Language User Groups and Language Teaching

(Vivian Cook)
Multi-competence Background
Multi-competence was originally defined as the compound state of a mind with two
grammars (Cook, 1991) !his was reworded as the knowledge of two languages in one
mind (Cook, "##$), %ecause some people took the term grammar in the narrow meaning of
synta& rather than in the %road meaning of linguistic competence intended Multi-
competence emphasi'ed the relationships of the languages in the same person mind rather
than the separate e&istance of a first language and a interlanguage
(s multi-competence came out of a Chomskyan tradition, it started with the
indi)iduals knowledge of language Cook ("##$) distinguished fi)e meanings of language *
1 ( representation system known %y human %eings + human language
" (n a%stract entity + the ,nglish language
- ( set of sentences + e)erything that has or could %e said + the language of the .i%le
/ !he possession of a community + the language of 0rench people
1 !he knowledge in the mind of an indi)idual + 2 ha)e learnt 0rench as a foreign
language for 3 years
Communities and Language User Groups
!he core )alue of a community is, howe)er, almost in)aria%ly taken to %e a single
language4 a minority ethnic community is seen as identifying itself with its own language,
protecting it and maintaining it as a heritage (n indi)iduals use of two languages supposes
the e&istence of two different language communities4 it does not suppose the e&istence of a
%ilingual community (Mackey, 19$") !his denies the reality of the multilingual communities
in the world with more than one language at their core
5a)ing two languages may %ring people into a different multilingual community (t
one le)el people may %elong to nati)e speaker communities who talk to fellow-mem%ers
6ust as the concept of indi)idual multi-competence stressed the 7" user in their right, so the
multi-competence of the community stresses the multilingual community in its own right, not
as a collection of people with different 71s %ut as a community with an integral use of two or
more languages (ccording to Canagara8ah ("##$), 7inguistic di)erdity is at the heart of
multilingual communities !here is constant interaction %etween language groups, and they
o)erlap, interpenetrate, and mesh in fascinating ways
The De Swaan Hierarchy
9iegel ("##:) used sociolinguistic settings, %ased on the idea of dominant language,
to show how the language user groups %e categori'ed (n alternati)e is the hierarchy
proposed %y ;e 9waan ("##1) *
2n the scheme, languages differ in terms of geographical and function areas + where
they are used and why (t the %ottom come languages that are peripheral4 they are used
within a circumscri%ed territory for the purposes of a local community (s the term
peripheral seems to con)ey some e)aluation, the term local is more neutral <e&t up the
hierarchy come central languages users within a geographical area for communication
%etween different groups for education and go)ernment (%o)e this come supercentral
languages that ha)e a wider geographical spread and are used for cross-national
communication for a limited range of functions 0inally at the top come hypercentral
languages used chiefly %y non-nati)e speakers across the glo%e for a large range of
purposes
Groups o Language Users
7anguage users can %e di)ided into groups according to the four ;e 9waan le)el
!he first group is people using their first language with each other in the local language
geographical territory !his is the sole group to contain only monolingual nati)e speakers of
the language !he second group consists of permanent residents using a central second
language to communicate with the wider community outside their local language group
!he third group consists of people using a supercentral language across national or
linguistic %orders for a specific range of functions of language rather than for all functions
9upercentral languages can %e used for wider pu%lic or pri)ate functions across different
countries !he fourth group consists of people using a hypercentral second language,
perforce language, glo%ally across all countries and used for all possi%le second language
functions
!he ;e 9waan analysis treats language users in terms of wider group mem%ership
and of language function ;e 9waan ("##1) sees the ac=uisition of second languages as
typically going up the hierarchy 9peakers of a local language ha)e to learn a central
language to function in their own society 9peakers of a central language need to learn a
supercentral language to function within their region 9peakers of a supercentral language
need the hypercentral language to function glo%ally, true of any%ody %ut a nati)e speaker of
,nglish
Language Groups and SL! "esearch
9ome 97( research has looked at this type of ac=uisition from ;ulay and .urt (19$-)
studying grammatical morphemes ac=uisition among 9panish-speaking children in California
to 5annan ("##/) doing the same with ,ast ,nd .engalis Central language ac=uisition %y
local groups has not howe)er usually %een distinguished from other types of ac=uisition,
e&cept through the second>foreign language distinction
!he important point in 97( research here is that we need to %e e=ually careful in
specifying the language groups the learners %elong to and want to %elong to, rather than
treating 97( research as a unified whole ?enerali'ing from the taught C7 group is
particularly difficult as we cannot isolate the effects of teaching 2nterestingly for many of the
other groups teaching is not a ma8or concern4 it is simply taken for granted that you ha)e to
%e multilingual in Central (frica or 2ndia
Language Groups and Language Teaching
Group B Learning and Teaching of Central Languages
5istorically the teaching of central languages has concerned ethnic minority children
and immigrants %y ha)ing a local language at home and may %e directly taught the language
at school or mainstreamed into ordinary classes 2t needs to take account of the e&tent to
which the o)erall community is multi-competent or monolingual
!he (dult ,9@7 Core Curriculum for ,ngland (;f,9, "##1) pro)ides an e&ample of
educational thinking on this topic !he target is four types of learners* settled communities
such as 5ong Aong, refugees, migrant workers and partners and spouses of learners + all
essentially prospecti)e ?roup . mem%ers 2t aims at defi ning in detail the skills, knowledge
and understanding that non-nati)e ,nglish speakers need in order to demonstrate
achie)ement of the national standards (;f,9, "##1* $) 2n other words, the only goal of
,9@7 learners is to %ecome part of the ?roup ( rather than part of a ?roup .
Group C Teaching of Supercentral Languages
@ne characteristic of supercentral languages is their limited use across %orders for a
small range of functions 9ince the 19:#s this speciali'ed functionality has %een the concern
of many an ,9B course, ranging from courses for oilrig-workers to courses for general
practitioners4 to the consternation of one of my e&-students, her first teaching 8o% was
,nglish to a 6apanese se&-shop manager (part from ,nglish, the hypercentral language, all
of these are supercentral languages with a sphere of influence e&tending outside their own
countries and sometimes outside ,urope, say with 0rench and 9panish 7anguage learning
in schools in ,urope is o)erwhelmingly upward in the ;e 9waan hierarchy towards
supercentral languages and the hypercentral language
Group D Teaching the Hypercentral Language
!he hypercentral language ,nglish is the one that is all things to all people, not
confined to a particular territory or a particular function 2ts users do not ha)e to take part in a
particular society, unlike ?roup ., or utili'e more specifi c functions in a wider territory, unlike
?roup C4 potentially they use ,nglish with anyone anywhere for almost any reason ?roup (
nati)e speakers of ,nglish ha)e no special status, indeed may struggle with some aspects of
hypercentral ,nglish more than their non-nati)e fellows ?roup ; speakers retain their own
71 identities while at the same time using an 7" to deal with each other + language for
communication
Biligual and Multiligual #ducation
(Cristopher J. Hall)
Deinition and $urposes
!he criterion for what makes a prohramme %ilingual or multilingual in a particular
conte&t can %e the language %ackgrounds of the learners and>or the language(s) they are
taught in !he purposes of %ilingual and multilingual education programmes are similarly
di)erse, rangung from de)elopment of ad)anced le)els of proficiency and academic
achie)emet in %oth target languages to the promotion of academic skills in a dominat
language %ut not in the pupils home language
Ce present here a three-part framework for understanding how education in multiple
lamguage is commonly organi'ed Ce %egin %y distinguishing %etween frames that are
(1)language-%ased, (") content-%ased and (-) conte&t-%ased
Language-%ased &rames
!he strong-weak dichotomy in %ilingual education refers to the %alance in classroom
usage %etween the two languages in)ol)ed
2n %ilingual a minority language is distinguished from a dominant language according
to what its used (its conte&t)
( heritage language is the language of a minority community )iewed as a property of
the groups cultural history, and is often in danger loss as third generations grow up
%eing un-preundere&posed to the language
.illiteracy is literacy in two (or more) languages
Content-%ased &rames
Children engage in de-facto %ilingual education when they and their teachers
implicity draw on su%8ect knowledge ac=uired pre)iously in a language which is
diffent from the language of instrictruction
( sheltered ,nglish programme is one in which school pupils with limited proficiency
in the target language get instruction in ,nglish as an additional language along with
other su%8ect taught in ,nglish , until they can 8oin students who ha)e the proficiency
re=uired to engage in mainstream classrooms
Su%mersion education
Bupils are placed in classes with students who are nati)e>proficient speakers of the
dominant language, and their academi progress is e)aluated using measures
designed to assess the performance of nati)e speakers and for comparison with the
norms esta%lished for them 9u%mersion education remains the most common form
of schooling for language minority students (?arcia, "##9)
Transitional %ilingual education
!ransitional %ilingual education is su%stracti)e using the first language as a
temporary medium for gaining proficiency in the (dominant) second language an
important factor in the organi'ation of !., programmes is the length of time that
students are permitted to study in their 71 %efore %eing mo)ed into classes designed
for nati)e speakers of the dominant language
Maintenance %ilingual education
Maintenance %ilingual education is addicti)e, aiming to complement and strengthen,
rather than replace, the ( minority ) first language the maintenance %ilingual
education model is intended for immigrant pupils thought likely to return to their home
countries and whose successful return woud ideally included %eing a%le to participate
in schools there
'mmersion
!he term immersion refers to programms designed to teach content in the target
language, %ut in a way that does not (intentionally) harm the learners 71 Aey
)aria%les in immersion programmes include the language(s) of instruction and the
home language(s) of the students, with one way and two-way immersion
Community language teaching
Community language teaching is an approach to heritage langauge education
adopted in the DA, (ustralia, the <etherlands, and other countries in which the home
languages of ethnic minorities are taught and used as languages of instruction in
schools and community centres
Heritage language programmes
5eritage language programmes share the assumption that there is educational )alue
in teaching students in and a%out the historic language(s) of their community !he
specific purposes are )ary, from promoting oral fluency to foster intergenerational
communication, to de)eloping academic literacies as a motor for d)anced %iliteracy
and uni)ersity study 9trong e&amples of heritage language programmes ha)e
en)ol)ed in many places, although they are not always known locally %y this name
Conte(t-%ased &rames
!his frame can %e further di)ided into macro-and micro-le)el conte&t)
Macro-le*el conte(ts
Consider the following statement %y (rgentine-D9 scholar Maria .risk, comparing
perceptionsof %ilingual education in the D9 and other nations*
Much of the de%ate on %ilingual education (in the D9) is wasteful, ironic, hypocritical
and regressi)e 2t is wastefuk %ecause instead of directing attention directly to sound
educational practices, it has led to ad)ocating specific model %ased solely on what
language should %e used for what purpose 2t is ironic %ecause most attacks on
%ilingual education arise from an unfounded fear that ,nglish will %e neglected in the
Dnited 9tates, whereas, in fact, the rest of the world fears the opposite4 the attraction
of ,nglish and interest in (merican culture are seen %y non-,nglish speaking nations
as a threat to their own languages and cultures 2t is hypocritical %ecause most
opponents of using languages other than ,nglish for instruction also want to promote
foreign language re=uirements for high school graduation 0inally, it is regressi)e and
&enopho%ic %ecause the rest of the world considers a%ility in at least two languages
to %e the mark of a good education (.risk, 1993, p1:#)
Micro-le*el conte(ts
,lite and folk %ilingualism are terms used %y 9u'anne Eomaine to la%el the
difference in socioeconomic circumtances and moti)ations %etween thise who seek
to %ecome %ilingual out of choice, often for increased prestige and those who seek to
%ecome %ilingual out of necessity, often of sur)i)al
'ntegrating the &rameworks
!he wide range of practices reflect the fact that %ilingual and multilingual
programmes are not only linguistic and learning endea)ours, %ut also political and economic
arrangements 2n response to this comple&ity, applied linguists need to %e a%le to
understand programmes of %ilingual and multilingual education from the multiple and
o)erlapping persoecti)es of language, content and conte&t, with special attention to glo%al
and local situations
,ssentially , we can think of %ilingual and multilingual programmes as %eing
organi'ed along one or more of three primary orientations*
7anguage as pro%lem
7anguage as right
7anguage as resources
Characteristics o #ecti*e $rogrammes
@ur reading of the research on %ilingual and multilingual education suggests that the
most effecti)e programmes are those that ha)e the support and in)ol)ement of students,
families and teachers, and in these e&ceptional cases indi)idual programmes de)elop and
adopt practices that %est fit their needs
9ome key features of successful programmes can %e offered here*
(ll pupils learn %est in a language they understand
!eacher preparation
9chool autonomy is a condition for success
Barents and other care-gi)ers, teachers, administrators and school staff should %e in
agreement a%out pri)iding support for ad)anced %ilingualism and specially, should
ha)e respect for the minority language
Brogram should challenge students to work at high academic le)els, %ecause low
e&pectations dont foster academic success in any language
"oles or !pplied Linguists
'n Schools
(round the world, finding suffcicient num%ers of linguistically proficient and well-
trained language professionals poses a critical challenge to the success of %ilingual
and multilingual schooling !he o%)ious need for classroom teachers programmes
may re=uire*
.ilingual assistants for monolingual teachers
Criters and designers a%le to produce curriculum, forms of assesment and print and
digital materials in non-dominant language
9chool administrators a%le to communicate the special need of %ilingual learners to
those education and pu%lic authorities which regard monolingualism and monolingual
schooling as normal and %ilingual or multilingual learners as something of a mystery
or nuisance
+utside schools
<ot all applied linguists are classroom teachers or work in school, of course %ut there
are also )alua%le contri%utions that they can make with the remit of informing the
education profession and the general pu%lic Conducting and reporting research on
%ilingualism in non-scholarly forums is particularly important, %ecause the results of
research on %ilingualism and learning in actual programmes too rarely find their way
into pu%lic discourse on, or policy a%out, %ilingual and multilingual education