Language Context
3.3 Cultural and Political Dimension: Presenting the European Language Context
3.3.1 Multilingualism in Europe and European Schools:
Demographic Facts and Emerging Consciousness
In 2012, about 500 million people lived in the 27 countries of the European Union and there were 23 languages offi cially accepted in the European Union (Eurobarometer, 2006 ). Six countries had more than one offi cial language, the majority of them regionally distributed. The main fi rst language in Europe was German (with 90 million native speakers, 18 % of all Europeans), then English, French, and Italian (each about 60 million speakers, about 13 %) (European Commission, 2004 ; Eurobarometer, 2006 ). Although Europe as a whole is multilin- gual, however, many countries conceptualize themselves as monolingual societies.
Since the European Union was constructed, dealing with multiple languages has been a political aim. However, it is interesting to see how the European conceptual- ization of multilingualism has slowly changed from dealing with multiple foreign languages as a learning goal (for improving international relations between coun- tries) to the awareness of multilingualism within each country as a learning condi- tion , due to different fi rst languages of minorities and immigrants: even as recently as 2004, the European Commission published a brochure titled Many Tongues , One Family : Languages in the European Union (European Commission, 2004 ) where the multilingualism within each country is marginalized to a brief reference to some regional languages such as Welsh or Sardinian, while immigrant languages are not even mentioned. Instead, it promotes the European campaign “mother tongue plus two” with its focus on the aim that each European citizen should speak two foreign languages (which is currently reached by about 30 % of all Europeans, most of them speaking English, German, and/or French). The rate of people mastering two for- eign languages varies from the small countries (92 % in Luxembourg, 75 % in the Netherlands) to larger countries (Germany 27 %, UK 18 %) (European Commission, 2004 ). This indicates that speaking a second or third language is less common when your fi rst language is one of the most spoken languages in Europe.
In contrast, a similar booklet published by the European Commission 2 years later (Eurobarometer, 2006 ) documents and acknowledges the variety of fi rst lan- guages, including not only regional languages but also immigrant languages (which have higher percentages in the majority of Western European countries). Typical immigrant languages are Arabic in Sweden, Turkish in Germany, and African lan- guages in Portugal. Another important issue is that many people with immigrant backgrounds are born in European countries. Thus, they belong to a second (or even a later) generation. Table 3.1 shows an overview of the given percentages of people with a fi rst language other than each country’s offi cial languages. Note that the data comes from selective inquiries (Eurobarometer, 2006 ), since the variable “language backgrounds” has still not been captured in the countries’ offi cial statistics (only nationality and migration status, see e.g., Mikrozensus, 2009 ). Other sources give higher rates of nonoffi cial fi rst languages for the younger generation. For example, in Germany and Sweden, rates of 20 % 2 are estimated for students in compulsory education with fi rst language other than German (Chlosta & Ostermann, 2008 ) or Swedish (Swedish National Agency of Education [Skolverket], 2013 ). The increas- ing rates of children with other fi rst languages can be traced back to increasing immigration to European countries and to demographic factors (i.e., higher birth rates in some language communities) (Chlosta & Ostermann, 2008 ).
The development in the European Commission’s conceptualization of multilin- gualism (from a learning goal for European ideals to a multicultural learning condi- tion within each country) refl ects the slowly increasing awareness in some of the countries about their immigrant status . For example, Germany acknowledged only
2 In North Rhine-Westphalia (the most populous federal state of Germany) exactly 19.50 % of the primary school students have another fi rst language (IT.NRW, 2012 , p. 2).
in 2000 that it was an immigration country. These trends are also refl ected in the political context of the schools.
These developments have been supported by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , proclaimed by the European Parliament, Council, and Commission in 2000. The charter guarantees the rights of cultural, religious, and language diversity, including a non-discrimination law for languages (European Parliament, 2000 , §21). These new perspectives on multilingualism are also refl ected in changing language policies for schools.
Table 3.1 Multiple fi rst languages in European countries: “What is your mother tongue?”
Country
Percentages of indications of fi rst language being … (Multiple answers possible)
… a state language or other offi cial language (%)
… another EU language (%)
… another language (%)
Austria 96 3 2
Belgium Dutch 56, French 38, German 0.4 5 3
Bulgaria 90 0.4 11
Cyprus 98 2 1
Czech Republic 98 2 0.7
Denmark 97 2 2
Estland [Estonia] 82 1 18
Finland Finnish 94, Swedish 5 0.8 0.4
France 93 6 3
Germany 90 3 8
Greece 98 1 0.8
Hungary 100 0.8 0.6
Ireland English 94, Irish 11 2 0.2
Italy 95 5 1
Latvia 73 1 27
Lithuania 88 5 7
Luxembourg Luxembourgish 77, French 6, German 4
14 0.8
Malta Maltese 97, English 2 0.6 –
Netherlands 96 3 3
Poland 98 1 1
Portugal 100 0.6 0.1
Romania 95 6 0.7
Slovakia 88 12 2
Slovenia 95 1 5
Spain Spanish 89, Catalan 9, Galician 5, Basque 1
1 2
Sweden 95 5 2
United Kingdom 92 3 5
Source : Eurobarometer ( 2006 , p. 9)
3.3.2 Multiple Languages in European Schools
Notwithstanding the non-discrimination law for languages, nearly all European countries mainly organize their schools as monolingual institutions in which the offi cial regional or state language is the only accepted language of instruction (except for some special private schools or Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms with English or French as a foreign language of instruction). Within these similar policies, the school systems attain signifi cantly different rates of success in allowing students with other fi rst languages to achieve mathematics performance comparable to their native speaking classmates. As Table 3.2 shows, some countries (Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria) par- ticularly fail in mathematics achievement for students with other fi rst languages. 3
The comparative results of some less adequate school systems have raised dis- cussions in these countries on how to give better access to mathematics for learners with different fi rst languages. Among all national strategies for a better inclusion of second (or third or fourth language) speakers, most emphasis is given to language appropriation in the language of instruction (e.g., der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2010 ; Thürmann, Vollmer, & Pieper, 2010 ). In many countries, immigrant students’
low performance in mathematics is attributed to their lack of competence in the language of instruction and a lack of cultural inclusion, such as, for example the so-called lack of “Swedishness” (Haglund, 2005 ; Runfors, 2003 ), and similarly for Denmark (Holmen, 2008 ). That is why, besides this focus on the language of school- ing, many countries increasingly discuss a new language policy allowing the use of fi rst languages, as refl ected in the Council of Europe’s goal of plurilingualism start- ing from the individual resources , which comprise also fi rst languages (Beacco et al., 2010 ). Although these European fi rst languages policies mainly refer to the early years of schooling (e.g., learning how to read), some documents also refer to learning in secondary schools and in subjects such as science and mathematics (e.g., Thürmann et al., 2010 ).
The use of fi rst languages in education is not only supported by political demands, but also by educational reasons, for example, “Language is a tool for acquiring knowledge, one aspect of the development of the person, as both individual and social actor, a means of and factor in understanding and making sense of reality, and a vehicle for imaginative creativity” (Coste, Cavalli, Crisan, & van den Ven, 2009 , p. 5). In spite of all the claims and reasons for fi rst language use in European schools, its use in European mathematics classrooms is still quite rare. In order to understand this reluctance, it is important to consider that these types of practices are not equally easy to follow in all language contexts, since the existence of multiple languages among students in European schools has at least two signifi cantly different facets.
3 Although this chapter focuses on language issues, we emphasize that not only the language back- ground, but also other factors are crucial for school success of minority students, for example, their socioeconomic status, parents’ literacy and educational background, and other individual circum- stances (cf. Alrø et al., 2003 ; César, 2009 ; Heinze, Reiss, Rudolph-Albert, Herwartz-Emden, &
Braun, 2009 ).
Some regions such as Catalonia (Catalan and Castilian, see Planas & Setati, 2009 ) or parts of Ireland (Irish and English, see Table 3.1 ) experience a more or less shared bilingualism where most people share the two main languages, at least if they are not immigrants (e.g., Catalonia has many immigrants from Africa). Here, the use of the other language is easy since usually many teachers and students understand each other. However, in those countries commonly designated as immigration countries in Europe, there are fi ve to seven, and sometimes even more, different fi rst lan- guages spoken in multilingual classrooms and the only intersection is the language of instruction. In this language context, we talk about multiple (non- shared) lan- guages. The teachers of these classes are usually speakers of the language of instruc- tion. They might even speak other languages, but they normally do not speak the languages of (all of) the students (César & Oliveira, 2005 ; Gogolin, 1994 ).
Speaking another language having immigrated to another country often comes with participating in a group of lower socioeconomic status (Nusche, 2009 ).
Concerning Germany, Prenzel and his associates ( 2005 ) analyzed the PISA results and found that a child from the second lowest socioeconomic background is four times less likely to join the highest track of secondary education compared with a child from the top quartile. Comparable results have been reported for black Caribbean people in the UK (Strand, 2007 ). Eckhardt ( 2008 ) points out that a migration
Table 3.2 Different equity success of school systems—comparing European and non-European countries
Country
Students with fi rst language ≠ language of instruction
Students with fi rst language = language
of instruction Difference between both groups’ mean scores
Mean score (S.E.) Mean score (S.E.)
Austria 442 (12.8) 515 (3.5) 73
Belgium 515 (6.7) 530 (2.6) 15
Denmark 440 (7.0) 519 (2.6) 79
France 441 (10.1) 502 (3.2) 61
Germany 438 (8.4) 519 (3.3) 81
Greece 408 (9.7) 462 (2.7) 54
Luxembourg 494 (1.3) 525 (4.7) 30
Netherlands 472 (10.3) 536 (2.2) 64
United Kingdom
458 (9.8) 499 (2.0) 41
Norway 448 (7.5) 495 (2.4) 47
Portugal 445 (15.3) 468 (3.0) 23
Switzerland 473 (5.5) 546 (2.9) 73
Australia 523 (7.7) 521 (2.0) −2
Canada 522 (4.3) 531 (1.8) 9
New Zealand 522 (6.7) 526 (2.3) 4
USA 440 (5.9) 480 (4.2) 40
OECD Average 467 (2.2) 504 (0.5) 37
Data from PISA, 2006. Source : OECD ( 2007 , p. 120, Table 4.3b)
background is not the reason for systematic disadvantage of some children. Moreover, the analyses indicate that problems of appropriating the language of instruction can primarily be ascribed to the social backgrounds of the families and their communica- tive practices. Moreover, the disadvantages do not go along with the fi rst languages of the children (comparable results in Gogolin, 2006 ). In her survey on research on math- ematics teaching and learning of immigrant students in Europe, Civil ( 2010 ) points out that language issues are only a part of a culturally complex reality that needs fur- ther research. Of course, the policy and practices of allowing or forbidding fi rst lan- guages refl ect the multicultural sensitivities of a country.