conflicting, unequal or diglossic relationships between languages seen to be instrumentally or economically valuable and those which denote one’s group membership when juxtaposed in education policy, as noted in the example of Singaporean language education planning and the role of English and non-English locally spoken languages. Language education policies can also address geopolitics or the needs of minorities. (Lo Bianco 2008: 113–118)
Acquisition planning in practice can be seen applied in numerous contexts to address various language problems or goals. Cooper outlines notable examples, including those found in language revitalization as part of national linguistic identity building, like in the case of Israel, or for language preservation (maintenance), like in the case of the Irish language in Ireland. Planning for acquisition can act as an exertion of political power as seen in the Soviet Union with the introduction of the Cyrillic writing system in minority languages of the Soviet republics to hasten their speakers’ acquisition of the supranational Russian or the international presence of actors like the British Council, Goethe Institute or Alliance française charged with the promotion and advancement of learning of their respective represented languages. (Cooper 1989: 157–160)
McGroarty (2002: 25) asserts however that it is important to avoid oversimplified interpretations of the social or political backdrops of language policy or planning decisions that depict relevant international and intergroup relations or questions of human rights as static norms as opposed to reflections of dynamic, social change. This is also pertinent in this research as it is a critical analysis of language planning involving linguistic minorities and the presence of a language of wider communication. Similarly, this is consistent with Pennycook’s (1998) argument on the agency of groups in the face of global English.
2.3 Issues in Language Planning for Foreign Language-speaking Migrants
Migration today presents particular challenges for language planners as it involves the increasing mobility and relocation of members of diverse linguistic groups. For this reason language issues and their resolution through policy and planning are often among the central concepts in discourse around migrant integration. In a time of
increasing migration, language planners have had to address issues of linguistic integration and diversity (Latomaa, Pöyhönen, Suni & Tarnanen 2013: 163). For example, when planning language for an inclusive, equal and integrated society, one must take into account the explicit and implicit barriers faced by foreign language-speaking migrant populations. Language planning for migrants must adapt to diverse populations and involves status planning, language-in-education (acquisition) planning as well as minority language rights. McGroarty (2002: 24) notes that in times of increased transnational mobility, language skills are central in one’s own definition of citizen and group membership, while their absence, such as in the case of some newcomers, can lead to isolation or a need to adapt alternative integration strategies. As language plays a key role in identity building and group membership, language planning must be taken into account when planning to support processes of societal integration for migrants. Language planning for migrants involves a diverse group of individuals, each with their own unique background, circumstances and goals that play into their path to language learning and integration (Latomaa et al. 2013: 164).
The process of second language learning is highly social; the ability to communicate is central to one’s endeavour to achieve adequate language skills (Latomaa et al. 2013:
164). Pendakur and Pendakur (2002: 3) note that language is key in defining one’s ethnic identity and group membership. Membership in a group or cultural community is not however binary, rather one’s self-identification can range from core member to non-member depending on a number of factors including, among others, mother tongue and language skills. While cultural and linguistic minority communities can constitute groupings that create opportunities like “labour enclaves”, Pendakur and Pendakur (2002: 3–4) refer to Breton’s (1974) concept of ‘institutional completeness’, which denotes the (in)availability of adequate employment and services for community members. However, when working, studying, accessing services or otherwise interacting with members of the linguistic majority community, it must be noted that language ability and accent can play a role in differentiation (Pendakur & Pendakur 2002: 4). Discrimination on the basis of one’s accent or other expression of membership to a non-majority cultural community are noted among barriers to migrant employment in international reports on integration (Birrell & McIssac 2006: 110). While immigrant or foreign language-speaking populations may form communities, this never happens in
isolation rather in interaction with the majority ‘host society’ in the established social and legal frameworks (Extra & Yagmur 2006: 133–134). When a community is small or membership insufficient to serve all of its own needs, a ‘member’s’ concept of their own belonging can transform as their identity becomes more relatable to other groups through contact, also sometimes affecting one’s concept of their own native language
Researchers have explored this topic often using social and human capital examples to explain disadvantages and benefits of membership of a foreign language community.
Figure 3 presents a model introduced by Esser, who has noted that in the process of acquiring country capital (noting examples of higher education or employment), domestic language abilities or the lack thereof can act as a barrier for foreign language-speaking migrant populations. While Table 3 does oversimplify issues such as bilingualism and group membership, it is reflective of official notions of language planning for integration that are further explored in Chapter 3. It is noted in this research that migrant groups are often in a disadvantageous position in the aforementioned goal realization due to their “ethnic group capital”. This includes for example their own language or social capital of their home country. In comparison to
“national capital”, like the domestic language or social capital of the receiving country, Multiple inclusion /
this ethnic group capital is dependent on ‘special circumstances’, like an existing community of people who understand your language or trans-national networking. It is explained that this ethnic group capital is hindered in the new societal concept as it lacks widespread points of applicability in comparison to country capital, like domestic language knowledge. (Esser 2003: 11)
Latomaa et al. note that when speaking of domestic language education for migrants, the dominant language(s) of the destination/host society, which is taught as part of integration education, is best referred to as the ‘second language’ as opposed to ‘foreign language’. This refers to the language’s majority status in the host society as well as to its role of language of communication in day-to-day situations in contrast with a foreign language, which may be more limited in its range of usability on a daily basis. While L2 education for migrants has the ability to advance foreign language speakers’ learning, this type of learning is also heavily affected by the support and conditions of the linguistic environment (Latomaa et al. 2013: 169–170). Spolsky and Lambert explain that public support for foreign language-speaking migrants, like provision of language instruction and other services to aid in linguistic integration and communication, is a relatively new development in the planning of migrant linguistic integration and language policy. In the past, migrants were more often seen to be temporary residents who were to ensure before arrival that they possessed sufficient skills in the language of their host society for their needs. Immigrants have been notably underrepresented in traditional language policy and planning, both for the aforementioned reason and a host of other factors (e.g. lack of own territory), and while this has since experienced widespread change, policy does in some cases continue to demand certain language skills from migrants for gaining citizenship or even entry into a host country. (Spolsky
& Lambert 2002: 567)