Dendrinou - English
Professor Vassiliki DendrinouRepresenting the Centre for the Greek Language
LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY VS NATIONAL LANGUAGE PROTECTIONISM:
|
VALUATION SYSTEMS |
PROMOTING LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY |
PROMOTING PARTICULAR LANGUAGES |
Values |
Respect for linguistic and cultural differences |
Regard for one’s own (or some languages above all others |
Purpose |
To respect language-ecology |
To support single (or dominant) language diffusion |
Ideology |
Non-assimilationist, poly-phonic, trasculturalist |
Nationalist, linguoracist and culturally separatist |
Discourse |
Respectful of linguistic and cultural heterogeneity |
Advocating linguistic and cultural homogeneity |
Key feature |
Respect for linguistic and cultural Otherness |
Expectations of communicative and linguistic proficiency in single languages |
Approach |
Collaborative in order to share linguistic and cultural wealth |
Key Antagonistic; use of hegemonic or resistance strategies; power struggle |
Ethos |
Multilingual, heteroglossic and polyphonic |
Monolingual, monoglossic and uniphonic |
Communicative competence |
Expectations of interlinguistic and intercultural competence |
Expectations of ‘native’ linguistic and sociopragmatic competence |
Practices of linguistic diversity promotionism are consistent with Article 2 of our unanimously passed constitution, outlining the purpose of EFNIL as follows:
Clearly, the purpose of our organization then is not to take action so as to “protect” or promote national/official languages. And rightly so. National/official languages in EU states do not need to be protected against the “threat” of the indeed hegemonic English, nor against the “danger” of change. As linguists, we all well know that language change, linguistic borrowing, and all sorts of developments occurring in the language are a natural process of social growth which is
linguistically encoded. It is a direct result of linguistic/cultural contact and the need of each linguistic community to respond to newly arising communicative demands. Even materials, such as grammars, dictionaries, monolingual and bilingual encyclopedias which have traditionally functioned for the standardization of languages cannot possibly stop naturally occurring change. Nor is this the role of such materials, which set out to describe language in use and thus become essential supportive tools. Indeed, all official European languages are supported by such tools more than ever before, as there is an abundance of state-produced or subsidized and free-market publications available for educational institutions, groups and individuals. On the other hand, as linguists and politically minded individuals we know well enough that the value attached to some languages and not to others has nothing to do with the languages themselves and how well they are protected, supported or promoted. It has to do with the politics of languages which are very tightly linked to political systems. In the case of the EU, with its neoliberal politics, choices and valuations are directly related to market forces. Therefore, the languages being widely taught and learned are the “strong” European languages, i.e., those languages which have high-market value and carry the prestige of the political and economic status of their speakers. The “weaker” languages have slim chances of becoming goods for sale for they are not considered commodities that can bring immediate profits to the users.
The problem of course is that with English as the global language, which also functions as a force of (economic) globalization, even the “strong” languages are loosing ground as international commodities and fewer chances than before to affect other languages through contact with them, and have the symbolic and material gains from such an enterprise. This being experienced as a problem, what features as a solution is a crusade against the hegemony of English, by way of supporting a linguistic diversity paradigm. In reality, however, more often than not, the support of linguistic diversity entails a political agenda which has little to do with shared distribution of linguistic power in the European community and equal valuations of languages. It becomes an excuse for the promotion of particular languages through monolingual, monoglossic and uniphonic ethos of communication. As such, it stands very little chance to be effective.
The preservation of multilingualism and the promotion of plurilingualism in our European community of members states, each with its own “glorious” linguistic and cultural past, and with all languages seeking to have a share of the linguistic and cultural power therein, can only succeed though the promotion of linguistic diversity by means of social and discursive practices that it entails. Language policy and legislation will not suffice, for even if it is spelled out, the market forces by which our societies operate will not allow their realization. An excellent example is the “mother + two other foreign languages” European policy, which has so far resulted to English being introduced in most European states from grade 3 or 4, and a few other “strong” languages being included in school curricula and tertiary education. Another example is the policies being considered or proposed for some European universities increasingly offering academic programmes and supporting academic publications in English, at the expense of programmes and publications in the official language of the country. The negative response to such considerations is again related to our economic and political system. Given that universities and other tertiary institutions in Europe are increasingly obliged to fund themselves and expected to respond to the competitive demands of the global market, the global language serves them much better to achieve the goals set for them.
On the basis of the above, it is strongly suggested that, whereas policy and legislation might be helpful in some respects, unless European states support the teaching and learning of each other’s language, especially by creating social contexts in which languages might be useful and valuable, policy and legislation will remain words on paper. In other words, what is being proposed is language planning which actively intervenes to create such contexts. This brings me to the second concept in the title of my talk, i.e., language planning in action. It is this concept which is behind the national Greek language project I would like to present. This project, briefly described in the Supplement to this brief introduction, entails the design and development of a unified system for the assessment of language competence in a European language for certification which can be used as a work qualification.
The national project described in the Supplement has been of particular interest to me for a variety of reasons1, including the following, which I consider most important.
Up until now, certificates of foreign language proficiency in Greece (and many other countries in fact) have been provided by large organizations primarily interested in both material and symbolic profit. Therefore, they have developed systems for international exams which, of course, are neither culturally nor ideologically neutral. A case in point is that they take little account of local social needs for the use of the language in question. However, the Greek learner of English, for example, who needs a certificate of English language competence at intermediate or advanced level, as a qualification that will allow him/her to find work or to secure his/her job, has very different needs for the use of English than, say, the French, Spanish or Swedish learner of English. Hence, my interest in designing English exams for people who live and work in Greece, based on relevant research and needs analysis, as well as on experience and socio-cultural insight.
Most importantly, the only languages for which the certification of proficiency level is provided in Greece and in many other countries are the big, prestigious languages that are supported by strong economic and political systems - usually English, French, German and Italian or Spanish. In this way, foreign language certification becomes a means for the reproduction of the unequal distribution of linguistic and cultural power in Europe and elsewhere, as well as a mechanism for legitimating some languages and marginalizing others. For example, university students going on Erasmus projects make few attempts to learn the language of host countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal if these languages have no tangible value attached to them upon their return (say as work qualifications). Another example relates to the linguistic wealth in Greece presently, with its many newcomer economic immigrants speaking, say, Russian, Rumanian, Bulgarian or Polish. As it is not possible to take language exams and receive certificates of proficiency in these or the aforementioned European languages (because there is no private enterprise that has developed an examination system for any of these languages, nor an organization supported by the governments in countries where these languages are spoken), this linguistic wealth is devalued and delegitimated. Since one cannot be certified for knowing these languages, proficiency in these languages does not count socially. Therefore, they cannot possibly be considered as a work qualification. I am sure I don't have to spell out the consequences of this state of affairs. It is these consequences that I am concerned with, and here lies my interest in the larger project.
HELLENIC MINISTRY OF NATIONAL EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS
General Directorate of International and European Educational Affairs
Directorate for the Certification of Foreign Language Proficiency
15, Mitropoleos Street
GR – 101 85 Athens
t13pxg1@ypepth.gr & t132pxg@ypepth.gr
The information in this pamphlet concerns the examination and certification system implemented on the basis of a 1999 law, by the Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs of the Greek state, who is the legal copyright owner of all documents containing information about the system of the “Kratiko Pistopiitiko Glossomathias” (KPG).
The system is designed and developed by a central committee of specialists, appointed by the Ministry of Education. This committee has the obligation to inform the public and disseminate information regarding the system as a whole and the examinations in particular languages. In this capacity, members of the committe produce information documents in Greek and in the other languages in which exams are carried out. As such, the members listed below have collaborative responsibility for the texts produced and share ownership rights with the Ministry.
Professor at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Professor at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki
Professor at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Professor at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki
reproduced or circulated without prior permission from the author, Professor Bessie Dendrinos: vdendrin@enl.uoa.gr
Presently, candidates can take an upper intermediate level exam in:
In the immediate future, one will be able to take other level exams in these languages, aswell as in:
On the basis of research results investigating social needs, exams will be designed for:
KPG exams are presently designed for Level B2 (see below) but are planned to include exams for the two “independent User” levels and the two “Proficient User levels” on the scale of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Teaching, Learning and Assessment, developed by the Council of Europe:
A1 Beginner
A2 Elementary
B1 Intermediate
B2 Upper Intermediate
C1 Advanced
C2 Full mastery
Hellenic Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs
Interested parties may find on-line (at http://www.ypepth.gr/kpg), presently only in Greek, but soon in other languages as well, the documents listed below: