How receptive multilingualism can be implemented in the institution NHL Stenden

(1)

How receptive multilingualism can be

implemented in the institution NHL Stenden

Daniël H. Thomassen

S2988364

MA in Multilingualism

Faculty of Arts

University of Groningen

Supervisors:

Dr. Charlotte Gooskens

Dr. Joana Duarte

(2)

1

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank dr. Charlotte Gooskens for supervising my thesis and for providing me with useful feedback and materials during my research. I would also like to than dr. Joana Duarte, who suggested me this research topic and remained helpfully involved with my research. I would also like that express my thanks to Dymphi van der Hoeven, who has helped me with my research at NHL Stenden. Further thanks go to Audrey Rousse-Malpat for helping me structure my thesis with her workshops. In addition, I would also like to thank prof. dr. Margot van Mulken and dr. Berna Hendriks for allowing me to use their images for my research experiment.

I would like to give special thanks to my friends Jin Wan, Alexandros Balatsoukas, and Mengqi Gao, for keeping me motivated and productive, and helping me with my thesis, especially during the last few weeks leading up to the deadline.

(3)

2

Abstract

The term receptive multilingualism may not sound familiar to most people when they first hear of it. However, it is in fact a means of communication that most people will have used at least once in their lives, and which has been in use ever since there has been more than one language for people to speak. While receptive multilingualism, being a fairly natural linguistic process for achieving mutual intelligibility, can already be found in higher education, its use as a standard form of

communication within an institution of higher education unfortunately still goes unrecognized. The aim of this study is to learn how receptive multilingualism might be implemented within the language policy of an institution of higher education. The research was conducted at NHL Stenden, among the teachers there. Over the course of a three-step research process, backed up by a theoretical background looking at receptive multilingualism, LaRa, and language policies, this study reveals the state of receptive multilingualism at NHL Stenden today and devises a plan to promote it within the school

Keywords: Receptive multilingualism, language policy, NHL Stenden, higher education

1. Introduction

We live in a day and age where it appears as if globalization and increased connection with the whole world have given rise to the use of big languages at the cost of smaller or local languages. Among these languages, one might include French, Spanish, and Chinese Mandarin, but perhaps the best known or maybe even most notorious among these big international – dare I even say global – languages nowadays is the English language.

Growing in importance through Anglo-American popular culture following the end of World War 2, the use of English has pervaded into many aspects of many societies around the world. And with globalization resulting in increased mobility for more and more people around the world, the need for a lingua franca has given rise to the increased use of the English language within international settings. One of these settings is education, specifically higher education (Leppänen, 2007: 149-152; LTC Eastbourne, 2017; Onze Taal, 2011).

The anglicization that came as a result of the internationalization of universities across the Netherlands has seen many such institutions use more and more English at the cost of Dutch language use in higher education. This paper, however, will not focus on the anglicization of Dutch higher education, but rather, something that could be considered far more encompassing and inclusive within the context of Dutch higher education, and perhaps even higher education in a global context (van Mulken & Hendriks, 2015: 3; Onze Taal, 2011).

The term receptive multilingualism may not sound very familiar to most people when they first hear of it. However, it is in fact a means of communication that most people will have used at least once in their lives, and which has been in use ever since there has been more than one language for people to speak. By its most basic definition, receptive multilingualism is a means of communication by which two or more people can engage with one another in conversation without speaking each

(5)

4

other’s language, yet still achieve mutual intelligibility through knowledge of the language of the other, knowledge of body language, and perhaps even a knowledge of language in general. Knowing the context or being familiar with the conversation topic will also be of help in this regard (Blees & ten Thije, 2015; Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018: 27; Herkenrath, 2012: 288; Kahwagi, 2012: 6; Muikku-Werner, 2014: 100; Rehbein et al., 2012a: 245; Verschik, 2012; 265).

A good example of receptive multilingualism can be found in the Dutch-German border region, where a dialect continuum exists between the various Low Saxon dialects that can be found on both sides of the border. By means of this dialect continuum, speakers on both sides of the

Dutch-German border are able to achieve mutual intelligibility when communicating with one another, even when the varieties they speak are different from each other. Another example can be found in the case of Danish and Swedish, or Estonian and Finnish (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 4; Muikku-Werner, 2014; Ribbert & ten Thije, 2007; Schüppert & Gooskens, 2012, Verschik, 2012).

Although receptive multilingualism could be considered to be as old as multilingualism itself, the linguistic phenomenon was not studied until the 1950s, when Voegelin and Harris (1951) released a paper on mutual intelligibility between languages around the world, and a way to test this mutual intelligibility. Further studies by Haugen (1966) resulted in the coining of the term

semicommunication, when he looked at mutual intelligibility resulting from communication between two similar language varieties; in this case, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. The term receptive multilingualism, which was first introduced by Zeevaert and ten Thije (2007) in a book which they edited that contained several studies on this subject, including studies on semicommunication which were performed between 1989 and 1995. In their introduction, receptive multilingualism was simply defined as “[…] the language constellation in which interlocutors use their respective mother tongue while speaking to each other” (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007: 1).

Receptive multilingualism is a means of communication that allows people to choose a language in which they can express themselves as best as they can. It could also help to achieve a greater understanding of a topic that is being discussed in conversation, in a better way than one would be able to express him- or herself. Furthermore, it could help a person to achieve a greater

understanding than if they had to speak a lingua franca, such as English, which might be largely foreign to them.

In a setting such as higher education, where maximum understanding of what is being taught is instrumental to the success of a student, receptive multilingualism can be a helpful tool for achieving this understanding, and also for improving communications between teacher and student for even further understanding of what a student is required to learn. Herkenrath (2012) states, however, that receptive multilingualism is typically used between languages that are mutually intelligible. While receptive multilingualism, being a fairly natural linguistic process for achieving mutual

intelligibility, can already be found in higher education, its use as a standard form of communication within an institution of higher education unfortunately still goes unrecognized. With that in mind, however, how would receptive multilingualism best be incorporated into a university language policy (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 5; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018; Herkenrath, 2012: 288; Mondria & Wiersma, 2004; Moonen, 2013; Muikku-Werner, 2014: 99-100)? Based on what was described in the previous paragraph, receptive multilingualism can offer

tremendous opportunities to first language – or L1 – speakers of myriad languages from all over the world, within the context of higher education. The ability to reach a greater understanding in a course topic by means of a first language, or any language that can be understood by someone in close proximity to a speaker of such said language, should be considered invaluable to language

(6)

5

policy makers within higher education settings. This would especially be the case if the level of understanding that can be reached by means of an L1 significantly exceeds the level of

understanding that can be achieved through a lingua franca such as English or, in a Dutch higher education setting, Dutch. For this reason, I would say that the relevance of any study that can provide a solution on how to implement receptive multilingualism into a language policy, in this case that of a higher education institution, cannot be overstated.

In order to find out how receptive multilingualism can find a fitting place in a language policy, the aim of this study is to learn how this linguistic phenomenon is already being used, and what it would take for receptive multilingualism to become widely accepted as a formal means of communication at an institution of higher education. The location for this research is NHL Stenden, a school of higher education, that has multiple facilities in the Netherlands, which should allow for a strong sample. While the main research question might be considered broad, it is precisely the question that this study seeks to answer: How can receptive multilingualism be implemented at NHL Stenden? As this question will results in large answer, sub-questions will be asked in order to allow for a clear oversight of this answer. These questions go as follows:

 What are the attitudes held by teachers of NHL Stenden towards receptive multilingualism?  How familiar are teachers of NHL Stenden with the concept of receptive multilingualism?  How do/would teachers of NHL Stenden implement receptive multilingualism in their

communications within the school?

 How would teachers of NHL Stenden envision receptive multilingualism as a standard form of communication within the school?

The answers to these sub-questions will serve to help answer the main research question of this study.

In order to provide a solid theoretical background from which a research plan can be designed and this thesis built, this study will draw from an extensive body of literature. This body of literature will cover a number of topics, all of which are relevant to this study. The first of these topics is a

definition of receptive multilingualism with an example of how this linguistic phenomenon works, followed by the history of receptive multilingualism. This will, in turn, be followed by an explanation and description of receptive multilingualism, in particular concept of lingua receptiva; the

competencies that are activated in contexts where receptive multilingualism is applied. Additional background information will consist of a close look at the language policy of NHL Stenden, in which an example of receptive multilingualism can be found, as well as studies that deal with how receptive multilingualism can be implemented in education and case studies on contexts in which receptive multilingualism has already been implemented in said education (Rehbein et al., 2012b: 249; Muikku-Werner, 2014: 100).

Research data for this study will be collected in a qualitative approach, involving three steps, from a sample that consists solely of teachers who work at NHL Stenden in a teaching position. The first of these steps consists of semi-structured interviews. During these interviews, the teachers will be asked about their attitudes towards receptive multilingualism, and multilingualism in general, as well as implementation of receptive multilingualism and envisioning this phenomenon as a standard form of communication. The answers to these questions will serve to help answer the sub-questions and through them eventually also the main research question.

Control questions at the beginning of the interviews will help to set up the participants for the second step of data collection, which is an observational experiment. Teachers who have been

(7)

6

interviewed will be invited to participate in this experiment, which is set up to see how the teachers use and respond to receptive multilingualism in practice. This is done by pairing up teachers with different first languages and have them interact with each other for 10 minutes. Following the observational experiment, those teachers who participated in a session will be asked a few follow up questions on how they experienced their participation in the research for this study and whether or not this participation will result in (increased) application of receptive multilingualism by those teachers in their communications within NHL Stenden. The collected research data will then be analyzed, and the outcomes of this analysis will serve to answer how receptive multilingualism can be implemented within NHL Stenden.

2. Theoretical Background

As was mentioned earlier, the aim of this theoretical background is to provide a solid foundation on which the research, as well as the rest of this thesis, can be built. For this reason, this chapter will cover a number of topics that have to do with receptive multilingualism. The first of these topics will include a basic definition of what the term receptive multilingualism is. This definition will then be explained further through a detailed example of a situation in which the process of receptive multilingualism is applied.

The second topic that is featured in this chapter concerns the history of studies that make up the field of receptive multilingualism. Here, this study will provide a brief rundown of some of the studies that have proven instrumental in the development of the field of receptive multilingualism as it is known today.

The third topic in this theoretical background deals with a branch of receptive multilingualism that has come to be known in recent years as lingua receptiva. This linguistic phenomenon stands out within the framework of receptive multilingualism by placing an increased emphasis on the receptive element inside this field of study.

Next, this study takes a close look at the current language policy of NHL Stenden in order to identify an example of receptive multilingualism that can be found inside this text. Although receptive multilingualism is not explicitly mentioned in the language policy, the process that forms the example can be identified as such. In addition, once the current language policy of NHL Stenden has been examined, this study will also take a look at the implementation of receptive multilingualism in the new language policy of this institution of higher education. As this new language policy is still under development, however, this examination will be brief and will only look at a few parts that indicate the presence of receptive multilingualism, while also drawing a short comparison with the current language policy in terms of the handling of receptive multilingualism.

Once this study has provided an overview of the language policies of NHL Stenden, the fourth and final topic that will be featured in this chapter pertains to the implementation of receptive

multilingualism in higher education. For that reason, this study will take a look as studies that aim to answer how receptive multilingualism can be implemented in higher education, while also looking at case studies featuring higher education settings in which receptive multilingualism has already been implemented in the language policies of the institutions present within these settings.

Following this final topic, this chapter will conclude with the formulation of the official research questions for this study, and explain the reasoning behind these questions on the basis of the literature that has preceded them.

(8)

7

2.1. What is receptive multilingualism – a basic definition

In order to determine which role receptive multilingualism might be able to play in language policies, one must first know what receptive multilingualism is to begin with. The concept of receptive

multilingualism is described by Blees and ten Thije (2015) as “[…] a language mode where speakers employ receptive knowledge of each other’s languages during interaction, using their respective preferred languages within the same conversation” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 2).

An explanation of the above quote can be exemplified as follows: Imagine a setting in which two people are present. These two people engage in conversation with each other. The first person is an L1 speaker of Frisian and the second person has German as his or her first language. Both speakers will have some knowledge of the language spoken by their conversation partner, although the extent of the knowledge held by either of them can differ based on experience with the other language or attitudes held towards the other language. In the case of this example, the two

languages are also similar to each other, which will also influence the intelligibility between the two speakers.

In this case, however, neither speaker will engage in the language of their conversation partner, which would result in the conversation being conducted in one language, in which one speaker would have native proficiency while the other might struggle. In addition, neither of the two speakers will choose to switch to a third language, such as English, in which they might both be proficient enough that they can use it in order to have this conversation.

Instead, both speakers will choose to address each other in their own first languages, which are Frisian and German. While not every word of Frisian and German that is spoken by either of the two speakers will be readily understood by their conversation partner, the knowledge that each has of the other’s language, mixed with a non-verbal body language, and perhaps also knowledge of language in general, are applied to achieve a mutual comprehension. Both the process and result of this mutual comprehension between the two speakers is called receptive multilingualism.

As was mentioned in the previous chapter, Herkenrath (2012) states that receptive multilingualism is typically used between mutually intelligible languages. “A typical solution involves a pair of

languages that are mutually intelligible because of their close lexical and typological similarity, for example Scandinavian languages, Romance languages or Dutch and German. Other constellations, however, are characterized by a greater distance in this respect, such that reciprocal understanding would seem to rely on acquired competences, an example being the mutually unintelligible

languages French and German spoken in Switzerland” (Herkenrath, 2012: 288). Receptive

multilingualism between two lexically and typologically similar languages, such as Dutch or German, is referred to as inherent multilingualism. Receptive multilingualism between mutually unintelligible languages such as French and German, which requires acquired knowledge of the other language in order to understand it, is referred to as acquired multilingualism (Bahtina et al., 2013: 165;

Herkenrath, 2012: 288; Kahwagi, 2012: 6; Muikku-Werner, 2014: 100).

2.2. The history of receptive multilingualism studies

According to Blees and ten Thije (2015), studies regarding receptive multilingualism go as far back as the 1950’s. They mention Voegelin and Harris’ (1951) research on intelligibility among dialects as the first article that deals with the workings of this concept. The term receptive multilingualism had not yet been coined at that time, and is, therefore, absent from this text. Voegelin and Harris do,

(9)

8

however, provide the reader with information on mutual intelligibility between North American indigenous languages, such as Ojibwa and Pawnee, as well as other languages found around the world, such as Dutch and German, Serbian and Croatian, and Urdu and Hindustani. In addition, they also came up with a proposal to test people through exposure to spoken language, which allowed for more detailed information on (the extent of) mutual intelligibility between two varieties than simply testing people’s language comprehension. Furthermore, they also showed that mutual intelligibility between dialects was a result of a close genetic relationship between these dialects (Blees & Ten Thije, 2015: 2; Rehbein et al., 2012b: 249; Voegelin & Harris, 1951).

The method of testing proposed by Voegelin and Harris (1951) was noted by Hans Wolff (1959), a linguistic anthropologist, who called the method “[…] a considerable improvement over the older method of simply asking the informant” (Wolff, 1959: 34). He also argued, however, that this

method could only be successfully applied if it took into consideration several factors, such as – what Blees and Ten Thije (2015) summarize as – “[…] intercultural attitude, political and cultural

dominance, and the degree of bilingualism in an area” (Blees & Ten Thije, 2015: 2) (Blees & Ten Thije, 2015: 2; Wolff, 1959).

Further research on mutual intelligibility includes a study on comprehension between speakers of Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. In this study, Haugen (1966) coined the term semicommunication, which he defined as “[…] the trickle of messages through a rather high level of “code noise””

(Haugen, 1966: 281). This term was used to “denote the “incompleteness” of understanding reported by respondents” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 2). Haugen’s study did not only look at the mutual

comprehension between Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish speakers, however, but also looked at linguistic and sociopolitical factors that affected their comprehension (Blees & Ten Thije, 2015: 2; Rehbein et al., 2012b: 249; Haugen, 1966).

This leads us to the term receptive multilingualism, which was introduced by Zeevaert and ten Thije (2007) in Receptive Multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts, which they edited. They argued that receptive multilingualism could not yet be considered to be an established field within the spectrum of studies on multilingualism, although they do refer to several studies on semicommunication, as can be seen in the next paragraph. According to Zeevaert and ten Thije (2007), the practical application of receptive multilingualism through international

communication had already been increasing through the rise of globalization. They argued that the challenges that came with communication as a result of the developments that came with this globalization could no longer be properly solved by means of traditional multilingual concepts. Thus, the development of new concepts, such as receptive multilingualism, was meant to be an answer and a solution to these challenges (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007: 1-2).

Studies on receptive multilingualism can be traced back to Haugen (1966). Researchers from the University of Hamburg conducted research on the role that semicommunication played in the communication between speakers of Middle Low German and the Scandinavian languages between 1989 and 1995. The linguistic settings of Scandinavia have proven to be fertile ground for research on receptive multilingualism, with several studies having been conducted there over the years (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 2; Haugen, 1966; Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007: 2).

Receptive multilingualism is considered to be a “[…] typical bottom-up development, supported by official European organizations only to a certain extent compared to other EU language policies” (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007: 2). Being a community of many nation-states, and even more languages, the European Union has been looking at receptive multilingualism as a means of connecting the peoples of Europe on a linguistic level. “Since the mid-nineties receptive multilingualism is (being)

(10)

9

promoted by the European commission on par with other possibilities of increasing the mobility of the European citizens in order to solve the structural problems within the European Union.

Throughout, roughly speaking, the last ten years, a marked increase in the research on this topic has been observable, a fact which was not least stimulated by the challenges set by the European motto, unity in diversity, which also refers to the linguistic situation in Europe” (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007: 3). The relevance of multilingualism in Europe has been made visible by the position of an EU commissioner for multilingualism. Back in 2007, there were 27 official languages in the European Union. The amount of languages that were spoken by European citizens as their first language was estimated by Zeevaert and ten Thije (2007) to be between 40 and 100 (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007: 2-3). Muikku-Werner (2014)adds to this that “Europe is the home of a great variety of languages, and accepting and appreciating such linguistic diversity is a core European value” (Muikku-Werner, 2014: 99).

2.3. Lingua receptiva

A paper by Rehbein, ten Thije, and Verschik (2012b) introduced the world to a form of multilingual communication which they named lingua receptiva, or LaRa for short. This term is explained by the three researchers as “[…] a mode of multilingual communication in which interactants employ a language and/or a language variety different from their partner’s and still understand each other without the help of any additional lingua franca. Their mutual understanding is established while both recipients use their ‘passive’ knowledge of the language and/or variety of their interlocutor(s)” (Rehbein et al., 2012a: 245; Rehbein et al., 2012b: 248-249) (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 3; Rehbein et al., 2012b: 248-249; Muikku-Werner, 2014: 100).

According to Rehbein, ten Thije, and Verschik (2012b), lingua receptiva deals with the receptive part of receptive multilingualism. “By definition, lingua receptiva is the ensemble of those linguistic, mental, interactional as well as intercultural competencies which are creatively activated when interlocutors listen to linguistic actions in their ‘passive’ language or variety” (Rehbein et al., 2012b: 249). During a conversation between two people using different language varieties, it is important for the speaker to use more of these competencies so as to make sure that the hearer is able to apply his or her knowledge of the language spoken or the topic discussed. In other words, the speaker should seek to be on top of what is referred to as “the ongoing process of understanding” (Rehbein et al., 2012b: 249). Kahwagi (2012) states, however, that opportunities to apply lingua receptiva are “[…] limited by the extent to which one is exposed to the other language and by the extent of the relationship between two languages” (Kahwagi, 2012: 6). This results in two different types of receptive multilingualism, namely acquired multilingualism and inherent multilingualism. In the first of the two, there is prior knowledge of the other language, which would allow for the application of receptive multilingualism between two languages that are not as related to each other. Inherent multilingualism, however, deals with language features that are already found before someone engages in language acquisition (Bahtina et al., 2013: 165; Kahwagi, 2012: 6; Muikku-Werner, 2014: 100; Rehbein et al., 2012b: 249).

The term lingua receptiva can be considered to be fairly new, and the same could be said for studies dedicated to researching this form of receptive multilingualism. This, however, should not be an indicator of how old lingua receptiva truly is, as the concept has been around for a very long time. Due to nationalistic language policies in the 19th_{and 20}th_{centuries, however, which sought to make}

the national language of – mainly European – nation-states the only languages used there, lingua receptiva was bereft of attention or even outright opposed (Rehbein et al., 2012b: 249).

(11)

10

When lingua receptiva is used in the context of a conversation, “[…] both speaker and hearer activate the following elements to address various language dimensions:

 Additional devices of segmentation and phonological adaptations

 Morphological and syntactic meta-knowledge derived from a ‘closely related language’  Syntactic and semantic parsing and re-activation of cognates and other interrelated

structures

 Illocutionary and pattern knowledge based on overall communicative knowledge

 Inference-making processes that draw on constellation-based, contextual, semantic or rather propositional dimensions” (Rehbein et al., 2012b: 250)

In short, these five elements are used based on passive language to improve a hearer’s

reconstruction of what the speaker is saying in order to comprehend what the hearer is hearing (Kahwagi, 2012: 6-7; Rehbein et al., 2012b: 250).

The concept of lingua receptiva can be described as “[…] the process of understanding across languages and varieties” (Rehbein et al., 2012b: 250). Within the spectrum of language studies, Rehbein, ten Thije, and Verschik (2012b) identify two fields of study that deal with this linguistic phenomenon. The first of these is called multilingual communication theory, which, as the name so clearly points out, deals with multilingual education. This field has risen in relevance with the steady increase in migration, as well as the advance of technology which is still mostly found in a few select languages, such as English (Rehbein et al., 2012b: 250; House & Rehbein, 2004: 1).

The second field that is mentioned is language psychology and psycholinguistics. This discipline within linguistics is described as “[…] the field of study where developmental psychology and linguistics intersect. Its objective is to describe, explain and predict the development of language” (Aydogan, 2017: 24). In addition, the range of psycholinguistic studies is also extended to those mental or psychological processes that deal with the acquisition of language, as well as the comprehension and production thereof (Aydogan, 2017: 24; Rehbein et al., 2012b: 250).

2.4. Examining the language policies of NHL Stenden

As was mentioned earlier, the location where the research of this study will take place is NHL Stenden. This international institution of higher education is mainly based in the Netherlands, but also has campuses in South Africa, Qatar, Thailand, and Indonesia. In the facilities of NHL Stenden in the Netherlands, Dutch and English are the official languages, with provisions for the use of Frisian. The linguistic background of the NHL Stenden facilities in the Netherlands goes as follows: Dutch and English, being the official languages at NHL Stenden, are spoken at each location in the Netherlands. German would be spoken more at the locations in Drente, particularly in Emmen, due to its close proximity to the German border. Low Saxon would also be found at the locations in Drenthe. Frisian, however, which is the second official language of the Netherlands but only found in the northern Dutch province of Fryslân and parts of the province of Groningen, is found as a spoken language at the NHL Stenden location in Leeuwarden. These five languages will be used in the research

component of this study (see chapter 3.2).

Since this study takes place in NHL Stenden, it would be a good idea to see whether the use of receptive multilingualism is referred to at any, either by name or through the mentioning of a process that can be identified as being or forming a part of this linguistic phenomenon.

(12)

11

The current language policy of NHL Stenden was officially adopted and brought into effect in July and September of 2018 respectively. This Language Code of Conduct, as it is called, is a two-page list which contains 10 guidelines regarding the use of languages within the school, specifically the use of any language other than Dutch. These 10 guidelines, most of which have been further divided into smaller points, have been categorized into four short chapters. The first three of these guidelines are found in chapter 1, which contains general information regarding the language policy of NHL

Stenden. This general information includes a list of dedicated terms that are found throughout the Language Code of Conduct, along with the definitions of said terms. Additional general information states that “In derogation of the provision in Section 7.2 of the WHW (which is defined as The Higher Education and Scientific Research Act) that education is provided and examinations are administered in Dutch, a different language may also be used, with due regard for the rules included in this

Language Code of Conduct” (NHL Stenden, 2018: 1). Further general information in this chapter pertains to when and where the Language Code of Conduct can be found applicable (NHL Stenden, 2018: 1).

In the second chapter, one can find guidelines 4 and 5, which are named Mention in the Teaching and Examination Regulations and Quality respectively. These guidelines in this chapter refer to the use of different languages in educational units that are part of study programs. The use of different languages in such educational units are to be mentioned in Teaching and Examination Regulations. In addition, the quality of using a different language as the language of instruction in an educational unit will be kept under watch by the quality policy of the study program of which said educational unit is a part (NHL Stenden, 2018: 1).

Upon examination of chapter 3, it can be said that the three guidelines that are featured here perhaps come closest to a form of legal implementation of receptive implementation within NHL Stenden. Guideline 6, which pertains to examination by foreign students, states that a foreign student may be permitted to take a test in a different language. The Language Code of Conduct facilitates this by mentioning that “If the Examination Committee grants this request and the examiner in question does not sufficiently master the language in question, the Examination Committee will appoint a co-examiner who does master that language” (NHL Stenden, 2018: 2). Although this situation might come close to an implementation of receptive multilingualism, the actual interpretation of this context as an implementation of the concept remains far-fetched. Although mutual understanding is achieved, it is brought about by means of a third party, namely the co-examiner. It can therefore not be said that the concept of receptive multilingualism can be found in this document (NHL Stenden, 2018: 2).

The other guidelines in this chapter pertain to the requirements for students who wish to take an exam in a language that is not the language of instruction, and the use of Frisian by the students and the staff within NHL Stenden (NHL Stenden, 2018: 2).

The last two guidelines can be found chapter 4, which is named Final Provisions. These guidelines pertain little to the use of a different language, but rather what needs to be done when basing a decision on the Language Code of Conduct (guideline 9), and how to cite the Language Code of Conduct (guideline 10) (NHL Stenden, 2018: 2).

While the Language Code of Conduct of NHL Stenden has only been brought into effect less than a year ago, however, it did not take very long for the school to begin the conceptualization of yet another language policy. Although this new language policy is still under development, it can already be considered more encompassing than the Language Code of Conduct, compared to which it also

(13)

12

displays a greater specificity. In addition, the new language policy aims to be inclusive while at the same time retaining a sense of realism regarding the current state of linguistic affairs. This is indicated by the authors of the language policy through the following statement:

“We have attempted to take all perspectives into account, while at the same time working towards a clear future perspective. Choices regarding language use within NHL Stenden had to be made, and we are convinced that these choices underline the inclusive nature of the multi-campus institution; taking into account the legal framework, language rights, preferences, language needs and budgetary restrictions.

It is important to stress that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably, within the space and limits described in this language policy. NHL Stenden aims to

facilitate functional, efficient, effective and inclusive communication” (International Affairs, 2019: 3). As this language policy is still under development, this study will do its best to only look at those parts that can be considered directly applicable to situations involving receptive multilingualism. Due to the non-definitive nature of this paper, details that may be mentioned and referred to here may be subject to change before the new language policy of NHL Stenden will be brought into effect upon the conclusion of its development.

A statement that is made pretty early on in the up and coming language policy concerns legal frameworks and language rights. Due to NHL Stenden operating in a number of other countries around the world outside the Netherlands, namely Indonesia, Qatar, Thailand, and South Africa, there are more national language policies to take into account than only the Dutch ones. “All of these countries face the challenge of revitalizing and / or maintaining minority, indigenous and official, national languages, while at the same time equipping their populations with the required skills needed in English as a lingua franca” (International Affairs, 2019: 5). While one could read earlier that this new language policy is being created with the aim to be more inclusive, in particular towards the use of different language, one can make up from this passage that conceptualizing this inclusion poses a challenge; a challenge that is even further compounded due to the fact that NHL Stenden operates in several nation states around the world. This requires them to take into account the language policies of every country in which it operates when developing their own language policy. In that regard, the Language Code of Conduct would have required less difficulty in being developed, since that policy took a more general approach towards multilingualism. In addition, the Language Code of Conduct appears to have been tailored specifically to the Dutch dependences of NHL Stenden.

An additional number of issues that this new language policy is aiming to resolve is referred to as “[…] the use of at least Dutch vs. English in internal communication in the Leeuwarden campus and between the Leeuwarden campus and the International Campuses (ICs), the position of official minority languages (such as Frisian), the linguistic situation on the ICs, the language(s) of instruction, and so on” (International Affairs, 2019: 5-6). With the exception of the English language, which is listed as the most frequently used language on campus for every campus of NHL Stenden in the world, each campus has its own set of languages that are being used there. Giving a place to all of these languages within the framework of the new language policy can be considered a challenge; one in which the implementation of receptive multilingualism might also be able to be included as a solution (International Affairs, 2019: 5-6).

The drive for inclusivity in the new language policy is further expanded upon through a number of key principles, which have been made with the purpose of stimulating language inclusion and

(14)

13

multilingualism. These key principles include a number of guidelines such as the active stimulation of language visibility for a number of languages within the schools; this is done in both formal and informal communication, as well as internal and external.

The second key principle for an inclusive multilingual work and study environment reads as follows: “NHL Stenden actively stimulates the application of parallel and receptive multilingualism in formal and informal settings” (International Affairs, 2019: 7). The terms parallel- and receptive

multilingualism have been marked with a footnote in which receptive multilingualism is being defined as a situation in which “participants use their respective first languages while

communicating, if everyone can understand each other” (International Affairs, 2019: 7). Within this statement one can read the first explicit mention of receptive multilingualism the framework of an NHL Stenden language policy, as opposed to the Language Code of Conduct, in which this linguistic phenomenon was never mentioned but only inferable from a situation that was described in that text (International Affairs, 2019: 7; NHL Stenden, 2018: 2).

The second time that receptive multilingualism is mentioned, again in tandem with parallel multilingualism, occurs in a section that deals with language use in meetings. In this section, the language policy clearly states that all language use in meetings at NHL Stenden are to be inclusive and provide a space where all members are enabled to actively take part in said meetings. “As language development takes time, and immediate solutions are required to deal with language dilemmas that occurred in the past in formal and informal meetings, NHL Stenden chooses to promote the application of parallel and receptive multilingualism in formal and informal settings, in order to bridge the gap between different levels of language proficiency” (International Affairs, 2019: 8). Through this statement, the implementation of receptive multilingualism is being sanctioned as a means of solving language dilemmas and allowing every participant in a meeting to get a say in what is being discussed. While it remains somewhat unclear if the term meeting is also extended to include class lectures is not made explicitly clear here, but if this should prove to be the case, then the entirety of the school would be committed towards the implementation of receptive

multilingualism (International Affairs, 2019: 8).

An additional reference to the use of receptive multilingualism comes guideline 6 of the Language Code of Conduct, which is also featured in the new language policy, albeit in the appendices. Through inclusion of this guideline, this potential use of receptive multilingualism is being carried over from the current language policy into the new (International Affairs, 2019: 14).

Until this new language policy has been finished and brought into effect, we will have to wait in order to see how receptive multilingualism will be implemented at NHL Stenden. While this language policy is still under development, and will likely receive further additions and polishes before it can be considered finished, the general situations in which it plans to implement receptive

multilingualism at NHL Stenden appear promising for the future of this linguistic phenomenon within that institution of higher education. But before this can take place, it must first know how to best implement receptive multilingualism within the school to begin with, as does this study.

2.5. Implementation of receptive multilingualism

Provided that it continues to include receptive multilingualism as a form of communication, once the new language policy of NHL Stenden is finished and brought into effect, it will become a new

example of an implementation of receptive multilingualism in education; specifically, within an institution of higher education. In the meantime, however, NHL Stenden has not been the first and

(15)

14

only school in the world that has chosen to implement receptive multilingualism within its language policy. However, even if receptive multilingualism is not found within the framework of a school’s language policy, that does not mean that this linguistic phenomenon is not being used within the school, be it in the classroom or in the corridors and hallways. So where is receptive multilingualism being used? Where else has receptive multilingualism been implemented in language policies? And if this process has at some point been implemented within a language policy, how was it

implemented, and what were the results thereof? This section will look at contexts, not all of them educational, where receptive multilingualism has been documented.

Blees and ten Thije state the relevance of receptive multilingualism in education by saying that “On the institutional and societal level, explicit language and education policies are key to promoting awareness and successful application of receptive multilingualism in society” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 4). An example of the use of receptive multilingualism in higher education, albeit an informal implementation, deals with two staff members at the Goethe Institute in Amsterdam. These two staff members, one is an L1 Dutch speaker and the other an L1 German speaker) apply receptive multilingualism in their communication through lingua receptiva. For these two people, this form of communication has proven to be successful, due to their understanding of the language of the other (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 4; Mulken & Hendriks, 2015: 4; Ribbert & ten Thije, 2007).

Another example of receptive multilingual communication can be found in the concept of Inter-Scandinavian communication, which can be explained as “[…] communication between citizens of different Scandinavian countries, [which] often takes place in Scandinavian languages rather than English as a lingua franca” (Schüppert & Gooskens, 2012: 333). The purpose of Inter-Scandinavian communication is to support the Scandinavian languages rather than to revert to the English lingua franca; a framework that is also promoted by Scandinavian governments and is extended to more areas than only education. The languages that are included within the framework of

Inter-Scandinavian communication are Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish (Schüppert & Gooskens, 2012). Another use of receptive multilingualism in education comes from a study by Vetter (2011), which looks at how receptive multilingualism might benefit language learning in Austrian schools. The focus of this study is Romance language learning within Austrian education. These Romance languages (the specific languages in this study are French, Italian, and Spanish) appear to compete with one another, as a school will usually only offer one of these language at a given point within its curriculum. Vetter (2011) argues that the introduction of receptive multilingualism could not only speed up the process of language learning, but also allow students to be competent in more than one Romance language. “Instead of French or Italian or Spanish, pupils could be competent in French and Italian and Spanish” (Vetter, 2011: 358). A short study among prospective Italian language teachers found that the acquisition of receptive skills was considered more helpful for written texts than for oral. Vetter (2011) found that “[…] oral receptive competences have been widely ignored within institutional contexts, although they appear more difficult to acquire in comparison to visual competences. The present investigation has shown that oral interaction is the place where the potential of receptive multilingualism meets language needs” (Vetter, 2011: 362-363). Additionally, while there were positive experiences with approaches for receptive competence acquisition, there was also an issue with motivation, which mainly stemmed from an idea that only understanding might be insufficient (Vetter, 2011).

While implementation of receptive multilingualism can be found, as the example in the previous paragraph indicates, it must be said that pure receptive multilingualism, as Lüdi (2007) calls it, is a rare occurrence. In an analysis of communication between French- and German speakers in a Swiss work environment, he observed that “[…] participants switch between languages and languages

(16)

15

modes, adapting to the situation and their interlocutors, even when receptive multilingualism is the official policy” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 4). From this, it could be determined that the use of

receptive multilingualism is fairly complex, with more than one mode of communication being used within a given moment (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 4; Lüdi, 2007).

Blees and ten Thije (2015) identify education as “One of the institutions that could benefit from and contribute to the use of receptive multilingualism…” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 5). They go on by saying that receptive multilingualism could be used within the context of higher education as an alternative form of communication, next to the lingua franca that is English. In addition, if the students within institutions of higher education, such as NHL Stenden, would be allowed to use the languages that they prefer to speak, for instance German or Spanish, then the use of receptive multilingualism within a school would not require lecturers or teachers to offer course content in German or Spanish. In addition, Mondria and Wiersma (2004) observed that learning a language receptively, can also be considered more efficient than doing so productively. When the aim is to achieve both a receptive and a productive proficiency in a language, however, this language should be learned both receptively and productively; receptive language learning should not become the only teaching method in this case (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 5; Mondria & Wiersma, 2004: 36; Moonen, 2013).

When it comes to language teaching, “didactic approaches based on intercomprehension stimulate language learners to recognize similarities between a new language and languages they already know (Meissner, 2008)” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 5). Didactics were developed by the EuroCom research project for the purpose of learning languages and promote linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe. These didactics were applicable with Germanic, Romance, and Slavic languages. For the Romance languages, a teaching method has been developed that allows people to understand every Romance language through receptive multilingualism. This method is known as The Seven Sieves. These seven sieves are the following:

1. International vocabulary 2. Pan-Romance vocabulary 3. Sound correspondences 4. Spelling and pronunciation 5. Pan-Romance syntactic structures 6. Morphosyntactic elements 7. Prefixes and suffixes

By familiarizing oneself with these seven sieves, it becomes possible for a person to understand every Romance language receptively (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 5, McCann et al., 2002; ten Thije, 2019; Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007: 10).

While the use of receptive multilingualism in higher education could be considered beneficial, for instance as means of increasing students’ receptive proficiency in a different language, there are not many examples of situations in which implementation of receptive multilingualism in classroom interaction has been done on purpose. A study by Creese and Blackledge (2010) shows that teachers and students in British community language schools prefer the use of translanguaging, in which English and a non-English language of instruction are mixed in order to communicate. In cases where English is spoken by the students, while the teacher uses the community language (e.g. Bengali, Cantonese), receptive multilingualism will be achieved. Creese and Blackledge (2010) argue that this form of communication would be a good alternative to teaching in only one language. It remains unclear, however, what the effects are of both translanguaging and receptive multilingualism on the

(17)

16

students’ development of their productive proficiencies in the language that is being taught (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 5; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018: 27).

One clear example where receptive multilingualism has been officially implemented is that of the University of Utrecht. In 2016, the Department of Language, Literature, and Communication offered over 60 courses, which were named luistertaalcursussen (“receptive multilingualism courses”). This has allowed students who take these courses to participate in a different language than the

language of instruction. The students are still required, however, to be able to understand the language of instruction. Furthermore, the languages that can be used in a given course depends on the linguistic repertoire of the lecturer in question. According to Jan ten Thije, who is credited for this initiative, “Receptive multilingualism is actually useful for two target groups. The one is Dutch students who would like to take courses in a program such as German, Spanish or French. The other group is international students who have need a larger course offering or would like to take Dutch-spoken courses to improve their Dutch” (Nijland, 2016; University of Utrecht, 2016). Students of the receptive multilingualism courses are also offered self-tests to see if their receptive proficiency is sufficient for a certain course. The receptive multilingualism courses are considered to be an enrichment of students’ study programs (de Hullu, 2017; Nijland, 2016; Universiteit Utrecht, 2016; Universiteit Utrecht, 2019).

Blees and ten Thije present a number of factors that are important to the successful application of receptive multilingualism. They state that the “Successful application of the receptive multilingual mode is dependent on…

 (1) Sociocultural and institutional awareness of and commitment to receptive multilingualism  (2) Speaker’s communicative and linguistic abilities and attitudes

 (3) Awareness of typological differences and similarities between the languages used” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 5-6)

According to Braunmüller (2013), there were three developments that changed European international communication in the time since the Middle Ages, during which receptive

multilingualism was a relevant form of communication. The first of these was the rise of writing as an important medium of communication, and written language setting the standard for the appropriateness of a person’s language use. The second development observed by Braunmüller (2013) was nationalism, which resulted in the development and standardization of national languages, “leaving less room for dialects, deviations, and plurilingual practices” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 6). The third and final development was that of language accommodation, which has led to the use of a lingua franca in spoken discourse. Because of these three developments, the use of receptive multilingualism, or lingua receptiva specifically, requires an effort in order to be able to implement it in settings such as education (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 6; Braunmüller, 2013). Language attitudes and exposure to different languages are also factors that can influence the success of receptive multilingual communication in higher education. An example of language attitudes between speakers of two languages can be found in the case of Dutch and German. Ribbert and ten Thije (2007) observed that language attitudes held towards German can, in some cases, be traced back to anti-German sentiments, which are the result of the German occupation of the Netherlands during the Second World War. This same Second World War has also affected the Germans’ self-perception. Both of these factors, in turn, influence which language can be used in a conversation. The negative attitudes towards German, for instance, may results in the discourse language shifting entirely towards Dutch, or English as a lingua franca (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 7; Ribbert & ten Thije, 2007: 76; Wolff, 1959).

(18)

17

“[…] the willingness to make an effort to apply LaRa (lingua receptiva) skills will depend on

sociocultural and institutional awareness and acceptance of receptive multilingualism” (Blees & ten Thije, 2015: 7-8). Duarte and Günther-van der Meij (2018) suggest that experimentation with receptive multilingualism might work in favor of multilingualism in higher education altogether, through the promotion of positive attitudes that teachers and students hold towards

multilingualism. Therefore, the promotion of receptive multilingualism would not only be beneficial to its own field, but also to multilingualism in general. Due to internationalisation that is in part caused by increased mobility around the world, as well as the growing diversity in multilingualism that is the results of this internationalisation, the use of a single – or any – lingua franca, such as English, can no longer be relied upon to be the best solution for getting a message across. Using a multilingual approach such as receptive multilingualism, however, may prove more successful in getting a message across than the use of a single lingua franca (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018; Muikku-Werner, 2014: 99; van Mulken & Hendriks, 2015: 1).

2.6. Statement of purpose

With the presence of so much background sources for this study to be built upon, a number of research questions have arisen which this study will aim to answer. These questions were already briefly touched upon in the first chapter, but will be explained in more detail here in terms of relevance as well as motivation. In addition, this section will go into detail on the connection between the theoretical background for this study and the research questions that said study aims to answer.

As was mentioned in the previous chapter, the main research question for this study is the following: How can receptive multilingualism be implemented at NHL Stenden? To answer this question, this study will look at both implementation in communication and in teaching. The main research question, however, is rather broad and will as such result in a broad answer. For that purpose, this study will seek to answer the following additional research questions in order to provide and maintain a clear structure within the answer:

 What are the attitudes held by teachers of NHL Stenden towards receptive multilingualism? As it has been pointed out in this chapter that attitudes can be of influence in the

acceptance and application of receptive multilingualism, it will be important to gain an insight into the attitudes held by the teachers that will take part in the research for this study.

 How familiar are teachers of NHL Stenden with the concept of receptive multilingualism? Knowing whether or not the participants are familiar with the concept of receptive

multilingualism can be considered relevant to this study, as this is an indication of whether or not receptive multilingualism is applied by the teachers, or what their first impression of this linguistic phenomenon might be.

 How do/would teachers of NHL Stenden implement receptive multilingualism in their communications within the school? This question has not been entirely derived from the theoretical background. Nevertheless, this is one of the most important research questions, as this will provide this study with an indication of how receptive multilingualism would be implemented within NHL Stenden. Should this process already have been implemented by teachers, however, this question will also answer how receptive multilingualism has already been applied within the school up until now.

(19)

18

 How would teachers of NHL Stenden envision receptive multilingualism as a standard form of communication within the school? While receptive multilingualism has already been made a part of the new language policy that is still under development, the question of how multilingualism would best be implemented within the framework of this new language policy has largely been left open. For this reason, it would be interesting to learn how the teachers that will one day implement this language policy would envision the use of receptive multilingualism as a standard school-wide form of communication. The answers to these questions are expected to answer the main research question.

In addition to answering the research questions, this study also aims to test a hypothesis. This hypothesis go as follows:

 Participation in this study will result in the (increased) implementation of receptive multilingualism by teachers who have participated in the observational experiment. This hypothesis will be answered with the answers from post-participation questions, which follow up the teachers’ participation in this study and will be explained in more detail in the next chapter.

3. Methodology

Although it was initially considered to analyze the data that was to be collected in the field by means of a quantitative methodology, this process was soon abandoned in favor of a focus on a more qualitative approach. Quantitative analysis has, however, been applied to a few elements of the collected data. Most of the research data for this study was collected at the NHL Stenden school in Leeuwarden, with a few exceptions, either through face-to-face interaction or video communication. Initially, the research data for this study was conceptualized to be gathered by means of what will be referred to in the rest of this study as the three-step process:

1. Interviews

2. Observational experiments 3. Post-participation questions

This three-step process served a dual purpose. The first purpose, which will from here on out be referred to as the research purpose, was the collection of research data for this study. This aspect was also the main purpose of the process. After all, it is the purpose of data collection that motivates the three-step process of gathering research data for this study in the first place. The second

purpose of this process, however, which will be referred to as the challenge purpose, was slightly more educationally motivated, as will be explained in the next paragraph.

When the research for this study was designed, it was assumed that it might be fairly easy for a teacher of NHL Stenden to state that he/she has a positive disposition or positive attitudes towards receptive multilingualism, as well as the implementation thereof within the school, while at the same time not actually acting on this disposition or attitudes. To that end, the interviews were designed not only to collect research data from the teachers, but also to challenge every teacher who participated in one of these interviews to describe how they implemented receptive multilingualism, provided that they already applied receptive multilingualism within the school before the interview. If they did not implement receptive multilingualism within this context, however, these same questions challenged them to theorize how they would go about this

(20)

19

implementation. As a result of this planning, the interview was made semi-structured to allow for further questioning along the lines of the main questions.

The observational experiment was created to cater to this same dual purpose. Along the lines of the research purpose, the primary function of the experiment sessions was to collect data on how the teachers implemented receptive multilingualism within the school. And just like with the interviews, the second (challenge) purpose of the observational experiments was to challenge the teachers, mainly those who did not practice receptive multilingualism, to put their receptive multilingualism strategies, which they had been challenged to theorize on during the interviews, into practice. For this reason, the challenge purpose made an effective division between theory and practice, with the interviews forming the theoretical part of the challenge, and the observational experiments making up the practical part. The conceptualization of the experiment was inspired by a study by Bahtina, ten Thije, and Wijnen (2013) on lingua receptiva communication, in which 10 pairs of Estonian and Russian participants were asked to perform a task via Skype, in which they could only speak their own first languages. This inspiration was further worked out and changed to fit the nature of this study better by looking at the research performed by van Mulken and Hendriks (2015) in their study on effective communication modes in multilingual encounters (Bahtina et al., 2013: 165-167; Kahwagi, 2012: 7-8; van Mulken & Hendriks, 2015).

The post-participation questions, with which the data collection for this study was concluded, was also subject to the dual purpose of the three-step process. While the answers to these questions were also collected as secondary data, the main focus of this final step in the three-step process was placed with the challenge purpose. This step serves as neither a theoretical nor a practical challenge, it instead aims to answer what the participants have chosen to do with receptive multilingualism inside the school as a result of their participation in this research. Those who had not used receptive multilingualism before their participation might have chosen to implement it in their communication with students and fellow teachers, while those who had already practiced this implementation before they participated in this research might have increased or improved this process. While data has, in the end, been gathered according to this process, a number of changes were made to the three-step process between its conceptualization and conclusion. Originally, the observational experiments were designed to be the main source of research data, with the data from the interviews and the post-participation questions complementing the experiment sessions. Due to the eventual turnout of participants, however, as well as the high quantity of research data collected from the interviews, in the end, the main focus of the three-step process was shifted from the observational experiments to the interviews.

The interviews were conducted from April 17 until May 14, 2019. Following the conclusion of the interviews, observational experiment sessions were scheduled between May 16-21 of the same year. As only three participants responded to the invitations for these sessions, resulting in only one session with two of them, a second round was held between May 27 and June 3, 2019, which proved unsuccessful. The post-participation questions were sent out on May 28, 2019, to every participant of the observational experiment. Data analysis was performed between May 27 and June 14, 2019.

(21)

20

3.1. Subjects

As was mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, most of the research data collection for this study was performed at NHL Stenden, specifically the NHL Stenden complex in Leeuwarden. As this study looks at the implementation of receptive multilingualism by teachers within NHL Stenden, the sample drew exclusively from staff of this educational institution who were employed there in a teaching capacity.

During the conceptualization of the three-step process of research data collection for this study, the sample sizes for each step were planned as follows:

 A number of roughly 20 teachers were envisioned for participation in the interviews. This size would allow for a highly reliable amount of data from the answers given to each question. Following an interview, a participant would be invited to also participate in the observational experiment.

 It was estimated that roughly half of those teachers who participated in the interviews would agree to participating in an observational experiment session. On a sample of 20 interview participants, this would mean that 10 teachers would be found willing to participate in such a session. Only five sessions would be needed to perform the

observational experiment with these ten teachers, as each teacher only had to participate in one session.

 The post-participation questions would be sent out to each teacher who had participated in the observational experiment. This meant that the anticipated sample for these questions was also 10 teachers.

In the end, however, the final sample sizes turned out to be very different from what had originally been expected. While 20 teachers had been anticipated to take part in the interviews, the interviews were eventually concluded with a final total of 12. Due to the high quantity of information from these interviews, however, this sample size was deemed acceptable to the reliability of this study. Furthermore, the sample was planned to be drawn from teachers from at least three NHL Stenden location in the Netherlands. In the end, however, most of the teachers in the sample work at the location in Leeuwarden, with a few exceptions who work in Groningen or Emmen.

Things were a little less fortunate with the observational experiments, however. Although 6 out of the 12 teachers who had been interviewed agreed to participate in an observational experiment session, only half of them followed up on the invitation eventually. As a session requires two participants, however, only two of these three participants were eventually able to take part in the observational experiment. As a result, only one experiment session was conducted with a final observational experiment sample of two.

The two teachers who participated in the observational experiment did both answer the post-participation questions, which also closed with a sample size of two as a result.

In closing, the makeup of the final research sample will require some description as well. The 12 teachers who took part in the interviews displayed a diverse range of nationalities and first

languages. All 12 teachers had the Dutch nationality, but for 5 of them, this was not their first or only nationality.

(22)

21 Table 1: A table displaying the makeup of the sample

L1 Age Gender Location

Dutch & Frisian 46 Male Leeuwarden

Frisian 32 Female Leeuwarden

Dutch 64 Female Leeuwarden

French 58 Female Leeuwarden

English 50 Female Leeuwarden

Mandarin 41 Female Leeuwarden

German 36 Female Leeuwarden

Dutch 40 Female Emmen

Romanian 42 Female Leeuwarden/Groningen

Dutch 58 Female Leeuwarden

Before the contents of table 1 will be explained in more detail, it would be interesting to note that, just like all 12 teachers have the Dutch nationality, they are also all proficient in the Dutch language. As for the L1s of all the participants, 3 out of 12 stated that they have Dutch as their first language, and another 3 teachers stated that their first language is Frisian. One participant, however,

answered to have both Dutch and Frisian as first language, which accounts for the 3,5 speaker counts in both the Dutch and the Frisian wedges. The rest of the sample spoke non-Netherlandic first languages, namely, English, French, German, Mandarin, and Romanian.

In addition, of the 12 teachers who participated in the interviews only one was male (the L1 Dutch and Frisian speaker), the other 11 being female teachers. The ages of the participants ranged from 32 to 64, with a range of 32 years and a mean of 47.6. Further information about the research sample that is tied to the data relevant to this study will be mentioned in detail later on.

3.2. Materials

Gathering the research data for this study through the three-step process required a number of materials. These materials will be named here in the order in which they were used during the research.

Although the interview was semi-structured, it did have 10 fixed questions to guide the interaction with the participants. These were available in four languages: Dutch, English, Frisian, and German (see Appendix A), allowing for participants to answer the interview questions in their own first language or whichever of these four languages they were most familiar with.

The first three questions were control questions. The first of these three asked the participants about their age. In the second question, they were asked to answer what their (current) nationality is. The third and last control question dealt with the perceived first language of the participant. The answer to this third question was also used to pair participants for the observational experiment sessions.

The fourth question in the interview asked the participants about their language attitudes and went as follows: What are your language attitudes towards Dutch, English, Frisian, German, or Low Saxon? If the L1 of the participant was one of these five languages, this language would be omitted from the

How receptive multilingualism can be implemented in the institution NHL Stenden