world knowledge, situational knowledge, discourse knowledge, knowledge about the addressee, etc.). Finally, speaking is also linked to a diversity of behavioural components such as visual contact, gestures, movements, distance to the interlocutor, situational and cultural behaviour. All these components have to conform with the utterance. Research on second language speaking, in contrast to first language speaking, found some specific methods of processing (Wolff 2002, 311s.): – Content-based processing of language mostly relies on the mother tongue. The speaker unconsciously supposes that he benefits from the use of his mother tongue as far as time-saving and level of performance is concerned. With regard to advanced L3-learners, there is evidence that the proficiency factor determines which other languages are used (Lindqvist 2010). – Most of the planning activity is occupied by linguistic problems so that there is little time left for the global structuring of an utterance. – Learners try to compensate for deficits by the use of chunks and routines which allow them to save time for further planning. Hence, strategies which are used to compensate for linguistic deficits are of particular relevance in foreign language communication: active strategies (e.g. the use of the mother tongue, paraphrasing) which allow the putting into practice of the learner’s original communicative purpose in spite of some deficits, or passive (avoidance) strategies which imply a reduction of the original communicative purpose (e.g. avoiding a topic) (Wolff 2002, 314ss.). Beside the cognitive linguistic aspects of speaking, pragmatic, socio-linguistic and socio-cultural aspects have to be considered, especially with a view to language teaching and learning (Firth/Wagner 2007) (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). In the CEFR a distinction is made between sustained monologue (describing experience, putting a case, public announcements, addressing audiences) and spoken interaction (transactions, casual conversation, informal discussion, formal discussion, debate, interview, negotiation, co-planning, practical goal-oriented cooperation) (Council of Europe 2000, 73–82). With regard to the methodology of foreign language teaching, the orientation towards communication has to be distinguished from the orientation towards language. Orientation towards communication means the active and effective part of the discourse: outside school, people speak only if they want to communicate (tell, report, announce etc.) something. Orientation towards language means that there are linguistic skills which can be called upon automatically at any time (Council of Europe 2000, 3). Concerning the language classroom, reference to language implies that skillful tasks and exercises should help to increase the automatic availability of as many linguistic structures as possible. The question as to whether the time available for planning the work on tasks plays a role in both the complexity of utterances and in

Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

335

correctness and fluency is open to debate. Contradictory evidence was found (Philp/ Oliver/Mackey 2006; Ahmadian/Tavakoli 2011) relating to this question.

3.5 Writing Writing is particularly a social and cultural activity. Social determinants of writing are, for example, the choice of topics, writing conventions and the author’s selfpresentation in the text (Weigle 2002, 20; for more recent research cf. Porsch 2010). Defining writing in a foreign language leads one to consider writing as an integrative activity mobilizing, inter alia, reading competence, lexical, grammatical and orthographic competence, intercultural competence, and text competence. Moreover, metacognitive, motivational and volitional aspects are also involved. Zydatiß (2005) pleads for the use of demanding writing tasks in the language classroom linked to specific genres, arguing that youngsters have to learn not only to develop their own intuitions and judgements on the contents and forms of written language, but, equally, to integrate contents and forms in a coherent way (ibid., 329). Therefore, from a didactical point of view, it might be interesting to develop a model of specific applications allowing one to link tasks and exercises to this model in order to generate a writing curriculum. Kast (2002, 24) structures writing applications as follows: – Writing based on communicative needs such as formal and informal letters, forms, short messages, etc. – Writing based on practical teaching needs such as homework, tests and exercises etc. – Writing with regard to the psychology of learning and motivation, e.g. the function of typography for reading and writing, motivational functions and the supporting function of writing for other skills. – Writing as a support for the structuring of other mental activities. The last two aspects are of particular importance from a didactical point of view as they point out the essential features of writing, the concretion of thoughts and emotions (↗17 Cognition and Emotion), the slowdown of processes, and the processual nature of writing in general. Viewed historically, there are four didactical positions (cf. Kast 2002, 29–33): – The directive approach aiming to train writing through given patterns. – The textual-linguistic approach centered on the diverse features of texts such as genre, type of text, text function, author and addressee of a text, structure of the text, text modules etc. – The process oriented approach centered on the writer, his working process and the stages of the working process (Hayes/Flowers 1980). – The process genre approach (Badger/White 2000) combining the textual-linguistic and the process-oriented approach.

336

Bernd Tesch

Learners come to know writing as a process which through feedback may lead to a constant improvement of the product (Storch/Wigglesworth 2010). It is not by accident that this approach coincides with a re-evaluation of “mistakes” (mistakes as a basis of learning) and a new understanding of self-regulated learning or learner autonomy.

3.6 Mediation In spite of being constantly required by curricula, mediation is still a somewhat neglected issue and a challenge for research. As always at least two activities – receptive and productive – and at least two languages are concerned, mediation is also a particular challenge for learners. Equally the interaction between two activities and two languages complicates the evaluation and assessment of mediation performances. Is the task fulfilment being influenced by deficits in the first language, by deficits in the target language or by other specific cognitive problems? Methodological and didactical aspects of mediation have recently been more intensively discussed (Guillaume-Hofnung 52009; Caspari/Schinschke 2012). The authors point out different forms of professional mediation (e.g. interpretation and translation) and different forms of mediation in the classroom and in everyday life. Mediation tasks are always linked to a concrete situation and to a concrete application. Solving mediation tasks successfully highly depends both on intercultural communicative competence and on language awareness. Nevertheless, the construction of a content model of mediation or even a stage model of mediation tasks adequately reflecting the gradual development of the competence of mediation has yet to be developed.

3.7 Grammar Grammatical competence is defined in the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001, 112s.) as “knowledge of and ability to use the grammatical resources of a language. […] Grammatical competence is the ability to understand and express meaning by producing and recognizing well-formed phrases and sentences in accordance with these principles (as opposed to memorizing and reproducing them as fixed formulae)”. How precisely, from a linguistic and didactical point of view, can the relationship between knowledge and application be described (Purpura 2004)? Following Zydatiß (2005, 222), the choice of grammatical elements is generally governed by decisions motivated by context, discourse and content. A proficient user, who chooses between grammatical options according to these three components, himself creates meaning using language to mediate between experience and current situations. Shifting the focus from general considerations on grammatical competence to the educational context, we are led back to the focus-on-form debate and the opposition

Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

337

of different didactical concepts of grammatical progression: one of self-regulated progression in the constructivist sense, one of a progression agreed between learners and teachers in a common learning project, and one in which the response to formal needs depends completely on the differing requirements for working out a task. Some of the concepts mentioned above are supported by the processability theory (Pienemann 1998), a psycholinguistic theory of second language acquisition (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories) based on the assumption that all production processes of language depend on a conceptually regulated communicative intention (Multhaup 2002, 75). To achieve this, two steps have to be taken: 1. The recourse to a reservoir of lexical knowledge 2. The transformation of this lexical knowledge into a grammatical form adequate for the notional and communicative purposes. Psycholinguists use the term of incremental processing for this (Pienemann 1998). The didactical value of the theory lies in the fact that the construction of such processing in language learning follows hierarchical learning stages: first, holistically learnt chunks are needed, that means phonetic sequences, which have not been analysed grammatically and which are used in a functional way (ibid., 80). Functional needs and functional constraints which interact with processing constraints make the learner analyse these phonetic sequences more and more, and thus make them increasingly available for creative and systematic use. A remark has to be made as far as the learning of French grammar is concerned. The obvious disparity between spoken and written language partially explains the specific difficulties learners of French have to cope with (Forner 2011). According to the processability theory it would be a waste of time to teach something to L2-learners when they are cognitively not yet prepared for it. Hence, the need for very well trained teachers, capable of analysing the learner’s utterances to determine at which stage of language learning he or she is, becomes evident (Multhaup 2002, 85). Moreover, neuro-scientific findings lead us to understand that linear syntax-centred processing models are not in line with the neuronal basis of language processing (ibid., 88). Hence, modern didactical theories favour grammatical processing models based on noticing and awareness: explicit grammatical knowledge is considered as helpful to focus on new or relevant aspects of the target language whereas noticing and awareness are considered as a prerequisite for language acquisition (Edmondson 2002).

3.8 Lexis Starting from the concept of the mental lexicon (Miller 1986; Levelt 1992; Elman 2004), Zydatiß (2005, 265) argues that lexical competence is much more important for the development of sustained monological and interactive speaking than has been

338

Bernd Tesch

recognized within the scientific community. The mental lexicon functions on the basis of lexical units or word groups which are not linked by grammatical encoding but are based on processes of recognition and association. Foreign language teaching should, consequently, work more systematically on vocabulary, particularly as far as processes of word formation, syntagma, routines and chunks are concerned, and include lexis- and grammar-focused tasks (ibid., 263). Work on vocabulary also constitutes a core element of the didactics of reading. In the educational context vocabulary (in the same way as grammar) is not an end in itself but has a supporting function for the development of linguistic competence. Like verbal comprehension in general, reading comprehension is based on vocabulary knowledge which can itself be expanded by further reading. The advantage of reading lies in the fact that there is enough time to clarify linguistic questions. But vocabulary acquisition can be boosted in combination with listening, which provides an additional acoustic representation, and, especially, in combination with writing, which allows lexical processing and even lexical monitoring in a relatively unpressured time-span. Multi-channel processing and redundancy efficiently increase the ability to memorize vocabulary. As Peters (2007) shows, processing depth also constitutes an efficient factor in memorizing new words. Hence, exercises should appeal to the emotions of learners, e.g. by the use of playful elements rather than accentuating the accomplishment of the exercise. Task-based language learning allows us to considerably increase the depth of processing by increasing task complexity and the use of communication media. In the classroom, the planning of reading also assists the work on vocabulary (Peters 2007) in so far as vocabulary has to be repeated frequently and at short intervals in various co-texts and contexts in order to ensure reinforcement (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning).

3.9 Pronunciation and Intonation As Dufeu (2006) points out, pronunciation and intonation should not only be viewed as sub-skills of speaking. They also have a reinforcing function for memory and for grammatical acquisition processes, especially for morphosyntactic structures. With regard to listening, the importance of perceived homophones in French due to difficulties in reception (six sœurs/six heures) underlines the importance of pronunciation training. It is obvious that pronunciation training can be done efficiently via listening with a focus on pronunciation-awareness (Blanc 2011; Dlaska/Krekeler 2008). Dufeu (2006, 53) also addresses the strong link between high competence in pronunciation and the correctness of orthography.

Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

339

4 Final Remarks Competences in language use always manifest themselves in an integrative way. Even when one particular skill is needed to solve a communicative problem, there is generally more than one competence and more than one resource involved. In the educational context, the integration of competences and resources is displayed in the solving of tasks. Following on from Weinert’s definition of competence, integration is constitutive for foreign language tasks, i.e. language tasks are constructed to cope with an action situation starting from a specific situational context and implying an open communicative and addressee-oriented action request. In relation to educational support and training measures or with regard to evaluation isolated skills might also be focused on. Hence, from a didactical point of view, integration consists of – the integration of activities in the context of complex tasks – the integration of learning processes while working out a task, i.e. the integrative character of social interaction and the integrative character of cognitive processing – the integration of cognitive processing with regard to the working out of isolated test or evaluation tasks. Mediation is per se an integrative activity, likewise speaking. But test tasks for receptive skills must also generally be constructed in such a way that not only one single dimension, e.g. detailed reading, is assessed, but different receptive performances. Transverse competences such as intercultural communicative competence (↗5 Languages and Identities), text competence, media competence, language awareness, and language-learning competence are naturally integrative competences and, therefore, automatically linked to linguistic competences. Accordingly, the integration of competences is represented in integrative competence models like the CEFR model or the CARAP model (Cadre de Référence pour les approches Plurielles des Langues et des Cultures, European Centre for Modern Languages 2012).

5 Bibliography Ahmadian, Mohammad Javad/Tavakoli, Mansoor (2011), The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production, Language Teaching Research 15/1, 35–59. Alderson, Charles (2000), Assessing reading, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Austin, John L. (1962), How to do things with Words: The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Bachmann, Lyle (1990), Fundamental considerations in language testing, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Baddeley, Alan (2007), Working Memory, Thought, and Action, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Badger, Richard/White, Goodith (2000), A process genre approach to teaching writing, ELT Journal 54, 153–160.

340

Bernd Tesch

Blanc, Georgette (2011), L’enseignement de la phonétique de français langue étrangère (FLE), Babylonia 2, 33–37. Buck, Gary (2001), Assessing listening, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung/Federal Ministry for Education and Research (ed.) (2008), Developing quality – Safeguarding standards – Handling differentiation, http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661304001366 (28.05.2013). Canale, Michael/Swain, Merrill (1980), Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing, Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47 (27.06.2012). CARAP = European Centre for Modern Languages (2009), Cadre de Référence pour les approches Plurielles des Langues et des Cultures: Framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures, Strasbourg/Graz, Conseil de l’Europe/European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz, CELV. Caspari, Daniela/Schinschke, Andrea (2012), Sprachmittlung: Überlegungen zur Förderung einer komplexen Kompetenz, Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 41/1, 40–53. Chomsky, Noam (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Clark, Herbert H. (1996), Using language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cummins, Jim (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. De Bot, Kees (1992), A bilingual production model: Levelt’s speaking model adapted, Applied Linguistics 13/1, 1–24. Dlaska, Andrea/Krekeler, Christian (2008), Self-assessment of pronunciation, System 36/4, 506–516. Dufeu, Bernard (2006), Funktion und Korrektur der Aussprache am Beispiel des Französischen, Praxis Fremdsprachenunterricht 4, 51–56. Edmondson, Willis J. (2002): Wissen, Können, Lernen – kognitive Verarbeitung und Grammatikentwicklung, in: Wolfgang Börner/Klaus Vogel (edd.), Grammatik und Fremdsprachenerwerb. Kognitive, psycholinguistische und erwerbstheoretische Perspektiven, Tübingen, Narr, 51–70. Ehlers, Swantje (42003), Übungen zum Leseverstehen, in: Karl-Richard Bausch et al. (edd.), Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen, Francke, 287–292. Elman, Jeffrey L. (2004), An Alternative view of the mental lexicon, Trends in Cognitive Science 8/7, 301–306, http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~rytting/teaching/615/615_feb05/elman_tics_opi nion_2004.pdf (28.05.2013) Feyten, Carine M. (1991), The power of listening ability: An overlooked dimension in language acquisition, The Modern Language Journal 75/2, 173–180. Field, John (2008), Listening in the language classroom, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Firth, Alan/Wagner, Johannes (2007), Second/Foreign Language Learning as a Social Accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA, The Modern Language Journal 91, 800–819. Forner, Werner (2011), L’orthographe antigrammaticale. Oder: Was macht Französisch “schwer”? Zeitschrift für romanische Sprachen und ihre Didaktik 5/2, 61–86. Fulcher, Glenn (2003), Testing second language speaking, London, Longman/Pearson Education. Garrod, Simon/Pickering, Martin J. (2007), Automaticity of language production in monologue and dialogue, Antje S. Meyer/Linda R. Wheeldon/Andrea Krott (edd.), Automaticity and control in language processing, Hove, Psychology Press, 1–20. Grotjahn, Rüdiger (2005), Testen und Bewerten des Hörverstehens, Michaél Ó. Dúill/Rosemary Zahn/ Kristina D. C. Höppner (edd.), Zusammenarbeiten: Eine Festschrift für Bernd Voss, Bochum, AKSVerlag, 115–144.

Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means

341

Grotjahn, Rüdiger (2012), Hörverstehen: Konstrukt und Messung, Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 41/1, 72–86. Grotjahn, Rüdiger/Tesch, Bernd (2010), Messung der Hörverstehenskompetenz im Fach Französisch, in: Raphaela Porsch/Bernd Tesch/Olaf Köller (edd.), Standardbasierte Testentwicklung und Leistungsmessung, Französisch in der Sekundarstufe I, Münster, Waxmann, 125–150. Guillaume-Hofnung, Michèle (52009), La médiation, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Hayes, John R./Flowers, Linda S. (1980), Identifying the Organizations of Writing Processes, Lee W. Gregg/Erwin R. Steinberg (edd.), Cognitive Processing in Writing, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 3–30. Hulstijn, Jan H. (2003), Connectionist models of language processing and the training of listening skills with the aid of multimedia software, Computer Assisted Language Learning 16/5, 413–425. Hurrelmann, Bettina (2002), Leseleistung – Lesekompetenz: Folgerungen aus PISA, mit einem Plädoyer für ein didaktisches Konzept des Lesens als kultureller Prozess, Praxis Deutsch 176, 6–19. Hymes, Dell (1972), On Communicative Competence, in: John B. Pride/Janet Holmes (edd.), Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 269–293. Iluk, Jan (2010), Leseleistungen im Sachfachunterricht: Zum Einfluss von Wort- und Syntaxverarbeitung, in: Madeline Lutjeharms/Claudia Schmidt (edd.), Lesekompetenz in Erst-, Zweit- und Fremdsprache, Tübingen, Narr, 163–174. Kast, Bernd (2002), Fertigkeit Schreiben: Fernstudieneinheit 12. Fernstudienprojekt zur Fort- und Weiterbildung im Bereich Germanistik und Deutsch als Fremdsprache, München, Goethe-Institut. Koda, Keiko (2005), Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Le Boterf, Guy (1994), De la compétence: essai sur un attracteur étrange, Paris, Éditions d’organisation. Levelt, Willem J.M. (1989), Speaking: From intention to articulation, Cambridge, MIT Press. Levelt, Willem J.M. (1992), Accessing Words in Speech Production: Stages, Processes and Representations, Cognition 42/1–3, 1–22. Lindqvist, Christina (2010), Inter- and intralingual lexical influences in advanced learners’ French L3 oral production, International Review of Applied Linguistics 48/2–3, 131–157. Luoma, Sari (2004), Assessing Speaking, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lutjeharms, Madeline (2007), Fremdsprachliches Leseverstehen, Französisch heute 38/2, 106–120. Mayer, Richard E. (2001), Multimedia Learning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Meißner, Franz-Joseph (2006), Linguistische und didaktische Überlegungen zur Entwicklung von Kompetenzaufgaben im Lernbereich Mündlichkeit, Französisch heute 37/3, 240–282. Miller, George A. (1986), Dictionaries in the mind, Language and Cognitive Processes 1/3, 171–185. Multhaup, Uwe (2002), Grammatikunterricht aus psycholinguistischer und informationsverarbeitender Sicht, Wolfgang Börner/Klaus Vogel (edd.), Grammatik und Fremdsprachenerwerb. Kognitive, psycholinguistische und erwerbstheoretische Perspektiven, Tübingen, Narr, 71–97. Paivio, Allan (1986), Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Perrenoud, Philippe (1999), D’une métaphore à l’autre: transférer ou mobiliser ses connaissances?, Joaquim Dolz/Edmée Ollagnier (edd.), L’énigme de la compétence en éducation, Bruxelles, De Boeck, 45–61. Peters, Elke (2007), Zum Wortschatz und Lesen einer Fremdsprache: wie kann der Erwerb gefördert werden? Französisch heute 38/2, 130–138. Philp, Jenefer/Oliver, Rhonda/Mackey, Alison (2006), The impact of planning time on children’s taskbased interactions, System 34, 547–565. Pienemann, Manfred (1998), Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory, Amsterdam, Benjamins.

342

Bernd Tesch

Poelmans, Petra (2003), Developing second-language listening comprehension: Effects of training lower-order skills versus higher-order strategy, Utrecht, LOT. Porsch, Raphaela (2010), Schreibkompetenzvermittlung im Englischunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I. Empirische Analysen zu Leistungen, Einstellungen, Unterrichtsmethoden und Zusammenhängen von Leistungen in der Mutter- und Fremdsprache, Münster, Waxmann. Porsch, Raphaela/Grotjahn, Rüdiger/Tesch, Bernd (2010), Hörverstehen und Hör-Sehverstehen in der Fremdsprache – unterschiedliche Konstrukte? Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 21/2, 143–189. Purpura, James E. (2004), Assessing grammar, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Reimann, Daniel/Rössler, Andrea (edd.) (2013), Sprachmittlung im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Tübingen, Narr. Rost, Michael (1990), Listening in language learning, London, Longman. Schnotz, Wolfgang (2005), An integrated model of text and picture comprehension, Richard E. Mayer (ed.) (2005), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, New York, Cambridge University Press, 49–69. Sophian, Catherine (1997), Beyond Competence: The Significance of Performance for Conceptual Development, Cognitive Development 12, 281–303. Storch, Neomy/Wigglesworth, Gillian (2010), Learners’ Processing, Uptake, and Retention of Corrective Feedback on Writing, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32/2, 303–334. Suvorov, Ruslan (2011), The effects of context visuals on L2 listening comprehension, Research Notes 45, 2–8, http://research.cambridgeesol.org/research-collaboration/research-notes (25.05.2013) Tsui, Amy B. M./Fullilove, John (1998), Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance, Applied Linguistics 19/4, 432–451. Weigle, Sara Cushing (2002), Assessing writing, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Weinert, Franz E. (2001), Vergleichende Leistungsmessung in Schulen – eine umstrittene Selbstverständlichkeit, Franz E. Weinert (ed.), Leistungsmessungen in Schulen, Weinheim/Basel, Beltz, 17–31. Wolff, Dieter (2002), Fremdsprachenlernen als Konstruktion: Grundlagen für eine konstruktivistische Fremdsprachendidaktik, Frankfurt am Main, Lang. Wolff, Dieter (2003), Hören und Lesen als Interaktion: zur Prozesshaftigkeit der Sprachverarbeitung, Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 64/65, 4+5, 11–16. Zydatiß, Wolfgang (2005), Bildungsstandards und Kompetenzniveaus im Englischunterricht: Konzepte, Empirie, Kritik und Konsequenzen, Frankfurt am Main, Lang.

Acquisition of Romance Languages: Contexts and Characteristics

Joan Julià-Muné

19 Catalan Abstract: This contribution analyses the standing of Catalan as L1 and L2. It explains when this Romance language was first taught as a foreign language in early 20thcentury Germany, how and where it was extended, and how it is being taught worldwide nowadays in spite of its minor language status in the era of globalization. The article sets out to describe Catalan-speaker competence in terms of both perception and production in all linguistic levels. Different strategies are proposed to improve the linguistic performance of foreign learners of Catalan, so that they may overcome their lack of mastering the language and avoid subsequent misunderstandings. A large range of languages, whose L1 speakers include the majority of the world’s population, is dealt with. Keywords: Catalan as a foreign language, Catalan pronunciation in L2 learning, Catalan grammar in L2 learning, worldwide Catalan studies

1 Introduction1 A burning issue within the field of sociolinguistics is the growing influence of major languages in the current global period, when English may exert such an increasing pressure on speaking minorities all over the world that their very existence could be endangered. At the present time, due to the extensive areas where it is spoken, Catalan is a Romance language that is strongly influenced above all by Spanish in Spain (↗25 Spanish), but also by French in France (↗20 French) and by Italian in Italy (↗21 Italian), thereby threatening the process of its standardization. The Institut d’Estudis Catalans (IEC), founded in 1907 by the Provincial Government of Barcelona, acted as the “academy” of Catalan language from the beginning and has fulfilled this role up to the present day. On the other hand, the Institut Ramon Llull (IRL) was established in 2002 by the Generalitat de Catalunya (Autonomous Government of Catalonia) with the aim of promoting the Catalan language and Catalan culture abroad.2 Following the death of the dictator Francisco Franco in 1975 and the subsequent restoration of democratic freedoms, the 1978 Constitution recognized linguistic plurality and established that “Spanish languages” other than Castilian (Spanish) could be official in accordance with the statutes of the autonomous 1 This article is the result of research work financed by the Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya (AGAUR), Suport de Grups de Recerca (Gencat 2009 SGR 408). 2 Detailed information is provided on the internet presentation of Institut Ramon Llull, 2008. Updated 2013.

346

Joan Julià-Muné

regions. The statutes of Catalonia (1979; 2010) and of the Balearic Islands (1983; 2007) recognized Catalan as the first language of the peoples of these territories and declared it an official language in these autonomous regions, together with Spanish. In addition, Catalan was recognized as one of the official languages of the Comunitat Valenciana (1982, 2006), with the legal name of valencià (Valencian).3 In the same way, the Constitution of Andorra (1993) established Catalan as the official language of the State (Generalitat de Catalunya 2010, 16) (↗32 Spain).

2 The Situation and Relevance of Catalan: Where Does Catalan Stand? Currently, this Romance language has 7 million speakers as a first language (L1) and 3 million speakers as L2 or as a foreign language. Catalan is spoken in eastern Spain (the eastern strip of the Aragonese region, Catalonia, most of the Valencian Community and the Balearic Islands), in southern France (the eastern Pyrenees), in the city of Alguer (Alghero, on the Italian island of Sardinia) and in Andorra, where it is the official language. It is an official language, together with Spanish, in Catalonia,4 Valencia and the Balearic Islands. Residents of Andorra may be considered trilingual, many of them speaking French, Spanish and Catalan. As we can see in the map below, several geographical varieties of Catalan may be distinguished: Western dialects (North-western and Valencian) and Eastern dialects (Northern or Roussillon, Central, Balearic and the dialect of Alghero). Catalan is a well-codified language (with grammar and dictionaries),5 but it is still fighting the battle for standard usage. The Catalan language is quite alive, even

3 Since the 1980s it has been claimed for purely political reasons that Valencian is not just a geolectal variety of Catalan but a separate language. This led to the establishment of a new language academy, the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua (AVL) in 1998. 4 The Occitan language should be taken into account too. Aranese is a standardized form of the Pyrenean Gascon variety of the Occitan geolect that is spoken in Era Val d’Aran (The Aran Valley) in north-western Catalonia, on the border between Spain and France. It is one of the three official languages in this area: Aranese, Catalan and Spanish. 5 Pompeu Fabra i Poch (1868–1948) was the creator and main instigator of spelling, grammatical and lexical standardization of the Catalan language. His collected works have been completed and published recently (2005–2013, 9 vol.). Catalan linguistics counts on its most comprehensive descriptive grammar up to date: Gramàtica del català contemporani (GCC 42008 [2002], 3 vol.), which should be added to the vast lexicographical works by Joan Coromines (1980–2001, 10 vol.; 1989–1997, 8 vol.) and the normative dictionary (Institut d’Estudis Catalans 22007 [1995]). A thorough and accessible account of Catalan language can be found in Enciclopèdia de la llengua catalana (ELC, 2001) and in Catalan. A Comprehensive Grammar (1999) by Wheeler, Yates and Dols, which extensively updates in a way Joan Gili’s Catalan Grammar (41974 [1943]).

Catalan

347

Fig. 1: Catalan-speaking areas and dialects (Wheeler/Yates/Dols 1999, xviii)

though only 43% of Catalans make use of it as their everyday language. According to the Informe de Política Lingüística 2011 by the Generalitat de Catalunya (2013), 80% of adults can speak the language and 65% can write it. Catalan is the usual language for 76.2% of undergraduate and 56.6% of postgraduate students in the seven public universities. Communication media in the Catalan language was also established quite firmly, amongst which we can highlight, due to their high degree of popular acceptance, TV3 and Catalunya Ràdio in Catalonia and IB3 in the Balearic Islands as

348

Joan Julià-Muné

well as a large number of local radio and television stations throughout the three regions, the most recent being the private channel 8TV in Catalonia. As a result of this offer, over one million new viewers have been attracted since 2007. Catalan has continued to regain its presence in the press, so that currently 25% of the general information press is in Catalan. Publishing in the Catalan language has reached very high quotas in terms of the number of titles published, which has increased steadily every year. In 2004 over eight thousand titles were published in the Catalan language, with a total of over twenty million copies, but only 26.5% of readers said that the last book they read was in Catalan. For 47.5% of Catalan internet users their own language was habitual for the last 30 days, and the 19th position in Twitter is claimed for Catalan (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Just over twenty years ago the Catalan language was still under the threat of extinction which had lasted over a period of about fifty years (Prats/Rafanell/Rossich 1990). Sociolinguists differ about those opinions, either backing them (Gabancho 2007) or opposing them, arguing that the announcement of the “death” of Catalan was premature: “Wouldn’t it be more sensible and useful to get rid of ghosts, to look at things more seriously – as we have done at moments in our history that have proved even more difficult than the current one, when we have faced much more powerful adversaries, when we have found ourselves lacking in resources and freedoms – and to accept the challenge to confide a little more in our country and its citizens?” (Pueyo 2007, 118s.).

3 The Catalan Language Abroad 3.1 A Brief History of the Pioneering Teaching and Learning Catalan as L2 or as Foreign Language (FL) Catalan was first taught as a foreign language by Bernhard Schädel (1878–1926) at the Prussian University of Halle an der Saale at the beginning of the 20th century. The young postgraduate Schädel met the keen linguist Antoni M. Alcover6 in Majorca in 1904. Alcover became Schädel’s first Catalan teacher and they undertook, in close collaboration, fruitful research work in Catalan linguistics. Four years after that first Balearic stay, three young Catalans won a scholarship promoted by Schädel and Alcover and funded by the Diputació de Barcelona (the Provincial Government of Barcelona) to study Romance linguistics at the University of Halle, where Schädel had

6 Antoni M. Alcover (1862–1932) was one of the most representative figures with regard to the recovery of the language at the beginning of the 20th century. He organized and presided at the first international conference on the Catalan language (Primer Congrés Internacional de la Llengua Catalana, Barcelona, 1906), and quite a few ambitious projects: review, dictionary, etc. A detailed account of the German-Catalan relationship for over a century can be found in Pons/Skrabec (2008).

Catalan

349

been lecturing in Romance languages, including Catalan. The three scholars were the first native assistants (known as lectors later on) ever to help in teaching Catalan abroad. Their pioneering studies and practical assistance with teaching work were supervised by Schädel, who had already become an enthusiastic Romanist, for a twoyear period 1908–1910 (Julià-Muné 2008). The scholarship holders, known as pensionats, from old-fashioned pensió, or estipendiats, from German Stipendium, at the time, were Manuel de Montoliu (1877–1961), Pere Barnils (1882–1933) and Antoni Griera (1887–1973) (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). That starting point was the basis for the wider international expansion of Catalan studies outside the Catalan-speaking areas up to the late thirties, and especially from the mid-20th century in post-war Europe and North America.7 From then on Catalan societies were set up in both continents: the Anglo-Catalan Society (ACS, 1954), El Centre d’Estudis Catalans (Paris, 1977), not a society proper, L’Associazione Italiana di Studi Catalani (AISC, 1978), the North-American Catalan Society (NACS, 1978), Deutsch-Katalanische Gesellschaft (DKG, 1983, which changed into Deutscher Katalanistenverband e.V. in 1997), L’Association Française des Catalanistes (AFC, 1990), and the recent Associació de Catalanistes de l’Amèrica Llatina (2012). All of them have been coordinated by the Federació Internacional d’Associacions de Catalanística (FIAC) since 2006. It must be taken into account that the first post-war international conference on the Catalan language was held in France (La linguistique catalane, Strasbourg, 1968), the second meeting was hosted by the University of Amsterdam in 1970 and the third one was held at Fitzwilliam College (Cambridge, 1973), where the Associació Internacional de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes (AILLC) was set up.8 Later on, Catalan studies were expanded in the Dutch-speaking and Scandinavian countries and throughout Eastern Europe.9 Early Catalan studies were also established in Asia, Australia and Latin America. Surprisingly enough, while Catalan was banned at schools and in the mass media under Franco’s rule (1939–1975),10 a decree dated 7th July 1944 and signed by the dictator allowed lecturing in Catalan for three hours a week in higher education. The University of Granada was the first to take advantage of the decree; it set up Catalan studies in 1955,11 studies that have continued ever since. 7 August Bover i Font (1993) gives a thorough account of the worldwide development of Catalan studies outside the Catalan-speaking areas for most of the 20th century. 8 Now an international conference (col·loqui) funded by the AILLC is held every three years alternately in the Catalan-speaking areas and abroad. The University of Salamanca hosted the last one in 2012. 9 The Andorra Government set up a Catalan lectorship at the Charles University in Prague (Universitas Carolina) in 1991, two years before the country peacefully dissolved into its constituent states, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. In the late 20th century and the early 21st century Catalan studies were also promoted by the Instituto Cervantes in Warsaw, Budapest and Moscow. 10 On 16th February 1939 the use of Catalan was prohibited given its status as a second language. 11 The first lecturer in Catalan as L2/FL in Granada during the academic year 1955–1956 was Montserrat Rubió, daughter of the historian of Catalan Literature Jordi Rubió i Balaguer (1887–1982).

350

Joan Julià-Muné

3.2 The Teaching of Catalan as a Foreign Language Outside the Catalan-Speaking Areas in the 21st Century: Renewed Networks At the present time, as we have seen, the IRL promotes the study of the Catalan language and culture in universities abroad, with which it signs agreements for the establishment and consolidation of Catalan studies, providing support to colleges, teachers and students through various programmes and lines of funding. It encourages advanced studies and research into Catalan language and culture through study centres and fellowships for visiting professors at prestigious universities, and supports the initiatives of international Catalan cultural associations. As an official certification body for Catalan language proficiency abroad, it administers examinations that provide accreditation for the various levels, in line with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001). Annual Catalan language tests are taken in about 75 cities in over 30 countries. In order to ensure the quality of teaching, the IRL provides on-going teacher training12 and promotes programmes designed for students from foreign countries to complete their language training (↗15 Language Teacher). With regard to the projection of Catalan abroad, during the 2013–2014 academic year over 150 universities are teaching Catalan around the world, 114 being funded by the IRL and about 40 more being self-financed. Catalan as a L2 language has been recently taught in ten Spanish universities13 outside the Catalan-speaking areas.

4 Second Language Acquisition of Catalan14 4.1 Characteristics of SLA According to Its Linguistic Levels: Phonological, Morphosyntactic and Lexical This section aims at analysing the difficulties that might face foreign learners of Catalan, that is, as L2, L3 or L4, after having usually learned English and/or Spanish

12 The last summer course promoted by the IRL was held in the Northern-Valencian towns of Morella and Vinarós in July 2013. In the late 20th century only two Catalan universities offered postgraduate courses on teaching Catalan as L2: the Universitat Pompeu Fabra and the Universitat de Lleida. The latter edited and published the contents of the courses (Julià i Muné 2000). At present every college in the Catalan-speaking areas runs specialist postgraduate courses on SLA for both L2 Spanish and L2 Catalan. 13 Universidad de Granada, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Universidad de Córdoba, Universidad de Oviedo, Universidad de Salamanca, Universidad de Zaragoza, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (www.llull.cat, 30th March 2013). 14 Both the language description and the examples supplied in this section refer primarily to the established prescriptive norms on pronunciation and grammar related to the standard status and standardization influence of the Central dialect of contemporary Catalan.

Catalan

351

(↗25 Spanish) as first or second languages. The analysis focuses on the acquisition of the phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical levels. However, oral Catalan will be given priority and the phonic level will be dealt with more extensively. Within a linguistic transference in the L2 learning approach (Major 2008, 63s.), specific language problems encountered by different L2 learners are shown so that foreign speakers learning Catalan may overcome the pronunciation, grammatical and lexical restrictions emanating from their L1(s).

4.2 Phonological Level 4.2.1 Catalan Segments: Vowels and Consonants Tables 1 (Julià-Muné 2005, 160) and 2 (Julià-Muné 2005, 166) show the vowel and consonant systems of Catalan. Table 1: Vowel phonemic inventories of the main four varieties of Catalan (*It just occurs in the Balearic variety of Eastern Catalan)

Table 2: Consonant phonemic inventory (*It does not usually occur in Central Catalan but it does in the Balearic and Valencian varieties)

352

Joan Julià-Muné

The Catalan orthographic system is largely phonological and quite systematic. The Roman alphabet is extended with these letters and digraphs followed by its respective pronunciations: ç [s], gu/gü- [g/gw], -ig [ʧ], ix [(j)ʃ], -l·l- [ɫ], ny [ɲ], qu/qü [k/kw], ss [s], tg/tj [ʤ], tx [ʧ], tz [ʣ]. Phonetic transcriptions are based on the International Phonetic Alphabet and represent Central Catalan pronunciation in broad phonetic transcription, though more phonetic detail is included when necessary (e.g. in order to represent the approximant pronunciation of /b,d,g/ in Catalan or Spanish: [β,ð,ɣ], which is in complementary distribution with [b,d̪,g], or to show a particular articulation of a phoneme in the foreign learners’ L1). The symbol ' indicates the position of lexical stress and is placed before the accented syllable. Further examples can be found in Table 3.

4.2.2 Syllable Structure and Word Stress The question of syllabification and word stress is central to Catalan phonology. In general a Catalan word has as many syllables as it has vowels (monophthongs and diphthongs) since they are the nuclear unit of the syllable: e.g. taula [ˈtaw.ɫə] ‘table’, Maria [məˈɾi.ə], veïnat [bə.iˈnat ̪] ‘neighbourhood’, baioneta [bə.juˈnɛ.tə] ‘bayonet’, historiador [is.t ̪u.ɾi.əˈðo] ‘historian’, coordinació [ku.uɾ.ði.nə.siˈo\ˈsjo]15 ‘coordination’, coincidiria [ku.in.si.ðiˈɾi.ə] ‘he/she/it would coincide’. Catalan has about a dozen different syllable structures according to the phonotactic formula C0–2VC0–3, where the onset may have none, one or two consonants and the coda may include up to three consonant segments. Let us see a few examples based on the longest structure CCVCC(C): glops [gɫops] ‘swigs’, fruit [fɾujt] ‘fruit’, quart [kwart ̪] ‘fourth’, segrest(o)(s) [səˈɣɾests\səˈɣɾes.t ̪us] ‘abduction(s)’. Acute and grave accents indicate the position of word stress (acute for í and ú and grave for à) and the degree of articulatory openness. When placed over e and o, an acute accent represents half-close front and back vowels (é, ó) and a grave accent shows half-open vowels (è, ò). The diaeresis has a double function: it either indicates [w] pronunciation, as seen above (gü, qü), or in ï and ü followed by a vowel to indicate hiatus rather than diphthong (e.g. roina [ˈrɔj.nə] ‘drizzle’, roïna [ruˈi.nə] ‘despicable, f.’; rauc [rawk] ‘croak’, saüc [səˈuk] ‘elder tree’). The stress may fall on the penultimate syllable: dimecres [d̪iˈme.kɾəs] ‘Wednesday’, aire [ˈaj.ɾə] ‘air’, fàcil [ˈfa.siɫ] ‘easy’, telèfon [t ̪əˈɫɛ.fun] ‘telephone’, or on the final syllable: dilluns [d̪iˈʎuns] ‘Monday’, anglès [əŋˈgɫɛs] ‘English’, català [kə.t ̪əˈɫa] ‘Catalan’. Words whose stress falls on the antepenultimate syllable always bear a written accent: màquina [ˈma.ki.nə] ‘machine’, història [isˈt ̪ɔ.ɾi.ə] ‘history’. A written accent is occasionally used to differentiate between words with identical spellings but with different meanings: nét [net ̪] ‘grandson’, net [nɛt ̪] ‘clean’, bóta [ˈbo.t ̪ə] ‘barrel’, bota [ˈbɔ.t ̪ə] ‘boot’.

15 [ku.uɾ.ði.nə.siˈo] indicates a very careful and formal pronunciation.

Catalan

353

4.2.3 Connected Speech: Word Liaison It is the word-group rather than the individual word that usual speakers have to consider as the unit of pronunciation. In connected speech the final sound of one word is usually modified by the initial sound of the next one, so fluency in pronunciation depends normally upon these liaisons, which are very common in Catalan. A few phonological processes at word-boundary level are listed below: Elision: porta oberta [ˈpɔr.tu̪ ˈβɛr.t ̪ə] ‘open door’ Diphthongization: va obrir [bawˈβɾi] ‘he opened’ Final consonant cluster: cinc [siŋ] ‘five’, but cinc homes [siŋˈkɔməs] ‘five men’ vint [bin] ‘twenty’, but vint-i-quatre [ˈbin.t ̪iˈkwa.tɾə] ‘twenty-four’ Final obstruent devoicing and obstruent voicing: [f,s,ʃ\ts,ʧ > -v,z,ʒ\ʣ,ʤ] / – [+voice] tots [to̪ ts] ‘all’, tots ells [t ̪odˈzeʎs] ‘all of them’ (els astres [əɫˈzas.tɾəs] ‘the stars’, els sastres [əɫˈsas.tɾəs] ‘the tailors’) despatx [d̪əsˈpaʧ] ‘office’, despatx gran [d̪əs.paʤˈɣɾan] ‘large office’ [-p, t, k > -b, d, g] / – [+voiced C] pot [pɔt ̪] ‘he can’, pot venir [ˈpɔd̪.bəˈni] ‘he can come’, but pot entendre-ho [ˈpɔt ̪ənˈt ̪endɾu] ‘he can understand it’ Spirantization: [b, d̪, g > β, ð, ɣ] més vi [mezˈβi] ‘more wine’, de dia [d̪əˈði.ə] ‘daytime’, la guia [ɫəˈɣi.ə] ‘the guide’.

4.2.4 Catalan Phonological Acquisition as L2/FL Made Easy The main challenges learners of Catalan as a foreign language might face can be shown by looking at six main languages, including Catalan as a reference point. These five languages have been selected as representative of the L1 of most learners of Catalan as FL. Four main language families are involved: Romance (Spanish and French), Germanic (English), Slavonic (Russian) and a non-Indo-European language family (Sino-Tibetan: Mandarin Chinese). Table 3 synthesises the equivalence between Catalan sounds and the sound systems of the five major languages whose speakers may learn Catalan as L2/L3/L4, etc. In some cases, namely in Catalan and Russian, stressed syllables have been underlined, and all Mandarin examples are usually given in the 4th (falling) tone by using the pinyin transcription. Segments involved have been highlighted in the examples of all languages. Articulatory slight differences which may affect the foreign learner’s accent are indicated using phonetic notation in the corresponding cell.

354

Joan Julià-Muné

Table 3: Catalan sounds occurring in major languages LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY

INDO-EUROPEAN

PHONEME

[i]

/i/

pis ‘flat’ piset ‘small flat’

[e]

/e/

Spanish (Castilian)

piso pisito

French

Germanic

Slavonic

Chinese

English (British)

Russian

Mandarin

 

SOUND

Romance CATALAN (Central)

SINO-TIBETAN

VOWELS (monophthongs) lit lirai

beat happy

иcтинa ‘truth’ Федерация ‘Federation’

mì ‘secret’

peso pell ‘skin’ pesar fer ‘to make’ té ‘he’s got’; real

laisser

May

день ‘day’

yè ‘job; leaf’

père faire tête

sell yet

этo ‘this’

femme aller

sung brush

прaвo ‘law’ kak ‘how’

dà ‘large’

beau

lawn

дoм ‘house’

mò ‘to die, to sink’ (without the initial velar glide [mwo])

foolish

yкcyc ‘vinegar’

hù ‘door, home’

иcтинa ‘truth’ прaвo ‘law’ (more mid central)

-men ‘we; you; they’ (plural suffix)

(without the palatal glide)

[ɛ]

/ɛ/

pèl ‘hair’ mel ‘honey’ te ‘tea’

[a]

/a/

pas, mà ‘step, hand’ passar ‘to pass’ passarà ‘will pass’

[ɔ]

/ɔ/

coll ‘throat, neck’ os ‘bone’ sort ‘luck’ història ‘history’

[o]

/o/

ós ‘bear’ sord ‘deaf’ cançó ‘song’ pintor ‘painter’

[u]

/u/

fum ‘smoke’ humo fumar ‘to smoke’ fumar osset ‘small bear/bone’

fou

[ə]

/ə/

caseta ‘small house’ cantaria ‘I’d sing’ exemple ‘example’

demain teacher (without liprounding)

paso pasar pasará

pomme

canción pintor poso

Catalan

355

CONSONANTS OBSTRUENTS STOPS

CATALAN

Spanish

French

[p]

/p/

pop ‘octopus’ tub ‘pipe’

pulpo

pain coupe Spain cup

Испания ‘Spain’ bài ‘to lose’ xлeб ‘bread’

[b]

/b/

vi ‘wine’, poble ‘people, village’ bomba ‘bomb’ bobina ‘bobbin’

vino bomba bobina

bobine aimable

labour baby bobbin

бабушка ‘grandmother’

[t ̪]

/t/

tot ‘all’, fred ‘cold’ tía, todo tan(t) ‘so much’ tanto

tante tout

[t] stone hat

текст ‘text’ мёд ‘honey’

[d̪]

/d/

dia ‘day’ día andana ‘platform’ donde

deux adieu

[d] media

дoм ‘house’ вода ‘water’

quoi, qui crocodile chlore klaxon

skin, sock crocodile question chimera

крокодил юг ‘south’

excès

stocks, fix

cuc ‘worm’, Bosch quien qui/què cocodrilo ‘who/what’ cuestión qüestió ‘question’ conquense càstig ‘punishment’ [ks] /ks/ fix(ar) ‘to fix’ examen [k]

/k/

English

Russian

Mandarin

dài ‘belt, ribbon’

gài ‘to beg’

ganga ‘bargain’ ganga gogo guide again географ guingueta ‘stall’ guía, guerra misguided ‘geographer’ regla ‘rule’ griego [gz] /gz/ examen ‘exam’ exemple bags, exam [g]

/g/

FRICATIVES [f]

/f/

fill ‘son’ afí ‘related’ tuf ‘stink’

fino afín

fils neuf asphyxie

fat, suffer leaf phone

фото ‘photo’ fàn шарф ‘scarf’ ‘to violate’ Иванов ‘Ivanov’

[s]

/s/

cessar ‘to cease’ caçar ‘to hunt’ os ‘bone’ casar-se asimetria

sal hueso gas casarse asimetría

sel, ciel assez aperçu espèce fils

sister fussy loosen pricing

yкcyc ‘vinegar’

[z]

/z/

zona ‘zone’ casar-se ‘to get married’

zèbre oser gaz

zone, fuzzy зебра ‘zebra’ losing позор ‘shame’ prized

[ʃ]

/ʃ/

xoc ‘crash’ caixa ‘box’ guix ‘chalk’ eix ‘axis’, Flix

chat choix achat cache

ship fashion cash

[ʂ] шантаж [ʂ] shàn ‘blackmail’ ‘to mock’ [ɕ] щëтка ‘brush’ [ɕ] xì ‘to play’ плащ ‘raincoat’

[ʒ]

/ʒ/

joc ‘play, game’ ajuda ‘help’ enginyer ‘engineer’

Jean, âgé rouge gifle, agir

measure vision garage

[ʐ] жизнь ‘life’

[s̪] sàn ‘to break up’

[ʐ/ɹ] rì ‘sun’

356

Joan Julià-Muné

AFFRICATES [ts] /ts/ potser ‘maybe’ tots ‘all’

cats

[ʣ] /ʣ/ dotze ‘twelve’

bird’s-eye

[ʧ]

/ʧ/

txec ‘Czech’ metxa ‘wick’ despatx ‘office’ boig ‘mad’

chico mecha

watcher match

[ʤ] /ʤ/ metge ‘doctor’ suggerir ‘to suggest’

[t ̪s̪] лицо ‘face’ конец ‘end’

[t ̪s̪] zì ‘word, character’ [d̪z]̪ zè ‘narrow’

[tɕ] [tɕ] jì человек ‘person’ ‘season; quiet’ дочь ‘daughter’

lodgings major

[dʑ] zìjiàn ‘offer one’s services’

SONORANTS NASALS

CATALAN

Spanish

French

English

Russian

Mandarin

[m] /m/ mà ‘hand’ estimar ‘to love’ anem ‘we go’

mano amar

mère amour femme

mending climber room

море ‘sea’ дым ‘smoke’

mài ‘to sell’

nariz mano van

nez année bonne

know, no sinner reason

[n̪] нос ‘nose’ nàn ‘disaster’ банан ‘banana’

[n]

/n/

nas ‘nose’ manar ‘to order’ van ‘they go’

[ɲ]

/ɲ/

nyap ‘botch’ ñandú enyorar ‘to miss’ niño pany ‘lock’

[ŋ]

/ŋ\n/ banca banco ‘banking system’ banc ‘bench, bank’

день ‘day’

agneau montagne (parking)

singer king

nàng ‘snuffling’

law, belly blame

lì ‘power, ability’

LATERALS loro, novela loin, aller aclarar, col balle, bal

[l]

/l/

[ɫ]

/l/

lila ‘lilac’ aclarir ‘to clarify’ col ‘cabbage’ novel·la ‘novel’

[ʎ]

/ʎ/

llum ‘light’ ullal ‘canine, tusk’ ull ‘eye’

castle all full [ˈʝ] llorar allanar

[ɫ]̪ луна ‘moon’ молоко ‘milk’ стол ‘table’ пoчтaльoн ‘postman’ ель ‘fir’ [lʲ]

Catalan

357

RHOTICS [ɾ]

/ɾ/

(Ø) [r]

/r/

pare ‘father’ prat ‘meadow’ càncer ‘cancer’ canta(r) ‘to sing’

caro prado, padre cáncer cantar

пopyccкий ‘Russian, n.’ трон ‘throne’ хор ‘choir’

ric ‘rich’ parra ‘vine’ cor ‘heart’

rico carro

рана ‘wound’ pyccкий ‘Russian, adj.’

SPIRANT APPROXIMANTS [β̞]

/b/

aprovar ‘to pass’ aprobar probable ‘likely’ abrevar herba ‘grass’ probable

[ð̞ ]

/d/

cadena ‘chain’ adrede adreça ‘address’

[ɣ]̞

/g/

vaga ‘strike’ agregar agre ‘bitter’ cigüeña vergonya ‘shame’ regla, carga

GLIDES (Semiconsonants/semivowels) [j]

/i\j/ noia ‘girl’ rabia, unión hier iot ‘yacht’ aire, oigo fille deien ‘they said’ ley huitième

use yet beauty

[w]

/u\w/diuen ‘they say’ cuento pingüí ‘penguin’ causa pingüino

one, wet queen

Louis trois

йод ‘iodine’ мaй ‘May’ ель ‘fir’

yàn ‘to detest’

wàn ‘ten thousand’

4.2.5 Specific Problems of Catalan Phonological Acquisition as L2/FL 4.2.5.1 Spanish Spanish-speaking learners may have some difficulties related to Catalan phonotactics, word stress and word liaison, as indicated below: – Spanish has a more restricted syllable structure than Catalan in coda position, as it can be seen in the Spanish phonotactic formula C0–2VC0–1. This fact may cause syllabic confusion (e.g. [-sk > -ks], Cesc) or reduction in all consonant clusters in final position ([p/t/k/f/ɫ/ʎ/n/m/ɲ/ŋ]+s) and in some diphthongs: anys ‘years’ becomes [aɲ] instead of [aɲs] (–VC > – VCC) fruit is pronounced [fɾut] instead of [fɾujt] (CCVC > CCVCC) – Final obstruent devoicing in Catalan, as in German and Russian, implies that Spanish learners have to use any voiceless stop, fricative and affricate in final position in addition to Spanish [-s], i.e. [-p,t,k,f,s,ʃ,ts,ʧ]. They may confuse the affricate [ʧ] (e.g. -tx (Sp. -ch) in final position, being often pronounced [ks]).

358

–

–

– –

Joan Julià-Muné

Laterals may be confused, especially in final position [ɫ\ʎ]: tal/tall ‘such/cut’, and Sabadell may be heard as [saβaˈðel], and so are nasals [m\n\ɲ] > [n] in coda position. They cannot set apart easily ham / han / any ‘hook / they have (auxiliary verb) / year’, and Campmany is often said as [kamˈman]. In some cases word-stress patterns contrast (e.g. Spanish: atmósfera, Himalaya, políglota, estudio/-dias/-dia/-dian; Catalan: atmosfera, Himàlaia, poliglota, estudio/-dies/-dia/-dien). The first unstressed mid-central vowel of the pair should be elided: de aquesta / de un / aquesta opció And voiced links are compulsory: els altres [za] / és una [zu]

In relation to vowel segments, Spanish speakers may confuse the two pairs of mid front and back vowels: [e\ɛ > e]; [o\ɔ > o], an intermediate vowel being used for both. They often confuse such pairs as sord/sort ‘deaf/luck’, dóna/dona ‘he gives/woman’. Verbal endings [-ə/-əs/-iən] are pronounced [a\as\ian], where one can see the replacement of schwa [ə] by [a], which is quite usual in all occurrences of the typical Catalan central mid vowel. As far as consonant segments are concerned a few difficulties may be pointed out: a) [ʒ] occurs in Argentinian Spanish but not elsewhere and both [ʒ] and [ʃ] are often replaced by [s] or [ʧ] when Spanish learners try to pronounce them. In words such as projecció [pɾu.ʒəkˈsjo\siˈo] ‘projection’ [ʒ] is usually replaced by a palatal fricative [ˈʝ] and even by a glide [j]. Lleida [ˈʎɛj.ðə] is often said [ˈˈʝej.ða]. b) [s] and [z] may be confused, [s] being used for both: decisió ‘decision’ is usually pronounced [s s] instead of [s z]. c) [ʧ] and [ʤ] are also confused, [ʧ] being used for both. d) Final -r in infinitives should not be pronounced, except in some combinations with clitics (menjar-lo), as long as Standard Central Catalan is learnt. e) Catalan dark ‘l’ [ɫ] is not a high priority teaching strategy but its systematic replacement by clear ‘l’ [l] has a negative effect on the speaker’s Catalan accent.

4.2.5.2 French The suprasegmental difficulties French speakers must overcome are usually related to phonotactics, word stress and word liaison. French (↗20 French), like Spanish, has a more restricted syllable structure than Catalan in coda position, as can be seen in their phonotactic formula C0–2VC0–1. Thus, syllabic reduction in all consonant clusters in final position is used ([p/t/k/f/ɫ/ʎ/n/m/ ɲ/ŋ]+s): arcs ‘arc(h)s, bows’ becomes [aʁz] instead of [arks] (–VCC > – VCCC) French places the word stress on the last syllable of the word. So, speakers have to learn every Catalan lexical unit with each stressed syllable in mind; fortunately the written stress may often help.

Catalan

359

All liaison cases are compulsory in Catalan (e.g. els herois [əɫ.zəˈɾɔjs] ‘the heroes’ in contrast to French des héros [d̪e.eˈʁo] or prix élevés [pʁi(z)elˈve]. Segmental problems concern mainly consonants. With regard to vowel segments the main difficulty French speakers have to face is the tendency to over-nasalize Catalan vowels followed by nasal consonants. They may overcome difficulties related to spirant approximant, affricate, lateral and rhotic (trill and tap) consonant sounds such as: a) The rhotic sound opposition trill/tap [r\ɾ] is confused and replaced by a fricative or frictionless uvular sound [ʁ\ʁ̞]. b) Final -r in infinitives should not be pronounced. c) Catalan dark ‘l’ [ɫ] should be used instead of French clear ‘l’ [l]. d) Lateral confusion [ɫ\ʎ], being replaced by [l\j] respectively. e) /b/, /d/ and /g/ are pronounced as stop/approximant [b/β], [d̪/ð] and [g/ɣ] in complementary distribution in Catalan (see Table 3). French, like most languages, should set apart both articulations to get rid of a non-standard Catalan accent. f) Affricate articulations [ts,ʣ,ʧ,ʤ], may be especially hard to master, being replaced by [s,z,ʃ,ʒ] respectively. As a teaching strategy it should be pointed out that these sounds are a combination of familiar sounds [t+s, d+z, t+ʃ, d+ʒ]) pronounced homorganically, that is, at the same point of articulation. g) In final position the only obstruents to be used are voiceless: [-p,t,k,f,s,ʃ,ts,ʧ].

4.2.5.3 Germanic (English) Suprasegmental difficulties are related to word and rhythm as well as to word liaison, rather than to phonotactics. Final consonant clusters, especially those including a rhotic sound should be carefully articulated (e.g. arcs ‘arc(h)s, bows’ becomes [a:ks] instead of [arks]). Although there are a few word-stress rules, English speakers are advised to learn every Catalan lexical unit with each stressed syllable in mind, as they do in their own language; fortunately the written stress may often help. Rhythm in Catalan is like that of French and Spanish. Catalan is a syllable-timed language whereas English is a stress-timed language. Each Catalan syllable has approximately the same length and does not have the length variation which results in English from the grouping of syllables into rhythm units. In running speech, as we have seen in French, words are linked together and careful attention has to be paid to word-boundary phonetic processes, especially related to voicing assimilation (cf. 4.2.3). Segmental shortcomings may be found mainly in relation to consonants, for the main difficulty English speakers have to overcome in relation to vowels is the tendency to diphthongize final stressed [e] sound. English speakers face problems related to spirant approximant, rhotic (trill and tap), lateral and nasal sounds. The main difficulties they may encounter are as follows:

360

Joan Julià-Muné

a) Initial and stressed syllables [p, t, k] lack aspiration, as in Spain, stone and skin, and [b,d,g] must be pronounced fully voiced, as in French and Spanish. b) /t/ and /d/ phonemes have to be articulated as dental sounds [t ̪\d̪] in Catalan. In order to improve their accent English speakers have to press the tip of the tongue against the upper teeth, as all Romance language speakers do. c) The rhotic sound opposition trill/tap [r\ɾ] is confused and replaced by a postalveolar frictionless or approximant sound [ɹ]. d) Final -r in infinitives should not be pronounced. e) Catalan dark ‘l’ [ɫ] should be used in all positions, as in American English. /l/ is not articulated in complementary distribution [l\ɫ]. f) Lateral palatal [ʎ], spelled as ll, should not be replaced by [ɫ] or [j]. g) Palatal nasal [ɲ], spelled as ny and very common in Romance languages, should be practised by pressing the front of the tongue against the hard palate, rather like English onion. h) /b/, /d/ and /g/ are pronounced as stop/approximant [b/β], [d̪/ð] and [g/ɣ] depending on the phonetic context (see Table 3). i) English speakers have to devoice all obstruents in final position: [-p,t ̪,k,f,s,ʃ,ts,ʧ].

4.2.5.4 Slavonic (Russian) Suprasegmentals must be taken into account as far as word stress and word liaison are concerned. Russian speakers are advised to learn every Catalan word with each stressed syllable in mind, as they do in their own language. Careful attention has to be paid to word-boundary phonetic processes, especially related to voicing assimilation. As far as vowel segments are concerned, they must pay especial attention to: a) Russian speakers, like Spanish and Chinese, may confuse the two pairs of mid front and back vowels: [e\ɛ > e]; [o\ɔ > o], an intermediate vowel being used for both. b) Vowel reduction in Russian is similar to that of Catalan with different vowel qualities: unstressed ‘a/o/e’ sound rather like [ə\ɐ\i] respectively. This may help to master Central Catalan vowel reduction: unstressed ‘a/e’ sound [ə] and unstressed ‘o/u’ sound [u] (see Table 3). Pronouncing [biˈguðə] instead of [bə ˈɣuðə] beguda ‘drink’ or [ˈfot ̪ɐ] instead of ˈfot ̪u] foto ‘photo’ implies a negative transference of Russian unstressed vowels into Catalan, which should be avoided. In relation to consonant segments, Russian speakers should take into account that: a) In Catalan all consonants should be hard, or non-palatalized, unless they are palatal themselves or they are followed by a palatal sound, especially [nʲ] and [lʲ], which may help to articulate Catalan [ɲ] and [ʎ] respectively. b) The rhotic pair (trill/tap) occurs in Russian (see Table 3) but a systematic phonemic opposition /r\ɾ / does not, unlike Catalan.

Catalan

361

c) Final -r in infinitives is not pronounced in Catalan. d) /b/, /d/ and /g/ are pronounced as stop/approximant [b/β], [d̪/ð] and [g/ɣ] depending on the phonetic context, as shown in Table 3. e) Although it is not a high priority teaching strategy, /n/ and /l/ phonemes are dental in Russian [n̪\ɫ ̪,l ̪ʲ], but they have to be articulated as alveolar [n\ɫ] in Catalan. f) [s̪] is spelled “c” in Cyrillic alphabet (with Roman partial coincidence here) and has a dental articulation; so, an alveolar [s] would improve Russian learners’ accent. g) [ts] and [ʣ] are often confused by Russian speakers, [ts] being used for both. h) [ʧ] and [ʤ] may also be confused, [ʧ] being used for both. Voiceless-voiced opposition should be practised for both pairs of Catalan affricates.

4.2.5.5 Non-Indo-European (Mandarin Chinese)16 Suprasegmentals are usually troublesome for Chinese learners, especially in relation to phonotactics, word stress and word liaison. Mandarin has a much more restricted syllable structure than Catalan (see 4.2.2), that is, no consonant or just one at the onset, and none or just one at the coda, which is limited to an alveolar or velar nasal. Therefore, its phonotactic structure would be C0–1VC0–1(nasal), which is usually taken as an initial component [C0–1] and a final component [VC0–1(nasal)]. Nevertheless, a few words may be seen spelled with a final “r” in pinyin (e.g. èr ‘two’), but it stands for either a post-alveolar devoiced fricative, instead of a rhotic sound (tap or trill) as in Catalan, or for the retroflex or apicopalatal vowel quality linked to the previous vowel occurring particularly in Pekingese. As a result of these phonotactic shortcomings, it has been found (Julià-Muné 2011) that the main high priorities related to syllable structure for Mandarin speakers who learn Catalan are those listed below: – Articulation difficulties of initial and final consonant clusters CC-, -CC(C) ([p/b, k/ g] followed by [l/ɾ] at the onset; and [l/ɾ] followed by [p,t ̪,k] at the coda), especially in complex clusters such as [trill+nasal+fricative] that we find in diürns ‘diurnal, pl.’. Segmental articulations, as it will be seen, should be taken into account too, so that confusions could be prevented: prou/plou ‘enough/it rains’, brau/blau ‘bull/blue’, gra/clar ‘grain/clear’.

16 This Sino-Tibetan language will be referred to as Chinese, Mandarin or Mandarin Chinese, which is the Standard Modern Chinese or Putonghua ‘common language’, written in the Chinese romanization transcription known as pinyin (e.g. Beijing, Mao Zedong have been substituted for the obsolete English Wade-Giles system: Peking, Mao Tse-Tung). Cantonese is a variety of Chinese spoken in south-eastern China (Canton and Hong-Kong areas).

362

–

–

–

Joan Julià-Muné

Misperception and misproduction of voiceless obstruents [-p,t,k,f,s,ʃ,ts,ʧ] in coda position should be prevented. Positive transfer from English may help. Cantonese speakers, used to final [-p, -t, -k], will not have any problems. Lateral and rhotic confusion, especially in final position [l/ʎ/ɾ]: el/ell ‘the, m./he’, al/all to+the/garlic’, tal/tall ‘such/cut’, because [ʎ] is, after all, an exclusive Catalan pronunciation in every syllable position. Sequences of words such as car/ cal/call ‘expensive / it’s necessary / Jewish quarter’ and per/pel/pell ‘by/by+art./ skin’ should be practised. Nasals may also be confused [m\n\ɲ] > [n] in coda position. Mandarin speakers may be able to distinguish van/banc ‘they go/bank’, but they may find it rather hard to do so in ham / han / any ‘hook / they have (auxiliary verb) / year’, em venen/en venen ‘they sell to me/they sell (partitive or anaphoric pronoun)’ and podem/poden ‘we can/they can’. The last example may benefit from the Spanish positive transfer, including the stress position.

Mandarin is a tone language in which each syllable has a fixed pitch pattern, but on the whole this does not make Catalan intonation particularly difficult. It may affect the rhythm of the sentence and especial attention should be paid to this as well as to the stress position in every Catalan word. Careful attention has to be paid to wordboundary phonetic processes, especially related to voicing assimilation. A few segmental problems often arise. Mandarin speakers confuse the two pairs of mid front and back vowels: [e\ɛ > e]; [o\ɔ > o], an intermediate vowel being used for both. Chinese learners find especial difficulties in the acquisition of some Catalan consonant phonemes, namely stops, laterals and rhotics. While the distinctive feature for the three pairs of Romance language stops is voicing ([p/b, t ̪/d̪, k/g]), the distinctive feature for the Mandarin stops is aspiration (ph/p, th̪ /t ̪, kh/k). This fact implies that Mandarin speakers tend to mispronounce Romance languages rather than English. Table 4 (Julià-Muné 2011, 305) shows one of the segmental problems that Chinese speakers must overcome when learning Catalan as L4, after having learned English and Spanish.17 Chinese learners of Catalan usually get confused in their production and perception when using pairs such as vi ‘wine’ and pi ‘pine tree’, puta ‘whore’ and Buda; dental ‘dental’ and tendal ‘awning’; boda ‘wedding’, poda ‘pruning’ and vota/ bota/bóta ‘(he, she, it) votes/boot/barrel’. Perception tests show confusion in 80% of learners when listening out of context utterances. This confusion is dramatically reduced to 50% in production tests (reading), since they can count on spelling support.

17 In fact, they have to deal with the same problem in Spanish, since they have hardly overcome this major hindrance when learning their first Romance language.

Catalan

363

Table 4: Contrasted obstruent bilabial phonemes in English, Catalan and Mandarin Chinese /p/

English

pʰ

p

b̥

b

pin

spin

bin

dubbin

pa / capar ‘loaf, bread’/ ‘to castrate’

Catalan

Mandarin

/b/

/pʰ/

/p/

pí ‘skin’ pā ‘lie down’

bí ‘nose’ bā ‘number 8’

va ‘(he,she,it) goes; vain’

β

cavar ‘to dig’

If we add lateral and rhotic confusion [l\ʎ\ɾ\r > l/ɾ]18 to the stop confusion [p/b > p, t ̪/d̪ > t ̪, k/g > k] we conclude, after perception and production tests, that they are unable to distinguish the following eight Catalan words: pare ‘father’, parra ‘vine’, pala ‘spade’, palla ‘straw; vara ‘stick’, barra ‘bar, jaw’, bala ‘bullet’, balla ‘he/she dances’. Once again, spelling may help them when reading them out. As a result, teaching strategies and their consequent didactic drills should be designed carefully so that Chinese learners could be able to tell apart every lexical unit of the above mentioned four pairs or similar to them.

4.3 Morphosyntactic Level 4.3.1 Spanish There are numerous differences in the two languages that may result in negative transfer from Spanish into Catalan (↗12 Plurilingual Education): a) The opposite gender is found in the L2: Cat. el deute / Sp. la deuda, el senyal / la señal, el compte / la cuenta, el corrent / la corriente; la síndrome / el síndrome, l’anàlisi / el análisis, la suor / el sudor, la calor / el calor, la dent / el diente. b) Ser-estar usage can cause serious problems, even for Spanish-speaking learners in (1), whereas they may benefit from positive transfer in (2): (1) (El llibre) no estava al prestatge superior (Sp. ‘no estaba en el estante superior’) should be corrected to Cat. no era … ‘It was not on the top shelf’.

18 Although the alveolar tap [ɾ] does not occur in their L1, Chinese speakers tend to use it, as a hypercorrection, instead of /l/.

364

Joan Julià-Muné

(2) No estic malalt, més aviat sóc un malalt (Sp. No estoy enfermo, más bien soy un enfermo) ‘I don’t just feel sick, I’m rather a sick man’. c) The neuter pronoun may be wrongly transferred from L1: *lo entenem tot (Sp. lo entendemos todo) instead of Cat. Ho entenem tot ‘We understand everything’. d) Anaphoric usage of en/hi pronouns which can be also found in French and Italian. Most L2 students face that problem: Un se va oposar (Sp. ‘uno se opuso (a ello)’ should be corrected to un s’hi va oposar (Cat. verb: oposar-se a) ‘one opposed it’. And so do they as far as adverbial usage of en/hi pronouns is concerned: Van anar al cine i ja en tornen ‘They went to the cinema and they’re already coming back’. Volien anar al teatre i ara ja hi van ‘They wished to go the theatre and they’re already going there’. e) A construction which is very characteristic of Catalan and is very extensively used is the periphrastic form of the preterite tense. Most learners must distinguish between van a comprar el diari (Sp. ‘van a comprar… ’) ‘they are going to buy the newspaper’ and van comprar el diari (Sp. ‘compraron… ’) ‘they bought…’.

4.3.2 English Catalan word order is generally Subject-Verb-Object, as in English. However, Catalan has more flexibility than English, since the former allows the verb to stand in an initial position or early in the sentence more often than it does in English. This may result in non-standard syntax when English learners speak or write Catalan. Moreover, its verbal inflections help to omit subject pronouns or to invert the order of subject and verb. a) Article, possessive, subject-pronoun and verb-tense usages are quite troublesome. The following sentence shows this: ‘He took off his dark glasses’ should be rendered as Es va treure les ulleres fosques (See: the elided subject pronoun, the periphrastic preterite, article-noun-adjective agreement, attributive placement and no possessive used). b) Ser-estar usage must be distinguished: És a París (visitor), Està a París (resident). c) The gender and number agreement must be respected: *les problemes should be els…; tres noi(e)s alt(e)s sortien del cine should be rendered as ‘three tall boys (girls) came out of the cinema’. d) Attributive adjectives are usually placed after the noun they modify in Catalan. However, a clear meaning distinction should be made between un home pobre (having little money) and un pobre home (to be pitied) ‘a poor man’. It would be a positive transfer for Spanish-speaking students unlike it would be for their English, Russian and Chinese-speaking classmates.

Catalan

365

e) It can be difficult to distinguish between the uses of imperfect and preterite tenses, especially when they coincide in one form in English: Va ser difícil de resoldre (completeness of action in a definite period in the past) Era difícil de resoldre (indefinite repetition in the past) ‘It was hard to solve’. Catalan often has a perfect tense when English has just a preterite: Aquest matí he vist en/el Joan ‘I saw Joan this morning’. f) Subjunctive mood is mainly used in subordinate clauses. Note the tense agreement that learners must bear in mind in the second example: És increïble que continuï viu (doubt) ‘It is incredible he should be still alive’. No importa/importava que ho sàpiguen/sabessin tot (possibility) ‘It doesn’t matter if they know/knew everything’. g) Passive voice usage is much more restricted in Catalan than in English.

4.3.3 Russian Russian-speaking learners must overcome quite a few difficulties: – Articles must be used but not abused. However, they often have a hyper-corrected usage of them because they are unknown in Russian. – Attributive adjectives should usually be placed after the noun they modify. – Subjunctive usage must be extensively practised. – Russian has one past tense for four past tenses in Catalan and negative influence is transferred as a result of its perfective and imperfective aspects. – Ser-estar confusion, the present tense being elided in Russian, must be avoided.

4.3.4 Mandarin Mandarin learners, as speakers of the so-called “grammarless language”, have to pay especial attention to noun and verb phrases as well as to sentence structure or word order in Catalan, due to the Chinese morphological simplicity in relation to gender and number for nouns and adjectives as well as for verb conjugation. So, they have to be acquainted with a great deal of redundancy. These are the main problems they must solve by learning that: – Articles are often needed before nouns. – Noun and adjective forms are used with gender and number agreement. – Verbs have complex conjugations, including subjunctive usage, since the Chinese verb is an unchanging single form. – Ser-estar usage must be carefully distinguished. – Word order is rather flexible in Catalan: Subject-Verb-Object, with optional elisions. – Adjectives are usually placed after the noun they modify.

366

– –

Joan Julià-Muné

Adverbs must go after verbs but place complements may be in any position. Structure and connectors of subordinate clauses, especially the relative ones, must be extensively practised.

4.4 Lexical Level: Spanish and English Interference with Catalan (“Catanyolish”) Spanish-speaking and English-speaking learners of Catalan have to be aware of substantial contrasts with regard to form and semantic differences between their own languages and the L2 they are learning. Sometimes the interference of these major languages in Catalan vocabulary results in a lack of genuineness in the target language in such a way that it may be known as “Catanyolish” (e.g. Sp. puesto, mechero or algo instead of lloc ‘place’, encenedor ‘lighter’ or res/alguna cosa ‘anything’ respectively, as a sample of Castilianisms; Eng. font instead of tipus or the use of genial in both languages, as a sample of Anglicisms). Lexical samples will be only given in Spanish and English, which may be considered “bridge languages” for Russian and Mandarin speakers learning Catalan.

4.4.1 Form Contrast Spelling notation may convey different pronunciations, as we can see in the examples below: Cat. ambaixador / Sp. embajador, aprovar / aprobar, basc / vasco, bolcar / volcar, cònsol / cónsul, covard / cobarde, civada / cebada (Sp. meaning ‘avena’, see below), harmonia / armonía, mòbil / móvil, pavelló / pabellón, taverna / taberna, vara / bara.

4.4.2 Semantic Contrast a) A single Spanish word conveys the meaning of two Catalan words: caja > caixa (large, wooden, metallic), capsa (small, cardboard) ‘box’ noche > vespre ‘evening’, nit ‘night’ tráfico > trànsit ‘traffic (people, vehicles)’, tràfic ‘illegal trade, (drug) traffic’ el fin > el fi ‘purpose’, la fi ‘the end’ la luz > el llum ‘light, lamp’, la llum ‘light, energy’ el sueño > el somni ‘dream’; el son ‘sleep’; agafar/perdre el son = ‘to get/lose sleep’; la son ‘sleepiness’; tenir son = ‘to feel sleepy’ b) A single Catalan word conveys the meaning of two Spanish words: peix ‘fish’ > pez, pescado

Catalan

367

suc ‘juice’ > jugo, zumo escala ‘scale/staircase, ladder’ > escala/escalera el front ‘front/forehead’> el/la frente c) Idiomatic usage by inverting structures: Sp. de pies a cabeza > de cap a peus d) False cognates: a few pairs of words which have very similar orthographic forms due to shared Latin etyma, but which have different meanings. Their similarity may cause the L2 learner to use the word wrongly. The so-called “false friends” usually transfer negative lexical meanings. So Spanish and English speakers should not use the second term of the pair, as shown in the following examples, in the target language; they should use the first term of the second pair instead, unless there is a partial positive transference. Spanish cebada–civada ‘oat(s)’ > ordi ‘barley’–avena almorzar–esmorzar ‘breakfast’ > dinar ‘lunch’–desayunar espalda–espatlla ‘shoulder’ > esquena ‘back’–hombro English actually–actualment > realment–at present advertisement–advertiment > anunci–(a piece of) advice alternatively–alternativament > altrament–alternately apology–apologia > disculpa–apologia, defence assist–assistir > ajudar–attend, help billion–bilió > mil milions–trillion19 college–col·legi > universitat, institut privat–school, col·legi (professional, electoral) deception–decepció > engany–disappointment dramatic–dramàtic > molt considerable, dramàtic–dramatic editor–editor > director (newspaper), editor–publisher eventual(ly)–eventual(ment) > final(ment), definitiva(ment)–temporarily font–font > tipus (de lletra), pica–fountain, source genial–genial > magnífic–brilliant ingenuity–ingenuïtat > enginy–ingenuousness, candour lecture–lectura > conferència, classe magistral–reading library–llibreria > biblioteca–bookshop linguist–lingüista > lingüista, poliglot–linguist

19 Nowadays the value of “one billion” = ‘one million million’ (1012) is considered old-fashioned British English usage and should be replaced by “one trillion”. And the value of “one trillion” = ‘one milion milion milion’ (1018) is also considered an old-fashioned English usage and should be replaced by “one million trillion”. A “billion” is now defined in English as a ‘thousand million’ (109), that is, ‘mil milions’ in Catalan.

368

Joan Julià-Muné

professor–professor > catedràtic–teacher quiet–quiet > tranquil, callat–calm record–record > registre, rècord–memory, souvenir realize–realitzar > adonar-se–to carry out sensible–sensible > assenyat–sensitive suburb–suburbi > afores–slums suggestion–suggestió > suggeriment, suggestió–suggestion trillion–trilió > bilió–million trillion20 ultimately–últimament > finalment, en darrer terme–lately vegetables–vegetals > verdura, llegums–vegetals

5 Conclusion Within Catalonia the Catalan language constitutes a central pillar of national identity (↗5 Languages and Identities) and has been identified by most native speakers of the language as one of the mainstays of the nation,21 whereas beyond the borders of the Catalan-speaking areas, Catalan is perceived, simply, as the minority language of autonomous regions of disproportionate economic importance in Spain (↗32 Spain). Catalan is a unique case in Europe. It has some of the characteristics of the so-called minority languages, such as the practical inexistence of monolingual people and, hence, a bilingual population (↗11 Bilingual Education); the fact that the territories of its linguistic region belong to far larger states in which the majority speaks a different language; or the lack of presence in some sectors of social life. Nevertheless, Catalan cannot be considered precisely a minority language since it is marked by the following characteristics that differentiate it from minority languages, ranking it among the European languages of average demography: its legal status in Andorra and Spain, the demography of its language community and its sociolinguistic situation – it has not normally been abandoned by its speakers and the language is usually passed down from generation to generation (Generalitat de Catalunya 2010, 19) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). On the one hand, as far as the global presence of Catalan is concerned, it must be acknowledged that the interest in Catalan studies is increasing: the language is learnt in about 150 universities abroad, whose success is being mediated by the Institut Ramon Llull; but on the other hand it has to cope with the undoubtedly strong influence of fully standardized major languages, especially English and

20 The English usage influence is obvious in a recent article including a gloss in the Catalan press: … l’endeutament de gairebé [the debt of almost] un “trilió” (milió de milions) d’euros (Avui, 21.07.2013). 21 The Catalan linguist Joan Solà (1940–2010), the editor of the chapters on syntax of the forthcoming Gramàtica de la llengua catalana (Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 2014), had proudly stood for home rule and the subsequent proper usage of Catalan (Solà 2009, 277; Solà 2011, 145s.).

Catalan

369

Spanish. There is however no doubt that the last decade has seen real progress in the presence of the language in the media and on the Internet, as well as in the contribution of Catalan descriptive and applied linguistics to SLA, precisely when the Catalan Academy, the Institut d’Estudis Catalans, is about to publish its new prescriptive grammar (2014), a major reference work for Catalan. The next decade may see the extension of research which seeks better models and explanations of L2/FL learning and teaching as well as the increase of the use of Catalan in deficient areas (cinema and courts of justice) and its consolidation in the successful ones (education).

6 Bibliography Bover i Font, August (1993), Manual de catalanística, Tarragona/Barcelona, Diputació de Tarragona/ Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat. Coromines, Joan (1980–2001), Diccionari etimològic i complementari de la llengua catalana, 10 vol., Barcelona, Curial/“la Caixa”. Coromines, Joan (1989–1997), Onomasticon Cataloniae, 8 vol., Barcelona, Curial. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. ELC = Francesc Vallverdú (ed.) (2001), Enciclopèdia de la llengua catalana, Barcelona, Edicions 62. Fabra, Pompeu (2005–2013), Obres completes, 9 vol., edd. Jordi Mir/Joan Solà, Barcelona/València/ Palma de Mallorca, ECSA/Edicions 62/Edicions 3i4/Moll. Gabancho, Patrícia (2007), El preu de ser catalans, Barcelona, Meteora. GCC = Joan Solà et al. (edd.) (42008 [2002]), Gramàtica del català contemporani, 3 vol., Barcelona, Empúries. Generalitat de Catalunya (2010), Catalan, language of Europe, Barcelona, Secretaria de Política Lingüística, http://www.gencat.cat.llengua (15.09.2013) Generalitat de Catalunya (2013), Informe de Política Lingüística 2011, http://www10.gencat.cat/gen cat/AppJava/cat/actualitat2/2013/30506informedepolticalingstica.jsp (15.09.2013). Gili, Joan (41974 [1943]), Catalan Grammar, Oxford, The Dolphin Book. Institut d’Estudis Catalans (22007 [1995]), Diccionari de la llengua catalana, Barcelona, Edicions 62/ Enciclopèdia Catalana. Institut d’Estudis Catalans (2014), Gramàtica de la llengua catalana, Barcelona, IEC, http://www. iecat.net/institucio/seccions/filologica/gramatica/ (15.09.2013). Institut Ramon Llull, Llengua i cultura catalanes a l’exterior/Catalan Language and Culture Abroad, Barcelona, Departament de Cultura de la Generalitat de Catalunya, http://www.llull.cat/ (15.09.2013) Julià i Muné, Joan (ed.) (2000), L’ensenyament del català com a L2. De la teoria a la pràctica, Lleida, Edicions de la Universitat de Lleida. Julià-Muné, Joan (2005), Fonètica aplicada catalana. Dels fonaments a les aplicacions de les ciències fonètiques, Barcelona, Ariel. Julià-Muné, Joan (2008), Els primers “pensionats” per la llengua (1908–1912) i la lingüística catalana, in: Josep Massot (ed.), Homenatge a Joaquim Molas, Barcelona, Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, vol. II, 171–224. Julià-Muné, Joan (2011), La transferència fonotàctica en l’aprenentatge d’L2: el cas de parlants de mandarí que aprenen català, in: Maria-Rosa Lloret/Clàudia Pons (edd.), Noves aproximacions a

370

Joan Julià-Muné

la fonologia i la morfologia del català. Volum d’homenatge a Max Wheeler, Alacant, Institut Interuniversitari de Filologia Valenciana, 295–319. Major, Roy C. (2008), Transfer in second language phonology: A review, in: Jette G. Hansen Edwards/ Mary L. Zampini (edd.), Phonology and second language acquisition, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 63–94. Pons, Arnau/Skrabec, Simona (edd.) (2008), Carrers de frontera. Passatges de la cultura alemanya a la cultura catalana, 2 vol., Barcelona, Institut Ramon Llull. Prats, Modest/Rafanell, August/Rossich, Albert (1990), El futur de la llengua catalana, Barcelona, Empúries. Pueyo, Miquel (2007), El fantasma de la mort del català, Barcelona, Proa. Solà, Joan (2009), Plantem cara. Defensa de la llengua, defensa de la terra, Barcelona, La Magrana. Solà, Joan (2011), L’última lliçó. Parlaments polítics i acadèmics, Barcelona, Empúries. Wheeler, Max W./Yates, Alan/Dols, Nicolau (1999), Catalan. A Comprehensive Grammar, London/ New York, Routledge.

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

20 French Abstract: This paper investigates where French is acquired, in which conditions and what the specific problems are. It describes the various contexts that are concerned and studies the varying consequences. Contextual parameters are shown to play a major role and the dominant problems are learning problems that are studied by language educationalists and not in acquisitional terms in Europe or in the south. Due to the complexity of each situation, few studies are able to take all the parameters into consideration. The conclusion is a plea for more reciprocal exchanges between the research in French and in English and for a reflection in order to increase the role of research when political decisions are made in matters of language which are not without serious consequences in countries where French plays a dominant role. Keywords: French, acquisition, language education, contexts, complexity

1 Introduction Today French, as a language, is in a specific set-up at both micro and macro levels. The role of the French state in France, its language policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) and a long history of colonial expansion explain that it is both largely dominated by Paris (with the exception of Quebec) and disconnected from its original home base and spoken on all the continents with three different and varying statuses. Actually, at the same time, French is a first language (L1) in mono or multilingual nations (for example, it is the second most-spoken L1 in the EU); it is a second language1 (L2) in nations of the north for immigrant people, and an ambiguous L2 in many nations of the south where, as a result of decolonization, it may be the official language and/or the schooling language, or sometimes widely used without any special legal status, or even the schooling language with no legal status. It is also a foreign language (FL) all over the world due to the long-standing influence of various external or internal institutions (Alliance française, lycées français, and national schools). Moreover, the social and cultural evolution of the French language may be shown to have followed two major trends since the second part of the 20th century: on the one hand the global development of education with a special focus on literacy and, on the other hand, the south to north and east to west migrations of people who

1 In the didactics of French as a foreign and second language, FLS (French as a second language) always means that French has a collective and political status.

372

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

experience a change in language, education and culture. As a result, learning French as an L2 or FL may be seen as a special issue in language education. Rather than writing another state of the art paper, we have chosen to study the contexts in which French was acquired and to see how the research into its acquisition could play a positive part in the problems that were observed. In the first part of the chapter, the present-day situation of French as an L1, L2 or FL will be described with special attention to the educational gap between the north and the south. In the second part, the development of French Second Language Acquisition research (FSLA) (↗2 Research Methods) will be studied with a focus on early results, followed by a study of the changes in the theories, as well as of how theories and the various contexts studied in part 1 are related.

2 Present-Day Situation of French as a First, Second or Foreign Language in the World 2.1 International Role in Language Policies 2.1.1 Role in the Political International Language Situation French is one of the few languages (with English, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.) which, in varying degrees, are spoken on the five continents. Different historical evolutions have left their traces on these languages. However, a number of shared points are diffusion due to wars and conquests; linguistic diglossic phenomena both within these countries and without, and with interference; disconnection from the original homeland; different values and beliefs and circulations (Fishman 1976; Weinreich 1953). Because of this specific history of diffusion, these languages are subjected to macro level language and educational policies (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). They play a big role in education, either as a subject or as schooling language. So, French has been part of UNESCO educational plans since the end of World War 2, the focus of OIF (Organisation internationale de la Francophonie) since its creation in 1970, and has had a good place in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), (Council of Europe 2001) since 2001. The set-up is complex and according to the contexts (north vs. south), these macro levels must be taken into account next to each national language policy. As far as French is concerned, ideological and political points of view have to be examined at the same time as language policy. For instance, the aims of OIF are political as well as language-oriented. Moreover, since the beginning of the 21st century, especially since 2003, with the Congrès de Libreville (Dumont 2003), institutional speeches and acts have played an important role in Africa, the area most concerned.

French

373

2.1.2 Roles of Social Representations in the Learning of French There is a long history of linguistic contacts between French and all other languages (Spaëth 2010). The scientific literature related to the many standards of French can be traced back over many decades (Dumont 1983; Klinkenberg 2007). However, with the exception of Quebec (↗26 Canada), the French standard is still strictly centralized around the French spoken in France (cf. McLaughlin et al. 2010). This strong representation2 is shared in the north as well as in the south (Francard/Geron/Wilmet 2000) and increases difficulties when French has to be learnt or taught as an L1 or L2. French as an FL is no exception to this rule and it still benefits from it. Strong social representations, such as language of the élite, language of reason, language of liberty, a beautiful language,3 are still very much alive.

2.2 A Tentative Classification: North vs. South Actually, as far as languages can be said to have economic value (Bourdieu 1982; Calvet 2002), the macro linguistic level (type of state: mono vs. multilingual) organizes and influences the micro level. Thus, national language and educational policies are decisive and the role of the school is the core of this process. Moreover, the role of the CEFR is increasing with the implementation of common assessment procedures. As a consequence, the various statuses of French (L1, L2 and FL) cannot be examined from the same standpoint: – French as L1 is to be examined from a personal and collective perspective. – French as L2 will require both a collective and sociolinguistic interrogation; – French as FL remains more simply on a didactic plan. These statuses are to be classified according to an official and collective criterion where the notion of construction of a linguistic repertoire (Gumperz 1964) plays a central role. In this case, the situation in the north has to be clearly differentiated from that in the south. In the north, the L1 status is dominant in officially monolingual (France) (↗27 France) or multilingual nations (Benelux, Switzerland, Canada) (↗26 Canada) where a large part of the population speak French as a mother tongue or as one of the languages in the family, and where French is also the schooling language. Hence there is a relative continuity between national, social and personal language prac-

2 We will use the term representation rather than belief since the former term has been the more used of the two in France since Durkheim (1968) [1912]. 3 Cf. on this point Rivarol (1991) [1783]; Fumaroli (2011) and as a counterpoint Siouffi (2010).

374

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

tices, but the issue of construction of a linguistic repertoire is very different for immigrants for whom French is L2 and they need it for social integration. In the south, the situation is inverted; French is rarely the L1, but an official language, or maybe, partly or totally, the schooling language. French is not associated with social integration as in the north, for the different national languages play this role. It means upward social mobility and an opening to the world, the competition with English being strongly felt in this case.

2.2.1 Situation in the North French in France is a case apart as it is the only country where French is an L1 in an officially monolingual state, at least in Metropolitan France. Overseas France with territories over the 5 continents is more complex.4 Besides, the officially bi- or multilingual nations where French is the L1 for a large part of the population are all to be found in the north: Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Canada. In all these countries, French is one of the official languages sharing this privilege with one or more other languages. In officially bilingual Canada, Quebec, where French has been the sole official language since the Act of 1974, must attract our attraction. The protection of French follows the expansion of English. As far as practices are concerned, this Canadian Province is eventually becoming bilingual (Mclaughlin et al. 2010) (↗11 Bilingual Education). This paper will not deal with reviewing all the contexts where French is the official language. Each would indeed deserve a specific study of its laws and language policies, of how the languages are spread geographically, of the variants of French that can be encountered, and eventually of the linguistic conflicts that are experienced (as in Belgium). We cannot but mention that in this already complex group, the status of French as L2 must be taken into account as the five countries have had to accommodate numerous migrants at different times. As French is the, or one of the, official languages, either immigrants already know it as it is one of the languages of their original countries, or they have to learn it in conditions which will vary according to the country they are in. In spite of different positions concerning integration, a common trend towards making mastery of the language one of the criteria to access total citizenship can be felt. This trend is in line with the European language and educational policy which has been concerned with the social integration of migrants since the 1970s.

4 Some of these territories share the very same statuses of régions (Provinces) and départements (counties) of the French Republic as Metropolitan régions and départements but are largely bilingual (creoles) or multilingual.

French

375

Two geo-linguistic situations can be drawn as far as French is concerned. On the one hand, Switzerland, Belgium and Quebec, language boundaries can fairly clearly be defined (Lüdi 1994), and on the other hand Luxembourg and Canada in a broader sense, where language boundaries are less clear as, most of the time, interactions in French will vary according to formal situations, and social or family practices. Due to high migration rate, according to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the five countries have implemented systems to educate migrants’ children.5 The French model of integration classes or Quebec’s model of immersion classes can be found in Wallonia (Manço/Vaes-Harou 2009), in French-speaking Switzerland (Perregaux et al. 2003), in Luxembourg and Canada (Collès/Dufays/Maeder 2003; Moore/Sabatier 2012). As a consequence, the teaching and learning of French are vital stakes as far as politics and didactics are concerned.

2.2.2 Specific French Situation In this matter, the French situation is an interesting case as it exemplifies all the problems specific to the acquisition of French as L2, especially those related to the acquisition of French citizenship. A look back at the thirty years of prosperity between 1946 and 1975 explains the situation. Metropolitan France sustained her industrial development by inviting workers from its former colonies (Noiriel 1992; 2004). The oil crisis of 1973 put an end to this process. Ever since, the question of integration/insertion of migrants has triggered legislation, and the creation of specific teaching and learning frameworks that will endlessly be discussed and amended (Schnapper 2007). Since 1970, in France, there has existed a support system to welcome migrant children in primary and secondary schools. This went with diverging legislation concerning migrant workers and the nationality code. As an instance, the paradoxical character of the French language policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) which oscillates constantly between closure and openness (Encrevé 2007) is illustrated by the Act of January 9th, 1973, concerning the closure of frontiers followed by the decree on family reunification in 1974. The institutional integration support system for migrant children has been built as a result of this tension. On the one hand, the objective is the mastery of French, but on the other hand the multilingual repertoire of the children has to be acknowledged (Archibald/Galligani 2009). The specific language and cultural background of non-French speaking children is paid timid interest in the recent ministerial circular of October 11th, 2012 concerning their education (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale 2012). Since the beginning of the 21st century the connection between mastery of the language and citizenship has

5 The PISA surveys (2003–2009) provide interesting indicators of the gap between the results of native-born, foreign-born or second-generation pupils.

376

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

become tighter for adults. In the light of this, the Act concerning the mastery of immigration, integration and political asylum of November 20th, 2007 (Journal officiel, 21.11.2007), offers a specific language integration plan. It has the form of a contract (CAI: contrat d’accueil et d’intégration) signed between the migrant and the representative of the government. However, the latest decree of October 12th, 2012, stipulates that henceforward applicants wishing to acquire French nationality must officially6 achieve level B1. Overseas France is a half-way house between Metropolitan France and countries in the south. Officially they are part of France, but, for historical reasons, their sociolinguistic situation is closer to that of countries where French has the status of a L2. One could say that they are spread over a sociolinguistic continuum. In Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion, a Creole-French bilingualism generally prevails even if French may be the L1 (Launey/Puren 2010). In Guyana, however, numerous Creoles and Amerindian languages are spoken and French is rarely an L1 and is not often usual in the inhabitants’ repertoire (Léglise/Migge 2007).

2.2.3 Situation in the South The presence of French in countries of the south is explained by the history of how it expanded (conquest and colonization, emigration, deportation). French colonial history exemplifies the two types of conquest and expansion (economic or human settlement). It dates back to the 16th century with a peak in the 19th century (Hobsbawm 1987). It came to a practical close with the end of the Algerian war and the Accords d’Evian in 1962. Today the whole of overseas France is part of “collectivités d’outre-mer” with varying statuses. Let us briefly mention that French and schooling have always had a specific position in these countries. In the 19th century, under the influence of Jules Ferry, the State organized schooling in French in all the colonies (Spaëth 1998). The reference to mother tongues (local languages or patois in France) was subjected to different types of prohibition or eviction. Decolonization (1946–1962) was a time when the status and position of French in former French territories had to be reconsidered. Four different cases can be described: 1) The new nations in former French Indochina (Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia) linguistically nationalized their administrations and public services. French was systematically eradicated as the schooling language and rapidly became an FL that is a language learnt, generally in secondary schools. English is now the first

6 That is through a certified institution recognized by the State. This goes with the development of a market for the language education of migrants.

French

377

FL. Some university scientific courses continued to be taught in French. At the end of the twentieth century, they became higher education courses in French with specific teaching practices centred on the discourse requirements of the various disciplines (medicine, biology, dentistry, economics, law, tourism, etc.). 2) The new nations succeeding Maghreb protectorates (Tunisia and Morocco) totally Arabized primary education but maintained French as the schooling language in scientific subjects in high schools and as the first FL. Scientific higher education courses are given in French. The social status of French remains relatively stable, even if, in Tunisia, for instance, since the Arab Spring, it may have been attributed a certain anti-Islamic character. French still remains a widely spoken and favoured language which may still be part of the everyday repertoire of speakers, especially in urban areas (Abou Haidar 2012; Miled 2010; Veltcheff 2006). In the two countries, the status of French is extremely dynamic, varied and changing at the same time as L2, FL, schooling language and even, in some social groups, as a mother tongue. It must be analysed in the context of a complex embedded diglossia (Calvet 1987) in which Arabic dialects, Amazigh languages, French and Standard Arabic are combined. 3) Algeria remains a case apart in North Africa, even though it shares some characteristics with its neighbours, especially multilingualism and a form of embedded diglossia. Until 1962, the country was not a colony but a part of France. The schooling language was French and Quran schools were subjected to strict regulations. Administration and education were totally Arabized after independence. Standard Arabic became the only schooling language and French stooped down to the first FL in schools (Ferhani 2006). However in 2012, Algeria was still the second French-speaking community in the world after France even if it is not a member of OIF. The status of French remains unstable between real social use, use in schools and education, and different ideological points of views. 4) Finally, in former sub-Saharan French and Belgian colonies, French remains official or co-official language. While it is spoken by a very limited part of the population, French still has a major place in schooling generally as the only language of education at all levels, including apprenticeship, while being in fact a FL for most learners. Since the 2003 Libreville Conference, these countries have been following a policy of valorization of their national languages and of their standardization in order to introduce them into schooling either as the language of literacy (Goody 1993; Olson 1994) or as a subject. What is at stake is very complex. Indeed, even if the national languages are not necessarily the mother tongues of all schoolchildren, from an identity and L1 point of view, they facilitate introduction to writing as UNESCO had suggested at the beginning of the postcolonial period (UNESCO 1953). Their standardization remains problematic as is well known: which variety, written form, and which terminology for education? Meanwhile the international status of French has also evolved since independence. In the whole of Africa today, French stands as an international language

378

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

that offers an opening to the world. A tension can be felt between an acquisitional need (the introduction to writing and learning in the mother tongue), a didactic situation (French is the L2 but is taught as an L1 most of the time) and a social objective of opening to a global world (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). This study of the various contexts in which French is acquired would remain incomplete if the status of French as an FL was not considered, even if briefly.

2.3 French as FL Teaching French as an FL has had a long history (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teching). Let us mention Alliance française (AF), an association, founded in Paris in 1883, which was an important institutional turning point (Spaëth 2010). The development of the various AF schools in the twentieth century can be seen in the various continents as a more or less loose parallel to the development of French diplomatic and cultural institutions. The effect of this development can be observed in the dense network that characterizes the teaching of French as an FL (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). In the second half of the twentieth century, the appearance of the sociology of language (Fishman 1976; Hymes 1974) triggered a theoretical and methodological change. The communicative approach to language learning highlighted a model based on the learners’ social language needs. As proposed by CEFR, classes of general French (organized in levels) were soon taught next to classes in FSP (French for Specific Purposes) (FOS/français sur objectifs spécifiques). Following the CLIL programme (Content and Language Integrated Learning/EMILE Enseignement d’une Matière par l’Intégration d’une Langue Étrangère) (Coyle/Hood/Marsh 2010), bilingual classes (↗11 Bilingual Education) have mushroomed in Europe and Turkey since the beginning of the 21st century (40 years after immersion classes in Canada). Multilingualism is now a central phenomenon (↗12 Plurilingual Education). This will partly explain the specific situation of the research into the acquisition of French.

3 Specific Problems 3.1 Discussion of Effects of Part 2 The different situations reveal problems that are connected to the social use of French, in particular in schooling (written “academic” French). They highlight the reflection on the acquisition of a linguistic system and raise the question of the numerous norms and variations of French in the French-speaking community (Marquilló Larruy 2003).

French

379

Research to understand and solve these problems can be classified into three complementary, though apparently contradictory, approaches.

3.1.1 A Systemic Approach The first approach, systemic in the sense that it sees languages as systems, postulates that these systems come into contact through the speaking subject. Thus zones of interference come into being and cause specific errors due both to the target language and to the original language. The resulting interlanguages are the signs of the positive stages of acquisition (Selinker 1972). If this point of view is adopted, the research into error analysis in FSLA shows zones of resistance common to all learners of French, irrespective of their L1s (Marquilló Larruy 2003). Porquier points out recurring problems: “les déterminants, les formes verbales, la morphologie du genre et du nombre et les prépositions” (Porquier 1977, 27), the tricky question of acquisition of articles (definite/indefinite/partitive/article 0) being a major obstacle (Besse/Porquier 1984; de Salins 1996). This is particularly true if we deal with these problems at the two different levels of sentence, on the one hand, and of text and discourse, on the other hand (Combettes 1983; Chiss/David 2012). Obviously, as in the acquisition of any FL, modality in discourse seen as “le processus par lequel le sujet de l’énonciation manifeste son attitude à l’égard de son énoncé” (Arrivé/Gadet/Galmiche 1986, 389) is a specifically sensitive zone for all non-native speakers (tenses and time and aspect, markers of deixis). It should be stressed that these problems are rarely encountered with native speakers who have interiorized a specific linguistic intuition (Besse/ Porquier 1984; Corder 1971), how and to what extent they can be taken into account successfully remains a research problem. Research into classroom interaction (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) is connected to this approach. Clear evidence (Myles/Towell 2004) came from studies where learners had been led towards the discovery of an underlying rule with metalinguistic explanations followed by controlled and communicative practice, with progress even in problematic areas, such as the learning of gender in French with variability across ages. Experiments have shown which interventions by teachers prove most effective in enabling immersion students to move beyond a pidgin. Lightbown (2000) provides evidence of classroom research related to the acquisition of French, so does Genesee (2007) who shows that a comprehensive rather than a reductionist view would help. In view of the resistance mentioned above, such research should clearly be taken into consideration with careful investigation of the forms instruction can take and of the balance between social interaction and training.

380

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

3.1.2 A Subjectivist Approach The second approach is more radically subjective and places the subjects at the heart of the acquisition process since they are postulated not to be reducible to any systematic classification. Their history, their language biographies, their encounters and how they have come across languages are determining factors. Some of the research related to this has explored how L2s are learned through a process of social co-construction between “experts” and “novices”. A recent instance of such research, warmly received by educators (Myles/Towell 2004), connected to immersion in this case (see below), can be found in A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education, The L1/L2 debate (Swain/Lapkin 2013). Other sociolinguistic work in SLA focuses in two areas. One is primarily concerned with the quantitative study of variability in L2 use. Research (↗2 Research Methods) can be found on how L2 learners acquire the varied sociolinguistic registers typical of native varieties in the context of French. Sociolinguists have explained internal learner variability, in terms of e.g. the linguistic context, linguistic markedness, the role of the L1, or more personal factors as in Lemée/Regan (2008) on Le rôle du sexe du locuteur dans l’acquisition de la compétence sociolinguistique par des apprenants hibernophones de français L2. External factors and their impact on learner variability are also studied as seen in Bensalah/Guerid (2011) on Impact du milieu extrascolaire dans l’enseignement de la lecture en FLE à l’École primaire in the Biskra area in Algeria where French can hardly be considered an L2. Though sociolinguistic factors are influential in explainning variable productions as learners become more advanced, much variability can also be attributed to psycholinguistic factors (Myles/Towell 2004). However, when these two trends are studied in relation to the various contexts where French is learned, one can see how meaningful and useful their results can be as shown in Juillard (2005) on Dynamiques sociolinguistiques (scolaires et extrascolaires) de l’apprentissage et de l’usage du français dans un cadre bi- ou plurilingue (langues de migrants, langues locales) sur les axes ouest-africain et franco-africain (Alger, Timimoun, Dakar, Ouagadougou).

3.1.3 A Processual Approach The third approach is not based on the postulate that a given linguistic system is to be learnt in a given context, but that complex language processes are to be stabilized whether it relies on Emergentism or Dynamic-systems theory (DST) (↗10 Second Language Acquisition) or on the concept of plurilingual competence (↗12 Plurilingual Education). The first trend of theorists posits that general cognitive principles explain the nature of language knowledge and the development of processing (Myles/Towell 2004). The complexity of language emerges (cf. McWhinney 1998) from associative

French

381

learning processes triggered by exposure to a massive and complex environment. Language is patterned behavior and all learning takes place through the building of patterns strengthened through practice. Such research and its applications regarding French is exemplified in McWhinney (2006) within the context of online courses in French and Chinese, developed by the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center, or in Dewaele (2002) on Variation, chaos et système en interlangue française. One can see how such research completes research on instruction but needs further development to be more widely applicable. In many ways research into multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education) and associated research have common points with processual approaches, they are more interested in a global competence than in the acquisition of a given linguistic system. Plurilingual speakers are described as having a partial and imbalanced competence in the languages they use due to numerous factors (psychology, perception, pragmatic principles, social interaction, learning mechanisms, identity and attitudes). Influential factors include: plurilingual attitude, metalinguistic competences, acquisition process, motivation, self-confidence, anxiety, contexts and social activities, and this has to be assessed and applied. Two types of role (instrumental or provider) can be played by the L2 in the acquisition of an L3. Transfer, code mixing and code switching assume different positions on a continuum (Herdina/Jessner 2006). Translanguaging (input in one language, task in another: Williams 2002) and code-meshing (merging local varieties with standard codes: Canagarajah 2007) highlight the fluidity between the different codes of an integrated system. Multilingual Education often goes with Content and Language Education (CLIL) as it is postulated that an integrated curriculum offers better conditions to develop metalinguistic awareness (Cenoz/Gorter 2011). Multilingual schooling implies the learning of subject matters and languages through the total or partial medium of an L2 (as part of the learner’s repertoire or supported specifically) (Gajo 2008). However, as seen above, it is the school’s role to sustain the learners’ language development by facilitating a shift from Basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) to Cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in order to allow disciplinary acquisition (Cummins 1994). One of the schooling languages must be familiar to the pupils. It is not always the case in African countries, as seen in Demba (2010), who studies what happens in Gabon but also describes similar situations in neighbouring countries (ibid., 9–28) and also highlights the resulting socio-affective problems, while Tirvassen (2010) gives evidence with direct reference to Cummins. Official projects strive to overcome the unwanted results (Maurer 2010). One example can show the complexity of the problem: the various (compulsory, prohibited, optional) liaisons in spoken French are a major obstacle when initiation to reading and writing is concerned, they require CALP competencies as they go beyond the basically instance-based BICS production. This is observed in most areas where French is a second or schooling language (Dalgalian 2007). In other areas, the results of bilingual schooling (EMILE/CLIL) (↗11 Bilingual Education) often reveal that a classroom pidgin may develop if not enough attention is paid to L2 or L3 development

382

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

(Dalton-Puffer 2007). These results can also be very positive as in Val d’Aosta (Cavalli 2005) where the context is favourable, so transfer cannot be made without further reflection. Multilingualism has also led to research into intercomprehension (↗12 Plurilingual Education; cf. also Meissner 2008 which underlines the practical aspects of intercomprehension). Receptive skills are assumed to be essential (Degache 2006) but attention is also paid to acquisition as exemplified in Degache/Tea (2003). A great amount of course materials is available. Interlingual transparence is the dominant tool, but a purely comparatist perspective is not sufficient as the intercomprehension process is largely independent from each individual plurilingual repertoire, thus confirming that the comprehension of written texts is related to CALP.

3.1.4 Discussion In the north as in Africa, studies have mostly been carried out from a purely language education perspective (Maurer 2010). The complexity of the research explains that we can say, somewhat hastily, that immersion studies have often paid more attention to acquisition of forms, CLIL research to acquisition of content, and study of schooling languages to psycho-sociological or linguistic problems (Colin 2012). Two moot points have arrested our attention: the research is largely dominated by the north while the major problems are in the south; and, lately, Francophone research has been more interested in appropriation conditions/learning than in acquisition (Moore/Gajo 2009), which may be explained by the specific problems encountered, and more in social representations and contexts than in psycholinguistics (Dagenais/Jacquet 2008), but not totally, as exemplified by Noyau (2007), which is more problematic. As a consequence, the first and third approaches described above have received less attention, though the linguistic points of resistance are connected with discourse competence and with CALP (Cummins 1994) and as a consequence may require explicit instruction. Individual problems are also apparent. They are largely determined by the degree of (psycho) typological proximity (linguistic, sociolinguistic or cultural) which varies with the contexts and the level of schooling in the L1 (CALP). Research should assess whether purely (inter)linguistic problems actually play a secondary role in acquisition. However, the threshold between BICS and CALP is largely linguistic, especially in written communication (Cummins 1994), even though it depends on cultural and disciplinary competencies. The situation, as developed in Part 1, shows that there is often a great difficulty in drawing a clear-cut line between FL and L2 on a personal or on a geo-social level. At a personal level, Castellotti (2011) warns us that it is difficult to determine the degree of foreignness of a language for a given learner and the perception of this distance or proximity has been shown to be subjective (psychotypology: Kellerman 1995).

French

383

We have noted that in the specific case of French, a number of points have to be taken into account: – the roles of social representations in the learning of French, – French as L2 requires both a collective and sociolinguistic interrogation, – French as FL remains more simply on a didactic plan, – the complexity of differentiating between French as FL and as L2 in most cases, – the relative efficiency of systems to educate migrants’ children in the North, – socio-psychological phenomena connected to representations of native language and culture as opposed to local culture and French, and in Canada, even in Quebec, rivalry with English, – the specificity of the situation in the south, where French is rarely the L1, but an official language, or partly or totally the schooling language, and where the situation is blurred in terms of status (FL or L2), with no clear language boundaries and diglossic situations. As a consequence a number of research projects have been carried out in our research unit to try and see the interrelation between the three approaches and the various contexts.

3.2 What Does Research into Learning Situations Show When the Above Approaches Are Applied? Two major cases can be distinguished.

3.2.1 French as Schooling Language Doctoral and Master level research, in Lebanon (Stephan-Hayek 2013) and Greece (Souliou 2014), shows that French has little sociolinguistic reality while it is used as a schooling language, with problems with CALP and sociopolitical problems (variability of francophonie in these countries, no clear language boundaries, competition with English). Disciplines are taught as if French was the L1 and French classes are very traditional and often disconnected from content classes. However the points of resistance mentioned in chapter 3.1.1 remain unsolved, indicating that teaching and learning practices are still partly inadequate, in particular the instrumental role of code switching in correction and teaching maybe overused. Similar results have been found in Algeria and Morocco. Sanodji Yonbel (2011) shows an even more complex situation in sub-Saharan Africa. In Europe: beyond traditional immersion, bilingual or CLIL classes (Gajo 2008), an interesting solution is being researched: mutual immersion (cf. Buser et al. 2013). But actual acquisition in all these approaches and transferability to other contexts have to be assessed.

384

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

3.2.2 French as FL Most of the time, French is learned as an L3, after English (L2). Even when actionbased approaches are followed, the sociolinguistic reality of tasks is not convincing and may justify activation of the common schooling language (the L2 is shown to play a provider role while the schooling language plays an instrumental role) (Terzieva Bozhinova 2013). One may wonder if, in other settings such as tandem learning, collaborative work between peers in different institutions (Computer Mediated Communication), the activation of the different languages would follow the same pattern, as Abendroth-Timmer/Aguilar (forthcoming) suggest. Similar results were found in countries where English is the schooling language (Atcero 2013) and we have come to postulate that, in learning situations, patterns of activation are often teaching-induced and that different learning environments would be more propitious (Bertin/Narcy-Combes 2012).

3.3 Discussion Research into practices shows that the three approaches, far from being contradictory, are complementary, and confirms the necessity of what Blanchet et al. (2008) call in their title Contextualisation de l’intervention didactique. However, such contextualized practice implies a new look at research results and their application. The debates that appear in Seidlhofer (2003) show that the validity of the emic perspective relying on qualitative research was not yet totally accepted as an alternative at the date, even though it advocated the complementarity of the various SLA theories (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories). However the complex social needs and the new theories have modified the challenge and call for renewed research practices.

4 Conclusion In this paper we have investigated the contexts where French is acquired and in which conditions, and have seen that varying consequences resulted from often very different contexts. A certain discrepancy between language policies and the objects of research can be noted, and French as a schooling language is often taught as the L1 in many nations of the “south” without being the dominant language of communication. Migrations have led to different policies in the countries in the north. French as an FL still benefits from the fact that it is supported by the long-standing influence of various external or internal institutions (Alliance française, lycées français, and national schools). Policies and curricula are not often developed with the collaboration of acquisition researchers, but mainly with that of language educationalists who, in France in particular, are disconnected from research in acquisition, and recent

French

385

research shows that no one theory, nor one approach, is sufficient to reach complex objectives in complex situations. The research is still dominated by the north while the major problems are in the south. An enormous task is ahead, with obvious political implications due to the macro contextual conditions. More reflection on writing in French and acquisition of CALP, as well as on French for academic purposes, would prove useful to meet the demand of mobility and education. It is now widely accepted that writing (CALP) is vital for education and that unsuccessful learners almost always have problems with writing. This is particularly true in the case of French, even as L1 (Dalgalian 2007). Information and Communication Technology tools may help to improve the situation and the role of computermediated communication and mobile devices in learning should be further researched (to enhance the reality of French as a language of actual communication). Solving these problems may require reconsideration of social representations and epistemological positions, as, due to the complexity of the phenomena, reductionism remains the rule, in spite of attempts at dealing with complexity theories. The reconsideration of interdisciplinary relations would be beneficial (Coste 2002; Véronique 2005; Genesee 2007). The lack of reciprocal exchanges between the research in French and in English even when FSLA is the object is a sign of this limitation. Networking and the revival of applied linguistics in the Francophone world might prove a solution, but it remains to be found how to increase the role of research when political decisions are made in matters of language.

5 Bibliography Abendroth-Timmer, Dagmar/Aguilar, José (2014), Accompagner la formation de futurs enseignants de langue en tandem interculturel médiatisé: la sensibilisation aux fonctions du tutorat, in: Dagmar Abendroth-Timmer/Eva-Maria Hennig (edd.), Plurilingualism and multiliteracies: Internation Research on Identity-construction in Language Learning, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 297–309. Abou Haidar, Laura (2012), Statut du français au Maroc. Représentations et usages chez des lycéens marocains, Cahiers du Celec 4, http://cahiersducelec.univ-st-etienne.fr/ (30.09.2013) Archibald, James/Galligani, Stéphanie (2009), Langue(s) et immigration(s): société, école, travail, Paris, L’Harmattan. Arrivé, Michel/Gadet, Françoise/Galmiche, Michel (1986), La grammaire aujourd’hui. Guide alphabétique de linguistique française, Paris, Flammarion. Atcero, Milburga (2013), Les technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC) et le développement de l’expression orale en français sur objectif spécifique (FOS) dans le contexte ougandais, PhD dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3. Bensalah, Bachir/Guerid, Khaled (2011), L’impact du milieu extra-scolaire dans l’enseignement de la lecture en FLE à l’École primaire, Synergies Algérie 12, 173–181. Bertin, Jean-Claude/Narcy-Combes, Jean-Paul (edd.) (2012), Tutoring at a distance, London, Routledge. Besse, Henri/Porquier, Rémy (1984), Grammaires et didactique des langues, Paris, Hatier. Blanchet, Philippe, et al. (2008), Perspectives pour une didactique des langues contextualisée, Paris, Éditions des archives contemporaines, AUF.

386

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

Bourdieu, Pierre (1982), Ce que parler veut dire. Pour une économie des échanges linguistiques, Paris, Fayard. Buser, Mélanie, et al. (2013), Enseignement par immersion réciproque à Biel/Bienne: Le développement langagier des élèves de la Filière Bilingue (FiBi) dans l’école publique de la Plänke, Rapport intermédiaire sur la Filière Bilingue, Ville de Biel/Bienne, document officiel. Calvet, Louis Jean (1987), La guerre des langues et les politiques linguistiques, Paris, Payot. Calvet, Louis Jean (2002), Le marché aux langues. Le marché linguistique de la mondialisation, Paris, Plon. Canagarajah, Suresh (2007), Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities, and Language Acquisition, Modern Language Journal 91, 921–937. Castellotti, Véronique (2011), Natif, non-natif ou plurilingue: dénativiser l’enseignement des langues? in: Fred Dervin/Vasumathi Badrinathan (edd.), L’enseignant non natif: Identités et légitimité dans l’enseignement-apprentissage des langues étrangères, Fernelmont, EME, 29–50. Cavalli, Marisa (2005), Éducation bilingue et plurilinguisme. Le cas du Val d’Aoste, Paris, Didier. Cenoz, Jasone/Gorter, Durk (edd.) (2011), “A Holistic Approach in Multilingual Education: Introduction”: Special issue Toward a Multilingual Approach in the Study of Multilingualism in School Contexts, The Modern Language Journal 95, 339–343. Chiss, Jean-Louis/David, Jacques (2012), Didactique du français et étude de la langue, Paris, Colin. Colin, Catherine (2012), Construction du bi-plurilinguisme en français langue de scolarisation, Apprentissage d’une L2 en enseignement bilingue précoce, PhD dissertation, Université Montpellier 3. Collès, Luc/Dufays, Jean-Louis/Maeder, Costantino (2003), Enseigner le français, l’espagnol et l’italien. Les langues romanes à l’heure des compétences, Bruxelles, De Boeck-Duculot. Combettes, Bernard (1983), Pour une grammaire textuelle. La progression thématique, Bruxelles, De Boeck-Duculot. Corder, S. Pit (1971), Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis, International Review of Applied Linguistics 9, 147–159. Coste, Daniel (2002), Quelle(s) acquisition(s) dans quelle(s) classe(s)?, AILE 16, 3–22. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Coyle, Do/Hood, Philip/Marsh, David (2010), CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cummins, John (1994), Knowledge, power, and identity in teaching English as a second language, in: Fred Genesee (ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 103–125. Dagenais, Diane/Jacquet, Marianne (2008), Theories of representation in French and English scholarship on multilingualism, International Journal of Multilingualism 5/1, 41–52. Dalgalian, Gilbert (2007), Reconstruire l’éducation – ou le désir d’apprendre, Paris, édition du temps. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane (2007), Discourse in “Content and Language Integrated Learning” (CLIL) classrooms, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. Degache, Christian (2006), Didactique du plurilinguisme. Travaux sur l’intercompréhension et l’utilisation des technologies pour l’apprentissage des langues, 2 vol., dossier HDR, Université Stendal – Grenoble 3. Degache, Christian/Tea, Elena (2003), Intercompréhension: quelles interactions pour quelles acquisitions? Les potentialités du Forum Galanet, in: Christian Degache (ed.), Lidil 28 décembre 2003, Grenoble, Lidilem, 75–94. Demba, Jean-Jacques, (2010), La face subjective de l’échec scolaire: récits d’élèves gabonais du secondaire, PhD dissertation, Université Laval, Québec. Dewaele, Jean-Marc (2002), Variation, chaos et système en interlangue française, AILE 17, 143–167.

French

387

Dumont, Pierre (1983), Le français et les langues africaines, Paris, ACCT/Karthala. Dumont, Pierre (2003), Rapport États généraux, “L’enseignement du/en français”, Paris, OIF. Durkheim, Émile (1968) [1912], Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, Paris, PUF. Encrevé, Pierre (2007), Conditions d’exercice d’une politique linguistique en démocratie aujourd’hui. Notes sur le cas français, in: Michaël Werner (ed.), Politiques et usages de la langue en Europe, Paris, Éditions de la maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 121–136. Ferhani, Fatiha Fatma (2006), Algérie, l’enseignement du français à la lumière de la réforme, Le français aujourd’hui, Former au français dans le Maghreb 154, 11–18. Fishman, Joshua (ed.) (1976), The sociology of language. Basic concepts, Theories and alternative approaches, Paris/The Hague, Mouton. Francard, Michel/Geron, Geneviève/Wilmet, Régine (edd.) (2000), Le français de référence. Constructions et appropriations d’un concept, Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 26, 1–4. Fumaroli, Michel (2011) [2001], When the World Spoke French, New York, Review Books. Gajo, Laurent (2008), L’intercompréhension entre didactique intégrée et enseignement bilingue, in: Virginie Conti/François Grin (edd.), S’entendre entre langues voisines: vers l’intercompréhension, Genève, Georg, 131–150. Genesee, Fred (2007), The suitability of French immersion for students who are at risk: a review of research evidence, Canadian Modern Language Review 63/5, 655–687. Goody, John (1993), The interface between the written and the oral, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, John (1964), Linguistic and social interaction in two communities, American anthropologist 66/2, 37–53. Herdina, Philip/Jessner, Ulrike (2006), A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism, Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Hobsbawm, Eric (1987), The Age of Empire, 1875–1914, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Hymes, Dell (1974), Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Journal officiel de la République, 21/11/2007, Loi n° 2007–1631 relative à la maîtrise de l’immigration, à l’intégration et à l’asile. Juillard, Caroline (2005), Dynamiques sociolinguistiques (scolaires et extrascolaires) de l’apprentissage et de l’usage du français dans un cadre bi- ou plurilingue (langues de migrants, langues locales) sur les axes ouest-africain et franco-africain (Alger, Timimoun, Dakar, Ouagadougou). Rapport définitif, Réseau Sociolinguistique et dynamique des langues, Paris, AUF. Kellerman, Eric (1995), Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15, 125–150. Klinkenberg, Jean-Marie (2007), La norme du français: d’un modèle centré au modèle polycentrique, Constellations francophones, Publifarum 7, http://publifarum.farum.it/ezine_articles.php? id=49 (30.09.2013). Launey Michel/Puren, Laurent (2010), Josiane Hamers à la rencontre du plurilinguisme guyanais, Synergies Monde 7, 79–96. Larsen-Freeman, Diane (1997), Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics 18/2, 141–165. Léglise, Isabelle/Migge, Bettina (2007), Pratiques et représentations linguistiques en Guyane. Regards croisés, Paris, Éditions IRD. Lemée, Isabelle/Regan, Vera (2008), Le rôle du sexe du locuteur dans l’acquisition de la compétence sociolinguistique par des apprenants hibernophones de français L2, Synergies Royaume-Uni et Irlande 1, 9–2. Lightbown, Patsy (2000), Classroom SLA research and second language teaching, Applied Linguistics 21/4, 431–462.

388

Valérie Spaëth and Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes

Lüdi, Georges (1994), Qu’est-ce qu’une frontière linguistique?, Babylonia 1–2, 6–17. Manço, Altay/Vaes-Harou, Aude (2009), Accueil scolaire des immigrés non francophones dans le cycle secondaire en Communauté française de Belgique: enseignements d’une recherche-formation, Didáctica, Lengua y Litteratura 21, 227–253. Marquilló Larruy, Martine (2003), L’interprétation de l’erreur, Paris, CLE International. Maurer, Bruno (2010), Les langues de scolarisation en Afrique francophone. Enjeux et repères pour l’action. Rapport général, Paris, AUF. McLaughlin, Mireille, et al. (edd.) (2010), Les mots du marché: l’inscription de la francophonie canadienne dans la nouvelle économie, Francophonies d’Amérique 27, http://www.erudit.org/ revue/fa/apropos.html (30.09.2013). McWhinney, Brian (1998), Models of the emergence of language, Review of Psychology 49, 199–227. McWhinney, Brian (2006), Emergentism – Use Often and With Care, Applied Linguistics 27/4, 729–740. Meissner, Franz-Joseph (2008), Que peut apporter la didactique de l’intercompréhension aux systèmes éducatifs européens?, in: Christian Degache/Silvia Melo (edd.), Langues Modernes, vol. 1: L’intercompréhension, Paris, APLV, 15–24. Miled, Mohamed (2010), Le français dans le monde arabophone, quels statuts, quels contacts avec la langue arabe?, Langue française 167, 159–171. Ministère de l’Éducation nationale (2012), Bulletin officiel 37, Paris. Moore, Danièle/Gajo, Laurent (edd.) (2009), French Voices on Plurilingualism and Pluriculturalism: Theory, Significance and Perspectives, International Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 6, 2. Moore, Danièle/Sabatier, Cécile (2012), Une semaine en classe en immersion française au Canada. Approche ethnographique pour la formation, Grenoble, PUG. Myles, Florence/Towell, Richard (edd.) (2004), Journal of French Language Studies. Special Issue on the acquisition of French as a second language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Noiriel, Gérard (1992), Le Creuset français. Histoire de l’immigration (XIXe–XXe siècle), Paris, Seuil. Noiriel, Gérard (2004), État, nation et immigration. Vers une histoire du pouvoir, Paris, Gallimard. Noyau, Colette (2007), Manuels de français langue seconde au primaire en Afrique de l’ouest: quelle image de la langue et de l’apprentissage? Appui ou contrainte pour l’intervention éducative?, in: Monique Lebrun (ed.), Le manuel scolaire d’ici et d’ailleurs, d’hier à demain, Sainte-Foy, Éditions Multimondes, 1–22. Olson, David (1994), The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Perregaux, Christiane, et al. (edd.) (2003), Éducation et ouverture aux langues à l’école, Neuchâtel, Conférence intercantonale de l’instruction publique de la Suisse romande et du Tessin – Secrétariat général. Porquier, Rémy (1977), Analogie, généralisation et systèmes intermédiaires dans l’apprentissage d’une langue non maternelle, Bulletin de linguistique appliquée et générale 3, 37–64. Rivarol, Antoine (1991) [1783], De l’universalité de la langue française, Paris, Arléa. Salins, Geneviève de (1996), Grammaire pour l’enseignement/apprentissage du Fle, Paris, Didier/ Hatier. Sanodji Youbel, Abiathar (2011), L’enseignement apprentissage des langues étrangères dans le système éducatif tchadien. Quelle politique linguistique pour le Tchad?, PhD dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3. Schnapper, Dominique (2007), Qu’est-ce que l’intégration?, Paris, Gallimard. Seidlhofer, Barbara (2003), Controversies in Applied Linguistics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Selinker, Larry (1972), Interlanguage, International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 219–231. Siouffi, Gilles (2010), De l’“universalité” européenne du français au XVIIIe siècle, Langue Française 167, 13–30.

French

389

Souliou, Lelouda (2014), L’activation d’une autre langue que celle attendue, PhD dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3. Spaëth, Valérie (1998), Généalogie de la didactique du français langue étrangère. L’enjeu africain, Paris, Cirelfa/Didier Érudition. Spaëth, Valérie (ed.) (2010), Le français au contact des langues. Histoire, sociolinguistique, didactique, Langue française, 167. Stephan-Hayek, Christelle (2013), Le français au Liban: représentations de la nouvelle génération, Étude de cas. Mémoire de Master 2 Recherche, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3. Swain, Merrill/Lapkin, Sharon (2013), A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1/1, 101–129. Terzieva Bozhinova, Krastanka (2013), Implications du plurilinguisme individuel sur l’apprentissage du français troisième langue dans un contexte universitaire bulgare, Mémoire de Master 2 Recherche, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3. Tirvassen, Rada (2010), La langue maternelle à l’école dans l’Océan indien: Comores, Madagascar, Maurice, Réunion, Seychelles, Paris, L’Harmattan. UNESCO (1953), L’emploi des langues vernaculaires dans l’enseignement, Monographie sur l’éducation de base 8. Veltcheff, Caroline (2006), Le français en Tunisie: une langue vivante ou une langue morte?, Le français aujourd’hui 154, 83–92. Véronique, Daniel (2005), Les interrelations entre la recherche sur l’acquisition du français langue étrangère et la didactique du français langue étrangère, Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère 23, 9–41. Verspoor, Marjolin/Schmid, Monica/Xu, Xiaoyan (2012), A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing, Journal of Second Language Writing 21/3, 239–263. Vygotski, Lev (1934 [31997]), Pensée et langage, Paris, La Dispute. Weinreich, Uriel (1953), Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems, New York, VOG. Williams, Cen (2002), Extending bilingualism in the education system, Education and Lifelong learning committee, 8 August 2013, http://www.assemblywales.org/ 3c91c7af00023d820000595000000000.pdf (30.09.2013).

Janice M. Aski

21 Italian Abstract: This chapter is an overview of the “state of the Italian language,” exploring where Italian is spoken outside of the country, and which languages other than Italian are spoken in Italy and how these languages impact Italian and the acquisition of Italian, particularly by the immigrant population. Special attention is given to the history of the interactions between Italian and the dialects of Italy, as well as changes in the sociolinguistic and morphosyntactic features of the Italian language over time that have resulted in a process of restandardization. That is, a significant number of features that diverge from the literary standard, but are widely accepted, are poised to be recognized as features of a new standard. This has triggered a debate by teachers of Italian (L1) over whether and how this new standard should be incorporated into language instruction. The final goal of this chapter is to extend this debate to the teaching of Italian as a foreign language in the United States. A selection of neostandard features are presented and discussed in terms of how and when they can be incorporated into the Italian language classroom and Italian textbooks. I argue that by eliminating the disconnect between the language being taught and the language spoken in Italy (which students are aware of), we refine and enhance students’ linguistic and communicative competence. Keywords: Italian, restandardization, Italian as a foreign language, neostandard

1 Introduction Whereas the use of Italian outside of Italy (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions) is limited, a variety of languages other than Italian are spoken in Italy, making it a linguistically rich and diverse country. Because of its location in the Mediterranean, it has attracted and continues to attract a significant number of immigrants from Eastern Europe and Africa, as well as immigrants from as far away as China. In addition, the languages and/or dialects of the border countries, are spoken in the border regions and, in some cases, in pockets throughout the country. Moreover, in comparison to the other countries in which Romance languages are spoken, Italy is notable for the number of dialects spoken within its borders. The history of the interactions between Italian and the dialects of Italy, as well as changes in the sociolinguistic and morphosyntactic features of the Italian language over time have resulted in restandardization. That is, a significant number of features that diverge from the literary standard but are widely accepted are poised to be recognized as features of a new standard. This new linguistic reality has triggered debates over the Italian language taught in the Italian school system. This debate can be extended to the Italian language taught in United States as a foreign language. The

Italian

391

goal of this overview of the “state of the Italian language” is to assess whether and how selected features of this new standard should be taught to learners of Italian as a foreign language. The following section explores the countries other than Italy where Italian is spoken or historically has been spoken and thus have a residual number of Italian speakers. This is followed by a discussion of the immigrant population and some of their issues acquiring Italian, and an examination of the dialects of Italy and their role in changes in language use in Italy. This background is necessary for the examination of how Italian varies geographically, socially, and by mode of communication, and how Italians use their linguistic repertoire. This examination includes an analysis of a number of morphosyntactic features of spoken (and sometimes written) Italian that are not part of the prescribed grammar but are widely accepted and are changing the nature of what is considered the standard language, and triggering debates over the language taught in Italian schools. The last section explores the implications of these changes for Italian foreign language textbooks and Italian language instruction in the United States.

2 Italian Spoken outside of Italy Italian has official or co-official status in the Republic of San Marino and in Switzerland, in the Canton Ticino and Canton Grigioni. In the territories of Slovenia and Croatia, Italian is a constitutionally protected minority language, and a co-official language in areas primarily along the coast (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions). Italian is a primary language of wide usage in the Vatican and Malta. Italian and/or dialect are also spoken in the destinations of Italian emigrants, such as Australia, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Americas (e.g. the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, etc.). In addition, Italian had, and in some cases still has, a presence in countries of colonial occupation. Italy, unified in 1861, joined the scramble for colonies rather late, when some of the last areas available were in Africa. Ethiopia was occupied by Italy from 1935–1941, but Italian is spoken by very few today. Eritrea was an Italian colony much longer, from 1890–1941, and as a result, a few speakers still use Italian (Appleyard/Orwin 2008, 280). According to Ethnologue (Lewis/Simons/Fennig 2013), Italian is spoken in Eritrea for “wider communication.” Italian incursions into Libya began in 1911 and ended in 1949 when a United Nations General Assembly Resolution called for Libya’s independence, which would establish Libya as a sovereign state by January 1952 (Bianci 2003, 74). In the late 1930’s, Mussolini’s government encouraged colonization of Libya to relieve unemployment and overpopulation in Italy. The first 20,000 settlers (the ventimilli) arrived in a single convoy in 1938 and by 1940 there were approximately 110,000 Italians in Libya with plans for continued emigration (Bianci 2003, 70). In 1970, all of Libya’s Italians,

392

Janice M. Aski

about 20,000 people, were expelled by Qaddafi as punishment for Italy having ruled Libya from 1911 to 1941. In 2004, Qaddafi welcomed expelled Italians back for brief visits.1 Ethnologue (Lewis/Simons/Fennig 2013) lists Italian as an immigrant language spoken by 22,500 people in Libya (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). There was large-scale immigration into Tunisia in the early 19th century. The Italian population continued to grow and during WWII was supported and protected by the Italian Fascist regime, being briefly incorporated into Mussolini’s project of Imperial Italy. Today, however, the Italian population is fewer than 1,000 and concentrated mostly in Tunis. Ethnologue lists Italian as an immigrant language spoken by 9,700 people. Somalia is unlike the other colonized areas of northern Africa in that Italian was once used in official spheres. “Somalia was formed in 1960 out of the union of two former colonies, British Somaliland in the north, which had been a British protectorate since 1886, and the more populous Italian Somaliland in the south, which originated in 1889 and attained its final extent in 1927” (Appleyard/Orwin 2008, 267s.). In 1972 Somali was officially pronounced the national language and replaced English, Italian and Arabic in official spheres. In 2006 Ethnologue listed Italian a “statutory national working language” spoken by 4,000. Italy briefly held colonies outside of Africa as well. Today, Albania has a large number of Italian speakers, due in part to the fact that it was a possession of Italy from 1939–1943 and in part because of the linguistic interests of Albanians after the fall of Hoxha’s dictatorship. From 1945–1991 Enver Hoxha’s dictatorship cut Albania off from communication outside the country and from immigration/emigration. After the fall of the regime, Albanians had access to western media, primarily Italian commercial networks. Albanians focused on learning foreign languages to improve their opportunities on the job market and their geographical mobility, so that “[b]y 2000 a growing number of Albanians, (especially the youth) were fluent in the western languages perceived to provide them with the best opportunities: English, Italian, German. These foreign languages had achieved a remarkable presence in the area and could be heard, in various degrees of competence, in almost all communicative environments” (Jacquemet 2005, 268).

Italy also had a colonial presence in the Dodecanese group of islands, the largest of which is Rhodes, from the Italo-Turkish war in 1911 until 1947. However, there is no longer a significant number of Italian speakers on the islands. Prof. Stephanie Hom, an expert in Italian colonial and postcolonial studies at the University of Oklahoma, states (in personal communication) that based on her own fieldwork in Rhodes and the Dodecanese, the generation of Italian speakers educated under the occupation is slowly

1 Cf. the New York Times article published on October 22, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/ world/europe/21iht-italy.html (13.01.2014).

Italian

393

dying out. Instead, the island seems to be bilingual between Greek and English (↗11 Bilingual Education). The use of Italian throughout the world is rather limited in comparison, for example, to that of French (↗20 French) or Spanish (↗25 Spanish). However, interest in studying Italian throughout the world continues to grow. A large-scale survey (De Mauro et al. 2002) commissioned by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on student motivations for acquiring a foreign language shows that the primary motivations for studying Italian are leisure and personal reasons, but there is a growing interest in studying Italian for professional/work reasons (↗16 Language Learner).2 Although the target of investigation is a non-traditional group of learners taking courses at a Cultural Institute rather than a school, the results appear to confirm an increasing interest in studying Italian in comparison with the 1995 survey conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Haller 2004).

3 Immigrants in Italy and Italian as a Second Language Historical linguistic minorities are languages that are distinct from Italian and the Italo-Romance dialects (which are discussed below), and originate in countries that border Italy, such as German, Slovenian, Ladin (often grouped with Friulian and Romansh, which is spoken in Switzerland) (↗23 Rhaeto-Romanic), and French, or are the result of historical migrations, such as Occitan, Franco-Provençal Albanian,3 Greek, Croatian and Catalan.4 New linguistic minorities are languages spoken by more recent immigrant groups from Romania, Albania, Morocco, China, the Ukraine, the Philippines, Tunisa, Poland, India and Moldova (Chini 2011). As noted by Guerini (2011), the influx of immigrants has changed the linguistic landscape in Italy. Immigrant languages are now a stable part of the Italian linguistic space, such that Vedovelli (2010a) had labeled this condition “neoplurilinguismo” (Guerini 2011, 295). Guerini (2011) goes on to point out that this “neoplurilin-

2 Haller (2004) notes that Ignazio Baldelli (1987) also conducted a survey of Italian use world wide, and documented a global student population of nearly two million/year, with the dominant motivations being curricular requirement and cultural enrichment, respectively. 3 The migration of Albanians to Italy began in the 15th century and their language and its descendents in Italy are known as Arbëresh. These Albanians are distinct from those who participated in the modern migrations that began in the 1990s to escape the Communist regime. For more information, cf. Perta (2011). 4 Also included in the group of historical linguistic minorities are Sardinian and Friulian, since they are considered sufficiently different from Italian and they have ancient literary documents (Iannàccaro/Dell’Aquila 2011).

394

Janice M. Aski

guismo” has an affect on the Italian language and the acquisition of Italian (↗12 Plurilingual Education). Since the language of the host country (Italian) tends to be dominant, immigrants of different origins use it to communicate with each other, so it is reasonable to assume that the gradual penetration of Italian in inter/intra-ethnic communication could provoke variation in Italian and the native languages of the speakers.5 Moreover, it is possible that the simplified input between Italians and immigrants could compromise the acquisition of Italian by immigrants, possibly leading to pidgins or ethnolects. Guerini (2011) gives examples of the speech of immigrants from Ghana, India, and Nigeria and highlights the features that they have in common. She notes that research needs to tease apart the features that are part of normal second language acquisition and which coincide with pidgin formation. Research on the acquisition of Italian by immigrants is further complicated by the fact that different nationalities are more or less inclined to preserve their languages or adopt Italian. For example, the Chinese are more likely to maintain their linguistic heritage in order to preserve their values and traditions. Immigrants from the Philippines, on the other hand, integrate much more easily because of the political fragmentation of their own country and the Roman Catholic religion that they share with Italians. It is harder to generalize about Moroccans, since some do not wish to be associated with Western culture while others seek full integration, particularly for their children (Tosi 2004). Immigrants’ desire to integrate into society goes hand in hand with their need to learn Italian, which in turn results in the formation of language schools and the development of certifications of the level of Italian acquired (↗5 Languages and Identities). The first Italian language courses for foreigners were offered in 1917 in Siena. However, today the diffusion of the Italian language among foreigners (at home and abroad) is profoundly different, due to changes in the social, institutional, economic/productive, linguistic, cultural, instructional systems in Italy and the number and types of people who come into contact with Italian, including, of course, immigrants. This has created a new Questione della Lingua, which is the management of the diffusion of the Italian language among foreigners at home and abroad, and a new cultural industry requiring the development of foreign language materials and professionals (Vedovelli 22010b). Italy has adopted the Common European Framework (Quadro comune europeo di riferimento per le lingue: apprendimento, insegnamento, valutazione) (Council of Europe 2001) for the teaching and assessment of Italian. The Center CILS (Certificazione di Italiano come Lingua Straniera) at the Università di Stranieri di Siena is one of the leaders in pedagogy and second language acquisition research, and is responsible for

5 Contact with Italian dialects, particularly when immigrants first arrive and are housed in hostels in areas where dialect is prominent, also complicates language assimilation (Tosi 2004, 267).

Italian

395

developing the certification that measures linguistic and communicative competence following the six levels outlined in the Framework (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). The future of Italian and immigrant languages in Italy really depends on what happens to the second and third generation immigrants. Bagna (2011) gives an indication of the place of immigrant languages in Italy when she reports on a survey given to 1,046 foreign students in primary and secondary school in the province of Siena. Of these subjects, 686 placed Italian first as the language spoken at home, and the number is even higher if those who declared Tuscan are included. At the same time, many declared to have uncertain competence in Italian; they feel that they can speak and understand at a high level, but in reading and, particularly, writing, they run into difficulty. Indeed, the issue of teaching Italian to the children of immigrants is complex. Whereas Italy has disallowed segregated education (putting students who cannot speak Italian in separate classes) and adopted an “intercultural approach” for the education of all children, no systematic approach to the teaching of Italian to the children of immigrants who are integrated into Italian classrooms has been developed (↗5 Languages and Identities). Italy is a country of extensive linguistic diversity. However, the number of languages other than Italian spoken in Italy described here is far from complete if one considers the plethora of dialects spoken in Italy, which are discussed in the next section.

4 The Italo-Romance Dialects In some cases, such as English, “dialect” may be defined as a social or regional variety of a language. This is not the case in Italy (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions), where “dialect” is a term referring to “the local continuations of the Latin language that have been spoken across the Italian peninsula ever since the loss of Latin” (Dal Negro/Vietti 2011, 71). Dialects in Italy are languages, distinguished from the standard by their limited geographical diffusion (limited to the local level) and range of usage (usually among friends and in the home), which is related to their lack of sociolinguistic prestige. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that at the base of standard Italian is the Florentine dialect, which was standardized and elevated to the rank of national language (Serianni/Antonelli 2011, 63). The variety of dialects spoken in Italy differ along a dialect continuum, whereby dialects that are geographically near to one another are mutually intelligible, but the further apart they are, the more distinct (phonetically, morphologically, syntactically and lexically) they become. The Italian dialects were grouped into the following dialect areas using shared, primarily phonetic, features gathered from the Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz (Jaberg/Jud 1928–1940). Gallo-Italic, Venetian, Ladin, Friulian, Tuscan, Median (central), Intermedian Southern, Extreme Southern,

396

Janice M. Aski

and the Sardinian dialects are divided into four groups (Logudorese, Campidanese, Sassarese, Gallurese) (cf. Pellegrini 1977). This very brief discussion of dialect differences and distribution reflects the geolinguistic reality of these languages, but does not reveal usage and changes in usage over time. In comparison to other countries in Europe, Italy was unified relatively late, in 1861. At the time of unification, the number of Italian speakers was minimal, estimated to be anywhere from 2.5% (Marazzini 2010) to approximately 9.5% (Castellani 1982), with the number of speakers with a passive knowledge of Italian being higher. At the time of unification, “one can speak of a situation of nearly generalized dialect monolingualism, with diglossia restricted to numerically marginal élites.” (Dal Negro/Vietti 2011, 71s.) However, competence in the national standard spread quickly, due in large part to social changes after unification that have been identified by De Mauro (31972). For the first time, elementary school was free and obligatory and the language of instruction was Italian,6 government bureaucracy was in Italian, obligatory military service required the use of Italian (despite the fact that dialect was the native language of most soldiers), mass emigration from the south to (primarily) urban centers in the north required the use of Italian as a type of lingua franca (Marazzini 2010, 197). Support for Italian and degradation of dialects in favor of the standard under the fascist regime not only promoted Italian, but also stigmatized dialects and dialect speakers, and this stereotype persisted until relatively recently. Data collected from ISTAT (The Italian National Institute of Statistics) shown in Table 17 demonstrates how quickly dialect usage became socially limited and marginalized. Table 1: ISTAT inquiries into use of Italian and/or dialect in Italy (Source: ISTAT: http://www.istat.it/en/) 1988

1995

2000

2006

In the family only or prev. Italian only or prev. dialect both other language

41.5% 32.0% 24.9% 0.6%

44.4% 23.8% 28.3% 1.5%

44.1% 19.1% 32.9% 3.0%

45.5% 16.0% 32.5% 5.1%

With friends only or prev. Italian only or prev. dialect both other language

44.6% 26.6% 27.1% 0.5%

47.1% 16.7% 32.1% 1.2%

48.0% 16.0% 32.7% 2.4%

48.9% 13.2% 32.8% 3.9%

6 De Mauro calls into question the actual role of the school in the Italianization process, since teachers did not always know or speak the standard and students often evaded school (Marazzini 2010, 196s.). 7 Reproduced from Serianni/Antonelli (2011, 71); translation by the author (Aski). Note that these data are based on self-reports.

Italian

With strangers only or prev. Italian only or prev. dialect both other language

397

1988

1995

2000

2006

64.1% 13.9% 20.3% 0.4%

71.4% 6.9% 18.5% 0.8%

72.7% 6.8% 18.6% 0.8%

72.8% 5.4% 10.9% 1.5%

In 1988, after 127 years of unification, when a minority of the population spoke only dialect, 64.1% of Italians claimed to use Italian in public (with strangers). Moreover, the use of Italian encroached on the domains of usage of dialect, as 41.5% of Italians claimed to use Italian with family members and 44.6% use it with friends.8 By 2006, the exclusive use of dialect with family or friends fell significantly (16% and 13.2% respectively), and the use of Italian in public spheres rose significantly (72.8%). Today, the socially restricted use of dialect (with family and friends) is prevalent in some regions more than others: in the north, in Val d’Aosta, Veneto, Friuli and in the south, in Sicily, Calabria and Lucania (Serianni/Antonelli 2011, 70) (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions). Today, dialect speakers have essentially stopped transmitting dialect to their children and tend to address them in Italian. However, interactions with grandparents, followed by peer-group communication, leads to passive dialect competence. One of the consequences of almost complete Italianization of the peninsula is a controlled use of dialect by semi-active dialect speakers as a stylistic resource in a monolingual repertoire that manifests itself in code-switching, often in a joking manner and as another way to express one’s feelings with greater efficacy (Dal Negro/Vietti 2011; Guerini 2011). Indeed, the use of dialect terms is prevalent in youth language. At the same time, there has been a change in attitude toward dialect. Interest in linguistic heritage has led to promotion of local dialects in Italy. For example, on April 24, 2002, the local television news (TG3) reported a language course on the dialect of Bologna (Bolognese) being taught at the Università degli Studi di Bologna.9 This corresponds to a proliferation of YouTube videos about the Italian dialects and recordings of elderly dialect speakers, as well as the outcry over the plan to “Italianize” or “translate” the names of Venice’s calli, campi and campielli,10 which are in

8 Berruto (1989) uses the term dilalia to describe the overlapping functions and domains of dialects and the standard language in order to distinguish this situation from the notion of diglossia, which could be applied to the earlier linguistic situation in Italy (Dal Negro/Vietti 2011). 9 Dialetto bolognese – TG3 24 aprile 2002 – Il primo Corso di Bolognese, con Roberto Serra, Aldo Jani ed Enrico Pagani, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToIVyfER564 (20.12.2013). 10 In Venice, calli are ‘streets’ of sorts but with no automobile traffic and wider than other pedestrian paths. A campo (and campiello‘small campo’) is an open space surrounded by buildings, some are quite large, others rather small.

398

Janice M. Aski

dialect, into Italian. This was considered a horror and a slap in the face of history and toponomastic tradition by Venetians indignant for their dialetto calpestato (literally: trampled dialect) (Martellato 2013). The precarious existence of the dialects of Italy was noticed by linguists who debated their future loss. The attention of the Italian government was also drawn to the demise of the languages of Italy and, as a consequence, the loss of a significant part of Italian cultural heritage, but the action taken has been slow and questioned by many. The European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (Council of Europe 1992) calls for protection of the inalienable right to use regional or minority languages in private and public life in order to preserve these languages, which are part of Europe’s cultural identity. Italy has signed the charter but has not yet ratified it. In the 1999 disegno di legge, the following languages were listed as those to be protected under the charter: the languages of the Albanian, Catalan, Germanic, Greek, Slovenian and Croatian populations, as well as French, Franco-Provençal, Friulan, Ladin, Occitan and Sardinian. Cravens (forthcoming) questions the choice of languages excluded and included, noting that 1) the choice appears to be arbitrary (why Friulan and Sardinian but not any of the other Italo-Romance dialects?) and 2) identifying regional language types promotes a prestige variety of a major city in the area and disrespects and disadvantages speakers of local varieties. Cravens (forthcoming) observes that the requirements for protection under the Charter implicitly – arguably even explicitly – describe the traditional dialects of Italy as eligible, but if they are not included, the Charter’s professed purpose of protecting those languages and their speakers is bound to fail (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). In order to fully comprehend that status and use of Italian in Italy, it is necessary to understand its relationship with the dialects in the peninsula. The next section explores how the dialects affect Italian and how the Italian language is changing.

5 Italian in Italy Standard Italian, in its purest form, is the variety represented by grammar books and spoken without a regional accent. Although few Italians, except actors or announcers who have been trained, actually speak the standard language, all educated Italians have studied the grammar and use it in writing (↗9 Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell). The language actually spoken by Italians is complex, as Italians have at their disposal a linguistic repertoire with variants that emerge from the intersection of four sociolinguistic variables: diatopic (language variation in space), diastratic (variation by social class), diaphasic (variation due to the social situation, e. g. formal, informal, etc.) and diamesic (variation due to the mode of communication, e.g. writing, speaking, etc.). Berruto (1987, 21) devised what has become the classic sociolinguistic model to represent the complex multidimensional nature of Italian. The graph has a horizontal diamesic axis and a vertical diastratic axis. The diaphasic

Italian

399

axis intersects the two diagonally from left to right. The main categories of Berruto’s repertoire of Italian (which are points on the diaphasic continuum) are: standard literary Italian, neostandard Italian, colloquial spoken Italian, popular regional Italian, unmonitored informal Italian, jargon, formal aulic Italian, technico-scientific Italian and bureaucratic Italian. The most formal varieties are found in the upper left quadrant, which are the higher points on the diaphasic and diastratic axes and near the “written” end of the diamessic axis. On the other hand, jargon and unmonitored speech appear in the lower right quadrant, the lower points on the diaphasic and diastratic axes and near the colloquial end of the diamesic axis. Note that diatopic variation or geographical differences are taken to be consistent across all axes. According to this model, the Italian language used by most speakers falls near the center, but favors the more formal, upper-left quadrant due to the particular history of Italian, which is based on the written, literary, aulic Florentine language. However, there is evidence that this norm is shifting. Before exploring this shift, a clear understanding of the variants is required, in particular the nature of regional Italian and neostandard Italian. Regional varieties of Italian are varieties of the national language that are intimately related to the dialect of the geographical area. They tend to differ from each other and the standard lexically, phonetically, phonologically, and prosodically. Regional Italian is the language actually spoken in Italy. Cerruti (2011a, 11) points out that “since the mid twentieth century most dialect speakers have started speaking to their children in their own socio-geographical variety of Italian. Educating children to speak only Italian was believed to ensure social enhancement. These socio-geographical varieties of Italian have therefore become the mother tongue of those new generations.”

He adds that young Italian speakers are often unaware of the features that mark their regional Italian, whereas older speakers are aware of their dialectal origins and tend to avoid them in formal speech. Today, dialectal words and expressions are incorporated into spoken Italian and are considered normal. They are used for their expressive function, and less as markers of the geographical origin of the speaker (Sobrero 2005). The incorporation of dialect into regional Italian may lead to the act of code switching discussed above. Whereas dialect is the origin of the features of regional Italian, this is not the case for neostandard Italian. The term italiano neostandard was coined by Berruto (1987) and is related to Sabatini’s (1985) notion of italiano dell’uso medio. Neostandard Italian is a national variant that is primarily spoken in informal registers, although features can be found in writing. Many of these features, which are erroneous according to standard Italian grammars but are accepted by speakers, are not innovations, but rather have survived over the centuries, being attested in Late Latin and are sometimes found in Spanish and French (Còveri/Benucci/Diadori 1998), so what seems truly new is the acceptance and incorporation of these con-

400

Janice M. Aski

structions into the Italian norm (Cerruti 2011a, 18).11 A few of these features (which will be discussed in terms of their implications for teaching Italian as a foreign language in Section 6) are presented below with their standard equivalent according to standard grammars. 1) Empty clitic ci used with the lexical verb avere ‘to have’: I have two books. Neostandard C’ ho due libri. Empty ci have (1sg.pres.indic.) two books12 Standard Ho have (1sg.pres.indic.)

due libri. two books

2)

Use of preverbal dative pronoun, gli, instead of postverbal dative pronoun, loro: I tell them the truth. Neostandard Gli dico la verità. them (3pl.dative) tell (1sg.pres.indic.) the truth. Standard Dico tell (1sg.pres.indic.)

loro them (3pl.dative)

la verità. the truth.

3)

Use of the present indicative to mark planned future actions, particularly when accompanied by expressions of time: I will come tomorrow. Neostandard Vengo domani. Come (1sg.pres.indic.) tomorrow. Standard Verrò Come (1sg.fut.) 4)

domani. tomorrow.

Use of stare + gerund with verbs that express motion or change of state (instead of only stative verbs):13 I am reading, I am going

11 However, Angellili/Aski (2014) have identified an innovation that appears to be poised to enter the neostandard. 12 The following are the abbreviations used in this chapter: f. ‘feminine,’ m. ‘masculine,’ sg. ‘singular,’ pl. ‘plural,’ neg. ‘negative,’ inf. ‘infinitive,’ pres. ‘present,’ imp. ‘imperfect,’ fut. ‘future,’ pluperf. ‘plurperfect,’ subj. ‘subjunctive,’ cond. ‘conditional,’ indic. ‘indicative,’ accus. ‘accusative.’ 13 Stare + gerund has also come to express durative contexts that are semelfactive because the temporal reference is limited: the manuscript that Prof. Eco has been working on for two years Neostandard il manoscritto a cui il professor Eco sta lavorando da due anni the manuscript at which the professor Eco be (3ps.pres.) work (gerund) since two years

Italian

401

Neostandard sto leggendo, sto andando Standard sto leggendo, *sto andando 5) Reduced use of the subjunctive in favor of the indicative: I don’t think he is coming. Neostandard Non penso che viene. neg. think (1sg.pres.indic.) that comes (1sg.pres.indic.) Standard Non penso neg. think (1sg.pres.indic.)

che that

venga. comes (1sg.pres.subj.)

6)

Imperfect indicative used in place of the pluperfect subjunctive and past conditional in hypotheticals of impossibility: If I had received the text, I would have responded. Neostandard Se ricevevo il SMS, rispondevo. If received (1sg.imp.indic.) the text, responded (1sg.imp.indic.) Standard Se avessi ricevuto If had received (1sg.pluperf.subj.)

il SMS, avrei risposto. the text, would have responded (1sg. cond.past)

This (incomplete) list is not, of course, static. Tavoni (2002) lists Sabatini’s (1985) 35 features of italiano dell’uso medio, adding more of his own and labeling each as neostandard or substandard. He calls this the elenco di tratti dell’italiano in movimento. Sobrero (2005) notes that in the 19th century there was linguistic intolerance which manifested itself as rigid normativism between standard and substandard; mixing was strongly stigmatized by the grammarians and pedagogues of unified Italy (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). He finds that “sociolinguistic deregulation” started in the 1960s and 1970s when “Il parlato ‘risale’, la lingua cerca nuove forme di espressività, cambia e si rinnova sempre di più ‘dal basso’” (Sobrero 2005, 219). Indeed, according to Sobrero (2003) forms of popular Italian (which include linguistic simplifications) have entered into the neostandard, aulic Italian is moving closer to italiano medio, and the language of novels is more similar to that of the spoken language (e.g., Camilleri mysteries). “Il movimento principale in atto nello spazio linguistico italiano, infatti, è oggi costituito dalla consistente e continua ‘promozione’ di forme – ricorrenti tipicamente nel parlato – che prima eran

Standard il manoscritto the manuscript

a cui at which

il professor Eco the professor Eco

lavora da due anni works since two years (Cerruti 2011b).

402

Janice M. Aski

giudicate scorrette, o triviali, o colloquiali, e ora sono a volte tollerate, a volte accettate, a volte addirittura integrate nell’uso corrente” (Sobrero 2003, 272). He goes on to list ten features that exemplify his comment which are heard by presenters on TV, appear on university homework and papers, and are heard in the speech of people with an average education. This tendency to upgrade features may be interpreted as part of the larger phenomenon by which there is a convergence of high and low varieties toward a center point, i.e., varieties from the lower end of the spectrum (the spoken language, regional and popular Italian and even dialect) are used by educated Italians while higher, more formal forms are disappearing, thus resulting in a move toward a common sustained language (Sobrero 2003, 276). This shifting norm is described as a phenomenon of restandardization (Cortelazzo s.a., 47).14 Indeed, Cerruti (2011a, 13) states that “[c]ontemporary Italian is undergoing a restandardization process, caused by the mutual interrelation between spoken and written language […] and the consequent acceptance of previously non standard features into the standard ones”. Italian, like all languages, is constantly changing. However, many of the changes in the spoken language have not been incorporated into standard grammars (yet), despite their wide and consistent usage. These differences between standard grammars and everyday language have triggered a debate over how Italian should be taught as an L1 in Italian schools. Tosi (2004) recounts that at the time of unification, Italian language teaching focused on teaching rigid, formal rules and based instruction on narrative and poetry; Italian was taught like other foreign languages, such as French or Latin. The goal was to teach “correct” Italian language (which contributed to the negative stereotyping and reduced use of dialects discussed above). By the 1960s-1970s, the standard language taught in schools, which became known by the derogatory name, italiano scolastico, was so different from actual usage, that dissatisfied, avant-guard teachers proposed innovations, a move away from teaching language for academic or literary use toward language for effective communication in different domains/functions. Despite these efforts and the support they received by a variety of newly formed teachers’ associations, change by the educational authorities and textbook writers was/is slow. Tosi (2004, 255) points out that some linguists (like Dardano 1994), “think that the progressive teachers’ associations did little to improve language teaching but a lot to expand the norms of the standard so that it included colloquialisms and popular expressions of ‘substandard’ varieties, thus enhancing the status of the neostandard in schools and society,” whereas others thought that schools were losing their traditional role of teaching the standard norm and “proper language.”

14 Berruto (1987) discussed ristandardizzazione when he pointed out that elements of the neostandard were entering the standard, and the written language was becoming more similar to the spoken language.

Italian

403

6 Italian as a Foreign15 Language in the United States In the United States, Italian is not by any means a “less commonly taught language.” The Modern Language Association (MLA) conducts surveys of foreign language enrollments in institutions of higher education. In a comparison of enrollments in Italian, Spanish, French and German in 1998 and 2002, Italian is the fourth most popular language. However, Italian showed the largest percentage growth. Table 2: Enrollment trends over time (Source: Wells 2002, 9) Language

1998

2002

Percentage change

Spanish

656,590

746,267

13.7

French

199,064

201,979

1.5

German

89,020

91,100

2.3

Italian

49,287

63,899

29.6

A comparison of the enrollments in American universities of five Romance languages from 2002, 2006, 2009 demonstrates that Italian lags behind French and, of course, Spanish, but has much stronger enrollments than Portuguese and Romanian. Table 3: Enrollment data (Source: MLA, www.mla.org/flsurvey, 13.01.2014) Spanish

French

Italian

Portuguese

Romanian

2009

862,688

215,954

80,672

11,371

193

2006

821,654

206,079

78,091

10,267

134

2002

745,127

201,979

63,899

8,385

126

Spanish has always “cornered the market” of foreign language study in the US, because of the close proximity to Mexico and the increasing use of Spanish in the US. In addition, French and Spanish are commonly taught in high schools, which is not the case for Italian, except in states with a significant number of heritage speakers. In fact, as shown in Table 4, the highest number of university enrollments by far are from the East Coast and California, possibly due to immigration from Italy in 19th century and early 20th century.

15 In this chapter, I maintain the distinction between foreign language learning (learning the target language outside of the target country) and second language learning (learning the target language in the target country).

404

Janice M. Aski

Table 4: Largest enrollments by state in the US (Source: MLA, www.mla.org/flsurvey, 13.01.2014) New York

California

New Jersey

Massachusettes

2009

15,186

11,352

4,121

3,493

2006

13,908

10,506

4,372

4,151

2002

11,504

9,620

3,815

3,203

The approaches to teaching Italian in the US reflect the trajectory discussed in foreign language teaching methods manuals, that is, a shift from a traditional, grammar/ vocabulary-centered approach to a communicative approach focused on meaningful interaction, the four language skills, and the development of cultural competence (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). The growing awareness of research in second language acquisition (↗10 Second Language Acquisition) has had an impact on Italian elementary language textbooks. In particular, the importance of the roll of input in foreign language acquisition is recognized by including input activities before production activities (Aski 2009); an understanding of the actual time it takes to acquire grammatical structures (as well a foreign language) is manifested by a reduction in the amount of grammar presented in first-year language textbooks or taught in elementary courses (Aski/Colarossi 2007); and, in accordance with the American Council Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) standards, textbook activities are moving from focusing only on products and practices to identifying, reflecting upon, and comparing Italian (and American) cultural perspectives and viewpoints (Musumeci/Aski 2010). The grammar presented in Italian language textbooks in the United States is standard Italian as described in prescriptive grammars. That is, the language taught in the United States does not include the neostandard structures that are commonly used and accepted in the spoken language (and some in the written language), nor features of regional Italian. This is a problem, particularly for students (↗16 Language Learner) who learn Italian in the United States and then travel or study in Italy for an extended period of time, during which they encounter a language that is significantly different from the language they spent several years learning. For example, students comment on the fact that they find the ‘accent’ of the Italians with whom they interact difficult to understand, and they even identify ‘errors’ in Italians’ grammar, which are really features of the neostandard, such as Italians’ lack of use of the subjunctive in informal speech. When learners are able to identify the differences between the language they have been learning and the language they hear in Italy, it is time to rethink the language presented in Italian foreign language textbooks. However, the choices of which neostandard structures to present and when and how they should be presented must be made taking into consideration four factors: 1) the frequency of the structure,

Italian

405

2) whether the structure is a feature of the standard language but its range of use has expanded to new contexts, 3) whether the rules of usage of the structure are governed diaphasically, and 4) whether the rules of usage of the structure are governed diamesically. In addition, it is essential to keep in mind when structures typically tend to be presented in language courses and the fact that acquisition is a long, slow process. The neostandard structures presented above (Section 5) were selected because they are frequent and/or salient to learners and can be incorporated into language instruction with relative ease, as long as the factors above are taken into consideration. The first structure, use of the empty clitic ci with the lexical verb avere ‘to have,’ is used relatively consistently by all speakers and is free of diaphasic constraints. As soon as the verb avere is taught, ci may be learned (and finally acquired)16 as part of the lexical verb (c’ho rather than ho). However, students must be warned that this clitic is constrained diamesically, in that it is not yet generally accepted in the written language. Moreover, students will eventually need to distinguish between the lexical verb, avere, and the auxiliary, avere, which is used in compound tenses, and be aware that ci is only used with the former. Unlike the empty clitic ci, the dative and accusative clitic pronouns carry meaning, they are challenging for learners, and they are taught later in the sequence. One way to lighten the learner’s load, particularly at the elementary level, is to not teach structures that are semantically and sociolinguistically equivalent constructions, particularly if the alternative is less common. The second feature above, use of dative gli instead of dative loro, is a case in point. Russi (2008, 49) states that a growing number of studies (Cordin/Calabrese 2001, 551; Dardano/Trifone 1995, 266; Adorno 2003, 69; Cortelazzo 2001) acknowledge that loro as an indirect object has a marginal status among Italian native speakers. She also points to Hall’s (1960) study that in the written language, loro is still preferred to gli, but the difference in rate of usage is not radical (40% gli vs. 60% loro). This suggests that postponing the presentation of postverbal dative loro will cause no communication problems for learners. The next two features, use of the present indicative to mark future actions and use of stare + gerund with verbs of motion and change of state, satisfy the second factor in that they are features of the standard language whose range of use has expanded. Moreover, their usage is not diaphasically or diamesically constrained. Although students would be understood if they used the future tense in a statement such as Andrò dal medico domani ‘I am going to the doctor tomorrow,’ the construction would be considered awkward by a native speaker, since the present is used to indicate

16 I am aware of the controversial discussion regarding Krashen’s (1977) distinction between “acquisition,” a subconscious process of attaining knowledge of the language – a process that is similar to first language acquisition – and “learning,” the conscious choice to attain knowledge of the language, usually through instruction (cf. Krashen (2003) for additional information.) This distinction is maintained here because FL testing in classroom settings tests knowledge of grammatical structures and vocabulary even though they are not used spontaneously by learners

406

Janice M. Aski

activities that are already planned in the future. The future tense is reserved for activities that are unplanned or not sure to take place, and it is used increasingly to convey probability, as shown in 7. 7)

– Dov’è Gianni? – Sarà be (3sg.fut.)

(Where is Gianni?) a casa. at home (He must be at home.)

Since, according to the ACTFL proficiency guidelines (2012), intermediate-level speakers are distinguished by producing “sentence-level language, ranging from discrete sentences to strings of sentences, typically in present time,” presentation of the use of the future in abstract future or probabilistic contexts can be postponed to the intermediate level, with the expectation that it may begin to be used spontaneously at the intermediate-high or advanced levels. According to Maiden (1995), the stare + gerund construction gains ground in Tuscan from the 16th century with its basic stative meaning, but relatively recently it has acquired a progressive meaning. He states: “The ‘immobility’ inherent in the lexical verb stare (meaning ‘stand,’ ‘remain in place,’), debarred combination of stare with dynamic or ‘transformative’ verbs (e.g., those expressing motion or change of state), so that sto leggendo ‘I’m reading’ has always been admitted, but not sto andando ‘I’m going’ nor sto diventando ‘I’m becoming.’ It is only from the middle of the twentieth century, and possibly under the influence of English be …ing constructions (Durante (1981:269)), that this structure begins to appear regularly with verbs expressing progressive development or unfolding of any action…According to Durante, even at the beginning of the 1980s the type sta piovendo ‘it’s raining’ was still little used by the older generation” (Maiden 1995, 156).

Given the increasingly frequent and expanding use of stare + gerund, this structure could be presented at the elementary level because it would be particularly easy for American students to learn and acquire, since it maps functionally and structurally onto the present continuous in American English (be + gerund). The last two features both reflect the receding use of the subjunctive, but unlike the previous features, they are constrained diaphasically (and, consequently, diamesically). Cortelazzo (2001) examines empirical studies regarding the perceived increase in the use of the indicative instead of the subjunctive, and finds that in spoken and written Italian the subjunctive has not completely disappeared, even though it is used less in spoken Italian. People are still aware of the distinction and use it in formal situations and primarily in the written language.17 It is an advanced skill to

17 Cortelazzo (2001) argues that studies on the use of the subjunctive and dative loro vs gli demonstrate that data is needed on all of the phenomena that are part of the neostandard in order to

Italian

407

change language use according to the formality of the situation. However, it is important that learners be made aware of the distinction and how language use is modified in different situations. At the low-intermediate levels students can be exposed to the subjunctive and learn to recognize its proper use, whereas production of the form and a discussion of its diaphasic distribution can be postponed to a later stage, with the understanding that acquisition of the structure, particularly because learners encounter it infrequently in native speech, will be relatively late. One reason that textbooks are slow to keep up with the changes in the Italian language is that instructors (↗15 Language Teacher) may be reluctant to teach forms that do not conform to the literary standard. A similar reaction from some teachers of Italian (L1) is discussed above. However, if neostandard structures are selected carefully, according to the factors discussed above, and presented at the appropriate point in the acquisition process, i.e., when students are ready to cognitively process them and incorporate them into their interlanguage (↗10 Second Language Acquisition), language courses will be a richer experience and learners’ communicative competence will be enhanced. Awareness and discussion of these issues and the linguistic diversity of Italy should not be limited to the language classroom. The Ohio State University offers an undergraduate, intermediate-level course taught in Italian that explores the linguistic reality of Italy. In this course, students explore where Italian is spoken in the world and the historic and new linguistic minorities in Italy. They learn the features of a variety of Italian dialects and of regional Italian, and identify them in films, poetry, prose and songs. The discussion of the concept of restandardization and the neostandard is particularly useful for reviewing advanced grammatical structures, as students compare native usages with the traditional grammar rules that they have been taught. A perfect example is the use of the subjunctive discussed above. Another example is an analysis and comparison of the standard use of relative pronouns che vs. preposition + cui with neostandard “polivalent che.” That is, where standard Italian makes a case distinction between relative pronouns, this distinction is lost in the neostandard, as shown in 8. 8

The case distinction in relative pronouns: The girl who I saw is beautiful. vs. The girl to whom I gave the book is beautiful.

Neostandard (che) La ragazza The girl

che who

ho visto è bella. saw (1sg.past) is beautiful

understand actual usage. This research would have a significant impact on teaching Italian as a second and foreign language.

408

Janice M. Aski

La The

ragazza girl

che ho dato who gave (1sg.past)

il libro è bella. the book is beautiful

Standard (che vs. a cui): La ragazza The girl

che who

ho visto è bella. saw (1sg.past) is beautiful

La The

a cui ho dato to whom gave (1sg.past)

il libro è bella. the book is beautiful

ragazza girl

Since relative pronouns link subordinate clauses to main clauses to form complex constructions, presentation of this structure can be postponed to the late intermediate to low advanced levels when students have mastered simple sentences. Another feature that provides an opportunity for grammar review as well as a discussion of the neostandard is a comparison of third person singular dative pronouns; in the standard language there is a gender distinction (le f.sg. vs. gli m.sg.), but in the neostandard this distinction is lost in favor of the latter, as shown in 9. 9) Third person singular dative pronouns: I gave him the book. vs. I gave her the book. Neostandard (gli) Gli him/her (dative)

ho dato gave (1sg.past)

il libro. the book.

Standard (gli vs. le) Gli ho dato him (dative) gave (1sg.past)

il libro. the book.

Le her (dative)

il libro. the book.

ho dato gave (1sg.past)

Russi (2008, 92) states that “[i]n the modern language, unquestionably at the spoken level but also increasingly extensively in written (not necessarily informal) registers, the gender distinction is practically neutralized in favor of the masculine form gli. The feminine le survives only in very careful or formal speech when speakers want to maintain what is perceived to be a higher standard.” She adds that it is not rare to find native speakers who claim that they maintain the distinction, but are surprised when they are caught using gli for le. She suspects that whereas this may be evidence that the change is still in progress, it may also be interpreted as “the manifestation of a tendency to conform to a linguistic norm perceived as more adequate because more typical of the standard language, which may be stronger in specific discourse settings and among certain categories of speakers” (Russi 2008, 93). The standard is present in native speakers’ linguistic reality, but standard structures are not always appropriate in the spoken language in certain registers.

Italian

409

This is part of the native speakers’ competence that must be conveyed to learners of Italian as a foreign language. When this information is integrated into language courses of the appropriate level, students’ linguistic competence is refined as they learn or review grammatical structures, and at the same time their communicative competence (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means) is enhanced as they learn why and how the standard grammar rules that they have been taught do not match the usages of the Italians with whom they interact.

7 Concluding Remarks This overview has demonstrated the rich linguistic diversity of Italy as well as the richness of the linguistic repertoire that Italians have at their disposal. It has also highlighted how spoken and written Italian has changed over time, becoming less formal and incorporating dialect terms as well as a significant number of features that are non-standard according to prescriptive, standard grammars. Since the language taught to learners of Italian in the United States and Italian L1 learners is the prescribed standard, there is a disconnect between the language being taught and the language spoken in Italy, which is noticed by L1 and L2 learners. The norm has shifted and it is time for foreign language instruction to join the restandardization process that is underway in Italy.

8 Bibliography ACTFL – American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (without year), Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century, http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/ pdfs/public/StandardsforFLLexecsumm_rev.pdf, (14.01.2014). Adorno, Cecilia (2003), La grammatica italiana, Milano, Mondadori. Angellili, Christina/Aski, Janice M. (forthcoming), L’italiano in movimento: Teaching a moving target, Italica. Appleyard, David/Orwin, Martin (2008), The Horn of Africa: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia, in: Andrew Simpson (ed.), Language and National Identity in Africa, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 267–290. Aski, Janice M. (2009), The Impact of Second Language Acquisition Research on Language Practice Activities, Italica 86/1, 37–58. Aski, Janice M./Colarossi, Alessia (2007), Doing It All in the First Year: Curricular Decisions for Italian Elementary Language Instruction, Italica 84/1, 22–41. Bagna, Carla (2011), Giovani generazioni di emigrati/immigrati e competenze in lingua italiana: immaginari e autovalutazioni a confronto, Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 40/2, 349–360. Baldelli, Ignazio (1987), La lingua italiana nel mondo. Indagine sulle motivazioni allo studio dell’italiano, Roma, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Berruto, Gaetano (1987) (reprint 1998), Sociolinguistica dell’italiano contemporaneo, Carocci.

410

Janice M. Aski

Berruto, Gaetano (1989), Main topics and findings in Italian sociolinguistics, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 76, 7–30. Berruto, Gaetano (2011), Italiano lingua pluricentrica?, in: Anja Overbeck/Wolfgang Schweickard/ Harald Völker (edd.), Lexikon, Varietät, Philologie. Romanistische Studien. Günter Holtus zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin, De Gruyter, 15–26. Bianci, Steven (2003), Libya: Current Issues and Historical Background, New York, Nova Science. Castellani, Arrigo (1982), Quanti erano gli italofoni nel 1861?, Società di Linguistica Italiana 8, 3–25. Cerruti, Massimo (2011a), Regional Varieties of Italian in the Linguistic Repertoire, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210, 9–28. Cerruti, Massimo (2011b), Perifrastiche, strutture. Enciclopedia dell’italiano, http://www.treccani.it/ enciclopedia/strutture-perifrastiche_(Enciclopedia_dell’Italiano)/ (06.01.2014). Chini, Marina (2011), New linguistic minorities: repertoires, language maintenance and shift, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210, 47–69. Cordin, Patrizia/Calabrese, Andrea (2001), I pronomi personali, in: Lorenzo Renzi/Giampaolo Salvi/ Anna Cardinaletti (edd.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. 1, Bologna, il Mulino, 549–606. Cortelazzo, Michele A. (2001), L’italiano e le sue varietà: una situazione in movimento, Lingua e stile 36/3, 417–430. Cortelazzo, Michele A. (s.a.), Evoluzione della lingua, percezione del cambiamento, staticità della norma, 47–55, http://www.gramsci-fvg.it/public/File/AttiLiScSo/cortelazzo.pdf (16.12.2013). Council of Europe (1992), European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, http://conventions. coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm (14.01.2014). Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Còveri, Lorenzo/Benucci, Antonella/Diadori, Pierangela (1998), Le varietà dell’italiano: Manuale di sociolinguistica italiana, Roma, Bonacci. Cravens, Thomas D. (forthcoming), Italia linguistica and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Forum Italicum. D’Agostino, Mari (2007), Sociolinguistica dell’Italia contemporanea, Bologna, il Mulino. Dal Negro, Silvia/Vietti, Alessandro (2011), Italian and Italo-Romance Dialects, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210, 71–92. Dardano, Maurizio (1994), The influence of English on Italian, in: Wolfgang Viereck/Wolf Dietrick Balds (edd.), English in contact with other languages, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 231–252. Dardano, Maurizio/Trifone, Pietro (1995), La nuova grammatica della lingua italiana, Bologna, Zanichelli. De Mauro, Tullio (31972), Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita, Roma/Bari, Laterza. De Mauro, Tullio, et al. (2002), Italiano 2000. I pubblici e le motivazioni dell’italiano diffuso fra stranieri. Roma, Bulzoni. Durante, Marcello (1981), Dal latino all’italiano moderno. Saggio di storia linguistica e culturale, Bologna, Zanichelli. Guerini, Federica (2011), Language policy and ideology in Italy, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210, 109–126. Hall, Robert A. Jun. (1960), Statistica grammaticale. L’uso di “gli” e “loro” come regime indiretto, Lingua Nostra 21, 58–65. Haller, Herman (2004), Review of Tullio De Mauro, Massimo Vedovelli, Monica Barni, and Lorenzo Miraglia (edd.), Italiano 2000. I pubblici e le motivazioni dell’italiano diffuse fra stranieri, Roma, Bulzoni, Italica 81/4, 572.

Italian

411

Iannàccaro, Gabriele/Dell’Aquila, Vittorio (2011), Historical linguistic minorities: suggestions for classification and typology, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210, 29–45. Jaberg, Karl/Jud, Jakob (1928–1940), Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz. Die Mundartaufnahmen wurden durchgeführt von P. Scheuermeier, G. Rohlfs und M. L. Wagner, Vol. 1–8, Zofingen, Ringier. Jacquemet, Marco (2005), Transidiomatic Practices: Language and Power in the Age of Globalization, Language & Communication 25/3, 257–277. Krashen, Stephen (1977), Some issues relating to the monitor model, in: H. Douglas Brown/Carlos Yorio/Ruth Crymes (edd.), Teaching and learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice: On TESOL '77: Selected Papers from the Eleventh Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Miami, Florida, April 26 – May 1, 1977, Washington D.C. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 144–158. Krashen, Steven (2003), Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann. Lewis, M. Paul/Simons, Gary F./Fennig, Charles D. (edd.) (2013), Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth edition, Dallas, Texas, SIL International, http://www.ethnologue.com (20.01.2014) Maiden, Martin (1995), A Linguistic History of Italian, London, Longman. Marazzini, Claudio (2010), La lingua italiana: Storia, testi, strumenti, Bologna, il Mulino. Martellato, Anna (2013), Venezia si ribella alle calli in italiano, http://www.lastampa.it/2013/11/01/ italia/cronache/venezia-si-ribella-alle-calli-in-italiano-XlHEHFJ6o5eCazw954x0hL/pagina.html (01.11.2013). Musumeci, Diane/Aski, Janice M. (2010), The Integration of Culture in Italian First Year Textbooks, Italica 87/1, 21–36. Pellegrini, Giovan Battista (1977), Carta dei dialetti d’Italia, Pisa, Pacini. Perta, Carmela (2011), The Albanian dialects in Southern Italy: a tenuous survival, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210, 127–137. Russi, Cinzia (2008), Italian Clitics: An Empirical Study, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Sabatini, Francesco (1985), L’italiano dell’uso medio. Una realtà tra le varietà linguistiche italiane, in: Günter Holtus/Edgar Radke (edd.), Gesprochenes Italienisch in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tübingen, Narr, 154–184. Serianni, Luca/Antonelli, Giuseppe (2011), Manuale di linguistica italiana: Storia, attualità, grammatical, Milano, Mondadori. Sobrero, Alberto A. (2003), Nell’era del post-italiano, Italiano e oltre 18, 272–277. Sobrero, Alberto A. (2005), Come parlavamo, come parliamo. Spunti per una microdiacronia delle varietà dell’italiano, in: Franco Lo Piparo/Giovanni Ruffino (edd.), Gli italiani e la lingua, Palermo, Sellerio, 209–220. Swender, Elvira, et al. (2012), ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/ pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf (31.12.2013). Tavoni, Mirko (2002), Caratteristiche dell’italiano contemporaneo e insegnamento della scrittura, in: Francesco Bruni/Tommaso Raso (edd.), Manuale dell’italiano professionale: Teoria e didattica, Bologna, Zanichelli, 139–152. Tosi, Arturo (2004), The Language Situation in Italy, Current issues in language planning 5/3, 247–335. Vedovelli, Massimo (2010a), Le lingue degli altri in Italia: Lingua italiana, lingue immigrate, diritti linguistici, in: Michele Cennamo et al. (edd.), Plurilinguismo e integrazione: abilità e competenze linguistiche in una società multietnica, Napoli, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 19–37. Vedovelli, Massimo (22010b), Guida all’italiano per stranieri: Dal Quadro comune europeo per le lingue alla Sfida salutare, Roma, Carocci. Wells, Elizabeth B. (2002), Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, http://www.adfl.org/resources/enrollments.pdf, (14.01.2014).

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

22 Portuguese Abstract: This chapter is divided into two main parts. Firstly, it situates and discusses the relevance of the Portuguese language in our current global context. An awareness that has stemmed from the preparation of this part is the fragility and vulnerability in the remarkable efforts to promote and internationalize Portuguese. This first section also discusses the innovating initiatives that have gained new grounds in the US, pushed by the current situation that Brazil enjoys. Secondly, it discusses some features of Portuguese and typical difficulties that learners of Portuguese may encounter in the Portuguese language. This part also points out the coincidence with the current changes in the Brazilian society and the ongoing process of parametric changes in Portuguese (Tarallo 1993; Galves 1993; Roberts 1993; Kato/Ramos 1999) that have been happening in Brazil in the last one hundred years or more, but not in Portugal. Keywords: Second Language Acquisition, português língua estrangeira, Portuguese for Spanish speakers, teaching and learning, parametric changes

1 Introduction As of 2013, the world has an estimated population of 7,095,217,980. Among the most populous countries we find China 1,349.59; India 1,220.80; United States 316.67; Indonesia 251.16; Brazil 201.01; Pakistan 193.24; Nigeria 174.51; Bangladesh 163.65; Russia 142.50; Japan 127.25 (The World FactBook, July 2013). Likewise, of the approximately 7000 human languages in our planet, it is estimated that the most spoken languages by native speakers are, in terms of percentages that correspond to the world populations, Mandarin Chinese 12.44%, Spanish 4.85%, English 4.83%, Arabic 3.25%, Hindi 2.68%, Bengali 2.66%, Portuguese 2.62%, Russian 2.12%, Japanese 1.8%, Standard German 1.33%, Javanese 1.25% (2009 (estimates). Despite of Brazil’s influential role in our current world, Portuguese is not yet one of the UN languages. The UN traditionally includes Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Castilian Spanish, as their official languages. The Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (CPLP) was created on July 17, 1996, in Lisbon, and today its membership includes Angola, Brazil, Cabo Verde, Guiné-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, São Tomé and Príncipe and EastTimor. One of the main goals of CPLP has been to make Portuguese as one of the official languages of the United Nations, which seems reasonable given the existing global context.

Portuguese

413

Among the Romance languages, Portuguese is second to Spanish (↗25 Spanish) in number of native speakers.1 The great challenge to Brazilianists and Lusophone scholars is to find ways to use this advantage to promote and increase the number of students and speakers of Portuguese, as well as to make Portuguese an international language. In the United States where the promotion of Portuguese in the classroom is remarkable, enrolment numbers are still limited. The 2012 report of European Commission’s Eurydice (cf. Eurydice/European Commission 2012) concludes that in Europe, the usefulness of a language is one of the main deciding factors to choose a foreign language to study, which makes English by far the most studied foreign language in Europe. The traditional trend in Europe to study Spanish, French, Russian and German, in addition to English is also a trend in the US. Therefore, the main challenge of the CPLP and institutions like the Institute Camões and Rede Brasil Cultural is to promote the usefulness and internationalization of Portuguese in foreign languages study in competition with powerhouses like the Instituto Cervantes, Alliance Française, 孔子学院, Goethe Institut, Società Dante Alighieri and the British Council, to mention some (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).

2 The Relevance of Portuguese in Today’s World Table 1 depicts enrolments in the US universities where there is an effervescence of interests in Portuguese, mostly likely because of Brazil. Table 1: The most studied languages on US college campuses in fall 2009. Course enrolments in languages other than English reached a new high in 2009. Enrolments grew by 6.6% between 2006 and 2009, following an expansion of 12.9% between 2002 and 2006. This increase continues a rise in enrolment in languages other than English that began in 1995 (Furman/Goldberg/Lusin 2010). Language

Enrol ments

1. Spanish

864,986

2. French 3. German

Change since Language 2006

Enrolments

Change since 2006

+ 5.1% 8. Arabic

35,083

+ 46.3%

216,419

+ 4.8% 9. Latin

32,606

+ 1.3%

96,349

+ 2.2% 10. Russian

26,883

+ 8.2%

20,695

– 9.4%1

13,807

– 2.4%

11,371

+ 10.8%

8,511

+ 19.1%

4. ASL

91,763

5. Italian

80,752

+ 16.4% 11. Ancient Greek

6. Japanese

73,434

+ 10.3% 13. Portuguese

7. Chinese

60,976

+ 18.2% 14. Korean

+ 3.0% 12. Biblical Hebrew

1 For a thorough review and discussion of all Romance languages, cf. Roca (1999).

414

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

The numbers in Table 1 clearly show that Portuguese in the US has recently experienced a significant growth of 10.8% in enrolments. But the actual balance is so disparagingly different, that the task to reach enrolment numbers comparable to French and Italian cannot be left to the teachers and administrators abroad alone. The Ministério das Relações Exteriores of Brazil may want to invest more on the promotion and internationalization of Portuguese. The effective internationalization of national languages is intelligent diplomacy. The benefits are obvious, and the returns unimaginable. Investment on the internationalization of a language and its culture is perhaps the best approach to contemporary use of soft power (Nye 2004) that most influential countries like the US, China, Britain, France, to mention some, have adopted. It is true that there have been significant increases in enrolments in Portuguese around the world, especially in the US if we take into account that enrolments in Portuguese used to be even more limited. But there is considerable work to be done to make Portuguese one of the major languages taught in the classroom worldwide, in elementary and secondary schools, in language institutes and in colleges. Figure 1 has a global view of the distribution of the CPLP member countries. In other words, it is a map-mundi that shows the traditional regions where Portuguese is spoken: Azores Islands, Madeira Islands, Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde Islands, Macao or Macau, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe Islands.

Figure 1: Map, created by the author, showing traditional regions of the Luso-Brazilian World where Portuguese is spoken.

In fact, speakers of Portuguese form communities that extend further than usually seen in these regions. Additional countries with Portuguese speaking communities are

Portuguese

415

“Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Congo, Curacao, France, Germany, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Malawi, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia” (Lewis/Simons/Fennig 2013).

Other countries are certainly missing in the above list. In Argentina, for example, there is a population of over 40,000 native speakers of Portuguese and more than 300 Brazilian enterprises and businesses, according to the Brazilian Embassy in Buenos Aires, in 2013. Furthermore, in this additional list, there are very large communities of Portuguese speakers. In France (↗27 France) for example, according to Ethnologue (Lewis/Simons/Fennig 2013) there were 750,000 speakers of Portuguese in 1989. In India, dispersed through Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli, there were an estimated 250,000. On the other hand, in France, where Portuguese is taught through the Instituto Camões as a foreign language and a heritage language, from elementary schools to College, the actual numbers through the regular public schools and universities are very limited or non-existent (cf. Eurydice 2012), despite the multilingual societies of the European Union. The trend for neglecting Portuguese in the regular public school system is characteristic of the entire European Union, although there are signs of an increased interest in Portuguese as a third foreign language, because of the economic interests in Brazil (↗30 Portugal and Brazil). Through the Instituto Camões, created in 1929, Portugal has had a tradition of teaching Portuguese abroad as a heritage and non-heritage or foreign language. The reach of the Rede Brasil Cultural is relatively more recent. Although it has existed for over 50 years, only recently it started increasing its activities. The Instituto Camões probably indicates the weight of its presence through pontos de rede. If this is correct, France is by far the most important tie to Portugal, with 785 pontos de rede, followed by Switzerland with 390, Germany with 174, Spain 148, United Kingdom 123, South Africa 58 and Italy 24. The USA has 20 pontos and Brazil has 11 pontos. Other countries have anywhere from a dozen or so to 1 pontos. The Rede Brasil Cultural also recognizes the importance of these areas by having centros in selected regions. The Rede Cultural has its strongest presence in Latin America, through ten centros, compared to only three centros in Europe, in Finland (Helsinki), Catalonia (Barcelona) and Italy (Rome). In the US, one of the current attractions regarding the teaching and learning of Brazilian Portuguese (BP) started in South Florida. A number of new programs to teach BP in the US public schools started being created recently, a trend that most likely will continue in the coming years. Here we find a typical case of need of Portuguese because of the presence of Brazilian families in these areas. One of the main buyers of real state in Florida and other areas of the US are Brazilian families whose identity with Brazil is the strongest.

416

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

Figure 2: Rede Brasil Cultural: Balloons in green represent 23 centros culturais, in blue are the 40 leitorados, and in yellow the five núcleos de estudos brasileiros. Curiously, according to Diniz (2012), centros are instituições, núcleos or instituições are entidades and leitorados are modalidades. Source of map: Rede Brasil Cultural, http://goo.gl/maps/tAlXX, (10.07.2013).

The pioneer work that triggered these new programs started in 2003, with a plan worked out by teachers and administrators at the Ada Merritt Elementary School in the District of Miami. Furthermore, in the last years, key universities in the US, Tuft University, Boston University and the MIT, have created new programs in Portuguese. These waves of success in the teaching and learning interest of BP in the US are not commonly seen in the rest of the world, although the potential for other success stories outside the US is also enormous. These initiatives and developments, however, are often threatened. In Angola, for instance, we find an effort to innovate in Portuguese classes in Angola, taking into account indigenous languages familiar to local pupils (Garcia Neto 2012). In Germany, given that Spanish is becoming a popular language, Reimann (forthcoming) suggests that interested scholars could benefit from this trend to promote Portuguese among speakers of Spanish. On the other hand, the magazines Mundo Português (2013) and Portugal P (2013) report that the new 2013 requirement of 100 Euros to enroll in classes in the Instituto Camões resulted in an estimated loss of c. 3,000 students out of a grand total of 57,212 students currently enrolled abroad, along with the firing of teachers.

3 Population and Enrolment Numbers in Portuguese Classes Statistics that give Portuguese less than 240 million speakers, as of 2013, will raise questions. For instance, Portuguese is often said to have around 204 million speakers.

417

Portuguese

But just Brazil and Portugal have a population of approximately 200 million and 10 million people respectively (The World Factbook – CIA, 10.07.2013). The number of L2 speakers of any language is probably the hardest to estimate. Even so, Ethnologue (Lewis/Simons/Fennig 2013) estimates that there are 15 million of speakers of Portuguese as a foreign language. It is helpful to have these estimates even though we know that such a counting is extremely difficult to verify. On the other hand, a more palpable data regarding the use of foreign languages can be found among the users of the internet. The data on internet users can indicate the power of penetration of a language. Governmental institutions and other global key players use this information in planning, investments, policies, and all sorts of social, political, economic, and financial actions that affect our daily lives (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Table 2 shows Portuguese as the fifth most used language in the internet. The “Examples for the Interpretation of Data” are also of interest. Example C uses Japan to explain the column “Growth in Internet”. It gives Japan a growth of 110.7%. Brazil in the same period grew nine times more, i.e. 990.1%. According to this information, we can anticipate that Portuguese can soon become fourth place, if we take into account that nations like Mozambique and Angola have not yet started using the internet as other nations do. Table 2: Comparative data of internet users by language: Internet World Stats – Usage and Population Statistics, http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm, (10.07.2013). Top Ten Languages Used in the Web (Number of Internet Users by Language) Top Ten Internet Users by Internet Growth in Internet Internet Users Languages Language Penetration by (2000–2011) % of Total In The Language Internet

World Population for this Language (2011 Estimate)

English

565,004,126

43.4 %

301.4 %

26.8 %

1,302,275,670

Chinese

509,965,013

37.2 %

1,478.7 %

24.2 %

1,372,226,042

Spanish

164,968,742

39.0 %

807.4 %

7.8 %

423,085,806

Japanese

99,182,000

78.4 %

110.7 %

4.7 %

126,475,664

Portuguese

82,586,600

32.5 %

990.1 %

3.9 %

253,947,594

German

75,422,674

79.5 %

174.1 %

3.6 %

94,842,656

Arabic

65,365,400

18.8 %

2,501.2 %

3.3 %

347,002,991

French

59,779,525

17.2 %

398.2 %

3.0 %

347,932,305

Russian

59,700,000

42.8 %

1,825.8 %

3.0 %

139,390,205

Korean

39,440,000

55.2 %

107.1 %

2.0 %

71,393,343

418

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

Top Ten Languages Used in the Web (Number of Internet Users by Language) Top Ten Internet Users by Internet Growth in Internet Internet Users Languages Language Penetration by (2000–2011) % of Total In The Language Internet

World Population for this Language (2011 Estimate)

Top 10 Languages

1,615,957,333

36.4 %

421.2 %

82.2 %

4,442,056,069

Rest of the Languages

350,557,483

14.6 %

588.5 %

17.8 %

2,403,553,891

World Total

2,099,926,965

30.3 %

481.7 %

100.0 %

6,930,055,154

NOTES: (1) Top Ten Languages Internet Stats were updated for May 31 2011. (2) Internet Penetration is the ratio between the sum of Internet users speaking a language and the total population estimate that speaks that specific language. (3) The most recent Internet usage information comes from data published by Nielsen Online, International Telecommunications Union, GfK, and other reliable sources. (4) World population information comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. (5) For definitions and navigation help in several languages, see the Site Surfing Guide. (6) Stats may be cited, stating the source and establishing an active link back to Internet World Stats. Copyright © 2012, Miniwatts Marketing Group. All rights reserved worldwide. Examples for interpretation of the data: A) There are 99,182,000 Japanese speaking people using the Internet, this represents 4.7 % of all the Internet users in the world. B) Out of the estimated 126,475,664 population of the world that speaks Japanese, 78.4 % use the Internet. C) The number of Japanese Speaking Internet Users has grown 110.7 % in the last eleven years (2000–2011).

Portuguese has today a different role than it used to have. All the interest in Brazil helps increase the interest in the Portuguese language. Such interest combined with the history of European Portuguese (EP), and the potential and strategic presence of the other Portuguese speaking States will impact our world in the near future. To promote the internationalization of Portuguese, it will require finding motivation factors, i.e. the usefulness of the language.

4 The Portuguese Language 4.1 Typical Elements of Interest in the Teaching and Acquisition of Portuguese This second part of this chapter suggests elements in the Luso-Brazilian Linguistic and Cultural World with respect to language acquisition. The following discussion is not intended to be exhaustive, but to point out common topics of interest. It has been well accepted that the main goal of a foreign language classroom is not to talk in excess about the target language, but to provide opportunities for the student to develop language skills. Talking about the language is often helpful and should not be avoided when it

Portuguese

419

becomes necessary. But the study of foreign languages should focus on the development of language skills (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). Speakers of Romance languages and particularly speakers of Spanish (↗25 Spanish) and Galician have an advantage to learn Portuguese. However, the key to profit from this advantage is to study Portuguese as a completely different language, instead of relying on the similarities and making no effort to learn the language. The similarities are helpful at the beginning, but if the student does not move on from the beginning, those similarities will become stumbling blocks for the student. Portuguese has many varieties, but they do not posit significant obstacles to communication. Although in descriptive grammars no language or no variety of a language is considered superior, the educated speech of the acrolect is used by prescriptive grammarians to advice on “good norms” of speaking. This language register, however, tends to be formal, especially in its written form. It is very important to know the educated language, but also to avoid its pedantic side. There are two main varieties of Portuguese, polarized between Portugal and Brazil (↗30 Portugal and Brazil). Portuguese as a foreign language is an area of study still in its early developments, if we compare the existing publications about other languages. But given the current ebullition of linguistic studies, one can hope for a significant decrease of this gap. It would be very helpful to see in this flux of current research more research devoted to the description of Portuguese either in terms of general theory or in terms of Second Language Acquisition (↗10 Second Language Acquisition), so that scholars could benefit of a better understanding of how the language works and improve teaching tools. In Spanish for example, and this may be similar in Portuguese, there is evidence that 3–5 years old children depend on lexical cues, i.e. reliance on querer que, para que, etc. to use the subjunctive. Later in their development, 5–10 years of age, children will probably rely on semantic cues, i.e. wishes, telling how, to decide on the use of subjunctive. As these children reach further development, they will gradually become ready to use syntactic cues as well as more developed lexical and semantic cues to polish their use of the subjunctive. This type of information can help our understanding of the language learning process in adults learners of Portuguese or any foreign language, because what is observed in the linguistic development of children may find parallels in the linguistic development of adults or provide insights to our understanding of how adults learn a foreign language (↗16 Language Learner). Effective learning of any language normally happens in a communicative and cultural context, in terms of how a culture uses the language. Kramsch (2008) has spelled out the relation between language and culture and how cultural differences affect the use of a language (↗5 Languages and Identities). It is surprising and insightful to discover how native speakers of a language perceive the “same” object in a different way. The perception of the world in other cultures can produce cultural differences that look deceptively unimportant. Inatten-

420

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

tion to it may not result in anything but an intellectual curiosity, but sometimes it may result in serious misunderstandings in our daily lives, from the streets to more diplomatic or government levels. The appropriate use of a language must take into account contextual, cultural and pragmatic awareness. This also applies to the cultural and pragmatic use of Portuguese. Context awareness takes time to be acquired. It is related to the choice of words. Some words may fit better in informal situations, others in formal situations. The choice of syntactic constructions also changes from register to register. Brazil does not have the same tradition as universities in Europe or in the US. Not even the academic tradition found in other Latin American countries. The “first” Brazilian university, the Universidade do Rio de Janeiro, was founded in 1920, but it was more of a nominal institution than an integrated academic institution. The first de facto Brazilian university was the Universidade de São Paulo, created on January 25, 1934. Scholarly and scientific research was not of interest during colonization and it was never really promoted after colonization until the second half of last century. Table 3 (left): Figures with the number of Ph.D. recipients in Brazil, until the year 2000 (Guimarães/ Lourenço/Cosac 2001); Table 3 (right): The new trend of male and female recipients of doctoral degrees, between 1966 and 2008 (Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos, Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia 2010). Number of Number of Number of Ph.D. by 5 Ph.Ds. Ph.Ds. Year Periods Awarded in Awarded Brazil Abroad

Total

Until 1965

98

71

169

1966–1970

175

159

334

1971–1975

495

364

859

1976–1980

717

610

1327

1981–1985

1215

974

2189

1986–1990

2263

1064

3327

1991–1995

4409

1852

6261

1996–2000

6954

1385

8339

16326

6479

22805

Total

This was the Brazilian cultural context until the sixties. Given these transformations in a relatively short period, it is reasonable to think that the linguistic and cultural contacts abroad of the involved individuals will, upon returning to Brazil, influence their surroundings. Therefore, the Brazilian context of the sixties became different in the seventies, eighties, and far more different in the nineties and in 2013. The population of Brazil only started using the Portuguese language as its main language by the

Portuguese

421

middle of the 18th Century. On the other hand, the current growth in number of doctoral degrees in Brazil is greater than in countries like the USA, France, Germany, Great Britain, Japan and South Korea (Marchelli 2005, 9). For more than a century, the BP language, like Brazil (↗30 Portugal and Brazil), has been going through changes, in ways that scholars (e.g. Tarallo 1993; Galves 1993; Roberts 1993) have compared to the changes in French centuries ago, a clear case of parametric changes in progress. There are many differences in vocabulary, although there is still a high degree of intelligibility among all communities of the LusoBrazilian Worlds. The linguistic system in general has been maintained. The linguistic changes above mentioned about BP happen in all domains. They are amazingly interesting changes for scholars doing research in historical and contemporary analyses of natural languages, and that is the reason why so much research work (cf. Kato/Ramos 1999) has come out about these changes, in the last decades. The following sections will focus on some of the typical features of pronunciation and syntax.

4.2 Pronunciation: Phonetics and Phonology 4.2.1 Vowels A common way of describing the Portuguese vowels is presented in Table 4. Note that the central vowel, referred to as schwa (/ə/), has an “only in EP” under it. This is to indicate that it is a vowel phoneme only in EP. In American English all unstressed vowels in spontaneous discourse tend to centralize, to reduce as a schwa. The underlined vowels of the English words about and southern are good examples of schwas in unstressed and stressed syllables.2 Recently, some descriptions of BP have added a phonetic schwa in their description of BP. This is a recent trend, which still causes disagreements among linguists (Simões 2008; Silva 2005). On the other hand, it is generally agreed that there is a schwa phoneme in EP (Mateus 1975; Câmara Jr. 1970; 1972). The issue of the supposed phonetic schwa in BP is still a matter of controversy. Maybe, given the ongoing parametric changes above mentioned, there is also an ongoing process of incorporating a schwa in BP. Table 4 contains the monophthong vowels of Portuguese.

2 The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines schwa as ‘an unstressed mid-central vowel’. This is also a common definition among some linguists. In fact, it is common to have schwas in stressed position (e.g. Southern). Hence, I have adopted the definition of schwa as ‘a reduced and mid-central vowel’.

422

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

Table 4: The vowel system of Portuguese, based on Simões (2008). The tilde (~) over a vowel means a nasal vowel. Note that this table indicates that the nasal vowel in sendo is either front, high-mid (semi-fechada), or front low-mid (semi-aberta). Traditionally, this vowel has been described as highmid or semi-fechada. Anteriores ou Palatais Front or Palatal

Centrais Central

+ Altas / High / i / /i/͂ mito, minto – Altas / – High – Baixas / – Low

Posteriores ou Velares Back or Velar /ũ//u/ mundo, mudo

Fechadas “Close” or High

/ e /, / ẽ / cedo, sendo

/ə/ only in EP

/õ//o/ bonde, pôde

Semi-fechadas “Close-mid” or Highmid

/ є /, /ɛ͂/ Zeca, sendo

/ ɐ͂ / manta

/ɔ/ bode

Semi-abertas “Openmid” or Low-mid

+ Baixa / + Low

/a/ mata – Recuadas – Retracted – arredondadas – Round

Aberta “Open” or Low

– Arredondadas + Recuadas – Round + Retracted + Arredondadas + Round

Changes in vowel quality permeate Portuguese and this vowel instability has characterized the language throughout its evolution. Vowels in Portuguese change depending on where they are in a word or in a sentence. This instability can be observed through actual phonological processes, as an abstraction, or by comparing the spoken language with its orthography. The orthographic vowels e and o, for example, in the word escrito have the same orthographic and phonological representations, i.e. /e/ and /o/. They are pronounced [i] and [u] because they are in weak positions, i.e. unstressed, in the word escrito: /eS.‘krí.to/ → [iS.‘kri.tu].3 The vowel i in the syllable -cri- is in strong position because it is stressed. On the other hand i does not change in an easily noticeable way in Portuguese. But it can be generalized that in Portuguese vowels in strong position do not change. At the end of the word escritor the vowel o is pronounced [o] because it is in strong position: [iS.kri.‘toR] Simões 2008). Non-native speakers of Portuguese will need to learn the Portuguese vowels not present in their native languages, in addition to learning the changes in vowel quality. 3 Capital symbols like S and R in these transcriptions mean that these sounds vary depending on the region and sometimes the speaker. Symbols enclosed in slashes or square brackets indicate pronunciation. Slashes (//) enclose phonological transcription, i.e. phonemes, broad transcription, whereas brackets ([]) enclose phonetic transcription, i.e. more details.

Portuguese

423

The Portuguese vowels that are less common in other languages and highly productive in Portuguese are the five nasal vowels and the low-mid oral vowels, also referred to very commonly as “open-vowels”. English and French have these open vowels but not as exactly corresponding to their Portuguese ones. Spanish does not have open vowels. Hence the difficulty native speakers of English, French (↗20 French) and Spanish (↗25 Spanish) find to produce open vowels in Portuguese. The nasal phonemes will not be an obstacle to French speakers, but English and Spanish speakers may find some difficulties. It is interesting to note that vowel instability is most likely one of the main factors if not the main factor that makes the intelligibility of Portuguese harder for native speakers of Spanish than the intelligibility of Spanish among native speakers of Portuguese (Simões 2008). Only very recently, I found out that Jensen (1989) has empirically documented this well-known phenomenon of mutual intelligibility, among speakers of Portuguese and Spanish. With respect to diphthongs, speakers of Spanish and English should not have difficulties with diphthongs in Portuguese. French speakers may find difficulties, given that French normally does not have diphthongs. As a result a native speaker of French may create hiatus where there should be a diphthong, e.g. the word for box in Portuguese is “caixa”. Using BP as a reference, the French tend to say illegally *[ka.í. ʃa] instead of the legal form [kái.ʃa]. Given the common phonological processes of vowel instability in Portuguese, learners of Portuguese should master these processes. Unstressed vowels in Portuguese will change in quality. For example a common change is to raise vowels in BP (e. g. foto, padre, are generally pronounced fótu, pádri), whereas in Portugal vowels tend to become central (schwa) or deleted (e.g. foto, padre, are generally pronounced fótə, pádrə). It is important to take these vowels changes into account because their changes may cause further changes in adjacent consonants. In BP, a person who raises or changes e into i will also change the pronunciation of the preceding consonants t and d, as in futebol (soccer): /fu.te.’bͻl/ → [fu.ti.’bͻu] and then [fu.tʃi.’bͻu] depois (after): /de.’poiS/ → [di.’poiS] and then [dʓi.’poiS] Note: The symbols tʃ and dʓ sound like the ch and j in English, in words like church and Joe. If the person’s idiolect does not change the /e/, the /t/ and /d/ will remain as they are, alveolar.

424

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

4.2.2 Consonants In Portuguese, especially BP, if we use as reference the register of national television speakers,4 the consonants tend to be well articulated, e.g. a stop consonant, voiceless or voiced, is realized as such. Thus, speakers of English and French should have no problems pronouncing most of them, whereas speakers of Spanish will need to make an extra effort to articulate them more clearly, in addition to learning new consonants that are not part of their consonant inventory. Table 5: The consonants of Portuguese, compared to English and Spanish. Adapted from Simões (2008). Comparison of Spanish and BP Consonants, Using Some of the English Consonants as Interface Spanish

(Brazilian) Portuguese

English

/p/ pura

/p/ pura

/p/ spot

/b/ [b] vuelo; but not [β] as in abuelo

/b/ botar (in Span. = poner)

/b/boy

/t/ taco

/t/ taco

/t/ stop

/d/ [d] da, but not [ð] as in Ada

/d/ Ada

/d/ day

/k/ casa

/k/ casa

/k/ sky

/g/ [g] gata, but not [γ] as in la gata

/g/ a gata

/g/ goal

/m/ mapa

/m/ mapa

/m/ me

/n/ nada

/n/ nada

/n/ no

/ñ/ or /ɲ/ mañana (in Spanish it is a palatal phoneme)

/ŋ/ [ ỹ] manhã No equivalent; but using ni Note: The use of velar /ŋ/ is as in onion helps not ideal, but it helps avoiding Spanish /ɲ/. Spanish “ñ” and Portuguese “nh” are very different. Spanish “ñ” is more of an anterior lingual articulation; Portuguese “nh” is posterior lingual, a tongue feature that pushes the palatal contact further back in Portuguese, although not quite velar. The symbol [ỹ] or [iỹ] may be the best solution to represent “nh” in BP.

/f/ fé

/f/ fé

/f/ fault

No equivalent

/v/ votar

/v/ vault

i

4 There is not an agreement as to what constitutes a “standard” register, in BP.

Portuguese

425

Comparison of Spanish and BP Consonants, Using Some of the English Consonants as Interface /s/ sé

/s/ sei, caça, cassa

/s/ sea

No equivalent

/z/ fazer, casa

/z/ zoo

No equivalent phoneme

/ʃ//š/ acho

/ʃ/ mission, fish

No equivalent phoneme

/ʒ//ž/ ajo, garagem

/ʒ/ vision

/x/ jota

[x] rota, carro, genro, desrespeito; Other variants: [h], [я], [χ], [r]

The h-sound, as in “hope” is fine

/rr/=/r/ querría, carro; softer than BP [rr]

[rr]=[r] rota, carro, genro, desrespeito; harder than in Spanish

No equivalent

/ɾ/ quería, práctica, francés

/ɾ/ queria, práctica, francês

[ɾ] batter, better in American English

/l/ lata

/l/ lata

/l/ low

/ʎ//ll/ caballero, as pronounced in the /ʎ/ or [liy] cavalheiro or no equivalent phoneme, but center and north of Spain, but English sequence lli in [ka.va.'ʎei.ɾu] especially in the north. Note: In BP, we traditionally million is similar. use λ to represent the phoneme for “lh.”

In general, neither Spanish nor English have nasal vowels that will change the meaning of a word if replaced by its corresponding oral vowel. Again, English speakers may have an advantage here because English does have the interjection “uh-huh” (/ã-’hã/), which can be regarded as a very close equivalent of BP /ã/, as in cantando. Furthermore, Portuguese orthography may deceive foreigners, especially when a word ends in an “n” or “m”. In actual speech these letters are not pronounced as nasal consonants. Instead they make the preceding vowel a nasal diphthong. Pronunciation of these letters as nasal consonants is illegal in Portuguese. It should not be a matter of great concern when a nasal consonant follows a vowel inside a word. The great difference happens when these sequences are in word final position: som, nenhum, assim, falam, vem, porém, aparecem (Simões 2008; 2013).

4.2.3 Phonological processes 4.2.3.1 Stress Assignment in Portuguese In general, words in Portuguese fall into a three-syllable window as follows (the little squares represent the syllable positions in words):

426

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

… □.□.□.□ – oxytones (1), por.tu.guês; … □.□.□.□ – paroxytones (2), di.fí.cil; … □.□.□.□ – proparoxytones (3), pa.ra.le.le.pí.pe.do. Likewise in Spanish although not as much, paroxytone words are often considered the most common pattern. If we subscribe to that claim, we can consider paroxytones unmarked. This would explain why in the Portuguese orthography paraxytones do not have as many stress markers as much as proparoxytones and oxytones, the marked ones, do. It is also noteworthy that there are some unusual cases of stress in the 4th syllable, but these are limited to one or two cases of lexicon borrowings like “técnica”, i.e. [té.ki.ni.ka]. This pattern is similar to Spanish sobresdrújulas in words like “cómpremelo” i.e. [kóm.pre.me.lo]. Scholars (e.g. Mateus 1975; 1983; Bisol 1994; Cagliari 1999; Lee 2007) have tried to explain stress assignment in Portuguese with a single rule, based on the high occurrence of paroxytone words. These attempts, usually influenced by the generativist tradition in US Linguistics, are still inconclusive. The explanations in Portuguese require excessive abstraction and solutions that create artifacts. Maybe the ongoing changes in BP are behind the difficulties one finds to describe stress assignment in a predictable manner. After all the efforts so far, it may be the case that stress assignment is not predictable in Portuguese (cf. Câmara Jr. 1970; 1972).

4.2.3.2 Linking processes in Portuguese A very common phonological process in Portuguese is the linking of the last consonant of a word with the following vowel of the next word. Speakers of English and French should not have difficulties to duplicate this process in Portuguese, given that these languages have similar processes, especially French. Native speakers of Spanish make this linking in the same way Spanish does, which is illegal in Portuguese. For instance, the consonant /s/ will change to [z] in Portuguese, whereas in Spanish it stays as [s], in these linking processes (Simões 2008).

4.3 Syntax One of the most important topics in the study of Portuguese is the use of subject and object pronouns in Portuguese, an area that reveals a clear process of changes in BP that have no parallel in EP. There are many consequences from the findings in this area of study and hence the enormous amount of research that has been done in the last decades to confirm an ongoing process of change in BP (cf. Tarallo 1993; Galves 1993; Roberts 1993; Kato/Ramos 1999). Languages like English and French must use subjects explicitly because the verb forms are not sufficient to identify the subject or actor or agent in a sentence. Latin,

Portuguese

427

Spanish, Italian and other languages do not need to have explicit subject because in general the verb forms in these languages can indicate clearly who the actor/agent or subject is. BP used to be classified as a Pro-Drop language, or a language that can drop the pronouns, that is to say to use pronouns implicitly. But given the ongoing changes, BP may end up like French. Pro-Drop languages use explicit and implicit subjects to varying degrees. BP still uses implicit subjects optionally, although not as much as Spanish and Italian. – Cê viu esse filme? – Vi sim, (“Did you see this movie? – Yes I saw it”.) without the subject “eu” before “vi”. But some people may opt for the use of eu: Eu vi sim. The use of você (you, singular) requires some brief digression. At first, the reduced form of você, cê, is common in subject position, in spoken language. As an object it is usually not reduced. Secondly, as a form of address for the second person, você replaces the pronoun tu in most of the Brazilian territory. Although, in Brazil in general você is used interchangeably between people whether intimate or not, whether the same social level or not, this is not the case in Portugal. In Portugal, você is only used in cases of familial intimacy and when someone occupies a higher place and addresses someone in the lower position. In sum, the use of você tends to be avoided in Portugal, although some people have been more used to it due to seeing its usage widespread in popular Brazilian soap operas broadcasted in Portugal, and is common and similar to the use of “you” in English (Simões 2008; 2013). BP in general has shown a shift towards an increasing use of explicit subject (sujeito pleno), especially in the spoken language. If we placed some languages in an axis going from languages with explicit subject to implicit subject, this is a way of depicting them: Explicit Subject Implicit Subject English-French- - - - - - -Brazilian Portuguese- - - - - - - - Spanish- - - - - Italian-Latin  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the case of BP, it is necessary to distinguish between the written and the spoken language. As it has been discussed above, spoken BP seems to be shifting towards French for its frequent use of explicit subject pronouns. In the formal written language, we still find a greater use of implicit subject in BP, although less than in Spanish. Curiously, a new language style in BP is currently developing on the internet, especially in e-mails and chatting rooms. This internet style shows a mix of spoken and written language with a Pro-Drop tendency. Furthermore, BP also leaves out object pronouns. Speakers of English, Spanish, French and even EP who are used to employing object pronouns without difficulty will also have to adapt and, mentally or intuitively, fill in the missing object pronouns, according to context. Therefore, in BP, especially in the spoken language, the object pronoun is frequently omitted as shown in the preceding dialogue, of which we extracted the last sentence, Vi sim. (Literally, “Saw,” instead of “I saw it.”)

428

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

This is unlikely to happen in Spanish (Sí, lo vi.), English (Yes, I saw it.) or French (Oui, je l’ai vu). One of the factors that may generate the implicit use of object pronouns in BP is that there is a common confusion among the general population of Brazil regarding the use of the expected forms of the object pronouns. Speakers of EP are not immune to this confusion but they normally have less difficulty than speakers of BP with the use of object pronouns (Azevedo 2005). Another factor may be the limited access of Brazilians to adequate schooling in the past, especially immigrants. Although one can find normative misuse of pronouns in Portugal, the lack of consistence in object pronoun usage is more common in Brazil. Students and teachers familiar with pronoun usage in the Hispanic World will realize that similar variations are common in Spanish as well, e.g. leísmo, laísmo, loísmo, agreement confusion in se-constructions, and the use of tú-forms with voseo (e.g. ¿(Vos) Quieres eso? instead of ¿Querés eso?), to mention some. Similarly, in Brazil we find related phenomena: Eu não lhe conheço! (‘I dont know you’), instead of the normative usage Eu não o conheço, which illustrates a common case of lheísmo in BP. In spoken BP native speakers tend to avoid the use of the direct object pronouns that have vowel forms, i.e. the vowel-like pronouns o, a, os, as, because they may sound rare or pedantic: Nós as queremos bem. However, the object pronouns that start with a consonant are more common, i.e. me, te, se, lhe, lhes: Nós te queremos bem. In Portugal, vowel-like pronouns are more commonly used. The reflexive se is becoming less frequent in spoken BP, contrary to Spanish: Senta aí! in BP vs Siéntate! in Spanish. With respect to subject pronouns, in Portuguese, especially in Brazil, one can hear the use of tu combined with the verb in a você- or ele-form: Tu vai querer isso? instead of Tu vais querer isso?. In Portugal, one can expect less mixing in an educated register, but still present here and there, e.g. Por favor, verifiquem o vosso programa (Azevedo 2005) – use of the verb in third person and with the possessive in second. In Brazil there is more confusion not only with the use of pronouns, but also agreement in general. The simple expression Obrigado, a masculine form, used to be said by males only. Females should say Obrigada, but it is now common to hear female speakers saying Obrigado. Just like Spanish in some geographical area, in Brazil the use of plural forms has been losing ground as well: – Tem várias pessoa aí fora, instead of – Tem várias pessoas aí fora (‘There are several persons outside’), or – Vê dois pão francês, por favor, instead of Vê dois pães franceses, por favor (‘Give me two French breads, please’). Again, in a coincidence of trends with Spanish, BP places object pronouns in general in front of the verb. Brazilians, however, are not always consistent in their pronoun usage. A good rule of thumb for non-natives is to use the pronouns in a more consistent manner and understand that natives may not do so. Finally, there are orthographic differences mainly between Portugal and Brazil, but they are of relatively little concerns. One difference that becomes quickly noticed

Portuguese

429

is the use of consonants in syllable final position (facto, óptimo, etc.) in Portugal, but normally the written language poses no problem of comprehension, as newspapers and blogs on the internet can easily attest to the high level of intelligibility throughout the Luso-Brazilian world. Three particular grammar phenomena of Portuguese as a foreign language will require the attention of learners. One is the aspectual contrast of the Preterite and Imperfect, in the Indicative mode. Although most grammars rely on detailed lists of the different linguistic contexts to train language learners on these verbal aspects, a simpler way to approach their differences may be to generalize the use of the Preterite to express facts or actions, and the Imperfect to describe or narrate. Such generalizations will require considerable training of learners to become familiar with the concepts of action and description, but in the long run they will be easier to remember than lists of different contexts. The other phenomenon is the use of the Present Perfect (Spanish he hablado, has hablado, …; Eng. I have spoken, You have spoken, He has spoken, …; French J’ai parlé, Tu as parlé…). The use of these forms requires special attention from speakers of other languages, because the same verb sequence in Portuguese has another meaning. These compound verbs of the present perfect are usually rendered in Portuguese with the simple forms of the Preterite: Eu falei, você falou, ele falou, etc. With regards to the future subjunctive, the third phenomenon, it is not used in Spanish anymore, except in some literary expressions of very limited usage, e.g. fuere lo que fuere, sea lo que fuere (Eng. “Whatever will be”), viniere lo que viniere (Eng. “Whatever comes”). On the other hand, in Portuguese the future subjunctive is still highly productive even among children: Se Deus quiser (Eng. “God willing”), Seja o que for (Eng. “Whatever will be”), quando eu puder (Eng. “whenever I can”), enquanto estiverem sentados (Eng. “while (you, plural) seated”), etc. Therefore, speakers of Spanish can at least understand when to use the future subjunctive in Portuguese because its use in Portuguese coincides with the use of the present subjunctive in Spanish in adverbial clauses that indicate forthcoming events (Simões 2008; 2013). Table 6: Examples of how the Present Subjunctive in Spanish corresponds to Portuguese Future Subjunctive. Spanish (Present Subjunctive)

Portuguese (Future Subjunctive)

Cuando terminen el trabajo les voy a dar/doy el premio, ¿vale? Así que pueda, te llamo.

Quando terminarem o trabalho eu dou/vou dar o prêmio, está bem assim? Assim que puder te telefono.

With respect to word order, we find differing trends in Portuguese and Spanish. Like other Romance languages, both languages inherited from Latin a great deal of flexibility in the ordering of words. However, Spanish has a greater tendency to a verb + subject word order. The sentence below,

430

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

Sí, lo decidimos nosotros.

is equivalent to

Sim, nós decidimos isso.

The ongoing changes in BP also impact on word order. Languages considered to have implicit subjects have a tendency to a greater flexibility in word order as it is the case of Latin and Spanish. BP already has a more fixed SVO (Subject+Verb+Object) word order than Spanish. With the current trends in BP, we can expect BP to become similar to English, a language characterized by a relatively more fixed SVO order. In conclusion, Portuguese uses definite articles much more than English. Definite articles are so common in Portuguese that proper names can have articles: O João, A Mônica, A Argentina, A França (in Brazil), but França (without article in Portugal), Ela é a minha namorada (literally, *“She is the my girlfriend”), to use a few illustrations.

5 Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was twofold. The first part examined the role and relevance of Portuguese in the current world. This first part revealed the outstanding ongoing developments to promote and internationalize Portuguese, along with the fragility of the existing networks and programs to teach Portuguese as a foreign language, or as an Heritage and Non-Heritage. The second part provided a brief description of typical features of the Portuguese language that language specialists may find useful. This description of the Portuguese language contrasts the two main varieties of Portuguese, BP and EP, and uses comparable examples mainly from English, Spanish, French to facilitate the understanding of the points described in the discussions. Due to limited space, a number of important features of Portuguese were left out, e.g. the contrast of ser and estar and the personal infinitive, to mention some. But it is hoped that the implicit dialogue of this chapter will contribute not only to the language specialists in Portuguese as a Foreign, Heritage or non-Heritage language, but also in the continuous creation of teaching materials. For instance, contrasting Portuguese with another language familiar to the student can accelerate the learning process. Hence the extensive use of Spanish in comparison with Portuguese throughout the discussions in this chapter. There are already materials for Portuguese prepared for speakers of Spanish and other languages, but more materials are necessary not only to improve the learning experience inside and outside the classroom, but also to maintain the vitality of the Portuguese language programs. Scholars interested in a more detailed description of Romance languages in contrast may find of interest the Gramática Comparativa Houaiss: Quatro Línguas Românicas (Azeredo et al. 2011), in which the grammar of Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian are contrasted.

Portuguese

431

6 Bibliography Azeredo, José, et al. (2011), Gramática comparativa Houaiss: Quatro línguas românicas, São Paulo, Editora Publifolha. Azevedo, Milton M. (2005), Portuguese: a Linguistic Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bisol, Leda (1994), O acento e o pé métrico binário, Letras de Hoje 98, 25–36. Bisol, Leda (org.) (2005), Introdução a estudos de fonologia do português brasileiro, Porto Alegre, EDIPCURS. Cagliari, Luiz Carlos (1999), O acento em português, Campinas, Editora do Autor. Câmara, Jr., Joaquim Mattoso (1970), Estrutura da língua portuguesa, Petrópolis, RJ, Vozes. Câmara, Jr., Joaquim Mattoso (1972), The Portuguese Language, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos, Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia (MCT), (2010), Doutores 2010: estudos da demografia da base técnico-científica brasileira, Brasília, DF, http://www. capes.gov.br/36-noticias/3884-estudo-do-cgee-indica-crescimento-no-numero-de-doutorestitulados-no-brasil (10.07.2013). CPLP – Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (2012), http://www.cplp.org/ (10.07.2013). Diniz, Leandro Rodrigo Alves (2012), Política linguística do Estado brasileiro para a divulgação do português em países de língua oficial espanhola, Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 51/2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-18132012000200009. Eurydice/European Commission (2012), Chiffres clés de l’enseignement des langues à l’école en Europe, Commission européenne, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/ key_data_series/143FR_HI.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,306 (10.07.2013). Furman, Nelly/Goldberg, David/Lusin, Natalia (2010), Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2009, Modern Language Association, 14 Oct 2011, http://www.mla.org/pdf/2009_enrollment_survey.pdf (10.07.2013). Galves, Charlotte (1993), O enfraquecimento da concordância no PB, in: Ian Roberts/Mary A. Kato (edd.), Português brasileiro: uma viagem diacrônica, 2a edição, Campinas, SP, Editora da UNICAMP, 387–408. Garcia Neto, Muamba (2012), Aproximação linguística e experiência comunicacional, Angola, Mayamba Editora. Guimarães, Reinaldo/Lourenço, Ricardo/Cosac, Silvana (2001), O perfil dos doutores ativos em pesquisa no Brasil, Revista Parcerias Estratégicas, Brasília, Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, Centro de Gestão Estudos Estratégicos (CGEE), 13, 122–150 (dezembro), http://www. cgee.org.br/parcerias/p13.php (25.07.2013). Instituto Camões – Instituto da cooperação e da língua, Portugal – Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros, http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/ (10.07.2013). Jensen, John B. (1989), On the Mutual Intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese, Hispania 72, 848–852. Kato, Mary A./Ramos, Jânia (1999), Trinta anos de sintaxe gerativa no Brasil. DELTA [online] 15, n.spe, 105–146, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44501999000300005 (10.07.2013). Kramsch, Claire (2008), Language and culture, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lee, Seung-Hwa (2007), O acento primário no português: Uma análise unificada na Teoria da Otimalidade, in: Gabriel Antunes de Araújo (ed.), O acento em português: Abordagens fonológicas, São Paulo, Parábola Editorial, 121–143. Lewis, M. Paul/Simons, Gary F./Fennig, Charles D. (edd.) (2013), Ethnologue: Languages of the World, seventeenth edition, Dallas, Texas, Summer Language Institute International, http://www.ethno logue.com (10.07.2013) Marchelli, Paulo S. (2005), Formação de doutores no Brasil e no mundo: algumas comparações, Revista Brasileira de Pós-Graduação 2/3, 7–29, http://www2.capes.gov.br/rbpg/images/

432

Antônio Roberto Monteiro Simões

stories/downloads/RBPG/vol.2_3_mar2005_/07_29_formacao_doutores_brasil_mundo.pdf (10.07.2013). Mateus, Maria Helena Mira (1975), Aspectos da fonologia portuguesa, Lisboa, Centro de Estudos Fonológicos. Mateus, Maria Helena Mira (1983), O acento de palavra em português: Uma nova proposta, Boletim de Filologia 27, 211–229. Mateus, Maria Helena Mira (2010), Uma política de língua para o português, in: Armanda Costa/Isabel Falé/Pilar Barbosa (edd.), Textos Seleccionados, XXV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, Porto, APL, 73–78. Milleret, Margo (2012), Portuguese Study in Higher Education in the United States, Hispania 95/1, 135–150. Milleret, Margo/Silva, Glaucia (edd.) (2011), Teaching and Learning Portuguese as a Heritage Language, Portuguese Language Journal 5, Special Issue, 12 October 2011, http://www.ensinoportu gues.org/archives (10.07.2013). Mundo Português (2013), Comunidades – EPE: Governo admite menos alunos e alarga período de inscrições, http://www.mundoportugues.org/content/1/11306/epe-governo-admite-menosalunos-alarga-periodo-inscricoes/ (10.07.2013). Nye, Jr, Joseph S. (2004), Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York, Public Affairs. Portugal P (2013), Governo admite dispensa de professores também no estrangeiro, Lusa, 23/04/ 2013–17:19, http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/governo-admite-dispensa-deprofessores-tambem-no-estrangeiro-1592257 (10.07.2013). Reimann, Daniel (forthcoming), Portugiesisch als Schulfach in Deutschland. Historische Entwicklung und gegenwärtige Perspektiven, unpublished manuscript. Rhodes, Nancy C./Pufahl, Ingrid (2010), Foreign Language Teaching in U.S. Schools: Results of a National Survey, Washington, DC, Center for Applied Linguistics. Roberts, Ian (1993), Pósfácio, in: Ian Roberts/Mary A. Kato (edd.), Português brasileiro: Uma viagem diacrônica, 2a edição, Campinas, SP, Editora da UNICAMP, 409–425. Roberts, Ian/Kato, Mary A. (1993), Português brasileiro: Uma viagem diacrônica, 2a edição, Campinas, SP, Editora da UNICAMP. Roca, Iggy M. (1999), Stress in the Romance Languages, in: Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 659–811. Silva, Thaïs Cristófaro (2005), Fonética e fonologia do português, 8a edição, São Paulo, Editora Contexto. Simões, Antônio R.M. (2008), Pois não: Brazilian Portuguese Course for Spanish Speakers, with Basic Reference Grammar, Austin, University of Texas Press. Simões, Antônio R.M. (2013), Baticum! E-Curso avançado de português para estrangeiros através da MPB, Creative Commons, http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm;jsessionid=3E5C C8A19295C1135AFC4636A34EC343?id=732260, (10.07.2013). Tarallo, Fernando (1993), Diagnosticando uma gramática brasileira: o português d’aquém e d’além mar ao final do século XIX, in: Ian Roberts/Marx A. Kato (edd.), Português brasileiro: Uma viagem diacrônica, 2a edição, Campinas, SP, Editora da UNICAMP, 69–106. (The) World FactBook – CIA. July 2013, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (10.07.2013).

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

23 Rhaeto-Romanic Abstract: Rhaeto-Romanic is subdivided into Friulian, Ladin and Romansh, all of them being minority languages in different parts of the Alps. While linguistically easily linked together, the three areas – Friuli as part of the Italian Autonomous Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Ladinia in the Dolomite Mountains, and the Grisons as a Swiss Canton – witnessed quite distinct historical developments. Multilingualism is very important in these areas, Rhaeto-Romanic playing a very different role in each of them: in Switzerland, Romansh is an official language, but seems rather under pressure. In Italy, Friulian has not gained full legal recognition, but is used by a big part of the population, Ladin in the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano/ Bozen is spoken by a very small part of the total population, and Ladin in Veneto (Belluno Province) plays a minor role. As Rhaeto-Romanic is a minority language with differences in status, it is also characterized by different roles in administration and education. Keywords: Friulian, Ladin, Romansh, minority languages, language policy

1 Introduction Comparing language acquisition in the three main Rhaeto-Romanic areas in the Alps is quite a difficult task, as they differ very much in many aspects, such as history, geography, language-status, legal framework etc. From a linguistic point of view the three areas diverged already from the beginning, as Friulian has a mainly Celtic language substrate, while Ladin and Romansh a Rhaetic one. All the same they are considered parts of a greater language family, which originally stretched from the Saint Bernard Massive in the Central Alps eastwards to Trieste. While linguistic common traits are quite easily recognizable, social contacts and political links between the three areas are quite sporadic nowadays, due to a very distinct historical development, leading to quite different institutional outcomes. So Friuli is now part of the Italian Autonomous Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, while Ladinia in the Dolomite Mountains is divided into three different administrations: Veneto Region and the two Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano/ Bozen, all belonging to the Italian Republic. The Grisons form a Canton of the Swiss Confederation, which has the rank of an own state under the rules of the Swiss constitution (Drumbl 2006, 58). Friuli has a long own history of medieval statehood, under the Patriarchs of Aquileia, who retained sovereign political and religious rights within the Holy Roman Empire. This glorious past lasting five centuries was ended by Venetian and Austrian

434

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

conquest in the 15th century, but it helped to establish a peculiar branch of courtly literature in the Ladin language. The Ladin Dolomites were divided into the ecclesiastic princedoms of Italian Trento and German Brixen in the 11th century, while the eastern part was subjected first to Aquileia, then to Venice, and since the 16th century to Habsburg. As these were very poor mountainous areas, they could not develop their own political centre and leading elite, and were completely subjected to foreign feudal power, hampering their free social and cultural progress. The Grisons, formerly an ecclesiastical princedom under the bishops of Chur, managed to unite as a confederation of local communities in that what was called “The old free Rhaetia”, a sovereign state during the 16th–19th centuries, merging with Switzerland in the times of Napoleon. Romansh was then perceived as a fundamental element of Rhaetic independence and as a cultural and political value in itself. All three areas are characterized by a diffuse multilingualism nowadays, but the status of Rhaeto-Romanic is not the same in the single regions: in the Grisons Canton it is not only recognized as a local official language, but also as an official language of the Swiss Confederation, even if German is the language of the majority. If compared to the predominance of German in everyday life, Romansh seems rather under pressure, in spite of strong regulations and efforts in the educational and cultural sector. In Friuli it is spoken by a great part of the population, but it has not still gained full legal recognition at the same level as Italian (↗21 Italian), despite recent improvements. This is especially true in education and administration; nonetheless Friulian is well alive today, due to its numeric consistency and to the liveliness of its cultural scene. The situation of Ladin in the Dolomites Area is also quite different from province to province. In the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano/Bozen there are some clear constitutional provisions in favour of the Ladin language, even if Ladins are a very small part of the total population. Ladins in Veneto (Belluno Province) have almost no special rights, with the exception of a few provisions of the Italian framework law no. 482/1999. This also explains the relative weakness of Dolomites Ladin, as no coherent united linguistic and cultural policy seems possible under the present administrative conditions. This appears quite clear, since Dolomite Ladins have not succeeded till now in establishing a common language standard, as in Grisons and Friuli, not because they had not elaborated one, which in fact exists as “Ladin Dolomitan”, but due to an effect of lacking inner cohesion and diverging cultural policies. On the other hand Friuli has chosen the Central Friulian as its official language standard and the Grisons the Rumantsch Grischun, which is encountering mounting hostilities at school, as a consequence of its too hasty introduction.

Rhaeto-Romanic

435

2 Friulian Even if Friuli is the region with the biggest Ladin population (about 600,000 speakers) it does not have the strongest regulations in favour of minority language teaching, and has also suffered a strong decrease in speakers of about 20% in the last 20 years. This has been provoked by many different causes, such as massive immigration, language-switching in Friulian-speaking families and insufficient promotion of the minority language at school, in administrations and in social life. The state radio and television company RAI has devoted very few hours of broadcasting to Friulian in the recent past. Other publications in media and press are mostly privately funded. In formal communication between administrations Friulian is very seldom used. The presence of Friulian at school is not mandatory and is subjected to parental consent. The official recognition of the Friulian linguistic minority is very recent. It was stated for the first time only in 1996 by the regional law no. 15, and later on it was confirmed by the national law no. 482/1999 (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The regional law no. 15/1996 was the first organic set of rules for the promotion of Friulian, referring to the principles of the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages (Council of Europe 1992). But unfortunately the Special Statute of the Friulian Region has no competence in the school sector, which is completely devolved to the Italian State (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions). Nevertheless this regional law obliges the Region to “exercise an active policy of preservation and development of the Friulian language”, so it legitimates the Region to affirmative action also in education. But these actions are not compulsory, since the Region has no competence in this matter and thus are reduced to measures of support, such as the institution of an “Observatory of the Friulian language and culture”, which is just a consultative commission, with limited capacities to act in favour of the implementation of Friulian teaching at school (Cisilino 2001, 8). After national law no. 482/1999 was promulgated, there was a drive towards using Friulian as a means of education and of teaching this minority language in kindergartens, primary and secondary schools. But not all pupils have to attend the Friulian lessons; parents have to require this teaching explicitly. Even if Friulian schools have to assure these activities in favour of the minority language, not all pupils must attend these lessons. On the other hand English is compulsory in all classes. The reaction in Friulian families has been rather favourable up to now, so that about 30,000 parents gave their consent to children attending Friulian activities at school. In 2002, in Udine Province, 64% of children in kindergarten, 61% of children in primary school and 45% of children in middle school (age 11–14) participated in Ladin teaching. About 400 teachers declared they were teaching Ladin language and culture. Nevertheless the free choice weakens the position of Friulian at school if compared to the national language, which remains the only official school language.

436

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

Another problem is that there are no clear regulations about a minimum amount of Friulian lessons that must be guaranteed by schools. It is true that the use of Friulian as a teaching implement seems to be guaranteed, but there are no binding regulations about implementation of the law. Schools also have to administrate and coordinate the teaching of Friulian as a school subject, but the Italian government has opposed a law of the Friuli Region (no. 29/2007), according to which parents had to ask for their children to be explicitly excluded from these lessons, so that the future of Friulian teaching remains rather insecure. The ruling of the Constitutional Court in 2009 about this question stated that the interpretation of the Friuli Region was too extensive and limited the rights of parents in deciding about Friulian teaching (Vicario 2009, 43) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). In the last few years about 50,000 children, especially in primary schools, have had the opportunity to enjoy innovative and interesting activities in various matters in the Friulian language. A lot of interesting projects about local history, traditions, and the environment have been started, also on a broader level of vast school nets. A good example is the project “Aghis” (“Waters” in Friulian), with a series of coordinated activities about all rivers, lakes and lagoons in the Region of Friuli, in all their different aspects, such as biology, economy, rural life etc., all presented in Friulian, with the elaboration of innovative teaching aids and interactive didactic materials. There is a deep-rooted tradition in such bottom-up approaches to the promotion of the minority language in Friuli, dating back even to the post war epoch, when a group of highly motivated teachers and schoolmasters started a popular movement, aimed at regaining the central importance of the Ladin mother tongue, after oppression and persecution during Fascism and the Nazi occupation, when all free expressions of local culture were repressed by an imperialist hyper-nationalistic policy. Giuseppe Marchetti, a renowned local scholar, started teacher training courses in Friulian language and culture, which were well-attended and even recognized by the national school administration. The Società Filologica Friulana (a state-funded studies society on Friulian) has been organizing such courses to the present day and they are still very well-attended. Other teacher associations, such as Scuele Libare Furlane (Free Friulian School) or Maestri Friulani (Friulian Teachers) have been running free Friulian courses since the 1960s. Other spontaneous semi-official activities are the Friulian contests in schools, such as Concors par un compit di furlan (about Friulian writing) or Cjantutis pai fruts (Song contest for children) and they have generally a vast reaction and a good success among participants. There are even school contests on a higher level, such as that of translations of classical literary texts from Latin into Friulian at the Classical Lyceum of Udine (Serena 2006). In 2002 the regional school director decided to implement law no. 482/ 1999 by choosing a multilingual approach (↗12 Plurilingual Education) in order to offer a positive perspective, especially after many parents had stated their fears that teaching Friulian could perhaps limit the extent of teaching English. The document of

Rhaeto-Romanic

437

guidelines declared that multilingualism means being able to cope with different linguistic codes, understanding also the genuine social identity of each culture. Multilingual education should start with the mother tongues of the region and later be extended to second or foreign languages. Multilingual education thus includes full promotion of less used languages of the curriculum (Cisilino 2001). These guidelines also imply a continuous cooperation of all teachers of the class in an integrated multilingual project. The lively cultural scene in Friuli is very important for the popular promotion of Friulian, especially among younger generations. Friulian rock groups and other modern music groups meet each year for a big minority language contest, open to other minorities in Italy. Also private radio stations like Onde Libare Furlane help to keep Friulian alive in popular culture. The main problem seems to be the lack of coordination of all these activities, and this is particularly true in education. The University of Udine has recently organized courses in teachers’ training (even a Master), regarding Friulian language and culture. A regional agency for the Friulian language sustains these courses, but there seem to be great difficulties in getting full recognition of all these efforts by the state institutions in the Region, especially by the central school administration. The Friuli Region has also instituted a Permanent Commission on Friulian Language Teaching, but all these efforts continue to be hampered by legal and administrative difficulties, deriving from conflicts of competence between public organs. A proposal of the Commission of introducing a minimum number of compulsory Friulian lessons in kindergartens and primary schools has not been taken into consideration by the school administration. Another open question is the full recognition of University Courses for Friulian teachers who intend to teach the minority language (Burelli 2003). The only possible solution would be to delegate broader competences on education from the Italian State to the Friuli Region, but this seems not quite feasible in the current political situation. Due to the present economic crises, public financing of local Friulian school projects is also endangered (Cisilino 2001, 5). Even if Friuli appears to be the most dynamic and innovative Ladin region for what concerns Ladin culture, the public sector, especially in education, seems not able at present to develop a common clearly aimed policy, that could reverse the dangerous regression of Friulian in society (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).

3 Ladin 3.1 Ladin in the Dolomite Mountains The Ladins inhabit five valleys in the Dolomite Mountains, declared as a World Natural heritage site by UNESCO in 2009. The landscape of the “Pale Mountains” has surely forged the character and culture of its ancestral inhabitants and played a

438

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

central role in today’s economy of the area, as the main asset of its winter and summer tourism. Traditional activities such as cattle breeding and artistic handicraft have become less important, as mass tourism established itself in the Dolomites from the late 19th century onwards. Nowadays it has set its mark on most human activities in this area, improving living standards, but also having a strong negative impact on environment and rural landscape. As a consequence of this development, many Ladins have acquired a relatively high income, permitting them to survive in their own territory and avoiding mass emigration as in other Alpine districts elsewhere. On the other hand, mass tourism has generated a peculiar lifestyle, subduing life rhythm to its necessities and favouring code-switching and globalization also in the cultural sector. Job and career opportunities are mainly confined to this sector, while intellectual professions are not too common in these valleys, thus forcing a great part of the cultural elite to find a living elsewhere, outside the traditional Ladin territory. This small ethnic group of approximately 35,000 speakers is divided by administrative boundaries into three contiguous portions in South Tyrol, Trentino and Veneto. As Veneto is a region like all others in Italy (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions), it has no special autonomy protecting its minorities. Trentino and South Tyrol were parts of the Austrian Empire till 1918 and got a special statute after World War Two, after many years of strife and repression under Fascism and National Socialism. Under the conditions of the Paris Agreement of 1948 the most important rules of protection were reserved for the German speaking population in the area, later they were partially extended also to Ladins (Verra 2004, 10). In the Ladin valleys of South Tyrol, populated by about 20,000 Ladins, there has been since 1948 its own special school system, instituted at the beginning as a compromise between the opposing sustainers of a fully German or Italian school. What came out by decree of the then Education Ministry was a bilingual ItalianGerman school (↗11 Bilingual Education) with some lessons in Ladin and it has survived till now, adapting and developing into a truly multilingual school (↗12 Plurilingual Education). In the Ladin kindergartens children, aged 3–6, are not divided into different classes, according to their family language(s). The main language of education remains Ladin, but the other two languages are also used under a precise order and sequence, in so-called “Multilingual games”, following the principles of integrated learning. Children learn to distinguish the languages by colour (green for Ladin, red for German, yellow for Italian) or even by locations or symbols. Using different languages this becomes a natural experience and they are aware of their equal status and value (Rifesser 2011, 30). Children who don’t understand one of the three languages are also helped by the peer group, not only by teachers (↗15 Language Teacher), who must certify their proficiency in all three languages, after a trilingual study course at the local Free University of Bolzano/Bozen.

Rhaeto-Romanic

439

This kind of multilingual experience is also meant to be a first step in the Ladin multilingual educational system, as it facilitates the passage to primary education, where children get their fundamental linguistic competences in all three languages of the curriculum. This multilingual alphabetization is rather new at Ladin schools, as it tries to overcome artificial separations between languages from the start. In past times parents had to opt between a German-Ladin and an Italian-Ladin first class, which were reunited only after two years. This led to very different and unequal levels of competence in the school languages. As teachers are being prepared in “Integrated Multilingual Teaching” at the local University, this new multilingual approach is becoming the standard didactic methodology and should help to overcome those problems (↗12 Plurilingual Education). In the second class of primary schools all school contents are presented for one week in German and the next in Italian, with Ladin being used as a means of explanation if necessary. Moreover Ladin is a subject in its own right, but just for two hours a week (Verra 2008). This system lasts until the end of primary school, when pupils should be equally proficient in both German and Italian. The rather rigid subdivision from week to week can also be changed sometimes, so that some subjects are taught in German or Italian for a certain time; what matters is a general balance between the school languages, providing also the necessary cultural balance for the survival of the truly minority language Ladin. On the other hand it is evident that German and Italian retain a greater role and importance within this system, even if Ladin continues to be a kind of identity mark, justifying the existence of this peculiar school system in a Province, where schools are generally monolingual German or Italian. From the 6th grade to the 8th, in middle school, the linguistically balanced system is still maintained, but in another form: half of the subjects are now taught in German, half of them in Italian. So, for example, history is always taught in German and geography always in Italian. The same amount of lessons in the two languages must be guaranteed. Ladin has the same status as in primary schools and is also a school subject with two lessons a week. The same system continues throughout upper schools in the Ladin area. The concluding State Exams at the end of middle and upper schools must reflect the multilingual system: candidates have to write texts and speak all the languages of the curriculum. The main advantages of this model are evident: pupils generally have a better global multilingual competence than their colleagues in German or Italian schools, even if their level may be not as high in the single languages, if compared to native speakers. These good overall results are confirmed by the outcomes of bilingualism exams (↗11 Bilingual Education), needed for access to public service in South Tyrol, where Ladin candidates generally get twice as many positive results as their German and Italian peers (Vittur 1994, 32). Language acquisition could seem to be quite easy in the multilingual environment of the Ladin valleys, but in reality the situation seems more complex and diver-

440

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

sified, depending on family background, peculiarities of the different local communities, social and cultural differences etc. (↗4 Language Socialization). An analysis of the language diagrams of linguistic competences of kindergarten children in the Ladin valleys, elaborated by the school administration in 2011, shows quite a variegated panorama even inside the valleys, changing from town to town, from village to village. Multilingualism in families seems to be more widespread in typically tourist resorts like Urtijei, Corvara or Al Plan de Mareo, while more rural areas tend to stay more compactly monolingual Ladin. German is gaining great momentum in Gherdeina Valley, becoming the predominant language in Runcadic and Sureghes and tending to gain social supremacy in most part of Gherdeina. But sometimes all three languages, or at least two of them (mainly German and Ladin) are equally present in the children’s families from the start (e.g. 31% German, 17% Ladin, 7% Trilingual, 24% Ladin and another language in one kindergarten in Urtijei). This very varied language background doesn’t make things easy in Ladin kindergartens, even if it may also be considered as an opportunity sometimes, when it aids language contact in the peer group. It is quite clear that such a complex situation at the start requires a good multilingual competence among teachers and a clear order of educational activities, in order to avoid confusion and inadequate language models, as often happens in real life, where even parents tend to choose incorrect linguistic forms in those second or third languages they use with their children and in which they are not competent enough. This may also cause severe difficulties for school teachers (↗15 Language Teacher), who try to eradicate deep-rooted mistakes, acquired through parents or acquaintances, often misled by their false pretensions of social advancement through sporadic and incoherent code-switching. The multilingual activities at kindergarten follow the concept of integrated learning, trying to heighten metalinguistic competences (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means), through continuous and well organized language comparisons within structured learning unities, mainly referring to the children’s everyday experiences (parts of the body, colours, animals at the farm and in the woods, sports and games etc.). These unities have been devised by the teachers themselves, under the scientific supervision of Rico Cathomas of Bolzano University and published by the Ladin Education Department in recent times. Some of them are still being worked at and are due to be published in 2013 (Verra 2004, 5). The unities contain a lot of practical activities and games, following an interactive concept. They are illustrated in a style corresponding to the children’s age and also have checklists and operational indications for teachers themselves. These multilingual structured activities should not exceed one hour a day, as the main language of the institution remains Ladin by law. But even this rule cannot be respected in many cases, where Ladin is in a minority in the class and children are not able to understand a full story in Ladin or carry out a game, using Ladin alone. So teachers have to make compromises and to adapt to the different linguistic situations,

Rhaeto-Romanic

441

even if this may sometimes be rather fatiguing and hampering for the organization of educational activities throughout the day. At the same time these necessary compromises may even restrict the use of Ladin, thus putting the main principles of educational activity in Ladin kindergartens in jeopardy. That is why multilingual education at Ladin kindergartens remains a highly sensitive question and requires a particular sensibility and skill to achieve its goals. There has been a progressive shift in language teaching at primary level in Ladin schools in the last 10 years. The main laws of education, based on the Statute of Autonomy of South Tyrol, ordered a strict division of school languages, especially in Italian and German schools. In the Ladin valleys this principle was also applied, even if in a different form. In the first classes of primary schools children acquired basic linguistic competences generally beginning with Ladin as a means of oral communication and explanation, but learning writing and reading mainly only in one different language (German or Italian). The so-called “third language”, that is the lesser known one, was used nearly only orally for one hour a day (Verra 2008). This kind of artificial separation was meant to avoid possible confusion and to strengthen a fundamental competence, from where the other languages could be introduced later on. Most teachers were convinced that this was the only possible way to guarantee a deep-rooted natural competence in one of the so-called “culturelanguages” (German or Italian), as Ladin was often considered as less important and sometimes even dispensable. This also explains why teachers tended to use Ladin as a means of explanation only when strictly necessary, abandoning it as pupils grew more proficient in the main school languages. The possibility of using Ladin as a school language also outside the specific Ladin lessons was not used enough and even nowadays it is not being used in all occasions when this would be of advantage for children, e.g. when speaking of local themes (Verra 2011, 62). Following newer results in neurolinguistics, the Ladin School Administration started a project of multilingual integrated learning at elementary level in 2010, based upon the pragmatic experiences of language-contact in Ladin kindergartens, which had begun some years before. Instead of language separation, the principle of language order was introduced, clearly identifying those situations and activities, when one language had to be used. The same system of colours related to languages was also applied in Ladin primary schools and a coordinated action in teachers’ training and parents’ information was started, while the School Administration and its pedagogical branch began publishing specific school materials, especially designed for the purposes of multilingual integrated learning. It was necessary to overcome conservative attitudes towards the new method, especially among those elder teachers who had been trained in monolingual schools and who were convinced that such a method would not work at all. Also towards parents one had to explain that all three languages were equally important and had the same cultural value and that children would not become overburdened by multilingualism at school (↗12 Plurilingual Education).

442

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

The higher level of language awareness, conveyed by integrated learning helped to overcome some starting difficulties, greatly incentivized by visualisation of linguistic processes and dynamics. This project became successful, as it helped teachers to meet the needs of a more globalized and varied school population, especially in those towns with very diversified linguistic backgrounds at home. In a way it also helped the most endangered language, Ladin, to gain social prestige, as the multilingual activities were generally well-balanced, thus freeing the minority language from the ghetto of the two specific lessons a week. But the project is far from being fully established, as it depends on the interest and effort of teachers and head teachers, and needs a continuous new organization and evaluation, in order not to be overwhelmed by the order of so-called “Italian” or “German” weeks, when all activities (with the exception of the two Ladin lessons) are carried out in one language alone (Egger/Lardschneider 2001, 54). In any case it is a great step forward compared to the initial years of Ladin school in the 1950s, when the usage of a Ladin ABC-board was prohibited through political interventions. Regular Ladin language lessons are always combined with cultural contents, mainly related to the local reality of life in the Dolomite Mountains, stretching from traditional tales and songs to social and environmental themes. Local history, arts and traditions are studied, using interactive school materials in well combined thematic didactical unities. So the Ladin lessons are far more than simple language lessons: they try to convey a sense of identity and cultural dignity in a curriculum dominated by Italian and German (the fourth language English is taught for two hours a week from the 4th form onwards). Moreover one should remember that religion is also taught using all three school languages, which is one more contribution to the idea of equal dignity of all languages (↗5 Languages and Identities). As the common Ladin language standard “Ladin Dolomitan” has not been officially recognized in South Tyrol, pupils learn their local Ladin variety, so they get an even deeper feeling of identification with the kind of Ladin they use at home. The negative effect is the very limited range of this variety, confined to only one valley, but at present the problem seems to linger on, especially considering the difficulties of introducing a language standard in the Grisons’ schools. One positive development of the last years is a strengthening of Ladin in the curriculum of the Faculty of Education at the local university for those students intending to teach in Ladin kindergartens and primary schools. Nowadays they have to attend nearly one third of all lessons in Ladin, alongside German and Italian and are also being trained in the techniques of integrated learning.

Rhaeto-Romanic

443

3.2 Ladin Schools in Fassa Valley (Trento Province) and Belluno Province Special provisions for Ladin language acquisition were only implemented rather late in the neighbouring Fassa Valley, belonging to Trento Province. Even if some constitutional rights were already established in 1948, these were not applied and Ladins had to fight a long political battle in order to get the recognition of their linguistic rights in education. In 1977 Ladin was introduced as a subject in its own right for one hour a week in all elementary and middle schools of the valley and could also be used as a means of education for another school subject. This was very important as it established a theoretical parity of the minority language with the official Italian language of education. In 2006 these provisions were extended to higher schools and Fassa Valley got its own school administration with specific autonomous competences. Nowadays Ladin and Italian are both used on a basis of parity in pre-school education. Ladin is taught as a subject for one hour a week in primary schools, where it is also used for at least two hours a week as a means of education. In this regard the Fassa schools are more advanced than those in Bolzano Province (Videsott 2011, 46). Since 2012 a new school experiment has been tested in some primary schools, using both Italian (↗21 Italian) and Ladin on a basis of near parity. This project is called Na comunanza che mpera (A learning community) and wants to project the new orientation of primary education for the entire valley. Moreover German is taught from the first class and English from the third class onwards. The main goal of these innovations is to convey a good level of multilingualism and to strengthen the Ladin language in its prestige and fundamental competences. The project is assisted by Trento University and the OLFED (Pedagogical Office of Fassa Valley). The same system is also being applied in middle schools, with one hour of Ladin teaching a week and its vehicular use in at least two lessons. In higher schools Ladin teaching has been introduced for one hour a week only since 2005, but students from outside the Ladin area may choose another subject instead of Ladin. At this level Ladin lessons are also seen as a good basis for passing the compulsory language test which is necessary for access to public service in the valley. The main goals for the future of the Ladin school in Fassa are developing modern interactive teaching materials, strengthening teacher training especially with regard to Ladin and multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education), and getting a better theoretical basis in education in cooperation with regional universities. Generally speaking, Ladin teaching and language acquisition have improved a lot in the last ten years, even if the sociolinguistic situation of the minority language remains very critical in this area. The coordinated efforts of the Sourastanza (local school administration) in the promotion of Ladin have improved the chances of this endangered language (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning), even if its position in society is far from secured (Cordin 2011, 28).

444

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

On the other hand, no further improvements have been achieved in language acquisition in the Ladin communities of Belluno Province, with the small exception of some sporadic voluntary projects, following the national framework law no. 482 on the protection of language minorities. In the last few years these communities have tried to change sides and pass under the administration of Bolzano Province by referendum, which has had an outstandingly positive result but has not been accepted by Italian authorities at the present date. That is why Ladin is particularly endangered in the two valleys of Fodom and Ampezo, where its presence at school is more or less only symbolic (↗28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions).

4 Romansh The Grisons are the only trilingual canton in Switzerland: its official languages are German, Romansh and Italian. But nowadays Romansh is just a minority language, whereas it was the main language of the canton until 1800. During the 19th and 20th centuries economic and social development, mainly in tourism, has brought a great change in language use and the social status of Romansh in the Grisons. As the local canton administration does not measure the consistency of the official ethnic groups in the same way as in South Tyrol, but following a more sophisticated concept, including the language one knows best, or the language used in formal and informal communication, one cannot simply assume that the published data of the population census of 2000 (14.5% of Romansh speakers as the best known language and 21.5% including spoken language too) also coincides with the selfdeclaration as belonging to the Romansh population (Cathomas 2005, 59). Language regulations in the Grisons Canton are not as strict as those in South Tyrol, especially concerning the public use of the three languages, but on the other hand the Grisons have a long tradition of minority language protection both in education and administration. One also has to consider that primary education is mainly a local competence of municipalities, so that the educational system is not as compact and centralized as in Italy. The principle of equal dignity of all three official languages in the Grisons Canton, established in 1880, has been confirmed in many subsequent laws, and also in the most recent language law of 1.10.2008, regulating many situations, which had developed on an empirical basis in administrative, legislative and judicial practice in the past years (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). This law is very important for the choice of school language by local communities, where the Canton can also grant exceptions from the main regulations in order to sustain an endangered language. In multilingual communities teaching begins in the traditional local language. In German speaking communities the Canton may also approve the institution of a bilingual school in order to safeguard Romansh or Italian.

Rhaeto-Romanic

445

If the minority community is at least 10% of the population, schools must also offer Italian or Romansh teaching in the curriculum. English as a second foreign language has also been introduced in all primary schools of the Canton. The effectiveness of multilingualism at school (↗12 Plurilingual Education) is sometimes hampered by a massive economic influence, favouring German and English as important languages of wide range communication and opposing rather drastically efforts for the promotion of the endangered minority language. About 12% of all pupils in the Grisons speak a different language at home than one of the three official ones. The educational policy of the Canton tries to facilitate language integration through a greater role dedicated to first languages also at school. Special language promotion lessons are offered by schools in all three official languages (Cathomas 2005, 44). In primary schools in the Romansh area, Rhaeto-Romansh is compulsory for all children from the beginning. German is taught from the third form onwards and also used as a means of education in some cases. English is taught from the fifth form onwards in all primary schools, while pupils can also choose Italian or French as vocational contents. The main goal of Romansh schools is to achieve a progressively equal competence in both Romansh and German. Pupils of non-Romansh family background are fully immersed in Romansh from the beginning, also in kindergartens. The amount of German lessons, using this language also as a means of education, grows substantially in the classes 7–9, while Romansh is reduced correspondingly in the curriculum. In strongly Germanized communities this model has been heavily criticized in past years, as not corresponding to the real needs of children. Thus bilingual Romansh-German schools were instituted for the first time in 1993 in Samedan, later this balanced model was extended to most municipalities in Upper Engadin. Another important bilingual school has been founded in the Canton capital Chur, especially for the Romansh community from all valleys of the canton living there. The distribution of school languages may be fully equal or also unevenly distributed throughout the forms, trying to achieve an overall balance in sum. The bilingual kindergarten seems especially important as a starting level for balanced language education afterwards. Many different evaluations of bilingual experiments have been carried out by the Pedagogical High School of the Grisons and other academic institutions in the last years. The outcome is generally very positive for what concerns bilingual proficiency and also preservation and maintenance of the lesser-used language. The main educational goals in all subjects also seem to be achieved if they are presented using the lesser known language (Grünert 2008a, 21). Even if the fundamental legislation of the Grisons Canton states the equal dignity of all three languages, German, Romansh and Italian, this principle is not applied on the same level in education and administration, especially for the lesser-used language Romansh.

446

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

In secondary schools students have 2–4 hours a week of Romansh as a school subject and teaching is done using Romansh as a vehicular language in biology, music and arts. In professional schools one or more subjects are taught in Romansh. In some kinds of professional schools, however, for instance the Landwirtschaftsschule (Agricultural School), teaching is presented generally in German, even if this school is attended by pupils from all linguistic regions of the Canton. In comprehensive schools there are 2–4 hours a week of Romansh as a school subject, with a minimum of two other subjects taught in Romansh. In upper schools there are special sections for Romansh pupils, as for instance in the Teachers’ Canton School in Chur, where Romansh students are taught biology in Romansh. In schools of the German-speaking area the second language is generally Italian (↗21 Italian), even if the local administration may decide to offer Romansh as a second language. If at least five pupils’ parents require it, Romansh must be taught as a vocational subject. The Canton may even intervene to establish language courses in Romansh in those German-speaking communities, which have decided to teach another language, in order to favour contacts with the traditional language of the Canton. Out of 121 Romansh communes, 86 have chosen a Romansh school, 16 a German school, with Romansh as a school subject (2–3 hours a week). The interpretations of these complex rules lead sometimes to controversial debates in communal councils, especially on the status of Romansh and Italian, as utilitarian points of view tend to prevail over the promotion of endangered languages. The main founding idea in Romansh schools seems to be strengthening Romansh as a mother tongue from the beginning in order to achieve a good proficiency in German in higher classes, with a more than symbolic presence of Romansh also in this level. But as the weight of Romansh tends to diminish in higher classes, the bilingual schools seem to offer a better alternative, so that Romansh may not be considered as a “children’s language” and get full equal recognition also in more complex subjects. Having to cope with at least three languages, the best didactical solution should be integrated multilingual learning, trying to reinforce interlinguistic skills and to favour all linguistic competences in all three languages at once (Grünert 2008b, 41) (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). Teachers in the Romansh area study at the Pedagogical School in Chur, a trilingual academic institution, where innovative didactical concepts like integrated multilingual didactics are practiced, alongside portfolio assessment and CLIL teaching. Validated language standards are set at the end of primary and secondary schools and must be documented by the language portfolio for all languages in the curriculum. Nowadays teachers at schools try to set functional language standards, intended to promote communicative competences, in which formal aspects are no longer of paramount importance. A combination of various learning techniques and didactical theories is being applied, such as integrated learning, immersion, language encounter, class exchanges, bilingual teaching, CLIL etc. (↗11 Bilingual Education).

Rhaeto-Romanic

447

Setting the goal of a functional multilingual competence is very important, since it seems to be the only realistic vision in a multilingual Canton, where language status and prestige are not equal for German, Italian and Romansh, and where there has been a significant shift in the last few years in favour of German, even if the Canton devolves many efforts and means for the safeguard and promotion of Romansh (Cathomas 2005, 63). One specific well-meant effort seems to have had the opposite effect, provoking a harsh reaction in some local communities against the compulsory introduction of the Romansh standard language in Romansh schools. After a common written standard of language had been devised as a sum of all five local dialects of Romansh in the 1980s, the Canton intended to push its introduction at school and gained a Cantonal referendum on this matter. The intent was surely quite noble, as it aimed to strengthen the linguistic perspectives of this minority language in a modern world, permitting its use also in specific technical domains and in higher education. Some very good innovative teaching materials and means were developed in cooperation with the main cultural basis group of Romansh societies, the Lia Rumantscha. But these didactical means were only given to those primary schools which accepted to use Rumantsch Grischun (the standard language) as the only means of education. Teachers were trained in using this new standard language and began teaching it especially in those areas where Romansh was particularly under pressure. But in more conservative regions, where the local form of Romansh was still very much alive, especially in Lower Engadin and Müstair the opposition of parents to this innovation forced on them became very virulent and they won local referendums against the introduction of Rumantsch Grischun at school. The cantonal government is at present trying to work out a compromise, leaving the decision about the language standard to the local school councils but making teaching about the standard language compulsory. This sometimes very hot discussion about school languages is typical of an area where this item has been at the centre of popular controversy since time immemorial. The very sensible balance between local perceptions and a more innovative language policy has to be guaranteed, in order not to endanger public support for minority schools and for the maintenance of the use of the minority language at home too. In a way this controversy reminds us of a similar problem in South Tyrol, where the Provincial Administration is in favour of using local idiomatic forms of Ladin at school and not the standard language Ladin Dolomitan.

5 Conclusions A comparison of regulations on the teaching of the minority language and in the minority language between the three Rhaeto-Romanic regions in the Alps shows an east to west advancement in status and actual implementation:

448

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

Friuli, the vastest and most-populated region, with more than 600,000 Ladin speakers has the weakest regulations, only permitting Friulian teaching as a school subject with the consent of parents, even if the use of the minority language as a teaching implement is provided for. The schools have to administrate and coordinate the teaching of Friulian as a school subject. Even if many very interested teachers try to implement these rather restrictive regulations and are assisted by Regional institutions and Udine University, their action does not have the necessary social impact, capable of reversing the massive regression of Friulian both in families and in institutions. This negative trend could only be reversed if the region could get broader competences in education and in the promotion of the minority language in all sectors of public life. At least Friuli has a long literary tradition and has succeeded in elaborating and implementing a common language standard, making it possible to plan further affirmative actions, especially on an academic level and in cultural life. This is not the case in Dolomites Ladinia, which is fractured in three distinct administrations, with very different cultural and educational policies. There is not even a common language standard, accepted by all three Provinces and the regulations of Ladin teaching at school diverge very much from province to province. At any rate the self-declarations of belonging to the Ladin minority seem to show a positive development, with the exception of Belluno Province, where Ladins have practically no special minority rights in education. The Ladin schools in Bolzano Province have a long tradition of multilingualism, where Ladin is also taught for two hours a week from primary schools onwards. It is used as a school implement both in kindergartens and in schools, even if this use decreases in higher classes. A new methodology of trilingual alphabetization is being tested with good success in primary schools. Some positive recent developments are to be observed in the Ladin schools in Trento province, where an experimental bilingual Ladin-Italian school has been instituted and where the vehicular use of Ladin has also gained ground in the last years (Verra 2008). The Grisons have the longest tradition in minority language teaching. The teaching language in primary schools is chosen by the communes. In 86 out of a total of 121, Romansh is the first language and the kindergartens are fully Romansh. After the first years fully in Romansh in primary schools, German gets more importance from the third class onwards and becomes the dominant language in classes 7–9. Romansh teaching and the use of Romansh as a teaching language are also guaranteed in upper schools within a mainly German curriculum. Integrated multilingual teaching has been pushed recently by the school administration, in order to cope with difficulties deriving from the introduction of three to four languages in the higher classes. Another very hotly debated issue is the use of the standard form of Romansh at schools, where local referendums have been reversing a positive tide towards its introduction, so that a compromise has to be found, guaranteeing local idioms alongside the knowledge of the official Romansh language form. As Romansh is considered an official language of the Canton and also an endangered language, the central

Rhaeto-Romanic

449

administration is allowed to intervene in mainly German areas, where Romansh could come under pressure, and to guarantee its teaching, even if communes could decide to introduce Italian as a second language (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Language acquisition in the three Rhaeto-Romanic areas in the Alps is very different and this minority language is far from secured, even in Switzerland, where it has the highest status and prestige. While in Friuli language acquisition seems to be hampered by structural problems and unclear rules, leading to conflicts of competence between state and region, the maintenance of Ladin seems in peril in those areas of the Dolomites where there are no secure measures for teaching it at school, as in Belluno Province. But also in Bolzano Province, where German and Italian are dominant at school and in Trento Province, where Ladin is on a basis of parity only in some experimental classes of primary school, the position of Rhaeto-Romanic is not as sure as it could seem on the paper. The overwhelming weight of economic and social convenience very frequently leads to code-switching in families, especially in tourist areas. This is also true in the Grisons, with its concurring school systems, where also in relatively small areas, like Upper Engadin, there are five different school systems (Romansh, German, Bilingual Romansh-German, bilingual Italian-German, Italian), with Romansh in a dominant position only in the first years of fully Romansh schools. The solution of bilingual schools (↗11 Bilingual Education), introduced in Samedan and in some other towns could ease the position of Romansh and safeguard its central role also in higher classes (Grünert 2008b, 41). At any rate, also in the Grisons, the political controversies about the use of a standard Romansh could weaken the position of Rhaeto-Romanic at school and in society in the future. Multilingualism could be the best solution for such areas, with the dominant languages of the state and economy in prestige and factual use at school. Something like that is being practiced in some cases at Ladin kindergartens in Bolzano Province in multilingual activities (↗12 Plurilingual Education), where all three languages Ladin, German and Italian are clearly distinguished and used in specific contexts and activities. Something similar is being tried in multilingual integrated learning at school in the Grisons and in Ladinia, but it should be more clearly defined and articulated so as to become a curricular methodology for all pupils, if the strengthening of Rhaeto-Romansh alongside all other languages of the school is to be guaranteed.

6 Bibliography Burelli, Alessandra (2003), Materiali didattici per l’educazione plurilingue: l’esperienza friulana, in: Silvana Schiavi Fachin (ed.), L’educazione plurilingue. Dalla ricerca di base alla pratica didattica, Udine, Forum, 167–177.

450

Roland Verra and Christiane Fäcke

Cathomas, Rico M. (2005), Schule und Zweisprachigkeit. Immersiver Unterricht: Internationaler Forschungsstand und eine empirische Untersuchung am Beispiel des rätoromanisch-deutschen Schulmodells, Münster, Waxmann. Cisilino, William (2001), The juridical defence of Rhaeto-Romansh languages, with particular reference to the Friulan case. Working papers 4, Barcelona, Cismon, http://www.ciemen.cat/mercator/ pdf/wp4-def-ang.PDF (10.01.2014). Cordin, Patrizia (2011), Didattica di lingue locali, Milano, Angeli. Council of Europe (1992), European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, http://conventions. coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm (10.01.2014). Drumbl, Johann (2006), Wenn Worte trennen, in: Werner Wiater/Gerda Videsott (edd.), Schule in mehrsprachigen Regionen Europas, School Systems in Multilingual Regions of Europe, Frankfurt am Main et al., Lang, 57–70. Egger, Kurt/Lardschneider, Margareth (2001), Dreisprachig werden in Gröden, Bozen, Istitut Pedagogich Ladin. Grünert, Matthias (2008a), Einleitung, in: Matthias Grünert et al. (edd.) (2008), Das Funktionieren der Dreisprachigkeit im Kanton Graubünden, Tübingen/Basel, Francke, Romanica Helvetica 127, 1–24. Grünert, Matthias (2008b), Die drei Sprachen Graubündens aufgrund der Volkszählungsergebnisse, in: Matthias Grünert et al. (edd.) (2008), Das Funktionieren der Dreisprachigkeit im Kanton Graubünden, Tübingen/Basel, Francke, Romanica Helvetica 127, 25–56. Rifesser, Theodor (2011), 10 ani de Repartizion ladina: Svilup storich, conzec y materiai didatics, prospetives per l daunì, in: Theodor Rifesser/Paul Videsott (edd.) (2011), L ladin tl sistem formatif, en gaujion di 10 agn dla Repartizion ladina dla Université Ledia de Bulsan, Bozen, Bolzano-Bozen University Press, 19–34. Serena, Odorico (2006), Il friulano nella scuola e nell’università, in: William Cisilino (ed.), Friulano, lingua viva. La comunità linguistica friulan, Udine, Provincia di Udine, 193–219. Verra, Roland (2004), Ladinisch – Paritätisch – Mehrsprachig. Aspekte der Mehrsprachigkeit in der ladinischen Schule, Bozen, Ladinisches Schulamt. Verra, Roland (2008), Drei Sprachen unter einem Dach: Mehrsprachigkeit an ladinischen Kindergärten, in: Ministerium für Bildung, Familie, Frauen und Kultur des Saarlandes (ed.), Mehrsprachiges Aufwachsen in der frühen Kindheit, vol. 2: Beispiele aus der Internationalen Praxis für einen gelenkten Zweitspracherwerb, Weimar/Berlin, Verlag das Netz, 86–94. Verra, Roland (2011), L ladin tl sistem formatif dla provinzia de Bulsan: Cunsciderazions storiches y situazion atuela, in: Theodor Rifesser/Paul Videsott (edd.) (2011), L ladin tl sistem formatif, en gaujion di 10 agn dla Repartizion ladina dla Université Ledia de Bulsan, Bozen, Bolzano-Bozen University Press, 55–64. Vicario, Federico (2009), Furlan e ladin te normative e a scuele. Ats des Fiestis ladinis 2006 e 2007. Friulano e ladino nella normativa e a scuola. Atti delle Feste ladine 2006 e 2007, San Daniele del Friuli (Ud), Biblioteca Guarneriana. Videsott, Paul (2011), 10 agn de Repartiziun ladina: Ativité scientifica y didatica, inrescides, impat sön le teritore, in: Theodor Rifesser/Paul Videsott (edd.) (2011), L ladin tl sistem formatif, en gaujion di 10 agn dla Repartizion ladina dla Université Ledia de Bulsan, Bozen, Bolzano-Bozen University Press, 35–54. Vittur, Franz (1994), Ein Leben, eine Schule. Zur Geschichte der Schule in den ladinischen Ortschaften, Bozen, Istitut Pedagogich Ladin.

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

24 Romanian Abstract: As mother tongue to ca. 24 million people and second language to another 4 million people, Romanian is the most widely spoken language in South-East Europe. Since joining the European Union in 2007, Romanian has become one of the 23 official languages of the EU. In this article we attempt to shed light on languagespecific difficulties in learning Romanian, more or less independently of the language background of the L3-learner. Besides the phonetic inventory, the major problems reside in learning morphology; they are caused on the one hand by the rich diversity of inflectional forms and on the other hand by the complexity of operations realizing inflection: it is not only the ending the learner has to deal with, but additionally the vowel and/or consonant alternation triggered by them. Therefore in phonology we deal with alternations and in morphology with the various forms in the inflectional paradigm of the verb, noun, adjective and pronoun, focussing on clitics, the prepositional accusative, and on double object expression. Keywords: phonetic alternations, enclitic article, pro-drop-language, clitics, double object expression

1 The Romanian Language in the World 1.1 Linguistic Classification of the Romanian Language Romanian, or to be precise Daco-Romanian,1 has a special status among the Romance languages. It belongs to the Balkan-Romance languages and is the only one with a (completely built) standard. It is part of the so-called Romania discontinua, because when the Romans withdrew from the province of Dacia in 271 AD, Romanian was cut off from the development and the influence of the Romania continua. From the sixth century onwards, after the Slavic tribes from the Balkans south of the Danube entered into the area, the Romanian language became sustainably influenced in its development due to the contact with the Slavic languages.

1 In the traditional Romance philology, the Romanian language comprises four dialects: Aromanian or Macedoromanian (ca. 250,000 speakers in Greece, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria and the Romanian Dobruscha (cf. Leclerc 2011a), Meglenoromanian (about 15,000 speakers in Greece and Bulgaria), Istroromanian (now extinct) as well as Daco-Romanian, which are now seen as distant languages. In the following, when speaking of the term “Romanian”, it is actually Daco-Romanian that is meant here. It is the idiom spoken north of the Danube originating from the Proto-Romanian language.

452

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

According to the ranking of the special features of the Romance languages carried out by the linguist Žarko Muljačič (1967, 30) on the basis of the modern language structure, Romanian takes the second position after Sardinian and is followed by French (↗20 French). Thus on the one hand some of Latin is still preserved such as the caesura mentioned above, but on the other hand one can find significant differences in grammar and vocabulary when compared to the other Romance languages. Since the end of the 18th century – especially in the lexical field – there has been a conscious adjustment to the rest of the Romance languages. In the course of establishing Romanian as a modern cultural language, the official linguistic authority used almost all the inventory of the cultural vocabulary, which is from Latin (Greek–Latin) (cf. Bochmann/Stiehler 2010, 9–11). Due to a number of phonetic, grammatical and lexical similarities to Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serb, Croatian, as well as Neo-Greek and Turkish, it is also classified as a Balkan language (cf. Steinke/Vraciu 1999).

1.2 Status and Geographical Distribution Geographically, Romanian is a South-East European language. With ca. 28 million speakers, 24 million of whom being native speakers (L1) and a further 4 million speaking it as their second language (L2), it is the language with the largest number of speakers and has the widest territorial distribution in South East Europe. Additionally there is a diaspora of about 1.5 million speakers who use it primarily at home. In Romania (↗31 Romania), with a population of ca. 20.1 million (Institutul Național de Statistică al Republicii România 2013), Romanian is the only official language. For 88% of the population, it is their mother tongue (L1) and for those who speak minority languages (Hungarian – 6.5%, Romanes – 3.3%, Ukrainian – 0.3%, German – 0.2%, Turkish – 0.1%, Lipovean Russian – 0.1%), it is their second language (L2). The second state that has Romanian as its official language is the Republic of Moldova. Of about 3.4 million inhabitants, 2.5 million (75%) declared themselves to be ethnically “Moldovan” and a further 73,000 (22%) to be “Romanian”. Officially, Romanian is L2 to further ethnic groups, such as Ukrainians (8.4%), Russians (5.9%), Gagauzians (4.4%) and Bulgarians (1.9%). In total, only 2 million stated Moldovan (cf. Biroul Național de Statistică al Republicii Moldova 2004), and a further 550,000 stated Romanian to be their L1. Linguistically, there are two different glottonyms: although in the official discourse since 2011, “Moldovan”2 has been mandated, the term “limbă de

2 This is a variety of Daco-Romanian which has practically no special features in written discourse and some regional peculiarities in spoken communication especially concerning pronunciation and lexis. Thus, Romanians and Moldovans have hardly any difficulties in understanding each other.

Romanian

453

stat” (‘the state language’) is used. Furthermore, historical relationships determine the choice: “Moldovan” refers to the time before 1989, and for the time after 1989, the term “Romanian” has been used increasingly. Moreover Romanian is often related to written and “Moldovan” to oral communication (cf. Bochmann et al. 2012, 614–616). In 1989, the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, which had been valid until then, was replaced by the Latin alphabet. The official norm corresponds to the Bucharest norm and the standard is determined by Romania (cf. Bochmann/Dumbrava 2007, 14–16). However, a total of about 75% of the whole population stated that they speak Romanian, i.e. Moldovan, every day, whereas the number in the cities may be lower (cf. Biroul Național de Statistică al Republicii Moldova 2004). In the Republic of Moldova the Region of Gagauzia, (“Gagauz Yeri”) which became autonomous in 1989, relishes a special legal status. Since the Gagauz Autonomy Act of 1994, Gagauz, Russian and Romanian have become official languages in Gagauzia, but Russian is in fact omnipresent in public and official discourse. Romanian is compulsory as the L2 but for legislation, administration, media and interethnic communication purposes Romanian ranks third (cf. Ihrig 2012). In Transnistria, the self-proclaimed “Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic” (also called “Trans-Dniestr”) since 1990, “Moldovans” (31.8%), Russians (30%), Ukrainians (28.8%), Gagauzians (4%), Bulgarians (2%) and other ethnic groups live together to make up a population of about 550,000 in total (cf. Leclerc 2012a). Russian, Ukrainian and “Moldovan” (using the Cyrillic alphabet)3 are fixed as the official languages in the constitution. In the industrially dominated cities Russian is prioritized while “Moldovan” and Ukrainian are spoken in villages. In fact, Russian is predominantly used in official and in public contexts. In the Ukraine, the Romanian-speaking community consists of about 410,000 people. Similarly to the Republic of Moldova, and as a consequence of the former Soviet language policy, there are two divisions:4 “Moldovans” with about 260,000 people and “Romanians” with 155,000 people. They are concentrated in three regions: around Chernivtsi with ca. 180,000 people, in the Odessa Region with 123,000 people and in the Transcarpatia or Zakarpatia Oblast with approximately 32,000 people (cf. Şoimu 2011; Leclerc 2011b). According to the law, the Romanian-speaking community has minority protection that includes the right to use and access their mother tongue for educational purposes (use of Ukrainian as L2).5 The Bucharest standard is taught either in Romanian-speaking schools (as L1), in bilingual schools (Ukrainian-Romanian) as L1/L2 or in schools where Romanian is taught as a foreign language subject (L2 or L3). As a con-

3 The use of the glottonym “Romanian” and the Latin alphabet is forbidden and legal actions are taken (cf. Zakon PMR o jazykah w pridn’estrovskoi moldavskoi respublik’e ‘The Dniester Moldovan Act on the Languages of Dniester Moldovan Republic’ 1992, art. 6). 4 The criteria for the division are not transparent in the declaration of the Census (cf. Șoimu 2011). 5 Cf. Law on National Minorities, Law No. 2494, 12 June 1992; Law on culture, Law No. 2778-VI, 14 December 2010.

454

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

sequence of the pro-Ukrainian educational policy, which was re-enforced in 2008, the Romanian language has declined significantly (cf. Şoimu 2011). In all universities, except for four Romanian Institutes, practically all lectures are given in Ukrainian. Although the European Parliament suggested in 2009 that Romanian courses at the University of Chernivtsi should be facilitated, this had not happened by September 2013. In Serbia, the Romanian minorities are divided into two groups with different designations and very different situations: 1. The first minority is in the East Serbian Region, Valea Timocului, where there are, according to official statistics, 60,000 Romanian speakers, 44,000 of whom declared their nationality to be “Vlahi” (‘Romanians’), while 16,000 stated that they are Serbs. This group is not officially recognised as a minority. In spite of numerous private and NGO initiatives and the permission issued in 2009 (by the Education ministry in Belgrad) to teach Romanian in all states schools in Serbia as L1 with 2–3 hours a week, there have been practically no official lessons in Romanian yet (cf. Centrul de studii pentru resurse românești 2009, 13–19). 2. The situation of the second group, in the North Serbian province Vojvodina which became autonomous in December 2009, is unlike the one in East Serbia. The Romanian minority, known here as “Români”, with 34,000 speakers (1.5%,) holds minority status and, according to the territorial principle, Romanian is their official language alongside the Serb language, Hungarian, Slovak and Rusyn. In school education, the right to use the mother tongue is guaranteed and Serbian is compulsorily used as L2 (cf. Centrul de studii pentru resurse românești 2009, 13–19). In Hungary, 80,000 Romanian speakers6 (ca. 1%), who live mostly in the south-eastern part of the country, gained minority status according to Article 24 of the Constitutional Law, which became valid in January 2012. The use of Romanian in the official context is regulated according to the territorial principle. 1,500 pupils in primary and secondary level have access to education in Romanian as L1 or L2 respectively and students are trained to become Romanian language teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) in three teacher training institutes (cf. National Human Rights Working Group 2013). Apart from the Romanian population from the neighbouring countries that developed historically, there is also a Romanian-speaking diaspora in North and South America, Australia, western and southern Europe as well as Israel, as a result of different migrations starting from the 19th century, the interwar period, post-WWII and after 1990.7 In the USA the Romanian community (ca. 400,000) belongs to the so-called middle-sized European immigrant groups (20th position out of 71) who settled in the 6 Cf. Leclerc 2012b; the Hungarian National Human Rights Working Group speaks about 94,000 (cf. National Human Rights Working Group 2013, 1). 7 The following figures apply for 2006 and are all taken from the Romanian Orthodox Church’s Website (cf. Biserica Ortodoxă Română 2006).

Romanian

455

north-eastern states such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois; for a few years in Florida and California as well. A significant migration to Canada (about 100,000) took place after 1990 especially to the western Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. In Central and South America, there are large communities living in Venezuela (10,000–12,000) and in Argentina (about 10,000), especially in Buenos Aires. About 50,000 people of Romanian origin live in Australia. In Israel, there are about 450,000–500,000 immigrants from Romania and Moldova. In Europe, one can find Romanians and Romanian speakers in the following countries: in Germany about 200,000 ethnic Romanians and 1.5 million Romanian-speaking Transylvanian Saxons and Danube Swabians; 60,000 Romanians in France (↗27 France); ca. 30,000 in Austria; 150,000–200,000 in Italy (as a consequence of the massive working migrations after 1990) (↗28 Italy and the ItalianSpeaking Regions); in Spain 60,000–100,000 (↗32 Spain); in Turkey 30,000; in Great Britain 15,000; in Sweden 13,000; and in Ireland 7,000. Since Romania became a member of the European Union in 2007 and Romanian one of its working languages, the language has increasingly been gaining international visibility and recognition (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Systematic research on the Romanian language dates back to the 19th century. In 1893 Gustav Weigand founded the first Romanian language Institute outside of Romania in Leipzig. Up to now, Romanian has been taught as L3 primarily at university level. According to information received from the Institutul Limbii Române (ILR) in Bucharest, Romanian is taught in 94 universities in 38 countries in 2013. The ILR holds 42 lectureships in 23 countries. Furthermore, it sends teachers to Romanian schools abroad. Since 2007, optional courses in Romanian language and culture for primary and secondary levels have been offered in Belgium, Italy and Spain as part of the EU project RLCC – Romanian Language, Culture and Civilisation. In 2012–2013, more than 5,000 pupils took part in these courses (cf. Institutul Limbii române 2013). Additionally, the Institutul Cultural Român (ICR) is also involved in 18 countries with a programme that offers Romanian as L3 (cf. Institutul Cultural Român 2013).

2 Specific Features in L3-Learning 2.1 Phonological Features 2.1.1 Difficulties in Pronunciation and Orthography In perceiving the phonetic inventory, first of all the L3-learners must be able to discriminate typical Romanian sounds like ă /ə/ and î (â) /ɨ/, final -i and to perceive the complex morphophonemic alternations: on the receptive level (listening and reading) in order to identify meaning and function, and on the productive level in order to pronounce and write them correctly.

456

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

The pronunciation problems encountered by students will depend, to a large extent, on their language background (L1, L2 and other L3). Typical problems for Asian students are the consonants /r/~/l/, and specifically for Koreans /p/~/f/. Spanish speakers typically have trouble with /b/~/v/, /s/~/ʃ/. Arab speakers have trouble with the central vowels e /e/, ă /ə/ or î/â /ɨ/. L1-independent difficulties can occur at the central vowels ă and î, which stand out in the Romanian sound system. These are also found in other languages, but in Romanian they have the phonemic character: rău /rəu/ ‘bad’ vs. râu /rɨu/ ‘river’; cântăm /kɨntəm/ ‘we sing’ vs. cântam /kɨntam/ ‘we sang’ (cf. Academia Română 2005, XLIVs.). Furthermore, one can notice some problems generated by the opposition voiceless/voiced consonants both in initial (când /kɨnd/ ‘when’ vs. gând /gɨnd/ ‘thought’, pun ‘I put’ vs. bun ‘good’) and in final position (drac /drak/ ‘devil’ vs. drag /drag/ ‘dear’) and by the incorrect uttering of diphthongs (pâine /pɨine/ ‘bread’ vs. până /pɨnə/ ‘till’, rău /rəu/ ‘bad’ vs. râu /rɨu/ ‘river’). Orthography follows the phonemic-phonological principle almost consistently with the following limitations: 1) The sound /ɨ/ is implemented in two graphems: in initial and final position it is î: a înota ‘to swim’, a coborî ‘get out/get down’, and in medial position it is â: cântec ‘song’ (with the exception of compounds: bineînţeles ‘self evident’ or derivatives: neînţeles ‘misunderstood’). Furthermore, problems can occur in distinguishing the pronunciation and function of the grapheme i which has four variants: medial as a vowel (fir /fir/ ‘string’), semivowel in diphthongs (iepure /iepure/ ‘hare’) and triphthongs (leoaică /leoaikə/ ‘lioness’), syllabic (miniştri /miniʃtri/ ‘ministers’) and non-syllabic (ochi /ok’/ ‘eye’/’eyes’) in the final position, and as a grapheme in the groups ci /tʃ/, /tʃi/; gi /dʒ/, /dʒi/, chi /k’/, /k’i/, ghi /g’/, /g’i/ (cf. Academia Română 2005, XXXIIs.). As a vowel in initial and medial position i is not problematic as such, but final i causes problems because it can be syllabic and non-syllabic. Since the syllabic quality and quantity is correlated to a certain grammatical function, identification on a morphological basis is difficult for the learner in his first phases of acquisition. I is syllabic and stressed as an infinitive marker (a fugi /fudʒi/ ‘to run’), non-syllabic as an inflectional marker for the 2nd person singular (fugi /fuğ/ ‘you run’) and for the 2nd person plural (fugiţi /fudʒiʦ/ ‘you run’) and as a plural marker for masculine nouns (pomi /pom’/ ‘trees’), and syllabic as definite article for the masculine plural (pomii /pomi/ ‘the trees’). The only signals for a syllabic i for the L3-learner in his/her first phase of language learning is the consonant cluster: “consonant + l/r”: acri /akri/, afli /afli/ and the occurrence in neologisms (kaki /kaki/ ‘khaki’, taxi /taksi/ ‘taxi’).

2.1.2 Morphophonemic Alternations A specific feature of the Romanian language is a series of vowel and consonant alternations which are morpho-phonologically determined and thus doubly difficult to learn: firstly the phonetic (comprehension and uttering) and secondly the morphological (the

Romanian

457

identification of the underlying function). It is in verbal, nominal and adjectival inflection that numerous problems occur not only regarding the ending, but also the change of stem, because in Romanian inflection and agreement are realised by a mixed procedure: endings and vowel and consonant alternation of the stem – more exactly the endings trigger vowel and consonant alternations due to phonological reasons. But once the learner has found out the underlying phonetic regularities (which endings cause which alternations) he can apply it productively in verbal, nominal and adjectival inflection as well. For example, the multifunctional endings ă (as verbal inflectional marker and gender marker) and a (as gender marker and enclitic definite article) trigger metaphonic diphthongization, i.e. systematic harmonizing8 of the stressed vowels /e/ and /o/: plec ‘I go away’ → pleacă ‘he/she goes’/‘they go away’, des (m./neut. sg.) ‘often’ → deasă, profesor (m. sg.) ‘teacher’ → profesoară (f. sg.) ‘teacher’, profesoara ‘the teacher’ (f. sg.). A frequent alternation is the following: the endings -e and -i trigger palatalization of the stressed (seldom unstressed) vowels a, ă, â/î in nominal, verbal and adjectival inflection and also in forms marking the feminine gender: el studiază ‘he studies’ → el să studieze ‘he shall study’;9 băiat (m. sg.) ‘boy’ → băieţi (m. pl.), învăţ ‘I learn’ → înveţi ‘you learn’, el să înveţe ‘he shall learn’, măr (m. sg.) ‘apple tree’ → meri ‘apple trees’, măr (n. sg.) ‘apple’ → mere ‘apples’, tânăr (m. sg.) ‘youngster’ → tineri (m. pl.), tânără (f. sg.) → tinere (f. pl.). Various further alternations are due to accentuation and appear in verbal inflection and in suffixation: las ‘I let’ → lăsăm ‘we let’, neamţ (n. m. sg.) ‘German’ → nemţoaică (n. f. sg.) ‘German’, poartă ‘gate’ → portiţă ‘little gate’. In contrast to vowel alternations the consonant alternations are generally predictable and therefore easier to learn than the vocalic ones. They are caused by 1) the inflectional morpheme -i /i/ of the verb for the 2nd person singular as well as the plural form of the noun and the adjective and also by 2) the inflectional morpheme for the 3rd person singular present indicative and subjunctive of the verbs, and the making of the plural of nouns and adjectives in the feminine and neuter genders. 1) The most important alternations due to the inflexional suffix -i /i/ are: t → ţ /ts/: pot ‘I can’→ poţi ‘you can’, frate (m. sg.) ‘brother’ → fraţi (m. pl.), d → z /z/: stradă (f. sg.) ‘street’ → străzi (f. pl.); verde (m./neut. sg.) ‘green’ → verzi (m./f./neut. pl.); c → ci /či/: fac ‘I make’ → faci ‘you make’; g → gi /ği/: leg ‘I bind‘ → legi ‘you bind’; fag (m. sg.) ‘beech tree’ → fagi (m. pl.); drag (m./neut. sg.) ‘beloved’ → dragi (m./ f./neut. pl.). s → ş /ʃ/: las ‘I let’ → laşi ‘you let’; urs (m. sg.) ‘bear’ → urşi (m. pl.); sc → şt /ʃt/: vorbesc ‘I speak’ → vorbeşti ‘you speak’; românesc (m./neut. sg.) ‘Roma8 Harmonizing is found in all older words (inherited from Latin and borrowings from the Slavic languages), but in the words adopted during the blond 19th and 20th centuries, this can be found only sporadically: el oferă ‘he offers’, blondă (adj. f. ‘blond’ sg.), costă ‘it costs’, el rezolvă ‘he solves’. 9 This does not apply to participles (and derivatives) with the suffix -at of A-verbs which stem sounds in -i: studiat ‘studied’ → studiaţi (m. pl.),studiate (f./neut. pl.).

458

2)

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

nian’ → româneşti (m./f./neut. pl.); st → şt /ʃt/: insist ‘I insist’ → insişti ‘you insist’; str → ştr /ʃtr/: ministru (m. sg.) ‘minister’ → miniştri (m. pl.) (cf. Iliescu/Popovici 2013, 33–38, for a more detailed description). The alternation due to -e affects the 3rd person indicative present and the subjunctive of verbs, the plural formation of nouns and adjectives in feminine and neuter gender as well as adverb and adjective derivatives: c → ce /če/: eu fac ‘I make’ → el face ‘he makes’, ac (neut. sg.) ‘pin’/’needle’ → ace (neut. pl.); sărac (m./neut. sg.) ‘poor’ → sărace (f./neut. pl.) ‘poor’; g → ge /ğe/: eu merg ‘I go’ → el merge ‘he goes’, filoloagă (n. f. sg.) ‘philologist’ → filoloage (f. pl.); sc → /ʃt/: eu citesc ‘I read’ → el citeşte ‘he reads’, gâscă (f. sg.) ‘goose’ → gâşte (f. pl.); românesc (adj. m./neut. sg.) ‘Romanian’ → româneşte (adv.) ‘Romanian’.

2.1.3 Stress The variable stress can also cause difficulties in that the stress can fall on any syllable of the word: re-pe-de (adv.) ‘quickly’, pe-re-te ‘wall’, pi-ja-ma ‘pyjama’, ca-pri-oa-ră ‘deer’. There are some cases where the stress differentiates meaning in homographic forms (co-pii ‘copies’ vs. co-pii ‘children’, ve-se-lă ‘happy’ vs. ve-se-lă ‘plates’), especially regarding the homographic forms of the verbal tenses: el in-tră (indicative present) he is coming in vs. el in-tră (indicative simple perfect) he just came in (cf. Academia Româna 2005, L-LII).

2.2 Morphosyntax Generally speaking, the most difficult aspect in learning the morphosyntax is the strong inflected character of Romanian, irrespective of the linguistic background of L3-learner. (A case study on the acquisition of Romanian by foreign students made by Gafu/Badea/Iridon 2012, 1630, shows that the highest percentage of errors occurred in the making of the morphological forms.)

2.2.1 Verbal Inflection When acquiring Romanian as L3, there are possible difficulties due to the complexity of the verbal inflection regarding either the form or the function of tense and mood. In Romanian, there are five personal moods with the following differentiations for the finite verb forms: – indicative: present: cânt ‘I sing’, imperfect: cântam, simple perfect: cântai, compound perfect: am cântat, pluperfect: cântasem; future 1 with four variations: voi canta/am să cânt/o să cânt/oi cânta, future 2: voi fi cântat;

Romanian

– – – –

459

subjunctive: present s.: să cânt, past s.: să fi cântat; optative-conditional: present: aş cânta, past: aş fi cântat imperative: affirmative: cântă !, negative: nu cânta ! presumptive: present: voi/o/aş/să fi cântând, past: voi fi fost cântând.10

Additionally, there are three voices: active, passive and pronominal (resp. reflexive), which can be combined with all of the moods and tenses mentioned above. Furthermore there are four finite forms of non-personal moods: – infinitive: present active: a cânta, passive: a fi cântat, reflexive accusative: a se cânta, reflexive dative: a-şi cânta; – past participle: cântat/cântată/cântaţi/cântate; – gerund: cântând; – supine: de/la cântat. In Romanian, there are synthetic (present indicative, subjunctive, imperfect ind., simple perfect ind., pluperfect ind.) as well as analytical inflectional forms (ex. compound perfect, future 1 and 2 ind., passive, optative-conditional, presumptive). Generally the difficulty in L3-acquisition lies especially in learning the synthetic forms because the inflections are often connected with variable accents and complex vowel and consonant alternations. Learning the verbal inflection is complicated by starting with the present indicative because the learner has to learn more or less by heart four so-called regular paradigms (depending on the infinitive ending: -a, -ea, -e and i/î)11 and a series of irregular verbs. It gets even more complicated because in every paradigm of regular verbs a substantial number of inflection types can be found and their number varies in each class. Thus the learner has to deal (only in the present indicative) with 15 types of verbs (cf. Beyrer/Bochmann/Bronsert 1987, 147–202). Since there are no reliable signals for the subclasses of the A- and the I/Î- paradigm, the learner has to learn these verbs (to a greater or lesser extent) by heart, e.g. the classification of A- and I/Îverbs as 1) strong present tense (stem + suffix) and 2) weak present tense (stem + infix + suffix):12

10 Actually it is seldom used as a standard (cf. Beyrer/Bochmann/Bronsert 1987, 153, 190–198). 11 Traditionally the Romanian conjugation system is derived from the Latin conjugation forms and is categorized into four groups according to the ending in the infinitive mood: type I: COMPAR A RE → P L A NGERE → Romanian a cumpăra ‘to buy’, type II: TAC E RE → Romaniana tăcea ‘to be silent’, type III: PL HOR I RE → Romanian a sări/a urî ‘to jump’/‘to hate’. Romanian a plânge ‘to cry’, type VI: SAL I RE / HORI Quantitatively the verbs are unequally distributed: A-Verbs > 40%, EA-Verbs < 1%, E-Verbs < 1% and I/ Î-Verbs > 55%, 1% out of which are Î-Verbs (cf. Academia Română 2005 ; Barbu 2008) and about 4 % irregular verbs (cf. Beyrer/Bochmann/Bronsert 1987, 168–177; Iliescu/Popovici 2013, 262–272). 12 Most of the verbs (ca. 2/3) are classified as having weak present tenses (cf. Academia Română 2005).

460

1) – – – 2) – – –

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

stem + suffix A-verbs: a purta ‘to carry’/‘to wear’ → port, porţi, poartă, purtăm, purtaţi, poartă I-verbs: a fugi ‘to run’ → fug, fugi, fuge, fugim, fugiţi, fug Î-verbs: a coborî ‘to get off’/‘… out’ → cobor, cobori, coboară, coborâm, coborâţi, coboară stem + infix + suffix A-verbs: a lucra ‘to work’→ lucrez, lucrezi, lucrează, lucrăm, lucraţi, lucrează I-verbs: a citi ‘to read’ → citesc, citeşti, citeşte, citim, citiţi, citesc Î-verbs: a hotărî ‘to decide’ → hotărăsc, hotărăşti, hotărăşte, hotărâm, hotărâţi, hotărăsc

An additional difficulty is the variable accent. In the present indicative, the A- and I-/Îverbs with strong inflection and the EA-verbs have the stress placed on the stem in the 1st – 3rd person singular and 3rd person plural, while in the 1st and 2nd person plural it is put on the ending: a cânta → cânt, cânţi, cântă, cântăm, cântaţi, cântă; a tăcea → tac, taci, tace, tăcem, tăceţi, tac; a fugi → fug, fugi, fuge, fugim, fugiţi, fug; a coborî → cobor, cobori, coboară, coborâm, coborâţi, coboară. In weak A- and I/Î-Verbs the stress is on the infix in the 1st-3rd person singular and the 3rd person plural, while in the 1st and 2nd person plural it is put on the ending: a lucra → lucrez, lucrezi, lucrează, lucrăm, lucraţi, lucrează; a citi → citesc, citeşti, citeşte, citim, citiţi, citesc; a hotărî → hotărăsc, hotărăşti, hotărăşte, hotărâm, hotărâţi, hotărăsc. In E-Verbs the stress is exclusively on the stem: a merge ‘to go’ → merg, mergi, merge, mergem, mergeţi, merg. As mentioned above (2.1.2 and 2.1.3) the learner also has to take into consideration stem changes operated by certain endings and the stress, especially in the verbs from the strong A- and the EA-paradigm. The most frequent alternations due to phonological and phonotactical regularities which the learner has to memorize are 1) the changes from stressed -o to unstressed -u: a ruga ‘to ask/bid’ → rog, rogi, roagă, rugăm, rugaţi, roagă;13 2) the change from -a to unstressed -ă: a căuta to look for/ search → caut, cauţi, caută, căutăm, căutaţi, caută and 3) the systematic vowel and consonant alternations triggered by the ending -i (for the 2nd pers. sg.) as described in 2.1.2. Further alternations which have to be respected are brought about by the endings -ă (3rd pers. sg./pl.) and -e (3rd pers. sg.) (cf. 2.1.2). The homonymy of certain verbal forms in the context of missing subject position (which is possible as Romanian is a pro-drop language) can cause confusion in identifying the person and number of the subject: 1) In A- and Î-verbs the 3rd person singular and the 3rd person plural: roagă ‘he/she/it asks for’/‘they ask for’ and 2) in EA-, E- and IVerbs the 1st person singular and the 3rd person plural: tac ‘I am silent’/‘they are silent’.

13 However, this mutation does not occur in polysyllabic base morphemes: a aduna (‘to assemble’) → adun, aduni, adună, adunăm, adunaţi, adună (cf. Academia Română 2005).

Romanian

461

Regarding the past tenses and future (1 and 2) it is unlikely for the learner to have difficulties in learning the inflectional forms (since most of them are analytic and/or regular), but rather in identifying the semantic and pragmatic functions of the tenses. 1) Accordingly, L3-learners whose mother tongue lacks the morphological marking of perfective vs. imperfective aspect must be particularly sensitized to the opposition compound perfect/simple perfect14 and imperfect, which displays the perfective (După prânz a adormit imediat. ‘He fell asleep after lunch’) vs. imperfective aspect (După prânz adormea imediat. ‘He always fell asleep after lunch’). 2) In conditional sentences the imperfect tense can replace the conditional perfect (Dacă aveam timp, veneam şi eu la conferinţă. ‘If I had had the time, I would have come to the lecture too’) or can be used to express politeness (Voiam să te întreb ceva. ‘I would like to ask you something’). 3) Future 1 indicative uses all four (analytical) forms adequately according to the situation: 1) The “literal future” according to the example: a vrea (as auxiliary) + infinitive (voi cânta) is used in writing (here compulsory) as well as in oral standard language; 2) the construction a avea (auxiliary) + subjunctive (am să cânt) is found in old literature and simultaneously in popular contexts; 3) the “colloquial future” after the example o + subjunctive (o să cânt) dominates in the spoken language; 4) the aphaeretic form of a vrea + infinitive (oi cânta) can be found in traditional or dialectal context (cf. Beyrer/Bochmann/Bronsert 1987, 200s.). The subjunctive is indicated by the conjunction să as well as by the functional contexts in which it occurs. Mastering the conjugation forms of the present indicative is a prerequisite for building the present subjunctive correctly, where the verb is generally in the secondary position of the mood. In contrast to the other Romance (standard) languages, the subjunctive is used also after the modal verbs, with the exception of the verb a putea (‘can’) which can be followed by a verb in its infinitive form.15 Since the verbal forms of the 1st and 2nd person singular/plural are homonymous to the forms of the present indicative, and the 3rd person singular homonymous to the 3rd person plural, the learner has to memorize only one different form and is “helped” by a series of regularities (thus bringing about the alternations as described in 2.1.2): 1) In A- und Î-Verbs the present indicative ending -ă changes to -e: A-verbs: cântă → să cânte (strong infl.); lucrează → să lucreze (weak infl.), Î-verbs: coboară → să coboare (strong infl.); hotărăşte → să hotărască (weak infl.). In EA-, Eund I-Verbs the present indicative ending changes from -e to -ă: EA-verbs: poate → să poată, E-Verbs: merge → să meargă, I-verbs: fuge → să fugă (strong infl.); vorbeşte → să vorbească (weak infl.). In order to avoid confusions the learner has to pay attention

14 The usage of simple perfect is restricted: it occurs especially in artistic prose and poetry, in historiography and in some dialects in the south western part of Romania (Oltenia or Banat) (cf. Beyrer/Bochmann/Bronsert 1987, 193). 15 In isolated sentences, the subjunctive is especially used to express a wish: Să cântăm un căntec! ‘Shall we sing a song/let us sing a song!’, a request: Te rog să citeşti! ‘Please read!’ vs. Citeşte! ‘read!’ (imperative), or to express doubt: Să plec sau nu? ‘Should I go or not?’.

462

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

to the fact that the subject of the verb in the subjunctive does not need to agree with the subject of the modal verb respectively with the main clause: Doreşte să cânte. ‘He/ she wants to sing’ vs. Doreşte să cânt. ‘He/she wants me to sing’.

2.2.2 Nominal Inflection Regarding the nominal inflection it is difficult for the L3-learner to identify and learn gender, number and case assignment especially in its definite use where it is marked enclitically on the noun and where one and the same ending can mark all three grammatical categories: bărbaţii ‘the men’ – i = m. pl. nom./acc. In learning the nominal inflection, first of all the L3-learner has to identify and assign gender. Romanian has three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter.16 The neuter is a hybrid gender and thus difficult to identify as such: the neuter nouns act as masculine in the singular and as feminine in the plural, respectively. In the identification of gender the L3-learning can appeal to the article as gender marker only restricted because of the following reasons: first, the definite article is enclitic and a compound morpheme, thus difficult to identify, and second, there is a homonymy of both the definite and the indefinite article for the masculine and neuter singular as well as for the feminine and neuter plural. Thus the article serves as gender marker only to differentiate the masculine and neuter singular from the feminine singular and feminine plural, and the feminine and neuter from the masculine plural. Table 1: The article Number singular

plural

Gender

Indef. art.

Def. art.

m. + neut.

un

-(u)l, -le

f.

o

-(u)a

m.

Ø, (nişte)

-i

f.+ neut.

Ø, (nişte)

-le

L1-speakers use the adjectival numerals for ‘one’ and ‘two’ to identify the gender of (inanimate) nouns: un (m. sg.) – doi (m. pl.) for m. vs. un (m. sg.) – două (f. pl.) for neuter, for feminine o (f. sg.) – două (f. pl). The L3-speakers cannot be expected to use this “one–two test” at the beginning of the learning process, since this already requires the mastering of gender. Instead the L3-learner can make use of semantic, morphological and phonological gender signals. In Romanian the semantic factors play rather a secondary role in gender determination in comparison to other lan-

16 Romanian has preserved three genders from the Latin.

Romanian

463

guages, such as English, where the noun is exclusively assigned to the gender due to the semantic criteria. The natural gender principle is valid and, accordingly, animate nouns are correlated with natural sex distinctions. Furthermore, there are a series of other cognitive-conceptual units which the learner (↗16 Language Learner) can correlate to a certain gender such as calendar information or time period (declined as f.), names of mountains and oceans (declined as m. etc.), but they apply only to a limited series of nouns. The morphological signals are much more reliable than the phonological ones: most of the suffixes (native and borrowed) can be assigned to a certain gender according to the “last element principle”. Phonologically, only the following endings are clear, without ambiguity and therefore easy to recognize: 1) the final sounds: -ă /ə/, -a, -ie, -ee17 for f. sg.: masă ‘table’, basma ‘scarf’, stea ‘star’, corabie ‘sailing ship’, idee ‘idea’, and 2) the final sounds -iu and -o(u) for neuter, found especially in lexical borrowings which in Romanian have a tendency to be neuter (which constitutes an additional signal for neuter): studiu ‘study’, radio ‘radio’, birou ‘office’, taxi ‘taxi’. But the consonant endings, the vowel -u, and the semi-vowels -u and -i shared by both masculine and neuter nouns and the ending -e shared by nouns of all three genders are confusing because of their ambiguity and cannot be used as gender signals: bărbat m. ‘man’, halat neut. ‘apron’, codru m. ‘forest’, lucru neut. ‘thing’, fiu m. ‘son’, curcubeu neut. ‘rainbow’, frate m. ‘brother’, spate neut. ‘back’, carte f. ‘book’. In the following it is assumed that gender and number represent different types of features and are acquired independently (cf. Jakubowicz/Goldblum 1995). The plural of a noun is formed mainly by: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

use of plural suffix: casă – case ‘house – houses’, tren – trenuri ‘train – trains’; palatalization of the final consonant: pom – pomi ‘tree – trees’, pădure – păduri ‘forestforests’; altering the final consonant: bărbat – bărbaţi ‘man – men’, dud – duzi ‘mulberry tree – mulberry trees’; use of plural suffix + alternation of the radical vowel: băţ – beţe ‘stick – sticks’, masă – mese ‘table – tables’; change of both the final consonant and the radical vowel: băiat – băieţi ‘boy – boys’, stradă – străzi ‘street – streets’.

As one can see, the choice of the 6 plural suffixes (-e, -i, -uri, (a)le, – (e)le, -le and Ø) is morpho-phonologically determined and depends on the gender and the stem’s final sound. Thus the learner has to deal not only with the morphological dimension (choosing one out of the 6 plural suffixes) but also with the phonological dimension (see 2.1.2). The problems, therefore, in making the plural occur at that particular

17 The only exceptions are: tată ‘father’, popă ‘(orthodox) priest’, pașă ‘pasha’, papă ‘pope’; the ending –ee occurs in lexical borrowings.

464

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

location where more operations are involved (see 4) and 5): fata – fate* ‘girl’ (correct: fete), or strada – strade* (correct: străzi). Romanian has five cases − nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative.18 Romanian possesses overtly a two case inflection: nominative and accusative, and genitive and dative have homonymous (nominal and pronominal) forms. Further, the masculine and neuter singular and neuter and feminine plural also have homonymous forms, and the genitive and dative markers in the plural are homonymous in all three genders.19 The case marking for the noun in all three genders is realized with article morphemes. Additionally, the feminine nouns change their stem in the genitive and dative singular. Table 2: Inflection of the noun Case

sg.

pl.

m.

neut.

f.

indefinite

definite

Indefinite

definite

indefinite

definite

nom./acc.

un bărbat

bărbatul

un scaun

scaunul

o fată

fata

gen./dat.

unui bărbat bărbatului

unui scaun

scaunului

unei fete

fetei

nom./acc.

bărbaţi

bărbaţii

scaune

scaunele

fete

fetele

gen./dat.

unor bărbaţi

bărbaţilor

unor scaune scaunelor

unor fete

fetelor

On the one hand these homonymies can facilitate the (guided) learning process, but on the other hand they can cause problems in identifying the underlying syntactic and semantic function of case. The fact that the stem of the feminine nouns in the genitive and dative is homonymous to the stem in the nominative plural can be helpful in learning the case inflection of feminine nouns if the learner masters the plural form. As mentioned above, the form-function-correlation of the plural and case markers is hindered due to their status as compound morphemes in enclitic position and the missing mono-functionality of grammatical markers: because of the homonymous forms of the gender, case and number markers, one cannot appeal to one specific marker for one specific grammatical category; for indefinite nouns one and the same ending can mean gender, number and case (compare fetele f. pl. nom./acc.). Regarding the use of the definite article, three aspects can cause problems: 1) Most of the prepositions exclude the use of the definite article in definite contexts (Cartea este pe masă. ‘The book is on the table’), which can lead to ungrammatical 18 The vocative is not relevant for the sentence syntax and is seldom used, but it often appears in lexicalized form. 19 When taking all the homonym types and the different inflectional opposition into consideration, there are 11 classes of inflections to differentiate, but this will not be dealt with here in any detail (cf. Coteanu 1974, 162–170).

Romanian

465

utterances like: Cartea este pe masa*. 2) If the noun is modified by an adjective, for example, the use of the definite or indefinite article is compulsory: Cartea este pe masa verde. ‘The book is on the green table’ Cartea este pe o masă verde. ‘The book is on a green table’ 3) Definiteness can be double marked, that is, the definite article can occur with a demonstrative: Cartea aceasta – ‘This (+the) book’.

2.2.3 Pronominal Morphology Out of the complex prononominal morphology the focus will be put on the personal pronoun because of its various forms of inflection. In Romanian, as a pro-drop-language, there are many situations where the subject pronoun is not overtly expressed. Problems occur less in the optional use of the subject pronoun with anaphoric reference (Unde este Paul? – (El) e la cinema. ‘Where is Paul? – (He) is at the cinema’) but rather in contexts using predicates without an argument (cf. Beyrer/Bochmann/Bronsert 1987, 260–270) because here the position of the subject has to be empty, as in the following situations: 1) predicates expressing events or natural conditions (in the broadest sense: atmospheric conditions, sounds etc.): Plouă. ‘It is raining’; E zgomot. ‘It is noisy’; E târziu. ‘It is late’. 2) “Personal” predicates used impersonally: Sună. ‘It is ringing’; Este bine aşa. ‘It is good like that’. Learning the pronominal inflection is hindered by the existence of two sets of forms in the accusative and dative: a paradigm of stressed (full) forms and one of unstressed forms; further there are different morpho-phonologically conditioned forms of the latter (clitics). Table 3: Inflectional forms of the personal pronouns Acc. stressed SG. 1st pers.

unstressed unstressed free bound

stressed

unstressed free

unstressed bound

(pe) mine mă

m-

mie

îmi

-mi

2nd pers.

(pe) tine

te

te-

ƫie

îţi

-ţi

3rd pers. m.

(pe) el

îl

l-/-l

lui

îi

-i

(pe) ea

o

-o

ei

îi

-i

f. PL.

Dat.

1st pers.

(pe) noi

ne

ne-

nouă

ne/ni

ni-

2nd pers.

(pe) voi

vă

v-

vouă

vă/ vi

v-/vi-

3rd pers. m.

(pe) ei

îi

-i

lor

le/li

le-/li-

(pe) ele

le

le-

lor

le

le-

f.

466

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

The stressed form does not create so many problems since it is free and invariable. The learner has to keep in mind that it occurs 1) after prepositions (Vine la tine. ‘He/she comes to you’), 2) in elliptical remarks (Cui îi place îngheţata? – Mie. ‘Who likes icecream? – Me’) and 3) as emphasis, with the double expression of the direct or indirect objects: Ion m-a salutat şi pe mine. ‘John has also greeted me’). Learning the various forms of the clitics can turn out to be especially difficult for the L3 learners (especially for learners, whose L1 does not show this aspect) (↗16 Language Learner). There are three primary difficulties: the first one lies in the topic, i.e. in the identification of the “host”, the second is the binding, since the clitic is optional in some contexts, while obligatory in others, the third is to build the form that has to result from the binding. In order to find out the position of the clitic, the learner has to pay attention to the synthetic versus the analytic form of tense and mood. Regarding tense, the learner has to keep in mind that in synthetic tenses the clitic precedes the verb (Îmi place mărul. Îl mănânc. ‘The apple tastes good to me. I eat it’) and in analytical tenses the unstressed form precedes the auxiliary verb (proclitic) to which it is attached by a hyphen (L-am mâncat. ‘I have eaten it’). Frequent errors are caused especially by two exceptions which have to be memorized additionally by the learner: 1) in the compound perfect, the unstressed form of the 3rd person feminine singular o is enclitically and compulsory bound by a hyphen to the past participle (Am mâncat-o. ‘I have eaten it’. *O am mâncat); 2) in the literal future it is proclitic and compulsory free (O voi mânca. ‘I will eat it’). Regarding mood, the learner has to pay attention to a series of regularities: that in the affirmative imperative, as well as in gerund, the clitics are obligatorily bound enclitically with the verb by a hyphen: Dă-mi mărul! ‘Give me the apple!’ *Dă îmi mărul! Additionally, the learner has to augment the gerund verb form with the linking vowel -u (except for the feminine object pronoun o) before binding the clitic: Văzându-l. ‘Seeing him’; Văzând-o. ‘Seeing her’); otherwise he/she produces incorrect forms like: *Văzând-îl. One area of difficulty, and an extremely frequent source of errors, is the contexts in which the same verb takes both the accusative and dative object, and both are expressed by unstressed forms; first, because of the fixed order: dative precedes accusative whether their position is proclitic or enclitic (Mi-l povesteşte. ‘He tells it to me’ – Povesteşte mi-l! ‘Tell it to me!’); secondly, because of the special forms of dative pronouns when the dative and the accusative (i.e. the reflexive pronouns converge): Mi te-a recomandat un prieten. ‘A friend has recommended you to me’; Ni le-a explicat profesorul. ‘The teacher has explained them to us’; I-o descrie exact. ‘He/she describes him/her exactly/accurately’. However even for native speakers the succession of clitics, i.e. the position of the hyphen and the choice of the correct form, causes problems in written communication. The combination with the negative imperative verb, with the negation particle nu, with the subjunctive marker să and (occasionally) with conjunctions is optional and,

467

Romanian

as such, does not lead to considerable problems (Nu îmi da mărul! – Nu-mi da mărul! ‘Don’t give me the apple!’ Vreau să o văd. – Vreau s-o văd. ‘I want to see her’; Dacă îl vezi. Dacă-l vezi. ‘If you see him’). Another difficult aspect is the double marking of the direct object (the pronominal double object), if the direct accusative and dative object are nouns (and pronouns) with the semantic feature [+human] (Îi dau cartea fratelui meu. ‘I give my brother the book’ – Îi dau cartea lui. I give him the book). Besides, Romanian features the prepositional accusative as a particular occurrence of the differential object marking due to semantic features. This means that accusative objects expressed by nouns with the semantic feature [+human] are preceded by the preposition pe, whereby the use of pe is obligatory for personal names and nouns denoting family members (Îl văd pe Ion. ‘I see John’; Am ajutat-o.pe mama. ‘I have helped mother’), while for generic names with the feature [+human] it is optional: (Îl) văd (pe) un băiat. ‘I see a boy’. This particularity leads to two frequent types of errors: first the omission of one of the pronouns (*Văd Ion./ *Văd pe Ion. *Am ajutat pe mamă./ *Am ajutat-o mamă./ *Am ajutat mamă.) or over-generalization on nouns with the feature [-human] where it is seen as false (Mănânc un măr. ‘I eat an apple’. – *Mănânc pe un măr. / *Îl mănânc pe un măr. – *Îl mănânc pe măr.) and secondly the confusion of cases (Îl* dau cartea fratelui meu.). Regarding the reflexive pronoun, there are two major sets, one for the accusative (a se pieptăna ‘to comb one’s hair’) and one for the dative (a îşi închipui ‘to imagine’) depending on the valence of the ruling verb with which it agrees in person and number. As well as the personal pronoun, each of the case paradigms displays stressed and unstressed forms (clitics), while the unstressed forms are used free or bound (with a hyphen). Table 4: Inflectional forms of the reflexive pronoun Acc.

SG.

PL.

Dat.

stressed unstressed free

unstressed stressed bound

unstressed unstressed free bound

1st pers.

mine

mă

m-

mie

îmi

-mi/mi-

2nd pers.

tine

te

te-

ţie

îţi

-ţi/ţi-

3rd pers.

sine

se

s-

sieşi, sie

îşi

-şi/şi-

1st pers.

noi

ne

ne-

nouă

ne/ni

ne-/ni-

2nd pers.

voi

vă

v-

vouă

vă/ vi

v-/vi-

3rd pers.

sine

se

s-

sieşi, sie

îşi

-şi/şi-

468

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

The form-function correlation of the various forms of the pronouns is complicated by the homonymy of the 1st and 2nd person singular and plural with their (unstressed) personal pronouns. The reflexive pronoun displays only in the 3rd person (singular and plural) specific forms: one form for the accusative singular and plural, masculine, neuter and feminine (se), and one form for the dative singular and plural, masculine, neuter and feminine (îşi). In numerous verbs the reflexive pronoun differentiates the meaning of the verb, therefore omission or false use can lead to difficulties in understanding or even misunderstanding: a aştepta ‘to wait’ vs. a se aştepta la ‘to reckon with’, a naşte ‘to bear’ vs. a se naşte ‘to be born’. Another difficulty in acquiring Romanian results from the syntactical and semantic polyfunctionality of the unstressed reflexive pronoun in the 3rd person singular accusative se: 1) in real reflexive constructions (Ion se spală. ‘John washes himself’), 2) as syntactic passive marker exclusively for subjects with the semantic feature [–anim] (Fereastra aceasta se deschide foarte greu. ‘This window is hard to open’) and 3) as syntactic marker for impersonal constructions (se spune ‘they say’; se întâmplă ‘it occurs’). The reflexive pronoun in the dative can further be enhanced as a possessive pronoun in the context in which the accusative object is expressed by a definite noun (Ion îşi conduce părinţii la gară. ‘John brings his parents to the station’, Mi-am căutat biletul, dar nu l-am găsit. ‘I was looking for my ticket but I did not find it’). This can lead to confusion in comprehension and to omission/errors in production.

2.2.4 Adjective Morphology The form of the adjective varies according to agreement with the gender, number and case of the regent noun. The agreement is realized enclitically, while one and the same inflectional suffix serves as a marker for gender, number and case. The adjective displays different forms for the masculine and the feminine, the neuter acts as masculine in the singular and as feminine in the plural. The morphology of adjectives is confusing as there are, according to the number of endings of each inflectional paradigm, four types of adjective forms: four endings, three endings, two endings and one ending. Within each form more groups can exist: Table 5: Adjective types (nom./acc.) Inflectional paradigm

m./neut. sg.

f. sg.

m. pl.

f./neut. pl.

ø–ǎ–i–e

frumos ‘beautiful’

frumoasă

frumoşi

frumoase

u–ă–i–e

aspru ‘rough’

aspră

aşpri

aspre

ǔ – ø – – le

greu ‘heavy’

grea

grei

grele

i

Type

four endings

Romanian

Inflectional paradigm

m./neut. sg.

f. sg.

m. pl.

f./neut. pl.

ø–e–i–e

următor ‘following’

următoare

următori

următoare

ø–ǎ– –

mic ‘small’

mică

mici

mici

e–ă– –e

june ‘young’

jună

juni

june

ǔ–e–i–i

viu ‘lively’

vie

vii

vii

e–e–i–i

mare ‘big’

mare

mari

mari

i

i

i

i

–e–i–e

greoi ‘sluggish/ clumsy’

greoaie

greoi

greoaie

i

–e– –

vechi ‘old’

veche

vechi

vechi

tenace ‘determined’

tenace

tenaci

tenace

maro ‘brown’

maro

maro

maro

i

i

e–e–i–e

469

Type

three endings

two endings

one ending

In the learning process the learner can use the four-ending adjectives as prototypes where the endings are predictable.20 Since there are no reliable “signals” for the type and the inflectional paradigm of the other three types, the forms (Table 5) have to be mastered by rote learning (at least in the first phase of language learning). The general difficulty in learning Romanian morphology mentioned above (2.1.2) works for the adjective as well: it is not only the ending the learner has to deal with, but additionally the vowel and/or consonant alternation triggered by the endings: -ă, -e and -i. Consequently, the complexity of these operations leads to errors like: fată frumosă* instead of fată frumoasă, fete mare* instead of fete mari. Another problem regards the adjectival syntax. Usually, the adjective is in the post-position, but the learner has to be aware of two facts: 1) preponing the adjective leads to a change of meaning in some cases (o nouă casă ‘another house’ vs. casă nouă ‘a new house’, o simplă afirmaţie ‘only a statement’ vs. o afirmaţie simplă ‘a simple statement’), 2) the article morpheme takes over the morpho-syntactic information of the regent noun: nom./acc. sg: oraşul mare ‘the large town’ – marele oraş ‘the city’, gen./dat. sg.: oraşului mare – marelui oraş, nom./acc. pl.: oraşele mari – marile oraşe, gen./dat. pl: oraşelor mari – marilor oraşe (cf. Iliescu/Popovici 2013, 100–106, for more detailed description).

3 Conclusions As we have attempted to show, the potential difficulties in learning Romanian as a foreign language (L3) are likely to be due to the specificities of its phonetic inventory

20 The one form adjectives are usually lexical borrowings: bleu, cool, kaki etc.

470

Sabine Krause and Heide Flagner

and its synthetic character: it is not only the ending the learner has to deal with, but additionally the vowel and/or consonant alternation triggered by them. Since this mixed character of the inflectional operations works for the nominal, verbal, adjectival and pronominal inflection as well, it is helpful and essential to master the phonological aspects in the first phases of the learning process. Further, it is necessary to dedicate a large amount of time to the nominal categories.

4 Bibliography Academia Română (2005), Dicţionarul Ortografic, Ortoepic şi Morfologic al Limbii Române (ediţia a II-a, revizuită şi adăugită), Bucureşti, Univers enciclopedic. Adunarea Provinciei Voivodina (2009), Statutul provinciei autonome Voivodina, http://www.puma. vojvodina.gov.rs/dokumenti/Rumuni/pravni_akti/Statut_APV_ru.pdf (14.07.2013). Barbu, Ana-Maria (2008), Conjugarea verbelor româneşti. Dicţionar, Bucureşti, Editura Coresi. Beyrer, Arthur/Bochmann, Klaus/Bronsert, Siegfried (1987), Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache, Leipzig, Verlag Enzyklopädie. Biroul Național de Statistică al Republicii Moldova (2004), Rezultate recensămînt 2004 Moldova, https://statistica.md/recensamint.php (14.07.2013). Biserica Ortodoxă Română (2006), Comunităţile româneşti în diaspora, http://www.patriarhia.ro/ro/ relatii_externe/comunitati_romanesti_in_diaspora.html (14.07.2013). Bochmann, Klaus/Dumbrava, Vasile (edd.) (2007), Sprachliche Individuation in mehrsprachigen Regionen Osteuropas, I. Republik Moldova, Leipzig, Universitätsverlag. Bochmann, Klaus/Stiehler, Heinrich (2010), Einführung in die rumänische Sprach- und Literaturgeschichte, Bonn, Romanistischer Verlag. Bochmann, Klaus, et al. (edd.) (2012), Die Republik Moldau. Republica Moldova. Ein Handbuch, Leipzig, Universitätsverlag. Bulumac, Ovideana (2012), Comunităţile româneşti din Serbia. Consideraţii generale, Etnosfera 1/ 2012, http://www.etnosfera.ro/pdf/2012/1/03.pdf (17.07.2013). Caragiu Marioţeanu, Matilda (1989), Rumänisch: Areallinguistik I. Dakorumänisch, in: Günter Holtus/ Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. III, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 405–423. Centrul de studii pentru resurse româneşti (2009), Raport de monitorizare a respectării drepturilor comunităţii româneşti din afara graniţelor ţării, http://www.centruldestudii.ro/pdf/ra port_2009.pdf (17.07.2013]). Coteanu, Ion (ed.) (1974), Limba română contemporană, vol. I, Bucureşti, Editura didactică şi pedagogică. Dimitriu, Constantin (1979), Gramatica limbii române explicată. Morfologia, Iaşi, Junimea. Erfurt, Jürgen (2002), Dimensiunile sociolingvistice ale limbii române vorbite, in: Klaus Bochmann/ Vasile Dumbrava (edd.), Limba română vorbită în Moldova istorică, vol. 1, Leipzig, Universitätsverlag, 15–33. Gafu, Cristina/Badea, Mihaela/Iridon, Cristina (2012), Errors in the acquisition of Romanian as second language: A case study, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 69, 1626–1634. Heitmann, Klaus (1989), Rumänisch: Moldauisch, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. III, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 508–521. Ihrig, Stefan (2012), Gagausen, in: Klaus Bochmann et al. (edd.), Die Republik Moldau. Republica Moldova. Ein Handbuch, Leipzig, Universitätsverlag, 201–206.

Romanian

471

Iliescu, Maria/Popovici, Victoria (2013), Rumänische Grammatik, Hamburg, Buske. Institutul Cultural Român (2013): Despre noi. Rapoarte de activitate, http://www.icr.ro/bucuresti/ rapoarte-de-activitate (14.07.2013). Institutul Limbii Române (2013): Lectorate de limba română 2012–13, http://ilr.ro/documente/BAZA% 20DATE%20-%20LECTORATE%202011%20-%202012.pdf (14.07.2013). Institutul Naţional de Statistică al Republicii România (2013), Comunicat de presă Nr. 159 din 4 iulie 2013 privind rezultatele definitive ale Recensământului Populaţiei şi al Locuinţelor – 2011, http:// www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Comunicat-de-presa-nr-159-_ REZULTATE-DEFINITIVE-RPL2011.pdf (14.07.2013). Jakubowicz, Celia/Goldblum, Marie Claire (1995), Processing of number and gender inflections by French speaking aphasics, Brain and Language 51/2, 242–268. Leclerc, Jacques (2010), Gagaouzie, in: L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde, Québec, TLFQ, Université Laval, http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/EtatsNsouverains/gagaouzie.htm (14.07.2013). Leclerc, Jacques (2011a), Roumanie, in: L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde, Québec, TLFQ, Université Laval, http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/europe/roumanie.htm (14.07.2013). Leclerc, Jacques (2011b), Ukraïne. Politique linguistique relative aux minorités nationales, in: L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde, Québec, TLFQ, Université Laval, http://www.axl.cefan. ulaval.ca/europe/ukraine-4pol-minorites.htm (14.07.2013). Leclerc, Jacques (2012a), Transnistrie, in: L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde, Québec, TLFQ, Université Laval, http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/EtatsNsouverains/Transnistrie.htm (14.07.2013). Leclerc, Jacques (2012b), La politique linguistique à l’égard des minorités nationales, in: L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde, Québec, TLFQ, Université Laval, http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval. ca/europe/hongriepolminor.htm (14.07.2013). Muljačič, Žarko (1967), Die Klassifikation der romanischen Sprachen, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 18, 23–37. National Human Rights Working Group (2013), Ethnic Romanians in Hungary, http://emberijogok. kormany.hu/ethnic-romanians-in-hungary (14.07.2013). Organisation des Nations Unies (2000), Quatrièmes rapports périodiques que les États parties devaient présenter en 1994, Genève, Comité des droits de l’homme, CCPR/Add. 12, 12 août 2000. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) (2010), Gramatica de bază a limbii române, Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică “Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti”, Bucureşti, Univers Enciclopedic Gold. Şoimu, Aneta (2011), Situaţia comunităţii româneşti din Ucraina, http://www.basarabia91.net/2011/ 04/situatia-comunitatii-romanesti-din.html (14.07.2013). Steinke, Klaus/Vraciu, Ariton (1999), Introducere în lingvistica balcanică, Iaşi, Editura Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”. Tofan, Alina (2011), Mehrsprachigkeit im großstädtischen Handel in der Republik Moldau aus autobiographischer Perspektive, Leipzig, Universität Leipzig, Philologische Fakultät. Yacoub, Joseph (1998), Les minorités dans le monde, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer. Zakon PMR o jazykah w pridn’estrovskoi moldavskoi respublik’e, http://zakon-pmr.com/DetailDoc. aspx?document=36286 (13.07.2013).

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

25 Spanish Abstract: The Spanish language is an international language that is acquired, as a first, second, or foreign language in widely varying contexts, which may be Spanishspeaking or non-Spanish-speaking. This chapter presents a general overview of the means and circumstances in which the Spanish language is acquired, especially as a second and foreign language, in various contexts. The chapter also explains some of the features of Spanish that tend to be more or less complicated to acquire, and describes some types of acquisition differentiated by language environment and by systems of language teaching. Finally, some recent research on Spanish language acquisition will be presented. Keywords: Spanish, language acquisition, international languages, America, Spain

1 Introduction The Spanish language is one of the languages acquired with the greatest frequency and intensity in the contemporary world. Naturally, the level of acquisition of a language is not measured by its internal features, commonly shared with many languages, but by factors related to the profiles of their linguistic community. In the case of the Spanish language, its community is very broad, since it is currently the second language in the world as a native or mother language, only behind Mandarin Chinese. If instead of linguistic community we speak of potential international users, the Spanish language would also occupy the second position in the world, in this case behind English (Moreno-Fernández/Otero 2008). The intent of these pages is to present a general overview of the means and circumstances in which the Spanish language is acquired in different international contexts, especially as a second and foreign language (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). The vast range of domains in which Spanish is acquired presumes the existence of specific, very different acquisition environments, which should be distinguished between when the acquisition occurs as a first language and as a second or foreign language. In the latter case, Spanish has several characteristics that tend to be more or less complicated to acquire depending on the origin of the speaker, but that usually concern a few recurring aspects. In addition, in each specific geographic and social environment, the processes must be differentiated in terms of the subjects, the means and the place in which the acquisition takes place. This diversity means that research on Spanish language acquisition responds to diverse needs and focuses on quite varied objects of study, as is usual in the study of international languages.

Spanish

473

2 Conceptual Bases This work proposes a distinction between linguistic community and potential user group, a distinction that deserves a minimal explanation, since it directly affects the different modes in which the Spanish language is acquired. UNESCO defines “linguistic community” as “any human society established historically in a particular territorial space, whether this space be recognized or not, which identifies itself as a people and has developed a common language as a natural means of communication and cultural cohesion among its members” (UNESCO 1996).

According to this definition, the Hispanic linguistic community would have Spanish as a means of cultural cohesion among its members, which would be acquired as either a first or second language. This type of community is not to be confused with the so-called “speech community,” which may include multiple languages and is characterized by a few shared sociolinguistic uses and attitudes (Romaine 1982). When we speak of “groups of potential users” (GPU) this refers to a broader and more flexible concept, consisting of the set of speakers who are able to communicate with a language, whether a first, second, or foreign language, with different levels of proficiency. Within a GPU, acquisition modes are, therefore, quite varied, as well as the motivations and contexts that influence them. In this way, the acquisition of the Spanish language, even if a psycholinguistic process, can occur in three fundamental types of speakers, which we can arrange in concentric circles (Moreno-Fernández/ Otero 1998). The first circle – or nuclear circle – would correspond to the speakers that make up the Native Proficiency Group (NPG) for Spanish; the second circle – or expanded circle – corresponds to the Limited Competence Group (LCG) for Spanish. The third circle – or peripheral circle – corresponds to the Foreign Language Learners Group (FLLG). In this way, the community of potential users (GPU) of the Spanish language would consist essentially of members of the NPG, to which would be added members of the LCG and the FLLG, as shown in the following formulation: GPU = NPG + (LCG + FLLG). According to this equation, the NPG represents the set of individuals whose ability to use a language corresponds to – or is approaching – the ability of those who acquire it from childhood in interaction with their family, with members of a community or through school. This group would include those who speak Spanish as their mother language, speakers of Spanish as a primary language, and bilingual speakers in communities in which Spanish is socially established. The LCG is the set of individuals with limited ability to use a language (precarious knowledge or knowledge restricted to certain topics or situations); proficient speakers would be second and third generation in bilingual communities (↗11 Bilingual Education), users of bilingual mix varieties and foreigners with a different mother language to Spanish living in a Spanish-speaking country. The FLLG would be composed of those individ-

474

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

uals who have acquired or are acquiring a language through the process of classroom learning. Thus, proficiency in the language can be very diverse, ranging from beginners to experts, whether these are students of Spanish in formal education in a nonSpanish-speaking country, or Spanish students in centers for teaching Spanish as a foreign language. This organization of the Spanish-speaking space in three concentric circles will serve as a basis for explaining how the processes of Spanish language acquisition that are most frequently produced internationally function. The concept of “acquisition” that we will use, consequently, will be, on one hand, very loose, given that we will pay attention to any setting in which the language is acquired, whether a school, family, or community setting; for this reason, we will speak of acquisition in relation to education contexts, while also attending to contexts in which learning is produced outside a classroom. On the other hand, our concept of “acquisition” will be fundamentally socioenvironmental and will deal with the way in which social and communicative factors affect the process of acquisition. If we accept the division of theories of acquisition in three large groups – innatist theories, interactionist theories, and environmentalist theories (Preston/Young 2000) (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories) – our concept of “acquisition” will be closest to the environmentalists, including the model of acculturation (Schumann 1978), the model of nativization (Andersen 1981), the theory of communicative accommodation (Giles/Byrne 1982), the focus on communicative competence (Hymes 1971; 1972; Savignon 21997), the sociolinguistics of variation (Preston 1989; Labov 2010), or even cognitive sociolinguistics (Labov 2009; Moreno-Fernández 2012). We assume that the attention to acquisition from specific contexts requires adapting the capacity of the influence of such contexts on acquisition itself and, therefore, giving priority to the social approach over the psychological or interactive one. With respect to the concepts of second and foreign language (↗10 Second Language Acquisition), we prefer to maintain this distinction, although we are aware of the controversy that such a decision entails. In his seminal study on the teaching of languages, Hans Heinrich Stern (1983) observes that, although it is common for the terms “second language” and “foreign language” to be used as synonyms, it is proper to make a conceptual distinction with respect to its specialized use. The acquisition of a language can take place either in heteroglossic environments, distinct from the acquired language, or homoglossic environments, in which the acquired language is socially used and established. For example: learning the Spanish language in Italy would imply the acquisition of a second language in a heteroglossic environment, given that Italy does not offer a Spanish-speaking environment; learning the Spanish language in Ecuador would imply the acquisition of a second language in a homoglossic environment given that Ecuador is a Spanish-speaking community.

Spanish

475

Table 1: Types of language acquisition, according to language environment and order of the acquired language. Homoglossic environment

Heteroglossic environment

First language

E.g., acquisition in family environment within a homogeneous speaking community, normally with educational support

E.g., acquisition in family environment in a community that does not speak that language, with or without educational support

Second language (third, fourth, …)

(Second language) E.g., acquisition in educational environment within Spanishspeaking community

(Foreign Language) E.g., acquisition in educational environment in a community that does not speak that language

The concept of “second language” also has a clear sociological dimension when applied to a speaking community, rather than to an individual. Thus, there exist communities in which more than one language are used with distinct social goals, distributing their use in different ways, whether in an equal manner, or in a diglossic manner, with important differences between public uses and private or family uses. When the acquisition of a second language (individual perspective) is produced within a community that employs the acquired language as a second language (social perspective), one can also speak of homoglossic learning, provided that the learner has a sufficient contact with the speakers of that second community language (for example, Spanish acquired by an English speaker in Florida, in the United States). The diversity of acquisition environments that can be observed in the prior table, together with the geographic breadth and diversity of the Spanish-speaking region and the multitude of educational programs that include the Spanish language in the entire world, explains the interest in various forms of Spanish as an object of acquisition, given that a language can only be acquired through one of its varieties and, in the case of Spanish, there are many candidates for this, which can be grouped in eight large dialect areas: in Spain, at least Castilian, Andalusian, and Canary Islands; in the Americas, at least Mexican-Central-American, Caribbean, Andean, Austral or Rioplatense, and Chilean. In educational environments, the Spanish dialect variety chosen as the object of learning comes conditioned by three decisive factors: the provenance of the faculty, the authorship of didactic materials, and the expectations and needs of the students. In this respect, it is important to stress that Spanish does not have one unique, international or neutral standard variety, but rather teaching models are constructed on the most educated form of each one of its dialect varieties. Such varieties manifest a major relative homogeneity, such that there is no problem of inter-comprehension among the educated forms of their dialects because there is a majority of common or general elements. That entirety of general elements can be given the name “general Spanish.”

476

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

3 Contexts With the intention of understanding how the Spanish language is acquired in its condition as an international language, we will pay close attention to some of the most important sociogeographic contexts; not because one process of acquisition might be in itself more relevant than another, but rather for the potential number of people who might experience such acquisition in each context. Thus, we will pay attention to acquisition in geographic Spanish-speaking domains (above all as a second language in the bilingual ones) (↗11 Bilingual Education), to the situation in Europe, in the United States, in Brazil, in Asia, and in Africa. With this we attempt to present a general overview, although we are aware that we are leaving to the side many specific environments of great interest. Our comments will refer chiefly to social and educational aspects, which will attempt to sketch out the general characteristics of the language environment.

3.1 Bilingual Spanish-Speaking Environments The acquisition of the Spanish language is produced, in a geographically vast part of the Hispanic domain, in homoglossic family environments and within stable and relatively homogeneous Spanish-speaking communities. In numerous large cities, like the city of Mexico, Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Santiago de Chile, or Madrid, the acquisition of Spanish is guaranteed in the immense majority of family environments, with the contribution of the speaking community itself and the school system. This is not an obstacle for the existence of numerous bilingual or multilingual environments, apart from the situation of foreign or temporary residents. Those bilingual environments are mainly found in the Andean area (↗29 Peru), in Paraguay, and in Spain (↗32 Spain). In the Americas, social bilingualism is more considerable in less urban communities and in more family settings, with perhaps the exception of Asunción (Paraguay) where Guaraní shows a notable individual and social vitality. There are also areas, like the upper regions of Peru (↗29 Peru), Ecuador, or Bolivia, where many families are monolingual in their primary language and only make social use of Spanish. Despite the importance of languages like Quechua, Aymara, or Nahuatl, it is true that the education systems of their respective countries are in many ways lacking in their transmission, due to the scarcity of teachers as well as of adequate materials. In the case of native speakers of these languages, Spanish may be learned in school as a second language, hence the paradox that the materials used are very frequently for its teaching as a first language. In the case of Spain, the acquisition of Spanish within its bilingual regions (↗11 Bilingual Education) is produced in very different ways. In the case of families in which the parents are speakers of the region’s historical language, this is the language that is normally acquired by the children, but Spanish is also acquired at an early age because

Spanish

477

of its regular presence in the speech community, in the media and in the education systems. When there are mixed marriages (Spanish speaker – non-Spanish speaker), Spanish tends to predominate as the family language. The presence of Spanish in school, however, differs substantially among regions: in Catalonia schooling includes widespread programs of immersion in Catalan (↗19 Catalan), so that the presence of Spanish, within the classroom, is limited to a subject of study; in the Basque Region, there exists the possibility of choosing between a model offered in the Basque language (with growing acceptance in primary school), a Spanish-language model (quite consolidated in secondary school) and a mixed or bilingual model; in Galicia bilingual education is also offered, with part in Spanish and part in Galician; this model is also predominant in Valencia and Baleares (Moreno-Fernández/Ramallo 2013) (↗32 Spain). Among Spanish-speaking countries, those that accumulate greater experience in the terrain of the teaching of Spanish as a second language, and as a foreign language, as well as in the training of teachers (↗15 Language Teacher), are Spain and Mexico. Of course, if we consider the United States of America as a Spanish-speaking country – a justifiable opinion given the total number of Spanish speakers there – one would have to lift it to the first place in the hierarchy of the teaching of Spanish. Teachers of Mexican origin play a decisive role in the diffusion of the Mexican variety in the United States of America. There are abundant programs in secondary schools and universities that take American students to Mexico, not to mention the quantity of Mexican teachers that end up giving classes in the neighboring country to the North. It is true that American universities maintain study programs in other countries, like Costa Rica, Argentina, and Spain (↗32 Spain), but they are lower in volume, so that the capability to extend their linguistic variety into North America is reduced. The presence of the Mexican variety also reveals a notable weight in its regular appearance in textbooks published in the United States, whether they bear the signature of authors of Mexican provenance, or are the responsibility of non-Hispanic American teachers. Finally, the strong immigration faced by Spain in the first decade of the 2000s has raised interest in the acquisition of Spanish on the part of non-Spanish-speaking immigrants, coming mainly from Eastern Europe, from northern Africa or from subSaharan Africa. Adult migrants acquire Spanish in a precarious way in their own work setting primarily, whereas their children are schooled in the Spanish language, with the support of so-called “integration classrooms,” which attempt to compensate for their linguistic and cultural deficit with respect to their schoolmates.

3.2 Europe Europe is a linguistic mosaic in which the Spanish language, as a first language, occupies a demographically modest place. However, in the scope of its use and knowledge as a second language, the place of Spanish in Europe is not only respectable, but is experiencing a notable growth. This growth, in qualitative and quantita-

478

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

tive terms, is evident from a general perspective as well as in each one of the European areas, which gives a considerable weight to the teaching of the Spanish language (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). In Europe, excluding Spain, the acquisition of Spanish as a first language is also produced when considering the children of Spanish residents in other European countries or, above all in the last few decades, when considering the children of Spanish-speakers arriving in Europe from the Americas for economic or ideological reasons. In fact, the presence of Spanish in Europe is not something that should be linked exclusively to Spain, because there are already more than 2 million Latin Americans who have settled in the European continent, who serve as a transmission belt for Latin American culture, at the same time as they diffuse an American Spanish, in different varieties, when they take on the teaching of the language. And, in relation to this population, it must be the case that the children of Hispanic immigrants are accustomed to using the Spanish language at home, which in fact transforms them into native Spanish speakers, though schooled in a different language. Thus a particular kind of need arises: that of the native Spanish speaker who needs to follow classes of his or her own language in order to acquire a competence permitting him or her to master writing and the necessary registers for performance in professional fields. It is not enough to speak Spanish in the family environment; it is necessary to master it in all skills (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means), at a level equivalent to that of the language taught in school, in order to access a job market in which bilingualism is a value on the rise, when not an essential requirement. The Spanish of these bilingual people (↗11 Bilingual Education) reflects, as is logical, its form of provenance and offers an outlook parallel to that which exists in the United States of America.

3.3 United States The United States of America is probably the country in the world with the greatest diversity of situations of acquisition and learning of Spanish coexisting. In addition, one must keep in mind another peculiarity of the United States for teaching Spanish: its teaching and learning as a second language breaks the sharp dichotomy between heteroglossic and homoglossic environments, given that there can exist homoglossic micro-environments (Latino groups or communities) within heteroglossic macro-environments (Anglophone cities or communities). Bilingualism of English and Spanish in the United States is not a bilingualism that is socially balanced in the entire territory of the Union, but rather one that in many places experiences a diglossic distribution that leads to a use of languages according to the social functions that they must fulfill. On the other hand, the social weakness of Spanish in American society, despite its broad presence in some states, makes the transmission of the Spanish language from parent to child weaken from generation to generation, in a process that does not

Spanish

479

usually resist beyond the third generation. If it does, it is through the continual arrival of Spanish speakers from other countries, as well as the importance that Spanish continues to gain as a language of social use (Potowski/Rothman 2011). The teaching of Spanish in American society is mainly in school-based contexts, where Spanish is offered in 88% of primary schools and in 93% of secondary schools (Rhodes/Pufahl 2010), or in university, where inscription in the Spanish language accounts for more than 60% of all foreign language courses. Nevertheless, in the United States there exists a very unique teaching situation, directly related to the means of language acquisition: that of courses for heritage Spanish speakers (Beaudrie/Fairclough 2012). Hispanics or Latinos in the United States are very conscious of the importance of a good mastery of English, but are increasingly conscious of the value of proficiency in their other language: Spanish. The reasons that bring native Spanish speakers in the United States to take courses in their own language are diverse. On one hand, they respond to a desire to strengthen their relationships with members of their family who barely speak English (Mazzocco 1996) and to reinforce their own identity as members of a group with specific cultural characteristics (Benjamin 1997). But there are also pragmatic reasons: acquiring an advantage at the time of job hunting, in which it can be required to have professional-level ability in another language (Brecht/Ingold 1998) or simply to fulfill the university requirement of studying a second language. Despite all this, there are heritage speakers who do not wish to learn Spanish and who abandon it due to the criticism that their form of speaking Spanish receives from monolingual Spanish speakers. Others reject it because, while speaking it, they feel inferior with respect to English or else because they have noticed that some Americans consider that speaking Spanish supposes a kind of rejection of Anglo culture. In the teaching of Spanish as a heritage language, the use of code change or alternation should not be discarded (Nichols/Colón 2000), in order to favor fluency, self-esteem (↗5 Languages and Identities), and the transfer of communicative abilities from one language to another.

3.4 Brazil The concept of the “heteroglossic environment” also loses a part of its characteristics in Brazil, so that its distinction is relativized with respect to the concept of the homoglossic environment. This is because of the linguistic proximity of Spanish and Portuguese (↗22 Portuguese) – “Ausbau” languages according to Kloss (1967) –, which transforms them into good instruments for inter-linguistic communication. But there exist two other circumstances that make Spanish language acquisition in Brazil somewhat unique. One is the geographic fact that Brazil is surrounded by Spanishspeaking countries that use, in fact, three principal dialect forms, Caribbean, Andean, and Austral. The other is the considerable demographic weight that the native Spanish-speaking population holds in Brazil (↗30 Portugal and Brazil), a population

480

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

probably equal to more than a million inhabitants, more or less socially stable, of which half come from countries belonging to MERCOSUR (Moreno-Fernández/Otero 2008). And this, precisely, is a factor that has not only favored the development of Spanish in recent years, but also conditions the reasons that bring Brazilians to lean toward a preference for the learning of the Spanish language, in some areas even exceeding that of the English language. The teaching of Spanish in Brazil has been concentrated during the twentieth century at the university level, but the change of century brought a double opening: toward private language schools and toward primary and secondary education. The principal trigger for this opening has been the creation and consolidation of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), and its principal legal consequence has been Law 11.161, from August 2005,1 which determines that offering the Spanish language in Brazil’s secondary education is to be obligatory. The fulfillment of this law is turning out to be affected by another geographic and social reality very relevant in linguistic matters: the distance between North and South. Indeed, the states to the south of Brazil have traditionally held a great Spanish-speaking population, have shown more interests in common with their neighboring Hispanic territories, and have enjoyed a greater implementation of the study of Spanish. The states in the North have experienced an opposite situation. A brief reflection on the factors that have just been presented will permit some of the most characteristic features of the teaching of Spanish in Brazil (↗30 Portugal and Brazil) to be deduced. One is the proximity – and partial intelligibility – between Portuguese (↗22 Portuguese) and Spanish, which has fostered the false belief that these languages are practically the same. Such a belief was, for years, the basis for it not to be considered necessary to study Spanish and it is, currently, the basis of preference for the study of Spanish, given that it is thought that, for Brazilians, it is much easier to learn than other languages. However, the proximity between Spanish and Portuguese can turn into a problem when one is unaware of their differences, which are not few nor so easy to detect for beginners. The belief that Spanish is so similar to Portuguese that the study of one or the other language is rendered unnecessary is the ideal breeding ground for the apparition of portuñol, a voluble and difficult to eradicate mix of varieties. In other respects, it is a fact that linguistic proximity allows for (relative) communication, but it all depends on what communication is needed for: sometimes, mutual understanding will be possible; other times it will be a pure illusion, especially because the Brazilian character, when negotiating or conversing, tends to prioritize points of understanding over those of disagreement. The necessity of mastering Spanish well is not equally urgent when conversing in a friendly way around a table, as when one wants to close a hundred million-dollar deal in the communications sector, for instance.

1 http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2004-2006/2005/Lei/L11161.htm (03.01.2014).

Spanish

481

The relative ease of learning Spanish on the part of Brazilians – which appears evident on a basic level and much less so on advanced levels – makes the learners stress as a great concern the elimination of accent and borrowed words. There are more than a few Brazilians who, even though they speak a more than acceptable Spanish, are obsessed with their accent and syntactical borrowing. The logic of this obsession is simple: if learning Spanish is easy for a Brazilian, the least that is required for a good learner is that it not be obvious that he or she is Brazilian. Naturally, this is a grave error of evaluation because it turns unproblematic communication into something problematic and diverts the attention from other linguistic aspects that are truly important to adequately learn the Spanish language.

3.5 Asia With regards to Asia, two quite distinct types of contexts must be distinguished: that of territories where Spanish is acquired more as a foreign language, especially Japan and Korea, and the Filipino context, as a space in which the Spanish language has had a historical presence from the sixteenth century until today. Between both spheres there exists a relevant difference with respect to language acquisition: the first are spaces of predominantly monolingual nature, while the Filipino context is multilingual. In addition, it is important to appreciate the linguistic distance existing between Japanese and Spanish or between Chinese and Spanish – “Abstand” languages, according to Kloss (1967) – in order to understand the necessity of managing introductory materials with scarce communicative practice and with a great weight on abilities like reading. The expectations of Asian students, as regards learning the Spanish language, are directed toward Spain as much as toward the Americas. The attraction of Spanish culture for the inhabitants of East Asia is a fact that has consequences in the learning of the language and in the current knowledge of Spanish cultural reality. Nevertheless, the commercial, economic, and demographic importance of the American continents for Asians cannot be ignored. That importance leads to an interest in the Americas, especially Latin America, in all its forms, including linguistic. The situation in the Philippines is both unique and fascinating. The Philippines are the main bridgehead for the Hispanic world in Asian lands, and an intersection of cultures that is well reflected in their linguistic diversity. History clearly links this Asian country with Spain and Mexico, although the most interesting aspect of Spanish in the Philippines is perhaps the combination of peninsular, American and Filipino elements. This mixture remains represented in an obvious form in Chabacano, a variety of Hispanic Creole, acquired as a native language. On the other hand, learning Spanish has begun to be transformed into a social demand. Spanish is no longer just unique to the Philippines as opposed to the rest of Asian Pacific countries. Currently, learning Spanish is sought for a supposed advantage in the workplace, keeping in

482

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

mind, in addition, the relative ease that could exist in its learning because of the quantity of lexical Hispanicisms that Tagalog or Filipino present.

3.6 Africa The teaching of European languages in Africa owes much to France’s opening of schools and to the implementation of studies in which learning languages like Spanish was included (↗27 France). Truly, to speak of Spanish in Africa is to include under a very simple tag a reality so diverse that it only seems to share one characteristic: that of providing a heteroglossic environment for the teaching of Spanish. There is one exception, Equatorial Guinea, where Spanish can be acquired in a partly homoglossic environment and through a primarily Castilian variety, although with its own particularities. The contexts of Northern Africa around Ceuta and Melilla or in which the presence of Spain has been historically notable (Tangiers, Larache) do not currently offer an environment that could be considered homoglossic for teaching Spanish, so that its social use is negligible, even if there are those who know the language. The connection to Spanish mass media facilitates access to native speech, but not enough to speak of the existence of a homoglossic environment; besides, access to these media is currently virtually universal. Nevertheless, there exist groups of northern African speakers in which the use of Spanish has a certain tradition and in which this language has assimilated elements of the local Arabic or French variety. So, it turns out that it is inevitable to speak of diversity in acquisition and learning contexts in relation to Spanish on the African continent (northwestern Africa, subSaharan Africa, Egypt, South Africa) given that the linguistic situations that it encompasses are quite varied: predominantly Arabic-speaking countries; bilingual Arabic and Romance-language countries (↗11 Bilingual Education); multilingual countries speaking African languages (↗12 Plurilingual Education), some European language and regional linguas francas.

4 Linguistic and Social Aspects of Spanish Language Acquisition 4.1 Difficulties in the Acquisition of Spanish The difficulties that the Spanish language presents in the process of its acquisition as a second or foreign language are not of absolute, but rather relative, nature. The learner’s linguistic origin is what normally determines the level of difficulty or complexity in acquisition (↗16 Language Learner). Although it could be said that the vowel system in Spanish is easier to acquire because it only includes the five elements

Spanish

483

/a, e, i, o, u/, the ease would be more in the comprehension of speech produced by a non-native, given that many differences or vacillations in tone would not suppose changes in meaning, and not as much in the production of those sounds with the frequencies that are most regular among native speakers. The important correspondence that exists between the oral production of segmented chains in Spanish and its graphic representation is normally explained as something easy, given that the Spanish orthographic system is very phonologized, so that the majority of phonic segments correspond to only one letter. This is true, however, the correspondence between phonemes and graphemes is not complete and the difficulty of its learning will depend, once again, on the mother language and on the predominant writing system of the speaker who is learning Spanish. Despite all these reservations, there are various aspects of Spanish acquisition which are normally difficult for a great majority of learners of Spanish; these are the difficulties that give the most work to teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) and that receive the most attention in textbooks. Some of them are less common in other languages, given that others are widely shared. On the phonetic level, the primary difficulty of Spanish is the production of the multiple vibrating sound [r], articulated normally with 2 or 3 contacts of the tongue with the hard palate. This is a sound that requires articulatory tension and that is also normally acquired late among native speakers, for its natural complicated conditions. Words like ruta ‘route’ or carro ‘car’ or like the proper names Enrique or Ulrico become complicated for all learners (Blecua Falgueras 2001). The grammatical difficulties that have received most attention from specialists mainly affect the categories of verbs and pronouns. Among the pronouns there are complications, for Portuguese speakers for example in the object pronouns lo, la le and their plurals: ayer lo vi ‘yesterday I saw him’ / díselo ‘tell him’, la encontré ‘I found her/it’ / mírala ‘look at her/it’, le di un regalo ‘I gave him a present’ / dile que venga ‘tell him to come’. In addition, the natural difficulties of their inflection are joined to those of their syntactical functions and to those of their adequate practical application. With regard to verbs (Gutiérrez Araus 2004), the subjunctive mood in its entirety presents a difficulty also encountered by learners of French (↗20 French) or other Romance languages, among others, that employ the mood of possibility or nonmaterialized reality. When a learner is a native of a language without the subjunctive or with a simplified subjunctive, like English, the distinction between verbal forms that express reality or unreality is not always simple. On the other hand, in Spanish acquisition, the distinction between the verbs ser and estar is often complicated for English speakers, for example, as users of the form of to be; while ser is used, in very general terms, to express what is essential and stable (esa casa es blanca ‘that house is white’; ese tipo es malo ‘that is a bad guy’) and estar is used to express the transitory or unstable (Juan está enfermo ‘Juan is sick’; tu conducta está mal ‘your behavior is bad’), but the application of this distinction is complicated with infinite uses that seem to escape the general criteria: en clase somos 30 ‘there are 30 of us in class’, Juan está muerto ‘Juan is dead.’ Another difficulty is the distinction between a stressed or

484

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

indefinite past tense, which could have a relation with the present, and continuous or imperfect past tense: the distinction between the indefinite estuve ‘I was’, the past perfect he estado ‘I have been’ and the imperfect estaba ‘I was’, becomes almost insurmountable for many learners. Other aspects, such as the use of the imperative, difficult for Portuguese speakers (↗22 Portuguese), offer complications depending on the language of the learner. The internal diversity of Spanish is not usually an important added difficulty for learners of Spanish as a second or foreign language. There exist, nevertheless, two settings in which the contrast between geographical varieties of Spanish can be demonstrated with greater clarity: the setting of vocabulary and that of politeness. With respect to vocabulary, although the greater part of the structured vocabulary of the Spanish language is shared by all the speakers, independently of their origin, it is no less true that there are regional or zonal uses that distinguish us from each other; all legitimate and respectable. However, the fidelity to a norm does not entail serious complications of comprehension: Spanish speakers move around well in this diversity and, on occasion, even find it ridiculous that a Spaniard stops saying conducir [‘drive,’ as in a car] because in the Americas the use of manejar is more frequent, just as it can be ridiculous that an Argentinian substitutes his auto for coche, when auto is perfectly understandable in any other region. With respect to politeness, it is important to know that the referents of proximity or familiarity do not coincide in the entire Hispanic world for forms of address. If the uses or practical values of personal pronouns of address do not coincide within one country, for generational or sociocultural differences, it is to be expected that they do not coincide in as vast a domain as the Hispanic. For a learner of Spanish as a foreign language (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning), it becomes essential to understand the basic tú / usted distinction (closeness / distance) of Spain, Mexico, and the Caribbean, including the only plural ustedes in Andalusia, the Canaries and the Americas, which turns out to be complicated for English speakers, for example, who only use one pronoun, you. But one cannot forget the use of usted in Central America or Colombia where it can be found even between couples and with babies, or the use of voseo in Argentinian Spanish, which opposes a vos of closeness to an usted of distance and respect, dispensing with the pronoun tú.

4.2 Socio-Educational Aspects: Spanish as a Heritage Language Spanish as a heritage language deserves several didactic considerations. A heritage or inherited language is a language with which the speakers have a special emotional connection (Fishman 2001). The children of Mexican immigrants in the United States of America, schooled in English but with some sense of Spanish, could study it as a heritage language in their school, in the same way that the Armenian language could be considered a heritage language if it was studied by monolingual Anglophone Amer-

Spanish

485

icans with Armenian ancestors. In such cases, it is obvious that the descendants of Mexicans and of Armenians have an important personal connection with the Spanish or Armenian language, respectively, which is usually translated into a special motivation to study those languages. With respect to the Hispanic or Latino population of the United States, for Valdés (2000a; 2000b), a heritage language is that of a student who has grown up in a house where Spanish is used, who speaks – or at least understands – that language used at home and who is, on some level, bilingual in Spanish and in English (↗11 Bilingual Education). Rodríguez Pino (1997) distinguishes three groups of students, based on their families’ moment of arrival to the United States, although it cannot be forgotten that between one group and another, or even within the same group, there exists in fact a continuum of levels of competence in Spanish. The three groups would be the following: a) b)

c)

Receptive bilinguals. Third or fourth generation of Spanish-speakers born in the United States, whose predominant language is English and with limited oral proficiency in Spanish. Bilinguals. First or second generation, who reveal different levels of competence in Spanish and English. In many cases these students have received their education in English and, therefore, have only slightly developed their capacity to read and write in Spanish. Recent immigrant students, whose predominant language is Spanish and who differ in their knowledge of English and in the number of years they have been schooled in Spanish.

However, it is important to underline that linguistic competence in Spanish varies even among the students of heritage languages that belong to the same generation. We hold, then, that the acquisition of a heritage language is different from the acquisition of a second language: the first begins to be acquired at home and the second, at least initially, begins in the classroom (UCLA 2000, 339). Heritage students come to class with a certain level of oral and written competence in Spanish, since they have already used Spanish at home and in the community (Campbell/Rosenthal 2000; Valdés 1995). The situation of heritage speakers undoubtedly deserves special educational treatment. Thus, in 1997 Valdés proposed four general objectives for the teaching of Spanish to native Spanish speakers: 1) 2) 3)

4)

The maintenance of the Spanish language. The formal study of Spanish can allow the language to be maintained from generation to generation. The expansion of the bilingual spectrum so that the student can accomplish a greater number of communicative activities in Spanish. The acquisition of a literate Spanish. The idea is to make it known that there exist literate varieties that should receive special attention and that these varieties are multiple, although they are all considered equally valuable. The transfer of reading and writing skills from English to the formal learning of Spanish.

To these objectives might be added another of an affective nature: increasing the selfesteem of students in order to minimize their insecurity and avoid a feeling of inferiority with respect to English speakers (↗5 Languages and Identities). And, for

486

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (AATSP), one could speak of a prominent objective of the Spanish courses intended for native Spanish speakers: to provide students with an understanding of the different levels of formality in the language and of its social and regional diversity. But, unfortunately, the only problem is not to keep the stress on several specific pedagogical objectives. The majority of universities that offer programs designed specifically for speakers of heritage languages believe that these students are capable of achieving the course objectives much more quickly than the students of a second language; however, there is no research that demonstrates that these speakers acquire linguistic capacities in a more accelerated way. These special programs for heritage speakers exist only at elementary and intermediate levels, with the higher levels common among heritage speakers and students of a second language (Kono/McGinnis 2001). When heritage speakers enter these common foreign language classes, they are often unable to adapt and many of them abandon the class. The issue is complex because heritage students usually take numerous linguistic improprieties with them into the classroom, which many English-speaking students lack; and they often do not know grammatical terminology. All this together may result in a lower academic performance.

5 Research on Spanish Language Acquisition Research into processes of acquisition that are produced in the Spanish-speaking domain has not been widely developed by applied linguistics (↗2 Research Methods). A proof of this is the scarcity of introductory texts for Spanish language acquisition, even if some of them have a significant reach (Baralo 32011). In general, applied linguistics in Spanish is significantly lacking with respect to that in other international languages, especially English or French (↗20 French). In addition, parts of Hispanic studies on acquisition are subsidiary, with respect to theoretical or methodological focus, to research carried out on the English language. For that reason it should not surprise anyone that the most recent overall works of greatest scholarly ambition are three collective books written in English and directed toward an international audience (Montrul 2004; Lafford/Salaberry 2006; Geeslin 2013). With all, there exists the possibility of identifying some fields in which the study of Spanish stands out and which are developed in a more intense way. It is thus obligatory to refer to research on Spanish as a heritage language, on bilingual acquisition (↗11 Bilingual Education), and on linguistic consequences of migration. Research on heritage languages is not only practiced for Spanish, obviously; nevertheless this language has been receiving preferential attention in the United States. As is known, the situations in which Spanish is an inherited language are not homogeneous. In the second generations, there exist speakers for whom only one of the parents is a native Spanish speaker, in whose home the native language is

Spanish

487

normally not spoken, and who are only capable of using isolated words or short phrases in Spanish. At the same time that there are subjects to be found who speak Spanish fluently in different social situations and make a daily use of the language, even if among them there is also a considerable variation with respect to the mastery of skills (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). This has also been found for other heritage languages (Kondo-Brown 1997; Cho 2000), but there are many more analyses that have been produced on Spanish in this field in the United States, although parallel studies are lacking for Europe, where the Hispanic population has had a notable growth. Perhaps the best statement of the question with respect to North America is the coordinated effort by Beaudrie/Fairclough (2012). The literature on dual immersion also deserves to be mentioned, in which students of Spanish and English are brought together in order to mutually enrich the acquisition of both languages (Amrein/Peña 2000). And together with all of this, it continues to be an object of discussion whether “inherited” Spanish in the United States should receive the treatment of heritage language properly stated, of a mix of languages, or simply of popular Spanish, a Spanish belonging to the United States (Otheguy/Stern 2010). Another field of great interest is that of bilingual acquisition among Hispanics in the United States. In this field the works by Carmen Silva-Corvalán must be singularly highlighted. In her Bilingual Language Acquisition (2014), Silva-Corvalán analyses how bilingual competence is developed among children and investigates whether bilingual children (↗11 Bilingual Education) develop language in the same way that monolingual children do. The book by Silva-Corvalán examines the acquisition of English and Spanish on the part of two siblings in the first six years of their life. For this she completes a longitudinal study of data compiled in natural settings and explores how the systems of these two languages influence each other, as well as the impact that the level of exposure to each one of these languages has on the process of acquisition. Silva-Corvalán demonstrates that the grammar and vocabulary of bilingual children has a similar development to that of monolingual children, although the influence of English affects lexical, semantic, and practical aspects of discourse in Spanish when the exposure to this language diminishes around the age of four. The studies on linguistic consequences of migration, including migrations that affect acquisition, have been attracting the attention of Spanish language researchers during the past few years. Research on migrations has often been developed in universities, but has also been promoted by other institutions, like the Centro de Estudios Migratorios Latinoamericanos (CEMLA), founded in 1985, and the journal Estudios migratorios latinoamericanos, the first dedicated solely to migrations in Latin America. One of the major objectives of CEMLA is the preservation of documentary sources related to Latin American migratory movements and the retrieval of their collective memory. Among the most interesting research proposals of the last few years, those realized by Klaus Zimmerman deserve to be commented upon, mainly those presented in volume 5 of the Revista International de Lingüística Iberoamericana (RILI) (2007),

488

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

which received the single-subject title of “Language and migration in the Spanishspeaking World” and which was coordinated by Zimmermann himself and by Laura Morgenthaler García. In this volume, a sub-discipline is postulated, differentiated from the study of language in contact and social linguistics, for which the name “migration linguistics” is proposed (Zimmermann/Morgenthaler García 2007, 19). On its part, the Universidad de Alcalá has since 2009 edited the bilingual journal Lengua y migración / Language & Migration, the only that deals in a transversal way with everything referring to the relationship between languages and migrations, and has lent greater, though not exclusive, attention to the Spanish language. It attends to the social and linguistic elements that coincide in the process of sociolinguistic integration, including second language acquisition (↗10 Second Language Acquisition), and publishes articles in several linguistic specialties. Finally, a way of knowing the research interests of those most concerned with Spanish acquisition, its teachers (↗15 Language Teacher), could be the study of themes dealt with in the most important international conferences of the field of study. If we take as reference the year 2010 – or following years, when information is available – and pay attention to the themes presented in the conferences of the ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) in the United States, of ASELE (Asociación para la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera), in Spain, in the Congresso Brasileiro de Professores de Espanhol and in the Congreso de español como lengua extranjera en Asia-Pacífico, we can obtain interesting conclusions. In the case of the 2012 ACTFL conference, there were presentations on the Spanish language, dedicated to quite varied themes, from AP (Advanced Placement) exams in Spanish, to the content and different kinds of methods in courses (such as study abroad), passing through the analysis of materials or the application of new technologies to teaching. Little or nothing is dedicated specifically to acquisition, although the experiences referring to learning and practice of the language in social services and the studies on immersion programs are ultimately very interesting. The 2012 ASELE conference, the most internationally attended in the field, is that which offers the most varied panoply of themes, stressing comparative or didactic analyses of the linguistic aspects that offer specific difficulties, on any level of language. In ASELE there was a demonstrable concern for the teaching of Spanish as a foreign language through different theoretical models (communicative, error analysis, constructivism, …) (↗6 Language Acquisition Theories), for the learning of general language or languages of specialties, for lexicography and the application of new technologies, for reading, writing, and literature, for the evaluation or training of teachers, and for teaching and learning in specific geographical contexts. Very few presentations, nevertheless, include in their title the word acquisition or any of its derivatives, which reflects a more didactic than psycholinguistic vision of the scholars’ interests. Something very similar could be said of the Congresso Brasileiro that took place in 2011, which offers the attraction of describing what occurs with the teaching of Spanish in concrete environments in Brazil – and, less so, in South America – and

Spanish

489

which reveals a concern for interference between languages. Parallel to all this is what can be found in the 2010 Asia-Pacific conference proceedings, in which the information on the teaching of Spanish in diverse countries and centers of the region is quite valuable.

6 Conclusion Our wish has been to construct a general overview of the ways in which the Spanish language is normally acquired in diverse social-geographical settings around the world. Spanish is an international language, with a large community of native speakers, so that the processes and contexts of acquisition are quite diverse and complex. From this point of view, the distinction between its acquisition as a first language, as a second language, or as a foreign language is very useful, but is insufficient, since it does not allow for the collection of infinite specific situations that escape regular contexts. Truly, each process of acquisition should be analyzed in its specific geographic and social environment, in order to be understood adequately. Spanish is an object of acquisition in local contexts on different continents. Among them all, should stand out all that affects the acquisition of Spanish in the United States, where there are phenomena of great interest like the acquisition and use of Spanish as a heritage language or dual immersion in education programs. Among the settings where Spanish is acquired as a foreign language, Brazil deserves to be highlighted for the enormous growth of the number of learners, implied by the implementation of Spanish in secondary education since 2005. In all that refers to the study of acquisition, the Hispanic panorama reveals a concern subordinated, in general terms, to the interest in contexts of education in themselves. Despite everything, it is possible to identify some settings in which the research into Spanish acquisition stands out, as do heritage language, bilingual acquisition, and migratory contexts, apart from the analysis of specific linguistic elements.

7 Bibliography Amrein, Audrey/Peña, Robert (2000), Asymmetry in dual language practice: Assessing imbalance in a program promoting equality, Education Policy Analysis Archives 8/8, 1–17. Andersen, Roger W. (ed.) (1981), New Dimensions in Second Language Acquisition Research, Rowley, MA, Newbury House. Baralo, Marta (32011), La adquisición del español como lengua extranjera, Madrid, Arco/Libros. Beaudrie, Sara M./Fairclough, Marta (edd.) (2012), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field, Washington, Georgetown University Press. Benjamin, Rebecca (1997), What Do Our Students Want? Some Reflections on Teaching Spanish as an Academic Subject to Bilingual Students, ADFL Bulletin 29, 44–47.

490

Francisco Moreno-Fernández

Blecua Falgueras, Beatriz (2001), Las vibrantes del español: Manifestaciones acústicas y procesos fonéticos, PhD dissertation, Departament de Filologia Espanyola, Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, http://www.tdx.cbuc.es/TDX-0111102-110913/index.html (03.01.2014). Brecht, Richard/Ingold, Catherine (1998), Tapping a National Resource: Heritage Languages in the United States, ERIC Doc. No. EDO-FL-98–12. Campbell, Russell N./Rosenthal, Judith W. (2000), Heritage Languages, in: Judith W. Rosenthal (ed.), Handbook of Undergraduate Second Language Education, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 165–184. Cho, Grace (2000), The Role of Heritage Language in Social Interactions and Relationships: Reflections from a Language Minority Group, Bilingual Research Journal 24/4, 369–384, http://brj.asu.edu/ v244/articles/ar4.html (03.01.2014). Fishman, Joshua (2001), 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States, in: Joy Kraeft Peyton/Donal A. Ranard/Scott McGinnis (edd.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource, Washington DC/McHenry, IL, Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems, 81–89. Geeslin, Kimberly (ed.) (2013), The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Giles, Howard/Byrne, Jane L. (1982), An Intergroup Approach to Second Language Acquisition, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3, 17–40. Gutiérrez Araus, María Luz (2004), Problemas fundamentales de la gramática del español como 2/L, Madrid, Arco/Libros. Hymes, Dell (1971), Competence and performance in linguistic theory, in: Renira Huxley/Elisabeth Ingram, Acquisition of languages: Models and methods, New York, Academic Press, 3–23. Hymes, Dell (1972), On communicative competence, in: John B. Pride/Janet Holmes (edd.), Sociolinguistics, London, Penguin, 269–293. Kloss, Heinz (1967), “Abstand” languages and “Ausbau” languages: Anthropological Linguistics, Harvard, Harvard Press. Kondo-Brown, Kimi (1997), Heritage Language Development: Focus on Asian Immigrants, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Kono, Nariyo/McGinnis, Scott (2001), Heritage Languages and Higher Education: Challenges, Issues, and Needs, in: Joy Kraeft Peyton/Donal A. Ranard/Scott McGinnis (edd.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource, McHenry, IL, CAL, 197–206. Labov, William (2009), What is to be learned, paper presented at LAUD Symposium on Cognitive Sociolinguistics, Landau, http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/WTBL.pdf (03.01.2014). Labov, William (2010), Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 3: Cultural and Cognitive Factors, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Lafford, Barbara/Salaberry, Rafael (2006), Spanish Second Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Washington, Georgetown University Press. Mazzocco, Elizabeth (1996), The Heritage versus the Non-Heritage Language Learner: The Five College Self-Instructional Language Program Solutions to the Problem of Separation or Unification, ADFL Bulletin 28, 20–24. Montrul, Silvina (2004), The Acquisition of Spanish, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Moreno-Fernández, Francisco (2012), Sociolingüística cognitiva. Proposiciones, escolios y debates, Madrid/Frankfurt, Iberoamericana/Vervuert. Moreno-Fernández, Francisco/Otero, Jaime (1998), Demografía de la lengua española, in: Francisco Moreno-Fernández (coord.), Anuario del Instituto Cervantes. El español en el mundo, Madrid, Instituto Cervantes/Arco/Libros, 59–86.

Spanish

491

Moreno-Fernández, Francisco/Otero, Jaime (2008), Atlas de la lengua española en el mundo, Barcelona, Ariel. Moreno-Fernández, Francisco/Ramallo, Fernando (2013), Las lenguas de España a debate, Valencia, Unoycero. Nichols, Patricia/Colón, Manuel (2000), Spanish literacy and the academic success of Latino high school students: codeswitching as a classroom resource, Foreign Language Annals 33/5, 498–511. Otheguy, Ricardo/Stern, Nancy (2010), On so-called Spanglish, International Journal of Bilingualism 15–1, 85–100. Potowski, Kim/Rothman, Jason (edd.) (2011), Bilingual Youth: Spanish in English-Speaking Societies, Amsterdam, Benjamins. Preston, Dennis (1989), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition, Oxford, Blackwell. Preston, Dennis/Young, Robert (2000), Adquisición de segundas lenguas: variación y contexto social, Madrid, Arco/Libros. Rhodes, Nancy C./Pufahl, Ingrid (2010), Foreign Language Teaching in U.S. Schools. Results of a National Survey, Washington, Center for Applied Linguistics. Rodríguez Pino, Cecilia (1997), Teaching Spanish to Native Speakers: A New Perspective in the 1990’s, ERIC/CLL News Bulletin 21/1, 4s. Romaine, Suzanne (1982), What is a Speech Community?, in: Suzanne Romaine (ed.), Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities, London, Arnold, 13–24. Savignon, Sandra (21997), Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice: texts and contexts in second language learning, New York, McGraw-Hill. Schumann, John H. (1978), The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, MA, Newbury House. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen (1994), Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen (2014), Bilingual Language Acquisition: Spanish and English in the First Six Years, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Stern, Hans H. (1983), Fundamental Concepts in Language Teaching, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. UCLA Steering Committee (2000), Heritage Language Research Priorities Conference Report, Bilingual Research Journal 24, 333–346. UNESCO (1996), Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, World Conference on Linguistic Rights, Barcelona. Valdés, Guadalupe (1995), The Teaching of Minority Languages as Academic Subjects: Pedagogical and Theoretical Challenges, The Modern Language Journal 79, 299–328. Valdés, Guadalupe (1997), The teaching of Spanish to bilingual Spanish-speaking students: Outstanding issues and unanswered questions, in: M. Cecilia Colombi/Francisco X. Alarcón (edd.), La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes. Praxis y teoría, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 8–44. Valdés, Guadalupe (2000a), Spanish for native speakers. AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K–16, vol. 1, New York, Harcourt College, 1–20. Valdés, Guadalupe (2000b), Teaching heritage languages: An introduction for Slavic-language-teaching professionals, in: Olga Kagan/Benjamin Rifkin (edd.), Learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures: Toward the 21st century, Bloomington, IN, Slavica, 375–403. Zimmermann, Klaus/Morgenthaler García, Laura (coord.) (2007), Lengua y migración en el mundo hispanohablante, Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana 5.2 (10).

Language Acquisition in the Romance-Speaking World

Terry Nadasdi

26 Canada Abstract: This chapter examines the acquisition of French in Canada and considers the different contexts in which such acquisition takes place. We first provide relevant demographic information regarding the various populations that learn French, followed by a discussion of four main acquisitional contexts. These contexts involve L2 learners (basic French and French immersion), francophones residing in regions where French is spoken as a minority language (with special attention being paid to francophones in Ontario and in the Acadian regions of eastern Canada) and francophones in a majority context (i.e., Quebec). Linguistic features of each variety are presented and explained in terms of speakers’ different acquistional trajectories. Particular attention is paid to variation and the sociolinguistic factors that are relevant for such variation. Where appropriate, we also examine language legislation and the socio-historical factors that have given rise to such legislation. Our overview reveals a dynamic array of speakers who display a wide range of linguistic and sociolinguistic competencies. Keywords: Canadian French, French immersion, minority French, Acadian French, Language attrition

1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to discuss language acquisition in Canada, with a focus on French, taking into account the wide variety of contexts in which such acquisition takes place and the various opportunities that exist for speakers with different levels of linguistic competency in French. The main contexts considered are: a) the acquisition of French by francophones in a majority setting (i.e., in Quebec); b) the acquisition of French by francophones in a minority setting (i.e., in all provinces and territories outside of Quebec); c) the acquisition of French by non-francophones in Quebec; and d) the acquisition of French by non-francophones in Canada (outside of Quebec). In all instances, we consider variation across program types and the kinds of objectives targeted by these various programs. Special attention will be given to sociolinguistic competency, based largely on the findings of an abundance of sociolinguistic research on French in Canada over the last 50 years. We begin with a discussion of relevant demographic information and address language policy where appropriate, followed by an in-depth discussion of the learning of French by each of the relevant sub-populations.

496

Terry Nadasdi

2 Demographic Information According to the most recent statistics provided by the Canadian government, the population of Canada is 35 million (2013). The linguistic landscape of Canada is a complex one, with more than 200 languages being spoken over this vast territory.1 The most populous linguistic subgroups are anglophones, who make up 58% of the population and francophones,2 who constitute 22%. In addition to this, 17.5% of the Canadians indicate that they are bilingual (↗11 Bilingual Education), i.e., capable of carrying on a conversation in either French or English. The francophone population can be divided into three primary subgroups: a) Quebec, where a majority of the population speaks French as a first language; b) New Brunswick, where one third of the population, largely Acadian in origin, speaks French as a first language, and c) provinces where francophones are vastly outnumbered by anglophone Canadians and where many grow up bilingual. The relative strength of Canadian francophones is presented in Table 1 below. Table 1: Number of Francophones in Canada’s Provinces and Territories (Government of Canada 2011c) Total

English

French

Eng./Fr. Bilingual

Canada

33,121,175

18,858,980

7,054,975

144,685

Quebec

7,815,955

599,230

6,102,210

64,800

Ontario

12,722,065

8,677,040

493,300

46,605

New Brunswick

739,900

479,935

233,530

6,580

Alberta

3,610,180

2,780,200

68,545

8,410

British Columbia

4,356,210

3,062,430

57,280

8,600

Manitoba

1,193,095

869,990

42,090

3,800

910,615

836,090

31,110

3,030

Nova Scotia Saskatchewan

1,018,310

860,500

16,280

1,730

Prince Edward Island

138,435

127,635

5,195

445

Newfoundland and Labrador

509,950

497,565

2,480

465

33,655

28,065

1,455

140

Yukon

1 After English and French, the most common languages spoken are other Romance languages (1,196,390 speakers), Indo-Iranian languages (1,179,900) and Chinese languages (1,112,610). In all, immigrant languages are the mother tongue of approximately 20% of the population; note also that 213,500 individuals have an Aboriginal mother tongue and 213,400 report speaking an Aboriginal language most often or regularly at home (Source: Government of Canada 2011a). 2 In the Canadian census (cf. Government of Canada 2011b), this is described as the first language learned at home during childhood and still understood at the time of the 2011 census.

Canada

497

Total

English

French

Eng./Fr. Bilingual

Northwest Territories

41,035

31,375

1,080

75

Nunavut

31,765

8,925

435

10

As can be seen in this table, it is only in Quebec that French is a majority language (↗20 French). Outside of Quebec, francophones make up only 4% of the population. Numerically, the largest number of francophones outside Quebec is found in Ontario. According to the 2011 census there are 493,300 Franco-Ontarians who make up 4% of the provincial population. The next most numerous francophone group is found in New Brunswick, where 233,530 individuals report having French as a first language. While less numerous than the Franco-Ontarians, New Brunswick’s francophones constitute 32% of the province’s population. In all other provinces and territories, francophones make up less than 4% of the population, though there are pockets where their proportions are higher at the local level. In terms of status, both French and English are official languages at the federal level, which is to say that speakers of both languages have access to federal services in their first language. It should be pointed out that education is controlled at the provincial level in Canada and that, as such, access to L2 French language instruction, while widely available, varies from province to province. So, for example, while L2 French language instruction is mandatory in some provinces (e.g., Ontario), it is optional in others (e.g., Alberta). At the provincial level, French is the official language of Quebec and a co-official language in New Brunswick (and the three territories). It is also an official language of Manitoba, though some restrictions apply. In fact, French has been an official language of Canada since it was recognized as such by article 133 of Canada’s constitution, the British North America Act. This was further solidified by the Official Languages Act of 1969, which guarantees French services to Canadians in regions where francophones make up at least 10 percent of the population (cf. Bourhis 1994). That said, there have been past efforts by individual provincial governments to ban the use of French in the school system. Such legislation was enacted from 1890 to 1912 in Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario. Fortunately, such legislation has been overturned such that French language education is available to varying degrees in all Canadian provinces (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). In addition to Canada’s francophone population, some two million non-francophones study French as a second language and master this language to varying degrees, depending on their educational experience. While a great many other languages are taught to varying degrees (through heritage language schools, private language schools, aboriginal language programs, university courses, etc.), French is unquestionably the most widely studied second language in Canada and is well entrenched in almost all schools systems.

498

Terry Nadasdi

2.1 The Acquisitional Context French is learned in Canada as a first language by monolinguals, as a minority language by bilingual francophones and as a second language by allophones in a variety of contexts. As such, the type and competency level of French spoken varies along a continuum that can be roughly represented as follows: Beginner L2 > advanced L2 > anglo-dominant minority francophone > French dominant minority francophone > L1 majority francophone. As we will see, the point a given individual occupies on this continuum corresponds to qualitative and quantitative characteristics that are unique to them and together make up the full range of Canadian French. This results, of course, in a great deal of variation in the use of formal and informal structures, as well as regional variants typical of L1 Canadian French. The following sections will expand and explore the different points of this continuum with a view to provide a complete overview of the acquisition of French in a Canadian context.

3 The Acquisition of French by Non-Francophones outside of Quebec 3.1 Introduction According to the most recent data available from Statistics Canada (Government of Canada 2013), 44% of Canadian students outside Quebec are exposed to French, to varying degrees, within the Canadian public and catholic school systems. Note that this represents a decline from 53% in 1992. Such a decline is attributed to an increase in immigration and a decrease in the number of students exposed to French in the classroom. The main division between educational programs for the non-adult population is between core French and French immersion. The purpose of this section is to provide basic information about these programs, discuss the populations that participate in them and consider the levels of competency attained.

3.2 Core French The most common type of program in which second language learners in Canada study French is referred to as core or basic French (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). According to the association Canadian Parents for French (CPF), there are 1,578,000 students currently enrolled in a core French program in Canada. In such a program, French is studied as a subject and there is usually a strong emphasis on written grammatical competence (though some provincial guidelines do underscore

Canada

499

the importance of oral skills as well). The primary goal of such a program is to develop basic communication skills. While it is difficult to come up with a generalization about the efficacy of all core French programs in Canada, the general consensus is that it does not produce fluent speakers, nor does it allow students to understand large stretches of free conversation. Rather, core French programs provide a basic understanding of vocabulary and grammatical rules. According to the government of Ontario, the aim of the Core French program is “to provide students with fundamental communication skills in French and an understanding of the nature of the language and its culture. Core French offers students the chance to develop a usable command of the French language that can be expanded through further study or through contact with French-speaking people” (The Ontario Ministry of Education and Training 1999, 2).

The number of hours per week varies, but in most instances, it is not studied on a daily basis. In Ontario, for example, core French students study approximately 150 hours per year. While this is not enough time to develop fluent speakers, it does familiarize students with key concepts and provides them with a basis on which to build.

3.3 French Immersion Programs French immersion (cf. Rebuffot 1993) programs have existed in Canada since 1965 when an experimental program in St. Lambert, Quebec was first offered. Unlike what is found in core French programs, French immersion programs treat French as a medium of instruction more so than a school topic. It should be noted that French immersion is by no means a monolithic approach. Various subtypes exist, depending on the amount of instructional time in French and the age at which one begins. In some programs, French is the language of instruction for all courses (full immersion), while in others it is used as the language of instruction for a portion of the day (partial immersion). In cases where only a small number of courses are taught in French, the term “extended French” is sometimes applied. In terms of starting age, various possibilities are found. The most common is early immersion, which begins at age five. Other formats also exist, e.g., middle immersion (approximately eight years old) and late immersion (approximately eleven years old). There is interaction between age of onset and percentage of instruction. That is, middle and late immersion programs do not offer 100% of instruction in French. Currently, there are around 342,000 students enrolled in a French immersion program in Canada. These programs exist in all provinces and cater to a wide range of students (in terms of social background and academic ability) (↗11 Bilingual Education). While the name “immersion” suggests students are jettisoned into a sea of French where they must sink or swim, the learning is in fact very sheltered. That is, although French is the medium of instruction, other relevant characteristics that facilitate learning are that a) bilingualism is viewed as additive; b) students all begin at the

500

Terry Nadasdi

same (low) level; and c) teachers understand both English and French (cf. Johnson/ Swain 1997 for a description of characteristics shared by all French immersion programs). As such, these programs are very different from submersion programs as described by Cummins (1987), where students are from very different backgrounds/ levels and receive little support for transitioning from their L1 to an L2.

3.3.1 French Immersion Outcomes The general conclusion that has been reached after decades of research on the efficacy of French immersion education is that it is a highly successful/efficient method of learning French for students who reside in a community where the target language is not widely spoken. Although the productive skills (writing and speaking) of students are below that of same-age francophone peers, their receptive skills (reading and listening) are comparable to that of same-age francophones and far greater than those of students who have learned in a core French environment (cf. Swain/Lapkin 1986; Harley et al. 1991). One initial concern regarding French immersion education was that English language skills would suffer as a result of so much French instruction. However, while initial progress is slower, ultimate attainment in English is equal (or better!) than peers receiving their education solely in English (cf. Lapkin/Hart/Turnbull 2003). Canadian French immersion programs can therefore be viewed as an enriching experience with a great many benefits and no real negative aspects.

3.3.2 Sociolinguistic Results There also exists a body of research that has examined the sociolinguistic competence of French immersion students in Canada (e.g., Mougeon/Nadasdi/Rehner 2010). The purpose of such research is to determine the extent to which French immersion students control formal and informal variants when speaking. The general result of this research is that students make little use of informal variants (like ne deletion and /l/ deletion) and overuse highly formal features that are rare in L1 spoken discourse (e.g., ne insertion, /l/ insertion, donc, habiter). The reason such findings are important is that ministerial guidelines for French immersion programs (Ontario Ministry of Education 2000) explicitly state that one desired goal is for students to express themselves in both formal and informal registers. An analysis of the input to which French immersion students are exposed reveals that this limits the development of their sociolinguistic competence. More specifically, the teachers’ oral production and the written representation of spoken discourse used in French immersion programs do not present an accurate account of informal spoken French. For example, teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) overuse the discourse marker donc and use the negative particle ne in the

Canada

501

majority of occurrences (70%), even though this is very rare in the speech of Canadian francophones who delete it 99% of the time (cf. Mougeon/Nadasdi/Rehner 2010). The course materials used to teach spoken discourse are even more problematic since they are largely inspired by written norms, not spoken ones. That said, in those instances where the students’ input is relatively close to L1 spoken norms, e.g., use of on as a first person plural pronoun, their production matches that of native speakers. As such, there is reason to believe that if the input to which immersion students are exposed were more in line with native speech patterns, their sociolinguistic competence could be readily improved, making French immersion programs even more efficacious.

3.4 L2 Acquisition of French by Adults In addition to the various programs described for the kindergarten to grade 12 population (i.e. the non-adult population), various possibilities and programs exist to help adults learn French as a second language. These range from private language schools (like those found elsewhere, e.g., Berlitz, l’Alliance Française), to university courses where students can simply take a course for credit, or specialize in French as a minor or major area of specialization. All Canadian universities offer French courses of some kind (with the exception of the University of Northern British Columbia, which is more of a technical college). Courses at the university level range from introductory language courses, to courses that focus on literary or linguistic concepts. While the general culture and functioning of universities outside Quebec is largely anglophone, a number of institutions do actively promote francophone culture and reproduce a French-speaking environment. For example, the University of Alberta’s Campus St. Jean, in Edmonton, Alberta functions entirely in French and offers students the possibility to specialize in a variety of disciplines (in both sciences and the arts). Other such examples are Glendon College, which is part of York University in Toronto, the University of Ottawa, Manitoba’s Université de Saint-Boniface and Université Saint-Anne in Nova Scotia. In addition to the adult-oriented programs listed above, Canadians can participate in intensive immersion courses through the federally sponsored Explore program (cf. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 2012). This program provides students with a $2,200 bursary that covers tuition, meals and accommodation for five weeks in the spring or summer. It is an opportunity for francophones to immerse themselves in English and for anglophones to immerse themselves in French. The bursary is not guaranteed and is distributed through a lottery system. Successful applicants are placed in one of 30 different institutions for the study of French (mainly, but not exclusively, in Quebec).3

3 A list of participating institutions can be found here: http://www.afe.gouv.qc.ca/en/autresPro grammes/calendrier.pdf.

502

Terry Nadasdi

4 The Acquisition of French by Non-Franophones in Quebec The vast majority of residents in Quebec receive education in French. This is in fact mandated by the provincial government and has been since 1977. As discussed in the next section, children of immigrants must attend school in French, including anglophones. While Canadian anglophones may attend school in English, unilingual anglophones are becoming more and more rare in Quebec (cf. Auger 2005). This can be attributed in large part to the effects of Bill 101, which has increased the importance of French for all members of Québécois society. While bilingualism was previously associated with having French as a first language, it has now become the hallmark of the anglo-Québécois. The integration of anglophones into the Québécois speech community is attested by numerous studies that show anglo-Montrealers to use local variants at rates of frequency that are much higher than found for the French immersion learners in other provinces (cf. Sankoff 1997; Blondeau et al. 2002) (↗11 Bilingual Education).

5 The Acquisition of French by Francophones in Quebec 5.1 History and Status As mentioned, Quebec is the only Canadian province where francophones constitute a majority of the population. As such, all residents have access to French language education from kindergarten through to the collegial (CEGEP, i.e., Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel) and university levels. In fact, French is the mandatory language of instruction for all residents, with the exception of anglophone students who have a Canadian parent or sibling educated in English (in Canada). Still one should not lose site of the fact that French-English bilingualism is much higher in Quebec (42%) than in the rest of Canada (17.5%). In other words, while French is the dominant language in Quebec, English still enjoys a great deal of prestige within the province. French presence in Quebec dates back to the arrival of Jacques Cartier in 1534, though permanent settlements were not established until the first part of the 17th century (cf. Auger 2005). Various attempts to recognize the status of French in Quebec (and Canada) can be found throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. For example, French civil law has been recognized since the Quebec Act of 1774, and the official status of French was established by the British North America Act (1867) which superseded the Union Act of 1840. This latter act had declared English the official language of all Canadians. In spite of early recognition, it should be clear that

Canada

503

francophones have struggled for centuries to have their language recognized in all spheres of Canadian and Québécois society. Prior to the 1960s, French had very low status and francophones did not enjoy the same economic advantages as anglophones, even in Quebec. Immigrants to Quebec learned English to reap the economic benefits associated with this language. The same was true of francophones in Quebec since fluency in English greatly increased one’s chances of finding a well-paid job. At the same time, anglophones remained unilingual without suffering negative economic consequences (cf. Downes 1998). The low status of French (and francophones) within the borders of Quebec eventually gave rise to a socio-political movement known as the Quiet Revolution that resulted in significant changes to the use of French in education and the workplace. The first important step in improving the status of French in Quebec was the creation of the Office de la langue française in 1961 (known as the Office québécois de la langue française since 2002). The mandate of the OQLF is to ensure that French is the language of work, communication and business in Quebec. This is achieved in part by the development of documentation and terminology for businesses and by addressing complaints concerning the inability to be served in French (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The status of French was further bolstered by a series of legislative measure such as Bill 22 (1973), which made French the sole official language of Quebec. Still, it was not until the passage of Bill 101 (1977) that the status of French began to improve in tangible ways (cf. Auger 2005; Downes 1998). Bill 101 accomplished this through several provisions: a) it made French the language of education for all citizens (except those with an anglophone parent/sibling educated in English in Canada), and b) it made French the language of business by requiring all signs to be posted only in French and requiring that businesses function in French at all levels. The positive effects of Bill 101’s provisions have been confirmed by several studies, for example Bouchard and Bourhis (2002).

5.2 Linguistic Features While regional variation does exist, Québécois French is a relatively homogenous variety (↗20 French). This homogeneity can be attributed in large part to the fact that the initial waves of immigrants came from the Centre-north of France. Not surprisingly, many non-standard features typical of spoken Québécois French are also found in spoken European French. In many cases though, the reported frequencies of these variants are greater in the French of Quebec. Examples of such features are ne deletion, /l/ deletion and first person plural definite pronoun on. While Québécois French does share many features with other varieties, a number of features do stand out as typical of the variety. In terms of pronunciation, the most readily recognized features are the laxing of high vowels /i/, /y/ and /u/ in closed syllables, the assibilation of /t/ and /d/ before high front vowels and glides and the

504

Terry Nadasdi

widespread use of the nasal vowel /œ̃ /. In terms of the lexicon, there are a great many lexical items that have wide currency, for example, dispendieux ‘expensive,’ achaler ‘bother,’ maganer ‘wear out,’ chicaner ‘argue.’ Many such terms are often referred to as archaisms since they no longer exist in France. Still, this reflects a euro-centric view of Quebec French. The word dispendieux is no more of an archaism than is the word table! Other sources of unique vocabulary are amerindianisms, e.g., atoca (cranberry) and anglicisms (e.g., le fun). Still, one should bear in mind that the influence of English on Québécois French is far less than is often claimed (cf. Poirier 1978; Poplack/Sankoff/ Miller 1988). Furthermore, it has declined over the last four decades due to the efforts of the OQLF and an increased pride in the variety that francophones in Quebec speak. In terms of grammatical characteristics, one finds widespread use of the interrogative particle -tu (e.g., On y va-tu?), m’as as a first person future auxiliary (equivalent to standard je vais), use of après to indicate the present progressive and the presence of compound pronouns (e.g., eux-autres, nous-autres, vous-autres). While French in Quebec is celebrated for its uniqueness, there remains a constant struggle between features unique to spoken Québécois French and the variety spoken in France. This is further complicated by the influence standard written French exercises on all spoken varieties. While a number of features, e.g., affrication of dentals and terms like dispendieux and achaler are not stigmatized, many other forms typical of Québécois French are looked down upon and not deemed fit for use in public interaction. Such forms are the target of criticism in the school context in particular (cf. Auger 2005; Laforest 1997). Note also that there is no real consensus on whether or not a “français québécois standard” would be desirable, accepted or even achievable. While francophones in Quebec have a great deal of pride for their culture and language, they remain heavily influenced by external norms and do not appear ready to abandon standard international French in formal contexts.

6 The Acquisition of French by Francophones outside Quebec In most provinces, a system of francophone schools can be found (though some subregions may not have a school at the local level). The most extensive francophones schools outside of Quebec for the pre-adult population are found in New Brunswick and Ontario. In this section we therefore focus on these two provinces to gain an understanding into the acquisition of French in a minority context in Canada.

Canada

505

6.1 Ontario Francophones in Ontario (and in the western provinces) trace their origins to successive waves of emigration from Quebec since the middle of the 17th century. Collectively, the varieties spoken in Quebec, Ontario and the western provinces are known as Laurentian French and share features that distinguish them from Acadians. Ontario currently boasts an elaborate network of francophone schools to accommodate its francophone population. In fact, the 1990 Education Act recognizes the right of francophones to receive an elementary and secondary education in French. There are twelve French-language school boards, 335 elementary schools and 95 secondary schools. In all, approximately 90,000 students are enrolled in francophone schools in Ontario. Note that one must distinguish between francophone schools, where students of French-speaking parents are dominant and French immersion schools, made up primarily of students whose parents are anglophone or allophone (cf. Rebuffot 1993). While Franco-Ontarians do enjoy extensive access to public education in French, the variety of French spoken by some of the student population is, in some ways, distinct from that of monolingual francophones. This is apparent in the work of researchers like Mougeon/Beniak (1991) who categorize minority francophones into three groups: a) unrestricted speakers, i.e., francophones who primarily use French on a daily basic; b) semi-restricted speakers, i.e., francophones whose daily use of French and English is fairly equal; c) restricted francophones, i.e., francophones who use English more often than French on a daily basis. In general, Mougeon and Beniak’s research (cf. Mougeon/Beniak 1991) has found that restricted Franco-Ontarians are more likely to display the following phenomena: a) a reduction in the use of informal variants (i.e., stylistic reduction); b) an increased use of regularized grammatical structures and c) a greater use of structures having a parallel in English. Examples of stylistic reduction are a decreased use of possessive à (e.g., les soeurs à ma mère versus les soeurs de ma mère), which is never used by restricted speakers, though found 20% of the type in the other two groups, and the decreased use of rester to mean ‘live.’ Restricted speakers do use this vernacular variant, but do so much less often than do unrestricted speakers (21% versus 63% respectively). Examples of the second trend, i.e., increased regularization of grammatical structures is exemplified by the leveling of the 3rd person plural distinction (e. g., Ils sait versus Ils savent) and by the use of auxiliary avoir with être verbs (e.g., j’ai parti versus je suis parti). The first phenomenon is extremely rare in the speech of unrestricted speakers, but found 19% of the time in restricted speaker speech. As for the use of avoir with être verbs, while this tendency exists in the spoken French of Quebec and France, it is more frequent in the speech of restricted speakers. For example, while the phenomenon only occurs 32% of the time in the speech of unrestricted speakers, it is found in 46% of tokens produced by the restricted speakers. Furthermore, it is used with a wider range of verbs (e.g., with aller) than what is

506

Terry Nadasdi

found in the speech of unrestricted speakers (in Ontario and Quebec). As for the increased use of structures with an English parallel, we can cite the use of sur la television which is used 88% of the time by restricted speakers and almost never by unrestricted ones. The explanation for stylistic reduction is that restricted speakers have little opportunity to use their first language outside the classroom. As such, the school becomes the sole locus of usage and, since standard French dominates in educational settings, some informal ways of speaking do not become part of speakers’ conversational repertoire. As for the tendency to regularize grammatical structures, this is related to structural complexity and the input to which speakers are exposed. Irregular and infrequent forms are the most prone to regularization. For example, Mougeon and Beniak’s study of third person plural verbs found that there was a direct correlation between verb frequency and the likelihood that singular verbal morphology would be used with a plural subject (cf. Mougeon/Beniak 1991). The increased use of English-like variants is attributable to the fact speakers are dominant in this language. The tendency for restricted speakers to regularize and avoid informal features has actually increased over time. Consider, for example, the use of avoir été and être allé, both meaning ‘went,’ which have decreased during the last thirty years in favour of the more transparent and regular avoir allé, in spite of the fact this form is all but absent in the French of Quebec (i.e., the source variety). The first study of this variable in Ontario French (Alexandre 2004) was conducted with data from 1978. At that time restricted speakers were leading in avoir allé usage. They used this form 16% versus 1% for unrestricted speakers. However when the variable was analyzed with data gathered in the same community in 2005, the restricted speakers usage of the regularized avoir allé variant had climbed to 35%. An example of decreased use of an informal spoken variant is found in the decreased use of the first person future form m’as (i.e., je vais in standard French). While this form was found 23% of the time in the French language community of Pembroke (made up primarily of restricted speakers) in 1978, it was entirely absent when restricted speakers from that same community were interviewed in 2005. The cases of real-time language change discussed above are perhaps not surprising, given a number of demographic changes that have taken place over the last thirty years in Ontario, as the following table reveals:

507

Canada

Table 2: Demographic Change in Ontario for Unrestricted (1), Semi-restricted (2) and Restricted (3) Speakers in Four Communities (cf. Sammons/Nadasdi/Mougeon 2013) Restriction level

Hawkesbury

Cornwall

North Bay

Pembroke

1978

2005

1978

2005

1978

2005

1978

2005

95%

74%

26%

16%

16%

4%

7%

0%

Semi-restricted

5%

26%

42%

41%

59%

34%

45%

0%

Restricted

0%

0%

32%

43%

25%

62%

48%

100%

Unrestricted

As can be seen in Table 2, the number of restricted speakers has increased over time in the minority communities of Cornwall, North Bay and Pembroke (where there are only restricted speakers of French in 2005). Even in Hawkesbury, where francophones constitute a majority at the local level, there has been a decrease in the number of unrestricted speakers. If this trend continues, we can predict that the patterns discussed above will only intensify over time and that there will be a greater fracturing of the Franco-Ontarian community in terms of variant usage. While it is true that there are quantitative, and occasionally qualitative, linguistic differences between restricted and unrestricted speakers of French in Ontario, one should be careful not to overstate the differences between these groups (contra Valdman 1979; cf. Beniak/Mougeon 1989). On balance, they share many more similarities than differences. Furthermore, they line up much more closely with monolingual francophones than they do with even advanced second language learners of French. This is evident when comparing a wide range of variants used by unrestricted FrancoOntarians, restricted Franco-Ontarians and advanced second language learners of French, as in the following table: Table 3: The Use of Informal Features by L2 Learners and Restricted Francophones (cf. Nadasdi 2005, 111)

1. on 2. rester

Unrestricted

Restricted

Immersion

99%

99%

56%

62%

21%

0%

99.6%

97.3%

28%

4. schwa deletion

73%

55%

15%

5. je vas

91%

86%

10%

96.4%

87.9%

2%

7. m’as

30%

27%

0%

8. rien que

18%

6%

0%

100%

100%

0%

3. ne deletion

6. /l/ deletion

9. compound pronouns

508

Terry Nadasdi

Here we see that while there are indeed some differences between the restricted and unrestricted Franco-Ontarians, they generally pattern together, while the French immersion students stand apart. As such, it is important to remember that restricted Franco-Ontarians are indeed francophones and their French is quantitatively and qualitatively distinct from that of L2 speakers. This follows from that fact that their acquisitional histories and exposure to French has been much richer and more sustained than that to which even advanced L2 learners are exposed.

6.2 Acadia Acadians have been in the Canadian Maritimes for more than 400 years (since 1604). They originally settled in Nova Scotia, but are now found in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, parts of Quebec, Newfoundland and New-Brunswick. The current distribution results from the fact that, while they were permitted to return to Canada after their initial expulsion (1755–1763), the British government denied Acadians the right to return to the fertile lands they had previously occupied. Presently, the vast majority of Acadians are located in the province of New Brunswick where they are found in three distinct, discontinuous regions (the Northwest, the Northeast and the Southeast, cf. Flikeid 1997). New Brunswick is the only Acadian province where French enjoys the status of an official provincial language (along with English). New Brunswick has enjoyed this status since it became officially bilingual in 1963 with the passing of the Loi sur les langues officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick (revised and expanded in 2002) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). While English is the dominant language of the population, 32% of the population is francophone. Rates of English-French bilingualism are also high in New Brunswick where 33% of the population reports being able to conduct a conversation in English or French. That said, this is largely attributable to the francophone population, 70% of whom report being bilingual in English and French (cf. Perrot 2005).

6.2.1 Francophone Education Unlike what is found in the other Maritime provinces, New Brunswick’s francophone population enjoys a robust system of francophone schools. In total, there are 94 francophone schools offering education in French (compared to 223 anglophone schools). These institutions allow students to receive their education entirely in French up to the age of 18 years old. In addition to francophone schools, many districts offer French immersion programs (↗11 Bilingual Education), as in other provinces (cf. Ministère de l’Éducation et du Développement de la Petite Enfance, la Division des politiques et de la planification 2012).

Canada

509

Beyond high school education, students can attend the Université de Moncton which functions entirely in French and offers degrees in a wide range of subject matters. A variety of other French programs also exist within the university and college French departments in the Maritimes and Newfoundland.

6.2.2 Linguistic Features The Acadian population was originally a homogenous group, since their origin can be traced to a fairly small number of families who emigrated from a concentrated area in the Centre-west region of France (during the first part of the 17th century). That said, present-day Acadians do not speak a unified variety. A tremendous amount of linguistic variation exists from region to region; this variation is due to post-expulsion histories, different levels of contact with English and varying degrees of access to (standard) French language education (cf. Flikeid 1997). Features which are characteristic of traditional Acadian French can be found in vocabulary items (e.g., hardes ‘clothing,’ espérer ‘wait’), pronunciation (palatalization of /t/, /d/, /k/ and /g/; ouisme, i.e., the pronunciation of /ɔ/ as /u/, e.g., bonne = /bun/ rather than standard or québécois /bɔn/), wide-spread use of apical R, grammar (use of the third person plural marker -ont, e.g., ils parlont ‘they speak,’ and first person plural “je”, e.g., je parlons ‘we speak’), use of preverbal back to indicate repeated action (e.g., j’ai jamais back fait ça; cf. King 2000). Still, according to Dubois (2005), traditional Acadian features are waning under the pressure of normative French influence, especially since the 1950s when the population became more urban, more educated and had greater contact with English. While conservative features of Acadian French continue to be used (and learned) by some speakers, they are heavily stigmatized (despite their honorable pedigree) and avoided by educated speakers in formal contexts. For example, Flikeid’s (1997) study of the use of first person plural je … ons revealed that while this traditional variant was used 82% of the time in spontaneous speech, its rate of usage dropped to 34% in speakers’ careful style. The most conservative varieties are those where francophone education is relatively limited, such as Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and parts of Nova Scotia. In other words, they are the varieties that have not been strongly influenced by outside norms. We see then that French Language education in Acadia is a double-edged sword: it increases opportunities to use French, but it contributes heavily to the stigmatization and decreased use of traditional variants. It is widely held that some speakers of Acadian French, particularly younger speakers in the Moncton area, speak a variety that is extensively influenced by English known as “chiac” and popularly defined as a mixture of English and Old French forms. Still, as Perrot (2005) states, the presence of English in Acadian French should be viewed along a continuum. To be clear, the documented examples of English lexical and functional items are more extensive than what is found in other

510

Terry Nadasdi

varieties of Canadian French (cf. King 2008; Perrot 2005). However, the lines between French-English code switching and the establishing of what constitute veritable linguistic items of a specific variety are unclear. As such, it is best to consider chiac as a lay notion, not a scientifically defined speech variety. What can be said with confidence is that heavy use of English in French discourse by chiac speakers is in part an act of identity related to their status as bilinguals.

7 Conclusion The purpose of this chapter has been to discuss the acquisition of French in Canada in its broadest sense. We have seen that there is a binary division in Canadian French between Acadian and Laurentian varieties. This division is based on linguistic and historical criteria. While Acadian speakers reside in provinces where French is a minority language, Laurentian speakers fall into two main categories: a) those who acquire and use French in a majority settings and those for whom it is a minority language. Majority language speakers reside in Quebec where French, after centuries of struggle, is now well established as the dominant language in education, government and business. Minority language speakers of Laurentian French are found in Ontario and in Canada’s western provinces and territories. Minority language speakers can be further distinguished according to the extent to which French is used on a daily basis. The main differences between minority language speakers and Québécois francophones are found in the speech of the restricted speakers whose French is characterized by a decreased use of informal variants, greater use of regularized forms and greater use of structures with a parallel in English. Still, they are by no means second language learners. Bona fides second language learners of Canadian French acquire this language in either a basic, core context or in an immersion context. French immersion speakers attain high levels of passive skills and functional productive skills.

8 Bibliography Alexandre, Nathalie (2004), Variation in the spoken French of Franco-Ontarians: Preposition “de” followed by the deictic pro-forms “ça” and “la”, “aller” in compound past tenses and prepositions “à”, “au” and “en” preceding geographical place names, MA thesis, York University. Auger, Julie (2005), Un bastion francophone en Amérique du Nord: le Québec, in: Albert Valdman/Julie Auger/Deborah Piston-Hatlen (edd.), Le français en Amérique du Nord: État présent, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 39–79. Beniak, Édouard /Mougeon, Raymond (1989), Recherches sociolinguistiques sur la variabilité en français ontarien, in: Raymond Mougeon/Édouard Beniak (edd.), Le Français canadien parlé hors Québec: Aperçu sociolinguistique, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 69–104. Blondeau, Hélène, et al. (2002), La couleur locale du français L2 des anglo-montréalais, Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère 17, 73–100.

Canada

511

Bouchard, Pierre/Bourhis, Richard (edd.) (2002), Special volume of the Revue d’aménagement linguistique: L’aménagement linguistique au Québec: 25 ans d’application de la Charte de la langue française, Québec, Les Publications du Québec. Bourhis, Richard (1994), Introduction and overview of language events in Canada, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 105–106, 5–36. Cummins, Jim (1987), Second language acquisition within bilingual education programs, in: Leslie Beebe (ed.), Second language acquisition, Boston, Heinle & Heinle, 145–166. Downes, William (1998), Language and Society, second edition, Town, Cambridge University Press. Dubois, Lise (2005), Le français des Maritimes, in: Albert Valdman/Julie Auger/Deborah Piston-Hatlen (edd.), Le français en Amérique du Nord: État présent, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 81–98. Flikeid, Karen (1997), Structural Aspects and Current Sociolinguistic Situation of Acadian French, in: Albert Valdman (ed.), French and Creole in Louisiana, New York, Plenum Press, 255–286. Government of Canada (2011a), Statistics Canada. Census of population, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/ census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/2011003/tbl/tbl3_2-1-eng.cfm (03.09.2013). Government of Canada (2011b), Statistics Canada. Langage highlight tables, 2011 Census, http:// www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/lang (03.09.2013) Government of Canada (2011c), Statistics Canada. Population by mother tongue and age groups (total), http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/lang/Pages/high light.cfm?TabID=1&Lang=E&Asc=0&PRCode=01&OrderBy=4&View=1&tableID=401&queryI D=1&Age=1 (03.09.2013). Government of Canada (2013), Statistics Canada. Study: The evolution of English-French bilingualism in Canada from 1961 to 2011, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130528/dq130528beng.htm (03.09.2013). Harley, Birgit, et al. (1991), The development of second language proficiency, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Johnson, Robert/Swain, Merrill (1997), Immersion education: International perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. King, Ruth (2000), The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. King, Ruth (2008), Chiac in Context: Overview and Evaluation of Acadie’s Joual, in: Miriam Meyerhoff/Naomi Nagy (edd.), Social Lives in Language: Sociolinguistics and Multilingual Speech Communities: Celebrating the Work of Gillian Sankoff, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 137–158. Laforest, Marty (1997), États d’âme, états de langue. Essai sur le français parlé au Québec. Québec City, Nuit Blanche. Lapkin, Sharon/Hart, Doug/Turnbull, Miles (2003), Grade 6 French immersion students’ performance on large-scale reading, writing, and mathematics tests: Building explanations, Alberta Journal of Educational Research 49, 6–23. Ministère de l’Éducation et du Développement de la Petite Enfance, la Division des politiques et de la planification (2012), Statistiques sommaires, Année scolaire 2011–2012, New/Nouveau Brunswick, http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/polplan/stat/StatistiquesSommaires2011-2012. pdf (03.09.2013). Mougeon, Raymond/Beniak, Édouard (1991), Linguistic consequences of language contact and restriction: The case of French in Ontario, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Mougeon, Raymond/Nadasdi, Terry/Rehner, Katherine (2010), The Sociolinguistic Competence of French Immersion Students, Bristol, Multilingual Matters. Nadasdi, Terry (2005), Le français en Ontario, in: Albert Valdman/Julie Auger/Deborah Piston-Hatlen (edd.), Le français en Amérique du Nord: État présent, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 99–115.

512

Terry Nadasdi

Ontario Ministry of Education (2000), The Ontario curriculum Grades 11 and 12: French as a second language – core, extended, and immersion French, Toronto, Queen’s Printer. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (1999), French As a Second Language – Core, Extended, and Immersion French, http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/fsl910curr.pdf (03.09.2013). Perrot, Marie-Ève (2005), Le Chiac de Moncton: description synchronique et tendances évolutives, in: Albert Valdman/Julie Auger/Deborah Piston-Hatlen (edd.), Le français en Amérique du Nord: État présent, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 39–79. Poirier, Claude (1978), L’anglicisme au Québec et l’héritage français, in: Lionel Boisvert/Marcel Juneau/Claude Poirier (edd.), Travaux de linguistique québécoise, t. 2, Québec, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 43–106. Poplack, Shana/Sankoff, David/Miller, Chris (1988), The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation, Linguistics 26/1, 47–104. Rebuffot, Jacques (1993), Le Point sur: L’immersion au Canada, Anjou, Centre Éducatif et Culturel. Sammons, Olivia/Nadasdi, Terry/Mougeon, Raymond (2013), “Moving” through the past: thirty years of “avoir été” in Ontario French, unpublished manuscript. Sankoff, Gillian (1997), Deux champs sémantiques chez les anglophones et les francophones de Montréal, in: Julie Auger/Yvan Rose, Explorations du lexique, Québec, CIRAL, 133–146. Swain, Merrill/Lapkin, Sharon (1986), Immersion French in secondary schools: “The goods” and “the bads,” Contact 5/3, 2–9. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 2012, Explore without limits. Live the Canadian experience, http://www.myexplore.ca (03.09.2013). Valdman, Albert (1979), Le français hors de France, Paris, Champion.

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

27 France Abstract: There is a cliché commonly accepted in French opinion that French people are very bad at language learning. This opinion is due to a complex mixture of aspects including the school system, teaching practices, historical development and the fear of making errors when using foreign languages. The relationship of French people and their official institutions to their own language is characterized by a strong feeling of respect and culpability in reference to linguistic correctness. One of the consequences of these historical developments is a relatively normative, teacher-dominated, error-oriented, and grammar-oriented instruction of their mother tongue and the teaching of foreign languages. In the following we will look at the historical and geographical background of the present situation of foreign language learning in France, and study some results of this on the European level which show that the French lag behind the European average in first and second language acquisition. The situation is a little bit better in the second foreign language. Keywords: historical and geographical background, language learning in elementary education, language learning in secondary education, classroom research, learners’ competences

1 Introduction For at least one century, there has been a cliché commonly accepted in French opinion that French people are very bad at language learning. This is not due to cultural arrogance – the French putting their own language at the top – but perhaps to a complex mixture of aspects including the school system, teaching practices and historical development, and also due to the fact that the French have to overcome their fear of making errors when using foreign languages. This would sum up the “Le mal français” (Le Monde de l’Éducation 2002) of language learning. The relationship of French people and their official institutions to their own language is characterized by a strong feeling of respect and culpability in reference to linguistic correctness. This has been the case since the foundation of the Académie française in the 17th century (cf. Walter 2002, 29). One of the consequences of these historical developments (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching) is a relatively normative, teacher-dominated, errororiented, and grammar-oriented instruction of their mother tongue (↗9 Written Language: Learning to Read and to Spell). The same applies to the teaching of foreign languages, which creates language learners who easily doubt their communicative competences. Of course this kind of generalization does not represent the entire reality of language acquisition in France. In the following we will look at the historical

514

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

and geographical background of the present situation of foreign language learning in France, and show some results of this on the European level.

2 Historical Approach The Académie française was founded in 1635 by the archbishop Richelieu on the basis of a circle of nine intellectual personalities (cf. Académie française 2013). It is France’s official authority on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language, and it publishes a dictionary of the French language. French unity in its Republican reality since 1789 is also understood as a linguistic unity of French-speaking citizens. Therefore, regional languages are not only politically rejected as possible mother tongues in the French nation, but are even seen as disturbing national coherence. The importance given to a correct usage of the French language defined by the weekly assembly of the 40 members of the Académie française, its different commissions, and especially the work on the French dictionary show the important role of the Académie française for French language and culture. Since the 17th and 18th century, the French language has generally been accepted in Europe as the “lingua franca” (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). Consequently, Antoine de Rivarol could speak of its superiority and the clarté française in his Academy speech “Discours sur l’universalité de la langue française” in Berlin in 1783 in front of the King of Prussia, who himself was able to speak and write French almost perfectly, and who maintained an epistolary correspondence with the French philosopher Voltaire. We also know that at that time in the German middle class, as for instance in the family of the Grimm brothers, French was often the daily language. The importance of French in 17th century Germany is also due to the Huguenot refugees. In England in the 18th century one can even speak of a “Francomania” (Caravolas 1995, 119). At the same time the interest of French people in learning foreign languages was at its lowest (ibid, 121). Rivarol (1784) concluded in the Descartian tradition: “Ce qui distingue notre langue des langues anciennes et modernes, c’est l’‘ordre et la construction de la phrase. Cet ordre doit toujours être direct et nécessairement clair. Le français nomme d’abord le sujet du discours, ensuite le verbe qui est l’action, et enfin l’objet de cette action: voilà la logique naturelle à tous les hommes; – voilà ce qui constitue le sens commun. […] la syntaxe française est incorruptible. C’est de là que résulte cette admirable clarté, base éternelle de notre langue. Ce qui n’est pas clair n’est pas français […]” (Rivarol 1784/1950, 49).

With the rise of natural sciences in the 18th century and their implementation as explorative sciences in the universities, social sciences – and especially didactique des langues – lost importance. Explicit teaching was preferred in schools. The separation between university teaching and school education was characterized by teaching plans and Ministry of Education publications of objectives, which showed little inter-

France

515

est in didactics. Foreign language learning was only of small interest in the 18th and early 19th centuries and was regarded as sciences de mots, opposite to the sciences des choses. Rousseau criticized the exclusive utilization of mots and advocated an education that was closer to nature and reality: “Des mots, encore des mots, toujours des mots” (Rousseau 1762; 1961, 104). He continued, claiming that the study of languages at an early stage of a child’s development is of no utility: “On sera surpris que je compte l’étude des langues au nombre des inutilités de l’éducation: mais on se souviendra que je ne parle ici que des études du premier âge; et, quoi qu’on puisse dire, je ne crois pas que, jusqu’à l’âge de douze ou quinze ans, nul enfant, les prodiges à part, ait jamais vraiment appris deux langues” (Rousseau 1961, 105).

A long fight between the “grammar-translation-method” (cf. Puren 1988, chapter 1) and the “direct method” (cf. Camerlynck 1903) took place at the end of the 19th century, with the ultimate victory of the direct methodology. The influence of psychologists and linguists gave didactics a more scientific orientation at the beginning of the 20th century. After the Second World War, with the publication of Français Fondamental (cf. Gougenheim et al. 1964), audio-visual methods (cf. Gubérina 1974; CREDIF 1970) were used in most French schools in an almost dogmatic way, and only in the 1990s can Christian Puren speak of the eclectic phase of language learning and the end of the great methods (cf. infra Puren 1994). Concerning classroom practice, there is a gap between theoretical and scientific findings and foreign language class reality. This is mainly due to a conservative practice of teacher supervision by the Inspection des Académies. “L’histoire de l’Inspection générale des langues en France montre à l’évidence qu’il peut y avoir un dogmatisme réducteur d’inspiration pragmatique […]” (Puren 1994, 152).

3 Geographical Approach In France there are a multitude of regional languages of Romance (↗20 French), Celtic, Germanic and Basque origins, which represent different regional cultures with very different degrees of practice and everyday usage, and different numbers of active speakers of these languages. As the French Republic did not integrate learning of these regional languages in the school curriculum for a long period – until the 1970s – a variety of private associations have been founded since then, and a renaissance of regional cultures and identities and even separatist movements have emerged. Examples of this development are the FLB (Front de la libération de la Bretagne) in Brittany with violent actions against TV and radio antennas, the FLNC (Front de libération nationale corse) in Corsica with violent attacks (including murders) against metropolitan residents and political representatives (the FLNC has been prohibited since 1982), and finally more pacifist movements like the Calandretas in Languedoc-Roussillon.

516

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

There are also schools run by private associations teaching the regional languages, like the DIWAN schools in Brittany (diwan is meaning “seed” in Breton) or the “Lernt de Kinner alsassisch” promotion of the Alsatian dialect in Alsace. Nowadays all these conflicts seem to have abandoned their partially violent approaches to the benefit of a serious practice of regional cultures and languages, complemented by tourist information centres and different tourist attractions. Festivals of regional languages and cultures have become an integral part of French life. The corresponding political decision is Article 75 of the revised Constitution of France, which now states that all the regional languages are part of France’s heritage (cf. Conseil constitutionnel 2008). Figure 1: Regional Languages in France (Leclerc 2013, redesigned by the authors) Language

Group

Speakers

Localization in France

Alsatien

Germanic

900 000 (of 1.7 million)

North-east (Alsace)

Frankish/ Alemanic

Germanic

400 000 (of 2.3 million)

North-east (Alsace)

Flemish

Germanic

20 000–40 000 (of 1.4 million)

North-east (Belgian border)

Breton

Celtic

172 000 (of 1.5 million)

North-west (Brittany)

Langues d’oïl

Romance

204 000 (of 35 million)

Northern half of France

Franco-Provençal

Romance

150 000 (of 6 million)

South-east (Languedoc-Roussillon)

Catalan

Romance

126 000 (of 370 000)

South-east (Midi-Pyrénées)

Occitan

Romance

3 000 000 (of 13 million)

South (Provence)

Corsican

Romance

150 000 (of 250 000)

Island of Corsica

Basque

Basque

40 000–100 000 (of 260 000)

South-west (Pyrénées Atlantiques)

Creole

Romance + others 1 600 000

DOM-TOM (overseas departments)

Approximate speakers of regional languages: 5.2 million of about 65.8 million habitants in France

4 Political Settings The policy of the European Union (EU) concerning language acquisition influences French policy concerning foreign languages, as it insists on the advantages and values

France

517

of linguistic diversity within its borders, and stresses the fact that language acquisition is important for the purpose of social cohesion and prosperity (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The objectives formulated by the EU align with these convictions. As language also plays an important role in the integration process of non-EU natives into the societies of the member states, the acquisition of the host country’s language should be promoted. To ease the access to basic services for tourists, foreign workers, students and immigrants with limited proficiency in the national language, basic information should be made available in different languages. For this purpose, in France there are programmes, which propose language lessons for immigrants. These lessons are mandatory if one asks for French citizenship. The Office Français de l’Immigration et de l’Intégration (OFII) is responsible for these courses. On its website, the office states: “L’OFII a dorénavant pour mission de ‘participer à toutes actions administratives, sanitaires et sociales relatives à l’intégration en France des étrangers, pendant une période de cinq années au plus à compter de la délivrance d’un premier titre de séjour les autorisant à séjourner durablement en France ou, pour la mise en œuvre des dispositifs d’apprentissage de la langue française adaptés à leurs besoins, le cas échéant en partenariat avec d’autres opérateurs, quelle que soit la durée de leur séjour’. […] Les cours de français proposés dans ce cadre sont entièrement gratuits. Ils s’adressent aux migrants légalement installés en France et appelés à y résider durablement. Ces cours sont accessibles aux personnes âgées de plus de 25 ans, originaires de tous pays à l’exception de celles demandant l’asile” (OFII 2013).

The objective of “communication in the mother tongue plus two languages” constitutes the basis of the policy and different activities of the EU to which France naturally subscribes as a member state. For these purposes, the European Commission intends to bring multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education) closer to the citizens to demonstrate the importance of language learning and diversity through awareness-raising campaigns, to evaluate language skills by using the Language Indicators and Eurobarometer surveys (cf. European Commission 2009), which is the instrument of the public Opinion Analysis sector of the European Commission and which makes efforts to develop the professions of interpreters and translators in the legal field. Furthermore, the European Commission intends to enhance student and worker mobility, to communicate the results of the study on language skills, creativity and innovation (cf. infra) and to provide a platform for relevant stakeholders to exchange best practices. Member states are also invited to promote language learning by: – Offering opportunities to learn the national language plus two other languages; – Providing a wide offer of languages to choose from; – Improving the training of those involved in language teaching; – Supporting the mobility of language teachers (European Commission 2009).

518

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

All these settings are fundamental and oblige the member states to respect them in their educational systems. In consequence, pupils in French schools are able to choose between several foreign languages such as English, German, Spanish, Italian as well as a number of other, “minor” languages (cf. infra). The official French educational policy about language learning respects the European aims by making mandatory first and second foreign language learning for nearly all pupils (cf. infra). In order to document the development of language acquisition in Europe, in 2008 the European Commission analysed the outcomes of teaching foreign languages in school in 16 member countries (cf. infra). Also, concerning language acquisition since World War II in France, a specific German-French political relationship has been implemented which determines the foreign language learning policy of the two nations. The most important date in the history of this German-French relationship is the 22nd of January 1963, the day when the Contrat de l’Élysée was signed by the French president General Charles de Gaulle and the German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. After centuries of animosities, hostilities, wars, territorial demands and mutual feelings of cultural superiority, this paper finally settled the relationships between the two nations, which are now characterized by friendship and cooperation. The two governments made it clear that there would never again be hostile conflicts between France and Germany. The Contract also established regular, bi-annual consultations as well as cultural and economic cooperation and opened the way to the OFAJ/DFJW (Office franco-allemand pour la jeunesse / Deutsch-französisches Jugendwerk) which in the past 60 years has organized and financed hundreds of thousands of journeys of young people to the partner country. Additionally, jumelages (twinnings) between more than 2,200 German and French cities and villages have been initiated. In the treaties contracted since then, the two nations have stated that the learning of the partner-language is of crucial importance. Even if these declarations have not curbed the loss of the importance of learning French in Germany and, vice versa, learning German in France, they oblige political actors to respect the principles of the French-German treaties (cf. Ministère des Affaires Étrangères 2013) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).

5 Foreign Languages Taught in Schools In accordance with European standards, each student should be able to communicate in at least two modern languages at the end of secondary education. To achieve this goal, language teaching has deeply changed, and is part of a strong common European perspective.

France

519

5.1 Elementary Education In the early cycle of students’ first school experience: cycle des apprentissages premiers; petite et moyenne section de maternelle (early and middle maternal school) objectives for foreign language learning are described as follows: “À l’école maternelle C’est à l’école maternelle que les élèves forgent leurs premières compétences langagières. À trois, quatre et cinq ans, l’oreille est sensible aux différences de prononciation. C’est aussi à cet âge que se fixe la façon de prononcer et d’articuler, et que les enfants ont le plus de facilité à reproduire des sons nouveaux. […] L’enseignant prépare les enfants aux séances d’apprentissage du CE1: – en leur faisant entendre une autre langue – par le chant et les comptines – en leur proposant de petites interactions verbales” (Ministère Éducation Nationale 2013, 1).

Pupils are being made aware of a foreign language starting with the Cours préparatoire, CP (first grade) in elementary school. The teacher prepares pupils for the more serious foreign language learning sessions, which begin in Cours élémentaire 1, CE1 (second grade) by teaching them songs and rhymes and by engaging pupils in short verbal interactions. Since the beginning of the school year 2008, a foreign language has been taught beginning in CE1 for an hour and a half a week. This continues for two hours in the Cours moyen 1ère année, CM1 (Medium Course, third grade). Foreign language teaching (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) thus gains the status of a distinctive discipline, boasting a specific weekly schedule in the pupils’ curriculum, and a programme with specific objectives such as the acquisition of communication skills and knowledge of the countries’ cultures where the language is spoken (cf. Ministère Éducation Nationale 2012, 84; Legendre 2003, 14). At the end of primary school, pupils should have acquired the level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001), and should be able to communicate in a simple way with someone who speaks the foreign language clearly and understandably. Oral practice is a declared priority for all levels from the collège to the lycée (first level to the high school level) (cf. Ministère Éducation Nationale 2012, 1). At the beginning of the school year 2011–2012, 99.1% of the pupils in cycle 3, which means the consolidation cycle of Cours élémentaire 2, CE2 (third grade) to Cours moyen 2ème année, CM2 (Medium Course, fourth grade) are taught modern languages. A wide variety of languages, which vary according to the geographical situation, is being offered in the French school system: German, English, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish (↗25 Spanish), Italian (↗21 Italian), Portuguese (↗22 Portuguese) and Russian. This rich choice helps to preserve the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe and the world (cf. Ministère Éducation Nationale 2012, 1). However, foreign language teaching

520

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

in primary school must take into account the languages offered at collège to ensure the continuous development of competences from primary to secondary school. Thus, we see that in all académies English remains the dominant language since it is studied by about 91% of the pupils. German is learned by about 7.6% of the pupils and remains in second position behind English (cf. Ministère Éducation Nationale 2012).

5.2 Secondary Education: Collège and Lycée When pupils enter collège, they continue learning the first foreign language, which they started in elementary school before beginning a second foreign language or regional language in CM1. Since 2004 some schools have offered the second foreign language in a classe bilangue in the first year of the collège. These classes bilangues allow the learning of two foreign languages in parallel from la 6ème (sixth grade) on. These classes are becoming more and more important every year, and in 2011 13.6% of the pupils already took classes bilangues (Ministère Éducation Nationale 2012, 122s.) (↗11 Bilingual Education). Apart from these areas, there are European sections or sections of oriental languages generally offered in grades three and four, providing enhanced language teaching for two hours a week. Like in elementary school, a variety of foreign languages are taught in collège. In September 2007, sixteen foreign languages were taught: German, English, Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, Spanish, Modern Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Tamil, Turkish and Vietnamese. At the same time eleven regional languages were offered: Basque, Breton, Catalan (↗19 Catalan), Corsican, Creole, Gallo, Melanesian languages, Alsatian, Occitan and Tahitian (cf. Ministère des Affaires Étrangères et Européennes 2013, 1). In addition to these sixteen languages, twenty-five other languages can be chosen to then be examined for a High School degree. Nevertheless, this rich variety of languages has to be contrasted with the predominance of English: It is studied by 97% of the students as a first or second foreign language (langue vivante 1 ou 2 = LV1 or LV2). From fourth grade on, only 85.3% of the students learn a second foreign language. Spanish is the second most commonly learned language in collège (72.1%), followed by German, which was chosen by 14.6% of French pupils in 2011. It is interesting to mention that German is taught more often in lycée d’enseignement général and lycée professionnel than in collège classes in third and fourth grade: 18% as opposed to 12.4% (cf. Ministère Éducation Nationale 2012, 126). At the end of collège, pupils should have acquired the A2 level of the Common European Framework of Reference for languages, enabling them to exchange simple information on familiar and routine matters. They then have the opportunity to be awarded the brevet des collèges (national brevet diploma) in the language of their choice (LV1 from primary school on or LV2).

France

521

Generally, foreign language and regional language education at the lycée d’enseignement général and lycée professionnel is based on the principles of continuity of learning from collège to lycée (High School level), and of a diversified linguistic offer allowing high school students to study up to three foreign languages, from the second to the last grade, depending on the section they are attending. However, only 7.1% of high school students choose to learn a third foreign language: either Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese or German. The 2012 statistics report shows that regardless of the choice of foreign language, English enjoys a leading position with 98.4%. Spanish is taught to 44.2%, and Italian to 4.3% of the students (Ministère Éducation Nationale 2012, 126s.). At the end of compulsory education students must reach the level B1, which means that they must be able to deal with most situations likely to arise while travelling, talking about an event or an experience, or defending a project or idea. The level B2 is expected for the baccalauréat examination, allowing students to understand most of a concrete or more abstract topic in a complex text or event, including technical discussions in their speciality. Students must be able to interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity, for example in a conversation with a native speaker (Ministère Éducation Nationale 2013).

5.3 Characteristics of the Studied Languages The languages studied in France are frequently in a geographical relationship with and close to borders of foreign countries: in the North of France, English, Dutch, and German; in the East, German and Alsatian; in the West, Breton and English; and in the Southwest and the South, Spanish, Catalan, and Occitan. In the Centre of France and in the Paris Region: apart from the already mentioned languages, there are rare languages such as Russian, Hebrew, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Polish, etc. But in conclusion one can state that English is the 1st, 2nd or 3rd language for 98% of high school students, Spanish for 40% of them, and German for 15% (cf. Ministère Éducation Nationale 2012, 126ss.).

5.4 Methodology and Classroom Practice In comparison to Anglo-Saxon education, French classroom organization (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) and the role of language use are aimed more at the transmission of knowledge i.e. in general the use of language in the French classroom is controlled by the teacher (cf. Robin 2009, 36). S/he decides what is said, who speaks and to whom. This situation is enforced in the language classroom, where even nowadays a stimulus-response scheme largely predominates. Recent studies also showed similar problems for Germany (DESI-Konsortium 2008), and stressed the fact that

522

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) speak much more than pupils (↗16 Language Learner). While teachers are talking, unfortunately, the lesson content and poor communicative focus neither encourages cognitive activities, nor do they facilitate the students’ comprehension. Often the subject of classroom interaction is limited to communication without any interest in students’ real life. Unfortunately neither Germany nor France participated in recent research on teachers’ practices, i.e. teaching practices and pedagogical innovations (Evidence from TALIS, OECD 2012). Hence we cannot yet propose any general findings about good practice (cf. infra) in language teaching and learning in France. “Cependant, bien que la plupart des éducateurs souscrivent aux grandes lignes de cette argumentation et que les salles de classe soient des endroits où l’on parle beaucoup, la parole – celle qui déclenche les activités cognitives des enfants de manière efficace et durable et qui soutient leur compréhension – est beaucoup moins répandue qu’elle ne le devrait. Bien plus que les apprenants, ce sont les enseignants qui contrôlent ce qui est dit, qui le dit et à qui. Bien plus que les apprenants, ce sont les enseignants qui parlent” (Robin 2009, 36).

Robin stresses the fact that interaction in the foreign language classroom is widely controlled by the teacher, and he deplores the lack of stimulating subjects and tasks. “La recherche scientifique suggère que plus le bain linguistique est important, meilleure est la maîtrise de la langue apprise. Malgré cela, dans pratiquement tous les pays ou régions ayant participé à l’ESLC (European Survey on Language Competences), selon les élèves, les enseignants n’utilisent pas ‘habituellement’ la langue cible en classe, bien qu’ils l’utilisent de temps en temps” (Eurydice 2012, 5).

On top of that, classroom situations are often characterized by long moments of interaction where the foreign language is not even used by the teacher or the pupils, or is only episodically used by them.

6 Language Acquisition Research “Le dernier aspect du contexte scolaire concerne l’influence des variables relatives aux caractéristiques personnelles à l’enseignant relevant de facteurs individuels comme sa motivation, son engagement professionnel ou encore ses capacités relationnelles. Ce domaine est largement inexploré dans le paysage français où l’on se limite à faire des hypothèses sur l’importance de ces variables dans l’explication de l’effet-maître […]” (Suchaut 2008, 4).

There is only little research about the efficiency of educational practice in France, declare Attali and Bressoux in a report about evaluating school practice (Attali/Bressoux 2002). There are three arguments forwarded by the authors. First of all, sociological research has shown the importance of extra-curricular influences on young learners, which would mean that all the important influences take place outside school,

France

523

and so no necessity has been felt to research classroom practice. Secondly, the centralized French educational system is based on a strong feeling of egalitarianism and homogeneity of the school population. This assumed fact leads to very few methodological variations and differentiated practice. The motto seems to be: same programmes, same recruitment, same financial input, same results everywhere in France, that is: one republic, one school. The third argument forwarded is the lack of interest of French researchers in quantified methods (↗2 Research Methods). A comparative British study about primary classroom practice in Britain and in France (Osborn/Broadfoot 1992) showed the differences of the two systems. For our purpose the most interesting results are that French teachers are much more isolated in their classroom work, that there is less cooperative work, less discussion about work, and the relationships among colleagues are more formal. Nevertheless, new efforts in empirical classroom research in France are reported by Yves Lenoir in a collection of papers about classroom practice (cf. Lenoir 2005). Unfortunately they do not yet include foreign language classes.

7 Some Results of Research into Foreign Language Acquisition in France In the following three tables one can easily see that the French lag behind the European average in first and second language acquisition. The competences were evaluated in reading, listening and writing. In the first language, some 71% of the learners reach the beginners (pre-A1) or basic (A1) level. In the second language we find quite the same situation, 72% of the learners remain on the pre-A1/A1 level. Another argument is proposed by Pierre Frath to explain the disappointing results of French foreign language acquisition when he refers to the historical dimension of the “great empires” (cf. Frath 2012); due to France’s and Great Britain’s dominance the other nations had to learn the respective, superior language. This ancient superiority represents a sub-structure to the relative failure of the French school system in terms of foreign language acquisition. The disappointing results shown below initiated a broad discussion in French newspapers and on the level of school inspection (cf. Battaglia 2012) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Figure 2 shows that a very high percentage of pupils in France do not master their first foreign language (English) better than A1 level, and that even 31% of them remain at a pre-A1 level. Compared to the ESLC average, France is listed at the bottom and finds itself at the 15th place out of sixteen nations. The situation is a little bit better in the second foreign language (Spanish and German) where France holds 12th place, but which is also below the ESLC level. These results are corresponding to the findings of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE) from 1998,

524

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

where a large majority of respondents demonstrate an incapacity of using foreign languages on a basic level.

Figure 2: First Foreign Language. Percentage of pupils at each level of the educational system using the global average of the 3 skills (European Commission 2012, diagram compiled by the authors)

Figure 3: Second Foreign Language. Percentage of pupils at each level of the educational system using the global average of the 3 skills (European Commission 2012, diagram compiled by the authors)

France

525

Field of research: people of fifteen years of age or more of French mother tongue background (langue régionale, parler local, langue créole), who attended school for at least until the 3ème, dernière classe du collège (end of the first cycle of secondary education). Figure 4: Different Levels of Competences (INSEE 1998, diagram revisited by the authors) Have been to school at least until the end of the first secondary level Total (%)

Are already in school

Have finished school

Do not have any available competences in a foreign language

42.5

10.6

48.8

Cannot participate in everyday communication

54.0

25.6

59.6

Cannot read a newspaper

53.9

25.1

59.5

Cannot master a telephone conversation

62.8

37.3

67.8

Cannot write a letter

52.8

16.7

59.8

8 Conclusion Despite the partly disappointing current results of the foreign language competences of French pupils, there is very little political intention to correct this situation. French politicians and foreign language teacher organizations even emphasize the “problem” of “tout-anglais” (cf. Association des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes, APLV). The 20th anniversary of the Toubon Law (1994) has generated discussion about the role of foreign languages, particularly English, within the French economy. The Toubon Law states, among other aspects, that: “[…] la langue française est un élément fondamental de la personnalité et du patrimoine de la France. Elle est la langue de l’enseignement, du travail, des échanges et des services publics. […] Dans la désignation, l’offre, la présentation, le mode d’emploi ou d’utilisation, la description de l’étendue et des conditions de garantie d’un bien, d’un produit ou d’un service, ainsi que dans les factures et quittances, l’emploi de la langue française est obligatoire. Les mêmes dispositions s’appliquent à toute publicité écrite, parlée ou audiovisuelle” (Conseil constitutionnel 1994, Articles 1 & 2).

Strong political determination in the field of foreign language learning in France is not yet noticeable. Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault – himself a former teacher of German as a foreign language – did not even mention this issue in his inaugural

526

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

political declaration to the French Assemblée Nationale of the 3rd of July 2012 (Ayrault 2012).

9 Bibliography Académie française (2013), Aperçu historique, http://www.academie-francaise.fr/linstitution/ apercu-historique (30.09.2013). Allan, Peter (2008), France’s L’Académie française upset by rule to recognise regional tongues, 16.8.2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2569651/ Frances-LAcadmie-Franaise-upset-by-rule-to-recognise-regional-tongues.html (30.09.2013). Association des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes (APLV), http://www.aplv-languesmodernes.org/ (30.09.2013). Attali, Alain/Bressoux, Pascal (2002), L’évaluation des pratiques éducatives dans les premier et second degrés. Rapport établi à la demande du Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de l’école, http:// www.hce.education.fr/gallery_files/site/21/92.pdf (30.09.2013). Ayrault, Jean-Marc (2012), Discours de politique générale de Jean-Marc Ayrault, http://www.gouverne ment.fr/sites/default/files/interventions/07.03_discours_de_politique_generale_de_jeanmarc_ayrault_premier_ministre_devant_lassemblee_nationale.pdf (30.09.2013). Battaglia, Mattea (2012), L’élève français, ce cancre en langues étrangères, Le Monde du 22 juillet 2012. Bessonneau, Pascal/Verlet, Irène (2011), Les compétences en langues étrangères des élèves en fin de scolarité obligatoire. Premiers résultats de l’Étude européenne sur les compétences en langues 2011, in: Note d’Information du Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. Département de la valorisation et de l’édition, 1–6. Camerlynck, Guillaume (1903), La méthode directe: les devoirs, Revue de l’enseignement des langues vivantes 11, 486–500. Caravolas, Jean-Antoine (1995), Le point sur l’histoire de l’enseignement des langues (~3000–1950), Anjou, Québec, Centre éducatif et culturel. Centre de recherche et d’étude pour la diffusion du français, CREDIF (ed.) (1970), Voix et images de France, Paris, Didier. Cicurel, Francine (2002), La classe de langue un lieu ordinaire, une interaction complexe, in: AILE 16, 2002, 145–164, http://aile.revues.org/801 (30.09.2013). Conseil constitutionnel (1994), LOI no 94–665 du 4 août 1994 relative à l’emploi de la langue française (1), http://www.dglf.culture.gouv.fr/droit/loi-gb.htm (30.09.2013). Conseil constitutionnel (2008), Constitution de la France éditée par le Conseil Constitutionnel, version en vigueur après la révision constitutionnelle du 23 juillet 2008, http://www.conseil-constitu tionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-constitution/la-constitution-du-4-octobre-1958/ texte-integral-de-la-constitution-de-1958.5074.html#titre12 (30.09.2013). Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cuq, Jean-Pierre/Gruca, Isabelle (2005), Cours de didactique du français langue étrangère et seconde, Grenoble, Presses Universitaires. DESI-Konsortium (edd.) (2008), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch, DESI-Ergebnisse Band 2, Weinheim, Beltz Pädagogik. European Commission (2009), Multilingualism – an asset and a commitment, http://europa.eu/ legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/ef0003_en.htm (30.09.2013).

France

527

European Commission (2012), First European Survey on Language Competences (ELSC). Executive Summary, http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/executive-summary-es lc_en.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf (30.09.2013). Eurydice (2012), Chiffres clés de l’enseignement des langues à l’école en Europe, http://eacea.ec. europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143FR_HI.pdf (30.09.2013). Frath, Pierre (2012), First European Survey on Language Competences, Final Report, April 2012, APLV, 17 juillet 2012. Gougenheim, Georges, et al. (1964), L’élaboration du Français fondamental. Étude sur l’établissement d’un vocabulaire et d’une grammaire de base, Paris, Didier. Gubérina, Petar (1974), La parole dans la méthode structuro-globale audiovisuelle, Le Français dans le Monde 103, 49–54. Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques, INSEE (1998), Enquête Permanente sur les Conditions de Vie des ménages, octobre 1996, N° 568, février 1998, http://www.insee.fr/fr/ (30.09.2013). Kok Escalle, Marie-Christine/Minerva, Nadia/Reinfried, Marcus (2012), Histoire internationale de l’enseignement du français langue étrangère ou seconde: problèmes, bilans et perspectives, Recherches et applications, Le Français dans le monde 52, 7–14. Leclerc, Jacques (2013), Les langues régionales de France (Hexagone), Université de Laval, Québec, http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/france_tablo_region.htm (30.09.2013). Legendre, Jacques (2003), L’enseignement des langues étrangères en France, Rapport d’information n°63 (2003–2004), 1–111, http://www.senat.fr/rap/r03-063/r03-0631.pdf (30.09.2013). Le Monde de l’Éducation (2002), Langues vivantes – Le mal français (Dossier), N° 300, février 2002, 21–36. Lenoir, Yves (ed.) (2005), Les pratiques enseignantes: analyse des données empiriques, Les dossiers des Sciences de l’Éducation 14, Revue Internationale des Sciences de l’Éducation, Toulouse, Presses Universitaires du Mirail. Mingat, Alain (1991), Expliquer la variété des acquisitions au cours préparatoire: les rôles de l’enfant, la famille et l’école, Revue Française de Pédagogie 95, 47–63. Ministère des Affaires Étrangères (2013), Traité de l’Élysée (22 janvier 1963), http://www.franceallemagne.fr/Traite-de-l-Elysee-22-janvier-1963,0029.html (30.09.2013). Ministère Éducation Nationale (2012), Repères et références statistiques (RERS) sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche, http://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/2012/36/9/ DEPP-RERS-2012_223369.pdf (30.09.2013). Ministère Éducation Nationale (2013), Les langues vivantes étrangères à l’école, au collège, au lycée, http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid206/les-langues-vivantes-etrangeres.html (30.09.2013). Office Français de l’Immigration et de l’Intégration, OFII (2013), Reprise des formations ACSE par l’OFII, http://www.ofii.fr/s_integrer_en_france_47/reprise_des_formations_acse_par_l_ofii_918.html (30.09.2013). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD (2013), Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/oecdteachingandlearninginternationalsurveytalistalis2013.htm# (30.09.2013). Osborn, Marilyn/Broadfoot, Patricia (1992), A Lesson in Progress? Primary Classrooms Observed in England and France, Oxford Review of Education 18/1, 3–15. Puren, Christian (1988), Histoire des méthodologies de l’enseignement des langues, coll. “Didactique des Langues Étrangères”, Paris, Nathan-CLE international. Puren, Christian (1994), La didactique des langues à la croisée des méthodes. Essai sur l’éclectisme, Paris, CREDIF-Hatier.

528

Sylvie Méron-Minuth and Christian Minuth

Quéré, Michel, et al. (2012), Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche. Statistiques, publications annuelles, Édition 2012, http://www.education.gouv.fr/ cid57096/reperes-et-references-statistiques.html (30.09.2013). Rivarol, Antoine (1784, 1950), Discours sur l’universalité de la langue française, Conseil constitutionnel 1994, Paris, Éditions Classiques Larousse. Robin, Alexander (2009), De l’usage de la parole en classe. Une comparaison internationale, Revue internationale d’éducation de Sèvres, 35–47, http://ries.revues.org/498 (30.09.2013). Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1762, 1961), Émile ou de l’éducation, Paris, Édition Garnier. Suchaut, Bruno (2008), Évaluation externe et recherche empirique en éducation: Quels apports pour l’amélioration de l’école primaire?, Recherches et Éducations 1, 89–104, http://rechercheseducations.revues.org/index443.html?file=1 (30.09.2013). Traité de l’Élysée (1963), http://www.france-allemagne.fr/Traite-de-l-Elysee-22-janvier-1963,0029. html (30.09.2013). Vieluf, Svenja, et al. (2012), Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Innovation. Evidence from TALIS, OECD 2012, http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/teachingpractices-and-pedagogical-innovations_9789264123540-en (30.09.2013). Walter, Henriette (2002), “Il faut vaincre la peur de se tromper”, Le Monde de l’Éducation, Langues vivantes, 29.

Rita Franceschini

28 Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions Abstract: This contribution focuses on countries where Italian is legally recognized, namely in Italy, Switzerland and the Istrian Peninsula (Croatia, Slovenia). For each country, the legal framework and an overview of the diversity of first languages will be provided, followed by a discussion of the acquisition of second languages and the developments “below” the level of legitimized languages. Language minorities – historically present or new ones – will be at the centre of the discussion, because these speakers show composite individual language repertoires and are thus the primary protagonists in multiple language acquisition: they have to acquire other languages in order to succeed in their linguistic and social environment. A further discussion is devoted to foreign language learning at school, taking also into account the multilingual student body and the needs of integration. It turns out that the Italian-speaking countries have a fairly good capacity for integrating alloglott speakers. Keywords: language minorities, spontaneous language acquisition, language contact, language policy, multilingual repertoire

1 Definition of “Italian-Speaking Regions” In a narrow sense, “Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions” are defined as Italy’s state territory – not to forget the enclaves of San Marino and Vatican – as well as the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. The definition further includes Istria and Dalmatia (on Slovenian and Croatian territory); where due to historical reasons Italianspeaking minorities are still found today. In these regions, Italian has the status of an official national language; in Croatia it is regionally recognized (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). In a broader sense, the term could also include regions where Italian is spoken due to new immigration (or, in some cases, not quite “new”, e.g. Malta, or, for other reasons, Argentina). For speakers in these regions, Italian (or dialects) is not necessarily their strongest language. According to Ethnologue 2013,1 there are an estimated 6 million extraterritorial Italian speakers, or “Italians abroad” (cf. Haller 2006; Toso 2008, 193–254). While the underlying situation can differ substantially, these speakers may be collectively labelled as “dispersed minorities” whose “ethnic” connection may be stronger than their actual command of the Italian language (Franceschini 1996).

1 The main reference is to the webplatform and the manual Ethnologue, especically to the site http:// www.ethnologue.com/language/ita, referred to as Ethnologue 2013.

530

Rita Franceschini

In the following, we will only discuss the regions mentioned under the abovementioned narrower definition of “Italian-Speaking Regions”; in other words, regions where Italian is, in whichever form, recognized as an official language.

2 Language Acquisition through Contact Languages are acquired through contact: as a consequence, historical and new language minorities rank among the most likely groups to choose – or indeed be compelled – to acquire additional languages, be it due to communication-based, cultural, economic or administrative reasons. Minority speakers are, therefore, the most likely citizens to (have to) acquire new languages (Franceschini 2011b). Further, languages can also be conveyed in other ways, for example in schools and courses, guided by a teacher (↗15 Language Teacher) and supported by the media. Wide-ranging statistics on language acquisition in a defined territory usually only refer to the latter form of language acquisition. The results, accordingly, reinforce then the prevailing notion that the outlook on language acquisition is rather bleak. However, a closer look at the subject reveals at least five important aspects that need to be taken into consideration when discussing language acquisition: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The Italian-speaking regions engage in language exchange through a wide range of adstrate languages (in a broad sense, “neighbouring languages”), and comprise a series of historical, autochthonous minorities. The phenomenon of globalization has added a vast number of new migration languages. There are regional languages and dialects that need to be considered when discussing language acquisition. Furthermore, a range of foreign languages are learned at school.

What characterizes these Italian-speaking regions as a whole is their traditionally established multilingual identity. It is questionable whether this identity will benefit from EU efforts to preserve multilingual communities – for example via the Action Plan 2003 “Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity”2 stipulating that “[e] very European citizen should have meaningful communicative competence in at least two other languages in addition to his or her mother tongue” (2003, 4) – or whether it will fall prey to the predominant focus on English (↗12 Plurilingual Education).

2 Cf. ec.europa.eu/languages/eu-language-policy/action-plan-for-languages_en.htm (July 18, 2013).

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

531

3 Italy In the northwest, the Italian-speaking region meets Franco-Provençal, Occitan and French varieties. In the north, it borders with German, Alemannic and Bavarian varieties in the northwest and northeast, respectively; furthermore, it is in contact with southern Slavic varieties in the east. Over the sea, there are contacts with Iberian and Semitic languages (e.g. Malta). All these contacts are potentially available for (natural) language acquisition.

3.1 Italian as L1 and the Role of Dialects According to the “Eurobarometer 386” on languages, some 97% of respondents in Italy list Italian as their L1 (EU 2012). In Italy alone, Ethnologue estimates the number of Italian speakers at 55 million3, rightly adding that this number also includes native bilinguals “who may use Italian as L2” (↗11 Bilingual Education). More precise data by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) suggest that the widespread use of local dialects constitutes an essential characteristic (Dal Negro/Vietti 2011; 2012). Only half of the respondents state that they “mainly” speak Italian with their family members (48.9% with friends; and of course a substantially higher 72.8% with strangers).4 When asked whether both Italian and dialect is spoken, 32.5% of the respondents say that this is the case in their families, a similar percentage with friends (32.8%), and 19% with strangers. When asked whether they exclusively speak dialect with their family members, only 16% of the respondents answer in the affirmative (13.2% with friends and 5.4% with strangers) (ISTAT 2006). One common denominator is, hence, the simultaneous use of both Italian and dialect, with differences depending on the individual communication situation. There are variable dialect shares, with a general tendency to accommodate to regional Italian. Provided that Italo-Romance dialects are nearly always primary and not secondary dialects of Italian (Tuscan), it is with ease that Italian dialectology and sociolinguistics refer to speakers that master both dialect and standard language as “bilingual”. The label “Italian-speaking person”, in consequence, often includes bilingual speakers with a combination of dialect and standard language (↗11 Bilingual Education).

3 Around the world: approximately 61 million (source: Ethnologue 2013, July 18, 2013). 4 The question was: “Abitualmente in famiglia, con gli amici, con gli estranei, come parla? Solo o prevalentemente in italiano, solo o prevalentemente in dialetto, sia in italiano che in dialetto o in altra lingua?”.

532

Rita Franceschini

3.2 “Other” Languages as L1 in Italian-Speaking Areas Based on their situation, which often resembles a form of “encapsulation” in another linguistic environment, minorities acquire the surrounding languages if their respective sphere reaches beyond their own community – and this has been the case also in the past. While the majority of people living in Italy today speak Italian (21. Italian), or Italian in combination with dialect, as L1, there will also be regions in which this combination becomes part of the speakers’ multilingual repertoire in the role of an L2 amid on-going socialization processes. The Italian territory is divided into twenty administrative regions that also feature distinct linguistic characteristics. Not least due to linguistic diversity – given the existence of consistent linguistic minorities – five of these regions have a so-called special status (statuto speciale) that gives these regions far-reaching autonomy rights. This is the case for the regions of Sicilia, Sardegna, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Valle d’Aosta. In all these regions, linguistic characteristics play a dominant role: Sardinian and Friulian as individual Romance language types; Franco-Provençal in Valle d’Aosta, and German in the last-mentioned of these regions, which is divided into two provinces (Trento and Bozen/Bolzano) with extended autonomy rights, especially for the latter, which has a consistent German-speaking majority (diglossia with Bavarian Dialects). In most cases, a distinction is made between historical minorities and those that have joined the region amid newer immigration flows, between territorial and nonterritorial minorities, that do not necessarily correspond with the former (see, for example, the historical but non-territorial minorities of the Sinti and Roma): Generally, these differences are relative, except where issues regarding the speakers’ legal status are concerned. Today, it seems that some (larger) historical minorities enjoy the advantages of legal recognition, while non-territorial and newer immigrant languages do not (yet). Even the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages only recognizes the historical minority languages. Italy signed the Charter on June 27, 2000, but has yet to ratify it (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).

3.2.1 Historical Minorities A somewhat equivalent law to the Charter was created on a national level in December 1999: Law 482(1999) containing the Norme in materia di tutela delle minoranze linguistiche storiche. The “cultural groups and languages” protected under this law are listed in table 1. Privileges earned prior to the introduction of this law were not derogated (such as, for example, the extensive protection of minority languages in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige/Bozen-Südtirol). In fact, all regional authorities retain the right to adopt more specific legislation in this matter.

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

533

Table 1: Legally recognized historical languages other than Italian, according to Law 482(1999) (regions with special statutes in italics) and other local historical minorities (in italics) Regions

Languages

Abruzzo

Albanian

Basilicata

Albanian Northern Dialects of gallo-italic type

Calabria

Greek Occitan Albanian

Campania

Albanian Northern Dialects of gallo-italic type

Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

Friulian German Slovenian

Molise

Albanian Croatian

Piedmont

French Franco-Provençal Walser Occitan

Apulia

Albanian Greek Franco-Provençal

Sardinia

Catalan Sardinian

Sicily

Albanian Northern Dialects of gallo-italic type

Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol

German and Bavarian varieties (e.g. Mocheno, Cimbro) Ladin

Valle d’Aosta

French Franco-Provençal Walser

Veneto

Friulian German Ladin

Thus, of the 20 regions in Italy, 13 have officially recognized minorities, with 12 having more than one language minority. Yet in this official, macro-sociolinguistic context, these regions are seen as multilingual (↗12 Plurilingual Education). Language minorities that are protected by law are, for example, the Albanianspeaking language islands (referred to as Arbëresh) in central and southern Italy

534

Rita Franceschini

(more than forty municipalities) that have existed since medieval times, and the Slovenian-speaking border region in Friuli-Venezia-Giulia (more than thirty municipalities) (Berruto 2009; Orioles 2003; Toso 2008; Telmon 1992). Other L1 languages in Italy include, for example, Hebrew (more precisely: Giudeo-italiano), with only a few hundred estimated active speakers today. Historical evidence of the Sinti and Roma languages in Italy dates back to the 15th century (current estimates: between 80,000 and 200,000 speakers). Last but not least, there are speakers who use the Italian sign language “Lingua Italiana dei Segni” (LIS) as their L1 (Ethnologue 2013). The respective historically recognized minorities account for roughly 2.5 million of Italy’s overall population of 60.5 million (in 2012). The estimate of the size of these minority languages is always a matter of debate and in some cases a question of point of view. Thus, depending on the source used, the estimated number of speakers differs substantially, with Ethnologue sometimes being too generous in this respect. When reviewing or quoting figures, one has always to question the method used in compiling the estimates: were quantitative methods combined with qualitative ones? Were other languages which were acquired and mastered taken into account? Does a survey focus on ethnic loyalty or truly only on the languages? Given these pitfalls, the numbers of minority language speakers can range from some hundreds (e.g. the Franco-Provençal in Apulia) to a few thousand – as is the case of Greek (or grecanico) – to larger groups of up to about 500,000 speakers, as for the very vital German in South Tyrol and Friulian (Toso 2008, 98; Dal Negro 2011, 179). More comprehensive forms of language vitality appraisal in minority groups are critically discussed not only by Berruto 2009 or Toso (2008, 13–40), but also by an increasing number of scholars (cf. Moretti/Pandolfi/Casoni 2011) with a keen interest in sociolinguistic matters: a broadened, sociolinguistic or even ecolinguistic view on minority languages is a key characteristic of Italian research and has resulted in model formations for multilingual repertoires (cf. Mioni 2000; Dal Negro/Iannàccaro 2003, Chini 2004a). The researchers agree that the minority language is not threatened by its inclusion in a multifaceted repertoire, but rather by factors associated with the composition and the functionalities of various varieties and their “appeal” (Iannàccaro 2002) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Therefore, a common line of thought is that it is not adequate to focus solely on specific languages when thinking about “minority languages”. Much rather, one has to consider the social and individual linguistic repertoire in which a minority language exists and how it fulfills different functions. An ecolinguistic approach, open to multilingualism, is a more appropriate way to describe the specific cases. In this perspective, acquisition – spontaneous and non-spontaneous – plays the key role. For these reasons, it is safe to assume that the speakers mentioned so far have multilingual repertoires and that they have gone through various phases of language acquisition, before and after starting school: their language skills include the minority language and possibly also the respective standard language (or Dachsprachen), a

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

535

local Italian dialect and (regional) Italian (↗21 Italian), as well as any additional foreign languages learned in school.5 Today, we can assume that there are no adult monolingual speakers of the abovementioned minority languages; at least they are very hard to find. Despite considerable efforts, these varieties are continuously less acquired as L1, with the loss of L1 speakers ultimately being attributable to non-transmission of the language to children and a preference among women, young adults and the academic world for more prestigious varieties (Dal Negro/Marra 2013). With “endangered languages” becoming more and more visible, educational measures are likely to have a beneficial effect. This situation, however, does not apply to the presence of German in the Province of Alto Adige/Südtirol, where language transmission from generation to generation appears to work well (Franceschini 2011a).

3.2.2 Languages of Immigration Since the 1980s, Italy has quickly transformed from an emigration country to an immigration country. From 1998 to 2011 the percentage of foreign residents in Italy increased from 1.8% of the total resident population to 7.5% (ISTAT). The multilingualism triggered by globalization adds to the historical heritage. For Italy, ISTAT 2006 data show that 5.1% of the respondents speak “another” language, as opposed to Italian, with family members (3.9% with friends). But this figure does not make a distinction between established and new minorities. As a consequence, within a relatively short amount of time, the educational system in particular had to overcome a major challenge, as an increasing number of children without command of the local language entered school. In 2011, most immigrants came from European countries: 27.4% from the EU, 23.4% from non-EU countries, followed by people from the African (22.1%), Asian (18.8%) and American (8.3%) continents. With 968,576 citizens, Romanians represent the biggest immigration group, followed by people from Albania, Morocco, the People’s Republic of China and Ukraine. In total, these foreign residents represent 50% of the foreign population. With a total of 7.5%, Italy’s percentage of foreign residents exceeds the EU average of 6.6% (data form ISTAT 2011). Italy’s immigration distribution is polycentric, meaning that immigration is distributed throughout the country, with a trend towards a denser immigrant population in the north: in 2001, 85.5% of all immigrants in the country lived in northern and central Italy (ISTAT 2011; cf. Vietti forthcoming).

5 On the other side, language decay or death is also a matter in discussing language minorities (inter alia: Dal Negro/Iannàccaro 2003; Moretti 1999; Moretti/Pandolfi/Casoni 2011).

536

Rita Franceschini

When looking at the language skills of immigrants, the first generation appears to have a broad multilingual repertoire (Valentini 2005). Based on the diglottic situation in their respective countries of origin, the following aspects need to be taken into consideration (Chini 2004a, modified from Mioni 2000): 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

(Several) local languages, in diglossia or minority relationships; National language or regional language; One or several linguae francae or languages of interethnic communication or vehicular languages that may be based on a European standard language (in a more or less Pidgin form); Colonial languages or languages with a vast sphere of influence; Potentially also languages spoken in a country where the immigrant stayed before entering Italy.

According to a survey in the Province of Bergamo (Guerini 2003; 2006a; 2006b), for example, the repertoire of Ghanaian immigrants includes Ghanaian English and Italian as high varieties; Akan (a Kwa language, Niger-Congo) and Twi (a vehicular variety of Akan, spoken by those immigrants whose native language is different from Akan) as medium varieties; and local languages as well as Ghanaian Pidgin English. As migration progresses, the medium varieties of these original repertoires may come under pressure and be downgraded, while new vehicular forms based on multilingual communication may arise (e.g. via code-switching between English and Italian) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Andorno (2004) calculated that nearly half of the first-generation speakers are multilingual (47%) (↗12 Plurilingual Education), while the same holds true for about 17% in the second generation. Only 30% use their original language as the dominant communication language within the family. This study and further data suggest the onset of a shift towards Italian (↗21 Italian): a second generation is coming along, one that uses Italian as the primary source of linguistic integration and rather marginalizes their parents’ original languages. Some groups preserve their L1 for longer periods, above all speakers originating from North Africa. According to Chini (2004b, 320s.), the preservation pattern among younger speakers is as follows: Moroccan/North African (Arabophones) > Chinese/ Asian > Latin American (Hispanophones) > Albanian > Romanian The substantial number of ethnographically oriented case studies surrounding individual population groups gives an insight into the spectrum of current languages and the approaches involved: for studies on adolescent immigrants in Turin, cf. Boario 2009, on female Peruvians in Turin, cf. Vietti 2005 and on Hispanophones cf. Bonomi 2010; for studies on female Nigerians in Padova, cf. Goglia 2004, for Rome Bagna/Barni/Vedovelli 2007. Cortinovis 2011 studied Albanians in Bolzano, and for Pakistanis in the Brianza region north of Milan cf. Goglia 2004, on Ivorians (Côte d’Ivoire) cf. Amoruso 2002. A thematic issue – Chini 2009 – is dedicated to this emerging area of studies.

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

537

All in all, there are at least an estimated three million first and second-generation speakers who predominantly use Italian. Given such figures, one might wonder whether these learners’ languages will in the long run have an impact on the Italian language system (Vietti 2005) and whether fragments of these immigrant languages could – in the sense of language adoption (Franceschini 1999) – be integrated in the Italian-speaking majority’s vocabulary, as happens in other European areas.

3.2.3 Language Acquisition by Immigrants: Italian as L2 Language acquisition of Italian in the first generation of immigrants is a wellresearched subject; thanks mainly to broad research projects such as the so-called “Progetto di Pavia” (cf. Giacalone Ramat 2003). In a series of longitudinal studies among young adults originating from various countries, this project focused on their primary, mainly spontaneous and unguided acquisition of the Italian language (L1 included languages such as Albanian, French, English, German, Moroccan Arabic, Tigrigna and Chinese). In addition, some immigrant languages were described specifically within the context of didactical approaches (cf. Cuzzolin 2004). All of these studies aptly document the years during which Italy had to deal with the new phenomenon of immigration and mostly spontaneous language acquisition by adults. For a comprehensive research overview on L2 language acquisition of the years 2000–2012, which due to its influence has coined the term linguistica acquisizionale, cf. Giacalone/Ramat/Chini/Andorno (2013), and for research on the sociolinguistic aspects of immigration, cf. Vietti (2013).

3.3 Recognized Minority Languages and School According to Law 482(1999), the above-mentioned recognized minority languages can be included at all class levels (including universities).6 With reference to the educational autonomy, the local educational authorities, the teaching staff and the parents are responsible for implementing the law; as such, they become responsible for carrying out an outright acquisition planning (Dell’Aquila/Iannàccaro 2004) without, however, disposing of the necessary instruments. Very often, teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) have to develop curricula and programmes as well as the required educational material, resulting in a heterogeneous system of initiatives. Uncertainties regarding future funding further aggravate the situation (Iannàccaro 2012, 251). Nevertheless, there is a high level of acceptance for the introduction of minority languages at school. The official status that a minority language receives thanks to the

6 Cf. http://www.minoranze-linguistiche-scuola.it/pubblicazioni/ (July 2013).

538

Rita Franceschini

introduction as an educational language tends to unite the community and contributes to closing the communicative gap between the generations; ultimately, it consolidates the community’s feeling of self-esteem (↗5 Languages and Identities). In addition, the curricular use of minority languages in the school system gives these varieties more value, and young generations especially regard this development as an upgrade: they are encouraged to embrace and cherish their diversity. On the other hand, this process limits these varieties’ flexibility and eliminates their appeal as an in-group code. The minority language becomes a school subject, thereby exposing itself to unpopularity; with the necessary standardization for educational purposes further limiting these varieties’ flexibility. The high level of variability detected also indicates that not all varieties are suitable for language acquisition at the various school levels (consider, for example, writing in non-standardized, spoken/oral varieties) (Iannàccaro 2010). Classes can be integrated into the regular curriculum or take place outside the scheduled amount of teaching. Experience shows that the classes are more efficient when integrated in the standard curriculum, and the use of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)-approach appears to further improve efficiency (Iannàccaro 2012, 252s.). Ten years after the introduction of minority languages at school, the result is not universally positive (Iannàccaro 2010): the main criticism is that the projects are mainly episodical and that the legal text suggests an excessively close relationship between culture and language that prompts activities which exclusively focus on historical traditions and can give rise to folkloristic tendencies while failing to address current trends and affairs (Marra 2007, 2009). Moreover, there are hardly any suitable programmes for teacher training (however, cf. Burelli 2009). The inclusion of minority languages at school contributes to a special language acquisition in terms of language preservation (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The didactic aspects thereof, however, are very challenging: Minority language teaching cannot build on the curriculum of L2 teaching, nor on traditional foreign language classes, and also differs from classes in the national language: after all, teachers mostly deal with non-standardized varieties and widely differing skills in the respective language among the children (Ricci Garotti 2011). It is obvious that preserving Italy’s high level of “language biodiversity” (Loporcaro 2012) takes more than the inclusion of these varieties in a school curriculum; adults, various institutions and the communication media also need be an integral part of this process (Marra 2012). For a research overview, cf. Dal Negro/Marra (2013). Italy’s language policy has undergone a shift from a one-sided focus on nationstate policy toward a system that embraces the peninsula’s historical multilingual identity (↗5 Languages and Identities). In fact, including the large, historically sedimented languages can make a significant contribution towards mastering the next challenge, i.e. the integration of languages brought into the country by new immi-

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

539

grants. This integration will succeed if linguistic diversity is seen as an innovative cultural element, both with regard to “old” and “new” minority languages, regardless of whether or not they are officially recognized.

3.4 Linguistic Diversity at School Diversity is gaining momentum throughout Europe’s schools. In 2009, 4.9% of students in Italy stated that they do not use the “language of instruction” at home (EU: 7.1%, EACEA 2012, 22).7 In Italy, however, a student is less likely to meet many students with such a background in class: only 1.7% of students are enrolled in classes where more than 50% of the classmates do not speak the language of instruction at home (EU: 2.7%). It seems that in Italy, there is no trend towards a pronounced immigration density with segregated neighbourhoods and the respective schools, but rather a well-distributed student body. This can be seen as beneficial to the possibilities of integration. 1.6% of the respondents with parents born outside Italy state that they speak the language of instruction at home, compared to 3.1% who do not (4.1% in the EU; EACEA 2012, 26). In a comparison with the rest of Europe, there is a strong preservation of the original language in the family, alongside the integration with Italian. Inclusive education looks back on a long history and tradition in Italy. Immigrant children are usually integrated into their age-group classes and receive additional support if necessary. There are no special classes for migrant children. This is another element that helps foster integration.

3.5 Foreign Language Skills According to the “Europeans and their languages” survey (cf. EU 2012), Italy lags behind the EU member state average: 62% of the respondents stated that they do not speak any foreign languages. Table 2 lists the “learned languages”8 as indicated by younger learners and adults.

7 The EACEA report combines data of the European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC) 2011 with the PISA database and data collected by Eurydice and EUROSTAT. 8 The question was: “And which other languages, if any, do you speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation?” (EU 2012, 12).

540

Rita Franceschini

Table 2: Percentage of adults (15–34) in Italy who speak the languages below as a learned language (2012): first four positions (“Language knowledge in Europe”, http://languageknowledge.eu/countries/italy, July 2013) Languages

Adults

Younger learners (15–34)

Italian

0.61%

1.41%

English

12.43%

18.7%

French

8.18%

11.83%

6.4%

8.55%

Spanish

While there is a trend towards English among younger respondents, it is visible that the younger generations generally learn more foreign languages. Comparing the Eurobarometer survey of 2005 with the one in 2012, Italy had the strongest increase among all EU nations in a question whether the respondent speaks more than two foreign languages (+6% to a total of 22%). This shows that the efforts are bearing fruit and that the authorities have recognized the need to take action. In fact, foreign language classes have become mandatory from primary school level onwards since the 1992/93 school year. In 2010/11, it became mandatory to begin teaching the first language in first grade and the second one at secondary level I. Further language arrangements can be made by the respective school authorities, with the possibility to accommodate the local population’s requirements. This has already allowed, in the last few decades, for the so-called “paritetical” educational system in the Ladin valleys of the Autonomous Province of Alto Adige/Südtirol, where children – in addition to the Ladin minority language (↗23 Rhaeto-Romanic) – learn both German and Italian (↗21 Italian) from grade 1 with an equal number of classes in both languages, followed by English from grade 4. As a result, they are quadrilingual when they leave school (Franceschini 2013): a clear exception in the Italian educational system. When looking at the language options, English is clearly dominant on all educational levels (with the exception of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, where German and Italian are mandatory from first grade on, and the Valle d’Aosta region, where French is predominant). With early learning of English on a primary school level, Italy (98.8%) exceeds the EU27 average (EACEA 2012, 64). This also means that apart from English, primary schools only offer a very narrow, rival curricular choice: only 2.5% of students are offered a second foreign language (EU27 average: 6.15%; EACEA 2012, 60). On a secondary I level, the most commonly offered languages in addition to English (100% of students) are French (72.3%) (↗20 French), Spanish (18.8%) (↗25 Spanish) and German (8.7%). Russian is only offered on the secondary II level, as are Arabian and Chinese. In a comparison among the various countries, Italy scores well in terms of language acquisition on the secondary I level, with 99.5% of students

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

541

learning at least two languages. This represents an enormous step forward compared to five years earlier (EACEA 2012, 50, 67, 75, 96). Throughout all school years, 23.9% of all lessons are allocated to the acquisition of foreign languages, which is in line with the EU average (EACEA 2012, 114, 120, Fig. E10, 122, 128). At the end of their mandatory education, students are expected to reach a level of B2 in their first foreign language and B1 in the second foreign language (according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) (Council of Europe 2001). Learning Italian (↗21 Italian) enjoys worldwide popularity, and many travel to Italy for such studies: There are two universities that offer Italian as L2: the Università per Stranieri of Perugia and Siena. In addition, Italy has a well-developed industry of language schools, mainly in Florence and the rest of Tuscany. Italy has transformed from a country that acted as tail light in terms of foreign language teaching to a nation that is in line with the EU’s policy of multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education). The focus, however, is very one-sided on one language – English – that is taught early on. The historically present multilingualism and the linguistic diversity of immigrant languages, meanwhile, are not included. As a result, the government’s efforts stand face-to-face with local realities that are unfit to fulfil the requirements. One of the major obstacles is the chronic underfunding of the public education sector that nips many sustainable initiatives in the bud; and the transfer of responsibility for implementation, based on the policy of school autonomy, represents a financial burden that only allows the rich regions to offer the full range of language acquisition measures. Yet such comprehensive programmes would be beneficial to all regions: an approach that is both able to build on a broad, traditionally strong linguistic diversity and willing to include newer linguistic phenomena.

4 Italian-Speaking Switzerland The Svizzera italiana, or Italian-speaking Switzerland, is the second most consistent Italian-speaking region. It comprises the Canton of Ticino as well as the four valleys of Bregaglia, Poschiavo, Calanca and Mesolcina, which are part of the (trilingual) Canton of Grisons (Graubünden).

4.1 A Region in a Multilingual Nation The Italian-speaking region of Switzerland is part of the historically multilingual federal state that has four official national languages (German, French, Italian, RhaetoRomanic), which it protects in their territories (according to article 70 of Switzerland’s Federal Constitution). Furthermore, Switzerland provides for measures to foster the understanding and the exchange among the country’s various language groups. In

542

Rita Franceschini

1997, Switzerland ranked among the first nations to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and put it into force in 1998. There are provisions to support the teaching of Italian (↗21 Italian) and Raetho-Romanic (↗23 Rhaeto-Romanic) on a national and regional level. Multilingualism is an important element in Switzerland’s national identity (↗5 Languages and Identities), and the country devotes a great deal of attention to language acquisition. Switzerland has a federal governmental structure and is highly decentralized. Each of the 26 cantons, and not the state, is primarily responsible for the mandatory educational system, with each Canton defining its approved official languages. With 471,000 speakers (or 6.5% of the population in 2000), Italian is the second smallest of the four national languages. In Italian-speaking Switzerland, people are highly loyal to the other national languages, as mirrored in the school policy. Italianspeaking Switzerland is home to roughly one quarter of Switzerland’s total population. In the Canton of Ticino, 83.1% of the 306,846 speakers state that Italian is their main language, whereas in the above-mentioned valleys of the Canton of Graubünden with a total of 13,401 speakers, 75–91% name Italian as their primary language (Bundesamt für Statistik, henceforth BfS, 2005, 13, 99) (on the Bregaglia-Valley, cf. Bianconi 1998). Based on the fact that Italian-speaking Switzerland is embedded in a multilingual nation and given the political, administrative, economic and cultural exchange that takes place in the country, multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education) is very common: it is pivotal to know other national languages in order to secure a sustainable livelihood. More and more children grow up in bilingual families (↗11 Bilingual Education). In Italian-speaking Switzerland, this is the case in roughly 17,000 families (almost one quarter of all families). A study that also offers a practical guide for parents is the one compiled by Moretti/Antonini 2000.

4.2 Language Diversity in Southern Switzerland: Integration and Preservation In addition to Italian as L1, 10.1% of the resident population speak one of the other national languages and 6.6% speak a non-national language as L1, which is above the Swiss average. The largest groups of non-national languages are the varieties Serbian/ Croatian, followed by Portuguese, Spanish, Albanian and English (BfS 2005, 16, 21). In total, approximately one fifth of the population speaks more than one language (dialects are not included at this point). In almost a quarter of all families, as just mentioned, the partners have a main language that is not Italian (Moretti/Antonini 2000, 125). The level of linguistic integration is high: among the Swiss-born foreign population in Italian-speaking Switzerland, 67.2% name Italian as their main language, compared to 32.6% in the first generation (BfS 2005, 15). This is proof that schools, as well as the society as a whole, promote integration.

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

543

The most multilingual group of the population are, again, immigrants from other language areas: foreign families speak more languages (per capita) than Swiss citizens. The facts that in addition to Italian, families also use German (14.1%)9 and French (5.1%) (↗20 French) and that there is an above-average use of the local language in family communication compared to other language areas, are proof of successful language acquisition: 72.1% of people with Spanish (↗25 Spanish) as a main language state that they also speak Italian (↗21 Italian) in the family, as do 54.4% of people with Portuguese (↗22 Portuguese) as their main language, 55.4% of English speakers, 41.2% of the Turkish-speaking population, 39.6% of people with Serbian/Croatian as their main language and 35% of Albanian speakers (BfS 2005, 27, 29, 33). The typological proximity of Romance languages appears to have a beneficial effect on Spanish and Portuguese learners of Italian. This is attributable to spontaneous language acquisition in the first generation, whereas school and leisure activities are the predominant areas of learning for the second generation.

4.2.1 The Diasystem of the Italian Dialect Here, the term “Italian” refers to a diasystem of standard language and (Lombard) dialect, with the importance of the latter as an exclusive communication code among families having decreased to the benefit of standard Italian (↗21 Italian). The exclusive use of dialects has decreased by approximately 5% from 1990 to 2000, while the use of standard Italian gained 7%. In 2000, some 16.8% said that they use only dialect, 55.2% stated that they exclusively speak standard Italian, while 18.7% state that they use both varieties (BfS 2005, 40; for earlier data, cf. Moretti 1999, 17ss.). From the point of view of language acquisition, learners focus on a more clearly defined target variety (as opposed to learners in the highly diglottic situation in German-speaking Switzerland): in Italian-speaking Switzerland, the integration is direct, through standard Italian.

4.2.2 Working Environment and Language Diversity In Italian-speaking Switzerland’s work environment, Italian is the uncontested leader: At 98.6% (of a working population of 128,899), it is the most regularly used language at work,10 followed by German (22%) and French (16.9%). English only takes fourth place (11%), with an increase of 3.3% compared to 1990. In other words, Italian9 In Italian-speaking Switzerland, German-speaking families with a Swiss-German background preserve their dialect (the German speakers’ unmarked language of communication) (BfS 2005, 38). 10 Translated into English, the question would be: “Which language(s) do you regularly speak at school, at your job, in your profession?” (re. school, see below). Multiple answers were possible.

544

Rita Franceschini

speaking Switzerland seems less open towards English than the other language areas (BfS 2005, 44s., 66). The management level is the most multilingual environment (there also with English), with non-national languages playing an almost negligible role (BfS 2005, 54). Many migrants appear to acquire Italian as they use it at work, while their L1 is not in demand. Contrary to other language regions, Italian-speaking Switzerland’s working environment primarily focuses on the national languages and less on English. In conclusion, speakers of other languages are integrated with Italian, with their share of the overall population having remained stable. This suggests that there are a continuous number of people who adopt the majority language while preserving their original language. While the latter is well preserved within the families, it does not play a role at school or at work. School “continues to be characterized by monolingualism; other languages are hardly visible, despite the fact that the language education system would suggest otherwise.” (BFS 2005, 104)

4.3 Languages of Communication at School (excl. Foreign Languages) Southern Switzerland offers the full range of schooling, including teacher training (SUPSI-Scuola universitaria professionale, Locarno) and a university that was founded in 1996 (USI-Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano). In 2000, approximately 46,300 people were enrolled in education. School in Italian-speaking Switzerland is clearly dominated by Italian: 98.7% of students use Italian regularly as their communication language at school. The integrative effect is obvious: “For almost all students, the local language is the primary language of education” (BfS 2005, 74), followed by German (3.1%) and French (3.6%) (BfS 2005, 73s., 78). With 4.6%, English has the lowest result in a Swiss comparison, albeit with a substantial increase over the last ten years. It is mainly used in post-compulsory education (1990: 2.7%, BfS 2005, 79). The use of “other languages” as every-day communication languages during mandatory education has increased from 0.7% to 4.1% over ten years (from 1990 to 2000), which is attributable to respondents with foreign nationalities (BfS 2005, 81s.). Given that these are rather small proportions, these data are proof of the integrative role of the school; at the same time, they show that other languages are in use during mandatory education years but are not integrated in the school curriculum. In terms of local dialects, young adults show some acquisition: 11.1% of students of mandatory school years state that they use them regularly at school. As can be expected, these are primarily Swiss citizens. Across all school levels, the number of dialect speakers rises to 13.4% (compared to 8.9% ten years earlier, BfS 2005, 87). In

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

545

other words, dialect does not simply disappear, but rather finds a new favourable habitat. The loss of a variety does not follow a direct path (cf. Moretti 1999).

4.4 Foreign Languages at School Switzerland also promotes early language teaching. However, Italian-speaking Switzerland does not follow the overall trend towards introducing English as a first foreign language: English is first taught in the eighth grade. Based on the federal system, the cantons have the freedom to take these decisions.11 So, Ticino is the only canton to offer three languages during the mandatory school years, giving preference to the national languages: French is taught from 3rd to 7th grade and optionally in grades 8 and 9, whereas German is introduced in grade 7 and taught until the 9th grade. English is taught in the 8th and 9th grade only. The four Italian-speaking valleys of the Canton of Graubünden offer German as the first foreign language, with English following in grade 5. In 14 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, early learning of foreign languages starts with English (in the second (Zurich) or third grade). In other words, even in Switzerland – a nation with a long-standing multilingual tradition – authorities do not focus on the factually lived and historically present local multilingualism as a means of addressing the requirements of a new globalized world. English is superimposed. The Italianspeaking part of Switzerland curbs the trend and builds on a Swiss tradition of favouring German and French.

5 The Coastal Areas of Istria and Dalmatia This area takes us to another border of the Italian-speaking territory, where the presence of Italian, based on contact, multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education) and bilingual speakers (↗11 Bilingual Education), seems more fragmented and historically interrupted.

11 However, there is a coordinating body, the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK-Erziehungsdirektorenkonferenz), which issues recommendations. In 2004, the EDK formulated the target that all students should receive classes in a first foreign language by the third grade, followed by a second foreign language no later than in the 5th grade. The recommended arrangement is: local language + second national language + English. An intercantonal reform of the mandatory education known as HarmoS presses for a stronger coordination.

546

Rita Franceschini

5.1 Slovenia’s and Croatia’s Linguistic Diversity The Adriatic peninsula of Istria borders eastern Italy. Here, Italo-Romance varieties are spoken that were in contact with southern Slavic varieties over centuries. After the turmoil of World War II and the expulsion of an estimated 250,000 people, most of whom were Italian speakers, the remaining Italian-speaking minority has been given an official status on a regional level, both in Slovenia and Croatia, which divided the peninsula’s territory between themselves after the Balkan Wars of the 1990s: in Slovenia, Italian was recognized in 1991 (cf. Constitution: Article 64), Croatia followed in 2003 (cf. Istrian Regional Statute, Article 6). In Croatia, the administrative region that has a bilingual status is the Istarska županija. Both nations have ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, with Croatia putting it into force in 1998 and Slovenia in 2001. Slovenia recognizes Hungarian and Italian as official languages. In Croatia, Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Czech, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Macedonian, Polish, Romanian, Romany, Rusyn, Russian, Montenegrin, Slovak, Slovenian, Serbian, Turkish, and Ukrainian are recognized (EACEA 2012, 18, 50s.) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The Croatian region of Istarska županija has a total population of 208,448 (according to POPIS 2011). Of these, roughly 7% state that they belong to the “Italian nationality”, with 4.3% defining themselves as “Istrians” (Census 2001). In Slovenia, 0.11% (2,258) of the total population declared that they are part of the “Italian nationality” (POPIS 2002). However, these data provide no clear information on the language varieties in use. Ethnologue 2013 estimates that there are 19,600 Italian speakers in Croatia (Census 2001), with an “ethnic population” of 30,000 (based on data of 1998). In Slovenia, there are 4,000 Italian speakers (Census 1991) as well as 50,000 speakers of a regional Venetian dialect (data of 1994), with these speakers being accounted for as “Italian” speakers.12 These speakers of a Romance variety as L1 are regarded as multilingual (↗12 Plurilingual Education): the local language is acquired through direct contact, at the very latest in kindergarten or primary school. Istria and Dalmatia are part of an area that looks back on centuries of linguistic diversity. In fact, these regions may rank among the most linguistically diversified in Europe.

12 Ethnologue also lists an Italo-Dalmatian variety – Istrot – with approx. 1,000 speakers, and IstroRomanian (with just a few hundred active speakers; Salminen 2000).

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

547

5.2 Social and Individual Repertoire in Istria: Language Acquisition via Contact Among the more than 210,000 people on the whole Istrian peninsula, language diversity is high: besides standard varieties (or languages of education) – such as (Serbo-)Croatian, Slovenian and Italian with their associated dialectal varieties (the Croatian dialect Chakavski), Slovenian dialect variety, Serbian dialects, Istrian variety of the Venetian dialect group, and the archaic variety of Istriot (moribund, shift to the Istrian dialect) – there are islands of Istro-Romanian (moribund, shift to Croatian varieties), Bosnian, Albanian and the languages of Romani and Sinti. Oral communication focuses on the most common dialects, with a tendency towards the Croatian dialect, but also the Venetian dialect, sometimes also being used by non-L1 speakers (De Battisti 2010) as a kind of vehicular language. The standard languages are distant (e.g. from Italian), the acquisition in the form of an educational language takes place primarily at school and through exposure to the media. The Italian-speaking population is, with knowledge of the local Croatian variety, at least bilingual (↗11 Bilingual Education); as are other minorities. The Italian-speaking minority withdraws to dialectophony, thus forfeiting a broader sphere of influence. This represents a problem, among other areas, in teacher training.

5.3 Diversity and Language Acquisition at School Since the 1980s, there has been a growing interest in enrolling children in Italianspeaking kindergartens and schools, most likely because these institutions appear to be in line with the goal of bilingual education (↗11 Bilingual Education). Children with Croatian L1 or children of bilingual families may prevail, which reflects the changes in the intercultural local reality (De Battisti 2010).

5.3.1 Italian-Speaking Minority Schools In Istria, “Italian schools” exist both in Slovenia and in Croatia. They have been founded as minority schools and offer a full curriculum ranging from kindergarten to university. Croatia has defined three official models of multilingual schools for minorities: the so-called “model A” (GRC 2009, 42s.) is applied in primary and secondary schools for the Italian, Serbian, Hungarian and Czech national minorities and ensures that “all teaching is carried out in a national minority language and script, with mandatory learning of the Croatian language in the number of hours equal to that of the minority language classes”. (GRC 2009, 42) All in all, more than 2000 students were enrolled in such schools in 2009.

548

Rita Franceschini

The curricula of the Italian-speaking schools match those of the other schools, with the schools setting different emphases in some “ethnically marked” subjects (De Battisti 2010, 164). In both countries, teacher training is organized in a five-year master’s programme. More than 50% of the language teachers are also qualified to teach other subjects (ESLC 2012, 88) – sound preconditions for the CLIL approach. The Italian language skills of the students are very heterogeneous: their skills may be strongly influenced by dialect, but there are also L2-speakers with a very strong command of Italian (De Battisti 2010). All in all, there is a shortage of teachers, combined with these skill gaps, as teachers are often dialect speakers but are required to teach in standard Italian. Also, there is a need to adapt the educational material.

5.3.2 Foreign Language Classes Generally speaking, the governments of Croatia and Slovenia do not define a specific language as a mandatory school subject. Despite this, the first most widely taught foreign language is English, followed by German. Croatia begins with classes in a first foreign language in the first grade, Slovenia in the fourth grade, with efforts being made to introduce a second mandatory language (Croatia currently has no such obligation); both countries offer a wide range of additional languages. Some schools have adopted the CLIL approach, with Slovenia also involving regional or minority languages. In total, 81% of Croatia’s primary school children learned a foreign language at school, and 18.1% a second one. In Slovenia, only 11.9% of primary school children learned a first foreign language. In 2010, this was English in 90.9% of the cases in Croatia and in 49% of the cases in Slovenia (ESLC 2012, 7, 15, 26, 32, 39, 41, 58, 62). The trend towards learning foreign languages at secondary schools is on the rise and involves, next to English, on the secondary level I: in Slovenia, German (35.7%), French (2.6%) (↗20 French), Italian (2.2%) (↗21 Italian); in Croatia, German (40.8%), Italian (10.0%) and French (1.3%). On the secondary level II in both countries, there is a trend towards German (Slovenia: 45.9%, Croatia 39.9%) and Italian (10.3% and 14.4%, respectively). The fourth most commonly taught language is Spanish (↗25 Spanish) in Slovenia and French in Croatia (ESLC 2012, 66ss., 73). Immigrants’ children are usually taught in ordinary classes and receive additional support and tutoring if necessary. The share of 15-year-olds who do not use the educational language at home is 5.2% in Slovenia and 1.7% in Croatia (ESLC 2012, 20). When looking at 15-year-old foreign students whose parents were born abroad, 3.2% say that they speak the educational language at home, as opposed to 10.2% in Croatia, with a foreign population of 7.8% and 10.7%, respectively (according to ESLC 2012, 24). This indicates a notable capacity for integrating young adults of foreign nations.

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

549

An important factor that has contributed to invigorating Italian – and to disseminating German at first, and more recently also English – is the influx of tourists. These foreign languages are useful, and the onset of cultural tourism in these areas has allowed for an integration of minority languages such as Italian in processes known as the commodification of languages (Heller 2011, 164). The language contact situation in Istria shows how a minority language can gain new strength in an intercultural context thanks to a renewed interest in multilingualism from several actors (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).

6 Conclusion: Failing to Take Diversity into Account in Official Language Policy In Italian-speaking regions, language acquisition takes place in a variety of language contact situations: with neighbouring languages, with varieties within the country, with new residents. The languages taught at school represent just one form of language acquisition: Everyday life, families, friends, as well as economic and cultural exchange offer just as many ways to acquire languages through interaction, especially in regions marked by a high level of linguistic diversity. The result is a variety of levels of active or receptive language skills (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means). These aspects are hardly ever represented in language statistics. Language acquisition at school can support an existing linguistic potential and either conserve this cultural heritage of language contacts or – as is often the case – ignore it and superimpose a (distant or hegemonistic) language and foreign culture. The important role of the developments “below” the level of legitimized (standard) languages also became apparent: How do regional languages and dialects coexist, and how are they interwoven in specific communication situations? Furthermore, how are these varieties and their situation-specific use acquired? It is futile to try to draw a clear line between such aspects as “standard language” and “dialect” amid on-going changes in many autochthonous varieties. What matters is the form of communication of entire regions in which different shares of at least these two components are handled in a variety of ways: as equally used independent codes, or in combinations where one variety (dialect) is adapted to the other (regional Italian). This, too, is a form of acquisition that takes place spontaneously rather than at school, with social interaction acting as a “teacher”. Minorities (established ones as well as new ones) come into being when borders are drawn, either on the ground or in the mind. Inequalities are the result of legislation that expresses the “value” a community is willing to allocate the speakers of the language in question. This has an irrefutable element of power, as such legislation shapes the lives of the respective individuals and even defines their status: resident,

550

Rita Franceschini

non-resident, citizen, refugee. In addition, globalization has given rise to economic factors that are part of the process of commodification and have turned language into an object that can be sold. Minority languages (the legitimized ones, of course, not the languages of immigrants!) have become an integral part e.g. of cultural tourism’s strategy to boost their sales figures, a process that has rung-in an era of post-global folklorization of minority languages. What holds true for the Italian-speaking regions can also be applied to other Romance language areas: peripheral regions become the focus of attention under the point of view of language acquisition; as do regions that were not always at the periphery, but used to be an integral part of other states. In the end, state borders hardly ever (or never?) coincide with communicative networks that traditionally have been, and still are, maintained in many areas marked by significant linguistic diversity. With state borders being blurred in an EU-based Europe, traditional forms of communication, which are often multilingual, re-emerge. As a result, minority speakers and migrants are the citizens that make the greatest effort in terms of language acquisition: they are among the most multilingual citizens of Europe (Franceschini 2011b) (↗12 Plurilingual Education). However, the impression is that the official language policy has yet to fully acknowledge the value of linguistic diversity. For example, the official policy does not emphasize regional or minority languages, but rather focuses the L2 target on “official” languages that have a wide reach. It may sound absurd, but educational foreign language policies strongly appear to remain in a monolingual habitus, with an exclusive focus on one specific language – English – and a notion that teaching should begin as early as possible. Both (admittedly oversimplified) assumptions are untenable. The economic life of most citizens is not all about English; much more often, other languages are important in obtaining a livelihood, and languages can also be acquired successfully at later stages of a curriculum. The focus should not be on a single language, but on several ones, including English. For Romance-speaking regions in particular, a short-sighted focus on an “English only” policy would be fatal, as it would have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage – ironically in the name of reaching European benchmarks for multilingualism. Rather than building on the existing potential of linguistic diversity, it is shrugged off. As shown in many abovementioned examples, the acquisition of an additional language by an individual is not inconsistent with the conservation of other languages. The predominant view in current language policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) appears to be that language is a chess board with a limited number of squares, when it is much more important to acknowledge that the game is played with all chess pieces. Schools in particular must take action in integrating existing and new linguistic diversity; and linguists are encouraged to not only describe and criticize language policies, but to actively contribute to change them.

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

551

7 Bibliography Amoruso, Chiara (2002), La comunità ivoriana a Palermo. Frammenti stranieri di una immagine urbana, in: Mari D’Agostino (ed.), Percezione dello spazio, spazio della percezione. La variazione linguistica tra vecchi e nuovi strumenti di analisi, Palermo, Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani, 111–133. Andorno, Cecilia (2004), I repertori e gli usi linguistici, in: Marina Chini (ed.), Plurilinguismo e immigrazione in Italia. Un’indagine sociolinguistica a Pavia e a Torino, Milano, Angeli, 239–296. Andorno, Cecilia (2009), Grammatica e acquisizione dell’italiano L2, Italiano LinguaDue 1/1, 1–15. Bagna, Carla/Barni, Monica/Vedovelli, Massimo (2007), Lingue immigrate in contatto con lo spazio linguistico italiano. Il caso di Roma, Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 36/2, 333–364. Berruto, Gaetano (2009), Lingue minoritarie, in: Enciclopedia del XXI secolo. Comunicare e rappresentare, Roma, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 335–346. Bettoni, Camilla (2001), Imparare un’altra lingua. Lezioni di linguistica applicata, Roma, Laterza. Bettoni, Camilla (2006 [32010]), Usare un’altra lingua. Guida alla pragmatica interculturale, Roma, Laterza. Bianconi, Sandro (1998), Plurilinguismo in Val Bregaglia, Locarno, Dadò. Boario, Anna (2009), Il raddoppiamento fonosintattico nelle varietà di parlanti adolescenti nativi e non nativi, in: Carlo Consani et al. (edd.), Alloglossie e comunità alloglotte nell’Italia contemporanea. Teorie, applicazioni e descrizioni, prospettive, Roma, Bulzoni, 383–398. Bonomi, Milin (2010), Hablamos mità y mità. Varietà linguistiche di immigrati ispanofoni in Italia, in: Maria Vittoria Calvi/Giovanna Mapelli/Milin Bonomi (edd.), Lingua, identità e immigrazione, Milano, Angeli, 53–69. Bosc, Franca/Marello, Carla/Mosca, Silvana (2006), Saperi per insegnare. Formare insegnanti di italiano per stranieri. Un’esperienza di collaborazione fra università e scuola, Torino, Loescher. Burelli, Alessandra (2009), Friulano a scuola. Esperienze didattiche e di formazione degli insegnanti, in: Maria Vittoria Migaleddu Ajkabache/Loredana Rosenkranz/Salvatore Sfodello (edd.), Limbas e culturas de minoria, Sassari, Editrice Democratica Sarda, 161–179. Chini, Marina (2004a), I repertori linguistici, in: Marina Chini (ed.), Plurilinguismo e immigrazione in Italia. Un’indagine sociolinguistica a Pavia e a Torino, Milano, Franco Angeli, 115–143. Chini, Marina (ed.) (2004b), Plurilinguismo e immigrazione in Italia. Un’indagine sociolinguistica a Pavia e a Torino, Milano, Angeli. Chini, Marina (ed.) (2009), Plurilinguismo e immigrazione nella società italiana. Repertori, usi linguistici e fenomeni di contatto, N. spec. di Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata 38/1. Cortinovis, Enrica (2011), Local, Global and Ethnic Orientation in the Communicative Practices of Albanian Speaking Adolescents in Bolzano (Italy), Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 41/164, 121–133. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2004), Percezione del contatto di lingue: arabo classico, arabo moderno, italiano, dialetto, in: Massimo Vedovelli/Stefania Massara/Anna Giacalone Ramat (edd.), Lingue e culture in contatto. L’italiano come L2 per gli arabofoni, Milano, Angeli, 89–107. D’Agostino, Mari (2007), Sociolinguistica dell’Italia contemporanea, Bologna, il Mulino. Dal Negro, Silvia (2011), Tedesco di contatto in Italia, in: Elisabetta Fazzini Giovannucci (ed.), Il tedesco superiore. Tradizione scritta e varietà parlate, Alessandria, Dell’Orso, 179–199. Dal Negro, Silvia/Guerini, Federica (2007), Contatto: dinamiche ed esiti del plurilinguismo, Roma, Aracne.

552

Rita Franceschini

Dal Negro, Silvia/Iannàccaro, Gabriele (2003), “Qui parliamo tutti uguale, ma diverso”. Repertori complessi e interventi sulle lingue, in: Ada Valentini et al. (edd.), Ecolinguistica, Roma, Bulzoni, 431–450. Dal Negro, Silvia/Marra, Antonietta (2013), Minoranze territoriali e politiche linguistiche, in: Gabriele Iannáccaro (a cura di), La linguistica italiana all’alba del terzo millennio (1997–2010), Roma, Bulzoni, 303–340. Dal Negro, Silvia/Molinelli, Piera (edd.) (2002), Comunicare nella torre di Babele. Repertori plurilingui in Italia oggi, Roma, Carocci. Dal Negro, Silvia/Vietti, Alessandro (2011), Italian and Italo-Romance dialects, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210, 71–92. Dal Negro, Silvia/Vietti, Alessandro (2012), Il repertorio linguistico degli italiani: un’analisi quantitativa dei dati ISTAT, in: Tullio Telmon/Gianmario Raimondi/Luisa Revelli (edd.), Coesistenze linguistiche nell’Italia pre- e postunitaria, Roma, Bulzoni, 167–182. De Battisti, Chiara (2010), La lingua italiana e le scuole italiane nel territorio istriano, Italiano LinguaDue 2/2, 156–169. Dell’Aquila, Vittorio/Iannàccaro, Gabriele (2004), La pianificazione linguistica. Lingue, società e istituzioni, Roma, Carocci. EACEA (2012). Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe (EACEA P9 Eurydice and Policy Support), Brussels, http://eacea.ec.europa. eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143EN.pdf (20.07.2013). ESLC (2012). European Commission, First European Survey on Language Competences. Final Report, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf (20.07.2013). Ethnologue (2013), Italian. A language of Italy, http://www.ethnologue.com/language/ita (20.07.2013). EU (2012). European Commission, Europeans and their Languages (Special Eurobarometer), http:// ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf (20.07.2013). Franceschini, Rita (1996), Un modello variazionale per l’italiano all’estero, Italian Culture 14, 311–336. Franceschini, Rita (1999), Sprachadoption: der Einfluss von Minderheitensprachen auf die Mehrheit, oder: Welche Kompetenzen der Minderheitensprachen haben Mehrheitssprecher?, in: Anna Dazzi Gross/Lorenza Mondada (edd.), Les langues minoritaires en contexte. Minderheitensprachen im Kontext, vol. 2: Minorités en mouvement: mobilité et changement linguistique. Minderheitensprachen in Bewegung: Mobilität und Sprachwandel, Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 69/2, 137–153. Franceschini, Rita (2011a), The potentiality of multilingualism. Four Scenarios for a multilingual country, in: Werner Wiater/Gerda Videsott (edd.), New theoretical Perspectives in Multilingualism Research, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 135–153. Franceschini, Rita (2011b), Die “mehrsprachigsten” Bürger Europas. Sprecher von historischen und neuen Minderheitensprachen und ihr Beitrag, in: Ludwig M. Eichinger/Albert Plewnia/Melanie Steinle (edd.), Sprache und Integration. Über Mehrsprachgkeit und Migration, Tübingen, Narr, 29–53. Franceschini, Rita (2013), Die Entwicklung dreisprachiger Schreibkompetenzen. Resultate aus den ladinischsprachigen Tälern Südtirols, in: Jürgen Erfurt/Tatjana Leichsering/Reseda Streb (edd.), Mehrsprachigkeit und Mehrschriftigkeit. Sprachliches Handeln in der Schule, Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 83, 57–78. Giacalone Ramat, Anna/Chini, Marina/Andorno, Cecilia (2013), Italiano come L2, in: Gabriele Iannácaro (a cura di), La linguistica italiana all’alba del terzo millennio (1997–2010), Roma, Bulzoni, 149–205. Giacalone Ramat, Anna (ed.) (2003), Verso l’italiano. Percorsi e strategie di acquisizione, Roma, Carocci.

Italy and the Italian-Speaking Regions

553

Goglia, Francesco (2004), The interlanguage of Igbo Nigerians immigrated in Italy, with particular attention to the interference with English language, in: Francesco Goglia et al. (edd.), Il soggetto plurilingue. Interlingua, aspetti di neurolinguistica, identità e interculturalità, Milano, Franco Angeli, 23–120. Grassi, Roberta (2010), Correggere l’errore nell’interazione? Tipi di feedback a confronto, in: Roberta Grassi/Monica Piantoni/Chiara Ghezzi (edd.), Interazione didattica e apprendimento linguistico, Perugia, Guerra, 103–128. GRC (2009). Government of the Republic of Croatia, Fourth Report by the Republic of Croatia on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Zagreb, http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/report/PeriodicalReports/CroatiaPR4_en.pdf (20.07.2013). Guerini, Federica (2003), Immigrazione e repertori plurilingui in Italia. Il repertorio della comunità di immigrati di origine ghanese in provincia di Bergamo, in: Ada Valentini et al. (edd.), Ecolinguistica, Roma, Bulzoni, 295–307. Guerini, Federica (2006a), Language alternation strategies in multilingual settings. A case study: Ghanaian immigrants in Northern Italy, Bern, Lang. Guerini, Federica (2006b), Repertori complessi e comunicazione plurilingue. La comunità degli immigrati ghanesi in provincia di Bergamo, in: Augusto Carli (ed.), Le sfide della politica linguistica di oggi. Fra valorizzazione del multilinguismo migratorio locale e le istanze del plurilinguismo europeo, Milano, Angeli, 117–266. Haller, Hermann W. (2006), Lingue degli emigranti e degli esiliati: italiano – Romanische Migrantenund Vertriebenensprachen: Italienisch, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte – Histoire linguistique de la Romania. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen, vol. 2, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1886–1892. Heller, Monica (2011), Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and identity, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Iannàccaro, Gabriele (2002), L’intervista qualitativa come strumento d’analisi della dialettologia percettiva, in: Mari D’Agostino (ed.), Percezione dello spazio, spazio della percezione. La variazione linguistica tra vecchi e nuovi strumenti di analisi, Palermo, Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani, 59–73. Iannàccaro, Gabriele (2010), Lingue di minoranza e scuola. A dieci anni dalla Legge 482/99. Il plurilinguismo scolastico nelle comunità di minoranza della Repubblica Italiana, Roma, MIUR, http://www.minoranze-linguistiche-scuola.it/pubblicazioni/ (20.07.2013). Iannàccaro, Gabriele (2012), Lingue dell’educazione e plurilinguismo scolastico a dieci anni dalla legge 482/99, in: Silvana Ferreri (ed.), Linguistica educativa, Roma, Bulzoni, 245–256. ISTAT (2006). Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, La lingua italiana, i dialetti e le lingue straniere. Anno 2006, http://www3.istat.it/salastampa/comunicati/non_calendario/20070420_00/ (20.07.2013). ISTAT (2011). Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, La popolazione straniera residente in Italia (Statistiche: Report 22), http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/39726 (20.07.2013). Loporcaro, Michele (2012), Non sappiamo come scriverlo, perciò non lo parliamo: mille e una scusa per un suicidio linguistico, Rhesis. International Journal of Linguistics, Philology, and Literature. Linguistics and Philology 3/1, 36–58, http://www.diplist.it/rhesis/index.php (20.07.2013). Marra, Antonietta (2007), Politiche linguistiche e piccole comunità minoritarie, tra sociolinguistica e glottodidattica, in: Carlo Consani/Paola Desideri (edd.), Minoranze linguistiche. Prospettive, strumenti, territori, Roma, Carocci, 161–185. Marra, Antonietta (2009), Le indicazioni europee, la legge nazionale, le leggi regionali. Osservazioni su testi di tutela delle lingue e delle culture minoritarie, in: Ian Korzen/Cristina Lavinio (edd.), Lingue, culture e testi istituzionali, Firenze, Cesati, 289–314.

554

Rita Franceschini

Marra, Antonietta (2012), Lingue locali e lingue nazionali. Riflessioni per la didattica delle lingue minoritarie, in: Albert Abi Aad/Maria Luisa Marci Corona (edd.), Una scuola che parla. Lingue straniere, italiano L2 e lingue regionali, Roma, Aracne, 147–164. Mioni, Alberto A. (2000), La situazione sociolinguistica dell’Alto Adige/Südtirol, in: Antonio Pasinato (ed.), Heimat: identità regionali nel processo storico, Roma, Donzelli, 333–342. Moretti, Bruno (1999), Ai margini del dialetto. Varietà in sviluppo e varietà in via di riduzione in una situazione di inizio di decadimento, Locarno, Dadò. Moretti, Bruno (ed.) (2005), La terza lingua. Aspetti dell’italiano in Svizzera agli inizi del terzo millennio, Bellinzona, Osservatorio linguistico della Svizzera italiana. Moretti, Bruno/Antonini, Francesca (2000), Famiglie bilingui. Modelli e dinamiche di mantenimento e di perdita in famiglia, Locarno, Dadò. Moretti, Bruno/Pandolfi, Elena M./Casoni, Marco (edd.) (2011), Vitalità di una lingua minoritaria. Aspetti e proposte metodologiche, Bellinzona, Osservatorio linguistico della Svizzera italiana. Orioles, Vincenzo (2003), Le minoranze linguistiche. Profili sociolinguistici e quadro dei documenti di tutela, Roma, Il Calamo. Pallotti, Gabriele (2005), Imparare e insegnare l’italiano come seconda lingua. Un percorso di formazione (L’italiano per stranieri), Roma, Bonacci. Pallotti, Gabriele (2010), Doing interlanguage analysis in school contexts, in: Inge Bartning/Maisa Martin/Ineke Vedder (edd.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development. Intersections between SLA and language testing research, Eurosla, 159–190. Pandolfi, Elena M. (2006), Misurare la regionalità. Uno studio quantitativo sui regionalismi e forestierismi nell’italiano parlato nel Canton Ticino, Bellinzona, Osservatorio linguistico della Svizzera italiana. Pandolfi, Elena M. (2009), LIPSI. Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato nella Svizzera italiana, Bellinzona, Osservatorio linguistico della Svizzera italiana. Pandolfi, Elena M. (2011), L’italiano nostro e degli altri, Bellinzona, Osservatorio linguistico della Svizzera italiana. Popis (2002). Statistični Urad Republike Slovenije, Rezultati Popisa 2002, http://www.stat.si/po pis2002/si/default.htm (20.07.2013). Popis (2011). Državni Zavod za Statistiku, Popis stanovništva, kućanstava i stanova 2011. godine, http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/censuses/census2011/censuslogo.htm (20.07.2013). Ricci Garotti, Federica (2011), L’insegnamento curricolare di una lingua minoritaria. Aspetti e problemi nel caso del mòcheno, in: Patrizia Cordin (ed.), Didattica e lingue locali. Esperienze di ladino, mòcheno e cimbro nella scuola e nell’università, Milano, Angeli, 65–95. Salminen, Tapani (2000), Unesco red book on endangered languages. Europe, http://www.helsinki. fi/~tasalmin/europe_report.html (20.07.2013). Telmon, Tullio (1992), Le minoranze linguistiche in Italia, Alessandria, Dell’Orso. Toso, Fiorenzo (2008), Le minoranze linguistiche in Italia, Bologna, il Mulino. Valentini, Ada (2005), Lingue e interlingua dell’immigrazione in Italia, Linguistica e Filologia 21, 185–208. Vietti, Alessandro (2005), Come gli immigrati cambiano l’italiano. L’italiano di peruviane come varietà etnica, Milano, Angeli. Vietti, Alessandro (2009), Contatto e variazione nell’italiano di stranieri. La formazione di una varietà etnica, Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 38/1, 29–54. Vietti, Alessandro (2013), Minoranze non territoriali, in: Gabriele Iannácaro (ed.), La linguistica italiana all’alba del terzo millennio (1997–2010), Roma, Bulzoni, 341–368.

Isabel García Ponce

29 Peru Abstract: The present study focuses on the teaching of languages in Peru, a country characterized by its multilingualism and multiculturalism. It gives an account of the variety of languages and dialects of the Spanish spoken in the country, and then describes the evolution of the teaching of Spanish as a second language over time, through various policies and guidelines. It starts at the arrival of the Spaniards in Peru, continues with the first decades of the nascent Republic, up to the current time. It evaluates the achievements and problems that the teaching of Spanish in Peru has had and, from them, it looks to the future. The chapter also shows the situation of the native languages of Peru and the peoples who speak them; the different interests, approaches, and ups and downs that their education has had; and the main legal documents that have marked its destiny. Finally, the study concludes with a brief presentation on the current situation of the teaching of languages, in regions dominated by bilingualism or monolingualism in native languages. Keywords: Spanish, indigenous languages, bilingual education, intercultural education, policy

1 Introduction The language acquisition process that took place in Peru is complex due to historical, political, geographical, and social reasons, among others. This chapter will focus on language teaching, and the policies that have marked its course and determined its change since the arrival of the Spanish language in these lands. For a better understanding of this process, the chapter describes the situation of Spanish and indigenous languages in Peru. In this context, it presents the most important milestones in the teaching of Spanish as a second language. It also includes a reference to the teaching of indigenous languages, intercultural bilingual education and foreign language teaching. For centuries, language education policy has favoured the language of power in Peru: Spanish. However, it is interesting to note the many important changes on this subject that have occurred in recent decades.

2 The Situation of Spanish in Peru Even though the Empire of the Incas spread Quechua as its general language, it didn’t last long enough to impose it in its entirety. Without being the native language of the Incas, Quechua was the official language of Tawantinsuyu and was learned “forzosa-

556

Isabel García Ponce

mente entre la administración y la burocracia con la obligación de conocerlo” (Miranda 1998, 54). The arrival of the Spanish in Peru, in the early sixteenth century, interrupted Quechua expansion. At the same time, the many languages spoken across the length and breadth of the empire began to disappear. An important number of these languages are still spoken, and from those that have already disappeared traces remain in place names and patronymics (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). At first, the Spanish were interested in these languages, for which they wrote vocabularies and grammars in order to know them and do a better job of evangelization. Garatea (2010, 137) notes that the Council of Trent (1545–1563) “highlighted the role of local languages in education and, during the early years, led to the adoption of regulations designed to popular education, and to the publication of catechisms in these languages […]”. One of these rules, given by Philip II in 1578, stated that every priest should know the language of his parishioners as a condition of taking a parish or doctrine. However, despite this initial interest in the use of indigenous languages for political indoctrination, the process of spreading the Spanish language started soon. Miranda (1998, 104ss.) reports the language policy of the time through various ordinances and royal decrees, from creating schools for the purpose of spreading Spanish to the eradication of indigenous languages. Francisco de Toledo, Viceroy of Peru from 1569 to 1581, established in his third ordinance, “que en cada repartimiento haya casa de escuela para que los muchachos, especialmente los hijos de los curacas principales y demás indígenas ricos se enseñen a leer y escribir y hablar la lengua castellana como su majestad lo manda […]” (1998, 104). Felipe III, by the Act of March 2, 1634, ordered that “los arzobispos y obispos provean y den orden en sus diócesis, que los curas y doctrineros de indígenas, usando de los medios más suaves, dispongan y examinen, que a todos los indígenas sea enseñada la lengua española y en ella la doctrina cristiana” (1998, 105). Later, Carlos III radicalized the policy of spreading Spanish when ordering, by royal decree of March 10, 1770, “que de una vez se llegue a conseguir que se extingan los diferentes idiomas de que se usan en los mismos dominios y solo se hable el castellano, como está mandado por repetidas leyes, reales cédulas y órdenes expedidas en el asunto…” (1998, 107) Finally, after the revolution of Tupac Amaru, the king repealed all provisions in favour of learning Quechua. Reasons of political, economic, and religious order accelerated the Spanish language policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Garatea (2010, 121ss.) notes that one of the objectives of the Crown was to facilitate the extraction of the sources of wealth “que mitos y fábulas habían enquistado en el imaginario europeo y que las necesidades diarias exigían alcanzar con prontitud”. An equally important objective was that the kings had to comply with the commitment that they had made to Pope Alexander VI, who had authorized them to take possession of the Indies “bajo la condición de adoctrinar a los dichos indígenas en la fe católica”. As to how this teaching of Spanish and this indoctrination were developed, the documents

Peru

557

studied by Garatea (2010, 128) reveal that natives of this land learned to read and write early, because the fact that they could act as “appointed notaries”, or that they were prohibited from buying certain types of books, reveal that “durante el siglo XVI, la educación había empezado a dar frutos, por más que ella estuviera limitada a unos cuantos y haya sido de mala o muy desigual calidad […]”. Several authors point to the Spanish expansion policy as the cause of the extinction of many languages in Peru and the reduction of the use of remaining languages to rural communities far away from the cities. Andrade (2009, 30s.), citing Cerrón Palomino while discussing the Mochica language extinction on the northern coast of Peru, noted that the causes were “la influencia de las ciudades, ya castellanizadas, con su dinámica de explotación de los grupos indígenas; la opción de las elites nativas por la occidentalización, abandonando los rasgos de pertenencia a su antigua cultura, como la ropa, los modales y, ciertamente, el idioma; y la modernización, que acabó con el aislamiento de los pueblos indígenas, rechazando sus saberes tradicionales”. The Spanish dissemination policy, together with the identification of Spanish as the language of those in power, and the one which was spoken in the major urban centres, has left Peruvians a diglossic society due to the Spanish overlay on indigenous languages spoken in the country (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). This language, despite the initiatives mentioned below, remains the only one that gives access to the exercise of civil rights, such as “complete” education, justice, health, social services, administrative procedures, well-paid jobs; in other words, to the social, political and economic development. The language that the Spanish brought to Peru in the sixteenth century had traits that are now part of Peruvian (and Latin American) Spanish features. Miranda (1998, 87) cites among them, the pronunciation of interdental /θ/ as /s/ (seseo), the merging of /ʝ/ and /ʎ/ into one phoneme (yeísmo), the laminal alveolar [s], and the velarization of -n, among others who were “present in western Andalusia (and therefore, most likely in the Canary Islands and southern Extremadura) not only in the early sixteenth century, but in some cases at least, in the fifteenth century and even before […]”. For its part, the native languages enriched Spanish Peruvian variety; first the lexicon and then the structures. Examples of this contribution, with particular reference to the Quechua language, can be found in any edition of the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española de la Lengua. Other contributions that have shaped the Spanish dialect of Peru come from foreign languages. Lipski (1996, 338) notes that linguistic traces of the African presence in Peru are preserved in some marginal areas of the coast. However, he adds that the important Chinese migration in the second half of the nineteenth century left “no language trace”. While we refer globally to Peruvian Spanish,1 it is clear that there are varieties with lexical, morphological, syntactic and phonological features (↗25 Spanish). As

1 In Peru and in neighbouring countries, we refer to the Spanish spoken in America as “Castilian”.

558

Isabel García Ponce

for the classification of these varieties, Lipski (1996, 338) states that “Una división a partir de criterios sintácticos probablemente solo distinguiría entre español andino (es decir, bilingüe) y español no andino, mientras que una división basada en el léxico daría como resultado una fragmentación mucho mayor”. Escobar (1978, 39), based on phonological criteria, described two main varieties: the Andean Castilian (or type 1) and coastal Castilian (or type 2), both with important internal varieties. The key feature that distinguishes these two types is that the former keeps the phonological difference /ʎ/ /ʝ / and the second one merges the two phonemes into one: /ʝ/. Andean Castilian is spoken in the Peruvian Andes that cross the country lengthwise and has features that show a marked influence of the Quechua language. It consists of three varieties: (a) the Andean variety, mostly located in the inter-Andean valleys from north to south, (b) the plateau, which corresponds to Puno, and (c) the coastal and southern western Andes. Coastal Castilian (or non-Andean) extends along both sides of the Andes, one in the west along the Pacific Ocean (variety of the northern and central coast) and another to the east, sharing part of the Amazon jungle with Brazil (Amazonian variety). These varieties are grouped not by the similarity that may exist between them, but by their difference from the Andean variety. It is important to note that in recent decades, these varieties moved to the cities of the coast, and especially to the capital, for several reasons. First because of the prevailing centralist policy in Peru, which neglected the development of inland provinces, and then because of the great waves of Andean migration to the coast, due to the problems of terrorism that hit the country a few decades ago. Coral (2005, 8) explains migration waves in Peru in the following terms: “La migración en el Perú ha sido históricamente muy intensa, sobre todo motivada por problemas estructurales como el centralismo y la ausencia de políticas de desarrollo […] Lo que hemos venido en llamar migración tradicional, también estuvo alentada por la ‘utopía del progreso’, caracterizada por el espíritu de conquista […] A partir de la década de 1980 se produce por un lado el incremento significativo del flujo migratorio y, por otro, surge un nuevo tipo de migración que tiene como factor determinante la violencia política”.

As a result of this migration, many coastal Spanish speaking cities have expanded their peripheral boundaries with the so called “human settlements” which are areas occupied by invasions of migrants from within the country. In them, it is not strange to have a family situation where grandparents speak Quechua or other native language and / or a little Castilian (Andean variety), the parents speak the Castilian Andean variety, and the children and grandchildren the coastal variety. Amid this variety of Castilian, the one of Lima stands as the most prestigious. In this regard, Escobar (1978, 139) states: “Comentarios de distinta suerte y género contrastan el hablar limeño con las llamadas formas incorrectas del resto del país, o lo contraponen al uso ‘descuidado o vulgar’, proponiéndolo como norma general o standard para el castellano del Perú”. In the coastal context, the Andean variety is

Peru

559

discriminated against and it is not surprising that its speakers hide their origins. In the school environment there have been cases of “bullying” to children who speak this variety, some of whom have even committed suicide as the press has reported.

3 Indigenous Languages Spoken in Peru Peru has been described as a multilingual and multicultural country (↗12 Plurilingual Education), due to its large number of languages and cultures. However, this coexistence occurs in a hierarchical framework of functions, where indigenous languages are relegated to family and local use (↗4 Language Socialization). Hirsh Martínez/ Limo Vásquez (2008, 152) describe the situation of “vergüenza idiomática” that the speaker of native languages endures, because value attitudes towards the languages are transferred to their speakers: “Su variedad o algunos rasgos de estas se convierten en un estigma causante de discriminación, lo cual puede generar en el hablante un rechazo hacia su lengua o los rasgos estigmatizados de esta […] lo que podría conducir a su extinción”. There is an effort to correct this situation of marginalization through the legislation of the last three decades, which tries to vindicate the original languages and the peoples who speak them. Law number 29735 (Congreso de la República, 2011), known as the “Law of languages”, defines indigenous languages as “todas aquellas que son anteriores a la difusión del idioma español y que se preservan y emplean en el ámbito del territorio nacional” (Art. 3) and states that they are “la expresión de una identidad colectiva y de una manera distinta de concebir y de describir la realidad, por tanto gozan de las condiciones necesarias para su mantenimiento y desarrollo en todas las funciones” (Art. 1.1). This law recognizes as official languages (Art. 9), in addition to Castilian, the indigenous languages in the districts, provinces or regions where they predominate, and commits the state administration (Article 10) to “implementarla progresivamente en todas sus esferas de actuación pública, dándole el mismo valor jurídico y las mismas prerrogativas que al castellano”. As for education, the new law guarantees and promotes (Art. 16) “la enseñanza de las lenguas originarias en la educación primaria, secundaria y universitaria, siendo obligatoria en las zonas en que son predominantes, mediante el diseño e implementación de planes, programas y acciones de promoción y recuperación de las lenguas originarias, tradición oral e interculturalidad”. It also guarantees the right of speakers of these languages (Art.12, g), to learn Castilian “sin que ello implique el reemplazo de una lengua por otra” and to receive “una educación intercultural bilingüe en todos los niveles del Sistema Educativo Nacional” (Art. 22). It is hoped that the mandate of the “Ley de lenguas” comes to fruition, because it represents the aspirations of a substantial population of the country, which currently can only have access to primary education and in a very limited way. According to the

560

Isabel García Ponce

national census of 2007, 3,261,750 people (13.2%) declared that the language they learned in childhood was Quechua, 434,370 people (1.8%) learned Aymara, and 222,187 people (0.9%) other native languages. Comparing these results with those of the 1993 census, the population of Quechua language speakers decreased by 3.3 percentage points, and Aymara speakers decreased by 0.5 percentage points (INEI 2008, 117). Pozzi-Escot (1998, 15) has divided the indigenous languages of Peru into three groups: the Amazonian families, the Aymara family, and the Quechua family. The sixteen Amazonian families include forty languages that are spoken by a minority. These peoples have maintained their identity (↗5 Languages and Identities), even if they have been menaced by the exploitation of natural resource projects that have put them and the environment at risk: “A diferencia de los andinos, no llegaron a ser colonizados y por tanto han mantenido identidades fuertes, aunque hoy también se encuentran desarmados frente al contacto masivo con el mundo exterior. En nuevos contextos, antiguas y variadas tradiciones procuran nuevos espacios en su lucha por el simple derecho a existir” (Zúñiga Castillo/Ansión Mallet 1997, 22). The interest in the study of Amazonian languages is much more recent than that of the Andean languages. The reason is that “Históricamente la Amazonía peruana ha sido un espacio de explotación extractiva de recursos sin políticas de renovación; y de invasión de los territorios de los pueblos indígenas por colonos europeos, criollos y mestizos y por los mismos indígenas andinos” (Rivero 2008, 220). The Amazonian families that include a greater number of languages are the Arawak and Pano, with nine languages each. The Aymara family gathers two languages: Collavina (Southern Andes) and Tupina (Central Andes), the latter with Jaqaru and Cachuy dialects. This family shares the Andean space with the Quechua family, though Aymara speakers are largely concentrated in the southern end of Peru. Andrade (2009, 54), citing Cerrón-Palomino, explains that the large geographical separation that now exists between the two Aymara languages is due to the fact that the Aymara family spread in the past between these two extremes. The Aymara place names that extend across this region are evidence. The author also emphasizes “los impresionantes paralelos que existen entre las lenguas de la familia aimara y las de la familia quechua”. The Quechua family has five dialects: Northern Quechua, with 4 variants; Central Quechua, with 7 variants; Quechua of Pacaraos (separate branch); Southern Quechua, with 2 variants; and the Quechua of the jungle with 5 variants. This family has the largest number of speakers of indigenous languages, and even though Quechua speakers are found also in some parts of the Amazon, they concentrate mostly in the central and southern Andes. While current legislation favours the enhancement, promotion, recovery and teaching of indigenous languages at all levels of education (Bilingual Education), it is not an easy task due not only to their quantity, dispersion and isolation, but also to the fact that they are functionally limited and socially prejudiced languages (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).

Peru

561

4 Language Teaching in Peru Due to the limited scope of this chapter, we will not touch the subject of the teaching of Castilian as a native language, nor the teaching of foreign languages in language centres or institutes. Instead, we will focus on the teaching of Castilian as a second language and native languages, which gives uniqueness to Peru. López (2003, 41, 51), in his account of approaches and methodologies used in these lands for language teaching, points to the Summer Institute of Linguistics as the introducer of the bilingual education proposals that determine the limits between the teaching of L1 and L2, and between literacy and Spanish dissemination policy. The teaching materials produced since then to date account for an evolution from the audio-lingual approach to communicative approaches. López gives as an example from the seventies, the project of teaching Castilian as a second language that took place in Quinua, Ayacucho. In this project, starting from a selection of grammatical structures, a series of dialogues were elaborated to be memorized, reproduced or acted, and recreated. In the materials produced from the eighties, there was the influence of communicative approaches where linguistic content was selected and organized in relation to their communicative functions. Cultural aspects inherent to language learning were incorporated later.

4.1 Teaching Castilian as a Second Language Given the existence of a large number (3,969,310 people) of monolingual speakers of indigenous languages in rural areas, one might think that in the schools of these areas Castilian is taught with second language methodology. However, studies like those of Pozzi-Escot (1990, 55–67) have revealed that in those hard to reach places, the native language-speaker child attends regular schools where the language of instruction is Castilian. In them, teachers are not trained in methodologies for teaching second languages (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning), and can even be bilinguals without a fair command of the Spanish language. Pozzi-Escot (1990, 65) notes that if the teacher “es bilingüe y ve que los niños no la siguen, recurre a un procedimiento semejante al del traductor consecutivo: habla un poco de castellano y luego lo traduce a la lengua nativa o viceversa”. There are also regular schools with bilingual education pilot programmes, and bilingual schools (↗11 Bilingual Education). Pozzi-Escot (1990, 67) states that in this small proportion of schools “el patrón general es que el castellano aparece primero como asignatura – enseñanza de castellano como segunda lengua- y luego gradualmente como lengua instrumental, a través de la cual se enseñan contenidos de otras áreas. La lengua materna figura preponderantemente al comienzo y poco a poco se repliega para permitir una mayor presencia del castellano en el currículo”.

562

Isabel García Ponce

In the jungle of Peru, the situation is not very different. Patricia Davis (1997, 45ss.) reports that the people of this region are keen to learn Castilian (↗25 Spanish) though they live in very remote communities without more exposure to the language than what they hear at school. Teachers, usually native language or incipient bilingual speakers, do not provide good models of Castilian; the books are official texts to teach language to Spanish speakers and do not provide the vocabulary needed by members of these rural societies. However, despite the precarious conditions in which this teaching is provided, the expected level of competence in the use of Castilian is very demanding; because it presupposes that students should acquire the same competencies as Spanish-speaking children in their grade level. A separate problem that concerns both the Andes and the Amazon is the decision about which variety of Castilian should be taught: the regional variety that they need to master “para poder identificarse con los hispanohablantes de la región y ser aceptados por ellos” or the standard variety, contained in the official education texts (Davis 1997, 49). The situation is very different in private bilingual schools in the capital city, where the language of instruction is a foreign language and only a few subjects are taught in Castilian. The principal languages of instruction in these schools are English, French, German, Italian, Chinese and Japanese. These schools have special classes of Spanish as a second language for those foreign students who have trouble speaking the language, specialized teachers, and coordinators specially assigned to care for them (↗11 Bilingual Education).

4.2 The Teaching of Indigenous Languages The first chair of a native language in Peru was established at the University of San Marcos in the year 1551, less than three decades after its founding. Garatea (2010, 138) accounts for the income allocation that Viceroy Toledo made in 1579 for the start of a class of Quechua, and reported to the king with these words: “[…] la lengua de estos naturales es muy necesaria que la sepan estos sacerdotes y ministros de doctrina para hacer fruto entre ellos; esta no se puede aprender allá sino acá. Y, aunque hallé pocos sacerdotes que la supiesen, he trabajado, para poner medios para el remedio de esto […]”. We cannot avoid associating this chair, which lasted more than two centuries, with the first two works on Quechua language: “Gramática o arte de la lengua general de los indios de los reinos del Perú” and “Lexicón o Vocabulario de la lengua general del Perú”, written by the Dominican Fray Domingo de Santo Tomás (1560). In the preface to the reader of the grammar, we can see the didactic goal that moved the priest to write it: “[…] por la gran necesidad que hay de ella y para dar alguna lumbre, a los que ninguna tienen, y mostrarles que no es dificultoso el aprenderla y animar a los que por falta de la lengua están cobardes en la predicación del evangelio […]”.

Peru

563

During the time of the Republic, the situation of indigenous languages did not improve; moreover social inequalities and the dominance of Castilian were reinforced. Estrada Ugarte/Naters Lanegra (2008, 176) report that the new laws were given by and for Spanish descendants born in Peru, keeping the devaluation of Andean and Amazonian languages: “la lucha de la independencia no fue entre los peruanos y los españoles, sino entre un grupo de peruanos – los criollos– y los españoles. Así, el proceso de independencia constituyó un traspaso de poder de un grupo a otro. Y el poder siempre estuvo alejado de los grupos marginados – campesinos, obreros– que, en ese momento, estaban compuestos por grupos culturales vinculados con la realidad indígena, o con otros llegados de África o Asia”. Estrada Ugarte/Naters Lanegra (2008, 179) emphasize the importance and significance of indigenous literature of the first half of the twentieth century, which addresses the issue of farmers, especially Andean. While these works “describen la situación del mundo andino desde los patrones de vida pertenecientes a los grupos de poder”, they motivated the Andean writers “a escribir desde su propia realidad”. In this context, it is appropriate to emphasize the proposals of José Carlos Mariátegui (21943, 25), who in the footnote on the first page of his essay on “El problema del Indio” claims an economic solution, since “no es la civilización, no es el alfabeto del blanco, lo que levanta el alma del indio…”. However, even if the topic of the speakers of indigenous languages has taken a place in the national discussion, it will take time to achieve concrete proposals to improve their marginalized status and resolve the issue of linguistic-cultural disintegration that the country faces (↗5 Languages and Identities). The sporadic and disjointed attempts to serve this population cannot be called successful because of their lack of continuity. Pozzi-Escot (1985, 5–16) claims that the Peruvian language problem lies “en primer lugar, a nivel de los monolingües de lenguas vernáculas que son, a su vez, casi en su totalidad, los analfabetos del país”. In the mid-twentieth century, interesting school models designed for the rural population began to function both in the Andes and in the Amazon. In 1945, “núcleos escolares campesinos” opened in the countryside of the Andes, to provide indigenous children with a comprehensive and functional education. In them, along with practice in workshops, orchards and farms, native languages were taught as a means of transition towards Castilian. In Amazonian Peru, indigenous language teaching began the same year, by an agreement that the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) signed with the Ministry of Education. The tasks that the SIL performed were to transform the preliterate languages to written, to prepare primers and textbooks in these languages, and to train as teachers a selected group of native speakers who were respected in their community. In schools of SIL, which ran until 1972, education started in the vernacular language and oral Castilian was taught at the same time as a subject until it could serve as an instrumental language. Reading and writing in Castilian were taught after having learned the procedure in the native language. These first bilingual schools had

564

Isabel García Ponce

to face all kinds of difficulties, the main one being the lack of qualified teachers and the fact of having only one teacher per school. The political interest in bilingual education in Peru acquired national significance during the revolutionary government of General Juan Velasco Alvarado (1968–1975), which was characterized by the laws given in favour of the peasants and their languages. Among these laws, Godenzzi (2003, 44) highlights the Education Reform Act (Law No 19326 of 03/21/1972) which led to the formulation of a National Policy of Bilingual Education, and Law No 21156 of 5/27/1975, which made Quechua one of the official languages of Peru (↗11 Bilingual Education). The General Education Act 19326, still following the Spanish language dissemination policy, states (Art. 12) that the teaching of this language “se hará respetando la personalidad cultural de los diversos grupos que conforman la sociedad nacional y utilizando sus lenguas como vínculo de educación”. This policy of considering the native language as a transition to Castilian is reaffirmed by the Education Act No. 23384 (1982), which in Chapter VIII, Article 40, provides that “En las comunidades cuya lengua no es el castellano, se inicia esta educación en la lengua autóctona con tendencia a la castellanización progresiva a fin de consolidar en el educando sus características socio-culturales con las que son propias de la sociedad moderna”. As seen in the previous pages, the national policy in relation to bilingual education, favoured the teaching of native languages as languages of transition. The achievement of an additive bilingualism, where indigenous languages continue their development in parallel to Castilian, was not an aim.

4.3 Educación Intercultural Bilingüe Since 1987, with the creation of the General Head Office of Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (EIB) in the Ministry of Education, a new proposal appears as part of the demands of indigenous organizations. Together with their claims to land rights, they also demanded their “derecho a una educación que tuviera en cuenta las particularidades culturales y lingüísticas de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas” (Rivero 2008, 220s.). In this framework, the “Programa de Formación de Maestros Bilingües de la Amazonía Peruana” (FORMABIAP) was created and has become the educational arm of the organization of the Amazonian indigenous peoples. The current Constitution of Peru, passed in 1993, states in article number 17 the obligation of the State to promote intercultural and bilingual education (↗11 Bilingual Education), according to the characteristics of each area. A milestone in this line is the creation of the “Política Nacional sobre Lenguas y Culturas en la Educación” (Ministry of Education/2002), based on which a programme and a strategic plan were designed to deepen and expand intercultural bilingual education (↗5 Languages and Identities). From this legal framework, Godenzzi notes (2003, 45) that the Ministry of Education of Peru has set three objectives:

Peru

565

“(i) Atender, según el enfoque de la educación bilingüe intercultural, en los niveles inicial y primario, a la mayoría de la población vernáculo-hablante en el ámbito rural. (ii) Lograr un bilingüismo aditivo y coordinado en el educando para elevar sus niveles de aprendizaje y autoestima. (iii) Contribuir a que, en los diferentes niveles del sistema educativo, se superen las actitudes y comportamientos discriminatorios, a fin de lograr la equidad de oportunidades para el pleno ejercicio de los derechos ciudadanos”.

Among the main actions taken to comply with these objectives, the same author notes: teacher training, with the cooperation of universities, educational institutes, NGOs, indigenous federations, etc.; development of workbooks in Quechua, Aymara and various languages of the Amazon; creation of classroom libraries with Castilian materials, cards with recommendations for classroom activities, and reading texts in indigenous languages. An additional achievement is the “proceso de reconciliación de los docentes con ellos mismos y con la tradición cultural de la comunidad a la cual sirven”. Arévalo/Pardo/Vigil (2004, Preface) define educación intercultural bilingüe (EIB) as one that seeks, as far as language is concerned, “que los niños manejen las lenguas indígenas para comunicarse en sus comunidades lingüísticas; aprendan el castellano como segunda lengua para comunicarse con los castellano-hablantes y con los hablantes de una lengua indígena distinta a la propia; y aprendan una lengua extranjera para comunicarse con otras comunidades lingüísticas, más allá de las fronteras nacionales”. Regarding the aspect of culture, Trapnell/Zavala (2011, 5) point out that the EIB “implica un proceso de afirmación de la identidad vinculado a la recuperación de prácticas culturales locales y de empoderamiento asociada a la conciencia crítica sobre la discriminación y al ejercicio de la ciudadanía intercultural”. Moreover the EIB seeks to “respetar y valorar la diversidad cultural y lingüística y generar procesos de diálogo entre personas procedentes de diferentes tradiciones culturales”. Today, the Peruvian political context favours the EIB because it is sustained by several laws and regulations that point to the country’s integration. On the other hand, the decentralization of the educational system, which requires the diversification of the curriculum, tends to reach the variety of Peruvian peoples. Nevertheless, even if the legislation is favourable to intercultural bilingual education in Peru, pitfalls of all kinds have prevented its development. Reports from the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría del pueblo 2011, 491–525) for this issue, detail them precisely: 1.

2.

Absence of data. – The last national census does not contribute to the determination of the total indigenous population and the most concentrated areas. Besides, there is no information on the number of qualified teachers in EIB, nor on the number of teachers required to meet the educational needs of indigenous peoples. Furthermore, we don’t know how effective the national plan of intercultural bilingual education has been, since it has not been evaluated since its inception in 2005. Minimum coverage. – The number of schools implementing EIB is small and not very stable. Only 8% of pre-school level and 12.1% of primary level students are taught in their mother

566

Isabel García Ponce

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

tongue. On the other hand, the secondary education level has not been considered in EIB programmes. Lack of guidance and regulation. – The regional head offices and the education management units, responsible for designing the technical criteria for EIB curricular diversification and to perform supervisory duties, do not have enough specialists in the field or the necessary budget to meet with this task. Besides, a national curriculum for the specialty of EIB hasn’t still been elaborated. Limited offers of teacher education. – The establishment of a minimum grade of 14/20 in 2007 to enter the Institutos Pedagógicos Superiores (IPS) has destabilized them. If the decision taken by the Dirección General de Educación Superior y Técnico-Profesional (DIGESUTP) was due to the oversupply of teachers nationwide, the fact is that EIB teachers are in deficit. By 2010, only five IPS and four universities offered EIB specialty and regions that have a high percentage of indigenous population do not have a pedagogical institute or university that offers this specialty. Insufficient training of in-service teachers in EIB. – Indigenous teachers do not have the skills they need to promote learning from the knowledge, skills and world views of their peoples and to develop education in two languages. Neglect of oral and argumentative skills. – Integrated communication hours that should be devoted to developing skills in L1 (indigenous or Castilian) are mainly involved in the development of written skills. Most teachers use oral abilities as motivation for writing, and very few foster argumentation and discussion with students. Insufficient EIB teaching materials. – While the volume of educational materials produced is higher in the Andes than in the Amazon, more than half of the schools supervised by the ombudsman office lack teaching materials in native languages. Only a third of the Amazon population registered by INDEPA (Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo de Pueblos Andinos, Amazónicos y Afroperuanos/ Ministerio de Cultura) has been served. Slow progress of standardization of indigenous languages. – Only 13 out of 66 native languages have been standardized, and the task has focused on the alphabets, neglecting other aspects also important for literacy.

The case study conducted by Lucy Trapnell/Virginia Zavala (2011, 111ss.) is also revealing. Two EIB schools of the Andean area and two in the Amazon area were chosen for having done well on standardized tests of the Educational Quality Measurement Unit of the Ministry of Education or for having successfully applied the EIB approach with an NGO support. Regardless of individual exceptions, the study corroborates the Ombudsman’s findings and reveals other sources of problems that interfere with the development of EIB in Peru: 1.

2.

Lack of a model of EIB. – The schools do not have a coherent model for the entire institution, because of the absence of a National EIB Curriculum Design. While all the schools in the study are considered bilingual, none of them has a socio-psycholinguistic diagnosis to guide the use and treatment of the vernacular and the Castilian language. Lack of clarity as to the language and skills priorities. – In some schools, Castilian is taught harder starting from the 3rd grade, to the detriment of the vernacular; and reading is prioritized over text production and oral expression, to achieve better results in the national

Peru

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

567

assessments applied by the Unidad de Medición de la Calidad Educativa (UMC) of the Ministry of Education Out-of-date methodology. – Castilian isn’t taught with a second language methodology to promote the acquisition of skills that are required to enter high school. Limited conception of school-community relationship. – Parents and community members aren’t involved in the process of comprehensive education of children based on their ancestral knowledge. More importance is given to the civic calendar than to the school community calendar as input for the annual planning of educational activities. Futility of management documents. – Trapnell/Zavala are particularly severe when they comment that documents such as “Proyecto Educativo Institucional PEI”, “Plan anual de trabajo PAT” and “Reglamento de Organización y Funciones” do not help the educational process. Instead, they “parecen haber sido hechos más con el fin de cumplir con un requerimiento administrativo que como parte de un proceso de construcción de un proyecto educativo enfocado en la mejora permanente del proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje y el logro de la formación integral de todos los estudiantes” (Trapnell/Zavala 2011, 116) Neglect of intercultural education. – The teaching work focuses on language processing due to the absence of curricular programmes that channel the processes of teaching and learning from a bilingual intercultural approach. Students aren’t being formed as intercultural and critical citizens to function in a variety of contexts with empowered attitude and respect for their origins. Lack of mechanisms for continuous support and sharing experiences. – There are no opportunities for exchanging experiences with colleagues of other EIB institutions, in order to plan together and build new teaching approaches and work strategies. Lack of leadership and expertise in driving the development of EIB. – Education authorities lack the minimum conditions to meet the needs of EIB schools, as shown by the following facts: a. The school principal performs as a manager, in terms of infrastructure and resources, and not as a leader to summon the teaching staff and the members of the educational community to develop a common educational project. b. Most specialists of the local education management units are monolingual and the few bilingual cannot meet the demands of the schools under their responsibility. For many education authorities it is enough for an institution to have a bilingual teacher to be considered an EIB school, regardless of his competence in the indigenous language or in EIB and second language methodology. c. The activities of the local education authorities lack monitoring tools to gather information about the EIB problems from a holistic perspective. This includes intercultural educational management, use and treatment of the first and second language, materials design in indigenous languages with an intercultural approach, among others.

With respect to literacy programmes, Infante/Letelier (2013, 51–60) highlight the work of the Programa de Movilización por la Alfabetización (PRONAMA), an organization that brings together the efforts of five Ministries: Women and Vulnerable Populations, Education, Health, Defense, Economy and Finance. While its literacy programme in indigenous mother tongues still points to Castilian, the fact that several ministries work together for this common goal shows the recognition of language education as a key to all other aspects of development. The bilingual programme promotes literacy, where “las poblaciones nativas aprenden a leer y escribir, y a desarrollar operaciones

568

Isabel García Ponce

de cálculo básico, en un primer momento, en su propio idioma, para luego, a través de un proceso de transición, culminar con la alfabetización en el idioma castellano como una segunda lengua” (2013, 52). This programme, which includes monitoring and reporting actions, is developed in eleven native languages. Using information and communication technology, with an inclusive literacy line, it also serves participants with severe visual and hearing disabilities.

4.4 The Teaching of Foreign Languages In the national curriculum of the Ministry of Education, the course of English language is assigned two hours per week throughout high school. The national schools, that necessarily observe this provision, handle various interpretations of a “pedagogical hour”: 40, 45 or 50 minutes. This is so inadequate that it is not uncommon for national school graduates to be classified at the first cycle of basic level, when they want to continue studying English in a private language school. This situation is aggravated because the area of foreign language has fewer professional specialists, and training programmes offered by the Ministry of Education throughout the country are not enough. The objective stated for the English course in the Secondary School Curriculum of the Ministerio de Educación (2008, 359) is inconsistent with the situation described above. The expected aim for the course is “el logro de la competencia comunicativa en una lengua extranjera, la que le permitirá adquirir la información de los más recientes y últimos avances científicos y tecnológicos, ya sean digitales o impresos en inglés, así como permitirles el acceso a las nuevas tecnologías de la información y la comunicación para ampliar su horizonte cultural.” In the first class private schools, the foreign language taught can be English, French, German, Italian, Chinese or Japanese, and the number of hours devoted to such studies is usually much greater than that required by the Ministry of Education. These schools often offer training in English as a second foreign language and participate in the International Baccalaureate programme. Besides, most of them have agreements with international testing organizations so that their students can get international language certificates.

5 Looking to the Future The publications of linguists, sociologists, educators and politicians in recent years, contain harsh criticism of the language policy of Peru and agree, with varying hardness, in qualifying it as negligent and ineffective. Roberto Zariquiey, interviewed by Marj Hogan (2006, 63s.), highlights the lack of projection beyond the school: “La política de lenguas centrada en la escuela no tiene ningún sentido. ¿Para qué les

Peru

569

enseñas a leer a los chiquitos en quechua si no tienen nada que leer, si no hay libros, si más tarde no van a poder defenderse en un juicio en esa lengua?” For his part, Enrique Ballón (2011, 363) states that “la realidad de las muy variadas escrituras diglósicas […] ponen en evidencia tanto el fracaso de la educación pública como el de la Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (EIB)”. Nevertheless, it seems that the recent Law 29735 (Congreso de la República 2011), which regulates the use, preservation, development, recovery, promotion and dissemination of indigenous languages of Peru, is already bearing fruit (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). It collects previous concerns by providing a native tongue education that is not interrupted in elementary school, but incorporates all three levels of education and implements concrete actions to ensure their use. Thus, in article 16 it states that “El Estado garantiza y promueve la enseñanza de las lenguas originarias en la educación primaria, secundaria y universitaria, siendo obligatoria en las zonas en que son predominantes, mediante el diseño e implementación de planes, programas y acciones de promoción y recuperación de las lenguas originarias, tradición oral e interculturalidad”. On the other hand, it transcends the school context and is not limited to the teaching of the language: “Los materiales de estudio, los programas de enseñanza y capacitación profesional, así como los programas que emiten los medios de comunicación deben difundir el patrimonio y la tradición oral del Perú, como esencia de la cosmovisión e identidad de las culturas originarias del país, a fin de sensibilizar sobre la importancia de ser un país pluricultural y multilingüe y fomentar una cultura de diálogo y tolerancia” (Art. 24). The fact that access to quality education in one’s own language and cultural tradition is no longer in dispute, and a constitutional and fundamental right of all Peruvians, protected by a solid legal framework, is the best guarantee that the EIB finally found the way. On the other hand, it should be noted that the Proyecto Educativo Nacional al 2021 (Consejo Nacional de Educación 2006, 48) sets as its first strategic objective: “Oportunidades y resultados educativos de igual calidad para todos”, and as one result: “Asegurar condiciones esenciales para el aprendizaje en los centros educativos que atienden las provincias más pobres de la población nacional”.

6 Bibliography Andrade, Luis/Pérez, Jorge Iván (2009), Las lenguas del Perú, Lima, PUCP. Arévalo, Ivette/Pardo, Karina/Vigil, Nila (2004), Enseñanza de castellano como segunda lengua en las escuelas EBI del Perú, Lima, Dirección Nacional de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural. Área de Lenguas y Comunicación, Lima, Ministerio de Educación. Ballón, Enrique (2011), Caracterización linguocultural de las sociedades peruanas (Encomio del motoseo), In: Willem F.H. Adelaar/Pilar Valenzuela Bismarck/Roberto Zariquiey Biondi (edd.), Estudios en lenguas andinas y amazónicas. Homenaje a Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino, Lima, PUCP, 351–368. Congreso de la República (2011), Ley 29735 que regula el uso, preservación, desarrollo, recuperación, fomento y difusión de las lenguas originarias del Perú, Diario El Peruano, 5 de julio de 2011.

570

Isabel García Ponce

Consejo Nacional de Educación (2006), Proyecto Educativo Nacional al 2021. La educación que queremos para el Perú, Lima, USAID/PERU. Coral, Isabel (2005), Desplazamiento por violencia política en el Perú, 1980–1992, http://an ochecioalamitaddeldia.blogspot.com/2012/05/isabel-coral-desplazamiento-por.html. (04.09.2013). Davis, Patricia (1997), La enseñanza del castellano como segunda lengua entre los grupos etnolingüísticos de la Amazonía, Lima, Ministerio de Educación. Instituto Lingüístico de verano. Defensoría del pueblo (2011), Aportes para una política nacional de educación intercultural bilingüe a favor de los pueblos indígenas del Perú, Informes defensoriales – Inf. No. 152, Lima, Defensoría del Pueblo, República del Perú. Escobar, Alberto (1978), Variaciones sociolingüísticas del castellano en el Perú, Lima, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Estrada Ugarte, Christian/Naters Lanegra, Luis Santiago (2008), Diversidad de lenguas y políticas lingüísticas en la historia del Perú, in: Paula Córdova (ed.), ¿Cambio o muerte de las lenguas? Reflexiones sobre la diversidad lingüística, social y cultural del Perú, Lima, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, 161–184. Fray Domingo de Santo Tomás (1560), Grammatica o Arte de la lengua general de los Indios de los reynos del Peru, http://archive.org/stream/grammaticaoarted00domi#page/n0/mode/2up (04.09.2013). Garatea Grau, Carlos (2010), Tras una lengua de papel: El español en el Perú, Lima, Fondo editorial PUCP. Godenzzi, Juan Carlos (2003), Política lingüística y educación en el Perú, Synergies – Pérou. Revue de Didactologie des Langues et des Cultures 1/1, 43–49. Hirsh Martínez, Nahil/Limo Vásquez, Alina (2008), Consecuencias sociales del contacto lingüístico: diglosia y actitudes lingüísticas, in: Paula Córdova (ed.), ¿Cambio o muerte de las lenguas? Reflexiones sobre la diversidad lingüística, social y cultural del Perú, Lima, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, 145–160. Hogan, Marj (2006), La Lengua Madre, Revista IDEELE 177, 63s. Infante, María Isabel/Letelier, María Eugenia (2013), Alfabetización y Educación. Lecciones desde la práctica innovadora en América Latina y El Caribe, Santiago, Daniela Eroles, Red Innovemos de OREALC/UNESCO. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática del Perú. Dirección Técnica de Demografía e Indicadores Sociales (22008), Perfil sociodemográfico del Perú: Censos nacionales 2007: XI de población y VI de vivienda, Lima, INEI. Lipski, John (1996), El español de América, Madrid, Ediciones Cátedra, S.A. López, Luis Enrique (2003), ¿Dónde estamos con la enseñanza del castellano como segunda lengua en América latina?, in: Ingrid Jung/Luis Enrique López (edd.), Abriendo la escuela. Lingüística aplicada a la enseñanza de lenguas, Madrid, Ediciones Morata, S.L, 39–71. Mariátegui, José Carlos (21943), 7 Ensayos de Interpretación de la Realidad Peruana. El Problema del Indio, Biblioteca Amauta, Lima, Ed. Minerva. Ministerio de Educación (1972), Ley general de Educación No 19326, http://docs.peru.justia.com/ federales/decretos-leyes/19326-mar-21-1972.pdf (04.09.2013). Ministerio de Educación (1982), Ley General de Educación No 23384, Diario El Peruano, 20 de mayo de 1982. Ministerio de Educación (2002), Política Nacional de Lenguas y Culturas del Perú, DINEBI, http://red. pucp.edu.pe/ridei/files/2011/08/861.pdf (04.09.2013). Ministerio de Educación (2008), Diseño Curricular Nacional de la Educación Básica Regular, Lima, MINEDU, http://ebr.minedu.gob.pe/pdfs/dcn2009final.pdf (04.09.2013). Miranda, Luis (1998), La Entrada del Español en el Perú, Lima, Juan Brito/Editor.

Peru

571

Pozzi-Escott, Inés (1985), La Educación Bilingüe en el Perú. Una mirada retrospectiva y prospectiva, Centro de Investigaciones y servicios educativos de la PUCP. II Seminario sobre análisis y perspectiva de la educación nacional 1980–1985, tomo 1 CISE PUCP, Dpto. de Educación, Cap. V, 1–86. Pozzi-Escot, Inés (1990), Reflexiones sobre el castellano como segunda lengua en el Perú, in: Enrique Ballón Aguirre/Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino (edd.), Diglosia Linguo-Literaria y Educación en el Perú. Homenaje a Alberto Escobar, Lima, CONCYTEC & GTZ, 51–72. Pozzi-Escot, Inés (1998), El multilingüismo en el Perú, Cuzco, Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de Las Casas” CBC y Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos PROEIB. Rivero Herrera, José (2008), Educación y actores sociales frente a la pobreza en América Latina, Lima, TAREA. Trapnell, Lucy/Zavala, Virginia (2011), Adaptación de los indicadores de gestión educativa para la autoevaluación de instituciones educativas de educación intercultural bilingüe, Informe de la Consultoría para el Instituto Peruano de Evaluación, Acreditación y Certificación de la Calidad de la Educación Básica IPEBA. Documento interno. Zúñiga Castillo, Madeleine/Ansión Mallet, Juan (1997), Interculturalidad y Educación en el Perú, Lima, Foro Educativo.

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

30 Portugal and Brazil Abstract: The world of the Portuguese language comprises more than 244 million inhabitants (cf. CPLP 2013, 30). However, in some of the Portuguese-speaking countries, the official language is not shared by the entire population, being usually concurrent with a large diversity of vernacular languages. Our study of language acquisition will focus specifically on two countries, Portugal and Brazil, where Portuguese is commonly used by more than 201 million speakers. Our research will compare the mother tongue diversities existing in both countries, question some myths that are currently part of the “naturalized discourse” about the acquisition and use of Portuguese, and refer to some recent attempts to reach language unity. National linguistic policies will also be analysed, focusing on the development of plurilingualism in Portugal and Brazil and presenting recent data. Finally, we will conclude with the presentation of some recent innovative solutions and a critical analysis of present needs. Keywords: Portuguese, language acquisition, language learning, language policies, plurilingualism

1 Language Acquisition: the Specific Cases of Portugal and Brazil As a result of the Portuguese expansion saga of the 15th and 16th centuries the Portuguese language (↗22 Portuguese) is said to number more than 244 million speakers in 8 different countries located in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia (cf. CPLP 2013). This means that the Portuguese language occupies the eighth place among the most spoken languages in the world, being the third most spoken western language, after English and Castilian. However, the fact that Portuguese is the official language in those countries does not mean that all the 244 million inhabitants actually know and use the language, and the situation varies immensely among the different members of the “Lusophone” community.1 In Africa, Angola seems to be the country where the growing popularity of Portuguese as a lingua franca has contributed most to an increasing knowledge of the language. In fact, the great variety of vernacular languages (Umbundi, Kimbundu and

1 The “world of Lusophonia” or the Portuguese-speaking community is gathered in the Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (CPLP), which comprises 8 states: Angola, Mozambique, GuineaBissau, São Tomé e Principe, the Cape Verde islands, Timor Leste, Brazil and Portugal.

Portugal and Brazil

573

Kigongo being the most important) drove the need to use Portuguese, which is now spoken as the communication language between speakers of those different vernacular languages by more than 90% of the population (cf. Nzau 2011, 23s.).2 In Mozambique, data from 2007 revealed that more than 40% of the population is bilingual (cf. Gonçalves 2012), but the mother tongue of 85.2 % of the population belongs to the Bantu family. Portuguese is the L1 of less than 11% of the population. In 2009, in his study of Portuguese and Creole in Guinea Bissau, Couto explicitly declares: “When we see in books on the history of the Portuguese language the assertion that it is spoken in several countries, Guinea Bissau included in them, we can get the false impression that it is the most spoken language in these countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. My empirical research and literature on the subject to which I had access revealed that Portuguese is not spoken as L1 by any Guinean of African descent” (Couto 2009, 53).3

The same author states that Portuguese is in fact only learnt in school by 2% of the population, and that the communication language between speakers of several vernacular languages is the Guinea Creole: “Creole is the language of national unity in Guinea Bissau” (Couto 2009, 57). The archipelago of São Tomé e Príncipe is characterized by a great variety of languages: “The islands of St. Tomé and Principe are authentic islands of Babel. Besides the official language, Portuguese, with more or less local variation, the inhabitants speak three creole indigenous languages, namely Santome (literally the language of St. Thomas) and Angolar (literally the language of Angolares), both spoken on the island of S. Tomé, and Lung’ie (literally the language of the island), spoken on the island of Príncipe, as well as the Creole of Cape Verde, the Portuguese of the Thongas and some remnants from the Bantu language group” (Hagemeijer 2009, 1).

However, data from 2001 revealed that Portuguese was spoken by 98.9% of the inhabitants (cf. Hagemeijer 2009, 18), and nowadays it is clearly the L1 of the great majority of the population (cf. Gonçalves 2010, 16). Portuguese is in fact the local language of prestige, which is used in formal and informal contexts, but some uses are closer to the Portuguese norm and others show a greater influence of creoles, depending on the level of education, the economic level and geo-demographic factors that differentiate rural and urban areas. Local languages are used only for informal communication (cf. Hagemeijer 2009, 19ss.).

2 Nevertheless, levels of proficiency obviously differ according to the formal education of the speakers. 3 All the quotations from Portuguese texts have been translated by us.

574

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

In the Cape Verde archipelago, Portuguese is seldom acquired in the family; most of the time it is taught and learnt at school, even if there are also bilingual speakers as a result of day-to-day exposure to the language (cf. Mendes 2009). The L1 is the local creole which exists in several dialectal variants (cf. Veiga 2004), but according to data from the Observatório da Língua Portuguesa, in 2010, 87% of the population also spoke Portuguese. In Asia, East Timor is a specific example of a multilingual state – in fact, it is the only one of the 8 members of the Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (CPLP) that has adopted two official languages – Portuguese and Tetum. In addition, English and Indonesian have also been adopted as working languages, and have a secondary position. Daily life is actually characterized by multilingualism: Sampaio (2003) reports that the electricity bill comes in English, the form for the car registration in Tetum, the reports from the government in Portuguese, the information from the Police in Indonesian, and the media use all of the languages, including vernacular ones. There are either 16, 20 or 30 of these local languages according to different authors (cf. Batoréo 2009). Batoréo also reports that Portuguese is only spoken by 5% of the Timorenses (cf. Batoréo 2009, 51). Portugal and Brazil are therefore the only countries where Portuguese is said to be the L1 of the entire population, in a total of more than 201 million speakers. Our polyphonic study of language acquisition in the Lusophone world will focus specifically on these two countries, where the comparison of specific situations, policies and approaches involves a limited range of variables (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).4 We will start to characterize the linguistic context of these two countries, addressing some myths and realities that are linked to this subject. Recent data on the formal learning of L1 in school will be presented, and the question of (il)literacy will be tackled. Foreign language learning (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) in the two countries will also be addressed, by analysing recent data as well as general needs, attitudes, traditions and approaches within the local policies of plurilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education), discussing the specific case of Romance languages. In this point we will also refer to some innovative experiences: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Intercomprehension and the introduction of bilingual schools (↗11 Bilingual Education). All the data presented will enable us to compare problems and solutions in both countries and reflect on current specific needs. We will conclude with a discussion of the existing deficit in teacher training that should ground the development of truly plurilingual and intercultural societies in the 21st century.

4 We believe that our two voices will be noticeable in this text, representing the two (inter)cultural diversities of both sides of the Atlantic, located in the northern and southern hemispheres.

Portugal and Brazil

575

2 L1 in Portugal and Brazil – Myths and Realities 2.1 Is Portugal a Multilingual Country? The answer to this question may vary, depending on the perspective we adopt when looking at the official documents, the linguistic reality and the social dynamics that characterize the country. Official documents are somewhat ambiguous. Point 3 of Article 11º of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic states clearly: “The official language is Portuguese”. However, the Law nº 7/99, published in the Journal of The Republic by Parliament on the 29th of January 1999, under the “Official recognition of the linguistic rights of Mirandese community” aims at “recognizing and promoting the Mirandese language”. In Article 2, it is declared: “The Portuguese State recognizes the right to cultivate and promote the Mirandese language, as cultural heritage, communication tool and reinforcement of the identity of the land of Miranda” and Article 4 determines that “Public institutions located or headquartered in the municipality of Miranda do Douro may issue their documents accompanied by a Mirandese language version”. Mirandese is taught at all levels (from pre-primary to secondary) in the schools of the area as an option, and the number of students has been increasing in the last years. In 2012/2013, 450 students, representing more than 50% of the total school population have chosen this option (cf. Oliveira 2012).5 But does this mean that Mirandese is an official language in Portugal, as fewer than 15,000 Mirandese speakers claim, or is the law a simple recognition of its existence in local terms? (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) The same issue arises with Portuguese Sign Language (PSL). Since 1997, point 2 h) of article 74 of the Constitution recognizes the need to “protect and value Portuguese Sign Language, as a form of cultural expression and tool with which to obtain access to education and equality of opportunities” (Assembleia da República 2005, 26). Since then, several norms have regulated the use of this language in the public sphere, namely in the media (public television is obliged to broadcast programmes in Portuguese with subtitles, teletext, or interpretation in PSL), the activity of PSL interpreters has been regulated and the production of software in PSL has been financed (cf. Pinto 2008). In 2007, the official syllabus for the teaching of PSL in Preprimary and in the Three Cycles of Basic Education (1st to 9th year) was published. In this document (Carmo et al. 2007) it is explicitly mentioned that the PSL should be taught as the mother tongue of Deaf students. Current opinions on the existence of three official languages in Portugal are widespread in forums, blogs, web pages and even some academic literature, but the

5 813 youngsters are enrolled in the schools of the area.

576

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

fact is that Portuguese is the only official language in Portugal. Mirandese and PSL are officially recognized languages, but they do not have the same status as Portuguese (↗22 Portuguese). Therefore, we agree with Pinto’s (2008, 88) statement: “In the case of the official recognition of PSL, it was the first time that a language was constitutionally recognized in Portugal. It is not, however, recognition as an official language. The same was to happen two years later, with the recognition of the language rights of the Mirandese community by Parliament”. Nevertheless our question will not be entirely answered if we do not take into account one of the most important facts in the dynamics of Portuguese society during recent decades: the great changes brought by immigration. Until 2000, “the presence of immigrants in Portugal was […] relatively weak and most of the movements that occurred could be attributed directly to our colonial past, to our historical and cultural relations as well as our economic relations” (Góis/ Marques 2010, 13). In those years, Portugal was mostly a country of emigration, characterized by large population flows towards other countries. However, “[t]he sharp increase in the demand for labor caused by the boom in construction and civil engineering, at the end of the 90s and the beginning of the millennium, could not be met by traditional sources of immigrants from the PALOPs6 and Brazil, but by new and unexpected sources, particularly by immigrants from eastern Europe, especially Ukraine” (Góis/Marques 2010, 13s.). According to data from 2012 (cf. SEF 2012), the total number of foreign residents in Portugal was 417,042, almost 4% of the total population of the country.7 Looking at the specific data in the above-mentioned report, the largest communities are from the following countries: Table 1: Foreign residents in Portugal (http://sefstat.sef.pt/Docs/Rifa%202012.pdf) Foreign residents in Portugal Country of origin Brazil

Number of residents 105 622

Ukraine

44 074

Cape Verde

42 857

Romania

35 216

Angola

20 366

Guinea Bissau

17 759

6 Países Africanos de Língua Oficial Portuguesa (African Countries with Portuguese as an Official Language). 7 According to the Pordata data base, the total population of Portugal in 2012 was of 10,562,178 persons (Pordata 2012a).

Portugal and Brazil

577

Foreign residents in Portugal Country of origin

Number of residents

China

17 447

United Kingdom

16 649

Moldavia

11 503

S. Tomé and Príncipe

10 376

Even if almost 50% of these residents come from the so-called “Portuguese-speaking countries”, the number of speakers who do not have Portuguese as their mother tongue is over 200,000. And even if the total number of immigrants has slightly decreased in the last years, in 2012, the number of births from foreign mothers represented almost 10% (8,761) of the total nativity figures (89,841), which is a significant fact for the evolution of the non-Portuguese speaking community in the country. Therefore, Portuguese society has undergone important changes in three decades: the homogenous, monocultural and monolingual Portugal, has become a space of multiculturalism and of multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education).

2.2 Brazil, a Monolingual Country? To provide an overview of the relations between languages and language policies (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) in Brazilian territory is undoubtedly a challenge. Some reasons are obvious: the country has about 194 million inhabitants, the fifth largest population in the world, spread over an area of 8,500,000 km2 and hence presents a multiplicity of realities impossible to cover in a few pages with the depth that the topic deserves. Furthermore, we must consider the great gap between the official discourse of certain stakeholders on the intended goals and the actual realities and relationships. Through the simple enumeration of this data on Brazil, it seems unlikely that in a democratic country of this size, only one language would be spoken. Despite this, Brazil is still seen as a monolingual country. This is no accident, for, indeed, the initiatives that recognize and promote indigenous multilingualism are quite recent. From the point of view of the laws, only the most recent Constitution (Presidência da República 1988) has addressed the specificities of education in indigenous languages as well as the right of these people to have access to formal education in their own languages. This measure came too late, especially given that some 180 registered indigenous languages in the country today are the survivors among the 1500 that existed in Brazil at the time of early colonization (Zilles 2001, 148). Thus the “miracle” of a Brazil speaking Portuguese “from the Caburaí to Chuy”

578

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

results from the brutal process of land occupation. Brazilian state violence was exercised in the form of negligence, omission, or police brutality, and the violent class struggle that was historically fought and is still ongoing, with repeated massacres of indigenous people8 over disputed land.9 According to the Fundação Nacional do Índio (FUNAI), today 180 indigenous languages belonging to over 30 different language families are spoken in Brazil. However other experts say that the number of indigenous languages spoken by indigenous Brazilian people is probably higher (Maher 2007). According to the official data from the Ministério da Educação (MEC), currently, there are approximately 170 indigenous languages in use in communities belonging to 210 Brazilian ethnic groups, but there is no exact number for how many of the country’s 2,322 indigenous schools are bilingual (↗11 Bilingual Education). The numbers vary, but give us an idea of the magnitude of the Brazilian linguistic heritage.

3 Linguistic Policies 3.1 General Policies in Brazil Even if it is quite recent, current Brazilian legislation on language policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) and indigenous education may be considered advanced. The first milestone of change in education policy toward the Indians was the Constituição da República Federativa of 1988, which, through its Article 210, ensures that indigenous communities have the right to use their mother tongues in schools and their own learning processes (Presidência da República 1988). A year before, the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights presented in Recife (PE) by the International Association for the Development of Intercultural Communication, an agency of Unesco, anticipated a paradigm shift in this area (cf. Associação Internacional para o Desenvolvimento da Comunicação Intercultural 1996) (↗5 Languages and Identities). In December 1996, the Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (LDB) devoted two chapters (the 78th and the 79th) to the teaching of Indians. The LDB

8 At least 560 Indians were murdered in Brazil over the last 10 years. A survey of the Conselho Indigenista Missionário (CIMI), linked to the Catholic Church, reveals that the state of Mato Grosso do Sul (MS) is the major focus of tension between farmers and the indigenous and represents 57% of the total (319 of 564 of all cases reported in the last decade) (cf. Conselho Indigenista Missionário 2013). 9 “The difference in the size of agricultural establishments continued to characterize the persistence of inequality in the distribution of land in the country in the last agricultural census,” state the experts from IBGE. According to this institute, while farms under 10 hectares occupy less than 2.7% of the total area occupied by farms, the area occupied by the establishments of more than a thousand hectares comprises more than 43% of the total area” (Farid 2009).

Portugal and Brazil

579

stipulates that the Union must develop programmes of education and research to provide bilingual and intercultural education to the indigenous population (Cardoso 1996) (↗29 Peru). In November 1999, a distinction was established between schools for Indians and the so-called “rural schools”, which are now treated as educational institutions, with specific guidelines from the Resolução No. 3 published by the Câmara de Educação Básica of the Conselho Nacional de Educação (Ministério da Educação 2010a). In 2000, the Congresso Nacional (House of Representatives) enacted the Plano Nacional de Educação and stated among its goals the creation of the official category of “indigenous school”, in order to ensure the specificity of the model of intercultural and bilingual education (Congresso Nacional 2000). However, despite the advancement of law: “a survey on the current status of documentation on indigenous languages in Brazil made by Franchetto (2000), points out that 34 Brazilian languages have good documentation, 28 of which being located in the Amazon region; 23 languages have no documentation, and a large number (114, according to the records of the National Museum) have only partial documentation” (Cunha 2008, 146) (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The academic inclusion of both the themes and the social actors involved is still incipient. The State University of Mato Grosso was a pioneer in offering, in 2001, the first specific undergraduate course of the country to about 200 indigenous people from 35 ethnic groups. According to the Census of Indigenous Education of 2002, less than 2% of the indigenous teachers had completed their secondary studies and 44% had not even a high school education (cf. Cunha 2005).

3.2 Specific Policies for the Mercosur Region Officially, Portuguese, Spanish (↗25 Spanish) and Guaraní are the languages of Mercosur (Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Venezuela). These are, in fact, the predominant languages in the countries that currently compose the bloc. Thinking about a language policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) for this region is a contingency of the market, which is already being translated into governmental initiatives by the member countries. These initiatives are still incipient, and they particularly lack continuity, infrastructure and management. For example, at the state level, there is an initiative of reciprocity between Brazil and Argentina (through the laws 26,468 and 16,161 – cf. Dirección Nacional de Cooperación Internacional 2009; Carvalho 2012) aimed at expanding proficiency in Portuguese in Argentina, and Spanish in Brazil: Argentines and Brazilians can opt for Portuguese and Spanish classes from primary education onwards. At the institutional and teaching level, the proficiency exams in both countries, the Certificado de Proficiência em Língua Portuguesa para Estrangeiros (CELP-BRAS) in Brazil (cf. Ministério da Educação 2010b) and the Certificación de Español como Lengua Extranjera (CELU) developed in Argentina,

580

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

are treated as equivalent. In December 2003, a Joint Declaration was signed with Argentina, aiming at deepening the links between the two countries in the educational area. The common teaching model in schools in border areas of Brazil and other Mercosur countries began to be adopted in 2005, with the creation of the Projeto Escola Intercultural Bilíngüe de Fronteira (PEIBF) (↗29 Peru). In Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología/ Ministério da Educação (2008, 10), we can read: “The whole border is characterized by a zone of uncertainty and sociolinguistic instability where two or more languages are concerned. Such interaction is produced by the speakers of the language and the influence of the media, particularly radio and television from one and the other side of the border.”

In such a complex context, problems and obstacles abound. One of them is of political and administrative order. It concerns the recognition of the Rede de Escolas Públicas Bilingues e Interculturais de Fronteira, and the definition of specific guidelines for the functioning of these schools by the Conselho Nacional de Educação. Currently 28 schools (14 Brazilian and 14 of neighboring countries – Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Venezuela) in 24 cities participate in the programme. According to the nongovernmental organization GIRA, which operates in Mato Grosso do Sul, there are also material issues: overcrowded classrooms, lack of teaching positions and specific educational materials, shortages of school transportation. According to the same entity, on the border with Paraguay the most significant problem is the lack of integration among members of school communities, students who harass each other and teachers who find difficulties in acting in the context of linguistic and ethnic conflict. In border situations “linguistic merge and lexical borrowing phenomena in both directions” (ibid, 11) occur (cf. Flores 2010).

3.3 Language Policies in Portugal The general language policy in Portugal, during recent decades, seems to be characterized by a certain dispersion of actions, leading to the inevitable loss of cohesion and efficiency (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The comprehensive analysis of 3,636 legal diplomas published between 1974 and 2004 allowed Pinto (2008, 119) to conclude: “It appears that, over the 30 years being analysed, the planning of the maintenance of status of the Portuguese language in Portugal was conducted by many different institutions, with few general rules.” In 2010, Castro reported the same situation: “In recent years, the Portuguese language has been treated very unevenly by the various governmental departments that have some form of responsibility for it” (Castro 2010, 71). The same lack of consistency can be discerned in the problems arising from the Spelling Agreement of 1990.

Portugal and Brazil

581

This Spelling Agreement was signed in December 1990, by seven members of the CPLP.10 The agreement aimed at creating a unified spelling for the Portuguese Language, common to all Portuguese speaking countries, in order to defend “the essential unity of the Portuguese language and its international prestige” (Crespo 1991, 4). According to the signed document, the agreement should have come into effect on the 1st of January 1994, however, this never happened. In July 1998, a first Modifying Protocol was signed, followed by a second one in 2004. In 2008, the Portuguese Parliament approved the second protocol and set a transitional period of six years to its full implementation, but the corresponding notice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was only published in 2010. In the meantime, a large group of Portuguese academics and intellectuals started a violent opposition to the Agreement – a manifesto was released on the Internet and signed by more than 110,000 persons by May 2009. According to Castro (2010, 68) “[t]his manifesto, centered in Portugal, is the most powerful manifestation of separative drive undertaken in Portugal to this day”. In fact, the importance of the public debate on this matter contrasts surprisingly with the general apathy of the Portuguese in relation to other matters in the linguistic sphere. In spite of this reaction, the Resolution of the Council of Ministers nº. 8/2011 (Presidência do Conselho de Ministros 2011) determined the application of the Spelling Agreement in the educational system in the academic year 2011–2012, and from January 1, 2012, its use by the Government and all services and agencies dependent on the government, as well as its use in Official Gazette texts. Many voices opposed this and a great number of journalists and writers explicitly show their resistance by adding an endnote to their texts “X writes according to the rules of the old spelling”. The opposition movement went still further. On the 26th of April 2013, a petition for “the untying of Portugal from the ‘Portuguese Language Spelling Agreement’ 1990”, signed by 6,212 citizens, was presented to the Parliament; on the 16th of July the Parliamentary Commission on Education, Science and Culture accepted it for discussion in plenary session. We will not discuss the pertinence of the Agreement, nor the whole range of issues that it may raise. If the question has been tackled here it is because it is an example of the lack of general cohesion in Portuguese language policies, the inefficiency of government decisions and, on the other hand, the surprising reaction of public opinion to this question. In fact, the public attitude towards linguistic matters has generally been characterized by tolerance, flexibility or simply indifference. The national attitude towards the Portuguese language is often marked by great openness to diversities, as the official recognition of the Mirandese language and of PSL, which we have already mentioned, proves. The respect for diversity also includes some measures that were taken by the Portuguese state, aiming at developing the

10 Timor only signed it in 2004.

582

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

languages of immigrants in Portugal. The project Diversidade Linguística na Escola Portuguesa (Language Diversity in the Portuguese School), supported by the ILTEC (Instituto de Linguística Teórica e Computacional) and the DGIDC (Direcção-Geral de Inovação e de Desenvolvimento Curricular – Ministério da Educação) between 2003 and 2007 and financed by the Gulbenkian Foundation may be considered as a leading example (cf. Mateus 2011, 13): “Language Diversity in the Portuguese School is a project that aims to characterize – and value – the diversity of languages which is present in the first two stages of our official primary schools. We assume that diversity is the guarantor and the spice of life and, therefore, we must treat it as it deserves: not with words of passive tolerance, but rather with the care and accuracy of knowledge” (ILTEC 2005, 1).

As a result of this project, another project was financed by the Gulbenkian Foundation and implemented from 2008, at the Escola Básica do 1º Ciclo nº1 of Vale de Amoreira (Lisbon): Bilingualism, learning of Portuguese L2 and educational success in school. In this official school, one class, composed of speakers of Portuguese and Cape Verdian Creole, is taught in both languages. This kind of bilingual experience is not widespread, but the existence of children who have other languages as an L1 has been recognized through concrete measures that aim to provide additional support through specific classes of “Portuguese as a non-mother tongue”11 for all of the 42,33212 students from 95 nationalities enrolled in the 12 years of the Portuguese school curriculum who do not speak Portuguese as their first language. Specific syllabuses and guidelines for teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) have been created for these students since 2005. Specific tests are produced for them when they come to sit national exams. For Portuguese students, the learning of Portuguese is compulsory from preprimary school to the twelfth year of secondary school. In the Legal Framework for the Portuguese Education System, language is considered as an instrument of interaction between people and in its article 7 the need “to provide general common training to all Portuguese” is recognized (cf. Pessoa 2007, 18). However, according to official data, in 2011, the real schooling rate in Portugal was 85.7% and the illiteracy rate, in the same year was 5.2% (cf. Pordata 2012b). Even if this latter percentage has been decreasing over the last 40 years, the Portuguese literacy rate is still one of the lowest in the EU. Moreover, when we speak about language acquisition, we need to take into account not only the schooling rates but also data on functional illiteracy: “functional illiteracy also exists, when people have had at least four years of formal education and know letters and numbers but without the ability to do simple maths or interpret

11 The translation is literal in order to show the specific approach that was implemented. 12 Available figures report to 2007 – cf. DGDIC 2009.

Portugal and Brazil

583

texts” (Bunke 2012, 27). Precise data on functional (il)literacy, including the entire population of a country are difficult to collect, and very often the data reported lacks a serious basis.13 The only reliable data available today for comparing levels of educational attainment between countries are the results of the PISA reading tests (cf. Adam/Wu 2002),14 the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment, concerning the performance of 15-year-old students in 25 countries. In 2009, the Portuguese students attained 489 points in the reading tests, slightly under the average score among OECD countries (493). Nevertheless, if compared to the previous results in 2006, Portuguese students achieved 17 points more, making Portugal the fourth most-improved country. 9.8% of students from a low socio-economic background have average or high reading achievement, which makes Portugal the second best country in the OECD for compensating for socio-economic disparities (OECD 2010). Therefore, we may conclude that even if the current results may be considered worrying, the Portuguese educational system is responding to the detected problems and there is hope for improvement in the future.

4 Foreign Language Education 4.1 Bilingual Teaching Disputes – Geopolitics in the Brazilian Classroom Historically, in Brazil, the bilingualism of the speaker was seen as a “problem”, and the school’s intent was to make students give up their mother tongue, becoming monolingual in the dominant language in Brazil Portuguese (Maher 2007). This assimilationist model was adopted by some religious missions and by the Brazilian government in dealings with indigenous peoples (Maher 2007). However, for the Brazilian elites, mastering several languages, especially European ones, has always been desirable as mark of social prestige, as the number of private bilingual schools in Brazil attests (↗11 Bilingual Education). According to the Organização das Escolas Bilíngues de São Paulo (OEBI), until the end of 2012 there were 96 schools with this profile in Brazil, with only 56 in the state of São Paulo. One of the criteria for access to these schools is undoubtedly economic. The tuition fees of these schools can vary

13 As an example, in Jornal de Notícias, 8.09.2010, we can read: “According to the RHD 2005, 48% of Portuguese do not understand what they read or have difficulties in understanding part of that information.” However a detailed search of the cited document shows no data at all as to what concerns functional illiteracy in Portugal. 14 The “universal” validity of the PISA tests and the procedures for their implementation can be discussed, but they are the only existing formal tools to measure the reading competences in all countries (cf. Stewart 2013).

584

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

from R$ 900 to R$ 3000 (around 300–1,000 euros), depending on the school and the year in which the student is enrolled. During the previous centuries, from the Empire to Republic, the most prestigious foreign language was French (↗20 French), which was mandatory in schools from 1837, with the creation of Colégio Pedro II in Rio de Janeiro, a public institution designed to provide secondary education for the children of the Brazilian elites (Pietraroia 2008). Apart from being taught in public schools, French was also present in the education of the wealthy classes through the Alliance Française that arrived in Brazil in 1885, two years after the establishment of its headquarters in Paris. As in most Latin American countries, the French presence was not characterized by a migration of an economic nature, but by an enrichment of the political and cultural relations between the two countries. Both in the Monarchy and in the Republic, Brazilian culture has been greatly influenced by French artists and writers. Also, the historical events in Europe and especially in France, favoured the development of a French cultural presence. During the 1960s, 10 new committees of the Alliance Française were deployed. In 1979, the number reached 30 associations with 50 programmes. Currently the network has 40 associations and 9 corresponding centres in almost all states. Since the 1980s the profile of Brazilian public schools has changed with respect to opening access to virtually all social classes. The initiative to reinsert bilingual training in this “new” public network was taken after the LDB in 1996, when the Foreign Language recovered, at least officially, its presence; the law foresees “teaching of at least one modern foreign language, whose choice will be the responsibility of the school community, within the capabilities of the institution” (Cardoso 1996, Art. 26 / § 5). Secondary Schools are expected to include “a modern foreign language as a compulsory subject, chosen by the school community, and an optional second language, according to the expertise available in the institution” (Cardoso 1996, Art. 36, III). Although the LDB allows the school community the choice of the second modern language to be taught, it is possible to discern a pressure to teach Spanish, justified politically by Brazil’s membership of Mercosur but, interestingly, the preferred variant is the Peninsular Spanish.15 The State of São Paulo, which has 221 Language Centres and about 4.5 million students enrolled, is an interesting example of the imposition of this variant when delegating the training of teachers of Spanish to the Instituto Cervantes through the project Oye in partnership with Banco Santander and Spanish publishers. This project aims at training any graduate teacher from any subject area, with a few hours of virtual training (cf. Souza 2009). 15 On March 26, 1991, the Tratado de Assunção was signed. By its article 23 Portuguese and Spanish are the official languages of the Mercosur. As part of this process, the Educational Sector of Mercosur was created, aiming at spreading the learning of Portuguese and Spanish through formal and nonformal educational systems.

Portugal and Brazil

585

4.2 Opening the Teaching of Other Languages in the Brazilian Public Schools The teaching of French will return to the public schools of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro in 2014, through an agreement between the Secretaria de Estado de Educação and the Académie de Créteil and the Ambassade de France. Besides the French language, the department is also evaluating the implementation of the same model for teaching Spanish. The state of Rio de Janeiro will also have four bilingual schools from February of next year (↗11 Bilingual Education). According to the Secretaria de Estado de Educação, the first school to be opened in August 2013 will be teaching Portuguese and Mandarin (Chinese). Three more schools giving classes in French (↗20 French), Spanish (↗25 Spanish) and English respectively, will be open from February. The schools will be managed in partnership with international organizations and foreign governments, the Confucius Institute of China, the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, the Consulat Général de France in Rio and the Government of Prince George County, in the State of Maryland in the United States. Interestingly, Italian (↗21 Italian) has lost ground in Brazil over the last decade. According to the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), between 1870 and 1920 1.4 million Italians immigrated to Brazil. It is estimated that in the State of São Paulo, Italo-Brazilians make up 38% of the population, whereas in the southern states of the country it is said to be up to 60%. Whatever the exact number is, the presence of Italian identity in Brazilian culture is beyond doubt. Yet, despite this strong presence, with rare exceptions, as in Belo Horizonte, where it is studied mostly by workers of the automobile industry, the Italian language does not extend beyond the scope of the language of immigration and lacks of the prestige of a language of culture or economy. Italian currently occupies the sixth place as a foreign language, whereas ten years ago it was in third / fourth place ahead of German and French (cf. Casini/Romanelli 2012). We should note that the Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico Artístico Nacional (IPHAN) recognizes the existence of 30 of immigrant languages in Brazil. We recall two exemplary cases of “militancy” for preservation of linguistic variants by using a specific language policy: the Pomerano, the language of part of the German community, which has been considered co-official in the municipality of Canguçu, Rio Grande do Sul (RGS), in 2010, and Talian, a variant of the Venetian language, spoken mainly in the Serra Gaucha, RGS and west of Santa Catarina, in southern Brazil, declared in 2009 to be the co-official language in the municipality of Serafina Correa, RGS, 230 km from Porto Alegre. In terms of policies for plurilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education), the State of Paraná and the Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) are exemplary cases, with the creation of an undergraduate language and literature course in Polish Literature, and the teaching of Guaraní in the Centre for Languages and Interculturality, where 18 languages are taught, including the Yoruba and Guaraní, a quite atypical situation in Brazil (↗29 Peru).

586

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

4.3 Portugal: From Piano and French to Computers and English In the 19th century, young ladies from “good society” were expected “to play the piano and speak French” (cf. Paz 2010) (↗14 European History of Romance Language Teaching). In December 2009, in an interview with Euronews, José Socrates, the Portuguese prime minister in those years, rejoiced that all the Portuguese children could learn English upon entering school and possessed a personal computer, hoping that, in the future, Portugal might become “a country that speaks better English and masters the technologies of information and communication”.16 These two facts testify to the immense paradigm shift that has occurred in the educational system (and on representations about educational needs) since the end of the 20th century. Until the Portuguese revolution of 1974, primary school was compulsory, but for economic and social reasons, the access to further education was not fully open to the entire population. French was the mandatory first foreign language in the 5th year, and English was introduced as a second foreign language in the 7th year. In those times, speaking a foreign language was a guarantee to having full access to information, as many books were forbidden by the state and translations of technical books were rare. Portuguese society was closed on itself and the only window to the outside world was the knowledge of foreign languages, obviously linked to a certain intellectual elite. After 1974, the democratization of school completely changed this situation. Portuguese schools were open to everybody and the “educational boom” modified learning needs and attitudes towards languages.17 In the 5th grade, French came into competition with English, which quickly became the foreign language of all social levels of society. Since 2008–2009, English has been taught from the 1st year of primary school18 and is the only compulsory foreign language until the 6th year. From the 7th year to the 9th year, a second foreign language is also mandatory. The place of second foreign language is, however, not very relevant: “Les autorités éducatives assument une politique de discrimination positive en faveur de l’anglais et valorisent peu l’apprentissage d’une deuxième langue dont la place est bien réduite et le niveau d’apprentissage élémentaire (A2)” (Avelino 2013, 2). The choice of the second foreign language is quite limited: students may opt for French (which is still chosen by the majority of them), Spanish (whose popularity has been increasing in the last years) and German (which is learnt by a very small number of students).

16 Cf. Interview with Euronews, http://pt.euronews.com/2009/12/01/jose-socrates-desempregocomeca-a-recuperar-em-2010/ (01.12.2009). 17 In fact, the change started one year before the revolution with the Veiga Simão Reform in 1973 (cf. Stoer 1983). 18 Some pre-primary schools also offer introduction activities to the English language.

Portugal and Brazil

587

At secondary school level, pupils may take a third new foreign language or continue studying one of the languages they took before.

4.4 CLIL Experiences in Portugal Bilingual schools are not very numerous in Portugal. International schools are mostly situated in the area of Lisbon or in the Algarve, and are open to foreign and Portuguese students. Both in Lisbon and in Oporto, the French and the German Embassies also run the Lycée Français and the Deutsche Schule, respectively. These schools are expensive and therefore only a few students have access to this type of bilingual education (↗11 Bilingual Education). CLIL is certainly an innovative and effective approach to language learning that may lead to the development of plurilingual competences (↗12 Plurilingual Education) within the school context. The most current experiences in this field concern English as the vehicle to learn other subjects (cf. Marsh et al. 2009). Interestingly, in Portugal, the CLIL is linked to the “Sections européennes”, which are the result of partnerships between schools and the French Embassy, aiming at developing competences in French. The first implementation started in 2006, at the Secondary School of Garcia de Orta, in Porto. In 2013, 28 schools in the country participate in this programme. The non-linguistic subjects that are taught in these schools are diverse: history, geography, arts, technology, maths, philosophy, physics and chemistry, civic education, physical education and theatre.

5 New Ways, New Pedagogies for Plurilingualism Intercomprehension among speakers of different Romance Languages (IC) has slowly been disseminated and used in Europe (including Portugal) since the 1990s.19 Its curricular insertion has specific purposes linked to the geopolitical issues of that block. It is interesting to ask why and how this new “content” may be valid in the Brazilian and Latin American context, questioning the demands it may meet, its purposes and its target audiences (↗12 Plurilingual Education). The concept of IC was first introduced in Brazil within the project Ação para o Letramento, Paraná State, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) from 2008 to 2011.

19 In this respect, we would like to stress the work done in the context of research and teachers’ training by the LALE (Laboratório Aberto para a Aprendizagem de Línguas Estrangeiras) at the University of Aveiro, and the role of the CRB of the Portuguese Catholic University, in the coordination of the European Network of Intercomprehension (REDINTER), which gathers together 55 European and South-American institutions.

588

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

The project is directly linked to the Secretaria de Estado de Educação and has the participation of professors and researchers of the UFPR, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), the Association Française pour la Lecture (AFL) and the Université Lumière Lyon 2. In 2008, the main focus of the discussions was the issue of students’ reading competences in the 5th grade public elementary school, when these students face difficulties in the field of language in different subjects, also hindering the learning of a modern foreign language. In 2009 the project worked closely with the literacy teachers of the City of Curitiba and also continued the work started in 2008 with teachers from the 5th to 8th of Secretaria Estadual de Educação. In 2010 the main focus was on Children’s and Youth Literature. The project assists teachers in all first and second languages of the municipality of Curitiba and the state of Paraná. Another field where IC may play an important role is the acquisition of the mother tongue. This area may integrate production and reading skills in Portuguese to reading skills in an L2. The Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), introduced in October 2011 such an initiative to the Municipality of Natal in the context of teacher training and has been carrying out face to face sessions as well as distance sessions through Galapro.20 IC is also a regular component in the undergraduate course in French of that university. At the UNICAMP, São Paulo, two courses of IC were included in the syllabus of the Department of Applied Linguistics. They are being offered for the first time in 2013 for students from any undergraduate courses with a focus on student exchange programmes. In the university context, this is indeed a sector for which IC has much to contribute: to prepare students for the diverse student exchange programmes, currently extended to graduate students who are being introduced in Brazilian universities, such as Erasmus Mundus, Associação das Universidade do Grupo de Montevidéu (AUGM), Ciências sem fronteiras, among others. In Portugal and in Brazil, this may be a pivotal moment for teachers of foreign language (↗15 Language Teacher). By observing certain data, they may reflect on the current situation, which seems to prepare a profound paradigm shift. A teaching model, guided by monolingual perspectives, under the hegemony of one single foreign language and in the simultaneous training of the four skills, is no longer adapted to the market needs. This may represent an opportunity to develop new pedagogies for the teaching of languages. These assumptions should support the effective development of projects for Romance languages, simultaneously representing their distinctive character and leading to educational and research projects which are not mere implementations of the guidelines of our governments. These projects should not emerge from a few talking heads of the academies, but from the teachers themselves who need to intervene in the new policies coherently adapted to our multilingual realities.

20 Galapro is a learning platform for the training of teachers in IC (cf. www.galapro.eu).

Portugal and Brazil

589

6 Conclusion To fully cover the topic “language acquisition in Portugal and Brazil” is an impossible task when we are limited to a small number of pages; therefore choices had to be made in this study. After characterizing the Lusophone world, where both countries belong linguistically but also culturally, we have discussed some of the myths of national cultures and language that are distinctly linked to both realities. Data on acquisition of official languages – both as a mother tongue or a second language – were presented and analysed and the question of respect for minority national or foreign languages of the residents was raised. The problem of functional (il)literacy was also tackled. Policies for the development of plurilingualism have been questioned through the presentation of recent data on foreign language learning in schools. Finally, we have presented CLIL and IC, two of the most promising and innovative solutions that may be implemented if we are to commit to the education of plurilingual active citizens for our societies in the future. If in both countries the famous quote from Fernando Pessoa – “My homeland is the Portuguese language” (Soares 1931, 410)21 – may apply, we also share Caetano Veloso’s changed version of it: “My homeland is my language” (Veloso 1984). Therefore, we believe that in our two countries, everybody should be able to find a homeland, and that Portuguese and Brazilians should be prepared to build their homelands in other parts of the world.

7 Bibliography Adams, Ray/Wu, Margaret (2002), PISA 2000 technical report, Paris, OECD. Assembleia da República (2005), Constituição da República Portuguesa, VII Revisão Constitucional, Lisboa, http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx (21.10.2013). Associação Internacional para o Desenvolvimento da Comunicação Intercultural (1996), Declaração Universal dos Direitos Lingüísticos, http://www.dhnet.org.br/direitos/deconu/a_pdf/dec_uni versal_direitos_linguisticos.pdf (21.10.2013). Avelino, Cristina (2013), Trois questions à…. (interview), Le Français dans le Monde 388, 2s. Batoréo, Hanna (2009), A Língua Portuguesa em Timor: de que forma deve o Ensino de Português adaptar-se às diferentes realidades nacionais?, Estudos Linguísticos/Linguistic Studies 4, 51–61. Bunke, Klaus-Jürgen (ed.) (2012), Literacy needs for vocational purposes in Europe – A Documentation Facts, Information and Examples, Berlin, Lit.Voc. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique (1996), Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional. Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996, http://portal.mec.gov.br/arquivos/pdf/ldb.pdf (21.10.2013).

21 In fact the quotation is from Bernardo Soares, one of the heteronyms of the poet.

590

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

Carmo, Helena, et al. (2007), Programa curricular de Língua Gestual Portuguesa. Educação préescolar e Ensino básico, Lisboa, Ministério da Educação, Direcção-Geral de Inovação e de Desenvolvimento Curricular. Carvalho, Simone da Costa (2012), Políticas de promoção internacional da língua portuguesa: ações na américa latina, Trabalhos de Linguística Aplicada 51/2, 459–484. Casini, Maria Cecilia/Romanelli, Sérgio (2012), Italianistica in Brasile: ricerca di prospettive e prospettive di ricerca, In.IT online 27, 15–18, http://www.initonline.it/pdf/init27.pdf (21.10.2013). Castro, Ivo (2010), As Políticas Linguísticas do Português. Textos Seleccionados, XXV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, Porto, APL, 65–71. Congresso Nacional (2000), Plano Nacional de Educação, http://portal.mec.gov.br/arquivos/pdf/ pne.pdf (21.10.2013). Conselho Indigenista Missionário (2013), Informe nº 1046: 2012 e a Conjuntura da Política Indigenista, http://cimi.org.br/site/pt-br/index.php?system=news&action=read&id=6679 (21.10.2013). Couto, Hildo Honório (2009), O Português e o Crioulo na Guiné Bissau, in: Ana M. Carvalho (ed.), Português em Contato, Madrid/Frankfurt am Main, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 53–66. CPLP/Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (2013), Estatísticas da CPLP – 2012, http://www. ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=157850070 &PUBLICACOESmodo=2&xlang=en (21.10.2013). Crespo, Vitor Pereira (1991), Resolução da Assembleia da República n.º 26/91: Acordo Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa, http://www.priberam.pt/docs/acortog90.pdf (21.10.2013). Cunha, Rodrigo (2005), Escola indígena: fortalecimento das identidades e dos direitos dos índios, http://www.comciencia.br/reportagens/2005/04/06.shtml (21.10.2013). Cunha, Rodrigo Bastos (2008), Language policies and indigenous schools in Brazil, Educar 32, 143–159. DGIDC/Direção-Geral de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Curricular (2009), Relatório de Português Língua Não Materna (PLNM) 2006/07 e 2007/08, http://www.dgidc.min-edu.pt/outrosprojetos/ index.php?s=directorio&pid=120#i (21.10.2013). Dirección Nacional de Cooperación Internacional (2009), Boletín Mercosur 26, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Farid, Jacqueline (2009), Distribuição de terras é desigual, mostra estudo do IBGE, Estadão.Com.Br, http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,distribuicao-de-terras-e-desigual-mostra-estudodo-ibge,443477,0.htm (21.10.2013). Flores, Olga Viviana (2010), Breve histórico do projeto “Escola Intercultural Bilingue de Fronteira”, Actas do I CIPLOM, Foz do Iguaçu – Brasil, 881–889, http://www.apeesp.com.br/web/ciplom/ Arquivos/artigos/pdf/olga-flores.pdf (21.10.2013). Góis, Pedro/Marques, José Carlos (2010), Novos Fluxos de Imigração em Portugal: o novo posicionamento de Portugal no sistema migratório europeu, in: Maria Ioannis Baganha/José Carlos Marques/Pedro Góis (edd.), Imigração Ucraniana em Portugal e no Sul da Europa: a emergência de uma ou várias comunidades?, Lisboa, ACIDI, IP, 13–24. Gonçalves, Perpétua (2012), Lusofonia em Moçambique: com ou sem Glotofagia? II Congresso Internacional de Linguística Histórica. Homenagem a Ataliba Teixeira de Castilho, São Paulo, http:// www.catedraportugues.uem.mz/?_target_=lista-bibliografia (21.10.2013). Gonçalves, Rita Margarida Gamito (2010), Propriedades de subcategorização verbal no português oral de S. Tomé, MA Thesis, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa. Hagemeijer, Tjerk (2009), As Línguas de S. Tomé e Príncipe, Revista de Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa e Espanhola 1.1, 1–27. ILTEC (2005), Diversidade Linguística na Escola Portuguesa. CD1 – Primeiros Resultados, http://www. iltec.pt/divling/index.html (21.10.2013).

Portugal and Brazil

591

Maher, Terezinha Machado (2007), Do casulo ao movimento: a suspensão das certezas na educação bilíngue e intercultural, in: Marina do Couto Cavalcanti/Stella Maris Bortoni-Ricardo (edd.), Transculturalidade, linguagem e educação, Campinas, Mercado das Letras, 67–96. Marsh, David, et al. (edd.) (2009), CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field, CCN, University of Jyväskylä. Mateus, Maria Helena Mira (2011), Diversidade Linguística na Escola Portuguesa, Rev. Lusófona de Educação [online] 18, 13–24, http://www.scielo.gpeari.mctes.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext &pid=S1645-72502011000200002&lng=pt&nrm=iso (21.10.2013). Mendes, Amália Faustino (2009), Referencial para o Ensino em Português Língua Segunda em Cabo Verde no Contexto da Oficialização da Língua Cabo-Verdiana, MA thesis, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa. Ministério da Educação (2010a), Resolução nº 3, de 15 de junho de 2010. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 16 de junho de 2010, Seção 1, 66. Ministério da Educação (2010b), Portaria nº 1.350, de 25 de novembro de 2010. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 26 de novembro de 2010, Seção 1, 32. Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología/Ministério da Educação (2008), Escolas de Fronteira, Brasília and Buenos Aires, http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/Escolafronteiras/doc_ final.pdf (21.10.2013). Nzau, Domingos Gabriel Ndele (2011), A Língua Portuguesa em Angola – Um Contributo para o Estudo da sua Nacionalização, PhD thesis, Departamento de Letras, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã. Observatório da Língua Portuguesa (2010), Dados estatísticos. Falantes do Português, http://observatorio-lp.sapo.pt/pt/dados-estatisticos/falantes-de-portugues-literacia (21.10.2013). OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science, vol. I, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en (21.10.2013). Oliveira, Sara R. (2012), Mais de 450 alunos estão a aprender mirandês, http://www.educare.pt/ educare/Atualidade.Noticia.aspx?contentid=CC5DF95A98F82167E0400A0AB8005707&opsel=1&channelid=0 (21.10.2013). Paz, Ana (2010), Música e-mérita. Ensino da música em Portugal, mais uma história demérita. Projecto 10, Revista digital temática, http://www.projecto10.pt/cs-tema.htm (21.10.2013). Pessoa, Maria do Socorro (2007), Concepções de Linguagem e Políticas Lingüístico-Culturais: aproximações e/ou afastamentos na Educação Lingüística, in: Maria Helena Ançã /Teresa Ferreira (edd.), Actas do Seminário “Língua Portuguesa e Integração”, Universidade de Aveiro, http://www.oi.acidi.gov.pt/docs/Seminario_LPIntegracao/8_Maria_Socorro_Pessoa.pdf (21.10.2013). Pietraróia, Cristina Casadei (2008), A importância da língua francesa no Brasil: marcas e marcos dos primeiros períodos de ensino, Estudos Lingüísticos 37/2, 7–16. Pinto, Paulo Feitor (2008), Política de Língua na Democracia Portuguesa (1974–2004), PhD thesis, Lisboa, Universidade Aberta. Pordata, Base de dados de Portugal Contemporâneo (2012a), População residente segundo os Censos: total e por grandes grupos etários – Portugal, http://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/ Populacao+residente+segundo+os+Censos+total+e+por+grandes+grupos+etarios-512 (21.10.2013). Pordata, Base de dados de Portugal Contemporâneo (2012b), Taxa real de escolarização em Portugal, http://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/Taxa+real+de+escolarizacao-987 (21.10.2013). Pordata, Base de dados de Portugal Contemporâneo (2013), População residente: total e por grandes grupos etários, http://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/Populacao+residente+total+e+por+grandes +grupos+etarios-513 (21.10.2013).

592

Filomena Capucho and Regina Silva

Presidência da República (1988), Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, http://www. planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm (21.10.2013). Presidência do Conselho de Ministros (2011), Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 8/2011, Diário da República 1/17, 488s. Sampaio, António (2003), “Dislexia” Linguística, Expresso, 29.11.2003. SEF/Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras (2012), Relatório de Imigração, Fronteiras e Asilo, http:// sefstat.sef.pt/Docs/Rifa%202012.pdf (21.10.2013). Soares, Bernardo (1931), Descobrimento, Revista de Cultura 3, 409–410. Souza, Fábio Marques (2009), Espanhol-Língua Estrangeira para Brasileiros. Políticas de difusão e formação de professores no Estado de São Paulo, MA thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP). Stewart, William (2013), Is Pisa fundamentally flawed?, TES magazine, http://www.tes.co.uk/article. aspx?storycode=6344672 (21.10.2013). Stoer, Stephen R. (1983), A reforma de Veiga Simão no ensino: projecto de desenvolvimento social ou “disfarce humanista”?, Análise Social 77–78–79 (vol. XIX), 793–822. Veiga, Manuel (2004), A construção do Bilinguismo, Praia, Cabo Verde, Instituto da Biblioteca Nacional e do Livro. Veloso, Caetano (1984), Língua, Velô, CD álbum. Zilles, Ana Maria Stahl (2001), Ainda os equívocos no combate aos estrangeirismos, in: Carlos Alberto Faraco (ed.), Estrangeirismos: guerras em torno da língua, São Paulo, Parábola, 143–161.

Doina Spiță

31 Romania Abstract: The chapter dealing with Romania presents the situation of language learning in this country located in South-eastern Europe, in the contact zone between Central Europe the Balkans, the Near East and the Slavic world, and whose official language, Romanian, is the only Latin language in Eastern Europe. The article also offers information of a more general kind on the country context, the linguistic policies promoted by the government and on the way in which these policies are reflected in the realities of the educational system. Certain historic data are provided, for a better understanding of the measures taken in order to preserve the linguistic heritage of the country. We have made reference to recent studies and works on this subject, as well as to databases provided by the government, or created as part of different research projects. This accounts for the permanent dialogue between the Romanian authorities and the representatives of European bodies, aiming at the development of language learning systems in line with the current international standards. Keywords: multilingualism, heritage, policies, language learning

1 Country Context Romania is located in south-eastern Europe, in the contact zone between Central Europe and the Balkans, the Near East and the Slavic world. It is a space of multiple influences and interferences. According to the data provided by the National Statistics Institute based on the latest census report (Institutul Național de Statistică 2013), Romania’s stable population was more than 20 million persons in 2011. As compared to the 2002 census, this figure shows a decline of 7.2%. The registration of ethnicity, mother tongue and religion was made according to the free accounts of the surveyed persons. 88.9% of the population declared themselves Romanians, the remaining 11% being represented by the 20 ethnic minorities living on the territory of Romania. Hungarians make up 6.5% of the population, and 3.3% of Romania’s inhabitants declared themselves as Roma. As compared to the 2002 census, there was a rise in the Roma population (from 2.5% to 3.3%) and a decline in the German ethnics (from 0.28% to 0.20%). Other ethnic groups, with populations over 20,000 persons, are represented, in descending order, by the Ukrainians, the Germans, the Turks, the Russians, the Russian-Lipovans and the Tatars. From an administrative point of view, Romania is divided into 41 counties and the municipality of Bucharest, the capital of the country. The ethnic distribution of the

594

Doina Spiță

population shows that, in a territorial profile, Romanian ethnics represent a majority in the municipality of Bucharest (97.3%) and in 39 counties (with percentages varying between 98.6% and 52.6%); additionally, in 30 counties over 90% of the population is Romanian. The Hungarian ethnics are mainly located in the central and western part of the country, where they represent between 85.2% and 73.7% of the population and have important political and mass media representation (Cernat et al. 2012).1 According to the data provided by the same source, about 11% of the pre-university institutions in Romania have a minority language as a medium of instruction in at least one section, 90% of these being in Hungarian. Roma ethnics are distributed relatively evenly across the country, with percentages varying between 1.1% and 8.9%. This minority is still under-represented in positions of authority, and the Romani language is underrepresented in mass media and education.

Figure 1: The population of Romania (gândul.info, http://www.gandul.info/stiri/recensamant-2012-harta-noii-romanii-9978083, 24.07.2013)

Important Romanian communities can be identified outside the borders of the country. We refer both to historic communities and to persons who have recently left the country, for economic reasons. They do not fall under the figures representing the stable population of the country. According to some sources, about 2.8 million persons

1 Cf. Extra/Yagmur (2012). Language Rich Europe is a network funded through the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission. The Language Rich Europe partnership involved 20 countries and three regions and in addition to the British Council it brought together over 30 partners (institutes, universities and research and information centres). The Project was co-ordinated by the British Council. The Romanian team was represented by Alexandru Cernat and Anca Nedelcu (Centrul Educația 2000+), Ștefan Colibaba (EuroEd Foundation, Iași), Călin Rus (Institutul Intercultural Timişoara) and Ruxandra Popovici (British Council, Romania).

Romania

595

have left Romania in order to work abroad (D. Sandu 2010), but only 727.5 thousand were registered as external emigrants in the 2011 census. Even if the data on emigrants are largely undercounted, they do offer pertinent information on the demographical structure of this segment of the population, as well as on the main destination countries. It is therefore not surprising that the latter are Italy (46.9% of the total 727.5 thousand) and Spain (23.5%). 5.5% of the long-term emigrants live in the United Kingdom, 4.5 % in Germany, 3,2% in France and 2.2% in Greece. An impressive number of Romanians have settled in the United States and in Canada starting in the 1990s, as a consequence of the brain drain, with the IT specialists’ migration. Immigration is a growing phenomenon, with an estimation of 57,000 non-EU citizens, where the three main groups are from the Republic of Moldova (25%), Turkey (15.86%) and China (11.81%) (MAI 2012). This does not include European Union citizens. The latter represent, according to the same source, almost 50,000 persons, the three main groups coming from Italy (22%), Germany (16%) and France (12%), followed by Hungary, Austria, Great Britain, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain and Poland. The Eurostat estimation for 2008–2060 for Romania is an immigration rate of 18.4 to 1000 inhabitants (Alexe/Păunescu 2011, 22). The census report also allows us to determine the structure of the population according to the level of studies. During the period between the two censuses there was a significant growth in the instruction level of the stable population. Thus, the percentage of the persons 10-years-old and older with a superior education level (excluding the master’s and the PhD degrees) has increased from 7.1% to 12.6%, that of high school graduates has increased from 21.4% to 24.4%, while the percentage of persons having attended only primary education has dropped significantly (from 20.1% to 14.2%). The official language of Romania is Romanian. There are 42 official or co-official languages in Europe, 12 of those having this status in several independent states. This is also the case of the Romanian language, which is also spoken in the Republic of Moldova, where it is also called the Moldovan language. The Romanian language also comprises several South-Danube dialectal variants: Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian. Starting from the 1st of January 2007, when Romania became a member of the European Union, Romanian is an official language of the European Union (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).

2 Romania’s Linguistic Heritage Romania’s linguistic heritage includes, first of all, the Romanian language, with a most interesting history on the European stage. It is the only Romance language to have preserved the name of romanus, a term which was widely used, even after the withdrawal of the Romans, to define the inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire. Romanian is the language of the only Latin people in Eastern Europe, the present-day

596

Doina Spiță

neighbours of Romania being Hungary and Serbia (to the West and Southwest), Bulgaria to the South, the Republic of Moldova (a former Romanian territory) to the East and the Ukraine to the North. The formation of the Romanian language was a similar process to the formation of the other neo-Latin languages: following the Romanisation, new ethnical syntheses emerged (the Gallo-Romans, the Ibero-Romans and the Daco-Romans), which were later influenced by migrating peoples. The differences are of a contextual kind and they concern what is usually called the substratum (features borrowed from the idioms spoken by the populations conquered by the Romans) and the superstratum of Romance languages (features borrowed from the languages spoken by the peoples who traversed their territory over centuries): mostly the Germanic tribes in the West of the Romanized Europe, the Slavs in Eastern Europe). Both have left important traces in the neo-Latin culture and languages, enriching their Latin and Romance structure with new elements, mostly in terms of vocabulary. As far as the Roman influence on the Eastern space is concerned, the formation of the Romanian language and people was already finished when the Slavs arrived in this region. However, throughout history, Romanian had contacts with other different languages, spoken by the peoples who crossed its territory, some of whom also settled there. This phenomenon had two linguistic consequences. The first concerns the internal structure of the language. Although a neo-Latin language through its defining features, namely the grammatical structure and the fundamental vocabulary, Romanian has assimilated an important number of foreign origin words, becoming thus what the Swedish Romanist Alf Lombard called a hospitable language: “The linguist should address a language which has borrowed an important number of foreign words, or, to put it otherwise, what has become a hospitable language. Among the European languages surrounding us, three are those which have proved worthy of being considered as such, and to such a degree that some – especially non-linguists – have called them, wrongly, in our opinion, mixed languages: Romanian, English and Albanian” (Avram/Sala 2001, 182s.).

Indeed, if we consider the statistics on the structure of the vocabulary of present-day Romanian, we will notice that over 62 % of the words are of direct or indirect Latin origin (20 % inherited from Latin, a percentage similar to that of the words inherited from Latin by the other Romance languages; 38.4 % are borrowed from French; 2.4 % are borrowed from classical Latin and 1.7 % from Italian); 14 % are borrowings from Slavic languages (Slovene, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Russian and Ukrainian); 2.37 % are borrowings from Greek; 2.17 % from Hungarian; 3.7% from Turkish and 2.3 % from German (Macrea 1968).2

2 D. Macrea remained in the memory of the Romanian philologists and the general audience as author of the famous statistics based on Candrea (1942) and on the Vocabulary of the works of Mihai Eminescu (Macrea1943).

Romania

597

The second consequence is of an external nature: following these movements, the linguistic heritage of the Romanian language was significantly enriched. We stressed above, that the ethnic groups best represented in Romania are the Hungarians and the Roma, followed by the Ukrainians, the Germans, the Turks, the Russian-Lipovans and the Tatars. The Hungarian tribes (the Magyars) entered Transylvania in the 10th century. The Hungarian conquest resulted in the Romanians’ withdrawal to places which were easier to defend. Starting from the 12th century, the Hungarian kings brought to Transylvania German settlers originating from Flanders, who were the ancestors of the German dialect speakers in Romania. The Hungarians and the waves of Southern Slavs who settled in certain regions of the country (the Bulgarians, a Slavic-influenced Turkish population, in Wallachia, and the Serbs in Banat and in Western Oltenia) set the foundation for a cohabitation which generated reciprocal and strong influences (Spiță 2011). The first document providing evidence of the presence of Roma ethnics on the Romanian territory dates back to 1385, but it is almost certain that they came earlier (Sandu, Mariana 2010, 14). The term rom or rrom was adopted during the First World Romani Congress, which was held in 1971, and it designates a group of populations originating in North-Western India. As their culture is an oral one, and the earliest recording of the Romani language dates back to the middle of the 16th century, it is very difficult to faithfully reconstruct the path that it followed. The Romani language is itself the proof of its Indian origins, as it comprises at least 900 Sanskrit and Hindi roots, and presents numerous similarities with modern Indian language. As the ROMANINET report (2011) states, there are no official figures as to the number of Romani language inhabitants, in Europe or on other continents. Official estimations suggest that in Europe we can speak about 3.5 million persons, but the actual figure could be much higher (ROMANINET 2011, 4). The language spoken by the Roma populations borrowed words from the dominant languages in the regions where they settled, the most important influences being those from Turkish, Romanian, Hungarian, German and Slavonic languages. This led Romani language dialects to become divergent enough to render mutual understanding between speakers of different dialects difficult or impossible. Some Romani words are used as slang terms in the languages they entered into contact with. What do statistics tell us about present-day Romania’s linguistic heritage? As we have shown above, the official data collecting mechanisms on linguistic diversity result in census data, which are periodically updated. Within these collecting mechanisms, the national language, the languages of the minorities and those of the immigrants are approached through questions on mother tongue, based on the free reports of the respondents. In what follows, we will present the results of the 2011 census. These help us build a global image of the country’s linguistic and cultural diversity. Thus, if Romanian is mother tongue to 99.9 % of the population, to 98.3 % of the Hungarian ethnics, Hungarian is the childhood language, while Romanian is the mother tongue to 1.7 % of the Hungarian ethnics. Romanian is mother tongue to

598

Doina Spiță

half of the Roma ethnics, while Romani is the mother tongue to two out of 5 Roma ethnics, 5.3 % of the Roma ethnics speak Hungarian in their family, during childhood. 68.1 % of the German ethnics reported German as their mother tongue, while 16.9 % stated that their mother tongue was Romanian. 85.6 % of the Turkish ethnics speak Turkish at home; the others reported Romanian as their mother tongue. Three-quarters of the Russian-Lipovans who declared their ethnicity and mother tongue spoke Russian during their childhood; the others identified Romanian as their mother tongue. It can be easily noticed that the only mother tongue which saw its number of speakers increase during the last decade is the Romani language. Thus, in 2012 there were 9,488 new speakers of Romani, as compared to 2002, when their total number did not exceed 237,570 persons (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). Table 1: The main mother tongues of the Romanian population (gândul.info, NSI data, http://www.gandul.info/stiri/recensamant-2012-harta-noii-romanii-9978083, 15.01.2014) Mother language

2002 (persons)

2012 (persons)

Romanian

19,736,517

17,263,561

Hungarian

1,443,970

1,268,444

Romani

237,570

247,058

German

44,888

27,019

Ukrainian

57,407

49,547

Russian

29,246

18,971

Turkish

28,115

26,179

Tatar

21,272

18,143

The issue of ethnic minorities in Europe has been the subject of long debates. In the following chapters, we will attempt to present Romania’s official position on this issue, within the broader framework of multilingualism and linguistic diversity, as well as the way in which it is reflected into the country’s cultural realities, with a focus on the education system.

3 Linguistic Policies The creation, on the 1st of January 2007, of an autonomous multilingualism portfolio, within the EU framework, has an important political signification, from the perspective of the strategies which underpin initial education, lifelong learning, employment, justice, freedom and security programmes (↗12 Plurilingual Education). The assess-

Romania

599

ments that Leonard Orban, 2007–2010 European Commissioner, made in the preface to the work Multilingualism – a bridge to mutual understanding are highly relevant: “Respect for diversity is more than ever at the heart of the European project. Differences between us are no longer perceived as obstacles which prevent us from pursuing the Community ideal or depending on the Union. On the contrary, they are valued as a source of wealth and a potential advantage for Europe. This is why multilingualism has assumed such a prominent role. Proving that Europe is a community of shared values to which all can subscribe, our multilingualism policy conveys a clear message: every citizen should be able to speak and be understood in their own language, and each of our languages enriches us all” (Orban 2009, 3).

For the first time at the Commission level, the strategy plan established a real vision for linguistic policies, a vision which goes beyond foreign language teaching and includes all languages spoken in Europe, be they official languages, minority languages or languages of the immigrant communities. Romania adhered to these policies and, as we shall presently see, did not only pay lip service to them. The main normative acts regulating the rights to linguistic diversity and promoting multilingualism as a state policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning), are the Constitution of Romania,3 the National Education Law,4 Law no. 33/ 1995 on the ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, adopted at Strasbourg, on the 1st of February 1995,5 Law no. 215/2001 and the Local Administration Law,6 Law no. 304/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors7 (with subsequent modifications) and Law no. 282/2007 on the ratification of the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages.8 In the field of education, two lines of force are to be encountered in national official documents. The former concerns the study of foreign languages and it encompasses measures undertaken in order to respect the principle mother tongue plus two other foreign languages, adopted in Barcelona.9 The latter concerns the status of minority languages. When ratifying the two European documents, Romania got involved in an ongoing activity – both legisla-

3 Adunarea Constituantă (2003), Constituția României, Monitorul oficial 767, www.ucv.ro/pdf/site/ constitutia_romaniei.pdf. 4 Parlamentul României (2011), Legea Educației Naționale, Monitorul oficial, www.edu.ro/legea_edu catiei.pdf. 5 Parlamentul României (1995), Legea nr.33 pentru ratificarea Convenției-cadru pentru protecția minorităților naționale, Monitorul oficial 82, www.dri.gov.ro/documents/lg%2033-1995.pdf. 6 Parlamentul României (2006), Legea nr.215 a administrației publice locale actualizată, Monitorul oficial, http://www.inforegionordest.ro/admin/user/repository/document/e3884f9da19f6de2.pdf. 7 Parlamentul României (2004), Legea nr.304 privind organizarea judiciară,www.scj.ro/legi/Legea% 20304.html. 8 Parlamentul României (2007), Legea nr. 282/2007 pentru ratificarea Cartei europene a limbilor regionale sau minoritare, adoptată la Strasbourg la 5 noiembrie 1992,Monitorul oficial, www.legex.ro. 9 Barcelona European Council (2002), Presidency Conclusions, www.consilium.europa.eu.

600

Doina Spiță

tively and financially supported – of promoting minority languages, languages which enrich and diversify its national linguistic heritage. This is why, besides the basic principle defined in the text of the Constitution, the above mentioned documents regulate the use of their mother language, in relations with the authorities of public administration in all the regions where the percentage of citizens belonging to national minorities exceeds 20 %, as stipulated in the international conventions that Romania signed.10 According to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, each state has an obligation to specify, in the ratification law, the regional or minority languages to which certain measures of the European document apply, selected in accordance with the rules it has established. In Romania, 10 minority languages have general protection (Albanian, Armenian, Greek, Italian, Yiddish, Macedonian, Polish, Romani, Ruthenian and Tatar) and 10 other languages have enhanced protection (Bulgarian, Czech, Croatian, German, Hungarian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish and Ukrainian). As far as the education system is concerned, Romania undertakes, as regards the areas where these languages are used and without prejudice to the official language, to authorize, to encourage and create, if the number of persons speaking a minority language justifies it, education in a regional or minority language, or education in or teaching of the language at the appropriate levels of education (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). As far as the integration of the Roma community – with a high percentage of children and young adults – is concerned, Romania initiated a large number of concrete measures which aim at bringing them to school and at educating them. The most recent one is the adoption of the Romanian Government Strategy for the Inclusion of Romanian Citizens belonging to the Roma Minority for the 2012–2020 Period.11 This programme is coordinated, monitored and evaluated by the National Agency for the Roma, a governmental structure whose main field of activity focuses on providing complementarities of the different public policies for the Roma – the locally initiated and the internationally initiated ones. Among those, the Curriculum Framework for Romani is developed by the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe, and is based on the reference level descriptions and common competence levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001) (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means); in this context, it is aligned with the policies of the Council of Europe in the field of linguistic education.

10 Adunarea Constituantă, Constituția României, art. 120. paragraphs 2 and 14, art.17. 11 Guvernul României (2012), Strategia Guvernului României de incluziune a cetățenilor români aparținând minorității romilor pentru perioada 2012–2010, Monitorul oficial, http://www.anr.gov.ro/.

Romania

601

4 Language Learning in Official Databases Romania’s official position on the issue of linguistic diversity can be found in the realities of the education system, the place where languages are taught and learned, in institutional forms (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning). The study of Romanian, the official state language, is mandatory for all Romanian citizens, irrespective of their nationality. Under current law, in every Romanian town or village classes or departments providing instruction in Romanian are organized, and, where needed, in minority languages. If this is not possible, mother tongue education is provided in the nearest town or village. The educational system for national minorities corresponds to the general Romanian education system and includes kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, high schools, professional schools, post-secondary and vocational training. We provide, in the following lines, certain figures relevant to the education structures which offer teaching in the national minority languages (Saramandu/Nevaci 2009, 57–64). The pre-university education system comprises 24,178 kindergartens, schools, high schools, professional and post-secondary schools, 2,732 (11.29 %) of which also function as units or departments offering teaching in the national minorities languages. Mother tongue education is organized in independent units (1,343) and in departments providing partial teaching in the minorities languages: Romanian-Hungarian, Romanian-German, Romanian-Serbian, etc (1,389). In these units and departments all the subjects are taught in the minority language, with the exception of Romanian language and literature. Students have the opportunity to take their final examinations in the minority language, with an adapted Romanian language test. In the 1,389 departments (mixed units), the teaching equipment – classrooms, laboratories, libraries – is shared by all the students, the administration of the school is common (with vice-headmasters belonging to the minorities represented in the school) and the extracurricular activities are organized either in Romanian, or in Romanian and the mother language. We are hereby offering a personal synthesis of the structures providing instruction in the minorities’ mother language, as they were presented at the Education Congress, which took place on 14–15 June 2013 (Sarău 2013, 1–23): Table 2: The Structures providing instruction in the minorities’ mother language (Sarău 2013, 7–23) Number of units and departments

Number of students in Number of students schools providing in schools providing teaching in the minority teaching in Romanian mother language

Number of teachers

1. Armenian

11

–

70

2

2. Bulgarian

6

–

538

10

3. Czech

6

59

85

7

602

Doina Spiță

Number of units and departments

Number of students in Number of students schools providing in schools providing teaching in the minority teaching in Romanian mother language

Number of teachers

4. Croatian

13

–

466

17

5. German

216

20,784

204

746

6. Greek

2

–

160

6

7. Italian

1

263

–

33

2,198

165,130

3,957

15,978

11

–

573

18

10. Romani

302

863

32,158

430

11. RussianLipovan

43

–

1,383

31

12. Serbian

27

630

898

76

13. Slovak

16

990

100

91

14. Turkish

4

4,583

–

72

93

8,205

8. Hungarian 9. Polish

15. Ukrainian

268

In order to offer a general perspective on the degree of coherence of linguistic education, but also on the weight and position that languages play in the Romanian education system, we will rely, in the following lines, on a series of results from the research carried out by the team of the European project Language Rich Europe. Multilingualism for Stable and Prosperous Societies (LRE) (Extra/Yagmur 2012, 187–194). Table 3: The Status of the three categories of languages (R/ML, FL, IL)12 in the structures of the Romanian educational system (Extra/Yagmur 2012) Languages offered in pre-primary education Languages offered in primary education

R/ML

Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, German, Greek, Hungarian, Serbian, Slovak, Turkish, Ukrainian

FL

–

IL

–

R/ML

Bulgarian, Croatian, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romani, Russian-Lipovan, Serbian, Slovak, Ukrainian, Turkish.

FL

English, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish. One of these languages is compulsory.

IL

–

12 In the following syntheses, R/ML = Regional/ Minority Languages; FL = Foreign Languages; IL = Immigrant Languages.

Romania

Languages offered in secondary education

603

R/ML

Bulgarian, Croatian, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, Romani, RussianLipovan, Slovak, Serbian, Ukrainian, Turkish.

FL

English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish. Out of these languages, two are compulsory.

IL

–

What information do these statistics provide on the status of the three categories of languages (R/ML, FL, IL) in the structures of the Romanian educational system? First of all, it confirms that the right to study one’s mother tongue or in one’s mother language, irrespective of the place it occupies among the mother languages specified by law, is respected throughout one’s schooling: teaching minority languages or in minority languages is an integral part of educational programmes offered by the state system. However, at the same time, a striking finding is the complete absence, in the education programmes, of immigrant languages. Two aspects could explain this situation. On the one hand, we are speaking of what could be called a “legislative void”: there are not enough official stipulations on the use of the immigrants’ languages in schools. On the other hand, as argued by the authors of the abovementioned research, the migration history of Romania, with the emigration rate higher than that of the immigration, represents another important reason for the absence of an important education offer for immigrants. The most important immigrant group comes from the Republic of Moldova (see above), but language education is not an issue here, as they have the same language and a very similar culture to that of the Romanians. As regards foreign language learning, we should state from the very beginning that research was not aimed at the private educational system, where the offer could be much more diverse. Having mentioned this detail, we note the following: at preprimary level, foreign languages are optional. This is the reason why, in statistics, the offer appears as absent. Nevertheless, the field realities prove the contrary: in a large number of kindergartens, the teaching programme includes the study of a foreign language, which is a positive fact, as most of the children are thus acquainted, from an early age, with a foreign language. The courses are financed by the parents. Studying a foreign language becomes mandatory in primary school. Some schools formulate this decision on a consultative basis, offering children and parents the possibility to choose the language that they want to study. The new education law offers more autonomy to schools, also increasing competition between them. This process is expected to improve the quality of foreign language teaching (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning), an important aspect, which influences the choice of a school. At this level, teaching is state funded. Secondary education has characteristics similar to the primary education. In most cases, students continue the study of the foreign language started in the first cycle of

604

Doina Spiță

education. They also start, in their first year of secondary education (that is around 10–11 years) to study a second foreign language. At national level, there are schools with intensive study programmes of foreign languages (programmes which can start at the primary level), but also specialized high schools, called bilingual high schools (or bilingual classes) (↗11 Bilingual Education), where the medium of instruction is in a foreign language, such as English, German, French, Italian or Spanish. These classes can be subdivided into groups, with a minimum of 10 students in each group. At least one non-linguistic discipline is taught in the foreign language of the respective profile. The number of hours allocated, in the curriculum plan, to each of the foreign languages, is 1 hour per week in the primary level; 2 hours per week at the secondary level (secondary school and high school); 3 or 4 hours per week in intensive study classes and 6 hours per week in bilingual classes, across the 36 weeks of the school year. The curriculum is explicitly influenced by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001), which is also used as a guideline in the evaluation of the students’ linguistic competence level: at the end of primary school, the target is A1; at the end of secondary school, the target is B2. At technical and vocational training level, called in the European documents Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET), the language profile taken as a whole is rather moderate in Romania. However, we can speak about a strong representation of the national language and of foreign languages (English, French and German), while Hungarian and German, the main minority languages, are well represented at tertiary level in the regions where the minority population is significant. In higher education, the national language and, depending on the region, the minority languages are very well represented as well as foreign languages. English and French (↗20 French) come first, followed by German, Italian (↗21 Italian), Spanish (↗25 Spanish), Hungarian, Russian, Arabic, Japanese and Norwegian. Recent developments show more investment in courses taught in foreign languages, mainly English and French. For instance, there are specialized departments in foreign languages or even postgraduate programmes, such as Master or PhD programmes, taught partially or totally in these languages, while some universities also have German and Hungarian departments. There is no provision for immigrant languages at this level of instruction. The evaluation of the degree of vitality can be quantified mainly through the evaluation programmes and through the number of students participating in the respective language courses. We will present, in the following lines, the main elements of this last parameter, as of January 1st, 2013.

605

Romania

Table 4: The Weight of the foreign language based on the total number of students studying it at national level (Ministeriul Educaţiei Naţionale, http://www.edu.ro, 15.01.2014) No.crt.

Language

Number of students

% of students

1.

Weight

English

1,725,201

55.3

1st place

2.

French

1,228,278

39.4

2nd place

3.

Italian

10,679

0.34

5th place

4.

German

139,545

4.47

3rd place

5.

Russian

2,802

0.09

6th place

6.

Spanish

12,619

3.93

4th place

7.

Japanese

229

0.0073

7th place

8.

Greek

77

0.0025

9th place

9.

Polish

167

0.0053

8th place

Total Students

3,119,587

It can be noticed that the first two places are occupied, at considerable distance from position no. 3, by English and French. The first is due to the communicational efficiency imperatives dictated by globalization. The second is accounted for by an old and longlasting cultural tradition whose roots are to be found in the Romanization era; crossing the centuries, it continued – with various intensities throughout history – up to modern times. German is strengthening its position, tending to replace in many education units, the study of French. The growing interest in the study of Spanish and Italian is connected, besides the accessibility arising from their common roots, to the fact that Spain and Italy are the main destinations of the immigrant Romanian workforce. The table below presents the statistical situation detailed by the education cycle, as of 11.01.2013: Table 5: First and second foreign language studied: the first three options (Ministeriul Educaţiei Naţionale, http://www.edu.ro, 15.01.2014) First foreign language

Second foreign language

Level

First three options

Number

% of the First 3 total no. of options students by level

Primary (6–10 years)

1. English

341,781

75.65

2. French

69,267

16.42

3. German

9,474

2.24

Number of students

% of the total no. of students by level

606

Doina Spiță

First foreign language Level

First three options

Number

Second foreign language

% of the First 3 total no. of options students by level

Number of students

% of the total no. of students by level

1. English

497,948

86.25 1. French

412,018

71.36

2. French

163,419

28.31 2. English

174,471

30.22

3. German

14,026

2.43 3. German

174,471

30.22

Upper Secondary (15–18 years)

1. English

467,759

73.42 1. French

400,109

62.81

2. French

160,365

25.17 2. English

155,178

24.36

3.German

4,993

0.78 3. German

43,600

6.844

Vocational (15–18 years)

1. English

8,234

69.95 1. French

5,968

50.70

2. French

3,503

29.76 2. English

2,715

23.06

21

0.17 3. German

437

3.71

1,839

7.20

Lower Secondary (11–14 years)

3. Spanish Short-term higher education (18 years +)

1. English

21,434

83.96 1. French

2. French

3,329

13.035 2. English

991

3.88

746

2.92 3. German

253

0.99

3. German

Before concluding this chapter, let us provide some data on the training of foreign languages teachers. The initial training of the secondary, high school and professional levels is accomplished in higher education institutions, for a period of 4 or 3 years and 2 years of Master’s study, following the “LMD”13 model, initiated in Bologna. Kindergarten and primary school teacher training is provided in pedagogical high schools and colleges. There are such education units providing tuition in the mother language of the minorities. The teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) specialized in national minorities’ education are also trained abroad, in Hungary, Germany, Ukraine, Slovakia, Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, etc.

5 Observations on the Various Developments Registered over the Last Decades We can thus argue, with no exaggeration, that in Romania the study of languages has generally occupied a privileged position in the school curricula, despite the isolation policy promoted by the totalitarian communist regime (↗3 Language Policy, Manage-

13 Bachelor’s degree / Master’s degree / Doctoral degree.

Romania

607

ment and Planning). Language studies were encouraged at institutional level, while the knowledge and practice of several languages at an advanced level has always been a sign of social prestige, which can be explained in particular by the rather regional use of the Romanian language. As early as 1965, the Romanian system of primary and secondary education introduced a wide range of language learning, more generous in urban areas and especially in large cities, where students and parents could choose between English, German, French, Spanish and Russian. However, minority languages did not enjoy the same recognition. If in the first decade (1946–1958) of the so-called “proletarian dictatorship”, the minority regime in Romania was a privileged one (for political purposes) to the advantage of the Hungarians, the situation soon changed against them. It culminated with the national communism of Ceaușescu’s regime in the 1980s, who made use of the national idea as a diversion aimed against the minorities and, generally, against foreigners. We witnessed a gradual reduction of the collective rights of minorities, as well as of institutions designed to promote their specificity: the regime abolished not only confessional schools, but also the public schools in minority languages; the German and Hungarian schools (some with a centuries-old tradition) were converted into schools which retained only those departments with courses held in the respective languages, and later, most of them turned completely to Romanian; the Hungarian and/or German name of some towns in Transylvania and Banat was gradually forbidden, followed by the disappearance of Hungarian and German TV shows on the Romanian Television; the cultural contacts of the minorities (and in fact of the majority population also) were increasingly controlled and prevented. In the 1980s, “the more or less latent and decent nationalism of the regime turned into a more and more express chauvinism” (Martin 2003, 14). If we evoke all these elements in our concluding chapter it is in order to raise awareness on the importance of the outstanding turn marked by the fall of Communism, also from the point of view of the status of languages. During the Congress on Education held on 14–15 June, 2013, the State Secretary for minority education reasserted: “In Romania, the study in the mother tongue, or the study of the mother tongue, the history and civilisation of the national minorities is considered a fundamental aspect in preserving the national identity in the European context. […] The old paradigms of education for all and the selection by exclusion or replacement are replaced by a conciliation policy involving two priorities: education for all and education for each” (Király 2013, p.2, 1s.).

Three strong points and two weak points are worth-mentioning in this concluding chapter. The first positive element regards the legislative framework. The information provided in the previous chapters allow us to argue that, due to the regulations in force, and beyond the recognition, at the level of the political discourse, of the principle of multilingualism (↗12 Plurilingual Education), the recommendations of the European Union and the Council of Europe are to be found in well-defined practices in most target areas. At present, Romania enjoys a situation in which the

608

Doina Spiță

national language, the minority languages and the foreign languages are, in broad lines, well promoted. Among these, the changes aimed at minority languages mark the most important developments. This is the second positive element and it is worth noticing. The third concerns the foreign languages. History affirms, the present confirms: the transition to a new society is a long and difficult process; it is even more complex and difficult to predict, as it requires radical changes not only in the political, economic and social organization, but particularly in attitudes and behaviours. After 1990, the education system needed immediate reforming. Unfortunately, until 1993 and even later, the governments in power considered the education system as relatively stable. The new authorities were long satisfied with the corrective measures enforced on the education system and the salary negotiations, a new education law being enacted only in 1995. In the context of these transformations, foreign language teachers were among the drivers of change. The first steps to rehabilitate these disciplines within the education curricula were taken in 1991, with the introduction of the study of the first foreign language in the second grade – primary cycle, and the second foreign language starting with the second grade – secondary cycle. At the same time, intensive study classes were created starting with the primary cycle, on a 4 hours per week basis, as well as bilingual high school studies (↗11 Bilingual Education), 5–7 hours per week, depending on the humanistic or scientific profile of the class. In 1991, four education institutions included in their educational offer bilingual departments; seven years later, the number of these institutions increased to 60. The main concerns were directed towards the modernization of the teaching-learning model (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning), as concerns both the objectives and the content. The teacher-centred approaches were massively replaced with interactive methods aimed at developing communication skills, at promoting autonomy, team work and the use of the new technologies. The old hierarchical subordination and pedagogical conformism reflexes were gradually replaced with a pragmatic and innovatory vision, focused on the needs of the target audience and on the market demands. We mentioned above that, from a legal point of view, all children belonging to recognized minorities have a right to education in their own language, according to the basic principles governing inter-ethnic relationships, namely the chance to enjoy equal rights and equal opportunities to assert their identity (↗5 Languages and Identities). Unfortunately, there are still difficulties in implementing this law in the case of the various minorities. When stating this, we refer particularly to the Roma minority, in a context in which, after 1989, the Roma and the Romani language movement emerged in Romania. The Roma minority indeed received attention from the authorities as will be later discussed; however, growing integration difficulties leave room for further improvements. This would be the first of the “two weaknesses” we aim to discuss. During 1949–1951 the first school of Romani language was founded in the western part of the country. Between 1990 and 1991, the Ministry of Education

Romania

609

structured two of the strategic goals to be further achieved: the seeds of a Roma infrastructure – by persuading Roma pupils to be trained as teachers – and the beginning of teaching the Romani language in three pedagogical secondary schools. Later on, between 1991 and 1994, three other strategic goals were established: first of all, the extension of the Romani mother tongue courses (in the context in which in 1991 the international Alphabet of Romani language was recognized and officially inserted in the schools where Romani language and literature was studied); then, the association of the first unqualified ethnic Roma teachers (secondary school graduates with Baccalaureate diplomas) to teach 3–4 supplementary Romani lessons weekly for grades I-IV; and, finally, the beginning of the cooperation between Roma and non-Roma NGOs involved in the educational field and in education for Roma. It is worth noting that during the same period the basis of a further successful strategic project aimed at structuring the Roma intellectuals by attracting the youngsters towards academic education was laid. Thus, if at first few Roma spoke Romani, this language is now studied in schools and universities, being used in culture and mass media together with the other languages of the national minorities. Despite all these efforts, the implementation problems cannot be ignored. As noted by the authors of the ROMANINET (2011, 11) programme, as far as education is concerned, Roma children are faced with two issues: difficulties related to the attendance of mass school courses; they are often distributed in special schools together with children with learning disabilities, or segregated in common schools. This situation enhances the feeling that they are excluded from society and, as a result, they tend to leave school early. This type of abandonment has consequences on the long term, being one of the most serious and difficult to manage (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The second “weak point” – meaning insufficiently developed – regards the immigrants. Of all the non-national linguistic options, the mother tongues of the immigrants are some of the least recognized, protected or promoted, despite the actions taken at European level. As indicated before, in the case of Romania some explanations could be found for this situation, especially with regard to the immigrants from the Republic of Moldova, whom Romanians hardly consider “foreigners”, at least from a cultural point of view. Nevertheless, more attention should be paid to EU non-residents in order to encourage them to take advantage of a favourable legal framework. In Romania, they can benefit from free Romanian language courses for a year based on a written request sent to the School Inspectorate from their region of residence. We would also like to mention here the existence of different interesting partnerships among governmental institutions, which develop linguistic and cultural integration programmes for immigrants. An example in this respect is the Intercultural Institute of Timişoara, which has realized, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sports, a methodology and didactic support that enables the qualitative improvement of the Romanian language courses and cultural orientation sessions for migrants. Over 1000 persons (non-European residents) have bene-

610

Doina Spiță

fited from these Romanian language and cultural orientation courses due to this methodology (Lungu/Popeți 2012).14

6 Conclusion The purpose of this study was to draw the linguistic profile of present day Romania. Some history references were necessary in order to understand the official politics regarding the country’s linguistic patrimony. We have resorted to recent studies and papers on this issue, as well as to governmental databases or different research conclusions. We also presented the measures and actions taken at national level according to the international standards. The promotion of the national, maternal, minority or foreign language is closely related to multilingualism, which imposes a broader approach and a European perspective. Our research has thus taken into account European documents which highlight the permanent dialogue between the Romanian authorities and the Council of Europe representatives aimed at implementing, at international standards, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Present day developments, as well as the perspective programmes reassure us that Romania will know how to make the most of its rich linguistic patrimony.

7 Bibliography Adunarea Constituantă (2003), Constituția României, Monitorul oficial 767, www.ucv.ro/pdf/site/ constitutia_romaniei.pdf (17.09.2013). Alexe, Iris/Păunescu, Bogdan (edd.) (2011), Studiu asupra fenomenului imigrației în România. Integrarea străinilor în societatea românească, București, Fundația Soros, www.language-rich.eu (15.07.2013). Avram, Mioara/Sala, Marius (2001), Faceți cunoștință cu limba română, Cluj-Napoca, Editura Echinox. Barcelona European Council (2002), Presidency Conclusions, www.consilium.europa.eu (21.09.2013). Candrea, Ion Aurel (1942), Dicționar enciclopedic ilustrat, București, Editura Cartea Românească. Cernat, Alexandru, et al. (2012), Romania, in: Guus Extra/Kutlay Yagmur (edd.), Language Rich Europe. Trends in Policies and Practices for Multilingualism in Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, http://www.language-rich.eu/fileadmin/content/pdf/LRE_English_Language_Rich_Eu rope_-_Trends_in_Policies_and_Practices_for_Multilingualism_in_Europe.pdf, 187–193 (07.05.2013).

14 Handbook elaborated within the Romanian language – opportunity for social and cultural integration project, funded by the Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows Programme, European Fund for the Integration of Third-Annual Programme 2008. Project implemented by the Intercultural Institute in partnership with West University of Timișoara – Faculty of Letters, History and Theology, with the Romanian-Arab Cultural Center and DiversEtica Association.

Romania

611

Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. European Commission; Statistical Office of the European Communities (2010), Europe in figures – Eurostat Yearbook 2010, Luxembourg, European Commission. Extra, Guus/Yagmur, Kutlay (edd.) (2012), Language Rich Europe. Trends in Policies and Practices for Multilingualism in Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, http://www.language-rich. eu/fileadmin/content/pdf/LRE_English_Language_Rich_Europe_-_Trends_in_Policies_and_ Practices_for_Multilingualism_in_Europe.pdf (07.05.2013). Guvernul României (2012), Strategia Guvernului României de incluziune a cetățenilor români aparținând minorității romilor pentru perioada 2012–2010, Monitorul official, http://www.anr.gov.ro/ (17.09.2013). Institutul Național de Statistică (2013), Comunicat de presă privind rezultatele definitive ale Recensământului populației și al locuințelor, http://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/07/REZULTATE-DEFINITIVE-RPL_2011.pdf (23.07.2013). Király, András György (2013), Introducere, in: Gheorghe Sarău, Parametrii importanți ai învățământului cu predare îm limbile minorităților din România, Colectiv, Direcția Minorități – Ministerul Educației Naționale, MEN, Secretariatul de Stat pentru Minorități, Congresul Educației, 14–15 iunie 2013, http://www.academia.edu/4376016/_Colectiv_Directia_Minoritati (17.09.2013). Lungu, Raluca/Popeți, Eliana (2012), Educație interculturală. Pentru copii migranți în România, Tipografia Partoș, Timișoara, www.vorbitiromaneste.ro (17.09.2013). Macrea, Dimitrie (1943), Fizionomia lexicală a limbii române, Sibiu, Cartea Românească din Cluj. Macrea, Dimitrie (1968), Probleme de lingvistică română, București, Editura științifică. MAI Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul general pentru imigrări (2012), Buletin statistic în domeniul imigrației și azilului, www.ori.mai.gov.ro (15.07.2013). Martin, Mircea (2003), Cultura română între comunism și naționalism (V), Revista 22, 14–16. Orban, Leonard (2009), Preface, in: European Communities, Multilingualism. A bridge to mutual understanding, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications. Parlamentul României (1995), Legea nr. 33 pentru ratificarea Convenției-cadru pentru protecția minorităților naționale, Monitorul oficial 82, www.dri.gov.ro/documents/lg%2033-1995.pdf (23.10.2013). Parlamentul României (2004), Legea nr. 304 privind organizarea judiciară, www.scj.ro/legi/Legea% 20304.html (23.10.2013). Parlamentul României (2006), Legea nr. 215 a administrației publice locale actualizată, Monitorul oficial, http://www.inforegionordest.ro/admin/user/repository/document/e3884f9da19f6de2. pdf (19.09.2013). Parlamentul României (2007), Legea nr. 282/2007 pentru ratificarea Cartei europene a limbilor regionale sau minoritare, adoptată la Strasbourg la 5 noiembrie 1992, Monitorul oficial, www.legex.ro (23.10.2013). Parlamentul României (2011), Legea Educației Naționale, Monitorul oficial 767, www.edu.ro/legea_e ducatiei.pdf (17.09.2013). ROMANINET (2011), Curs multimedia de limba romani pentru promovarea diversităţii lingvistice şi îmbunătăţirea dialogului social: Raport privind limba romani, 1–16, http://www.romaninet.com/ ROMANINET_Linguistic_report_ru.pdf (15.07.2013). Sandu, Dumitru (2010), Lumile sociale ale migraţiei, Iaşi, Editura Polirom. Sandu, Mariana (2010), Ce que dit l’histoire, Regard. Magazine francophone de Roumanie 47, 11–15. Saramandu, Nicolae/Nevaci, Manuela (2009), Multilingvism și limbi minoritare în România, Academia română, Institutul de Lingvistică “Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti”, Cluj-Napoca, Qual Media. Sarău, Gheorghe (2013), Parametrii importanți ai învățământului cu predare îm limbile minorităților din România, Colectiv, Direcția Minorități – Ministerul Educației Naționale, MEN, Secretariatul de

612

Doina Spiță

Stat pentru Minorități, Congresul Educației, 14–15 iunie 2013, http://www.academia.edu/ 4376016/_Colectiv_Directia_Minoritati (17.09.2013). Spiță, Doina (2011), Il rumeno fra le altre lingue romanze, in: Maddalena De Carlo (ed.), Intercomprensione e educazione al plurilinguismo, Collana “Lingue sempre meno straniere”, Porto S. Elpidio (AP), Edizioni Wizarts, 183–198.

Ana Halbach

32 Spain Abstract: Spain’s relationship to languages is a fascinating one. Not only is Spain a multilingual country in which three co-official languages coexist, and sometimes compete, with the main official language, but it is also a nation where the approach to language is rather formal. Thus, in both mother tongue and foreign language teaching we find that language is focused on as an object of study rather than a skill to be developed. The result of this approach is that in both mother tongue and foreign language communication skills Spanish people show great difficulties. It is argued in this chapter that these difficulties can only be overcome through appropriate teacher training that will allow instructors to shift the focus from knowing to using, a shift that is already observable in new approaches to teaching foreign languages, such as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Keywords: mother tongue teaching, foreign language teaching, immigration, multilingualism, teacher training

1 The Presence of Languages in Spain Spain, as can be seen in the map below, is a multilingual country with one official language (Spanish or Castilian) (↗25 Spanish) and three co-official languages (Basque, Catalan and Galician) present in a total of six autonomous communities. Galician is spoken in Galicia, in small parts of Castile and Leon and also in the western part of Asturias, while Basque is spoken in the Basque Country and Navarre, as well as small parts of Southern France. Catalan (↗19 Catalan) and varieties of this language are spoken in Catalonia, the Valencian Community, the Balearic Islands and small parts of Aragon. Catalan is also the official language of Andorra. This multilingual situation has as a first obvious consequence that the inhabitants of Spain have various languages as their mother tongues. According to the Eurobarometer 386 (European Commission 2012a), Spanish is the mother tongue of 82% of the population of Spain, Catalan of 8%, Galician of 5% and Basque of 1%. Unfortunately, the study does not provide any data about the missing 4% of the population, but judging from the results of the Eurobarometer 243, and the immigration rates in the first decade of the 21st century, these correspond to either other European languages (mainly Rumanian, Bulgarian, Italian and English) or other non-European languages (mainly Chinese and Arabic). Language is a sensitive issue in Spain, and so are language policies (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning). The reason for this sensitivity can be found in the historical development of Spain as a nation, and what this has meant for the different

614

Ana Halbach

Map 1: Map of the Iberian Peninsula (cf. Burgueño 2002, 182)

language groups in Spain. Summarizing a complex issue in a few words, Spain, although fairly homogeneous as a geographical entity, is a country that is made up of different regions that, in some cases, have their own historical language (cf. López García 2009). Throughout history, and ever since the different kingdoms in Spain were re-conquered from the Moorish invasion and merged into the one kingdom of Spain, a process that was concluded by the Catholic Kings (Siguán 1992, 20), the Spanish, or Castilian, language has been in a state of competition with the regional languages (Siguán 1992, 23). This competition was sometimes covert, but during long periods of time also overt, and at certain times, when national unity was felt to be a priority, even resolved by force. This was the case during the long Franco dictatorship (1939– 1975) following the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), during which the regional languages were banned from public use, and were thus relegated to the private sphere of the home (Siguán 1992, 67). When Franco died and Spain transitioned into a democratic country, it was clear that the languages of Spain had to be restored to their rights, but how this was to be done, and what exactly this meant in terms of the relation of the different regions to the Spanish state, could not be resolved without running the danger of opening up wounds stemming from the confrontation of the “two Spains” during the Civil War; wounds that had been covered up by force during the dictatorship. In the light of this insurmountable difficulty, politicians decided to restore the linguistic rights of citizens in the regions of Spain and divide Spain into 17 autonomous communities with a high degree of independence, but not deal with the more fundamental question of the relation between regions and the state. This unsolved problem lies at the heart of the present linguistic and political instability of Spain, with two of the autonomous communities characterized by having a different language using this characteristic to claim that they are not regions but rather nations.

Spain

615

1.1 The Position of Spanish in the Spanish School System If we leave the political implications of these nationalist tendencies apart, the one aspect where this unresolved question finds its clearest manifestation is in the linguistic policies enforced in these autonomous communities with their own coofficial language. Thus, linguistic policies in Catalonia (↗19 Catalan) and the Basque Country in a clear way, but also in Galicia, have both promoted the use of the coofficial languages through, for example, subsidies to the film-dubbing industry or for labelling and sign-posting in the minority language, and regulated its structure. Particularly in the case of the Basque Country it became necessary after the democratic transition to create one common Basque language (euskera batua) since the different local, mostly oral, varieties had developed so far apart as to make communication difficult (Siguán 1992, 145ss.). One of the major tools for promoting the use of the language is the use of the coofficial language as the vehicle for schooling. Thus, for a certain proportion of children in Spain, the co-official language is also their language of education, often to the exclusion of the common official language of Spaniards, i.e. Castilian or Spanish, as is reflected in the table below: Table 1: Languages of schooling in Spain (Ministerio de Educación 2011, 270)

Aragon

Spanish only

Spanish as vehicle for instruction and co-official language as subject

Bilingual Teaching in co-official teaching language and Spanish as subject

98.2%

1.8%

0.0%

0.0%

Balearic Islands

0.1%

1.0%

31.1%

67.9%

Catalonia

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Valencian Community

0.0%

16.3%

54.0%

29.8%

Galicia

0.0%

X

100.0%

X

Navarre

59.0%

17.1%

0.4%

23.6%

0.0%

17.1%

22.2%

60.7%

Basque Country

In the cases where Spanish (↗25 Spanish) is not used for instruction it is often taught as a foreign language (last column in Table 1), with about the same presence in the curriculum as English. However, these data need to be taken with some caution, as in the cases of Catalonia and Galicia they come from the standing legislation of these autonomous communities rather than from any real data collection. Unfortunately, the educational authorities in these areas of Spain do not provide statistical information about the

616

Ana Halbach

presence of the co-official languages in the educational system, which is just another proof of how sensitive the issue of the use of languages is in education.1

2 The Dominant Approach to the Teaching of Spanish in Schools In Spain, the teaching of Spanish language is centred on the development of the skills of reading and writing (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means) and on the knowledge of the language, meaning the knowledge of the grammatical structure of the language. Some authors even go as far as claiming that this latter objective, i.e. the knowledge of the language, constitutes the main teaching aim in the Spanish educational system (Cots et al. 2007, 9; Trujillo Sáez 2007), relegating the use of the language to the position of a subsidiary aim. This is not a result of the standing legislation in relation to mother tongue teaching (Ribas Seix 2010, 8), but rather the fruit of the belief of many teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) that knowing about the language will produce better results when using it. While a certain degree of language awareness is of course necessary, this awareness needs to be developed in the context of language in use, whether by looking at students’ own production or at models of language use. This very formal approach to language teaching (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) can be seen all through the educational system, where the first focus of language classes is on developing the skills of reading and writing from a rather codecentred, mechanical perspective. This teaching, which normally starts in infant education, mainly international grade −1 and −2, is focused very heavily on the development of the motor skills necessary to write, and on the recognition of letters and formation of syllables following the “Palau syllabic method” in the case of reading. Little space is granted to creativity or even communication, and as a result, despite this early introduction to literacy skills, both the PISA study and evaluations carried out by the Spanish government show that Spanish students struggle with reading comprehension. Thus, a study carried out by the Spanish Ministry in 2002–2003 with students of 6th Primary (11–12 years) showed that half of the students participating in the research had from a medium to a very low reading ability (Instituto Nacional de Evaluación y Calidad del Sistema Educativo 2004, 1). At higher levels the focus on knowing about the language persists, with different aspects of grammar being part of the curriculum, normally distributed in each of the 1 The reason for this withholding of data is also that the Spanish Constitution states that all Spanish citizens have a right to be educated through the medium of Spanish, a right that is not always respected by the educational authorities of the different autonomous communities if we believe the data shown in the table.

Spain

617

units of work, and vocabulary development built in systematically too. The focus on developing the knowledge about the language goes as far as including explanations about phonetics and morphology as early as the 5th year of primary. The development of reading and writing skills is characterized by a rather traditional approach too, with little room for personalization and a greater focus on the product than on the process.

2.1 The Provision of Spanish Teaching for the Immigrant Population Language teaching for the immigrant population is highly fragmented as most of it is organized by NGOs that work towards facilitating the integration of immigrants in Spain. Local councils often also offer provisions for language learning, but their design is left to the teachers themselves, who are often not trained for teaching languages to immigrants, some of whom are illiterate (Miquel 2003). The only “official” routes for Spanish language teaching for adults, which are not necessarily directed at immigrants but frequently more at expats, are the Official Schools of Languages, the Instituto Cervantes and the Language Centres associated to the universities. It is therefore very difficult to make any accurate description of Spanish language teaching provision for the immigrant population. The same is true for the provision of Catalan (↗19 Catalan), Galician or Basque language teaching to this population. Teaching of the language of schooling – not necessarily Spanish as was mentioned earlier – for children is more structured and organized. Its exact structure varies depending on the autonomous community, but most of it is organized as short-term intensive teaching to assure a fast transition into mainstream classrooms. In these programmes immigrant children are taken out of class for varying parts of the school day, depending on their language level, and taught the language of schooling in small groups of students. They are taught normally by language teachers who have volunteered for this task. Unfortunately, more often than not these teachers have been trained as mother-tongue teachers and not as foreign language teachers, so that they often find they do not have the necessary know-how to deal with immigrant students. Further problems of this language teaching provision are that immigrant students are segregated from their classmates, thus lacking opportunities to socialize with native speakers and making it difficult to integrate into the school environment. Furthermore, this also means that these students lose out on curricular content, which often causes them to fall behind in school and thus find integration doubly difficult. Finally, the fact that these special classrooms focus exclusively on language learning means that students do not get any support in the cultural adaptation necessary to integrate into a new school environment (cf. García Castaño/Rubio Gómez/Bouachra 2008). Among researchers and specialists in language pedagogy, bilingualism (↗11 Bilingual Education) and interculturality (↗5 Languages and Identities) there is a call to make the languages of immigrants present in school and to build on this wealth (cf., for example, Sierra/

618

Ana Halbach

Lasagabaster 2005), but so far the language of the immigrant population has not found its place in classrooms, with a very few noticeable exceptions (Alcalde Campos 2008). It needs to be mentioned that in the Spanish context an interesting phenomenon can be observed in relation to immigrants’ success in school. Contrary to what is normally claimed, namely that lack of the necessary language skills is one of the most important reasons for the higher school drop-out rates among the immigrant population, in Spain it can be observed that immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries, namely from South America, underperform if compared to other immigrant populations (Carabaña 2007, quoted in García Castaño/Rubio Gómez/Bouachra 2008, 44). This author claims that the three factors normally said to be responsible for immigrant students’ academic failure namely language, discontinued prior schooling and ethnocultural factors, may need to be complemented by others such as country of origin. In general, quite a number of authors in Spain maintain that the reasons for the academic difficulties of immigrant students may be much more similar to those of the autochthonous population than has often been thought (García Castaño/Rubio Gómez/Bouachra 2008).

3 Foreign Language Levels in Spain Asked whether they would be able to hold a conversation in at least one language other than their mother tongue, only 46% of respondents in Spain answered affirmatively; a poor result if one compares it with the average 54% in the European Union, and the 98% of countries like Luxembourg or the Netherlands. With these responses, shown in the Eurobarometer 386, Spain situates itself at the lower end of knowledge of languages, just above Hungary (35%), Italy (38%), the UK and Portugal (39% each), and Ireland (40%) (European Commission 2012a, 16). Nevertheless, there is a 2% increase in the number of persons conversant in at least one foreign language if compared to the 2005 statistics, again not a lot if compared to the up to 16% increases of other countries. Interestingly, when asked about the three most widely known languages other than their mother tongue, the results are as follows: Table 2: The three most known languages other than mother tongue (European Commission 2012a, 21) English

22%

Spanish

16%

Catalan

11%

Two of these languages are not foreign languages in Spain, which may well indicate that the percentage of Spanish people conversant in a foreign language is much lower. Finally, only 18% of respondents from Spain are able to hold a conversation in at least

Spain

619

two languages other than their mother tongue and only 5% in at least three, a poor result once again, if compared to the average result for Europe, where 25% can hold a conversation in at least two foreign languages, and 10% in at least three. However, in contrast with this lack of ability, Spanish people are highly aware of the value of knowing foreign languages, with more than 90% of the population stating that knowing a foreign language is quite or very important (cf. CIS 2010, 7). What, then, are the reasons for the contrast between the awareness of the importance of speaking a foreign language and the actual ability to do so among Spaniards? On the one hand, the very geographical situation of Spain, separated to the north by the Pyrenees from the rest of Europe, and sharing a border with Portugal (↗30 Portugal and Brazil), a country where another Romance language is spoken, and one that is quite similar to Galician, shows that the need to speak a foreign language or the contact with other languages is quite limited. Added to this relative geographical isolation is the fact that historically Spain’s interest has been across the Atlantic rather than towards Europe, and that across the Atlantic Spanish is the main language of communication. This traditional inclination to Latin America (↗29 Peru), due to obvious historical reasons, was further strengthened during the first years of the Franco dictatorship, during which the rest of the world turned its back on a regime that had supported the fascist governments during World War II, even though it had never taken an active part in the conflict (cf. Payne 2008, 315ss.). This isolation has clear implications for foreign language learning. It was only gradually, starting in the 1950s, that the Franco-regime became more accepted on the international scene, and in turn opened up towards Europe. However, it was not till the educational reform of 1970 (LGE) that learning a foreign language became part of the established curriculum of compulsory education, and even then the foreign language was only taught from grades 6 to 8. This means that the older generation in present-day Spain, who had finished their schooling by the time the democratic transition ended in 1978, and, to a certain extent, before the introduction of the educational reforms of the 1980s, had little, if any, foreign language classes at school (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning).2 In fact, when asked in a 2010 survey how much importance language learning had had in the educational system at the time when respondents were ten or twelve years of age, the results show that in the eyes of 79.4% it had little or no importance. Asked about the importance language learning has in the educational system nowadays, the perception changes, but we still find that 41.2% state that it has little or no importance (CIS 2010, 7). This indicates that there has been a noticeable change in the place given to the teaching of foreign languages in the educational system, but it also shows clearly that most of the Spanish population aged 45+ has had little or no access to learning foreign languages during their education, and that even nowadays, if we trust the respondents’

2 For a full account of the role of the foreign languages in the Spanish educational system, cf. Morales Gálvez (2000).

620

Ana Halbach

perceptions, foreign language learning is given too little importance in the educational system. However, with the changed awareness of the importance of foreign language skills reflected in the surveys, and with the increased presence of foreign language teaching (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning) in the educational system (compulsory in primary education since the end of the 1990s, from infant education – international grade – 2 – onwards since 2006), it would be logical to assume that language proficiency would have increased in the younger generation. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as can be seen in the results of the First European Survey on Language Competence (European Commission 2012b)3 where at age 15 (international grade 10), and after about 9 years of learning a first foreign language, more than 50% of students perform at level A1 or below in the three skills tested (reading, listening and writing), thus not having moved past a “beginner’s” level. If we look at the three figures showing the results of the tests we see that these are especially weak in the skill of listening, while writing seems to be the strongest of the three skills tested. In comparison to the other countries surveyed, we find that Spain, identified as “ES” in the diagrams, is consistently placed in the group of the five countries with the lowest foreign language levels. This, once again, begs the question why it is that Spanish people, including the younger generation, consistently show a poorer performance in foreign language than their European peers.

Figure 1: CEFR language levels of European students aged 15 in the skill of reading, cf. Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe (2001)

3 For the Spanish version of this survey, cf. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (2012).

Spain

621

Figure 2: CEFR language levels of European students aged 15 in the skill of listening

Figure 3: CEFR language levels of European students aged 15 in the skill of writing (European Commission 2012b, 37ss.)

3.1 Reasons for Spanish Students’ Difficulties with Languages One of the reasons often given for the difficulty Spanish people experience in learning their first foreign language, which in 98% of the cases is English, is the distance between the mother tongue and the target language. It is intuitively convincing that it is easier to learn a foreign language that shares features with one’s mother tongue,

622

Ana Halbach

and if we look at the results of the Survey (European Commission 2012b) this seems to be confirmed by the fact that all the countries with Romance languages show poor performance in English, the first foreign language, in all cases. Other surveys also seem to confirm this tendency, with countries whose native language stems from a Slavic root and those which stem from Latin sharing the bottom position in the rankings. It could be argued, that there are historical reasons to account for the low language levels of countries such as Poland or Bulgaria, in which Russian is slowly being overtaken by English as the most frequently spoken foreign language, but English has had a strong presence as a foreign language in all the countries with Romance languages. This would, then, confirm the fact that the typological distance between Spanish (↗25 Spanish) and English accounts for Spanish people’s difficulties in learning English as a foreign language. Incidentally, this impression is strengthened by the fact that the results for foreign language learning when this language is French (↗20 French), typologically much closer to Spanish, are much more positive (European Commission 2012b).4 The second reason that is frequently given for the lack of foreign language proficiency in Spain is the fact that, as was mentioned earlier, foreign languages have only been compulsory in the educational system since 1970, and even then only in a very limited fashion. This means that most of the parents of present day youths in Spain do not speak a foreign language (de la Rica/González San Román 2012, 21), which, one can predict, may have a number of consequences on the younger generation’s attitude towards foreign languages. On the one hand, if the older generation does not speak any foreign languages, this may well have an influence on the perceived benefits of learning foreign languages. More likely than this, however, the ability to speak foreign languages will still be seen as something slightly exotic, a rare skill which must be quite difficult to acquire. In fact, when asked about the reasons for not speaking any foreign language, 21% of Spaniards state that “they are not good at languages” (European Commission 2012c). The more natural it is to be able to communicate in a foreign language in any society, the more likely it will be that learning a foreign language is part of the basic skills one acquires in education. A third possible reason is the presence of the foreign language in the learners’ environment. While pop-music in English is as present in Spain as in any other Western country and the use of the Internet and other ICT is widespread, guaranteeing, in principle, a high exposure to English, the presence of this language on TV is much more limited. In Spain, watching films or TV series in the original version is still

4 The reason why these data are not analyzed in greater depth in this chapter is that the results for first and second foreign language learning are not comparable, since the conditions in which they are learnt are too different to allow comparison: the second foreign language is an optional subject in Spain, and, in practice, can only be chosen by students who show good academic results. The number of students who take a second foreign language is also much smaller.

Spain

623

a rare practice,5 even though availability of undubbed films and series has increased considerably in the past years. Research proves that this kind of exposure to the target language by watching TV is the single most influential factor on the rate of incidental language learning.6 However, even without the positive influence of external factors such as undubbed TV programmes or the perception of foreign language competence as a basic skill, students in the Spanish educational system benefit from language classes from a very early age onwards, so it could be assumed that they have enough opportunities to acquire good skills in the foreign language. If this is not the case, there must be reasons for it in the way language teaching is organized and delivered.

3.2 Foreign Language Teaching in the Spanish Educational System Foreign languages are part of the educational curriculum in all the autonomous communities in Spain. In almost all cases the first foreign language taught is English, and the second, starting at international grade 9 (14–15 years), tends to be French. This second foreign language is normally an optional subject which is only chosen by a small proportion of students, around 25%. The starting age of the first foreign language varies slightly, but is generally located during the years of infant education (–3 to −1), even though contact hours with the language are normally few. Teaching the foreign language continues all through primary and secondary education, with a greater dedication in primary if compared to the average in Europe, while in secondary education the average number of hours is lower than in the rest of the European countries (cf. European Commission 2012b). In relation to the time spent outside class studying the language or doing homework, the average for Spanish pupils in secondary education is 3.11 hours/week, which contrasts with the 1.80 hours dedicated by Swedish students (de la Rica/González San Román 2012, 26). We thus find that, while the exposure to the foreign language in the context of school is much higher than average in the case of Spanish students, and while they also dedicate more hours to studying the language outside school, performance is lower than could be expected. Looking at the way in which the foreign language is taught in Spain may help understand this apparent contradiction. If the standing legislation in relation to language teaching is analyzed, we find that Spain firmly embraces a communicative methodology for all the different educational levels. In fact, it has done so ever since

5 Only 24% of respondents to the Eurobarometer (2012c) agree with the statement “You prefer to watch foreign films and programmes with subtitles, rather than dubbed”, while the average rate of agreement with this statement in the EU27 is 44%. 6 The influence of parents’ foreign language level, out-of-school exposure to the foreign language and typological distance between languages has been studied widely, most recently by Lindgren/Muñoz 2013.

624

Ana Halbach

the LOGSE (Ley Orgánica de Ordenación del Sistema Educativo) was passed in 1990.7 However, as pointed out in Halbach (2002) the policies laid down in relation to approaches to teaching are not always paralleled by the methodologies actually used in the language classrooms. Thus, all investigations that are based on the observation of language lessons prove that language teaching in Spain is focused on developing the knowledge of the language rather than its use. In this sense Halbach (2002) and Roldán Tapia et al. (2009) point out that language teaching doesn’t pay attention to all four communicative skills (↗18 Competences, Language Skills and Linguistic Means) and that listening exercises are conspicuously absent from language lessons. Cerezo García, on the other hand, in a large-scale analysis of lessons observed in postcompulsory secondary education, concludes that the teaching she has observed is not communicative (2007, 676, 681). Furthermore, this author also points out that during much of the teaching time the students L1, rather than the foreign language, is used (cf. also Morata/Coyle 2012, 142). The reason, according to the observed teachers themselves, is that students would not understand them otherwise. More likely than not this reflects, however, teachers’ own limitations in the use of the FL as well as their underlying beliefs about how language teaching should be organized. Finally, both Morata/Coyle (2012, 141) and Cerezo García (2007, 681) observe that teaching is eminently teacher-centred (↗15 Language Teacher), with much of the talk done by teachers,8 thus making evident “the teacher’s intention, not explicitly stated but apparent in her language use, of concentrating on developing her students’ knowledge of English grammar and vocabulary, rather than on helping them to communicate in English” (Morata/Coyle 2012, 150). The picture we get, then, is one of clear dissociation between policy (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) and the reality of language teaching in Spain, which raises the question of what lies at the root of this situation. When teachers are asked about their approach to teaching, they often manifest that they embrace the principles of communicative language teaching (↗13 Foreign Language Teaching and Learning), but are unable to put them into practice, first and foremost because the teaching programme mandated by the standing legislation is dense and centres on grammar and vocabulary, i.e. knowledge of the language rather than its use (Morata/Coyle 2012, 150). This perception of a rigid, grammar-focused curriculum is surprising as it contrasts with the standing legislation and is not reflected in the textbooks used in compulsory education (cf. Roldán Tapia et al. 2009). This may indicate that there exists a gap between what teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) say they believe and their own subjective theories of what it means to learn a language. Research tells us that the root of these underlying beliefs is often the teachers’ own

7 The LOE, passed in 2006, works on the same methodological principles as its predecessor the LOGSE. 8 In Morata/Coyle’s (2012) study, the teacher talked for about 85% of the time.

Spain

625

experience as students in language classes which comes to the fore when teachers are placed in the stressful situation of facing a group of not always highly motivated students.9 Unavoidable as this important influence of their own learning experience is, it is not an inescapable fate if teachers are given the opportunity to make this experience conscious and reflect up on it. This opportunity can most easily be provided through teacher training courses, most importantly through pre-service teacher training.

3.3 Language Teacher Training in Spain Most of the teachers in the profession at the moment will have received their training through one of the two routes described below, depending on the level they have been trained to teach (cf. also Sánchez Rial/García Duval 2002). The structure of pre-service training has changed slightly since the implementation of the Bologna process at university level beginning in the academic year 2007–2008, but its effect will only start to be noticeable in schools in a few years’ time, since the newly trained teachers have only started getting into school in the present academic year 2012–2013. In the past, primary foreign language teachers (↗15 Language Teacher) were trained in teacher training colleges, where they took a three-year degree in general primary education with a specialization in the foreign language. Entry level for the foreign language in these colleges was around an A2, and no exit level was required. Training centred on general pedagogical issues and some linguistics and language. Since groups of students used to be rather large and lecturers were not necessarily specialists in the methodology of language teaching, it is reasonable to expect this training to make little difference to trainees’ beliefs and experiences of language learning. With no further training and no induction period into teaching practice, trainees became teachers in primary school at the age of around 21. In the case of secondary school teachers, their degree was in no way related to teaching, as they were students of Philology or Translation who then took a threemonth postgraduate course in teacher training which included general issues such as school organization or tutorial action, as well as one module on the teaching of foreign languages, which in the case of some universities was substituted by a module on teaching language arts, depending on the availability of the necessary trainers. This three-month training programme was complemented with 30-hours’ teaching practice and allowed trainees to enter service, again without an induction period of any kind. Complementing this initial training there is an ample offer of continued teacher training available for teachers in Spain, but most of it is in the form of isolated short

9 It may be interesting to point out in this context that Spain has the second highest school dropout rates in Europe (31.9%) compared to an average of 14.9% in EU27.

626

Ana Halbach

courses on specific topics with little follow-up into actual teaching practice (Imbernón 2007). Looking at the training received, it is hardly surprising to find teachers resorting to their own experience as students for their understanding of both the aim of language teaching and the best procedures to bring it about. Needless to say that the picture painted here is a rough oversimplification and overgeneralization, which does not do justice to the many excellent teachers we can find in our classrooms who have been active in their development as professionals. And yet, the system itself has made these teachers an exception rather than the rule. A further problem for learning languages in Spanish schools is the cyclical nature of Spanish curricula, which means that contents are recycled continuously. This, in principle, positive feature is taken to counterproductive extremes so that for English language learning, for example, this means that textbooks for all student groups will start with a unit on the use of the verb “to be”, albeit in different degrees of detail. This constant recycling means that progression is slowed down, as becomes apparent when we see that textbooks in the first year of compulsory secondary education (year 7), after students have had English lessons for six years in primary education and possibly a further two or three years in infant education, are aimed at level A1, and four years later, in the first year of non-compulsory secondary education (year 11), they target levels A1-A2.

3.4 New Developments in Language Teaching Fortunately, not everything is as bleak in the field of language teaching in Spain as it may seem from the description up to this point. In fact, conscious about the great importance of promoting language learning among its population, among others for obvious economic reasons, many regional governments have developed initiatives to foster foreign language learning, and have made considerable funds available to finance them. Most prominent among these is the teaching of content subjects through the medium of a foreign language, known as CLIL in the European context, which means that “Spain is rapidly becoming one of the European leaders in CLIL practice and research” (Coyle 2010, viii). Following the lead of the collaboration programme between the Spanish Ministry of Education and the British Council for teaching an integrated Spanish-British curriculum in state-schools across the country established in 1996 (cf. Reilly/Medrano 2009), a number of different bilingual programmes (↗11 Bilingual Education) have been created in different autonomous regions, always adapting to the linguistic situation in each autonomy.10 Much of this effort centres on primary and secondary education, but some of the programmes

10 It is difficult to summarize the exact shape of each of these programmes, but some interesting accounts of research and practice can be found in Lasagabaster/Ruiz de Zarobe (2010) and Ruiz de Zarobe/Sierra/Gallardo del Puerto (2011).

Spain

627

already start at the level of infant education, and some teaching through the medium of a foreign language can also be found at the university level. These latter programmes are often geared towards attracting foreign students, but still constitute a good opportunity for Spanish university students to improve their foreign language level. Table 3: Students in CLIL programmes in Spain during the academic year 2010–2011 (Ministerio de Educación 2013, E3.1) Total

Primary

Secondary

Post-compulsory secondary education

338.155

242.349 (10.5%)

89.011 (5.9%)

5.980 (1.1%)

As can be seen from Table 3, participation in these kind of programmes is fairly widespread, enough so to make a difference in the linguistic profile of youngsters in Spain. With some of the participants in these programmes having now completed compulsory education, it seems that this kind of initiative is favouring a qualitative jump both in the levels of language achieved (cf. Lasagabaster 2008) and in the attitudes towards language learning and use (cf. Lasagabaster/Sierra 2009). However, even in this highly promising educational initiative, success will only be sustainable if appropriate teacher training provision is created, and teachers are given opportunities to develop and adjust their subjective theories of teaching to make them suitable for this more pragmatic and communication-centred way of learning languages (cf., for example, Muñoa Barredo 2011, 303). The other positive factor is the state-funded language schools which are not a new creation, but whose popularity has soared in the past years. The importance of this kind of language teaching provision resides in the fact that they cater for students after compulsory education, and often offer adults who had restricted access to language teaching an opportunity to improve their language skills. These schools therefore work with students who voluntarily decide to improve their language skills, which means that motivation rates are likely to be higher than in compulsory education. Furthermore, in this system there is a clear progression built into the curriculum, with the different courses being matched to the levels of the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001), and with students having to pass an end-of-year level test in order to be able to progress to the next level. The teachers, for their part, have received little more training than their counterparts in the state-school system, but since the access to this kind of teaching post is much more restricted, only the better students, and the teachers with higher language skills, stand a real chance of teaching in the official language schools. The combination of all these different factors make these official language schools a successful institution, and one that contributes quite considerably to helping the Spanish population improve their language skills. It may be interesting to note, finally, that in spite of the great dominance of the English language, these

628

Ana Halbach

schools offer teaching in other languages too, with a noticeable degree of acceptance, as is reflected in the statistics for the academic year 2010–2011: Table 4: Number of students and languages studied at the official language schools (Ministerio de Educación 2013, E2.1) English

French

German

Other languages

292.257

64.707

39.843

33.467

In parallel with this state-funded provision of language teaching, all the major languages have an important presence through cultural representations such as the Goethe Institut, the British Council, etc. Most universities have their own language centres, and there is an ample choice of private language schools in Spain which offer language lessons with varying degrees of quality. This varied and rich choice of language training gives rise, at some points, to interesting initiatives such as the Vaughan System, a wilful blend of audio-lingual and grammar-translation approaches to teaching (Romero Navarro 2013) created by Richard Vaughan. This system has been developed during the past thirty years or so, and now includes a wide variety of teaching modes, from business English courses, to radio and TV programmes, intensive courses and the creation of various pueblo inglés (English village) where participants spend a week immersed in an English speaking context, all in the middle of Spain.

4 Conclusion As I hope to have shown in the preceding paragraphs, Spain is an interesting country in terms of language. Not only do four official languages co-exist in its territory, not without certain tensions and rivalries, but there are also many other languages spoken by large numbers of immigrants, most of whom arrived in Spain during the first decade of the 21st century. Accommodating this variety, and assuring each language its own space without therefore excluding the others, is a challenge for years to come. With the policies of protection of the co-official languages and the neglect of the immigrants’ first language in the public sphere we face the risk of language variety being sacrificed to the dominance of one language over another. It remains to be seen what this means for the place of Spanish as the one common language of all people in Spain. As regards the skill of communicating in a foreign language, the situation is changing very quickly indeed. Not only are Spanish people aware of the importance of foreign languages, but they are also prepared to invest a great amount of money and effort to make up for the time lost in previous generations. Bilingual education (CLIL) changes the attitude to language learning, reinforcing the role of language as a tool to communicate, rather than as an object of study (↗11 Bilingual Education).

Spain

629

Other initiatives also pave the way for better language levels and, combined with the increased social presence of, at least, English, will probably make it possible that most of the next generation will have some knowledge of a foreign language, which, in turn, will have a positive influence on their children. These new generations, used to using the language rather than studying it, will surely bring this experience to the classroom so that it may well be that in a few years’ time teaching methodologies for both mother tongue and foreign language teaching will start to change. If, in addition to this, teacher training is also improved, Spain will finally be able to leave the group of countries whose population is almost illiterate in foreign languages. However, in the context of the present economic crisis and its corresponding cuts, and with education still more focused on memorizing than on developing skills of any nature, the positive developments we are observing may still not be enough to catch up with countries in which the debate does not centre any more on fostering the knowledge of a first foreign language. Most of our European partners are focusing on policies (↗3 Language Policy, Management and Planning) to assure the knowledge of more than one foreign language, and in countries like Sweden or Finland knowing English constitutes a basic rather than additional skill. This leaves Spain in a situation of promising developments in the light of its own history, but still probably not being able to quite catch up with other countries. And yet, Spain is moving in the right direction, a fact that in itself merits some optimism.

5 Bibliography Alcalde Campos, Rosalina (2008), Los programas de actuación educativa orientados al alumnado de origen extranjero: ¿Modelos de atención a la diversidad cultural o a la igualdad educativa?, Revista de Educación 345, 207–228. Burgueño, Jesús (2002), El mapa escondido: Las lenguas de España, Boletín de la A.G.E. 34, 171–192. Carabaña, Julio (2007), El aprendizaje de los alumnos inmigrantes. Ponencia del Curso La escolarización de los inmigrantes. Cursos de Verano de la Universidad Complutense, El Escorial, 6–10 agosto. Cerezo García, Lourdes (2007), Investigación sobre la relación entre las directrices curriculares relativas a la enseñanza de la lengua inglesa y su aplicación en el aula (1ºBachillerato), PhD dissertation, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia, http://www.tesisenred.net/ TDR-0114109-114314 (05.09.2013). CIS (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas) (2010), Barómetro de febrero, http://www.cis.es/cis/ opencms/-Archivos/Marginales/2820_2839/2830/es2830.pdf (05.09.2013). Cots, Josep Maria, et al. (2007), La conciencia lingüística en la enseñanza de las lenguas, Barcelona, Editorial GRAÓ. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Coyle, Do (2010), Foreword, in: David Lasagabaster/Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (edd.), CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, vii–viii.

630

Ana Halbach

De la Rica, Sara/González San Román, Ainara (2012), Determinantes del rendimiento académico en competencia inglesa en España. Claves para la mejora, in: Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (ed.), Estudio europeo de competencia lingüística, EECL, vol. II: Análisis de expertos, Madrid, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 12–29. España, Ley 14/1970, de 4 de agosto, General de Educación (LGE). España, Ley 1/1990 de 3 de octubre, Orgánica de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo (LOGSE). España, Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOE). European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, Directorate-General for Translation and Directorate-General for Interpretation and co-ordinated by Directorate-General for Communication (2006), Special Eurobarometer 243. Europeans and their Languages, http://ec. europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf (05.09.2013). European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, Directorate-General for Translation and Directorate-General for Interpretation and co-ordinated by Directorate-General for Communication (2012a), Special Eurobarometer 386. Europeans and their Languages, http://ec. europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf (05.09.2013). European Commission (2012b), First European Survey on Language Competence, http://ec.europa. eu/languages/eslc/docs/en/final-report-escl_en.pdf (05.09.2013). European Commission (2012c), Eurobarometer 77.1. Results for Spain, http://ec.europa.eu/public_ opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_fact_es_en.pdf (05.09.2013). García Castaño, Francisco Javier/Rubio Gómez, María/Bouachra, Ouafa (2008), Población inmigrante y escuela en España: un balance de Investigación, Revista de educación 345, 23–60. Halbach, Ana (2002), Developing secondary students’ communicative competence: Politics and reality, Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 3, 49–68. Imbernón, Francisco (2007), Diez ideas clave. La formación permanente del profesorado. Nuevas ideas para formar en la innovación y el cambio, Barcelona, Graó. Instituto Nacional de Evaluación y Calidad del Sistema Educativo (2004), Resultados en Educación Primaria: resultados en Lengua Castellana, http://www.ince.mec.es (05.09.2013). Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (ed.) (2012), Estudio europeo de competencia lingüística, EECL, vol. II: Análisis de expertos, Madrid, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Lasagabaster, David (2008), Foreign Language Competence in Content and Language Integrated Courses, The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1, 31–42. Lasagabaster, David/Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda (edd.) (2010), CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lasagabaster, David/Sierra, Juan Manuel (2009), Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL Classes, International CLIL Research Journal 1/2, http://www.icrj.eu/12/article1.html (05.09.2013). Lindgren, Eva/Muñoz, Carmen (2013), The influence of exposure, parents and linguistic distance on young European learners’ foreign language comprehension, International Journal of Multilingualism 10/1, 105–129. López García, Ángel (2009), La lengua común en la España plurilingüe, Madrid, Iberoamericana. Ministerio de Educación (2011), Las cifras de la educación en España. Estadísticas e indicadores. Edición 2011, Madrid, Secretaría General Técnica. Ministerio de Educación (2013), Las cifras de la educación en España. Estadísticas e indicadores. Edición 2013, Madrid, Secretaría General Técnica. Miquel, Lourdes (2003), Consideraciones sobre la enseñanza de español lengua extranjera a inmigrantes, http://www.proyectoafri.es/clases/archivodigital/taller_didactica_ele/La_ensenanza_ espanol_Miquel.pdf (05.09.2013). Morales Gálvez, Carmen (2000), Enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras en España, Madrid, Secretaría General Técnica del Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.

Spain

631

Morata, Marisa/Coyle, Yvette (2012), Teaching English through Spanish: A Secondary School Teachers’s Language Choices in the Foreign Language, Porta Linguarum 17, 133–152. Muñoa Barredo, Inmaculada (2011), Key Factors to be considered by CLIL teachers, in: Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe/Juan Manuel Sierra/Francisco Gallardo del Puerto (edd.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts, Bern, Lang, 293–314. Navarro Romero, Betsabé (2013), Descriptive Analysis of Vaughan Systems, Assets and Pitfalls of an Audiolingual Method, Porta Linguarum 19, 113–128. Payne, Stanley G. (2008), España. Una historia única, Madrid, Ediciones Temas de Hoy. Reilly, Teresa/Medrano, Pilar (2009), MEC/British Council Bilingual Project: Twelve years of education and a smooth transition into secondary, in: Emma Dafouz/Michele Guerrini (edd.), CLIL across Educational Levels, Madrid, Richmond, 73–88. Ribas Seix, Teresa (2010), Presentación, in: Anna Camps i Mundó et al. (edd.), Libros de texto y enseñanza de la gramática, Barcelona, Editorial Graó, 7–12. Roldán Tapia, Antonio R., et al. (2009), Adecuación de los libros de texto al Marco Común Europeo de Referencia para las Lenguas (MCERL), Porta Linguarum 11, 189–206. Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda/Sierra, Juan Manuel/ Gallardo del Puerto, Francisco (edd.) (2011), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts, Bern, Lang. Sánchez Rial, Montserrat/García Duval, Fátima María (2002), EFL initial teacher education for primary and secondary schools in Spain, Cauce: Revista de filología y su didáctica 25, 281–300. Sierra, Juan Manuel/Lasagabaster, David (2005), Introducción: ¿Qué ocurre en las aulas multilingües y multiculturales? ¿Cómo se puede sacar el máximo provecho de esta experiencia educativa?, in: David Lasagabaster/Juan Manuel Sierra (edd.), Multilingüismo, competencia lingüística y nuevas tecnologías, Barcelona, Horsori Editorial, 7–28. Siguán, Miquel (1992), España plurilingüe, Madrid, Alianza Editorial. Trujillo Sáez, Fernando (2007), Enseñar nuevas lenguas en la escuela: Ll, L2, LE.., NL, Revista de educación 343, 71–92.

Index Académie française 64, 513, 514 Acadian 495, 496, 508, 509 – Acadian French 495, 509 acculturation theory (see: theory) AF (see: Alliance française) affect 125, 183, 294, 308, 309, 310, 312–319, 485 affective factor 183, 308, 310, 312–314 Africa 65, 74, 82, 202, 372, 377, 380, 381, 383, 391, 392, 415, 477, 482, 535, 536, 573 agreement 107, 114–116, 135, 173, 174, 247, 364, 365, 428, 457, 468, 580 Algeria 56, 376, 377, 380, 383 Alliance française (AF) 371, 378, 384, 413, 501, 584 alloglott speaker 529 Andorra 346, 349, 368, 415, 613 aspiration 360, 362 attitude 24, 63, 76, 77, 152, 183, 192, 227, 247, 279, 293–295, 308, 310, 312, 314–318, 326, 381, 441, 559, 574, 581, 622 audiolingual method (see: method) audiovisual – audio-visual comprehension 331 – audiovisual method 25, 268 Ausbausprache 59, 62 autonomous learner (see: learner) Aymara 76, 476, 560, 565 basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) 207, 210, 381, 382 Basque 57, 214, 477, 515, 516, 520, 613, 615 behavio(u)rism 25, 143, 148, 153, 155, 183, 268 belief 50, 52, 78, 155, 158, 159, 220, 221, 277, 279, 294, 296, 297, 304, 312, 315, 316, 319, 326, 480, 624 Benelux 373 BICS (see: basic interpersonal communicative skills) bilingual – bilingual education 94, 198–200, 204, 205, 208, 214 – bilingual nonagon 209 – bilingual speaker 198, 473, 531, 545, 562, 574 – bilingual upbringing 200, 211, 212 – early bilingual 203, 205, 225

bilingualism 18, 56, 65, 94, 198–208, 210–214, 217, 220, 285, 376, 439, 478, 499, 502, 508, 555, 564, 582, 583, 617 – semibilingualism 220 – social bilingualism 213, 476 brain 17, 18, 23, 26, 27, 106, 108, 109, 115, 144–146, 148, 183, 192, 201, 202, 237 Brazil 391, 412–415, 417–421, 427–430, 476, 479–481, 488, 558, 572, 575–579, 583, 585 CALP (see: cognitive academic language proficiency) Canada 60, 75, 374, 375, 378, 383, 391, 415, 495–510, 595 Canadian French (see: French) Castilian 51, 53, 57, 76, 77, 230, 256, 345, 366, 475, 482, 558, 559, 561–567, 613–615 Catalan 53, 54, 76, 77, 218, 230, 345–369, 477, 516, 533, 613, 618 – central Catalan 351, 352, 358, 360 Catanyolish 366 CEFR (see: Common European Framework for Languages) child 17, 18, 60, 63, 70, 72–83, 91, 96, 98, 123–138, 143–159, 162–175, 179–184, 200, 202–214, 225, 375, 419, 435–441, 487, 539, 547 – child development 124, 152 – child language 70, 124, 132, 204, 242, 246 Chinese – Mandarin Chinese 353, 361, 363, 412, 472 clarté française 514 classroom 23, 32–34, 36, 42, 74, 96, 189, 218, 237–239, 249, 250, 282–284, 287, 310, 314–319, 329, 335, 379, 418, 430, 474, 477, 515, 521–523, 565, 583, 617, 624, 626 CLIL (see: content and language integrated learning) clitic 133, 185, 358, 400, 405, 457, 464–468 co-official language (see: language) code-switching 73, 77, 78, 82, 397, 438, 440, 449 cognition 125, 153, 155, 308–320 cognitive – cognitive process 155, 244, 318, 319 – cognitive processing 330, 331, 333, 339

Index

cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) 207, 209, 210, 381, 382 Common European Framework for Languages (CEFR) 229, 232, 239, 281, 285, 319, 326–328, 336, 339, 372, 373, 620, 621, 627 communicative – communicative approach 25, 279, 286, 378, 404, 561 – communicative competence 69, 70, 72, 73 – communicative turn 93 competence (see: orientation toward competencies) – communicative competence 69, 70, 72, 73 – didactic competence 283 – intercultural competence 226, 274, 284, 319, 335 – sociolinguistic competence 327, 328, 500, 501 construction 24, 32, 39, 69, 74, 79, 82, 87, 88, 90, 95, 99, 114, 116, 123–128, 130–134, 138, 168, 180, 185, 189, 221, 224, 241, 242, 248, 252, 268, 279, 281, 292, 296, 299–301, 309, 314, 329, 332, 336, 337, 364, 373, 374, 405, 406, 408, 420, 428, 461, 468, 514, 576 constructivism 26, 144, 153, 155, 241, 302, 309, 488 content and language integrated learning (CLIL) 284, 378, 381–383, 446, 538, 548, 574, 587, 589, 614, 626–628 content/subject matter 236 core French (see: French) course book 256–258, 260–263, 266, 267 co-verbal gestures 124, 133, 135, 137 critical period 24, 144–146, 183 cultural – cultural knowledge 69–74, 279, 280 – cultural practices 71, 214, 298, 304, 333 – cultural values 73, 78, 79 curriculum 206, 208, 209, 223, 238, 239, 241, 256–258, 260, 263, 264, 266–268, 278, 281, 286, 335, 381, 437, 439, 442, 445, 446, 448, 515, 519, 538, 544, 547, 550, 565, 566, 568, 582, 600, 604, 615, 616, 618, 623, 624, 626, 627 data analysis – qualitative data analysis 43, 45, 46 – quantative data analysis 41, 43 data coding 34

633

deconstructivist concept 90 DEL2/DEL3 (see: discipline enseignée en langue 2/3) descriptive research (see: research) developing system 189, 190 dialect 38, 40, 52, 57–59, 61, 62, 73, 77, 111, 199, 203, 218, 318, 330, 346, 347, 350, 377, 390, 391, 393–399, 402, 407, 409, 447, 452, 461, 475, 479, 516, 529–533, 535, 542–550, 556, 557, 560, 574, 595, 597 dialectalization 57–60 diary 41 didactic competence (see: competence) diglossia 41, 55, 56, 60, 219, 377, 396, 397, 532, 536 direct method (see: method) discipline enseignée en langue 2/3 (DEL2/DEL3) 198, 206–210 discourse 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 56, 66, 69, 73, 89–91, 93, 97, 105, 106, 112–115, 130, 135, 157, 189, 193, 227, 247, 279, 292, 297, 299, 308, 328, 330, 334, 336, 377, 379, 382, 408, 421, 452, 453, 487, 500, 501, 510, 573, 577, 607 double object expression 451 early bilingual (see: bilingual) educación intercultural bilingüe 559, 564, 565, 569 education 32, 55, 59, 60, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 181, 198–200, 204–211, 213, 214, 217–220, 222–231, 237, 252, 257, 258, 261–265, 274–287, 291–296, 299, 309, 311, 319, 328, 349, 369, 371, 372, 375–377, 381, 382, 385, 395, 402, 403, 433–435, 437–448, 454, 473, 474, 476, 477, 480, 485, 489, 497, 500–505, 508–510, 514, 515, 518–522, 525, 539, 541, 544, 545, 547, 555–557, 559–569, 573, 575, 577–584, 586, 587, 589, 594, 595, 598–609, 615, 616, 619, 620, 623–629 educational – educational endeavour 291, 304 – educational environment 239, 475 edulinguistics 207 emergentist – emergentist approach 103 – emergentist position 108, 109 emigration 63, 376, 391, 392, 396, 438, 505, 535, 576, 603

634

Index

emotion 71, 90, 95, 199, 203, 205, 294, 308–316, 318, 319, 333, 335, 338 empiricism 148, 153 endangered language (see: language) English 20, 46, 51, 52, 55, 56, 60, 64, 75, 79, 82, 89, 95–98, 105, 167, 168, 182, 184, 187, 188, 198, 202, 208, 209, 211, 219, 225–228, 230–232, 243, 247, 250, 264–267, 277, 285, 312, 317, 326, 332, 345, 350, 352–356, 359–369, 371, 372, 374, 376, 383–385, 392, 393, 395, 406, 412, 413 417, 421, 423–428, 430, 435, 436, 442, 443, 445, 463, 472, 475, 478–480, 483–487, 496, 497, 500–506, 508–510, 518–521, 523, 525, 530 536, 548–550, 562, 568, 573, 574, 585–587, 596, 602–607, 613, 615, 618, 621–624, 626–629 enrol(l)ment 403, 404, 413, 414, 416 environment – heteroglossic environment 474, 475, 478, 479, 482 – homoglossic environment 474, 475, 476, 478, 479, 482 environmentalist theory (see: theory) Equatorial Guinea 482 Eritrea 391 essentializing concept 88, 90 Ethiopia 391 ethnography 41, 70, 287 European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages 219, 435 European Union 218, 219, 281, 415, 452, 455, 516, 595, 607, 618 experimental research (see: research) explicit – explicit learning 167, 171, 186, 194 – explicit teaching 109, 162, 173–175, 514 external factor 143, 144, 148, 153, 155, 156, 159, 183, 193, 194, 380, 623 false friend 229, 231, 367 final obstruent devoicing 353, 357 foreign language – foreign language learner 473 – foreign language learning 19, 25, 26, 87, 93, 217, 228, 231, 237, 249, 252, 260, 309, 312–314, 319, 331, 403, 513–515, 518, 519, 525, 529, 574, 589, 603, 619, 620, 622, 626

– foreign language proficiency 239, 332, 622 – foreign language strategy 21 – foreign language teaching 22, 93, 200, 228, 232, 237–252, 256, 257, 259–263, 267–269, 275, 277, 283, 285, 309–311, 334, 338, 404, 519, 541, 556, 599, 603, 614, 620, 623 Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FRePA) 218, 229, 320 France 58, 73, 75, 76, 82, 200, 202, 204, 206, 210, 236, 257, 258, 260–262, 266–268, 286, 345, 346, 349, 372–377, 384, 414, 415, 421, 455, 482, 503–505, 509, 513–526, 584, 585, 595, 613 Franco-Ontarian 497, 505, 507, 508 Francophonie 372, 383 French 20, 22, 57, 59–61, 72, 74–80, 87, 98, 128, 133, 163–166, 168–175, 184, 200, 208, 219, 230, 242, 247, 255–260, 263–268, 276, 280, 295, 316, 317, 326, 337, 358, 372–385, 393, 403, 417, 423, 430, 483, 495–510, 514–527, 533, 540, 543, 545, 548, 568, 584–588 – Acadian French 495, 509 – Canadian French 498, 500, 510 – core French 498–500 – Quebec French/Québécois French 503, 504 French-German treaties 518 FRePA (see: Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures) Friulian 393, 395, 433–437, 448, 532–534 functionalist approach 104, 105, 114, 124 Galician 58, 419, 477, 613, 617, 619 generative – generative approach 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 113, 114 – generative grammar 153, 159 – generative theory 150 gesture 123–129, 133, 135–138, 293, 334 grammar-translation method (see: method) Grisons 433, 434, 442, 444, 445, 448, 449, 541 grounded theory (see: theory) harmonizing 457 heritage language (see: language) heteroglossic environment (see: environment) homoglossic environment (see: environment)

Index

identity 24, 74, 76, 77, 82, 87–99, 110, 154, 198, 199, 204, 212–214, 221, 224, 282, 291–293, 297, 298, 304, 368, 377, 381, 437, 479, 530, 538, 560, 585, 608 – identity hypothesis 21 immersion 201, 206–208, 213, 285, 327, 375, 379, 380, 383, 446, 477, 487–489, 495, 499–502, 505, 507–510 immigration 81, 218, 219, 223–225, 392, 403, 477, 498, 529, 532, 535, 539, 576, 595 – immigration language / language of immigration 219, 435, 585 implicit – implicit learning 185, 186 indigenous language (see: language) individual-learner 291 Indochina 376 innatist theory (see: theory) input 36, 105, 108, 113–115, 123–126, 134–138, 157, 180–194, 241, 283, 301, 404 – input processing 103, 106, 107, 116, 117, 180 Institut Français 219, 275 Instituto Camões 275, 415, 416 Instituto Cervantes 275, 276, 349, 413, 584, 617 instruction 78, 81, 96, 98, 99, 166, 179, 180, 186–188, 193, 207, 208, 210, 225, 231, 237, 255–257, 261, 309, 391, 394, 497, 499, 500, 513, 539, 561, 601, 604, 615 intake 179, 180, 188, 189, 232 interactionism 143, 155 interactionist theory (see: theory) intercomprehension 57, 217, 228–232, 256, 315, 332, 382, 574, 587 intercultural – intercultural communication 223, 226, 227, 228, 276, 279, 284, 319, 335, 336, 339 – intercultural competence 226, 274, 284, 319, 335 – intercultural education/intercultural language learning 87, 88, 93, 200, 225, 229, 311, 556, 564, 565, 567, 579 interculturality 217, 559, 585, 617 interlanguage 21, 132, 179, 180, 185, 189, 191, 230, 309, 314, 379 internal factors 143, 144, 156, 159, 194 international language (see: international) interview 24, 41–43, 73, 95, 318, 334, 586 intonation 162, 229, 293, 329, 338, 362

635

Istria 530, 545–549 Italian 51, 57, 62, 73, 76, 80, 96, 109, 164, 168, 218, 224, 230, 231, 255–259, 263, 265–268, 277, 280, 345, 346, 364, 390–409, 413, 414, 427, 430, 433–439, 441–449, 455, 518–524, 529–550, 562, 568, 585, 596, 600, 602–605, 613 – neostandard Italian 399 – regional Italian 399, 404, 407, 531, 535, 549 – standard Italian 76, 80, 395, 398, 399, 404, 407, 543, 548 Italy 73, 76, 77, 80, 82, 224, 255–258, 263, 264, 266, 268, 269, 345, 391–409, 415, 433, 435, 437, 438, 444, 455, 474, 529–550, 595, 605, 618 Ladin 224, 393, 395, 398, 433–444, 447–449, 533, 540 language – co-official language 218, 377, 391, 497, 585, 595, 613, 615, 616, 628 – endangered language 442–444, 446, 448, 535 – heritage language 63, 75, 94, 219, 275, 415, 430, 479, 484–487, 489, 497 – immigration language / language of immigration 219, 435, 585 – indigenous language 54, 75, 80, 81, 222, 416, 555–557, 559–569, 573, 577, 578 – international language 199, 372, 377, 413, 472, 476, 486, 489, 568 – language of origin 99, 225 – language of schooling 285, 617 – minority language 56, 59, 94, 206, 218, 219, 223, 368, 391, 398, 433, 435–437, 443, 445, 447, 448, 452, 498, 510, 532, 534, 538, 547–550, 599–604, 615 – mother language 472, 473, 483, 598, 600–603 – oral language 162, 164, 213 – pro-drop language 427, 460, 465 – regional language 76, 198, 200, 206, 223, 398, 514–516, 520, 521, 530, 536, 549, 614 – schooling language 371–374, 376, 377, 381–384 – spoken language 50, 162, 166, 201, 240, 279, 285, 401, 402, 404, 408, 412, 422, 427, 444, 451, 461, 572, 573 – stress-timed language 359 – syllable-timed language 359 language adoption 537

636

Index

language awareness 63, 225, 226, 336, 339, 442, 616 language contact 53, 440, 441, 549 language development 17, 57, 58, 78, 123, 124, 125, 143, 149, 153, 155, 156, 159, 162, 188, 202, 203, 214, 381 language education 55, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 198, 219, 222, 227–229, 285, 328, 372, 376, 381, 382, 384, 445, 497, 502, 509, 521, 544, 555, 567, 583, 603 language learner 41, 94, 95, 183, 291, 297, 304, 316, 429, 473, 498, 507, 510, 513 language learning 19, 23–26, 32, 74, 87, 88, 93–99, 108, 110, 147, 152, 191, 205, 207, 217, 221, 223, 227–231, 237, 241, 241, 248, 249, 252, 260, 269, 275, 279, 281, 293, 297, 299, 304, 309, 310, 312, 314, 315, 317–319, 325, 331, 337–339, 378, 403, 419, 456. 469, 513–515, 517–519, 525, 529, 530, 561, 574, 587, 589, 593, 601, 603, 607, 617, 619, 620, 622, 623, 625–628 language learning policy 518 language learning theory 221, 249 language management 50, 63 language minoritization 57 language minority 533 language planning 50, 51, 54, 56, 64, 285 language policy 50–56, 65, 96, 97, 219, 222, 224, 265, 280, 371, 372, 375, 447, 453, 495, 538, 549, 550, 556, 568, 578–580, 585, 600 language reform 62, 267, 268 language restoration 57, 60, 61 language shift 56, 60, 75–77 language skill 123, 245, 269, 274, 280, 284, 325, 404, 418, 419, 500, 517, 534, 536, 539, 548, 549, 618, 620, 627 language socialization 69–83, 292 language standardization 61, 62, 65 language teacher 207, 257, 258, 260, 261, 267, 274–287, 312, 316, 319, 454, 517, 525, 548, 608, 617, 625 language teaching 22, 23, 35, 42, 60, 93, 180, 181, 193, 200, 218, 223, 228, 232, 236–252, 255–262, 267–269, 274–287, 291, 292, 308–311, 327, 333, 334, 338, 378, 402, 404, 435, 437, 441, 448, 473, 517–522, 538, 541, 545, 555, 561, 563, 599, 603, 613, 616, 617, 620, 623–629 language tutor 255, 257, 260, 261, 266

language-culture complex 69, 72–74, 78–80, 83 learner – autonomous learner 25 – learner autonomy 226, 269, 284, 309, 315, 318, 336 – learner orientation 310, 311 – learner-centredness 308 learning – learning process 22–25, 87, 94, 98, 132, 167, 194, 229. 230, 237, 240, 244, 246, 251, 269, 274, 278, 291–293, 296–303, 309, 314, 315, 318, 339, 381, 419, 430, 462, 464, 469, 470, 578 – learning unit 239–241, 245, 249, 251 letter knowledge 166–168 lexical unit 169, 338, 358, 359, 363 lexicogrammar 251 lexis 329, 337, 338, 452 linguistic – linguistic community 472, 473 – linguistic competence 70, 73, 79, 198, 239, 240, 279, 328, 338, 339, 409, 439–441, 446, 485, 604 – linguistic means 236, 239, 246, 248–251, 325, 327 – linguistic policy 212 listening 203, 217, 227, 239, 251, 252, 283, 316, 325, 329–334, 338, 362, 455, 500, 523, 620, 621, 624 longitudinal research (see: research) Luxembourg 88, 96–99, 200, 227, 266, 374, 415, 618 Luxembourgish (Lëtzebuergesch) 96–98 Maghreb 377 Mandarin Chinese (see: Chinese) mediation 167, 168, 300, 328, 329, 336, 339 metacognition 314, 318 method – audiolingual method 25, 252, 268, 561, 628 – audiovisual method 25, 268 – direct method 25, 268 – grammar-translation method 25, 261, 262, 266, 267, 515 Mexico 75, 79, 81, 403, 476, 477, 481, 484 migration 63, 75, 77, 79, 92, 218, 219, 223–226, 375, 376, 384, 391–393, 403, 435, 454, 455, 487, 488, 505, 517, 529, 535–537, 557, 558, 576, 584, 595, 603, 614

Index

minority language (see: language) Moldova 51, 393, 452, 453, 455, 595, 596, 603, 609 Moldovan 452, 453 monitor theory (see: theory) monolingualism 56, 199, 219–221, 544, 555 morphology 107, 112, 113, 134, 135, 165, 172–174, 240, 332, 451, 465, 468 mother language (see: language) motivation 21, 24, 63, 70, 158, 191, 192, 203, 227, 228, 247, 252, 302, 310, 312–316, 318–320, 326, 335 multiculturalism 555, 577 multilingualism/multilingual 55, 56, 63, 73, 87, 88, 95–98, 218, 220, 222–227, 377, 378, 381, 382 multiple language acquisition 529 multiword speech 130, 131 Nahuatl 476 nativism 144, 150, 153 neostandard Italian (see: Italian) null-subject 105, 113–116 objective 156, 157, 205, 207, 222, 223, 226, 228, 236–240, 283–285, 302, 375, 385, 485–487, 517, 519, 564–568, 616 observational research (see: research) OIF (see: Organisation internationale de la Francophonie) one person – one language 198, 211, 212 oral language (see: language) Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) 372, 377 orientation toward competencies 217 orthographic lexicon 162, 168, 171 orthography 163, 165, 166, 170, 250, 338, 422, 425, 426, 455, 456 output 39, 107, 108, 110, 114–117, 179–181, 188–191 palatalization 457, 463, 509 parameter 103, 111, 113, 115, 116, 157, 184, 241 pedagogical content knowledge 278 Peru 476, 555–569 phoneme-grapheme correspondences 162, 252 phonetic alternation 451 phonetics 268, 421, 617 phonological awareness 162, 167

637

phonology 106, 145, 162, 166–171, 240, 351, 353, 357, 421, 425, 452, 455 pilot testing 39, 42 PLE (see: português língua estrangeira) plurilingual education 210, 214, 217–232, 285 plurilingualism 199, 201, 311, 315, 381, 572, 574, 585, 587 pointing gesture 127, 128, 136, 137 policy (see: language policy) portfolio 24, 96, 226, 229, 283, 284, 446, 598 Portugal 58, 60, 82, 264, 412, 415–417, 419, 423, 427–429, 572–589 português língua estrangeira (PLE) 412 Portuguese 57, 60, 76, 98, 168, 231, 280, 403, 412–430, 479, 480, 484, 519–521, 542, 572–589, 603 – Portuguese for Spanish Speakers 412 Portuñol 480 poverty of the stimulus 105, 184 pragmatics 40, 46, 145, 155, 157, 279 pre-linguistic 125, 127–129, 136, 138, 153 primary school (see: school) primate 144, 147, 148 processability theory (see: theory) pro-drop language (see: language) pronunciation 20, 78, 229, 250, 252, 259, 268, 329, 338, 351–353, 366, 421–425, 455, 456, 509, 557 psycholinguistics 153, 179–181, 198, 203, 241, 277, 332, 382 qualitative data analysis (see: data analysis) quantative data analysis (see: data analysis) Quebec 56, 60, 374, 375, 383, 455, 495, 498–510 – Quebec French/Québécois French 503, 504 Quechua 476, 555–569 questione della lingua 394 questionnaire 31, 34, 41, 265, 281, 284, 311, 316 reading 63, 162–172, 217, 221, 231, 232, 239, 250–252, 259–261, 280, 283, 329, 332, 333, 335, 338, 381, 488, 500, 523, 583, 588, 616, 620 – reading literacy 278 – reading time 42, 106 Rede Brasil Cultural 413, 415, 416 regional – regional Italian 399, 404, 407, 531, 535, 549

638

Index

– regional language 76, 198, 200, 206, 223, 398, 514–516, 520, 521, 530, 536, 549, 614 research – descriptive research 35 – experimental research 35, 36, 157 – longitudinal research 33, 41, 124, 167, 172, 185, 487, 537 – observational research 31, 33–35, 41 – research method 31–47 – research question 31–34, 43, 45, 207, 287 restandardization 390, 402, 407, 409 reversing language shift 60 Rhaeto-Romanic 434–449, 541 Romani 454, 547 Romania 391, 393, 451, 452, 455, 576, 593–610 Romanian 403, 451–470, 535, 546 Romansh 393, 433, 444–447 scaffolding 105, 123, 125, 130, 138, 156, 298–300, 303 school – primary school 96, 98, 208, 226, 435–437, 439–443, 445, 477, 479, 519, 520, 540, 546, 548, 582, 586, 606, 625 – secondary school 98, 200, 207, 230, 260, 262–267, 375, 376, 395, 414, 435, 446, 477, 479, 505, 520, 547, 548, 568, 582, 584, 587, 601, 604, 609, 625 schooling language (see: language) secondary school (see: school) self 87–92, 95, 294, 299 – self-concept 88, 89, 294, 298, 318 semibilingualism (see: bilingualism) skill (see also: listening, mediation, reading, speaking, writing) 63, 97, 107, 123, 127, 128, 138, 166, 167, 168, 171, 183, 186, 191, 229, 232, 239, 269, 276, 279, 282, 283, 302, 303, 319, 325–339, 485, 499, 500, 524, 539, 566, 588, 616, 620, 621–624 – skill theorist 109, 115, 116 – skill theory 103, 108–110, 116, 117, 180 social – social bilingualism 213, 476 – social identity 82, 89, 292, 293 – social integration 58, 374 socialization 70,82, 292, 297, 532 sociocultural – sociocultural aspects of foreign language acquisition 17

– sociocultural language acquisition model 291, 298, 299 – sociocultural theory 110, 296 sociolinguistic competence (see: competence) Spain 74, 75, 76, 82, 218, 256, 263, 264, 286, 345, 346, 355, 415, 455, 475, 476, 477, 481, 613–629 Spanish 22, 24, 34, 40, 46, 74, 75–79, 82, 103, 105, 108, 111–117, 182, 185, 187, 242, 255, 256, 258, 265–267, 280, 345, 346, 354, 356, 357, 358, 363, 366, 403, 417, 419, 423–430, 472–489, 520, 540, 555–564, 579, 584, 605, 606, 614–629 speaking 217, 227, 239, 252, 284, 329, 333, 334 spelling 62–64, 162–175, 252, 329, 366 spoken language (see: language) spontaneous language acquisition 537, 543 standard Italian (see: Italian) stress-timed language (see: language) subjective theory (see: theory) survey 24, 32, 41, 64 Switzerland 208, 218, 257, 373–375, 391, 393, 434, 444, 449, 529, 541–545, syllable-timed language (see: language) symbolic function (of language) 127, 154 teacher 74, 76–78, 82, 206–210, 228, 237, 249–252, 275–288, 302, 312, 337 – teacher professionalization 274 teaching – teaching activities 236, 238, 249 – teaching skills 282, 283 textbook 22, 98, 223, 238, 245, 280, 281, 287, 328, 390, 391, 402, 404, 477, 483, 563, 624, 626 theory – acculturation theory 104, 302 – environmentalist theory 474 – generative theory 150 – grounded theory 31, 43, 45, 46 – innatist theory 474 – interactionist theory 155, 158, 474 – language learning theory 221, 249 – monitor theory 104, 186, 187 – processability theory 107, 108, 114, 117, 179, 180, 187, 337 – skill theory 103, 108–110, 116, 117, 180 – sociocultural theory 110, 296 – subjective theory 220, 252

Index

– theory of mind 158 theory-practice-problem 236, 238 transculturality 97 transfer 183–185, 230, 231, 250, 268, 280, 362–367, 381, 382, 485 triangulation 34 United States of America 477, 478, 484 Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights 222, 578 Universal Grammar 20, 104, 152, 179, 180, 182–184, 189, 241

639

voicing 353, 357, 359, 360, 362 writing 54, 63, 64, 71, 162–174, 190, 210, 217, 239, 250–252, 263, 268, 280, 327, 329, 335, 336, 338, 372, 377, 378, 381, 385, 395, 398, 399, 436, 441, 461, 478, 483, 485, 488, 500, 523, 238, 563, 566, 616, 617. 620, 621 written language 20, 59, 146, 162–166, 173, 335, 337, 402, 404–406, 427, 429