2.4. European education policy and linguistic diversity

the citizens of the European Union through the use of local languages which do not hold the status of official or working languages of the Union but are legally recognised in a given member state.

The primary shortcomings of these documents pertain to the fact that they are of a very general nature. They encourage local and regional authorities to take care of their languages and cultures while preserving the cultural and linguistic diversity of migrants as well as promote the learning of foreign languages which enables the EU citizens from different cultural backgrounds to communicate. The declared equal status of official and working languages of the Union, without properly defining them (Doczekalska, 2013), means that de iure they can be used interchangeably, but de facto some languages are used more frequently than others. In practice, the main working language of the European Union is English, which retained this status even after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom thanks to the fact that it remains an official language in Ireland and Malta. French and German are used to a lesser extent. On the other hand, while all documents and legal acts of the European Union must be published in 24 languages, the English version is often the reference document in cases of inaccuracies. However, high-aspiring, the idea of leading conversation in many languages of the Union has turned has turned out to be a utopian undertaking. The creation of a European identity via communication commonwealth clashes with practical factors related to the greater popularity of a particular language, costs of maintaining language equality policy (e.g. translation costs) or socio-cultural problems (e.g. issues of national identity).

Language policy in education is a crucial factor in maintaining linguistic diversity. In order to promote multilingualism, the European Commission listed the following challenges on its official website:

Poor language skills can cause companies to lose international contracts, as well hindering the mobility of skills and talent. Yet, too many Europeans still leave school without a working knowledge of a second language. For this reason, the EU has set the improvement of language teaching and learning as a priority. [transl.]

(source: bit.ly/365jnTV)

It must be admitted that the Council of Europe and other EU bodies put a lot of effort into promoting knowledge of foreign languages and increasing the effectiveness of their learning. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was developed within the initiative of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the area of human rights (including language policy). The CEFR provides a common scale of language proficiency description, including levels and assigned skills. The system constitutes the basis for all activities undertaken in the field of teaching and learning foreign languages, e.g. preparation of textbooks and curricula or the process of certification, and makes it possible to classify students into appropriate groups based on their language proficiency. Apart from introducing the said system along with linguistic competence descriptors, as well as a description of goals, preferred approaches and assessment methods, this extensive document is the essence of the European Union’s language policy.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages has undoubtedly proven a spectacular success. However, the socio-cultural changes taking place in the Old Continent and new trends in the field of foreign language learning forced the Council of Europe to update it by means of three groups of experts. Hanna Komorowska (2017a) summarised the pros and cons of the original version in the context of foreign language learning. One of the CEFR’s serious shortcomings was the monolingual approach to language teaching as if the new language had a designated, separate space in the learner’s mind and did not interact, for example, with the first language. Monolingualism is characteristic of a communicative approach that promoted the learning of a new language as a distinct and idealised entity with no impact on other linguistic competences. As Komorowska pointed out: “there are no references to plurilingualism in the CEFR (2001), no approaches to assess the language in which school education is provided, i.e. the student’s second or third language, nor are there any references to regional or ethnic languages” (Komorowska, 2017a, p. 172, transl.). This resulted from the communicative approach, which was dominant at the time of the CEFR’s preparation. The first edition of the document did not take into account newer reflections on foreign language acquisition, e.g. the concept of multicompetence (Cook, 1991), translingual processes (Canagarajah, 2013; García and Li, 2014; Lankiewicz, 2020), new socio-cultural realities in Europe related to mass migration and resulting in the spread of multilingualism, the coexistence of many languages on a given territory and plurilingualism, the use of multiple languages by one person, not necessarily at an advanced level. When evaluating the CEFR’s initial version, it is worth mentioning

that the Council of Europe issued two other documents: Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education (Beacco et al., 2010) and Framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures – FREPA/CARAP (Candelier et al., 2007/2012). Both publications are the outcome of the work of teams established by the Council of Europe.

Referring to the earlier reflection on the arbitrariness of official linguistic classifications, it is worth mentioning the phenomenon of diglossia (Ferguson, 1959/1972), also known as bidialectism or bilingualism. It refers to a situation where a given language community uses two variants of a language with different statuses, which influence the acquisition and mixing of other language codes. The results of such processes can be seen in an anecdotal situation that happened to one of the authors of this study during his teaching practice. One of the students wrote: “and he jumped without the fence” (Polish vernacular: i skoczył bez płot). While wondering about the reason for using the wrong preposition – “without” instead of “over” – the teacher, after a short discussion, realised that the problem emerged due to the influence of the local vernacular or dialect, in which the standard version of “jumped over the fence” [skoczył przez płot] took the form of “jumped without the fence” [skoczył bez płot] and was obviously translated into English literally by the student.

The updated version of the CEFR, published in 2018 under the name Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors (CEFR/CV, 2018), seems to take into account the shortcomings and flaws of the previous edition as well as expectations that resulted from socio-cultural changes (cf. Komorowska, 2017b). The Council of Europe, the European Parliament and other bodies of the European Union have further defined the Union's language policy in relevant documents. One of them is the European Parliament resolution of 24 March 2009 on multilingualism (2010), which highlights such issues as the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe resulting from mobility and migration, the need to confirm the CEFR’s assessment of multilingualism, tolerance and respect for language diversity and the protection of multilingualism. An important factor influencing language education and the re-issuing of the CEFR was probably the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012), particularly Art. 21, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of language, and Art. 22, which ensures respect for linguistic and cultural diversity. Also significant in this respect were the conclusions of the Council of the European Union on multilingualism and the development of language competences (Conclusions on multilingualism and the development of language competences, 2014). By emphasising the advantages of Europe’s linguistic diversity, the Conclusions