1

Abel, Andrea / Vettori, Chiara / Forer, Doris (2012): Learning the Neighbour’s

Language: the Many Challenges in Achieving a Real Multilingual Society. The Case

of Second Language Acquisition in the Minority-Majority Context of South Tyrol. In:

European Centre for Minority Issues & European Academy Bozen/Bolzano (eds.):

European Yearbook of Minority Issues. Vol. 9. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

2271-303

[Pre-publication draft. Not for quotation or copying]

***

Andrea Abel, Chiara Vettori and Doris Forer

Learning the Neighbour’s Language: The Many Challenges in

Achieving a Real Multilingual Society.

The Case of Second Language Acquisition in the Minority–

Majority Context of South Tyrol

I. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this contribution is to use the example of the multilingual majority–

minority situation in South Tyrol to illustrate the extent to which territorial and

institutional multilingualism is reflected in individual multilingualism1 and to outline

the degree of pupils’ proficiency in the two largest neighbouring languages, German

and Italian. In parallel, the challenges arising from the complex political and social

structures influencing this multilayered minority–majority situation will be identified

and analysed, and proposals for the promotion of positive attitudes between groups

Andrea Abel is a linguist and the coordinator of the Institute for Specialised Communication and Multilingualism at the European Academy Bozen (EURAC; South Tyrol). Chiara Vettori is a linguist and senior researcher at the Institute for Specialised Communication and Multilingualism. Doris Forer is a psychologist and a PhD fellow at the University of Trento (in collaboration with the Institute for Specialised Communication and Multilingualism). 1 Or ‘plurilingualism’ according to the terminology of the Council of Europe (COE), e.g., Language Policy Division, Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe—from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Main Version. (COE, Strasbourg, 2007), 10, at <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Guide_niveau3_EN.asp#TopOfPage>. For further specifications on terminology see section III.

2

and effective plurilingualism will be put forward that may also be of significance

outside the regional and local context. The remarks herein are based on the results of

the project “South Tyrolean Pupils and the Second Language: A Linguistic and Socio-

psychological Investigation” (KOLIPSI)2 and introduced in this context following a

quick overview of the particular language environment in South Tyrol.

2 Andrea Abel, Chiara Vettori and Katrin Wisniewski (eds.), Die Südtiroler Schüler Innen und die Zweitsprache: eine linguistische und sozialpsychologische Untersuchung (Eurac, Bozen, forthcoming); see also footnote 43.

3

II. BACKGROUND—THE LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENT IN SOUTH TYROL

A. Language Areas, Historical Context and Legal Framework

The contribution relates to the Autonomous Province of Bozen/Bolzano–South Tyrol

(for short South Tyrol) which has, since 1919, belonged to Italy and where about

500,000 people, predominantly mother-tongue speakers of the German, Italian and

Ladin languages, inhabit a total area of approximately 7,400 km.2 According to the

results of the most recent census from the year 2001, the German language group

forms 69.38% of the population and lives both in the cities and the countryside (see

Figure 1), whereas the Italian language group, which constitutes 26.30% of the

population, lives mainly in the cities (see

Figure 2). The possibility of “natural” contact between the two language groups,

therefore, mostly occurs in the larger localities. The Ladin language group,

comprising 4.32% of the total population, mainly resides in two valleys in the

Dolomites (Gröden/Gardena and Gadertal/Val Badia).3

Figure 1: The German Language Group as a Percentage of the Total Population 2001

3 The special situation of the Ladin-speaking population is not a major issue of this study and is therefore not treated further in this contribution. See Andrea Abel, „Die Südtiroler SchülerInnen und die Zweitsprache: eine linguistische und sozialpsychologische Untersuchung (Werkstattbericht)“, 32(3/07) Linguistik Online (2007b), 3-14, at < http://www.linguistik-online.de/32_07/abel.pdf>.

4

Figure 2: The Italian Language Group as a Percentage of the Total Population 2001

Thus, from a linguistic and cultural standpoint, South Tyrol is deeply marked

by the meeting of two worlds, the Italian and the German, or more exactly the

German–Austrian.4 It should be fully acknowledged that this meeting in this form,

4 Francesco Palermo, “L’Alto Adige tra tutela dell’etnia e governo del territorio”, in 4 Il Mulino (1999), 671-684, at 671ff; Andrea Abel, „Sprachen in der Ausbildung—Schulsystem und Lehrerausbildung in

5

which affects all areas of life in every conceivable way, was by no means voluntary,

occurring as it did because of the annexation of South Tyrol by Italy after the First

World War. A short overview of some historically relevant points and the current

facts should provide a better understanding of the issue.5

During the fascist years, a strong Italianisation policy was introduced,

including such measures as a ban on the name “Südtirol” (the German name for

“South Tyrol”), the abolition of German-language place names and the Italianisation

of many surnames, the banning of German newspapers and the prohibition of the

public use of the German language. From 1923 to 1943, German was not permitted as

a teaching language in kindergartens or schools. Further steps in the assimilation

policy were the deliberate, heavily promoted immigration of both Italian-speaking

workers into largely agricultural South Tyrol to man the industries built up between

the two world wars and of Italian-speaking officials for the public administration.6

Before the outbreak of the Second World War, in the last phase of the Italianisation

policy, a definitive “solution” to the South Tyrolean problem was planned, which

foresaw the resettlement of all South Tyroleans who opted for German nationality into

the Third Reich, although this did not ultimately occur in its intended form.7

A milestone in the rights of the German-speaking population of South Tyrol

was the 1946 signature of the Paris Treaty between Austria and Italy8 and finally the

Südtirol“, in Anemone Geiger-Jaillet (ed.), Lehren und Lernen in deutschsprachigen Grenzregionen (Peter Lang, Bern, 2010), 115-138. 5 See Abel, ibid.; Andrea Abel and Mathias Stuflesser, “Language-Bridges–Interviewstudie zum Zusammenspiel von Überzeugungen, Erfahrungen und Sprachenlernen: Methodenfragen und Ergebnisauswertung”, in Erika Werlen and Fabienne Tissot (eds.), Sprachvermittlung in Europa. Beiträge der Angewanden Linguistik zum Dialog zwischen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (Schneider, Hohengehren, 2009), 75-87. Leonhard Voltmer, “Languages in South Tyrol: Historical and Legal Aspects”, in Andrea Abel, Mathias Stuflesser and Leonhard Voltmer (eds.), Aspects of Multilingualism in European Border Regions: Insights and Views from Alsace, Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, the Lublin Voivodeship and South Tyrol (European Academy, Bozen/Bolzano, 2007), 201-220. 6 Jens Woelk, “Forschung und Lehre in Südtirol: Europäische Akademie und Freie Universität Bozen”, in Joseph Marko, Sergio Ortino, et al. (eds.), Die Verfassung der Südtiroler Autonomie. Die Sonderrechtsordnung der Autonomen Provinz Bozen (Nomos, Baden–Baden, 2005), 435-448, at 436. 7 Rudolf Meraner, “Sprache, Sprachunterricht und Sprachenpolitik in Südtirol”, 57 Bildung und Erziehung (2004), 53-76, at 58-9. 8 The Paris Treaty was signed on 5 September 1946 by the Italian Prime Minister Alcide De Gasperi and the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs Karl Gruber: it is thus also known as the “Gruber–De Gasperi agreement”. It was attached as Appendix IV to the Peace Treaty of St. Germain, signed on 10 February 1947 (see e.g., Voltmer, op.cit. note 4, 207).

6

Second Autonomy Statute9 of 1972.10 These regulate the most important provisions11

regarding language rights, such as linguistic equality, the Ethnic Proportions Decree,

the Declaration as to Linguistic Origin and the bilingualism examination.

In regard to the status of the German language, according to Article 99 of the

Autonomy Statute: “in the Region the German language is equal to the Italian

language, which is the official language of the State”.12 Article 100 states that

“German-speaking citizens of the Province of Bolzano/Bozen have the right to use

their own language in relations with the judicial offices and with the organs and

offices of the public administration”.13

Article 19 of the Autonomy Statute (highly important and to a certain extent

disputed and differently interpreted in matters of detail) governs the right to schooling

in one’s own mother tongue: “In the Province of Bolzano/Bozen children shall be

educated from nursery to secondary level in their mother tongue, i.e. in Italian or

German, by teachers whose mother tongue is also the language of tuition. In primary

schools […] and secondary schools the learning of the second language is obligatory

[…]”.14 The schools are administered by education departments that are separated

according to language group and are relatively independent of one another.

The principle of ethnic proportion reflects the fact that the functions in public

offices are occupied in relation to the numerical strength of the language groups living

in South Tyrol. The numerical strength of the language groups is determined via the

census carried out every ten years, whereby each citizen must declare or assign him or

herself as belonging to one of the three language groups. It remains to be seen to what

extent the proportionality provisions will continue to exist in this form in the

European Union.15

9 The basis for the Second Autonomy Statute is the so-called “South Tyrol Package” (also simply called the “Package”) of 1969, a package of 137 measures in favour of the population of South Tyrol intended to promote South Tyrolean autonomy (see e.g., Voltmer, ibid, at 209). 10 Kurt Egger, Sprachlandschaft im Wandel: Südtirol auf dem Weg zur Mehrsprachigkeit; soziolinguistische und psycholinguistische Aspekte der Ein- und Mehrsprachigkeit (Athesia, Bozen, 2001), at 28ff. Voltmer, op.cit. note 4, 286. Lucio Giudiceandrea, Spaesati. Italiani in Südtirol (Raetia, Bolzano, 2006). 168. 11 Altered from Abel, op.cit. note 2. 12 Author’s translation of the originally German citation. 13 Author’s translation of the originally German citation. 14 See Autonome Provinz Bozen-Südtirol (ed.), Das neue Autonomiestatut (Landespresseamt, Bozen, 2006), 13. Author’s translation of the originally German citation. 15 Egger, op.cit. note 9, 30f; Meraner, op.cit. note 6, 62f; Abel and Stuflesser, op.cit. note 4.

7

So that everyone can use their mother tongue when dealing with public offices

in accordance with Article 100 of the Autonomy Statute, the bilingualism

examination, which can only be taken in Bozen/Bolzano (the capital of South Tyrol),

was introduced in 1977 as a precondition for recruitment into the public service. The

examination must be taken in both languages, that is, German and Italian, in one of

four degrees of difficulty (from D-A ) according to the professional position desired

(e.g., A for occupations in which a university degree is necessary, e.g., doctor; B for

occupations in which a school-leaving certificate from a second-degree secondary

school is necessary). The examination consists of a written and an oral part.16 The

written part is composed of two short texts with six questions to be answered in the

respective other language (Italian or German) in one or two complete sentences.

Those passing the written examination are admitted to the oral part.

In recent years pressure has increased to allow other proofs and certificates,

apart from the bilingualism examination, for admission to the public service; this is

not least due to a ruling by the European Court of Justice. The ruling states that under

European law, applicants for a selective recruitment procedure cannot be obliged to

provide proof of their knowledge of a language by means of a diploma issued solely at

one place within the EU.17 Thus, since 2010 appropriate new regulations have been

introduced18 so that now a number of selected language certificates or combinations

of school and university diplomas are recognised as alternatives to the bilingualism

examination.19 All these measures, together with further legislative provisions,20 are

an instrument of minority protection and regulate language use and multilingualism at

the institutional level.

B. Language Learning and Language Proficiency

In South Tyrol, the acquisition of the two languages, German and Italian, is promoted

at considerable expense: the second language is not just taught as a subject from the

16 Exception: Examination D consists solely of an oral part. 17 ECJ, ruling C-281/98 of 6 June 2000, Coll. 2000, I-4139. 18 Legislative Decree No. 86 of 14 May 2010. 19 Detailed information can also be found on the website of the Office for Bilingualism and Trilingualism Examinations, at <http://www.provinz.bz.it/zdp/default.asp>. See also Abel and Stuflesser, op.cit. note 4. 20 For further details, see, e.g., Joseph Marko, Sergio Ortino, et al. (eds.), Die Verfassung der Südtiroler Autonomie. Die Sonderrechtsordnung der Autonomen Provinz Bozen (Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2005); Voltmer, op.cit. note 4; Autonome Provinz Bozen-Südtirol, op.cit. note 13.

8

first class of primary school until the end of schooling (more than 2,000 lessons from

primary school to the school-leaving examination, the so-called maturità/Matura in

Italy), but a range of special measures for improving the knowledge of a particular

language also exists, such as the promotion of language courses, support for study

trips, partnership with schools using the other language of instruction, increasing

numbers of schools attempting extra German tuition and the teaching of nonlanguage

subjects in the second language, particularly in schools that teach in Italian.21 Despite

the considerable resource cost and the many initiatives, knowledge of the second

language is not always adequate. In fact, findings of previous investigations or small-

scale studies regarding second-language competences, outcomes of surveys

conducting self-assessment of one’s own L2 knowledge as well as the results of the

bilingualism examination all indicate relatively low L2 proficiency of the South

Tyrolean population.22 Thus, for example, in 2009 only 42.2% of candidates passed

the bilingualism examination, which is an indication of how difficult it apparently is

to ensure even the officially foreseen degree of multilingualism through the existing

measures.23 According to the South Tyrolean language barometer,24 a study carried

out in 2004 on a representative sample of the South Tyrolean population (adults aged

19 and older) showed that 40% of the Italian-speaking population said they could only

21 See Abel, Stuflesser and Voltmer, op.cit. note 4, 236ff; Andrea Abel and Mathias Stuflesser, “Interviewstudie zum Zusammenspiel von Überzeugungen, Erfahrungen und Sprachenlernen: ein Werkstattbericht“, in Andrea Abel, Mathias Stuflesser and Magdalena Putz (eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa. Erfahrungen, Bedürfnisse, Gute Praxis. Tagungsband (European Academy, Bolzano/Bozen, 2006), 65-76, at 65; Abel, op.cit. note 2; Rita Gelmi and Sigfried Baur, „Für eine Pädagogik der Begegnung“, in Erika Werlen and Fabienne Tissot (eds.), Sprachvermittlung in Europa. Beiträge der Angewanden Linguistik zum Dialog zwischen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (Schneider, Hohengehren, 2009), 105-120. 22 See Oskar Putzer, Zusammenfassende Analyse und Ergebnisse der schriftlichen Sprachfertigkeiten an den italienischen Oberschulen, Mittelschulen und Grundschulen (Autonome Provinz Bozen - Amt für Zweisprachigkeit, Bolzano/Bozen, 1997); Oskar Putzer, Zusammenfassende Analyse und Ergebnisse der mündlichen Sprachfertigkeiten an den italienischen Oberschulen, Mittelschulen und Grundschulen (Autonome Provinz Bozen - Amt für Zweisprachigkeit, Bolzano/Bozen, 1997); Floriano Deflorian, Considerazioni riassuntive sui risultati delle prove nella comprensione scritta e orale, nella produzione scritta e nella produzione orale della lingua seconda degli alunni delle ultime classi della scuola elementare, media e superiore in lingua tedesca (Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Bolzano/Bozen, Ufficio Bilinguismo, 1997); CENSIS (Centro studi nazionali investimenti sociali), Identität und Mobilität der drei Sprachgruppen. Abschließender Bericht (Autonome Provinz Bozen-Südtirol, Roma, 1997);Egger, op.cit. note 9; Chiara Vettori, “La competenza del tedesco degli studenti italofoni di scuola media inferiore e superiore di Bolzano e Trento: confronto e valutazione”, Ph.D. thesis at the Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia (2005), 239; ASTAT (Landesinstitut für Statistik), Südtiroler Sprachbarometer 2004 (Autonome Provinz Bozen-Südtirol Bozen, 2006); ASTAT, Ausländische Schulbevölkerung in Südtirol (Bozen, 2006). 23 ASTAT, Zwei- und Dreisprachigkeitsprüfungen - 2009 (Bozen, 2010). 24 Ibid.; ASTAT, op.cit. note 20.

9

speak individual words of (standard) German. Only 5.1% of the German speakers

stated the same regarding Italian, a result that appears to confirm the oft-asserted

public assumptions about the degree of second language proficiency of the two

language groups.

The actual use of German by Italian mother-tongue speakers, as shown in

several investigations,25 is among other things influenced by the divergence or

diglossia26 existing between dialect forms of German and the standard form of the

language.

The South Tyrolean language barometer27 also illustrates that, according to

88.7% of the German-speaking population, the knowledge of “German dialect” is

important for being able to get along well together, whereas only 62.9% of the Italian-

language group share this view.28 Of the Italian-language group, 40.1% identifies

frequent use of dialect, which differs from the German learned at school, as one of the

main obstacles to second-language learning. Also, 38.5% feel the educational

system—strictly separated into schools with German and Italian as the languages of

instruction—no longer meets current requirements.

Knowledge of the second language, often described as insufficient, as well as

the occasional distance felt from it, is undoubtedly linked to the socialisation of young

people—partially determined by the predominantly single-language educational

system, itself entirely explicable from a historical perspective—for whom the second

language is more of a school subject than a tool for communicating in everyday life;29

sometimes, knowledge of the second language can also be explained by the different

distribution of the language groups in an area.30

Moreover, the language contact situation in South Tyrol leads to the

conclusion that physical proximity, that is, the existence of several language groups in

25 See e.g., ASTAT, op.cit. note 20; Egger, op.cit. note 9; Franz Lanthaler, “Dialekt und Zweisprachigkeit“, in Franz Lanthaler (ed.), Mehr als eine Sprache. Zu einer Sprachstrategie in Südtirol (Alpha Beta, Meran, 1990), 57-81; Franz Lanthaler, “Die Vielschichtigkeit des Deutschen in Südtirol – und wie wir damit umgehen“, in Andrea Abel, Mathias Stuflesser and Magdalena Putz (eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa. Erfahrungen, Bedürfnisse, Gute Praxis. Tagungsband (European Academy, Bolzano/Bozen, 2006), 371-380; Alberto Mioni, “Bilinguismo intra- e intercomunitario in Alto Adige/Südtirol: considerazioni sociolinguistiche”, in Lanthaler, op.cit. note 24, 13-35; Abel and Stuflesser, op.cit. note 4, 65f. 26 See section IIIA for a definition of the concept. 27 ASTAT, op.cit. note 20. 28 ASTAT, op.cit. note 20, at 171. 29 Abel and Stuflesser, op.cit. note 4. 30 Ibid.; Lanthaler, op.cit. note 24, 373.

10

one territory, “paradoxically does not necessarily accompany a readiness for dialogue.

Attempts have been made to justify this partially on historical grounds of forced

proximity.31 In this view proximity does not automatically mean that language

learning becomes easier.”32 This, among other things, also suggests that friendships in

many cases tend to be formed, at first, within one’s own language group. Private life,

according to the South Tyrolean language barometer, is largely monolingual, either

German or Italian. Intergroup communication occurs mostly in Italian.

III. CHALLENGES AND NEW INSIGHTS

A. Some Specifications

It seems necessary at this point to clarify the meaning of the term ‘multilingualism’,

because it is now evident that we must define and distinguish different manifestations

of the phenomenon. Basically, individual multilingual competence is distinguished

from forms of collective or social multilingualism and we will do the same in this

article.33 Further distinctions are common: the coexistence of two or more languages

in an area is called ‘territorial multilingualism’, whereas the services of national or

international institutions offered in two or more languages are referred to as

‘institutional multilingualism’. ‘Social multilingualism’ or, more often, ‘diglossia’

refers to a situation in which languages or language varieties have distinct functions in

a society and are used in different domains.34 Finally, ‘individual multilingualism’

defines the knowledge of two or more languages by an individual.35

A similar distinction but with slightly different terms can also be found in

some documents of the COE that distinguishes “between plurilingualism as a

speaker’s competence (being able to use more than one language) and multilingualism

31 Siegfried Baur, Die Tücken der Nähe: Kommunikation und Kooperation in Mehrheits-/Minderheitssituationen (Alpha Beta, Meran, 2000). 405, 68ff. 32 Abel and Stuflesser, op.cit. note 20, 66. Author’s translation of the originally German citation. 33 See Colin Baker, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters, Clevedon et al., 2006). 34 See, e.g., private v. professional domain, but also oral v. written communication; the latter is also

referred to with the term ‘medial diglossia’, see Georges Lüdi, “Mehrsprachigkeit”, in Hans Goebl,

Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý and Wolfgang Wölck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales

Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. 1. Halbband. (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1996).

233-245, at 234. 35 See, e.g., Lüdi, ibid., 234; Georges Lüdi and Bernard Py, Zweisprachig durch Migration. Einführung in die Erforschung der Mehrsprachigkeit am Beispiel zweier Zuwanderungsgruppen in Neuenburg (Schweiz) (Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1984), 4.

11

as the presence of languages in a given geographical area: there is a shift, therefore,

from a perspective focusing on languages (a state may be referred to as monolingual

or multilingual) to one that focuses on speakers.”36

Within the language education policies of the COE, plurilingualism is

considered to be a fundamental principle in Europe.37 Plurilingualism, or rather

plurilingual and pluricultural competence, is described in important documents

published by the COE, such as the Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages (CEFR), a reference book for language learning, teaching and testing, as

“the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in

intercultural interaction”.38 Looking back on the example of South Tyrol, the aspects

described before show that South Tyrol is a region characterized by the presence of

several languages in the territory with institutional multilingualism but largely

monolingually oriented subsocieties.

This amazing ‘puzzle’ obviously raises many questions, particularly regarding

the citizens’ language competences, which are sometimes deemed to be less than

satisfactory and far from the concept of plurilingualism as previously discussed. Thus,

the central aspects mainly refer to the question of whether multilingualism guaranteed

at the institutional level represents an adequate premise for the realization of

individual plurilingualism in South Tyrol and with it a basis or contribution for a good

‘living together’ of the language groups. The relation between institutional and

individual multilingualism is less evident than it may seem at first glance, quite the

contrary, because institutional multilingualism primarily serves the purpose of

guaranteeing the right of monolingualism to each single person.39 Therefore, when we

use the notion of a ‘real multilingual society’ in the following, we refer to the fact that

36 See Language Policy Division, Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe–From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Main Version. (COE, Strasbourg, 2007), 10, at <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Guide_niveau3_EN.asp#TopOfPage>; Georges Lüdi and Bernard Py, “To Be or Not to Be … a Plurilingual Speaker”, 6(2) International Journal of Multilingualism (2009), 154-67, at 156. 37 See, e.g., Language Policy Division, ibid., 31ff., including an overview of relevant resolutions, programs focusing on the development of a Europe of citizens characterised by plurilingualism. etc. that reflect the overall aim of the COE as defined in Recommendations R (82)18 and R (98)6 of the Committee of Ministers: “to achieve greater unity among its members” and to pursue this aim “by the adoption of common action in the cultural field”; see John Trim, Brian North, Daniel Coste et al., “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)”, 2, at <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf>. 38 See Trim et al., ibid., 168; in line with the broad definition of the term, which has universally been accepted, see Lüdi, op.cit. note 33, 234. 39 See, e.g., Lüdi and Py, op.cit. note 34, 3.

12

the connections among the manifestations of multilingualism have been successfully

achieved.

B. The KOLIPSI Project: Background and Aims

The last major study about the second-language proficiency of German- and Italian-

speaking middle and high school pupils by Putzer and Deflorian is now more than ten

years old.40 The results of Vettori’s41 investigation into the knowledge of German

exhibited by Italian middle and high school pupils from Bozen/Bolzano and

Trient/Trento in 2003 prompted a deeper analysis of the language proficiency of

South Tyrolean pupils.

Along with the study by Putzer and Deflorian, the provincial government also

commissioned the study “Motivation and Contacts”42 as well as a census of the

didactical and methodical conditions of second-language instruction in schools. 43 The

results of the study were unfortunately never published in book form and thus were

not made accessible to a wider public. In addition, no links among the results of the

three individual studies were ever established. A new study, the EURAC project

KOLIPSI,44 was intended to fill precisely this gap.45

The KOLIPSI project had two main purposes. The first was to identify the second-

language competences of a sample of pupils in their fourth year of high school in

40 Putzer, op.cit. note 21; Deflorian, op.cit. note 21. 41 Vettori, op.cit. note 21. 42 Over the years 1994-1996, Siegried Baur, “Relazione complessiva sulla ricerca. Motivazione e contatti. Condizioni di base dell’apprendimento della seconda lingua in Alto Adige” (Bolzano, 1996). 43 Augusto Carli, Maria Luise Fischer and Rita Gelmi (eds.), “Condizioni didattico-metodologiche dell’insegnamento della lingua seconda. Comunicazione in lingua seconda in contesto scolastico”, (Bozen 1997). 44 The project is being carried out by the EURAC Institute for Specialised Communication and Multilingualism (overall project management: Andrea Abel, Chiara Vettori, Katrin Wisniewski) in collaboration with the Department for Cognition and Educational Sciences of the University of Trient/Trento (Maria Paola Paladino and PhD candidate Doris Forer). It was supported by the Italian and German education offices (Rita Gelmi and Walter Cristofoletti); advice was provided by the Herder Institute of the University of Leipzig and the staff of the German Institute for International Pedagogical Research (Frankfurt am Main), which carried out the statistical analysis of the language data. 45 Many aspects of the linguistic situation in South Tyrol have already been researched and described. Only a few references to other works and investigations from the previous decade that were used in the preparation and implementation of this project can be given here, e.g.: ASTAT, op.cit. note 20; Baur, op.cit. note 30; CENSIS, op.cit. note 21; Egger, op.cit. note 9; Lanthaler, op.cit. note 24; Kurt Egger and Franz Lanthaler, Die deutsche Sprache in Südtirol. Einheitssprache und regionale Vielfalt (Folio-Verlag, Wien, Bozen, 2001); Claudia Maria Riehl, Schreiben, Text und Mehrsprachigkeit. Zur Textproduktion in mehrsprachigen Gesellschaften am Beispiel der deutschsprachigen Minderheiten in Südtirol und Ostbelgien (Stauffenburg, Tübingen, 2001); Claudia Maria Riehl, „Schriftsprachliche Kompetenz und Zweisprachigkeit: Der Fall Südtirol“, in Iwar Werlen (ed.), Mehrsprachigkeit im Alpenraum (Verlag Sauerländer, Aarau, Frankfurt, Salzburg, 1998), 175-195.

13

2007-2008 for both German- and Italian-language schools in South Tyrol. Against the

specific background that, for the first time in the local context, an explicit reference

was made to the language competence levels of the Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages (CEFR), the study is intended to provide proof that, and if

so to what extent, the language level of the pupils allows them to participate actively

in everyday life in South Tyrol in their second language (L2). The KOLIPSI project

also examined extralinguistic factors that can play a crucial role in the language

learning process. Thus, possible psycho-social aspects (e.g., attitudes, motivations)

that can motivate, or on the contrary discourage L2 learning, had to be identified and

further investigated. Pupils, parents and teachers were questioned about these socio-

psychological issues.46

The sample was intended to be representative of the pupils in the province and

reflects the distribution of the two major language groups (69% German-speaking,

26% Italian-speaking), that is, the aim was a ratio of 7:3.47 All South Tyrolean high

schools48 participated in the investigation, from which, using the principle of random

selection, half of the fourth-year classes were extracted. The sociolinguistic

characteristics resulting from the varying demographic distribution of the sample

could thus be considered. Counting of all data showed that about 1,200 questionnaires

and language tests could be used in the survey. KOLIPSI thus represented the first

survey in South Tyrol in which the connections between language competence and

nonlinguistic factors were, on the basis of empirical data and a representative sample,

produced in such a comprehensive form as a single project.

The close link between linguistic abilities, on the one hand, and psychological

and sociocultural influencing factors on the other hand, makes the project results a

valuable instrument of reference for a conscious, innovative and future-oriented

language and education policy promoting plurilingualism and aiming to improve the

quality of cohabitation of the language groups.

46 The study did not focus specifically on issues related to aspects such as conditions of instruction or

curricula. 47 Taking account of any absences and the presence of pupils who had Ladin or another mother tongue (i.e., neither German nor Italian, which was not the subject of the investigation) produced a random sample of 1,800 pupils, corresponding to half of all fourth-year pupils in the province. This random sample size allows meaningful statistical procedures to be used. 48 Vocational schools did not form part of the survey.

14

C. The Survey of Second-Language Competences

1. Approach, Language Survey Tools and Quality Management

Several methods were used to survey the second language competences to take full

account of the language as pupils actually learn, know and use it. A pretest suggested

a spectrum of the pupils’ linguistic competences which served as a basis for the

design of the KOLIPSI test. The test, like the concept of communicative language

competences on which the project is based, relates to the action-oriented approach of

the CEFR, which is associated to the concept of plurilingualism introduced

previously: “it views users and learners of a language primarily as ‘social agents’, i.e.

members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish

in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field

of action”.49 Within this model, the competences of language users and learners can

be placed on a scale with so-called can-do descriptors, ranging from level A1 (basic

language user) up to level C2 (proficient language user; see Table 1 for a summary of

the Common Reference Levels and those in the general global scale).50

Table 1: Common Reference Levels: Global Scale

Proficient User

C2

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations.

C1

Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts and recognise implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

Independent User

B2

Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

B1 Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most

49 Trim et al., op.cit. note 36. 50 The complete CEFR text can be found at ˂http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework _EN.pdf˃.

15

situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

Basic User

A2

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, and employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

A1

Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

The KOLIPSI test, designed in collaboration with the Herder Institute of

Leipzig, referred explicitly to these descriptors. It consisted of two tasks. In the first, a

picture story about an incident in a supermarket was to be related in an email, while in

the second, the organising of a joint holiday at the seaside or in the mountains was to

be discussed in a letter addressed to a friend. The range of competences targeted for

these tasks lay around B1/B2. However, because it was clear that not all performances

would lie within this range, the adjacent upper and lower levels (up and to including

A1 and C1) were also included in the assessment to gain a possibly comprehensive

picture of the linguistic situation of the target group.51

Furthermore, the pupils were given one of two written tasks used for the

bilingualism examination at level A/B (see previous remarks on the examination). The

first-language input text was on the same topic in both target languages (German and

51 Because of the size of the sample, it was not possible to additionally test all pupils on their oral L2 competences. As oral communication nevertheless is undoubtedly a fundamental aspect of language competence, an oral language test was also designed; however, it consisted of only a subsample of 100 pupils (50 for each mother tongue). For further information, see e.g., Katrin Wisniewski, “Assessing South Tyrolean pupils’ Oral Proficiency in the L2: Overcoming Monolingual Habitus in a Multilingual Context?”, in Otilia Martí Arnándiz and Maria Pilar Safont Jordà (eds.), Achieving Multilingualism: Wills and Ways. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multilingualism (ICOM) (Col.lecció e-Estudis filològics, 2. Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, 2008), 253-267; Katrin Wisniewski, “La conoscenza della seconda lingua nel contesto multilingue dell’Alto Adige. Un confronto fra attività comunicative orali e scritte con particolare attenzione alla competenza pragmatica”, in Carlo Consani, Cristiano Furiassi, Francesca Guazzelli and Carmela Perta (eds.), Atti del 9° Congresso dell’Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (AItLA). Oralità/scrittura. In memoria di Giorgio Raimondo Cardona. Pescara, 19-20 febbraio 2009 (Guerra Edizioni, Perugia, 2009), 283-303.

16

Italian), with questions to be answered on it in the second language. Against the

background of the vital importance of the bilingualism examination for the working

life of people in South Tyrol and the recent developments regarding the relationship

of this examination to international language certificates, this test appeared to offer

the possibility of producing data of special interest to the local reality.

Quality management was of prime importance at all phases of the project. The

relevant research literature and, in particular, the quality recommendations of the

Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) and the European Association for

Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA) were thus fundamental.52 All of the

necessary measures were taken to ensure the validity, reliability, authenticity and

practicability of the KOLIPSI test. In addition, different methods were used to assure

the reliability of the rater assessments. The tests were assessed by German-speaking

and Italian-speaking raters, specially trained for this purpose. All tests were assessed

twice independently of one another; each rater reassessed 10% of the previously rated

tests. In addition, 5% of all tests were assessed by some external raters. The tests were

also subjected to comprehensive statistical analyses (Multi-Faceted Rasch analyses) to

achieve results that were as fair as possible. The statistical methods used were

intended to compensate for possible falsifying tendencies, for example differing

degrees of severity between individual raters.53

The test part of the bilingualism examination was assessed by German and

Italian former members of the test commission. In this case the raters explicitly

referred to the official guidelines for assessing written examinations in the

bilingualism examination. Here, too, all tests were assessed in parallel and

independently by two raters.

2. Results of the Survey of Second Language Competences

(a) The KOLIPSI Test (Written)

52 See, Lyle F Bachman and Adrian Palmer, Language Testing in Practice (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996), 377; Glenn Fulcher and Fred Davidson, Language Testing and Assessment (Routledge, Londo, New York, 2007), 403; Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE), “Handreichungen für Testautoren. Modul 1: Modelle der Sprachkompetenz” September 2007, 26, at <http://www.alte.org/projects/alte_deutsche_hr_modul_1.pdf>. 53 Hermann-Günter Hesse and Sarah Römisch, “Zur Einschätzung von Sprachleistungen auf der Grundlage des GERS: ein IRT-Modell“, in Andrea Abel, Chiara Vettori, and Katrin Wisniewski (eds.), Die Südtiroler SchülerInnen und die Zweitsprache: eine linguistische und sozialpsychologische Untersuchung (Eurac, Bozen, forthcoming).

17

The results of the German- and Italian-speaking pupils in the KOLIPSI test (e-mail

and letter) appear in the following (see Figure 3).54

Figure 3: Results of the Written KOLIPSI Tests (in Percentages) with Italian as L2 and German as L2 (A2 = lowest; C1 = highest level of proficiency). The graphs do not show extreme cases (levels A1 and C2)

Of the German-speaking pupils, 44% can write Italian to level B1, while a further

40% manage level B2. Only 4% are below level B1 (A2), while 11% exceed level B2

(C1). Almost half of the Italian-speaking pupils achieve level B1, while 28% are

below it (A2); 13% achieve level B2, with 5% above this level (C1).

Figure 4: Results of the Written KOLIPSI Tests (in Percentages) Divided According to School Type (Italian as L2 and German as L2)

ITALIAN L2 GERMAN L2

If we analyse the results on the basis of the type of school attended by the pupils

(academic high school [Gymnasium] and specialised high school/institute

54 The results (German v. Italian pupils) may not be directly comparable in statistical and methodical terms.

18

[Fachoberschule/Lehranstalt]; see Figure 4), noticeable differences appear between

both German and Italian schools, but above all in the Italian schools. Nearly half

(48%) of the Italian-speaking pupils in the specialised high schools/institutes fall

below the threshold level B1, whereas in the academic high schools this proportion is

only 15%. Of the academic high school pupils, 56% manage B1 competence in

German while 18% have B2. For pupils not attending an academic high school,

however, 33% achieve B1 and only 6% reach B2, with 4% of both groups (academic

high school and specialised high school/institute) at level C1.

The German schools also show differences between pupils at specialised high

schools/institutes and at academic high schools, but these are less pronounced than in

the Italian schools. There are few German-speaking pupils with a competence level of

A2 at either specialised technical schools/institutes (6%) or at academic high schools

(2%). Approximately half (51%) of the pupils at specialised technical

schools/institutes are at level B1, whereas at academic high schools this proportion

falls to 31%. The situation concerning the higher level, B2, is exactly the opposite,

with 49% of academic high school students attaining this level, but only 36% of

pupils at specialised high schools/institutes. Level C1 is achieved by 17% of academic

high school pupils and 6% of pupils at specialised high schools/institutes.55

For German-speaking pupils some robust context factors for L2 competence seem to

be school type and gender as well as the language environment (the more Italian is

spoken, the higher the performance). For Italian-speaking pupils it is above all the

school type that influences language performance.56

(b) The Bilingualism Examination

Following the KOLIPSI tests, the pupils took one of the two written examinations

from the bilingualism examination in which they answered six questions in L2 on a

55 As stated previously only a small subsample of pupils participated in the oral test: for reasons of space the results cannot be presented here. These results however provide overall confirmation of the entire survey, i.e., that the results of the German-speaking pupils are higher than those of the Italian speakers, although the Italian-speaking pupils fared somewhat better in the oral than in the written test. 56 These are the results of regression analyses (collected within the questionnaire survey to be presented below) that take, among others, the following factors into account: gender, language environment and school type. As to ‘language environment’, we made a distinction between Italian v. German speaking majority in the pupil’s residence town (over 60%, respectively). Further statistical details and aspects (e.g., socioeconomic status, mother tongue, sense of belonging to a German, Italian, Ladin, bilingual or other group) should be found in the forthcoming publication of the KOLIPSI project (See Abel, Vettori, Wisniewski, op.cit. note 41).

19

text in their first language (L1).57 As the raters (two per test) were working

independently rather than in pairs, it was not always possible to reach a consensus (as

is the case in the official examination) on whether the test had been ‘passed’ or

‘failed’. To these two categories a third (‘disagree’) was therefore added to cover

disagreements between the raters. The overall results appear in the following

diagrams (see

Figure 5):

Figure 5: Results (in percentages) of the Written Part of the Bilingualism Examination (Italian and German as L2)

ITALIAN L2 GERMAN L2

The test was of equivalent difficulty for both groups: 26% of the German-

speaking pupils passed the examination whereas 63% failed. The remaining 12%

received different assessments from the two raters. Of the Italian-speaking pupils,

31% passed the examination, whereas 61% did not pass and no unanimous assessment

was possible for 8%. The results are comparable with the pass rates for the official

bilingualism examination B for the 14-19 age group, which in 2009 was around

26.2% (ASTAT 2009).

It is not easy to correlate the results of this examination with the CEFR

competence levels attained by the pupils in the KOLIPSI test (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Results (in percentages) of the Part of the Bilingualism Examination in Relation to Competence Level (Italian and German as L2)

ITALIAN L2 GERMAN L2

57 The oral part of the examination was not carried out.

20

By crossing the results of the Kolipsi test with the ones of the bilingual examination,

it becomes clear that those pupils who show good competence levels do not always

pass the given test from the bilingual examination. Among the German-speaking

pupils who do not pass the bilingualism examination, 35% achieve level B1 and 56%

achieve level B2 in the KOLIPSI test; in addition, 7% achieve level A2 and 2% even

manage level C1. Among the Italian-speaking pupils, the situation looks a bit better;

no B2 or C1 candidates failed. However, the results of the numerous B1 candidates

who appear unpredictably distributed over the three categories are even more

remarkable; they constitute 22% of the passes, 69% of the disagreements and 56% of

the failures in the partial bilingualism examination. These results are relevant, indeed

striking, in view of the fact that—as described previously—the decision has been

made to recognise a number of CEFR-related certificates as an alternative to the South

Tyrolean bilingualism certificate. According to the relevant directive (see Legislative

Decree No. 86 of 14 May 2010) the four degrees of difficulty of the bilingualism

examination, from D-A, correspond to the four levels of the CEFR, that is, A2-C2.

Figure 7: Results (in percentages) of the Written Bilingualism Examination Partial Tests According to School Type (Italian and German L2)

ITALIAN L2 GERMAN L2

If we analyse the data on the basis of the type of school attended (see Figure

7), we can draw the same conclusions as for the KOLIPSI test; large differences

21

between pupils attending academic high schools and those attending specialised high

schools/institutes exist, especially for those pupils in Italian ones, in which up to 90%

of the pupils of a specialised high school/institute do not pass the bilingualism

examination part (while only the remaining 10% pass). Pupils at academic high

schools show a less clear distribution: 42% pass, whereas 48% fail.

D. The Socio-Psychological Survey

1. Qualitative Data

To gather the socio-psychological data, 16 interviews with key figures from South

Tyrolean life were held to first get some interesting stimuli that could then be

discussed in detail in focus groups with pupils from fourth class high school

(discussion groups of 8-10 pupils). Among the topics of debate ranked the educational

system, the South Tyrolean dialect, the perception of ‘invisible walls’ (the existence

of parallel German- and Italian-speaking structures and activities), attitudes in relation

to the other language group, linguistic identity, politics and history as well as how

these are communicated in the classroom in Italian- and German-language schools.

Both in the interviews and in the focus groups, the most frequently recurring and

discussed topic was the division of South Tyrol into German and Italian spheres. In

fact, pupils and interviewees described a reality consisting of two ‘parallel worlds’

with hardly anything in common and which are rarely in contact with one another.

Everyday life in South Tyrol appeared to be marked by a lack of contact among

German and Italian speakers.58

2. Quantitative Data

On the basis of the results of the first phase of the qualitative survey, numerous topics

were further addressed in a comprehensive questionnaire study, such as demographic,

cultural and social characteristics of the target population, external and self-evaluation

58 For the results of the qualitative study, see: Doris Forer, Maria Paola Paladino, Chiara Vettori and Andrea Abel, “Il bilinguismo in Alto Adige; percezioni, osservazioni e opinioni su una questione quanto mai aperta”, 1(XLIX) Il Cristallo: rassegna di varia umanità (2008), 49-62, at <http://www.altoadigecultura.org/rivista.html>; furthermore, see, e.g., Abel, op.cit. note 2; Baur, op.cit. note 27; Egger, op.cit. note 9; Manuela Zappe, Das ethnische Zusammenleben in Südtirol (Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M., 1996), 321; Daniela Veronesi, “Languages and Language Learning in South Tyrol: Some data from Italian Speakers’ Language Biographies”, in Andrea Abel and Magdalena Putz (eds.), 23(3-4) International Journal of Anthropology, Old and New Minorities. Linguistic Approaches to Growing Complexity (2008), 261-274; ASTAT, op.cit. note 20.

22

of L2 skills, L2 use, L2 confidence, and L2 learning motivation, attitudes toward the

language groups, linguistic identity, relative deprivation and ethnolinguistic vitality.

The questionnaires were produced for this purpose and were given to pupils who had

also participated in the language tests.59

In particular, quantitative data concerning contact between Germans and

Italians was to be gathered. Thus, the present contribution focuses on this aspect.

Numerous international studies have shown that contact is a fundamental factor in

promoting positive attitudes between groups;60 a large part of the data was analysed

from this point of view. For the purpose of the study, not only was the extent of the

contact with the other language group studied, but the quality and intensity of

relations with the ‘other’ were also examined. Although the frequency of contact

positively affects intergroup attitudes, it is the development of friendship and the

feeling of closeness which follows from it that produce a more profound change in the

perception of the other group, thus reducing the distance between the ‘I’ and the

‘other’.

Because of the heterogeneous geographical distribution of the two language

groups in South Tyrol, direct contact with the ‘other’ is not always actually feasible;

this is particularly true for German-speaking South Tyroleans who often live in

practically monolingual areas. Therefore, extended contact was also examined. The

term ‘extended’ includes the network of contacts that friends or relatives of the person

answering the questionnaire maintain with members of the other language group. This

kind of indirect contact has been proven to have positive effects on attitudes and

prejudices in relation to the other group.61

3. Results of the Socio-Psychological Survey

59 For more details about the topics investigated, the underlying scientific literature and the descriptive analysis of the results, see Abel, Vettori, and Wisniewski, op.cit. note 41. 60 Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, “A Meta-analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory”, 90 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2006), 751–783; Stephen C. Wright, “Cross-Group Contact Effects”, in Sabine Otten, Thomas Kessler and Kai Sassenberg (eds.), Intergroup Relations: The Role of Motivation and Emotion. (Psychology Press, New York, 2009), 243-261. 61 See Arthur Aron, Elaine N. Aron, Michael Tudor and Greg Nelson, “Close Relationships as Including Other in the Self”, 60 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1991), 241-253; Stephen C. Wright, Arthur Aron, Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe and Stacy A. Ropp, “The Extended Contact Effect: Knowledge of Cross-Group Friendships and Prejudice” 73 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1997), 73-90; Stephen C. Wright, Aron Arthur and Linda R. Tropp, “Including Others (and Their Groups) in the Self: Self-expansion and Intergroup Relations”, in Joe P. Forgas and Kipling D. Williams (eds.), The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal and Intergroup Perspectives (Psychology Press, Philadephia, 2002), 343-363.

23

The attitudes of the pupils in relation to their own and the other language group were

surveyed using various evaluation scales.62 The use of several indicators for

measuring one and the same concept increases the reliability of the results. If the

indicators, as in this case, produce uniform results on different scales, this means that

the results cannot only be due to the use of a specific scale.

For reasons of clarity, results from only one of the scales used are presented

here, that is, the evaluation thermometer.63 This is a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being

not at all positive, 5 indicating a neutral view and 10 being a very positive evaluation.

As Figure 8 clearly shows, the average evaluation is very positive in relation to

one’s own language group (≥ 9), whereas the evaluation of the other group, although

positive, is nevertheless significantly less (~7). This result is typical of a phenomenon

well-known in social psychology called in-group favouritism, that is, the preference

for one’s own group (‘in-group bias’).64

Figure 8: Attitudes of the German-speaking (N = 856) and Italian-speaking (N = 274) Pupils in South Tyrol Toward Their Own and the Other Language Group (no Data for 11)

Regarding intergroup friendships, it appears that a large majority of South

Tyrolean pupils have at least some friends in the other language group. Still, one-

quarter of the German pupils and 12% of the Italian pupils say that in the last year,

62 See Doris Forer and Maria Paola Paladino, “Direct and Extended Contact of Italian and German Speaking South Tyroleans: Effects on Attitudes and Identification with Respect to Second Language (L2) Acquisition”, in Abel et al., op.cit. note 41. 63 Maykel Verkuyten and Shervin Nekuee, “In-group Bias: The Effect of Self-stereotyping, Identification and Group Threat”, 29 European Journal of Social Psychology (1999), 411-418. 64 Miles Hewstone, Mark Rubin and Hazel Willis, “Intergroup Bias”, 53 Annual Review of Psychology (2002), 575-604.

24

they have never or only very rarely had relations of friendship with members of the

other group (see

Figure 9). The Italian and German pupils who do not have friendships with

members of the other language group live mainly in areas in which the L2 group is

very small in numbers or is at least in the minority.

Figure 9: Frequency of Friendly Contact with Members of the Other Language Group for Pupils of German Mother Tongue (N = 865) and Italian Mother Tongue (N = 276) in South Tyrol

The quality and intensity of the relations between the two groups vary

according to the perceived closeness of the contact. A large percentage of the German

and Italian pupils state that they maintain very close relations of friendship with

members of the other language group. Italian-speaking pupils, however, more

frequently claim closer relationships than do German-speaking pupils of the same age

(see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Perceived Closeness of the Relationship Me–Other/s (Members of the Other Language Group) for German (N = 443) and Italian pupils (N = 162) in South Tyrol

Loose Friendship Friendship

Close Friendship Very Close Friendship

25

These data give an impression of the frequency and closeness of relations

between Italian and German pupils in South Tyrol. It is very noticeable that contacts

between language groups developed within relations of friendship have positive

effects on the evaluation of the other language group. Figure 11 shows that the simple

fact of having a friend from the other language group is sufficient to produce a more

positive attitude toward this group.

Figure 11: Attitude Toward L2 Language Group According to Contacts between

Language Groups for German-speaking Pupils (N = 590) and Italian-speaking Pupils (N = 187) in

South Tyrol

Various studies65 have shown that relations between groups improve due to

contact because contact enables the emergence of significant friendly relations with

members of the other group. This investigation confirms the assumption that the

greater the perceived closeness to friends in the other language group, the more

positive the evaluation of the other language group.

A large part of the sample examined also had experience with extended

intergroup contacts.66 The frequency analysis shows that the majority of the South

Tyrolean pupils asked had friends and/or family who maintained friendships with

members of the other language group (see Figure 12). Those with experience of such

extended contact also showed more positive attitudes toward the other language group

and again, positive effects are linked to the closeness of the friendship(s). The closer

the relationships that friends or family members had with members of the other

language group, the more positive the evaluation of that group.

65 See, e.g., Jared. B. Kenworthy, Rhiannon N. Turner, Miles Hewstone and Alberto Voci, “Intergroup Contact: When Does it Work, and Why?”, in John Dovidio, Peter Glick and Laurie Rudman (eds.), On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport (Blackwell, Oxford, 2005), 278-292. 66 Wright et al., op.cit. note 61.

26

Figure 12: Extended Contacts of German-speaking Pupils (N = 865) and Italian-speaking Pupils (N = 276)

The data gathered also show that those participants who reported to have

friends from the other language group were more motivated to learn the L2 (see

Figure 13).67 The relationship between contact and motivation also depends on the

depth of the friendship: the more intimate the friendship, the greater the desire to learn

the L2.

Figure 13: Motivation to Learn L2 in Relationship to Contact for German-speaking (N = 590) and Italian-speaking South Tyroleans (N = 187)

This connection between intergroup contact and motivation holds for both

language groups. A similar pattern appears with regard to extended contacts: both

Italian- and German-speaking pupils are more motivated to learn the L2 if their own

relatives and/or friends have significant relations with those who speak the L2.

67 See for example Robert C. Gardner, Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of

Attitudes and Motivation (Baltimore, London, 1985); Robert C. Gardner and Wallace E. Lambert,

“Motivational Variables in Second Language Acquisition”, 13 Canadian Journal of Psychology

(1959), 266-272.

27

Finally, an evaluation of language habits in communication between German-

and Italian-speaking South Tyroleans showed that the most used language is Italian.

Both groups state that exchanges in close intergroup friendships are predominantly

conducted in Italian (Germans 67.9%, Italians 79.3%). People switch between

German and Italian in only 15% of cases. Thus, while 67.9% of the German-speaking

pupils speak almost exclusively the L2 with their Italian friends, the same applies to

only 5.8% of the Italian-speaking pupils.

This difference in the use of the L2 in contacts and exchanges with the other

language group probably also relates to the fact that practically none of the German-

speaking participants used standard German in everyday life (0.9%); instead they

spoke South Tyrolean dialect (98.8%), which is only very poorly understood by the

Italian speakers interviewed (70.7% did not understand dialect or could only

understand simple sentences). This difference could also explain why the extent of

contact and the competence level in the L2 correlate only for German pupils and not

for Italian pupils. If German pupils tend to show higher L2 competences, their

communication in L2 with their Italian-speaking friends certainly accounts for some

of this proficiency. Yet, the same does not apply to Italian pupils. For the latter, mere

contact with German speakers does not lead to better L2 competences because they do

not actually use the L2 during those intergroup encounters. Further investigation in

the future will provide more information on the role played by the use of different

varieties and gradations on a continuum between German dialect and the standard

language, as well as the development of linguistic repertoires in South Tyrol.68 Thus,

for Italian speakers, it would be important to raise the motivation to use the L2 when

interacting with the German language group, given that this exercise would in turn

have a proven positive effect on linguistic competence as could be shown by the

study.

IV. CONCLUSIONS—VIEW

From a linguistic perspective, a large number of interesting results were found. First,

there was a considerable difference in the linguistic competences of pupils at

specialist high schools/institutes and academic high schools: in both, the Italian- and

German-language specialist high schools/institutes, pupils showed L2 competences

68 See Mioni, op.cit. note 24; Lanthaler, op.cit. note 24.

28

that were clearly below the ones observed in academic high schools. Second, pupils

from both target language groups had predominantly negative ratings in the test part

taken from the bilingualism examination. Apparently, good second language

competences (expressed in the KOLIPSI tests on the basis of the descriptors in the

CEFR) are not a safe predictor for passing this part of the bilingualism examination.

Certainly, one must keep in mind that the bilingualism examination was not designed

according to the CEFR.

In addition, it appears—and this, without a doubt, also ranks as among the

most relevant results of the language competence survey—that for many pupils,

predominantly Italian-speaking ones, participation in everyday life in the L2 might be

difficult given that linguistic competences are often at an elementary level (A2 or

Waystage, that is, a stage at which speakers “can communicate in simple and routine

tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine

matters”). For all those reaching competence levels of B1 and higher, communication

in the second language—although on different levels—should be possible (level B1 is

regarded as the threshold for independent language use at which the speaker “can

produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest”,

whereas level B2 speakers can speak about both concrete and abstract topics and

“produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a

topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options”).69 The fact

that such communication does not occur or that it proceeds along well-worn paths

(i.e., intergroup communication takes place in the Italian language) probably depends

on a range of linguistic and sociocultural factors which indicate the need for concrete

changes.

Thus, for instance, a radically different approach to the second language would

be desirable, whereby young people have less of an instrumental orientation (“I am

learning the second language because I have to pass the bilingualism

examination/because I hope it will offer me better job prospects”) and instead view

bilingualism as a way of developing personal contacts (“I am learning the second

language so I can build up more contacts in the other language group”). Moreover,

cross-group contact should be considered as a predictive variable of L2 proficiency

69 Trim et al., op.cit. note 34 and 38 (URL).

29

rather than vice versa, with attitudes toward the L2 community mediating the path.70

Contact with the other language group, as the study showed, plays an important role

in the motivation to L2 learning. Results confirm that pupils with friends in the other

language group show more positive attitudes toward the L2 community and have a

higher motivation to learn the L2. Again, all of these aspects are connected with

language competences. The closer the friendship, the more favourable the attitudes

and thus, the stronger the motivation to learn the L2. In this sense, the opportunities

for contact between the two groups could and should be promoted while creating

equal conditions within the groups to work toward common goals. These conditions

are fundamental for the development of important affective relationships. Clearly, the

decision to engage in interpersonal relationships depends on the individual. However,

young people and their families should not solely be expected to seek out extramural

contacts and activities. To give them the chance to try out the second language in all

its variants and varieties, cross-group contact must rather be supported and promoted

at an institutional level. Only through contact between speakers of the two languages

can the intended goals of a better cohabitation and, at the same time, of increased L2

competences be achieved. If it is not simply coexistence of the two linguistic

groups—in the sense of ‘living next to each other’—that has to be achieved, but rather

a closer ‘living together’, then interaction and exchange between groups should be

encouraged and sponsored. So far, classroom teaching alone was not found to be

sufficient to achieve this, and it is unlikely that a further increase of the already

considerable number of study hours would change the picture. Instead, interventions

that focus on the positive and strong ties between members of the two groups are

needed. Most likely, 30 years ago, when the Autonomy Statute was introduced, it

would not have been efficient to invest in this direction given that it was still a time of

change and conflict. Over time, the Autonomy Statute has worked in this direction

and today it could be said that the goal of creating a situation of equality has, in many

respects, been achieved. Both linguistic groups, German and Italian, enjoy similar

rights and considerations in South Tyrol. Thus, the ideal conditions for cross-group

contact71 have been gradually created. This makes the context of South Tyrol an

70 Cfr. in this context the desiderata, e.g., in Matthias Hartig, “Soziologie und Kontaktlinguistik“, in Goebl, Nelde, Starý and Wölck, op.cit. note 33, 30f. 71 See Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Perseus Books, Cambridge, 1954/1979).

30

interesting, natural setting for ‘experimenting’ with cross-group contact and it is now

the time to invest in this promising direction. This aspect is obviously of particular

significance when considering if and to what extent the findings of this study could be

eventually transferred to other multilingual realities with a different minority–majority

situation.

In the case of Italian pupils, however, there is a particular difficulty hindering

the motivation for the learning of the L2; whereas contacts for German-speaking

pupils actually represent an opportunity for practising the L2, this is not the case for

Italian-speaking pupils. In exchanges between German and Italian speakers of the

same age, the Italian language is used almost exclusively (cfr. II.B). This virtually

‘institutionalised’ practice of using Italian in intergroup communication indirectly

leads to the view among Italian-speaking pupils that it is not really necessary to learn

and speak German. Furthermore, the habit of German-speaking South Tyroleans to

speak their dialect in practically all areas of daily life while almost never using

standard German makes it difficult even for those Italian speakers who would like to

improve their language skills to practise.

It is a well-known phenomenon that speakers tend to always use the same

language if, for example, the choice is determined by different levels of language

competence, or if specific habits and automatic reactions have been established. Yet,

it is not an ultimate choice between languages; multilingual speakers can in fact

switch between a monolingual and a multilingual mode.72 To change the status quo

described, it would certainly be desirable that Italian-speaking South Tyroleans

improve, at least passively, their dialect competence so that they can follow a

discussion among German-speakers and feel more comfortable if addressed in a

nonstandard variety of German. However, it would also be necessary that German-

speaking South Tyroleans accommodate Italian speakers’ efforts to communicate in

standard German—or a variety close to standard German—with them. Moreover,

multilingual mode situations must be defined as adequate. To encourage such a mode,

example situations should be illustrated and proposed, for example, through the help

of specific projects promoting multilingual exchange encounters between the

language groups.

72 Lüdi, op.cit. note 33, 240.

31

Finally, particularly important for the context of South Tyrol is the finding that

extended contacts (i.e., members of one’s own group having contact with the ‘other’)

also have positive effects on attitudes and, consequently, the motivation to learn the

L2. Considering that a large part of the German-speaking South Tyroleans lives in

areas that are de facto monolingual, extended contact could represent an additional,

valuable instrument for improving intergroup relations. This also envisages new

strategies for social change. In other contexts (the US), it has indeed been proved

worthwhile to report, for example, in university magazines on experiences of

friendship between members of different groups to promote a climate of tolerance.

Watching TV series that depict the development of such intergroup friendships

similarly leads to positive results. The media thus represent a means to get to know

and experience indirect contacts.73

From the situation described here, it is clear that the challenges of achieving a

real multilingual society in South Tyrol are numerous and involve not only schools

but also all those entities that intervene in the process of attitude formation and

change.74 We thus argue that in South Tyrol, politics, media, cultural and leisure

offers, as well as families must all face the challenges of educating the new

generations in taking an active part in a multilingual society. “What is today required

are measures that promote intercultural encounters that permit people to feel secure in

their own language and at the same time contribute to young people experiencing the

language of their neighbours as something alive that has practical value in everyday

use”.75, 76 Furthermore, it should be possible to extend the participation in social life

in the L2 through positive examples of successful interaction with the other linguistic

group that can show and develop positive attitudes toward that group, thus

73 See, e.g., Elizabeth L. Paluck, “Reducing Intergroup Prejudice and Conflict Using the Media: A Field Experiment in Rwanda”, 96 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2009), 574-587; Edward Schiappa, Peter B. Gregg and Dean E. Hewes, “The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis”, 72(1) Communication Monographs (2005), 92-115. 74 See, e.g., Zoltan Dörnyei, Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning (Blackwell, Oxford, 2003), 213; Christina Isabelli-García, “Study Abroad Social Networks, Motivation and Attitudes: Implications for Second Language Acquisition”, in Eton Churchill and Margaret DuFon (eds.), Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 2006), 231-258. Furthermore, see also recommendations, e.g., regarding the promotion of language learning in: Commission of the European Communities, High Level Group on Multilingualism, “Final Report” (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2007), at <http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf> which are in line with some of the central findings of the present study. 75 Abel and Stuflesser, op.cit. note 4. 76 Author’s translation of the originally German citation.

32

establishing the most favourable environment for linguistic exchange and an active

and fruitful biculturalism, fostering the desired plurilingualism.