Search

Despite decades of often ambitious policies in Australia, languages education is still characterized by intermittent commitment to the teaching of languages, with inequitable access particularly entrenched in rural and regional contexts. While research has focused on the practical and material constraints impacting on policy implementation, little research has investigated the role of the discursive terrain in shaping expectations and limitations around what seems achievable in schools, particularly, from the school principal perspective. Beginning with an overview of policy interventions and an analysis of contemporary challenges, we use Q methodology to identify and analyze viewpoints at work in similarly-positioned rural and regional schools. In doing so, we seek to determine what seems possible or impossible across settings; the role of principals in enabling and constraining pathways for the provision of school language programs, and the need for macro-level language policy to be informed by constraints specific to rural and regional contexts.

Australia’s language policy history reflects the country’s complex linguistic demography and multiple policy needs and interests. Languages and language policy have played an important and evolving role in the formation of Australia as a postcolonial, immigrant, and trading nation, moving from the suppression of Indigenous languages and a preference for British English norms through colonization, to greater assertion of language rights for Indigenous and immigrant languages, and onto economically motivated language planning. The policy landscape has been intermittently shaped by decisive policies for language policy and language education policy, as well as educational interventions such as the prioritization of English literacy. This chapter provides an overview of the historical, political, and educational influences on the language policy landscape in Australia, including achievements in addressing Indigenous and community language needs, along with supporting second language acquisition more broadly in the education system. However, the absence of a national language policy contributes to a weak language policy environment, where language rights are highly politicized and the loss of collaborative language policy processes has led to fragmented and fragile language program provision.

The Australian experience of bilingual education is composed of three separate audiences: Indigenous groups and their languages, immigrant groups and their languages (both of these groups seeking language maintenance and intergenerational vitality), and mainstream English speakers seeking additive language study. All these interests share a common aim of lobbying for more serious and substantial language education programs, but differ significantly in the purposes and context of their promotion of bilingual education. This chapter provides an overview of historical, political, and educational influences on forms of bilingual education that have emerged, in the context of state and national language policy and practices, to meet the needs of Indigenous Australians, migrant communities, and Anglophones.

Adult literacy is perhaps the single most effective language policy activity undertaken since devolution, in which the progress from an initial policy investigation process, subsequent policy determination, and resource allocation and program implementation has been very fast. Most writing on language maintenance and language shift, as well as on heritage language, uses the conceptual apparatus of sociolinguistics, and is located under the category Language in Society. The effect is that heritage languages are typically discussed from perspectives informed by applied and socially influenced linguistics, both rather code-centered, as well as by language policy and planning, which also reveals the influence of code-based language sciences. Heritage language-based bilingualism is often devalued by comparison with majority-community bilingualism that attracts celebration. B. Spolsky discusses the rarity of conjoining in a single language policy heritage language, national security issues in relation to language, and traditional foreign languages.

Language is a common underlying cause of conflict in multi-ethnic societies. Facilitated dialogue — a method of conflict mediation — is being used in countries such as Myanmar to mitigate language-based conflict, acknowledge language rights, and encourage societies to adopt a culture of dialogue.

Thailand has a long and consistent policy of denying concessions to a pluralist vision of its identity which would arise from formal recognition of differences, and has never embraced, at the official level, any discourse approximating multiculturalism. Instead, it has stressed the importance of minority assimilation to established and privileged norms, and succeeded in propagating a general perception of itself, both domestically and internationally, as ethnically homogenous. Despite this attempt to create an image of cultural homogeneity, as the first section of this chapter demonstrates, Thailand has a long history of diversity, from the polyethnic foundations of the Kingdom of Siam to the geophysical demarcation of its territory. Suppression of diversity in Thailand has resulted in ethnic stratification, the consequences of which reverberate throughout modern society. The second component of the chapter focuses on an education commission undertaken through the UNICEF Language, Education and Social Cohesion (LESC) Initiative, a component of the UNICEF Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy (PBEA) Programme. Activities undertaken through the LESC Initiative, and through this particular mapping exercise, represent important groundwork in creating a dialogue around difference and how it is represented and engaged with in the Thai education system. In the context of the exercise in curriculum mapping, some reflections on the relevance of the notions of multicultural education for the specific setting and historical circumstances of Thailand are elaborated.

The Australian project of accommodation to the Asia-Pacific region as the dynamic centre of the world’s economy can now be dated in decades. Successive Federal and State governments have focused on shifting the national consciousness from its predominant, inherited Western cultural dispositions, towards Asia. Driven by the overriding concerns of trade and economic relations, more than $400 million of additional funding has been invested in the prioritization of Asia studies and Asian languages, with considerable additional resources for research, cultural studies, exchanges, etc. Policies and funding have endeavoured to dramatically increase Australia’s ‘Asia literacy’ to aid economic engagement with what has come increasingly to be called ‘the region’ or ‘our region’. All major political configurations adhere to the broad outlines of such engagement, lending the entire endeavour a sense of inevitability; so much so that there is little problematizing of the educational consequences of the shift of economic power from the ‘West’ to the ‘East’. However, despite ambitious plans and substantial funding, Asian language policies have consistently fallen short of targets. This chapter discusses some intricacies involved in formulating an Asia-prioritizing agenda, referring to the wider communication ecology. Language policies must acknowledge the pluralization of modern forms of communication as well as the emergence of multiple cultural and linguistic identities in the transnational reality of contemporary society. The Australian experience highlights the importance of crafting Asia-focused policies within a wider framework of comprehensive language planning (Lo Bianco 2010), that values existing cultural and linguistic diversities, as well as envisioned ones, along with a pragmatic sense of the limits to what can be asked of school knowledge in relation to trade and diplomatic petitions.

While preparing this paper I observed the following: At the steamy and crowded visa issuing office of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, in central Bangkok, Thailand, a long line of Thais and tourists wait patiently to lodge their application for a short-term entry permit to visit Myanmar. In between writing installments to this paper about Barbara Seidlhofer and her immense contribution to our understanding of how communication is achieved in situations such as these, I found myself finalizing an application for a multi-entry visa, and observing the interaction of Myanmar officials with the mass of intending visitors to their country. The default language is English, very occasionally some use some Thai, some of the officials are Thai nationals and they can identify a Thai name on the application and switch to Thai for a greeting, but often revert to English to transact the exchange. In truth, the default is clearly ELF, and this is its natural home. There is even rarer use of Burmese, since few co-nationals seek visas. The routines of negotiating a visa involve pointing to signs written in Thai, Burmese and English, multilingual greetings and negotiation, code-switching to English even in Thai or Burmese-begun conversations, and prominent use of English terms or phrases. English technical terms function like nominal baubles in the flow of talk: “Work is Prohibited!”, reads one officer loudly to the drumbeat of an official stamp, then directly to the applicant “No Work!”. Work is Prohibited lays down the law, and fulfills the man’s duty, No Work, communicates the message. Functional ELF and formal English co-exist in a dynamic diglossia, but they are both embedded in talk in Thai and Burmese.

This chapter discusses ethical dilemmas in Language Policy (LP) in high-stakes settings where an external advisor facilitates writing of language policies. Such dilemmas of outside indeed any expertise interacting with officials and communities pose significant ethical challenges. It describes the general nature of LP, since its focus is professional advising and policy drafting, rather than research directed at new theory, program evaluation, or general analysis of language policies. While ethical quandaries and challenges occur in most applied linguistics activities, LP is particularly prone to ethical concerns because it deals with professional decisions about the prestige, standing, and corpus of other people's forms of communication. While rules and guidelines drawn from university ethics regulation and the legal obligations enforced in contracts provide much of the ethical framework for work described here, the modern horkos, minus its ancient curse, but with the addition of local debate and collegial discussion, remains useful as an internal, personal inspiration.

The original publication is available at www.actahort.org, [EN] Benzimidazoles, and specifically methyl-thiophanate, have been broadly used in the last two decades in Spain to control loquat (Eriobotrya japonica Lind.) scab caused by Fusicladium eriobotryae (Cavara) Sac. However, to date no study has been conducted to identify resistant isolates to this fungicide. For this purpose, 249 isolates of F. eriobotryae collected from the main loquat producing areas in Spain (Andalucía and Comunidad Valenciana) were grown in culture medium amended with methyl-thiophanate (0.5 µg/ml). After one month of incubation, the relative growth compared with that obtained in a non-amended medium (control) was calculated; 33 isolates were resistant to methyl-thiophanate (>30% growth relative to the control). In addition, the resistance to methyl-thiophanate in F. eriobotryae was characterized by mutations in the β-tubulin gene. DNA of representative susceptible and resistant isolates was extracted and a partial sequence of the β-tubulin gene was obtained. Resistant isolates showed the presence of only one non-synonymous mutation in the codons 198, 200 or 240 of this gene, which has been previously reported as characteristic of methyl-thiophanate resistance in other plant pathogens. These mutations could be used to develop a screening protocol to identify isolates of F. eriobotryae resistant to methyl-thiophanate.

Today, the

Foreign language education is deeply affected by globalization, destabilizing some of the central ideas that have helped form national languages, and, by contrast, foreign languages. This article traces the economic origins of contemporary globalization and the deep communication effects that arise. Migration of peoples, instantaneous communication technologies, and new modes of imagining relationships in the context of vast flows of population, ideas, goods, and communication mean that teachers of different languages need to make multilingual and multicultural realities, rather than national and foreign ones, central notions in curriculum, teaching, and language choice. Professional dialogue between teachers of English, traditional foreign languages, heritage/community languages, and other categories of language interest are required to foster a new overall understanding of the enterprise of language education, suited to the altered world context of contemporary globalization.

This paper explores the relevance of concepts and methods of language planning and policy for ELF researchers and teachers. As the global communication environment consolidates through globalisation of systems, such as publishing and education credentialing, the topics chosen for research and even some practices in teaching can be seen as forms of intervention which influence form, usage, and status of languages and language varieties. The escalating role of English in the public life of more and more countries raises questions of the overall language ecology (how English interacts with other languages in existing and future communication environments). By fostering dialogue with the conceptual categories and methods of language planning, ELF scholars and practitioners can sharpen their focus on how institutional and publishing gatekeepers operate and foster an expanded sense of what English as an international language can mean, in the interests of encouraging a more democratised global communication order.

The article addresses the contribution of multilingualism to cultural diversity and the importance of explicit, comprehensive and public language planning to secure a stronger future for endangered indigenous and immigrant languages. It is critically important to develop language policies that ensure the access of minority populations to prestigious forms of national standard languages and literacies while supporting the intergenerational retention of minority languages, both indigenous and immigrant languages. These twin objectives are complementary but require a more expert practice of language planning. The multilingualism which is advocated aims to be nationally cohesive, economically productive and socially just. An enhanced practice of intervention on behalf of multilingualism is discussed in sections devoted to the mechanisms and activity of language policy‐making. Contemporary globalisation is a challenge for language diversity but in some ways makes the intergenerational retention of diverse languages more feasible than under conditions of strict assimilation as practiced by linguistically defined nation‐states. Also potentially supportive of multilingualism are the voice‐based communication technologies that overcome the tyranny of distance and dispersal, and promise access to information, communication and solidarity for preliterate groups or those that have limited literacy. The roles of language in memory and cultural production underscore how central language in its various genres is to culture. As a result, efforts to appreciate and foster human differences require awareness of the importance of multilingualism. The endangered state of many of the world's languages and the now almost universal phenomenon of multiculturalism make the practice of language planning a central instrument for states, international agencies and non‐governmental bodies.

In his examination of successful innovation and change in education in many settings, Fullan (2001) identifies the three broad options for effecting change that public authorities have at their disposal. They can seek to bring about change through imposing accountability (system-wide or targeted), or through providing incentives (either ‘negatively’as pressure or ‘positively’as support), or they can direct their attention towards ‘capacity-building’for key agents in the field being addressed, such as teachers, schools or universities. It is exceedingly difficult to combine accountability, incentives, and capacity-building, as evidenced by the fact that no government has ever done it effectively. It is complex and there are in-built tensions. It is easy to err in providing too much or too little control.

Rosie Wickert points out that, in literacy policy: ‘the stories of actors involved in policy struggles have been overlooked‘(2001: 90). The paper by Leslie Limage redresses this gap for the crucially important area of international multilateral agencies, specifically the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Her aim is to produce ‘a more clear-eyed look at how to advance the best of multilateral action in the field in which I have been involved at all levels throughout my adult life: children’s and adult’s literacy worldwide’ (Limage, 2009: p 7).

In his examination of successful innovation and change in education in many settings, Fullan (2001) identifies the three broad options for effecting change that public authorities have at their disposal. They can seek to bring about change through imposing accountability (system-wide or targeted), or through providing incentives (either "negatively" as pressure or "positively" as support), or they can direct their attention towards "capacity-building" for key agents in the field being addressed, such as teachers, schools or universities. The review of Australian language policy shows that rarely has there been a consistent process of building on previous innovation and rarely are these three meta-strategies of accountability, incentives and capacity-building used in the judicious combination which is most likely to succeed. A central feature of education policy making is the critical, professional role of teachers and it would be to this that a capacity-building approach would be directed. This article discusses choice, pedagogy, rationale and goals in language teaching and learning. Key values and aspirations for proficiency in languages other than English relevant to the Australian context are also explored.