Inclusive perspectives on minority languages in Europe Guus Extra Mercator Network Conference September 2009, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

Recent key references Extra, G., M. Spotti & P. Van Avermaet (Eds.) (2009). Language Testing, Migration and Citizenship: Cross- National Perspectives on Integration Regimes. London: Continuum. Barni, M. & G. Extra (Eds.) (2008). Mapping linguistic diversity in multicultural contexts. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Extra, G. & D. Gorter (Eds.) (2008). Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Extra, G. & K. Yağmur (Eds.) (2004). Urban multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant minority languages at home and school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Extra, G. et al. (2002). De andere talen van Nederland: thuis en op school. Bussum: Coutinho. Extra, G. & J.-J. de Ruiter (Eds.) (2001). Babylon aan de Noordzee. Nieuwe talen in Nederland. Amsterdam: Bulaaq. Extra, G. & D. Gorter (Eds.) (2001). The other languages of Europe. Demographic, sociolinguistic and educational perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

A) The constellation of languages in Europe

Prototypical actors for language transmission in the private and public domain: Families: parents in interaction with children Schools: teachers in interaction with pupils Policy makers: at the local, national and European level 1

Descending hierarchy of languages in Europe English on the rise as lingua franca for transnational communication (at the cost of all other national languages, including French, and German) National or “official state” languages of European countries (Mantra of celebrating linguistic diversity) Regional minority (RM) languages across Europe (celebrated less) Immigrant minority (IM) languages across Europe (celebrated least) (Extra & Gorter 2008) 2

Overview of 30 EU (candidate) member-states with estimated populations and official state languages (EU figures for 2007) 3

Large differences in population size Top-6 of most widely spoken languages German and Turkish in top position, not English Strong linkage between references to nation- states and official state languages (only exceptions for different reasons: Belgium and Cyprus) Disregard of the other languages of Europe (Extra & Gorter 2001) Comments on table 4

RM and IM languages The nomenclature (cf. European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages) Unequal treatment of languages as core values of culture Convergence in the criteria for defining RM and IM groups The need for policies beyond the unilateral concept of “integration” with tasks for all inhabitants of multicultural societies The clash of facts and policies where RM and IM languages coexist (examples: Great-Britain, Spain and The Netherlands) 5

Effects of globalisation for multilingualism in Europe Two competitive processes: Convergence at the transnational level: English becomes lingua franca for international communication, at the cost of all other national languages in Europe, including French, and German Divergence at the national level: diversification of home languages (as yet little diversification of school languages) (cf. outcomes of home language surveys in London and The Hague) 6

How ‘they’ hit the headlines Plea for integration is commonly unidirectional and assimilation-oriented Plea for integration co-occurs with the language of exclusion (“othering”) 7

Paradoxes in the European vs. national public and political discourse on diversity of languages and cultures At the European level: inherent properties of European identity and prerequisites for integration, accompanied by such devices as celebrating linguistic diversity or diversity within unity At the national level, with respect to immigrant languages and cultures: threat to national identity and obstacle for integration The concept of community languages as occupied territory in Europe vs. abroad (e.g., Australia) 8

B) Mapping diversity in multicultural Europe and beyond

Criteria effects in Dutch population statistics on 2007 (CBS 2008) 9

Criteria for the definition and identification of population groups in multicultural societies (P/F/M = person/father/mother) (Source: Extra and Gorter 2008: 17) 10

Comments on table No royal road: (dis)advantages of all criteria Criteria for statistics as important as statistics themselves Predicted: top-down development of criteria in European statistics: from NAT and BC to SC and HL as complementary criteria The need for SC + HL: language ≠ ethnicity vs. Fishman’s lifelong dedication to language as carrier of ethnicity Multiplicity of NAT/SC/HL criteria vs. BC criterion Home language question offers more perceptual transparency and societal utility (e.g., in educational and media policies) than ethnicity question: and yet, more countries with ethnicity question but without language question than reverse (cf. UK Census 1991 vs. 2011) Convergence in the criteria for identifying RM and IM groups 11

Overview of (clusters of) recent census questions in four non-European multicultural countries with longstanding experiences in this domain (Source: Extra and Yağmur 2004: 67) 12

Comments on table Five clusters of questions Variation in total of dimensions and in coverage The cluster of ethnicity, ancestry and race The cluster of four different language questions The paradox of South African statistics The importance of comparing different groups using equal criteria The violation of this principle 13

European statistics on population groups in multicultural societies Nationwide censuses at fixed intervals of, e.g., 5 or 10 years (in 23 out of 27 EU countries) Regularly, e.g., yearly, updated administrative registers at the municipal and national level (in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands) Statistical surveys (large-scale or small-scale) among particular subsets of population groups Databases (in various combinations) nationwide census data administrative register data sample survey data (cf. Poulain, THESIM Group, Louvain-la-Neuve: Towards Harmonised European Statistics on International Migration) 14

Identification of ethnicity, language and religious affiliation in 27 EU countries (* = voluntary/optional question) (Source: Extra and Gorter 2008: 19) 15

Variability in total dimensions per country and in crossnational coverage of dimensions Variability in the operationalisation of questions Variability in optionality of questions Comments on table 16

Operationalisation of language questions in 17 EU countries ( Source: Extra and Gorter 2008: 20) 17

The challenge of formulating language questions Variability in the operationalisation of questions and limitations of crossnational comparisons of outcomes European preference for mother tongue question vs. non-European preference for home language question Ethnographic vs. demolinguistic challenges Single vs. multiple language questions –UK Census of 2011 (“What is your main language?”) –ECF Multilingual Cities Project (Extra & Yağmur 2004) The value of data on language distribution and language vitality The notion of “ethnolinguistic” vitality: MCP vs. Giles et al. 18

Rationale for home language surveys amongst multicultural school populations Taken from a demographic perspective, home language data play a crucial role in the definition and identification of multicultural school populations Taken from a sociolinguistic perspective, home language data offer valuable insights into both the distribution and vitality of home languages across different population groups, and thus raise the public awareness of multilingualism Taken from an educational perspective, home language data are indispensable tools for educational planning and policies (and yet such planning and policies occur in absence of even the most basic empirical facts) Taken from an economic perspective, home language data offer latent resources that can be built upon and developed in terms of economic chances 19

Rationale for focus on multicultural cities International migration concentrates in urban settings The same holds for intergenerational and reciprocal processes of acculturation Multilingualism is most prevalent in urban settings Cities are primary spaces where urban planners create local policies on multiculturalism and multilingualism Cities reinforce translocal and transnational dynamics in dealing with diversity 20

Outline of the Multilingual Cities Project under the auspices of the European Cultural Foundation French Dominant GermanicMixed formDominant Romance SwedishGermanDutch Spanish Göteborg Hamburg The Hague Brussels Lyon Madrid 21

Follow-up studies of the MCP in three European nation-states Lithuania (Vilnius/Kaunas/Klaipeda) Austria (Vienna) Ireland (Dublin) 22

Top-23 of most frequently mentioned home languages other than Dutch in 13 Dutch municipalities (Extra et al. 2001: 54) (sample size: approx. 140,000 primary and secundary school pupils) 23

Language vitality per language group and per language dimension for pupils aged 4-13 in primary schools, including Frisian and Maastrichts (in %, LVI in cumulative %) (Extra et al. 2001: 150) 24

C)Dealing with plurilingualism in education

Moving away from a monolingual mindset In retrospect: compensatory/transitional/complementary approaches in bilingual education In prospect: valuing trilingualism in mainstream education 25

Major agencies and documents on language rights at the global and European level 26

Comments on agencies and documents Differences in terminology of the documents Differences in target groups Language rights on paper vs. language rights in actual practice 27

Irish and Basque voices on RM and IM groups 28

European institutions as agents of plurilingualism Concept of plurilingual citizens in multilingual nation-states European Union (Brussels/Belgium): Unit for Multilingualism Policy Directorate of Culture, Multilingualism and Communication Council of Europe (Strasbourg/France): Language Policy Division European Centre for Modern Languages (Graz/Austria) 29

Attitudes towards plurilingualism (Source: Special Eurobarometer 243: 53, European Commission 2006) (AL = Additional Language) 30

Arguments in favour of community language teaching (CLT) for minority children From a cultural perspective: CLT contributes to maintaining and advancing a pluriform society, in line with the fact that many IM groups consider their own language as a core value of their cultural identity From an economic perspective: CLT leads to an important pool of professional knowledge in societies with an increasingly international orientation From a legal perspective: CLT meets the internationally recognised right to language transmission and language maintenance 31

Beyond integration: principles for the enhancement of trilingualism at primary schools for all children 32

Sources of inspiration for the above-mentioned principles The European Commission as agent of trilingualism for all European citizens The Victorian School of Languages in Melbourne/Australia as role model The UNESCO Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity (updated in 2002) “If India can do this, why wouldn’t Europe be able to do so?” Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence (2006) 33