contributi
Towards language diversity at school
and a renewed role of English as a
‘gateway language’
by Gilles Forlot
Among the modern languages taught in contemporary European education systems, one has
a particular status – English. The detailed history of the expansion of the English language reveals
that a series of coincidences have placed it at “the right place at the right time”, as British linguist
David Crystal (1997:110) aptly puts it. The power of the old industrial, colonial Great Britain
was gradually replaced by that of the emerging global influence of the USA after WW2. Hence
the perception, in most Western countries, that English is essential to all forms of economic and
professional success.
In most European and Asian educational systems – i.e. Italy, Spain, Austria, Norway, France,
Japan, South Korea… – English has come to be regarded as so fundamental that it now either
constitutes a mandatory school discipline or is taught in many if not all educational settings
in a hegemonic way. In this situation, a variety of historical, geopolitical, demographic and
sociolinguistic phenomena come into play and induce educators to reflect over new pedagogical
approaches taking into account this domination and hyper-centrality (Calvet 1999) of English.
Considering both the status as well as the corpus of English, my purpose here is to question the
way we perceive this language as a danger for diversity and propose avenues for using English
as a gateway towards the practice and/or the learning of other languages at school. Despite its
controversial thesis, this proposal falls within the scope of a "pedagogy of the possible" (Hélot &
Ó Laoire 2011).
1. A few sociolinguistic (status) and linguistic (corpus) facts about English
1.1. English as a world language
English is no doubt a unique (living) language in the following respect: throughout the world,
there are much more users or learners of English as a non-native language than native speakers
Gilles Forlot - LESCLAP-CERCLL research centre (www.u-picardie.fr/LESCLaP/) Université de Picardie Jules Verne,
Amiens (France) [email protected]
18
contributi
of it – approximately 400 million native English speakers versus 600 million to 1 billion people
using English as a second or a foreign language. In addition, there are more daily interactions
between non-native than between native speakers of English, which also raises interest in terms
of how the language is being transmitted, indigenized (Moag & Moag 1977; Pennycook 2007)
or nativized (Kachru 1985).
1.2. English as a dominant language in Western educational systems
A few examples should suffice to demonstrate how English is now entrenched in most Western
European systems as well as in representations of what languages must be learnt nowadays. In the
European Union as a whole, more than 90 % of secondary school students learn English, while
in the more or less recently introduced foreign language education in primary schools, some
countries such as France show a rate of 99 % of English learners! (DEPP 2011). Many Dutchspeaking Belgians reckon they speak better English than French, the other national language of
the country, whereas French-speaking Belgians often voice their preference for the learning of
English than of Dutch (Lucchini, Hambye, Forlot & Delcourt 2008). In Denmark, many more
people speak and learn English than German as second languages (Eurydice 2012). Finally, some
educational systems have made the learning of English compulsory in primary schools, as is the
case in Spain and Italy (Lopriore 2002), thus reversing the traditional dominant place French
had in these two countries, mainly for reasons of historical, geographical and linguistic proximity.
1.3. English as an instrumental language
In a number of investigations in educational settings (e.g. Forlot 2006; 2009), the English
language is mostly viewed as a very useful, if not indispensable and unavoidable, language. Indeed, a
majority of learners consider that English enables to communicate with speakers of other languages
beyond borders, that it allows to have access to most of the on-line information and to most of
the relevant scientific writing published in or outside the English-speaking world. Finally, for some
English learners, a command of that native language is a better way to construe the complexity of
a dominant, hegemonic and expanding culture such as that of the United States.
1.4. English as a hybrid language
Historically and typologically, English is an original language mainly characterized by its
structural and lexical hybridity. Following the Roman invasion in 43 AD and after the landings
and settlements of the Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) in the 5th century AD as well as
the Norsemen from Scandinavia between the 8th and the 11th centuries AD, Britain was occupied
by the Normans in 1066 AD for long enough to change its linguistic landscape. Originating
in a multilingual medieval England (Crépin 2007), English can be seen as both a Germanic
and Romance language, or at least, as Walter (2001) puts it, the most romance of all Germanic
languages. The structural testimony of this history can be found in a largely romanized syntax
(Strang 1980) as well as in an impressive lexical stock borrowed from Latin but mostly from
Franco-Norman and from the French used at the king’s court near Paris (Leith 1996). A great
many semantically close doublets attest to the dual presence of the two influences in present-day
English: storm and tempest, throw and launch, brotherhood and fraternity, freedom and liberty,
town and city, arrive and come, pig and pork, head and chief, etc.
Towards language diversity at school and a renewed role of English as a ‘gateway language’
19
2. Capitalizing on English to bypass its hegemony
The encompassing and inclusive kind of language education (Cummins 2000) that could
be defended here rests on the notions of linguistic and cultural diversity and plurality at school,
both primary and secondary. While the substantial domination of English in our education
systems often triggers popular urges for the institutional restriction of its expansion, the demand
for the learning of English in education is probably too great for it be curbed efficiently by any
lawmaker. Hence the necessity to look into the issue from a different angle – that of a heuristic
use of English towards the building of some level of multilingual competence. Indeed, it seems
possible, if not necessary, to view the overall presence and dominance of English as a capital
towards the production of a multilingual school culture, aimed not only to students but also to
the whole educational community – teachers, parents, governors, inspectors and the like.
2.1. Overcoming “native illusions”
English is generally introduced at the early stages of primary education. The contention of
this article is not to support the appropriateness of such early language teaching, but rather to
show that everyone can learn the basics of a language without being a native speaker of it or a
polyglot. In a way, this underlines what the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages expresses very clearly:
Learning programmes and certification can be: global, bringing a learner forward
in all dimensions of language proficiency and communicative competence; modular,
improving the learner’s proficiency in a restricted area for a particular purpose;
weighted, emphasising learning in certain directions and producing a ‘profile’ in which
a higher level is attained in some areas of knowledge and skill than others; partial,
taking responsibility only for certain activities and skills (e.g. reception) and leaving
others aside. (Council of Europe 2001:6)
In other words, speaking a language does not necessarily consist in imitating the native model
and, like most of its present-day speakers, possibly suffer from the illegitimacy of not being one
(Sifakis 2009; Seidlhofer 2003) – and probably never being able to become one.
2.2. Serving other languages
Let me start this demonstration with a telling pedagogical anecdote. A few years ago, I took a
beginner’s course in Dutch. The introductory class appeared to me as a series of bridge-building
activities between languages, although it seemed to me that the teacher had done that unwillingly
or unwittingly. She initiated the class in a somewhat classical approach in communicative
pedagogies, i.e. presented herself, asked for some names, made us sit down and stand up, closing
and opening the door, etc. To me, who had studied both English and German and spoke French
on a daily basis, it rang numerous bells, as the following conversational bits show:
- Goeiedag! Mijn naam is Brigitte. Wat is uw naam?
- Sta op! Welnu, ga zetten!
[literally: Stand up! Well now, go and sit]
20
contributi
- Ik doe de deur open, en nu, de deur is open...
[literally: I do the door open, and now the door is open…]
- Wat is dat? Dat is de muur! En dat is een stoel.
[literally: What is that? That is the wall (French “mur”)! And that is a chair (cf. English
‘stool’)].
Willy nilly, the teacher resorted to the previous knowledge of the class, either in their L1 or, in
this specific case, rather in their L2 or L3 (Hammarberg 2001). A clear impression of déjà vu was
created, and particular positive or negative representations of the Dutch language were created (a
language that can be reached through previously constructed knowledge) or reinforced (Dutch
often appearing as a hybridized form of English and German).
If one just looks at its Romance-influenced structure and vocabulary, English looks obviously
familiar to speakers of many other languages. Most Germanic and Romance language learners
who have studied it will have a feeling of déjà vu, a sense that they have already learned and/or
understood some grammar rules. Following are a few simple examples.
2.2.1. English and Germanic languages
Among others, similarities can be found in the way morphosyntax works, as well as in the
lexical stock inherited from the Angles’, the Saxons’ and the Jutes’ settlements in England. The
following examples are drawn from major Romance and Germanic language, but minority
languages of both families, such as Occitan or Frisian, could also be chosen.
a) Many possessive, demonstrative and interrogative adjectives and pronouns are related, e.g.:
English
Dutch
German
Swedish
My
Mijn
MeinMin/mitt-
This
Dit
DiesDet-
How
Hoe
Wie
Hur
What
Wat
Was
Vad
Which
Welk
WelchVilk-
c) Numerous adverbs are related, e.g.:
English
Dutch
German
Swedish
For
Voor
Für
För
Over
Over
Über
Över
Under
Onder
Unter
under
Out
Uit
Aus
Ut(e)
c) Verb morphology
c.1) Frequently, the regular preterit is formed by adding a dental morpheme while the irregular
one has a internal vowel shift:
English
Dutch
German
Swedish
I dance-d
Ik dans-te
Ich tanz-te
Jag dansa-de
I drink  I dr-a-nk
Ik drink  Ik dr-o-nk
Ich trinke  ich Tr-a-nk
Jag dricker  jag dr-a-ck
Towards language diversity at school and a renewed role of English as a ‘gateway language’
21
c.2) Modal auxiliary verbs are related (in spite of possible semantic nuances):
English
Dutch
German
Swedish
I can
ik kan
ich kann
JAG KAN
i shall
ik zal
ich soll
I will
ik wil
ich will
jag vill
I may
i mag
ich mag
I must
ik moet
ich muss
jag mÅste
2.2.2. English and Romance languages
a) Syntax : auxiliary ‘have’ + past participle:
English
French
Spanish
we have eaten
nous avons mangé
(nosotros) hemos comido
b) Syntax : auxiliary ‘be’ + present participle:
English
Portuguese
Italian
she is sleeping
(ela) está dormindo
(lei) sta dormendo
c) Noun morphology (e.g. related affixes):
English
French
Catalan
Portuguese
identity, contribution, disconnect, individual, ambitious
identité, contribution, déconnecter, individuel, ambitieux
identitat, contribució, desconnectar, individual, ambiciós
identidade, contribuição, desligar, individual, ambicioso
2.2.3. English and other possible (meta)linguistic links
a) English and Sino-Tibetan languages
One might be puzzled at the idea of linking two such remote languages as English and Chinese,
for instance. However, the ties are not strictly structural here, but rather metalinguistic insofar as
both languages coincidentally bear some morphosyntactic resemblances. It is interesting to note
that despite, here and there, a long tradition of pedagogical efforts to compartmentalize language
learning, Chinese students who learn French more or less consciously transfer the knowledge they
have of English lexical items or syntactic structures to access to the French ones, whether in terms
of understanding, memorizing or retrieving them for later use. A French researcher (Cuet 2009;
2011) showed that it is particularly true in the case of the acquisition of new vocabulary, as it is
in both Chinese and English often made up of composed items (i.e. two joined lexemes forming
a new one, e.g. apple tree, ring road, bookbinding, sidewalk…) rather than derived words in
Romance languages (a lexeme followed or preceded by an affix, e.g. French pommier, périphérique,
reliure, trottoir…). Furthermore, another structural area of interest lies in the fact that English has
gradually lost most of its noun and verb inflections, thus keeping a grammar with minimal verbal
inflections (work, work-s, work-ed, work-ing), very few remains of its Old English declensions
(who/whom/whose; he/him/his, child/children, mouse/mice…), an overall regular plural pattern,
no gender article, and so on (Cuet 2009). This system, closer to the totally inflection-free syntax
of Chinese, opens doors to possible parallels to be made in pedagogical terms.
b) Linking English and Celtic languages
Some, if not most of the Celtic language underwent some structural or lexical influence
22
contributi
from their powerful neighbours and conquerors, English (for Welsh, Irish and Scottish Gaelic)
and French (for Breton). When one examines the learning of the Breton languages in primary
and secondary schools in the French Westernmost region of Brittany, teachers have noticed that
some linguistic features are easier to explain and teach with the help of English than of French.
Resorting to comparison with both French and English, the learners understand and remember
the new rules of the language and thus learn new strategies of comparing and finding (meta)
linguistic links in their language learning process. For instance, both Breton and English (but not
only them, of course) resort to the opposition simple present/progressive present (I go vs I am
going), a verb and an auxiliary verb denoting past habits (used to and would), the periphrastic
auxiliary do (as in I do not…/ do you…?, i.e. “ober” in Breton), questions tags (like yes I am and
no it isn’t), or putting preposition at the end of sentences (Moal 2009).
3. Overcoming compartmentalized language learning approaches
As can be seen, structural links need not be genetic to be taken advantage of from a pedagogical
point of view. The aim is to use similarities, be they typological or not, in order to facilitate the
understanding and acquisition of new language skills. Resorting to formerly acquired linguistic
knowledge so as to learn new ones is a phenomenon well known to researchers. Numerous
studies have demonstrated that consciously or not, learners profit by the languages which they
have already learnt in order to reinforce their linguistic learning process. Many learners look for
proximity of transferability indices (Odlin 1989; De Angelis & Selinker 2001; De Angelis 2005)
in the language(s) they have previously studied and that they often use their L2 or L3 rather than
their L1 to do so (Hammarberg 2001; Bono 2008). Language teaching would probably gain
efficiency if teachers took advantage of such metalinguistic transfer reflexes from a language to
the other. Instead, such an approach is perceived as violating the partitioning culture of language
learning, due to the conception that first of all, neither teachers nor students have enough
proficiency in other languages, and secondly that linguistic contact is intrinsically dangerous
for the quality of the speaking and learning of a language. Fears of lexical false cognates and
structural code mixing are still very vivid, which reinforces the tendencies to isolate languages one
from the other in education and consider them, as Cummins (2005) puts it, two “monolingual
solitudes”. It is thus necessary to remind teachers that despite the possibilities – rather than the
“risks” – of temporary confusion between languages, there is more to be gained from language
comparison than from language compartmentalization, and that concealing similarities and
differences between linguistic forms is not a viable pedagogical solution.
Using English as a gateway language (or "bridge" language - cf. Hemming, Klein & Reissner
2011) would then enable a series of changes in language learning. As D. Coste puts it, English
could hold a particular place, if not that of an unavoidable medium of communication, at least
that of an available language that could be activated when necessary. In other words, it would be
a language which would never be put aside, never entirely disconnected (Coste 2001:194-195).
Its virtues could be the following:
(a) Getting language teachers to break away with their linguistic isolation tendencies. It does
not imply that they are to become polyglot, but just careful of the various forms of proximity or
Towards language diversity at school and a renewed role of English as a ‘gateway language’
23
typological similarity and of the possible assistance it can bring learners.
(b) It contributes to the building of transferable competencies and the development of
metalinguistic habits, while promoting a certain level of autonomy in learning, an indispensable
tool throughout primary and secondary education.
(c) It enables the English language to hold a supporting position in the enhancement of
plurilingualism, which in the context of school education at least, is likely to overcome the
dominant representation of English as a language one must learn solely for utilitarian motives.
Conclusion
One of the tasks of language teachers, and among them English teachers, is to make their pupils
or students understand and accept plurality and diversity as main features of our contemporary
Western societies. And as languages are also a reflection of these societies, they can be dominated,
hegemonic, endangered. Shunning excessively naive optimism, one should nevertheless promote
the decompartmentalization of school disciplines such as modern languages as a new avenue for
effective and inclusive education. Thus, foreign languages would not only integrate other parts
of the curriculum. By interacting with each other as well as with other disciplines, they would
activate the principles of linguistic transfers and skill development. And that is the reason why
the role of English can be regarded as pivotal.
REFERENCES
Bono M., 2008, “Influences interlinguistiques dans l’apprentissage d’une L3 : quand les langues secondes l’emportent sur la langue
première”, in Moore D. & Castellotti V. (dir.) La compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle : regards francophones, Peter Lang, Bern, 147-166.
Calvet L.-J., 1999, Pour une écologie des langues du monde, Plon, Paris.
Castellotti V., 2001, La langue maternelle en classe de langue étrangère, Clé International, Paris.
Council of Europe, 2001, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages : Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Strasbourg.
Coste D., 2001, “De plus d’une langue à d’autres encore. Penser les compétences plurilingues ?”, in V. Castellotti (éd.), D’une langue à
d’autres : Pratiques et représentations, Presses Universitaires de Rouen, Rouen, 191-202.
Crépin A., 2007, “Le plurilinguisme de l’Angleterre médiévale”, Carnets d’Atelier de sociolinguistique, 2:28-44.
Crystal D., 1997, English as a Global Language, CUP, Cambridge.
Cuet C., 2009, “L’enseignement plurilingue en Chine. Une voie pour la recherche?”, in Forlot G. (ed.), 2009, L’anglais et le plurilinguisme.
Pour une didactique des contacts et passerelles linguistiques, L’Harmattan, Paris, 117-140.
Cuet C., 2011, “Enseigner le français en Chine, méthodologies nouvelles, perpectives”, Synergies Chine, 6, 95-103.
Cummins J., 2000, Language, Power and Pedagogy. Bilingual Children in the Crossfire, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Cummins J., 2005, “A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the
mainstream classroom”, Modern Language Journal, 89:585-592.
Dabène L., 1996, “Pour une contrastivité revisitée”, in Études de Linguistique Appliquée, 104:393-400.
De Angelis G. & Selinker L., 2001, “Interlanguage Transfer and Competing Linguistic Systems in the Multilingual Mind”, in Cenoz J.,
Hufeisen B. & Jessner U. (dir.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Multilingual Matters,
Clevedon, 42-58.
24
contributi
De Angelis G., 2005, “Multilingualism and Non-native Lexical Transfer: An Identification Problem”, International Journal of
Multilingualism, 2/1, 1-25.
DEPP (Direction de l’évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance), 2011, Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la
formation et la recherche (RERS), Ministère de l’éducation nationale, Paris.
Eurydice, 2012, Key Data on Teaching Languages at School, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency/European Commission,
Brussels.
Forlot G., 2006, “Des pratiques aux stéréotypes sociolinguistiques d’étudiants-professeurs. Résultats préliminaires d’une enquête et pistes
de recherche”, Spirale 38:123-140.
Forlot G., 2009, “Vers la déconstruction d’un apprentissage idéologique: Des ‘représentations-obstacles’ dans l’enseignement des langues
en France”, Cahiers de l’ACEDLE 6/1: 65-91.
Hammarberg B., 2001, “Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition”, in Cenoz J., Hufeisen B. & Jessner U. (dir.), Cross-linguistic
Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, 21-41.
Hélot C. & Ó Laoire M. (eds), 2011, Language Policy for the Multilingual Classroom. Pedagogy of the Possible, Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Hemming E., Klein H.G. & Reissner C., 2011, English - The bridge to the Romance Languages, Shaker Verlag, Aachen.
Kachru B., 1985, “Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the Outer Circle”, in Quirk R. & Widdowson
H. G. (eds), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 11-30.
Moag R. & Moag L., 1977, “Fiji English: some perspective and the need for language planning”, Fiji English Teachers’ Journal, 13: 2-26.
Leith D., 1996, “The origins of English”, in Graddol D., Leith D. & Swann J. (eds), English: history, diversity and change, Routledge/The
Open University, London, 95-132.
Lopriore L., 2002, “The teaching of ESL in the Italian context: issues and implications”, in CAUCE, Revista de Filología y su Didáctica,
25:203-223.
Lucchini S., Hambye P., Forlot G. & Delcourt I., 2008, Francophones et plurilingues. Le rapport au français et au plurilinguisme des Belges
issus de l’immigration, EME, Fernelmont.
Moal S., 2009, “Pour un trihori anglais-français-breton dans les classes bilingues de Bretagne”, in Forlot G., L’anglais et le plurilinguisme.
Pour une didactique des contacts et des passerelles linguistiques, L’Harmattan, Paris, 101-116.
Odlin T., 1989, Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pennycook A., 2007, Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows, Routledge, Oxford.
Seidlhofer B. (ed.), 2003, Controversies in Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sifakis N., 2009, “Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: the Greek context”, in ELT Journal 63/3. 230-237.
Strang B. M. H., 1990 [1970], History of the English Language, Routledge, London.
Walter H., 2001, Honni soit qui mal y pense, Laffont, Paris.
Towards language diversity at school and a renewed role of English as a ‘gateway language’
25