Language, education and ethnicity: whose rights will prevail in an age of globalisation?

Education and ethnicity cannot be discussed without taking language into account. This paper will argue that any discussion of ethnic minorities cannot ignore the question of language, nor can any discussion of human rights ignore the question of language rights. Unfortunately, in today's globalised world, governments and minorities are faced with conflicting pressures: on the one hand, for the development and use of education in a global/international language; on the other for the use and development of mother tongue, local or indigenous languages in education. Language complexity and ethnic plurality were largely brought about as a result of the creation of nation-states, which were spread around the world as a result of European colonialism. European languages and formal education systems were used as a means of political and economic control. The legacy that was left by the colonial powers has complicated ethnic relations and has frequently led to conflict. While there is now greater recognition of the importance of language both for economic and educational development, as well as for human rights, the forces of globalisation are leading towards uniformity in the languages used, in culture and even in education. They are working against the development of language rights for smaller groups. We are witnessing a sharp decline in the number of languages spoken. Only those languages which are numerically, economically and politically strong are likely to survive. As a result many linguistic and ethnic groups are in danger of being further marginalised. This paper will illustrate this thesis both historically and from several contemporary societies, showing how certain policies have exacerbated ethnic conflict while others are seeking to promote harmony and reconciliation. Why this should be so will be explored. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese

One central question in the formal linguistic study of adult multilingual morphosyntax (i.e., L3/Ln acquisition) involves determining the role(s) the L1 and/or the L2 play(s) at the L3 initial state (e.g., Bardel & Falk, Second Language Research 23: 459–484, 2007; Falk & Bardel, Second Language Research: forthcoming; Flynn et al., The International Journal of Multilingualism 8: 3–16, 2004; Rothman, Second Language Research: forthcoming; Rothman & Cabrelli, On the initial state of L3 (Ln) acquisition: Selective or absolute transfer?: 2007; Rothman & Cabrelli Amaro, Second Language Research 26: 219–289, 2010). The present article adds to this general program, testing Rothman's (Second Language Research: forthcoming) model for L3 initial state transfer, which when relevant in light of specific language pairings, maintains that typological proximity between the languages is the most deterministic variable determining the selection of syntactic transfer. Herein, I present empirical evidence from the later part of the beginning stages of L3 Brazilian Portuguese (BP) by native speakers of English and Spanish, who have attained an advanced level of proficiency in either English or Spanish as an L2. Examining the related domains of syntactic word order and relative clause attachment preference in L3 BP, the data clearly indicate that Spanish is transferred for both experimental groups irrespective of whether it was the L1 or L2. These results are expected by Rothman's (Second Language Research: forthcoming) model, but not necessarily predicted by other current hypotheses of multilingual syntactic transfer; the implications of this are discussed.