This book examines medium-sized linguistic communities in urban contexts against the backdrop of the language policies which have been implemented in these respective areas. The authors provide new data and reflections on these linguistic communities which have languages somewhere in between the majority and minority, and re-evaluate the opposition between ‘majority’ and ‘minority’. The book focuses on seven European cities, providing detailed information on their current situation and on the corresponding evolution of their linguistic repertoire. The book aims to improve our understanding of how and why languages live and decay, and of how intercultural cities, where communities show interest in each other’s culture and language, can be better developed and encouraged.
This book examines medium-sized linguistic communities in urban contexts against the backdrop of the language policies which have been implemented in these respective areas. The authors provide new data and reflections on these linguistic communities which have languages somewhere in between the majority and minority, and re-evaluate the opposition between ‘majority’ and ‘minority’. The book focuses on seven European cities, providing detailed information on their current situation and on the corresponding evolution of their linguistic repertoire. The book aims to improve our understanding of how and why languages live and decay, and of how intercultural cities, where communities show interest in each other’s culture and language, can be better developed and encouraged.
Urban Diversities and Language Policies in Medium-Sized Linguistic Communities
204
Urban Diversities and Language Policies in Medium-Sized Linguistic Communities
204eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
This book examines medium-sized linguistic communities in urban contexts against the backdrop of the language policies which have been implemented in these respective areas. The authors provide new data and reflections on these linguistic communities which have languages somewhere in between the majority and minority, and re-evaluate the opposition between ‘majority’ and ‘minority’. The book focuses on seven European cities, providing detailed information on their current situation and on the corresponding evolution of their linguistic repertoire. The book aims to improve our understanding of how and why languages live and decay, and of how intercultural cities, where communities show interest in each other’s culture and language, can be better developed and encouraged.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781783093922 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Multilingual Matters Ltd. |
| Publication date: | 08/04/2015 |
| Series: | Multilingual Matters , #159 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 204 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Emili Boix-Fuster is Professor in Sociolinguistics at the University of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. He is General Editor of the academic journal Treballs de Sociolingüística Catalana (Papers in Catalan Sociolinguistics), and his research interests include intergenerational linguistic transmission, urban multilingualism and sociolects.
Read an Excerpt
Urban Diversities and Language Policies in Medium-Sized Linguistic Communities
By Emili Boix-Fuster
Multilingual Matters
Copyright © 2015 Emili Boix-Fuster and the authors of individual chaptersAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-78309-392-2
CHAPTER 1
Mapping Urban Multilingualism in Europe: In Search of Untapped Resources in Primary Schools
Guus Extra
Summary
First, a range of criteria for the definition and identification of population groups in multicultural contexts will be discussed (Section 1). In Sections 2 and 3, conceptual dimensions for the mapping of diversity in both non-European English-dominant immigration countries and in European Union countries will be addressed and compared. The rationale and methodology of the Multilingual Cities Project (MCP), funded by the European Cultural Foundation, will be discussed in Section 4, and its major outcomes will be assessed in Section 5. Three major home language surveys have been carried out as follow-up studies of the MCP: in Vilnius/Kaunas/Klaipeda (Lithuania), in Vienna (Austria) and in Dublin (Ireland). Section 6 concludes by discussing methodological considerations for the last of these home language surveys, the one performed in Dublin.
1. Criteria for the Definition and Identification of Population Groups in Multicultural Contexts
Collecting reliable information on the diversity of population groups in multicultural contexts is no easy enterprise. What is, however, more interesting than compiling numbers or estimates of the size of particular groups is to establish the criteria that are used to determine these numbers or estimates. Comparative information on population figures in European Union (EU) member-states is available from EuroStat, the Statistical Office of the EU in Luxembourg. Eurostat's data indicate an overall decrease in the indigenous population in most EU countries over the last decade and at the same time an increase in the immigrant minority (henceforward IM) figures. For a variety of reasons, however, reliable and comparable demographic information on IM groups in EU countries is difficult to obtain. Seemingly simple questions like How many Turkish residents live in Germany compared to France cannot be easily answered. For some groups or countries, no updated information is available or no such data have ever been collected. Moreover, official statistics only reflect IM groups with legal resident status. Another source of disparity is the use of different data collection systems, ranging from census data to administrative registers or statistical surveys (Poulain, 2008). In addition, most residents from former colonies already have the nationality of their country of immigration. Most importantly, however, the widely used criteria for IM status – nationality and/or country of birth – have become less valid over time because of an increasing trend towards naturalization and births within the countries of residence.
For a discussion of the role of censuses in identifying population groups in a variety of multicultural nation-states, we refer the reader to Kertzer and Arel (2002). Alterman (1969) offers a fascinating account of the history of counting people from the earliest known records on Babylonian clay tablets in 3800 BC to the US census of 1970. In addition to the methods of counting, Alterman discusses at length who were counted and how, and who were not counted and why. The issue of mapping identities through periodical nationwide censuses by state institutions is commonly coupled with a vigorous debate between proponents and opponents of the following 'ethnic dilemma': how can you combat discrimination if you do not measure diversity (Kertzer & Arel, 2002: 23–25). Among minority groups and academic groups, both proponents and opponents of mapping diversity can be found: its proponents defend the social or scientific need for population data bases on diversity as prerequisites for affirmative action by the government in domains such as labour, housing, health care, education and media policies; opponents argue in terms of the social or scientific risks of public or political misuse of these data bases for stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination or even removal of the 'unwanted other'. Kertzer and Arel (2002: 2) argue that the census does much more than simply reflect social reality; it plays a key role in the construction of this reality and in the creation of collective identities. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the census is a crucial area for the politics of representation. On the basis of (home) language databases, minority groups often make language rights one of their key demands.
Decennial censuses became common practice in Europe and the New World colonized by Europeans in the first part of the 19th century. The US became the first newly established nation-state with a decennial census in 1790. The first countries to include a language question in their census, however, were Belgium in 1846 and Switzerland in the 1850s, both European countries with more than one official state language. At present, in many EU countries, only population data on nationality and/or country of birth (of the person and/or parents) are available on IM groups. In 1982, the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs recognized the above-mentioned identification problems for inhabitants of Australia and proposed including questions in the Australian census on country of birth (of the person and parents), ethnic origin (based on self-categorization in terms of the ethnic group a person considers him/herself to belong to), and home language use. In Table 1.1, the four criteria mentioned are discussed in terms of their major (dis)advantages.
First, Table 1.1 shows that there is no simple road to solving the identification problem. Moreover, inspection of the criteria for multicultural population groups is as important as the actual figures themselves. Seen from a European perspective, there is a top-down development over time in the utility and utilization of different types of criteria, inevitably going from nationality and birth-country criteria in the present statistics to self-categorization and home language in the future. The latter two criteria are generally conceived of as being complementary. Self-categorization and home language references need not coincide, as languages may be conceived to varying degrees as core values of ethnocultural identity in minority or migration contexts.
2. Mapping Diversity in Non-European English-Dominant Immigration Countries
Various types of criteria for identifying population groups in multicultural societies have been suggested and used outside Europe in countries with a longer immigration history and, as a result, with a longstanding history of collecting census data on multicultural population groups (Kertzer & Arel, 2002). This holds in particular for non-European immigration countries in which English is the dominant language, like Australia, Canada, South Africa and the USA. To identify the multicultural composition of their populations, these countries employ a variety of questions in their periodical censuses. In Table 1.2, an overview of (clusters of) questions is provided; for each country, the census given is taken as the norm.
Five types/clusters of questions are distinguished in Table 1.2. Both the type and the number of questions differ according to country. Canada takes up a prime position with the highest number of questions. There are only three questions that are asked in all countries, while two questions are asked in only one country. Four different questions are asked about language. The operationalization of the questions also shows interesting differences, both between and within countries over time (see Clyne, 1991 for a discussion of methodological problems in comparing the answers to differently phrased questions in Australian censuses from a longitudinal perspective).
Questions about ethnicity, ancestry and/or race have proven to be problematic in all the countries under consideration. In some countries, ancestry and ethnicity have been conceived of as equivalent. Examples are US census question 10 in 2000: What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin and Canadian census question 17 in 2001: To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person's ancestors belong Australian census question 18 in 2001 only involved ancestry and not ethnicity, cf. What is the person's ancestry with the following comments for respondents: Consider and mark the ancestries with which you most closely identify. Count your ancestry as far as three generations, including grandparents and great-grandparents. As far as ethnicity and ancestry have been distinguished in census questions, the former is related most commonly to present self-categorization of the respondent and the latter to former generations. The diverse ways in which respondents themselves may interpret both concepts, however, remains a problem that cannot easily be solved.
According to Table 1.2, South Africa remains the only country where a racial question is asked instead of a question on ethnicity and/or ancestry. The paradox in South Africa is that questions on ethnicity are often considered to be racist, while the racial question (in terms of Black/White/Coloured/Indian) from the earlier Apartheid era has survived. Although the validity of questions about ethnicity, ancestry and/or race is problematic, at least one question from this cluster is needed to compare its outcomes with those of questions on language. Language is not always a core value of ethnicity/identity and multiculturalism may become under-estimated if it is reduced to multilingualism. For this reason, one or more questions deriving from cluster 4–6 in Table 1.2 are necessary complements to one or more questions derived from cluster 7–10.
Although, according to Table 1.2, 'ethnicity' is mentioned in the recent censuses of only two countries, all four language-related questions are asked only in Canada. Over time, a 'mother tongue' question has been replaced by a 'language' question in three out of four countries. Canada has retained the mother tongue question in addition to the home language question, which allows for comparative analyses of predictably different outcomes. The mother tongue question (7) in Canada is defined for respondents as the language first learnt at home in childhood and still understood, whereas questions 8 and 9 are related to the language most often used at home/work. Table 1.2 shows the added value of language-related census questions for the definition and identification of multicultural populations, in particular the added value of the question on home language use compared to questions on the more opaque concepts of mother tongue and ethnicity. Although the language-related census questions in the four countries under consideration differ in their precise formulation and commentary, the outcomes of these questions are generally conceived as cornerstones for educational policies with respect to the teaching of English as a first or second language and the teaching of languages other than English.
Table 1.2 also shows the importance of comparing different groups using the same criteria. Unfortunately, this is often not the case in the public or political discourse. Examples of such unequal treatment are references to Poles vs. Jews, Israelis vs. Arabs, Serbs and Croatians vs. Muslims, Dutchmen vs. Turks (for Dutch nationals with Turkish ethnicity), Dutchmen vs. Muslims, or Islam vs. the West (where does the West end, when the world is a globe ). Equal treatment presupposes reference to equal dimensions in terms of Table 1.2.
3. Mapping Diversity in European Union Countries
The data presented here come from the analysis of two comprehensive documents published by the European Commission and EuroStat (2004, 2005). In 23 out of 27 EU countries, nationwide censuses held at variable intervals are still in use. Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands rely on yearly updated administrative (municipal) registers in combination with periodical sample surveys. Other countries such as Austria, Belgium, France, Latvia, and Slovenia combine nationwide census data with administrative register data and/or sample survey data. The following parameters are used in all or many EU countries for the definition and identification of population groups:
• (dual) citizenship or nationality: the category of (dual) citizenship or nationality is used in all EU countries. In north-western European countries these two concepts are commonly used as synonyms nowadays; in southern, central and eastern European countries, however, these two categories are commonly used distinctively. In these countries citizenship refers to what is termed nationality or citizenship in north-western Europe, whereas (ethnic) nationality refers to what is termed ethnicity in north-western Europe. In the Czech Republic, for instance, the nationality question asks for an indication of what nationality you consider yourself to be, which is different from the citizenship question;
• country/place of birth: this is a common category in all EU countries; in some countries, this question refers explicitly to the country/place of (permanent) residence of your mother when you were born;
• ethnicity: ethnicity or ethnic nationality is asked for in 13 EU countries, three of which consider this question to be voluntary/optional;
• language: one or more language questions are asked in 17 EU countries, two of which consider this/these question(s) to be voluntary/optional;
• religious denomination: religious denomination questions are asked in 15 EU countries, six of which consider this question to be voluntary/optional.
Table 1.3 gives an overview of the status quo with respect to the latter three parameters across EU countries. It should be noted that collection of data on some or all of these questions in some EU countries is considered to be in conflict with privacy legislation and/or illegal, while in other countries such questions are taken to generate crucial information.
Table 1.3 shows that there is strong variability across countries in the utilization of each of these three parameters. This holds also for the operationalization of questions asked. Detailed ethnicity questions are asked in the UK and Ireland. In the UK, five categories are distinguished, i.e. White, Mixed, Asian (British), Black (British), Chinese/Other, in all cases with subcategories. Similar questions are asked in Ireland. Hungary lists 14 categories (plus other) and asks which of these nationalities' cultural values and traditions do you feel affinity with Estonia lists six (plus other) ethnic nationalities, and Cyprus lists Greek-Cypriot, Armenian, Maronite, Latin and Turkish-Cypriot. Questions on religion are asked in terms of belief, church, faith, religion and/or religious affiliation/community/confession/denomination, and in terms of religion/religious denomination you were brought up in. The latter – additional – question is only asked in Scotland, not in the UK as a whole. Table 1.4 shows an overview of the operationalization of the language questions asked for in 17 out of 27 EU countries.
Three main conclusions emerge from Table 1.4. First, European census questions on non-national languages focus on regional minority languages, not on IM languages. Second, the three most commonly asked questions on language use relate to mother tongue (11 countries), (other) language(s) spoken (frequently) (six countries) and language(s) (most frequently) spoken at home (five countries). Third, Hungary makes the greatest investment in finding out about language use. For a complete picture, it should be mentioned that in some countries collecting home language data are in fact in conflict with current language legislation. This holds in particular for Belgium, where no census data on language use have been collected since 1947 and traditional language borders between Dutch, French and German have been allocated and fixed in the law.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Urban Diversities and Language Policies in Medium-Sized Linguistic Communities by Emili Boix-Fuster. Copyright © 2015 Emili Boix-Fuster and the authors of individual chapters. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Emili Boix-Fuster: Introduction
1. Guus Extra: Mapping Urban Multilingualism in Europe: In Search of Untapped Resources in Primary Schools
2. Philippe Hambye: Competitive and Cooperative Orientations in Language Policies: A Critical Look at the Situation of Dutch in Brussels
3. Iago González Pascual and Fernando Ramallo: Linguistic Diversity in Vigo
4. Pirkko Nuolijärvi: Helsinki as a Multilingual City
5. Josep Soler-Carbonell: Tallinn, a Multilingual City in the Era of Globalisation: The Challenges Facing Estonian as a Medium-Sized Language
6. Miquel Nicolás Amorós and Francesc Jesús Hernández Dobon: Multilingual Valencia: Linguistic Destruction and Reconstruction of an Urban Space
7. Emili Boix-Fuster: Multilingualism in Barcelona: Towards an Asymmetrical Multilingualism
8. Marie Maegaard and J. Normann Jørgensen: Language in Copenhagen: Changing Social Structures, Changing Ideologies, Changing Linguistic Practices
Emili Boix-Fuster: Conclusions
What People are Saying About This
The sustainability of medium-sized language communities is a new and original subject of sociolinguistic research carried out at the University of Barcelona. The well-known linguist and editor Emili Boix-Fuster presents a highly interesting book that shows how political and economic factors favour or disfavour the maintenance of medium-sized language communities in seven European cities.
A welcome wealth of information on 'medium sized' European languages and their bases in notably diverse, multilingual cities. Not small and endangered, not big and hegemonic, urban not bucolic, these languages — and their speakers and policymakers —share challenges and possibilities for long-term sustainability thoughtfully explored here.