Elizabeth Ellis

The Janus face of monolingualism: a comparison of German and Australian language education policies

Germany and Australia are examples of countries characterised by a tension between their plurilingual populations and their monolingual mindsets. This paper sets out to make a comparison between policy and practice in language and education in Germany and Australia, first outlining the link between the nineteenth-century development of the ideology of the nation-state and beliefs in the importance of a single language as a key feature of a strong nation. We use Gogolins notion of a language hierarchy to illustrate the status and position of different categories of language in each country. Hence, we begin by interrogating the concept of a national language in each site, and then secondly we look at policy, practices and attitudes to foreign languages, characterised as those taught as subjects in schools. The third and most problematic position on the hierarchy is that of languages of the community. In Germany, these are autochthonous minority languages, immigrant languages and immigrant ethnolects. In Australia, they are Indigenous languages and Kriols, Aboriginal English, immigrant languages and immigrant ethnolects. This paper then discusses the positive and negative aspects of each countrys language policy. We argue that by analysing how unexamined monolingual perspectives are played out in very different contexts, we can contribute to more enlightened thinking about the plurilingual potential of nations with multilingual populations.

A Diplomatic Advantage? the Effects of Bilingualism and Formal Language Training on Language Aptitude amongst Australian Diplomatic Officers.

This study sought to contribute to the growing literature on third and subsequent language learning by establishing whether bilingualism has an effect on ability to learn a subsequent language, as indicated by a measure of language aptitude, the Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB). Test results were obtained for 142 diplomatic officers in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The officers’ language biographies were elicited using an online questionnaire and were used to classify them as monolingual or bilingual, and with or without experience of formal language training. Results showed that bilinguals performed better on the aptitude test than monolinguals, as did those with prior formal training. This suggests that bilinguals’ metalinguistic awareness, and likelihood of success in subsequent language learning, is higher than that of monolinguals, at least as measured by the DLAB.

Book Review: Language and linguistics in context: readings and applications for teachers

Breen, M.P. and Littlejohn, A., editors, 2000: Classroom decision-making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edge, J. 2000: Continuing cooperative development. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Johnson, K.E. and Golombek, P.R., editors, 2002: Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kumaravadivelu, R. 2003: Beyond methods: macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Murphy, J.M. and Byrd, H.P., editors, 2001: Understanding the courses we teach: local perspectives on English language teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.