Final Report Summary - LINEE (Languages in a network of European excellence)
LINEE was a scientific network of excellence that investigated linguistic diversity in Europe and focussed on four thematic areas, namely language, identity and culture, language policy and planning, multilingualism and education and language and policy. Each of these topics was studied at the European, national and regional levels. LINEE aimed at integrating the knowledge of its partners, their methods and theories in order to better understand how multilingualism 'worked' throughout Europe.
The project implemented a discourse analysis and conducted mostly qualitative research, but also included quantitative methods. Researchers asked mainly open-ended questions and focussed on present day situations as opposed to exploring developments in retrospective or longitudinal studies. All of LINEE's research projects employed a variety of methods, while its partners were engaged in joint initiatives which integrated multiple 'research traditions'.
In the European classrooms studied by LINEE, multilingualism was not seen as an as-set and most teachers embraced the ideology of 'using only one language in the classroom' and 'one language only at a time'. This approach ignored or neglected and, possibly in the long run, wasted a lot of students' multilingual resources, creative potential and effective everyday multilingualism.
Language policies investigated by LINEE concentrated on standard languages and, at best, on minority-language groups considered to have 'always' been part of a particular territory. Although non-standard varieties and dialects were very important for people's identities, they were neglected by policies which, moreover, did not adapt to the arrival of immigrant languages.
In LINEE case studies, English emerged as a neutral common language with only a marginal national connotation. It was also perceived as a facilitator for further language learning, intercultural understanding and contact and as an asset on the job market. And while LINEE research found concerns that English might threaten linguistic diversity, such concerns were not dominant.
The term multilingualism within the European Union usually neglected power relations and conflicts between linguistic groups and states, which led to scepticism and the perception of multilingualism as a mere marketing or propaganda tool. The term was vague and understood differently, not only by the general public but also by policy makers. Unless its meaning was clearly explained in a particular context, misunderstandings and conflicts were bound to result.
Based on these findings several policy implications were proposed. In terms of teachers' training, it was suggested to provide teachers with information about the benefits of using more than just the target language and to encourage and train them to make use of many students' extensive prior language knowledge and communicative competence. Moreover, it was suggested to treat languages in an integrative way rather than trying to keep them apart in the classroom, as well as to consider, for example, applying the Ladin school system's integrated language didactics, which encouraged students to use their knowledge of one language to learn another.
Language policies should address non-standard varieties and immigrant languages which were important for individuals' identity, social cohesion, integration and economic situation. Small local organisations should also be supported wherever policies could not react quickly enough to respond to immigrants' needs and changing migration flows. In addition, policies should address conflicts and problems that emerged from the facts that not all languages were equal, not all countries were equal and diversity did not always unite. Strong arguments for learning and using specific languages were their prevalence in a region, their economic value in terms of job opportunities and their function as a factor in identity formation.
Finally, it should be clearly stated how 'multilingualism' was understood and used in a particular context, e.g. as a means of protecting minority languages and the right of citizens to use their native language, as a means for economic success and growth, or as a concept to be used in language education.
The project implemented a discourse analysis and conducted mostly qualitative research, but also included quantitative methods. Researchers asked mainly open-ended questions and focussed on present day situations as opposed to exploring developments in retrospective or longitudinal studies. All of LINEE's research projects employed a variety of methods, while its partners were engaged in joint initiatives which integrated multiple 'research traditions'.
In the European classrooms studied by LINEE, multilingualism was not seen as an as-set and most teachers embraced the ideology of 'using only one language in the classroom' and 'one language only at a time'. This approach ignored or neglected and, possibly in the long run, wasted a lot of students' multilingual resources, creative potential and effective everyday multilingualism.
Language policies investigated by LINEE concentrated on standard languages and, at best, on minority-language groups considered to have 'always' been part of a particular territory. Although non-standard varieties and dialects were very important for people's identities, they were neglected by policies which, moreover, did not adapt to the arrival of immigrant languages.
In LINEE case studies, English emerged as a neutral common language with only a marginal national connotation. It was also perceived as a facilitator for further language learning, intercultural understanding and contact and as an asset on the job market. And while LINEE research found concerns that English might threaten linguistic diversity, such concerns were not dominant.
The term multilingualism within the European Union usually neglected power relations and conflicts between linguistic groups and states, which led to scepticism and the perception of multilingualism as a mere marketing or propaganda tool. The term was vague and understood differently, not only by the general public but also by policy makers. Unless its meaning was clearly explained in a particular context, misunderstandings and conflicts were bound to result.
Based on these findings several policy implications were proposed. In terms of teachers' training, it was suggested to provide teachers with information about the benefits of using more than just the target language and to encourage and train them to make use of many students' extensive prior language knowledge and communicative competence. Moreover, it was suggested to treat languages in an integrative way rather than trying to keep them apart in the classroom, as well as to consider, for example, applying the Ladin school system's integrated language didactics, which encouraged students to use their knowledge of one language to learn another.
Language policies should address non-standard varieties and immigrant languages which were important for individuals' identity, social cohesion, integration and economic situation. Small local organisations should also be supported wherever policies could not react quickly enough to respond to immigrants' needs and changing migration flows. In addition, policies should address conflicts and problems that emerged from the facts that not all languages were equal, not all countries were equal and diversity did not always unite. Strong arguments for learning and using specific languages were their prevalence in a region, their economic value in terms of job opportunities and their function as a factor in identity formation.
Finally, it should be clearly stated how 'multilingualism' was understood and used in a particular context, e.g. as a means of protecting minority languages and the right of citizens to use their native language, as a means for economic success and growth, or as a concept to be used in language education.
