Further Language Learning in Linguistic and Cultural Diverse Contexts

A Mixed Methods Research in a European Border Region

Barbara Gross

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367076375
• eBook ISBN: 9780429664267
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Further Language Learning in Linguistic and Cultural Diverse Contexts deals with the interdisciplinary area of multilingual and intercultural education and the increasing interest in sociolinguistic and sociocultural aspects of further language learning. It presents the individual, family, scholastic, and extra-scholastic circumstances that promote or limit language learning and its outcomes among young learners of a further language.

The intertwined, dynamic interrelationship between intercultural and language learning at primary school is shown by means of the European border region South Tyrol that is characteristic for its linguistic and cultural diversity and serves to demonstrate authentic benefits, challenges, and difficulties in hyper complex and super-diverse contexts. The book analyzes experiences and perceptions as reported by primary school teachers, children, and parents, considering the impact of many factors on further language learning, including school organization, extra curricular activities, and self-initiated encounter pedagogy.

Further Language Learning in Linguistic and Cultural Diverse Contexts will be vital reading for academics, researchers, and post-graduate students in the fields of education, language learning, sociolinguistics, interculturalism, and super-diversity.

1 Introduction

There is agreement among researchers, theorists, and practitioners that language learning goes hand in hand with the development of cultural awareness and intercultural competences.¹ Teaching a further language not only means drawing attention to linguistic rules, but is also closely linked to the appreciation of diverse cultural backgrounds. For example, Gardner (2010a) emphasizes that language learning includes not only the simple acquisition of new linguistic information; it is a process, which involves the acquisition of linguistic and cultural symbolic elements of another ethnolinguistic community. The relation between language and culture has a communicative and a social dimension. Regarding the social dimension, within a community, language unifies speakers as members of this language community. Language is a tool for social identification, implements social stratification (Saville-Troike, 2003), and functions as a social capital (e.g., Bourdieu, 1992). Due to increased migration flows and globalization processes, cross-cultural communication and cultural understanding have become a priority in Europe and beyond, and a successful communication with other language groups requires a high cultural understanding. Undoubtedly, learning a foreign language is inseparably connected with some reflections on the learner’s native and foreign culture. Increasing contact with people of other countries is something for which children and adolescents have to be prepared. In this regard, language teachers certainly have a special role to play. As Jedynak (2011) indicates, pupils should be prepared for intercultural contacts, and it is the role of teachers to help students develop positive attitudes, skills, and knowledge in this regard. Consequently, further language teaching has a unique role to play in the development of intercultural and cultural understanding, as learners gain insight not only into a new language but also into another sociopolitical and cultural system. In other words, further language teaching aims to build bridges between the students’ cultures and languages, and the culture and language of the “new” target language. The way language teachers pursue this objective will decisively influence the learners’ engagement with the new language and culture.

Further language learning is not only fundamental for the development of (inter)-cultural awareness and competences, but a growing body of empirical data also provides support for many advantages of bi- and multilingualism. Cook (2002) argues that the learning of a new language leads to a state of multi-competence, where the learner’s mind changes in ways that go beyond the linguistic realm. For example, speaking two or more languages has been proven to improve rather than diminishing individual cognitive abilities (e.g., Bialystok, 2010; Bialystok & Craik, 2010; Bialystok, Craik, Green, & Gollan, 2009; Bialystok & Martin, 2004; Costa, Hernández, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2008; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Cushen & Wiley, 2011; Lee & Kim, 2011; Yang, Yang, & Lust, 2011). According to these researchers, bi- and multilingualism is an intensive experience that modifies the brain structure and some cognitive processes. For example, bilinguals do better in control tasks, in attention tasks, and they seem to have a better working memory.

Given the benefits bi- and multilinguals seem to have, and in the light of the challenges connected to globalization, migration, and refugee flows in Europe, multilingualism is one of the main objectives of the European Union. Published European Commission documents promote the learning of two further European-languages beyond the national language of the country of residence rather than relying on only one lingua franca (COM, 2008). To date though, studies have consistently shown high variability in the language learning outcomes achieved by pupils of different European countries (e.g., European Commission, 2012). Preparing students for a multilingual society has become a central issue for educational policymakers. Hence, investigating the factors, which affect language learning outcomes, is a continuing concern within different academic research fields, such as education and applied linguistics. Already in the 1950s did researchers (Gardner & Lambert, 1959; see also MacIntyre, 2010) show interest in factors that affect language learning outcomes. Researchers who investigated second- or further-language learning—here the term LX² is used—in the past pointed mainly to concepts such as motivation and attitude, investment or desire as well as certain personality factors as being at the heart of success in language learning (Dewaele, 2012a). However, in many parts of Europe, we can observe external factors, for example, unfavorable sociolinguistic conditions, contributing to the difficulties in the development of a multilingual society (Nelde, 2006). Therefore, especially in the past 20 years, researchers working on further language learning and multilingualism have acknowledged the complex interrelationships of independent variables affecting the learning process and have accepted that a dynamic perspective is necessary (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999; Dörnyei, 2009; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009).

Relatively recently, in addition to the dynamic perspective, the complexity of language learning was highlighted by researchers. For example, Aronin and Jessner (2015) emphasize the complexity of multilingualism; they focus on the fundamental need of sensitivity to initial conditions in understanding complex dynamic systems inherent to multilingualism. Here, the authors propose the butterfly effect, which was modeled by Edward Lorenz. The butterfly model demonstrates

sensitive dependence on initial conditions, that is, noticeable changes occasioned by the very slightest change. The extreme sensitivity to initial conditions of chaotic systems means that the very slightest change in those conditions can produce radically different results, and thus leads to unpredictability.

(Aronin & Jessner, 2015, p. 283)

Aronin and Jessner (2015) conclude that this theory can be adapted to teachers, parents, and language learners who may experience frustration considering the unpredictability and diversity of results in language learning. The authors specifically focus on multilingualism, but this approach is also useful in studying LX learning—which is the case in this work—as it transforms the black or white vision and tries to ensure a realistic and sensible view of learning. Hence, some authors (Herdina & Jessner, 2002) use the dynamic systems theory for a view on multilingualism, while other researchers (e.g., de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007) apply this theory to LX acquisition and study the interaction of various subsystems over time and how this interaction causes large nonlinear development in LX proficiency.

Factors found to be influencing the language learning outcomes have been explored in numerous studies. As reported in the first models of Gardner (1985), language learning involves a range of environmental variables as well as characteristics of the student. To date, there has been little agreement on whether language learning outcomes are influenced more socially or more individually. Furthermore, previous studies of individual factors (e.g., Dewaele & Li Wei, 2013; Dewaele & Stavans, 2014; Gross & Dewaele, 2018) have generally dealt with different shades of bi- or multilingualism. Those researchers who have dealt with language mastery (e.g., Korzilius, Van Hooft, Planken, & Hendrix, 2011) have generally focused on personality dimensions and not on basic human values (for research on basic human values see, e.g., Döring, Blauensteiner, Aryus, Drögekamp, & Bilsky, 2010; Schwartz, 1992). While traits can be regarded as products of nature, values are the results of interactions between nature and the environment (Grankvist & Kajonius, 2015). Members from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds might have different conceptions of what is good and desirable in line with their values. To date, no study has investigated the influence of values on language learning outcomes.

It is reasonable to assume that some individual characteristics, such as motivation and attitudes (e.g., Dörnyei, 2014; Gardner, 1985), favor the students’ success in language learning. However, there may also be environmental factors, such as family, neighborhood, and institutions, which influence the students’ language learning outcomes. Therefore, not only the students’ personality but also the teaching environment, the sociopolitical environment, and opportunities for contact with the language group (e.g., Abel & Vettori, 2017; Baur & Videsott, 2012; Cenoz, 2001; De Angelis, 2012) are believed to make an important contribution to the success of language learning. Thus, this book deals with the interdisciplinary area of multilingual and intercultural education and the increasing interest in sociolinguistic and sociocultural aspects of further language learning and presents the learner-internal, scholastic, extra-scholastic, and family circumstances that promote or limit language learning and its outcomes among young learners of a further language. The intertwined, dynamic interrelationship between intercultural and language learning at primary school is shown by means of a European region that is characteristic for its linguistic and cultural diversity and serves to demonstrate authentic benefits, challenges, and difficulties that affect language learning in hypercomplex and super-diverse contexts.

The conducted research is aimed, in a first analysis, to examine the interrelation between some learner-internal and learner-external factors affecting LX learning outcomes among primary school pupils. In a second analysis, the principal objective is to understand how children, parents, and teachers perceive LX learning and the interrelation between influence factors in primary schools. Hence, also the impact of the larger social, historical, and political context (e.g., Peterlini, 2013; Risse, 2010)—and consequently visible and invisible borders for language learning—are the center of attention.

Within this book, South Tyrol is used as an example for a European linguistic and cultural diverse context; however, it is not limited to this territory, as throughout the book parallels to other—especially European—regions are drawn. The empirical data originate from this Italian multilingual region that is distinctly marked by a high inner diversity and a multilingual language policy. In the following, contextual detail of the study is provided as historical and sociopolitical characteristics of a nation or region provide information about the success of learning processes.

South Tyrol as an example: historical and sociopolitical context

South Tyrol is situated in northern Italy along the border with Austria and was a part of it until 1919. Austria was partitioned after World War I and the part south of the Brenner Pass was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy. After the separation, a big social and linguistic change could be observed: the use of the German language was prohibited in schools and public, names and places were Italianized, and Italian-speaking inhabitants were forced to come to South Tyrol. Thus, during the Fascist period, the Italian government, which hoped for a unified language and society, imposed the Italian language on the region. Consequently, German-speakers developed negative attitudes toward Italian-speakers in South Tyrol and Italians developed negative attitudes toward German-speaking inhabitants, as they did not follow the “new” rules imposed by the Italian authorities.

Due to the Nazi occupation of the region between 1943 and 1945, German schools could be re-opened and provided German L1 instruction to “preserve the German mother tongue against ‘foreign’ influences and ‘mixtures’ with other languages” (Baur & Medda-Windischer, 2008, p. 237). In 1946, the Pariser Vertrag or Gruber-De Gasperi-Abkommen³ between Italy and Austria ensured equal rights for the German and the Italian language and culture, a special protection of the German-language community, and autonomous legislation and jurisdiction for the provinces of Trento and Bolzano. In 1948, the First Autonomy Statute was released and guaranteed the German minority equal rights and protection. Consequently, names were re-Germanized and bi- or trilingual signposts were made. Nevertheless, inhabitants complained about the missing representation of the German minority group in public administration and the legal system and demanded for linguistic equality in the employment in the public sector. After ongoing protests between 1956 and 1969, a raft of legal provisions was agreed involving Austria, Italy, and the United Nations. Finally, the Second Autonomy Statute in 1972 ensured rights concerning public services and the educational system and also rights for the Ladin population. The so-called Proporz (i.e., ethnic proportion or proportionality law), in effect from 1976 onward, promotes a proportionality of jobs according to the size of the language groups. The language census is conducted every ten years to distribute jobs in the public administration equally. This means that South Tyrolean citizens must choose a language option—German, Italian, or Ladin—and can then apply for jobs in the public administration advertised for their chosen language group. Bilingual inhabitants have only the option to choose “other” languages within this language census (Lantschner & Poggeschi, 2008). However, they have to decide for one of the three language groups, so that they can obtain certain jobs. Researchers have underlined that this regulation could be seen as interfering with EU anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Egger, 2001; Eichinger, 2002). Other rights in the second statute include the right to attend a school in which the children’s L1 (German and Italian) is the official language of instruction (Steininger, 2012).⁴ As a consequence of the statute, schooling was divided into linguistic groups in order to create “equal” rights to all inhabitants. That this division also has alarming effects on society and its dynamics has been shown by Wand (2016). She points out,

The school system more importantly for Germans and Italians, functioned as a mirror image of society with a language learning programme that divided local students into three “separate but equal” schooling systems, the third being Ladin. Since communities in South Tyrol are largely segregated into intersecting, subdivided enclaves, the three-part education system acts as a window to understanding local group dynamics.

(p. 98)

The created separate school systems are supposed to conserve and strengthen the individual L1. As a result, these separate language groups have never had the opportunity to collaborate and grow together which could have happened had they been schooled together. While in the post-war years, a divided school system ensured protection for the minority languages, nowadays it keeps the groups divided and reinforces group tensions. These tensions are a result of structural barriers and (in)visible borders. Regarding this, Wand (2016) emphasizes, “By creating group distinctions based around one’s language use, this could result in establishing group borders, which like politics and culture creates societal divisions, as evidenced within South Tyrol” (p. 67).

Nowadays, the region is characterized by a specific linguistic situation, where German (65.3%), Italian (27.4%), Ladin (4.1%), and other L1 speakers (8.6%)⁵ (ASTAT, 2015) live together in a kind of parallel worlds. The distribution of Germans and Italians has never been even; most rural communities are almost entirely German-speaking, while a higher percentage of Italians live in cities, especially in Bozen-Bolzano, the largest city. In 1921, 23.4% of the population of this city was Italian, while in 1991 72.6% of the population had Italian as L1. In 2011, 73.8% of inhabitants in Bozen-Bolzano stated to be part of the Italian-language group (ASTAT, 2011). In South Tyrolean cities, between 40% and 70% of inhabitants are Italian-speakers, while this language group represents between 10% and 40% of the population in large valleys and less than 10% in mountainous areas (Baur & Medda-Windischer, 2008). German and Ladin are indigenous minority languages in South Tyrol. German is a “fragile majority” (McAndrew, 2013), that is, it represents the majority in the region, but a minority in the state. In addition, there are several German dialects in the region; these South Tyrolean dialects are the spoken medium used by the German group, and the Standard German is the formal variety used mainly in the written form. It could be that the variety and the widespread use of different dialects make it difficult for Italian (less for Ladin) L1 speakers to understand and learn the German language in this context. On the other hand, there is no regional Italian dialect in South Tyrol; Italian L1 speakers normally speak Standard Italian in South Tyrol, which could have a positive effect on the LX learning of German L1 speakers. Stavans and Hoffmann (2015) mention that the relationship between the two languages is still an area of conflict. They state that most German L1 children have contact with Italian-language speakers outside school (75%), while only a quarter of Italian L1 children have contact with German-language speakers outside school (Sprachbarometer, as cited in Stavans & Hoffmann, 2015). The authors conclude that learners experience the added difficulty of learning Standard German a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Research on and for language learning
• 3 Picture of language learning success
• 4 Learner-internal characteristics
• 5 Family environment
• 6 School environment
• 7 Social context and extracurricular learning
• 8 Conclusion, implications, and outlook
• References
• Appendix
• Index