Australia's Language Potential

Au stralia’s Australia is a country with a wide diversity of languages in a world in which there are more multilinguals...

Author: Michael Clyne

38 downloads 818 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Au stralia’s

Australia is a country with a wide diversity of languages in a world in which there are more multilinguals than monolinguals. This book explores the paradox of a nation rich in language resources yet characterised by monolingual thinking.

Language Langu age

With insight and passion, Australia’s Language Potential illustrates the ways in which our language resources can be consolidated and further developed for universal benefit.

‘The tragedy of the Cornelia Rau case and the treatment of asylum seekers in detention is linked to Australia’s monolingualism. The paucity of bi- and multilingual Australians is scandalous when one considers that we are one of the

Australia’s

La n g u a g e

Po te ntial

‘Michael Clyne’s Australia’s Language Potential is a wake-up call to Australians. If we are to flourish as a nation in the 21st century we must move out of our monolingual mindset.’

GREG BARNS , refugee

UNSW PRESS ISBN 0-86840-727-5

CLYNE

advocate, columnist and author

1

ten

CLYNE

..

No Entiendo.

English gio

ag gu

Ar

-

lin Walpiri

� 9 780868 407272 �

clyne2.indd

Mich ael

a

themselves today.

jar

be in a better situation than they find

t tja jin

interpretation of their stories might

Pid

rejected because of flawed linguistic

po

of asylum seekers whose claims are

zio ne

our own, perhaps Ms Rau and hundreds

com un ica

understanding of, languages other than

sm ali ngu oli Mon

Po te ntial

If there was greater respect for, and

zia le

most multi-cultural nations in the world.

UNSW

PRESS

8/8/05

1:08:44 PM

AustLanguagePotential04

15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page i

Australia’s Language Potential Michael Clyne AM, FASSA, FAHA has held professorial appointments in Linguistics at the University of Melbourne (2001–04) and Monash University (1988–2000). He is now an Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne and also Emeritus Professor at Monash University. He has written extensively on bi- and multilingualism, intercultural communication and second language acquisition. He has been awarded the Austrian Cross of Honour, the German Cross of Merit, an honorary doctorate of the University of Munich, and has been elected to the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page iii

Australia’s Language Potential Michael Clyne

UNSW PRESS


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page iv

A UNSW Press book

Published by University of New South Wales Press Ltd University of New South Wales Sydney NSW 2052 AUSTRALIA www.unswpress.com.au © Michael Clyne 2005 First published 2005 This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publisher. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Australia’s language potential. Clyne, Michael, 1939– . Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 0 86840 727 5. 1. Multilingualism – Australia. 2. Language and languages – Australia. 3. Language policy – Australia. I. Title. 306.4460994 Cover illustration Ruth Pidd Design Ruth Pidd Printer Ligare


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page v

Contents

List of figures

vi

List of tables

vii

Acknowledgments

viii

Introduction one Recognising Australia’s multilingualism two Valuing Australia’s multilingualism three Fostering and transmitting multilingualism

ix 1 26 65

four Strengthening and spreading multilingualism

109

five Policy overview

143

six Supporting multilingualism collaboratively

172

Notes

183

Index

197


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page vi

List of figures

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3

Percentage of speakers of languages other than English by capital city, 2001 The seven most widely used community languages among those aged 0–14 years nationwide, 2001 The seven most widely used community languages among those aged 55 years and over nationwide, 2001

4 12 13


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page vii

List of tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4

Table 1.5 Table 1.6 Table 1.7 Table 1.8 Table 1.9 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1

Top 20 community languages in Australia, 2001, with percentage change from 1991 Top ten community languages in five major capitals, 2001 Community language home users aged 0–14 years in five major capitals, 2001 Types of local government areas in Sydney indicating dominant community languages and numbers of community languages with over 1000 home users, 2001 Types of local government areas in Melbourne, 2001 Types of local government areas in Adelaide, 2001 Types of local government areas in Perth, 2001 The ten most concentrated community languages, Sydney and Melbourne, 2001 The ten most dispersed community languages, Sydney and Melbourne, 2001 Language shift in the first generation, 2001 Language shift 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Comparison of first and second generation language shift, 1996 Language shift by period of residence, first generation Languages broadcast, SBS Television, 2002–03 The top ten community languages in Australian schools, 2001 Students taking a LOTE in Year 12, 2003 Differentiated examination/assessment streams, 2005 Requirements for LOTE study, state language-in-education policies, 2005

6 8 11 15

16 16 17 18 18 68 70 71 78 98 113 117 123 159


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page viii

Acknowledgments

There are so many people who have helped shape the ideas expressed in this book and provided data that I cannot thank them all individually, so let me begin by thanking them collectively. However, a number of colleagues do need to be mentioned specifically. Special thanks are due to Sue Fernandez, who assisted me in every possible way, by helping me collect data and by working through the manuscript, replacing awkward and incomprehensible passages, and compiling the index. Leslie and Marianne Bodi read and commented on the entire manuscript, Sandra Kipp on several chapters, as well as collaborating with me on a number of projects that informed sections of the book, and Susanne Döpke and Howard Nicholas gave feedback on one section. Yvette Slaughter and Felicity Grey assisted in data gathering. I am also indebted to the Australian Research Council for funding the project, Community Languages in 21st Century Australia, and Phillipa McGuinness and her colleagues at UNSW Press for all their help and support.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page ix

Introduction

At the time of writing, the media featured intensive discussions of the case of Cornelia Rau, the mentally ill German-born Australian who was imprisoned first in a women’s gaol in Brisbane and then in Baxter Detention Centre under abominable conditions and with no medical treatment whatsoever. She had lived in Australia since the age of 18 months, but had spoken German and German-accented English to authorities to create a new identity as a recent unauthorised immigrant, as part of an escape from a Sydney psychiatric hospital. The Age editorial of 5 February 2005 (p. 12) comments: The 10-month incarceration of Cornelia Rau is a sad reflection on the society Australia has become … Ms Rau’s crime was to be found wandering in the bush, speaking a foreign tongue and pretending to be someone else.

In 2003, it was revealed that the Australian Government had enlisted the services of a Swedish company to analyse speech samples of Afghani asylum seekers with the intention of identifying those who were really Pakistanis cheating their way into Australia. A group of Australian linguists reviewing the procedure found it to be a seriously flawed and inappropriate way of determining nationality as it did not take into account such factors as the effects of contact between languages and particular sociolinguistic situations. They asked for the procedure to be stopped.1 Administrators making a language other than English an instrument of exclusion has an unsavoury earlier history, when ‘non-whites’ were given a dictation test in a European language to keep them out of the country. Such a test was also administered on ‘politically undesirable’ Europeans, such as the Czech


X

15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page x

• AU S T R A L I A ’ S L A N G UAG E P OT E N T I A L

journalist and author Egon Erwin Kisch, who failed a dictation test in Gaelic when he wanted to enter Australia to attend a peace conference in Melbourne in 1934. The dictation was administered by a policeman without a knowledge of Gaelic! In each case, we have monolinguals using other people’s languages as an instrument of exclusion. This book is about inclusion – about legitimating and valuing Australia’s multilingualism, about using and sharing our multilingual resources to make it easier and more pleasurable for all of us to become bi- or multilingual. It is about empowering people in this country who have another language in addition to English – a project that Australia embarked on in the last quarter of the 20th century. We are very fortunate that our national language and lingua franca, English, is also the most widespread international lingua franca. However, as I hope to show, we disadvantage ourselves if we believe that one language is sufficient. As General Peter Cosgrove, then Chief of the Australian Defence Forces, expressed it: ‘Language skills and cultural sensitivity will be the new currency of this world order’.2 In our global situation, we need human resources in as many languages as possible to understand what people really mean, whether they are using English or another language. Because we have English as our national language and lingua franca, we are not committed to one particular ‘foreign language’ in our educational institutions. We have the opportunity to diversify and utilise language resources from all over the world to build on. Children who develop more than one language early can develop means of thinking that are of advantage to them. We can greatly benefit from the multilingual base that we already have in this country if we build on it so that eventually everyone can participate in our multilingual society. We have languages from all over the world, languages from many different families, with different sociolinguistic histories. According to the 2001 Census, 16 per cent of our population speak a language other than English at home, 29 per cent in Sydney and 27 per cent in Melbourne. But, as we will discuss in chapter 1, these are underestimates. This book argues that we need to develop our language potential to the fullest – so that young Australians, regardless of their background, can attain a high level of competence in at least one language in addition to English – to benefit them culturally, cognitively, in communicative competence, and in many cases in terms of understanding themselves and their families. At the same time, benefits will accrue to our nation economically and in our communication with other countries. All this is happening to some extent, but not as much as it could. There is a paradox between the


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page xi

INTRODUCTION •

XI

linguistic diversity of our population and our gross under-utilisation of this diversity. For instance, in an international survey mentioned in chapter 1, Australian business leaders were competent in fewer languages than their counterparts in 27 other countries. The greatest impediment to recognising, valuing and utilising our language potential is a persistent monolingual mindset. Such a mindset sees everything in terms of monolingualism being the norm, even though there are more bi- and multilinguals in the world than monolinguals and in spite of our own linguistic diversity. It views multilingualism as outside the possible experience of ‘real Australians’ or even in the too-hard basket. It is the monolingual mindset that does not understand that developing an individual’s language skills in any language benefits their skills in another language. The monolingual mindset has, however, succeeded in creating the myth of the overcrowded school curriculum that has no space for any language other than English and the one that presupposes that learning and knowing another language detracts from English literacy. The monolingual mindset finds it hard to distinguish between ‘bilingualism’ and ‘monolingualism in a language other than the national language’ (in this case English) and sometimes believes that using another language is an indication of inability or unwillingness to speak English at all. In chapter 2, we will advance evidence that all this is diametrically the opposite to the real situation. If the Cornelia Rau case is really symptomatic in the age of insecurity and counterterrorist paranoia of a change in Australian attitudes regarding language other than English as something to exclude, it is the latest in a cyclical series spanning the past two centuries. Within the past two decades, leading international scholars on bilingualism have acclaimed the achievements of Australia as a predominantly English-speaking nation that has developed an exemplary language policy recognising both English and all other languages used within the nation (see chapter 5). While language policy is no longer high on the public agenda, overseas visitors are still impressed by some of the icons of multilingualism in Australia, which provide for a flexible system to which new languages can be added (and from which languages no longer deemed to be needed can be removed) – SBS Television, ethnic and multilingual radio, languages accredited for the Year 12 examination, the Telephone Interpreter Service, and the multilingual holdings of local public libraries. This book is written for the general reader interested in exploring some issues of multilingualism in Australian society. It attempts to contribute


XII

15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page xii

• AU S T R A L I A ’ S L A N G UAG E P OT E N T I A L

towards placing these issues back on the Australian agenda. It provides material to help understand Australia’s language potential and how it can be better realised. The issues are seen from the perspective of a professional linguist who was himself born and raised bilingually in Australia and who is the father of an Australian-born bilingual. The general reader is invited to gloss over any section they may find too technical. The first part of the agenda is to recognise our multilingualism. Chapter 1 sketches the demography of community languages, providing statistics on how they are distributed. Chapter 2 presents evidence and arguments for valuing our multilingualism, in the interests of the individual, the family, the community and the nation. Chapter 3, on fostering and transmitting multilingualism, examines language maintenance and shift patterns across ethnolinguistic communities in Australia, considering factors in the process of shift to English. It also offers advice to families raising, or wishing to raise, their children in more than one language. Chapter 4 is concerned with spreading multilingualism from the ethnic communities to the wider population, the role of the education system, and the current controversies surrounding ‘background’ and ‘non-background’ learners. Chapter 5 examines the changing fortunes of language policy in Australia, while chapter 6 summarises a collaborative strategy for managing linguistic diversity in which different institutions are able to play a role.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 1

one

Recognising Australia’s multilingualism

Australia’s multilingual past A few decades ago, I was in Lobethal (South Australia) tape-recording bilinguals whose ancestors had arrived there in 1841. One of the leading questions I would ask was: ‘How has this place changed since you were a child?’ ‘Oh,’ said the elderly man in the museum in fluent German, ‘it really has changed. The New Australians have come from England and they make such a noise on their motorbikes’. It brought home to me the fact that in some parts of Australia, the Germans were the old Australians and the English were the new Australians. Multilingualism was a fact of life in Australia long before the post-Second World War immigration scheme.1 The new British settlement in New South Wales in 1788 was basically monolingual, but it shared a continent with old communities of multilinguals, speaking a total of over 250 Aboriginal languages. The uniqueness of indigenous cultures and the structural complexity of the languages were not understood by the new occupants, many of whom were eager to see them disappear. However, immigration soon brought to Australia many other languages in addition to English. Multilingualism in the newly emerging society began to be valued. The household of Victoria’s first governor, Charles La Trobe, was bilingual – French and English. By the 1860s, the most widely used languages other than English on the Australian continent were Chinese, German, Irish, (Scottish) Gaelic, Welsh, the Scandinavian languages, and French. At the time, almost all business transactions in Melbourne and Adelaide could be undertaken in German, and as many as eight newspapers were published in that language


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 2

2 • AU S T R A L I A ’ S L A N G UAG E P OT E N T I A L

in Australia. For a period, government tenders in South Australia had to be published in German as well as English. Later in the 19th century, newspapers in five languages were published in Australia and 17 churches in Victoria had sermons in Welsh. There was far more bilingual education in Australia in the 19th century than at present. Bilingual schools operated in the five mainland colonies, with different subjects taught in English and another language – German, French, Gaelic, Polish or Hebrew. They were mainly primary schools, but some secondary. Though intended originally for children of a particular ethnic background, some of the bilingual schools attracted those from English-speaking backgrounds because there was no other school in their area, because their parents wanted them to grow up bilingually or because of the high standard of education offered. German–English bilingual primary schools in Melbourne and Adelaide advertised bilingual education as an asset: ‘Instruction is given in German and English so that German and English people can learn one another’s language’ (Südaustralische Zeitung, 24 March 1865; Australischer Christenbote, 11 November 1862). Four French–English bilingual girls’ schools in Melbourne, founded to provide schooling for the daughters of French woolbuyers, had large enrolments of English speakers who the French traveller and author Oscar Commetant2 commented in 1890 had a ‘marvellous facility to learn languages’. In addition, part-time ethnic schools were established, the first at Mill Park (now a Melbourne suburb) in 1857. But throughout Australia’s history, there has been tension between monolingualism and multilingualism, between the one language (albeit in different varieties) as a symbol of British Empire loyalty or of Australian nationalism and the many languages as a feature of multicultural reality. The First World War and the period before and after it created an environment for the next seven decades in which anyone who spoke a language other than English had better forget it as soon as possible. This will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5.

Why is it important to know about the distribution of community languages? Language demography gives us a glimpse of Australia’s language potential, although lack of space prevents us from including information about all of the almost 200 community languages. Linguistic diversity is a fact of life in


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 3

RECOGNISING AUSTRALIA’S

M U LT I L I N G UA L I S M

• 3

this country and knowing about linguistic diversity is essential to its full recognition and utilisation. Areas with a visible presence of particular community languages can provide stimulation for the maintenance of the languages as well as input for second language acquisition for people living within or outside the area. Community language resources could be utilised far more in the learning and teaching of languages than is currently the case. The information is also required for the provision of services in languages, such as interpreting, public notices and language-specific child care, and the choice of languages for schools, for example. However, I must emphasise that a visible presence of community languages in an Australian locality is a multilingual presence, involving English plus several other languages, not a monolingual one involving just one community language.

Australia’s multilingual present At the time of the last Census3, taken in 2001, 16 per cent of the Australian population indicated that they used a language other than English at home, as did 29 per cent of Sydneysiders and 27 per cent of Melburnians. This is almost certainly an underestimate. The question is not appropriate, for instance, for those who live alone and others who speak a language other than English outside the home, such as in the homes of parents or other older relatives or in community groups. Such people often answer the question ‘Does this person speak a language other than English in the home?’ in the negative. Incidentally, the language probably most affected by the narrow wording of the question is Auslan (Australian Sign Language), claimed as a home language by 3300 people in 2001, a 72 per cent increase since 1996 probably because there is more community awareness that the clumsy formulation ‘speak’ intends to include sign languages. However, the majority of young Auslan users do not share it with their families, who are not deaf, and therefore use it only outside the home. In the 19th century, many of the bi- and multilingual areas were outside the cities, in places such as New Italy (northern New South Wales), the Estonian settlement of Thirlmere (New South Wales), and German settlements in the Barossa Valley, the Adelaide Hills, the Wimmera, the Victorian Western District, and the New South Wales Riverina. Today Australia’s bi- and multilinguals live mainly in urban areas. It is a well-known fact that the vast majority of Australia’s people live in the capital cities. For the whole population it is 72 per cent, but about


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 4


FIGURE

1.1 Percentage of speakers of languages other than English by capital city, 2001

Percentage of speakers of languages other than English

30

25

29.2 20

26.9

15

15.1 14.2

14.2

14.2

10

10.1

5

4.8

0

Sydney

Melbourne

Brisbane

Adelaide

Perth

Hobart

Canberra

Darwin

Capital City SOURCE

Based on ABS 2001 Census

88 per cent of speakers of community languages live there, the majority in Sydney or Melbourne. The most urbanised communities are some of the most recent arrivals, those born in Somalia, Eritrea, Cambodia, Vietnam and Lebanon, many of them from rural backgrounds. Less than 3 per cent of all of those groups live outside the metropolitan area. The only groups with more than a quarter of the population living outside the metropolitan area are German and Dutch speakers. Only 4.9 per cent of Victorians outside Melbourne and 4.7 per cent of the population of New South Wales outside Sydney speak a language other than English. And those who do are mainly residents of Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong, Shepparton, Albury-Wodonga or the Latrobe Valley. The big exception is the Northern Territory outside Darwin, with 41 per cent of speakers of languages other than English – this is where most of Australia’s indigenous languages are spoken. (We will discuss the impact of living outside the metropolitan area on language use in chapter 3.)


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 5



• 5

In this book, we will focus on community languages. The term covers languages other than English in Australia but does not include indigenous languages, as indigenous communities wish to emphasise their unique and special status in Australia. These languages cannot be replenished from any outside source. The term ‘community languages’ has been widely used in Australia since the mid-1970s, when it became apparent that ‘foreign languages’ was a highly inappropriate designation for languages that were part of the lives of many Australians. ‘Community languages’ is now also used widely in Britain and New Zealand and in some other countries. ‘LOTE’ (Languages other than English), employed in Australia principally in the education domain, is a more neutral term that leaves open whether or not the community use of the language has relevance to the pupil. There is a tendency in some educational circles for ‘LOTE’ to be replaced by ‘languages’, as the former defines languages by what they are not. But the reality is that English as national language, lingua franca and sole or dominant medium of instruction plays a different role to other languages in Australia, and in education as in other domains, so there is a constant need to differentiate. If the term ‘LOTE’ is not available, the natural outcome will be to revert to the earlier term ‘foreign languages’ (something that is already happening a little), which will say something discriminatory about whether the languages belong in Australia and for whom languages are offered in schools. (This will be discussed further in chapter 4.) Indigenous languages require a separate and extensive treatment, which neither space nor my lack of expertise permits. The interested reader is referred to RMW Dixon’s Australian Languages: Their Nature and Development.4

Which languages are spoken in Australia? Responses to the home language question in the Australian Census give us good insights into our language resources, how they are distributed, and how these are changing.5 On the basis of the 2001 Census, it can be estimated that as many as 240 languages are used in Australia. Apart from our own indigenous languages, the statistics for 64 of which were processed in the 2001 Census, the languages have been brought to this country from Europe (including the British Isles), Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and the Pacific. They belong to many different language families, have different types of grammatical structures, and some have had very different histories. They include many spoken languages and some sign languages.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 6


Two hundred and forty is just slightly less than the number of languages spoken in Australia at the beginning of British colonisation. Many of the original number have disappeared, due to neglect, racism, assimilation policy or other reasons, and many others have come. Some of the languages that were spoken by large groups of people in Australia in the early post-Second World War period have now been overtaken in numbers of speakers by languages of more recent vintages of migrants. Table 1.1 shows the top 20 community languages in Australia in 2001 and indicates percentage fluctuations from 1991. TABLE

1.1

Language

Italian Greek Cantonese Arabic Vietnamese Mandarin Spanish Tagalog (Filipino)* German Macedonian

Top 20 community languages in Australia, 2001, with percentage change from 1991

Speakers in 2001

Percentage change since 1991

353 606 263 718 225 307 209 371 174 236 139 288 93 595 78 879

–15.6 –7.7 +38.9 +28.6 +58.1 +155.9 +3.4 +33.4

76 444 71 994

–32.6 +11.7

Language

Speakers in 2001

Percentage change since 1991

Croatian Polish Turkish Serbian Hindi Maltese Dutch French

69 850 59 056 50 692 49 202 47 817 41 392 40 187 39 643

+10.7 –11.8 +20.8 +102.2 +110.4 –21.9 –14.7 –12.9

Korean Indonesian

39 528 38 724

+100.1 +42.4

* Unfortunately the way the Census data is processed does not enable us to differentiate between ‘Tagalog’, the main regional language of the Philippines, and the planned national language ‘Filipino’ based largely on it. SOURCE Based on Clyne & Kipp 2002

While Italian and Greek are still nationally the two most widely used community languages, there are four languages of more recent vintage that also have more than 100 000 home users – Cantonese, Arabic, Vietnamese and Mandarin. Of the top 20, the languages with the biggest decreases over the ten-year period are German (32.6 per cent), Maltese (21.9 per cent), Italian (15.6 per cent), Dutch (14.7 per cent) and French (12.9 per cent); incidentally, two of them (German and French) are languages of wider communication and three (Italian, French and German) are among the most widely studied languages in schools and universities. Why these


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 7



• 7

decreases have occurred and what we can learn from this will be discussed in chapter 3. The biggest gains are for Mandarin (155.9 per cent), Hindi (110.4 per cent), Serbian (102.2 per cent), Korean (100.1 per cent), Vietnamese (58.1 per cent) and Indonesian (42.4 per cent). But in the case of Serbian, the increase is due partly to the designation of languages. In 1991, most speakers in Australia of what is now designated as Serbian referred to their language as ‘Yugoslav’ or ‘Serbo-Croatian’. This has changed with the development of separate national languages (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian) out of the ‘common language’ Serbo-Croatian that had been propagated by the Yugoslav Federation until its collapse in 1991. While the languages with the biggest decreases are European, those with the greatest increases (apart from Serbian) originate in Asia and they also include three of the four Asian languages targeted as prioritised languages in schools. The increase shown in table 1.1 for Indonesian is for 1996–2001 only, due to the fact that the 1991 Census coded the closely related languages Indonesian/Malay as one entry. If we add the Malay figures to the Indonesian ones for 2001 for purposes of comparison, the percentage increase from 1991 to 2001 is 61.6 per cent. Several languages from Africa, such as Somali, Amharic (from Ethiopia), Oromo (from Ethiopia), Tigrinya (from Eritrea) and Dinka (from the Sudan), have substantially increased their numbers, notably since the last Census due to the arrival of new refugees. All in all, half of the top 20 community languages used in Australia fall into the 20 most widely used languages other than English of the world – Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, German, French, Italian, Korean and Vietnamese.6 Since 1996, German in Australia has been overtaken by Mandarin, Spanish and Filipino. Tamil is now spoken by about the same number of people as Hungarian, another language predominantly of the postwar era, and Samoan by almost as many, and there are about the same number of speakers of Hindi as of Dutch and Maltese, two other languages that came with the migration wave of the 1950s. We have mentioned Cantonese and Mandarin a few times as different languages. This is justifiable because they, and many of the other Chinese varieties, such as Hokkien and Hakka, are largely mutually unintelligible in their spoken form. They are termed fang yan ‘regional languages’. This is often erroneously translated as ‘dialects’. They are linked by a common writing system with two main variants, both based on meanings and not on sounds or grammatical forms. Modern Standard Chinese is based on


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 8


Mandarin; its norms vary too in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Singapore, in a way similar to the variation between English in the United States, Britain and Australia.7

Regional distribution of languages Table 1.2 indicates both similarities and differences between the linguistic diversity in different state capitals. TABLE

1.2 Top ten community languages in five major capitals, 2001

Sydney

Melbourne

Adelaide

Brisbane

Perth

Arabic 142 467

Italian 134 675

Italian 37 803

Cantonese 13 796

Italian 32 893

Cantonese 116 384

Greek 118 755

Greek 25 119

Vietnamese 13 374

Cantonese 14 889

Greek 83 926

Vietnamese 63 033

Vietnamese 12 355

Mandarin 13 244

Vietnamese 11 587

Italian 79 683

Cantonese 59 303

Polish 7454

Italian 11 368

Mandarin 10 882

Vietnamese 65 923

Arabic 45 736

German 7103

Greek 8239

Indonesian 6322

Mandarin 63 716

Mandarin 37 994

Cantonese 6609

Spanish 6874

Croatian 6313

Spanish 44 672

Macedonian 30 859

Arabic 4252

Samoan 6768

Polish 6161

Tagalog 40 139

Turkish 26 598

Serbian 3862

German 5736

Macedonian 5782

Korean 29 538

Spanish 21 852

Mandarin 3825

Tagalog 5288

German 5724

Hindi 27 283

Croatian 21 690

Croatian 3457

Hindi 4669

Arabic 5293

SOURCE

Clyne & Kipp 2002

First of all, we see here evidence of a radically different language profile between Sydney on the one hand and Melbourne and Adelaide on the other. The top two community languages in Sydney are now Arabic and Cantonese, while they are still Italian and Greek in Melbourne and Adelaide. However, Sydney and Melbourne share the top five community languages, though in a different order. The proximity of Brisbane and Perth to South-East Asia is reflected in the prominence of community


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 9



• 9

languages from Asia in those cities. In Brisbane, the number of home speakers of Cantonese, Vietnamese and Mandarin is about equal, and in view of the huge increase in Mandarin speakers, we can assume that Mandarin is now in top position. Italian maintains its historically prominent position in Perth, followed by four Asian languages, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Mandarin and Indonesian. While Melbourne and Sydney’s multilingualism still builds on its postwar European migrant base, Sydney has attracted the lion’s share of the newer languages from Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and the Pacific. Vietnamese has a strong presence in all the cities under consideration. Of the ten top community languages in Sydney, only three are of European origin and that includes Spanish, most of whose speakers are from Latin America. However, in Melbourne, five of the top ten community languages are of European origin and one of the others is Turkish. The strong concentration in Melbourne of languages from the Horn of Africa has not yet affected the statistics, as the absolute numbers are still small and the big increases have occurred since 2001: 85% per cent of Australia’s Oromo speakers (from Ethiopia) live in Melbourne, as do 64 per cent of Somali speakers, 58 per cent of Tigrinya speakers (from Eritrea) and 50 per cent of Amharic speakers (from Ethiopia). Macedonian, Turkish and Croatian occur among the top ten languages in Melbourne, but not in Sydney; Filipino, Korean and Hindi in Sydney, but not in Melbourne. Apart from the African languages and Yiddish (82 per cent), there are large concentrations in Melbourne of Albanian (68 per cent of national total), Hakka (60 per cent), Sinhala (56 per cent), Turkish (52 per cent), Maltese (49 per cent), Greek (45 per cent) and Macedonian (43 per cent). In Sydney, the biggest concentrations are for Armenian (76.4 per cent), Korean (75 per cent), Assyrian (72.8 per cent), Arabic (68 per cent), Hindi and Urdu (each 57 per cent) and Cantonese (52 per cent). Adelaide remains more ‘European’ in its linguistic diversity, with Polish and German still in fourth and fifth positions and with the Yugoslav languages well represented. Brisbane attracted far less non-English-speaking European migration in the postwar period than other mainland capitals, hence it has not taken the three biggest Asian languages long to overtake all the European languages. Also, by 2001, Samoan (with an 83 per cent increase nationally) had more speakers than German (Queensland’s number two community language in 1991). Queensland is also more decentralised than other states, so that there are concentrations of particular languages in


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 10

1 0 • AU S T R A L I A ’ S L A N G UAG E P OT E N T I A L

non-metropolitan Queensland – 41 per cent of Australia’s Hmong speakers (from Laos) and 18 per cent of Japanese speakers (especially on the Gold Coast). Another language with a strong concentration in both Brisbane and the rest of Queensland is Finnish (total 37 per cent), with a relatively large community in Mount Isa. Ten per cent of Brisbane’s population uses a language other than English at home, compared to 15 per cent of Adelaide’s and 14 per cent of Perth’s. Burmese has its concentration in Perth, which also has a third of Australia’s Malay (as opposed to Indonesian) speakers. Actually, 45 per cent of Malay speakers live in Western Australia. Of the three capitals not included in table 1.2, Canberra is the most multilingual (with 14 per cent using a language other than English at home). Here Italian (3690 home users), Croatian (2854) and Greek (2801) occupy the top three places, and the biggest increases are for Mandarin (54 per cent) and Hindi (25 per cent). Only one community language has more than 1000 home users in Hobart – Greek (1056). It is followed by Italian (919) and German (764). In Darwin, Greek (2716) is still far ahead of Filipino (939) and Cantonese (736). Non-metropolitan areas tend to reflect earlier migration movements, with Italian (51 891), German (23 861), Greek (16 005) and Macedonian (13 244) as the main languages. As has been mentioned, multilingualism is underrepresented in non-metropolitan, especially rural areas. While 41 per cent of monolingual English speakers reside outside metropolitan areas, this cannot be said for speakers of any community language. Speakers of Dutch (32.8 per cent), German (31.3 per cent), Malay (24.4 per cent) and Macedonian (18.4 per cent) have the highest proportions in such areas.

Age distribution of language users The age distribution of the home language users gives us some insights into the future prospects for community languages. In fact, the 0–14 language data from the 2001 Census tell a very dramatic story that both explains and results from the fluctuations described above. Table 1.3 gives the top ten community languages in the 0–14 age group in each of the five major capitals. Three languages are very notably represented in the population of compulsory schooling and pre-school age. They are Arabic, Vietnamese and Cantonese – followed by Greek, Mandarin and Italian. It should be remembered that Mandarin and, to a lesser extent, the top three languages are increasing in population, while Italian and, to a lesser extent, Greek are decreasing in numbers of speakers.8 Apart from some smaller languages


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 11


TABLE


• 11

1.3 Community language home users aged 0–14 years in five major capitals, 2001

Sydney

Melbourne

Adelaide

Brisbane

Perth

Arabic 37 217

Vietnamese 15 395

Greek 3272

Vietnamese 3236

Vietnamese 2753

Cantonese 21 199

Greek 14 446

Vietnamese 2952

Samoan 2323

Italian 2294

Vietnamese 15 242

Arabic 12 404

Italian 2493

Cantonese 2219

Cantonese 2059

Mandarin 11 320

Cantonese 10 241

Cantonese 1094

Mandarin 2099

Mandarin 1816

Greek 10 464

Italian 9434

Arabic 956

Spanish 1117

Arabic 1462

Spanish 6128

Mandarin 6540

Polish 728

Greek 1060

Indonesian 1066

Korean 5906

Turkish 6381

Khmer 673

Hindi 878

Macedonian 858

Filipino 5759

Macedonian 4178

Serbian 619

Arabic 836

Spanish 794

Italian 5699

Spanish 3349

Mandarin 553

Italian 664

Serbian 712

Hindi 5515

Sinhala 2486

Spanish 486

German 556

Malay 567

SOURCE


such as Somali (with 40.2 per cent of speakers in the 0–14 age group), it is Arabic and Vietnamese that are the languages with the largest percentage of younger speakers (25.9 per cent and 23.6 per cent respectively; see figure 1.2). They are followed by Cantonese (17.3 per cent) and Mandarin (17.1 per cent). A large percentage of young people among the speakers of a language, reflects either recent immigration or high language maintenance and transmission rates. But there is a difference between Arabic and the next two languages in terms of distribution. Arabic is heavily concentrated in Sydney. There are more than 2.5 times as many speakers of Arabic in the 0–14 age group in Sydney as speakers of Greek and Italian combined. Arabic is ranked third in Melbourne, fifth in Adelaide and Perth, and sixth in Brisbane. Vietnamese, on the other hand, is in top position in this age group in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, second in Adelaide, and third in Sydney. Cantonese comes second in Sydney and Brisbane, third in Perth, fourth in Melbourne and Adelaide.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 12


Greek is still quite common in the younger generation, except in Perth, where it does not occur in the top ten community languages, either generally or among the young. Italian is still second in Perth and third in Adelaide, but has declined over the generations, and is now in ninth position in Sydney (behind Spanish, Filipino and Korean, for instance) and fifth even in Melbourne, the city of strongest Italian concentration. While new immigration and differential language shift rates will change the picture, the changing language demography needs to be taken into account far more than it has, in education, the media and general service provision. This will be discussed in chapter 6. Of course, the community language service provision needs of not only ethnolinguistic communities with a concentration of young speakers but also those with mainly older speakers have to be considered. The resources that older people can provide to the intergenerational transmission and more general acquisition of their language are not being tapped nearly sufficiently, as will be discussed later. FIGURE

1.2 The seven most widely used community languages among those aged 0–14 years nationwide, 2001

30

25

25.9 23.6 20

17.3

15

17.1 14.3 12.2

10

6.6

5

0 Arabic

Vietnamese

Cantonese

Mandarin

Language

SOURCE


Spanish

Greek

Italian


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 13


FIGURE


• 13

1.3 The seven most widely used community languages among those aged 55 years and over nationwide, 2001

70 60

66.7

64.4 56.5

50

52.9 49.5 49.1

40

43.3

30

20 10 0 Latvian

Lithuanian

Dutch

Ukrainian

German

Hungarian

Maltese

Language SOURCE


As will be seen in figure 1.3, some of the languages of the immediate postwar period are now spoken at home mainly by older people. Latvian and Lithuanian, languages spoken by very few new immigrants, head this list with two-thirds and 64 per cent respectively in the 55+ age group in 2001. Next come Dutch and Ukrainian, with more than half of their speakers in this age bracket, and German and Hungarian, with very nearly half. Maltese and Italian are heading for this situation. On the other hand, the ‘youthful’ languages Somali, Khmer, Vietnamese and Mandarin have less than a tenth of their speakers in this age group, and Arabic and Cantonese only marginally more.

Concentration of languages within metropolitan areas Different Australian cities not only have different ethnolinguistic profiles, as we have already seen. The patterns of distribution of their community languages also vary. For instance, as will be shown, Melbourne’s multilingualism is more evenly spread than that of other capital cities. Let us consider five different kinds of local government areas (LGAs) or municipalities:


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 14


Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E

Municipalities with one dominant community language Municipalities with an ethnolinguistically mixed population but with one dominant community language Municipalities with an ethnolinguistically mixed population but no dominant community language Municipalities with a relatively small number of speakers of community languages, mainly one or two languages Municipalities with no languages with more than 1000 home users

We will consider only languages with at least 1000 speakers in a municipality in Sydney and Melbourne and ones with at least 500 speakers in Adelaide and Perth, the approximate equivalent in size. A dominant community language is one spoken by more speakers than the second and third most widely used community language in the municipality.

Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth Let us first compare the distribution of the types of local government areas in Sydney and Melbourne.9 Sydney has two municipalities of Type A (that is, local government areas with one dominant community language); however, there are no such municipalities in Melbourne. Type B, combining language dominance and linguistic diversity, is relatively more prevalent in Melbourne, and Type D, with small numbers of speakers of one to three languages, is far more common in Melbourne. But the most dramatic difference between the two major cities is in Type E municipalities, which have no community languages with more than 1000 speakers. They constitute 25 per cent of Sydney’s municipalities and only 6 per cent in Melbourne. In both cities, about half of the local government areas are linguistically highly diverse, with as many as 15 languages; for instance, in Liverpool (western Sydney) and Casey (south-eastern Melbourne). Adelaide’s language demography is between that of Sydney and Melbourne. Like Sydney and unlike Melbourne, it has a quarter of its population in LGAs with little presence of community languages (Type E). It is more like Melbourne in its proportion of LGAs with a mixed population but a small number of community languages (Type D) but has a smaller proportion of LGAs with ethnolinguistically mixed populations and no dominant community language (Type C). In Perth, 43.5 per cent of the municipalities have little presence of community languages. On the other hand, 20 per cent of the municipalities


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 15


TABLE


• 15

1.4 Types of local government areas in Sydney indicating dominant community languages and numbers of community languages with over 1000 home users, 2001

City

LGA type Type A

Type B

Sydney Leichhardt Bankstown (Arabic +8) (44 LGAs) (Italian) Waverley Baulkham Hills (Cantonese +5) (Russian) Blacktown (Tagalog +15) Fairfield (Vietnamese +15) Holroyd (Arabic +11) Hornsby (Cantonese +5) Ku-ring-gai (Cantonese +2 ) Parramatta (Arabic +12 )

2 (5.5%)

SOURCE

8 (18%)

Type C

Type D

Type E

Ashfield (4) North Sydney Auburn (8) (Cantonese + Japanese) Botany (3) Burwood (6) Campbelltown (6) Canterbury (12) Concord (2) Drummoyne (2) Hurstville (6) Kogarah (6) Liverpool (15) Marrickville (8) Penrith (7) Randwick (8) Rockdale (7) Ryde (6) South Sydney (5) Strathfield (6) Sutherland (4) Sydney (3) Warringah (3) Willoughby (4)

Blue Mountains Camden Gosford Hawkesbury Hunter’s Hill Lane Cove Manly Mosman Wollondilly Woollahra Wyong

22 (50%)

11 (25%)

1 (2.5%)


have one predominant community language – in each case it is Italian, which, as was indicated in table 1.2, is by far the most widely used community language in Perth. Only 10 per cent of municipalities have several languages with one predominating. ‘Several’ is a large number only in Stirling, which alone parallels the multilingual areas of Sydney and Melbourne. Type C – the most multilingual areas – is represented less than in any of the other cities considered. All in all, Perth contrasts with Melbourne and has a community language distribution pattern reminiscent of Sydney in the 1996 Census, with a considerable number of Type A and Type E municipalities.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 16


TABLE

1.5 Types of local government areas in Melbourne, 2001 LGA Type

City

Type A Type B

Melbourne nil (32 LGAs)

Type D

Type E

Banyule (Italian +3) Brimbank (Vietnamese +13) Greater Dandenong (Vietnamese +14) Kingston (Greek +4) Maribyrnong (Vietnamese +4) Moonee Valley (Italian +6) Moreland (Italian +6) Stonnington (Greek +3)

Boroondara (4) Casey (15) Darebin (7) Glen Eira (6) Hobsons Bay (7) Hume (10) Knox (5) Manningham (5) Melbourne (4) Monash (6) Port Phillip (3) Whitehorse (5) Whittlesea (8) Wyndham (3) Yarra (4)

Bayside Cardinia (Greek/Italian) Frankston La Trobe (Italian) Maroondah (Italian) Melton (Maltese) Mornington Peninsula (Italian) Nillumbik (Italian) Yarra Ranges (Italian/ German/ Dutch)

8 (25%)

15 (47%)

7 (22%)

2 (6%)


SOURCE

TABLE

Type C

1.6 Types of local government areas in Adelaide, 2001

City

LGA Type Type A Type B

Adelaide nil (22 LGAs)

7 (32%) SOURCE

Campbelltown (Italian +2) Charles Sturt (Italian +6) Norwood, Payneham, St Peters (Italian +1) Tea Tree Gully (Italian +3) West Torrens (Greek +1)

7 (32%) 3 (13%)


Type C

Type D

Type E

Burnside (3) Marion (4) Mitcham (3) Onkaparinga (4) Port Adelaide Enfield (7) Salisbury (10)

Playford (Italian/ Vietnamese) Prospect (Greek/Italian) Unley (Greek/Italian)

Adelaide Adelaide Hills Gawler Holdfast Bay Walkerville

5 (23%)


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 17


TABLE


• 17

1.7 Types of local government areas in Perth, 2001

City

LGA Type Type A

Perth Armadale (30 LGAs) (Italian) Belmont (Italian) Fremantle (Italian) Kalamunda (Italian) Mundaring (Italian) Victoria Park (Italian)

6 (20%) SOURCE

Type B

Type C

Type D

Bayswater (Italian +3 ) Stirling (Italian +11) Wanneroo (Vietnamese +2 )

Canning (5) Vincent Cockburn (5) (Italian + Gosnells (4) Vietnamese) Joondalup (6) Melville (5) South Perth (3) Swan (5)

Bassendean Cambridge Claremont Cottesloe East Fremantle Kwinana Mosman Park Nedlands Peppermint Grove Perth Rockingham SerpentineJarrahdale Subiaco

3 (10%)

7 (23.5%)

13 (43.5%)

1 (3%)

Type E


Concentrated and dispersed community languages Some language communities are spread fairly evenly across Australian cities; others are more heavily concentrated. Let us explore the relative concentration of particular community languages in capital cities such as Sydney and Melbourne. The formula we apply to find this takes into account four factors: the number of users of the language in each municipality, the number of users in the metropolitan area, the population of the municipality and the population of the metropolitan area. The relatively highest concentrated languages are shown in table 1.8. The immediate reaction might be to note how very different the two lists are. Only Macedonian, Indonesian and Turkish have a similar place on the rank ordering list for both Sydney and Melbourne. However, seven of the languages are among the ten most concentrated languages in both cities.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 18


TABLE

1.8 The ten most concentrated community languages, Sydney and Melbourne, 2001

Sydney

Melbourne

Language

Mean concentration factor

Language


Tamil Japanese Turkish Macedonian Indonesian Russian Vietnamese Portuguese Korean Khmer

7.5 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1

Khmer Russian Macedonian Vietnamese Indonesian Turkish Maltese Samoan Arabic Japanese

6.5 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.1 4.7 3.8 3.5 3.5

SOURCE

TABLE


1.9 The ten most dispersed community languages, Sydney and Melbourne, 2001

Sydney

Melbourne

Language


Language


German Polish Cantonese Mandarin Tagalog Croatian Spanish Hungarian Hindi Italian

1.3 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7

German Hindi Greek Polish Dutch Portuguese Mandarin Tagalog Hungarian Spanish

1.7 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7

SOURCE



15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 19



• 19

Some of the more concentrated languages are clearly those which have arrived in the past 15 years (Khmer, Korean, Samoan). Others are languages of different vintages (such as Macedonian, Russian, Japanese). Macedonian speakers from different vintages and source countries have co-settled. The Russian concentration, however, characterises the most recent vintage, which has integrated into the Jewish communities of Caulfield and St Kilda (Melbourne) and the City of Waverley (Sydney). In chapter 5, we will consider whether those languages more concentrated in our metropolitan areas are actually maintained better. Among the most dispersed languages, only German, Hungarian and Polish have a similar position on the two lists, but again there are seven languages common to the Sydney and Melbourne lists. This suggests that culture and period of arrival may contribute to concentration rates. Most capital cities have suburbs that have acted as first areas of settlements for successive migrant groups. The inner Melbourne suburb of North Richmond changed in the late 1980s from a Greek area to a Vietnamese–Chinese one. This is reflected in the streetscape of the Victoria Street shopping centre as well as the languages of bilingual programs in the local primary schools. Carlton changed completely in the late 1950s from a partly Yiddish-speaking to a partly Italian-speaking area. First areas of settlement, such as Carlton and Richmond, usually reflected the availability of cheap housing and employment close by at a particular time, and were then reinforced by chain migration around family and community facilities. St Albans, a Melbourne western suburb now part of Brimbank, was a first area of settlement simultaneously in the 1950s for speakers of Maltese, Serbian, Italian and German. Over time, languages may move from the concentrated to the dispersed category. Greek, which in 1976 was one of the most concentrated languages, is now the third most dispersed in Melbourne, after German and Hindi. In Perth, the most concentrated languages are Maltese, Portuguese and Korean, all of which are among the most concentrated in either Sydney or Melbourne. Next come Macedonian, Indonesian, Turkish and Khmer, which are among the most concentrated in both Sydney and Melbourne. Perth’s most dispersed community languages are German, Japanese and Filipino, followed by Persian, Hungarian, Dutch and Spanish. All except Japanese and Persian are in the same category in both Sydney and Melbourne. Adelaide’s most concentrated languages are Korean, Indonesian, Samoan and Tamil, followed by Sinhalese, Khmer, Italian, Vietnamese,


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 20


Macedonian and Greek. Of these, the older established concentrated languages, Italian and Greek, are no longer concentrated in the other cities as is Sinhalese. The others are concentrated in at least one of Sydney or Melbourne and three, Indonesian, Vietnamese and Macedonian in both, but far higher on the concentration list than in Adelaide.

City–country divide I mentioned earlier that community languages are now usually concentrated in urban areas. There are centres outside metropolitan areas, such as Shepparton, Port Augusta, the Latrobe Valley, Albury-Wodonga, Wollongong and Newcastle, as well as concentrations of particular languages, such as in Mareeba (Far North Queensland, Italian) and Mildura (Northern Victoria, Turkish, Italian), which could become focal points for the languages. In many other non-metropolitan areas, there may be a shortage of interlocutors (communication partners) and community resources for language learning and maintenance. Even here, community language programs on radio and television are generally accessible (see chapter 5). Towns and cities with a presence of the relevant language offer a fascination that may not be obvious to those for whom this presence is commonplace. For many in rural areas, the link with a community language is part of their heritage. Family histories, photographs or diaries are a reminder of the early use of a community language such as German, Italian or Cantonese (or Gaelic or an Aboriginal language). Nevertheless, for people in many rural areas the relevance of bilingualism today is hard to imagine. Redressing this perception so that a city–country divide in attitudes to linguistic as well as cultural diversity is not perpetuated, remains a challenge. However, regional partnerships and student exchanges with other countries have led to fruitful motivation in some country towns.

Paradox We have now seen that a significant proportion of the Australian population, at least in the cities, is bi- or multilingual. What effect does this have on the rest of the population or on the nation as a whole? This is a crucial issue for Australia. It sometimes seems as if there were two worlds, the multilingual one-third and most of the other two-thirds who are happily and proudly monolingual. This is not completely true. Among the one-third, there are some with a monolingual mindset in their community language and some whose families have experienced a


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 21



• 21

high shift to English in particular ethnic communities. Languages are designated as ‘Key Learning Areas’ on the school curriculum, so there are some people who become interested in a language through education and proceed to develop a high proficiency in it, in some cases adopting it as if it were their own. Others acquire a second language while living overseas or as adults in Australia. There are also some who learn (and readopt) a language that plays a role in their family heritage although it is no longer spoken by them at home, and others whose understanding of linguistic issues has arisen through living with speakers of another language. Numerous European multinational companies, such as car parts firm Hella, information technology supplier EMC and medical equipment group Medtronic, have established their Asia–Pacific headquarters in Melbourne or Sydney because of our linguistic and cultural resources. The German airline Lufthansa has a call centre in Melbourne for that same reason – our resources in Asian and European languages. Yet in spite of periodic reports proclaiming the value of linguistic diversity for trade and tourism, the resources are not being utilised very much in the business sector. An international survey of 75 chief executive officers from 28 countries conducted in 200010 found that Australian business executives averaged proficiency in fewer languages than those of any of the other countries sampled, mainly OECD countries – 1.4 languages, even lower than the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand. The Netherlands (3.9) and Sweden (3.4 per cent) gained the top places, followed by Brazil (2.9), Germany, the Philippines and France (each 2.7 per cent). Why is there this paradox? I believe it is a feature of the ‘monolingual mindset’ so many of us have. Our multilingualism is there, but our thinking and planning often ignores it. A component of this mindset is described in a letter to the Prime Minister from the Australian Linguistic Society in 1978: It appears to be widely believed in Australia that foreign languages are essentially unlearnable to normal people, and that Australians have a special innate anti-talent for learning them. Multilingualism is too hard for us, it is really for ‘the others’. English, on the other hand, is learnable and even those languages which a normal person, and especially an Australian could never learn, can be learnt easily and effortlessly by people whose first language is not English.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 22


It should be remembered that this was written in a very tolerant and excitingly progressive period in Australian history, when a more positive attitude to multilingualism was being adopted. The quote is not relevant only to second language learners and their parents. The attitude, which is very much alive in today’s Australia, needs to be overcome in order for Australia to be a self-confident innovative force in the world. Second language acquisition research has shown that anyone can acquire a second language if they are sufficiently motivated, receive the input to be able to develop their competence and have the opportunity to practise. Let us begin in schools, where many Australians have their first encounter with linguistic diversity. Despite our multilingualism, languages are the cinderellas of the school curriculum; they are the dispensable component of the curriculum – the one that can most easily become noncompulsory, the one that can most easily disappear when time is sought for preparation for that production or that sporting event. There is little understanding among many decision makers and non-specialist teaching staff of how languages are acquired and how they can be maintained within the wider community, including the educational community. In general terms, there is a massive gulf between monolingual and multilingual Australians regardless how they have acquired their bi- or multilingualism. Like some other English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand, Australia is treating languages at best as a luxury and not a necessity, at worst as a diversion from more important things, which are defined in monolingual terms. In Victoria, where the expectation is that children will take a language other than English for at least the ten years of compulsory schooling from Year 1 to 10, many schools make the language optional after Year 8. When I have asked principals why this is so, they have attributed this to parents’ requests for their children to be exempted because they find languages ‘too hard’ or ‘boring’. Similar requests concerning Mathematics, Science or Social Studies are never taken seriously because those subjects are ‘different’ though they have the same status as languages, that of Key Learning Areas. In Victoria, the recommended time allocation for a language – 150 minutes per week – is not generally observed. According to the government report (2001: 22) Languages for Victoria’s Future, primary schools allocate an average of 66 minutes per week and secondary schools an average of 127 minutes a week to the language. New South Wales requires only 100 hours in total of a language other than English to have been


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 23



• 23

studied at school. Some of the submissions to the LOTE Analysis that led to the above-mentioned report in Victoria and some language plans submitted by regional networks in that state expressed the view that students who already have some proficiency in a language other than English should not take a LOTE at school but rather do additional English. The assumptions appear to be that, while school studies need to complement the use of English in home, community and leisure domains and constant exposure from the media, competence in a community language based on home use is sufficient, that it does not need to be extended and that no language attrition will occur. This assumption may be aggravated by the mistaken confusion between (actual or developing) bilingualism and monolingualism in a language other than English. Another assumption is that a third language is undesirable for a bilingual student. Evidence against these assumptions will be found in chapters 2 and 4, as will arguments against the false premise that speaking or learning a language other than English detracts from literacy. At the time of writing, Victoria still retained a clause in its Education Act (Section 42, 3b) prohibiting bilingual education in registered (i.e. nongovernment) schools. This clause was added in an amendment of 1916 in a context of xenophobia during the First World War which, together with ones with similar intentions in other states, closed down all German–English bilingual schools and, by accident, the remaining French–English bilingual school as well. The clause prevents schools from being registered ‘unless (the Board of Public Education is) satisfied that the instruction … will be given through the medium of the English language except only as far as the use of a language other than English is necessary for giving instruction in such other language as a single subject’. The removal of the discriminatory clause was part of the demands of a petition signed by 21 800 Victorians in 1977. It took another eight years for any action on this matter and it was understood, for instance by the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Multicultural and Migrant Education, that the clause had been removed. (By this time, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia had removed their discriminatory clauses.) By 2003, many independent schools had introduced bilingual education, whether religious studies in Arabic, Greek or Hebrew or an immersion program in French, German, Greek or Hebrew, which in some cases had been evaluated and received government funding. Suddenly an Anglican school in regional Victoria was told that introducing an


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 24


immersion program in French was illegal. A well-kept secret was that the clause had never been removed – but a phrase had been added – ‘or in relation to any bilingual education programme approved by the Board’. This means that any program taught partly in another language had to go through administrative hurdles that are not relevant to one taught monolingually in English, and many successful bilingual programs had been unwittingly running ‘illegally’. The regulation discriminates against nongovernment (Catholic and independent) schools at a time when there are specially funded bilingual programs in Victorian government schools and the Victorian Minister for Education has been encouraging such programs because they are such a good way of developing competence in a second language. The Act discriminates against Victoria because the other states have all repealed their similar legislation. It also discriminates against religious denominations that, for religious reasons, teach religious studies in a particular language, such as Orthodox Jewish schools in Hebrew, Islamic schools in Arabic, and some Greek Orthodox schools in Greek. The way in which the 1985 amendment took place was an example of bureaucratic bungling, but the sudden resurfacing of the issue is an indication of the return of a monolingual mindset. A complete overhaul of the Victorian Education Act is promised for the Spring session of Parliament in 2005 and the removal of Section 42, 3b is expected to be part of this. Australia wide, only 13.4 per cent of students in Year 12 took a language other than English in 2003. And in Victoria, where the proportion was highest (20.2 per cent), for example, those who go on to either Year 11 or Year 12 are nearly 2.5 times as likely to be in independent schools than in state or Catholic schools, even though in government schools, 91 per cent of Year 3 students, 93.1 per cent of those in Year 5, and 95 per cent in Year 7 take a LOTE. Let us compare our Year 12 statistics with those of a number of European countries. In Finland, the country that received the top rating in the first OECD PISA study (Programme for International Student Assessment) comparing the achievements of school students, all Year 12 students take Finnish, Swedish and English. In addition, in 1997–98, 44 per cent of Year 12 students took German, 21.2 per cent French, and 9.7 per cent Russian, Spanish, Italian or Latin.11 In 1999, 99 per cent of Dutch Year 12 students took English as well as Dutch and in addition, 41 per cent studied German and 21 per cent French.12 How can these countries cope with their ‘crowded curricula’ and still give such prominence to languages?


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 25



• 25

In this chapter, we have focused on the recognition of linguistic diversity in Australia and have provided statistical data on this. We have already foreshadowed that multilingualism is only one dimension of Australia and that it is often undermined by a monolingual mindset. In the following chapter, we will explore the functions of language and mechanisms of speech processing in monolinguals and in those using more than one language. We will also consider the value of our multilingualism.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 26

two

Valuing Australia’s multilingualism

In the previous chapter, we explored the multilingual context offered by Australia’s community languages. The present chapter will identify functions and social, cognitive and other advantages of plurilingualism, which is the term we will use for ‘the use of more than one language by individuals’, whether bilinguals or multilinguals. This will, among other things, enable us to reflect on what constitutes a monolingual mindset. This chapter will consider the value of plurilingualism to the individual, the family and community, and to the nation and its role in the world, and the limitations of this value. This is not to say that we want to propagate plurilingualism as something special. It does not need to be a property of specially intelligent or specially gifted people; nor is it a problem or a deficit, something that needs to be associated with the disadvantaged or mentally handicapped. I will focus on the ordinariness of plurilingualism and of people using more than one language. It will be argued that English and other languages do not have to be in competition – they complement each other and one can help enhance competence in another.

Plurilingualism in the wider world There are far more bi- and multilinguals in the world than there are monolinguals. Children in many parts of Papua New Guinea have acquired a local language, a language of regional communication and Tok Pisin during their childhood. The acquisition of several languages is also very common in Central European countries and in many parts of Africa, while in Singapore, Hokkien, Mandarin and English may be acquired simultaneously from different contexts from an early age. Children in the Basque


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 27

VALUING AUSTRALIA’S


• 27

Country acquire Basque and Spanish early in life and embark on English studies at school, while children in parts of Finland that have Swedish as their first language soon add Finnish to their repertoire and then learn English and German or French at school. Most European Union countries are embarking on a policy to make three languages part of the curriculum of all children. In predominantly English-speaking countries and others with monolingual elites,1 it is supposed that monolingualism is a normal state of affairs and people try to find something wrong with plurilingualism – whether it is expensive or confusing or impossible. This is part of what constitutes a ‘monolingual mindset’. The assumptions about language and about literacy are based on monolingualism. However, in Australia, we enjoy rich language resources that can be utilised to enhance communication and spread plurilingualism, and we will consider how this language potential can be developed to the fullest.

Definition based on reality We are employing the terms ‘bilingualism’, ‘multilingualism’ and ‘plurilingualism’ generally for the use of two languages, the use of more than two languages, and the use of more than one language respectively. Today, linguists tend to adopt less normative definitions than they did 50 or 60 years ago. Up to that time, a bilingual was expected to have ‘native-like control of both languages’,2 equal command of both languages, or to have acquired them both simultaneously.3 The expectation that a bilingual should be a double monolingual and a trilingual a triple monolingual is unrealistic because people rarely do the same things in both, or all of their languages. This makes an equal command of two or more languages highly unusual; most plurilinguals have stronger and weaker areas in each of their languages. We can then further describe the proficiency level in each language, the skills (understanding, speaking, reading, writing) available to the plurilingual, and the number of languages or varieties. Such a differentiation would do justice to the language behaviour of plurilinguals. Functional specialisation between languages is what makes using more than one language particularly worthwhile, because it creates communicative need. One language is used exclusively for particular purposes, whether it is for communicating at home or for learning Science and Social Studies at school. The other may then be employed for communication outside the home or for learning other subjects at school. Such functional differentiation creates communicative need: you have to understand and/or speak the


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 28


language to be able to satisfy your needs, whether they are getting food, receiving vital information or learning a particular subject. This is what school bilingual and immersion programs capitalise on to develop a motivation for using the target language. Since Fishman and his colleagues investigated language use in a bilingual area of New York in the 1960s,4 sociolinguists have been including domains – contextualised spheres of communication, such as home, work, school, family, neighbourhood and religious units – as factors in language choice. In most cases but not all, home is the domain with the greatest use of the community language. In most cases but not all, school and work are the domains in which English is most likely to be used. Bilingual programs and ethnic schools, particular ethnically based industries, and some multinational companies are exceptions. This means that certain areas of job or school vocabulary will be known better in one language than the other, and may include words from that language which to them have no equivalent in the other language. In the following example, a young bank employee talks about his daily activities in German, his home language since migrating with his family as a young boy: Well, ich bin Bankangestellter und zur Zeit bin ich am Schalter ON THE RELIEVING STAFF, das heiße, ich relieve Leute, die krank sind, auf unseren Branchen. ‘Well, I am a bank employee and at the moment I am at the counter on the relieving staff, that is, I relieve people who are sick at our branches.’

When I asked postwar German-speaking migrant bilinguals to describe a picture in German, some of them drew on the English register (occupational language variety) of their job to help them. Here is an example from an estate agent: Das ist Collins Street in Melbourne, welche sehr populär ist. Ich persönlich PREFER diese Straße, weil sie mich erinnert an Berlin. ‘This is Collins Street in Melbourne, which is very popular. I personally prefer this street because it reminds me of Berlin.’

This includes some of the formulations that estate agents might use on a daily basis, such as I personally prefer and which is very popular. The speaker transfers the word stress on the initial syllable from English popular to the German word, which has its stress on the final syllable.


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 29



• 29

Other factors influencing language choice are: Interlocutor (Who you are talking to), role relationship (such as grandparent–grandchild, friend, teacher–student), interaction type (such as doing business, telling jokes, preaching sermons). Because plurilinguals will talk to different kinds of people in different languages, and their relationship may be quite different to people to whom they relate in another language, they will have a different register in each, reflecting their bi- or multiculturality. Anna Wierzbicka refers to the use of diminutives in Polish in her bilingual household.5 They express a level of intimacy and emotions not possible in Australian English, and the same applies to the interaction between grandchildren and grandparents in families of Eastern and Southern European origin in Australia. On the other hand, Tuc Ho-Dac6 shows that Vietnamese–English bilinguals in Melbourne will switch to English so that they can use pronouns such as I, me, you and he to avoid the commitment imposed by the traditional Vietnamese system of kinship address. For example: Phoœng vaán toâi aø maø YOU muoán ME TALK ABOUT WHAT? ‘You want to interview me but what do you want me to talk about?’ (From Ho-Dac)

Here the possible negative connotations of toâi ‘I’ are cancelled out by the use of you and me from English. In the following example, a young woman is unable to persuade her friend to lend her a book that they both need. She uses me to withdraw from the solidarity relation that would have been expressed in this context by tao … mày: Coâ khoù quaù thoâi khoûi ñeå, vaäy. miss difficult very library FINAL + PRT

ME GET IT FROM LIBRARY

don’t worry

let

me get it from

‘How difficult you are, don’t worry, let me get it from the library then.’ (From Ho-Dac)

Because young bilingual people in Australia grow up in an environment in which they use the community language mainly with family and close friends, many of them do not develop the distinction between formal and


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 30


informal pronouns of address (such as tu and vous in French) and make errors when they have to address someone formally such as in Year 12 oral examinations. In their study of Italian families of Venetian and Sicilian origin in Sydney, Camilla Bettoni and Antonia Rubino7 found that Italian was used across regional group boundaries in more formal domains, dialect for communication within the same regional group and especially by and to the first generation, and English is identified with the younger generations. Sometimes the choice between English and dialect is domain-specific. The use of dialect with the younger generation occurs more among Venetians, especially women. Clear functional differentiation between the languages was also a feature of a study of Hungarian–German–English and Italian–Spanish–English trilinguals8 – for example, Hungarian with spouse, German with friends, and English with children and work colleagues; Hungarian and German as a private language, German as a professional language, English as a social language; Italian as an expression of personal identity; Spanish for family identity, English for everyday wider communication; Hungarian as an ethnic language, German as a supranational cultural language. This builds on existing bilingual functions due to earlier migration (e.g. from Italy to Latin America) or the status of German in Hungary at the time of the speaker’s childhood. All this demonstrates the richness of the resources available but also the need to build on the resources, especially through the education process, so that plurilinguals growing up in Australia have a full repertoire in their community language (both spoken and written) that can be utilised professionally, in the interests of the individual and the nation. Returning to the issue of definition, the idea of having ‘perfect’ and ‘uncontaminated’ command of a language is a misconception of the monolingual mindset. Even a monolingual’s ‘perfect’ command of their ‘one’ language is undefinable. And if there is something the monolingual does not know in that language, they cannot transfer it from another language. People will sometimes say ‘I speak two (or three) languages, but I am not really bilingual (trilingual)’. But plurilingualism only defines the use of languages and the ability to communicate in them, not a proficiency level any more than monolingualism does. Nor does it prescribe any age at which they should have been acquired. People can become bilingual at almost any age. However, this does not mean that proficiency level does not play an important part among plurilinguals. As we will see, the level of proficiency in one language can have an impact on the other


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 31



• 31

language. Also, some psycholinguists work with the idealised concept of ‘balanced bilingualism’, which is a type of equilingualism usually defined in terms of certain psycholinguistic tasks to demonstrate neither language is dominant. It could constitute high or low proficiency in both languages.

Main functions of language In order to consider the value of plurilingualism, we must first reflect on what it is that language does. First and foremost, it is the most important means of human communication, and this is one of the main things that distinguishes us humans from other beings. Through language, we convey information, ideas, emotions, attitudes and stereotypes. Not understanding essential information is a serious problem of social equity, which is sometimes tackled by providing services in community languages. Also, there is not a strong sense of awareness in our community as to the power of language in public and private. Greater attention to language is thus a responsibility to ourselves and our nation. But there is another issue too – the information we communicate in each language will not be identical because of the close link between the structure of the language and the cultural exigencies of the communities. This is what prompted linguists such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf 9 to develop the twin notions of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism – the ideas that every language has its own way of looking at the world and that language may predetermine ways of thinking and behaving. The primacy of language in the language– thought–culture link has frequently been challenged. However, whichever was the chicken or the egg, language or cultural thought patterns, intercultural variation in semantic structures, grammatical structures and ways of organising discourse across cultures means that it is the plurilingual who can interpret information couched in a particular way between one group of people and another in ways characteristic of the appropriate language and culture. The second important function of language is to express identity and relationships. Through language, we mark group boundaries, indicating who is part of ‘our’ group and who is one of ‘them’. Through language, we show people where we came from and have been or where we would like people to believe that we have come from or been. The 19th-century German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder depicted language as the foundation of human society.10 In many parts of Europe and elsewhere, the Herderian language-based nation-state became the basis of modern


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 32


nationalism, and the development of a national language became the precondition of aspiring nations. To many Australians, it is not just English or the community language that shapes their identity and their solidarity with others. Our plurilinguals need both (or all of ) their languages to express their multiple identity, and have special empathy with those who share this basis for their identity, regardless which languages they are bilingual in. Moreover, multiple identity is often expressed through hybrid language varieties such as ones in which words and other features are transferred or in which large-scale switching between languages occurs. This is often a reflection of the mixing of domains, where within communication in the home domain something that occurred in the school or work domain is being conveyed. The following excerpt from a 14-year-old schoolgirl in a German conversation at home about her day at school illustrates this: Wir gehen zu unser FORM ASSEMBLY, dann ist … dann gehen wir zu unseren Klassen und dann lernen wir Geographie, Mathematik … und Französisch … und Rechnen und HISTORY, SCIENCE und dann kommen wir nach Hause im Bus. ‘We go to our form assembly, then there is … then we go to our classes and then we do Geography, Maths … and French … and Arithmetic and History, Science and then we come home in the bus.’

The names of some school institutions and subjects (form assembly, History and Science) are transferred from English. Also the order of adverbs of time and place follows the English pattern (place before time, the reverse of the German order). Sometimes, keywords are transferred from what another speaker has said in the other language in a household where different speakers speak different languages. For example: Parent: ‘Wenn du allein gehst.’ 12-year-old child: ‘But I’m not going allein …’

In some cases, the transference of a discourse marker such as well, anyway or like from English indicates the adoption of Anglo-Australian behaviour. The following quote is from a Dutch–English bilingual, a school principal commenting on his familiarity with his students:


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 33


WELL, ieder kind op school ken ik,


• 33

SORT OF.

‘Well, I know every child in the school, sort of.’

Without well and sort of, the sentence makes perfect sense in Dutch. But the speaker is obviously trying to avoid creating an impression of boasting, which would be unacceptable in Australia, so he draws on the English words to tone his statement down. In the following example, there is a juxtaposition of the old German and the new identity of a young woman who migrated to Australia on her own, the second sentence expressing an emotional break with the past: Ich wollte anfangs bloß zwei Jahre bleiben. Jetzt bin ich schon acht Jahre hier. I THINK THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. ‘I originally only wanted to stay for two years. Now I have been here for eight years. I think that speaks for itself.’

Understanding of switching has changed markedly over the past few decades. There is still a popularly held view that any switching between languages or transference from another language is an indication that the speaker is not competent in either language. Recent studies have largely stressed the competence of plurilinguals to draw on the resources of their languages to express themselves precisely.11 In some cases, switching is seen as a special hybrid mode of speaking, as is the case with an elderly woman who interacted mainly in a close network in a Dutch–English bilingual Reformed Church community in a small Victorian country town:. En si reckont ALWAYS, dat ze wil weer eens terug komen naar Australië maar NOT HIM. HE was hier (here) NOT HAPPY.

where some items (in small capitals) are always of English origin, some (in roman) always of Dutch origin, some (in italics) are converged forms between the two languages, and they tend to trigger more converged forms or forms from the other system. The third important function of language is a means of cognitive and conceptual development. Through language, children learn to experience the world around them, they learn to group concepts and objects. Through language, children and adults get to know new concepts. This includes the new words and concepts of information technology, contemporary business and other organisational practices, and new types of entertainment. Just as some German–English bilinguals in Australia at the time of the Second World War did not know the words for aeroplane or refrigerator and extended the


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 34


meaning of Luftschiff ‘air ship’ and Eiskasten/Eisschrank ‘ice chest’, nowadays many bilinguals do not know how to say ‘save’ (text on computer) or ‘video screen’ in the community language and have to transfer words from English (such as saven or Screen) to express it or to extend the meaning of an existing word (such as bewahren or retten, both of which can mean ‘save’ in another sense, though the appropriate Standard German for saving texts on computers is speichern ‘to store’). Children growing up in more than one language have the opportunity of experiencing cultural relativity from an early age. We will discuss below how this can make a child a different kind of thinker. Finally, language is an instrument of action. Particular conventions of a language are sufficient to perform speech acts such as a promise, a request, an apology or an invitation, or a rejection of an invitation. These conventions will vary across languages and cultures. Many linguists have presented evidence that some languages or cultures express particular speech acts more directly than others.12 Some argue that there are different speech acts in different cultures based on cultural values.13 In either case, different languages and cultures have differing ways of achieving things; they have different ways of being polite. By having been raised in two (or more) contexts, plurilinguals are often able to behave differently according to the speech partner, situation and venue. As I have mentioned before, they have the capacity to interpret between the two cultures.

Some functions of plurilingualism While plurilinguals are not necessarily better or worse than monolinguals in any way, they are different. That may be in their needs or in their aspirations or in their potential. First of all, plurilingualism may be crucial to a plurilingual for social reasons. A family may maintain cohesion through a common language of communication or identity in addition to the one shared with the wider community. Or each language may be shared between the child(ren) and one of the parents. In some families, because the parents may not be fully proficient in English or at least may have a conspicuous non-native accent in English, the maintenance of the community language enables the children to become aware of the parents’ command of the community language, which compensates in some way for the English that they do not master as well as some of their schoolmates’ parents. This also gives the young people themselves added self-esteem, since otherwise they may


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 35



• 35

focus on the parents’ English, which can be an embarrassment. The maintenance of the community language will ensure that the younger generation can communicate with relatives in the country of origin and have some understanding of their culture-based communication patterns. Plurilingualism thus has an empowering function. Over 40 years ago, I interviewed a German family in Melbourne’s western suburbs who had been in Australia for only five years. Their five teenage daughters had shifted to English in the home, some of them maintaining only a limited competence in German. The parents, who worked long hours on a factory assembly line, spoke little English and did not understand much. There was practically no meaningful communication between the generations. This is a situation that I have since observed with successive groups of migrants from all over the world. Most recently, Somali parents participating in a study on language use complained that their children, while able to communicate in Somali at a superficial level, could not engage in conversation of a deeper nature and the parents themselves had not yet developed sufficient proficiency to do so in English.14 Whole ethnic communities require both the community language and English to maintain their identity, with different quantities of the two languages being used by members according to age, generation and personal preference and according to the speech situation. This is also true of Auslan (Australian Sign Language)–English bilinguals. However, most Auslan users share the language with other members of the deaf community but not with their parents, with whom they use mostly English. In a recent book on language and identity, John Joseph discusses how language exists to enable individuals to read one another.15 Plurilinguals then are able to ‘read’ a larger number of, and greater variety of speakers. But Joseph also explains the tension between the ‘sameness’ of group identity and the uniqueness of individual identity, whereby particular subtle features of behaviour may be ‘overread’.16 Because of their plurilingualism, a plurilingual’s unique identity, even more than that of a monolingual, is influenced by their own choice of features from the cultures of which they are members, and that is reflected in their use of language. Let us move to the more instrumental motivation for plurilingualism, with ‘useful purposes’ in mind. Some migrants are not (yet) sufficiently proficient in English to cope with the essentials of living in Australian society through the English language or need professional assistance in


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 36


more complex domains (such as medical, legal, social work, banking, insurance, accountancy) in their community language from people who understand their cultural dimensions. There are therefore many highly skilled occupations that require competent levels of at least bilingualism and biculturalism. This combination of language skills and professional training is not always available for those communities which most need it. Incidentally, the public service does reward skills in languages other than English by additional remuneration. There is also a domestic market for food and other goods closely associated with an ethnic culture. There are food stores, cafes and restaurants and guest houses functioning in community languages. Then there are strong external needs for plurilinguals in Australia. In spite of a number of reports over the past 15 years17 stressing the economic benefits to Australia of a better harnessing of our language resources and a stronger promotion of second language learning within the education system, business and industry have been generally unresponsive. It is important for those doing business with other nations to understand their perspectives, something that can best be approached through the language because, as we have discussed, each language has its own way of looking at the world. The Keating government’s Productive Diversity policy of the early 1990s, encouraging businesses to utilise the linguistic and cultural resources of their workforce, had limited impact. Some companies feel they do not have the time because they are too busy marketing their goods, but they could be boosting their sales in the long term by developing their linguistic and cultural resources. According to a report by John Stanley and others in 1990,18 the average finalist in the 1987 Australian Export Awards employed four times as many fluent plurilinguals as the non-finalists. The 1991 Senate report on Australia and Latin America, which advocated an upgrading of Spanish in Australian schools to take advantage of untapped lucrative markets, was not heeded. Even schools in places with sizeable numbers of second generation Australians of Spanish-speaking Latin American background hardly teach Spanish. In 2001, only 7528 students took Spanish in New South Wales schools despite the large number of school-age and pre-school children speaking the language at home (see chapter 1) and its instrumental value. Many Japanese speakers employed in the tourist industry are temporary residents. A study by Sandra Kipp and others in 199519 found that nonrecognition of overseas professional qualifications and low levels of


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 37



• 37

proficiency in more advanced registers of the community language among the potentially bilingual second generation have affected Australia’s capacity to utilise the linguistic skills of the workforce.20 Both attitudinal change and school education could alleviate these problems. Over the past few decades, a decline in language learning in at least some parts of Australia has been arrested by the argument that a knowledge of certain languages is good for one’s personal career and also for the economic future of Australia. Although even the maintenance of some languages of smaller ethnic groups has been partly encouraged by such commodification of languages, the economically instrumental motivation has led to some languages being promoted over others. Prioritisation of languages through the 1991 Australian Language and Literacy Policy and the 1994–2003 National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) strategy has had the ultimate effect of creating six languages – three European and three Asian – that are taken by 80 per cent of students enrolled for a language at school throughout Australia. But we do not know which languages will be of economic value to Australia in the future. In the 1990s, bilingual Australians were able to open up the freight transport industry in Hungary, telecommunications in Lithuania, start subsidiaries of Australian law firms and of Australian universities in Vietnam and set up export firms with Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, and India, using their language skills and cultural knowledge. Some of the languages involved are those of ‘low significance’ and low enrolment that are now being suspended from Year 12 offerings for that reason. Peter Mühlhäusler has made the point that for some languages Australia needs a small number of competent speakers but that need is just as great as that for languages of wider communication.21 For some languages such as Auslan, as for Aboriginal languages, there is a domestic market also. Auslan enables communication over a much larger area than a spoken language and it allows people to interact in it simultaneously without interrupting one another. This could have economic benefits. Yet the economic advantages of plurilingualism are very difficult to quantify. The report of the Inquiry into the Economic Contribution of Victoria’s Culturally Diverse Population22 stated: Certainly, anecdotal evidence was provided which revealed how useful particular cultural and language groupings can be for business when dealing with its overseas customers but no examples were provided which


15/8/05

12:39 PM

Page 38


showed that the presence of such groupings translated into increased exports or investment or new trade links.

François Grin and François Vaillancourt, two of the world’s leading economists of language, give the following assessment:23 Moving from unilingualism (i.e. monolingualism) to bilingualism … is likely to generate considerable benefits for society as a whole without causing prohibitive expense.

However, they also warn that costs outweigh benefits where a larger number of languages is used by a whole society. In another paper, Grin refers to the benefits of immigrant language vitality for increased economic activity, especially trade flows.24 In a study of Italian and Turkish immigrants in the French-speaking parts of Switzerland, Grin and two colleagues, Jean Rossiaud and Bülent Kaya25 find that they tend to use several languages at work, but French the most, followed by their first language, more than English, for example, and also that those with a complete mastery of Italian obtain a higher salary than those with only a good knowledge of the language. (The reverse is true of Turkish, so it appears that Italian immigrants benefit from the fact that Italian is one of the national languages of Switzerland.) However, those who work in jobs where they can use their Turkish earn more than those who do not. The valorisation of plurilingualism at work gives plurilingual employees self-esteem. Another economist of language, Alan Sproull,26 has shown how the use of Scottish Gaelic has impacted on the distinctiveness of the Highlands and the Scottish Islands and in turn on tourism and trade. While I do not know of evidence for this, I believe that even the small amount of residual use of German packaged in the Barossa Valley has had some positive economic effect there and there is potential for cultural tourism in some suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney that could help language maintenance and second language acquisition, something that we will discuss in the next chapter. Grin and Vaillancourt make the point that ‘multilingualism almost systematically calls for some shares of power.’27 In chapter 4, we will see how even the teaching of community languages for everyone in schools has raised this issue.

Plurilingualism and speech processing In order to explore plurilingual speech and the ‘plurilingual mind’ a little further, we need to consider briefly how language is processed by the mind. For a long time, psycholinguists working on the processing of speech have


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 39



• 39

developed models on monolingual assumptions. However, in recent years frameworks have been adapted to take into account experiments using data from plurilinguals. The following is a summary of what the current state of knowledge on the speech processing of monolinguals and plurilinguals tells us. According to the most widely adopted speech processing model developed by Levelt and his colleagues,28 speakers conceptualise their message, then formulate it and then articulate. The earlier version of this model has been adapted to bilinguals by Kees de Bot.29 On the basis of the accumulated experimental (and other) literature on bilinguals, de Bot was able to make the following assumptions: 1 2 3 4

Language choice is preselected at an early stage of processing. The vocabulary of the plurilinguals’ languages is stored together. Sounds and prosodic (intonation) patterns are also stored together. At the formulation stage, words are selected abstractly – that is, for their syntactic properties and, in the case of nouns, for their genders in languages where this is an issue. Abstract units called lemmas are tagged for each language, and separate lemmas are necessitated for a concept common to two or more languages, since different information has to be accessed.

The neurolinguist Michel Paradis has formulated a number of hypotheses about how the languages of a plurilingual can be connected in the brain. Of these, the most plausible according to data from plurilinguals is the Subsets Hypothesis, which he himself considers the only one compatible with studies of recovery of brain-damaged patients (from where neurolinguists usually draw their evidence) and the bilingual’s ‘ability to mix languages’.30 The languages are stored together but the same-language items are represented by a single neural substrate. This explains some of the switching processes of plurilinguals that we have in our Australian data, a few examples of which we discuss in this chapter. What all this suggests is that it is language rather than a specific language that is the object of the processing occurring in our minds, and adjustments are made for each language. It is not, as is sometimes popularly assumed, that each language has to be contained separately in the brain, and two languages need twice as much storage space as one. It also means that the mind has to develop strategies to process one or more than one language because the mechanisms for speech processing several languages are similar to, but a little more complex than, those for a single language and increase in complexity slightly for each language.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 40


‘Mixing’ languages At this stage, I would like to differentiate between switching between languages, where a person has crossed over from one language to another within a sentence or stretch of discourse, and lexical transference, where a word is transferred from one language to another. An example of lexical transference is: Maria allora tiene una

TEACHER

italiana.

‘Maria now has an Italian teacher.’

Here an Italian–Spanish–English trilingual is talking in her variety of Italian about an Australian school. The next example is of switching: Ik heb gelezen ‘Snow White Come Home’. IT’S WINTER PET.

ABOUT A

‘I read Snow White Come Home. It’s about a winter pet.’

Here the English book title used by a teenage Dutch–English bilingual probably triggers the switch from Dutch to English. This is one of a range of phenomena that covers instances where items (words, meanings, sounds, letters), features and constructions are transferred from one language to another in a plurilingual setting. I only have space for the briefest discussion of these here, but I have covered these phenomena and the reasons for adopting my framework in Dynamics of Language Contact (2003) based on Australian data. Over time, languages change, especially in contact with other languages, and away from their heartland, such changes are likely to accelerate or even take a different course. For instance, Dutch in Australia has the tendency towards the following grammatical changes: 1

2

3

Whereas there are two definite articles corresponding to ‘the’ in Homeland Dutch, het (neuter) and de (common gender), de is overgeneralised in Australia, especially in the second generation. De is more frequent and closest to English. Whereas Homeland Dutch has two main plural endings, s and en, s, the ending shared by Dutch and English, is generalised by many bilinguals in Australia, already in the first generation (so kamps and mijls are found replacing kampen ‘camps’ and mijlen ‘miles’). Personal endings, such as those of the plural, are dropped by some second generation bilinguals. (In Dutch, ‘I eat’ is ik eet, but ‘we eat’ is we eten, with some second generation bilinguals using we eet.)


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 41


4


• 41

Whereas Homeland Dutch has the verb in second position in statement sentences and at the end in dependent clauses, even many first generation bilinguals will adopt fixed subject word order in cases, as in English. In the following example, this occurs in both cases: Als wij spreken Nederlands, ze verstaat drommels goed. ‘If we speak Dutch, she understands damned well.’

Homeland Dutch would be: ‘Als wij Hollands spreken, verstaat ze drommels goed’. The tendency towards subject–verb–object generalisation is already evident in the first generation. Not only is this the word order in English; the subject–verb–object order already exists in unmarked main clauses (without special focus) and is even being adopted, though very slowly, in colloquial speech in parts of the Netherlands and Flanders.31 These tendencies towards grammatical change are not all to be found in German, a closely related language. The subject–object–verb overgeneralisation may be found in some German–English bilinguals, but one generation later than in Dutch–English bilinguals. There are hardly any examples of verbal endings being deleted; very few of one generalised plural ending. While there is some confusion in gender allocation, there is very little evidence of the generalisation of one definite article, even in the second generation. In the third, there is some overuse of the neuter das for inanimate objects that are masculine or feminine in German. This is an extension of a tendency for the second generation to refer back to inanimate objects with the neuter pronoun es (‘it’) even if the noun is masculine or feminine. All this confirms that grammatical change in community languages is a product of tendencies inherent in the language and the influence of English and the post-migration social environment. Often the tendency is towards economy. This may be exemplified by the generalisation of ‘have’ as an auxiliary for the perfect (‘have come’) as in English. French, Italian, German and Dutch all have some verbs taking ‘be’ as the auxiliary. The actual rules vary according to language, but ‘come’ is one of the verbs taking ‘be’ in all four languages, and in all four languages there is a tendency towards the use of ‘have’ in the second generation. Some languages, such as Croatian and Hungarian, have elaborate case systems, Croatian with seven and Hungarian with possibly 17 to 27, depending on whose definition of case in Hungarian you accept. There is a tendency for second generation Croatian speakers in Australia to generalise the nominative and the accusative and for Hungarian speakers to generalise


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 42


the nominative, which is the case without endings. Adjectives generally follow the noun in languages such as Italian and Spanish, but among some plurilinguals in Australia, this order is reversed, as in simpatico uomo (‘likeable man’; first generation, Italian) and la más vieja casa (‘the oldest house’; second generation, Spanish). As has been mentioned, attitudes to interlingual switching and transference have changed along with attitudes to norms in language in general. There are a number of facets to this. Speakers have far more control over their ‘mixed speech’ than was previously imagined. They may employ it because of the particular speech situation or to reinforce their multiple identity. The psycholinguist François Grosjean has postulated different modes – monolingual language X, monolingual language Y, bilingual language X and Y, bilingual language Y and Z, trilingual. Grosjean argues that speakers decide at the beginning of an interaction if they are going to use both languages. However, even if they decide to be in the ‘monolingual mode’, the other language(s) will not be completely deactivated and one will influence the other. The notion that knowledge of one language causes ‘interference’ in another language has been largely discredited on three grounds: • •

•

All languages have borrowed from others over time. In most cases, there is some reason for transference, whether one language can express something more precisely or economically, or stylistically appropriately than the other, or the conditions of the social setting encourage transference. Negative transfer (‘interference’) is far exceeded by positive transfer. Second and subsequent language acquisition is greatly facilitated by the experience that students have gained through acquiring their first language and through the knowledge of the world that is incorporated into that language.

This may still mean that people growing up in a language contact situation in Australia will need to learn a standard variety for use in formal situations with monolingual speakers in the country of origin. The fact that the homeland standard variety also transfers items from English is no guarantee that the mixed speech of a bilingual may be understood, since what is transferred from English varies according to situation, individual and the speaker’s social networks. Notwithstanding the more open, tolerant attitude to switching and transference, there are many instances of unintended transference and switching. Two important factors in this are convergence and facilitation of


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 43



• 43

lexical transference. Convergence entails making one language more like the other. Where languages are closely related, like Dutch and English, they will be more liable to convergence than if they are less closely related, such as Croatian and English or unrelated, like Hungarian and English. For example: Dat’s one of de nieuwer plaatsen in Holland. Standard Dutch: Dat is één van de nieuwere plaatsen in Holland. English: That’s one of the newer places in Holland.

Only three items are clearly in one language, namely one of in English, and plaatsen in Dutch, all the other words being likely to constitute some convergence between the languages. Also, overlap in vocabulary, pitch/tone and syntax (sentence structure) will all create conditions conducive to a switch from one language to another. For instance, the Dutch–German–English trilingual who says: Ik moet dingen van de

SHOPS

… einkaufen.

I have (to) things from the (Dutch) SHOPS … buy (German). ‘I have to buy things from the shops.’

uses the English-derived transfer shops in both German and Dutch and this leads the speaker to lose their linguistic orientation and triggers a switch from Dutch into German. Overlapping items between the languages that facilitate switching include lexical transfers, proper nouns (place and personal names) and bilingual homophones (words that sound the same in two or more languages). The following example of lexical transference is from a conversation on values. Human being, while a transfer from English, has also become part of the informant’s Dutch, so that the speaker can continue in either language: Wat er gebeurt met de gewone werkers, die er eigenlijk uitgeschopt worden, die niet meer nodig zijn. ALSO WHAT wat wij er aan kunnen doen als human being OR IN MY CASE AS CHRISTIAN. ‘What is happening to ordinary workers who are actually kicked out, who are not needed any more. Also what what we can do about it as human being or in my case as Christian.’32


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 44


The following example contains a bilingual homophone: En we reckoned Holland was too smal VOOR ONS. Het was te benauwd allemaal. ‘And we reckoned Holland was too narrow/small for us. It was all too oppressive everything.’

Smal (Dutch ‘narrow’) and English small are both pronounced [smal] by the speaker. Thus phonetic convergence contributes to the category of bilingual homophones and here triggers a switch, in this case from English back into Dutch. It should be noted, however, that the informant pronounces Holland and was in much the same way in the two languages, contributing further to the facilitation of switching. The Snow White, Come Home example under ‘“Mixing” languages’ on page 40 illustrates the triggering effect of a proper noun, in this case a book title. If the syntax is identical or similar or there has been a convergence of syntax in the community language towards English, the likelihood of an overlapping lexical item between the languages facilitating a switch increases. For example: Das ist ein Foto gemacht an der kann sein in Mount Martha.

BEACH.

COULD

BE

kann

BE

‘This is a photo taken on the beach (Convergence towards English syntax). Could be …’

Here ‘beach’ appears to facilitate a switch into English, but when the speaker notices this and tries to revert to German, elements of English persist and most particularly, the English word order is retained. As languages of different typologies come into contact with English in Australia, we learn more about how such contact can affect change. For instance, theses by Tuc Ho-Dac on Vietnamese–English and by Lin Zheng on Mandarin–English bilingualism in Melbourne33 have shown how perceptions of tone facilitate switching between tonal languages and the nontonal language English. Vietnamese and Mandarin speakers perceive particular tones in their community language to be like tone (meaning pitch and stress patterns) in English – Vietnamese mid and high tones and Mandarin falling and neutral tones. The vast majority of switches to English from these languages (85 per cent from Vietnamese and 96 per cent from Mandarin in the two sets of data) occur immediately after a word with one of these tones.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 45



• 45

Monolingual and plurilingual thinking The additional complexity of plurilingualism can help us answer the following question: How does plurilinguals’ understanding of language differ from that of monolinguals? It all starts with bilingual children. As Ellen Bialystok puts it, in her book Bilingualism in Development:34 Monolingual and bilingual children move in different cognitive worlds, experience different linguistic environments, and are challenged to communicate using different resources, remaining sensitive to different abstract dimensions.

Perhaps the most telling experiment on this subject was that conducted in 1972 by Ilanco-Worrall,35 who asked young bilingual and monolingual children if a cow could be called a dog. The monolingual children tended to believe this to be stupid and ridiculous, while the bilingual children thought it was possible because their two languages had different words for a cow. For instance, a cow is vache in French, lembu in Malay, and tehén in Hungarian. There are a number of points to be made about this. Firstly, the bilingual children tend to see the arbitrary nature of words earlier than do monolingual children. Secondly, the bilingual children are able to differentiate between form and meaning more than the monolingual ones, a point that has also been made in other studies. This research also brings out the metalinguistic awareness (understanding of how language works) that bilingual children have because they do not take the language for granted the way monolingual children do. The ability to differentiate form from content is crucial in our daily thinking and doing that in language from an early age provides a good basis for future cognitive development. This demonstrates a different understanding of language and the beginnings of a plurilingual mindset. In another study, Ben-Zeev36 asked bilingual and monolingual children to substitute macaroni for I in a sentence, something that bilingual children also did more successfully. This Ben-Zeev attributes to the monitoring that bilingual children do to get their languages separated. It is not surprising, then, that Bialystok37 found bilingual children better able than their monolingual same-age counterparts to judge grammaticality (grammatical correctness) of sentences and count words, which means they can detect word boundaries and understand grammatical rules as they give more attention to such matters.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 46


It has been claimed in many studies throughout the world38 that bilinguals are superior to monolinguals on divergent thinking (creative thinking), a more general cognitive skill, that is to say that if children cannot solve a problem one way they try another. However, this is only true of bilinguals with a high level of proficiency in the two languages. Most of the studies involved ‘balanced bilinguals’. One can see why bilingual children show up as superior in what is a lifelong asset, because they are constantly switching between languages to express themselves more adequately. It has long been surmised by psycholinguists that there is a link between metalinguistic awareness and reading readiness among early primary school children. As has been mentioned above, there is evidence of bilingual children developing metalinguistic awareness before monolingual children. It was a group of Australian psycholinguists, Yelland, Pollard and Mercuri, who demonstrated a causal link between bilingualism (albeit in incipient form) and reading readiness. They found that Prep and Year 1 children participating in a relatively limited Italian primary school program were a ‘few months’ ahead in word recognition of children with no exposure to a language other than English.39 Despite the evidence mentioned above, scholars have differed in views about whether children growing up bilingually are advantaged or not. Bialystok, in her 2001 book, generally expresses some caution about studies that claim superiority of bilinguals on the basis of experiments of variable samples with children of varying degrees of bilingualism. On examining a range of studies, she concludes that there is ‘no blanket advantage for bilinguals’ as there are usually also tasks or parts of tasks in which bilingual children perform no better than, or not as well as, monolingual children. Bilingual children have consistently performed better than their monolingual peers in tasks requiring high levels of control (such as what is grammatically correct but anomalous or grammatically incorrect but meaningful) but not in those relying primarily on high levels of analysis of representational structure.40 The more fully bilingual they are, the greater their advantage. For instance, Ricciardelli41 found that Italian–English bilingual children performed significantly better than monolinguals on creative thinking, metalinguistic awareness and certain verbal and non-verbal abilities, but not if they had only a limited L2 (second language) knowledge of Italian. The useful research skill of differentiating between grammaticality and anomalies can be attributed to the bilinguals’ practice at inhibiting the salient when they are avoiding the use of items from the other language. Monolinguals’ barrier to solving problems is, according to Bialystok,42 ‘sup-


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 47



• 47

pressing the usual use and freeing oneself to entertain alternatives’. There are many studies that show bilingual children doing better than monolingual children in problem-solving tasks.43 They are, for instance, good at developing hypotheses. Peal and Lambert, in the study that represented the turnaround in psychological research on bilingualism,44 attributed this to the creativity of the bilingual. What bilinguals are very good at is noticing competing and misleading information, because that is what they do in order to monitor keeping their languages apart. In the past half-century, it has been established that bilingual children are not cognitively disadvantaged. Instead, there are compelling advantages centering around certain cognitive skills that are said to be enhanced by early bilingualism. This is supported by a startling neurolinguistic discovery, that early bilingualism alters the shape of the brain.45 A research team led by Andrea Mechelli at the University of London found that those who had acquired two languages by the age of five had a greater density of grey matter in the left hemisphere of the brain than monolinguals or those who had acquired a second language after the age of ten. In other words, the ability of a human being to acquire a language is a product of the ability of the brain to restructure itself.

Transfer of skills Many bilingual programs in schools throughout the world teach basic literacy and numeracy skills in the dominant language of the child on school entry, but this is phased out after a few years in favour of the national/majority language. While this phasing-out is not recommended because it leads to a subtractive monolingualism with one language replacing the other, it does reinforce the reality that skills acquired in one language are transferable to another. In an early study of children in the German bilingual program at Bayswater South Primary School, Anne Eckstein46 found that the children learning Science in German were performing better or significantly better in both scientific general knowledge and concepts and skills than comparable peers learning the same material in English. This tendency has continued in English medium statewide standardised tests enabling comparisons with socioeconomically similar schools. The children in the bilingual program were able to express themselves well in English on topics though they had received their instruction in German, even where they did not have the technical terms, reflecting their linguistic awareness. Much of the literature on French immersion programs in Canada reports on English-speaking children taught in French


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 48


being able eventually to perform at least as well as students in control groups learning the same content in English.47 Not all bilingual children are equal in the level of their bilingual competence. However, it is important not to demand of bilinguals equal competence in two languages because this is generally unattainable. As we have said before, bilinguals are not double monolinguals. An essential feature of bilinguals and the way they use their languages is the relation between the languages, cognitively, attitudinally and socially. One language is never far from the other, whether they help each other or whether they are being contrasted or whether the speaker is trying (successfully or unsuccessfully) to avoid one language affecting the other. In many publications, Cummins has developed twin hypotheses, the interdependence hypothesis (the common underlying proficiency model), that proficiency in L1 (chronologically first language) is a function of competence in L1, and the threshold hypothesis, that threshold of proficiency is needed for learning in that language to meaningfully occur. Cummins has distinguished between ‘cognitive academic language proficiency’ (also called ‘academic language proficiency’) – linguistic knowledge needed for academic work) and basic interpersonal communication skills (‘conversational language proficiency’ – linguistic skills needed for oral communication and to communicate sociolinguistically appropriately). There has been criticism of the framework, which Cummins has answered in his 2000 book, Language, Power and Pedagogy,48 in which he cites numerous studies supporting his dichotomy. I must say that the reference to L1 and L2 is usually not appropriate for many of those who have been brought up bilingually rather than those becoming bilingual through participation in a Canadian immersion program. But what Cummins has drawn attention to is not only the interdependence of proficiency but also the need to bring more than minimal proficiency into the task of bilingual learning and biliteracy. Skutnabb-Kangas,49 who has for many years been reporting evidence of enhanced L1 development assisting L2 development, uses two plants coming out of the same roots as an illustration of the interdependence of languages in contrast with a plant being grown without roots.50 Results from the Canadian immersion programs show the importance of an additive approach to bilingualism, where the learner adds a second language to their first language instead of replacing the first by the second. This is because the children continue to interact in their first language, to the advantage of the students’ development in both languages.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 49



• 49

Biliteracy If there are misunderstandings about the relation between bilingualism and education, there are probably even more about the relation between bilingualism and literacy. The greatest of these in English-speaking countries is the fallacious belief that there is an English literacy that can only be taught in English. There are now many approaches to literacy in an ever-increasing range of media, some emphasising reconstruction of meaning, the development of critical skills and/or multiliteracies embracing global communication and new technologies. Popular culture, with its audio-visual focus, has been reducing the significance of reading longer texts, such as novels or plays, although the Internet has revitalised the importance of reading.51 The reader is trained to be a code-breaker and analyst;52 however, the basic skill is still the technical skill of decoding, which is ‘neutral in its aims and universal across languages’.53 The underlying skill of making meaning from a text is common to all languages. This is based on an understanding of metalinguistic awareness. Once acquired, this underlying skill can be applied to the literacy task in any languages. In this respect, it is like walking or driving. We only need to learn to walk once and then we can adapt that to walking up stairs, on ice, and in the water. Similarly once we can drive a car, we have acquired the skill of driving and can easily learn to drive a truck, a tram or a motorcycle. Once a child can read one language, they do not need to start from scratch to learn to read another language. There are some component skills of literacy, such as: • • •

recognition of the structure of a word; recognition of the structure of a sentence; recognition of sound patterns possible in a language and ability to manipulate structural features of spoken language.54

Such recognition leads to prediction. Other such component skills are reading for meaning, scanning, skimming, making inferences and guessing from context.55 Most studies demonstrating the ready transfer of literacy skills from one language to another are of transfer between alphabetic languages with Latin script. However, there is also evidence in Australian research of transfer between English and languages with different writing systems. For instance, Arefi56 describes the transfer of L1 writing skills into English among Persian (Farsi)–English bilinguals in Years 3 to 5 in Sydney. Persian is written in


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 50


Arabic script, from right to left, with each letter written in three shapes according to position in the word (initial, medial, final) and not all vowels represented in script. The children, who have been at primary school in Sydney for 1–5 years during their parents’ period as graduate students in Australia, also attend a Persian weekend school. There was a strong correlation between the linguistic productivity (number of words, complexity of sentences) and holistic schemas of the children’s writing in the first and second language. However, there was no similar correlation between the technical skills (spelling, punctuation, grammar) in the first and second language. This Arefi attributes to structural differences between the two languages. On the other hand, conceptual information and discourse strategies acquired in L1 are transferable to L2. Those with well-organised and well-structured essays in L1 tend to also produce them in L2. Arefi sees this as confirmation of Cummins’s interdependence hypothesis with L2 writing as an extension of L1 writing. It should be stressed that these children are continuing to develop their L1 as their English improves. The lack of correlation in technical skills may perhaps be attributed to the fact that the children have been in Australia for less than five years, the period that Cummins considers essential for the development of cognitive academic language proficiency. In a study of children in a Khmer–English bilingual program in Years 1 to 4 in a Perth school, Barratt-Pugh and Rohl57 found that both languages supported each other in a steady parallel literacy development. Khmer is an alphabetic language with a Sanskrit-based script written from left to right. Words are joined together in syntactic units and the structure of English and Khmer are quite different. The migrant children, from families traumatised by war and torture, developed age-appropriate writing skills in both languages and a metalinguistic awareness that enabled them to focus on variation between the languages. Some schools see a conflict between the minimum requirement for literacy and the requirement to teach a second language. They reduce the LOTE allocation to the point where it is less likely to lead to any increase in metalinguistic awareness or (illicitly) abolish the LOTE program because the students all have English as a L2. This shows that basic (mis)understandings with regard to literacy need to be tackled expeditiously. In Bilingualism in Development, Bialystok58 postulates that L2 literacy tasks have the capacity to foster analytic capacities over language and thought that completely monolingual children do not have. We referred above to a local study by Yelland, Mercuri and Pollard that showed even a


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 51



• 51

limited early primary school L1 program accelerating reading readiness in English. A similar conclusion was reached by an American team59 working with programs in Chinese and Japanese as well as Italian and Spanish, who also concluded that the metalinguistic awareness attained through a limited L2 program can enhance L1 reading. Mori60 argues that learning to recognise characters contributes to heightening metalinguistic awareness through a different kind of flexibility. In the previous section, we discussed the superior ability of bilingual children over monolingual children to understand the relation between form and meaning in language. There is also evidence that bilingual children understand the relation between print and meaning better. In studies by Bialystok and her colleagues,61 this applied to bilingual children after preoccupation with two different writing systems. Chinese is a character language in which there is no direct relation between sound and letter. Hebrew has a different alphabetic system from English. When Chinese–English and Hebrew–English bilingual children were old enough to have had sufficient experience with both languages, they were able to understand the arbitrary nature of the relationship between length of object (train, caterpillar) and length of word better or significantly better than a monolingual English-speaking control group. Younger Chinese speakers performed poorly and younger Hebrew speakers were neither advantaged nor disadvantaged. The advantage for older speakers did not apply to a sample of French–English speakers, probably because the differences between these languages were so slight that the children did not develop further cognitive strategies as a result. The result concurs with other studies that suggest that preoccupation with several languages will have a positive effect on performance in any language.

Metalinguistic awareness and the acquisition of a third language From the mounting literature on trilingualism and third language acquisition, there is some evidence that bilingual children do better in a third language than monolinguals learning the same language as a second language.62 A recent small-scale study of Year 9 students from a range of bilingual backgrounds in Melbourne learning either Greek or Spanish as a third language63 shows that the children generally believe that they learn the language differently to their monolingual peers because they know better, from their bilingual experience, how language works. This applies


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 52


especially to those who are also learning or have also learned their home language formally. They are constantly contrasting the new language with both their other languages to ascertain which they can use as a basis for second language acquisition. They notice the similarities between Spanish and Arabic or Assyrian noun phrase word order, between vocabulary in Spanish and Filipino or Tetum (due to borrowing, in the latter case from Portuguese), similarities in vowels between Swahili and Kikuyu and Greek (due to the absence of (Australian) English-type diphthongs in all these languages). This underlines the strong metalinguistic awareness of the bilingual children. Being a third language learner, you know the basics of another language you have to learn, and if you only know English, you are open to one language and not to a variety of languages. (Tamil speaker learning Greek at school)

There are two other important outcomes. Firstly, there is strong evidence that the children in this small sample are maintaining their home language more as a result of learning another community language at school. I speak Hakka more to my grandparents now that I am learning Spanish because I am interested in learning the language now. (Hakka speaker)

This is partly because they see that the school is promoting multilingualism and that other languages are strengthening people’s identity. (Learning Greek) has shown me that languages are part of the personality and the identity as well. (Tamil speaker)

The bilingual children taking the third language are generally doing better in it and continuing with it longer than monolingual children doing the same language as a second language, if they are learning and have learned their home language formally. Secondly, some of the children are turning their interest in their own bilingualism into a general interest in languages, crossing64 into other ethnolinguistic groupings and learning words and structures in the languages of other bilingual children at their school.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 53



• 53

I am interested in every language; I like listening to people speaking their own language and figuring out new words; it’s because I don’t like knowing only one language, now that I know three languages and I’d like to learn more. (Portuguese speaker learning Spanish at school)

The L3 learners in the sample not only enjoyed the experience of learning another language; they continued the study of the language longer than L2 learners did. In the case of related languages, there is a network of language acquisition specialists in Europe (Eurocom) propagating the learning of a whole family of languages with one as a basis, through contrastive instruction (e.g. French serving as a basis for other third languages such as Italian, Spanish, Romanian and Portuguese, or English as a model for German, Dutch and Swedish, Russian as a model for other Slavic languages).

Overcoming the hurdle of monolingualism In the above sections, I have presented some arguments for plurilingualism offering not only social and economic advantages but also particular cognitive benefits. These contribute to a ‘plurilingual mindset’ in which alternatives are ever present. In this respect, it does not matter which languages the child starts off with. It is through any exposure to a second language that the attitudinal and cognitive obstacles with which we are constantly confronted in this book begin to be overcome. In his 1981 book, Modern Languages in the Curriculum, Eric Hawkins develops the notion of language apprenticeship, whereby a second language provides the pathway to other languages acquired in the future. However, as we have seen, many of the cognitive benefits are subject to a threshold of bilingual competence.

The great monolingual English fallacy An argument sometimes heard, especially in English-speaking countries, is that English has become such an effective global language that others no longer need to be learned except when they are acquired by L1 speakers in countries where it is the national language, such as French people acquiring French. In this section I would like to recommend extreme caution with this argument against linguistic diversity in Australia because the consequences of accepting it would put future generations of Australians at a disadvantage in comparison with their counterparts in other parts of the


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 54


world. It is basically a fallacy created by seeing a situation with a monolingual mindset. We are part of a world in which plurilingualism is playing a greater role than ever, even in countries with another language of wider communication. However, there are a number of aspects that need to be considered carefully – the position of English and its possible threat to other languages, the value of multilingualism within a global communication system dominated by English, the problems of English being both a national and an international language, and how this is likely to affect L2 users of English and L1 users, both monolinguals and plurilinguals. Valuing community languages in Australia usually presupposes that the same languages are valued somewhere else. To deny the international importance of English would be foolish. It is at this time the language of wider communication par excellence throughout the world and spoken by more people than any other language ever has been.65 It is used by some 380 million first language speakers, who speak quite different national varieties of it, and by over a billion second language speakers, who employ it as plurilinguals. There are two important points coming out of this already. Firstly, those who use English as L2 have already been through the process of acquiring at least a certain measure of bilingualism, with at least some of the advantages discussed in this chapter. The assumption that one language is sufficient is at best a misunderstanding. NonEnglish-speaking countries have a policy of either ‘national language + English’ or ‘national language + English + at least one other language’. Secondly, English has become an international language as well as a national one. This has consequences for the proprietary rights that L1 speakers like to reserve for themselves, including deciding what is acceptable English. Like Arabic, French, German, Chinese, Spanish, Tamil and many other languages, English is a pluricentric language – one that is used in a number of countries, each of which has its own norms for its use, which impinge on their national identity. Those working on English are indebted to Braj Kachru66 for his differentiation between the three circles of English-using nations: •

Inner circle – Britain,67 United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. The national varieties of these countries are not equal in status, though they are approaching this situation. English is characterised by two dominant national varieties, American (on the basis of demography and political, economic and strategic power) and British (on the basis of historical


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 55


• •


• 55

tradition). There has been a gradual emancipation of the other ‘inner circle’ varieties. Australian English, for instance, has its own norms codified in national dictionaries and a pronunciation guide (but does not have its own grammar manual). Outer circle – (the New or indigenised Englishes) – such as Singapore, India, Sri Lanka, Fiji, the Philippines, Nigeria. Expanding circle – such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Lebanon, Israel. In such countries, not only external functions such as trade and tourism, but also increasingly academic ones (research publications, teaching at universities) and those involving high technology and entertainment are conducted in English. The number of countries to which this applies is expanding.

Language endangerment It has been estimated that between 75 per cent and 90 per cent of the world’s languages will disappear within the present century.68 These are largely indigenous languages in the Americas and Australia, which are no longer being transmitted to the next generation. As Peter Mühlhäusler has repeatedly pointed out, this is connected with massive ecological change.69 The loss of the languages constitutes a loss of cultures to the world as well as to the communities and individuals. There is a strong awareness of the problem of endangered languages and there have been recent attempts to reverse language shift through revitalisation and revival programs, bilingual education, and other measures facilitated by the description of the languages, as outlined by Joshua Fishman, the leading international authority on reversing language shift (RLS).70 Fishman71 is correct in his assessment that: Australian policies and processes constitute a positive but ineffective approach to RLS on behalf of recent immigrant languages and a negative but potentially effective approach to RLS on behalf of Aboriginal languages. Indeed, over the long run … a few Aboriginal languages associated with ‘outstations’ and genuine community schools may be far more successful in the RLS scene than any of the recently proliferated immigrant languages currently marked by social mobility and urban demographic dispersion …

(See also chapter 3.)


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 56


Most of the smaller national languages of Europe are not among the most vulnerable languages of the world. Every one of the languages of Europe, Asia and Africa, whether national, regional or immigrant languages, are symbols of cultures, embodying a particular way of looking at the world and a different way of behaving. Any reduction in the domains in which the languages are employed, while not constituting an overall threat to the language, does devalue and impoverish the language because certain aspects of the world then become increasingly difficult to express in them. This has already been observed in Scandinavian languages72 and is an important element in the controversy over possible expansion of Englishmedium courses at German universities. The well-being of languages is just as much part of ecology as that of the green-eyed tuna and the curly haired lizard.

Language imperialism Phillipson73 has argued that the success of English as an international lingua franca is a threat to other languages and has been largely achieved by government agencies such as the British Council presenting ESL as ‘aid’ to other countries. Pennycook74 contends that English is still permeated with colonial connotations. Skutnabb-Kangas75 has described English as the most important of the ‘killer languages’ as its rise in status and functions has been accompanied by the demise of so many other languages, especially indigenous ones. The position of the English language results from the hegemony of the English-speaking countries reflected in the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ in Iraq and the export of ‘economic rationalist’ thought and practices. This may well act as a balance against the very trendy image that has led to the ready acceptance of English among the world’s young people. The rise of English was helped by the severe damage to German and Russian as European lingua francas by their association in many places with aggressive nationalism and the denial of human rights and of French, a global language, by its speakers’ inability to cope with a loss of international status in the postwar period.

The cost of multilingualism One of the greatest threats to social and cultural as well as ecological aspects of society is an all-pervasive economic rationalism that assesses everything in terms of short-term trade and labour market goals, cost cutting, and profit making. Neither the well-being of human beings nor long-term eco-


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 57



• 57

nomic strategies flowing from it seem to be of significance. So issues such as the cost of interpreters if the number of languages represented in a meeting increases and the time taken to learn an additional language have become the major consideration. This is reflected in the ongoing discussion on the language practices of the European Union (EU), which confer equal status to all the national languages. With the enlarged EU, this comes to 20 languages, with the necessity to provide 380 interpreters (and a venue to house them) for every full EU session and function, for Estonian needs to be interpreted into Greek, Maltese into Slovak, Hungarian into Danish. And this is being done. However, many documents are translated from English and French or from English, French and German, and not directly formulated in each language. The issue has been raised as to how the EU will be able to cope with the language services’ needs of constant enlargement. This is not a debate on monolingualism! In most of the former Soviet Bloc countries of Central and Eastern Europe, English has replaced Russian as the first foreign language, though German has that status in some areas, and a large number of children and adults are acquiring or have gained high levels of proficiency in both English and German. French and Spanish are also popular additional languages. There are currently 4.65 million learners of German in the Russian Federation alone and 2.2 million in Poland. Clearly, not a move towards monolingualism! It would be interesting to see if it is still true, post-EUenlargement, as Schloßmacher76 found, that French and English (in that order) are by far the main languages employed by EU staff in their daily work. In any case, concern about the cost of multilingualism in the EU is not evidence of monolingualism. Due to internationalisation and deregulation of European universities, some are introducing or have introduced English as a medium of instruction in some programs. This will enable students to study in different countries. Some countries, such as Germany, are requiring long-term foreign students to learn German and to take part of their studies through the medium of German, even if part of their course is in English. This will enable both local and foreign students to become more plurilingual in academic and general communication. Already many laboratories in Europe use at least two languages as mediums of communication. In September 2002, 32 prominent citizens of the Netherlands, including politicians, linguists, sociologists and school educators, signed a manifesto to make three languages part of the normal curriculum of all Dutch primary and secondary school children.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 58


Plurilingualism is being advanced not only through migration and additional languages taught in schools, such as programs in EU languages, but also through the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The Charter gives such languages as Catalan and Basque in Spain, Sorbian and North Frisian in Germany, and West Frisian in the Netherlands, but unfortunately not immigrant languages, rights in education, the media, aged care and trans-frontier communication. Extending the charter to immigrant languages was one of the recommendations of a conference of experts organised by the Austrian Academy of Sciences in June 2001.77 The conference called on European countries to work together to promote multilingualism. The foundations of this approach are: • • • •

•

the right of all citizens to learn and use their own national and minority languages; the right of all citizens to learn at least two foreign languages in compulsory school education; the duty of all governments to encourage and promote foreign language learning even beyond school education; the duty of all governments to promote multilingual undertakings, institutions, home pages and the like by tax relief and bonus systems or similar measures; the duty of all governments to organise in an exemplary way the establishment, access and utilisation of public terminology resources and to promote standardisation activities by different measures.

In international communication within Asia, such as in ASEAN and at academic conferences, perceived cost seems to have played an important role in determining English as the lingua franca. This situation does advantage people from countries with a British or American colonial tradition and education system, such as Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines (or India and Sri Lanka) as opposed to Indonesia, Thailand or Cambodia (or Korea and Japan). However, it should be noted that many of the people concerned already have more languages than merely the national language and English. Many Indians speak several Indian languages; ethnic Chinese in South-East Asia (with the exception of those in Indonesia) are often proficient in at least one Chinese language, English and the national language. In Chinese-speaking countries, many speak at least one regional variety (fang yan) other than Mandarin, such as Cantonese, which are not mutually intelligible in the spoken form, even before they acquire English. Again not an indication of monolingualism.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 59



• 59

Although the Internet had been viewed as an instrument of English dominance over all other languages, it is becoming increasingly multilingual. Between 1995 and 1999, the percentage of home pages in English decreased from 84.3 per cent to 62 per cent78 and the trend is continuing, with first eight other European languages and now also several Asian languages occupying an important place on the Internet. Despite the claim that the world cannot afford so many languages beyond the private domain, economists such as Grin and others have shown that plurilingualism rather than monolingualism can be of economic benefit to a nation. I refer to the brief discussion in the section ‘Some functions of plurilingualism’ on page 38.

Is English monolingualism really an advantage? In the English-medium Asian international context, it would appear that the most advantaged countries would be Australia and New Zealand at meetings at which they are included because they do not need to use a ‘foreign language’. However, there are ways in which they might be less at home because the New Englishes of the region incorporate aspects of Asian culture into their vocabulary and grammar. English has been variously described as an Asian language79 and an African one80 for, as a pluricentric and international language, it increasingly has to express a range of cultural values, including those of developing countries adopting their own indigenised variety of English as their post-colonial national language. Something similar is happening in the ‘emerging centres’ of European countries using English as a lingua franca. While it is true that one can ‘get by’ in many parts of the world with English, especially in urban centres, being monolingual and expecting the others to be plurilingual is only a short-term solution to communication needs. Speakers tend to transfer cultural rules and norms from their L1 to their L2. Thus there are many situations where one needs to understand the cultural underpinnings of a message, or how a particular speech act is performed in the speaker’s L1, in order to comprehend what he or she is trying to convey in English. An understanding of this enables one to gain something of an inside perspective, for language is the gateway to a culture. Relying on other people’s English also gives them control of communication, and you are limited by what they are able to express in English or what they wish to pass on to you. In business or diplomatic situations,


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 60


relying completely on an interpreter means handing over control. Even where it is desirable to use an interpreter, it is important to understand what is being said, including what is being discussed between the interpreter and the other party. It is not surprising that English linguist David Graddol has described the idea of English as the world language to the exclusion of the others as ‘past its sell-by date’.81 He argues that the advance of English has mainly had the effect of making the world more multilingual and that monolingual English speakers may find it increasingly difficult in a multilingual world. On the basis of demographic projections, he predicts that Mandarin will become the new ‘must-learn’ language.

Discourse in English as an international language – a challenge Insofar as English has really become an international language, a genuine instrument of intercultural communication, it is used in many different ways, which reflect the cultural norms of the users. Research in Melbourne workplaces has drawn attention to different ways of using English, even in an intercultural setting in Australia.82 The study was based on audio and video recordings of interactions between non-native speakers of English from a range of backgrounds and in different roles. As a result of the research, we have identified three styles of taking turns in conversations. Style A has relatively long turns and participants increase speed and volume in order to maintain their turns and appropriate someone else’s; there is sometimes simultaneous speech between different participants. In most work situations, Style B is characterised by relatively long turns, much repetition, rhetorical parallelism (where the second half of a sentence reinforces or elaborates the first), and increase in speed and volume in order to maintain and appropriate turns. The turns in Style C are relatively short, and decreases in speed, elongation of vowels, rising intonation and repetition are the ways of maintaining and appropriating turns in this style. In the workplace data, Style A prevails among our Continental European and Latin American speakers, Style B among those from a south or west Asian background, and Style C among most of the South-East Asians. In all these regional groups, some cultures are more typical than others of the styles, so that Spanish-influenced Filipinos occupy a middle ground between styles A and C, while Muslim Malaysians and Indonesians are on the periphery of Style C culture and the British influence on the


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 61



• 61

Maltese puts them on the periphery of Style A culture, which is epitomised by Croatians and, to a lesser extent, Hungarians. While inner circle English cultures try to avoid imposing on others and express restraint in their communication, Central and Southern Europeans tend to express themselves more openly as a marker of solidarity. SouthEast Asians practise restraint far more than inner circle English speakers because of their cultural emphasis on modesty, respect and deference. But this restraint is overruled within a patronage network. Some scholars have expressed such differences in terms of some cultures communicating more directly than others. This kind of variation leads to communication breakdown and cultural prejudices, which may also develop from turn-taking behaviour. In our workplace data, some of the South-East Asian women have difficulty in decoding some of the questions and ironical reprimands of their Croatian supervisor, which they take literally. South-East Asians in the study have difficulty in making out why the supervisor and other Eastern and Central Europeans produce such long monologues, whether they are complaints, directives or apologies. This can be explained by the requirements in those cultures to mitigate negative speech acts through the addition of other ones. The South-East Asians prefer to keep such speech acts short and Anglos (inner circle English speakers) have downtoners such as Would you mind, a bit, kind of, and I guess. The Melbourne Age of 29 September 199983 reported a 62-year-old Serbian migrant who was convicted and placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond after becoming enraged on an aeroplane, after he asked for a drink, saying: ‘Give me a glass of Coke’. The flight attendant told him to say ‘Please’, which he refused to do because the way he had requested the drink was polite in Serbian. This is an example of different languages employing different grammatical devices to express politeness appropriate to the culture. The discourse patterns of inner circle English speakers tend to have a more spatial (formal) rather than more philosophical (content) orientation, whereas the reverse applies to most other European cultures. Inner circle English cultures tend to emphasise the relative importance of linearity (proceeding from point to point in a straight line without any ‘digression’) and of rhythmic or spatial symmetry in discourse, something that is not considered so important in the cultures that place more emphasis on content. This is reflected in the importance of a narrow definition of ‘relevance’ largely determining the value of a school or university assignment. (Meetings in English-speaking countries maintain the rigour of the straight line through


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 62


rules such as not returning to business that has already been discussed, relegating certain business to a subcommittee, and the rhythm is kept symmetrical by enabling a motion that ‘the motion now be put’.) However, a less linear text makes it possible for additional dimensions of an argument to be introduced, such as theoretical dimensions in an empirical study, historical dimensions, polemic with another school to be combined with an argument, as is the case in Central European, Latin American and Finnish academic discourse.84 This does not mean that Continental European and Latin American cultures do not value clearly written texts, but they are more inclined to require the reader to put some work into understanding what is of educational value to them, whereas readability by the consumer has been a paramount consideration in Anglo discourse. The emphasis on linearity and symmetry also detracts from the politeness requirements of East and South-East Asian discourse, which render it impolite to simply impose a particular point of view on an educated reader by presenting it all together at the beginning. The argument is revealed gradually and that gives westerners, especially Anglos, the impression that the text and argument are circular. As has already been indicated, while inner circle nations are now well in the minority among users of English, they still exert strong proprietary rights over the language in terms of norms. This applies far more to discourse patterns than to grammatical rules or pronunciation norms (the latter varying considerably between the inner circle countries in any case). By discourse patterns, I mean the way spoken and written discourse is organised. In many fields of scholarship, the major international journals are now published entirely in English. This applies to all the natural sciences but also increasingly to the social sciences and humanities. At present, English speakers from inner circle countries still hold a great deal of control in terms of assessing contributions and reviewing books in English. They often use their own culture-bound rules as the sole norm for English academic discourse in the evaluation of articles for a journal and the review of monographs.85 The former has been confirmed by a number of editors of international linguistics journals. The latter is exemplified in the following critical comments in book reviews: ‘Though W writes in the manner of an Austrian academic, this is a readable volume’. The English translation of a prominent German sociolinguistics book was reviewed in international journals by five scholars, four Central Europeans and one Anglo-American. The Central Europeans only commented on content. The Anglo-American described it as ‘chaotic’ and criticised it for


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 63



• 63

its ‘lack of focus and cohesiveness’, ‘haphazardness of presentation’, and ‘desultory organization’. The status of English as an international language carries strong responsibilities for native English speakers. Being so outnumbered, the time will come when our sole ownership of English norms, at least at the discourse level, will be challenged. It is imperative for English native speakers to understand intercultural communication and English as the instrument of such communication. People all over the world are no longer learning English just to communicate with British, Americans, Canadians, Australians and so on, but Japanese are learning it to communicate with Africans, South-East Asians, Eastern Europeans, Indians, Arabs, and Latin Americans, and so on. All of them will be using English in a different way from inner circle English speakers based on their own language and culture. The best way to understand this is to have a knowledge of the appropriate language and culture. Obviously, it is not possible to learn every language. But any plurilingualism initiates an understanding of variation in ways of communicating. Australia provides an opportunity to become exposed to many languages and cultures. The languages and cultures that are represented on a daily basis in our housing estates, our shopping centres, our workplaces and our schools are some of the ones on which worldwide communication in English as a lingua franca will increasingly be based. Valuing our multilingualism is a first step to understanding that with our linguistic and cultural diversity we have an important part to play in the world, even in the furthering of English as a lingua franca as a more effective tool. Our linguistic and cultural resources can make us an important link nation between Europe and Asia. As was mentioned in chapter 1, European companies have established Asia–Pacific headquarters and call centres in Sydney or Melbourne to utilise our linguistic and cultural resources.

The cost of monolingualism It is believed by some that the cost of multilingualism is too high, and this is reflected in very inadequate time allocation for language classes in some schools; other resource allocation for community languages, including interpreting and translating, is sometimes under threat. I hope that the above sections have presented a case for the opposite position: it is monolingualism that is unaffordable because it denies some people social justice, and all of us (and especially our younger generation) social, cultural, economic and cognitive benefits that the population of most of the


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 64


rest of the world have. In today’s world, one of the important skills is to understand a message underpinned by the cultural values transferred from another language. One of the important prerequisites is to escape the ‘monolingual mindset’, and to develop the capability to adopt different cultural perspectives. An Australia blessed with the linguistic diversity described in chapter 1 has rich and undertappped resources that give it the potential to be a world leader in intercultural communication in a global economy and a global environment. In chapters 3 and 4, we will discuss how such opportunities can be made available to all Australians, those with a background in a community language on which they can build and those who do not have such a background, how all can utilise community resources for this purpose, and how the education system can support this. We need to develop our language potential to the fullest,86 giving monolinguals a measure of plurilingualism and developing all the languages of plurilinguals to the highest possible level and providing the opportunity to build competence in further languages. As we will show in chapter 5, the National Policy on Languages (1987) and some of the state language-in-education policies of the time paid much attention to valuing our community language resources, but each subsequent language policy document reduced the importance of this as a mainstream issue, although provision is still good for after-hours programs in such languages.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 65

three

Fostering and transmitting multilingualism

In the previous two chapters, we have explored Australia’s rich linguistic diversity and discussed some benefits of plurilingualism. The next two chapters will be devoted to how Australians of all backgrounds can utilise community resources to develop plurilingual skills. The present chapter concentrates on the maintenance and transmission of community languages within families and communities, and chapter 4 focuses on the sharing of community languages with the wider community. In this chapter, I will first present data on present trends in the maintenance of and shift away from community languages, attempting to explain variation between different language groups, and then consider how families can be successful in maintaining their languages if they wish to and how they can be supported in this. The chapter includes a survey of some of the main institutions promoting and supporting language maintenance, not including schools, which will be discussed in chapter 4. The last part of the chapter starts an agenda for developing children’s language potential to the fullest. Sir Ninian Stephen dedicated his last Australia Day address to the nation as Governor-General to the issue of community languages: The thing that distresses me most is how little most children and grandchildren of overseas-born Australians retain of the culture and language of their lands of origin. The loss of ancestral language is grievous for the individual and the nation. We should be a nation of great linguists. (The Age, 26 January 1989)


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 66


The choice of this topic for an address to the nation is in itself an indication of the valuing of multilingualism by such a dignitary. However, the concerns voiced by the former Governor-General are also indicative of failed policy, not enough effort or unsupportive attitudes from the wider community. It should be remembered that early 1989 was just over a year after the passing of the National Policy on Languages through Parliament and followed a period when a great deal of attention had been paid to legitimating and supporting community languages.

Collecting data on language maintenance/shift Australia has had a question on language use in the national population Census since 1976. In that year the question elicited the regular use of languages other than English. The next Census with a language use question was 1986. By this time, the wording had changed to: ‘Does this person speak a language other than English at home?’ Respondents were then asked to specify which languages(s) and, since 1996, to indicate the language other than English most spoken at home if there was more than one. The restriction to language use in the home domain was motivated by the numbers reported using certain languages in 1976 being swelled by children taking the language at school but not actually using it in a nonclassroom context. The disadvantage of the restriction is that we do not obtain a full picture of language use in Australia. We miss out particularly on the use of community languages by people who have left the parental home but still employ the community languages to parents, grandparents and other relatives when they visit them, and in community groups, but not in their own homes (see page 3). Thus the languages of earlier postwar migrants whose children are now grown up will be subject to the greatest underestimation. As the default response is a negative answer, elderly people living on their own may be recorded as speaking English only. However, home use does give us a very good insight into the life chances of community languages, as a language that is no longer spoken in the home is unlikely to survive for very long. The language use question is far preferable to one on ‘mother tongue’, which is a vague and ill-defined concept. It is also preferable to a self-rating question on proficiency in a community language, as self-rating usually defies comparison and interpretation. Even a well-defined first language question would not be very


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 67

A N D T R A N S M I T T I N G M U LT I L I N G UA L I S M

• 67

useful, as it would not tell us anything about present use. In addition to the language use question, there is one on self-rating of English in four categories, which suffers from the usual problem of self-rating, that the categories are interpreted differently by different respondents. In the absence of Census data on language first acquired, we have estimated language shift on the basis of the percentage of speakers born in a particular country who speak ‘English only’ at home. This estimate is only approximate because the nexus between country of birth and likely language first acquired is not always very close. There are three main types of people for whom this is deceptive: • •

•

Those from multilingual countries, such as Vietnam, Yugoslavia, India, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Egypt, who could speak any of a range of languages. Those from minority groups, such as Hungarian speakers from Romania, Slovakia or Yugoslavia, Macedonian speakers from Greece, and German speakers from Poland, Hungary or Palestine. Those born in transit, such as Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian speakers born in displaced persons camps in Germany.

They can only be estimated for the 2001 Census, through cross-tabulation with responses to the ancestry question. For the second (Australian-born) generation, we have estimated language shift on the basis of the percentage of speakers whose parents, or one of whose parents were born in a particular country who speak ‘English only’ at home. Limitations in the processing of the ancestry question do not permit further refinement. Moreover, parents’ country of birth was not elicited in the 2001 Census (nor will it be in 2006). This has made it impossible to compare first and second generation shift since 1996.

Differential language shift The first generation Like its predecessors, the 2001 Census has enabled us to construct a rank ordering of language groups according to language shift rate. I will first discuss the 2001 continuum and then briefly compare it with those in previous censuses where such data was available. Then I will attempt to account for the differential shift and the changes, taking into consideration period of residence, age, English proficiency and other social and demographic factors, such as variation in shift between different capital cities and between city and country. I will then discuss the second generation shift


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 68


and differences between the second generation from endogamous and exogamous marriages. Table 3.1 shows the language shift rate in the first generation. TABLE

3.1 Language shift in the first generation, 2001

Birthplace

Vietnam Eritrea Somalia Iraq Taiwan Cambodia China (People’s Republic) (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia El Salvador Lebanon Greece Turkey Hong Kong (SAR of China) Korea, Republic of (South) Chile Ukraine SOURCE

% using only English at home 2.4 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.7

4.8 6.2 7.1 7.1 10.3 11.1 12.2 13.5

Birthplace

% using only English at home

Ethiopia Italy Indonesia Japan Argentina Portugal Poland Brazil Spain Mauritius Philippines Hungary France Latvia Malta Lithuania India Singapore Germany Austria Netherlands

14.9 15.9 16.4 16.9 17.0 17.4 22.3 24.1 25.1 27.3 27.4 35.0 36.8 38.2 38.2 41.7 47.6 48.9 54.0 54.4 62.6

Kipp & Clyne 2003

Table 3.1 shows two groups of ethnolinguistic communities with a low language shift. They are a miscellaneous group of recently or fairly recently arrived communities from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The lowest shift rate is to be found among the Vietnamese-born, and the ancestry question has enabled us to identify them as speakers of both Vietnamese (2.1 per cent shift) and speakers of Chinese varieties such as Cantonese and Hakka (2.2 per cent shift). The other low shift groups are speakers of Tigrinya, Amharic and Oromo (from Eritrea), of Somali, of Iraqi Arab, of Mandarin (from Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China), of Khmer, of Cantonese (from Hong Kong as well as from China) and of Korean. Most speakers of Sudanese languages such as Dinka and Nuer have arrived since 2001, so we do not have statistics on them. The


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 69


• 69

second group of languages from which the shift to English at home has been low are Macedonian, Arabic, Greek and Turkish as well as Spanish from Salvador and Chile. At the other end of the spectrum is Dutch, consistently the language from which the greatest shift to English has taken place, followed by German (with an almost identical shift rate among the German- and Austrian-born), Lithuanian and Latvian, Maltese, French (from France) and Hungarian. A medium language shift may be found from the Philippines languages, Spanish (from Spain), Polish, Portuguese, Indonesian and Japanese. It should be noted here that not all recently arrived languages are particularly well maintained, with Indonesian and Japanese as counter-examples – the earlier vintages from these ethnolinguistic groups exhibited a high degree of exogamy. Table 3.2 shows changes in the language shift rates over the last four censuses. The trend is a progressive increase in language shift over that time. This applies to languages with a low, high or medium shift rate and older and more recent groups. The exceptions are for those born in Iraq, the People’s Republic of China and Korea, as well as in France. In the first three cases, it may be attributed to a revitalisation due to an influx of new migrants or refugees. The earlier vintage of Mandarin and Korean speakers had included a high level of exogamy, which had led to a higher degree of shift. There are also strong concentrations of Iraqi Arabic speakers in places such as Shepparton as well as in capital cities and of Mandarin and Korean speakers in certain suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. I am not suggesting that it is numbers of speakers per se that is responsible for a lower language shift. Over a long period, Greek has experienced a low shift regardless of how large the community is in the city or state in question. The shift from Greek nationally has always been lower than that from Italian, although there are more home users of Italian. The shift from German is higher than that from French or Polish, even though the number of home users of German is greater. However, a strong concentration of a group can result in close networks, promoting language maintenance. This is still one of the less clear-cut factors in language shift; while wellmaintained languages such as Khmer, Macedonian, Turkish and Arabic tend to be concentrated, so is Maltese, which has been subject to a high shift. Before we consider the reasons for the language shift differential, let us explore the shift in the second generation. For this we will have to use 1996 Census statistics – as we have mentioned, the 2001 Census processing does not permit us to estimate language shift in the second generation.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 70


TABLE

3.2 Language shift, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001

Birthplace

Vietnam Eritrea Somalia Iraq3.6 Taiwan Cambodia China (People’s Republic) (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia El Salvador Lebanon Greece Turkey Hong Kong Korea, Republic of (South) Chile12.2 Ukraine Ethiopia Italy15.9 Indonesia Japan Argentina Portugal Poland Brazil24.1 Spain25.1 Mauritius Philippines Hungary France Latvia38.2 Malta38.2 Lithuania Germany Austria Netherlands

% using only English at home 2001

1996

1991

1986

2.4 3.0 3.4 4.9 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.7

2.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.4 2.8 4.6 3.0

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.9 n.a. 5.3 n.a.

n.a. n.a. n.a.

4.8 6.2 7.1 7.1 10.3 11.1 9.8 13.5 14.9 14.7 16.4 16.9 17.0 17.4 22.3 n.a. 22.4 27.3 27.4 35.0 36.8 n.a. 36.5 41.7 54.0 54.4 62.6

n.a. 5.5 6.4 5.8 9.0 11.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.7 15.4 15.4 n.a. n.a. 19.6 n.a. 14.7 n.a. 24.8 31.8 37.2 n.a. 30.7 n.a. 48.2 48.3 61.9

n.a. n.a. 4.4 4.0 6.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 18.7 n.a. 13.1 n.a. n.a. 27.7 30.1 n.a. 26.0 n.a. 43.5 42.5 57.8

n.a. = not available SOURCES Clyne 1982; Clyne 1991; Clyne & Kipp 20021

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.2 4.4 4.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 16.0

n.a. n.a. 24.4 27.5

n.a. 40.8 39.5 48.4


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

TABLE

Page 71


• 71

3.3 Comparison of first and second generation language shift, 1996

Birthplace

% shift (1st generation)

% shift (2nd generation – ‘G2’) Born in Aust. EndoMother Father Exogamous G2 gamous only only (aggregated) (aggregated)

Austria Chile France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary Italy Japan Korea, Republic of Lebanon Macedonia, Republic of Malta Netherlands Other South America Poland China (People’s Republic) Spain Taiwan Turkey

SOURCE

48.3 9.8 37.2 48.2 6.4 9.0 31.8 14.7 15.4 11.6

80.0 12.7 46.5 77.6 16.1 8.7 64.2 42.6 5.4 5.4

89.4 55.8 77.0 90.0 44.6 43.9 85.9 73.1 65.0 59.0

92.2 68.9 83.3 93.6 55.1 53.9 90.7 80.9 79.2 65.7

91.1 62.3 80.4 92.0 51.9 48.7 89.4 79.1 68.9 61.5

89.7 38.0 77.7 89.7 28.0 35.7 82.1 57.9 57.6 18.0

5.5 3.0

11.4 7.4

34.2 33.2

49.0 41.3

43.6 38.6

20.1 14.8

36.5 61.9 17.2

70.0 91.1 15.7

92.0 95.5 61.3

94.0 97.2 74.2

92.9 96.5 67.1

82.1 95.0 50.5

19.6 4.6

58.4 17.1

81.0 46.1

89.8 58.1

86.9 52.8

75.7 37.4

22.4 3.4 5.8

38.3 5.0 5.0

69.6 28.7 34.7

78.3 30.7 52.3

75.0 29.2 46.6

63.0 21.0 16.1

Based on Clyne & Kipp 1997


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 72


The second generation Second generation shift differential shows a remarkable resemblance to that of the first generation. The main difference is the massive intergenerational shift in the Chinese groups – from 4 per cent (first generation) to 37.4 per cent (second generation) in People’s Republic of China-origin families, from 3.4 per cent to 21 per cent in Taiwan-origin families, and from 9 per cent to 35.7 per cent in Hong Kong-origin families. The second generation of the first two groups experience a shift far in excess of Macedonian, Turkish, Arabic and Greek speakers of earlier vintage than their groups. Another point worth noting is the marked increase in shift in each group for those who have parents born in different countries of origin. The contrast between a low shift rate among the second generation of endogamous parentage and a medium to high one among those of exogamous parentage may be seen among Korean-, Japanese- and Turkish-speaking families. It will also be observed that for all ethnolinguistic groups, the second generation tends to shift more if it is the father who is from the country where the community language is spoken than if it is the mother. However, this does not have to be so, as will be discussed below, in the section ‘The early years of bilingual language acquisition’ on page 88. The process of language shift is one of the reasons why, over time, some people transfer symbolic functions of the community languages to an ethnolect of Australian English into which words from the community language are transferred and which carry some of its syntactic and phonological features. In the second generation and sometimes beyond, the ethnolect may be used as an in-group code for communication with parents and/or grandparents and some members of the ethnic community and mainstream Australian English with members of the wider community. The ethnolect has been described as occurring in rural communities of German-Lutheran origin and among more recent communities of Greek, Italian and Yiddish background. Some examples: We’re going to town. Are you going to come with? (based on German mitkommen ‘to come along’; Tarrington, Western District) You’ve got to go and do sonnino (based on Italian fare sonnino ‘to take a nap’, Melbourne)

Shmeck the luft (based on Yiddish shmecken ‘to smell’ and luft ‘air’, Melbourne)


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 73


• 73

On the syntactic side, deletion of auxiliaries such as do, as in How you know? is common in the Greek ethnolect of Australian English.2 Such features are present in the stylised variety known as ‘Wogspeak’ developed for dramatic purposes by young second generation Australians performing in ethnic Australian theatre.3

Cultural factors – distance and core values It will be evident from the language shift differential for all measures (first, second generation of endogamous parentage, second generation of exogamous parentage) that people from particular regions and cultures maintain their community language more, or less, than others. Before we discuss this further, let us consider whether it is the language rather than the culture that is the factor. This can be decided outright by comparing the language shift rate of speakers of languages that are structurally and/or typologically about the same distance from English: • • •

Hungarian 35 per cent, Turkish 7.1 per cent; Arabic (Lebanese) 6.2 per cent, Maltese 38.2 per cent (closely related to Arabic); Italian 15.9 per cent, Spanish (from Spain) 25.1 per cent, French (from France) 36.8 per cent (all closely related).

A still better ground for rejecting language itself as a factor is the variation in shift from the same language among groups from different source countries – for instance, 4.8 per cent among Salvadorean speakers of Spanish and 25.1 per cent among those from Spain, 3.6 per cent among Iraqi speakers of Arabic and 6.2 per cent among those from Lebanon. A more plausible factor is cultural distance from the mainstream (Anglo-Australians), within a regional-cultural continuum. Language maintenance increases the further south and east the source country is within Europe (with the exception of Malta, see below). The least maintained community languages are Dutch, German, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese and French. These cultures are relatively less distant from that of the Anglo-Australian mainstream. Religion plays a significant role in cultural distance. So Roman Catholic communities from Northern, Central and Southern Europe have been easily integrated into the Catholic Church, as have, by and large, mainstream Protestants into Protestant Australian churches. This eases exogamy, which is often (though it does not have to be) accompanied by a shift to English. In the second generation, 88.7 per


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 74


cent of Turkish-Australians, 76.3 per cent of Macedonian-Australians, 73 per cent of Lebanese-Australians, 66.7 per cent of Greek-Australians, but also 47 per cent of Maltese-Australians (a high shift group), were from endogamous families in 1996. But only 8 per cent of second generation French background fell into that category, as did 12.7 per cent of Austrian and 16.1 per cent of German background, but 27.4 per cent of Dutch background (a higher shift group). One of the best maintained conglomerations of languages are Macedonian, Turkish, Arabic and Greek, all of which represent cultures that are somewhat more distant from the Anglo-Australian mainstream, largely based on either Eastern Orthodox Christian or Islamic religion. In contrast, Maltese culture and language has been strongly influenced by British and Italian cultures and by the English and Italian languages respectively through colonisation and by Catholicism, and the language, despite its Arabic origins, employs Latin script. At the time of migration of the vast majority of Maltese-Australians, English was the H(igh) language, predominating in the domains of parliament and administration, the judiciary, education and the media, while Maltese was mainly the language of everyday interaction. Despite their non-Indo-European language, Hungarians have a Central European culture and share much of their history with surrounding nations such as Austria; the cosmopolitan nature of the culture gives it some affinities with Western European cultures. The other group of languages that is particularly well maintained are those of recently arrived communities from outside Europe. These include languages from the Horn of Africa and from South-East Asia. Here we are dealing with cultures that are very distant from mainstream AngloAustralian and ones that are not yet well known within wider Australian society. What distinguishes speakers of Chinese varieties from Taiwan, Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China from these other groups is the pragmatic view of language (valuing what is useful). Hence, they recognise the importance of Cantonese and other fang yan as symbols of ethnicity, but encourage the children to learn Mandarin as a commodity and concentrate especially on English, the medium of learning, the object of a strong cultural ethos. This is reflected in a high language shift in the second generation. However, it needs to be reiterated that there are other Chinese groups, generally less educated or privileged and less socially mobile ones, such as those from Vietnam, who display a very low first generation language shift from their varieties of Chinese. (We do not know how this translates into second generation shift.)


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 75


• 75

Core values Cultural distance is only part of the picture. Apart from a range of social, historical and demographic factors, some cultures attach very much more importance to their language than others. That is the crux of an influential theory formulated by George ( JJ) Smolicz in the late 1970s and which he and his colleagues and students have refined through empirical study of an increasing number of communities in Australia and response to criticisms. Smolicz4 argues that each group has particular cultural values fundamental to its continued existence as a group and the rejection of which can lead to their exclusion from the group. Language is, according to Smolicz, a core value for some cultures, such as Greek, Polish and Chinese, and not for others, such as Italian and Irish, for whom family cohesion and religion respectively fulfil that role. With a number of refinements, this theory has the possibility of explaining some of the differential between language shift rates. As Smolicz and Secombe subsequently acknowledge,5 some people subscribe to an ideology concerning a core value without actually putting it into practice themselves. It will be noted on consulting tables 3.1 and 3.2 that, while Greek is one of the best maintained languages in Australia, this does not apply to Polish and it does not apply to Mandarin and Cantonese in the second generation. Anne Pauwels6 found that Dutch migrants regarded gezelligheid, a particular form of social togetherness, as a core value but not language. Clearly, in this group this correlated with a high and rapid shift to English. The Dutch scholar of multilingualism, Guus Extra, remarked on a visit to Australia that Dutch culture here can be seen but not heard. Delft china shoes on the mantelpiece, a birthday calendar in the toilet, and even a windmill in the backyard, but the language is no longer spoken. In the 1980s, when funding was available in Victoria to start primary school programs in any community languages, something that most other communities took advantage of, no Dutch organisation was willing to apply for such a grant. Other refinements to the notion of core values should take into account the following: 1

A close interaction between language and other core values will accentuate language maintenance. Religion, language, authenticity, family cohesion and historical consciousness interact in this way for speakers of Greek and Macedonian and at least Arabic-speaking Muslims. The languages have claims to authenticity as the language of the New Testament, the Slavonic


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 76


2

Liturgy and the Qu’ran respectively, even though these are all in ancestor varieties of the contemporary language, which have to be specially learned and are generally not understood by speakers of the present-day variety. The same may be said for Hebrew in the Jewish community, which is learned and taught in Jewish schools but is hardly used as a family community language except by migrants from Israel. It is, in fact, a very different language from any of the others spoken by Jewish Australians. Caution needs to be exercised with the opposition between language and family cohesion as core values. Among Greek-Australians, family cohesion is largely carried via the language, and among Italian-Australians, the dialect plays some role in family cohesion at least in the second generation, in contrast to the situation among Dutch-Australians, where English has become the main language of family interaction. Core values may change over time. This is because, as Pavlenko and Blackledge and various authors contributing to their book Negotiation of Identity in Multilingual Contexts have shown, identities and criteria for inclusion and exclusion (such as language, ethnicity, religion and sexuality) are open to negotiation.7 Katisikis8 found that the Greek language is still a core value in the second generation to honour parents but that this is not an issue in the third generation, where the majority of her informants regarded religion but not language as a core value. But then, many of them expect prayer to be in Greek. There are many other cultures where ultimately the choice needs to be made between religious or language maintenance and it is usually language that loses out. We have found in research on Arabic, Chinese and Spanish in Melbourne9 that those under 35 years of age are less likely than those over 35 to regard language as a core value in their culture. Sometimes ethnic revivals will strengthen the importance of the community language. This occurred in the short-lived revival of Maltese with the espousal of multiculturalism as a policy in the mid-1970s to mid-1980s and also the replacement of English by Maltese in Malta in many formal functions. Many adult second generation MalteseAustralians started learning the language. It should be remembered that many prewar Greek migrants changed their names, intermarried with Anglo-Australians and did not pass on Greek to their children. For 40 years, Estonian-, Latvian- and Lithuanian-Australians had strong motivation to maintain their language as the pillar of their culture. This was based on the ideology of the community that they were in Australia in exile and would return to their homelands once they were liberated from Soviet domination. With the independence of the Baltic States in 1991, there was very little return migration, but the link between political culture and


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

3

Page 77


• 77

language maintenance had become superfluous. Even the much closer links with the countries of origin, including the family visits and tours of Australia by musical and dramatic groups from the homelands, did not stimulate language maintenance the way intertwining with the political core value had. Some groups are defined around a language; that is what they have in common, but that is only part of their identity. So Arabic-, French-, German-, and Spanish-speaking groups encompass people of different national origins, religions or religious denominations, vintages and political persuasions. What the actual role and importance of the language is, will vary according to their multiple identity. There are then subgroups that have diverging core values. This would appear to be the case with Lebanese Muslims and Maronites, who attach a greater importance to the Arabic language, which is crucial to their worship, and Lebanese Western Catholics and Protestants, for whom the choice of liturgical language is more incidental (see ‘Religious communities’ on pages 101–103).

Period of residence From table 3.1 it would appear that the ethnolinguistic groups that came to Australia predominantly during the period of assimilation have survived less well than the more recent ones, who entered a nation already accepting of its cultural and linguistic diversity. But we need to take into account the passage of time since immigration. The factor ‘period of residence’ is an ambivalent one. It can indicate if a person has been in Australia long enough to shift to English (for instance) because of English-language networks and increased need to express Australian-based concepts, what kind of Australia they came into and have lived through, and what kind of Europe they left – perhaps also for what reason. Tendencies towards language maintenance and shift are the product of pre- and post-migration experiences and reactions to them. Table 3.4 shows a general decrease in shift between the pre-1986 and 1986–95 vintages. This can be attributed to both the passage of time and the impact of multiculturalism policy, which was very supportive of linguistic diversity. A comparison between the 1986–95 and 1996–2001 vintages draws attention to two conflicting tendencies. In some (mainly old established) communities, a drop in language shift is perhaps associated with a more comfortably off and mobile vintage that travels back to the country of origin frequently and is more aware of and able to use such facilities as radio programs and daily newspapers on the Internet than the previous vintages.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 78


In other groups, language shift may decrease as newer groups get a less positive message from mainstream Australians that language shift is something very desirable, even among groups that are conspicuously different from the mainstream, both culturally and physically. This does not apply to Iraqis, who have decreased their shift rate. Many of them came as asylum seekers and have been treated so inhumanely that a desire for integration is probably not very strong. Among those with decreasing shift rates are those born in France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Malta, but also Japan and Korea. Those groups with increasing shift in the new vintage include those born in Argentina, Cambodia, Chile, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Somalia, Taiwan, Turkey, the Ukraine and Vietnam.

TABLE

3.4 Language shift by period of residence, first generation

Born

Date of arrival Pre1986

Argentina Austria Brazil Cambodia Chile China Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Ethiopia France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Iraq Italy Japan Korea Latvia Lebanon SOURCE

20.5 57.2 39.8 5.1 15.3 13.5 28.2 5.4 24.2 31.6 44.1 57.9 6.9 20.4 38.5 78.3 38.9 14.5 15.7 39.7 20.6 40.0 8.0

Born

1986– 95 1996– 2001 8.6 31.3 21.9 2.7 6.0 2.2 5.4 4.4 1.1 9.0 29.2 35.4 9.0 4.7 13.1 34.9 13.0 2.5 13.9 13.9 11.6 13.8 2.8

Kipp & Clyne 2003

10.4 24.8 14.9 3.6 8.1 2.1 5.5 4.7 1.0 15.3 19.3 25.3 6.8 7.9 16.5 20.6 6.4 1.1 12.7 11.6 6.7 9.3 2.1

Date of arrival Pre- 1986–95 1986

Lithuania Macedonia Malaysia Malta Mauritius Netherlands Other South America Philippines Poland Portugal Russian Federation Singapore Somalia Spain Sri Lanka Switzerland Taiwan Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

1996– 2001

43.9 5.4 51.4 38.2 33.6 65.0 22.0

27.3 2.7 26.8 33.0 17.6 46.3 13.8

28.5 1.0 18.7 31.1 13.7 29.7 11.4

37.3 26.7 19.8 23.5

24.9 7.9 10.0 6.1

20.6 10.3 20.5 7.9

69.4 34.3 25.7 78.2 54.6 19.5 8.4 21.2 3.6

45.5 2.5 23.0 23.8 35.2 2.3 4.7 3.3 1.0

29.6 3.1 22.0 14.1 22.1 3.2 5.0 4.4 2.0


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 79


• 79

Gender Almost all the language groups originating from Europe, Latin America and the Middle East have shown a trend towards higher shift among males than females. (The trend is generally not as strong in the second generation as in the first.) A similar trend is evident among the Ethiopian- and Eritrean-born, while the Somalian-born have the same shift rate for males and females. This has sometimes been attributed to the role of women and mothers in maintaining family values, to a tendency for women not to work outside the home (which has not applied in many migrant families even where it did to the mainstream population) or to paternal family patterns in some communities.10 With the arrival of new groups from Asia, a new trend was evident. Among those born in Japan, Korea and Philippines and, to a lesser extent, those born in Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Taiwan, and very slightly for the Vietnameseand Malaysian-born as well as those born in the Russian Federation, there is a higher shift to English as home language among women. In all of these groups, except the Indian-born, it is also the women who have married partners from other countries more than men. Among those born in Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Mauritius, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and the Ukraine, the men have married out of their groups more than the women. So it would appear that exogamy is the main factor in language shift here. The French display the same rate of shift for men and women, although male exogamy is slightly higher.

Age The relation between age and language shift varies a great deal between groups according to the main immigration vintage of the group. It was once the case that the older the speaker in the second generation the less likely it was that they would speak a community language at home as they would not be living with their parents. On the other hand, the older the speaker, the most likely it was that they were speaking their community language. The 2001 statistics (which you will recall are only for the overseas-born) show a complex picture. While the oldest group of speakers (65+) born in India and Sri Lanka are those most likely to speak English only at home, the oldest age groups from the Philippines, Spain and Vietnam are those most likely to speak their community language at home; indeed, some of


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 80


them would be grandparents brought out under the family reunion scheme and providing language maintenance support for their grandchildren. Those from India and Sri Lanka in this age group are predominantly native speakers or near native speakers of English. In the early postwar groups, it is either the 55–64 age group – for those born in Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine and Hungary (though the latter experienced several migration vintages) – or the 45–54 age group – for those born in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands – that has shifted the most. They are the age groups that migrated as young children in the early 1950s (or late 1940s) and were subjected to intense assimilation pressures. In the case of the German, Dutch and Hungarian speakers, they were the generation who rapidly answered their parents in English. The fact that in each of these groups mentioned earlier, apart from the Ukrainian-born, it is the current 0–14 age group who shift the least shows that more favourable attitudes and policies towards bilingualism are exerting a positive influence. On the other hand, the fact that that same age group among those born in Cambodia, Korea, Taiwan and Turkey is shifting most suggests that we may be experiencing a turnaround. In some of the groups with a low rate of language shift, a long established pattern is evident, that the 25–34 age group shifts most because they are the ones who have moved out of the parental home and have ceased using the language in their own (while still using it to their parents). This is the case among those born in Chile, the (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia, Portugal or Vietnam.

English proficiency In addition to the language use question, the Census requests respondents to rate whether they speak English ‘very well’, ‘well’, ‘not well’ or ‘not at all’. While there are severe limitations on the comparability of self-rating, this question at least gives some indication of people’s confidence in their English. On the whole, groups with a large proportion of speakers with no English or not speaking it well, tend to experience a low language shift. Such a correlation may be found for speakers of Vietnamese (37.9 per cent English spoken not well or not at all), Khmer (35.8 per cent), Mandarin (25.8 per cent), Somali (23.8 per cent) and Turkish (23.5 per cent). These are among the languages with the lowest shift to English in the home. Languages whose use correlates with the lowest rate of ‘Not well’ and ‘Not at all’ responses, Dutch (3 per cent), German (3.4 per cent), French (4.9


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 81


• 81

per cent), Latvian (5.4 per cent) and Maltese (8.2 per cent) are ones that have undergone a very high shift to English. However, such correlations do not always apply and some communities are more polarised: Lithuanian speakers whose shift to English (41.7 per cent) is very high, also display a relatively high proportion (11.4 per cent) of people rating their English skills as not good or non-existent. Korean speakers include a high proportion with very low confidence in their English (35.9 per cent) in the lower categories along with an 11.1 per cent shift to English in the home. Despite high proportions of Cantonese and Mandarin speakers with low English self-ratings, as we have seen, this does not deter about 40 per cent of their second generation from using English only in the home. On the other hand, Filipino speakers have a very low self-rating of low English proficiency (3.7 per cent) and a medium language shift. As Anne Pauwels has pointed out in a study of gender and the maintenance of Greek, Vietnamese and German, those with little English are dependent on community language networks in more domains.11

Religion In our discussion above, we saw that cultural distance was one of the most important factors in the language shift differential, and that religion was one of the key factors in this. But religion is also one of the principal reasons for variation in language shift within a particular language community. In her book Medium or Message?, Anya Woods12 develops a parallel notion to Smolicz’s core value, that of ‘Language–Religion Ideology’, the extent to which there is a link between religion and a particular language. Some religious groups (across the major world religions) believe that communication with and about God needs to be in a special sacred language or variety, while others believe that language should not be an impediment to communicating with and about God in an intimate, everyday way. Woods examines the attitudes and practices of 16 Melbourne congregations of seven Christian denominations and plots each of them on a continuum according to this dichotomy and taking into account language as a cultural value. The Orthodox churches and the congregation of the Latvian Lutheran Church are, for different reasons, at the strong link end of the continuum and the Chinese Anglicans, Spanish Baptists and the minister of the Latvian Lutheran Church are at the weak link end. Religion has a strong impact on language maintenance among Arabic-speaking migrants, as was demonstrated in an in-depth study of


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 82


Lebanese- and Egyptian-born in Melbourne by Sandra Kipp and myself.13 Muslims from both countries of origin showed a lower shift away from Arabic than did Maronites, Eastern-rite Catholics from Lebanon, and Copts from Egypt, especially in the second generation. The 2001 Census confirmed that finding – there was a 3.8 per cent shift for Muslims born in Lebanon, as opposed to 10.5 per cent for Eastern-rite Catholics, 15.1 per cent for Eastern Orthodox, 31.9 per cent for Western-rite Catholics and 56.8 per cent for Protestants. The variation is related to the more symbolic status for Arabic within Islam as the language through which Allah spoke to Mohammed and, through the Qu’ran to his people. Although the symbolic significance of Arabic to the Orthodox and Eastern-rite Catholics is not that great, it is still significant as the liturgical language. The Language–Religion Ideology is far weaker among Lebanese Western-rite Catholics and Protestants. Among the Egyptian-born, the shift is 9.4 per cent for Muslims and 7.1 per cent for ‘other religions including Copts’. In the later generations – unfortunately we have no way of differentiating second generation – a 4.9 per cent shift among Muslims contrasts with 17.1 per cent for others of Lebanese ancestry. An 18.1 per cent shift among Muslims contrasts with 25.3 per cent for others of Egyptian ancestry. Part, but certainly not all, of the story is that Muslims from Lebanon and Egypt have been the more recent arrivals, while there are third and subsequent generations of Christians of Arabic background, especially from Lebanon, who have long shifted to English as the home language. But a more important factor is the more symbolic status of Arabic to Muslims as the language of Allah and his Prophet and of the Qu’ran, as mentioned above. Two other groups in which religion seems to determine differences in shift patterns are Sri Lankan- and Indian-born. Hindus in the former group show 7.4 per cent English-only in the home as opposed to 65.8 per cent of Catholics and 73.9 per cent of Protestants. Among the Indianborn, 8.9 per cent of Hindus shift to English, in contrast to 89.4 per cent of Roman Catholics and 85.4 per cent of Protestants. We need to take into account that approximately 30 per cent of Sri Lankan-born in Australia are Burghers, whose first language was English and some of the Indian-born are Anglo-Indians whose home language in India was English. However, cultural distance promotes language maintenance for Hindus and intermarriage between Tamils and Sinhalese and integration into mainstream churches in Australia promotes language shift among Christians.14


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 83


• 83

City/state Different community languages will be maintained better or less well in one capital city than another. This is usually attributable to that city having the largest population speaking that language relative to the total number of speakers of the language in Australia and relative to the total population of the city. So the shift to English from the following languages is lowest in Sydney: Cantonese, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Portuguese, Spanish, French from France, and Lebanese Arabic. The shift is lowest in Melbourne from Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Maltese, Russian, Turkish, Ukrainian, Iraqi Arabic, and Mauritian French. Perth has the lowest shift rate from Dutch and Macedonian, and Adelaide from German, Khmer and Polish. It would appear that relative size of the community is a better predictor of language maintenance than absolute size (which we have discussed under ‘Differential language shift’ on page 69).

The metropolitan/non-metropolitan divide In chapter 1, we noted that people speaking community languages were concentrated in capital cities in even higher proportions than the entire Australian population. Taking the Australian population born in 43 nonEnglish-speaking countries based on the 2001 Census, the percentage of those resident in non-metropolitan areas is only 12.6 per cent. The home shift to English only in metropolitan areas is 19.6 per cent, but more than twice as much (40 per cent) among those living outside metropolitan areas. For instance, the group with the smallest proportion of their number living in regional and rural areas, Somalis, experience more than five times as much shift to English there than in metropolitan areas. The groups, largely recent arrivals, with a very low proportion of their numbers living outside the metropolitan area, are the ones with extremely big differences between shift in the capital cities and in rural and regional areas. Examples are those born in Eritrea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Lebanon, China, Hong Kong and Sri Lanka. Those born in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Spain, Japan or France, the groups with the highest proportion of non-metropolitan settlers, are the ones with the least difference between shift there and in the capitals. Four of these groups are also among those with the largest shift across the board. The groups that are behaving most against the trends are the Japaneseborn and the Iraqi-born, who are shifting more in the capital cities than outside them. But much of the 23 per cent of the Japanese population


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 84


outside the capital cities are concentrated on the Queensland Gold and Sunshine Coasts. Many of the Iraqis are living in small towns, such as Shepparton in north-eastern Victoria, which has a large concentration of Iraqi refugees. The Korean-, Ethiopian-, and Philippine-born all display a higher metropolitan to non-metropolitan language shift differential than would be predicted from the percentage of their community speakers in nonmetropolitan areas. This can be attributed to different factors in each group – to high exogamy rates among Filipinas, to dispersion of Koreans in rural areas of New South Wales (though there is also a fairly strong concentration on Queensland’s Gold Coast), and the 250 Ethiopian-born living outside the metropolitan area in 2001 are a diverse group with a number of languages and therefore rather unpredictable in terms of language maintenance patterns.

Cost benefits In the final analysis, the decision to maintain a community language or not is one of individual choice determined by cost benefits. Among the pluses are15 the value of effective communication and solidarity in family and community, the self-fulfilment achieved by speaking the language, the opportunity to verbally express multiple identity, and the ‘market value’ of the language. Among the minuses are the negative ‘baggage’ or burden on one’s self-identity and identification from outside, and the perceived burden of time and money spent maintaining, transmitting or just using it. In determining cost benefits, people’s decisions will inevitably be coloured by their pre- and post-migration experiences. In this respect, the Macedonian-speaking community is an interesting case in point. The earlier vintage, from northern Greece, came from a situation in which their language was suppressed. This is probably a reason for a substantial underclaiming of the language in the 1976 and 1986 censuses and concomitant increases in 1991 and 1996. With Australia’s recognition of the newly independent Republic of Yugoslavia as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia came the then Victorian Government’s decision in 1994 to rename the language as Macedonian-Slavonic under pressure from sections of the Greek community, to whom the name Macedonia was also a cultural symbol. This was a unique action in that no Australian government had ever changed the name of a community language. Moreover, no other community language was named with the suffix of the language family (such as Maltese-Semitic or Irish-Celtic). It meant that applications for state funding for Macedonian-speaking organisations had to bear the new designation, as did language services provided. Students sitting for the same


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 85


• 85

Year 12 examination that was called ‘Macedonian’ in New South Wales had to enrol for ‘Macedonian-Slavonic’ in Victoria. However, this led to heightened language maintenance efforts in Victoria, the state with by far the largest number of Macedonian speakers. The number of secondary students taking the language increased nearly threefold between 1996 and 1998. The community took court action against the State of Victoria three times between 1995 and 2000, and was successful twice, leading to the reversion to the name Macedonian for the language.16

Family communication and language maintenance and shift This chapter so far has dispelled three myths about community languages in Australia: •

•

•

Any child growing up in a home in which a community language is spoken or whose parents speak a community language will automatically speak that language (with the implication that language maintenance is a matter of osmosis, requiring no effort at all). It is inevitable that the second generation will stop using a community language (with the implication that it is a waste of time raising children bilingually). Transmission of a community language is impossible if it is spoken by only one of the parents.

However, there is some evidence in favour of each of these myths. As we have seen, some languages are maintained more and longer than others. Family discourse patterns will vary – for instance between: a. parents and children speaking to each other in the community language; b. parents speaking the community language to each other and to the children, who answer in English; c. one parent speaking the community language to the children and the other parent speaking English to them, with the children responding to each parent in ‘their’ language; d. parents speaking the community language to each other but English to the children; e. parents speaking English to each other and to the children.

There are, of course, many other possibilities – for instance, in some families, older siblings address younger siblings in the community language and are


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 86


addressed by them in it. Generally, it is quite rare for children to speak to each other in a community language. It is sometimes a feature of recently arrived families and also occurs in marked situations where ethnic identity is being accentuated. In Spanish-speaking families, fathers are more likely to speak the community language to their children than are mothers.17 Often it is the situation and topic rather than the interlocutor (conversation partner) that determines language use and there is a great deal of code-switching in families. Camilla Bettoni and Antonia Rubino18 found that it is the domain that is likely to determine whether Sicilian or English is used in the family. In a study by Sandra Kipp and myself,19 about 70 per cent of communication between parents and children in Chilean-Australian families, nearly half of communication in Spanish-Australian families and over a third in Lebanese-Australian families takes place in bilingual speech. Dutch families are likely to adopt practice (e), while (d) is more common among German-speaking families. Practice (b) is the most common across ethnic groups and explains why strong maintenance among parents does not necessarily translate into a similar situation in the younger generation. Although the overall evidence points to exogamy being an important factor in language shift, there is much that is covered beneath the surface. In fact, between the 1986 and 1996 censuses there was a decrease in language shift among the second generation with one parent only born in Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta or the Netherlands.20 Workshops in Melbourne for parents raising their children in more than one language attended by as many as 300 parents a year over more than a decade have demonstrated a great deal of commitment by young educated parents – especially those who themselves are second generation bilingual Australians and couples where one partner is bilingual, the other a monolingual Australian. There is a strong belief that bi- or multilingualism is a gift to a child that is worth transmitting. Because our statistics have never identified the third generation specifically, the newly increased motivation for transmitting bilingualism cannot be quantified. But there seem to be two main family strategies involved – one is the ‘one parent one language’ strategy (see next section). The other is the tendency for parents who are both working outside the home to entrust the grandparents (often grandmother/s) with the early child care. This opportunity is often seized upon by the grandparents/grandmother to raise children bilingually under conditions far more favourable in an Australia far more supportive than when their own children were growing up. Both these strategies will be discussed below.21


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 87


• 87

Beating the monolingual mindset The early years of bilingual language acquisition The best time to start the process of transmitting a language is at the birth of the child. This is even more important for the parent than for the child, as it is far more difficult to change the language of a relationship with your child than to maintain it. There are various ways of raising children bilingually. But two stand out as being particularly effective. One is the one parent one language strategy – each parent addresses the child in a different language, and usually the child identifies mother and father with the appropriate language and uses the right language to each parent. This is very easy for a young child to follow, and two-year-old children will sometimes say that ‘Mummy says X (a word in one language) and daddy says Y (the equivalent in the other language)’. Some families differentiate languages not according to interlocutor but according to situation. They may use the community language in the home, for instance, and English away from home. That is also easily identifiable by the child and the strategy corresponds to a fairly common practice in Australia. Whatever practice is adopted, it should be followed through consistently. If not, it can lead to confusion and insecurity on the part of the child and often unfulfilled expectations of bilingual language acquisition. Some parents fear that they will be considered impolite and will be unpopular among Anglo-Australian friends if they communicate with their child in the community language in front of them once the parents’ goals are clearly outlined. My own experience and that of other parents raising a child bilingually has been, with very few exceptions, that friends are very sympathetic to this situation. What is essential is that people do not have the impression of being excluded. This can be avoided by explaining why you are speaking the community language and by paraphrasing briefly in English what has been discussed. Often the child takes on this task from an early age and this enhances their translation skills. Over time, the friends develop the capacity to understand much of the conversation from the context. I have mentioned before that there is some confusion among those with a more monolingual mindset between bilingualism and monolingualism in a language other than English, and it is important for parents to reassure them that they are raising a child bilingually and not monolingually without English, something that is not very popular in Australia.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 88


In some families, the one parent one language strategy is the only one possible as only one of the parents is bilingual. In others, the parents’ English proficiency is limited and clearly both parents should provide input in the community language. A rich basis in that language can then be supplemented by input in English from another source outside the home, such as child care, or within – perhaps the older siblings in communication not involving the parents. It is important for the child to have considerable exposure to English before starting school. Otherwise they may feel alienated in the new institution and this may prevent learning and also backfire attitudinally on the community language. The child may feel angry and frustrated at not being able to function in English and soon abandon the community language in protest. However, this does not mean that if the father is away from home more than the mother, the father’s language cannot be passed on to the child. Susanne Döpke, who has studied the one parent one language strategy in Australian families, has debunked that myth.22 Although the statistics in table 3.3 do suggest that the children whose mother speaks a community language are more likely to use it than those whose fathers do, there are stories of successful and unsuccessful language transmission regardless of which parent provides the input for the community language. Successful language transmission depends mainly on the way in which parents communicate with their children. In another study,23 Döpke has found that it is not the quantity but the quality of exposure that is most significant in the transmission of a community language. It is not the actual time spent with the child but the interaction that takes place, the child centeredness, the output that is encouraged by the interaction which leads to the development of the community language. Bilingual language acquisition specialists are currently divided on whether children start off with two languages or whether in the earlier stages, they have a mixed language that gets sorted out.24 The output of the earliest stage in the child’s language development that is frequently analysed shows some items from each language with some but little duplication. This can be interpreted in both ways. There is a lot of transference in the early phases of bilingual language acquisition or a mixed language.

More than two languages? The question is sometimes asked – Should children be raised in more than two languages? The response is dependent on what the function of the three (or more) languages is in their lives. It is rather futile for one parent to pass on three languages. If two parents each speak a language other than English


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 89


• 89

as a language of communication, and there are opportunities for the child to acquire some English as well, that is highly recommendable. This way, each parent is able to pass on something of their culture, and the language input is authentic. Or there may be a grandparent living in the same house or nearby who will provide the input in the third language. It is important to consider whether whoever is the interlocutor transmitting each language will have an ongoing relationship with the child – for example, a family member rather than an exchange student or au pair girl who is temporarily staying with the family. (Of course, it is not always possible to anticipate the future. One of the challenges is maintaining bilingualism based on a one parent one language strategy after parents are divorced.) How proficient should a parent be in a language to be able to transmit it? Do they have to have acquired it from birth? There are many instances of parents who had learned a language as a second language transmitting it successfully. An example is George Saunders, who passed on German, which he had acquired through tertiary studies, to his three children and wrote two books describing the family’s experiences.25 It is important for parents providing the input for children to be confident speakers of the language. Gaps in vocabulary can easily be overcome, but if the grammar is very non-native, that is what will become the native grammar of the child. However, there are many monolingual speakers of a language whose grammar will be non-standard and whose accent will be recognised as nonstandard. Embarking on transmission of a language to the next generation is a guarantee that the parent will be using the language constantly. One of the underlying issues is: What constitutes successful transmission of a community language? Some would hope that the child would become equilingual, rare as that is. A more modest and realistic expectation is that the child would be dominant in English but develop a high level of proficiency in the other language too. But even if the child has production skills only in English and receptive skills in the other language, that is an achievement that should not be rejected and it is important for the parent(s) to continue providing input in that language, for receptive skills will often eventually lead to production skills. And in addition some of the cognitive spin-offs we discussed in chapter 2 will be available to the child.

Recognising the child’s needs in the language Why do some children manage to maintain and develop the community language while others, even ones in the same family, become monolingual? Some of the reasons can be generalised, as follows:


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 90


•

•

Children are not receiving a strong and consistent model in the community language. The strategy to differentiate the functions of the two (or more) languages is not being followed through, whether it is interlocutor-based or situation-based. The parents may have given up too quickly. Sometimes children try out the limits of tolerance as they do in other situations and respond in English. This may be due to some negative attitude that they have perceived outside the home. Sometimes children may be temporarily experiencing difficulties in expressing themselves in the community language. This can often be resolved through patience, or by discussing the situation with the child. The interpretation that the child cannot understand the community language is usually unwarranted and in responding by talking to the child in English, the parent is withholding vital input. The same applies to speaking to the child in English because you do not expect the child to understand particular words or because the child is transferring English words into the community language. If you use the words, the child will learn them; if you do not, the child will be forced into transferring from or using English. If the child transfers English words, it is by no means the case that he or she will not understand the words in the other language in context when you use them. There are four essential ingredients of bilingual language acquisition: – communicative need – to provide maximum motivation and opportunities for language acquisition and development to take place; – functional differentiation – finding different functions for each language, to ensure that there is communicative need; – input as a model for production as well as a basis for comprehension; – output opportunities to develop the grammar of the language; to see what works and what does not.

All these aspects need to be furthered to ensure that children’s language potential is developed to the fullest. Grammar is the software of a language. Every person acquiring a language develops hypotheses about the grammar (that is, the structure of the language), which will be confirmed or modified, according to corrective feedback, explicit or implicit, and according to the model the learner notices native or native-like speakers and writers using. Sometimes grammatical hypotheses will be modified as a result of communication breakdown. But often there are individual factors that determine why one child in a family is actively bilingual and another, even in the same family, is not. Parents know their children and can develop different strategies with different children.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 91


• 91

Some children are independently minded. There are different consequences of this: • • •

They may be harder to dictate to from an early age; they may decide to shift to English. They may be easier to reason with; this could lead to language maintenance. They may be prepared to be different; this would also promote language maintenance.

But one of the underlying factors is the relationship between the parent and child, for bilingualism is a relationship builder. Children, like adults, will be subject to different types of motivation:26 •

instrumental motivation – a means to an end, such as a job or a place in a

•

particular faculty or university; integrative motivation – a desire to fit into society or a group.

The group that is often neglected is those who experience intrinsic motivation – they are really interested in languages. Linguaphilia (love of languages) is something that can develop early and be strengthened by parents with a favourable attitude to languages. Here are a few diary notes about a child growing up bilingually in English and German in Melbourne: From 2 years, 9 months: Recognising German speakers in public services and on television. c. 3–4 years: Proudly proclaiming herself to be a speaker of Turkish and Hungarian as well as English and German on learning a few words of the other two languages. 4 years, 2 months: On seeing a German Sesame Street video, she establishes her solidarity with Kermit: ‘Daddy, ich wusste nicht, dass Kermit auch Deutsch spricht’. [Daddy, I didn’t know Kermit spoke German too!] About the age of 4, she derived a great deal of confidence from the fact that she was bilingual. At 4 years, 11 months, she said to a monolingual colleague of her father’s: ‘Don’t you get bored speaking only English?’ About this time, she tried to imitate other languages, as did the bilingual children in George Saunders’s study Bilingual Children from Birth to Teens.27 For instance, she made up a song


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 92


consisting of words with the sequence Consonant Vowel Consonant, claiming it to be Chinese.

The other type of motivation is extrinsic – that is, where success at the task of learning or maintaining a language motivates a child to keep doing it. Some children like to excel. If they feel languages are something in which they can do this, it becomes an important part of them. It promotes their self-esteem. Some bilinguals and second language acquirers have a more functional orientation to the acquisition process – that is, all they want to do is communicate; the structures are not of any importance to them and correctness and purism do not bother them either. Others have a more structural orientation – that is, the structure of the language is of interest to them as an end in itself28 – something that should be nurtured since, as we saw in the previous chapter, metalinguistic awareness eases the acquisition of additional languages and promotes various cognitive skills. Especially for children with a functional orientation, their specific needs and interests should be taken into account as they grow. As the child reaches mid-primary school and advances into secondary school, parents are replaced by the peer group as the main influence. Parents usually have little influence on the constitution of the peer group, which is determined by the child, school, and outside interests. Language maintenance and development is, however, still possible. It is important for parents to encourage the child to become self-motivated, to find new and relevant uses of the language. At the same time, the child becomes more analytic in language development and more aware of deficiencies in the community language. The result is frequent transference and/or code-switching. It is therefore important for the child to be literate – to read about what interests them in the community language and thus to extend their vocabulary in the field. There are new competing pressures, activities such as Sport and Gymnastics, Drama, Music, and new technologies, leaving little time to develop the community language. Yet some of these very activities may stimulate plurilingualism. For instance, the Internet provides opportunities for language maintenance through motivation and information, and young people can conduct correspondence via email with people of the same age group in countries where their community language is used, including nonEnglish-speaking immigration countries.29 While young people spend less time at home, they rely on their parents to drive them or take them to their various activities. This is an opportunity for them to tell their parent/s about


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 93


• 93

their activities in the car, which can become a community language environment. Children may need some help in acquiring some of the necessary vocabulary, but this is an excellent opportunity to do so. There are ways of demonstrating that the community is a resource and at the same time satisfying particular linguistic needs and helping others. Among excellent human resources for the maintenance and development of the community language are tourists and the recently arrived – and the elderly. Young bilinguals can act as tour guides and cultural mediators for tourists and the recently arrived, who may not be very proficient in English. This creates communicative need in the language and provides them with rich input. New relationships with elderly local speakers of the community language not only provide input and output opportunities but also are sources of cultural and historical information for younger people. Elderly people, especially those who were never very proficient in English and/or have reverted to their L1 in their old age are often lonely and most delighted to have the opportunity to share their language and experiences with a younger generation. Language is crucial in our everyday lives – all our needs and interests have a language component. This link is the basis of successful language maintenance (and transmission). Young people should be encouraged to form their own groups within ethnic communities with their own diverse interests, to share ways of utilising their plurilingualism to advance their interests and vice versa. We have mentioned some fallacies and myths about bilingualism. Some of these are familiar to parents raising their children plurilingually. So if a child answers in English they may consider the myth about the impossibility of language maintenance in Australia, especially in mixed marriages, confirmed. Some may believe in the myth of language transmission by osmosis and feel there is nothing that needs to be done to achieve language transmission. Some parents believe that in order to transmit, or as they put it, ‘teach’ the child a language other than English, you need teaching qualifications. In fact, good parenting is a sound basis for the input required to acquire a language. It is sometimes felt that it is better to wait for a child to have the language offered at school (if in fact it is) or to send them to ethnic school so that the language can be learned ‘properly’. As Joshua Fishman points out,30 school is able to strongly support language acquisition and maintenance that occurs in the home, but it cannot replace it – certainly not in one to three hours per week. Finally, it is a fallacy that children have to acquire


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 94


language sequentially to know them adequately – simultaneous acquisition is very effective and it avoids wasting much time when children are so very ready to learn.

Maximising the advantages from grandparents In numerous studies of bilingualism, grandparents have emerged as an important factor in language maintenance. In Australia, they have been catalysts across language groups. Grandparents visiting from overseas will provide an immersion experience in the community language for the grandchildren. In some families, they provide that all-important opportunity to reverse language shift or to introduce the language that the parents had not been able to transmit. This is the vital second chance. Grandparents who live locally often act as the main caregivers for grandchildren in the early years as both parents work outside the home. But more often they provide some child care and interact with grandchildren on visits. The amount and, still more importantly, the intensity of the interaction, is the important factor in the role of the grandparents in transmitting the community language. The use of the community language is a relationship builder and, if the relationship is enjoyable, bilingualism will be greatly enhanced. Where one parent is the main source of community language for the child, the presence of the grandparent(s) provides an additional dimension in language development – that of indirect input. The child not only receives direct input from the one parent, when the child is being addressed by them, the child also hears the parent and the grandparent(s) talking to each other, which can provide an additional model, namely the way adults talk to each other. Interaction with grandparents as the only source of the language is usually risky, especially if the contact with them is only casual. A problem will occur if/when grandparents move away, become incapacitated or die. Grandparents can provide strong support for parental transmission, and can in the short term be the main catalysts for language transmission but, if at all possible, they should not be the sole interlocutors in the language. Sometimes the role of the grandparents will be of limited support for the following reasons: •

They may identify children and young people with the use of English and insist on employing English to express solidarity with the grandchildren, some even believing that their children or children-in-law are trying to


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

•

• •

Page 95


• 95

damage a good grandparental relationship by asking the grandparents to use the community language. They may switch between the languages, believing that the grandchildren would then understand them better, when young children often use English to anyone who does not clearly indicate by their linguistic behaviour a clear preference for the community language. They may not believe that bilingual language acquisition is possible, and therefore use English to the grandchildren. They may be purist in their response to the grandchildren’s language use and criticise ungrammatical sentences or transfers from English or correct them in a way that discourages them from using the language.

These matters need to be, and in many cases can be, negotiated by the children with their parents (i.e. the grandparents). They should ensure that: • • •

grandparents speak L1 consistently to the grandchildren; grandparents feel useful in a positive relationship; their children are separated from their monolingual English-speaking cousins when large amounts of input from the grandparents are an important purpose of the interaction.

It is important for the grandchildren to keep in close contact with grandparents after they start school so that the transmission process can carry on without interruption.

Overseas trips Overseas trips can be very valuable in developing the community language, as large quantities of input and output opportunities are available through immersion in the language. Most Australian-born and/or raised children never have the chance to develop a peer group register in the community language as they interact with those of their own age group in English. Overseas trips are their main opportunity to develop such a register. For some families, the overseas trip is the opportunity to create the turnaround where the shift to English is reversed and the community language is reintroduced in the family. It is nevertheless very important for English to have some function in the child’s life while overseas. Losing much confidence and proficiency in English can backfire attitudinally on return to Australia and lead to language shift. While overseas trips can be accompanied by many advantages to plurilingualism, both linguistically and attitudinally, one should also be


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 96


prepared for negative experiences that may impact on attitude to the language. There may be conflicts with relatives and/or friends. The bureaucracy may turn out to be inhibiting and inhumane. School may be less friendly to children than school in Australia and unable to cater for someone with a different kind of background. The child’s self-esteem may thus be lowered, and this may result in a negative reaction to the country and the language. The family needs to be prepared to move to a different locality or to send the child to another school, and to find new opportunities for the child to use the language.

The resources resulting from Australia’s language demography At the beginning of the first chapter, we mentioned the presence of plurilingualism in various public domains in Australia in the 19th century and its absence for much of the 20th century. Let us now reflect on how the use and distribution of community languages in interpersonal interactions, notably in the home, is now complemented institutionally, in community language media, worship and business transactions, multilingual workplaces, libraries and ethnic schools, contributing vibrance and colour to our society, a basis for supporting the maintenance, development and spread of community languages. The media, print and electronic, have undergone a revolution in recent years. In the immediate postwar period, people were dependent on locally published community language newspapers and radio programs, which were severely time-limited by law, and then also had local multilingual radio and television available. Now the Internet enables plurilinguals with computer skills and facilities to listen to overseas and local radio programs in languages other than English at any time and to read the same day overseas news items. In addition, there are local opportunities to watch films in community languages.

Radio There are over 20 public and government-run radio stations in Australia broadcasting in a range of languages – all in all, over 80 languages. This includes the government-run SBS stations, public multilingual stations, and other stations devoting some time for community languages. In the two latter categories, community members themselves compile and present the programs, improving their competence over different registers and domains. In addition, there are commercial stations transmitting in one lan-


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 97


• 97

guage only – some on medium wave, some low range stations, requiring devices for reception, and overseas as well as local stations can now be heard on the Internet, providing opportunities not imagined a few years ago. Leaving aside Internet programs, SBS and the public stations broadcast for over 6000 hours a year in Arabic, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Vietnamese and German. Totalling local SBS and multilingual community-run stations, but not commercial or single-language stations, in 2001 Sydney listeners could receive 478 hours of community language broadcasts per week, those in Melbourne 306, those in Adelaide 116, Brisbane 114, Perth 86, Hobart 20, and Darwin 25. To this should be added 106 hours of national SBS broadcasts in community languages. Apart from their communicative value as a useful vehicle for conveying information from the new and old homelands and the companionship and opportunities for discussion offered by talkback, there is a symbolic value of radio in community languages. It raises their status in that it demonstrates that they are not relegated to the home, that they are acceptable in the public domain. Research in a number of ethnic communities – Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), Arabic (Egyptian, Lebanese), Spanish (Castilian, Chilean), Filipino, Macedonian, Somali31 – shows that community language radio is not popular with the under 35 age group because of the content orientation of the programs. There are a number of programs that include a segment for young people and children; for example, with popular music and modern stories and conducted by a young person who is very fluent in the community language. These are more likely to motivate language maintenance and the development of a peer group register in the language.

Television Television is the medium that, for the past decades, has exerted the greatest impact on people. In earlier studies of bilingualism in Australia, it was found that speakers switched to English or transferred many words from English if they spoke about television programs in their community language. Multilingual/multicultural television has therefore had a very important influence in that this is now not necessary. Australia now has a nationwide television network transmitting films other than English with English subtitles in about 48 languages over a year as well as regular monolingual satellite newscasts in 16 community languages (and two national varieties of one of them). Time allocation on SBS Television is based on the availability of suitable films rather than on the numerical strength of


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 98


language communities in Australia, so that there is no strong correlation between the number of speakers of a language and the number of hours of films in that language. During the period 2002–03, the languages represented most were French, German, Italian, Spanish and Greek. TABLE

3.5 Languages broadcast, SBS Television, 2002–03

Language

Total hours

Afrikaans Arabic Bulgarian Cantonese Catalan Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Estonian Farsi Finnish Flemish French German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Kurdish

1.74 66.83 3.61 97.95 4.50 11.81 14.31 17.43 23.77 6.28 16.65 7.95 1.44 447.48 427.05 329.23 19.40 18.56 31.25 1.32 129.11 403.93 239.32 15.98 3.87

SOURCE

% of LOTE program 0.05 1.83 0.10 2.68 0.12 0.32 0.39 0.48 0.65 0.17 0.45 0.22 0.04 12.22 11.66 8.99 0.53 0.51 0.85 0.04 3.53 11.03 6.54 0.44 0.11

Language

Malayalam Maltese Mandarin Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romani Romanian Russian Serbian Sinhalese Slovak Slovene Spanish Swedish Tagalog Tamil Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Xhosa Yiddish

Total hours % of LOTE program 1.92 37.52 217.58 19.45 67.82 31.12 4.10 8.24 173.31 4.97 3.60 7.72 2.60 389.71 47.95 17.76 3.67 11.65 21.55 2.86 16.98 2.89 1.01 1.13

0.05 1.02 5.94 0.53 1.85 0.85 0.11 0.23 4.73 0.14 0.10 0.21 0.07 10.64 1.31 0.49 0.10 0.32 0.59 0.08 0.46 0.08 0.03 0.03

Adapted from SBS Annual Report, 2002–2003, p. 132

Multilingual television, both films and news broadcasts, have had a very positive influence in two ways. Adult viewers are confronted with up-to-date vocabulary in authentic linguistic and cultural contexts in a range of domains. In the early years of SBS Television, there were films for young people in a range of community languages with English subtitles, which provided a peer group variety to which those growing up in Australia otherwise


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 99


• 99

had no access. The curtailment of these programs was based on the dubious ground that they would be of little or no interest to people outside one language community as young people are unable to follow subtitles quickly. The other positive impact concerned the status of languages and cultures in the wider community. SBS Television has demonstrated to many people that good films can be produced in places other than Hollywood and in languages other than (American) English. The programs are watched not only by speakers of the relevant community language but also by those using other community languages and by monolingual English speakers. News broadcasts are followed by advanced learners of the relevant language as well as by members of the respective community. In addition, there are multilingual community access television stations in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, and two in Perth. As with radio, they are run by amateurs from within the communities. As with radio, those involved in the programs thus have considerable opportunities for language maintenance. The community languages with the largest number of hours of transmission on the community access stations are Arabic (14 hours per week), Greek (10), Italian (7.5), ‘Chinese’ (6), and German (5).

Video Television films are complemented by videos, which are sold from many outlets in Australia and may be borrowed from many libraries. Many families and individuals obtain videos from relatives and friends overseas and/or bring back supplies from trips to a country of origin. They are a very popular source of input in community languages, especially among young people and children, making up for the deficiency in television mentioned above.

Print media There are more than 180 newspapers published in Australia in community languages. The largest number are in Chinese, Greek and Vietnamese. In recent years, arrangements with newspapers in countries of origin through the Internet have made it possible for the first time for there to be daily newspapers in community languages, specifically in Chinese (7), Italian (2), Greek, Korean, Serbian and Vietnamese (1 each). Most community language newspapers appear weekly, but there are some fortnightlies and monthlies, and several bi-or tri-weeklies, including four in Arabic and three in Greek. Most of them circulate nationwide, although they tend to have the highest readership in their place of publication, generally Sydney or Melbourne. After an initial establishment period, there are usually more newspapers in a language than after many years of settlement. In some


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 100

1 0 0 • AU S T R A L I A ’ S L A N G UAG E P OT E N T I A L

cases, the early period sees the foundation of newspapers representing different political or religious directions. Over time, the number of newspapers decreases, but often the circulation of the remaining one(s) increases. With competition from the electronic media, and overseas newspapers now available on the Internet, ethnic newspapers no longer have their previous significance as cultural mediators, sources of information about the country/ies of origin, and models for the community language. Also being the only non-subsidised media, they often have difficulty remaining economically viable. Some editors still see it as part of their function to correct the language of articles, letters to the editor and advertisements.

Libraries The quantity and range of books, cassettes and videos available from local public libraries and the number of languages serviced has increased substantially since the early 1980s as libraries see themselves as resource centres for all sections of the Australian population. However, up-to-date statistics on the number of books in the various community languages in public libraries across Australia are no longer available. In Victoria, they constituted 5.5 per cent of total book holdings in 2001–02.32 The community languages in which nationally the largest amount of material is available are probably Chinese and Vietnamese. Many libraries specialise in a number of languages that have a significant presence in the local area, obtaining books, videos and periodicals in other languages on interlibrary loan from libraries with that specialisation. Most libraries have children’s collections in the relevant community languages, which enhance the children’s literacy skills. Among the most ardent borrowers are elderly people who have rediscovered a taste for reading in their community language now that they have more time. In addition to the public libraries, some ethnic communities continue to maintain their own libraries, which often predated plurilingual holdings in public libraries, and so do cultural institutes run by the cultural wings of foreign governments, such as the Istituto Italiano di Cultura and the Goethe Institut.

Secular community groups Ethnic community groups are generally set up in the early period of settlement of the community. Many of them conduct social and cultural activities ranging from welfare to drama, folk singing, dancing and sports groups. Some run youth camps and/or part-time ethnic schools. Over time, the language of social interaction may shift from the community language to partly


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 101


• 101

or mainly English. This can be attributed to declining interest in the club’s activities on the part of later generations and the opening up of the membership to the wider Australian community, a high degree of exogamy and language shift. General meetings in some ethnic clubs are increasingly held bilingually or even solely in English. For some, however, the ethnic club remains a locale or venue that stimulates the use of the community language or a regional or local variety of it. This includes the senior groups conducted in the community language by many communities. However, there are some activities that actually enhance language maintenance. Apart from the ethnic schools (see below), these are drama and folk-singing groups. Drama groups study and perform works of literature in the literary (standard) variety of the community language. In some cases, they are works set in the immigrant setting and occasionally even utilise a mixed variety or codeswitching between English and the community language. It is possible to sing in a language that you do not speak, but for those with some knowledge of the language, the songs provide grammatical patterns that can be internalised. Also, certain games have particular linguistic routines associated with them. Some ethnic groups (such as Italian, German, Chinese and Scandinavian) are more interested in outreach to the wider community than others (for example, Bulgarian, Latvian and Laotian).

Religious communities In earlier discussion in this chapter, we observed that religion marks group boundaries that may promote language maintenance or shift and that the link between language and religion varies according to the ideology of the religious denomination as well as the ethnic community. We can differentiate four models of practice in religious denominations:33 1

2

Assimilation – There are no community language parishes. The entire denomination projects itself as Australian, and community language services and activities are phased out as soon as possible. The best example is the Reformed Church, founded by Dutch adherents of the orthodox Calvinist churches in the early 1950s. Though theologically and in its social structures, this church is grounded in the Dutch tradition, it rapidly moved towards a shift to English, which was reflected in the family and friendship domain among its members. Transition – In some denominations (Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian), services in community languages


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 102


3

4

were held as a transitional measure in the 1950s and/or 1960s by clergy whose task it was to minister in the languages but with a view to integrating the families into English-speaking parishes. The younger generation would be rapidly absorbed into such parishes. Structural bi- and multilingualism – According to this model, selfcontained congregations in one or more community languages coexist within a denomination or even a parish. In many such parishes there are some combined services and/or social functions. Examples are Cantonese, Cook Islands Maori, Hungarian, Indonesian, Korean, Macedonian, Samoan, Tamil and Tongan within the Uniting Church; Cantonese, Dinka, Hakka, Mandarin, (Sudanese) Arabic and Tamil in the Anglican Church; Arabic, Cantonese, Croatian, Czech, Dutch, Filipino, German, Italian, Korean, Polish, Slovak, Spanish and Vietnamese in the Catholic Church; Finnish, German, Hungarian, Latvian and Slovak in the Lutheran Church; and Arabic, Romanian, Samoan, Spanish, various Slavic languages and various Chinese varieties in the Baptist churches, organised into a New Settlers’ League, with variation in the language of youth ministry. In addition, some Chinese independent congregations practise structural multilingualism by the use of English and several Chinese varieties in the same services or different ones. Some such congregations have a loose association with a denomination with which they share a building. The Lutheran Church of Australia and its antecedent denominations had earlier experience with bilingual parishes, which they reintroduced to cater for postSecond World War immigrants. Maintenance – This model usually derives from a strong link between language and religion. Here, little or no English is tolerated. Young people need to accept the traditional language as the liturgical language, even if is not a contemporary community language. Orthodox churches are ethnospecific (Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Lebanese (Antiochian), Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian) and most have not moved in the direction of alternative English services. The liturgical language is the ‘sacred language’, Katharevousa (for Greek Orthodox) and Old Church Slavonic (for the Slavic Orthodox churches). The exceptions are one Macedonian Orthodox church in Melbourne that has introduced English services and Bible study for young people, and one Greek Orthodox church each in Melbourne and Sydney with a Saturday service in English for young people. Also, one Russian Orthodox church conducted an English-language parish in Melbourne for a time with an ex-Anglican priest in charge. Although there appears to have been support in the late 1980s among Australian-born Greek Orthodox clergy for a de-ethicised Australian Orthodox church,34


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 103


• 103

no noticeable developments in this direction have taken place. The Easternrite Catholic churches (Lebanese Maronite, Russian, Ukrainian), have a similar practice as the Orthodox churches, but, because they are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, members tend to send their children to Catholic churches and there is more exogamy.

In Sydney and Melbourne, German parishes of the longstanding LCA tradition run alongside parishes of the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (German Protestant Church). The Scandinavian churches (Lutheran and mostly in communion with the Anglican Church) also have autonomous structures with clergy sent from the country of origin. These churches and the Latvian and Estonian Lutheran churches, which are loosely affiliated with the Lutheran Church of Australia, have tended to follow model 4. The language of Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jewish worship is Biblical Hebrew, but sermons are delivered in English, though Yiddish is an alternative in a few conventionally Orthodox synagogues. Liberal Jewish services are conducted mainly in English, with some presence of Biblical Hebrew. The lingua franca of the (multicultural) Jewish community is English, though various community languages, such as Yiddish, German, Russian and Hungarian, are employed in social interaction. Mosques are largely ethnospecific (Albanian, Bosnian, Lebanese, Turkish, Somali), with Koranic Arabic as the liturgical language and the community language used for social functions. Buddhist temples also tend to be language-specific and provide opportunities for languages such as Sinhala and Vietnamese. Models 3 and 4 often entail weekend classes in the community language within the parish community and some youth activities, such as Sunday school or Confirmation classes in the community language (perhaps in a choice of languages). Ethnospecific mosque schools conduct religious instruction in the community language, but the emphasis is on Koranic Arabic. Despite general tendencies towards secularisation in Australian society, religion continues to be one of the domains supporting linguistic diversity.

Shopping/transactional Certain areas of business are integral to cultural maintenance and combine two markers of culture, food/drink and language. They act as gravitation points in social networks functioning in a particular community language. Delicatessens (or groceries), butchers and cake shops specialising in Greek, Italian, German/Central European, Sri Lankan, Chinese and Vietnamese


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 104


food often stock newspapers and magazines in community languages, display ethnic community notes and sell ethnic crafts or imported pottery. ‘Ethnic’ coffee houses and restaurants provide opportunities for interaction with those with a shared culture in the community language in an appropriate cultural environment. The same may be said for those guest houses and alpine ski lodges that cater for particular ethnolinguistic groups. Social networks of mainly first generation bilinguals over the age of 35 using a particular community language also converge on bilingual professionals, such as doctors, dentists, paramedical practitioners, lawyers, social workers, estate agents and tax agents, who all have many opportunities to maintain their community language(s).

Work The work domain is a paradoxical one. On the one hand, it is perhaps the most multilingual domain in that it brings together people of the most diverse language backgrounds, with over 40 per cent of the Australian workforce having been born in a non-English-speaking country. The proportion is twice as high in some industries, such as textiles. On the other hand, it has long been the domain of language assimilation – the one in which English has been acquired by many because of communicative need and in which often people have been harassed by those with a monolingual mindset for using a community language. In April 2002, the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Tribunal ruled that ordering two Thai workers operating a rimming machine at the Mint to switch to English was not discriminatory because they could speak English. However, the barrister representing the Mint warned employers to be ‘cautious when issuing similar directives. They needed to ensure requests were not discriminatory and were appropriate and lawful’.35 (I would like to add that monolinguals are not in a position to judge whether the speakers’ communicative needs in the community language can be expressed by their English.) The imposition of a policy of English as the sole language of communication and authority is still common in some workplaces and enthusiastically followed by earlier Northern and Central European migrants. It is generally not supported by those from a strong language maintenance culture, such as speakers of Greek, Turkish, Arabic and Vietnamese. By now, many companies are at least tolerant of the use of community languages on the factory floor in the interests of improved morale and increased productivity. This is so particularly where there are multilinguals in the management, but some


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

Page 105


• 105

of them will also impose English to avoid the impression of favouritism towards any group. Community languages are most likely to be employed in dyads (that is, where there are two people communicating), and a switch will generally occur when another person who does not understand the language joins the conversation. This cannot happen where there are workers with very limited or no English. Community languages are generally employed in informal conversations during breaks. There are multinational companies in which the international company language is a language other than English. This may mean that board meetings are held in that language, that there may be professionals such as chemists and engineers transferred from the parent company and that some of the local professionals may need to be able to read and send messages and reports in the company language and visit the parent company. Many workplaces give their employees with limited or no English the opportunity to participate in English classes during worktime.

Ethnic schools There were, in 2001, over 101 000 pupils studying a total of more than 69 community languages in part-time ethnic schools conducted by organisations such as clubs, religious organisations and parent associations. Some of the organisations rely on the classes for continuity of their activities, which are conducted in the community language. In most states, ethnic schools tend to provide primary language instruction in community languages, while secondary programs are available through the Education Departments’ Schools of Languages in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and the Northern Territory. New South Wales has a separate Open Learning high school offering a range of languages by distance, which is provided by the Victorian School of Languages. The languages with the largest number of students in part-time ethnic schools are Chinese (over 20 000), Greek (about 9000) and Arabic (over 8000). Victoria (nearly 27 000 pupils) and New South Wales (over 24 000) are the states with the largest numbers of enrolments. Most of the classes are held on Saturday or Sunday morning, but the Greek schools tend to occupy several afternoons a week after day school. Generally, they offer language programs with a cultural context, providing literacy in the respective community language and a more standard variety and/or literary register than what would be available at home. In some schools, religion is taught alongside history and geography of the country or countries of origin, a small number of schools also including mathematics and


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 106


science on the curriculum. Increasingly, however, in many of the older established communities, the children speak only English at home and some do not hear the community language much. The onus is on the ethnic school to provide practically the only input in the community language in two or three hours weekly. The longer a community has been in Australia, the more likely it is that they will have ethnic school teachers who have been raised bilingually in Australia, are Australian trained and are familiar with methods appropriate to the Australian context. They will often be good role models for the pupils. Some of the newer groups use quite antiquated traditional methods with which teachers and parents are familiar from the home country. This is addressed by in-service programs for ethnic schools and conferences conducted by the Ethnic Schools Association and universities. Community Languages Australia, the umbrella organisation of the ethnic schools, has arguably become the most effective lobby group for community languages in this country. The pupils tend to speak the community language to the teachers but English among themselves, both in and out of class. This can have the effect of discouraging those who have been speaking the community language from doing so. Ethnic schools provide language classes in an authentic cultural context with the community in charge of the curriculum. Their existence guarantees the continuity of the language program despite fluctuating numbers and decisions taken outside their control in regular schools. The time when they are conducted, conflicting with extra-curricular activities such as sport, music and drama sometimes detract from children’s motivation.

Developing a family language policy From this chapter it follows that families need to develop a conscious language policy if they are keen on ensuring that the children develop plurilingually. In fact, in her book Bilingual Couples Talk,36 Ingrid Piller shows that bilingual couples, even those without children, generally develop a family language policy. A number of decisions need to be taken right from the beginning. Parents should take into account: • •

the language background of the family members and their proficiency in their languages; current language use patterns in the family;


15/8/05

12:40 PM

FOSTERING

• • • •

Page 107


• 107

the likely functions of the languages in the present and future life of the child; likely visits to and from overseas; what additional opportunities can be enlisted to provide and enrich the child’s development in both/all languages; family’s aspirations and the reasons for them.

The decisions are on: • • •

• • • • •

the model for language transmission – interlocutor or situation based; who speaks which language to whom and when in the family; how additional input and output opportunities outside the family can complement this, taking into account religious and secular community groups, shops and businesses using the community language; possible input and output opportunities through television, radio, tapes/CDs, videos/DVDs, newspapers/magazines, and the Internet; possible trips and visits from overseas and their timing; whether biliteracy should be introduced in the home; (later) how to encourage the child(ren) to find their own uses of the language; whether to send the child(ren) to an after-hours language program and/or to a day school that teaches the language.

It may be necessary to review some of the decisions if the desired effect is not achieved or if family circumstances change. Sometimes you hear people say that a particular bilingual parent is bringing up their children bilingually. This is seldom the reality; it usually takes two parents to bring up children bilingually. Bilingual language transmission is a joint venture. For instance, the English-speaking parent in a household employing the one parent one language strategy has a dual responsibility – they are acting as a model for English, the language generally shared with Australian society, and they are supporting the whole bilingual enterprise by positive attitudes, without which the transmission of the community language will not be possible. It is therefore imperative that the parents agree on a family language policy before the birth of the child and that the monolingual English-speaking parent be fully aware of the implications, such as their child may speak the ‘other’ language better than they do, and that there will be some conversation taking place in the home that they may not understand. However, the immersion situation will be conductive to the parent acquiring receptive and even productive skills in the language. A


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 108


good local source of advice is the Australian Newsletter for Bilingual Families . Perth parents have established their own, very active Bilingual Families .

Concluding remarks The preceding discussion has shown that there is significant underutilisation of community language resources in the context of fallacious assumptions or misunderstandings about intergenerational language transmission. On the other hand, there are rich resources available to support the maintenance and transmission of community languages. The next chapter will focus on the sharing of community languages, the role of schools in this, and some problems that have emerged in achieving this.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 109

four

Strengthening and spreading multilingualism

So far, we have shown that Australia has rich linguistic resources that are often neglected, partly because of basically monolingual attitudes. We have also pointed to research findings that dispel some of the popular fallacies about plurilingualism and second language acquisition, which often characterise a monolingual mindset. The management of our community language diversity is of the utmost importance to the nation. This diversity can be strengthened by encouraging and enabling the maintenance and development of all languages where the people themselves desire it and by facilitating the utilisation of community language resources and institutions for the acquisition of community languages by everyone. Chapter 3 suggested ways in which plurilingualism can be fostered and transmitted in families where it already exists. This chapter will consider how schools can develop the language potential of children from both monolingual and plurilingual backgrounds. They can do this in two ways – by building on the competence the plurilinguals have in both or all their languages so that the children and Australia can most benefit from it, and by enabling monolinguals to acquire and develop a second language used within the Australian community. This chapter addresses the feasibility of language programs catering for a diverse student population. It tackles some misconceptions about the notion of the ‘native speaker’ and the ‘unfair advantage’ of certain groups of students. It considers collaboration with ethnic communities to facilitate the sharing of languages by tapping into community resources. But first, we survey the statistics on languages taught in relation to the languages spoken in the homes of Australians, and discuss critically measures


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 110


past and present that have been taken to discriminate against students from a plurilingual home background in the conviction that such students have an ‘unfair advantage’.

Languages in Australian schools In 1971, JJ Smolicz published an article with the polemic title: ‘Is the Australian school an assimilation agency?’1 At the time, there was an active discouragement of linguistic and cultural diversity in the student population. Students were sometimes punished for speaking a community language (or an indigenous one) in the school grounds. Parents were exhorted to speak nothing but English to their children so that they could ‘make it’ in the Australian educational system. This advice was given to families where the parents had such inadequate English that making it the language of intra-family interaction would impede intergenerational communication and would not do anything positive for the children’s English, while at the same time denying them the opportunity to become plurilingual. Even in the many cases where the advice was not taken up, there was complete discontinuity between the home and school language situation because the community language was not available within the education systems. There were part-time ethnic schools, the role and purpose of which was generally regarded as marginal and little understood by the mainstream Australian community. The peripheral nature of these classes was affirmed by the fact that they had to be funded by the communities and that many of the teachers were often both untrained and unfamiliar with the culture of education in Australia. This often demotivated students, already discouraged by having to study when their friends were at play. A common recollection of many who attended ethnic school was that they hated it but were now grateful that they were sent, as it gave them better skills in their community language. Smolicz and Secombe, in their analysis of the memoirs of PolishAustralians, refer to ‘a number of writers who … came to appreciate and enjoy for themselves an activity which had, in the first place, been forced upon them by parents’.2 The Commonwealth Schools Commission devoted a whole chapter of its 1975 Report to the ways in which the reality of Australia as a multicultural society should be reflected in curriculum, teacher training, and the holdings of school libraries. One of the report’s recommendations was that languages and cultures of ethnic minorities be taught to all students in schools. Such recommendations occurred in the reports of many inquiries and conferences at the time.3 By now, ethnic schools received funding from


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 111

A N D S P R E A D I N G M U LT I L I N G UA L I S M

• 111

the federal government and in some states also additional grants from the state government. Eventually, teacher training and in-service were available for teachers in ethnic schools, and teacher training is now strongly encouraged for such teachers in at least three states. Many of the teachers are in fact second generation bilingual Australians who are both teachers in mainstream schools during the week and themselves former students of ethnic schools. By the mid-1970s, the earlier constraints on languages in schools had been lifted. Some state secondary schools in many states had introduced modern languages other than French as the ‘first foreign language’. This included not only German, already established in some schools, but also Italian, Modern Greek, Indonesian, Russian, and occasionally languages of other migrant communities. By this time, the range of languages examined in the final year of secondary school, no longer dependent on the existence of a corresponding university program, was extended to include any language for which there was a demand and suitable programs and examiners could be found. This was a way of legitimising languages regardless of the demographic, political or economic importance of their speech community. It was also a way of giving all bilingual students the opportunity to develop their potential in their community language. Currently, the following languages are examined in Year 12 in Victoria and New South Wales: Albanian, Arabic, Auslan, Australian Aboriginal languages, Bengali*, Biblical Hebrew, Bosnian, Chinese, Classical Greek, Croatian, Czech*, Dutch, Filipino, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Latin, Latvian*, Lithuanian*, Macedonian, Maltese, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Sinhala, Slovenian*, Spanish, Swedish, Tamil, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese and Yiddish (* denotes the subject is under suspension due to low enrolment numbers). Thirty-one of the languages are shared between different states under CCAFL, the Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment Framework for Languages, by which one state administers the examination for all states in a particular language. All states and territories except Queensland make use of these opportunities for at least some of the languages. In the mid to late 1970s, the first steps were taken (in most states) for languages to regain a place on the primary curriculum,4 something that was implemented in the 1980s and 1990s. While ethnic school programs are generally intended for students with some background in the language from home, languages in government,


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 112


Catholic and independent schools are usually for everyone. Where a student wants to take a language not available in their own day school, they can enrol for it in a centre of a School of Languages run on Saturdays by the Education Department in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia or the Northern Territory. For instance, if their school offers only Greek and Japanese, or only Spanish, Italian or Vietnamese, and they want to take Indonesian, German or French, they can do so on Saturdays. Some languages, such as Hungarian, Persian, Tamil and Ukrainian, are not offered in any mainstream school, others such as Khmer, Macedonian, Turkish and Vietnamese, in a relatively small number of mainstream schools, and the programs are concentrated in the Schools of Languages. Each centre of the School of Languages offers a range of languages in demand in that area; Victoria, for instance, has 33 such centres offering a total of 45 languages. In New South Wales, distance education is provided in nine community languages through the Education Department’s Open High School. Before we discuss the implications of teaching in mainstream schools languages spoken in the wider community, let us consider the statistics for the students of languages other than English in Australian schools. We will use 2001 statistics because that will enable us to take as a point of reference the Census statistics for language use. However, it must be noted that the presence of a community using the language is only one of a number of reasons for introducing a language, so we cannot expect the rank ordering of languages spoken in the community and studied at school to correlate. Table 4.1 shows the number of students taking languages at primary and secondary school (including a School of Languages) by the ranking of the languages in the general Australian population and in the 0–14 age group in 2001. As was argued in the Introduction, because English is the national language of Australia, it is not necessary for all Australian schools to specialise in one particular second language, as is the case in many countries whose first ‘foreign language’ is English. We can develop expert resources in many languages, building on our multilingual demography among school language learners. What stands out in table 4.1 is the gross underrepresentation of Arabic, Vietnamese and Greek among takers of language subjects in comparison with the numbers of young speakers of the language in Australia. Among the reasons for the discrepancy is the lack of emphasis on the mainstreaming of these languages within the communities.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

TABLE


• 113

4.1 The top ten community languages in Australian schools, 2001

Ranking/language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Page 113

Japanese Italian Indonesian French German Chinese (Mandarin) Arabic Greek Spanish Vietnamese

No. of students Ranking in top 20 languages nationally 402 394 310 247 158 111 31 28 24 22

882 770 363 001 076 464 844 188 807 428

Z* 1 20 18 9 6 4 2 7 5

Ranking in top 20 0–14 age group nationally 17 5 13 20 15 6 1 4 7 2

Z* – not in top 20 5 SOURCE Clyne, Fernandez & Grey 2004

On this point, let us first contrast Italian and Greek. Australia-wide, Italian is the second most widely taken language. It is well represented in government schools, especially at the primary level, and is in total the most commonly taught language in Catholic schools, though it is exceeded by Japanese in New South Wales, Tasmanian and particularly Queensland Catholic schools. The strong presence of Italian in schools may be attributed largely to the decision of Italian community organisations in most states in the 1970s to close their Saturday schools and redirect government funding for those schools to the teaching of Italian in mainstream schools, albeit in rather limited ‘insertion’ programs. The timing was opportune, as education systems were becoming sympathetic to the teaching of languages at primary school. This meant that Italian ‘got in’ at the right moment. The Italian communities anticipated that there would be a substantial language shift over time, and that taking Italian in a mainstream school would motivate children to maintain the language in an environment in which there would be more widespread interest in the language. The Greek community was quite divided on whether Greek should be taught in day schools. Some Greek-Australians, believing that Greek culture gives those of Greek descent propriety rights over their language, held that Greek teaching should be left to part-ethnic schools, which were for their children. Here cultural values and religion are included on the curriculum and teaching methods practised in Greece when the parents were


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 114


at school can be employed. In a recent study of Greek in a Greek community day school in Melbourne, Julie Bradshaw and Andrea Truckenbrodt find that there are clashes in opinion between sections of the community on traditional and learner-centered methods, together with a dominant view that the Greek of Greek-Australian teachers is inferior.6 Returning to the position of the Greek community in the 1970s and 1980s, some saw ethnic schools as functioning successfully and were reluctant to interfere with their power base; letting go of the teaching of Greek could make it dependent on the whims and fancies of an out-group. Others, often in coalition with other ethnic communities, maintained that it is the civic responsibility of mainstream schools to teach Australian community languages to all. Because Greek was for a long time a very well-maintained language, Year 12 syllabuses in Greek have been pitched at a standard difficult to attain by students whose only exposure to Greek was at school and by many of those with a more limited home background as well. While the assumption among schools and students is that Italian is accessible to all, irrespective of background, there are different expectations of Greek according to the person’s background. This will be dealt with below. Because Greek in many mainstream schools was directed to students with a Greek home background, it was dependent on a local Greek concentration. As we saw in chapter 1, Greek has moved in the past 25 years from a geographically concentrated language to a dispersed one, depriving many schools of a ‘critical mass’ of Greek students. Consequently, quite a number of state secondary schools have dropped the subject. In addition, in Victoria, the products of primary school amalgamations were faced with a choice of LOTEs and often abandoned Greek. Vietnamese, unlike Japanese, Indonesian, Mandarin and Korean, was not propagated and funded under the federal government’s National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) strategy. Yet it is the most widely used language of the school age and pre-school population in Australia and in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, second in Adelaide, and third in Sydney (see table 1.3). It is not a language that those of Vietnamese or other backgrounds generally expect to be offered at school (although it is in some), but then Modern Greek is rarely studied at school outside Greece, and Australia has the largest number of students of Japanese per capita outside Japan. In the case of Arabic, we should stress the significance of diglossia – the spoken language of the communities is one of the colloquial national varieties, which differ in each of the Arabic-language countries, while the written (and formal) language is Modern Standard Arabic.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 115


• 115

This situation detracts from the value of community input for school programs and the language link between home and school. Both Vietnamese and Arabic arrived too late to benefit from the strong push that enabled community languages to be taught in schools; Greek has now declined due to both a relaxation of this initiative and a decrease in numbers of takers. In each of these cases, both in-group and wider community attitudes and policies of government and education systems are detracting from the teaching of the community language. Where Greek and Arabic are taught in schools, it is mainly in New South Wales and Victoria. In the case of Spanish, as we have mentioned in chapter 3, the rigid adherence to the six ‘main school languages’ is keeping out the language with the world’s fourth largest number of L1 users,7 which is also one of the major community languages in the younger generation. Nationwide, there are more than twice as many speakers of Spanish than of Italian of school and preschool age. Spanish is a language that is being taken in increasing numbers in the schools of many other countries, in Europe and Asia. It is by far the most commonly taught and learned language in the United States. In Australian universities, Spanish is becoming more and more popular. The findings of a Senate committee on trade with Latin America in 1992 noted that Australia was losing many millions of dollars a year by neglecting Latin America; this probably still applies, and four recommendations on the teaching of Spanish have never been implemented.8 Throughout Australia, Japanese is the LOTE studied most at primary school. This is the case in all states and territories except the Northern Territory, where Indonesian, the language of a close neighbour, predominates, and Victoria, where Italian takes first place. The popularity of Japanese may be attributed to its perceived economic value, Japan being Australia’s biggest trading partner. This emphasis is strongest in Queensland, which is very conscious of the tourist dollar but which also has a much larger proportion of Japanese speakers than other states. Over 40 per cent of LOTE learners in Queensland are taking Japanese. Italian is nationally in second place, followed by Indonesian, French, German, and Chinese (Mandarin). French still has a fairly entrenched position in schools, unrelated to a community presence or otherwise; German, less firmly established, has declined due to the falling maintenance of the language, together with a loss of programs in competition with newly introduced Asian languages in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The decline has been very substantial in New South Wales and Western Australia, but the


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 116


language is still doing relatively well in Queensland and South Australia. Indonesian has fluctuated over the decades, with political events shaping community attitudes to the teaching of the language. Cantonese is not taught in schools. Although it is a language of identity for a considerable number of speakers, their coveted language as both a language of wider communication and a language for educational purposes is Mandarin. Chinese migrants, regardless of their first language (such as Cantonese, Hakka, Hokkien or Mandarin), encourage their children to learn Mandarin. Considering this, together with the number of first and second language speakers of Mandarin as a world language and the importance of Chinese-language countries in the world, it is remarkable that Mandarin is not taught more in Australia. Its presence in the top 6 is due to its position in independent schools and also in ethnic schools and Schools of Languages. Greek, Hebrew and Arabic are taught in Greek Orthodox (and community day) schools, Jewish schools, and Islamic, Maronite and Coptic schools respectively. Only students of Israeli background speak Hebrew as a community language, though many of the pupils in Jewish schools have visited Israel. Depending on the orientation of the school (Orthodox, Liberal, Chassidic, other Ultra-Orthodox, secular Zionist), the focus in teaching will be on a different variety of Hebrew, as Klarberg has shown.9 Many of the students in Islamic schools are not of Arabic background and speak Turkish, Somali, Indonesian, Urdu or another language at home. It is Koranic Arabic in which they are particularly interested. Not only Vietnamese but also Filipino and Hindi were excluded from policies such as NALSAS in favour of other Asian languages and cultures. Here it is not only Australia’s language demography (table 4.1 on page 113, and chapter 1) that is ignored. There is a misunderstanding that erroneously classifies people from India and the Philippines as English speakers because of the presence of English in some domains in those countries. Primary schools are more likely than secondary schools to choose a language that is significantly represented in the school and local community, although secondary schools are more likely to offer a choice of languages. Languages for which there is a strong local demand, such as Macedonian and Turkish in some northern suburbs of Melbourne, are also, like Greek, Vietnamese, Spanish and Arabic more generally, becoming casualties of a rigid concentration on six languages in mainstream schools. Less than 14 per cent of Turkish-speaking students in Victorian schools (including the


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 117


• 117

Victorian School of Languages and ethnic schools) were taking Turkish as a subject in 2001. The lack of commitment to languages in New South Wales over a long period is reflected in student numbers. Despite the fact that the schoolaged population in New South Wales is 25 per cent higher than Victoria’s, there are 90 per cent more taking a LOTE there than in New South Wales. In 2001, Queensland had a third more enrolments in Japanese than New South Wales and more than twice as many in German, and South Australia about a quarter more in German than New South Wales and about the same number in Spanish. However, at 5.8 per cent, the proportion of Queensland students taking a LOTE in Year 12 in 2003 was distressingly low, compared to 16.9 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory, and 20.2 per cent in Victoria. The national average was only 13.1 per cent. The number of languages available in universities has declined substantially in recent years as offerings have been determined principally by economic factors. So it is now no longer possible to study Dutch, Khmer, Maltese, Polish, Slovenian or Turkish at university level in Australia. University programs are no longer available in Vietnamese in South Australia or in Croatian/Serbian or Thai in Victoria. University courses provide a two-way link with schools: they develop language skills from where students left off in Year 12 and they train teachers as well as preparing them linguistically for their careers. TABLE

4.2 Students taking a LOTE in Year 12, 2003

State/territory

New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Western Australia Tasmania Australian Capital Territory Northern Territory Total

SOURCE

Total Year 12 Total LOTE students students 65 50 28 16 12 4 4

311 276 545 703 426 795 260

1 485 183 801

Data courtesy of Yvette Slaughter

7 10 1 1 1

% taking LOTE

774 167 671 908 420 389 721

11.9 20.2 5.8 11.4 11.4 8.1 16.9

114 24 164

7.6 13.1


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 118


Community language teaching, discriminatory practices and the monolingual mindset Although a monolingual mindset still dominates the status of languages other than English on the curriculum, the deficit thinking on bilingualism – that bilingualism detracts from children’s education and causes people to be intellectually inferior – has given way somewhat to a perception that, at least for high achievers, it can be an advantage. So for instance, Victorian Year 12 students taking a LOTE receive a 10 per cent bonus on their score in that subject for university entry. The same applies to students applying for the University of Adelaide,10 and most Victorian universities give extra consideration to those with ‘middle band results’ (on the border of scores required to be admitted entry into a particular faculty), who have passed a language or humanities subject. Compulsory LOTE in primary and junior secondary school, highly desirable as it is educationally, has overstretched resources in some states to the point of diminishing standards and compromising methodology. There is a language teacher shortage that is not being addressed sufficiently. In Victoria, for instance, the average amount of time provided for a LOTE in primary schools is only 66 minutes per week, although the ‘recommended minimum’ is 150 minutes weekly.11 Compulsory LOTE has also been accompanied by a renewed set of assumptions about who language programs are for, and the rekindling of a largely abandoned discourse about ‘unfair advantage’. In exploring the struggle for community languages to be legitimate subjects at the upper secondary level in South Australia, Antonio Mercurio and Angela Scarino examine three interrelated dimensions grafting them onto: • • •

administrative structures; curriculum structures, including certification procedures; community structures, including the function of the language in the community of speakers in Australia, with implications for the teaching of the language.

They show that the language subjects ‘grafted themselves onto the classical, humanist curriculum’, but developed alliances with advocates of Mathematics arguing that both fields of study demanded ‘a high degree of mental skill and accuracy’.12 In the 1950s and 1960s, the University of Melbourne Schools Board, which was responsible for the Year 12 examination in Victoria, developed unofficial ways of discriminatory assessment in languages against students who or whose parents spoke the language at home. Their identities were


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 119


• 119

‘detected’ by introducing ad hoc questions, some devious, on students’ home background in oral examinations and this information was used to mark them down in the written examination. In addition, the English in translations into English was overrated to reduce the scores of students whose first language was not English, and particular orthographical or punctuation errors were penalised very seriously because they were considered typical of second generation bilinguals. This was intended to ensure that enough students without a home background could receive an A grade. The effect was to demotivate many students from maintaining their community language at home and to discourage them from taking the language for examination. The successor board, the Victorian Universities and Schools Examinations, found this practice to be ‘distasteful’.13 They replaced it with an examiners’ estimate of the number of students whose ‘A’ result was helped by their background and a corresponding increase in the number of As awarded in the language concerned. The issue of ensuring that students with a high level of proficiency in a language would receive a just score was also a subject of disquiet in South Australia – because the standardisation procedures requiring a similar distribution of scores in each subject ignored both the self-selective nature of language subjects, attracting the more able students and the number of background speakers in German and Italian.14 The Victorian solution of a modest ‘native speaker allowance’ was adopted also in South Australia, but Mercurio documents discussion suggesting that students with and without an Italian background were still disadvantaged by the formula. ‘The argument was put that students with an Italian background who presented for both Italian and French at the Matriculation Examination would often get higher results in French than they did in Italian’.15 The solution was found in using a language with few native speakers as benchmarking in a ‘bilingual marking’ process. The issue surfaced again in the early to mid 1990s, first in Western Australia, then in other states. A thorough investigation of students’ background, overseas experience and schooling in the language, which was to affect students’ grades, took place through a form filled out by the student and countersigned by the principal to ensure honesty. In Year 12 Mandarin, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean, where there are many students who have been educated in the language at overseas schools as well as many who have no ethnic, family or national background in the language, different examinations were introduced for first and second language learners. In such languages, eligibility for the Second Language


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 120


examination is determined on a points system. However, those required to take the First Language examination have by no means all received a significant proportion of their secondary education in a country where the target language is a national language and/or a medium of instruction. For instance, recently students in Victoria who have had all or almost all their schooling in Australia have had even to provide declarations from their kindergarten in Hong Kong that it had not been conducted in Mandarin in order to obtain permission to sit for the Second Language examination in Chinese. There has since been a relaxation in the criteria for permission to take the Second Language examination, which is not consistent across languages. In Chinese, the threshold for the Second Language examination in Victoria has been raised from five years to eight years on arrival in Australia. As I will contend below, this threshold is still far too young to provide a meaningful differentiation. As in most other states, eligibility for the targeted languages (in this case, Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean) is determined on the basis of a points system, taking into account such factors as: • • •

country of residence; language of full-time schooling; hours of study in the language per week.

Victoria has recently instituted three examinations in Chinese – First Language, Second Language (advanced), and Second Language. The first is intended for international students and other recent arrivals; the difference between the other two is not based on differentiated syllabuses. When LOTE forms were introduced, initially to facilitate differentiated marking systems, they involved interrogating students in considerable detail about their use of a language they were studying. This gave the impression that maintaining the language, sometimes against considerable odds, was some kind of crime, something unfair and un-Australian. The same applies in general to the procedure for assessing eligibility for Second Language examinations. (Legal terms such as ‘process’ and ‘appeal’ are used in the discussion of the regulations.) This is not the place to offer a detailed critique of the original form,16 but its presence did not act as an encouragement for plurilingualism. It would seem that no matter how hard students work to maintain and develop their community language, it will be counted against them because that is something they have got for nothing – this despite the general trend towards language shift in Australia


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 121


• 121

discussed in chapter 3. In Western Australia, background speakers in all languages are excluded from the population in the language before scaling takes place because it is predicted that their result in the language will distort the result as an indication of general achievement.17 This measure could be used to prevent demotivating students either with or without home backgrounds. In a recent paper, Min-Hsun Chiang18 argues that students of Chinese descent in the United States regard academic achievement rather than language maintenance as a cultural core value. This probably also applies to Chinese-Australians, and it is likely that the culture of academic achievement contributes more than home background to the high scores in Chinese of many Chinese-Australians, especially those who speak English at home to their Cantonese- (not Mandarin) speaking parents! This culture of academic achievement is reflected in high scores not only in Chinese, but also in Mathematics and Science subjects, scholarships to independent schools, and entry into medical faculties across the country. Along the way, not just encouragement at home but also private tutoring provide support as does, in many cases, attendance at Chinese ethnic school. The question of how much does a background in another Chinese variety help with Mandarin is discussed in the section ‘Native speakers/background speakers’ on page 130. On the other hand, there is a fear on the part of students without any background in Chinese that the competition of ‘native speakers’ will prevent them from gaining sufficient scores for selection to the university faculty of their choice. The issue of different kinds of ‘background speakers’ will be discussed below, but we need to first examine the effects of global scaling, which had been introduced into standardised assessment at the final secondary school examination by the time the issue of differentiating and discriminating types of language students reemerged.

Global scaling The tertiary entrance score, now known as ENTER, is calculated on the assumption that some subjects are more difficult or easier than others and that this would affect the score that a student would receive for entry into a tertiary institution. While there are some variations between states in the way in which global scores are calculated, their aim is to correct differences in difficulty and student population in the various subjects. Global scores attempt to rank subjects according to the overall performance in all subjects of all the students taking that subject. This detracts from their value in


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 122


assessing the students’ competence in any subject. Results are standardised to a mean of 30. In 2003, the mean scores in Victoria for French, German and Japanese (Second Language) in 2003 were 40.97, 39.08 and 39.42 out of 50 respectively. Thus, a student receiving 40 in French, for instance, will have their score raised to 50, while the same score in German and Japanese was increased to 48. The mean scores for languages with a very high proportion of ‘background speakers’ were often considerably lower – 28.17 out of 50 in Macedonian, 28.55 in Khmer, and 29.57 in Turkish in Victoria. Thus, 40 in Macedonian and Khmer is lowered to 38 and 40 in Turkish to 39. The lowering of scores applies particularly to languages with a large number of recently arrived students, as they have problems with the examinations in other subjects, which they have to write in English. Since students’ scores are interconnected, the results in the other subjects bring down the results in the language of anyone taking it. So, the Second Language subject scores in Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean have a higher mean than the First Language ones; in Japanese it was nearly 9 points out of 50 higher in 2003. Also, the global scaling system favours students taking advanced Mathematics and Science subjects, which do not require essay writing and in which the best students can obtain full marks. It disfavours those taking subjects such as Drama and Theatre Studies, Design, Visual Communication, and Business Management, which tend to be studied by less ‘academic’ students, whose results in their other subjects may not be very high. The time has come to reassess the value of global scaling and its effects on students’ choice of subjects, not just in languages but in a more general way.

Multiple examinations Most states now have different examinations or assessment streams for ‘first language’ and ‘second language’ speakers, but only for some languages, as shown in table 4.3. The traditional position in Australia, still maintained in most states, has been that living and attending secondary school in a country where a language is spoken in the adolescent years, when the student is maturing and using the language for a greater range of activities at school, makes them closer to an adult native speaker and differentiates them more from second language learners, who have had no experience living or learning in a country where the language is spoken. This is because of the priorities in upper secondary assessment and the cognitive demands of the Year 12 examination.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

TABLE

Page 123


• 123

4.3 Differentiated examination/assessment streams, 2005

State

Differentiated examination/assessment streams

New South Wales

Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Persian, Russian

Victoria

Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Chinese (the latter with three different examinations)

Western Australia

Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese

Queensland

Extension syllabus that may be taken concurrently with or after regular Year 12 programs by those who have been in immersion programs or are ‘background speakers’

South Australia

Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese (alongside differentiated levels for those who have commenced language at senior secondary school and those who have commenced earlier)

Tasmania

Four different levels of language offered; those who have ‘received full-time education’ for one or more years in Chinese, Indonesian or Japanese must undertake the highest level

SOURCE

Based on information from each of the states

However, in 2004 Western Australia embarked on a new scoring process ‘with emphasis on the first ten years of a student’s life in which a first language is typically acquired’.19 Students lose 4 points a year for eligibility for the Second Language examination if they have lived in a particular country in that year, and they normally lose eligibility with a total of 20 points. In reality, this means that a child born in a country in which the language they are learning is the dominant language, and who has more than one year of schooling in that country, will be rendered ineligible to study the language as a second language in Western Australia. The statement on eligibility for particular language subjects goes on to say: ‘As different processes support acquisition of first and second languages, it is considered inequitable for first language learners to compete for tertiary entrance places in a subject designed for second language learners’. This is disturbing in a number of ways. Firstly, as I will discuss below, the research literature that underlies this new scoring procedure has been overinterpreted. Secondly, it is interesting that the inequity claimed to be the result of different acquisition processes apparently only applies to three


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 124


languages, Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian, for they are the only languages with separate First and Second Language examinations in Western Australia. The original motivation for singling out the three languages for separate First and Second Language examinations was the significant number of international students and other recent arrivals who had received all or most of their schooling in the languages. This connection is lost when the argument is based in the idea of separate first and second language processes. It is also remarkable that Western Australia has not introduced a separate English as a Second Language examination for those who lived in a nonEnglish-speaking country for part or all of the first ten years of their lives. Let us consider the basis of the Western Australian innovations. In January 2002, Associate Professor David Treloar, Dean of Undergraduate Studies at the University of Western Australia, was commissioned by the Curriculum Council (the Western Australian Board of Studies) to ‘conduct research on the issue of first and second language learning and identify implications for any future policy regarding eligibility for student enrolment in second language subjects and the identification of background speakers in TEE language subjects’ (website). Treloar’s presentation of the second language acquisition literature and the resulting issues is thorough (though it does not refer to any of the Australian research on background speakers or on bilingualism). The report bases its position on the Critical Age Hypothesis that there is an age threshold ‘after which’, in the words of Larsen-Freeman and Long, ‘complete mastery of a language is impossible or at least a ‘sensitive’ period during which language acquisition is most efficient’.20 The critical age hypothesis is usually treated as a relative not an absolute in the literature. According to this hypothesis, age-related constraints set in from the age of about six for suprasegmental phonology (prosody/intonation), later for segmental phonology (pronunciation) and much later, if at all, for morphology and syntax. The hypothesis relating to morphology and syntax is very controversial. For phonology, the critical age is often cited as between eight and 12, and this is sometimes given as a reason for introducing a second language at primary school. The critical age has been explained attitudinally (more flexible in younger children), neurologically (the brain’s plasticity declines after the first decade), cognitively (children think more concretely than adolescents/adults), and in terms of input (children receive better input). But each of these explanations have their counterevidence.21 The debate on a critical age for morphology and syntax has also become linked with the


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 125


• 125

Chomskyan theory of Universal Grammar.22 This has led to another controversy, on whether second language learners stop having access to this Universal Grammar at a particular age and whether they then have partial access or no access to it, whether there is a gradual or a complete age barrier, and whether adult learners are impeded access to Universal Grammar by their own learning strategies.23 It will be seen that there are many open questions in this debate. While the critical age controversy is generally applied to discussion on the best time to start learning a second language, the Western Australian paper is not arguing for the differentiation of second language learners according to whether they started their second language in early primary school or at a later stage. It is employing the literature for a purpose for which it was not intended: as the basis for a differentiation of bilingual students according to the period during which they acquired a language, with particular focus on the first five years of their lives. This is a cognitive argument that marginalises sociolinguistic factors that play a very important role in the acquisition and development of the community language. Different processes do not necessarily lead to a qualitative difference in outcomes. As the critical age issue that is most agreed upon is phonology, I should mention that Treloar himself does allude to the fact that accent ‘is perhaps the least important (dimension) when it comes to rating/grading L2 students on outcome scales’. It is difficult to know how examiners in an oral examination will react to an Australian accent in Italian or Chinese in comparison with a Calabrian accent in Italian and a Cantonese one in Mandarin, and how much Sicilian verbal endings in Italian or the accidental use of du in German will count against a candidate. Treloar also argues for an extension of dual examinations to European language subjects on the basis of the same criteria that are being advocated. Considering the emphasis in the new Western Australian scoring system on the critical age hypothesis, which has nothing to do with the acquisition of Chinese script, it is surprising that the Curriculum Council is deducting half-marks for Cantonese speakers living in a country with a Chinese population (including Malaysia and Brunei, which are predominantly Malayspeaking). From the Treloar Report, it becomes clear that oral examinations in Western Australia are still used to gain information on students’ language background (as was the case in Victoria up to the mid-1960s). It is strongly argued that ‘lack of enjoyment (of the language by “L2 learners”) is aggravated by the presence of L1 students in the class, especially if the L1


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 126


students get the rewards, prizes and praise’. I know many students who came to Australia as young children or who are second or third generation Australians who at various times have not been treated to any praise for their achievements in their community language, which are regarded as non-achievements. Yet the students are often the minority who, through talent and endurance, have actually benefited from their language background. Children arriving in the first decade of their lives are particularly vulnerable in terms of first language attrition, as many Australian studies have shown.24 Their language development is characterised by relatively little monitoring for grammatical constructions, often leading to inferior outcomes in language examinations. This has not been taken into account in the discussion. Demotivation will no doubt increase when children who arrived in Australia as pre-schoolers or in early primary school have to be assessed in a special category with recent arrivals. I have dwelt on the Western Australian situation because I fear that it may cause a copycat effect in other states and because it has been argued within an academic framework, one which was actually intended for other purposes and which needs to be complemented by more understanding of issues of language use and contact. I strongly believe that Western Australia is drawing a line in the wrong place. The different categories of background speakers will be discussed under ‘Native speakers/background speakers’ on pages 128–33. It needs to be mentioned that, across Australia, few students with a home background have the opportunity of following a different curriculum that builds on their strengths and caters for their needs and problems. The differentiation is usually in the assessment, whether this entails harder requirements or a more severe marking system or both. The monolingual mindset does not attempt to understand the multiplicity of backgrounds and differences. The need to discriminate against plurilinguals is about protecting monolinguals, ‘the real students of languages’ against those who are ‘getting something for nothing’. Plurilinguals are sometimes presented as a threat to monolinguals, with something of the enthusiasm with which Aborigines are sometimes represented as taking away funding resources from genuine ‘Aussie battlers’ or asylum seekers are represented as posing a threat to the security of Australians and pushing in ahead of well-behaved ‘genuine refugees’ and decent migrants on the waiting list. The conflict is overtly expressed in letters to the editor claiming that some students are benefiting in Year 12 scores from an


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 127


• 127

‘unfair advantage’. This line is taken in a somewhat simplistic way in one letter to the editor to the Education Age entitled ‘Unfair language advantage’, from someone giving his address as a prestigious boys’ independent school:25 Living in a first-language family is such an advantage that they merely practise their learned skills and dominate the exam. The … group (those starting Chinese in Year 7), the very ones who should be learning Chinese (my italics), are being put off by the inequality … Witness the domination of Chinese surnames in the study scores over 40.

This was promptly refuted by two students of Chinese background. One argued that her background was Shanghaian and that she found Mandarin difficult to learn as a second language.26 The other, identifying herself as having arrived in Australia at the age of four, contended that: … it was hypocritical to acknowledge family background in the case of Chinese but ignore the home background when those same students compete with Australian background students in English-language subjects.27

Misunderstandings are particularly prevalent in Chinese, where stereotypes are compounded by physical features (as well as surnames) unrelated to language use and the fact that most second generation and many young first generation bilinguals speak a Chinese fang yan other than Mandarin. It is interesting that the monolingual mindset, in the pursuit of equality, encourages the representation of language as a problem. There has never been any suggestion of categorising on the basis of interrogation exercises other groups of students as ‘advantaged’, with differentiated examinations and marking systems. Possible candidates are: •

•

•

•

those enrolled for Music who have one or two parents who play musical instruments, who have been exposed to music at home all their lives and have been present at numerous concerts; those enrolling for Art, who have one or two parents who are professional or amateur artists, whom they have seen painting or sketching for as long as they can remember and have visited countless art exhibitions; those enrolled for Drama or Theatre Studies, one or both of whose parents are professional or amateur actors, whom they have seen performing and who have taken them to productions since infancy; those enrolled for Information Technology, who have grown up in households


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 128


with a stock of new generation computers, and have played with them from an early age.

Native speakers/background speakers Skutnabb-Kangas, Davies, and others have shown that terms such as ‘native speaker’ and ‘mother tongue speaker’ have multiple meanings.28 Origin, competence, language functions, adherence to norms, accent and external and internal identification are all used to characterise people as ‘native speakers’ or ‘mother tongue’ speakers. The dichotomy ‘background’ and ‘non-background’ speakers is equally vague, and simplifies what is a very complex issue, like the dichotomies ‘native’ and ‘non-native speaker’ and ‘L1’ and ‘L2’. In the Australian context, there is a multiplicity of categories and, if a categorisation becomes the basis for inclusion in a program or subject, wherever you draw the line you discriminate against some people. This applies to students with or without home backgrounds in the language, and it relates to program content as well as to assessment. With some states following stronger and more ambitious language policies than in previous eras, young people are exposed to languages other than English in primary and secondary schools for different periods, different quantities of time during these periods, and different models (including immersion). Many young people, irrespective of their background, are able to live and attend schools in other countries for different lengths of time. This has created greater diversity in quantity and quality of access available in a range of languages to students of all ethnic backgrounds. Making anyone with prior knowledge of a language start from scratch promotes boredom and demotivation, creates a feeling of being cheated, with the impression that all that they have learned has been a waste of time. The following taxonomy was devised as a result of two research projects, one on senior secondary students of Chinese, German and Italian,29 the other on secondary students of Arabic, Chinese, Greek and Spanish.30 It represents the diversity of student backgrounds in community language programs, but does not profess to be comprehensive. a.

Students with an active home background and substantial overseas experience of formal education through the language as a medium of instruction. b. Students with an active home background in the language and some formal instruction (primary and/or ethnic school) in Australia. c. Students with an active home background in the language and no formal instruction prior to secondary school.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 129


• 129

d. Students with an active home background in a variety of the language but not in the standard language in which classes are conducted, with or without formal instruction in the language here or elsewhere. (Examples are Cantonese, Hakka and Hokkien; Sicilian, Calabrian and Venetian dialects of Italian; Bavarian, Swabian and Swiss dialects of German; the various national varieties of spoken Arabic, such as Lebanese, Egyptian, Iraqi and Palestinian). e. Students with no home background in the language but who have lived and attended school in a country where the language is spoken. f. Students with a passive home background in the community language. g. Students with no home background in the language but formal instruction in the language at primary school. h. Third language learners (whom we treat as a separate subgroup in our study). i. Students with a limited active family background (which may come from both parents or from only one parent and grandparent/s) and no formal instruction in the language prior to secondary school. j. Students with a passive family background (usually one parent or grandparent/s) and no formal instruction in the language prior to secondary school. k. Students with a passive family background in a variety of the language and no formal instruction in the standard language prior to secondary school. l. Students with no home background and no prior knowledge of the language. Some of them may have a heritage interest in the language because of family origins.

In some cases, the language spoken by those in category (i) may be so heavily influenced by English that, while adequate for everyday communication, their variety of the community language does not adhere to standard norms and may not be readily comprehensible to monolingual speakers of the language. In the third generation, children are deriving their main or sole input in the language from speakers who are not L1 speakers of the language in the strict sense. Those in category (i) with only one parent or grandparent speaking the language may lack indirect input in the language; that is, where they hear people speaking the language to each other. But in all these cases, they have important resources in the language to build on and needs that should not be neglected. It is important to motivate all learners of the language. The category that can best be differentiated from the others is (a) and it overlaps with other categories such as ‘international students’ and those enrolled for English as a Second Language (no more than three years in an English-speaking country).


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 130


There are also some limitations of the home domain as a basis for a knowledge of the language. One is the kind of uses that are made of the community language – leading to basic interpersonal communication skills but much less to cognitive academic language proficiency, in Cummins’s terms (see chapter 2).31 This is one of the reasons why students with a home background should participate in some formal instruction in the language. The second limitation is that people growing up in Australia are not exposed to the ‘corrective’ element in the community language, which they receive through school, the media, and participant observation of adult conversation in many contexts. Their opportunities to modify their grammatical hypotheses are considerably less than if they were in a community that used the language more, in a full range of domains and in written as well as spoken mode. In chapter 3, some suggestions were made as to how parents can facilitate more and a greater range of uses of the community language for their children. Contrary to opinions expressed in the letter on ‘unfair advantage’, it should not be assumed some kind of home background, especially a more limited one, will be sufficient to develop a full competence in the language, but children with some degree of plurilingualism possess resources that need to be strengthened, developed and encouraged. At this stage we should consider what it is that students with a home background in a fang yan other than Mandarin (such as Cantonese) bring to the study of Mandarin. The vocabulary will be incomprehensible or barely comprehensible to them. If they can read and/or write Chinese, which is something that they will have to have been taught, they will be able to derive meaning from the text, which is based on a non-alphabetic script. However, they will not be able to read it in Mandarin until they are taught to. The grammar will be similar across the Chinese varieties; but their syntax is also not very dissimilar to that of English. Although the number of tones is different in various Chinese varieties, the notion of tone is something that the children will be familiar with and if instruction focuses on this, they can utilise their experience with another variety in the acquisition of Mandarin prosody. However, tonal errors are very common. Speakers of other fang yan will also be familiar with cultural values that underpin the way in which Chinese communicate. In some respects, the advantage of speakers of other fang yan is comparable to that of other students who are studying a related language. Cantonese and Hakka are probably more distant from Mandarin than Dutch and Yiddish are from German, Polish is from Czech, Maltese is from Arabic, or Italian is from


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 131


• 131

Spanish. Yet these are separate subjects and there is no suggestion that having a background in one puts you in a specially advantaged category in another for examination purposes. Nor is there any move to assess English speakers differently in French, Italian or German, which are closely related to English, than in Indonesian, which is not related to English.32 Why is it that second and third generation Australian children with a home background in a language are sometimes regarded as a ‘nuisance’ by teachers and examiners? I believe it is because their ‘errors’ are different from those made by learners without a background. Because their variety of the language, which they have developed over most or all of their lives, has become somewhat fossilised, their ‘errors’ are more difficult to correct than some of the ‘errors’ of students without a background in the language. Here is a list of special features of second and third generation speakers of community languages taking the language as a senior secondary subject, based on German, Italian and Chinese, and which should be expanded from studies of other languages: •

• • • • •

•

insecurity of norms – gender, plurals, adjectival agreement, pronoun reference, passive, subjunctive, the use of auxiliaries (German, Italian), declensions of case- and/or gender-marked articles, adjectives and nouns (German), past tenses (Italian), the distinction between action and stative verbs, the use of aspect markers, the position of the adverb, the appropriate use of the copula (Chinese); word order (mainly German); rules for the ‘formal’ pronoun of address; large-scale transference of words and meanings (often taken over from their parents’ usage); uncertainty as to the precise meaning of some words; orthography, especially the adoption of English rules, due to the time lag between the acquisition of the spoken and the written medium of the community language and the lack of corrective input; awareness of the boundaries of non-standard and standard language varieties.

In the project on background speakers, Clyne, Fernandez, Chen and Summo-O’Connell made some suggestions as to how these issues could be addressed.33 They include the production of materials for classroom use, distance education and self-instruction, utilising new technologies, including contrastive material that would enable students to use their knowledge of the non-standard variety to approach the standard language34 and to strengthen the standard variety without losing the intrinsic value of


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 132


the fang yan or dialect. As there are thousands of people nationally who could benefit from this exercise, it needs to be conducted on an Australiawide basis. From our above discussion, it will be evident that students with a more limited home background particularly need a period in a country where the language is spoken to develop their language potential to the fullest, and they need to make use of the education system to develop that potential without a major and debilitating struggle. Discriminatory practices – whether in relation to alternative examinations or to global scaling in certain community languages – create new inequities and damage learning outcomes in the interests of a system that is intended to eradicate inequities. Wherever you draw lines, you create discrimination. The taxonomy of language learners, while not comprehensive, demonstrates that there are too many categories to offer separate programs and assessment regimes for each. If separate examinations are required, they should be for those who have received the bulk of their secondary education in a country where the target language is used as a national language, in a school that has the language as a medium of instruction. It should be linked to enrolment in English as a Second Language, a compensation for the fact that the student is required to take examinations in all non-language subjects through the medium of English. It is important for students with or without a background to receive credit for their effort and achievements in the language and not to assume that anyone with a background, especially those in the second and third generation, have not invested any effort and do not require any intellectual skills to do well in the language. If that were the case, we would not be witnessing the high language shift discussed in chapter 3 and all ‘background speakers’ would receive the same result. Catherine Elder makes the point succinctly in her 1994 report to the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Committee: … compensating non-native speakers for their limited access to target language exposure runs the risk of discriminating against those who have made special efforts to maintain their mother tongue …35

Students with all degrees of background and those without a background need to be motivated to develop their language potential to the fullest. My second suggestion would be to offer each language at two different levels – a standard and an accelerated one – and leave it to the candidate


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 133


• 133

and the teacher to decide which they will enrol for, as is the case in Mathematics. There are a number of reasons why I have dwelt on the background speaker issue. Firstly, I would like to argue that Australia’s language diversity is a resource for everyone. That means those with a background need to be helped to develop their potential. Also, for our language diversity to be shared by everyone, those with a background need to feel good about their language and not to be given the impression that they should be ashamed of being plurilingual because they are depriving someone else of something. Before we consider how community languages can be shared through the community, I would like to continue the focus on school language programs.

Regarding students without and with a background as part of the totality One of the unfortunate and unhelpful assumptions in relation to student diversity in language classes is that those with any type or degree of home background are permanently advantaged and that other students are permanently disadvantaged in the language. It has even been suggested to me by one teacher that ‘Caucasian’ students are too lazy to learn Chinese! Many outstanding students of community languages, including Mandarin, have started the language as beginners in an Australian primary or secondary school. A study by Catherine Elder36 on the student population enrolled for Italian, Greek or Chinese shows that, while ‘background speakers’ are stronger on listening than on reading skills, ‘non-background learners’ do better than them on aspects of strategic competence, such as gaining meaning from context. Background speakers do better on items that require automatic responses, but by Year 12 this is less of an advantage because there is a greater emphasis on literacy skills, which home users do not have so much call for. Our experience has also been that non-background learners with a structural orientation tend to notice structural patterns that many ‘background speakers’ take for granted. Those students from nonstandard backgrounds are often not able to, and have not been trained to, differentiate between the varieties, while non-background learners have acquired the standard variety right from the beginning of their studies in the language. I recall a completely silent student in my first year tutorial when I taught German many years ago – she later told me that her


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 134


secondary teacher had told her to stop speaking German at home because she spoke a terrible Austrian dialect! This was enough to turn her off German and she ended up with a first class honours degree in Geography. It is important for students without a background in a language they are studying to receive every opportunity to receive input and output opportunities in the language and to achieve a sense of communicative need that will encourage the maximum use of the language. They should be given a sense of being able to achieve. This can be done by using the target language in the classroom and also by utilising the community language resources within the school and beyond. And it is important for nonbackground learners, especially in languages with a range of background speakers, to be able to take their time and to access teachers’ time to make sense of the language without being regarded as a nuisance. Some schools try to stream students according to background in the early years of secondary school, but cannot afford to do so as the numbers decline once the language is an elective. Combining students on the full continuum from a substantial proficiency in the language to no competence in it whatsoever is very wasteful. I have seen such classes in Greek. Usually the teacher is forced to spend half the time on one group and half on the other, thus severely reducing the amount of time available for the language and sometimes generating discipline problems. On the other hand, it is impossible to run separate classes for each cut-off point on the continuum outlined in the previous section. Even where separate groupings operate, it is useful for them to be flexible and parallel on the timetable so that regrouping can take place for certain activities. For instance, students with a limited home background would benefit from combining with beginners in more structured language classes but combining with stronger bilinguals for classes involving more reading and listening comprehension and extending vocabulary. In the later years of a language, it is usually not possible to run separate classes in most schools and it may be feasible to group students together in two year levels with some differentiated teaching on the basis of need and background rather than strict observance of year level. As part of a project on the role of secondary schools in the maintenance and spread of community languages,37 research assistants developed activities for collaborative learning involving students from a range of backgrounds and without prior background in the community language that also involved utilising community resources. In a Spanish program, visits were organised to a day care centre run by a Spanish-Latin American welfare organisation, where the students interacted with elderly Spanish


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 135


• 135

speakers. Some of the students in Year 10 also did their work experience with the welfare organisation, which gave them the opportunity of assessing how Spanish could help them with their future careers. In addition, the students created a quarterly electronic Spanish newsletter in which mixed background teams took on particular tasks, such as writing, editing and designing. The articles covered areas related to community resources, such as Spanish music, singers and clubs; films and videos; festivals; shopping, restaurants and food. Jokes, horoscopes, and reports on school activities were also included. Two other programs – one Greek, the other Mandarin – were both located in schools close to shopping centres where the languages are used extensively. A unit of work based around the theme of shopping was developed by the research assistants and the language teachers. As in the Spanish program, students of different backgrounds worked together collaboratively in smaller mixed background groups in which the students could share their learning strategies, knowledge and skills. The activities focused on identifying the shops, greeting, introducing oneself, asking and receiving directions and other information, and identifying and recording information. This gave the students a basis for using and developing their competence in the community language on their own in their spare time. In some programs, these activities were supplemented by language clubs with visiting speakers. They also provided a model for peer group tutoring in a more collaborative way than just one student helping another with their homework. In the 1990s,38 our research in a primary school Chinese program found that those non-background learners who performed best had a close friend from a Chinese family. Also, in a comparison of non-Italian background students in three Italian primary school programs, the children in one program performed better in certain skills than those in another with more than twice the time allocation; many of the non-Italian background students in the former program were bilingual in English and another community language. We have already discussed the metalinguistic awareness that bilinguals bring to a third language learning task in chapter 2, the way they empathise with other bilinguals and learn from them. We should not lose sight of the fact that many non-background learners in any program will already be plurilingual. I should also add that in the comparative study of primary programs I am reporting on, the one with the best results in each language had some provision for utilising community resources in the language – whether it was timetabling a period a week in the nearby Germanspeaking old people’s home for language and cultural interaction, taking


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 136


part in a local Italian community festival or producing a Greek children’s segment for the Greek program on a multilingual access radio station. It is not just opportunities to develop language competence that flow from contact with local ethnolinguistic communities; deeper personal contact with at last one other culture and with people practising it will be an ongoing contribution to the students’ education. A buddy system between students from the relevant language background and someone from another background, such as Anglo-Australian, could foster cultural exchange as well as providing people with no home background with more input and output opportunities. In the project on community languages in secondary schools, Spanish-speaking parents in a focus group reported that their children’s motivation to use Spanish at home had increased when they saw that children from non-Spanish-speaking backgrounds were keen on learning Spanish and thus appreciated their linguistic capital. Before we explore in a more general way how community resources can be accessed in a sharing situation, let us consider the role of bilingual programs.

Bilingual programs Bilingual education is instruction through the medium of two languages. It takes different forms depending on the objectives and context. The objectives may include: 1

2 3 4

Instruction in basic literacy and numeracy in the stronger language – the assumption being that such instruction is not effective in a language in which you are not sufficiently proficient but, as we have seen in chapter 2, transfer of skills from one language to another can readily take place; Continuity of education of recently arrived migrant students, at late primary and secondary level; The maintenance and development of a language used at home, including the development of specialist vocabulary and school register; The acquisition of a second or additional language.

Several of these objectives can be achieved in the same program, for instance 1 (or 2) and 3, if the intention is not to completely phase out instruction in the community language once competence in L2, in this case English, is adequate to study subjects through this medium of instruction. Also, objectives 3 and 4 can be combined in bilingual education in which much sharing can take place between students with different degrees of bilingual backgrounds and students from monolingual English backgrounds who may have been learning the target language for differing periods of time. This is


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 137


• 137

the case at the International Grammar School in Sydney and in many bilingual programs in government and independent schools throughout Australia. Most bilingual programs are at secondary school in Queensland and at primary school in Victoria and South Australia. Unfortunately, there are few instances of secondary follow-up programs to primary bilingual programs, most of them in independent schools. In Canada, and more recently in many other countries, some bilingual programs are known as ‘immersion’ programs. Such programs are usually intended exclusively for complete beginners. In the Canadian case, these are English speakers acquiring French, the other official language, although there are a few programs including students for whom French is a heritage (community) language. Total immersion programs are those in which all instruction is initially given in the second language (although there is a language arts program in English) and this is phased down to 50 per cent of the curriculum; partial immersion programs initially offer 50 per cent of the curriculum and later about 25 per cent in the second language. Total immersion programs commence in Prep, while partial immersion may start in Prep, middle primary or early secondary. There are few bilingual programs in Australia that qualify as immersion programs in terms of time allocation, though some follow the spirit of the model. Actually, because bilingual programs teach language through content, they provide a good opportunity for students from diverse backgrounds to learn together and share. In fact, one of the advantages of a bilingual program is that there is greater scope for children to develop at their own pace when compared with traditional LOTE programs where the language is the object of instruction. Other advantages of bilingual programs are: • • • •

good results in a range of skills; creativity in L2 use and uninhibited L2 use; the integration of language and culture; integration of the language with other key learning areas.39

In a bilingual program, each subject taught through the medium of the community language contributes to language acquisition (and maintenance), so these subjects need to be chosen carefully and adjusted once they cease to contribute to language development. This should be part of a school bilingual policy similar to the family language policy we discussed in chapter 3. There needs to be a clear differentiation in terms of curriculum areas between what is taught in one language and what is taught in the other. It is especially important for different teachers to act as models for


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 138


each language, as is the case for parents in families raising their children according to the one parent one language strategy. Teaching the same thing in two languages is wasteful. It discourages communicative need in the weaker language since children will switch off when something is presented in it, knowing that the same information has been presented or will be presented in the other language. As has been outlined elsewhere,40 Science provides a link between cognitive and language development; through Science, children learn to group things in the world, and there are many non-verbal cues that will ease comprehension in the early stages of language development. There is ample time for the teacher and students as a group to interact verbally. Social Studies offers a deep link between language and culture. This also applies to Music. In addition, the patterns of song lyrics can sometimes provide a basis that learners can fall back on for their own formulations. Two subjects whose value for language development decrease over time are Art and Physical Education. The latter provides speech acts and vocabulary relating to human activity and plays an important role in sharpening listening comprehension. But this contribution extends mainly over the early part of a program and becomes repetitive. Art provides students with concepts of colour and size, expressions of emotions (such as liking and disliking) and opportunities to make requests. Much of the interaction is between students in small groups, and is likely to be in English. Moreover, the emphasis in Art is on non-verbal expression. Thus, Art also has a limited period of value in language development. As children are in effect doing role play when they acquire another language, Drama is a very suitable subject to be taught in the community language in upper primary school, when some children become self-conscious and are less enthusiastic about speaking the second language. Because Science, otherwise an excellent subject for language development, involves many responses to teachers that comprise mainly noun phrases, adjectives, infinitives or participles of verbs, children in the early stages of a bilingual program will often embed these grammatical categories into English sentences, as in the following example: Mein Großvater und mein Großmutter have come to stay at our place because meine Mutter is in the Krankenhaus and she’s had a baby.41

Drama would help students attain the next phase of development with sentences completely in the target language.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 139


• 139

It is important to emphasise that bilingual programs are not cheap LOTE programs. Channelling an already limited amount of time for LOTE into content subjects taught in a LOTE jeopardises both the content subjects and the language. For instance, if a school spends an hour a week on ‘Art in Chinese’ and 30 minutes on learning the Chinese, this does not constitute a bilingual program. I have seen such a program in which a Chinese teacher has supervised the children in craft activities such as cutting and pasting, and the value to Chinese is considerably less than if the same amount of time had been allocated to Chinese language. A bilingual program requires more than the basic 2.5 hours of LOTE recommended in the Rudd report on Asian Languages and Australia’s Economic Future and stated as an expectation in successive Victorian language-ineducation policy statements, for the language and other subjects cannot be taught in the time intended for a language alone. Also, students require regular classes in which they devote their attention to the patterns of the target language, so important for the development and enhancement of literacy skills. After all, students receive a sizeable time allocation for English language arts even though most or all of the curriculum is taught in English, which is usually also the language of peer group interaction within the school. Not all schools will be able to, or will want to, introduce a bilingual program, but some of the features and techniques of such a program could be applied to any language program.

Moving schools and language learners A substantial proportion of children change schools in the course of their primary education. According to a submission of one Victorian peak parent body to the review of languages in government schools, 80 per cent of Victorian children attend more than one primary school.42 This causes a great deal of disruption in many ways, but in perhaps no other curriculum area as much as in languages. Not only is the program likely to be different, but in many cases the language will be different. While young children are flexible in language learning, I believe this issue is taken too lightly. Research is needed to discover the nature of the metalinguistic awareness that children gain from exposure to a primary language program for a particular number of years. This should be used in the development of induction programs for new learners of a given language who have already had that kind of exposure to another language. As this is a major issue, materials perhaps utilising new technologies and videos such as those developed


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 140


for PALS (Primary Access to Languages) can be developed, and delivered with the assistance of ethnic teacher aids (where available) and volunteer parents who are L1 speakers of the language. In addition, the set of strategies developed by a conference of primary LOTE teachers in 199343 are still appropriate: • • •

providing new students with worksheets and a tape; establishing a club after school, at lunchtime or during silent reading period; a buddy system or cross-age tutoring.

Spreading languages in the community The multilingual resources discussed in chapter 3 – the electronic and print media; libraries; community groups, both secular and religious; old people’s homes; shops, cafes, restaurants, guest houses – are all input and output generators for those acquiring a second language. They all provide learners with interlocutors whom they identify with the community language and situations that provide them with communicative need in the language. Opportunities for input are also provided by the many signs, posters and notices in community languages. It should be part of any language program to introduce students to these resources and show how they can be accessed. Utilising these resources should be part of the requirements of language programs at all levels. At the same time, second language learners as a captive audience should be taken into account in the programming of multilingual radio and television stations. There have been many admirable examples of English speakers helping non-English-speaking migrants with their English, such as the Home Tutors’ Scheme. A similar scheme operates for Mandarin in the Australian Capital Territory. A group of Mandarin-speaking volunteers, the Association of Learning Mandarin in Australia, has been helping nonChinese-Australians with their Mandarin and conversing with them. A great deal of cultural exchange and intercultural friendship has taken place and in some cases the Mandarin speakers also get help in their English from their students. This scheme, which is described in an article by Mandy Scott,44 was intended for adults, but it shows how community resources are willingly made available to those wishing to learn the relevant community language. Another instance is the German Club in a small country town in Victoria, which regularly welcomes to its functions students taking German as a subject at the local high school.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

STRENGTHENING

Page 141


• 141

David Ingram and his colleagues report on projects over a longer period at Mount Gravatt College of Advanced Education (in the 1970s) and at Griffith University (in the late 1990s and more recently) that show that language learners need the opportunity to ‘conceptualize their own experience and see it through the eyes of the target culture’.45 This has been done effectively by building into their students’ courses interaction with members of the community using the language. For many years, the German Department at Monash University has suspended lectures and tutorials for a week each year during which members of the German-speaking community, including composers and musicians, journalists and business people, and German speakers on the staff of other departments give talks of general interest as a basis for discussion. Examples of topics are: pollution, town planning, the peace movement, immigration, contemporary musical composition, Austria (50 years after the Anschluss), German youth, trade relations between Australia and the European Union, German children’s literature, German radio programs, drama, music and stamp clubs in Melbourne, job opportunities using German, study abroad forums. There are also films, games, wine and cake tasting, and folk singing. Students have had to participate in at least seven activities out of about 24. In the past, they were given questionnaires to gauge the response to German Week. They demonstrate the increased confidence with which the students spoke German over the week.46 In another initiative, a more regular activity in the 1980s, second-year German students in the advanced (that is, not post-beginners’) stream at Monash had to ‘adopt’ a German-speaking person with whom they could converse on a weekly basis.47 Students would report in the language class twice a semester on this project, and on what they had learned about the culture of a German-speaking country and/or the migration experience as a result. Where students did not have the opportunity to organise such contacts, the department would do it for them. Many of the German speakers were elderly, living in German-speaking retirement homes or ones with a large proportion of German speakers, and enjoyed the interaction with the young students very much. In chapter 1, we explored the distribution of speakers of particular languages in metropolitan areas. Areas of concentration of particular languages offer many opportunities for language immersion and cultural experience for both class groups and individual students. Such areas could become centres of cultural tourism. Where a language community is dispersed, there will usually still be a community centre, some shops and a place of


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 142


worship that act as focal points for the diffusion of the language and culture. As we have seen, the presence of community languages is more sparse outside the capital cities. However, the small number of speakers of the community language are more identifiable there, and their recognised value can encourage them to maintain and develop their community language skills, which are more likely to undergo attrition in rural and regional areas than in capital cities. The community language media are now generally accessible there. In some rural and regional areas, historical and genealogical interest will lead to increased revitalisation of what is a heritage rather than a community language. The best example is the ongoing interest in German in the Barossa Valley and the Adelaide Hills where the German tradition has benefited the tourist and wine industries. But in other parts of South Australia and some areas of Victoria, Queensland, and New South Wales too, the reading of diaries and letters of ancestors, church and community records and correspondence with distant relatives has stimulated language proficiency and also an interest in keeping the language in local schools. The same could be said for Chinese, French, Italian and other community languages in various parts of Australia. Towns and suburbs should consider the value of cultural tourism around both current and historical cultural and linguistic resources.

Concluding remarks Australia has sometimes had problems in coping with diversity and also in valuing intellectual achievement. This has now led to an unnecessary sort of reverse egalitarianism expounded in the current discourse on ‘unfair advantage’. The monolingual mindset does not have to be an inherent part of Australian society, as we have seen in historical glimpses in chapter 1 and elsewhere, and as I will show in chapter 5. In our culturally diverse society, it should be feasible for schools to treat diversity of background as a challenge and a resource and not a problem. This is an issue of both attitude and policy, and it is to language policy that the next chapter will be devoted.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 143

five

Policy overview

Many nation-states, especially in Europe, have been constructed on the basis of language. It is a particular language that gives them their identity marker and defines the community.1 Some countries have language policies protecting the national language and limiting the use of other languages; legislation and international conventions such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages now give language rights to previously discriminated groups. In the last quarter of the 20th century, Australia has been able to give immigrant languages (other than the national language) rights and maintenance support without sacrificing national cohesion. This has occurred within a context of mainstreaming cultural diversity, of promoting unity within diversity. In this chapter, we will discuss the ups and downs of pluralist language policy in this country. As was mentioned in chapter 1, policies towards community languages in Australia have undergone cyclical developments. Elsewhere,2 I have marked out four phases: • • • •

Accepting but laissez-faire (up to the mid-1870s); Tolerant but restrictive (1870s – early 1900s); Rejecting (c. 1914 – c. 1970); Accepting (c. 1970–).

Lo Bianco describes four phases in terms of ‘dominant debates’: 1

Laissez-faire (up to 1969), with no intervention of support for community languages or the ESL needs of children;


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 144


2

3 4

Rights-equality (late 1960s to mid-1970s), supporting community languages for human rights reasons and ESL in the interests of access and equity; Culturalist or multicultural (from mid-1970s) where class and equity issues are replaced by cultural ones; Polarisation (competition between languages, starting with the propagation of Asian languages; partly overlapping with 3).

In another paper, Lo Bianco talks of five phases in terms of overall policy direction – Britishism, Australianism, multiculturalism, Asianism, and economism.3 For the first seven decades of the 20th century, assimilation was the official Australian policy on immigrants, and this meant that language shift was strongly encouraged. There were laws prohibiting bilingual education and restricting the amount of broadcasting in ‘foreign languages’; there was little teaching of the languages of the immigrant groups in mainstream education and very little provision of services in community languages. Community language classes for children, like any community language broadcasting, libraries and ethnospecific social welfare had to be provided and/or paid for by the ethnic groups themselves. Community languages were at best relegated to the private sphere. Those who persisted in using them in public or to their children were considered un-Australian and unassimilatable. Teachers advised parents to speak nothing but English at home, regardless of their competence in the language; otherwise their children would not achieve that educational and social mobility which the parents so much desired for them. Though this advice was not often taken, the submersion of the children in English at school generated large-scale shift on their part. While English as a Second Language classes in schools did not begin until the 1960s, English classes for adult migrants commenced as early as 1948. This included classes on ships during the journey to Australia, classes on arrival, and language programs on the radio. The course almost universally used in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, Situational English, took little account of the first languages, educational background or social and professional needs of the pupils. The deliberate allocation of students into linguistically mixed classes underscored the monolingual objective that the first language had no place. Even after two decades of mass immigration from non-English-speaking countries, the then Minister for Immigration, Billy Snedden, declared in 1969: ‘We must have a single culture … if


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 145

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 145

immigration implied multiculture activities within Australian society, then it was not the type Australia wanted … I am determined we should have a mono-culture, with everyone living in the same way, understanding each other, and sharing the same aspirations. We don’t want cultural pluralism’.4 Yet it was only another three years before a major transformation of Australian society and self-image was to take place. In this chapter, we will be discussing the changing fortunes of policies in favour of multilingualism in Australia.

The beginning of change It took a popular grassroots movement to legitimate cultural and linguistic diversity in Australia, but it was only possible because conditions were conducive to it. One of the factors was a developing self-concept of an independent Australian nation prompted by the retreat of Britain from east of Suez, the weakening of Australia’s relationship to the Monarchy, and Britain’s membership of the then European Economic Community, together with disillusionment with the Australian involvement on the American side in the Vietnam War. Australian self-confidence was an important element in the policies of the Whitlam government, elected in 1972 after 23 years of conservative rule. This was a reformist government, focusing on social justice issues, of which ethnic rights were part. A debate on ethnic rights had been taking place worldwide since the late 1960s. One of the defining features of the new dynamic Australian identity was its cultural diversity. But this was also a demographic reality reflected in voting strength. Though Jupp has shown that there is no such thing as a uniform ‘ethnic vote’,5 a more inclusive Australia was electorally appealing to voters from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Australians of nonBritish origin who had achieved prominence, especially in the professions, were drawing attention to the negative aspects of assimilation policy. The new policy of unity in diversity, a challenge to the traditional nation-state, was both nationalist and cosmopolitan. (There have been critiques of multiculturalism over time – we will mention some of them towards the end of this chapter). At the time of the 1972 election, both major parties contained people with two conflicting viewpoints on cultural diversity in Australia. In the Labor Party there was a conservative and a progressive position. The former, representing the ‘old guard’ of the trade union movement, was suspicious of migrants as taking something away from the ‘old Australian workers’, and concerned that cultural diversity would detract from the unity


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 146


required for class struggle, the latter, embracing a culturally diverse Australia, represented the middle-class intelligentsia, the large proportion of Australians of non-British background in the workforce and the trades union movement and those who accepted them as a large component of fellow-workers. In the Liberal Party there was a similar tension between the Establishment favouring the British heritage and the more open, cosmopolitan middle class. In the Labor Party and soon after, in the Liberal Party, there was a generational change towards the supporters of what later came to be termed ‘multiculturalism’. With this came the acceptance that a bilingual Australian was every bit as much an Australian as a monolingual one, something strongly propagated by Al Grassby, Minister for Immigration in the Whitlam government. What was not taken seriously was that the position towards multiculturalism was at home in certain capital cities, especially Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, but not very meaningful to many in rural and regional areas, particularly in Queensland and Western Australia. This was to play a part in the somewhat embarrassing reemergence of tension between a culturally inclusive Australia and so-called ‘traditional Australian values’ (see page 165). From the 1972 election, there began an intensive public discussion on the role of educational institutions in a culturally diverse Australia. The first manifesto of a ‘multicultural lobby’ was a Statement on Immigrant Education, Cultures and Languages (1973), initiated by a group within the Greek community and signed by 40 signatories from four states – members of ethnic communities, teachers, academics, teacher organisations, and trade unionists. Among other things, the statement demanded the teaching of migrant languages and cultures in Australian schools and universities, multicultural components in teacher training, and curricula that ‘give all children an understanding of the variety of ethnic groups in our society and which allow all groups to appreciate the special contribution that their own culture can make’. The Statement led to the first Migrant Education Action Conference, held in Melbourne in September 1974 in English and five community languages and attended by 600 participants from throughout Australia. The demands included matters for which there had been longstanding need: • • •

improved facilities for ESL teaching; the development of teaching materials in migrant languages for schools and libraries; the teaching of migrant languages in schools;


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 147

POLICY

• • • • • •

OVERVIEW

• 147

the introduction of bilingual education, at least until adequate competence has been reached in English; extension of translating and interpreting facilities in schools; acceptance of overseas teaching qualifications so that overseas-trained teachers can be utilised in bilingual education; opportunities for children of migrants to become bilingual teachers; the introduction into teacher training of migrant languages, primary school language methodology, and bilingual education methodology; a demographic survey of teachers qualified to teach migrant languages in primary and secondary schools.

The conference led to the formation in Melbourne of the Migrant Education Action Committee (MEA), which continued to meet monthly for several years and which drew attention to the issues in the media, and through letters and submissions to appropriate bodies, an increasing number of which were being set up. MEA influenced the policies of many organisations, including the Commonwealth Schools Commission, the Committee for the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools, and the Ethnic Communities Councils in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, which were established between 1974 and 1976. Nevertheless, while progress on the teaching, curriculum development and teacher training for migrant languages in primary and secondary schools was occurring, it was fairly slow, and in May 1977, another nationwide Migrant Education Action conference took place in Melbourne to draw attention to this. Sections were conducted in English and seven community languages, as they were by now called. The most significant outcome was a multilingual petition to the Victorian Government signed by 21 800 Victorians, requesting that: a.

‘All children should be given the opportunity of acquiring an understanding of other languages from the earliest years of primary school’. b. ‘Schools should endeavour to meet the needs of migrant children to continue learning their own language, and opportunities should be available for them to study their own language at secondary school’. c. Legislation passed in 1916 to ban any instruction through the medium of a language other than English in registered schools should be repealed (see chapter 1). d. Additional funding should be provided for ESL.

It will be noticed that (a) is quite modest and that the issue of teaching community languages to all students, which was already in the public


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 148


discussion, was not broached. The first two recommendations came from the report of the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools. The New South Wales equivalent of MEA, the State Multicultural Education Committee, organised a public meeting in April 1977 to support the recommendations of the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools through a submission of the state government, including a petition signed by 10 500 people. But what of community languages in other spheres of Australian life? Some changes were easy to achieve. This is because there were many accompanying changes in other areas that facilitated pluralistic language policies. For instance, soon after its election, the Whitlam government opened up the FM band and much remaining space on the AM band to new radio stations, including an ABC access station in Melbourne and community stations all over Australia, some of which were to broadcast in community languages. The access station would be run by a management committee with elected representatives of the groups providing programs. Due to an early dispute on management issues between the more radical groups seeking broadcasting time on the ABC access station and the Commission, the majority of the groups remaining were ethnic communities and so four of the seven evenings of transmission were in community languages.6 Soon after the station 3ZZ went to air in May 1975, a network of two community language stations started, one each in Sydney (2EA) and Melbourne (3EA). Immigration Minister Al Grassby, himself a trilingual, had seized the opportunity provided by the new government health insurance system, Medibank, to establish the stations to inform the largest nonEnglish-speaking groups of the new service. But music and cultural segments were also included. Each day was devoted to a different language, and two hours of broadcasting in each of the languages were repeated three times.7 So in an indirect way the establishment of Medibank benefited multilingual broadcasting! We do not have space to relate the tumultuous story of 3ZZ – I refer the interested reader to Joan Dugdale’s book Radio Power.8 When the station was closed by the Federal Police at the request of the Fraser government in 1977, most of the languages and many of the broadcasters were transferred to 3EA. There are also parallels in Education. The foundation of new universities introduced a greater flexibility into decision making concerning upper secondary school regulations, which made possible the accreditation of more language subjects. Greater devolution of curriculum planning, espe-


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 149

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 149

cially at primary level, facilitated the introduction of community languages in primary schools. Many of the more general recommendations to end discrimination against non-English-speaking migrants, especially in information needs and professional service encounters, naturally impinged on language. For instance, the federal government’s Committee on Community Relations, chaired by Walter Lippmann, recommended:9 • • •

the employment of interpreters in offices, hospitals, law courts, prisons, and interpreter facilities at driving tests; the translation of forms and information on social security in migrant languages; the recruitment of people from non-English-speaking backgrounds into social work courses and the introduction of migrant language courses into social work courses.

While the full agenda was never achieved, the issue was taken very seriously by federal and some state governments and all the recommendations were implemented to some degree, especially in the health, educational and legal fields. Also, the Telephone Interpreter Service, established in 1973, became one of the Australian innovations in pluralist language policy. The setting up in the late 1970s of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters started to give interpreting a more professional status and paved the way for the later payment of loadings to public servants with appropriate skills in languages other than English. The Migrant Workers’ Conferences, held in Melbourne in 1973 and 1975 and in Sydney in 1975 and 1981, were initiated by the section of the Greek community around George Zangalis which had spearheaded the Statement on Immigrant Languages and Cultures. The conferences appealed to the unions for information in community languages on workers’ rights and security, ethnic committees in unions, courses on unionism in community languages, and demanded English classes in worktime. Up to the mid to late 1970s, the emphasis in multiculturalism was on social equity. With the formation of the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, the focus turned to the mainstreaming of multiculturalism as something for everyone to share. The thinking was strongly influenced by the Committee’s chair, the sociologist Jerzy Zubrzycki. The Committee’s report Multiculturalism for all Australians (1982) embodied three key principles essential for a multicultural society – social cohesion, cultural identity, and equality of access and opportunity. This balance and new agenda had


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 150


already been the basis of the federal government’s Committee on Postarrival Services and Programs to Migrants, chaired by Frank Galbally. This Committee’s report, which was presented in ten languages including English, was the first multilingual bill to pass through an Australian parliament. It recognised as essential the encouragement of a ‘multicultural attitude’ in Australian society by both ‘fostering the retention of the cultural heritage of different ethnic groups and promoting intercultural understanding’.10 This demonstrated the commitment of the Fraser government to continue the agenda of a multicultural Australia initiated by the Whitlam government. The Review of Multicultural and Migrant Education conducted by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (1980) made a number of suggestions to promote bilingualism – including per capita grants to ethnic schools and grants to tertiary institutions to set up community language courses – which were funded. In Perspectives on Multicultural Education (1981), the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council’s Committee on Multicultural Education argues that multicultural education can lead to greater cohesion in Australian society and bilingual education to the learning of English as well as to equal educational opportunities from nonEnglish-speaking backgrounds. Widespread monolingualism of the dominant group, on the other hand, can jeopardise intercultural and international understanding. Returning to the Galbally Report, apart from a number of initiatives such as the Central Health Interpreter Service, supporting services in community languages, it recommended a very important innovation – a multicultural television network. This had been a vision of many for some time.11 It was clear that neither the ABC nor the commercial channels were willing to reflect the linguistic and cultural diversity of the Australian population in their programming. In September 1974, the then chair of the ABC, Professor RI Downing, gave the following reasons for not showing films in ‘foreign languages’ with English subtitles: unavailability of such material to the ABC, lack of time, and ‘technical limitations in that wide-vision film projected on to the television screen eliminates part of the sub-title and picture’.12 The ABC’s Victorian manager, EA Whiteley, argued similarly in November 1976: ‘Apart from (lack of time), sub-titling in English is expensive and often far from satisfactory … I foresee little opportunity of providing (a session of news about the various European countries) on TV’; and referred his correspondent to shortwave radio. Only just over a year


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 151

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 151

before Multicultural TV started, the manager of Channel 9, David Evans, considered it ‘ludicrous’ to telecast anything in a ‘foreign language’.13 The Galbally Committee opted for a strong differentiation from Ethnic Radio and towards mainstreaming through English subtitles and through the daily multicultural news service, providing news from a much greater range of sources than any other network. When Multicultural TV began, it did attempt to take into account the size and needs of the community speaking the language, even though the programs were intended for a wider audience. While the reading needs of community language speakers was one of the points mentioned in the Statement on Immigrant Languages and Cultures, most of the initiatives came from groups of activists within the librarianship profession in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide who made public libraries sensitive to the reading and information needs of members of the local population using community languages.

The development of national and state language policies It will be apparent that most of the language policy initiatives described above were part of strategies in particular professional and institutional contexts to reflect the culturally diverse nature of the Australian population. Implicitly, multilingualism was part and parcel of Australia’s multicultural demography, and it was also firmly anchored in multiculturalism policy. The difficulty was that language policy remained ad hoc and piecemeal. Interpreter services were introduced, but there was no program to train interpreters. There were moves to make the learning of a language other than English part of the curriculum in primary schools, but there were no primary school teacher training courses that included the languages or language teaching methodology. Many languages had become available as end of secondary school examination subjects but could not be continued at tertiary level. When some of the language implications of multicultural policies started to be considered, there was no information available on the numbers of speakers, for it was not until 1976 that the language use question was introduced into the Australian Census. By this time, it became apparent that language planning was necessary in Australia. Probably the first public discussion of the need for a stand-alone national languages policy came at a Migrant Studies conference at Monash University in 1975. The big push


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 152


came in the following years, largely from academic linguists, through the Australian Linguistic Society and the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia and from language teachers, through the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations.14 The first two formed the nucleus of PlanLangPol (Professional Associations for a National Language Policy), in which several others, such as AFMLTA and peak Aboriginal languages and English teachers associations joined. Much of the thinking had already taken place in groups of linguists and educators meeting in several cities to pool their ideas. While members of PlanLangPol were writing a submission to the Prime Minister in 1982, requesting that an inquiry be held into the need for a national language, he surprised them by announcing that such an inquiry would take place. (The process had been encouraged by a linguist, Elizabeth Dines, who was a senior member of the Federal Department of Education.) As it was, PlanLangPol’s submission was one of the first received and the most substantial one. It covered the full gamut of language issues in Australian society and influenced the scope of the inquiry, which established the complementarity of English and the other languages in Australia (indigenous, community and sign languages), encompassing a full range of language issues, not just immigrant or educational ones, but also external needs and interpreting and translating. Experts in all these areas worked together through intensive discussion and activity, and it was an inclusive submission, which was free of conflict and sectional interests. Moreover, PlanLangPol’s submission demonstrated the value of research for language policy, and the submission also argued for a National Languages Institute to serve the National Language Policy. It is significant that the first of the 94 witnesses to be heard by the Senate committee was Professor Einar Haugen, emeritus professor of Harvard University, one of the pioneers of bilingualism research, who was visiting Australia at the time.

Senate Inquiry The Senate Standing Committee for Education and the Arts, which took on the inquiry into the need for a National Language Policy, consisted of an equal number of senators from the Liberal and Labor Parties, indicating the bipartisan commitment and was chaired by Senator Baden Teague, who had a strong engagement with the task. The bipartisan commitment was accentuated by the fact that the committee continued its work after a change of government in 1983. The inquiry went on for 18 months and


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 153

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 153

received 241 submissions from government departments, statutory bodies, ethnic and teacher organisations, other professional societies, special interest groups and individuals. The report raised a number of issues to be addressed in a national language policy, which formed the basis for responses that were elicited from the states and from other stakeholders. These would feed into the actual National Language Policy. The Senate report established the four complementary guiding principles, some or all of which have since appeared in subsequent language policies, national and state: i. Competence in English; ii. Maintenance and development of languages other than English, indigenous and community; iii. Provision of services in languages other than English; iv. Opportunities for learning second languages.

Principles (i), (ii) and (iv) had been the basis of a policy formulated by the Victorian Education Department in 1979.15

Some state developments The following period of over two years of inactivity in the area of language policy on the part of the federal government was typical of temporary setbacks that have occurred often in language and multicultural policy development. They have led to the reestablishment of interest groups and usually successful lobbying. One of the advantages of federalism in Australia is that when the federal government is inactive in a particular area, some of the states can take the initiative, and if some of the states drag their feet, the federal government can urge them on. The two-year wait was characterised by some progress in two of the states, South Australia and Victoria. Both states developed language-ineducation policies. South Australia produced two complementary documents – Voices for the Future, on LOTE education in general, and Education for a Cultural Democracy, which focused on multicultural and migrant education. The latter recommended declaring language maintenance a right, and English and at least one other language part of the curriculum of all students in every year of education. The former argued for all languages to be available as first and second languages with different entry points, for clusters to be established to ensure continuity of language study from primary to secondary school, and for small senior language classes to be permitted.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 154


In Victoria, an enabling change was the devolution of some curriculum decisions to local school communities. In 1976, a ministerial policy statement on curriculum required school councils to ensure that all children had the opportunity to study from the earliest year of primary school a language other than English used in the Australian community. This strengthened the position of languages even before the first LOTE policy, The Role of Community Languages in Victorian Schools, was released in 1984. An amended version, The Role of Languages other than English in Victorian Schools appeared the following year. It proposed ‘a concerted effort’ over the next 15 years to make the continued study of a LOTE part of the normal education of all children from Prep to Year 12 by 2000. It also set three hours as the minimum weekly allocation for a LOTE. A number of different types of language programs was described, including bilingual education. This was complemented by a staged implementation plan in the Victorian Languages Action Plan (1987). These policies generally developed from broadly based committees that consulted widely with professional, ethnic and other community groups, and there was a great deal of optimism that government was open to ideas that were innovative and that could lead to a more inclusive society. Abundant resources were made available for curriculum development – for instance, for Greek materials that took into account the needs of students in Australia rather than being produced for a learning context in Greece.

National Policy on Languages But now it was the Commonwealth’s turn to take the lead. After a long delay and much public discontent, the federal government moved ahead, and Australia became the first predominantly English-speaking nation to develop an explicit national languages policy.16 This has often been cited internationally as a model for pluralist language policy.17 Joseph Lo Bianco, who was commissioned to draft the actual national languages policy, had had experience as adviser to the Victorian Minister for Education and chair of the Victorian Ministerial Committee for Multicultural and Migrant Education. In this capacity, he oversaw the writing of the Victorian language policy statement. Drawing on Australian and overseas research and practice, Lo Bianco developed a sophisticated rationale for a multilingual Australia, encompassing social justice, long-term economic strategies, and cultural enrichment for all Australians.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 155

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 155

Because the government had charged the Minister for Education with the task of national languages policy, the emphasis in the policy was on education, leaving issues relating to the media, interpreting and translating, and public services on the margin. However, multilingual activities in these fields continued independently but were strengthened by the emerging policy. Among other things, community languages and language for special purposes courses in professional training and the expanded training of primary language teachers and bilingual education teachers were proposed. The strengths of the policy were:18 •

•

•

•

its comprehensiveness – embracing the mainstreaming of all languages within the complementarity of English and all other languages, indigenous, immigrant and sign languages; its federalism – allowing each state or territory to progress from where they were at the time, setting their priorities in accordance with broader state objectives, ethnolinguistic composition, and geographical position, within broad national policy parameters; its provision for broad representation, including ethnic, indigenous and professional groups, in the implementation of language policy through a national advisory committee; the sponsoring of research to advance the policy, especially through a multicampus key centre, which became the National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.

Implementational strategies were proposed, as was a budget, which was accepted by Parliament. This time of great innovation and harmonious co-operation in Australia started to subside when the policy context changed. The National Policy on Languages (NPL) was Australia’s only languages policy that was based on grassroots initiative and expert research. It was described by author and political scientist Donald Horne as a ‘blueprint for change … stamped by the voice of ordinary citizens’.19

Australian Language and Literacy Policy Soon after the NPL’s implementation began, economic rationalism became the dominant policy penetrating all aspects of government. The balanced approach between the social, economic and cultural in the NPL gave way to a strong emphasis on short-term economic goals, particularly the satisfaction of labour market needs. Helen Moore suggests that migrants became marginalised together with all other players other than state


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 156


governments, trade unions and employers at the time of the Labor government’s accords to initiate economic restructuring.20 The Education portfolio was amalgamated with that of Employment and Training; in 1991, the new minister, John Dawkins, and his closest advisers wrote their own top-down language policy, Australia’s Language: The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP). It was a revision of the earlier Green Paper, The Language of Australia (implying only one was of importance). Both the title and the emphasis on English literacy and on languages of immediate importance for Australia’s external trade and tourism to the exclusion of other languages and language matters received widespread condemnation from all sections of the community, including 340 written submissions. Language policy became an issue of media attention. The guiding principles of the Senate Report and the NPL were reiterated in the second, companion volume, as was evidence from submissions. But the first volume, which contained the budget, was guided by a strong instrumental emphasis on child and adult English literacy, including early intervention strategies, proficiency levels, and literacy in the workplace, responding to fears that despite the educational explosion, children who were staying at school longer were functionally illiterate. English as a Second Language was subsumed under Literacy, with a marginalisation of the specific problems of ESL students and, as Moore reminds us, of the developing bilingualism of the learners.21 A user-pays approach was adopted to post-survival English as a Second Language. LOTEs were promoted through a financial prioritisation system. School systems (state and Catholic) and individual independent schools would receive $300 per head for each student successfully completing the Year 12 examination in one of eight languages prioritised by the state from a list of nationally prioritised languages: Arabic, Australian Aboriginal languages (linguistic introduction with an in-depth study of one language), Chinese, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Modern Greek, Russian, Spanish, Thai and Vietnamese. With the emphasis on English literacy, the issue of biliteracy was left aside. Aboriginal language maintenance was marginalised, and salvaging threatened languages was not supported.22 The ALLP introduced the fateful language vs literacy dichotomy, which was mentioned in chapter 2. To maximise funding, the states tended to select as priority languages those with the highest Year 12 enrolments. This benefited languages of large communities such as Greek and Vietnamese, though they are not per-


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 157

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 157

ceived as being of great economic value, but tended to detract from programs in nationally non-prioritised languages such as Turkish, Maltese, and Macedonian, and state non-prioritised languages such as Russian and Arabic.

Productive Diversity While economically driven language policies caused consternation among teachers and some ethnic communities, they were accompanied by the policy of Productive Diversity promoted by the next Prime Minister, Paul Keating. The objective of this policy was to emphasise the cultural and linguistic resources existing in the workforce and in workplaces as national assets and harness them in trade, business and tourism. This has had the potential of conferring on plurilinguals a new status as those with economic capital rather than just underprivileged people. An outcome could be reconciling the individual’s and the ethnolinguistic group’s self-esteem and social mobility and the utilisation of their skills with the nation’s economic interests. In this respect also, globalisation can strengthen the position of ethnic minorities within their country of immigration.

Refragmentation The ALLP was the second and last of the comprehensive language policy documents. After it, language policy was refragmented and there were policies on literacy, on Asian languages, on interpreting and translating. Lo Bianco attributes this to the recent and current antipathy of government to explicit policy development, especially anything resembling a ‘bottom-up’ policy.23 This was characterised, according to Lo Bianco, by three restrictions – the restriction of community settings from policy, the marginalisation of the claims of language groups, and the restriction of literacy to early literacy and English only.24 The first of the fragmented policies was developed by the Keating government and accepted by the Council of Australian Governments in 1994. Unlike the National Policy on Languages or the ALLP, it was introduced without public input and discussion. It could be understood as a reprioritisation in accordance with the government’s strong push towards Australia’s integration into the Asian economic system. As Moore comments, now language was a discrete policy domain, it had to be brought in line with Labor’s overall agenda’.25 The NALSAS (National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools) strategy, based on the Rudd Report, Asian Languages and Australia’s Economic Future, gave special prioritisation to four Asian languages and cultures perceived to be of particular


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 158


importance to Australia, Chinese (Mandarin), Indonesian, Japanese and Korean. It was intended that 60 per cent of Australian children would take one of these at school. Japanese prospered at first and declined when it was found to be a difficult language for English speakers to learn, although it is still the most popular Asian language nationally. Indonesian greatly increased in student numbers, which was subject to seasonal adjustment due first to political unrest in Indonesia and then as a reaction to the Bali bombings. Korean took off only in a few schools. Chinese was more successful in independent schools than in state schools and faltered in some schools due to its difficulty and by the fear of competition from ‘native speakers’ discussed in chapter 4. The NALSAS strategy was supported by large amounts of funding from 1995 until the program’s termination in 2003.

State language-in-education policies: Student participation in LOTE learning Both the ALLP and NALSAS were examples of federal policy that regulated state language-in-education policy through the purse. But since the mid-1990s, each state has had its own language-in-education policy, which has taken into account the distinctiveness of its education systems, demography and economic needs. A federal–state committee, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), has been deliberating in recent years about a national statement of commitment to languages education and an encouraging common plan of action for languages across states, with the final statement and plan to be endorsed by all ministers of education due during 2005. The plan will cover teaching and learning practices, teacher supply and retention, professional learning, program development, assessment, and promotion of language learning in Australian schools from 2005 to 2008.

Disabling changes Just as there were positive changes in many areas in the 1970s that enabled positive language policies to be developed and implemented, many contextual factors of the 1990s and 2000s have stood in the way of the continuation of such developments. Some of these are connected with the funding crisis in universities and the limitation of universities to courses that pay their own way according to government funding models. This has led to the closure of several university interpreting/translating programs, which had


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 159

POLICY

TABLE

OVERVIEW

• 159

5.1 Requirements for LOTE study, state language-in-education policies, 2005

State/territory

Requirements for LOTE study

New South Wales

The minimum requirement is that all students take 100 hours of a LOTE within one year between 7 and 10. While languages are not compulsory in primary schools, 40 per cent of primary schools offer a LOTE program.

Victoria

It is expected that all students take a LOTE throughout the compulsory years of education (Prep to Year 10). However, this is not implemented rigidly across all schools, and some schools make the language non-compulsory in Year 9 and/or commence language study after Prep. Students taking a language other than English receive a 10 per cent bonus towards their tertiary entrance score.

Queensland

Schools require all children to take a LOTE from Year 6 to 8.

South Australia

By 2007, all South Australian students will have to take a LOTE from Reception to Year 10.

Western Australia

LOTE is mandatory from Year 3 to 8.

Tasmania

LOTE is not mandatory, but about 90 per cent of primary schools and all secondary schools offer at least one.

Australian Capital Territory

Languages are not mandatory at primary schools, but about 90 per cent of primary schools have a language program in which all students participate. Languages are compulsory at secondary schools, at least in Years 7 and 8.

Northern Territory

A LOTE is mandatory in the compulsory years of education. Except in schools with an indigenous language program, the language generally studied is Indonesian.

SOURCE

Based on information from each of the states and territories

given the profession status for a number of years. It also resulted in the abolition of programs in many low candidature languages, which is preventing students, including those who will ultimately teach the language, from developing their skills beyond Year 12 level. As we have argued in chapter 4, the languages taught in mainstream schools are increasingly set in concrete in each state. So the needs for the teaching of languages such as Spanish, Vietnamese and Arabic are not being taken seriously, the way the needs for Italian and Greek were in the 1970s and 1980s. At a time when the universities are receiving less than


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 160


40 per cent of their income from government grants, it is difficult to argue against the internal university requirement of making each department or discipline at least break even. In some states, there are no up-to-date statistics on the library holdings in community languages, which is frustrating the continuation of the innovative policy of providing for a linguistically diverse population. Whereas devolution of some decision making to the local level in the 1970s helped provision of services and school programs in the most prominent community languages of the area, similar devolution at a time of declining central commitment is now upsetting the balance between central and local planning necessary to ensure the provision of services in even some of the main community languages, let alone the languages of significant groups of new arrivals. Paradoxically, languages have to be geographically highly concentrated for their speakers to be adequately provided for in an environment in which ghettoisation is not favoured. In the policy shift from assimilation to multiculturalism, language maintenance efforts such as community languages in schools, ethnic schools, libraries, multilingual radio and multicultural television are dependent on government financial support. At a time when many of the traditional government responsibilities such as hospitals, prisons, public transport, gas, electricity and water supply and telecommunications are being privatised, and nearly everything is operating on the user-pays principle, community languages are still being treated comparatively well. But the contextual changes with their emphasis on economic rationalism have reduced the expectation of support. Helen Moore described the ‘deceptive rhetoric of economic rationalism’ as the ‘new assimilation policy’.26 She has also shown that the disruption of networks of language advocates across areas of language has led to the replacement of co-operation and negotiation by competition and consequently conflict.27 There is another aspect. When people feel obliged to defend the essential institutions such as universities, state education, hospitals, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as well as basic human rights, national languages policy becomes more of a luxury rather than the essential link between many other policies. Language planning ideally entails three stages – formulation, implementation and review (or evaluation). In Australia, there have often been blurred boundaries between the first two stages, with implementation sometimes preceding formulation. An example is the introduction of highquality bilingual and second language programs in primary schools, which preceded the policy in Victoria and South Australia that all children should


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 161

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 161

learn a language other than English throughout primary school. This policy, which was not accompanied by the necessary staffing resources across the state, resulted in not only some excellent programs and many good ones but also in many programs of dubious quality with a seriously inadequate time allocation and teachers with insufficient proficiency in the language. What has hardly taken place is an open review of language policy. In 1993–94, the Australian Academy of the Humanities coordinated such a review, encompassing the same breadth as the PlanLangPol submission to the original Senate inquiry on language policy, involving experts from five professional associations.28 The 23 recommendations that followed the review of each aspect of current language dealt with indigenous languages, the promulgation of Australian English, non-discriminatory language, the training of interpreters and translators, second language teaching, the creation of a multilingual access television station, and the funding of the National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia. There was also a section on Auslan. The first recommendation, relating to a statement on changes in language demography, was ‘that a multifaceted approach be adopted to policies on languages other than English enabling the acquisition, maintenance and development of the range of languages of significance to Australia, including those from parts of the world other than Asia and Europe’. The report called for implementational strategies for expanded LOTE teaching based on learning outcomes taking into account program type, teacher supply, and student diversity. Moreover, the maintenance of a comprehensive ‘national languages policy building on the continuing guiding principles’ is recommended, with a ‘broadly based review’ and public submissions. The nature of the proposed submission had been discussed before work began with the then Minister for Education and Training, Kim Beazley, who had welcomed the idea. By the time the submission was completed, cabinet positions were reshuffled, and Ross Free was now the responsible minister. Some of the recommendations were implemented independently – the multilingual access television station is an example – while others, such as those relating to a coordinated languages policy including a review, a national strategy for interpreting and translating and continuing funding for NLLIA – were ignored completely, regardless of additional lobbying. The difference in reception between this submission and the original PlanLangPol one can be taken as an indication of the waning interest in comprehensive language issues. This inertia and indifference increased under the ministers of the Howard government.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 162


Keeping pace with demographic change In the absence of a review of language policy with some standing, there is a danger that the provision of services in community languages can be frozen at a particular point in time.29 While it would be an exaggeration to say that this has occurred in Australia, languages in the media, education and the public sector do not seem to be keeping pace with changing language demography. This is not only due to the fact that the presence of a significant community of home users is not the only reason for radio or television programs or school programs in the language. The languages of newer communities are not being given the same support as some of their counterparts 25 years ago. Along with Macedonian, the more recent languages Filipino, Cantonese and Mandarin are the only community languages among the top ten that are not allocated at least 6000 hours of SBS and public broadcasting time a year in Australia. Cantonese and Mandarin total only 18.5 and 32.75 hours per week respectively. Cantonese and Mandarin are also inadequately provided for on television. Filipino and Maltese are underrepresented in all the media, perhaps because of the assumption that speakers of these languages can function sufficiently in English. However, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of complete language shift. There is very little provision on radio and television for the languages from the Horn of Africa – none at all in Tigrinya or any of the Sudanese languages. In Melbourne, where these languages are concentrated, SBS has only recently assigned Somali and Amharic an hour each per week. Previously, they could only be heard once a week on a community station, and the Somali on television is a community access program of one half-hour per week. None of the African languages is available as a Year 12 subject. An initiative to have Somali introduced in the Victorian School of Languages has faltered so far due to lack of unity of purpose, insufficient demonstrated parental support, and because of the overcommitment of Somali members on a working party. The kind of support that many ethnic communities were able to get previously from the wider community is no longer possible. Usually there are only a small number of people who play multiple roles in an ethnic community who have a sufficient understanding of Australian institutions and political practices. As we have seen in chapter 4, the provision in schools of the two major community languages of the younger generation, Arabic and Vietnamese (the latter now the most widely spoken language in the schoolage population in three of the state capitals), is not adequate in comparison


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 163

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 163

with that of their counterparts in the 1970s and 1980s; the provision for Greek has declined sharply, and languages important as both community languages and international languages, such as Arabic and Spanish, have very little presence in mainstream schools.30 Mandarin is lagging behind comparable languages of the Asian region that are less significant as community languages in Australia, though it is the only community language whose ranking in numbers corresponds to its representation in schools. The pooled mechanisms that enable ‘new’ languages to be introduced on multilingual radio stations, as Year 12 subjects throughout Australia, and to be available on the telephone interpreter service continue to function and at least in theory can ensure that the provision of language services and programs remains reasonably flexible.

Critiques of, and threats to multiculturalism It is not an aim of this book to provide a treatise on multiculturalism policy in Australia. However, as policies supporting and promoting multilingualism in Australia are anchored in multiculturalism policy, we must consider periodic opposition to this policy from soon after its inception. Multiculturalism was described, even in its earlier years as a policy, as divisive, trendy and/or left wing,31 and as right wing and avoiding the need for structural pluralism.32 The perception of the divisive nature of multiculturalism was reiterated by the Fitzgerald Committee to advise on Australia’s immigration policies (1988). This committee also stressed labour market skills and entrepreneurial and special talents as selection criteria for migration, and recommended points not only for English but also for proficiency ‘in a language of national importance – for example, the language of a major trading partner’. This foreshadowed the preoccupation with trade languages in the ALLP and the Rudd Report. The rejection or criticism of multiculturalism is, in my opinion, based largely on false assumptions about its essence. As we have discussed in chapter 1, it is an indisputable fact that the Australian population is composed of people from many cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The people pushing for an end to assimilation policy and the governments of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s espoused a policy of inclusiveness, which allowed for multiple identity – based on cultural heritage of the individual or their family and on the shared national identity and ‘core culture’ of all Australians, with one aspect by no means excluding another. Sir James Gobbo, foundation chair of the Australian Multicultural Foundation, described that ‘core culture’ as ‘form(ing) a very large part of the river into


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 164


which all cultures flow’.33 Within the policy of unity within diversity, neither constituted a threat to the other. There have been misunderstandings about the meaning of ‘multicultural(ism)’. A survey conducted by the National Multicultural Advisory Council (Report, 1989) suggested some polarisation, with most submissions focusing on social justice and the benefits to Australia but some submissions expressing the belief that multiculturalism was only for migrants and that it was denying ‘Australian culture’. It is true that some of the early discussions on multiculturalism in the 1970s, like those on gender equality, focused on the ‘minority’ group to enable them to move from the margins to the mainstream. Australian history of the interwar and immediate post-Second World War periods had marginalised or even ignored any contribution to the development of Australia of people from non-Anglo and non-Celtic backgrounds.34 The acceptance of those increasing sections of the Australian population should certainly not devalue the ‘mainstream Australian culture’ that is interacting with the other cultures of Australia, or the British cultures that were their basis. However, as Galligan and Roberts35 state, ‘the integration of large numbers of migrants is a transformational process not only for the new settlers but also for the host nation’. It is a dynamic not a static model that has enabled people from many different backgrounds to feel part of Australia while at the same time contributing from their cultural traditions. By the 1980s, all policy statements had made clear that multiculturalism was for everyone, in the interests of social equity, sharing of cultures (mainstream and others), and economic prosperity. The vision of the 1999 report of the National Multicultural Affairs Council, Australian multiculturalism for a new century: Towards inclusiveness, was described as follows: A united and harmonious Australia, built on the foundations of our democracy, and developing its continually evolving nationhood by recognizing, embracing, valuing and investing in its heritage and cultural diversity.36

This summarises not only a vision but, to a large extent, the achievements of Australia, whose culture has become ‘dynamic’. The report gives details of public opinion polls over the three years before showing 70 per cent to 78 per cent support for multiculturalism. However, the tolerance and inclusiveness that could be regarded as a given among the vast majority of the Australian population was being severely tested by populist agendas, including scapegoating.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 165

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 165

There have been two influential figures in recent Australian politics who have been catalysts in the changing fortunes of pluralist agendas in Australia – John Howard and Pauline Hanson. John Howard’s first attempt to derail the bipartisan policy of multiculturalism was in 1988 when, in his first term as Leader of the Opposition, he expressed his opposition to large-scale immigration from Asia and his scepticism on multiculturalism, several years after the historian Geoffrey Blainey launched his attack on both.37 The following year, Howard was replaced as Opposition leader by Andrew Peacock, who restored the bipartisan policy. Before Howard could be reelected by his party in 1995, he had to repudiate his former position. Nevertheless, during his successful 1996 election campaign, he led a relentless attack against ‘political correctness (which he) identif(ied) with intellectual elites divorced from the views of the population at large or “broad community values”’.38 In this he was drawing on a longstanding Australian anti-intellectual tradition as well as on a recent right-wing international reversal representation of the relatively advantaged and the disadvantaged, in which the former are portrayed as victims of the latter (a discourse analysed by Chilton for the United Kingdom and by Sedlak for Austria).39 The latter reversal representation was foreshadowed in the Liberal Party’s election slogan ‘For all of us’, which implied the marginalisation of some people by the Labor government but marked the start of a populist agenda and a public discourse in which ‘special interest groups’, such as feminists, indigenous Australians, migrants, the disabled, and the unemployed, were getting generous handouts at the expense of the really needy ‘Aussie battlers’.40 Part of Howard’s political platform in 1996 was to eliminate ‘political correctness’, for in a free and democratic country, people had the right to speak their minds.41 This had the effect of moving the language of exclusion from the right-wing extremism to the respectable mainstream and at the same time propagating the position that whatever the Prime Minister was saying expressed a consensual view. What gave some people the freedom to express their prejudices openly made others feel much less comfortable in a nation where a greater degree of harmony had prevailed. The same election in which Howard became Prime Minister was also a triumph for Pauline Hanson, who symbolised the ‘Aussie battler’ and the victim of political correctness, which Howard was constructing. She was disendorsed as the Liberal candidate for a safe Labor seat in a country town on the outskirts of Brisbane, for her racist outbursts against welfare payments to Aborigines. She won the seat by a comfortable


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 166


majority as an Independent and went on to form her own party, the One Nation Party. For a short time, it enjoyed strong support in certain areas, especially in non-metropolitan Queensland, with few non-Englishspeaking migrants and few indigenous Australians, and practically no support in Melbourne, where cultural and linguistic diversity is fairly evenly spread. She drew on discontent among those affected by the rural crisis. Hanson blamed Australia’s problems on economic globalisation, Asian immigrants, and ‘special privileges’ afforded to Aborigines and single mothers. She spoke the language of exclusion, differentiating between the ‘us’ (mainstream Australians) and the ‘them’ (Aborigines, Asian and other migrants who ‘don’t want to forget where they came from’,42 with the Asians also linked with countries harming Australia economically).43 She claimed not being able to understand Brisbane street and shop signs, which were in ‘foreign languages’. They turned out to be bilingual – English and Japanese street signs encouraging tourists who are contributing to the Australian economy and English and Chinese shop signs in a part of Brisbane with a large number of Taiwanese migrants. Howard’s reluctance to distance himself from Hanson’s position, as was requested by some leading members of his own party, was attributed to his preference for ‘free speech’. But it also enabled him to attract the One Nation Party constituency once support for the One Nation Party collapsed. This occurred even though the Howard government’s globalisation policy was one of the things Hanson so vehemently opposed. The importance for multiculturalism of the polarisation around Hanson should not be exaggerated, but it did serve as a reminder that there were non-metropolitan areas that had been hardly affected by demographic change and its attitudinal consequences. It also provided the Prime Minister with the argument that ‘traditional Australian values’ had been neglected. Now ‘traditional Australian values’ are probably even less well defined than multiculturalism. Are they simply about a fair go for everyone? Who is included under ‘everyone’? What is a ‘traditional Australian’? What are the limits of ‘mateship’? In relation to language, which is the focus of this book, do ‘traditional Australian values’ include shouting over the fence or in the train: ‘Why don’t you bloody well speak English?’ or ‘Go back to where you came from!’, something not unusual in the 1950s? However, for most Australians, the existence of cultural and linguistic diversity in Australia is a fact of life. Australians are experiencing it daily in


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 167

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 167

their families, their workplaces and their neighbourhoods. The marginalisation of multiculturalism from the national agenda is not due to a campaign against it but because it was replaced by other issues. One was economic prosperity. This issue had been prominently on the agenda since the previous Labor government espoused economic rationalism. For a short time, this and multiculturalism were married in Keating’s Productive Diversity policy, and, as we have seen, Keating’s policy of economic globalisation and integration into the Asia–Pacific region brought with it some discussion of languages as commodities. Howard’s outlook on prosperity was a domestically based one. For instance, when the public debate during the 2004 federal election turned to honesty in government, especially with reference to the Iraq war and the government’s claim before the previous election that asylum seekers had thrown their children overboard, Howard reversed the trust issue. He asked people to decide who they would trust – to keep interest rates low. While Howard and his government have skilfully used the arrival of asylum seekers and the September 11 and Bali bombings to promote Fortress Australia thinking, they have equally skilfully succeeded in distancing their harsh representation of asylum seekers from existing cultural diversity in Australia. Firstly, when Howard said ‘Genuine refugees don’t do that’ and ‘I don’t want people like that in Australia’, he both distanced the asylum seekers from the positive connotations of refugees in Australia and introduced a moral evaluative dimension. By labelling asylum seekers ‘queue jumpers’, Australian politicians from both sides and sections of the media alienated from them not only Australians of the British heritage for whom queues are cultural symbols of fairness and orderliness. They also aroused antagonism among migrants and former refugees waiting for their families to be admitted under the family reunion scheme and those resentful of people whose path to Australia is represented as easier than theirs was.44 Above all, in the post-September 11, 2001 environment, the term ‘border protection’ for keeping out ‘unauthorised arrivals’ equated the asylum seekers with the terrorists being harboured in the countries from which the asylum seekers were escaping. They were projected as a threat to the security of Australia’s existing population. All this has encouraged the climate of insecurity in which people should feel comfortable as long as their immediate needs are well served.45 However, it is actually multilingualism that could provide the environment for a self-confident nation to connect with the rest of the world.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 168


It is interesting that it was the ‘war against terror’ that slowly made the United States aware of the need to develop its linguistic resources for strategic purposes and in the interests of intercultural understanding and made some Australians afraid of theirs. Some Australian schools have given September 11 as the reason for deciding against the teaching of Arabic and the Bali bombings have been a factor in the reduction in the uptake of Indonesian in schools. A front-page article in the New York Times six months before the 2001 attack on the Twin Towers46 pointed out that the FBI had prior warning on audio- and videotape of the devastation that would result from a bomb blast at the World Trade Centre on 26 February 1993, but it had been ignored because the information was in Arabic. The article quotes Robert O Slater, director of the National Security Education Program run by the Defense Department, as stating that shortfalls in language competence were ‘now affecting the ability of federal agencies to address their missions’. The article also cites intelligence agencies as reporting that they are ‘frequently caught short in times of crisis, lacking a sufficient pool of agents with needed languages, from Arabic to Korean – and most recently – Macedonian’. The languages in which the United States has security needs are not the ones that are being studied in schools and universities and are slowly being met through courses at the Defense Language Training Institute. The corresponding discussion in Australia has been very subdued and concentrated on the decline of Indonesian in schools and universities.47 A recent critique of multiculturalism focusing on citizenship issues is that of Galligan and Roberts.48 They contend that multiculturalism is an unsuitable basis for citizenship. They argue that Australia is characterised by two-way integration between the existing mainstream and new immigrants, with both changing due to mutual influence, and with workplace diversity, intermarriage and ‘cultural hybridity’. The second generation, however, is ‘Australianised’, certainly not ‘different’ enough for Australia to be characterised as ‘multicultural’. ‘Making sense of modern Australia’ has, according to Galligan and Roberts, ‘been an intellectual and policy challenge that has not been resolved in any consensual way’.49 It should be remembered that multiculturalism was not merely a top-down policy but largely a response to community initiatives. Also, neither globalisation nor economic rationalism, both bipartisan policies, were ‘resolved in any consensual way’. Our study is presenting Australia as a multilingual country, with English as the dominant language, the main language of most public


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 169

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 169

domains, and the lingua franca. Yet, despite a high rate of language shift, faster in some groups than in others, linguistic diversity is clearly present, not in competition with English as the main language but alongside it. There is a presence of English plus other languages, and the diversity is rapidly changing, and ever increasing, with some languages displacing others in numbers. At least in our urban centres, this linguistic diversity is generally accepted as part of the landscape. The same is true of many aspects of culture, with food and celebrations as the most obvious examples. Cultural diversity has added additional colour and dynamism to Australian society, and many Australians of all backgrounds are sharing this and, as a result, understanding the rest of the world better.50 In his book, Understanding Multiculturalism and Australian Identity,51 Andrew Theophanous argues that multiculturalism and the British democratic institutions are in no way incompatible, not least because multiculturalism entails egalitarianism, which has traditionally been part of Australian values. He enters a debate on the need for a more active citizenship concept in Australia, based on rights and duties. Theophanous argues for a revised concept of multiculturalism, based on universal values of social justice central to the development of modern society. Some commentators, such as Galligan and Roberts, have remarked on the vague and changing definitions of multiculturalism – in the case of Galligan and Roberts, on the confusion of prescriptive and descriptive dimensions.52 In the present book, I have been using the term ‘multiculturalism’ for the policy that developed in Australia in the 1970s, replacing assimilation. (Integration was a transition stage.) What it conveys to me is inclusiveness and cultural open-mindedness. I am not wedded to the term, and if it is associated with resentments, I am happy to call it by another term, such as ‘cultural diversity’. Just as Australia’s economy has not resisted ‘globalisation’, we cannot afford to shut ourselves in culturally at this time. I see little evidence that this is the desire of the majority of the Australian population. Our democratic, largely tolerant and in some ways egalitarian nation has much to offer the many countries of the world that are still caught in the notion of the 19thcentury language-based monocultural nation-state in an era of unprecedented migration and international and intercultural intertwining. In order to see how we can fully utilise our potential to connect with the rest of the world, we must overcome the mindset that sees all language issues as monolithic.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 170


Concluding assessment There have thus continued to be tensions between the powers of monoculturalism and multiculturalism and between those of monolingualism and multilingualism in Australia. Any developments towards linguistic pluralism have come in fits and starts. As we have shown, ongoing resistance to any acceptance of multilingualism has often preceded quite dramatic changes soon after. It applies at the macro-level to Snedden’s attachment to monoculturalism as late as 1969, and at the micro-level, to the outrage expressed to any suggestion of television films in community languages so soon before the establishment of Multicultural TV. Perhaps the most dramatic surprise was the government decision in 1982 to proceed with the Senate inquiry into national language policy before the professional associations’ submission had been completed. Multilingualism and language policy are now no longer high on the public agenda. These issues are no longer front-page news. We no longer have the Leader of the Opposition conducting an urgency debate on the teaching of migrant languages in schools, as in 1977,53 or the Prime Minister declaring the first right of a citizen to be ‘The right to expressing and sharing of individual cultural heritage, including language and religion’ (my emphasis), as in 1995.54 But the linguistic icons of multiculturalism have not disappeared either. We still have government and governmentsubsidised radio stations broadcasting in over 80 languages and a government television channel with English-subtitled films in community languages. One-time attempts to amalgamate SBS with the ABC have not reemerged. We still have a telephone interpreter service, over 40 languages accredited for examination at the Year 12 level, and many libraries with holdings in languages strongly represented in the local community. All these developments predated stand-alone comprehensive language policies. For a long time, Australia served as a model for pluralistic language policy development. Many of the developments retained today are still innovative by international standards. Britain is taking advantage of time differences to utilise Australia’s Telephone Interpreter Service during our night. The Dutch authority on immigrant languages in Europe, Guus Extra, is spending his study leave in Melbourne to write about SBS and the Victorian School of Languages, which he believes have model-building significance for other multilingual immigrant societies. There are still many European countries in which locally born children are denied citizenship because their parents are not, and cannot become, citizens of the country, in contrast to the rather open policy on citizenship in Australia. The provision


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 171

POLICY

OVERVIEW

• 171

of community language programs has been severely cut in both Sweden and the Netherlands. We do not, like the United States, have an English Only movement, which has succeeded in getting English declared the official language of more than one-third of the states, making bilingual education and the use of languages other than English in public notices, driving licence tests or ballots illegal.55 However, the erosion of Aboriginal bilingual education in the Northern Territory and the widespread position on literacy (see chapter 2) show the presence of a similar monolingual mindset, if not with the same degree of paranoia, in Australia. Even in Canada, noted for its progressive attitudes, the official policy is bilingualism and multiculturalism. This means that within mainstream education, most of the developments in the predominantly English-speaking areas, such as immersion and second language programs, are focused on French and neither on indigenous languages, such as Cree and Inuit, nor on large or longstanding heritage (community) languages, such as German or Ukrainian in the prairie provinces, Cantonese, Mandarin or Korean in British Columbia or Italian, Greek or Polish in Toronto, even where French is much less present. As we have seen, multilingualism came on to the public agenda in Australia as the result of a concerted effort on the part of ethnic (and subsequently indigenous and deaf ) communities, linguists, teachers, trade unions and others. The ethnic communities had a strong representation of second generation Australians of all ages. Nowadays, very few younger (and middleaged) people in Australian cities remember what Australia was like before the advent of multiculturalism. Very few have any idea how much effort had to be put into presenting the plurilingual as a legitimate Australian. It is sometimes believed that this began with a top-down decision. We have shown that this was not so. Some of those who pushed the agenda for a multicultural Australia from the ranks of the ethnic communities became public servants and implemented the new policies; some others sat on committees that also played a part in the implementation. But the younger generation of today is not really aware that to keep the agenda going for the common good, they have to keep evolving relevant policies and arguing for them. This is the only way in which Australia will again develop language policies for the entire nation at a time when the monolingual mindset is becoming increasingly apparent in attitudes and policies to cultural diversity in Australia. In the closing chapter, I will consider what shape such policies might take in the early 21st century and how they can be implemented so that Australia can realise and share its language potential.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 172

six

Supporting multilingualism collaboratively

In the previous chapters, we have presented Australia’s language demography as offering shared potential linguistic capital for the individual, communities, and the nation. Enabling those with plurilingual backgrounds to develop all their languages, English and the others, to their fullest potential not only facilitates the expression of people’s identity (feeling good about themselves and others around them) and opportunities for cross-cultural understanding. It also constitutes good economic resource management. The sharing of our linguistic resources is limited by the mindset that regards monolingualism as the norm and sees the complexities of language in a monolithic way – a mindset that prevails in government, education, business and many other spheres of Australian life. We cannot fully develop our language potential if our energy has to go into overcoming our monolingual mindset, which thrives under conditions of inertia. Paradoxically, the best, perhaps the only way of overcoming the monolingual mindset is through more active participation in our Australian plurilingualism. In this chapter, building on the previous ones, suggestions will be made for the prioritisation of languages for specific domains and services at the local and state levels. We will consider a collaborative agenda for a more linguistically aware Australia, indicating the role of governments, schools and universities, communities and ethnic schools, families and individuals. We have a unique and increasing diversity of languages and cultures. All of them are important in making us what we are as a nation and giving us a potential to become an important link nation in the world in this era of globalisation. They all need to be considered in any agenda for supporting multilingualism in Australia.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

SUPPORTING

Page 173

M U LT I L I N G U A L I S M C O L L A B O R AT I V E LY

• 173

Responding to language demography In chapter 5, we referred to the tendency for service provision in community languages to lag behind current demography. It is, of course, not always the case that Census statistics are the best indicator of needs for language services and resources for developing our plurilingualism. As we showed in chapter 1, some ethnolinguistic communities, both large and small, are more concentrated within metropolitan areas, while others are more dispersed throughout them. In local council services and local libraries, concentration has to be an important consideration (with interlibrary loans and on-line publications providing additional opportunities). Geographical concentration is an important factor in the choice of languages taught in schools. But here the total numbers throughout the metropolitan area also need to be taken into account. Otherwise, a dispersed language with a large population may not be available, while a language with much smaller numbers of speakers would be taught in two or three schools where there is a sizeable concentrated population. For a smaller but dispersed language, the School of Languages is the ideal solution. But here again, the issue might be: In which centre of the School of Languages will the language be offered? Population dispersion could mean that a critical mass of students will not be available at any centre and the distances may be too great for parents to be prepared to drive their children on a Saturday to the centre at which it is being taught. The concentration factor is not of relevance in the provision of media in community languages. Because the Census data is specific to the home domain, it has indicative function but certain limitations as a basis for the determination of needs. For instance, it may be that people who do not speak their community language at home may have a particular need to hear it on the radio or to see programs in it on television. This may be their only opportunity to maintain it. Or they may have a special desire to read the language, so that holdings in the language in public libraries may be of greater importance to them than to those who are included in the home language use Census data. Literacy level and level of education are factors that contribute to the library needs of community language speakers. Three factors of major significance in determining language needs are recency of arrival, age and socioeconomic status. Unless they are already proficient in English, recent arrivals from non-English-speaking backgrounds who are poorer will have substantial information needs in their community language. This applies most especially to those from cultural backgrounds very different to the mainstream, such as speakers of Khmer,


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 174


some Chinese varieties, Somali, Amharic, Oromo, Tigrinya, Dinka and other languages of the Sudan. Because young people predominate in these communities, language needs in these languages will be for service provision, interpreting and information relating to infant welfare, child care, family health, employment and workplace issues and education. For the ageing communities, including German, Dutch, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian speakers, most information needs will relate to health, pensions and aged care. As the demography is constantly changing, the listing of languages for special needs has to be reviewed regularly. Resources available in particular languages to satisfy community needs may also be available for language maintenance and acquisition/development purposes. The demarcation line between language rights and access and equity issues is not very clear. The availability of public resources in a specific language constitutes a symbolic recognition of that language in Australia and of the rights of the community using the language. This is acknowledged at election time when some political parties produce how-tovote cards in as many as 20 community languages. The choice of languages for general public notices, such as the 16 in the telephone directories of most capital cities (though strangely, not Perth and Canberra) and some regions, giving details and telephone numbers of interpreter services, will usually be arbitrary, based on a balance of numbers and perceived needs on a nationwide basis. For the latter, the home use statistics and those for selfrating of English in the Census offer some guidance. But there is an obvious absence of the languages spoken by recent refugees from Africa. Moreover, whatever criteria are employed, it would be desirable for the choice of languages to be determined according to the special situation in each city or region. There is a tension between absolute and relative numbers and between central and local language resources. Programs in particular community languages on radio and television are accessible to people over a larger radius, that of a city and environs, even a state and the entire country. As we have mentioned, younger people from a number of communities have expressed disinterest in, and discontent with, the content of many of the programs. For language and cultural maintenance purposes, and to help young second language learners, segments targeted to children and young people where possible run by young bilinguals should be part of all community language radio programs. Subtitled series for teenagers and other young people in a range of community languages should be reinstated on SBS Television. In languages taught in a number


15/8/05

12:40 PM

SUPPORTING

Page 175


• 175

of schools, the needs of children learning the language should be considered and such listeners and viewers would swell the potential interest. For telephone interpreter services, social education policy and library book acquisition, the state level or at least that of the statistical division (for example, capital city or Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong) needs to be the planning unit – the one against which regional or local initiatives are to be compared, thereby safeguarding the interests of smaller, more recent and more dispersed languages. In chapter 1, we described five types of municipalities in accordance with the relative strength of community languages. While in Type A municipalities, such as six local government areas in Perth with a strong Italian concentration, the dominant community language can be given maximum support, Types B and C should develop flexible multilingual facilities in social welfare and a choice of several community languages in primary and secondary schools, or at least within regional networks of schools, in states where they exist. Some smaller, more recently arrived communities have tended to cluster in ethnolinguistically mixed areas (for example, Khmer in Greater Dandenong (Melbourne) and Fairfield (Sydney), Tamil in Strathfield and Auburn (Sydney), Korean in Canterbury and Parramatta (Sydney), Russian in Waverley (Sydney) and Glen Eira (Melbourne), Dinka in Fairfield (Sydney), Greater Dandenong and Maribyrnong (Melbourne), Somali in Banyule, Casey, Darebin, and Hume (Melbourne), and Filipino in Blacktown (Sydney) and Maribyrnong (Melbourne). Flexible multilingual facilities can therefore be extended to them. For generally more dispersed languages, Schools of Languages and co-operation between ethnic schools and day schools are the best and probably only solution. I would urge the Departments of Education of Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory to establish a School of Languages. Planning for community languages in rural and most regional areas is crucial but quite difficult. In areas such as Mareeba (Far North of Queensland) or for Arabic around Shepparton (Victoria), and Japanese in the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, conditions resemble those in Type A municipalities in capital cities. However, it is in the Type D areas that community language facilities need to be available, if necessary with itinerant or part-time staff, over the telephone or through video or online. The absence of language support can actually be part of the cause of the small number of plurilinguals in rural areas and indirectly even of the monolingual attitudes accompanying this lack of experience with plurilingualism.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 176


The concentration of community languages in a particular locality can offer opportunities for seeing cultures in action and experiencing the use of the languages in an authentic setting. Among many examples are Indonesian in Randwick (Sydney), Mandarin in Canterbury, Randwick and Fairfield (Sydney), and the Glen Waverley (Monash) and Balwyn (Booroondara) areas of Melbourne as well as in Chinatowns, Italian in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, the eastern suburbs of Adelaide around Campbelltown/Payneham, and the western suburbs of Sydney, especially the local government areas of Fairfield and Liverpool, and German in the Bayswater (Knox) area of Melbourne. Concentration areas of these and other languages can be found in other capital cities. The Inquiry into the Economic Contribution of Victoria’s Culturally Diverse Population in 2004 heard evidence about over 200 Vietnamese shops in a strip shopping centre in Victoria Street, North Richmond (Melbourne) and clusters of Greek shops in nearby Swan Street, Richmond and of Spanish-speaking shops in Johnston Street, Fitzroy, in the same municipality. Adult education classes in a wide range of languages other than English are well subscribed throughout urban Australia, but there is a high attrition rate. One of the reasons is lack of opportunities for practice. Thousands of Australians who have studied a second language at school or university and achieved a fairly high level of proficiency in it find soon after completing or abandoning these studies that their skills become increasingly difficult to recall. It should be part of a language program in any educational institution to inform students how and where they can speak or hear the language in Australia, not only while they are studying it but also later.1 They should be encouraged to listen to radio programs, watch television and read books, newspapers and magazines of a general nature and in any fields of interest to them in the language. Even if not everything is comprehensible to them, they will be able to understand much from the context, thereby receive input and get accustomed to the sound of the language. Above all, they should be encouraged to find places and situations where the language is used in their home city or region in Australia, and expose themselves to the language so that they feel confident to use it themselves. There is a long history of Australians from monolingual backgrounds learning community languages (and that includes Auslan) from playmates, friends, workmates and employees as well as through studies to the point where they have developed native-like competence in the language and the language has become part of their identity.2 As we have seen in chapter 3, this often occurs in bilinguals learning a third language as a community


15/8/05

12:40 PM

SUPPORTING

Page 177


• 177

language, who utilise their metalinguistic awareness and biculturalism as a basis for an activity that can lead to multilingualism, linguistic expertise and increased confidence in one’s bilingualism.

Towards a collaborative approach Impediments to realising our language potential The major impediments to realising our language potential are: • • •

one’s own and others’ attitudes; the inavailability of quality language programs in schools; lack of government commitment.

Therefore, awareness of language and linguistic diversity must be promoted at all levels of society. Let us consider what a number of institutions in our society can do to help Australia and Australians develop their potential to the fullest.

What governments can do Some of the things that governments can do to facilitate the development of Australia’s language potential are: •

• • • • •

• •

They can keep up the momentum in language policy – in formulation, implementation and evaluation; resume a commitment to the guiding principles of the National Policy on Languages, but adapt their implementation to the current situation. They can reengage in a consultative process where this is not happening and listen to experts as well as to interest groups. They can foster an awareness of languages (and intercultural communication experience) and their importance to Australia. They can emphasise the importance of sharing of languages in Australian society. They can give businesses incentives to utilise productively the cultural and linguistic resources within their workforce. They can grant scholarships to alleviate the teacher shortage and the interpreter shortage and ensure that there are sufficient opportunities at degree and postgraduate level to train interpreters and translators to satisfy Australia’s needs. They can ensure an adequate supply of interpreters, especially in areas of greatest need, including health, law and social welfare. They can provide adequate funding for public library multilingual holdings.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 178


•

They can provide special tagged funding for universities to (re)introduce and maintain at least one program per state in languages of internal and external significance to Australia,3 and increase the number of community languages taught nationally at university level.

What schools can do Some of the things that schools can do to enable all students to realise their language potential to the fullest are: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Schools can make language programs central and not dispensable throughout the school, emphasising that plurilingualism, to whatever extent, is something very desirable. This entails, among other things, making the programs substantial enough in time allocation and curriculum content to give students (and their parents) confidence that they are actually achieving competence in the language as well as other skills in the process. In the choice of languages to be taught in a school, the current demography of the school population and that of the surrounding community can be taken into account. It is important for schools to make their plurilingual students feel good about their language background. Even if that particular language is not offered in school time, the school can show students that it values plurilingualism and the learning of languages outside the school timetable. School language programs can cater for the needs of students of all backgrounds learning the language, encouraging those who do not have a family background in it, without discriminating or motivating those with a background. Training students to utilise opportunities in the local community and with students speaking the language at home can be part of the language program. Special materials can be developed nationally or at the state level for specific groups of learners, such as late arrivals transferring from another language program and students who have acquired a ‘mixed language’ at home, if possible making use of new technologies. For ‘late arrivals’ an induction program would benefit from long needed research showing what kinds of cognitive skills acquired in a previous language program can be transferable. Languages can be taught at the primary level in such a way as to maximise the benefits to literacy and cross-cultural communication.4 This involves more than just intuitively acquiring structures but also being encouraged to notice patterns (and discuss them).


15/8/05

12:40 PM

SUPPORTING

•

Page 179


• 179

Students can be enabled and encouraged to take more than one LOTE, if necessary drawing on resources of Schools of Languages.

What universities can do Some of the things that universities can do to facilitate the development of Australia’s language potential are: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

Their first priority should be to offer a range of languages in accordance with their overall program and the needs of the population; the cost of doing so needs to be supported by targeted government funding and incentives. Language programs can include subjects in other languages of the same family, approached from the existing knowledge with materials designed for the languages. In developing strategies for low candidature languages subjects, too much confidence should not be vested in complementary subjects, which may not be manageable within conflicting timetables and long distances, or on distance education, which has its limitations for languages, despite the progress with online technology. It is important to maintain and develop exchange programs so that Australian students can live and study in the countries where their languages are used. Even students not themselves taking advantage of exchange programs benefit from them through the presence of students from other countries in their classes and the opportunity to interact with those from the relevant linguistics and cultural backgrounds. Where a language such as Hungarian, Maltese or Tamil is not taught at any Australian university, exchange programs can enable those who have successfully completed Year 12 in the language to advance beyond this level. Universities can consider organising work experience for students in a country where the language they are taking is used, or at least in an Australian context where the language needs to be used regularly. Universities can work together to ensure that each state has university-level specialist training in interpreting and translating in a range of languages, including postgraduate study. Teacher training programs can include content on education in Australia as a multicultural society.

What communities and ethnic schools can do Some of the things that communities and ethnic schools can do to facilitate the development of Australia’s language potential are:


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 180


• •

• • •

They can try to create new and relevant uses of their community languages. They can involve young bilinguals and learners of the community language in community activities, especially those concerning interaction with the elderly, tourists and recently arrived migrants. They can offer opportunities for people from outside their ethnic group who wish to share their language and culture to take part in their activities. They can organise links between young bilinguals in Australia and the younger generation in the country of origin through new technologies. They can strive for the recognition that their language, like others, is important in itself and is an essential component of our shared multicultural society.

What families can do Some of the things that families can do to enable children to realise their language potential to the fullest are: • • •

They can develop a family language policy implemented as consistently as possible but revised if conditions and response require this. They can ensure that they are providing a communication-rich environment for their bilingual child(ren) with plenty of opportunities for interaction. They can provide as many resources and opportunities for the use of the community language as possible, and can maximise the advantages of grandparents, overseas trips, and school programs while being aware of the possible pitfalls associated with these resources (see chapter 3).

Concluding remarks All these institutions can and should work collaboratively to encourage sharing of our community languages. This would call for structures for individual languages, representing ethnic communities, the education systems and the state multicultural affairs commission. But much is up to the individual assessing the cost benefits of language maintenance. Any support for motivation for the maintenance, acquisition and development of languages is therefore important. While some public support for community languages is provided in the domains of education, the electronic media, libraries and public services, the families and communities themselves are putting far more of their own financial resources into the transmission and development of language competence that will generally be of benefit for the nation.5 It is therefore particularly important to provide attitudinal support for the development of plurilingualism rather than setting obstacles to it. The current discourse of blaming people for having an ‘unfair advan-


15/8/05

12:40 PM

SUPPORTING

Page 181


• 181

tage’ is the worst possible way of encouraging plurilingualism. Hence my emphasis on the alternative of conceptualising Australia as a place with an advantage in many languages that everyone can benefit from in a harmonious non-threatening way and the availability of Year 12 language subjects at a number of levels like Mathematics on the basis of proficiency rather than background. All these issues and many more need to be covered in a new Australian Policy on Languages, formulated to satisfy the needs and aspirations of Australians in the 21st century and designed to help Australia attain a significant role in a multicultural and multilingual world in which Australia acts as a link, a mediator and interpreter between Europe, Asia and the Anglo-dominated parts of the world. Like the National Policy on Languages, such a policy would need to cover all of Australia’s domestic and external language issues, relating to English, indigenous languages and community languages, including Auslan. Both the policy and its implementation would have to be reviewed regularly. Our monolingual mindset is strongly encouraged by the way languages are treated in some schools. All Australian children deserve a pleasurable experience of learning at least one language other than English, which should stimulate their interest in acquiring more. And all Australians deserve the pleasures and benefits of being plurilingual, in at least English and one other language. As I have implied in this chapter, educational institutions, ethnolinguistic groups and the wider community should work together to make language maintenance, acquisition and development an exciting and pleasurable experience and one that will mainstream Australia’s language resources. We are, after all, a microcosm of the world in its cultural diversity. At the beginning of the Introduction, I referred to the Cornelia Rau case. As implied by the Age editorial, it has constituted a wakeup call to Australia about the kind of Australia we have become. It has raised many public questions on how the mentally ill are treated in our society and the function of prisons. It has also reopened the debate on detention camps, now that an almost locally-born permanent Australian resident rather than those represented as unfit to be in this country has been subjected to the inhuman conditions. I would like to suggest that the case also tells us that the monolingual mindset that has started to penetrate our nation again is causing us damage. Cornelia Rau used her bilingualism (in English and a community language with a large number of speakers and not just home users) to change her identity. How was it that no one understood what was


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 182


going on? We seem to be again using languages other than English as a symbol of exclusion. The term ‘foreign language’ that is starting to reappear is inappropriate to describe languages that are used by sections of our society. The successful public use of a discourse of exclusion to represent asylum seekers and others raises questions about how aware most of our fellow-Australians are about the use and abuse of language. A greater preoccupation with language would encourage a more critical understanding of it. Such a greater preoccupation is possible through well-developed plurilingualism and the study of at least one second language. In this book, I have shown that we live in a linguistically diverse society but only perhaps about a quarter (in Sydney and Melbourne a little over a third) of the population are able to participate fully in the diversity. The quality of the social relations in our nation, which I believe to be tolerant and harmonious by international standards, as well as our understanding of much of the rest of the world, would be enhanced and enriched by sharing our multilingualism. For the reasons discussed throughout this book, the social, the cognitive, the economic and the cultural, it is not multilingualism but monolingualism that is too costly for us. In the past few years, this discussion has moved too far to the margins of our society. It is time for it to be reinstated. As in the 1970s and 1980s, the initiative has to come from the grassroots. I trust that this book will make a small contribution towards reigniting the flame and promoting more public discussion in this area. Sooner or later, there will be an opportunity for citizens to come forward with ideas for changes in Australian society. For that time an agenda will need to be ready for Australia and Australians to develop their language potential to the fullest.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 183

Notes

Introduction 1

2

Diana Eades, Helen Fraser, Jeff Siegel, Tim McNamara & Brett Baker, Linguistic identification in the determination of nationality: A preliminary report. Language Policy 2, 2003, pp. 179–99. General Peter Cosgrove, speaking to the Australian Principals Associations Professional Development Council, 20 May 2002.

Chapter 1 Recognising Australia’s multilingualism 1

For more details, see Michael Clyne, Bilingual education – what can we learn from the past? Australian Journal of Education 32, 1988, pp. 93–111. 2 Oscar Commetant, Au pays des kangarous et de mines d’or. Paris: Fischbauer, 1890, p. 210. 3 ABS 2001: Census of Population and Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 4 RMW Dixon Australia’s Languages: Their Nature and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 5 I draw for some of the tables and some analysis on Michael Clyne & Sandra Kipp, Australia’s Changing Language Demography. People and Place 10, 2002, pp. 29–35. 6 David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 287. 7 David Bradley, Chinese as a pluricentric language. In Michael Clyne (ed.), Pluricentric Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991, pp. 305–24. 8 See table 1.1. 9 For Adelaide and Perth, see below. We are not considering Brisbane because most of that city constitutes one local government area. 10 R Rosen, P Digh, M Singer & C Phillips, Global Literacies: Lessons on Business Leadership and National Cultures. London: Simon & Schuster, 2000.


1 8 4 • N OT E S

15/8/05

12:40 PM

TO PAG E S

24–36

Page 184

11 Statistics Finland. 12 Foreign Language Teaching in Schools in Europe, Eurydice, 2001, p. 19.

Chapter 2 Valuing Australia’s multilingualism 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9

10 11 12

13

14 15 16 17

I am using ‘elite’ in the sense of Teun van Dijk (1982: 15), ‘those fractions of both upper and middle class that are in positions of economic, political and symbolic power’. Teun van Dijk, Discourse and the Reproduction of Racism. Amsterdam: Centre for Racial and Ethnic Studies, University of Amsterdam, 1982. Leonard Bloomfield, Language. London: Allen & Unwin, 1935. Seth Arsenian, Bilingualism in the Postwar Period. Psychological Bulletin 42, 1954, pp. 65–86. Joshua A Fishman, Robert L Cooper & Roxana Ma et al., Bilingualism in the Barrio. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1971. Anna Wierzbicka, Preface: Bilingual Lives, Bilingual Experience. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25, 2004, pp. 94–105. Tuc Ho-Dac, Vietnamese–English Bilingualism: Patterns of Code-Switching. London: Routledge-Curzon, 2003. Camilla Bettoni & Antonia Rubino, Emigrazione e compartamento linguistico. Un’ indagine sul trilinguismo dei siciliani e dei veneti in Australia. Congedo, 1996. Michael Clyne, What is it that is special about trilinguals? In A Grotans, H Beck & A Schwob (eds), De consolatione phililogicae. Göppingen: Kümmerle, 2000, pp. 485–96. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Calvary, 1876; Edward Sapir, Language. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1921; Benjamin Lee Whorf, Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, edited by John B Carroll. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1956. Johann Gottfried Herder, Sämtliche Werke 1877–1913. Berlin: Suphan (33 vols). See, for example, Peter Auer (ed.), Code-Switching in Conversation. London: Routledge, 1998. See, for example, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Norwood: Ablex, 1989. Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Anna Wierzbicka, Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991; Cliff Goddard, Communication styles and cultural values – cultural scripts of Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Anthropological Linguistics 42 (1), 2000, pp. 81–106. Michael Clyne & Sandra Kipp, forthcoming, Tiles in a Multilingual Mosaic: Macedonian, Somali and Filipino in Melbourne. Melbourne: CAE Press. John Joseph, Language and Identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 30–36. Joseph (2004), pp. 36–37. J Stanley, D Ingram & G Chittick, The Relationship between International Trade and Linguistic Competence. Report to DEET. Canberra: AGPS, 1990; Australian


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 185

N OT E S

18 19 20 21

22

23

24 25

26

27 28

29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

TO PAG E S

36–45 • 185

Language and Literacy Council, Language is Good Business. Canberra: AGPS, 1994; S Kipp, M Clyne & A Pauwels, Immigration and Australia’s Language Resources. Canberra: AGPS, 1995. Stanley et al. (1990). Kipp, Clyne & Pauwels (1995), see note 14. See note 17. Peter Mühlhäusler, Ecological perspectives on low candidature languages. In RB Baldauf Jnr, Viability of Low Candidature LOTE Courses in Universities. Canberra: NLLIA, 1995, pp. 139–50. Inquiry into the Economic Contribution of Victoria’s Culturally Diverse Population. Final Report of the Economic Development Committee, Melbourne; Parliament of Victoria, September 2004, p. v. François Grin & François Vaillancourt, The economics of multilingualism: overview and analytical framework. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 17, 1997, pp. 43–65. François Grin, The economics of language: survey, assessment and projects. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121, 1996, pp. 17–44; p. 35. François Grin, Jean Rossiaud & Bülent Kaya, Languages de l’immigration et intégration professionelle en Suisse. In H-R Wicker et al. (ed.), Les Migrations et la Suisse. Bern: Seismo, 2003, pp. 404–33. Alan Sproull, Regional economic development and minority language use: the case of Gaelic Scotland. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121, 1996, pp. 93–118. Grin & Vaillancourt (1997), p. 48. WJM Levelt, Speaking. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989; WJM Levelt, Ardie Roelofs & Antje S Meyer, A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 22, 1998, pp. 1–75. Kees de Bot, A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13, 1992, pp. 1–24; Kees de Bot & Robert Schreuder, Word production and the bilingual lexicon. In R Schreuder & B Weltens (eds) The Bilingual Lexicon. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1993, pp. 191–214. Michel Paradis, A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004, p. 111. Michael Clyne, Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. What and wat are, in the speaker, very nearly bilingual homophones, hence their effect of triggering a switch back from English into Dutch. Tuc Ho-Dac (2003); Lin Zheng, Code-switching in second generation ChineseAustralian students. PhD thesis, Monash University, 2000. Ellen Bialystok, Bilingualism in Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 88. A Ilanco-Worrall, Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development 43, 1972, pp. 1390–1400. S Ben-Zeev, The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development 48, 1977, pp. 1009–18. Ellen Bialystok, Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Second


1 8 6 • N OT E S

38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47

48 49 50 51 52

53 54

55

15/8/05

12:40 PM

TO PAG E S

45–49

Page 186

Language Research 3, 1987, pp. 154–66; Words as things: Development of word concept in bilingual children. Studies in Second Language Learning 9, 1987, pp. 133–40. See summaries in, for example, Colin Baker, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 3rd edn, 2001, pp. 144–48; LA Ricciardelli, Creativity and bilingualism. Journal of Creative Behavior 26, 1992, pp. 242–54; JP Cummins, The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 1976, pp. 1–43. GW Yelland, J Pollard & A Mercuri, The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 14, 1993, pp. 423–44. Bialystok (2001) pp. 145–46. Ricciardelli (1992); LA Ricciardelli, Two components of metalinguistic awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics 4, 1993, pp. 349–67. Bialystok (2001), p. 212. See Bialystok (2001), p. 204. Elizabeth Peal & Wallace E Lambert, The Relation of Bilingualism to Intelligence. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 546, 1962. Andrea Mechelli et al., Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature 431, 2004, p. 757. Anne Eckstein, Effect of the bilingual program on English language and cognitive development. In M Clyne (ed.), An Early Start. Melbourne: River Seine, 1986, pp. 82–98. See, for example, Merrill Swain & Sharon Lapkin, Evaluating Bilingual Education. Rowley: Newbury House, 1982; Fred Genesee, Learning through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. New York: Newbury House, 1987; Marjorie Bingham Wesche, Early French immersion: How has the original Canadian model stood the test of time? In P Burmeister et al. (eds), An Integrated View of Language Development. Papers in Honor of Henning Wode. Trier: WVT, 2002, pp. 357–79. JP Cummins, Language, Power and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2000. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Bilingualism or Not. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1981. Skutnabb-Kangas (1981), p. 53, fig. 2. Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis (eds) Multiliteracies. London: Routledge, 2000. Allan Luke & Peter Freebody, Shaping the social practices of reading. In S Muspratt, A Luke & P Freebody, Constructing Critical Literacies: Teaching and Learning Textual Practice. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1997, pp. 185–225. Baker (2001), p. 323. Keiko Koda, Learning to read writing systems in a second language, in Wingling Li, J Gaffney & J Packard (eds.), Chinese Children’s Writing Acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002, pp. 223–48. Baker (2001), p. 351, RT Jiminéz, GE Garcìa & PD Pearson, Three children, two languages and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal 32, 1995, pp. 67–97; A Calero-Breckheimer & ET Goetz, Reading strategies of biliterate children for English and Spanish texts. Reading Psychology 14, 1993, pp. 177–204.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 187

N OT E S

TO PAG E S

49–56 • 187

56 M Arefi, The relationship between first and second language writing skills for Iranian students in Sydney: An application of the interdependence hypothesis. PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney, 1997. 57 C Burragh-Pugh & M Rohl, Learning in two languages: A bilingual program in Western Australia. The Reading Teacher, April 2001, pp. 664–76. 58 Bialystok (2001), pp. 152–81. 59 W Nagy & R Anderson, Metalinguistic Awareness and Literacy Acquisition in Different Languages. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinios, Technical Report 618, 1995. 60 Y Mori, Effects of first language phonological accessibility on Kanji recognition. The Modern Language Journal, 1998, pp. 69–82. 61 E Bialystok, Letters, sounds and symbols: Changes in children’s understanding of written language. Applied Psycholinguistics 12, 1991, pp. 75–89; E Bialystok, T Shenfield & J Codd, Languages, scripts and the environment: Factors in developing concepts of print. Developmental Psychology 11, 2000, pp. 125–32. 62 See, for instance, the papers in J Cenoz & C Hoffmann, The effect of bilingualism in third language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism 7 (1), 2003. 63 Michael Clyne, Tina Isaakidis & Claudia Rossi Hunt, Learning a community language as a third language. International Journal of Multilingualism 1, 2004, pp. 33–52. 64 Ben Rampton, Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman, 1995. 65 David Crystal, English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 66 Braj Kachru, The Other Tongue. Champaign: University of Illinois, 1982. 67 Perhaps Ireland, Scotland and Wales need to be considered separately here. It also needs to be recognised that there are ethnic varieties of English in all the ‘inner circle’ countries. 68 See, for example, RMW Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Daniel Nettle, Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. 69 See, for example, Peter Mühlhäusler, Language Ecology, Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Region. London: Routledge, 1996. 70 See Joshua A Fishman, Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1991; Joshua A Fishman (ed.), Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2001; Joseph Lo Bianco & Mari Rhydwen, Is the extinction of Australia’s indigenous languages inevitable? In Fishman (2001), pp. 391–422. 71 Fishman (1991), p. 277. 72 Christer Laurén, Johan Myking & Heribert Picht, Domäne und Domänendynamik. Arbeitspapier für die Ratssitzung am 28/29.3.2004 in Köln. 73 Robert Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992; Robert Phillipson, English-only Europe? London: Routledge, 2003. 74 Alastair Pennycook, The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman, 1993; Alastair Pennycook, English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge, 1998.


1 8 8 • N OT E S

15/8/05

12:40 PM

TO PAG E S

56–73

Page 188

75 Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Linguistic diversity and biodiversity: The threat from killer languages. In Christian Mair (ed.), The Politics of English as a World Language. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003, pp. 31–52. 76 Michael Schloßmacher, Die Amtssprachen in den Organen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Frankfurt: Lang, 1997. 77 Rudolf de Cillia, Hans-Jürgen Krumm & Ruth Wodak (eds), The Cost of Multilingualism. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003. 78 David Graddol, The decline of the native speaker. In David Graddol & Ulrike Meinhof (eds), English in a Changing World. AILA Review 13, 1999, pp. 57–68; Ulrich Ammon, Towards a descriptive framework for the status/function/social position of a language within a country. In Ulrich Ammon (ed.), Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989, pp. 21–106. 79 Mark Newbrook (ed.), English as an Asian Language – The Thai context. North Ryde: The Macquarie Dictionary, 1999. 80 Eyamba Bokamba, The Africanization of English. In Braj Kachru (ed.), 1982, pp. 77–98. 81 David Graddol, The Future of Language. Science 303, 2004, pp. 1329–31. 82 Michael Clyne, Inter-cultural Communication at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 83 Air rage sparked by ‘say please’. The Age, 29 September 1999, p. 7. 84 See, for example, Michael Clyne, Cultural differences in the organization of academic discourse: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 5, 1987, pp. 61–66; S Cmejrkova, Academic writing in Czech and English. In Eija Ventola & Anna Mauranen (eds), Academic Writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1996, pp. 137–52; Anna Duszak (ed.), Cultures and Styles of Academic Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997; Lesley Farrell, ‘Doing well … doing badly. An analysis of conflicting cultural values in judgement of academic achievement in culture and styles of academic discourse. In Duszak (1997), pp. 63–87; Anna Mauranen, Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Frankfurt: Lang, 1983. 85 Michael Clyne, Culture and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 5, 1981, pp. 61–66. 86 This applies also to the deaf; see M Bartlett & S Leane, Raising Deaf Children Bilingually in Australia. Melbourne: RUMACCC, University of Melbourne, 2004.

Chapter 3 Fostering and transmitting multilingualism 1

2

Michael Clyne, Multilingual Australia. Melbourne: River Seine, 1982 (2nd edn 1985); Michael Clyne, Community Languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Michael Clyne & Sandra Kipp, Australia’s changing language demography. People and Place 10, 2002, pp. 29–35. Michael Clyne, Edina Eisikovits & Laura Tollfree, Ethnolects as in-group markers. In Anna Duszak (ed.), Us and Others. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2002, pp. 133–57; Francesco Cavallaro, Language dynamics of the Italian community in Australia. PhD thesis, Monash University, 1997; Carol Myers-Scotton sees this as a turnover of English and the community language as the language that provides


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 189

N OT E S

3 4 5

6 7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

TO PAG E S

73–88 • 189

the matrix of the sentence and the language from which material is embedded. (Duelling Languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Jane Warren, ‘Wogspeak’: the transformation of English in Melbourne. Journal of Australian Studies 62, 1999, pp. 86–94. JJ Smolicz, Core values and ethnic identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 4, 1981, pp. 75–90. JJ Smolicz & MJ Secombe, Types of language activation and evaluation in an ethnically plural society. In Ulrich Ammon (ed.), Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989, pp. 478–511. Anne Pauwels, The effect of mixed languages on language shift. MA thesis, Monash University, 1980. Aneta Pavlenko & Adrian Blackledge (eds), Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2004, especially Frances Giampapa, The politics of identity, representation, and the discourses of self-identification: Negotiating the center and the periphery, pp. 192–218. Mary Katsikis, Language attitudes, ethnicity and language maintenance: The case of second generation Greek-Australians. BA (Hons) thesis, Department of Linguistics, Monash University, 1993; Mary Katsikis, The generation gap: An insight into the language and cultural maintenance of third generation GreekAustralians. MA thesis, Monash University, 1997. Michael Clyne & Sandra Kipp, Trends and changes in home language use and shift in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18, 1997, pp. 451–73. See, for example, Michael Clyne, Community Languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 72–74. Anne Pauwels, Linguistic practices and language maintenance among bilingual women and men in Australia. Nordlyd 11, 1995, pp. 21–50. Anya Woods, Medium or Message? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2004. Michael Clyne & Sandra Kipp, Pluricentric Languages in an Immigrant Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999. Sandra Kipp & Michael Clyne, Trends in the shift from community languages: Insights from the 2001 Census. People and Place 11, 2003, pp. 33–41. Michael Clyne, Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 68. Michael Clyne & Sandra Kipp, Tiles in a Multilingual Mosaic: Macedonian, Somali and Filipino in Melbourne. Melbourne: CAE Press, 2005. Clyne & Kipp (1999), p. 80. Camilla Bettoni & Antonia Rubino, Emigrazione e comportamento linguistico. Un’indagine sul trilinguismo dei sicliani e dei veneti in Australia. Congedo, 1996. Clyne & Kipp (1999). Clyne & Kipp (1997), p. 459. The following section draws heavily on my own experience as the father of a child growing up bilingually in Australia and that of parents attending our workshops. Susanne Döpke, Are mothers really the main mediators of language? In MAK Halliday, J Gibbons & H Nicholas (eds), Learning, Keeping and Using Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1990, pp. 101–15.


1 9 0 • N OT E S

15/8/05

12:40 PM

TO PAG E S

88–111

Page 190

23 Susanne Döpke, One Parent One Language: An Interactional Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1992. 24 Jürgen Meisel, Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Kenneth Hyltenstam & Lorraine Obler (eds), Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity and Loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989; Fred Genesee, Early bilingual development: one language or two? Journal of Child Language 16, 1989, pp. 161–79; Annick de Houwer, The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Susanne Döpke (ed.) Cross-Linguistic Structures in Simultaneous Bilingualism, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2000. 25 George Saunders, Bilingual Children – A Guide for the Family. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1982; Bilingual Children from Birth to Teens. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1988. 26 Compare RC Gardner & WF Lambert, Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House, 1972. 27 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1988. 28 This distinction was, to my knowledge, first made by Howard Nicholas in his paper ‘Contextually defined queries’ at the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia conference, Alice Springs, 1984. 29 Erica McClure, Oral and written Assyrian–English code-switching. In Rodolofo Jacobson (ed.), Codeswitching Worldwide 2, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001, pp. 157–91; Robert Debski, The internet in support of community languages: Web sites created by Poles living abroad. Information Technology, Education and Society, 5 (1), 2004. 30 Joshua A Fishman, The social science perspective: Keynote. In JA Fishman (ed.), Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1977, pp. 1–49. 31 Clyne & Kipp (1999), Clyne & Kipp (2005). 32 Annual Survey of Victorian Public Libraries, 2001–2002. Melbourne: Department for Victorian Communities. 33 Clyne (1991), p. 132; see also chapter 2 above, and Anya Woods, Medium or Message? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2004. 34 M Chryssavgis, Greek Orthodoxy in Australia. In A Kepardis & A Tamis, Greeks in Australia. Melbourne: River Seine, 1988, pp. 153–59. 35 ‘Speak English at work’ case not unfair: tribunal. The Age, 23 April 2004. 36 Ingrid Piller, Bilingual Couples Talk: The discursive construction of hybridity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2002.

Chapter 4 Strengthening and spreading multilingualism 1 2 3

4

Education News 13, 1971, pp. 4–8. JJ Smolicz & MJ Secombe, The Australian School through Children’s Eyes. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 1981. Michael Clyne, Multilingual Australia. Melbourne: River Seine, 1982, pp. 123–25; Uldis Ozolins, The Politics of Language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. There had been French programs in Tasmanian primary schools in the 1960s.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 191

N OT E S

5

6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13

14

15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

23

TO PAG E S

113–125 • 191

Michael Clyne, Sue Fernandez & Felicity Grey, Languages taken at school and languages spoken in the community: A comparative perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 27 (2), 2004, pp. 1–17. Julie Bradshaw & Andrea Truckenbrodt, Divergent orientations to Greek and its teaching in an Australian Greek school. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6, 2003, pp. 439–57. David Graddol, The future of language, Science, 5662, 27 February 2004, pp. 1329–31. Australia and Latin America. Government Response to the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, 1992. Canberra: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Fred Klarberg, The effect of ideology on language teaching. PhD thesis, Monash University, 1983. A proposal for a similar scheme throughout South Australia in 1992 was rejected because the South Australian commissioner for equal opportunity, Ms Josephine Tiddy, advised that it would ‘discriminate against people of English-speaking background’ (Campus Review, 10–16 March 1994). Languages for Victoria’s Future, Melbourne: Department of Education and Training, 2002, pp. 22–23. Antonio Mercurio & Angela Scarino, Heritage languages at upper secondary level in South Australia: A struggle for legitimacy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8, 2005. Michael Clyne, Sue Fernandez, Imogen Chen & Renata Summo O’Connell, Background Speakers: Diversity and its Management in LOTE Programs. Canberra: Language Australia, 1997, p. 1. Antonio Mercurio, Questions as Answers: Understanding Upper Secondary Education and Certification Practices in South Australia, 1950–2000. Adelaide: SSABSA, 2003, pp. 228–29. Mercurio (2003), p. 236. The reader is referred to Clyne, Fernandez, Chen & Summo-O’Connell (1997), pp. 9–16. Final report on LOTE, Curriculum Council website. Chiang Min-Hsun, Being model monitors means being alienated from the ethnic language? A case-study of Chinese-Americans. Paper given at LAUD Conference on Empowerment through Language, Landau, April 2004. Curriculum Council, website: . Diane Larsen-Freeman & Michael Long, An Introduction to Second Language Research. Harlow: Longman, 1991, p. 156. Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991), pp. 163–67. Noam Chomsky, Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In N Hornstein & D Lightfoot (eds), Explanation in Linguistics: The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. London: Longman, 1981; Rod Ellis, Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 65. Ellis (1997), p. 68; Lydia White, Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1989.


1 9 2 • N OT E S

15/8/05

12:40 PM

TO PAG E S

125–137

Page 192

24 See, for example, Camilla Bettoni, Italian language attrition: A Sydney case-study. In Michael Clyne, Australia: Meeting Place of Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 1985, pp. 63–79; Michael Clyne, Transference and Triggering. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1967; Clyne, Fernandez, Chen & Summo-O’Connell (1997); Jim Hlavac, Croatian in Melbourne. Frankfurt: Lang; Lin Zheng, Code-switching in Chinese-Australian students. PhD thesis, Monash University, 2000. 25 Paul Carolan, Unfair language advantage, Education Age, 28 May 2003, p. 9. 26 Yvonne Shao, A different language, Education Age, 11 June 2003, p. 8. 27 Juliana Qian, Not much advantage, Education Age, 11 June, 2003, p. 8. 28 Tove Skutnabb-Kangas & Robert Phillipson, Mother tongue: The theoretical and sociopolitical construction of a concept. In Ulrich Ammon (ed.), Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 1989, pp. 450–77; Allan Davies, The Native Speaker in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991, revised edition. 29 Clyne, Fernandez, Chen & Summo-O’Connell (1997). 30 Michael Clyne, Tina Isaakidis, Irene Liem & Claudia Rossi Hunt, Developing and sharing community language resources through secondary school programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7, 2004, pp. 255–78. 31 Cummins (2000). 32 New South Wales does not allow students to enrol for more than one of the following languages: Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian, Slovenian. This exclusion makes good sense for Croatian and Serbian, whose standardisation are largely based on the same shtokavian variety. It should not apply to Macedonian and Slovenian, which are quite different. 33 Clyne, Fernandez, Chen & Summo-O’Connell (1997), pp. 131–33. The development of methods and curriculum materials for speakers of a related non-standard variety acquiring the target Standard is still in its infancy. Some progress has been made in relation to Cantonese speakers learning Mandarin and Lebanese speakers learning Modern Standard Arabic in an ARC SPIRT (linkage) project. See . A good model is the series Dialekt-HochspracheKontrastiv (Dialect-Standard Language-Contrastive) in Germany to equip teachers with data on phonology, vocabulary, grammar, and the sociolinguistic situation. 34 Such material was produced in the series Dialekt-Hochsprache-Kontrastiv, edited by Werner Besch, Heinrich Löffler & Hans H Reich, published by Schwann, Düsseldorf, in the late 1970s. 35 Catherine Elder, VTAC Form L (LOTE Information Form) Report to VTAC. 36 Catherine Elder, Background speakers as learners of Italian, Modern Greek and Chinese. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, 1997. 37 Michael Clyne, Tina Isaakidis, Irene Liem & Claudia Rossi Hunt, Developing community language resources through secondary school programs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7, 2004, pp. 255–78. 38 Michael Clyne, Catherine Jenkins, Imogen Chen, Roula Tsokalidou & Theresa Wallner, Developing Second Language from Primary School. Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia, 1995. 39 Michael Clyne (ed.), An Early Start. Melbourne: River Seine, 1986; Sue Fernandez, Room for Two. Melbourne: Language Australia, 2nd edn, 1996.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 193

N OT E S

TO PAG E S

137–152 • 193

40 Clyne et al. (1995), pp. 108–09; Clyne (ed.) (1986). 41 ‘My grandfather and my grandmother have ... because my mother is in hospital ... ’ Clyne (1986), p. 59. 42 Languages for Victoria’s Future, p. 24. 43 Integrating new students into established language programs. Babel 28, 1993, p. 49; Clyne et al. (1995), p. 166. 44 Mandy Scott, The Mandarin Community Tutoring Project: Promoting intercultural understanding in Canberra through the sharing of language expertise. Australian Language and Literacy Matters 1, 2004, pp. 11–13. 45 David Ingram, Minoru Kono, Masako Sasaki, Erina Tateyama & Shirley O’Neill, Cross-cultural attitudes among language students in Australia and Japan. Babel 39, 2004, pp. 11–19, citation p. 13. 46 Michael Clyne, The use of community resources in immersion. In Prta Burmister, Thristen Piske & Andreas Rohde (eds), An Integrated View of Language Development. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2002, pp. 399–408. 47 See note 46.

Chapter 5 Policy overview 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Johann Gottfried Herder, Gesammelte Werke. Berlin: Suphan (33 vols); Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programmes, Myths, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 37; Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, Verso, London, 1983. See, for example, Clyne (1991), pp. 24–25. Joseph Lo Bianco, A site for debate, negotiation and contest of national identity: Language policy in Australia. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2004. Cited in Lois Foster & David Stockley, Multiculturalism: The Changing Australian Paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1984, p. 46. James Jupp, The ethnic vote: Does it exist? A case study of Melbourne. Journal of Intercultural Studies 2, 1981, pp. 5–23. The programs were rebroadcast in the morning. In Melbourne, Arabic and Turkish shared a day, while the two languages each had a separate day in Sydney. The other languages were Italian, Greek, SerboCroatian, Maltese, German and Spanish. (There was no German in Sydney.) Joan Dugdale, Radio Power. Melbourne: Hyland House, 1979. Committee on Community Relations. Interim report, 1974. Canberra: AGPS. Frank Galbally et al., Post-arrival Services and Programs for Migrants. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1979, pp. 11–12. John McKay & Michael Clyne (eds), Television in a Multicultural Society. Clayton: Monash University Centre for Migrant Studies, 1980. Personal correspondence, 2 September 1974. The Age, 31 May 1979. The role of linguistics in the development of a national language policy is discussed by Uldis Ozolins in: The Politics of Language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; and Linguistics and language policy in Australia. In M Clyne (ed.), Linguistics in Australia. Canberra: Academy of the


1 9 4 • N OT E S

15/8/05

12:40 PM

TO PAG E S

152–163

Page 194

Social Sciences in Australia, 1991, pp. 181–94. 15 Lawrie Shears, This is our position. News Exchange 3; 14 March 1979. 16 Joseph Lo Bianco, National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1987. 17 Joshua Fishman, ‘English only’ – its ghosts, myths and dangers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 74, 1988, pp. 125–40; P Broeder, G Extra, M Habreken, R van Hout & H Keurentjes, Taalgebruik als indicator van etniciteit. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 1993; Rudolf de Cillia, Plädoyer für eine bewusste Sprachenpolitik in Österreich. ÖDaF-Mitteilungen 1/1995, pp. 43–46. An attempt at a New Zealand National Language Policy by Jeffrey Waite was in fact modelled on the Australian one. 18 Michael Clyne, Community Languages: The Australian Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 228. 19 Donald Horne, Teaching our youth to be Australians. Montage 20, August 1994, p. 20. 20 Helen Moore, ‘Who will guard the guardians themselves?’ National interest versus factional corruption in policymaking for ESL in Australia. In James W Tollefson, Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2002, pp. 111–35. 21 Helen Moore, Identifying ‘The Target Population’: A genealogy of policy making for English as a Second Language (ESL) in Australian schools (1947–1997). PhD thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. (2005), p. 130. 22 Michael Clyne, Australia’s language policies: Are we going backwards? Current Affairs Bulletin, 1991. 23 Joseph Lo Bianco, From policy to anti-policy: How fear of language rights took policy-making out of community hands. In Joseph Lo Bianco & Rosie Wickert (eds), Activism in Australian Language Policy. Canberra: Language Australia. 2001, pp. 13–44. 24 Lo Bianco (2001), pp. 37–39. 25 Moore (2005). 26 Helen Moore, Enchantments and displacements: Multiculturalism, language policy and Dawkins speak. In David Stockwell (ed.), Melbourne Studies in Education 1991, pp. 45–85. Bundoora: La Trobe University Press, 1991, p. 18. 27 Moore (1991), (2005). 28 A Submission on Language Policy in Australia. 29 Michael Clyne, Felicity Grey & Sandra Kipp, Matching policy implementation with demography. Language Policy 6, 2005. 30 Michael Clyne, Sue Fernandez & Felicity Grey, Languages taken at school and languages spoken in the community: A comparative perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 27, 2004, pp. 1–17. 31 Lauchlan Chipman, The menace of multiculturalism. Quadrant 24, 1980, pp. 3–6; Of myths and menaces. Quadrant 25, 1981, pp. 87–88; Frank Knopfelmacher, The case against multiculturalism. In Robert Manne (ed.), The New Conservatives in Australia. Sydney: Oxford University Press, 1982, pp. 40–64. 32 Andrew Jakubowicz, The myth of the menace of multiculturalism. Quadrant 25, 1981, pp. 85–87. 33 James Gobbo, Criticisms of multiculturalism. Global Diversity Conference.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 195

N OT E S

TO PAG E S

164–176 • 195

Sydney. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 1995. 34 Compare chapter 1. 35 Brian Galligan & Winsome Roberts, Australian Citizenship. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 2004, p. 73. 36 Australian Multiculturalism for a New Century: Towards Inclusiveness. Report of National Multicultural Advisory Council, 1999, p. 37. 37 The most comprehensive account of his position is in Geoffrey Blainey, All for Australia. North Ryde: Methuen Haynes, 1984. 38 The Age, 6 July 1996, p. 5. 39 P Chilton, Analysing Political Discourse Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004: p. 119; M Sedlak, You really do make an unrespectable foreigner policy … Discourse on ethnic issues in the Austrian Parliament. In R Wodak & T van Dijk (eds), Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt: Drava, 2000, pp. 107–68, pp. 119–20. 40 Marian Sawer & Barry Hindess, Us and Them: Anti-Elitism in Australia. Bentley, WA: API Network, 2004. 41 Reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, 10 April 1996; The Age 26 September 1996. 42 Interview with Pauline Hanson, AM, ABC Radio National, 2 July 1998. 43 Michael Clyne, The use of exclusionary language to manipulate opinion: John Howard, asylum seekers and the reemergence of political incorrectness in Australia. To appear in Journal of Language and Politics 4 (2005). 44 Clyne (forthcoming, 2005). 45 See also R Manne (ed.), The Howard Years. Melbourne: Black Inc. Agenda, 2004. 46 Diana Jean Schemo, Use of English as world tongue is booming, and so is concern. The New York Times, 16 April 2001, p. 1. 47 Louise Perry, Language cuts to hurt spy numbers. The Australian Higher Education Supplement, 29 September 2004, p. 28. 48 Galligan & Roberts, 2004. 49 Galligan & Roberts (2004), p. 73. 50 Galligan & Roberts (2004) do appreciate this (p. 74). 51 Melbourne: Elikia Books, 1995. 52 Galligan & Roberts (2004), p. 83. 53 Uldis Ozolins, The Politics of Language in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 140. 54 The Age, Melbourne, 27 April 1995, p. 1. 55 Compare James Crawford, At War with Diversity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2000.

Chapter 6 Supporting multilingualism collaboratively 1 2

Some classes of the Council of Adult Education in Victoria are now held in restaurants or other locations in areas of language concentration. See Michael Clyne, Towards a more language-centered approach to plurilingualism. In Jean-Marc Dewaele, Alex Housen & Li Wei (eds), Bilingualism Beyond Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2003, pp. 43–55. On the


1 9 6 • N OT E S

3 4 5

15/8/05

12:40 PM

TO PAG E S

176–180

Page 196

phenomenon of ‘crossing’ over to another group or community, see Ben Rampton, Crossing. London: Longman, 1995. Arabic, Hindi, Russian, Spanish and Vietnamese are among those worth considering, on consideration of the language demography at the time. Compare LOTE Framework of Essential Learning. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. See Sandra Kipp, Michael Clyne & Anne Pauwels, Immigration and Australia’s Language Resources. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995, pp. 134–51.


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 197

Index

(Figures in bold indicate where a reference to a language occurs in a table.) Aboriginal languages, see indigenous languages Adelaide 2, 97, 99, 146, 147, 151 age distribution of community languages, 11, 114 concentration of community languages 14, 16, 19–20, 176 language demography 4, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19–20 language shift rates 83 Afrikaans 98 age and awareness of language policy development 171 and language acquisition 45, 95, 124, 125 and language use 29–30, 35, 66, 76, 79–80, 174 and literacy development 50, 51 ‘Critical Age Hypothesis’ 124, 125 distribution of community languages 10–13, 114, 115, 162, 173, 174 Albanian 9, 111 Amharic 7, 9, 68, 162, 174 Arabic 52, 54, 77, 86, 102, 130, 168, 175 diglossia 114 Egyptian Arabic 97, 129 electronic and print media in 97, 98, 99 in schools 23, 24, 105, 111, 112, 113,

114, 115, 116, 128, 129, 156, 157, 159, 162, 163, 168 Iraqi Arabic 69, 83, 129 Koranic Arabic 103, 116 language maintenance/shift patterns 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 104 Lebanese Arabic 83, 97, 129 Modern Standard Arabic 114 Palestinian Arabic 129 Sudanese Arabic 102 2001 Census data 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18 Arefi, M 49, 50 Armenian 9 ‘Asian languages’ prioritised in schools 7, 37, 114, 116, 144, 157–58 assimilation/assimilationist policy 6, 77, 80, 104, 110, 144, 145, 160, 163, 169 Assyrian 9, 52 asylum seekers ix, 78, 126, 167, 182 Auslan (Australian Sign Language) 3, 35, 37, 111, 161, 176, 181 Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP) 37, 155–57, 158, 163 ‘background’ and ‘non-background’ speakers xii, 64, 109, 119, 120, 121, 124, 126, 128–36, 178, 181 taxonomy of 128–29, 132 Barratt-Pugh, C 50 Basque 27, 58


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 198

198 • INDEX

Beazley, K 161 benefits of languages bilingualism for individuals x, xi, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 118 cognitive x, 26, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 63, 89, 92, 182 cultural x, 63, 136, 182 economic x, 21, 36, 37, 38, 53, 59, 63, 115, 172, 176, 182 plurilingualism 36, 37, 38, 53, 58, 59, 63, 64, 130, 167, 169, 181 social 26, 53, 63, 136, 182 Bengali 111 Ben-Zeev, S 45 Bettoni, C 30, 86 Bialystok, E 45, 46, 50, 51 bilingual education 2, 19, 23, 24, 28, 47, 50, 136–39, 144, 147, 150, 154, 155, 160, 171 bilingualism xi, 20, 22, 23, 27, 30, 31, 36, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 80, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93, 94, 97, 124, 150, 152, 156, 171, 177, 181 additive bilingualism 48, 136 and children, see children ‘balanced bilingualism’ 31, 46, 89 benefits of for individuals x, xi, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 118 bilingual language acquisition 87–88, 89–95 biliteracy 48, 49–51, 92, 107, 156 ‘deficit’ thinking on 47, 118 definition 27 see also plurilingualism bilingual/plurilingual language acquisition 87–95 bilinguals xi, 1, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 92, 93, 104, 111, 119, 125, 127, 134, 135, 146, 180 language competence of 27, 31, 48, 89 learning a third language 23, 51–53, 135, 176 see also plurilinguals biliteracy 48, 49–51, 92, 107, 156 Blackledge, A 76 Blainey, G 165 Bosnian 7, 111 Bradshaw, J 114 Brisbane 97, 99

age distribution of community languages 11, 114 concentration of community languages 166 language demography 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 Bulgarian 98 Burmese 10 business 1, 96, 103, 107, 157, 172, 177 and language competence xi, 21, 36, 37, 38, 59 Canberra language demography 4, 10 Cantonese 20, 58, 102, 116, 121, 125, 129, 130, 171 electronic and print media in 97, 98, 162 in schools 116 language maintenance/shift patterns 68, 74, 75, 81, 83 2001 Census data 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18 Catalan 58, 98 CCAFL (Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment Framework for Languages) 111 Chen, I 131 Chiang, M 121 children 85, 86, 97, 100, 106, 138, 139, 143, 144, 147, 154, 156, 170, 173 and language development 33, 92, 124, 125 and language potential 65, 109 bilingual children x, 34, 45–47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 118, 180 bilingual children, metalinguistic awareness of 45, 46, 50, 51–53, 135 bilingual/plurilingual language acquisition 87–95, 106 monolingual children 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 109 raising children in more than one language x, 85, 86, 87–95, 106, 107, 108, 138 Chilton, P 165 Chinese 19, 51, 51, 54, 58, 75, 92, 102, 142, 166, 174 electronic and print media in 97, 99, 100 fang yan 7, 8, 58, 74, 127, 130, 132


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 199

INDEX • 199

in 19th century Australia 1 in schools 105, 111, 113, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 135, 139, 156, 158 language maintenance/shift patterns 68, 72, 74, 75, 76 see also Mandarin; Cantonese; Hakka; Hokkien Chomsky, N 125 Clyne 6, 8, 68, 70, 71, 78, 82, 86, 113, 131 code-switching 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 86, 92, 95, 97, 101, 105 cognitive academic language proficiency 48, 50, 130 cognitive benefits of languages, see benefits collaborative strategy to support multilingualism xii, 172–82 Commetant, O 2 communicative need 27–28, 90, 93, 104, 134, 138, 140 community languages age distribution of 10–13, 114, 115, 162, 173, 174 concentrations of 9, 10, 11, 12, 13–20, 141, 160, 173, 175, 176 definition 5 demography, see demography, language domains of use, see domains first generation and use of 30, 35, 40, 41, 43, 104, 127 see also shift, language geographical distribution of xii, 3, 4, 5, 8–20, 160 history of in Australia 1–2, 3, 96, 110–11 see also policy, language in education, see education institutions 96–108, 109 myths about 85, 93, 108, 109 national statistics 2, 3, 4, 5–13 ‘older’ migration vintages 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19, 69, 72, 76, 77, 82, 104, 106, 159, 162, 174 recent migration vintages 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 35, 68, 69, 72, 74, 78, 82, 83, 86, 106, 122, 124, 159, 160, 162, 174, 175 religion and use of, see religion

resources in, see resources second generation and use of 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 76, 85, 111, 119, 127, 131, 132 see also shift, language service provision in 3, 12, 31, 63, 144, 149, 150, 151, 153, 155, 160, 170, 172, 173–77, 180 third generation and use of 41, 76, 82, 86, 129, 131, 132 see also language and individual language entries Community Languages Australia 106 competence, language 26, 27, 30, 31, 48, 109, 134, 136, 144, 168, 178, 180 concentration of community languages 9, 10, 11, 12, 13–20, 141, 160, 173, 175, 176 Cook Islands Maori 102 core values 73, 75–77 Cosgrove, P x Cree 171 Critical Age Hypothesis 124, 125 Croatian 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 41, 43, 98, 102, 111, 117 ‘crossing’ 52 cultural distance 73–74, 81, 82, 173 cultural diversity 63, 77, 110, 142, 143, 145, 146, 150, 151, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 176, 181 cultural tourism 38, 141, 142 culture and discourse 31, 60–63 and language 19, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 55, 56, 59, 60–63, 64, 104, 113, 130, 137, 141, 142, 149, 150 bi- and multiculturality 29, 31, 34, 35, 136, 177 ‘core culture’ 163 core values 73, 75–77 cultural distance 73–74, 81, 82, 173 cultural diversity 20, 63, 77, 110, 142, 143, 145, 146, 150, 151, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 176, 181 intercultural communication 59, 60–63, 64, 140, 150, 168, 172, 177, 178 Cummins, J 48, 50, 130 curriculum, overcrowded xi, 24 Czech 98, 102, 111, 130


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 200

200 • INDEX

Danish 57, 98 Darwin 97 language demography 4, 10 Davies, A 128 Dawkins, J 156 De Bot, K 39 demography, language Australia x, xii, 2, 3, 4, 5–20, 151 and languages in education 12, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 158, 162, 163, 178 and language resources 161, 172, 174 and service provision in community languages 12, 162–63, 173–77 see also metropolitan areas; non-metropolitan areas; and entries under individual cities dialect 7, 30, 76, 129, 134 Dines, E 152 Dinka 7, 68, 102, 174, 175 discourse in English as an international language 60–63 diversity linguistic xi, xii, 2, 3, 8, 14, 20, 21, 22, 25, 53, 63, 64, 65, 77, 103, 109, 110, 133, 145, 150, 160, 163, 166, 169, 172, 176, 182 diversity, cultural 20, 63, 77, 110, 142, 143, 145, 146, 150, 151, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 176, 181 ‘unity in diversity’ 143, 145, 164 Dixon, R 5 domains of community language use 28, 29, 30, 36, 56, 66, 86, 96, 97–108 ethnic schools, see ethnic schools home 3, 28, 29, 32, 66, 96, 97, 110, 115, 130, 136, 173, 178 media, see media mixing of domains 32 religion, see religion school 28, 32, 55, 110, 115 secular community groups 100–01, 105, 107, 140 shopping/transactional 36, 96, 103–104, 107, 135, 140, 176 work 28, 30, 32, 96, 104–05 Döpke, S 88 Downing, R 150 Dugdale, J 148 Dutch 24, 57, 98, 102, 111, 117, 130, 174 in contact with English in Australia 33,

40, 41, 43, 44 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 73, 75, 76, 80, 83, 86 2001 Census data 4, 6, 6, 7, 10, 13, 13, 16, 18, 19 Eckstein, A 47 economic benefits of languages, see benefits economic rationalism 56, 57, 155, 160, 167, 168 education and language demography 12, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 158, 162, 163, 178 and language policy 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 bilingual 2, 19, 23, 24, 28, 47, 50, 136–39, 144, 147, 150, 154, 155, 160, 171 community languages in x, xii, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 19, 21, 22–24, 30, 36, 37, 38, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 63, 64, 66, 75, 93, 107, 109, 110–42, 144, 146, 147, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178–80, 181 statistics on 109, 113 discrimination against /disincentives for plurilinguals 110, 118, 119, 120, 126, 127, 128, 132 literacy, see literacy state language-in-education policies 64, 128, 139, 153, 154, 158, 159, 160, 161 status of languages in 22, 23, 24, 50, 118, 178, 181 teachers 106, 114, 118, 131, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 144, 146, 152, 157, 158, 161, 162, 171, 177 teacher training 110, 111, 117, 146, 147, 151, 155, 179 ‘unfair advantage’ 109, 110, 118, 120, 126, 127, 130, 142, 180 Year 12 LOTE study 24, 37, 114, 117, 118, 119–28, 133, 156, 159, 162, 163, 179 differentiated examinations/ assessment 119–21, 122–28, 131, 132, 181 examinations xi, 30, 85, 111, 118,


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 201

INDEX • 201

119, 122, 151, 156, 170 global scaling 121–22, 132 see also schools Education Act Victoria 23–24, 147 Elder, C 132, 133 ‘elites’ 27, 165 email 92 endogamous marriages, and language maintenance/shift 72, 73 English as a global language 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60–63 as a pluricentric language 8, 54–55, 59 as lingua franca x, 5, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60–63, 169 as national language x, xi, 3,5, 112, 61, 168, 169 discourse in English as an international language 60–63 ‘English Only’ movement in USA 171 in Asia 55, 58, 59 in Europe 56, 57 ESL 56, 124, 129, 132, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 156 literacy xi, 49, 156, 157 ‘monolingual English fallacy’ 53–55, 59, 60 ‘New Englishes’ 55, 59 proficiency in 34, 35, 67, 80–81, 88, 93, 147, 173, 174 Estonian 57, 76, 98 ethnic revivals 76 ethnic schools 2, 28, 93, 96, 100, 105–06, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 121, 150, 160, 172, 175, 179–80 ethnolects 72–73 Eurocom 53 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 58, 143 European schools/universities and language teaching 24, 27, 53, 57, 58 European Union 27, 57, 141 Evans, D 151 examinations, Year 12, see Year 12 exchanges, student 20, 179 exclusion, language as instrument of ix, x, 165, 166, 182 exogamous marriages, and language maintenance/shift 69, 71, 72, 73, 79, 84, 86, 101, 103

Extra, G 75, 170 fang yan 7, 8, 58, 74, 127, 130, 132 fallacies about language(s) xi, 23, 26, 27, 30, 49, 53–55, 59, 60, 85, 93, 108, 109 families 34, 65, 75, 76, 172 and language maintenance/shift 21, 84, 85–86, 109, 110, 180 ‘family language policy’ 106–08, 137, 180 raising children in more than one language x, 85, 86, 87–95, 106, 107, 108, 138 Farsi 98 Fernandez, S 113, 131 Filipino 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 52, 69, 81, 97, 102, 111, 116, 162, 175 Finnish 10, 24, 98, 102 first generation and use of community languages 30, 35, 40, 41, 43, 104, 127 see also shift, language Fishman, J 28, 55, 93 Fitzgerald, S 163 Flemish 98 ‘foreign languages’ x, 5, 150, 151, 166, 182 Fraser, M 148, 150 Free, R 161 French 24, 38, 41, 47, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 77, 137, 142, 171 electronic and print media in 98, 98, functional specialisation/differentiation 27, 30, 87, 90, 137 in 19th century Australia 1, 2 in schools 6, 23, 24, 111,112, 113, 115, 119, 122, 131, 156 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 73, 80, 83 2001 Census data 6, 6 Gaelic (Scottish) 1, 2, 20, 38 Galbally, F 150, 151 Galligan, B 164, 168, 169 gender and language maintenance/shift patterns 30, 79, 81 German 20, 24, 30, 35, 54, 56, 57, 67, 72, 77, 81, 89, 91, 102, 103, 125, 130, 134, 141, 142, 171, 174, 176 electronic and print media in 97, 98, 98, 99


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 202

202 • INDEX

in contact with English in Australia 28, 29, 32, 33, 41, 43, 44 in 19th century Australia 1, 2, 3 in schools 6, 23, 47, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 119, 122, 128, 129, 131, 135, 140, 156 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 73, 80, 83, 86, 115 2001 Census data 4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 13, 16, 18, 19 global scaling 121–22, 132 globalisation 157, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172 Gobbo, J 163 Graddol, D 60 grandparents 29, 66, 72, 129, 180 role in language maintenance/ transmission 80, 86, 89, 94–95 Grassby, A 146, 148 Greek 52, 57, 72, 75, 81, 149, 171, 176 Classical Greek 111 electronic and print media in 97, 98, 98, 99 in schools 23, 24, 51, 105, 111, 112, 113, 113, 114, 115, 116, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136, 154, 156, 159, 163 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 83, 104, 114 2001 Census data 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 Grey, F 113 Grin, F 38, 59 Grosjean, F 42 Hakka 7, 9, 52, 68, 102, 116, 129, 130 Hanson, P 165, 166 Haugen, E 152 Hawkins, E 53 Hebrew 2, 23, 24, 51, 76, 98, 111, 116 Biblical Hebrew 103, 111 Herder, J 31 Hindi 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 98, 111, 116 Hmong 10 Hobart 97 language demography 4, 10 Ho-Dac, T 29, 44 Hokkien 7, 26, 116, 129 Home Tutors’ Scheme 140 home use of community languages 3, 28,

29, 32, 66, 96, 97, 110, 115, 130, 136, 173, 178 Horne, D 155 Howard, J 161, 165, 166, 167 Hungarian 7, 13, 13, 18, 19, 30, 41, 43, 57, 67, 91, 98, 102, 103, 174, 179 in schools 111, 112 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 73, 74, 80, 83 Icelandic 98 icons of Australian multilingualism xi, 170 identity and language 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 52, 54, 76, 86, 143, 172, 176, 181 multiple identity 32, 34, 77, 84, 163 Ilanco-Worrall, A 45 immersion programs 23, 24, 28, 47–48, 137, 171 immigrant languages 55, 56, 58, 143, 149, 151, 170 immigration 11, 12, 77, 79, 92, 144, 157, 163, 165 indigenous languages 1, 4, 5, 6, 20, 37, 55, 56, 110, 111, 152, 153, 155, 156, 161, 171, 181 Indonesian 98, 102, 176 2001 Census data 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20 in schools 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 131, 156, 158, 159, 168 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 83 Ingram, D 141 input for (second) language acquisition/development 3, 22, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 99, 106, 107, 115, 124, 129, 131, 134, 136, 140, 176 institutions which can support multilingualism xii, 96–108 intercultural communication 59, 60–63, 64, 140, 150, 168, 172, 177, 178 interdependence hypothesis 48, 50 internet 49, 59, 77, 96, 97, 99, 100, 107 interpreting and translating 3, 57, 60, 63, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 157, 158–59, 161, 174, 177, 179 see also Telephone Interpreter Service


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 203

INDEX • 203

Inuit 171 Irish 1 Italian 20, 24, 38, 46, 51, 72, 74, 75, 102, 125, 130, 136, 142, 171, 175, 176 electronic and print media in 97, 98, 98, 99 in contact with English in Australia 30, 40, 41, 42 in schools 6, 111, 112, 113, 113, 114, 115, 119, 128, 129, 131, 133, 135, 156, 159 language maintenance/shift patterns 30, 69, 73, 75, 76, 83, 113 2001 Census data 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Japanese 36, 51, 98, 166, 175 in schools 111, 112, 113, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 156, 158 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 72, 83 2001 Census data 10, 15, 18, 19 Joseph, J 35 Jupp, J 145 Kachru, B 54 Katharevousa 102 Katsikis, M 76 Kaya, B 38 Keating, P 36, 157, 167 Khmer 11, 13, 18, 19, 50, 68, 69, 80, 83, 111, 112, 117, 122, 173, 175 Kikuyu 52 Kipp, S 6, 8, 36, 68, 70, 71, 78, 82, 86 Kisch, E x Klarberg, F 116 Korean 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 19, 68, 69, 72, 81, 83, 98, 99, 102, 168, 171, 175 in schools 111, 114, 119, 120, 122, 123, 156, 158 Kurdish 98 Lambert, W 47 language and culture 19, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 55, 56, 59, 60–63, 64, 104, 113, 130, 137, 141, 142, 149, 150 and identity 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 52, 54, 76, 86, 143, 172, 176, 181

and religion, see religion as a core value 73, 75–77 as an instrument of exclusion ix, x, 165, 166, 182 attrition 23, 126, 142 benefits of, see benefits competence 26, 27, 30, 31, 48, 109, 134, 136, 144, 168, 178, 180 convergence 43, 44 choice 28, 29 demography, see demography, language diversity xi, xii, 2, 3, 8, 14, 20, 21, 22, 25, 53, 63, 64, 65, 77, 103, 109, 110, 133, 145, 150, 160, 163, 166, 169, 172, 176, 182 endangerment 55–56 functions of 25, 26, 31–34 imperialism 56 literacy, see literacy maintenance, see maintenance, language mixing 39, 40–44, 101 resources, see resources planning 151, 160, 175 policy, see policy potential x, xi, xii, 2, 27, 64, 65, 90, 109, 111, 132, 133, 171, 172, 177–80, 182 proficiency 23, 27, 30, 31, 35, 37, 46, 48, 66, 67, 80–81, 89, 106, 119, 134, 136, 142, 156, 161, 163, 176, 181 shift, see shift, language switching 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 86, 92, 95, 97, 101, 105 transference 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 40, 42, 43, 44, 52, 72, 88, 90, 92, 95, 97, 131 transmission 11, 12, 55, 65, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 107, 108, 109, 180 see also community languages Latin 24, 111 La Trobe, C 1 Latvian 13, 13, 67, 69, 73, 76, 80, 81, 83, 102, 111, 174 Levelt, W 39 libraries xi, 96, 100, 140, 144, 146, 151, 160, 170, 173, 175, 177, 180 linguaphilia 91 Lippmann, W 149 literacy 27, 47, 100, 105, 130, 133, 136, 139, 156, 157, 171, 173, 178 biliteracy 48, 49–51, 92, 107, 156


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 204

204 • INDEX

misconceptions about xi, 23, 49 reading readiness 46, 50, 51 transferability of skills 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 136 writing systems, different 49–50, 51 Lithuanian 13, 13, 67, 69, 73, 76, 80, 81, 111, 174 Lo Bianco, J 143, 144, 154, 157 ‘LOTE’ as ‘Key Learning Area’ in schools 21, 22, 23, 118, 139 definition 5 Macedonian 67, 97, 102, 162, 168 in schools 111, 112, 116, 122, 157 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 72, 74, 75, 83, 85 temporary renaming of 84–85 2001 Census data 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20 maintenance, language xii, 3, 11, 20, 22, 34, 35, 37, 38, 52, 64, 65, 69, 72, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 92, 109, 115, 119, 120, 134, 136, 137, 142, 143, 153, 156, 160, 174, 181 and family communication 84, 85–86, 88, 89, 91, 93 Census data on 66–67 cost benefits of 84–85, 180 grandparents’ role in 80, 86, 89, 94–95 language maintenance institutions 65, 81, 96–108, 160, 173 parents’ role in 3, 34, 130 Malay 7, 10, 11, 123, 125 Malayalam 98 Maltese 6, 6, 7, 9, 13, 13, 16, 18, 19, 57, 69, 73, 81, 83, 98, 111, 117, 130, 157, 162, 179 ethnic revival 76 Mandarin 26, 58, 60, 102, 125, 140, 171, 176 2001 Census data 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 18, as future ‘must learn’ language 60 electronic and print media in 97, 98, 162 in contact with English in Australia 44 in schools 113, 114, 115, 116, 119, 120, 121, 127, 130, 133, 135, 158, 163 language maintenance/shift patterns 68, 69, 74, 75, 80, 81, 83

MCEETYA 158 Mechelli, A 47 media 12, 96–100, 104, 130, 140, 142, 147, 155, 156, 162, 173, 180 see also radio; newspapers; television Melbourne 2, 21, 38, 44, 51, 82, 86, 97, 99, 102, 103, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 170 age distribution of community languages 11, 114 concentration of community languages 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 69, 162, 175, 176 language demography x, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 166, 182 Mercuri, A 46, 50 Mercurio, A 118, 119 metalinguistic awareness 45, 46, 49, 50. 51–53, 135, 139, 177 metropolitan areas language maintenance/shift in 67, 83–84, 142 speakers of community languages in 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13–20, 141, 173 see also Adelaide; Brisbane; Canberra; Darwin; Hobart; Melbourne; Perth; Sydney migration, see immigration ‘mixing languages’ 39, 40–44, 101 monoculturalism 145, 169, 170 ‘monolingual English fallacy’ 53–55, 59, 60 monolingualism xi, 2, 23, 27, 30, 38, 47, 53, 57, 58, 59, 87, 88, 89, 144, 150, 170, 172 cost of 63–64, 182 monolinguals x, xi, 10, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 34, 35, 39, 50, 51, 52, 54, 59, 60, 64, 86, 88, 89, 91, 99, 104, 107, 108, 109, 126, 129, 136, 145, 146, 176 speech processing of 39 thinking of 45, 46, 47, 50, 51 monolingual mindset xi, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 54, 64, 87, 104, 109, 118, 126, 127, 142, 169, 171, 172, 175, 181 Moore, H 155, 156, 157, 160 Mori, Y 51 ‘mother tongue’ 66, 128 motivation for language learning/plurilingualism 20, 28, 76, 86, 90, 97, 110, 113, 129, 136, 180


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 205

INDEX • 205

demotivating factors 106, 119, 121, 126, 128, 178 extrinsic 92 instrumental 35, 37, 91 integrative 91 instrumental 91 Mühlhäusler, P 37, 55 multilinguals xi, 20, 22, 26, 104 multilingualism x, xi, xii, 3, 9, 10, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 38, 52, 54, 60, 65, 75, 86, 102, 109, 146, 151, 163, 167, 170, 171, 177, 182 collaborative strategy to support xii, 172–82 cost of 56–59, 63, 182 definition 27 history of in Australia 1– 2, 3, 5, 6, 22 see also policy, language icons of in Australia xi, 170 valuing of xii, 26, 54, 63, 66 see also plurilingualism multiculturalism 76, 77, 144, 146, 149, 150, 151, 160, 170, 171 critiques of and threats to 145, 163–69 multinational companies 21, 28, 63, 105 myths about community languages/ plurilingualism, see fallacies NALSAS (National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools) 37, 114, 116, 157–58 National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia 155, 161 National Policy on Languages 64, 66, 154–55, 157, 177, 181 ‘native speaker’ 66, 80, 109, 119, 120, 121, 122 , 126, 128–33 newspapers 1, 2, 77, 96, 99–100, 104, 107, 176 non-metropolitan areas language maintenance/shift 67, 83–84 speakers of community languages in 3, 4, 9, 10, 20, 142, 166, 175 North Frisian 58 Norwegian 98 Nuer 68 Old Church Slavonic 102 older people and language transmission 12, 93, 134, 135, 141, 180

‘one parent, one language’ strategy 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 94, 107, 138 Oromo 7, 9, 68, 174 output, language 88, 90, 93, 95, 107, 134, 136, 140 ‘overcrowded curriculum’ xi, 24 overseas trips 21, 77, 95–96, 107, 132, 180 PALS (Primary Access to Languages) 140 Paradis, M 39 paradox x, 20–25 parents 22, 34, 35, 66, 72, 79, 80, 85, 105, 110, 113, 118, 127, 129, 136, 140, 144, 170, 173, 178 raising children in more than one language 86, 87–95, 106–08, 138 role of in language maintenance/shift 3, 34, 130 role of fathers 72, 86, 88 role of mothers 72, 86, 88 Pauwels, A 75, 81 Pavlenko, A 76 Peacock, A 165 Peal, E 47 Pennycook, A 56 period of residence 67, 77–78 Persian 19, 49, 50, 111, 112, 123, Perth 97, 99 age distribution of community languages 11, 114 concentration of community languages 14, 15, 17, 19, 175 language demography 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19 language shift rates 83 Phillipson, R 56 Piller, I 106 PISA study 24 plurilingualism 92, 93, 95, 96, 109, 120, 130, 172, 175, 178, 180, 181, 182 and speech processing 38–44 benefits of, see benefits of languages definition 26 fallacies about xi, 23, 26, 27, 30, 85, 93, 108, 109 functions of 26, 34–38 in the wider world 26–27 value of 26, 31, 35, 64, 172


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 206

206 • INDEX

valorisation of 36, 38, 149, 157 see also multilingualism plurilinguals 27, 54, 64, 96, 109, 110, 135, 157, 171, 172, 175, 178 bi- and multiculturality 29, 31, 34, 35, 136, 177 discrimination/disincentives in education 110, 118, 119, 120, 126, 127, 128, 132 language behaviour of 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44 multiple identity 32, 34, 77, 84, 163 speech processing of 38–44 thinking of 45–47 policy, language xi, xii, 64, 66, 114, 115, 142, 143–71, 177, 181 Australian Language and Literacy Policy 37, 155–57, 158, 163 family language policy 106–08 NALSAS 37, 114, 157–58 National Policy on Languages 64, 66, 154–55, 157, 177, 181 state language-in-education policies 64, 128, 139, 153, 154, 158, 159, 160, 161 Polish 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 29, 67, 69, 75, 83, 98, 102, 110, 111, 117, 130, 171 Pollard, J 46, 50 Portuguese 18, 52, 53, 69, 83, 98 Productive Diversity 36, 157, 167 proficiency, language 23, 27, 30, 31, 35, 37, 46, 48, 66, 67, 80–81, 89, 106, 119, 134, 136, 142, 156, 161, 163, 176, 181 radio xi, 20, 77, 96–97, 107, 136, 140, 144, 148, 150, 151, 160, 162, 163, 170, 173, 174, 176 raising children in more than one language x, 85, 86, 87–95, 106, 107, 108, 138 Rau, C ix, xi, 181 reading readiness 46, 50, 51 refugees 69, 126, 167, 174 religion and community language use 23, 24, 28, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81–82, 96, 101–03, 105, 107, 116, 140 ‘Language-Religion Ideology’ 81, 82, 101 resources, language x, 5, 21, 30, 36, 63, 112, 157, 168, 172, 174, 177, 179, 180, 181

for (second) language acquisition/ language maintenance x, 3, 12, 20, 27, 30, 64, 65, 93, 96–108, 109, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 140, 142, 173, 174, 180 Ricciardelli, L 46 Roberts, W 164, 168, 169 Rohl, M 50 Romani 98 Romanian 98, 102, 111 Rossiaud, J 38 Rubino, A 30, 86 Rudd, K 139, 157, 163 ‘Rudd Report’ 139, 157, 163 Russian 15, 18, 19, 24, 56, 57, 83, 98, 103, 111, 123, 156, 157, 175 Samoan 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 102 Sapir, E 31 Saunders, G 89, 91 SBS xi, 96, 97, 98, 99, 162, 170, 174 Scandinavian languages 1, 56 Scarino, A 118 Schloßmacher, M 57 schools bilingual 2, 23 catering for diverse student backgrounds 109, 114, 134–36, 137, 142, 178 choice of languages in 3, 112, 114, 116, 173, 178 domain of community language use 28, 32, 55, 110, 115 ethnic 2, 28, 93, 96, 100, 105–06, 110, 111, 113, 114, 116, 121, 150, 160, 172, 175, 179–80 European schools and language teaching 24, 27, 53 history of languages in 2, 23, 110, 111 see also policy, language ‘LOTE’ as ‘Key Learning Area’ in 21, 22, 23, 118, 139 moving schools and language learning 139–40 ‘overcrowded curriculum’ xi, 24 Schools of Languages 105, 112, 116, 117, 162, 170, 173, 175, 179 statistics on community languages in 109, 113, 117 status of languages in 22, 23, 24, 50,


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 207

INDEX • 207

118, 178, 181 see also education Scott, M 140 Secombe, M 75, 110 second generation and use of community languages 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 76, 85, 111, 119, 127, 131, 132 see also shift, language second language acquisition 22, 42, 52, 53, 109, 123, 124, 125, 136 community language resources as input 3, 38, 140, 174 secular community groups 100–01, 105, 107, 140 Sedlak, M 165 Serbian 6, 7, 8, 11, 19, 61, 98, 99, 111, 117 ‘Serbo-Croatian’ 7 service provision in community languages, see community languages sharing language resources x, 65, 108, 109, 133, 136, 140–42, 169, 171, 172, 177, 180, 182 shift, language xii, 12, 21, 55, 65, 77, 95, 100, 101, 120, 132, 144, 162, 169 and family communication 85–86, 89, 91 Census data on 66–74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 exogamous marriages and 69, 71, 72, 73, 79, 84, 86, 101, 103 first generation 67–71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 reversing language shift (RLS) 55, 94, 95 second generation 67, 68, 69, 71–73, 74, 75, 79, 81, 82, 85, 86 shopping/transactional domain 36, 96, 103–104, 107, 135, 140, 176 sign languages 3, 5, 152, 155, see also Auslan Sinhala 9, 11, 19, 20, 98, 103, 111 Skutnabb-Kangas, T 48, 56, 128 Slater, R 168 Slaughter, Y 117 Slavic languages 102 Slovak 57, 98, 102 Slovene 98, 111, 117 Smolicz, J 75, 81, 110 Snedden, B 144, 170

Sorbian 58 Somali 35, 80, 97, 116, 162, 174, 175 2001 Census data 7, 9, 13, 68 Spanish 24, 27, 30, 40, 52, 54, 57, 60, 77, 102, 131, 176 Castilian 97 Chilean 97 electronic and print media in 97, 98, 98 in contact with English in Australia 42 in schools 36, 51, 52, 53, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 128, 134, 135, 136, 156, 159, 163 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 73, 76, 83, 86 2001 Census data 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 12, 18, 19 speech processing 25 Sproull, A 38 Stanley, J 36 state language-in-education policies 64, 128, 139, 153, 154, 158, 159, 160, 161 Stephen, N 65 student background, diversity of, see background and non-background speakers Summo-O’Connell, R 131 Swahili 52 Swedish 24, 98, 111 Sydney 21, 97, 99, 103, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151 age distribution of community languages 11, 11, 114 concentration of community languages 9, 11, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 69, 175, 176 language demography x, 3, 4, 4, 8, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 182 language shift rates 83 Tagalog 6, 8, 15, 18, 69, 98 Tamil 7, 18, 19, 52, 54, 98, 102, 111, 112, 175, 179 teachers 106, 114, 118, 131, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 144, 146, 152, 157, 158, 161, 162, 171, 177 teacher training 110, 111, 117, 146, 147, 151, 155, 179 Teague, B 152 Telephone Interpreter Service xi, 149, 163, 170, 175


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 208

208 • INDEX

television 20, 96, 97–99, 107, 140, 150–51, 160, 161, 162, 170, 173, 174, 176 terrorism xi, 166, 167 Tetum 52 Thai 104, 117, 156 Theophanous, A 169 third generation and use of community languages 41, 76, 82, 86, 129, 131, 132 third language acquisition 23, 51–53, 88–89, 129, 135 and enhanced L1 maintenance 52 threshold hypothesis 48 Tigrinya 7, 9, 68, 162, 174 Tongan 102 Tok Pisin 26 tourism 21, 36, 38, 55, 93, 115, 142, 156, 157, 166, 180 cultural tourism 38, 141, 142 trade 21, 38, 115, 141, 156, 157, 163 transference, language 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 40, 42, 43, 44, 52, 72, 88, 90, 92, 95, 97, 131 Treloar, D 124, 125 trilinguals 30, 40, 43, 51, 52, 53 Truckenbrodt, A 114 Turkish 6, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 38, 91, 98, 117 in schools 111, 112, 116–17, 122, 157 language maintenance/shift patterns 69, 72, 73, 74, 80, 83, 104

in contact with English in Australia 29, 44 in schools 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 156, 159, 162 language maintenance/shift patterns 68, 80, 104 2001 Census data 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 vintages, migration ‘older’ migration vintages 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19, 69, 72, 76, 77, 82, 104, 106, 159, 162, 174 recent migration vintages 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 35, 68, 69, 72, 74, 78, 82, 83, 86, 106, 122, 124, 159, 160, 162, 174, 175 von Humboldt, W 31 Welsh 1, 2, 98 West Frisian 58 Whiteley, E 150 Whitlam, G 145, 148, 150 Whorf, B 31 Wierzbicka, A 29 ‘Wogspeak’ 73 Woods, A 81 work domain 28, 30, 32, 96, 104–05 Xhosa 98

Ukrainian 13, 13, 67, 80, 83, 98, 111, 112, 171, 174 ‘unfair advantage’ 109, 110, 118, 120, 126, 127, 130, 142, 180 ‘unity in diversity’ 143, 145, 164 Universal Grammar 124 universities 6, 111, 115, 117, 118, 121, 141, 146, 148, 150, 151, 158, 159, 160, 168, 172, 176, 177, 178, 179–80 Urdu 9, 98, 116

Year 12 LOTE study 24, 37, 114, 117, 118, 119–28, 133, 156, 159, 162, 163, 179 differentiated examinations/assessment 119–21, 122–28, 131, 132, 181 examinations xi, 30, 85, 111, 118, 119, 122, 151, 156, 170 global scaling 121–22, 132 Yelland, G 46, 50 Yiddish 9, 19, 72, 98, 103, 111, 130 ‘Yugoslav’ 7 Yugoslav languages 9 see also Serbian; Croatian; Bosnian

Vaillancourt, F 38 videos/DVDs 99, 100, 107, 139 Vietnamese 81, 102, 103, 117, 176 electronic and print media in 97, 98, 99, 100

Zangalis, G 149 Zheng, L 44 Zubrzycki, J 149


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 209

Also published by UNSW Press

THE INDONESIAN LANGUAGE Its history and role in modern society JAMES SNEDDON Indonesia is the fourth most-populous nation in the world, and one of the most linguistically complex. Its ethnic groups speak more than 500 languages and of these Malay, renamed Indonesian, was chosen to be the sole national and official language. Indonesian’s development into a modern world language has been described by one socio-linguist as ‘miraculous’. The language has been a key factor in the shaping and unification of modern Indonesia. This important book traces the origins and pre-colonial development of the language, the emergence of Classical Malay from the fourteenth century, the choice by the nationalist movement of Malay as the national language prior to Independence, the planning associated with the adoption and implementation of the language, its borrowings from other languages, its use in contemporary Indonesia and its future. The book challenges many assumptions about Indonesian, particularly countering the myth that Indonesian is a simple language. ‘This is the first book to attempt a comprehensive coverage of the history of Indonesian and its role in modern society.’ Griffith Asia Pacific JAMES SNEDDON is Head of the School of Languages and Linguistics at Griffith University in Brisbane. A university-level teacher and researcher of linguistics and Indonesian language for over 20 years, he is the author of Indonesian Reference Grammar (1996) and Understanding Indonesian Grammar (2000). ISBN 0 86840 598 1


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 210


THE DEFAULT COUNTRY A Lexical Cartography of Twentieth-Century Australia J.M. ARTHUR In this highly original book, lexicographer J.M. Arthur explores the relations between language and landscape, investigating typical descriptions of Australia – and their implications. Our common daily language, she argues, directs our thinking about normal features of Australia into exception and anomaly. This language also betrays a persistent colonising relationship to landscape and much more. Thus, 200 years on, we still describe the climate as ‘unreliable, unpredictable and unexpected’. We talk of inland regions as ‘endless, limitless, featureless’. Are we still in the process of discovering where we are – and where we are not? ‘… for those who love words, Arthur presents a lexical treasure trove, full of wonderful insights and illuminating examples. We need more works like The Default Country to explain language, and also to expose it.’ – Kate Burridge, Australian Book Review ‘On the premise that it was “through English that the occupiers mediated their occupation” of Australia, J.M. Arthur has constructed a series of word maps to describe this country. The result is an original and provoking analysis.’ – Peter Pierce, Sydney Morning Herald ISBN 0 86840 542 6


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 211


ENDING THE AFFAIR The decline of television current affairs in Australia GRAEME TURNER Ending the Affair is a critical account of the state of current affairs television in Australia today. It questions its future, draws lessons from the past and shows why television current affairs matters. ‘Journalists don’t pay a lot of attention to our own history. I don’t hear a lot of debate within the industry about the survival of television journalism, so am grateful for an important contribution. Graeme Turner describes the cyclical regeneration of television current affairs as more by accident than design. As a journalist I typically look forward to the next accident.’ – Chris Masters, ABC TV Four Corners ‘While the daily debate centres almost entirely on ratings, Turner’s thoughtful examination of television current affairs is a much-needed and timely commentary on the quality of the programs served up to the public.’ – Amanda Meade, media writer, The Australian ‘Commercial television current affairs is crucial to the TV networks, yet most of it is increasingly irrelevant to everybody else. It’s a format that’s almost dead, but one which the studio executives can’t afford to let die. Graeme Turner’s book exposes the contradiction in an insightful and entertaining way. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in the media.’ – Mick O’Regan, ABC Radio National GRAEME TURNER is Professor of Cultural Studies and Director of the Centre for Critical and Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland. He is one of the founding figures of media and cultural studies in Australia and internationally (his work has been translated into seven languages). ISBN 0 86840 864 6


15/8/05

12:40 PM

Page 212


AUSTRALIA FAIR HUGH STRETTON Today, fairness needs defenders and there is none more eloquent and compelling than Hugh Stretton. – Clive Hamilton Drawing on a lifetime of research and experience, Hugh Stretton makes a passionate and convincing case for doing whatever it takes to keep Australia fair. Rejecting easy platitudes and vague assertions, one of Australia’s leading thinkers sets out an ambitious – yet fully costed – plan that encompasses every aspect of Australian life. Australia Fair is a manifesto that makes us realise that fairness is no longer necessarily our defining characteristic. Stretton challenges prevailing opinion and shows we can get back on track. Hugh Stretton AC is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities in Australia. Educated at Melbourne, Oxford and Princeton Universities, he is now a visiting research fellow in economics at the University of Adelaide. ISBN 0 86840 539 6

Au stralia’s

Australia is a country with a wide diversity of languages in a world in which there are more multilinguals than monolinguals. This book explores the paradox of a nation rich in language resources yet characterised by monolingual thinking.

Language Langu age

With insight and passion, Australia’s Language Potential illustrates the ways in which our language resources can be consolidated and further developed for universal benefit.

‘The tragedy of the Cornelia Rau case and the treatment of asylum seekers in detention is linked to Australia’s monolingualism. The paucity of bi- and multilingual Australians is scandalous when one considers that we are one of the

Australia’s

La n g u a g e

Po te ntial

‘Michael Clyne’s Australia’s Language Potential is a wake-up call to Australians. If we are to flourish as a nation in the 21st century we must move out of our monolingual mindset.’

GREG BARNS , refugee

UNSW PRESS ISBN 0-86840-727-5

CLYNE

advocate, columnist and author

1

ten

CLYNE

..

No Entiendo.

English gio

ag gu

Ar

-

lin Walpiri

� 9 780868 407272 �

clyne2.indd

Mich ael

a

themselves today.

jar

be in a better situation than they find

t tja jin

interpretation of their stories might

Pid

rejected because of flawed linguistic

po

of asylum seekers whose claims are

zio ne

our own, perhaps Ms Rau and hundreds

com un ica

understanding of, languages other than

sm ali ngu oli Mon

Po te ntial

If there was greater respect for, and

zia le

most multi-cultural nations in the world.

UNSW

PRESS

8/8/05

1:08:44 PM

Australia's Language Potential

Potential

Potential

Potential

Husband Potential

Husband Potential

Potential Danger

Potential Theory

Potential theory

Potential Theory

The Human Semantic Potential: Spatial Language and Constrained Connectionism

Asimov, Isaac - Potential

Transient Receptor Potential Channels

Effective Crystal Field Potential

Foundations of potential theory

Introduction to Potential Theory

Asimov, Isaac - Potential

Das Potential der Leere

Bernoulli Potential in Superconductors

Quantum Potential Theory

Probabilities and potential

Bioenergy - Realizing the Potential

Potential Theory Copenhagen 1979

Periodic potential Z

Asimov, Isaac - Potential

Potential Theory (Universitext)

Asimov, Isaac - Potential (2)

Quantum potential theory

Probabilities and potential C

Probabilities and potential A

Maximizing Your Potential

Australia's Language Potential

Potential

Potential

Potential

Husband Potential

Husband Potential

Potential Danger

Potential Theory

Potential theory

Potential Theory

The Human Semantic Potential: Spatial Language and Constrained Connectionism

Asimov, Isaac - Potential

Transient Receptor Potential Channels

Effective Crystal Field Potential

Foundations of potential theory

Introduction to Potential Theory

Asimov, Isaac - Potential

Das Potential der Leere

Bernoulli Potential in Superconductors

Quantum Potential Theory

Probabilities and potential

Bioenergy - Realizing the Potential

Potential Theory Copenhagen 1979

Periodic potential Z

Asimov, Isaac - Potential

Potential Theory (Universitext)

Asimov, Isaac - Potential (2)

Quantum potential theory

Probabilities and potential C

Probabilities and potential A

Maximizing Your Potential

Recommend Documents