The influence of situation and setting

In the previous section we discussed the influence of the people around the language user on language choice and on academic achievement. Another factor determining language choice is the setting or the situation. Again, this is an “old” theme in sociolinguistic enquiry, though one which more recently has been reformulated in migration studies as a problem of socio-spatial analysis (see below). Fishman (1965) defines situation as ‘the use in characterizing certain circumstances of communication at the time of communication’ (p. 104) while according to him. Situation is different from setting. The latter refers to the broader and more multifaceted concept. As mentioned before, people and thus also pupils have a wide range of repertoires at their disposal. It is the specific ‘academic’ language used at school that takes the longest to acquire and which causes these children most troubles. This does not mean they are not linguistically competent in other contexts than school, or with other people than teachers (Heyerick, 2008). Language educational research has tended to focus mostly on the relationship between the home and the school.

Social context

Language learning cannot be seen separated from the social context. Dagenais and Day (1999) suggest to examine language experiences at home and school in relation to the values and cultural practices in these contexts. As Pedraza and Pousada (1992 in Dagenais & Day, 1999) argued ‘children are subject to competing influences from home, community and school, and in order to assess their linguistic performances and/or capabilities accurately, it is vital to consider the entire scope of their language experiences in and out of school. What is needed is an approach which looks at the whole picture for the children and recognizes that this picture may change precipitously over time in response to transformations in roles, responsibilities and opportunities for interaction’ (p. 253 in Dagenais & Day, 1999).

Meertaligheid Als Realiteit op School (MARS)

Onderzoek in opdracht van het Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming 145

Jang et al. (2013) found in their study that when immigrant pupils live longer in the country of residence, they use more of the societal language in their homes. However, these patterns do not tell us if children choose to speak more of the societal language at home and refuse to speak another language or if all family members (choose to) increase their use of the societal language. Jang et al. (2013) remark that irrespective of which is the case, results indicate that “social context factors” (Carhill et al., 2008) contribute to the changing patterns of language use. These factors include people who surround the pupils, interact with them and influence their perceptions and attitudes about the societal language (Jang et al., 2013). For example, Jia and Aaronson (2003) remark a difference between the efforts of older and younger pupils to maintain their mother tongue, older learners more frequently choose environments that allow them to maintain their L1.

Domains of behavior

Schmidt-Rohr (1963 in Fishman, 1965) recommended nine domains of behavior: (a) the family, (b) the playground and street, (c) the school (divided into language of instruction, subject of instruction, and language of recess and entertainment), (d) the church, (e) literature, (f) the press, (g) the military, (h) the courts, and (i) the governmental administration. Other researchers have found that fewer domains were also sufficient (Fishman, 1965). Such domains help to understand that language choice and topic are related to norms and expectations. If many individuals or subgroups tend to handle a certain topic in a certain language, this might suggest that topic refers to a certain domain in which that language is dominant for that society or subgroup (Fishman, 1965).

Many studies have shown that the family domain (a) is a crucial one in understanding multilingual behavior. As Fishman (1965) states it: ‘Multilingualism often begins in the family and depends upon it for encouragement if not for protection’ (p. 95). Streets (b), shops, public health centers, schools (c), and bars all function as ‘centers’ in the neighborhood, but each one of them allows for or invites different interactional regimes, including perceptions of what counts as an acceptable set of (enacted) language resources from its users (Blommaert et al., 2005). In multilingual/multicultural societies, some cultures or communities place a higher value on ethnic language maintenance and/or offer more support (e.g. ethnic language classes, cultural activities in ethnic languages and religious rituals in ethnic languages), whereas other communities put less value on their language maintenance. However, the few studies to examine specific community resources indicate modest impacts on children’s language outcomes (Dixon et al., 2012). Despite rich language resources in a community, it may have surprisingly little effect on language development (Dixon et al., 2012). Concerning the family domain (a), some studies found a correlation between the use of L2 at home by parents and the development of this L2 by pupils (Quiroz, Snow, & Zhao, 2010) as we already discussed in the previous section. Hammer et al. (2009 in Jang et al., 2013) reported that more use of the societal language at home hindered their further language development, while the correlation of pupils’ L1 is high and positive to their L2 development (August & Shanahan, 2006 in Jang et al., 2013). This positive transfer of skills has been documented by numerous studies (e.g., Collier, 1987; Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, & Goldenberg, 2000; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005; Slavin & Cheung, 2005). However, the most positive transfer on pupils’ reading skills is observed when pupils have increased metalinguistic awareness that allows them to apply appropriate knowledge of their L1 to their reading (Garcia, 2000 in Jang et al., 2013).

Meertaligheid Als Realiteit op School (MARS)

Onderzoek in opdracht van het Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming 146

Language use in the classroom (c), contrary to what language policy-makers argue, is multilevelled and complex (Ioannidou, 2009). The choice of linguistic variety depends on the occasions of communication, with for example the standard language being considered formally and situationally appropriate during actual lessons, while dialect use is mostly associated with spontaneous talk and informality (Ioannidou, 2009). In one of the following sections, we will come back to ‘dialect’. In the multilingual classrooms of today, this dichotomy often plays out as codeswitching between a home language and the dominant language. Vann, Richardson Bruna and Perales Escudero (2007) detail a context in the US with Spanish as the home language and English as the school language.

Neither reference group membership (persons) or situational style (setting) can fully explain the variations in habitual language choice. Topic is another regulator of language use worth considering in multilingual settings (Fishman, 1965). Some multilingual speakers will speak about a certain topic in a certain language because that is the language in which they were trained. They might lack specific terms for the discussion of this certain topic (Fishman, 1965).

Er zijn een aantal ‘domeinen’ of ‘settings’ die we kunnen onderscheiden van elkaar. Die opdeling kan helpen om taalkeuze te begrijpen en om de link met normen en verwachtingen duidelijk te maken. Kinderen worden namelijk beïnvloed vanuit vele contexten, enkele daarvan zijn de thuisomgeving, de gemeenschap waarin ze leven en de school. Het gezin blijkt een cruciaal domein om meertaligheid te begrijpen, aangezien het daar vaak begint en het ook vaak van de ondersteuning thuis afhangt of een leerling zijn/haar moedertaal onderhoudt. Studies tonen aan dat hoe langer kinderen in een samenleving wonen, hoe meer ze thuis de dominante taal beginnen te spreken. Het is niet duidelijk of dit om een bewuste keuze van die kinderen gaat, of dat het hele gezin meer in die taal begint te communiceren omdat ze er vaardiger in zijn geworden. Oudere leerlingen kiezen vaak voor een omgeving waar ze hun moedertaal kunnen spreken, terwijl dit voor jongere kinderen minder uitmaakt. Het domein van de klas wordt vaak onderschat op gebied van complexiteit in taalgebruik. We zien bijvoorbeeld ook een verschil in de klas tussen standaardtaal en tussentaal of dialect. In een volgend stuk gaan we hier dieper op in. Taalgebruik en taalkeuze zijn dus afhankelijk van de setting waarin een leerling zich bevindt, maar ook van het gespreksonderwerp. De taal waarin leerlingen over een bepaald onderwerp geleerd hebben, zal hun taalkeuze immers beïnvloeden.