Developing National Language Education Policies: Reflections on the CEFR

Author(s): Heidi Byrnes

Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 91, No. 4 (Winter, 2007), pp. 679-685
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4626099 .
Accessed: 28/09/2014 09:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:16:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

679

Perspectives
of the research.In J.
A meta-analysis
grammar:

research
M. Norris& L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing
on languagelearningand teaching(pp. 133-164).

Amsterdam:
JohnBenjamins.

Skehan,P. (1998). A cognitive

approachtolanguagelearn-

OxfordUniversity
Press.
ing.Oxford:

Thornbury,S. (1999). How to teachgrammar.London:

Longman.

DevelopingNationalLanguage EducationPolicies: Reflectionson the CEFR

HEIDI BYRNES,AssociateEditor,GeorgetownUniversity
I began thiscolumn withthe cautionarynote
that the complexityand multifacetednature of
the Common European Frameworkof Reference
(CEFR) can easilybe misread,especiallyby outsiders.However,I am also convincedthatmuch is
to be learned fromthe CEFR, both as document
and policy process, that can contributeto the
shapingoflanguageeducationpoliciesanywhere,
includingthe United States.Using a comparative
lens, I have chosen threeareas thatstrikeme as
worthyof consideration:the crucial
particularly
in language edrole of a frameforpolicy-making
traditions,
ucation,theinfluenceofpolicy-making
and the role of researchand researchers.
FRAMINGA LANGUAGE
EDUCATION POLICY
How a sociopoliticaland educational context
is interpretedis the intellectualfoundationand
startingpoint for the creation of any language
policy.The context for the CEFR was the warburdened historyof 20th-century
Europe, understood in termsof human rights,by no means
the onlywayof interpreting
events.Initialframat
the
heart
of communicaing placed language
tion: throughcommunicationusing the others'
languages,so the argumentwent,one mightbe
able to overcome the kinds of enmitiestoward
themthatultimately
led to horrendousviolations
of theirmostbasic human rights.
But as the desire for political unificationof
an ever greaternumber of European countries
gained momentum,three additional dynamics
furthershaped that bedrock assumption.First,
initialemphasison learningto communicatewith
othersin a casual manneron a personallevelmorphed into hard-coreissues about the centrality
of language and communicationfor coordinating, even integratingactivitiesat all levels of an
evolvingnew Europe. Second, the fear of an effacementof linguisticand culturalidentitiesas
a resultof the drive towardpoliticalunification
of erstwhilenation-states
led to the countermove
of retainingstrongformsof distinctness,
where
was the mostobvious
language, not surprisingly,
issue.Variousstruggles-forpositionon the part
of the major European national languages and

for voice on the part of newlyassertiveindigenous minoritylanguages-repeated themselves

in waves with the expansion of the European
Union. Third, migration,both withinand from
outside the memberstatesof the Council of Europe, furtherproblematizedan earlier ideological constructthat had paired up normed nationallanguageswithnation-basedsocieties.As a
consequence,one nowhas to recognizeevennonEuropean linguistic-cultural
groupswithinEuro-

pean language policies.

The emergenceof plurilingualismas a frameworkfor language policy is thereforea particular strokeof genius. It uses language as the focal
point,butreshapesitfromitspreviousburdened,
tiedto nationhoodto a plusingularmanifestation
ral manifestation,
as a way of envisioninga new
futureEuropean identity.Thus, it literallyadds
multiplevoices to the chorus of possibilitiesfor
a European identity,on the one hand anchorin universalnotionsofhuman
ing plurilingualism
rights,on the other hand crowdingout the possibilityof identityconstructionon the basis ofgeor,quite contentiously,
ography,politicalsystems,
a sharedChristianpast.
From an Americanperspective,it is important
to understandplurilingualismfirstand foremost
as a call to action toward an idealized future
(Beacco & Byram,2002), akinto theringingclaim
that all men are created equal in the American
Declaration of Independence, despite the counof that assertionat the time of its
terfactuality
proclamation.As Beacco and Byram noted in
the preface to Lo Bianco's (2004) treatmentof
Australia'slanguage policy,"the relationshipof
plurilingualismto a sense of identificationwith
other Europeans, with a possible development
of a European identitycomplementingothersocial identities,national, regional, professional,
familial,and so on, which all individualshave,
is an issue which remainsspeculativeand which
can only be confirmedin futuregenerationsof
plurilingualpeople" (p. 6).
Is it possible to arrive at an equally potent
and adaptable dynamicfordevelopinglanguage
educational policies in the United States?The
answer is by no means obvious, despite certain

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:16:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

680

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

presumedadvantages.For example, the proudly

proclaimedrealityof theUnited Statesas a multilingual immigrantcountryhas not played itself
out in an overtlymultilinguallanguage policy.
Long-establishedethnicand linguisticcommunities,includingheritagespeakercommunities,as
well as more recent linguistic-cultural
minority
groups, have been unable to exert any discernable influenceon a comprehensive,multilingual
policy.The undisputedideological,cultural,and
practicalpower of English has not allowed sufficientspace forargumentsassuringa public presence ofotherlanguagesin theeducationalsystem.
On the contrary,
therehave been numerousdivisive battlesover these verymatters,most promimovement,
nentlyin a trumpedup English-only
in thepoisoned atmospherenowsurroundingthe
use of such termsas bilingualism,
and even in the
recent"discovery"
of "heritagelanguage users."
A complex configurationof forcesis obviously
at workin thisstateofaffairs(see the collectionof
papers on nationallanguage education policyin
Perspectives,
MLJ,91, 2). A claimedAmericanisolationismtypically
rankshigh,followedbythefact
thatthestatusofEnglishas an internationallingua
francaall too easilyleads to illusionson the part
of nativespeakersofEnglishabout theirabilityto
communicatewiththe restof the world.The denatureof
centralized,perhaps even fragmentary
Americaneducationis also adduced as inhibiting
educational structuresthatwould supporta language policyenabling extended language learning. One mightpoint as well to instrumentalist,
quick-fixnotionsof learningin general as being
inherently
"antilanguage."
Although these dynamicscontain kernels of
truth,none deliversthe kind of positivemotivation thata language education policyneeds if it
is to be embraced widelyand to serveas a continual source of creativeenergytowardbuilding
an idealized futurefordiverseconstituencies
with
theirrespectiveinterests.Therefore,to enlarge
theconversationalspace,I offerthefollowingconsiderations:A fast-pacedand highlymobilesociety
with a considerable share of migrantsand minoritieslike the United States makes unusually
high demands on its educational systemas the
place where societal integration,the acquisition
of knowledgeand skills,and more expansiveeducationalambitionsare to be accomplished.(For
a recenttreatmentof the aimsand outcomesof a
21st-century
college education,see thereportColissued by
legeLearningfortheNew GlobalCentury
theAssociationofAmericanColleges and Universities[2007] fromtheNationalLeadershipCouncil forLiberal Education and America'sPromise
[LEAP]). In structuralterms,it providesforthat

possibilitythrougha single systemin grades K12 thatbecomes competitively

differentiated
only
at the tertiary
level. In linguisticterms,it asserts
that a single language, English,should play the
necessaryunifyingrole. From the standpointof
curriculum,it offersa fixed canon of core curricularsubjectsthatall too frequentlymarginalizes less utilitarianfields,particularly
theartsand
languages,even thoughlanguage learningis inadvocatedon economic-utilitarian
and
creasingly
framedsecuritygrounds.
patriotically
It seems, then, that a viable language education policywould requirea public discoursethat
would reconfigurelanguage learning,movingit
frombeing interpretedas the added "culturalexperience" claimed by diverseelites (e.g., foreign
language learning), the "pet project" advanced
by the identitypolitics of minorities(e.g., heritagelanguage learning),or the "remediationacthatprimarily
servesimmigrant"problem"
tivity"
groups (variousrecentimmigrantgroups learning English) towarda comprehensiveenterprise
thatconcernseveryone.That kind of public discourse mustarise fromand be nurturedby the
core ofwhatwe knowabout language and be applied to whatwe knowabout learningin educationalsettings.
Because language is about meaning-making
and waysof knowingthe world,ourselves,and
others,education mustbe thoughtof as fundamentallylanguage based, and any language education mustenterthe educational processwith
thatunderstanding.Language in educationalsettingsis inherentlyand inseparablyabout interweavingsubjectmatter(content)and languagemothertongue, heritagelanguage, second language (L2), or foreignlanguage (FL)-not an
incidentalconnectingof the two in an additive
fashion,as language and content.As a consequence, knowledgeand thinkingmust be presented as historical,culturallyembedded human
activitiesthatevolvealong withhuman societies.
In a finalstep,learningitself,and thereforeeducational success or failurefor all students,no
matterthe language involved,mustbe seen as a
language-basedphenomenon.As Halliday(1993)
stated it, "Language is not a domain of human
knowledge.... Language is the essentialconditionofknowing,theprocessbywhichexperience
becomes knowledge"(p. 94, originalemphasis).
In short,a credible educational policy requires
a linguistictheoryof learning,such as the one
Lantolfand Thorne have begun to outlinefrom
the perspectiveof a "cultural-historical
psycholvein (2006, p. 3) and the
ogy"in the Vygotskian
one Hallidayhas elaboratedin conjunctionwith
a comprehensivetheoryof language thataccords

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:16:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

681

Perspectives
a special role to educationin the developmentof
language-basedlearningand knowing(e.g., 1999
and numerousothersources;forlinkingcontent
and language teachingand learning,see, forexample, Byrnes,2005a; 2007b; fornativeand Ensee, particglishas a second language instruction,
2004).
ularly,Schleppegrell,
This line of argumentleads to the conclusion
that the language profession'sabilityto shape a
broad and broadlyaccepted language education
policy depends firston its own willingnessand
the constructsof
abilityto rethinkfundamentally
and
educative
learningand therelationlanguage
them.
it must address
between
Thereafter,
ship
the consequences of these reconsiderationsfor
educative learning on the part of diversemultilinguallanguage users.Just how much policy
making would benefitfromsuch a stance, not
to mentionfromsuch research,is illustratedby
the mostcontentiouscurrenteducational policy
initiativein the United States,the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) legislation.Howeveruninformed
and wrong-headedone mayjudge this legislationto be, itsinsistencethateducationalprogress
require learners to have access to and indicate
the learningof contentknowledgethroughthe
kinds of language abilitiesthat typicallyexpress
that knowledgeis, deep down, a challenge the
language field can ill affordto ignore (Byrnes,
2005b).
Untilthelanguageprofessionrespondswithexplicit and detailed countermovesabout how to
imagine the link betweencontentand language
learningoverextendedcurricularstretchesforall
educational levels,withdiflearners,at different
ferentlanguage profilesand language learning
needs, language education policywill continue
to be unsatisfactory,
unjust,and unfitfora globalized environment.
Itwillbe unsatisfactory
because
learning languages, including one's native language, over long stretcheswithinan assuredand
stable curricularcore will remain wishfulthinking or, at best,willbe fulfilledby happenstance.
It will be unjustbecause individualsand groups
that already know other languages, though not
necessarilyEnglish,will be unable to retainand
expand thoselanguagesand willencountergrave
inequitiesas theylearn the primarysocietal language, English,such as thosecaused byineptand
rigidassessmentregimesoflearningoutcomesenshrinedin the NCLB legislation(Byrnes,2007a).
Itwillbe unfitforpresentand futuresocietiesand,
more generally,for the spheres of action within
whichpeople willconducttheirlivesinasmuchas
thesesettingscan be assumedtobe fundamentally
multilingualand multicultural(for an excellent
treatmentof thisaspect,see the reportEducation

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:16:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

682
many such debates, have adopted these framein Perspecworks(see severalof the contributions
tives,MLJ,90, 2).
On the other hand, there is ample reason to
be waryof concludingthatthe FL professionin
the United Stateshas managed to accomplish,no
less withoutan explicitlanguage education policy,whatthe CEFR isjust beginningto put on its
agenda. For example, textbookpublishersDorwick and Glass (2003) noted thatmost changes
in materialsare surfacephenomena,withteacher
Glisan
behaviorshavingchanged onlyminimally.
concernedthattheFL teach(2005) was similarly
ing force is "thoroughlydisconnected not only
from national educational policies such as the
NCLB, but even fromitsown nationalendeavors
(e.g., thestandards)"(p. 268). In fact,highereducation professionalsare increasingly
questioning
theappropriatenessofthedominantcommunicative competence frameworkand the combined
projectforthe kindsof edproficiency-standards
ucational goals to whichtheyaspire (see Perspectives,MLJ, 90, 2). In any case, achievementof
to claim
thedesiredlearningoutcomesis difficult
withoutwell-consideredand well-deliveredprogramoutcomesassessment(see Perspectives,
MLJ,
90, 4), a concern thatwas raised most recently
withregardto thelong-established
programssupportinglanguageeducationin thecontextofarea
studies,theTitleVI and Fulbright-Hays
programs
(O'Connell & Norwood,2007).
In sum,althoughEuropean and Americanapproaches began at opposite ends, their longterm experiences with language policy-making
are not dissimilarand suggest the need for a
carefullybalanced approach, a fusion between
top-downand bottom-upinterestssimilarto the
successfulpolicy effortsin the Australiancontext (Lo Bianco, 2004). Such a fusiondoes not,
importantly,amount to disregardingthe particular contributionseach of these approaches
can make. For example, the Standards,a topdown government-inspired
project,were fleshed
out when professionalorganizations,through
bottom-upempowerment,made it theirown by
using their knowledgeand expertise.However,
withouta formallyaccepted comprehensivelanguage policy,the Standard'sintendedvisionultito realize,promatelyturnedout to be difficult
fessionalactivismand substancenotwithstanding.
Furthermore,when stronglycountervailingpolicymandates,such as theNCLB legislation,could
not be halted by appeal to an existinglanguage
education policy,even the mostdevotedworkby
individualsand professionalsocietiesconfronted
itslimitationsforeffecting
change.

The CEFR, in turn,is strugglingto reach into

classroomcontexts.Althoughitcan proudlypoint
tohavingbeen adopted at thehighestpolicylevels
ofmostoftheCouncil'smemberstates-the Strasbourg gatheringappropriatelycelebrated that
achievement-its abilityto change the frameof
referenceof teacher educators and their classroom practicesat this point proves elusive. In
otherwords,althoughbothpolicytrajectories
can
abilrealizenoteworthy
successes,theirlong-term
ityto affecthow countriesenact multilingualism
or plurilingualism
and culturalidentityin educational contextsnow and into the futuredepends
on ajointlyconstructedsymbolicspace whosecreation, to the extentpossible and as earlyas possible, involvesall players.Only thatconsiderably
messier,perhapsevenconsiderablymorecompromised, but ultimatelymore actionable, process
can providethecontextforrealizingpotentialities
locallyin a fashionthatis, nevertheless,
strongly
anchored in expanded notionsof expertiseand
knowledgeand an encompassingdiscourse.No
doubt we are at once in the realm of idealized
thinkingand of hard realitiesof what is doable
and whatin factwilland can be done.
THE ROLE OF RESEARCH AND
RESEARCHERS IN LANGUAGE
POLICY-MAKING
Such sobering thoughtslead to my concluding point, the role of researchand researchers
in makinglanguage policy.I have thus far primarilyreferredto actorsin the language policy
communityand have portrayedthem as taking
on an initiatingrole. I have therebyput actors
in theprofessionaland educationalpracticecommunitymorein a receivingposition,even though
I am aware of the loadedness of such an interpretation,not least because it would appear to
validatethe veryhierarchythatresultsin highly
problematicpolicyand educationalpractices.The
question now is where,withinthatdynamic,researchand researcherswould be positioned.This
question deservesclose consideration,not least
because,formanyreaders,itis likelytobe thecontextin whichtheyconducttheirprofessionallives
and take theirprofessionalactions.To begin to
answerit,I returnto myearliercharacterization
of the scene, thoughnow relatingit to contributionsbyresearchand researchers.
The European contextrevealsa considerable
role forgovernment-sponsored
organizationslike
the BritishCouncil or the Goethe Instituteand
theirsenior personnel,fordiversepolicygroupings, and for permanent staffat all levels of

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:16:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

683

Perspectives
ministriesof education as well as diversecouncilsofinternational
organizations.Althoughthese
a
groups have an enviable record of furthering
policyagenda, theirabilityto participatedirectly
in thediscourseofacademic languageacquisition
researchand educational practiceseems surprisinglylimited,perhapsbecause verydifferent
professionalculturesare invoked in the respective
environments.
toward
Bycomparison,U.S. efforts
what passes forlanguage policy-making
typically
relyon language professionalorganizations.Because Americanpracticestendtolinkprofessional
identityto professionalactivism,because thatactivismis occasioned by particularprojects (typicallyfundedthroughcompetitivegrants),and because bothleadershipand projectschangewithin
electoralprocesses,theseorganizationsprovidea
contextforthe kindof participationand renewal
thateducationpoliciessurelyneed. But,thatconalso showsa complexrelationshipto refiguration
search,perhapsbecause projectstendto demand
educational and social relevanceand demand it
in a fashionthatprogramsand teacherscan reasonablyfulfillin the complex contextsof Americaneducation,which,among othercharacteristics,usuallymeans overa shortperiod of time.
Coming from the side of research and researchers we find that, with the exception of
those colleagues who make language policytheir
explicit concern, the bulk of research has intereststhat are quite differentfrom those of
from
policymaking,indeed,all too oftendifferent
educational practice (for a recent treatmentof
thisdisconnect,see Byrnes,2007c). On some level
thatis,of course,to be expected.Whatis curious,
however,is thatresearchersultimatelydo expect
theirworkto be taken seriouslyby seeing it applied in theverycontextsthatare crucialforwhat
I have called an educationallanguage policy,and
crucial forenhancingthe teachingand learning
of language even thoughmanydo not necessarily
begin by takingthose contextsseriously(for an
excellentdiscussion,see Bygate,2004).
The resultis a curiousdilemma.All too often,
whenresearchenterslanguage-policy
discussions,
it does so withclaims of possessingthe relevant
knowledge base for creating an informedlanguage policythatcan be turnedinto substantive
practicewhileraisingthe complaintthatitsfindtakenunder adviseings have been insufficiently
ment, perhaps even completelymisunderstood
and prematurelyand ill applied. This dynamic
seems to apply on both sides of the Atlantic,as
severalcontributors
intimatefromthe CEFR side
(see particularlyHulstijn's contribution,this issue) and as theAmericanexperience,particularly
withthe proficiency
movement,readilyshows.At

the same time,whileresearchersraiseformidable

objectionsabout the substanceof policyproposals, lifein educational practicemovesforwardin
itsown rhythms.
My interesthere is not to judge the qualityof
researchin itself;rather,it is to consideritsconductin thecontextoflanguagepolicy-making
and
societal needs withregardto language learning.
Takingthe researchperspective,itseems thatthe
constructionof the nature of language acquisition research,the standardsfor qualitythatthe
researchcommunityhas developed, the applicabilityof its findingsto educational practice,and
the connectionsbetweenresearchersand educational practitionersare often so at odds that a
numberof highlyproblematicconsequences are
nearlyinevitable.The researchcommunityclamors fora voice afterpolicyproposals are already
well on their way and are difficultto correct,
not to mentionto undo. Meanwhile,the practitioner communitydetects littlein the research
foci and findingsthatrespondsto its urgenteducativeneeds, much less enables it to handle its
dual taskof translatingboth researchand policy
demands into itshighlycontextualizedpractices.
For example, as has been well documented (see
e.g., Crandall,2000), teachereducationand practice is increasinglyturningto a theoryof education,as contrastedwiththeoriesand researchon
language learning,as key intellectualresources
for teacherpreparation.Finally,the policycommunityresponds to its political and social constituents
and developsitsowndynamicsforaction,
whichare oftenat odds withthe pace and styleof
both researchersand practitioners.
Given thisimpasse,it is not insignificant
that
these tensions end up according an unusually
decisive,and yethighlycontentious,role to the
testingenterprise,preciselybecause, among its
othercharacteristics,
testingis an inherently
powerfuldynamicof gatekeepingand validation.It
also lends itselfto generalizingpractices over
and
large areas with high levels of uniformity
in
order
to
fulfill
its
and,
agreement
purposes;
in the name of goals,outcomes,and accountabilto yieldthe
ity,it seeminglyrequirespractitioners
ground even when it privilegesconstructsthat
are difficultto reconcile withtheirexperiences
of teachingand learning(see Shohamy,2001, for
an extensivediscussionof theseissues). Thus far,
each of thesegroupshas continuedto adhere to
itsownincommensuratediscoursesand practices,
withtestinghavingthe clear advantageofprovidinga contextthatrespondsmostdirectlyto policy
mandateswhileprovidingobjectifiableresponses
to societal needs thatcan all too easilybe interpretedas "solutions."

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:16:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

684

TheModernLanguageJournal91 (2007)

CONCLUSION
Where does this leave the creation of an
encompassinglanguage policy?Returningto the
beginning of these reflections,I suggest the
following:Given that language policies usually
originatefromsocietal challengesand therefore
pursue diverse societal goals whose veryshaping is subject to powerfulpolitical forces,the
most advantageouspolicy-making
processwould
resultifthe twoprimarylanguage-basedactors-research and teaching--could do their central
workwitha keen awarenessof thesereasonsand
goals. Because researchfindingsoccupythe crucial intellectualplace between policy and practice,researchersbear a particularly
high level of
Thus farthatresponsibility
has reresponsibility.
mained largelyunacknowledgedinasmuchas the
research agenda-not to mention the research
within
methodologyor the theoreticalframework
which researchis being conducted-has tended
to be drivenby dynamicsthatshortchangecritical aspectsofbothsocietalneeds and educational
practice.In fact,whatresearchhas wishedto know
all too oftenhas had onlytenuousconnectionsto
eitherof thosesocietalinterests(Bygate,2004).
Exactlythatconcern is expressedin the comments with which Ortega framed the views
prominentresearcherstook with regard to futuresecond language acquisition(SLA) research
(2005a, 2005b). Urgingthe SLA fieldto use the
lens forits work,she
ethical as a transformative
concluded in the followingfashion:

remarkableachievementsthathave alreadybeen
made withintheCEFR projectand inspiringwork
that remainsto be accomplished in the United
States.

REFERENCES

Association of American Colleges and Universities.

(2007). Collegelearning
for thenewglobalcentury:
A report
LibfromtheNationalLeadership
Councilfor
eralEducationand America's
Promise
(LEAP). Washington,DC: AssociationofAmericanCollegesand
Universities.
diverBeacco,J.-C.,& Byram,M. (2002). Fromlinguistic
sitytoplurilingualeducation:Guideforthedevelopmentoflanguageeducationpoliciesin Europe(Main
version).Strasbourg,France: Council ofEurope.
Bygate,M. (2004). Some trendsin applied linguistics:
Towardsa genericview.AILA Review,17, 6-22.
Byrnes,H. (2005a). Content-basedforeign language
instruction.In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context
in adult secondlanguageacquisition:Methods,theory,and practice(pp. 282-302). Washington,DC:
Press.
GeorgetownUniversity
H.
(2005b).
Byrnes,
Reconsideringthenexusofcontent
and language:A mandateoftheNCLB legislation.
ModernLanguageJournal,89, 277-282.
Byrnes,H. (2007a). Assessinglanguage and content.In
N. Hornberger(General Ed.) & E. Shohamy(Vol.
Ed.), Encyclopaedia
oflanguageand education:Vol.7
and assessment
Languagetesting
(pp.37-52). Berlin,
Germany:Springer-Kluwer.
Byrnes,H. (2007b). Language acquisitionand language
to
learning.In D. G. Nicholls (Ed.), Introduction
in modern
(3rd
languagesand literatures
scholarship
ed., pp. 48-69). NewYork:MLA.
withserving
thepressForSLAresearchers
concerned
H. (2007c,April22). Secondandforeign
needs
of
social
and
educational
language
Byrnes,
languagelearning
ing
Invitedpaper presentedat the 30th antheformidable
andminority
pedagogy.
L2 populations,
majority
sessionat AAALat the Language Learnbutuncompromising
niversary
challengeis to explorewhatit
that
wouldtakeforthefieldtocontribute
ing Round Table, Costa Mesa, CA.
knowledge
isusefulforthegroupsweseektoserveacrosseduca- Committee for Economic Development. (2006). Educationfor global leadership:The importanceof
Thisexploration
canonlybe possible
tionalcontexts.
international
studiesandforeignlanguageeducation
ifit is guidedbymoraland politicalvaluesthatwe,
and national security.
Available
U.S.
economic
can
emas individuals
and as a research
for
community,
fromthe CommitteeforEconomic Development
brace.(2005b,p. 439)
Web site,http://www.ced.org/publications/date.
shtml.
Needless to say,heeding thiscall would amount
to a considerableenlargementofthespace within Crandall,J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual ReviewofAppliedLinguistics,
whichthecore ofthefieldis located.Ijoin Ortega
20, 34-55.
in theprojectionthatthisbroadeninghas the poDorwick,T., & Glass, W. R. (2003). Language educationpolicies:One publisher'sperspective.Modern
tentialofenhancingnotonlytherigorbutalso the
relevanceof our research.To thischallenge and
LanguageJournal,87, 592-594.
E. W. (2005). Leavingno foreignlanguageteachGlisan,
I
of
the
that
add
sense
my
promise
opportunity,
ers behind: A grassrootsresponse. ModernLanitwilllinksecond language researchto the much
guageJournal,89, 268-272.
largerprojectoflanguageresearchin general,the
kindofresearchthatmultilingualsocietiesexpect
Halliday,M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based
of us. Such an encompassingviewshould enable
theoryof learning.Linguisticsand Education,5,
93-116.
our fieldto become wholeand to providethebasis
for an encompassinglanguage education policy
Halliday,M. A. K. (1999). Grammarand the construction of educational knowledge.In R. Berry,B.
on both sides of theAtlantic,movingforwardthe

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:16:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

685

Perspectives

Ortega,L. (2005a).Forwhatand forwhomis our relensin insearch?The ethicalas transformative

structed
SLA.Modern
89,427Language
Kong,China:LanguageCentre,The HongKong
Journal,
443.
ofScience& Technology
and DepartUniversity
and
mentofEnglish,
Ortega,L. (2005b). Methodology,
epistemology,
LingnanUniversity.
ethicsin instructed
SLA research:An introducofproHammadouSullivan,J.
(2006).The importance
tion.Modern
89,317-327.
Language
Journal,
gramevaluationin collegiateforeignlanguage
K. (2003).Implications
oflanguageeducation
Phillips,J.
programs.ModernLanguageJournal,90, 590-593.
thein schoolsand univerLantolf,
policiesforlanguagestudy
J.P.,& Thorne,S. L. (2006). Sociocultural
sities.Modern
87,579-586.
Language
oryand thegenesisofsecondlanguagedevelopment.
Journal,
M.J. (2004). Thelanguageofschooling:
Press.
Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Schleppegrell,
and conA functional
Lo Bianco,J.(2004). A sitefordebate,negotiation,
Mahwah,NJ:
linguistics
perspective.
in
Australia.
Lawrence
Erlbaum.
testofnationalidentity:
Languagepolicy
E. (2001). Thepower
A critical
France:CouncilofEurope.
Shohamy,
oftests:
perspecStrasbourg,
tiveon theusesoflanguage
tests.
NewYork:LongO'Connell,M. E., & Norwood,
J.L. (Eds.). (2007).Naeducationand
man.
tionalResearchCouncil.International
inthe21stcenStandards
forforeign
future.
languagelearning
foreignlanguages:KeystosecuringAmerica's
National
Standards
in
LanCommittee
to reviewtheTitleVI and Fulbright-Hays
(2006).
tury
Foreign
DC:
International
EducationPrograms.
(3rdrev.ed.). Lawrence,
Washington,
guageEducation
Project
KS:AllenPress.
Press.
NationalAcademies
K.Hyland,
anal& M.Lam(Eds.),Language
Asker,
and pedagogy(pp. 70-87). Hong
ysis,description,

Forthcomingin Perspectives,
MLJ92, 2 (2008)
CollegiateForeignLanguage Departments:
Transforming
A Proposal
readers in the United Statesare probablyaware thatin May 2007 the Modern Language
Perspectives
Association(MLA), the largestscholarlyorganizationforlanguages and literaturesin NorthAmerica,
released a documententitled"ForeignLanguages and HigherEducation: New Structuresfor
officially
a Changed World."As the introductory
commentsto thatreportstate,an ad hoc committeehad been
charged by the organization'sExecutiveCouncil "withexaminingthe currentlanguage crisisthathas
occurred as a resultof 9/11 and withconsideringthe effectsof thiscrisison the teachingof foreign
languagesin collegesand universities."
I am delightedthatMaryLouise PrattofNewYorkUniversity
and all membersofthead hoc committee
offerreflectionson the keyrecommendationsand the intellectualand practicalgoals theyenvisaged
withtheirwork.As befitsthe potentiallycontentiousand, in anycase, far-reaching
proposals,responses
willcome fromverydifferent
positionsin highereducationforeignlanguage education.They include
reflectionsby Gilles Bousquet, a formerdepartmentchair at the Universityof Wisconsin-Madison
and now Dean of InternationalStudies and Director of the InternationalInstitute,and those of a
ofArizona.Anotherdepartmentchair
presentdepartmenthead, MalcolmCompitello,at theUniversity
whohas been muchengagedin thekindof
perspectivecomesfromPeterPfeiffer,
GeorgetownUniversity,
curricularreformthereportseemsto be advocating.But responsesare also providedbymembersofthe
professionwho are closerto the beginningof theircareers,twograduatestudents,RobertSchechtman
and JulieKoser,both at the University
of California,Berkeley;and Chad Wellmon,at the University
of
While
all
of
these
scholars
have
a
commitment
to
the
mission
Virginia.
clearly
strong
language teaching
of theirdepartments,mostwere originallytrainedin literatureand culturalstudies.By contrast,Cindy
in St. Louis is explicitlychargedin her institution
Brantmeierat WashingtonUniversity
withlanguage
programcoordinationofSpanish.A similarlanguage teachingand learningthrustalso definesthework
in a somewhatunusual facultyrole,
ofYuemingYu,who teachesChinese at CarnegieMellon University
as
a
tenured
Associate
Professor.
namely
Teaching
Finally,
Jane Harper,Vice PresidentforTeachingand
at
the
Tarrant
in
the
Learning
CountyCommunityColleges
greaterDallas-FortWortharea, providesyet
anotherviewpoint,thatof thejunior colleges,increasingly
appreciatedforthe pivotalrole theyplayin
education.
societyto assureaccess to a highereducationto manywho could otherwiseill affordtertiary
I am certain that readers will find much in these commentariesto stimulatetheirthinkingand,
theiractionsin the matter.
perhapsand crucially,

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:16:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions