TESOL Scotland 22nd Annual Conference Proceedings

13 November 2004
Glasgow Caledonian University

"Multiple Identities in Scotland" Proceedings

back to Conference Proceedings contents

Talk: Community Languages in the 21st Century - New Policies: New Opportunities

Joanna McPake, Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, University of Stirling

1. Introduction

Community languages were defined in this presentation as all languages in regular use in a society, other than the dominant, 'official' or 'national' language of that society. In Scotland, the dominant language is English, and community languages therefore include Gaelic, Scots, Urdu, Chinese, Italian, British Sign Language and many others - possibly as many as 150 languages.

The presentation reviewed reasons why community languages constitute an important resource for Scotland, and pointed to recent policy shifts concerning provision, in Scotland and Europe. These shifts have the potential to create or enhance opportunities for promoting community language learning.

The presentation drew on the early stages of work for two studies of provision for community language learning, in the UK and across Europe, co-ordinated by Scottish CILT: a Survey of Community Language Provision in England, Scotland and Wales, for the respective education departments; and VALEUR - Valuing All Languages in Europe, for the European Centre for Modern Languages, part of the Council of Europe.

2. Valuing community languages

Most of us will have had experiences of others - sometimes people in responsible professional positions - disparaging community languages, talking about children 'jabbering away' or implying that children's best interests would be served if they used only English, not just at school but at home and in the community. It is thus necessary to make explicit why community languages should be valued.

From the literature on policy and planning for community languages, three key arguments emerge as having the moral force to influence policy:

1) families have the right to pass on their cultural and linguistic heritage to their children;

2) children who grow up bilingual have obvious linguistic advantages, but also cognitive advantages, compared with monolinguals;

3) having access to a range of languages is an important economic, cultural and intellectual resource for any society.

This presentation focused on the third of these arguments, on the basis that it appears to have been more successful in securing supportive policy for community language learning and use. This is partly because it is relatively easy to make links between the kinds of resources to which community languages contribute, and the kinds of resources which policy makers in fields such as education, business, the promotion of cultural activities or of citizenship are seeking to develop. Lo Bianco (2001) has set out these arguments in relation to the range of languages in use in Scotland.

3. From monolingualism to plurilingualism

Significantly, arguments for bi- or multilingualism which have long been put forward by those concerned with provision for community language learning, have recently begun to appear in mainstream policy documents - documents which are principally concerned with the learning and teaching of 'foreign' languages (i.e. the 'national' languages of other, usually European, countries). Analysis of statements from Scottish and European policy documents since 2000 showed the following arguments as now widely cited:

The appeal to these arguments seems to represent a fundamental shift in the minds of policy-makers from what might be termed a 'monolingual' to a 'plurilingual' perspective on language learning. Earlier policy concerned with the teaching and learning of 'foreign' languages was based on the assumption that all language learners in schools spoken the same (dominant, 'national' or 'official') language at home and at school and that their first - and main - experience of language learning would be in the foreign language classroom. Given the very limited level of competence achieved by most of those who learn a foreign language only at school, with few or no opportunities to practise or use this language with 'native speakers', it could also be argued that the goal of these policies was effectively monolingualism with a smattering of knowledge of another language. Plurilingualism was seen as necessary or desirable only for certain elite groups. Similarly, policy and practice relating to 'immigrants' and other groups who were already bilingual focused on the acquisition of the dominant language, and paid scant attention to the maintenance of other languages.

The shift from a monolingual to a plurilingual perspective around 2000 therefore represents a dramatic change in direction. In Scotland, we might understand this as linked to devolution and the concomitant desire to distinguish Scottish policy from the, arguably, anglocentric focus of an earlier UK-wide position. The shift in European language policy may also be understood as a reaction to the growing dominance of English. Both the Council of Europe and the European Union published policy documents last year, revealing a very marked move away from the previous focus on 'foreign' language learning as an exercise in learning the national languages of other European states. Both bodies now argue for 'plurilingualism' as an essential element in European identity, recognising that all Europeans should learn and use a range of languages, including the national languages of other European states, 'regional or minority' languages (such as Gaelic, Basque, etc.) and the languages of 'newly arrived communities'. (European Union, 2003; Byram and Beacco, 2003). Thus, a commitment to bi- and multilingualism, once marginal, is now becoming central to Scottish and to European policy on language learning.

4. Opportunities to promote community language learning

The climate for community languages seems more favourable than before. However, action is needed to convert this into tangible improvements to provision.

The development of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF) has considerable potential. The CEF is an instrument developed by the Council of Europe to describe linguistic competence irrespective of which languages are concerned. (Council of Europe, 2001). Several initiatives to promote and implement the CEF are currently under way, though, to my knowledge, none of these involve community languages. It is possible that this 'universal' instrument may in fact not be suitable for non-European languages or for learners with patterns of acquisition which differ quite markedly from classroom-based language learning. However, perhaps with some modification the CEF could offer opportunities for formal recognition of community language competence which are unavailable currently in any other form, and have the advantage of being recognised Europe-wide.

Within Scotland, we need also to think about how to exploit the spaces for action provided firstly by the National Priorities, and now by the Curriculum for Excellence documents recently issued (Scottish Executive, 2004). These latter documents make no specific reference to language learning of any kind. However, some general principles could be used to make a case for language-learning generally and community languages in particular:

The curriculum [...] must value the learning and achievement of all young people and [...] should help young people to understand diverse cultures and beliefs. (p.11)

[The curriculum should] enable all young people to become effective contributors [...] able to communicate in different ways and in different settings (p.12)

In the coming months, there will be considerable discussion about how these principles are to be interpreted in practice, and those concerned with community language learning need to take the opportunity to make the case for improved provision.

To exploit these and other opportunities to improve provision, we need an umbrella organisation to represent the interests of those concerned with community language learning. I am very willing to facilitate this if there are others who feel the same way. We also need more comprehensive information about the needs and aspirations of learners and their teachers, which I hope will emerge from the two studies mentioned at the start of this presentation. I will be contacting many of you to ask for help with these surveys, particularly in terms of enabling me to make contact directly with those who run community language classes and schools, and I hope that you will support this work.

References

Beacco, J.-C. and Byram, M. (2003). Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe: From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Language Policy Division.

Commission of the European Communities (2003). Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004 - 2006. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lo Bianco, J. (2001). Language and Literacy Policy in Scotland. Stirling: Scottish CILT.

Scottish Executive Curriculum Review Group (2004). Curriculum for Excellence. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

back to Conference Proceedings contents

[SATEFL Home] [Meetings] [Newsletters] [Membership] [Institutional Members] [Jobshop]
[Conference and Research Grants] [Committee] [TESOL Scotland] [Publications] [Constitution] [Links]