French as a 3 rd language-and-culture in Hong Kong: Implications for plurilingualism in ASEAN

1. French as a 3rd language-and-culture in Hong Kong:Implications for plurilingualism in ASEAN Mark Hopkins HKUST

2. Outline • Definitions of plurilingualism • Existing approaches to L3 pedagogy • Key considerations / factors / strategies for experienced adult learners • Background to the study • Results - “ease of learning” • Explanation: the “cultural fit” of French in Hong Kong • Implications for L3 pedagogy • Implications for L3 learning (in ASEAN)

3. What is plurilingualism? “The capacity of individuals to use more than one language in social communication - whatever their command of those languages. This set of skills constitutes the complex but unique competence, in social communication, to use different languages for different purposes with different levels of command.” (Beacco, 2005)

4. What is plurilingualism? • Plurilingual individuals v multilingual communities (nations…) • Purposeful code-switching (& -mixing?) • Societal prevalence (HK v. Singapore…) • Elite v. folk (v. civic) plurilingualism • “In general, persons who are identified as plurilinguals have had contact with foreign languages through educational institutions, however the education system plays only a small role in [their] linguistic competence.” (Coste, Moore & Zarate, 1997)

5. Why does it matter? • (Re)inforcement of social / educational stratification • Acquisition/learning v. learning • Gardner & Lambert’s (1972) motivation model • Distinction between attitudes(“social perceptions toward the target language and community”) andorientations(“broad motives to learn” – Ortega, 2014) • Implications for L3 pedagogy (e.g. SL v. FL)

6. Existing L3 approaches • Same as for L2 (or L4, L5…) • Learner aptitude considered • Learning aptitude+motivation considered • Deeper considerations (Adult L3 “acquisition in instructional settings” = learning…) (Rivers & Golonka, 2009)

7. Key considerations • Cross-linguistic transfer (+ve v. –ve) e.g. plurilingual v. Singlish user code-switching v. -mixing food court v. rojak + prior experience of cross-linguistic transfer • Language typology (proximity v. distance); similarities v. differences e.g. English/French v. Chinese/French + perceived proximity (psycho-typology) (Rivers & Golonka, 2009)

8. Other language factors • Learning sequence e.g. Chinese→English→Frenchv. Chinese→French • Recency / success of L2 learning (Hammarberg, 2001) • Perceivedrelativestatusof L3 & L2 (e.g. English!) • Practice of interlanguage transfer (interference?) e.g. English morphological features in the French of Chinese learners (Leung, 1998) But most researchers agree that successful learners use (L1 or L2) lexical similarities as shortcuts: “lexical transfer has the most facilitative effects on L3 learning.” (Rivers & Golonka, 2009)

9. Learner strategies • Linguistic strategies e.g. L1/L2 code-switching looking for cognates activating prior linguistic knowledge • Cognitive strategies e.g. making language / culture connections more risk-taking / less fear of errors activating successful learning habits • Learner autonomy “the learner’s active, independent management of learning” e.g. modifying the learning environment (Rivers & Golonka, 2009)

10. Background to the study • Data from 2007 was comparative – French learners of L3 Chinese v. Chinese learners of L3 French • Exchange program discontinued, but L3 French expanded after 2010 • Confirmed by recent (2015) data • Adult elite ab initio learners (HKUST Global Business majors v. trainees at the DLIFLC – Rivers, 1996) • Most exceed intended learning outcomes

11. Utility of L1-3 (instrumental motivation?)

12. Status of L1-3 (integrative motivation?)

13. Ease of learning of L1-3

14. Comments from participants Question 3:What are the advantages of learning through English? Similar vocabulary, grammar / easy to understand explanations, ask questions / learn English at same time! “Just need to do some change in words, English can turn into French easily” Question 4:What are the disadvantages of learning through English? “faux amis” (homographs), different pronunciation make it easy to confuse Fr with Eng / none “When I speak French I tend to think in English and then translate” Question 5:How is the teaching methodology of your English-speaking instructor different from your prior experience? Mostly N/A or no difference / expects more self-learning Questions 6-8:Would it have helped if your instructor spoke more L1? No (less oral practice, learn Eng at same time!) and Yes (confusing Fr with Eng) “I can get a better overall pictureof French by learning through English” “English isthe medium of learninganyway!”

15. Comments from participants • Question 11:How important is cultural learning for English? • Not important: “English does not only belong to English-speaking countries” • Question 12:Is cultural learning more important for the L3, and why? • Yes, because French culture is “more exclusive” / important for beginners to learn • “the French really value their culture and history” • “one often learns French just because one wants to go to France” • No, because any language can be learnt for communication only. • Question 16:How important is direct L1 to L3 communication? • Quite important • Question 17:Have any of your attitudes towards the L3 language/people/country changed since the start of the course? • Mostly no changes in attitudes, but… • “The French language is more beautiful / fun to learn / not as difficult as I thought / precise / complicated / easy to learn as the vocabulary size is small” • “French people are romantic / easy-going / proud of their language” • “France is a beautiful country with lots of great food / ”It is not easy or romantic to learn French!”

16. Reasons for “ease of learning” Due to limited sample size (37 respondents), it is inappropriate to draw firm conclusions; these possible reasons can be noted however: • Pragmatic assessments of their language worlds (perceived status of English, French and Chinese) • Perceivedproximity of L3 to L2 (similarities, ability to guess meanings) • Flexibility towards L3 pedagogy (willingness to learn through L2 as well as L1) • Understanding / acceptance of the importance of explicit cultural knowledge in language learning

17. The cultural fit(with language benefits) • Traditional source = FLE textbooks: shared experience of language learners / students / interns / outsiders to Paris… • Recognizable public figures (singers, film stars, sports people, celebrity chefs…) • Explicit cultural / inter-cultural learning • Comparative exploration of global youth issues, e.g. freedom of expression, protest, terrorism…

18. Hong Kong Sept-Dec 2014(adjectives)

19. Paris 1968

20. Songs: Hong Kong 2015 (action verbs)

21. Hong Kong Sept-Dec 2014

22. World Cup final 2014(countries, nationalities)

23. World Cup final 2006(past v present tenses)

24. Terrorism 2015-16 ( dates… )

25. The cultural fit(with language benefits) • Use of authentic / timely materials • Comments (enfrançais facile)from world figures, captions (with photos), headlines etc. • Cartoons,tweets (?) “Maintenant je parle en anglais, parce que, autre-ment, on ne me laisse pas rentrer chez moi…”

26. International festivals / Timely vocabulary

28. Paris 2015 Charlie-Hebdo murders

29. Paris 2015 Charlie aftermath

30. Paris 2015 November 13 / 130 murders

31. Nice 2016 National Day / 86 murders

32. Politics 2015-16 (photo prompts)

33. French presidential elections 2017

34. Implications for L3 pedagogy 1. Language systems: Learning L3 through L3 (“direct method”) is clearly more problematic than learning L2 through L2 (or L1 through L1!) + in experienced adult learner contexts, there is less need for an L1-knowing teacher if there is: • perceived proximity of L2 & L3 • perceived status of L2 as lingua franca (“langue véhiculaire”) 2A. Learner characteristics (general): • Language learning aptitude / motivation • Attitudes towards L2 & L3 • Learning sequence / orientation / fluency in L2 • Autonomyvis-à-vis learning environment

35. Implications for L3 pedagogy 2B. Learner characteristics prior learning: 3. Pedagogical / societal factors: • Explicit (inter-)culturallearning (Byram & Leman, 1990) • Also, possibilities for autonomous acquisition in the “linguistic cityscape” (Coulmas, 2009)

36. Photos from Montréal and Hong Kong

37. Implications for L3 pedagogy 4. Cultural systems should be: • implicit / embedded in language study but can be made explicit through comparison by a bilingual / bicultural teacher-mediator • “intercultural competence” – Byram (1997) • ideally a 3-way comparison, but especially L2 / L3 differentiation if languages-and-cultures are (perceived to be) proximal 5. Mediation: “(Pluri)lingualism is a mediational system in itself,sustaining, but also mobilizingand reorganizing language user identities, relationships and possibilities for action.” – Jyväskylä conference description (2008)

38. Implications for L3 learning Learning an (endo-/exoglossic) L3 through L2 (English) should be encouraged unless: • perceived proximity of L1 & L3 overrides perceived status of L2 Possible examples in ASEAN: Vietnamese ↔ Mandarin Chinese Bahasa (Indonesia/Malaysia) ↔ Tagalog Thai ↔ Lao ↔ Khmer ↔ Burmese ? In Hong Kong: Mandarin Chinese ↔ Cantonese

41. Implications for L3 learning Within ASEAN: Learning of L3 (L4, L5 …) should be based on aptitude / motivation, attitudes towards L2 & L3, fluency in L2… but also (more importantly) on: • prior learner strategies • learner autonomy → acquisition/learning • possibilities for intercultural learning, which are implicit in textbooks but should be made explicit by the language teacher through comparison / mediation and (where possible) autonomous acquisition in the linguistic cityscape → “civic plurilingualism” (Fettes, 2003)

42. But… threats to plurilingualism? “The multicultural and multilingual nature of large cities becomes the unacceptable face of a modernity that threatens unitary narratives of nation and community… the city becomes a central part of thenarrative of national decline as espoused by identitarian populists.” (Cronin & Simon, 2014)

44. References Beacco, J-C. (2005). Languages and Language Repertoires: Plurilingualism as a Way of Life in Europe. Council of Europe: Strasbourg Byram, M.(1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. & Leman, J. (1990). Bicultural and trilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Coste, D., Moore D. & Zarate G. (1997). Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle : vers un Cadre Européen commun de référence pour l'apprentissage et l'enseignement des langues vivantes : études préparatoires. Conseil de l’Europe, Division des politiques linguistiques. Coulmas, F. (2009). Linguistic landscaping and the seed of the public sphere. In Shohamy, E. & Gorter, D. (eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 11-24). New York, NY: Routledge. Cronin, M., & Simon, S. (2014). Introduction: The city as translation zone. Translation Studies, 7(2), 119-132. Fettes, M. (2003) The geostrategies of interlingualism. In Maurais, J. & Morris, M.A. (eds). Languages in a Globalising World (pp. 37–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 21-41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hufeisen, B. (2000). A European perspective: Tertiary languages with a focus on German as L3. In Rosenthal, J. (ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education: English as a second language, bilingual, and foreign language instruction for a multilingual world (pp. 209–29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leung, Y.-K. (1998). Transfer between interlanguages. In Greenhill, A., Hughes, M., Littlefield, H. & Walsh, H. (eds.), Twenty-Second Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 477–87). Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press. Mediating Multilingualism: Meanings and Modalities. (2008). International conference held at the University of Jyväskylä, (Jyväskylä, Finland, June 2-5, 2008). https://www.jyu.fi/ajankohtaista/arkisto/2008/03/tapahtuma-2008-03-05-09-38-07-878671 Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education. Rivers, W.P. (1996). Self-Directed Language Learning and Third-Language Learner. 30th Annual Meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (Philadelphia, PA, November 22-24, 1996). University of Maryland College Park: Defense Language Institute, Monterey, CA. Rivers, W. P., & Golonka, E. (2009). Third Language Acquisition Theory and Practice. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 250-66). Walden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Thomas, J. (1985). The role played by prior linguistic experience in second and third language learning. In Hall, R. Jr. (ed.), The eleventh Linguistic Association of Canada and United States Forum 1984 (pp. 510-518). Columba, SC: Hornbeam Press.