Language Education and the Challenges

of Globalisation
Language Education and the Challenges
of Globalisation:
Sociolinguistic Issues

Edited by

Martin Solly and Edith Esch

 Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation: Sociolinguistic Issues,
Edited by Martin Solly and Edith Esch

This book first published 2014

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2014 by Martin Solly, Edith Esch and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-5813-7, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5813-7

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
MARTIN SOLLY AND EDITH ESCH

Chapter One ............................................................................................... 13

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms: Recommendations
on Providing for Equal Language Rights
ANDROULA YIAKOUMETTI

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 33

Medium of Instruction Policy and Multilingual Pupils’ Experience
of Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon
GENEVOIX NANA

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 67

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guangzhou
in the Era of Multilingualism and Superdiversity
SIHUA LIANG

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 93

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es)
FILIO CONSTANTINOU

Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 111

Languages in Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan
TAYYABA TAMIM

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 135

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic
LUCIE BETÁKOVÁ

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 155

What is “Acceptable”? The Role of Acceptability in English Non-native
Speech
BETTINA BEINHOFF
vi Table of Contents

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 175

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility in Spoken
Interactions between Non-native English Speakers: A Case Study
PEDRO LUIS LUCHINI

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 195

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico
ANNA V. SOKOLOVA G. AND MARÍA DEL CARMEN A. HERNÁNDEZ Y LAZO

Contributors ............................................................................................. 213

 INTRODUCTION

LANGUAGE EDUCATION
AND THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBALISATION

MARTIN SOLLY AND EDITH ESCH

Introduction
In 2012 we jointly edited a volume, The Sociolinguistics of Language
Education in International Contexts (Esch and Solly 2012), which turned a
sociological lens on some of the key areas of concern for researchers and
practitioners in language education: critical awareness of power and
identity issues; competence in dealing with new sociolinguistic repertoires,
modalities and literacies; ethical concerns for all who are involved. The
volume drew attention to the complex and controversial nature of some of
the theoretical aspects, contexts and practices relating to language
education and language learning.
The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts
derived from a seminar held at the University of Turin on 24-28 August
2010 as part of the X Conference of the European Society for the Study of
English, and the present volume is also centered on a series of papers first
presented at a seminar we convened as part of the XI International
Conference of the European Society for the Study of English held at
Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, on 4-8 September 2012. The seminar
provided a forum for reflection and discussion of sociolinguistic issues in
language education, with a particular focus on theoretical issues such as
concepts of communities and critical reflections on the issues of the
presentation of self in discourse, as well as educational problems linked to
language planning and the revitalization of indigenous languages, and the
divide between English Medium Schools and Vernacular Medium School.
Like The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International
Contexts, the present volume is a collection of peer-edited chapters written
by an international group of scholars, engaged in the analysis of language
2 Introduction

education from a sociolinguistics-oriented perspective. It can be seen as a

kind of sequel or companion volume to that publication, given that it focuses
on many of the themes looked at in The Sociolinguistics of Language
Education in International Contexts; it also shares its case study approach.

Themes
A number of recent studies have highlighted uncomfortable
sociolinguistic issues in language education stemming from the notion that
the maintenance of social inequalities in access to language education has
led to a picture whereby society would be stratified between economically
powerful classes enjoying full access to language education, middle
classes competing to gain access to education and social mobility, and
dominated classes excluded from the benefits of education: such a picture
is particularly evident in settings where the language of academic literacy
and socio-economic power is that of the former colonial / current
economic power (cf. Esch and Solly 2012).
Yet, to quote Blommaert (2010, 5) the established paradigm of “the
sociolinguistics of distribution” focusing on language-in-place is rapidly
giving way to “the sociolinguistics of mobility”, focusing on “language-in-
motion, with various spatiotemporal frames interacting with one another”.
New approaches to fundamental constructs such as ‘communities’, new
conceptualisations of the social realities of constantly growing urban
centres for individuals and their multiple identities require that such views
be revised to take into account the multiple ways in which individuals
discursively signal their belonging to linguistic communities which are
sometimes in conflict with the educational context, thus defining new
sociolinguistic spaces and configurations.
The realities of the role of English as a Lingua Franca in a globalized
postcolonial world, of linguistic pluralism and multiculturalism, as well as
of the expectations associated with the effects of recent mobile technologies
and social networking have led to a reassessment of language education
policies and the need to meet local / regional / global requirements to ensure
language rights and to avoid the marginalization of linguistic groups.
Among the most controversial sociolinguistic issues are those related
to power and (in)equality. Moreover, as Blommaert points out:

Sociolinguistics is the study of language as a complex of resources, of their

value, distribution, rights of ownership and effects. It is not the study of an
abstract language, but the study of concrete language resources in which
people make different investments and to which they attribute different
values and degrees of usefulness. In the context of globalization, where
 Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation 3

language forms are perhaps more mobile that before, such patterns of value
and use become less predictable and presupposable. (2010: 28)

The various investigations presented in this volume are often united and
interconnected in their approaches to these key areas of focus. Some of the
contributors also share an interest in an ecological perspective. Leo van
Lier emphasizes the centrality of ecology in educational linguistics, but
also the complexity of such an approach:

Ecology is the study of the relationships between all the various organisms
and their physical environment. It’s a complex and messy field of study
about a complex and messy reality. Its primary requirement is, by
definition, that the context is central, it cannot be reduced, and it cannot be
pushed aside or into the background. The context is the focal field of study.
(2002, 144, our emphasis)

The concept of ‘messy’ is also taken up by Blommaert, who aptly titles

the second chapter of his 2012 volume The Sociolinguistics of
Globalization, ‘a messy new marketplace’, and who observes that “a
sociolinguistics of globalization is perforce a sociolinguistics of mobility,
and the new marketplace we must seek to understand is, consequently, a
less clear and transparent and a messier one” (2012: 28, our emphasis). In
this ‘messy’ field, alongside the concept of ‘super-mobility’ can usefully
be set that of ‘super-diversity’ (Vertovec 2007) to describe the importance
of the personal experience, language repertoires and life trajectories of
individuals even within their language communities, as well as within and
across the various spaces (including virtual spaces) where communication
takes place. As Busch observes:

[…] the meanings that speakers attribute to languages, codes, and

linguistic practices are linked with personal experience and life trajectories,
especially with the way in which linguistic resources are experienced in the
context of discursive constructions of national, ethnic, and social
affiliation/non-affiliation. These meanings are subject to changes which
involve both biographical discontinuities (through migration, for example)
and socio-political reconfigurations (e.g. the establishing of boundaries).
(2012: 520)

National, ethnic, local, family and social background all influence an

individual speaker’s personal language practices and trajectory, and can be
subject to great changes and discontinuities in times of migration and the
displacement / relocation of peoples. Research on multilingualism in the
United Kingdom, for example, has shown how speakers code-switch into
4 Introduction

language varieties not generally thought to be theirs, thus crossing and

overcoming social or ethnic boundaries (Rampton 1995), and how young
multilingual language users ‘translanguage’, creatively, going between and
beyond different linguistic structures and systems, “[…] bringing together
different dimensions of their personal history, experience and
environment, their attitude, belief and ideology, their cognitive and
physical capacity into one coordinated and meaningful performance, and
making it into a lived experience” (Li Wei 2011, 1223).
Each study in this volume brings its own relevance to the work as a
whole and each reflects the complexities and practices of the particular
contexts and speech communities examined. As regards speech communities,
as Morgan has pointed out:

[…] describing speech community is no simple matter. It cannot be

defined by static physical location since membership can be experienced as
part of a nation-state, neighborhood, village, club, compound, on-line chat
room, religious institution, and so on. What’s more, adults often
experience multiple communities, and one’s initial socialization into a
speech community may occur within a culture with communicative values
that differ from those of other cultures and communities one encounters
later in life. (2004: 4-5)

Moreover, there are many myths about language (Schiffman 1996),

and these are often intertwined with issues of culture and identity (see for
example Joseph 2004, Riley 2007). A current, extremely pervasive myth
links proficiency in English to economic prosperity and upward social
mobility, thus to prestige and status. Yet the reality is more complex as,
for example, Jin He (2012) has shown in her study of what she describes
as the ‘four myths’ underpinning the current drive for language proficiency
(thus linguistic capital) as regards English in China. Nevertheless, in many
countries quality education and socio-economic mobility are increasingly
linked to proficiency in English and this has led to justified concern over
its widening spread and the related issue of economic and social elitism.
Another important thread running through the two volumes is linked to the
constant changes that take place within languages and communities, which
is well-evidenced by the work of Sihua Liang, in this volume, also as
regards a Chinese context. It is also worth noting that while language
communities and language use are sometimes constrained by political
decisions and policies taken at a national level, this is not necessarily the
case. Indeed, as Stecconi notes as regards the European context, language
use often transcends borders:
 Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation 5

[…] many Europeans, especially those living in smaller countries, tend to

be familiar with the languages of larger neighbours. [thus] German is
popular in the Slovak and Czech Republics, Hungary and Slovenia; Italian
in Malta and Croatia: and Russian in the former Baltic Republics and
Bulgaria. (2010: 156)

This observation is reiterated in the comments made here by Betáková

in her chapter about cross-border language use.

Contributions
In her chapter Androula Yiakoumetti observes that globalisation and
transnationalism are undoubtedly enhancing linguistic diversity in
educational settings and have created a new and common classroom
reality. She identifies this emerging reality as transglossia, the many
language practices of transnational groups in functional interrelationship,
and suggests that current educational approaches largely fail to harness it.
Indeed, many act even to distinctly disadvantage students who are
speakers of varieties other than that which is socially pre-eminent, while
only a very few favour maintenance of languages and cultures which are
associated with minority, indigenous, or nonstandard varieties.
Yiakoumetti argues that only by building on the actual language realities
found in today’s globalised classrooms and by promoting linguistic
diversity can we move closer to the ideal situation of equal linguistic
rights. The chapter reconsiders current educational policies and
approaches and offers some concrete recommendations for the promotion
of what Yiakoumetti considers to be true plurilingualism. These
recommendations focus on the role of language educators, the importance
of teacher training which highlights current sociolinguistic challenges, the
need for language planning to be informed by the specific linguistic
landscape in which it is to be employed, and the place of English in
today’s world.
Genevoix Nana presents the results of a case study in his chapter on
the medium of instruction policy and multilingual pupils’ experience of
learning to read and write in primary school in Cameroon. The study
draws on the experience of 4-7-year-old Year 1 pupils learning to read and
write in English and French for the first time in two Anglophone and two
Francophone primary schools in Cameroon. It uses focus groups and
individual interviews to elicit pupils’ views about their experience of
language learning in and out of the classroom and teachers’ perception
regarding children’s language use in school. A participant observation
6 Introduction

approach also proved useful in following up the pupils’ language practice

in the playground in the schools studied.
While a ban on using Pidgin English permeated English speaking
pupils’ perception of the relevant language to use in school, the teachers’
insistence on the use of the school language contributed to the inhibition
of the pupils’ mother tongue and the misconstruction of its value.
However, the pupils’ views showed their attachment to these languages
due to their using them at home with relatives.
Nana’s study highlights a divide between home and school languages
in a multilingual socialisation context and problematizes the official
bilingualism construct of Cameroon at a time when an apparent language
in education policy shift was still to be evidenced by a paradigm shift in
teachers’ perception of the appropriate language to be used in schools. The
picture provided by Nana of the pupils’ views in Cameroon is followed by
a chapter which also looks at school pupils’ perceptions, but in a Chinese,
rather than an African context.
Indeed, recent studies on multilingualism have increasingly regarded
notions such as identity, speech community and even ‘multilingualism’
itself as social constructions and problematised the assumed boundaries in
such notions. However, important questions remain unanswered. For
example, to what extent does language living at school echo such
intellectual problematisation? And how do school pupils perceive and
construct their ethnolinguistic identities in a large city with a multi-million
and multidialectal population that is being rapidly transformed by
modernisation and massive migration? Drawing on data from an
ethnographic study in two primary schools in Guangzhou, South China,
Sihua Liang examines how the pupils discursively construct multiple and
shifting linguistic identities in interaction by making use of language
choice, language crossing and other discursive strategies. It is in such
interactions that the monolingual bias towards the links between linguistic
proficiency, linguistic loyalty and linguistic identity become foregrounded
and questioned. While the skills and flexibility of students in discursive
and multidialectal negotiation of subject positions are worth school
recognition, the tension and symbolic violence observed in the interactions
reveals that the negative impacts of the monolingual norms also call for
immediate educational responses.
It is often the case that the ideological agenda of education, aligning
typically with the ideals of democracy and inclusion, undergoes a process
of “degeneration” in the course of its translation into practice. This is
particularly evident in the domain of language education which, more
often than not, becomes transformed into an arena that nurtures inequality
 Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation 7

and exclusion. In her chapter which focuses specifically on the language

education of immigrant students Filio Constantinou discusses how
certain language education policies assist the perpetuation of social
inequalities and, through a holistic examination that extends from the
macro-level of educational ideology to the micro-level of classroom
practice, identifies instances of such degeneration.
Taking the position that language education pathways can lead to
social inequality, she exposes, in particular, the underlying role of national
ideologies in the formation of such policies by drawing on data from a
study on second language writing conducted in Greek Cypriot schools on
the bidialectal island of Cyprus, a country which hosts an increasingly
large immigrant population but has relatively limited experience in dealing
with linguistic diversity in the context of education and where the
language of instruction (i.e. Standard Modern Greek) does not coincide
with the children’s mother tongue (i.e. Greek Cypriot Dialect). The source
of this discrepancy is mainly ideological and derives from the strong
identification of Greek Cypriots with Greece and the Greek culture. This
has given rise to the monodialectal orientation of the Cypriot educational
system which, as the findings of the study suggest, tends to affect the
writing performance of pupils, especially those of immigrant background.
Specifically, immigrant pupils appear to incorporate significantly more
dialectal forms in their writing compared to their Cypriot peers, as a result
of their lower awareness of the differences which exist between the two
language varieties. Given that formal writing is not very tolerant to the
presence of non-standard forms, it can be argued that the ideologically-
driven language planning as carried out in Cyprus victimises specific
groups of pupils.
Tayyaba Tamim’s chapter looks at languages in education and the
dual system of education in Pakistan, which is marked by the use of
English in private education and vernacular in government schools. Her
research is based on the findings of two different qualitative studies
carried out in Pakistan, where she conducted 45 interviews (16 secondary
school final year students and 29 graduated with at least 2 years of college
education), in two of the country’s provincial capitals. Her findings reveal
a projection of shame and guilt in the participants’ discursive construction
of self and local identity, and she argues that the dual system of education
in the country perpetuates symbolic violence which cuts into the very
existence as human beings of those involved.
Tamim’s research exemplifies Bourdieu’s ‘logic of dominance’,
whereby those who succumb to domination are more successful, yet the
success comes at the cost of self-derision and dislocation of self. Indeed,
8 Introduction

although there was unofficial use of Urdu, the national language, within
private education classrooms for pragmatic reasons both teachers and
students conveyed a strong sense of conflict as they found it useful but
rejected its utility. Thus the dual education system of private and
government education added yet another dimension of language to the
class divided society, where the participants discussed fear and inhibition
in the use of local languages in their struggle for ‘distinction’.
In her chapter, Lucie Betáková looks at the role of English in the
Czech Republic, a country that has recently undergone a curricular reform
at the primary and secondary school levels. English has become the only
compulsory language for all school children in the third form, i.e. from the
age of nine or ten. Other languages like German or French can be studied
as a second foreign language if there are enough children interested in the
particular language. The school, however, does not guarantee that the
children will have a chance to continue the study of the language when
they finish their primary education. On the other hand, the state schools
guarantee that the school leavers will be able to continue the study of
English at their level.
Betáková compares this policy to that of the Council of Europe and
assesses the disadvantages (and also possible advantages) of all children
learning English. She also relates the current sociolinguistic situation in
the Czech Republic and in the EU to the ideas of the famous Czech
philosopher Jan Ámos Komenský (Comenius, 1592-1670) who advocated,
apart from learning Latin as a lingua franca, learning the languages of the
neighbouring states.
What is ‘acceptable’? is the question that Bettina Beinhoff faces in
her chapter on the role of acceptability in English non-native speech.
Studies in the domain of English as a Lingua Franca stress that non-native
speaker (NNS) accents of English should become increasingly acceptable
as our social realities change towards a world of linguistic pluralism. More
recent developments, such as the increase in mobile technologies and
social networking, seem to accelerate this process, thereby increasing the
likelihood of contact between NNS of English from different cultural
backgrounds.
Because her findings indicate that the concept of acceptability is very
complex and needs further investigation, Beinhoff develops a more
detailed definition of ‘acceptability’ for sociolinguistics in language
education which is also based on studies from the wider field of social
science research. Her chapter then looks at NNS’ and native English
speakers’ attitudes towards their own (ingroup) and other (outgroup)
accents of English. Participants rated English speech samples on their
 Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation 9

‘acceptability’ and on traits representing the solidarity dimension (i.e. how

much a person identifies with an accent) and the status dimension (i.e.
how much prestige is assigned to an accent). Beinhoff’s results suggest
that the perceived prestige and status of an accent is considered more
important than solidarity and, also, that ‘acceptability’ is closely linked to
status traits.
In his chapter, Pedro Luis Luchini also looks at acceptability, in
particular with the aim of identifying aspects of speech which decrease
intelligibility in spoken interactions between non-native English speakers.
Nowadays, communication in English is not restricted to interactions only
between native speakers (NSs) and native speakers of other languages.
Indeed, English is most commonly used worldwide as a lingua franca in
interactions between non-native speakers (NNSs). This use of English for
the most part as a lingua franca has been largely ignored in research on the
use and/or learning of English as a second or foreign language (L2). A
relevant example is research on the pronunciation and intelligibility of
NNSs, where the great majority of the research has used native speakers of
English as the frame of reference for the acceptability and intelligibility of
NNSs’ speech. However, it is also essential to investigate how intelligible
NNSs are to each other, and the main purpose of Luchini’s study is to
evaluate how intelligibility between NNSs is affected by particular L2
phonological variations in NNS speech. His analysis is framed in a set of
phonological features which recurrently bring about unintelligibility in
interactions between NNSs (Jenkins 2000), and the study also aims to
identify a set of speech sounds and syllabic and prosodic elements which
are essential for mutual intelligibility between NNSs. Luchini examines
four speech samples drawn from three non-native speakers of English
(ENNSs): two from Hindi background and one from Spanish background.
His findings suggest that segmental deviations along with misplacement of
nuclear stress constitute the major obstacle for the attainment of mutual
intelligibility in interactions of this type.
Anna V. Sokolova G. and Maria del Carmen A. Hernández y Lazo
present some of the findings of their survey of university students’
perception of the role of English in Mexican society. The study was
carried out with the aim of examining what Mexican university students as
social actors thought about the role of English in their country and how
they came to hold these views. The researchers conducted semi-structured
interviews and group discussions with university students in order to
investigate their opinions and beliefs as regards a number of questions,
including two main ones. First, is it possible that at some moment in the
future the Mexican population will be bilingual; that is, will the Mexican
10 Introduction

population use both Spanish and English in their everyday life? Second, to
what extent would such a situation affect the Mexican national identity?
The study shows in discourse analysis terms how the students as language
learners constructed their group reality and also how they represented
themselves in this respect. Their sociocultural, academic and demographic
features, together with the place conferred to English in the national arena,
would seem to be of great importance in the construction of their
representations of this language. Although the investigation is a case
study, the researchers suggest that it can also provide a helpful picture of
the perceptions of students in other Mexican higher education institutions.

Reflections
A number of themes run through this volume, some of them complex
and controversial. Language education is focused on at the various levels
of schooling: primary (Nana), secondary (Tamin) and tertiary (Sokolova
and Hernández y Lazo, Tamin) and in different contexts of immigration
(Constantinou) and superdiversity (Liang). Moreover, language policy
issues run through and across the different levels of education (Yiakoumetti,
Constantinou, Betáková). Two of the papers make suggestions as to how
to improve language education (Yiakoumetti and Betáková), while the
issues raised by the ‘native speaker’ construct (Liang), bilingualism
(Nana) and non-standard forms (Constantinou) are explored, as well as the
role of acceptability in non-native speech (Beinhoff, Luchini).
We suggest that the insights presented here provide an extremely
useful way of looking at the current state of the art of language education
across the different levels of schooling and also within the various
contexts analysed. Because of the increasing interest in language
education as a result of the growing number of migrant children in schools
and globalization associated with the rapid spread of English (Yiakoumetti
2012) the volume is likely to be of interest to a wide international
readership, including scholars and students of sociolinguistics and
language education.
As this second volume of our ongoing project goes to press, we would
like to thank very warmly all those who have contributed to the two
seminars and the volumes. Finally, we would also like to draw our
readers’ attention to an exciting and innovative new research initiative,
which has recently been set up by the second language education group at
the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. The CRiCLE-Net
(Cambridge Research in Community Language Education Network)
<http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/networks/cricle/> provides a research
 Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation 11

forum where policy makers, academics, practitioners and research students

in Cambridge and East Anglia, and more broadly at national and
international levels, can engage in critical debates on research in
community language education. Such initiatives are likely to prove
extremely valuable in helping sociolinguists in their continuing endeavour
to make sense of changing language use in the increasingly messy but
fascinating new marketplace.

References
Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Busch, B. 2012. The Linguistic Repertoire Revisited. Applied Linguistics
33(5), 503–523.
Esch, E. and M. Solly. eds. 2012. The Sociolinguistics of Language
Education in International Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang.
Jin He. 2012. The Myths of English Proficiency: The Socially Constructed
Ideas about English in China. In The Sociolinguistics of Language
Education in International Contexts, ed. E. Esch and M. Solly, 47-68.
Joseph, J. 2004. Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Li Wei. 2011. Moment Analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive
construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain.
Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1222–1235.
Morgan, M. 2004. Speech Community. In A Companion to Linguistic
Anthropology, ed. A. Duranti, 3-22. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rampton, B. 1995. Language crossing and the problematisation of
ethnicity and socialisation. Pragmatics 5(4), 485–513.
Riley, P. 2007. Language, Culture and Identity. London: Continuum.
Schiffman, H. 1996. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London:
Routledge.
Stecconi, U. 2010. Multilingualism in the EU: a developing policy field. In
Political Discourse, Media and Translation, ed. C. Schaffner and S.
Basnett, 144-163. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
van Lier, L. 2002. An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and
linguistics. In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization:
Ecological Perspectives, ed. C. Kramsch, 140-164. London: Continuum.
Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial
Studies 29(6), 1024–54.
Yiakoumetti A. 2012. Harnessing Linguistic Variation for Better
Education. Berlin: Peter Lang.
 CHAPTER ONE

LANGUAGE EDUCATION
IN OUR GLOBALISED CLASSROOMS:
RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROVIDING
FOR EQUAL LANGUAGE RIGHTS

ANDROULA YIAKOUMETTI

Introduction
We are now, in late post-modernity, experiencing the effects of
globalisation and transnationalism on societies in general and on education
in particular. As we continue to travel and/or migrate, there is a heightened
interconnectivity between people which breaks the traditional boundaries
associated with national states. For many, the congruence of social and
geographic spaces has become blurred because of their transnational ties
to multiple spaces. These ties are, no doubt, facilitated by increased global
transportation and telecommunication technologies. Inevitably, the coming
together of peoples has led to enhanced levels of linguistic diversity in
education which is manifested in the co-occurrence of multiple linguistic
varieties in the classroom. This emerging reality is characterised by new
opportunities and also by new challenges: opportunities because multiple
varieties gain voices in educational settings which were once less
linguistically diverse and challenges because new pedagogical approaches
are called for to better serve today’s speakers. Perhaps most importantly,
the challenge is for the co-occurrence of multiple languages not to be
suppressed but to be promoted such that monolingual students, emerging
bilingual students, and multilingual students alike can be equipped with
multilingual competences. Students who arrive at school as monolinguals
should have opportunities to learn additional languages from their
multilingual counterparts and from the curriculum while students who
14 Chapter One

arrive at school as multilinguals should have the right to use, maintain, and
develop their multiple languages.
Current research in many educational settings worldwide points to the
fact that, when supported, transnational learners employ language
practices which resist homogenising tendencies (García et al. 2006):
despite the usual stipulation to use a single standard linguistic variety
exclusively, these learners use their different varieties concurrently to
serve their learning purposes. Nevertheless, current educational policies
largely fail to acknowledge and to subsequently harness the emerging
reality of linguistic variation. Although the rhetoric of these policies seems
to reflect positivity towards multilingualism and multiculturalism, on
closer examination, only a very few favour maintenance of languages and
cultures which are associated with minority, indigenous or nonstandard
varieties. Even fewer favour promotion of these languages and cultures.
The majority of policies demonstrate a sociolinguistically ill-informed
attachment to linguistic and cultural homogeneity which is almost always
manifested in the classroom use of a prescribed power-associated single
linguistic variety.
Unfortunately, the schism between what should ideally happen in
today’s multilingual classrooms and what policies prescribe tends to
disadvantage mostly those who need to be protected in the educational
system. Minority- and indigenous-language speakers are such peoples
because, very often, their languages and cultures are threatened by the
majority and/or power-associated languages and cultures. As Cummins
(2001) explains, assimilationist policies in education discourage students
from maintaining their mother tongues because such retention is viewed as
inability to identify with the mainstream language and culture. He argues
that linguistic and cultural diversity is very often seen as a problem which
many educational policies aim to eradicate. However, it is clear that
banning or discouraging native voices in education inhibits learners’
access to a meaningful education.
This chapter argues that only by building on the actual emerging
language realities found in today’s globalised classrooms and by
promoting linguistic diversity can we move towards the ideal situation of
equal language rights. After reviewing research carried out around the
world, this chapter makes the case that multilingual competence be seen as
an essential goal of education. This exhortation accords well with
UNESCO’s strong commitment to quality education for all and, indeed, to
cultural and linguistic diversity in education (UNESCO 2003a).
This recommendation comes at a time when, as May (2012a) astutely
notes, a rapid and significant retrenchment of multilingualism and
 Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms 15

multiculturalism within education can be observed. In the United States,

for example, one can see that, despite the linguistic landscape’s having
become demonstrably more multilingual, English-only ideals are
promoted (Crawford 2007; García and Kleifgen 2010; May 2012b):
English-only statutes that banned bilingual education in states with large
Spanish-speaking populations were passed in California in 1998 and
Arizona in 2000. In addition, the word “bilingual” was struck out of
federal education and legislation: the Office of Bilingual and Minority
Language Affairs came to be called the Office of English Language
Acquisition and the Bilingual Education Act itself is now named
Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant
Students (García et al. 2012). In Europe, bilingual educational
programmes also face significant devaluation as minority groups are
increasingly urged to strive towards dominant cultural and linguistic mores
(May 2012a; Modood 2007).
In taking stock of these regrettable developments, it is clear that
language education policies ought to be reassessed to meet the local,
regional, national, and global needs of today’s citizens. There is no doubt
that linguistic diversity becomes more complex as a result of globalisation,
technology, and transnationalism: it is time to eliminate the linguistically-
intolerant language policies and to embrace educational frameworks that
reflect today’s realities, ensure language rights, and avoid marginalisation
of linguistic groups.

Language rights and education

Language is not simply a means of communication. It is a fundamental
attribute of cultural identity and empowerment, both for the individual and
the group. Majority-language speakers, minority-language speakers, and
indigenous-language speakers all have the right to have their varieties
respected and promoted. We are our languages and so it is not surprising
that claims for language are among the first rights that minorities have
voiced in cases of political change (May et al. 2004). Skutnabb-Kangas
(2001) convincingly argues that granting education-based and language-
based rights to minorities can be part of conflict prevention.
UNESCO has a central role to play in providing international
frameworks for educational policy on the important issue of which
language should be used as the medium of instruction. Throughout the last
sixty years, a number of declarations on children’s rights in early
education, the role of the mother tongue, and linguistic diversity have been
adopted. UNESCO is strongly committed to promoting the use of a child’s
16 Chapter One

own language as the medium of instruction in the early years of formal

schooling (UNESCO 1953, 2003a, 2003b). International Mother Language
Day, proclaimed in 1999 and marked on 21 February each year, is an
example of UNESCO’s recognition of the key role of the mother tongue.
In addition, UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity
(2001) addresses the significance of languages for cultural diversity and
emphasises the benefits of linguistic diversity at all levels of education and
the promotion of multilingualism from an early age.
As far as educational language rights are concerned, the following
have been framed for minority and indigenous groups: schooling in the
minority and indigenous languages, if desired; access to the language of
the larger community and to that of national educational systems; inter-
cultural education that promotes positive attitudes to minority and
indigenous languages and the cultures they express; and access to
international languages (Ball 2011). The ultimate rationale for the promotion
of mother-tongue education is the empowerment of underprivileged
groups.
In Europe, commendable efforts to promote linguistic diversity and
language learning in the field of education have been made. The
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995)
and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML)
(1992), both prepared under the auspices of the Council of Europe, aim to
protect regional and minority languages as they see them to be an integral
part of European cultural heritage. The ECRML’s contribution to
linguistic diversity is considerable as it is the first legal instrument devoted
to the protection of minority languages (Arzoz 2007; Hogan-Brun and
Wolff 2003).
Beyond the work of UNESCO and the Council of Europe, language
rights as an academic paradigm is also well established in the discipline of
sociolinguistics. As May (2005) explains, its presence is demonstrated by
three academic movements: the language ecology movement which
situates the loss of many of the world’s languages within a wider
ecological framework (Mühlhäuser 1996, 2000, Nettle and Romaine
2000); the linguistic human rights movement that argues for the greater
institutional protection and support of minority languages and their
speakers (Skutnabb-Kangas 1998, 2000, 2002; Skutnabb-Kangas and
Phillipson 1995); and the academic legal discourse associated with
minority language rights law (de Varennes 1996a, 1996b; Henrard 2000).
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to further review the literature on
educational language rights. However, some bleak estimations about the
world’s spoken languages are provided here to highlight the importance of
 Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms 17

actively pursuing the maintenance of linguistic diversity in education.

Education receives special emphasis here as it remains one of the most
powerful institutionally-organised environments that linguistically positions
novices into society (Stroud 2003). It is estimated that, by 2100, there may
remain only 300-600 (out of the currently spoken c.7000) oral languages
transmitted by the parent generation to children (Krauss 1992; Skutnabb-
Kangas 2009). Using emotive language, Skutnabb-Kangas (1994) argues
that linguistic genocide is committed in relation to minorities when
educational systems do not build on linguistically-diverse children’s rich
repertoires but instead suppress them. Other similarly powerful terms
sometimes used are those of glottophagie and linguistic cannibalism
(Calvet 1974; Brenzinger 1992; Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1995). It
is clear that, if we are to slow down the exponential loss of the world’s
languages, education needs to start delivering support for language
diversity. Education should not result in the exclusion of some groups
based on language criteria.

The importance of the mother tongue

No discussion of language education should overlook the immeasurable
importance of people’s mother tongues. The theoretical justification for
the role of incorporating the mother tongue in education is well developed
and supported (Cummins 2000). In addition, there is abundant empirical
evidence which demonstrates that utilising the mother tongue in formal
(monolingual as well as bi/multilingual) education is beneficial. For
instance, when children are given the chance to be educated in their
mother tongue, they are more likely to enrol and succeed in school
(Kosonen 2005). Importantly, studies have demonstrated that instruction
in the mother tongue is beneficial to literacy in the first language,
achievement in other subjects, and learning of a second language (Dutcher
and Tucker 1997; Dutcher 2004). It has been argued that mother tongue-
based education is especially beneficial for disadvantaged groups, such as
children from rural communities (Hovens 2002). It has also been shown
that, in developing countries with unequal sex-based opportunities, girls
achieve better when they are taught in their mother tongue (UNESCO
2005).
A few examples from the literature will be briefly presented here in
order to demonstrate some of the benefits (outlined above) of
incorporating the mother tongue into education. It has been documented
that, when minority-language students’ mother tongues are part of
education, more such students enrol and achieve learning at high levels
18 Chapter One

(Ding and Yu 2013). Drawing on Yi (the seventh largest of the 55

officially recognised ethnic minority groups in China), Ding and Yu
(2013) argue that, despite the battle between maintaining and developing
Yi and spreading Putonghua, it is clear that a bilingual educational model
that utilises students’ native variety is beneficial. The authors compared
two models of bilingual education adopted in Liangshan (China): the first
model represents a strong form of bilingual education (Baker 2011) in that
students are required to use the Yi language and learn standard Chinese as
a school subject; and the second model represents a weak form of
bilingual education as cultivation of specialised knowledge in the Yi
language is not a priority. In comparing these two models, the authors
explain that students who participate in education based on the first model
have better prospects for going to colleges, compared to students who
participate in education based on the second model. This is mainly
because of preferential higher-education policies towards students who
develop expertise in more than one language.
Beyond improved attendance, benefits have been shown with regard to
literacy. The Foyer programme is testament to the fact that educating
students in their native minority languages improves literacy in both the
minority and the majority languages (Cummins 2000). This programme
which commenced in Belgium in 1981 embraces linguistic diversity and
promotes multiliteracy in students’ mother tongues (Arabic, Italian,
Spanish or Turkish) as well as Dutch and French. The programme is
successful as students (i) develop better mother-tongue knowledge
compared with students in monolingual Dutch schools and (ii) develop a
level of Dutch that enables them to keep up with subsequent education in
secondary school. It thus serves as evidence of the benefits of multilingual
education.
Benefits have also been recorded beyond literacy, in subjects such as
mathematics. For instance, Mohanty and Saikia (2008) examined the
school achievement of Bodo tribal children in Assam (India) by
comparing children educated in Bodo (the tribal mother tongue) and
children educated in Assamese (the regional majority language). They
found that the mother-tongue-educated children performed better in
language and mathematics compared to their Assamese-educated
counterparts.
As far as the role of the mother tongue in second and/or foreign
language learning is concerned, there have been numerous studies that
report on the advantages of using students’ familiar languages (alongside
the targeted second/foreign languages) in education (Brooks-Lewis 2009;
Auerbach 1993). Indeed, over the last three decades, a number of scholars
 Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms 19

including Atkinson (1987, 1993), Harbord (1992), Butzkamm (1998,

2003) and Cook (2001) have made the case that the mother tongue has a
variety of beneficial roles to play in monolingual foreign-language
education.
As evidenced above, the potentially huge benefits that can be gained
when the mother tongue is utilised in education cannot be overstated. This
is especially relevant when we consider that about 476 million of the
world’s illiterate people speak minority languages and live in countries
where children are mostly not taught in their mother tongue (UNESCO
2003b). Given that the evidence suggests that speakers are better off when
their minority languages are present in education, how do we ensure that
linguistic diversity and multilingualism are promoted in schools?
Furthermore, does allowing minority languages into formal schooling
mean that majority and/or power-associated varieties are out of reach for
minority-language speaking students? An educational sociolinguist would
readily reply in the negative. However, huge political and economic
obstacles are ever-present when considering language education for
minority pupils. Indeed, such obstacles have been the reason for the failure
of some mother-tongue programmes which did manage to get the green
light for implementation.
Several African countries (in which economic, political, cultural, and
social aspects all affect education) serve as ideal vantage points from
which to discuss this failure. Stroud (2001, 2003) explains that attempts to
use mother tongues in schools are plagued by curricula skewed towards
metropolitan languages (such as English, French, and Portuguese).
Language policies enacted to promote local varieties are seen as futile by
lay persons. It is therefore natural that mother-tongue based programmes
remain illusive when policy makers undermine non-metropolitan
languages and emphasise the utility of metropolitan languages. Indeed,
many parents wish for their children to be educated in the metropolitan
languages and consider instruction through national languages to be a
waste of time (Banda 2000).
Kamwangamalu (2012) questions the two extreme ideologies
associated with African countries, namely the ideology of decolonisation
and the ideology of development. The former favours the use of
indigenous African languages as media of instruction and the latter
favours instruction in the languages of former colonial powers.
Kamwangamalu (2012) calls for new policies which assign to indigenous
African languages some of the advantages that are currently associated
only with colonial languages.
20 Chapter One

English: a threat to linguistic diversity?

Globalisation is inextricably linked to the dominant role of English and
the growing literature on English as an international language (Crystal
2003; McKay 2002; Sharifian 2009) attests to the widespread recognition
that English is the world’s lingua franca. A number of factors offer
English unprecedented power including (i) the economic and political
dominance of English-speaking countries (United States, United Kingdom,
Australia, Canada), (ii) the employment of English as the lingua franca on
the internet, and (iii) the retaining of English as a working language in
many postcolonial countries. English is the language of business and the
language in which most of the technical and scientific knowledge is
distributed. English is perceived as the language of mobility and its
presence in educational systems all around the globe is hence immensely
prominent.
English today is unique: when L1 and L2 speakers are taken together,
English is the language with the greatest number of speakers and, at the
same time, the language with the widest geographical distribution (McKay
2012). In addition, English is used by many kinds of speakers for diverse
purposes. Some learn English as a foreign language (as part of their
compulsory education) but do not use it in their daily lives. Others are
motivated to learn English because they believe that English is associated
with economic and technological advancement. Others yet strive for
English acquisition because, as a South African teacher bluntly put it,
“English puts bread on the table” (Probyn et al. 2002). The fact that
English has many types of speakers who employ the language for diverse
purposes has pedagogical implications. Briefly, this means that context-
dependent socially-sensitive pedagogies are required when teaching
English. As each context is unique, with learners having particular needs
and expectations relating to English learning and proficiency, pedagogies
that are tailor-made to suit these needs and expectations are required.
As English continues to spread, concerns have been voiced as to its
undermining linguistic and cultural diversity (Phillipson 1992, 2003;
Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). Mohanty (2006, 2010), for instance, argues that
the powerful presence of English has obliterated the language tolerance
that once characterised India. The author explains that English pushes the
major languages (including Hindi) into positions of relative weakness and
that these languages, in turn, further marginalise the minor and tribal
mother tongues.
However, I argue that English and linguistic diversity can co-exist and
that the ever-growing English language does not necessarily pose a threat
 Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms 21

to multilingualism. Other researchers (McKay 2012; House 2003) have

also taken this stance. McKay (2012) suggests that English can continue to
spread in a manner that preserves linguistic and cultural diversity
worldwide when the value of multilingualism is concomitantly affirmed.
This affirmation can be achieved by building on students’ existing
linguistic repertoires and by developing curricula that accurately reflect
the local linguistic landscape. It is imperative that curricula have an
appropriate interpretation of the role of English in the context at hand
because, as stated above, English is used by different types of speakers
and for diverse purposes (which makes each context unique). Learning and
using English should not be seen as an activity that necessarily displaces
national, indigenous or nonstandard linguistic varieties. In fact, English
can contribute towards multilingualism in that, when English is presented
and taught appropriately, it can add to people’s linguistic repertoires.
In a study carried out in the Norwegian higher-education context,
Ljosland (2011) argues that both Norwegian (the mother tongue of the
students) and English (the language of the study programme that was
investigated) co-existed harmoniously. The author explored the language
use and language attitudes of students studying for a course which
introduced English (as opposed to Norwegian) as the medium of
instruction. The findings revealed that students displayed a dualistic
attitude in that Norwegian was seen as part of their identity and English
was seen as the language of research in their subject field. Students did not
express the view that English took over from Norwegian. As the author
explains, their frequent switching between Norwegian and English
allowed them to be both themselves, as well as aspiring experts in their
field. This bilingual and bicultural identity is precisely what Arnett (2002)
describes as a positive consequence of globalisation: one part of the
identity of these learners is rooted in their local culture and language while
another stems from their relation to the global culture and language.
House (2003) is another researcher who argues against the widespread
assumption that English, in its role as a lingua franca, is a serious threat to
linguistic diversity. She makes a distinction between languages for
communication and languages for identification and explains that using
English for instrumental purposes does not necessarily displace local
languages as these are used for different purposes. She makes the case that
English can stimulate speakers of minority languages to revive their
languages such that they can balance out the spread of English. Drawing
on her native Germany, she notes that, paradoxical as it may sound, the
spread of English in Germany brought about the revival of songs in local
dialects such as Bavarian to counteract pop music in English only.
22 Chapter One

English as an international language need not be a threat: mother

tongues, regional, and national varieties can thrive alongside English. A
meaningful multilingual education that promotes multilingual competence,
supports and maintains indigenous languages, and offers access to English
as an international language should be the aim of today’s societies.

Reconsidering language education in our globalised

classrooms
Education is a key environment for conferring legitimacy on specific
practices of language (Stroud 2003). Traditionally, in most educational
contexts in the world, the teaching of the majority language and,
subsequently, the reproduction of the cultural capital of the dominant
group have been the norm. Such education is a long way from respecting
and promoting minority children’s linguistic and cultural diversity. Indeed,
such education does not allow children who speak non-dominant varieties
to enjoy education that goes beyond monolingual boundaries, purity, and
correctness. Children are being constrained to employing just one
‘legitimate’ variety and are being subjugated to ideologies of nation states.
A subtractive ideology is encouraged whereby students end up losing their
other languages such that they can come closer to ‘one pure’ national
language.
This chapter calls for multilingual competence to be seen as an
aspiration, given the nature of most societies where multi-languages are a
reality at both the local and national levels. As Shohamy (2006)
convincingly argues, our reality does support a multilingual ideology.
Indeed, looking at the discourse of today’s speakers, it is clear that daily
language use takes place in complex multilingual ecologies and is
characterised by linguistic practices that employ a multilingual mix and
fusion of form and function. To re-iterate the sentiment of other authors
such as García et al. (2006), how can we create an education that can
support the multiplicity of languages and literacies in our globalised
world? How can we make sure that linguistically-diverse children can
have both their mother tongues and a future? Where it is legitimate to use
and develop multiple languages, how can we do it meaningfully,
creatively, inclusively, and objectively?
Below, I offer some recommendations:

Use language awareness to achieve a meaningful and sociolinguistically-

informed education: Language approaches/policies which promote language
awareness, build on the sociolinguistic context at hand, and promote a
 Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms 23

collaborative partnership between teachers and parents have been shown

to lead to linguistic and cultural empowerment. For instance, a language
awareness project in a primary school in Alsace (France) transformed the
traditional monolingual habitus of the school and paved the way for
multilingual education (Hélot and Young 2006). This was achieved by
making all pupils, monolingual and bilingual alike, aware and respectful
of the regional and immigration languages of the pupils in that school.
Children were thus in the fortunate position of learning about the wealth of
linguistic and cultural diversity that surrounded them before they formally
commenced learning a foreign language. Similarly, many other language-
awareness projects have provided empirical evidence that, when students
are made aware of the richness of the linguistic varieties spoken within
their homes and broader communities and when their first language is seen
as a resource, they perform linguistically better and have positive attitudes
towards linguistic variation. Such projects have been carried out
worldwide, including in Australia (Malcolm and Truscott 2012), Canada
(Ball and Bernhardt 2012), the Caribbean (Siegel 2012), Europe
(Yiakoumetti 2006, 2007), and the United States (Adger et al. 2007) and
had various aims including contrastive analysis between the native and the
target varieties, awareness of variation in language (e.g. regional and
social varieties, pidgins and creoles), and awareness of equality of
linguistic varieties.

Use the pedagogy of translanguaging for a creative education:

Minority-language speakers worldwide are most often educated within
pedagogical frameworks which have been designed for majority-language
speakers. This translates to education in usually one language, the
dominant state language. As García et al. (2012) note, even when
minority-language speakers are given the opportunity to be educated
bi/multilingually, they are exposed to frameworks which are still diglossic
in nature. (This diglossic nature means that one language (Fishman 1967),
or one linguistic variety (Ferguson 1959), or one feature (Labov 1966) is
used for unique purposes and the other language/linguistic variety/feature
is used for different functions.) The authors challenge such frameworks
and argue for the creation of different educational designs which would
better cope with the emergent linguistically-diverse classrooms of today.
The solution they offer transgresses monolingualism and bilingual
dualities and acknowledges that the language practices of today’s
bilinguals do not respond to an additive or a subtractive model of
bilingualism. These language practises need a different pedagogy if they
are to thrive: the recommended pedagogy is translanguaging.
24 Chapter One

Translanguaging as pedagogy refers to building flexibly on bilingual

students’ language practices in order to develop new language practices,
including academic language practices. It is important to differentiate
between translanguaging and codeswitching: the former goes beyond a
shift between two languages and refers to the use of original and complex
discursive practices that cannot be easily assigned to one code or another.
Translanguaging is particularly important for minority-language students
who are emergent bilinguals because it builds on students’ strengths by
allowing them to create language hybrids and fusions whereby different
codes are used for communication and expression. It is especially
important to note that, in classrooms where the translanguaging pedagogy
is employed, teachers need not be fluent in students’ native varieties.
Teachers draw on students’ entire linguistic repertoire and translanguaging
practices by encouraging them to make sense of their knowledge and
expertise.
It should become obvious that a pedagogy like translanguaging best
suits the ever-growing linguistically-diverse classrooms of today. Policies
worldwide ought to respond to the demands posed by globalisation, global
mobility, technology, and transnationalism. Learners today are not being
served efficiently when their various linguistic varieties are separated or,
worse, restricted to one dominant standard language discourse. As Herdina
and Jessner (2002) explain, the interactions of bilinguals’ interdependent
language systems create new structures that are not found in monolingual
monolithic systems created by nation-states.

Involve parents to achieve an inclusive education: The role of the

parents in maintaining their children’s linguistic heritage has been
highlighted in the literature. Baker (1992) cautioned that parents’ stated
attitudes regarding their child’s acquisition/education in a minority
language do not necessarily match their behaviour. Most minority-
language parents wish to see their children succeed in the majority school
language. At the same time, many also want their children to learn and be
proud of their cultural and linguistic heritage. When it comes to practice,
these dual language desires tend to lean towards promoting the majority
language rather than towards parents’ expressed desire for mother-tongue
learning. It is important therefore for language policies to include parents
in their children’s education so that parents feel confident to promote
multilingualism. It has been demonstrated that, when the help of parents is
enlisted, parents are more likely to collaborate with teachers and
participate in their children’s learning (Benson 2002). Fettes (1998)
suggests that acknowledgement of the importance of community ownership