J. J. Smolicz’s research while affiliated with The University of Adelaide and other places

The paper considers ways in which a language can form a bridge or a barrier to communication, particularly in relation to the multilingual context of Australia. The barrier of an unfamiliar language can be overcome by the dominant group's elimination of a minority linguistic group, or the suppression of its language or, alternatively, through some members of the dominant group learning the minority language and becoming bilingual. Australian data provide evidence that many minority groups regard their language as the core value of their culture. Although English is supported overwhelmingly as the language common to all Australians, many members of minority ethnic groups seek to maintain their home language as well. In this way they can be seen as contributing to the development of Australia's linguistic resources. For those of English-speaking background, learning a second language is increasingly being advocated for economic, as well as cognitive and social reasons. The National Policy on Languages, released in 1987, argued that all Australians should have the chance to learn English and at least one other language at school. The need to defend the full thrust of this policy direction and to develop strategies to stem declining enrolments in languages other than English at secondary and tertiary levels are seen as the most immediate challenges for languages education in Australia.

The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate the false dichotomy which is frequently drawn between the concepts of ‘modernity’ and ‘tradition’. Modernity is in fact a value‐laden term which has an implication of positive evaluation of virtually any innovation, as opposed to tradition which, within this context, acquires a negative connotation of backwardness and unthinking conservatism. Were these notions to be accepted, progress would be identified with a ‘de‐traditionalisation’ of society. The opposing view is that tradition cannot be regarded as invariably hindering social change since, in a society with a long established civilisation, resilience depends on new developments being incorporated into traditional values (Szacki, 1969). At the same time, it is acknowledged that tradition can only survive the vicissitudes of time if it accommodates itself to the present (Smolicz, 1974a). Indeed, Marx himself believed that tradition had to change in order to survive—advice which was long disregarded by his followers in Eastern Europe. From this it follows that even a tradition that sprang out of revolution would need to change to ‘keep abreast’ of new developments.

While it has been agreed by the members of the European Community (except the UK) that all secondary students should study two EC languages in addition to their own, in Australia the recent emphasis has been on teaching languages for external trade, particularly in the Asian region. This policy over-looks the 13 per cent of the Australian population who already speak a language other than English at home (and a greater number who are second generation immigrants), and ignores the view that it is necessary to foster domestic multiculturalism in order to have fruitful links with other cultures abroad. During the 1980s there have been moves to reinforce the cultural identity of Australians of non-English speaking background, but these have sometimes been half-hearted and do not fully recognise that cultural core values, including language, have to achieve a certain critical mass in order to be sustainable. Without this recognition, semi-assimilation will continue to waste the potential cultural and economic contributions of many citizens, and to lead to frustration and eventual violence. The recent National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia addresses this concern.

In his 1985 address to Asian social scientists, the Rector of the United Nations University, Professor Soedjatmoko, expressed the view that what was important in a society was not stability enforced by the government, but resilience on the part of society itself.

A brief historical review of language policies in Australia up to the publication of the Senate Standing Committee's Report on a National Language Policy in 1984 is given. The recommendations of the Report are discussed in the light of the ethno-cultural or core value significance that community languages have for many minority ethnic groups in Australia. Recent research findings on such languages are presented and their implications for a national language policy considered. It is postulated that the linguistic pluralism generated by the presence of community languages needs to be viewed in the context of a framework of values that includes English as the shared language for all Australians. From this perspective, it is argued that the stress that the Senate Committee Report places upon the centrality of English in Australia should be balanced by greater recognition of the linguistic rights of minorities and their implications for bilingual education. It is pointed out that both these aspects of language policy have been given prominence in recent statements and guidelines released by the Ministers of Education in Victoria and South Australia. The paper concludes by pointing to the growing interest in the teaching of languages other than English to all children in Australian schools.