A Study on Language Attitudes Towards Regional

A Study on Language Attitudes Towards Regional and Foreign Languages by School Children in Aragon (Spain) ´ ngel Huguet A Department of Pedagogy and Psychology, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain Cecilio Lapresta Department of Geography and Sociology, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain ´ M. Madariaga Jose Department of Educational Psychology, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain The study of language attitudes has proved vital in order to guarantee the success of any proposal for language teaching in schools. Nevertheless, in Aragon, a region of Northern Spain close to the Pyrenees, three regional languages coexist. The number of studies on this phenomenon is scarce, and we can only associate this lack of research with the absence of enthusiasm with which language attitudes have traditionally been treated. In this context, based on a sample of students in one of the four years of compulsory secondary education, the study has two objectives. First, attitudes towards the three languages present in the area are explicated (i.e. Aragonese, Spanish and Catalan), and are also approached in relation to the two other foreign languages that are more present in the curriculum (French and English). Secondly, the influence of some of the main factors causing these attitudes is analysed. A great diversity in the different linguistic areas of Aragon can be observed in our data, and this should make us reflect upon future alternatives for schools located in areas traditionally considered as Aragonese, Spanish or Catalan speaking. doi: 10.1080/14790710802152412 Keywords: Aragon, curricula, language attitudes, L1/L2

Introduction The crucial role played by language attitudes in the success or failure of any bilingual (or plurilingual) educational project carried out was demonstrated, among others, by Baker (1992). On the other hand, attitudes and the motivation linked to them have proved to be a significant factor when explaining language shift or preservation in a bilingual society (Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007). Thus, it is difficult to explain the advance of English in Wales, alongside the corresponding retreat of Welsh in areas where it was still the most commonly used language at the beginning of the 20th century, without incorporating into the study the desire of most Welsh people to 1479-0718/08/04 275-19 $20.00/0 International Journal of Multilingualism

– 2008 Taylor & Francis Vol. 5, No. 4, 2008

275

276

International Journal of Multilingualism

identify themselves with a certain set of English values (Baetens Beardsmore, 1986). Schumann (1978, 1990) located his research within a similar trend by highlighting the role of attitudinal factors as an implicit dimension to his acculturation model through the assimilation of a second language (L2). However, as the basis of his socioeducational proposal for L2 acquisition, Gardner (1985), in a deeper insight into how both motivation to learn and language attitudes influence L2 learning, emphasised the role played by attitudes. This role has been highlighted by other authors through elucidating the existence of a close relationship between performance in the L2 and favourable attitudes towards the culture and group represented by the language (Baetens Beardsmore, 1986; Baker, 1992; Garret et al., 2003; Huguet, 2006; Huguet et al., 2000; Lasagabaster, 2003; Siguan & Mackey, 1986). From this perspective, it follows that language learning will rarely occur if subjects do not show positive attitudes towards the language in question and the lessons where it is taught. It is true that the socioeducational model for L2 acquisition put forward by Gardner (1985) to explain how attitudes and motivation may influence language competence has suffered some criticism. In this sense, Au (1988) supported the idea that the results obtained from most studies into attitudes and motivation towards a given L2 learning were ambiguous. He also added that the concept of social milieu proposed in the model left room for post hoc interpretations that make it difficult to verify. In response to this criticism, Gardner (1988) indicated that much of it was based on erroneous ideas in so far as, in specific instances, the apparently inconsistent results were nothing but the reflection of measurement, analytical or methodological problems liable to be detected only in very specific studies. Furthermore, he added that criticism, together with countercriticism, is an added value that has proved useful for (1) highlighting important questions within this particular research area and (2) drawing closer attention to the processes involved in L2 learning. In any case, as Gardner and Cle´ment (1990) emphasise, there is wide discussion regarding the cause/effect sequence when analysing the relationship between attitudes and motivation versus language learning. The reason for that can be found in the nature of our data, which is mostly correlative, making it difficult for us to draw conclusions as to what is cause and what effect. However, this interaction is clear, as can be seen from models designed to account for multilingual communication situations (Sachdev & Bourhis, 2001) or from the analysis of the relationship of individual differences and contextual variables with respect to L2 acquisition processes (Cle´ment & Gardner, 2001). From this position, some works (Baker, 1988, 1992) have stressed the fact that attitudes are not inherited but acquired and, irrespective of how persistent they might seem, are likely to be modified. Accordingly, it may be admitted that L2 learning may well modify subjects’ attitudes towards the group that has the language as the mother tongue. Likewise, when a bilingual education programme is developed under appropriate conditions, individuals seem to consolidate and broaden their approval of the people and cultures represented

Aragonese School Children’s Language Attitudes

277

by the target language (Genesee et al., 1986). On the contrary, it is common in other perspectives to emphasise the role of attitudes to language learning in such a way that the relationship ‘ . . . is based on the fact that attitudes are relatively constant personal characteristics influencing and determining language learning progress, and not the other way round’ (Sa´ nchez & Rodrı´guez, 1997: 133134). This, according to the authors, can be derived from three types of test: (1) attitudes and motivation are related to the level of linguistic ability achieved independently from capacities and intelligence; (2) there is a close relationship between parents’ and children’s language attitudes, which suggests that these develop at home before formal language learning starts; and (3) in language attitude assessment, carried out prior to or after learning, changes are minimal and thus do not seem to be related to a better knowledge of the L2. To sum up, it is true that there is generalised agreement among researchers to highlight the existence of a close relationship between the level of competence achieved in a given language and the language attitudes generated towards that language and culture. Nevertheless, discrepancies arise when it comes to defining the nature of that relationship. That is to say, while some scholars tend to stress the primacy of attitudes over language learning and its relative stability, others highlight the basic role played by the curriculum and its influence on the definition of such attitudes through school language learning. Notwithstanding the two previous contributions, advocates of a third course that is currently gaining ground would argue that ‘it is possible that some reciprocal causation also exists. Attitudes and achievement may be both the cause and effect of each other. In a cyclical, spiral relationship, one builds on the other in an upward or downward relationship’ (Baker, 1992: 44). Most theoretical models developed over recent years are founded on this notion, although each of them may emphasise different variables involved in the process (Cle´ment & Gardner, 2001; Gardner & Cle´ment, 1990).

The Aragonese Context All these issues, among others, have become particularly relevant in Spain, where linguistic policy is based on the facts that (1) the Spanish Constitution acknowledges the country’s multilingual and multicultural character and (2) the country is organised into autonomous communities with their own parliaments and legal frameworks. Consequently, concerning compulsory education, the development of the State of Autonomies has led to a greater legal presence of languages other than Spanish in most autonomous communities where Spanish is not the only regional language (Huguet, 2007; Vila, 1992). Nevertheless, whereas current legislation establishes that in certain communities, such as Galicia or Catalonia, the use of the regional language is compulsory (teaching of and in that language), in other regions, such as Aragon or Asturias, it is not possible to teach in the regional language, limited

278


as it is to being an optional subject in the curriculum throughout schooling (Vila, 2005). Whatever the case may be, whilst on the one hand it is true that it has been difficult to prevent the incorporation into the curriculum of languages other than Spanish, on the other it must be said that there has been little tradition of research on the subject. Nowadays, especially in those communities such as Aragon, which have recently acquired jurisdiction over non-university education, one feels the need to carry out a deep analysis of this process and its impact on the development of students’ language attitudes. If we now focus on Aragon, it is worth remembering that, despite being a region with three contact languages (Aragonese, Spanish and Catalan, all of them roman languages with very similar linguistic structures), we still lack an official estimate of the number of speakers corresponding to each of them. The most reliable data show that there are around 50,000 people in the Catalanspeaking area (Martıń et al., 1995; Martıńez, 1995), approximately 5% of the total population of the community. As far as Aragonese is concerned, the situation is quite similar, although several authors (Gimeno & Nagore, 1989; Martıńez, 1995; Nagore, 2001) draw a distinction between those who speak it regularly (from 10,000 to 12,000) and those who know or use the language sporadically or who resort to varieties that are strongly influenced by Spanish. In this context, as can be observed in Figure 1, Aragon is divided into three provinces (Huesca, Zaragoza and Teruel from the north to the south). The traditional Aragonese speaking area occupies the northern area of the Huesca province. However, we should bear in mind that there are two separate areas according to the degree of preservation of the language: one where Aragonese

Figure 1 Linguistic map of Aragon Source: Siguan (1992)


279

is still used by the population (Eastern Ribagorza, Bal de Chistau, Bal de Bielsa, Pandicosa, Echo and Anso´ ), and another one where Aragonese is merely kept up (the rest of the valleys in the Pyrenean mountain range and the Somontano area). The Catalan speaking area, called Franja de Ponent (Eastern Fringe), spreads from the east of the Aneto peak, in the Pyrenees, to the Maestrazgo region, in the Teruel province. Lastly, the Spanish-speaking territory is made up of most of the Zaragoza and Teruel provinces, except for some eastern, Catalan speaking areas and the southern area of the Huesca province. At a sociolinguistic level, this panorama brings about the existence of two bilingual areas (AragoneseSpanish and CatalanSpanish) and one monolingual domain (the rest of the territory where Spanish is spoken). On the other hand, the status of minority languages in Aragon is determined by the fact that neither Catalan nor Aragonese are official languages (Nagore, 2004). There is, nonetheless, an indirect reference to their legal status in the Statute of Autonomy (Article 7): The regional languages and linguistic varieties of Aragon are to be protected. Teaching of these languages, as well as the rights of speakers, will be guaranteed as established in an Aragon Government Law for areas with a predominant use of such languages. The Law referred to in the Statute is still pending, but according to the motion elaborated by the Parliamentary Commission of Language Policy (Boletıń Oficial de Aragon, 21 April 1997), an Aragonese Law of Languages should pursue: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

the recognition of Aragon’s multilingual reality, equal legal consideration for both minority languages, legal recognition of Aragonese and Catalan, respect towards local varieties of both languages, teaching of minority languages, toponymy regulation, institutional support to publications, media and cultural manifestations in the minority language and creation of an administrative organ in charge of language normalisation.

Clearly, when examining the above points we are particularly interested in highlighting both 5, which refers to the teaching of minority languages, and 3, dealing with the legal recognition of Aragonese and Catalan. In this last point, there is a mention of those features that are to be included in a future project for the Aragonese Law of Languages, and more specifically in section c: The right of Catalan and Aragonese speakers to the teaching of and in their own language . . . Logically, such a proposal will inevitably lead to a total bilingual organisation of the Aragonese educational system in predominantly Catalan and Aragonese speaking areas. That is to say, the current educational model will become

280


irrelevant, as it is based on Aragonese and Catalan being taught as optional subjects for a certain amount of hours in the academic year. Moreover, certain curricular subjects should be taught in these languages, so that the resulting educational model could be structured following a bilingual education programme. When dealing with the teaching of Catalan nowadays, we must refer back to the Cooperation Agreement signed in November 1986 by the Ministry of Education and Science and the Department of Culture and Education of the Diputacio´ n General de Aragon. This agreement establishes that, on demand, pupils can attend classes in Catalan if parents write a letter to show that they wish their children to have up to three hours of Catalan per week. We cannot deny the degree of social acceptance obtained by the proposal if we consider that, at the beginning of the programme, in the school year 1984/ 1985, the number of students enrolled was 791 in 12 schools. Ten years later, during the school year 1994/1995, figures showed more than 3000 students in 30 schools, a number which is now around 4000 students in 40 schools (Gobierno de Aragon, 1995; Huguet, 2006). As to Aragonese, the fact that it is a language spoken exclusively in Aragon obliges the regional government to make a stronger effort to recover and preserve its different varieties. Nevertheless, it was not until 1996 that there was the first job offer to incorporate four teachers of Aragonese in the schools of Jaca, Biescas, Aıńsa and Benasque. Before teachers started working at the schools, an opinion poll had been carried out in order to obtain an idea of the number of students interested, and the results were outstanding: more than 500 students pre-enrolled. Lastly, during the school year 1997/1998, the first Aragonese lessons in the schools mentioned started, thanks to cooperation between the corresponding mayors and the Education Council of the regional government. Unfortunately, several difficulties have hitherto delayed the development of this educational experience, and only half of the students expected have eventually enrolled on the lessons. These difficulties are related to (Alcover & Quintana, 2000): . .

. .

teachers, who work part time and do not feel professionally valued; teaching times, with lessons limited to just one hour per week outside school hours; curricula and the lack of materials; and the absence of a transportation system from the neighbouring towns and villages to the four schools where Aragonese in taught.

Within this general framework, we focus on an analysis of linguistic attitudes of Aragonese students towards the three languages currently spoken in the community (Aragonese, Spanish and Catalan) and towards the foreign languages with a higher presence in the school curriculum (French and English). We find the background to our proposal in two general studies carried out, respectively, in the SpanishCatalan bilingual areas (Martıń et al., 1995) and SpanishAragonese bilingual areas (Equipo Euskobaro´ metro, 2001). Although the first study was rather controversial and its methodology was questioned, it


281

is worth mentioning it for two reasons: (1) the model of Aragonese identity it puts forward and (2) the widespread acceptance of the teaching of Catalan as a subject it shows (even though, in general, people are not in favour of the official status of Catalan). With reference to the second study, it is important to point out that most of the population in higher Aragon shows favourable attitudes towards the institutional protection of Aragonese (although there are not any clear demands for its official status) and to the teaching of the language as a subject. Generally speaking, people questioned showed really positive attitudes towards Aragonese. Informants even stated that they would like to learn it and that their children should also learn it. However, more than half of the sample is pessimistic as to the future of Aragonese, even predicting its future extinction or transformation into a regional variety of Spanish. Another study, more in tune with the one presented here in terms of objectives and intended audience, is that carried out by Huguet and Llurda (2001). A comparative analysis was carried out between the attitudes towards Spanish and Catalan shown by Catalan students from the neighbouring Catalonia and by students from the Aragonese SpanishCatalan bilingual area. Among the conclusions obtained in the study it is worth stressing that while Catalan students tend to give more importance to Catalan over Spanish, students from the Aragonese area see Spanish more positively, although in both cases attitudes are generally positive. Regarding the variables explaining these attitudes, home language seems to be decisive both in the case of Spanish language in Catalonia and Catalan in Aragon, although the reverse situation does not hold true. Furthermore, attendance (or non-attendance) to Catalan lessons was directly related to the attitudes towards this language. We would like to stress the fact that the works initially quoted (Martıń et al., 1995; Equipo Euskobaro´ metro, 2001) considered at an adult population, and in each linguistic area people were asked exclusively about the regional language (Aragonese or Catalan). As regards Huguet and Llurda’s study (2001), despite analysing students’ attitudes, it centred on a relatively limited area, as it only included one of the territories of the SpanishCatalan bilingual area of Aragon, and focused solely on these two languages. Our current proposal tries to overcome all these limitations by analysing the future generations of Aragonese citizens, locating the focus of interest beyond specific territories and their corresponding languages.

Aims of the Study According to the background described so far, and by researching the autonomous community of Aragon, the present study intends to offer a thorough study of attitudes towards contact languages (Aragonese, Spanish and Catalan) and attitudes towards the foreign languages (French and English) that are usually taught in compulsory secondary education in Aragon. The geographical distribution of the linguistic territories (Aragonese to the north, Catalan to the east and Spanish all over the region), the relative closeness to the French border and the importance acquired by English as a lingua franca, make us wonder what are (1) the students’ attitudes towards


282

these five languages in any linguistic area and (2) the fundamental factors determining them. More specifically, the objectives are: . .

to analyse students’ attitudes towards the aforementioned languages; if differences emerge, to establish which (individual, social or curricular) factors can account for such attitudes.

Method Variables We have considered variables that may explain any differences arising from the study, as commonly used in most studies on attitudes in plurilingual contexts: home language (HL), social and professional status (SPS) and curricular presence of the language (OPT), considering that in the case of both Aragonese and Catalan attendance is optional. As this study is carried out at various levels of secondary education it is necessary to include a new variable referring to school year (YEAR) which accounts for participants’ age. In addition, linguistic areas are also considered (LA). In this way, the relationship of controlled variables, as well as the categories belonging to each of them, can be seen as follows: . . . . .

HL1: Spanish/Aragonese bilingual/Catalan bilingual/others SPS: high/medium/low OPT: yes/no/no, but attended in primary education/others YEAR: 1st year/4th year LA: ‘A’ (SpanishAragonese bilingual)/‘B’ (Spanish only)/‘C’ (Spanish Catalan bilingual)

As we have already pointed out, the selection of these variables is coherent with most of the studies that focus on language attitudes. In line with Baker (1992), we are able to identify the three most important elements in language attitudes: age, curriculum and home language. As will be seen, age was controlled by determining the school year. It was also necessary to refer to the Aragonese and Catalan curriculum (in terms of attendance and nonattendance) and to home language. Additionally, as certain studies have stressed the relevance of social and professional status of the families (Gabinet d’Estudis del SEDEC, 1983), this factor was also analysed. Lastly, the characteristics of the sociolinguistic context were controlled, establishing three distinct linguistic areas. Sample Bearing in mind the importance of the change from primary to compulsory secondary education, and from then on to non-compulsory education, the study was aimed at students who, at the time of data collection, were in their 1st and 4th year of secondary education. Students were aged 1213 and 1516, respectively. As far as age is concerned, these students were the most appropriate to take part in a study on language attitudes, as attitudes become


283

more established around the age of 10 and are accentuated during adolescence (Appel & Muysken, 1996; Siguan & Mackey 1986). The sample selection was also carried out bearing in mind that if students fulfilled certain requisites this would help the study. These requisites were: (1) (2) (3)

clear awareness and experience of the bilingual phenomenon in their towns, capacity to reply to questions that demanded a certain degree of sociolinguistic reflection and having had the option to attend Aragonese lessons in some cases, and Catalan lessons in most cases, in the linguistic areas where these languages are predominant.

Sample selection According to the data provided by the Department of Culture and Education of the Diputacio´ n General de Aragon, during the school year when the study was carried out, there were 28,270 boys and girls enrolled in secondary education in 124 state schools in Aragon (34 in the Huesca province, 33 in Teruel and 57 in Zaragoza). The distribution of these schools according to language area lets us place 15 of them in area ‘A’, 98 in area ‘B’ and 11 in area ‘C’. From this population, we obtained a statistically representative sample made up of 387 students (we worked with a sample error of 95% at a 95.5% reliance level, and considering p q 0.5). Proportionally, 196 students correspond to the 1st year (50.65%) and 191 to the 4th year (49.35%).The information about the linguistic area of origin of the students appears in Table 1.

Sample characteristics In this section we describe the main features of the sample according to the main variables controlled in the study (HL, SPS, OPT, YEAR and LA): .

.

.

. .

HL: Spanish 316 (81.65%); Aragonese bilingual 23 (5.94%); Catalan bilingual 39 (10.08%); others 9 (2.33%); SPS: high57 (14.73%); medium 100 (25.84%); low 166 (42.89%); others 64 (16.54%); OPT: yes 13 (3.36%); no 18 (4.65%); no, but attended during primary education 3 (0.78%); others2 353 (91.21%); YEAR: 1st year 196 (50.65%); 4th year 191 (49.35%); LA: area ‘A’ 21 (5.43%); area ‘B’ 349 (90.18%); area ‘C’ 17 (4.39%).

Table 1 Sample composition (linguistic area) Linguistic area

1st year

4th year

Total

A

11

10

21

B

176

173

349

C

9

8

17

196

191

387

Totals

284


Evaluating tools Based on similar studies carried out in other Spanish autonomous communities (Huguet & Llurda, 2001; Lasagabaster 2003; Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007; Madariaga, 1994; Serra, 1997), we decided to apply a questionnaire created by the Teaching Department of Catalan of the Generalitat de Catalunya, elaborated from the work of Sharp et al. (1973) in Wales. This model was restructured and adapted to the sociolinguistic characteristics and curriculum of the Aragonese population (see Huguet & Llurda, 2001). Firstly, given that the majority of students do not attend lessons in the minority language, and that in Aragon Spanish is commonly understood and used for most of the linguistic exchanges, the questionnaire was translated into Spanish. In addition, three parallel versions of the questionnaire were elaborated in order to be implemented in the three different linguistic areas. Questions aimed at controlling school year and linguistic areas were included. Additionally, in versions ‘A’ and ‘C’ of the questionnaire, an item referring to attendance or non-attendance to language lessons in the minority language was also introduced. Simultaneously, some sections whose wording might have been confusing were rewritten. For the three versions of the questionnaire, reliability was calculated by means of the testretest technique from three samples of, respectively, 41 subjects (22 in their 1st and 19 in their 4th year), 52 subjects (25 in their 1st and 27 in their 4th year) and 40 subjects (21 in their 1st and 19 in their 4th year), which correspond to the different versions used in areas ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. A sixmonth period elapsed between both applications, obtaining significant correlation indexes: r0.732, for model ‘A’, r 0.832 for model ‘B’ and r 0.734 for model ‘C’. The core of the questionnaire is made up of a series of multiple choice questions asking about home language (HL) and social and professional status (SPS), allowing us to place each subject in the categories of the variables previously introduced. Additionally, a series of 50 statements was included, 10 for each of the languages, with a YES/NO answer, distributed at random, and aimed at classifying attitudes towards Aragonese, Spanish, Catalan, French and English within the following categories: favourable/neutral/unfavourable. To assign these categories a value of 1 was given for each answer in favour of a given language, and 1 for unfavourable ones. Next, we added up all values, with results that oscillated between 10 and 10. From this we have the results: favourable ( 6 to 10), neutral (5 to 5) and unfavourable (6 to 10). Meetings with the schools were arranged prior to the test in order to clarify the aims of the study and the time of implementation, which was to take place during the second term of the academic year. The questionnaire was completed by students, but families were contacted when answers were ambiguous. Statistical processing was carried out by means of the integrated statistics pack Statview for Windows v. 5.0.1. The signification level employed was 0.05.


285

Results As we pointed out when referring to the objectives of this study, the aim of our research is twofold. On the one hand, we are trying to describe Aragonese students’ attitudes towards the languages present in their most immediate environment; on the other hand, we are also trying to analyse the variables which might explain these attitudes. In order to do so, we present the results of our analysis in two different sections. In the first section we will show descriptive data corresponding to Aragonese students’ language attitudes; in the second section we will analyse the variables explaining these attitudes (HL, SPS, OPT, YEAR and LA).

Language attitudes in secondary education students in Aragon Figure 2 portrays the percentage of students who showed unfavourable, neutral and favourable attitudes towards each of the languages analysed (Aragonese, Spanish, Catalan, English and French). When considering these data, there are clearly two different trends: one in which favourable attitudes are dominant (in the case of Spanish and Aragonese) and another one where neutral attitudes are greater (Catalan, French and English). We must clarify this category, bearing in mind that in the first case the percentage of positive attitudes towards Spanish is superior to that of Aragonese, and in the second case the percentage of negative attitudes towards Catalan is notably higher than in any of the other languages. These conclusions are confirmed by the comparison of the average and the standard deviation obtained for each of the languages: Aragonese (mean 4.106; sd 4.975), Spanish (mean 6.755; sd 3.147), Catalan (mean 0.346; sd 6.356), French (mean 0.778; sd 5.462) and English (mean 1.734; sd 4.826). In this way, we may observe that the average attitude towards Spanish is the highest, accompanied by the lowest standard deviation, which shows us a more favourable attitude to the language, together with a higher degree of

Figure 2 Language attitudes in Aragon (in % of subjects)

286


Figure 3 Language attitudes: average of scores

consistency in students’ attitudes. On the other hand, Catalan is the language with the lowest average. In addition, it also has the highest standard deviation, which shows us that it is the language towards which subjects express the most extreme attitudes. The graph of average scores can be seen in Figure 3. Relationship between variables and language attitudes in secondary education students in Aragon

Linguistic area (LA) This variable did not show any significant difference with respect to attitudes towards Aragonese and English; that is to say, these language attitudes in the different linguistic areas are similar. However, differences appeared in relation to Spanish (in area ‘B’ they are more positive than in area ‘C’), with a value of F2.384 4.215 (p 0.0079), to Catalan (in area ‘C’ attitudes are more positive than in areas ‘A’ and ‘B’) with a value, respectively, of F2.384 7.511 (p 0.0001) and of F2.384 7.511 (p 0.0147), and to French (in area ‘C’ attitudes are more positive than in area ‘A’), with a value of F2.384 2.022 (p 0.0450).

School year (YEAR) This variable did not show significant differences with respect to attitudes towards Aragonese, Spanish, French and English. In other words, attitudes towards these languages are similar irrespective of students’ level. On the other hand, differences appear in relation to Catalan (in the 1st year attitudes are more positive than in the 4th) with a value of F1. 385 12.188 (p 0.0005).

Lesson attendance in the minority language (OPT) As regards attitudes towards Aragonese, French and English, this variable did not show any differences. Hence, lesson attendance in the minority language does not seem to be related to attitudes towards these languages. Nonetheless, diversity in attitudes appeared with relation to Spanish. In the


287

group ‘others’, attitudes are more positive than among those attending minority language lessons. The same phenomenon still holds true for those not attending these lessons and those not attending them now (but having done so in primary education), with a respective value of F3.383 4.573 (0.0104), F3.383 4.573 (0.0140) and F3.383 4.573 (0.0071). Differences also become visible for Catalan among those attending minority language lessons and those not attending them, and also in connection to the group ‘others’, with a respective value of F3.383 4.442 (0.0209) and F3.383 4.442 (0.0004).

Social and professional status (SPS) The variable did not render significant differences as to attitudes towards Aragonese, Spanish, Catalan and French. Thus, we can state that the families’ social and professional status does not have an impact on their attitudes towards these languages; that is to say, attitudes are independent from status. However, there are differences as regards English. Among ‘high’ status families attitudes are more positive than among ‘medium’ and ‘low’ status families, with a value, respectively, of F3.329 3.169 (p 0.0034) and F3.329 3.169 (p 0.0195).

Home language (HL) This variable did not show significant differences when dealing with attitudes towards Aragonese, English and French. Attitudes towards these languages are very similar regardless of the home language, although in the case of Spanish there were differences. For this language, attitudes are more positive than among ‘bilingual Aragonese’ and ‘bilingual Catalan’, and they are more positive in the latter group than among ‘bilingual Aragonese’. The values were, respectively, F3.383 7.428 (p B0.0001), F3.383 7.428 (p 0.0331) and F3.383 7.428 (p 0.0327). The same situation applies to Catalan. Among ‘Aragonese bilingual’, attitudes are more positive than among ‘Spanish’. This is also the case when comparing ‘Catalan bilingual’ and ‘Aragonese bilingual’, and also for ‘Catalan bilingual’ as opposed to ‘others’. The values are, respectively, F3.383 18.108 (p 0.0269), F3.383 18.108 (p B0.0001), F3.383 18.108 (p 0.0052) and F3.383 18.108 (p 0.0013). In Table 2 there is a summary of this section together with the significant and non-significant contrasts we have just presented which, together with the data dealt with in the previous section, may help us assign a specific profile to each of the languages. Lastly, while bearing in mind the limitations of (and the care required when dealing with) the small number of students of immigrant origin present in the sample (nine subjects, grouped under the ‘others’ category of HL), we would like to stress what seems to be a relevant aspect requiring further analysis: these students reproduce, almost identically, those attitudes shown by Spanish speaking students towards the minority languages.3 This phenomenon is probably related to a pragmatic stance, due to the fact that Aragonese and Catalan are of little (or no) use for communication in a (mostly) monolingual area such as Aragon (Huguet & Jane´ s, in press).


288

Table 2 Summary of significant and non-significant statistic contrasts Contrast

Language

Total sample in Aragon

LA versus attitudes

Aragonese Spanish

Significant differences (B C)

Catalan

Significant differences (C B/C A)

French

Significant differences (C A)

English

YEAR versus attitudes Aragonese

OPT versus attitudes

SPS versus attitudes

HL versus attitudes

Spanish

Catalan

Significant differences (1st year 4th year)

French

English

Aragonese Spanish

Significant differences (others attending/not attending attending lessons, but . . . )

Catalan

Significant differences (Attending Not attending/Attending lessons others)

French

English

Aragonese Spanish

Catalan

French

English

Significant differences (high medium/ high low)

Aragonese Spanish

Significant differences (SS AB/SS CB/CB AB)

Catalan

Significant differences (AB SS/CB SS/CB AB/CB others)

French

English

LA: A (Spanish Aragonese bilingual), B (Spanish monolingual), C (Spanish Catalan bilingual); HL: SS (Spanish-speaking), AB (Aragonese bilingual), CB (Catalan bilingual), others (students of immigrant origin)


289

Conclusions Our analysis of students’ language attitudes in Aragon is not only a descriptive work in that we offer a comparison of the meaning of these attitudes for each of the languages analysed. On the contrary, it also gives us data that may help us better understand the origin of language attitudes in areas where there are various contact languages. In this section we will follow up on this analysis. First we will refer to language attitudes from a descriptive perspective, and then we will focus on the various factors which may explain the results obtained. To start with, we would like to call attention to the fact that attitudes towards the languages analysed tend to be positive, although there were significant variations among them. Our data show the existence of two clearly distinct attitudes. On the one hand, Aragonese and Spanish are perceived very favourably by a higher percentage of students; this is reflected in averages that are higher than those corresponding to the rest of languages. On the other hand, in the case of Catalan, together with English and French, we find that the majority of subjects analysed have more neutral attitudes, which is reflected in lower averages in comparison to the other languages. By highlighting this aspect we may observe that within the first group the amount of pupils showing favourable attitudes towards Spanish is notably higher than for Aragonese. Additionally, within the second group, the percentage showing negative attitudes towards Catalan is greater than the one showing these attitudes towards French or English. Moreover, whilst Spanish obtains the highest average and the lowest standard deviation, Catalan is characterised by the lowest average and the highest standard deviation. Thus, while Spanish is the most highly valued language and the language towards which attitudes are most homogeneous, Catalan is not only the least favoured language, but the one towards which population also shows the most extreme opinions. It is evident that the explanation for these results is to be found in the fact that Spanish dominates most of the population and the institutions of Aragon. At the same time, however, the identification of Catalan with Catalonia, as well as with the traditional conflicts with this neighbouring community, affects the consideration of Catalan as an Aragonese language (Lapresta, 2001). Following on from this, the exclusive identification of Aragonese with Aragon favours more positive attitudes amongst the adult population according to a study by the Equipo Euskobaro´ metro (2001). This situation results in the existence of the two groups we have previously made reference to, which show Aragonese and Spanish as languages of Aragon, and Catalan as a language placed together with those considered as ‘foreign’. Succinctly, while Spanish benefits from institutional support and is widely valued by Aragonese people, and Aragonese, although not favoured at an institutional level, is fairly well favoured by citizens, Catalan is questioned both institutionally and socially. Having said this, let us comment on the relationships between the variables analysed and the attitudes shown by students. First of all, we would like to highlight that there were no differences in the attitudes towards Aragonese

290


and English between the different linguistic areas, where both languages are equally valued. This is probably due to the fact that Aragonese is regarded as a regional patrimony and that English has the character of an international ‘lingua franca’. Conversely, the most significant differences appeared in relation to Catalan, since this language is more positively valued in the Spanish Catalan bilingual area than in the rest of territories, and Spanish is less valued in the bilingual Spanish Catalan area when compared to the Spanish monolingual area. In the case of Catalan, this would be the reason for the differences amongst the Aragonese population we mentioned above; it can also be linked to a more pragmatic point of view and to social class, due to the continuous interchange with Catalonia of people living in the Catalan speaking Aragonese area. As to Spanish, it can be perceived as a strong threat in relation to Catalan in some sectors of the same territory, therefore lessening its importance (Huguet & Llurda, 2001). Another interesting aspect refers to the relationship between language attitudes and school year. Surprisingly, French and English are not better valued as school years progress despite their significant presence in the curriculum. The same situation applies to the case of Aragonese, but what is really striking is the decrease in perception of Catalan. The Base Curricular Design has named attitudes, values and norms as attitudinal contents, and by using these, academic authorities may be helped in improving attitudes towards the language and the culture it represents, thus giving us an important insight as to how these elements are managed at schools. In our sample the amount of students attending minority language lessons is relatively low. Given the fact that almost all of them attend schools in the SpanishCatalan bilingual area, where lessons are taught in Catalan, the data obtained reproduce the results from broader studies that focussed on the relationship between attendance to optional language classes and language attitudes (Huguet & Llurda, 2001). Those students attending minority language lessons show more positive attitudes towards the language, although we cannot really talk about a causeeffect relationship. In all likelihood, those already showing positive attitudes (either by themselves or influenced by their family’s attitudes) are precisely the ones who decide to attend the lessons, and vice versa (Huguet, 2006). Another relevant question derived from our work is related to the fact that, independently from social and professional status, attitudes towards Aragonese, Spanish, Catalan and French are similar, which points at a lack of incidence of social class in language attitudes. In contrast, when dealing with English, higher social classes have become aware of its importance and consequently value this language more than lower social classes. Finally, we would like to call attention to the fact that even though home language does not seem to be related to language attitudes towards Aragonese, English and French, it seems to be significant when dealing with Spanish and Catalan. In the first case, Spanish speaking students show more favourable attitudes than Aragonese and Catalan bilinguals. When concentrating on Catalan, bilingual speakers show more favourable attitudes than any other linguistic group. As we have mentioned when referring to attitudes towards Catalan and Spanish according to linguistic areas and the option of


291

learning such languages, the results seem to correspond to those obtained in previous studies (Huguet & Llurda, 2001). There is, however, an additional factor worth highlighting which should be given higher relevance in future studies; in the case of attitudes towards minority languages, the attitudes of students of immigrant origin become more similar to those of the Spanish speaking group. Even those living in bilingual territories tend to ignore differences in the ‘other’ language coexisting with Spanish. This is so probably because the minority language is not considered as useful in communicative exchanges. This has been shown clearly in societies with a long experience in the reception of immigrants, such as French speaking Canada, which resorted to the adoption of positive discrimination measures to favour French, both at a social and at an educational level (McAndrew, 2001; Ouellet, 1990). The panorama we have just shown portrays Aragon as a heterogeneous psycho- and sociolinguistic mosaic which, in our view, shows that it is not a good idea to adopt uniform and simplified solutions. Different educational responses for each linguistic area seem to be the only possibly way forward if we want to protect and promote minority languages, at the same time respecting their rights and social coexistence. Bilingual (and plurilingual) education has pointed at several effective alternatives even for the most complex cases (Huguet, 2007). Notwithstanding the fact that students’ knowledge and study of a language plays a crucial role in the future of a language, we cannot obviate the fact that it cannot be recovered and be kept up in schools if it is not valued favourably by society. We would like to conclude by saying that the future of a plurilingual Aragon, which looks towards Europe, will inevitably take shape by improving the way citizens value other cultures and languages and also their own, as this constitutes the region’s own contribution to the languages of Europe. Two basic recommendations are necessary as to future educational actions; linguistic sensitivity, as one language is not better than another, and social sensitivity, where the linguistic rights of the host society should also be taken into account. Correspondence ´ ngel Huguet, Departament Any correspondence should be directed to Dr A de Pedagogia i Psicologia, Universitat de Lleida, Complex de La Caparrella, s/n, 25192 Lleida, Spain ([email protected]). Notes 1.

2. 3.

Sociolinguistic complexity in Aragon, characterised by three contact languages and the addition of languages spoken by the immigrant population, determined a first categorisation of home language. It was elaborated according to the closeness to the first language, and resulted in 14 different possibilities. With the statistical treatment in mind, this classification was simplified, giving the final four categories (abbreviated HL), which account for Spanish monolingualism, various degrees of Aragonese and Catalan bilingualism, and the category ‘others’ for students of immigrant origin. It must be taken into account that the item corresponding to attendance to minority language lessons was only calculated in linguistic areas ‘A’ and ‘C’. Attitudes in the case of students of immigrant origin (who, when living in Aragonese speaking or Catalan speaking territories, have the same opportunities


292

as autochthonous students to attend lessons in the minority language) are similar to those shown by Spanish speaking students in relation to both Catalan (‘Spanish’: mean 0.560; sd 6.192; and ‘others’: mean 0.444; sd 6.146), and Aragonese (‘Spanish’: mean 3.984; sd 5.066; and ‘others’: mean 3.444; sd 5.681).

References Alcover, C. and Quintana, A. (2000) Plans reguladors d’ensenyament de l’aragone`s i el catala` a l’Arago´. Zaragoza: Edizions de l’Astral. Appel, R. and Muysken, P. (1987) Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. Au, S. (1988) A critical appraisal of Gardner’s social psychological theory of second language (L2) learning. Language Learning 38, 75100. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986) Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1988) Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1992) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cle´ ment, R. and Gardner, R.C. (2001) Second language mastery. In W.P. Robinson and H. Giles (eds) The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 489504). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Equipo Euskobaro´ metro (2001) Estudio sociolingu¨ ´ıstico de las Hablas del Alto Aragon. Unpublished manuscript. Zaragoza: Gobierno de Aragon. Gabinet d’Estudis del SEDEC (1983) Quatre anys de catala` a l’escola. Barcelona: Departament d’Ensenyament de Catalunya. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitude and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. (1988) The socio-educational model of second language learning: Assumptions, findings and issues. Language Learning 38, 101126. Gardner, R.C. and Cle´ ment, R. (1990) Social psychological perspectives on second language acquisition. In H. Giles and W.P. Robinson (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 495517). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Garrett, P., Coupland, N. and Williams, A. (2003) Investigating Language Attitudes: Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Genesee, F., Lambert, W.E. and Holobow, N.E. (1986) La adquisicio´ n de una segunda lengua mediante inmersio´ n: el enfoque canadiense. Infancia y Aprendizaje 33, 2736. Gimeno, Ch.L. and Nagore, F. (1989) El Aragone´s hoy. Huesca: Publicazions d’o Consello d’a Fabla Aragonesa. Gobierno de Aragon (1995) Diez anõs de ensenãnza de la lengua catalana en Aragon. Zaragoza: Diputacio´ n General de Arago´ n. ´ . (2006) Attitudes and motivation versus language achievement in crossHuguet, A linguistic settings. What is cause and what effect? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 27 (5), 413429. ´ . (2007) Minority languages and curriculum. The case of Spain. Language, Huguet, A Culture & Curriculum 20 (1), 7086. ´ . and Jane´ s, J. (in press) Mother tongue as a determining variable in language Huguet, A attitudes. The case of immigrant Latin American students in Spain. Language and Intercultural Communication ´ . and Llurda, E. (2001) Language attitudes of school children in two Catalan/ Huguet, A Spanish bilingual communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4 (4), 267282. ´ ., Vila, I. and Llurda, E. (2000) Minority language education in unbalanced Huguet, A bilingual situations: A case for the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29 (3), 313333. Lapresta, C. (2001) Soy aragone´s o soć aragone`s. Fraga: Edicions IEBC-IEA. Lasagabaster, D. (2003) Trilinguïsmo en la ensenãnza. Actitudes hacia la lengua minoritaria, la mayoritaria y la extranjera. Lleida: Editorial Milenio.


293

´ . (eds) (2007) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Lasagabaster, D. and Huguet, A Contexts: Language Use and Attitudes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Madariaga, J.M. (1994) Actitud y rendimiento en euskera. Una experiencia vasca basada en la aportacio´ n canadiense. Comunicacioń, Lenguaje and Educacioń 24, 119127. Martıń, M.A., Fort, M.R., Arnal, M.L. and Giralt, J. (1995) Estudio Sociolingu¨ ı´stico de la Franja Oriental de Aragon. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza-Seminario de Investigaciones Lingu¨ ´ısticas. Martıńez, J. (1995) Bilinguïsmo y ensenãnza en Aragon. Zaragoza: Rolde de Estudios Aragoneses. McAndrew, M. (2001) Immigration et diversite´ a` l’ećole. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Universite´ de Montre´ al. Nagore, F. (2001) Os territorios lingu¨ı´sticos en Aragon. Zaragoza: Publicaciones del Rolde de Estudios Aragoneses. Nagore, F. (2004) La situacio´ n legal de las lenguas en Aragon con especial referencia al aragone´ s. Quo Vadis Romania? 23, 7291. Ouellet, M. (1990) Synthe`se historique de l?immersion française au Canada. Quebec: CIRB. Sachdev, I. and Bourhis, R.Y. (2001) Multilingual communication. In W.P. Robinson and H. Giles (eds) The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 407428). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sa´ nchez, M.P. and Rodrı´guez, R. (1997) El bilinguïsmo. Bases para la intervencioń psicolo´gica. Madrid: Sıńtesis. Serra, J.M. (1997) Immersio´ lingu¨ı´stica, rendiment acade`mic i classe social. Barcelona: Horsori. Sharp, D., Thomas, B., Price, E., Francis, G. and Davis, I. (1973) Attitudes to Welsh and English in the Schools of Wales. Basingstoke/Cardiff: McMillan, University of Wales Press. Siguan, M. (1992) Espanã plurilinguë. Madrid: Alianza. Siguan, M. and Mackey, W.F. (1986) Educacioń y Bilinguïsmo. Madrid: Santillana. Vila, I. (1992) La educacio´ n bilingu¨ e en el Estado espan˜ ol. In J. Arnau, C. Comet, J.M. Serra and I. Vila (eds) La educacioń bilinguë (pp. 53103). Barcelona: Horsori. Vila, I. (2005) Actualidad y perspectivas de la educacio´ n bilingu¨ e en el Estado espan˜ ol. In X.P. Rodrı´guez, A.M. Lorenzo and F. Ramallo (eds) Bilingualism and Education: From the Family to the School (pp. 339352). Munich: Lincom Europa.