“If you don’t know English, it is like there is something wrong with you.” Students’ views of language(s) in a plurilingual setting

2.1 Language awareness in the GLA course and in this study

The GLA curriculum (Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet Danish Ministry of Children and Education 2004) is organised around several concepts which may be seen as different conceptualisations of language awareness. The name of the course Almen Sprogforståelse (literally: General Language Understanding) is based on forstå (‘understand’), and may be interpreted along the lines of Schmidt’s (1995) understanding, which is defined through its relationship to attention, intention and noticing. Schmidt describes understanding as an abstraction which allows the language learner to see the relationship between a specific linguistic input and the abstract linguistic system, i.e., it implies awareness not only as the noticing of linguistic form and function but also as the coupling of this noticing to metalinguistic knowledge (Schmidt 1995: 29–30). Considering the course aims, such an interpretation of its title seems meaningful. The other concepts used in the curriculum are:

Sproglig bevidsthed ‘language awareness’

Sproglig analysefærdighed ‘linguistic analytical skill’

Sproglig kreativitet ‘linguistic creativity’

Sproglig fantasi ‘linguistic fantasy’

These concepts may all be seen as different aspects, dimensions or levels of language awareness, since LA has been defined throughout the past decades in many different ways (Frijns et al. 2018). Both James’ and Garett’s (1992: 12) definition of LA (including the performative, the cognitive, the affective, the social and the power domains), van Lier’s model (1998, 2004) and later works drawing on this (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2023; Krogager Andersen 2020) conceptualise language awareness as a multidimensional (or multi-level) phenomenon. In the curriculum of the GLA course, language awareness (sproglig bevidsthed) is discursively differentiated from linguistic analysis, creativity and fantasy, and while the two former appear to denote forms of metalinguistic awareness, the two latter may be understood as forms of practical language awareness in van Lier’s (2004) sense (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2023).

The form of LA in focus in this article is based on a very broad definition of the concept by Krogager Andersen (2020: 13, our translation): Language awareness is, in its different manifestations, different ways of relating to language: attentively, curiously, by way of experimenting, creatively, analytically, reflectively or holistically. In this broad sense, language awareness may manifest itself in many ways through doing things with and talking about language, including talking about one’s own or others’ linguistic repertoires. It may take the form of metalinguistic or critical reflection on languages, it may be formed by the individual’s linguistic biography or be related to linguistic ideology and the status of certain languages in society. This kind of reflections form the topic of this study.

2.2 Language repertoires, lived experience and language ideology

Throughout the past decades, the existing cognitive, formalist and monolingual views of language have been complemented by sociolinguistic, ecological, dialogic and multilingual ones. Research on language use and learning has thus undergone first a social turn (Block 2003; Firth and Wagner 1997, 2007) directing more attention to the social aspects of language, and subsequently a multilingual turn (Conteh and Meier 2014; May 2014) focusing on societal and individual linguistic diversity and multilingualism. These turns have led to quite radical re-conceptualizations of languages as semiotic resources rather than systemic structures or skills (e.g., Li 2011; Makoni and Pennycook 2007).

Rather than emphasizing the systemic nature of clearly separated and named languages, and accordingly conceptualising language learning as the acquisition of such systems, socio-culturally framed research on (multilingual) language use emphasizes how language is not just a system, but a semiotic resource (e.g., Blommaert 2010; Makoni and Pennycook 2007). Thus, learning and knowing languages “refers not so much to the mastery of a grammar or sociolinguistic system, as to the strategic capacity to use diverse semiotic items across integrated media and modalities” (Pennycook 2010: 129).

This resource-oriented view of language also entails a focus on linguistic repertoires rather than the acquisition of named languages. The concept of repertoire was originally used by Gumperz (1964) and connected to language use in rather stable speech communities (Busch 2017: 344). Today, the concept of repertoires is used broadly in sociolinguistics and serves as a basis for very recent concepts such as translanguaging (cf. García 2009; Li 2018).

Similarly to Kramsch (2009), who emphasized the importance of the subjective experience in language learning, Busch (2017) extended the idea of repertoires to Spracherleben, the lived experience of language, to bring in the subjective trajectories and experiences of language users. She argued that language ideologies have a strong impact on people’s linguistic repertoires. Language ideologies influence language policies and thereby determine what languages are available for learners as well as what languages are valued in society and how (e.g., Douglas Fir Group 2016). The lived experience is thus inherently connected to language ideologies and “personal attitudes to language are largely determined by the value ascribed to a language or language variety in a particular social space” (Busch 2017: 348). This connection between personal attitudes and the societal status of a language is also pointed out by Park (2022) and Padilla and Vana’s (2019) work on ideologies reflected in foreign language textbooks illustrate how such societal valorisations are omnipresent in students’ linguistic environments.

As mentioned above, our schooling systems are still largely organized around the system view of languages, i.e., languages are treated as separate school subjects, but at the same time people’s linguistic and semiotic repertoires are more and more diverse and nuanced. Therefore, we are obliged to treat language simultaneously as a system and as resource. As Otsuji and Pennycook (2010) point out, language can be seen simultaneously as specific languages with fixed, codified and named boundaries, and as local and individual resources. This view is particularly important in the context of this study where students both learn languages as school subjects, encounter different languages in their everyday lives, and attend a plurilingual course on language awareness. In this complex and multilayered context, we examine how their personal lived experiences connect to language ideologies prevalent both at school and in society.

3.1 Research questions

We investigate language awareness in the form of students’ views of their own linguistic repertoires and the languages connected to them, guided by the following research questions:

1. What themes emerge in students’ talk about the languages in their personal repertoires?

2. How do these themes relate to specific languages and their status in society?

3.2 Method of analysis

The data were analysed using thematic content analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) and the approach was inductive and iterative (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009; Mayring 2015). We started off with an explorative and data-driven approach to the transcripts related to the picture task, first looking at which pictures were chosen to represent which languages. After gaining an initial overview of the pictures, we looked at the discursive representation of the languages in students’ oral elaborations on their choices. On this basis, we decided to code all data where focal students mentioned any of the named languages from the picture tasks using Nvivo software, and created a subset of data for each language, which we analysed inductively. This analysis led to the formation of initial keywords such as cultural heritage, easy to read, need to know related to each of the languages. Taking this as our point of departure for further coding, we compiled keywords into overarching themes, and recoded all the data on the basis of the themes identified. This recoding formed the basis of the thematic analysis presented in the following sections.

4.1 Language learning experiences and skills

The first theme, language learning experiences and skills, was very prominent. Students discussed their language learning experiences and assessed their language skills both in the context of the interviews and classroom activities, in metacommentary to the tasks they were doing and in off-task talk about school and future plans. All these comments may be seen as manifestations of metalinguistic awareness of language learning (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2023) and reflect the students’ experience as language learners and users in both formal and informal contexts.

We found that students frequently talked about their language learning experiences in primary and lower secondary school, contrasting them with their current classes. In relation to both German and English, several students criticised what they had learned in primary school, as in Example^[1] 1 below:

Some students also recounted experiences of Arabic classes, with some critique, for instance, because they only learned to read or write or because the variant taught was different to the one that students would have liked to use (e.g., Tunesian Arabic).

Latin was described very much in terms of the topics and activities students had encountered in the classroom, and a distinct teacher echo was audible in students’ descriptions of the importance of Latin because of its role in Indo-European language history. Latin also seemed to be associated with metalinguistic reflections, and to some extent even with cross-linguistically relevant metalinguistic knowledge, as in the example below:

Whereas Latin and German were described primarily in formal learning contexts, Danish and English were described in terms of both formal and informal language learning. Danish was constructed, on the one hand, as something “you just understand and do not have to think about” (Safia), but on the other hand, as associated with “annoying norms” (Susan) and learning about “useless” aspects of language, such as metaphors and genres, as in example 3 below, taken from a discussion on written text norms in Danish L1 class:

This extract highlights the students’ experience of topics in Danish L1-teaching, which they find irrelevant, in that sense expressing critical awareness of language learning (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2023). As illustrated by this example, students’ talk about learning experiences in Danish are related to the formal context and content of the L1-classroom, whereas references to their Danish skills are naturalised and implicit, for example, when they talk about how some things should be written in Danish to make sure everyone understands.

An informal learning dimension was prominent for English, which was described in relation to music, films, TV shows and the internet. French, Spanish and Italian were also mentioned as languages that students had tried to “learn for themselves” (Safia), just for the fun of it, and languages such as Somali were described as something “you just know, you don’t think about the conjugations and so on” (Tabitha), clearly in contrast to the formally learned languages Latin and German. Through these descriptions, a clear divide appears between formal learning in school settings and informal learning at home or in the family.

A skills subtheme was also recurrent. Knowing and using Danish and English seemed self-evident when students mentioned how a 9-year old brother was almost fluent in English, how English subtitles are useful for watching movies in other languages and how you have to take care not to talk English too much if you want to learn other languages. The skills depicted in relation to English as well as students’ home languages Arabic and Somali were clearly of a communicative nature, relating both to communication with personal relations (Arabic, Somali) and with a wider global community (English).

When it came to German skills, however, several students expressed negative self-assessments, related to a different, metalinguistic type of skills. They mentioned the case system, conjugations and joked that it is dangerous to write something in German when the teacher has to read it and safer to write in German at home where you can use Google Translate. Clearly, the focus here seemed to be on form rather than communication, as in the excerpt below:

This image of German as a difficult language with a distinct focus on forms was recurrent, especially for Anna and Christina. This corresponds to the negative discourse on German teaching found in a recent study, where students would rather not say it out loud if they like German (Birkeholm 2022: 21). The negative self-assessment related to this ‘difficult’ language seemed to be further exacerbated by students’ past experiences of failure in relation to German, as expressed by Anna: “And then, when you try, you get it wrong anyway, and then you are like … okay, how many times can I get it wrong?”

The negative self-assessments and the sense of hopelessness seen in the comment by Anna also emerged in the picture task, where both Anna and Christina chose pictures for German that they related to difficulty and confusion. Anna chose a picture of a computer screen displaying code, and explained her choice with the following comment:

Christina chose a picture of a snowboarder in motion, commenting that:

Both of these images of German depict the language as a challenge – not so much boring as undecipherable and risky business, and associated with a negative assessment of students’ own skillls. Negative self-assessments were sometimes combined with a sense that “this is something I ought to know,” reminiscent of Dörnyei and Ryan’s (2015) ought-to L2 Self. This sense of obligation was found both in relation to German (example 6), and other students mentioning similar sentiments in relation to French and Arabic in examples 7 and 8 below:

As evident from examples 5 and 6, this sense of obligation in some cases contributes negatively to students’ attitude towards the languages concerned.

4.2 Gateways

The theme gateways emerged when students talked about the language(s) in terms of them being connected to each other, and either giving or not giving access to understanding other languages. In other words, one language was seen as a gateway to other languages. The connections mentioned by students mostly focused on syntactic or lexical similarities and differences, expressing metalinguistic awareness at the syntactic and lexical levels (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2023). For example, Spanish, Italian and French or Swedish and Danish were seen as mutual gateway languages as they are so similar in respect to cognate lexicon and grammar.

Latin was most prominently talked about as a predecessor to many other languages (both Romance and Latinate vocabulary in Germanic languages), as illustrated by the following quotes from students:

Talking about Latin as a basis for other languages is no surprise in the context of the course, where Latin is presented in those terms to students. So, in a way, the students may be said to echo the ideology of the course while displaying contrastive metalinguistic awareness.

In contrast to Germanic or Romance languages, where similarities were highlighted, Arabic and Somali were constructed by students as very different from any other languages in the students’ lives, as when Tabitha (who herself speaks Somali) said:

This quote illustrates how Somali was constructed not as a gateway to any other language, but rather as too different for comparison.

The obvious contrast between the students’ understanding of the Romance and Germanic languages as “all related” mutual gateways and Arabic and Somali as “too different for comparison” may be understood to reflect the typological and genealogical contrast between the Indo-European languages, on the one hand, and the Semitic languages, on the other. However, it may also reflect a difference in students’ metalinguistic awareness in relation to the two groups of languages: since they have studied Germanic and Romance languages at school, they are more aware of their structures, making it easier to see the structural similarities.

4.3 Attractiveness

The theme attractiveness covered talk evaluating languages either appreciatively or critically. French, Spanish and Italian, appeared to be very stereotypically appealing to students. Mark, for instance describes French as “luxurious” and “sophisticated” and Safia thinks Italian is “cool”. These accounts are clearly linked to prevalent ideological views of these languages in Europe and elsewhere (Lund and Risager 2001).

English was evaluated recurringly in students’ talk, too, but not only in the stereotypical way seen for French and Italian. Rather, different kinds of Englishes seemed associated with different values for different students. Some students said that British English sounds nice and Australian sounds stupid, others that British is too posh. One student said that the many variants of English were a good thing, as they give speakers more options to express themselves. Clearly, this diversity of opinions reflects the students’ familiarity with more nuances of English and their greater overall familiarity with the language, allowing them to form independent likes and dislikes.

The students’ feelings towards German seemed rather mixed. German was seen as a useful language used on holidays or in future work, but at the same time it seemed as if disliking German was an expectation among this group of students, as illustrated by examples 12 and 13:

Even when Anna says something positive about German class, she still adds:

These quotes suggest an orientation to a norm that German class is not something one likes, similarly to what is shown by Birkeholm (2022).

4.4 Family and friendship

The fourth theme was family and friendships. While Danish was unsurprisingly a language used in personal relations, English was depicted as a globally connecting language.

Non-European languages, typically heritage languages, such as Somali, Turkish and Vietnamese, featured prominently in this category, connected to close family and relatives living abroad. In connection with these languages, students also displayed some awareness of languaculture, for example when three students discussed the use of respectful pronouns in Vietnamese, referring to the importance of the relationship between the addressee and one’s parents.

Arabic played a special, religion-related role in some students’ talk. Some students expressed the feeling that they needed this language in their repertoire as it was an inherent part of their background (cf. examples and 8). This view of language is connected to the ideological position of the language in maintaining the cultural heritage in the new environment, phrased concisely by Aisha:

In spite of the prevalence within this theme of heritage languages which are not part of the standard curriculum in Denmark, family played a role also in relation to French (Rihanna needing it to talk to relatives), German (Christina feeling the need to work it out because her dad knows how to), and even in relation to Latin, where Sonia mentioned the fact that her mother knows Latin and that this is something they have in common and might continue exploring together in the future.

4.5 Everyday presence

The theme everyday presence was used to describe how the students depicted some languages as present and accessible in their surroundings, and others as less so. French and German seemed to be opposites within this theme, since French was depicted as rare and inaccessible in the immediate environment and Arabic and German as something students meet on a regular basis, as illustrated in examples 15 and 16:

This is not surprising, since most of the students take German as their third language, and many of them came from primary schools where French was not on offer.

Students seemed to consider English an active resource in their linguistic repertoires, present in their everyday lives and readily available.

The way Safia (example 17) talked about English as a gateway to understanding other languages reinforces this impression of English as an active linguistic resource for students.

However, this omnipresence of English does not mean that students saw themselves as having unhindered access to the language, in the sense that they expressed some insecurity about their ownership of English. On the one hand, students used English actively amongst themselves and for communication with non-Danish speakers, but on the other, they also expressed a certain humility in relation to English, leading to an appreciation of Global English (examples 18 and 19):

Another language emerging in students’ talk as prevalent in the surroundings was Arabic (cf. Example 15), but this was described in a certain sense also as exclusive, given that only some people know it. At the same time, students reflected that Arabic remained somewhat invisible in school, since it is not a language taught there, and thus Arabic skills may go unnoticed by fellow students.

4.6 Usefulness

The language dominating this theme was English, which was described as useful since “so many people speak it” (Mark) and “it is spoken in many large countries” (Anna). In fact, English seemed to be strictly need to have, as Leila put it:

In spite of the dominance of English within this theme, other languages were mentioned, too. Christina and Mark believed that Arabic is useful since it is more present in society than for example French, and because it plays a significant role in relation to Islam and Islamic history and culture. Christina and Safia also found that Spanish is relevant, since it is so widely spoken in South America.

The relevance of French and German seemed contested, as seen example 21 below:

Other students, especially Peter, saw German as a language relevant because of the opportunities it offers for travelling in Germany and German-speaking countries and studying or working there. Mark revealed a nuanced view on German classes, arguing that learning German is important.

This comment reveals a certain critical language awareness pertaining to the risks related to speaking only two languages and thus having a narrower linguistic and intercultural frame of reference (for discussions of the importance of this type of critical literacy, see e.g. Férez Mora et al. 2022; Wallace 2018).