|
In order to render precise the
contrasts produced by the VL factor (which particularly interested us), we separated the
DLC groups within each VL group and then compared the VL groups in each DLC group (i.e.
for the typology of each domestic linguistic condition, we compared the results of the
different educative models according to the vehicular language used). Thus, we were also
able to find out which of the two factors (DLC or VL) produced the most differences
between groups. The only significant differences appeared when we contrasted the VL groups
in the monolingual Spanish-speaking DLC in the Upper Cycle. These groups obtained very low
averages in Catalan and Occitan in the Catalan and Spanish VL groups, although in line
with the earlier analysis of the VL variable: the Catalan VL group, made up mainly of
Spanish-speaking DLC monolingual students, obtained particularly low marks in Catalan and
Occitan. However, overall, this DLC group obtained higher marks in the three languages
(including Spanish) in the Occitan VL line (figure 7).
Figure 7. PG1 averages according to
VL groups. Spanish-speaking monolingual DLC. Upper Cycle
2. Conclusion
When choosing
the best model for dealing with linguistic diversity at school, we need to take into
consideration the habitual language used by each student at home and choose the syllabus
that makes the most of the confluence of the presence of each language at home and at
school.
The most
appropriate model, in terms of linguistic competence, will obtain the highest results in
all three languages without reproducing the imbalances of these languages in the social
context. Such a model would affect that context positively, paving the way for a
plurilingual society in which the minority language can benefit.
The notion of
interdependence between languages was implicit in the proposal by the community of Aranese
teachers who pushed through the creation of a line of education in Occitan. We have taken
this hypothesis and broken it down into hypothesis 1 (a) (that there is indeed a
correlation between the competence reached in each language) and 1 (b) (that placing an
emphasis on the minority language ensures a more effective transfer of skills by which all
languages benefit).
The data that
we have summarised above has allowed us to validate these two hypotheses and to confirm
how placing an emphasis on the most marginal minority language has positive effects on the
competence reached in all three languages.
As well as
offering the greatest guarantee that students will be fluent in all of the languages, the
presence of the minority language also guarantees the best results (in terms of
competence), in all of the languages taken in isolation, because a model that favours the
minority language will also favour the acquisition of skills between languages in a
balanced way. This bears out the contribution of Huguet, Vila and Llurda (2000). The fact
that competence correlates general linguistic skills (PG) in one language with those in
another, also confirms the comments of González Riaño and San Fabián (1996) on how the
teaching of Asturian favours Spanish (particularly in the areas of spelling and reading
comprehension) and, generally, Cummins statement (1979) that interdependence between
languages goes beyond basic linguistic skills. Moreover, the positive results of a
well-applied education system in the minority language are significant regardless of the
domestic linguistic condition of students: those who speak the majority language (taking
"majority" in the widest sense of the word: a language that has adequate social
support) do not experience any difficulties being educated in a minority language. On the
contrary, they obtain a higher level of competence in their own language by learning the
minority one.
As regards our
own particular case, we should make one final point about the tables we drew up earlier:
the system that we have assessed does not compensate for the imbalances caused by the
different social presences of the languages. Thus, Spanish always obtains the highest
results, while Occitan obtains the lowest. The conclusion is that favouring education in
Occitan has been the correct choice in terms of results of the linguistic competence
obtained by students, but the results as a whole suggest that this choice still needs
decisive development. It is important to note that there is a marked contrast between the
proposal described for primary education and the situation found in secondary education:
in the case of the latter, the presence of Occitan is not guaranteed (unless it forms part
of the two hours a week that correspond to Aranese as a subject). The idea that students
must have a knowledge of all three languages when they finish their compulsory education
is not guaranteed sufficiently, and this contributes to the continuance, at least for the
time being, of the secondary (effectively, tertiary) position of Occitan in its own
territory. However, our comments should not excuse other agents involved in the social
promotion of the indigenous language of the Vall dAran, from continuing in the areas
in which they carry out their activity. As we know, education cannot do everything and the
disadvantage of the social presence of Occitan is clear in areas that are not immediately
affected by schooling (see Llengua i Ús, 22, which contains a summary of the
relevant details of a survey on the knowledge and use of Occitan in the Vall dAran
in 2000). |