Content uploaded by Adrian Lundberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adrian Lundberg on Sep 12, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Multilingual educational language policies
in Switzerland and Sweden
A meta-analysis
Adrian Lundberg
Malmö University
Multilingualism represents a global challenge and a goal of education in
European states. is meta-analysis examines how research studies on mul-
tilingual educational policy documents on a macro-level (national/regional)
in Sweden and Switzerland dier in terms of foci and how the discourses in
the articles represent dierent treatments of multilingual educational lan-
guage policies. ese countries were selected because of their similarities
regarding the societal context, but they are dierent in regard to language
policy issues and political formation. e articles were systematically identi-
ed via two databases, ERIC and LLBA, and in order to examine the latest
developments aer the introduction of a new language act in Sweden and
the harmonization of public education in Switzerland in 2009, only research
articles published between 2009 and 2016 were included. e results of the
study suggest that a monolingual habitus exists in the Swedish nation state
context compared to a more pluralistic approach in Switzerland. e most
noteworthy result is the diverging denitions of multilingualism and
plurilingual students and how this understanding inuences the treatment of
educational policies in these two linguistically and culturally superdiverse
European countries.
Keywords: language policy, European Union, multilingualism,
plurilingualism, Sweden, Switzerland, educational language policy,
curriculum
In 2009, Sweden introduced a new Language Act (2009, p.600) to protect the
Swedish language by making it the ocial principal language in the country. e
Act’s dierent provisions to ensure that an individual is given access to language
was aimed at nding strategies for balanced multilingualism. In the same year,
Switzerland agreed on the harmonization of compulsory education, including the
introduction of a new language curriculum based on multilingualism. e sys-
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00005.lun |Published online: 24 April 2018
Language Problems and Language Planning 42:1 (2018), pp. 45–69. issn 0272-2690 |e‑issn 1569-9889
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license.
tematic meta-analysis oered in this article therefore synthesizes research results
on multilingual educational language policies from the two countries in order to
identify and describe the predominant research topics during the implementation
process in the years aer the policy changed.
As Daryai-Hansen et al. (2015, p.110) note, “while the idea of plurilingual
competence is well accepted in research on language education and promoted in
language policies, it is not established in education in general.” A related conclu-
sion is arrived at by Gogolin and Duarte (2013, p.6) who state that the notion “of
a ‘language’ as a homogeneous and clearly dened or denable object, which can
be linked to a likewise identiable ‘people’ […] may no longer be reected in state
of the art research on language phenomena.” However, it prevails in the politi-
cal sphere, educational practice, and as a common belief in European societies. In
contrast to this ideology, sociolinguistic research shows that hundreds of millions
use two or more languages without any particular diculties, and “multilingual-
ism is increasingly frequently seen as an emblem of identity – an essential compo-
nent of European culture” (Lüdi & Py, 2009, p.156). According to Jessner (2008,
p.27), “e application of monolingual norms to multilingual contexts is still pre-
dominant, despite the eorts of the European Union to foster plurilingualism.”
Gogolin’s hypothesis concerning the teachers’ monolingual orientation in Euro-
pean schools “is an intrinsic element of their professional ‘habitus’ as members
of the nation state school system” (2013, p.42). She uses the term ‘monolingual
habitus’ as “the deep-seated habit of assuming monolingualism as the norm in a
nation” (2013, p.41). As a consequence, for these rather traditional classrooms,
language subjects are oen kept totally apart. Teachers with a monolingual habi-
tus would therefore “keep knowledge about other languages, including the L1 [the
students’ rst language], out of the classroom in order not to confuse students”
(Jessner, 2008, p.39). Also, according to Busch (2011, p.545), “Most of the Euro-
pean education systems are still under the heavy inuence of monolingual and
homoglossic ideologies.” While education systems continue to apply the construct
of the monolingual habitus “displaying monolingual self conceptions in their con-
stitutions, structures and practical arrangements” (Gogolin & Duarte, 2013, p.1),
we live in a superdiverse society (Vertovec, 2007). e large number of refugees
making their way to Europe since 2015 is only the latest development of a process
that has already been in existence for several decades. Moreover, multiculturalism
and multilingualism in Europe is by no means limited to refugees but “is aected
by the now ubiquitous process of economic globalization and transnational activ-
ities of population mobility, wars, activism, and networking and communication
technologies” (Lo Bianco & Bal, 2016, pp.4–5).
By synthesizing research results on multilingual educational policy docu-
ments on a macro-level (national/regional) in the nation states of Sweden and
46 Adrian Lundberg
federalist Switzerland, it is possible to contrast the predominant foci and identify
the similarities and dierences of these countries. e comparison is relevant,
as members of the Swiss educational arena are expected to be less guided by a
monolingual habitus due to the country’s political and multilingual origins. While
Switzerland and Sweden are dierent in terms of their political organization and
language policy issues, their societal contexts are similar, with 8 to respectively
10 million inhabitants and around 200 languages used on a daily basis by many
immigrants in both countries. Also, their Life Satisfaction Index by the OECD’s
Better Life Index, which measures the well-being of societies is on a comparable
level with 7.3 for Sweden and 7.6 for Switzerland out of 10 (OECD, 2017).
e aims of this meta-analysis are to identify and describe published research
results on multilingual educational policy documents and how the ndings dier
between Switzerland and Sweden regarding the treatment of these policy docu-
ments. Two research questions have been formulated in order to achieve these
aims:
1. What are the predominant foci in research results on Swedish and Swiss mul-
tilingual educational policy documents?
2. Do these ndings show a rather monolingual or pluralistic approach in the
treatment of current educational language policies?
Sucient information about the sociolinguistic context of the two countries and
the topic of multilingualism and multiculturalism in Europe provides a clear
understanding of the situation in the two selected countries. Aer the section on
the methodology used in this article, the results of the studies are discussed. us,
this article seeks to contribute to the understanding of dierent educational policy
contexts connected to multicultural and multilinguistic issues.
Sociolinguistic and policy context
In terms of research on multilingual education, Busch (2011) describes two shi-
ing paradigms in Europe. First, a more sociolinguistic approach has been taken
into consideration, which views schools from the perspective of a historical-crit-
ical analysis by emphasizing the school’s social functions, criticizing its monolin-
gual habitus, and advocating for an approach that relates teaching and learning
practices to the specic social contexts. Moreover, the growing interest in bilin-
gual or multilingual situations inuences this. Second, in a more speaker-centered
perspective, languages are no longer regarded as segmented, autonomous entities
but rather, as holistic conceptions of plurilingual competences which are multiple,
dynamic, integrated, contextualized, and individualized is used (Lüdi & Py, 2009).
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 47
us, access to dierent forms of multilingual education is increasingly seen as a
necessary right for all learners, as it represents a resource on both the individual
and societal levels (Lo Bianco, 2001).
is meta-analysis compares the development of the adjustments in European
Union (EU) educational language policy based on the shis described above in
two European countries: Sweden, a EU member state since 1995, and Switzerland,
one of the few countries in Western Europe that is not a member of the Euro-
pean Union but nevertheless adapts EU language policy recommendations like
the “mother tongue plus 2” objective.
During the 2002 European Council in Barcelona, the Heads of State or Gov-
ernment of the EU called for at least two foreign languages to be taught from a
very early age (European Commission, 2005). is eventually resulted in the pol-
icy objective, “Mother tongue plus two other languages,” already described in the
European Commission’s action plan (European Commission, 2004). is usually
means that English is one of the two other languages to be learned if English is not
the mother tongue. For immigrants, the European Commission (2009) suggests
that “Non-native speakers should therefore include the host-country language in
their ‘one-plus-two’ combination.”
Some noteworthy dierences between Sweden and Switzerland are to be
found in the two countries’ political organization and their language history
(including ideologies and policies). Given that “states typically license, authorize,
fund, or certify educational practices” (Lo Bianco, 2008), dierences in the politi-
cal formation of states inuence their educational systems and curricula. History
in general “occupies an important position in most work in language policy
and planning, whether at the micro-level of interpersonal communication or the
macro-level of state formation” (Ricento, 2006, p.129). From a historical-struc-
tural standpoint in language policy and planning, where “historical processes are
linked with language policies that contribute to (or undermine) language-related
hierarchies” (Tollefson, 2015, p.141), it is therefore inevitable to take a closer look
at the two countries’ history and central concepts in a historical-structural analy-
sis, such as power and hierarchy in the two selected contexts.
Sweden
Because Swedish is ocially used by the Church and the State, Sweden appears
to be unproblematically monolingual (Boyd, 2011). As Hult (2004, p.181) writes,
the country “might best be characterized as a multilingual polity with a monolin-
gual image.” He continues, stating that “the Swedish language has been, and still is,
central in shaping what it means to be Swedish.” is is a characteristic trademark
of nation states that, according to Busch (2011, p.545), remain the major players
48 Adrian Lundberg
in language and education policy. While trying to adapt education plans to the
European requirements of multilingual education, the political discourse in many
countries “foregrounds prociency in the ocial national language(s) as exclusive
means and as the proof of successful ‘integration’ into ‘majority culture’.” In respect
to Sweden, Milani (2007) claims that a nation state experiencing an increased lin-
guistic heterogeneity will also experience conicting language ideologies as the
people construct a new sociolinguistic landscape.
According to Andersson and Lundström (2010), the percentage of people who
live in Sweden but were born outside of Sweden rose from about 11% in the year
2000 to about 14% in 2008. In 2015, the number had reached 17% (Statistics Swe-
den, 2015). However, societal multilingualism is not only determined by the num-
ber of people immigrating to a country but also by the number of people born
where the national language is not their mother tongue. According to Statistics
Sweden, by 2015, 22.2% of the inhabitants in Sweden had a foreign background.1
is heterogeneity has also had an impact on the education system and policy:
Society itself has changed rather dramatically during the last 10 years. Sweden is
no longer a homogenate society with small dierences between various groups
and classes. Sweden is now a multicultural society, and class dierences are
increasing. ese dierences tend to eect variations within the education sys-
tem. Variations or inequalities […] in the education system are not necessarily
eects of education reform; they could be the result of societal change.
(Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2002, p.318)
Sweden is no exception in terms of having a history of multilingualism, especially
when one considers that the Sami and Finnish-speaking minorities have inhabited
Sweden for a long time. If the Swedish empire of the late seventeenth century is
taken into consideration, 14 dierent languages and many varieties show proof of
a multilingual nation even then (Winsa, 2005). Nevertheless, the Swedish-speak-
ing majority had never felt challenged in a way that language policy had to be
made more overt until the 1990s, when the Swedish Language Council initiated
the endeavor of developing a new language act. ese shis in Swedish language
policy are well-described by Boyd and Huss (2001), who mainly focus on the
relation of the Swedish language to English and other minority languages. Also,
according to the recent analysis by Halonen, Ihalainen, and Saarinen (2015), given
the presumed unproblematic monolingual nature of Sweden, language policy has
become explicitly problematized at the governmental level only since the begin-
ning of the twenty-rst century.
1. People of foreign background are per denition born abroad or born in Sweden to two par-
ents born abroad.
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 49
Faced with the recognition of Swedish as an ocial and working language of
EU institutions due to the accession of Sweden to the EU in 1995, and coupled
with rising immigration and a further diversication of the linguistic landscape,
an ambitious policy report entitled “Mål i mun” (SOU, 2002) was published by
the parliamentary Committee on the Swedish Language. e document consists
of nearly six hundred pages of proposals related to the promotion of the Swedish
language. Nevertheless, it was only in the Language Act of 2009, in accordance
with the language planning goals that were adopted in 20052("Bästa språket – en
samlad svensk språkpolitik," 2005/06:2), that Swedish was ocially dened as the
‘main language’ of Swedish society as well as the language of administration. e
new language law was the answer to an imbalance in terms of language rights. In
1999, Sweden ratied the Council of Europe Framework convention for the Pro-
tection of National Minorities and the European Charter of Regional and Minor-
ity Languages, by which Finnish, Sámi, Meänkieli, the Romani chib, and Yiddish
maintained their status as minority languages (Lindberg, 2007). is meant that
for some years, in contrast to the ve minority languages, Swedish itself had no
legally recognized status. While the minority languages’ ocial status (see also
Hult, 2004; Hyltenstam & Milani, 2005) was conrmed, the Language Act was
mainly about securing the development of Swedish, its constant use in interna-
tional contexts, and the right of every inhabitant of the country to have access to
learning the language (Halonen et al., 2015). is last aim can be viewed as an
attempt at implementing the EU goal of the mastery of three languages (mother
tongue plus two) mentioned earlier in this article (Norrby, 2008).
A special focus was placed on the relationship between Swedish and English
in addition to the societal multilingualism due to almost 200 ‘immigrant’ minority
languages with no ocial status, although their speech communities far out-
number at least four of the ve ocial minority languages. is is especially the
case with English,3which is widespread in many societal domains like culture,
higher education, and internationally oriented companies and seen as a threat to
Swedish. e following quotation is taken from the English version of the website
of the Language Council of Sweden (Institutet för språk och folkminne, 2016):
2. ere are four national language planning goals:
1. Swedish shall be the principal language of Sweden.
2. Swedish shall be a complete language in the sense that it shall function as a vehicle of com-
munication in all areas of society.
3. Swedish in ocial and public use shall be correct but also simple and easy to understand.
4. Everyone has the right to languages – to Swedish, their mother tongue and foreign languages.
3. According to estimates, 75% of the Swedish adult population is able to read an English news-
paper or manage an ordinary conversation (Josephson, 2003).
50 Adrian Lundberg
During the last decades, English has started to compete with Swedish in a grow-
ing number of elds in Swedish society – in large, international companies, in the
educational system and in the media industry. is poses a threat to democratic
values as many Swedes have insucient knowledge of English.
However, viewing English as a threat is only true for a limited circle of language
professionals. English enjoys a good reputation with the rest of the population,
while immigrant languages are regarded with suspicion and considered a threat
to the Swedish language (Lindberg, 2007). According to Hyltenstam (1999), the
strong presence of English in high-status domains might create a diglossic situa-
tion with Swedish being the low-status variant. People with limited or no English
prociency could be excluded from important and powerful social discussions
and decisions. However, other experts claim that no research conrms a domain-
by-domain language shi (Boyd & Dahl, 2006). Sundberg (2013, p.212) states that
the policy “attempts to ‘protect’ the Swedish language in a situation in which Eng-
lish is becoming too powerful in certain areas while at the same time recognizing
its importance and supporting a balanced bilingualism by promoting parallel pro-
ciencies in the two languages.” Generally, these contrasting opinions are inter-
esting when bearing in mind Tollefson’s (2006, p.42) comparison of traditional
research and a critical approach in language policy research. He states that “tra-
ditional research […] is characterized by the assumption that language policies
are usually adopted to solve problems of communication in multilingual settings
and to increase social and economic opportunities for linguistic minorities” while
“a critical approach acknowledges that policies oen create and sustain various
forms of social inequality, and that policy-makers usually promote the interests of
dominant social groups.”
According to Norrby (2008, p.73), the result of the most recent Swedish lan-
guage politics is “societal monolingualism with Swedish being used for inter-
action in public life, whereas multiculturalism and multilingualism remain a
question for the individual to pursue in private life.” is indicates that in order
to achieve the language policy objective of the European Union (mother tongue
plus two), the majority population whose rst language is Swedish has to do more
than expected by the Swedish Language Act. Winsa (2005, p.320) calls this devel-
opment an assimilation policy with a nationalistic attitude, which is “a natural
part of the Swedish monolingual identity, not one derived from a long tradition
of language planning.” In contrast to Winsa’s statement, Hyltenstam, Axelsson,
and Lindberg (2012) mention the tension in society between a pluralist ideology,
established at the central political level since the 1960s (as is evinced by political
documents) and an assimilationist perspective, which is strong in large segments
of the population.
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 51
Switzerland
In contrast to the Swedish case, Switzerland is known as the multilingual country
par excellence. According to Secretary General Schwab of the Federal Assembly
of the Swiss Confederation (2014), “plurilingualism is an integral part of Switzer-
land’s identity and is a key element of the national culture. It is a result of the way
in which the Confederation has developed historically.” However, due to the fed-
eralist system of this central European country, or to use Kymlicka’s (2011) term,
“multination federalism,”4one can be cautious about the Swiss individual plurilin-
gualism. Switzerland is used as an example of multiple, monolingually oriented
school systems in a state with a multilingual composition (Busch, 2011) due to the
strong territorial autonomy of the various linguistic groups. erefore, in contrast
to the Swedish nation state, it is common for Switzerland not to have a national
curriculum.
Currently, around 33% of the people living in Switzerland are not Swiss citi-
zens (Bundesamt für Statistik, 2016b). is rather high percentage is the result of
several factors: the bilateral agreement on the free movement of persons between
the European Union and Switzerland, Switzerland’s restrictive immigration policy,
and the high birth rate and low death rate of the non-Swiss population. In a pre-
vious press release (Bundesamt für Statistik, 2015), it is stated that about a h of
the foreign population in Switzerland was born in Switzerland, and half of those
who were born abroad have been living in Switzerland for more than 10 years.
According to the latest statistics, 60% of all people living in Switzerland use5
more than one language at least once per week. Furthermore, 40% of all people
living in Switzerland use English at least once per week (Bundesamt für Statistik,
2016a). Compared to the long history of a plurilingual and pluricultural aggrega-
tion of states known as cantons, plurilingualism was introduced rather late into
the Federal Constitution of 1848. Due to immigration and professional mobility,
the diversity of languages in Switzerland has greatly increased.
In order to coordinate and optimize language teaching and learning in com-
pulsory education, the Swiss conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education
(EDK, Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektion) adopted a
national strategy of language teaching (EDK, 2004) primarily consisting of several
general objectives, including the following:
4. Kymlicka’s model of multinational federalism has two key features: (1) minority groups
form local majorities and (2) minority groups have a distinct language which is typically an o-
cial state language.
5. Productively or receptively.
52 Adrian Lundberg
– e reinforcement of the language of schooling
– e compulsory study of two foreign languages6at primary school level and
of another (national) language as an option from the ninth school year
– e development of the pupils’ skills in their rst language (if dierent from
the language of schooling)
In 2007, a new Federal act (Sprachengesetz, 2007) aimed at promoting plurilin-
gualism was introduced, and in 2010, a new article in the Federal Constitution
of the Swiss Confederation (Schweizerische Eidgenossenscha, 1999 (2016)) went
into eect stating the following:
1. e ocial languages of the Confederation are German, French, and Italian.
Romansh is also an ocial language of the Confederation when communicat-
ing with persons who speak Romansh.
2. e Cantons shall decide on their ocial languages. In order to preserve
harmony between linguistic communities, the Cantons shall respect the tra-
ditional territorial distribution of languages and take into account the indige-
nous linguistic minorities.
3. e Confederation and the Cantons shall encourage understanding and
exchange between the linguistic communities.
4. e Confederation shall support the plurilingual Cantons in the fulllment of
their special duties.
5. e Confederation shall support measures by the Cantons of Graubünden
and Ticino to preserve and promote the Romansh and Italian languages.
In 2009, an agreement on the harmonization of compulsory education (EDK,
2007) between the cantons came into eect. is agreement is relevant to the topic
because it asked for new multilingual educational policy documents covering the
2004 national strategy for language teaching and the new Federal act mentioned
above. Due to the federalist nature of the country, educational curricula for for-
eign language instruction are a matter of the cantons and their aliation to a
linguistic region. erefore, Switzerland currently knows three curricula, one for
each large linguistic area: Le plan d’études romand,Lehrplan 21, and Il piano di
studio per la scuola dell’obbligo ticinese. e curriculum for the German speaking
region of Switzerland consisted of dierent project curricula during the imple-
mentation period, resulting in foreign languages being taught in dierent orders
in the Germanic area of the country, contradicting the intention of harmonization
in educational policy.
6. In the Swiss educational system, all languages, including ocial national languages, are
termed “foreign languages” if they are not the same as the schooling language of the corre-
sponding region.
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 53
Methodology
Retrieval of studies
To compile the literature for the systematic review, a comprehensive search for rel-
evant articles was conducted, and as suggested by certain authors (see Hart, 1998;
Machi, 2012), the articles were selected utilizing in a multiple step process. Many
resources were accessed in order to locate appropriate information to substantiate
this research study. e databases that were accessed for full-text resources ranged
from Summon (the Malmö University library database/search engine applica-
tion) to education databases such as the Education Research Information Center
(ERIC) via EBSCO and the Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstract database
(LLBA). In these online journal databases, the keywords “language policy” or
“language planning” in combination with the respective country, “Sweden” or
“Switzerland,” were searched. e results provided a rich supply of literature that
enabled reaching saturation for the meta-analysis. Because this study focuses on
the latest developments in multilingual educational language policy, the results
were narrowed down by only looking at research results between 2009–2016. e
starting year of this time frame lter seemed tting due to the introduction of the
Language Act in Sweden and the agreement on the harmonization of compulsory
education in Switzerland, which both took place in 2009.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Before the time frame lter was applied, a total of 339 hits for the Swedish context
and 431 hits for the Swiss context were identied. e application of the lter sub-
stantially reduced the results to 99 hits for the Swedish context and 74 hits for the
Swiss context. e abstracts of all the articles in these results were read and includ-
ing and excluding factors were applied.
Inclusion Criteria
1. e study was published between 2009 and 2016.
2. e study focused on language policy and/or planning.
3. e study was conducted in a mainstream mandatory educational setting in
order to include a wide range of student performances.
4. e study focused either on Switzerland or Sweden.
Exclusion Criteria
1. e study was published earlier than 2009.
2. e study addressed questions in non-educational settings.
54 Adrian Lundberg
3. e study focused on issues regarding sign language with deaf pupils. Unfor-
tunately, this research review is unable to cover the vast eld of special educa-
tion.
4. e study focused on multilingual policies in higher education.
5. e study did not address issues in Sweden or Switzerland.
Table 1. Search results for the Swedish context
Database Keywords Filter Hits
ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)
via EBSCOhost
Sweden, language
policy
–
2009–2016
40
17
ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)
via EBSCOhost
Sweden, language
planning
–
2009–2016
31
10
LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstract) Sweden, language
policy
–
2009–2016
147
48
LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstract) Sweden, language
planning
–
2009–2016
121
24
Table 2. Search results for the Swiss context
Database Keywords Filter Hits
ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)
via EBSCOhost
Switzerland, language
policy
–
2009–2016
28
5
ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)
via EBSCOhost
Switzerland, language
planning
–
2009–2016
26
4
LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior
Abstract)
Switzerland, language
policy
–
2009–2016
177
34
LLBA (Linguistics and Language Behavior
Abstract)
Switzerland, language
planning
–
2009–2016
200
31
e identied articles were exported and organized in the reference system
program, EndNote. In order to analyze the articles, they were illustrated in a
chart containing information about the research aim and questions, the theoreti-
cal framework, and the methodology for each study. Moreover, the results of the
studies were noted. To answer the second research question of the meta-analysis
and make visible similarities and dierences in Swiss and Swedish research results,
the identied studies were then analyzed according to the predominant topics dis-
cussed in the articles.
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 55
Results
is study aims to illustrate and compare the predominant foci in research results
on Swiss and Swedish educational language policy. As a rst step, the identied
articles from both contexts are listed below.
Identied articles
For the Swedish context, a total of nine articles t the inclusion criteria and were
selected for this meta-analysis:
– Cabau (2009a). e Irresistible Rise and Hegemony of a Linguistic Fortress:
English Teaching in Sweden.
– Cabau (2009b). Language-in-Education Policy and Planning in Sweden.
– Wedin (2010). A restricted curriculum for second language learners – a self-
fullling teacher strategy?
– Hult (2012). English as a Transcultural Language in Swedish Policy and Prac-
tice.
– olin (2012). If you get double the time: Teaching practices in the “Swedish/
English” language subject option in Swedish nine-year compulsory schooling.
– Björklund, Björklund, and Sjöholm (2013). Multilingual Policies and Multi-
lingual Education in the Nordic Countries.
– Bolton and Meierkord (2013). English in contemporary Sweden.
– Amir and Musk (2014). Pupils doing Language Policy: Micro-interactional
insights from the English as a foreign language classroom.
– Cabau (2014). Minority Language Education Policy and Planning in Sweden.
Four articles matched all the inclusion criteria for the Swiss context and were thus
selected for this meta-analysis.
– Stotz, Bossart, and Fischli (2009). Learning Languages at School in the Inter-
play of Society and Identity.
– Haenni Hoti (2009). Research Results on Factors Inuencing Elementary
School Students’ English Skill, with Special Attention to Immigration Back-
ground.
– Heinzmann (2010). Has the Introduction of “Early English” in Primary
School Had an Inuence on Primary School Students’ Motivation to Learn
French?
– Daryai-Hansen et al. (2015). Pluralistic approaches to languages in the cur-
riculum: the case of French-speaking Switzerland, Spain and Austria.
56 Adrian Lundberg
While all the articles for the Swedish context were written in English, three out
of four for the Swiss context were published in German, indicating a smaller tar-
get group for their research results. An interesting dierence between the two
countries’ research results is the missing focus on national language policy and
approach to language learning in Switzerland. More than half of the Swedish
research projects included a discussion on this topic. A probable explanation for
this characteristic could be the introduction of the new Swedish Language Act in
2009, which according to Bolton and Meierkord (2013, p.111), is the culmination
of “successive moves towards nationally-oriented language polices [motivated] by
covert concerns about immigration and the changing ethnic prole of Swedish
society.” A similar discussion in Switzerland could not be identied.
Table 3. Research focus*of the included studies
Research focus Sweden Switzerland
National language policy 5 0
Curriculum/syllabus 5 2
Role of the teachers 1 1
Role of the pupils 1 2
* Due to studies where there were more than one research focus identied, the total number of foci
are greater than the number studies (N=13) included in the meta-analysis.
With regard to content, four dierent topics could be identied for the com-
parison of the Swiss and the Swedish context. First, the articles show dierent
degrees of awareness of plurilingual pupils. en the subject of the second foreign
language is greatly discussed in several articles. Moreover, the English language
and its role in society and the educational arena can be classied as an important
topic for this meta-analysis. Last, but not least, is the gap between language policy
and language planning – a common topic found in the results for Swiss and
Swedish educational policy research. ese four topics provide the foundation to
answer the second research question about a possible monolingual or pluralistic
approach in the treatment of educational language policies.
Awareness of plurilingualism
Björklund et al. (2013, p.12) report that the school curricula in most Nordic coun-
tries are based on monolingual assumptions. As a consequence of this “monolin-
gual and – cultural bias,” language students tend to be treated from the perspective
of the language of the school rather than from the perspective of their individ-
ual plurilingualism. is research result is much in line with Goglin’s concept of
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 57
the monolingual habitus mentioned earlier and stands in conict with ecologi-
cal/holistic theories of language teaching that are, for instance, an integrated part
of Swiss curricula, as Daryai-Hansen et al. (2015) show. eir aim is to illustrate
and discuss how the development of plurilingual competences is implemented in
some European countries, including French-speaking Switzerland with its new
curriculum. To do so, the authors analyzed the curriculum according the Frame-
work of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures FREPA
(Candelier et al., 2012), and therefore, in terms of which languages7and pluralis-
tic approaches8that were integrated and to what extent the transversal dimension
of learning to learn is part of the curriculum. Moreover, they discuss barriers and
challenges to overcome for plurilingualism to become the standard for all pupils.
As Daryai-Hansen et al. (2015, p.113) found out, in the new curriculum for
compulsory education in French-speaking Switzerland, the Plan d’études romand,
all languages are grouped in one domain, so as to aim at the “integrated devel-
opment of languages, French as the language of schooling, and German (L2) and
English (L3) as foreign languages” (CIIP, 2010) and to foster “the development of a
plurilingual repertoire, in which all linguistic competences are included – L1, L2,
L3 – and other languages, such as the rst languages of bi- or trilingual students
in particular, can nd their place.” Daryai-Hansen and her colleagues therefore
conclude that the curriculum “is consistent with the concept of plurilingualism as
promoted by the Council of Europe” (p.113).
Although the results by Björklund et al. (2013) might point to a lack of aware-
ness of plurilingual pupils in the Swedish context, other research results show the
opposite. However, this awareness might lead to a restricted curriculum for sec-
ond-language learners as examined by Wedin (2010). She studies the relations
between second language development and subject learning among L2 learners by
conducting a longitudinal study (3.5 years) in two primary school classes. Wedin
comes to the conclusion that L2 learners are oen oered a restricted curriculum
with low-demanding tasks. Creating this safety zone for students is the equivalent
of a self-fullling prophecy, and therefore, mean limited opportunities for school
success. According to Wedin, it is crucial that all students (L1 and L2 students) are
“involved in interactions using both the specic and the reexive registers early
on in schooling to enable them to meet the demands of later years of schooling”
(2010, p.181). Wedin concludes with a demand for a more reexive and critical
7. Language of schooling, regional, minority and migration languages, modern and classic for-
eign languages or linguistic varieties, registers, styles, and genres.
8. Integrated didactic approach, intercomprehension, Éveil aux langues/Awakening to lan-
guages approach
58 Adrian Lundberg
approach by teachers in how language is used in the classrooms and the possibility
to use other languages mastered by students in the class as a resource.
e same negative misconception of pupils’ plurilingualism can also be found
in the Swiss context and is touched upon in the study by Haenni Hoti (2009).
e rst aspect of her study analyzes the eectiveness of learning an L2 (English)
and an L3 (French) in primary school, which is a direct consequence of the har-
monization agreement and its new curriculum. e second aspect examines the
inuence of the pupils’ migratory background and (bi)national identication. e
results of the study are multifaceted and show, among other things, that binational
and bicultural identication seems to be a marker for signicant better results.
erefore, the author suggests uncoupling binationality and overstraining, and
instead, focus on individualizing and dierentiating in the classroom.
Another study from the Swiss context advocates generalizing less about the
attitude towards pupils’ plurilingualism in one political country. e two case
studies described in the article by Stotz et al. (2009) show dierent stereotypes
of plurilinguals held by teachers in dierent societal contexts. e notion of the
monolingual habitus cannot only be based on the political format of the country,
but also the local circumstances. is result is of special interest as the two con-
texts are both located in the same linguistic area of Switzerland.
In addition, the fourth article for the Swiss context shows a high awareness of
plurilingualism, mentioning the curriculum’s didactics of multilingualism and its
national educational objective of functional plurilingualism for all pupils. A study
by Heinzmann (2010) investigates the possible motivational eects of the learn-
ing of rst foreign language (in this case, English) on the learning of the second
foreign language (French). She concludes that English teachers may not yet be
adequately aware of how much their focus on multilingualism and other cultures
might positively inuence the further study of the foreign languages of all pupils.
ird language acquisition
e teaching and learning of a third language is highly prominent in both policy
contexts under scrutiny. However, their orientation could not be more diverse.
While Swiss research focuses on the eectiveness of the rst foreign language
on the second foreign language (Haenni Hoti, 2009; Heinzmann, 2010) and dis-
cusses the newly mandatory subject of the second foreign language for all pupils9
as an addition to a more pluralistic teaching and learning (Daryai-Hansen et al.,
9. Prior to the new curriculum, learning a second foreign language was only mandatory for
the stronger pupils.
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 59
2015; Stotz et al., 2009), the concept of the freedom of choice is ubiquitous in the
Swedish results.
In 1992, a Swedish government bill discussed the students’ responsibility to
choose a language study option. is neoliberal shi from state responsibility
to individual responsibility (Cabau, 2009b, p.386) was established when a new
curriculum was introduced two years later and did not undergo a modication
aer the Language Act of 2009 in the curriculum introduced in 2011. As olin
(2012, p.72) describes it in detail, instead of choosing an additional language like
French, Spanish, or German and thereby fullling the European Union’s objective
of ‘mother tongue plus two,’ “a great many students did not want to or could not
study an additional language.” However, they did opt for more lessons in Swedish,
Swedish as a Second Language, English, or their mother tongue.
In her articles, Cabau (2009a, 2009b, 2014) describes the language option as
a crisis for second language10 and mother tongue teachers because the interest in
learning these languages is declining due to the general public’s conviction that it
is too demanding, too time-consuming, and not really necessary to be procient
in another language than Swedish (for national issues) and English (for interna-
tional issues).
e topic of third language acquisition is closely linked to the position of the
English language in the two countries.
English
ree of nine articles for the Swedish context mainly focus on the position of Eng-
lish. Hult (2012) investigates how discourses about English and multilingualism
are framed in Swedish national educational policy and how educators make sense
of these discourses. He employs an ethnographic and discourse analytic approach
when analyzing the text of Sweden’s national syllabi for language education as well
as the interpretations of pre-service English language teachers. e data analysis
is guided by the methodology of nexus analysis, connecting the languages pol-
icy texts and the individuals who negotiate policy discourses through their lived
experiences as educators implanting policy in practice. Hult comes to the con-
clusion that the status of the English language in Sweden is still undergoing a
dynamic process of transculturation in which the local position of English contin-
ues to be negotiated. According to his study, English is considered neither a sec-
ond nor a foreign language in Sweden, but rather a transcultural language. Clearly,
in Swedish policy texts, English is treated dierently than other modern languages
10. In this case, the term second language includes the learning of all foreign languages.
60 Adrian Lundberg
indicating that it has a dierent position in the linguistic hierarchy (Josephson,
2004) of the Scandinavian country.
Hult’s stand on the topic is supported by Cabau (2009a, p.140), who states that
“English knowledge seems to be part of the (young) Swedes’ cultural and linguis-
tic identity.” At the same time, Cabau (2014) describes the position of English as
a hindering factor in the development of the linguistic diversity in the Swedish
school context.
As described above (2. Sociolinguistic and policy context) the position of Eng-
lish in Sweden is oen used as the explanation for the Language Act introduced
in 2009. However, Bolton and Meierkord (2013) propose an alternative explana-
tion and refer to Rojas (2005) and the new realities of a multiculturally diverse
society which are “very dierent from the earlier ideal of the Social Democratic
folkhemmet (‘e People’s Home’)”. A cross-relation to the earlier discussed indi-
vidual plurilingualism of the pupils can be made at this point.
e third article from the Swedish context focusing on English has a slightly
dierent orientation. Amir and Musk (2014, p.106) examine language policing
as the pupils’ “corrective act to rectify what they perceive as talk by others in
the ‘wrong’ medium in accordance with the normatively prescribed medium of
instruction.” Trying to construct this monolingual classroom is a sign of the
absence of a pluralistic approach to language learning.
In the Swiss context, the position of English is also lively discussed; however,
the core of the discussion is dierent. Stotz et al. (2009) focus on the adapted order
of foreign languages instructed in Swiss school due to the 2009 agreement on the
harmonization of compulsory education in Switzerland. e agreement recom-
mended French as a rst foreign language in German-speaking cantons, mainly
due to its status as an ocial language of the country; however, two German-
speaking cantons chose English. In the rst part of the article, the results of criti-
cal discourse analyses of more than 100 policy and planning documents, meeting
minutes, and media reports illustrate the legitimation of the prioritization in the
order of foreign languages taught in the region under scrutiny. Stotz et al. (2009)
report that the pillars of legitimation were transformed several times during the
implementation process, and Haenni Hoti (2009) and Heinzmann (2010) each
examine the interrelation of English and French language learning.
Discrepancy between language policy and language planning
Research results in both contexts locate a substantial discrepancy between policy
and planning. Daryai-Hansen et al. (2015) state that plurilingual competence is
not established in education in general, instead separate plurilingualism, con-
sisting of pure and separate languages is a widespread ideology in educational
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 61
practices. e main concern of the study by Cabau (2014) was the gap between
language-in-education policy and planning for minority languages in Sweden. She
investigated the various challenges facing mother tongue teaching and the impact
of the introduction of a national language policy. e conclusion of her discur-
sive contextual analysis is the mismatch of the principles of equity in education
and uniformity at compulsory Swedish schools with the objective of bilingual-
ism for minority children. She also concludes that “it is not so much the lan-
guages that need to be valued, but the richness of human resources represented in
Swedish society” (Cabau, 2014, p.422). Hence, the author demands the acknowl-
edgment of knowing a minority language outside the school arena that is in higher
education and professional development. is could solve the problem of status,
which interferes with the existing mother tongue teaching opportunities in Swe-
den, where pupils are reluctant to enroll in these courses because of the low status
of their heritage language in Swedish society.
olin (2012, p.87) uses dierent dimensions of a curriculum (Goodson,
1995) to explain the discrepancy between the curriculum and the pupils’ choices
in terms of their language study options:
e ideological curriculum with the idea that all, or almost all, students should
study an additional foreign language, the formal curriculum in which SvEn11 is
oered as an alternative without appearing as an equivalent to the foreign lan-
guages, and the understood curriculum in which SvEn is the alternative that most
students choose. Schools, students, and parents did not perceive a ‘so compul-
soriness’, as a quarter of the students do not study foreign languages.
As a nal result for this factor, it needs to be added that the actual implementation
of multilingual educational language policies is not guaranteed even with the
availability of a curriculum with a focus on interlinguistic approaches. Daryai-
Hansen et al. (2015, p.115) remind the reader that actual implementation “will
certainly take time and necessitate further training and coordination (both hori-
zontal and vertical) at a more local level.”
Conclusions
e meta-analysis clearly shows dierent approaches toward multilingual edu-
cational policy applied in Sweden and Switzerland. While the Swedish context
focuses more on specic subjects that fulll a role in the development of a mul-
11. is is the most common term for the language option of more lessons in Swedish or Eng-
lish. (olin, 2012, p.72)
62 Adrian Lundberg
tilingual repertoire, research in Switzerland applies a more holistic view of multi-
lingualism (interrelations of language subjects). is conclusion can be explained
by the dierent approaches in the curricula in the two countries. e Swiss curric-
ula all include a holistic approach toward language teaching which fosters separate
plurilingualism, whereas the Swedish one does not. erefore, it is not surprising
to see that the research results in these two contexts dier along the same line.
For a more detailed meta-analysis on this topic, curriculum and syllabi could have
been added as keywords in the search process. Based on the discussion on shi-
ing paradigms in language teaching, the Swiss context seems to be closer to the
current state of the art. Given that educators in Sweden are encouraged to inter-
pret national curricula directly (Hult, 2014), some kind of further education for
teachers or input by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate could advance their under-
standing of pluralistic approaches to language teaching.
e dierent outcomes of the research results search might, to a considerable
degree, be due to the various understanding of the terms multilingualism and
plurilingual student. ree out of four articles from the Swiss context focusing on
multilingual educational policies include all students and not only those with a
mother tongue other than that of the local language. erefore, it can be con-
cluded that students in Switzerland are considered to be plurilingual as soon as
they have gained knowledge of more than one language, disregarding whether one
is the language of a parent or the rst foreign language instructed in school. is
understanding is also portrayed in the current Swiss curriculum. In contrast, in
Sweden, discourses of plurilingual students oen refer to those children with a
migratory background and another mother tongue than Swedish thus discrim-
inating them as dierent. Generally, nding a denition of multilingualism is a
challenging task. Even among scholars, there does not appear to be any agree-
ment. While Jessner (2008, p.20) writes that the “monolingual perspective of
multilingualism is still prevalent in traditional research on language acquisition,”
this meta-analysis is able to show a stronger monolingual habitus in the Swedish
nation state perception than in Switzerland.
An intriguing aspect is the position of English in the two countries’ research
results. While the English language is present in both contexts, it receives much
more attention in Sweden. Articles by Cabau (2009b), and Hult (2012) in par-
ticular, discuss the position of English in the Swedish linguistic hierarchy and its
role as a factor in the hindrance of the development of linguistic diversity in the
Swedish educational arena. In the Swiss research results, English is only men-
tioned as a positive aspect of linguistic diversity.
e Swiss context provides pluralistic approaches in the curriculum, while the
Swedish curriculum is still based on the assumption of monolingualism as the
norm (Björklund et al., 2013). Moreover, as mentioned, the denition of plurilin-
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 63
gual students in Switzerland includes all pupils, making multilingual educational
language policy an aair of everyone. However, despite these approaches and
understandings, both countries struggle during the implementation process. It
seems as the teachers as the last social scale where policies become action (Hult,
2014) are similarly dicult to convince of state-of-art multilingual language pol-
icy in both countries, indicating an underlying language policy and planning
eect regardless of the dierences in the political and/or linguistic conditions of a
country.
In general, in is important to note that little research is internationally pub-
lished on the multilingual educational language policies of Sweden and Switzer-
land. e varying denitions of plurilingual pupils and how they inuence the
implementation of multilingual educational language policies is certainly an inter-
esting topic to examine further. us, given that the implementation process of
the new curriculum in Switzerland began only a few years ago, it is suggested that
more research be conducted in Switzerland in a few years to examine the outcome
of this new approach in language teaching.
References
Amir, A., & Musk, N. (2014). Pupils doing language policy: Micro-interactional insights from
the English as a foreign language classroom. Apples – Applied Language Studies, 8(2),
93–113.
Andersson, J., & Lundström, K.E. (2010). Arbetsmarknad och integration. Stockholm: Svenskt
Näringsliv/Sveriges Akademikers centralorganisation.
Bästa språket – en samlad svensk språkpolitik, (2005/06:2).
Björklund, M., Björklund, S., & Sjöholm, K. (2013). Multilingual policies and multilingual
education in the Nordic Ccountries. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 6(1), 1–22.
Bolton, K., & Meierkord, C. (2013). English in contemporary Sweden: Perceptions, policies,
and narrated practices. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(1), 93–117.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12014
Boyd, S. (2011). Do national languages need support and protection in legislation? e case of
Swedish as the ‘principle langague’ in Sweden. In C. Norrby and J. Hajek (Eds.),
Uniformity and diversity in language policy (pp. 22–25). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Boyd, S., & Dahl, Ö. (2006). Grundlöst om språkdöd. Språkvård, 4, 36–40.
Boyd, S., & Huss, L. (2001). Managing multilingualism in a European nation-state: Challenges
for Sweden. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bundesamt für Statistik, B. (2015). Wanderungssaldo sinkt leicht gegenüber 2013 [Press
release]
Bundesamt für Statistik, B. (2016a). Sprachliche Praktiken in der Schweiz Erste Ergebnisse der
Erhebung zur Sprache, Religion und Kultur 2014. Retrieved from Neuchâtel:
64 Adrian Lundberg
Bundesamt für Statistik, B. (2016b). Ständige Wohnbevölkerung. Retrieved 9 February 2016
from http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/01/new/
nip_detail.html?gnpID=2016-559
Busch, B. (2011). Trends and innovative practices in multilingual education in Europe: An
overview. International Review of Education, 57(5–6), 541–549.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159‑011‑9257‑1
Cabau, B. (2009a). e irresistible rise and hegemony of a linguistic fortress: English teaching
in Sweden. International Multilingual Research Journal, 3(2), 134–152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313150903073786
Cabau, B. (2009b). Language-in-education issues: Sweden as a case study. Educational Studies,
35(4), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690802648366
Cabau, B. (2014). Minority language education policy and planning in Sweden. Current Issues
in Language Planning, 15(4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2014.927086
Candelier, M., de Pietro, J.-F., R. Facciol, I. Lőrincz, X. Pascual, and A. Schröder-Sura. (2012).
FREPA – A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures –
Competences and resources Retrieved 13 February 2016 from http://carap.ecml.at
CIIP. (2010). Plan d’études romand. Retrieved 14 February 2016 from
http://www.plandetudes.ch
Daryai-Hansen, P., Gerber, B., Lörincz, I., Haller, M., Ivanova, O., Krumm, H.-J., &
Reich, H.H. (2015). Pluralistic approaches to languages in the curriculum: e case of
French-speaking Switzerland, Spain and Austria. International Journal of Multilingualism,
12(1), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.948877
European Commission. (2004). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity. An action
plan 2004–2006. Retrieved from Luxembourg: Luxembourg.
European Commission. (2005). A new framework strategy for multilingualism. Retrieved from
Brussles: CoEC:
European Commission. (2009). Multilingualism: An asset for Europe and a shared commitment.
Retrieved from Brussles: CoEC:
Gogolin, I. (2013). e “monolingual habitus” as the common feature in teaching in the
language of the majority in dierent countries. Per Linguam: A Journal of Language
Learning, 2, 38–49.
Gogolin, I., & Duarte, J. (2013). Linguistic superdiversity in urban areas: Research approaches.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goodson, I. (1995). Making of curriculum: Collected essays (2nd ed.). London: Falmer.
Haenni Hoti, A. (2009). Research results on factors inuencing elementary school students’
English skills, with special attention to immigration background. [Forschungsergebnisse
zu Einussfaktoren auf die Englischfertigkeiten von Primarschulerinnen unter
besonderer Berucksichtigung des Migrationshintergrunds]. Bulletin suisse de linguistique
appliquee, 89(Spring), 5–14.
Halonen, M., Ihalainen, P., & Saarinen, T. (2015). Language policies in Finland and Sweden:
Interdisciplinary and multi-sited comparisons. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination.
London: SAGE, in association with e Open University.
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 65
Heinzmann, S. (2010). Has the introduction of “early English” in primary school Hhad an
inuence on primary school students’ motivation to learn French? [Hat die Einfuhrung
von ‘Fruhenglisch’ in der Primarschule einen Einuss auf die Motivation der
Primarschulkinder Franzosisch zu lernen?]. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquee,
91(Summer), 7–27.
Hult, F. M. (2004). Planning for multilingualism and minority language rights in Sweden.
Language Policy, 3(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LPOL.0000036182.40797.23
Hult, F. M. (2012). English as a transcultural language in Swedish policy and practice. TESOL
Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of
Standard English as a Second Dialect, 46(2), 230–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.19
Hult, F. M. (2014). How does policy inuence language in education? In R.E. Silver &
S.M. Lwin (Eds.), Language in education: Social implications (pp. 159–175). London:
Continuum.
Hyltenstam, K. (1999). Sveriges sju inhemska språk: ett minoritetsspråksperspektiv. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Interkantonale Vereinbarung über die Harmonisierung der obligatorischen Schule
(HarmoS-Konkordat), (2007).
Hyltenstam, K., Axelsson, M., & Lindberg, I. (2012). Flerspråkighet – en forskningsöversikt.
Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet rapportserie.
Hyltenstam, K., & Milani, T. M. (2005). Nationella minoriteter och minoritetsspråk.
Uppföljning av Sveriges eerlevnad av Europarådets konventioner på nationell nivå: ett
minoritetsspråksperspektiv. In Konstitutionsutskottet (Ed.), Nationella minoriteter och
minoritetsspråk(pp. 23–74). Stockholm: Sveriges riksdag.
Institutet för språk och folkminne. (2016). Welcome to the Language Council of Sweden – the
ocial language cultivation body of Sweden. Retrieved 28 November 2016 from
http://www.sprakochfolkminnen.se/om-oss/kontakt/sprakradet/om-sprakradet/in-
english.html
Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings trends and challenges. Language
Teaching, 41(1), 15–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004739
Josephson, O. (2003, 2016–02–01). Sweden on the threshold to multilingualism – a new
Swedish language policy. Retrieved 1 February 2016 from
http://www.efnil.org/conferences/archives/stockholm-2003/speeches/josephson-svenska
Josephson, O. (2004). Ju: ifrågasatta självklarheter om svenskan, engelskan och alla andra språk
i Sverige: Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.
Kymlicka, W. (2011). Multicultural citizenship within multination states. Ethnicities, 11(3),
281–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796811407813
Lindberg, I. (2007). Multilingual Education: a Swedish Perspective. In M. Carlson, A. Rabo,
and F. Gök (Eds.), Education in ‘multicultural’ societies: Turkish and Swedish perspectives.
London.
Lo Bianco, J. (2001). Language and literacy policy in Scotland. Retrieved 20 November 2016
from Stirling:
http://www.scilt.org.uk/Portals/24/Library/publications/languageandliteracy/Languagean
dliteracypolicyinScotland_fulldocument.pdf
Lo Bianco, J. (2008). Educational linguistics and education systems. In B. Spolsky and
F.M. Hult (Eds.), e Handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 113–126). Oxford and
Boston: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694138.ch9
66 Adrian Lundberg
Lo Bianco, J., & Bal, A. (2016). Learning from dierence. Cham: Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‑3‑319‑26880‑4_11
Lüdi, G., & Py, B. (2009). To be or not to be … a plurilingual speaker. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 6(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710902846715
Machi, L.A. (2012). e literature review: six steps to success. ousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin
Press.
Milani, T.M. (2007). Debating Swedish: Language politics and ideology in contemporary Sweden.
Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Norrby, C. (2008). Swedish language policy: Multilingual paradise or utopian dream? In
J. Warren and H.M. Benbow (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Reections on language and
identity (pp. 63–76). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
OECD. (2017). Better Life Index. Retrieved 2 February 2017 from
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org
Ricento, T. (2006). An introduction to language policy: theory and method. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub.
Rojas, M. (2005). Sweden aer the Swedish model: From tutorial state to enabling state Retrieved
from http://timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665891.pdf
Schwab, P. (2014). e Swiss parliament as a plurilingual forum. Retrieved from Bern:
Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenscha, (1999 (2016)). Mål i mun.
Dra action programme for the Swedish language, (2002). Bundesgesetz über die
Landessprachen und die Verständigung zwischen den Sprachgemeinschaen, (2007).
Sprachenunterricht in der obligatorischen Schule: Strategie der EDK und Arbeitsplan für die
Gesamtschweizerische Koordination, (2004).
Statistics Sweden. (2015). People born outside of Sweden. Retrieved 2 February 2017 from
http://www.scb.se
Stotz, D., Bossart, M.-N., & Fischli, P. (2009). Learning languages at school in the interplay of
society and identity. [Schulisches Sprachenlernen im Wechselspiel von Gesellscha und
Identitat]. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquee, 89(Spring), 41–59.
Sundberg, G. (2013). Language policy and multilingual identity in Sweden through the lens of
Generation Y. Scandinavian Studies, 85(2), 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1353/scd.2013.0018
Swedish Ministry of Culture. (2009:600). Language Act (2009:600).
olin, J. (2012). If you get double the time: Teaching practices in the “Swedish/English”
language subject option in Swedish nine-year compulsory schooling. Apples – Applied
Language Studies, 6(1), 69–91.
Tollefson, J.W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction
to language policy: eory and method (pp. 42–59). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Tollefson, J.W. (2015). Historical-structural analysis. In F. M. Hult and D.C. Johnson (Eds.),
Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 140–151).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6),
1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465
Wedin, A. (2010). A restricted curriculum for second language learners – a self-fullling
teacher strategy? Language and Education, 24(3), 171–183.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780903026352
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 67
Wildt-Persson, A., & Rosengren, G.P. (2002). Equity and equivalence in the Swedish school
system. In W. Hutmacher (Ed.), In pursuit of equity in education: Using international
indicators to compare equity policies (pp. 299–321). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/0‑306‑47579‑0_14
Winsa, B. (2005). Language planning in Sweden. In R.B. Kaplan and R.B. Baldauf (Eds.),
Language planning and policy in Europe: Vol. 1, Hungary, Finland and Sweden (pp.
233–330). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mehrsprachige Sprach- und Sprachenpolitik in der schweizerischen und
schwedischen Bildung: Eine Meta-Analyse
Zusammenfassung
Mehrsprachigkeit ist eine globale Herausforderung und ein Bildungsziel europäischer Staaten.
Diese Meta-Analyse untersucht, wie sich die Resultate von Forschungsprojekten über mehr-
sprachige Sprach- und Sprachenpolitik in der schweizerischen und der schwedischen Bildung
auf einer Makroebene (national/regional) unterscheiden. Beschrieben werden die unterschied-
lichen Schwerpunkte und Handhabungen von Diskursen in den jeweiligen Artikeln. Die Län-
der wurden aufgrund ihrer Ähnlichkeit in Bezug auf den gesellschalichen Kontext und ihrer
Unterscheidung betreend der Sprach- und Sprachenpolitik und der politischen Entstehung
des jeweiligen Landes ausgewählt. Die Artikel wurden systematisch via zwei Datenbasen, ERIC
und LLBA identiziert und um die jüngsten Entwicklungen nach der Einführung des neuen
Sprachgesetzes in Schweden und der Harmonisierung der öentlichen Schule in der Schweiz
2009 zu erfassen, wurden nur Forschungsprojekte einbezogen, welche zwischen 2009 und 2016
publiziert wurden. Die Resultate der vorliegenden Meta-analyse weisen auf einen monolin-
gualen Habitus im schwedischen Nationalstaat und einer eher pluralistischen Herangehens-
weise in der Schweiz hin. Ein nennenswertes Resultat ist die unterschiedliche Denition von
Mehrsprachigkeit und mehrsprachigen Schülerinnen und Schülern und wie dieses Verständnis die
Betrachtung von bildungspolitischen Steuerdokumenten in den zwei sprachliche und kulturell
vielfältigen europäischen Ländern beeinusst.
Multlingvaj edukaj politikoj en Svislando kaj Svedio: Meta-analizo
Resumo
Multlingvismo prezentas tutmondan deon kaj edukan celon en eŭropaj ŝtatoj. La nuna meta-
analizo ekzamenas kiel esplorstudoj de dokumentoj pri multlingva eduka politiko je makro-
nivelo (nacia/regiona) en Svedio kaj Svislando malsamas rilate fokusopunktojn kaj kiel la
diskursoj en la esploroj reprezentas malsamajn pritraktojn de multlingvaj edukaj lingvopoliti-
koj. Oni selektis tiujn ĉi landojn pro iliaj similecoj de socia kunteksto, sed ili malsamas rilate
lingvopolitikajn demandojn kaj politika formiĝo. La ekzamenita esplora literaturo estis sisteme
identigita pere de du datenbazoj, ERIC kaj LLBA, kaj, por ekzameni la plej lastajn evoluojn post
enkonduko de la nova lingvoleĝo en Svedio kaj la harmoniigo de publika edukado en Svislando
68 Adrian Lundberg
en 2009, nur esplorartikoloj publikigitaj inter la jaroj 2009 kaj 2016 estis inkluzivitaj. La rezultoj
de la studo sugestas, ke unulingva habitus ekzistas en la kunteksto de la sveda naciŝtato kom-
pare kun pli pluralisma aliro en Svislando. La plej notinda rezulto estas la diverĝaj dinoj de
multlingvismo kaj plurlingvaj studentoj kaj la maniero laŭ kiu tiu kompreno inuas la traktadon
de edukaj politikoj en tiuj du lingve kaj kulture superdiversaj eŭropaj landoj.
Address for correspondence
Adrian Lundberg
Faculty of Education and Society, Department of School Development and Leadership
Malmö University
205 06 Malmö
Sweden
Adrian.lundberg@mau.se
Biographical notes
Adrian Lundberg is a Ph.D. candidate in pedagogy at Malmö University, Sweden. His current
research focuses on language policy and multilingualism in the Nordic countries and Switzer-
land.
Multilingual educational language policies in Switzerland and Sweden 69
