5.

2 Strategies

One of my respondents had said in her interview that she resented learning Greek because she had to
sacrifice watching programmes such as ''Top of the Pops''. I asked her how Johnny and Mari felt about
giving up a Saturday morning to attend Greek school, and she told me that she generally tried to make
Saturday a more enjoyable day for them by combining the visit to Greek school with a special lunch,
and visits from friends who came to play. Prior to attending Greek school, they would watch television
all day, finally becoming bored. Androulla said:

They have a much better afternoon now that they did when they were at home... and Johnny actually
looks forward to going to Greek school now, because he's made such good friends.

Mike was also making concious effort to encourage and promote an interest in the Greek language and
culture. He tells the children stories about Cyprus, sometimes exaggerating incidents to make them
more exciting. He relates episodes in their grandparents' lives they were still living in their Cypriot
villages, and their early experiences of living in London,
trying to keep a link between Cyprus and the children.

Johnny particularly enjoys the stories about his grandfather and his wayward flock of sheep or the story
of his grandfather accidentally sitting on a snake! Mike believes believes these stories create an image
of another world to Greek music. Mike has also that his family and he, are part of. The children are also
encouraged to listen to Greek songs and dance to Greek music. Mike has also tried to utilise Johnny's
interest in football and sport generally by explaining the origins of the Olympic Games. This has
encouraged Johnny's sense of pride that he is part of that tradition. Mike hopes his efforts:
Will at least towards maintaining an interest in Greek.

Generally respondents believed if a positive and encouraging approach were adopted to the learning of
Greek , children would feel it was an enjoyable and valuable experience. The third generation should
not feel that ''they were being forced'' to attend Greek school as they had felt ''forced'' when younger.

Attendance at traditional Greek weddings and christenings, and frequent visits to Cyprus were cited as
other important ways of motivating and creating an interest for the third generation. Moreover,
continued close links with extended family, such as grandparents, would give the third generation
necessary exxposure to the Greek language spoken by these elder relatives, and would increase the
validity of learning to speak Greek. Without the Greek language in common, oral communication
between grandparents and grandchildren would be very superficial.

Maro was generally optimistic about the future of Greek due to the recent abundance of Greek schools
in most Greek areas. There would now be fewer problems organising structured teaching for children,
and because some Greek schools now had nursary classes, children could be integrated earlier. My
respondents believed they would have more time to spend with their children and encouraging them in
an educational context. They would not be enduring the same economic pressures their parents had
suffered in the 1950's and 1960's. The tensions would be different for their children. English would be
their first language and Greek their heritage language. The Community's and the individual's eventual
success would not be dependent on the accomplishment of their bilingual skills.

5.3 A Sense of Duty

Loyalty to parents is strong within the Greek community and I asked my respondents if they wanted to
promote the Greek language and culture out of a sense of duty to their parents and community.
Mike did feel it was his duty to pass on what his parents had given to him, although he feared the
gradual erosion of the Greek language and culture may be inevitable. Christa also saw the language and
culture as something she should ''pass on'' as a birthright.
I see it as a part of my role in motherhood, that's part of my offering. I suppose you could call it to the
child. It's like giving the kid everything that we know and seeing as that is part of it,I'd pass it on.

Some respondents believed teaching Greek would become a 'duty' when the
first generation are no longer alive to give children the automatic exposure to the language.

Other respondents objected to the word 'duty' , viewing their children's bilingualism as something they
would enjoy encouraging. However, upon reflection, Soulla decided if she wanted to ensure her
children would be bilingual, it was her duty to accomplish it.
… I want the Greek culture to remain, I don't want it to phase out and so if I want that and that's my
aim, then it is my duty. I can't let other people do it for me, so it's my duty to do my part and that's to
educate my children and encourage them to keep up the traditionas as best they can.

Soulla believed the Greek language and culture was strong enough to survive into the third generation
and allowing and accepting its erosion would be ''killing something''.

One couple had mixed views about this issue. Tassos felt the third generation may not want to speak
Greek, but as parents:
You owe them the effort
In the hope thet they will be appreciative and grateful they have a second language. So in some ways he
believed he would be neglecting his duty as a father and as a son by not propagating the Greek
language. With a look of amusement on his face he said:
It's funny really, it all sounds old fashioned, you'd think we'd be different, that we'd be more liberal.

His wife Julia disagreed with Tassos' views. She maintained that Christina would be bilingual because
she wanted her to be, not because she felt it was her 'duty' to encourage it. But Tassos maintained if one
wanted a bilingual upbringing for one's children, it had to be a conscious and deliberate decision
because the pressures of living in a monolingual environment would be insurmountable without the
appropriate support and foundations.

5.4 Fears for the Future

In her book The Bilingual Experience (1986) Eveline de Jong interviewed several parents and children
about their experiences of bilingualism.

One parent felt that bilingualism was an advantage because:

Two worlds are open to you rather than only one. Besides being able to com-
municate verbally with everyone, from the dustman to the distinguished neighbours, the mentality of
the people of a particular country becomes familiar to you through language. Therefore, later on, in the
working world for example, you are not only able to converse but also able to understand and cope
with people. (Jong 1986: 25)

However, this viewpoint was not always put forward. Eveline de Jong found tow distinct patterns
emerging from her respondents, who came from a bilingual background. There were those parents
parents who were proud to continue the tradition of a bilingual upbringing and made a conscious
decision to do this, but there were those who felt they didn't want to repeat the experience of bringing
up their children bilingually. They now felt so comfortable in the language of the host community, that
to switch back to their mother tongue would be artificial.

These feelings were exemplified by one of her second generation respondents Joanna. Most of this
generation were enthusiastic about repeating their experience with their children, although felt the
ultimate responsibility to transmit the language would lie with their parents. Joanna had a more
cautious response:
Maybe I would like to teach them Greek if and when I have children of my own. But I think that is
pretty difficult to do in another situation other than the one my parents were in. and this is that you both
come from the same foreign country. My case would certainly not be the same, because my relationship
with the language is different. If I marry an English person, I would be the only one to speak Greek,
and it wouldn't even be my best language. Therefore I think it would never be an easy or natural thing
to do. (Jong 1986: 69)

Joanna highlights two possible problems ere. Firstly if the mother or father of your child is not a
member of your ethnic group, their motivation and perhaps inevitably your own desires to promote the
Greek language, will quickly dissipate. Secondly, Greek will be the weaker of the two languages
spoken by a parent. My own respondents felt they spoke Greek: ''well enough to get by'', which raises
questions about the third generation's chances of attending bilingualism.

Holidays abroad or having visitors from abroad offer a natural and meaningful opportunity for
language to be used and practised. Some of my respondents felt it gave learning Greek some validity. It
is important for a child to be able to see some point in learning or keeping up a second language.

However, many of my respondents were not intending to repeat yearly trips to Cyprus as their parents
had done. Many had not been to Cyprus recently and wanted to visit other countries in the world.
Holidays to Cyprus involved commitments traveling to see relatives who would become offended if
they weren't visited. Consequently trips to the island were viewed as opportunities to see family rather
than to relax. But there are serious ramifications for the third
generation. If children are denied the pleasure of communicating with relatives in another country in
another language, will this take away some of the credence of learning Greek?

Clearly the second generation believe it is important to perpetuate the Greek language and culture, and
valiantly hope to succeed. But I think ''hope'' is the key word here. Although the desire and motivation
is there, they are pragmatic about the obstacles that already exist.

The scepticism pervades even to the first generation. One of my first generation respondents lamented
at his own unsuccessful attempts to bring his children up fluent in Greek and English. He believes his
own generation could and should have done more to ensure more promising results, and cannot see
how the second generation will succeed where the first have failed. The second generation are not as
fluent in Greek as their parents, nor are they driven by the same emotional reasons that spurred the first
generation. Hi tone was resigned, his demeanour reflective as he thought back to his early days as an
immigrant. He shook his head slowly and finally said:
I'm not very optimistic at all, not very optimistic at all. I don't think we made a very good job (as)* the
first generation, (of)* instilling people the importance of a second language, about the tradition, about
the cultural benefits... I think the second generation has got even less of a chance.

His fear was shared by other second generation respondents who also had serious practical doubts
about the future of the Greek language in this country. Mike believes it is the first generation who are
the last link to Cyprus and to 'Greekness'. It is they who will initiate conversations in Greek and feel
most comfortable speaking the language. The second generation spend more time communicating in
English, respond to questions asked in Greek by replying in English or using a mixture of both
languages. How can the third generation become fluent speakers of the Greek language if their parents
feel uncomfortable using it? What will happen when the first generation, the last link to 'Greekness' are
no longer alive? Will it be at this point, that the language trying to be passed on will inevitably be
eroded or die? Mike had this to say:
… my grandchildren might or might not learn Greek, but it won't be because I won't push them as a
grandparent... but I think when we're not here, perhaps two or three generations time, the Greek side of
it will probably be lost, it'll be in the distant past. I feel very sad that we should lose it, but I'm afraid it's
inevitable.
This pessimism was shared by Dimitri, who felt that despite good intentions amongst some members of
the second generation, the desire and motivation would not be strong enough to substain rand support
the continuation of the Greek language in this community. The Greek language would be eroded.
I think it will, definitely. I know I'm being pessimisic, but I think it will. It's up to us to say ''No it
won't'' but I think there are a lot of Greeks you now, that can't be bothered.

5.5 Research

In this section of the chapter I would like to widen the research from my own small sample of
respondents, to focus on larger scale studies that have been carried out in bilingual communities.

Jane Miller (1983) writes that the curriculum should allow all young people to develop and reflect their
language by allowing them to use their language their language skills confidently and as a means of
learning about themselves and about 'cultural diversity'.

She believes that educators need to develop an understanding of what it means to operate in more than
one language so that bilingual speakers can become more confident about the language they use and the
languages they need to know how to use. In his book Language in Bilingual Communities (1974),
Derrick Sharp states that bilingual education is important in schools because language acquisition
should be part of a two way process. The school should encourage practice in the language, in addition
to the home, thereby providing the opportunity to speak one of the languages.

In the CLE/LMP Working Paper No. 12 languages in London booklet (1985), a study was undertaken
of Greek speakers in London. In 1980, Greek speakers were one of the largest linguistic minorities in
London. Their number was estimated to be at least 80,000 in the city as a whole. The research team
interviewed about 193 people, asking them about their level of skills in Greek and English, about
language use in the household and their views on Mother Tongue maintenance among children.

Their findings were that eight out of ten respondents with children in their households said children
used mostly English when talking to each other. Nearly nine out of ten of these respondents were aware
of mother tongue classes available in the area, but out of 102 households with children between the
ages of 5-18, only two fifths had at least one child attending a class in the last four weeks. However in
the section of the interview where respondents were asked to express views about mother tongue
maintenance, a high degree of support was expresses.

94% of respondents said agreed with the statement that we should make every possible effort to
maintain the fullest use of our languages in Britain.
88% agreed with the statement that the government should provide the teaching of our languages as a
right for all our children in state schools.

92% agreed or strongly agreed with the suggestion that; ''the authorities should produce versions of
most official letters, notices, forms, and leaflets in our languages as well as in English''.

88% also with the idea that the government should employ far more doctors. Teachers and social
workers who can speak our languages. However only 30% agreed or strongly agreed with the
proposition that ''there is no problem maintaining our languages; they will not die out in Britain'' which
the authors felt suggested a clear recognition of the need for more support for minority languages.

Only 4% of the Greek-speaking respondents agreed with the view still widely held among outsiders
that:
Our communities should completely abandon the use of our languages and should adopt the use of
English everywhere. (Reid 1985: 46)

The attitudes expressed in this piece of research towards retention of 'mother tongues' were very
supportive and overwhelmingly positive. Efforts are being made, particularly in Haringey, to attract
children to classes. In 1981 in this particular authority, Greek speaking minorities had more than half
thair children in mother tongue classes locally.

The authors felt further assistance from local authorities was needed to retain the advantages of
widespread bilingualism in London.

They feel London has been far sighted in its support so far for minority languages in mainstream
schools. But all education authorities need to expand their support for the ''highly developed network of
community-organised classes''. (ibid: 81)

They felt that there should be firm support for community languages located firmly in mainstream
schools and colleges. Institutions such as universities and polytechnics should also be developing the
opportunity for people to study these languages to a high level, to give future specialists an opportunity.

The Schools Council Project has also made a major contribution in helping monolingual teachers and
pupils develop more positive attitudes towards their pupils' bilingualism, because if these bilingual
skills are to be developed in the mainstream school, it is essential to have favourable learning contexts
for the children. The authors concluded by saying:
In other words, there is a real possibility in the capital now of cherishing the environment for languages
other than English. In a shrinking world, where the need for positive contacts with other people has
never been greater, and in a
country which is not noted in the world for its linguistic skills, the opportunity should not be missed.
(ibid: 83)
Joshua A. Fishman in his book Bilingual Education – An International Sociological Perspective (1976),
is optimistic that by the year 2000 there will only be a small diminution in the total number of mother
tongue spoken, because he feels mothers from every culture are still likely to continue feeling that their
mother tongue:
are as good and as beautiful and as inimitable as other languages. (Fishman 1976: 47)
He asks the questions ''are we not all becoming more alike?'' and ''Do we not realise more fully with
each passing decate the danger and folly of ethnocentrism? Do not both capitalist and pragmatism and
communist ideology require and lead to one language for us all?'' (ibid: 50)

Fishman thinks not, because even by the year 2000, he believes the mother tongue will still be:
the vehicle for our deepest feelings, our most sensitive creativity, our most human humanity. (ibid: 50)

He feels the new ethnicity movements in America, which have rejected the notion of 'the melting pot',
and which are now in existance in Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union will
clarify the need that:
… the fraternity of mankind requires a recognition and acceptance of mankind's diversity and the
creative use thereof. (ibid: 51)

Fishman states that this is the dialectic between uniformation and diversification, which needs to be
seen as the foundation for increased teaching of other languages in the year 2000. He believes that
bilingual education, if given support by the community, will herald diversity in a unifying and
gratifying way and will be valuable cognitively, emotionally and aestetically.

Clearly there is support from the researchers in this field for bilingualism recognising its value for the
individual and for society as a whole. Indeed the current educational climate has moved forward from
the days when complete assimilation and integration were advocated.

My respondents and the individuals interviewed by their Language in London project feel it is
important to try and retain the Greek language and culture for future generations.
But there are concerns. The Languages in London project highlighted that 70% of their sample were
worried that the Greek language would die out in Britain. My respondents feel their own efforts will
not be enough to save themselves
language and culture. They believe children will become further anglicised and the last link to Cyprus
will die when the first generation are no longer alive. Visits to Cyprus will decrease as other holiday
resorts become more popular with the second generation. The third generation my resent attending
Greek school driving them to insist their children attend. They will not feel complete foreigners in an
alien environment. Britain is now their home and English their first language.

So do we give up and let the monolingual viewpoint win? Our communities are not only battling
amongst themselves, but against society, so that they can establish bilingualism as something enriching
and valuable for society, and individuals.

It is not enough to support bilingulism from a distance. If indeed the second generation are committed,
then they have to battle for what they strongly believe in.

They need to be aware of the hurdles that lay ahead: society's fear of linguistic diversity. They need to
be able to argue with the help of research that bilingualism is something to be nurtured and not ignored.
Bilingualism is a permanent and important aspect of British life; it is a strength for the individual but
also a gain for society.

In Chapter 6, I look at the various theories and attitudes about bilingualism that have been prevalent in
the past an look at the current situation. This chapter strategically precedes my final chapter giving
credence to the arguements to promote and maintain the future generation's bilingualism.
CHAPTER 6: Bilingualism: Theories and Attitudes – Past and Present

6.1 Research about Bilingualism

The actual definition of bilingualism varies. For some it means a ''native like control'' of two languages
which was put forward by the American linguistic Leonard Bloomfield (1933) and for others such as
Elinar Haugen (1953) the suggestion is that bilingualism begins:
… at the point where a speaker of one language can produce complete, meaningful utterances in the
other language. (Saunders 1988: 8)
Christopher Thiery (1976), refers to this as ''true'' bilingualism. He believes this term represents the
highest degree of bilingualism and is restrictive in that it is very rarely attained. Another term used is
''dually monolingual'', because such a person could function as if they were two monolinguals.

Bloomfield's definition leaves speakers who speak more than one language, but do not have ''native
control'' unaccounted for.

So bilingualism means having two languages, but to be bilingual also means you possess a different
degree of bilingualism, ranging from speaking two languages like a native speaker to a person who is
just beginning to acquire the second language. There is also the term ''balanced bilingual'' who although
may not have perfect fluency in both languages has equal fluency between the two languages. There
has been a lot of controversy surrounding the question of whether a child's bilingualism is an advantage
or disadvantage and in this chapter I would like to look at the various attitudes that have existed in this
area in the early part of this century and move on to look at present attitudes of bilingualism.

In the early part of this century attitudes towards bilingualism seemed to be fairly negative. In 1922,
Otto Jespersen wrote in his book Language, its Nature, Development and Origin:
It is of course, an advantage for a child to be familiar with two languages, but without doubt the
advantage may be, and generally is, purchased too dear. First of all the child in question hardly learns
either of the two languages as perfectly as he would have done if he had limited to one... Secondly, the
brain effort required to master two languages instead of one certainly diminishes the child's power of
learning other things which might and ought to be learnt. Schuchard rightly remarks that if a bilingual
man has two strings to his bo, both are rather slack. (ibid: 14)
In 1982, an article published by de Reynold in Switzerland suggested that bilingulism led to confusion
between the two languages. This in turn led to a difficulty in thinking precisely, a child's intelligence
and self discipline suffered and bilingualism increased mental lethargy.

In 1933, Leo Weisgerber a German linguist, believed that the intelligence of a whole ethnic group
could suffer from the effects of bilingualism. In 1966 he still believed that any possible advantages of
bilingualism were outweighted by the detrimental effects bilingualism could have. He believed that
women and men were by nature monolingual and being bilingual was akin to trying to belong to two
different religions at the same time.

In 1956, Einar Haugen in a review of studies conducted in America to that time (ibid: 15), concluded
that being bilingual did not appear to affect non verbal intelligence, and that verbal intelligence of
bilinguals was retarded at most by two years at any point and this difference disappeared by the time
bilinguals went to college.

These conclusions were challenged in 1962 by research carried out by Elizabeth Peal and Wallace
Lambert, who carried out studies on the effects of bilingualism on intellectual functioning, and found
that bilinguals didn't suffer from a 'language handicap' but were profiting from a 'language asset'. They
went on to say that a bilingual's experience with two language systems actually aided mentl flexibility
and concept formation.

Ohn Macnamara (1966) criticised these results on the grounds that the bilingual children used in the
research were chosen for their intellectual ability. Lambert and Peal (1969) refuted this objection by
claiming the children were chosen for their balanced skills in both languages. They had to have either
equally good r equally poor performance in both languages.

In 1964 Elizabeth Anisfield confirmed the conclusions of the earlier study , with a large scale follow up
study of groups of immigrant children who were found to score better on intelligence tests than
monolingual control groups.

Norman Segalowitz (1977) in a review of research on neurological aspects of bilingualism concludes

that there is no strong evidence to indicate there is a difference between the way language is
represented in the monolingual or bilingual brain. He stated that from a strictly neurological point of
view, a brain could handle two languages just as easily as one.

In 1972 Anita lanco- Worrall studied a group of our to nine year old bilingual Afrikaan children in
South Africa. Her study indicated that bilingual children could analyse language more intensively than
monolingual children, and were conscious at a much earlier age of the arbitrary names assigned to
objects. The experience that bilingual children have at an early age of referring to
things in at least two ways promotes this awareness that the name given to an object has no intrinsic
connection to what it symbolises.

Many other studies carried out, illustrated the cognitive advantages of being bilingual such as greater
adeptness at divergent thinking, carried out by Scott (1973) in a seven year study of English Canadian
children.

Carringer (1974) looked at the creative thinking ability of 15 year old ''balanced'' Spanish – English
bilingual children compared to monolingual children and found that bilingual children, seemed to focus
on ideas rather than words because they had two terms of reference. Other studies carried out by
Kessler & Quinn (1987) looked at bilinguals greater cognitive and linguistic creativity, and experiments
undertaken by Liedtke and Nelson (1968) reinforced Peal and Lambert's (1962) conclusions that
bilingual children are significantly better at forming concepts.

These studies certainly seem very optimistic about the effects of bilingualism on children's intellectual
development, although it should be noted that the bilingual children chosen for these studies were good
examples of the ''balanced bilinguals'', although not necessarily equally proficient in both these
languages.

It appears then that if bilingual children have a reasonable degree of balance between their two
languages, their overall intellectual development in enhanced rather than hindered.

But what of the children whose weaker language is the language of the school and the child's
monolingual teachers and class mates? These children are thrown into a situatin where they either sink
or swim, because they have been submerged into a context where the second language is the dominant
language.

Another term for this is ''subtractive'' bilingualism, because the child's first language skills are being
''subtracted'' to favour the language acquisition of the second.

The proficiency of these children may appear to be superficially adequate, and their teachers may
assume that if they cannot keep up with their peers academically, their problems are not linguistic but
intellectual.
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (1981) uses the image of the water lily to illustrate linguistic development. Wen
we hear a child speak we only see what's on the surface of the water like a water lily. But the roots of
the mother tongue are deep beneath the surface of the water where children have uncosciously acquired
non verbal and connotative meanings.

So that when a child learns another language it becomes analogous to a splendid water lily, which
superficially looks just as splendid as the mother tongue water lily. The child learns to speak and
converse fairly fluently in this
new language, but very often this water lily can be floating on the surface of the water without roots.
If we are then deceived into thinking the child knows this language as well as the mother tongue
language will be neglected and interrupted.
… the roots of the mother tongue will not be sufficiently nourished or they may be cut off altogether. If
the foreign language is merely a water lily floating on the surface without proper roots, a situation may
gradually develop in which the child will only have two surface flowers, two languages, neither of
which she commands in the way a monolingual would command her mother tongue... and if the roots
have been cut off, nothing permanent can grow any more. The child's own language has crumbled
apart, is fragile, no longer solid, and the new language is nothing more than ''borrowed plumage''.
(Kangas-Skutnabb 1981: 53)

Jim Cumins (1984) points out that bilingual children keep pace with their peers and cope with more
complex linguistic situations by acquiring academic skills in the language of the school, and this level
of competence can take time to acquired. Ideally, these children should receive assistance with their
schoolwork in the stronger language.

Michael Weigt (1985) hows in a study of Turkish-German bilingual children carried out in Hamburg,
that the children were thought to have learning rather than linguistic difficulties. Their bilingualism was
a disadvantage because their language acquisition in both languages was not yet sufficiently balanced,
and the school was making little attempt to help the children overcome these problems.

Francois Grosjean (1985) raises a question about the constant comparisons between monolinguals and
bilinguals. He asks why the effects of bilingualism have been so closely observed, given that half the
world's population is bilingual? He believes that monolinguals view bilingualism, as something to be
concerned about and states:
As a bilingual myself, I have often wondered why the cognitive consequences of monolingualism have
not been investigated with the same care! (ibid: 24)
 6.2 Language Diversity in Britain : A Historical Perspective

The British Isles has a greater history of cultural and linguistic diversity than is sometimes recognised.
During the Roman occupation many people became bilingual in Celtic and Latin.

In 1066, the Normans changed English in the way it way it was spoken and written down, and for three
hundred years, Britain's official language was French, and English remained the ordinary language of
the majority of the people.

The French speaking Normans needed bilingual people to communicate between them and the Anglo
Saxon speaking population. The language that came to be known as 'English', gradually developed
from these linguistic influences.

From Tudor times, English came to be accepted as a national language ad subsequently a belief in the
superiority of English came about with colonisation and overseas trading. This included the Celtic and
Gaelic speaking territories being incorporated into the 'British Isles'.

British traders made no effort to learn the languages of the people they were dealing with, and in the
case of African slaves in the Caribbean, and Welsh and Irish speakers in Britain:
the native languages were actively suppressed to lessen the danger of organised resistance to British
rule. (Orzachowska 1984: 6)
In every period of British history, settlers from other cultures with other languages arrived in England.
In the fifteenth century, Dutch-speaking Flemings settled in England. In the sixteenth century French
speaking Huguenots arrived. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Yiddish speaking Jews
settled, followed by German speaking refugees from Czechoslovakia, Germany and Austria in the
1930's.

Many of these communities became linguistically and culturally absorbed into the majority culture,
although the Jewish community managed to retain many aspects of its language and culture.

Recently, discussion about linguistic and cultural diversity has focused on the recent processes of
immigration and suggested that the majority of the British population share the same language and
culture. As can be seen from the above catalogue of immigration to this country, this is a false and
dangerous premise, which is often used to buildup resentment and racist attitudes towards minority
groups.
 6.3 British Developments In Increasing Linguistic Diversity

The prevailing attitude towards ethnic diversity in Britain has traditionally been that ethnic groups
would give up their languages and cultures, and become assimilated into the dominant British one.
Education was one way of 'Anglicising' children from ethnic groups, and given this strong background
of 'Anglicisation', it's not surprising that bilingualism came to be seen as something negative that
hindered a child's natural development. Most teachers believed that to effectively teach their pupils
English, bilingualism should be eradicated. Many children were punished for speaking their mother
tongue at school and consequently came to feel ashamed of their language and cultural background.

Many of the research findings carried out at the time when immigrants were first settling in this country
showed bilingual children failing at school, and some researchers believed bilingualism caused
psychological problems. Many children were made to feel that they had to reject their home culture and
language in order to belong to the majority culture. In effect, many felt unable to identify with either
cultural group.

By the 1950's and 1960's, the educational policies responded to the increasing linguistic diversity in
school, by increasing the provision and resourcing of English as a Second Language.

By the 1970's, discussion began about supporting children's bilingualism in schools. It was also in the
1970's that The Bullock Report was published A Language for Life (Department of Education and
Science 1975) which recommended that:
No child should be expected to cast off the language and culture of the home as he/she* crosses the
school threshold and the curriculum should reflect those aspects of his/her life (DES 1975).

The report recommended that a positive approach should be adopted by schools, to encourage children
to maintain their mother tongue. The report also recommended that further research should be
undertaken as to how bilingualism could be nurtured in communities and schools. Generally the
recommendations although tentative, were welcome in a climate where little else was being said about
bilingualism.

In the mid-1970's support began to emerge for bilingual teaching, principally from organisations such
as the National Association for Multicultural Education and the National Association of Teachers of
English. In 1976, a conference was organised in association with Leicestershire Local Education
Authority. The conference discussed three different aspects of bilingualism in Britain: bilingualism in
Welsh education, bilingualism in minority groups and
bilingualism and foreign language teaching. The conference highlighted the negligible impact the
Welsh education system had so far had on Britain.

In 1975 and 1976 positive developments occurred. A scheme in Birmingham was set up to teach
Penjabi. Bedforshire Local Education Authority set up an experimental scheme, where junior and
middle school children were taught Penjabi and Italian as part of the regular school timetable.

In 1976, as the outcome of conferences organised by the National Association of Asian Youth, teachers
of South Asian languages combined with teachers of European minority languages to set up the
Coordinating Committee for Mother Tongue Teaching.

At this time a draft EEC Directive was issued on the Education of migrant workers' children. Many
objections were raised against this document in Parliament and in schools, although parents and
organisations that represented minority groups were not consulted.

Five years later an EEC Directive did come into effect on 25th July 1981. Guidelines were sent to all
local education authorities, stating that they should all 'explore' ways to provide mother tongue teaching
either during school or outside school, but that they were not required to give such tuition as an
individual's right. Most minority groups seemed to have been excluded from debates about their
language rights, despite studies available that indicate high degree of motivation and interest among
parents to encourage mother tongue teaching for their children.

In 1980, and 1981 The Linguistic Minorities Project conducted a series of sociolinguistic surveys. They
were based in Coventry, Bradford and London and looked at speakers from ten linguistic minority
groups. The general impression was one of concern for language teaching and maintenance in ethnic
minority communities.

Latterly, more positive developments have occurred. There has been a move away from teaching
English as a Second Language where children were principally engaged in learning English in a
separate class without a content context, to acknowledging the value of supporting the child's home
language. The Inner London Education Autority has a Modern Languages Inspector with special
responsibility for Community Languages. Haringey Education Authority also has an Inspector for
Bilingualism. Many other authorities such as Leicester, Cambridge, Nottingham, Coventry,
Birmingham and Manchester to name but a few, have taken yp initiatives to support linguistic minority
children in their schools.

Various research projects have also been undertaken looking at bilingualism in various communities in
Britain. They are outlined briefly below:
 1. Research undertaken by Harold Rosen and Tony Burgess called Linguistic Diversity in London
School (1977-1978)
2. Research undertaken by Olav Rees and Barre Fitzpatrick called Mother Tongue and English
Teaching Project (1978-80) and
3. The Schools Council Mother Tongue Project SCMTP. (1981-84)

In 1985 The Swan Report was published. It was called Education for All and looked into the Education
of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups. Chapter Seven of the Report was entitled Language and
Language Education and looked at provision, attitudes, teachers and pupils' attitudes to mother tongue
teaching, ESL provision and various other related areas.

Verity Saifullah Khan is critical of the Chapter, stating that:

… while Chapter 7 outlines the assimilationist values underlying the monolingual ideology on which
ESL language policies were based it ignored the pluralist values underlying the multi-lingual approach
to the language policies, and mother tongue teaching in particular. (Khan Saifullah 1985: 3)
She goes on to say that the Chapter doesn't contribute to the understanding of the multilingual nature of
the society we live in, nor does it contribute to the educational arguments involved in an individual's
bilingualism or multilingualism.

6.4 Bilingualism in Wales

Bilingualism has existed in Wales for centuries. Latin was the language of government, commerce and
education during the Roman occupation of Wales, but its proximity to England has ensured that the
most prolific source of borrowing into Welsh is from England.

In 1536 and 1542 the Acts of Union tried to exert pressure on to the Welsh people to give up their
language and learn English if they wanted to achieve equality with Enlish people. The Welsh language
survived the pressures, and Wales has remained very much a bilingual country. The printed word
secured the survival of the language.

By the end of the nineteenth century Wales saw a decline in the number os Welsh speakers, which was
accompanied by an increasing shift from monoglot command of Welsh to bilingual command of Welsh
and English. This trend continued to the present century.
To prevent a further decline of Welsh speakers the Welsh Language Society was formed in 1962 and
there are now numerous other organisations campaining to support the Welsh language movement.
In 1939, the first Welsh-language school was opened which heralded the beginning of the Welsh-
medium education at primary school level Education authorities vary in their degree of commitment to
the Welsh language, but presented below are the types of education available in Wales, specifically for
children under 11 years of age.

(I) Welsh-medium schools, which are voluntary. They aim to produce bilinguals by the age of 11
initially by relying on the anglicising influences outside the school environment and then,
usually, by introducing English as a second language around seven years of age.
(II) Bilingual School, geared toward early use of both languages using both as media of instruction.
(III) English medium schools, where occasional lessons may be presented in Welsh, or Welsh
may be taught as a subject, but bilingualism is not a significant aspect of the system.
(IV) Welsh-medium stream, parallel to an English stream within the same school.
(V) Bilingual units attached to English-medium schools. (Munro 1987: 39)

6.5 Canadian Developments

In his book Bilingualism and Minority Language Children (1981), Jim Cummins outlines the recent
Canadian developments that have moved away from a long tradition of Anglo-conformity in Canadian
education. He states that in the first half of the century, the overt aim of teaching English to minority
language children in Canadian schools, was to create a more harmonious society with equal
opportunities for all. The covert aim of this programme was in fact to Anglicise these children because
their linguistic and cultural diversity was seen as a threat to social uniformity.

Schools would prohibit mother tongue use in schools, causing children to reject their own language and
culture and used the so-called 'educational' arguments that learning two languages would impede
English language acquisition, and reduce the child's ability to identify with the English-speaking
culture.

But in 1971, the government adopted the policy of: ''multiculturalism within a bilingual framework''.
(Cummins 1981: 9)

So under this policy Canada's two official languages became English and French, although each ethnic
minority group was encouraged to maintain their own language and culture to enrich Canadian society,
which were seen to be part of contributing to the Canadian identity.
In 1971, Alberta became the first province to legalise the use of other languages as a medium of
instruction in the public school system, and bilingual programmes involved the use of Ukranian,
German and Hebrew.

In 1979, Manitoba permitted languages ''other'' than French and English to be used as languages of
instruction for up to 50 per cent of the school day. In 1979-80 there were 76,017 students representing
forty-four language groups in the Heritage Languages Programme. This was funded by the Ontario
Ministry of Education to teach heritage languages for up to two and a half hours per week, outside the
normal five hour school day.

In Quebec, English can be used for those children whose parents speak English, although French is the
legal language of instruction. In 1978 the Quebec provincial government started a programme which
involved Greek, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese being taught for thirty minutes per day during school
time.

The philosophy behind these programmes was to promote and faciliate cultural maintenance and
educational enrichment. Many of the children are third generation pupils, who are not fluent in their
heritage language, and the aims of the programmes are to revive the languages for those children and
help them value their cultural and linguistic heritage.

6.6 The United States

In 1967 The Bilingual Education Act was passed, although there is still considerable controversy even
now about the supposed benefits and aims of bilingual programmes in America. Many of the
programmes were, and have been successful, and have significantly improved the academic progress of
minority children. But according to Cummins (1981), these programmes have nt reduced the inequality
of educational opportunity that was originally envisaged they might succeed in doing. Problems with
implementation, alack of qualified teachers and unsuitable materials have all contributed to the quality
of some of the bilingual programmes.

6.7 Where do we go now?

In summary then, the widely held negative beliefs in the past about childrens' bilingualism were largely
based on misconceptions about the role of language in children's development and the way
bilingualism affects this development. Recent research has indicated that maintaining and developing a
child's moth-
er tongue or heritage language has no negative effects on the child's development of the majority
language, and in many cases has very positive effects.

According to Cummmins (1982), there are two important reasons why children's mother tongue can be
promoted at home without hindering the development of the language of the school. Firstly, children
have considerable exposure to the majority language through the media. Moreover, the child's overall
intellectual and academic development have been developed in the mthe tongue, they can be easily
transferred to the majority language, given adequate exposure.

Many studies have shown that there is a direct link between the child's academic success and the way
adults communicate with children. Gordon Wells (1981), showed that a child's linguistic development
was linked to the quality of conversation they experienced with adults.
Given that the quality of conversation between adults and children is so important, teachers' advice to
parents that they do not speak their mother tongue but the majority language at home, could have
serious ramifications. If parents are speaking in for example broken English o their children, because
they are not completely fluent, then the quality of the language children experienced will be severely
impeded.

If parents expose their children to their mother tongue at home before entering school, and they
establish a high level of proficiency, they will be providing a sound foundation for the acquisition of
the school language.

Cummins concludes by saying parents who want their children to be bilingual need to plan
appropriatly, because bilingualism does not occur automatically through exposure to two languages.
Promoting the mother tongue in the home does not hinder development of the majority language, and
evidence from this approach.

We need to shatter the resolutely monolingual presumption that there is a hierarchy of important
languages and change society's refusal to accept the reality of our linguistic richness.

The Linguistic Minorities Project has provided some research into the range and extent of languages
other that English, but its conclusions are depressing:

Many of the ethnic minority community languages in England are at present ignored or devalued as an
individual and sociental resource,when in fact their speakers could with minimal investment have their
existing skills developed during their school years, and thus offer the country an education, economic
and political resource of considerable value. And the value of minority languages lies not only in what
they offer to the large number of bilingual mem-
bers of our society. Bilingualism in our society also offers the possibility of changing the narrowly
monolingual perspective of many majority institutions and individuals. (Marland 1987: 38)

In the next chapter I look at how and why we should change society's ''narrowly monolingual
perspective'' and focus on strategies currently being developed in other countries and in some education
authorities in this country.
CHAPTER 7: Current Controversies in Provision

What has the Cypriot gained by coming to England? He has exchanged his language, his tradition, his
national identity, even his own children, for a few pounds which he will probably soon lose. A very der
and unequal exchange indeed. In two generationa there will be nothing left of the present thousands of
Greek Cypriots but a few Anglicised Greek names.

We ourselves, have offered to our conquerors the very same thing that they have been unsuccessfully
trying to achieve for so many years''. (George and Millerson 1967: 291)

What initially motivated this piece of work, was my own ''fear'' as a member of a minority ethnic
group, that my lnguage and culture could gradually become eroded. I felt concern that my children
would not have the opportunity to learn Greek or might perhaps not even want to!

I became clear after interviewing some other second generation Greek Cypriots, that they too were
concerned about the future. Most of the respondents saw bilingualism as an asset, something to be
valued and encouraged. But they also felt pessimistic about th future of the Greek language. Would it
indeed survive successfully in to the next generation? What would happen when the first generation of
immigrants were no longer alive to perpetuate that link to Cyprus? Some respondents believed that
mother tongue teaching should be carried out in mainstream schools, which would alleviate the
problems inherent within attending Saturday morning community schools. They believed this would
increase the status of the language and it would allow the development of both languages alongside
each other.

The issue of teaching the mother tongue in mainstream education is quite problematic and I aim to
discuss this in the chapter. I will also be olooking at current provision for mother tongue teaching in
Haringey, which has the highlightest proportion of Greek speakers in a London borough, and want to
look at the varieties of Modern Greek taught in community and mainstream schools.

7.1 Assimilation – vs – cultural pluralism

In the book The Language of Minority Children (1972) edited by Bernard Spolsky, the contemporary
concerns in the language education of minority children in the United States are highlighted. The book
is organised in three sections, firstly looking at some background to the nature of multilingualism and
the scope of language problems for minority children in the United States.
The second volume focuses on aspects of bilingualism and bilingual education, and the third section
looks at more specific curricular issues.i will be focusing on two of the articles from the second volume
of the book, by Joshua Fishman and John Lovas and the second by Rolf Kjolseth.

Fishman and Lovas look at various models for bilingual education that are presented from a
sociolinguistic perspective. They emphasise that educational goals must be based on an understanding
of the society for which they are developed, and they outline four broad categories of bilingual
education and discuss the implications of each. The paper was read at the 1970 TESOL Convention.

I believe it is useful to look at the model Fishman and Lovas put forward, as an ideal that could
possibly be advocated for Britain. However, it has many flaws that are highlighted in the subsequent
article in the book by Rolf Kjolseth.

Those two articles act as a debate between those advocating a bilingual programme in mainstream
schools and those who feel in settling for a bilingual programme in schools, one is also accepting
assimilation rather than cultural pluralism. This 'debate' perhaps highlights some of the worries about
transfering responsibility of mother tongue teaching to schools.

Fishman and Lovas' article is entitled 'Bilingual Education in a Sociolinguistic Perspective'. They
believed that bilingual education in the United States was suffering from a lack of funds, a lack of
trained personnel in this area and a lack of materials and methods. They were however very optimistic
and believed we lived in an age of miracles where success was possible!

They believed if bilingual programme were to be successful, educationalists needed to look at the
complexity of the problem viewed from a societal perspective, and not attempt 'language shift' or
'language maintenance' without looking at the kinds of difficulties that could arise.

They highlighted three areas of concern. The school might be trying to attempt language maintenance,
which they saw as developing a high level of acquisition of mother tongue and second language, and
promoting the use of both languages in most social situations. This could be a problem for the school, if
they did not take into account the preferences or values of the community.

Alternatively, the second may favour a 'language shift' programme, which they saw as developing
competence in the second language, which would be used in most social situations. This could cause
problems if a community was determined to maintain its own language, and the school ignored the
sociolinguistic dimention of the problem.

The third alternative, is the possibility that the school and the community have similar objectives, but
the school's programme may fail to take into account the
existence of one or more non-standard varieties used by the community, and adopt the simplistic view
that there is only one variety or form of a given language.

Fishman and Lovas later go on to look at four broad categories of Bilingual Education Programmes and
each is briefly illustrated by an existing or proposed bilingual education programme for a Spanish
speaking community.

The first type is called Transitional Bilingualism. This type of programme aims to develop aural-oral
skills in both languages but not with the literacy skill in the mother tongue. This type of programme
would aim to encourage fluency in the mother tongue as a link between home and school, with the
school supporting the mother tongue at home but not concerning itself with developing literacy skills in
this language. This type of programme is intermediate between language shilf and language
maintenance. The likely effect of such a programme might be in the short run to develop language
maintenance, but after exposure to the host society which stresses and towards literacy, a language shift
may occur.

The third type of programme is called Partial Bilingualism. This programme seeks fluency and literacy
in both languges, but literacy in the mother tongue would be restricted mainly to areas related to the
cultural heritage of the ethnic group. This kind of progrmme in one of language maintenance, with an
effort being made to maintain culture. Reading and writing skills in the mother tongue would be
developed, generally in the arts subjects rather than the sciences. While the mother tongue can be taken
seriously as a vehicle for literacy subjects, it is not deemed an appropriate vehicle for scientific or
technological subjects, which are predominantly the preserve of people who speak the majority
language.

The fourth type of programme is called Full Bilingualism. Here the students are encouraged to develop
all skills in all language. Both languages are used to teach the students and this particular programme is
directed at language maintenance and the development of the minority language. From a linguistic and
psychological point of view, this programme is ideal because it embraces the idea that children should
be able to think and feel in two languages, and be able to control both languages, which will produce a
generation, who are fully bilingual and bicultural.
Fishman and Lovas, claim this particular programme is unrealistic because a fully balanced bilingual
community, requires that the language be functionally equivalent, and this is not possible because no
society can be motivaed to maintain two languages if they are functionally redundant.

Several examples of this programme exist in America, but they are small pilot experiments, and there is
serious doubt that they could operate effectively as large scale programmes. An area of concern is that
they often lead to ''Social separation for their maintenance rather than for their origin''. (Spolsky 1972:
8 9) and consequently become self defeating.
In the early stages of development the school and community need to amass some information, so that
they can make appropriate decisions about the type of programme they should operate. A survey should
be used to establish the different languages and dialects used by parents and children. Some indication
is needed of what the teachers and communities' attitudes are towards these languages and dialects,
how well these languages are spoken by the parents and children, and how the teachers and staff would
feel about changing the current provision for languages in school.

Once a decision has been made about which programme to develop, more detailed information would
be needed about the languages spoken and the parents and children's level of performance and
competence. Ideally this would then avoid teaching what the children already know or what they do not
want to know.

Fishman and Lovas state that society is now genuinely entering into bilingual education, and moving
away from the notions that a bilingual education means teaching English as a Second Language.

Also, society is beginning to realise that schools belong to the community and they have a right to
express their needs and say what they want for their chldren's education.

But they are not complacent about recent awareness regarding the benefits of bilingual education.

Educationalists still do not know how to effectively collect th information required to make decisions
about bilingual education, and society still has to move a long way to stop viewing bilingual education
as a compensatory modeThey end on an optimistic note that society is making progress and learning
albeit the hard way!

Rolf Kjolseth does not share the optimism of Fishman and Lovas, that bilingual programmes is schools
promote the maintenance of children's mother tongues and their cultural identity. He is sceptical and
cynical about these programmes, because they claim to be abandoning the notion of ''the melting
pot'', advocating cultural pluralism where all children from minority groups can enter the majority
culture. But in effect the condition set is that they give up their own language. Kjolseth believes
bilingual programmes ain at assimilation rather than at the preservation of ethnic differences.

Rolf Kjolseth, who is a sociologist in America, expands on these arguments in a paper called 'Bilingual
Education Programs in the United States: For Assimilation or Pluralism?'Recent trends towards the
advantages of bilingual education programmes are heralded by many as the end of ''the melting pot''
philosophy, where immigrant groups were encouraged to assimilate into monolingual American
society. Some people now feel there programmes will favour all cultures existing together in an
environment of acceptance for ethnic diversity.

Kjolseth critically examines this premise from a sociolinguistic perspective and looks at the relevance
and effects of bilingual programmes on language use outside the community.

Language can not ''live'' in schools, so programmes that do not promote language use in the community,
but restrict language use to the school could be said to be promoting linguistic assimilation. Kjolseth
talks about two types of model – the Pluralistic model and the Assimilation model. In the Pluralistic
model, the teachers are of ethnic origin themselves and are bilingual and bicultural who act as positive
role models for their students.

Students from ethnic and non ethnic groups learn in their own and each other's languages. Each dialect
receives equal attention, and lessons would be taught in other languages, thereby enabling both ethnic
and noon ethnic pupils' communication in an ' appropriate language with 'outgroup peers'.
Demonstration classes would be held for parents from all groups to explain the programme and an adult
programme could also be set up. Publicity about the schools' bilingual programmes could be included
in local newspapers, where emphasis is placed on the school's interest in cultivating local languages
and dialects.

The pluralistic Model encourages switching between the two languages, and language skills and
cultural perspectives are supported without destroying the home language and culture and these
developments should take place in both groups.

The Assimilation model would be set up without liaison between the school and the community.
Teacher would either be non-ethnic or if they were a member of an ethnic community had little to do
with the community. Teachers might have very ''traditional'' views about bilingual education
programmes causing language interference and use of dialects being a problem or incorrect.

The classes would only be available for the ethnic students and would empha-