Im Rahmen eines Projekts zu den Migrantensprachen in mehrsprachigen europäischen Städten wurden der Status und der Gebrauch dieser Sprachen untersucht. Der Status der Sprachen zu Hause und in der Schule wurde anhand eines Profils für jede Sprachgemeinschaft analysiert. Dieses Profil berücksichtigt a) die Sprachkompetenz der SchülerInnen, d.h., wie gut sie die “Haussprache” (eng. home language) verstehen, sprechen, lesen und schreiben können; b) die Sprachwahl: Inwiefern die Haussprache mit den Verwandten benutzt wird; c) die Sprachdominanz: Wann wird die Sprache am meisten gesprochen, und d) die Sprachpräferenz: Wann sprechen die SchülerInnen die Sprache am liebsten.
Auf Grund der Daten wurde ein Sprachvitalitätsindex für jede Sprachgemeinschaft erstellt. Der Index kam durch Berücksichtigung der vier obgenanten Dimensionen zustande. In der Tabelle 2 wird die Sprachvitalität in der niederländischen Stadt Den Haag präsentiert. Ähnliche Berichte über die Situation in den anderen am Projekt beteiligten Städten werden ebenfalls erwähnt. Die Daten bieten wichtige demographische, soziolinguistische und bildungspolitische Perspektiven im Hinblick auf den Status der Migrantensprachen zu Hause und in der Schule. (Red) | Given the overwhelming focus on processes of second language acquisition by immigrant minority (IM henceforth) groups, there is much less evidence on the status and use of IM languages across Europe as a result of processes of immigration and minorisation. Obviously, typological differences between IM languages across EU member states do exist, e.g. in terms of the status of IM languages as EU or non-EU languages, or as languages of formerly colonialized source countries. Taken from the latter perspective, e.g. Indian languages are prominent in Great Britain, Arabic languages in France, Congolese languages in Belgium, and Surinamese languages in the Netherlands. Most studies on IM languages in Europe have focussed on a spectrum of IM languages at the level of one particular nation-state (e.g. Alladina & Edwards 1991, LMP 1985, Extra & De Ruiter 2001, Extra et al. 2002, Extra & Verhoeven 1993a, Caubet et al. 2002) or on one particular IM language at the national or European level (e.g. Obdeijn & De Ruiter 1998 and Tilmatine 1997 on Arabic in Europe or Jörgensen 2003 on Turkish in Europe).
Few studies have taken both a crossnational and crosslinguistic perspective on the status and use of IM languages in Europe (e.g. Extra & Verhoeven 1998, 1993b). Here we present the rationale, method, and first outcomes of the Multilingual Cities Project (MCP henceforth), carried out as a multiple case study in six major multicultural cities in different EU member states. The project was carried out under the auspices of the European Cultural Foundation, established in Amsterdam, and it was coordinated by a research team at Babylon, Centre for Studies of the Multicultural Society, at Tilburg University, the Netherlands. The aims of the MCP were to gather, analyse and compare multiple data on the status of IM languages at home and at school. In the selected cities, ranging from Northern to Southern Europe, Germanic and/or Romance languages have a dominant status in public life. Figure 1 gives an outline of the project.
Due to processes of migration and minorisation, all of these cities can be characterized as increasingly multicultural and multilingual. Apart from Scandinavian countries, there is no European tradition of collecting home language statistics on multicultural (school) population groups. Our method of carrying out home language surveys amongst primary school children in each of these cities partly derived from experiences abroad with nation-wide or at least large-scale population surveys in which commonly single questions on home language use were asked. In contrast to such questionnaires, our survey was based on multiple rather than single home language questions and on cross-nationally equivalent questions. In doing so, we aimed at describing and comparing multiple language profiles of major IM communities in each of the cities under consideration. [...] |
