Читать книгу The Multicultural Classroom: Learning from Australian First Nations Perspectives - Jasmin Peskoller - Страница 11

Fundamentally, languages constitute systems of interrelated signs used for the purpose of communication (Edmondson and House 2011, 7-8) and can thus be described as “fluid codes framed within social practices” (García 2009, 49). Concurrently, Eades (2013, 57) states that “language is much more than the reflection or expression of society and culture; it is a dynamic and creative instrument of social action”. Investigating its symbolic nature, Kramsch (2009, 7) highlights that language use “mediates our existence through symbolic forms that are conventional and represent objective realities” and that “construct subjective realities such as perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and values.”

In relation to the concept of language, a distinction between dialect and accent also needs to be provided at this stage. Endorsing the existence of a continuum between language varieties and dialects depending on regional, societal, political, and cultural leverages, sociolinguist Trudgill (2000, 5) provides the following definitions:

The term dialect refers, strictly speaking, to differences between kinds of language which are differences of vocabulary and grammar as well as pronunciation. The term accent, on the other hand, refers solely to differences of pronunciation, and it is often important to distinguish clearly between the two.

As the concept includes both standard and non-standard varieties of a language, Standard English should itself be regarded as a dialect of English due to its distinct grammatical and lexical features. In this context, authors have complained that standard varieties are often considered the only proper way to speak and they have accentuated the fact that a society’s values and structures are displayed in the attitudes towards non-standard varieties (e.g. Trudgill 2000, 5–9). This aspect alludes to the slow recognition of Aboriginal English as a distinct dialect of Standard Australian English (SAE), which is explored in Chapter III.3.1.

In the context of language teaching and learning, a differentiation between home, second, and foreign languages is essential. The following figure should assist readers in understanding this fundamental terminology.

Figure 1: Differentiation of the Language Concept1

In order to differentiate between the two non-native languages in Figure 1, the function and purpose of the language are decisive factors. Putting the focus on English language teaching, the acronyms ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) exemplify the two concepts. In ESL contexts, learners might still practice their L1 at home but need English as the means of communication in everyday life, as is for instance the case in Australia, Canada or the UK. The term EFL, on the contrary, pertains to contexts in which English does not play an essential role within society, as it is not necessarily required for communicative purposes or in educational settings due to other dominant languages. It is necessary to differentiate between ESL and EFL contexts, since syllabuses, classroom pedagogies and education policies usually display considerable differences (Carter & Nunan 2001, 2).

The focus is now transferred to the coexistence of two or more language varieties within one speech community or country, which is generally denoted bi- or multilingualism, respectively. In simple terms, bilinguals “use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives” (Grosjean 2010, 4). Conversely, other authors have adopted the concept of multilingualism to “describe the use of three or more languages by an individual or within a society” (Baker & Wright 2017, 431). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) defines multilingualism rather broadly as “the knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in a given society” (Council of Europe 2001, 4). In addition, bidialectalism has been used to describe the “phenomenon whereby someone can communicate in more than two dialects of the same language” (Carter & Nunan 2001, 94) and can be regarded as one form of bilingualism. Finally, the concept of plurilingualism refers to an individual’s totality of linguistic resources in the CEFR (Fäcke & Meißner 2019, 2).2

Generally, different manifestations of bilingualism have been identified in the field. For instance, along with other linguists, Brown (2007) makes use of the expressions subtractive and additive bilingualism to imply the respective status and effect of the home language in and on the processes of learning a new language. In this sense, an L1 “is referred to as subtractive if it is considered to be detrimental to the learning of a second language” whereas “[a]dditive bilingualism is found where the home language is held in prestige by the community or society” (Brown 2007, 139). In this regard, García (2009, 73) addresses the deliberate encouragement that students abandon their home language in favor of the majority language in monolingual schools, thereby ensuring a subsequent monolingual generation. She identifies the treatment of Indigenous children in schools all over the world as possibly the strongest driver for subtractive bilingualism leading to the vast reduction in the number of Indigenous languages. In addition to subtractive and additive bilingualism, García (2009, 73–74) also differentiates between recursive and dynamic bilingualism in her work. As such, efforts made to revitalize traditional Indigenous languages frequently re-introduce them by assigning them new functions or contexts of use. As speakers move back and forth between different varieties depending on the setting, this form is termed recursive bilingualism. Furthermore, due to globalization and the resulting linguistic complexity in the 21st century, bilingualism and language practices constantly need to adjust to an ever-changing world of multilingual communication, hence reveal highly dynamic features. García illustrates these four types of bilingualism in the following manner (Figure 2):

Figure 2: Forms of Bilingualism3

García’s conceptualization of dynamic bilingualism is also apparent in the CEFR, which outlines the following:

[A]s an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands […], he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (Council of Europe 2001, 4)

Investigating bilingual speakers’ usage of different language varieties, a concept of particular relevance is code-switching. This involves “the alternate use of two languages, that is, the speaker makes a complete shift to another language […] and then reverts back to the base language” (Grosjean 2010, 51–52). The term can be used to refer to changes at word, phrase or sentence level in a conversation (Baker 2011, 107). There are different reasons for bilinguals to activate their distinct language systems in this way. First and foremost, there might be a more suitable expression for a certain idea in one language that “adds a little something that is more precise than trying to find an equivalent element in the base language” (Grosjean 2010, 53). Other motives for code-switching include filling a linguistic requirement, identifying with a group or demonstrating one’s expertise (Grosjean 2010, 54–55).

According to the CEFR, “[l]anguage is not only a major aspect of culture, but also a means of access to cultural manifestations” (Council of Europe 2001, 6). Hence, the next section defines and discusses the concepts of culture and multiculturalism.