The discussion on immigration and multiculturalism includes an additional important dimension: the role of proficiency in the language of the host country, in relation to immigrants’ socio-economic integration path. However, the key factor of socio-economic integration in relation to linguistic diversity is not the knowledge of the language or languages per se, but communication (Skourtou, 2002). According to this view, communication supports social cohesion, not because all people use a common language code (this is a minimum requirement), but because citizens know where, why, with whom and for what they will use one language or the other (Fishman, 1972).
An important dimension of learning the language of the country of settlement is that participation in familiar or unfamiliar experiences through the use of a new language, leads to an increased focus on the issue of diversity.
Given that knowledge of the language of the country of settlement is important in terms of integration (economic, social and cultural); this debate is also closely tied to the policy of recognition (Bauböck, 2011). Languages do not only have communicative values, but are also important in terms of how we see the world, as well as a point of expression of individual or collective identity. Interestingly, Bauböck interprets linguistic assimilation as more compatible with the liberal values as long as immigrants remain free to expresses their beliefs (Bauböck, 2001, p. 8). He then proposes the adoption of certain guiding principles that could be applied in the sphere of public policy in different national contexts: linguistic freedom,16 assimilation, accommodation and recognition (ibid). Bauböck, however, places more emphasis on the promotion of linguistic assimilation by the state, promoting language learning (of the country of settlement) through public education, both for the children of immigrants and for newcomers. The provision of language skills is for Bauböck a public duty, because the struggle for survival and the need to save money prevents many immigrants from investing time and money to attend language courses. The problem of language
16Bauböck notes that with regards to linguistic freedom, liberal democracies must ensure the immigrants’ right to use their language both in private and in the public sphere.
proficiency (or non-proficiency) identified with immigrants who settled in postwar Europe is a characteristic example. Despite their long-term residence (often exceeding 30 years) in the country of settlement, immigrants face serious difficulties in speaking the country’s official language. Therefore, Bauböck concludes that instead of blaming immigrants for the failure of socio-economic integration, we ought to attribute responsibility for language programmes to public institutions.
The issue of compulsory attendance of language courses is one of the most heated debates in European public discourse. The management of linguistic diversity and the acquisition of language skills are becoming increasingly important at every stage of immigrants’ life cycle, starting from the pre-school age to the adult applicants for citizenship or stay permit (Mehlem et al., 2004). Regarding linguistic integration of adult immigrants, there are recent developments in language learning programmes for adult immigrants, as a mandatory requirement in order to obtain the right of residence in the host country. In the context of the so-called integration programme, language learning classes have been established as an obligation for both parties involved (the state must provide the classes, and the immigrant must attend).
Some European countries have introduced special policies on language learning and integration programmes for newcomers (Netherland, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Sweden), while some other countries have implemented integration measures which constitute part of the general migration policies (Italy, Spain), whereas in some cases the responsibility is assigned to non-governmental organizations (Italy) (Cingolani, 2004).
Bauböck’s (2001) own understanding of the purpose of language learning programmes, is that they must guarantee the long-term interests of the immigrant, in relation to upward social mobility, and not with regard to the short-term gain of securing income through unskilled work (2001, p. 6).
Nowadays, the one-sided focus on language proficiency as the basic prerequisite for integration has been criticized (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2004), while the emphasis has shifted to intercultural or multicultural education, which aims to bridge cultural and linguistic differences and to focus on more open approaches that can comprehensively address the needs of immigrants in the multi-linguistic context of their daily life. On the other hand, the increasing number of immigrants in the USA, with most originating from non-English speaking countries, has attracted the interest of researchers on the role of language proficiency in the integration of immigrants. There is evidence that proficiency in English helps immigrant to integrate economically in the new country, enjoying better income and at
the same limiting the wage gap between immigrants and the native population (Bleakley and Chin, 2009). However, despite the changes towards a more balanced perception on the obstacles and difficulties of linguistic and educational integration, nowadays, old problems persist and continue to draw the attention of scholars.
Thus in the study of Dustmann (1996) entitled The social assimilation of immigrants, with regards to the level of proficiency in German, the author highlights the fact that whether an immigrant can speak the German language well or very well, has a largely positive impact on their sense of German identity, compared to those who do not speak the German language so well. The author concludes that proficiency in German seems to have positive effects not only on economic success, but also promotes social integration significantly.
Moreover, in the relevant literature, the parameter of linguistic capital is theorized as an important component of immigrants’ human capital in the society of settlement. Linguistic capital thus has (utilitarian) added value for the economy of the country of settlement, since it is not transferable to the economy of the immigrants’ country of origin. Investment in linguistic capital should be based on the potential future benefits, the cost of acquisition and individual efficiency in production (Dustmann and Fabbri, 2003, p. 3).
Chiswick and Miller (2001), on the other hand, present a more comprehensive context of the variables that interpret these factors. In particular, the relevant variables, which measure the performance of immigrants with regard to the acquisition of linguistic capital, are the educational level and the age at which one has migrated (given that the possibility of learning may deteriorate during the life cycle), assuming that settlement is permanent and that the period during which linguistic capital is productive, depends on the age of the immigrant when they enter the country of settlement. Accordingly, individuals who migrate at a younger age have greater incentives to acquire the required linguistic capital. Moreover, its acquisition may depend on the extent of an individual’s exposure to the language of the host society.
Chiswick and Miller (2001) noted that a variable that measures the exposure of individuals to language is the duration of residence in the country of settlement.
Beckhusen et al. (2012) take as a starting point the economic perspective17 theory of Lazear (2007), and have identified two key components in relation to the level of usage of the country of settlement’s language.
17According to this approach, language proficiency is considered as a prerequisite for economic success and social integration.
(i) Segregation and spatial scale
According to the authors, the socio-spatial segregation of immigrants is an important parameter with relation to the use of language and cultural adaptation. Therefore, the decision to learn the language is influenced by the expected social reward, which comes as a result of interaction between members of the dominant culture. Thus, in the context of spatial interaction, meeting opportunities are not determined simply by the spatial proportion of immigrants in a region, but by the distribution of immigrants across the system of spatial units, which constitute the space within which a person’s activities take place.
(ii)Networking and assimilation
Networking is divided into two sub-types. The first type refers to behaviours aimed at maintaining contact within the immigrant community, e.g., participation in an ethnic association. Networking, according to the present version, affects language proficiency in two different ways. First, networking implies that commercial transactions are contained within the ethnic border of community. Therefore, the opportunities of meetings/transactions with members of the same ethnic group are relatively larger than those with the rest of society.
Subsequently, the reduction/limitation of income/diversity of clientele, will in turn limit the likelihood of learning the new language. Secondly, intra-group networking reduces the exposure of immigrants to the host country’s language, being in this way a barrier for its acquisition.
The second type of networking focuses on the behavioural context that essentially creates the patterns of contact with members of society at large, such as the time you spend with the native population. These behaviours are described as assimilative. However, frequent contact with members of the host society increases the expected social reward, which results in the greater use of the host society’s language. Moreover, assimilative behaviours increase the exposure of an immigrant to the host country’s language and therefore strengthen its proficiency. The empirical findings provide convincing arguments that the behavioural differences play a key role in the understanding of language proficiency of immigrants. However, the assimilative attitudes and, to a lesser extent, networking behaviours, are important for the language proficiency, reducing in this way the negative spatial effects.
The study of Bleakley and Chin (2009) entitled Age at Arrival. English Proficiency and Social Assimilation among U.S.A Immigrants, focuses on the relationship between
language proficiency (English) and social integration. The question is whether English language proficiency and the social advancement of immigrants is the result of their cultural preferences or other more fundamental constraints. Utilizing the 2000 census data, researchers correlated the variables of intermarriage relations, fertility and residential location, with the age of entry in the USA, focusing particularly on whether the age coincides with the ‘critical period’ of language learning. The study’s findings showed that English language proficiency significantly affects the process of socio-economic integration.
Furthermore, the prospect of intermarriage is linked to the immigrants’ language proficiency, education and upward mobility and development in the labour market. In addition, English language proficiency increases the possibility of both divorces and mixed marriages.
Immigrants with higher level of English language proficiency marry people with greater fluency in English, better educated and with higher income, thus increasing the possibility of mixed marriages. It is also estimated that immigrants with a higher level of language proficiency have less probabilities to live in purely ‘ethnic enclaves’. Finally, regarding the initial working hypothesis, researchers note that structural constraints play a key role in the integration process of immigrants in the USA. Even immigrants with a strong preference for full integration or assimilation in American society may not succeed because of structural constraints.
Other studies examine the relationship between language skills and the area of residence, such as the studies of Funkhouser and Ramos (1993) and Toussaint-Comeau and Rhine (2004). More analytically, Funkhouser and Ramos (1993) found that Dominican and Cuban immigrants with greater English proficiency are more likely to live outside the purely ethnic areas of USA. On the other hand, Toussaint-Comeau and Rhine (2004) argue that Spanish immigrants with low English proficiency are more likely to live in purely Spanish areas (ethnic enclaves) of Chicago. Finally, Lazear’s (2007) approach is also very interesting, in its effort to reverse traditional correlations identified a positive relation between the interaction of living in a purely ethnic region and the linguistic proficiency of an immigrant.
In Greece, developments with regards to immigration have led to the de facto creation of multicultural or multilingual environments. The Greek state, however, is by and large a de jure recognition of this reality, with the result that today we have what Fishman (1972) calls individual bilingualism without social bilingualism (in Damanakis, 2004). On the other hand, studies examining the role of Greek language acquisition in the broader socio-economic integration of immigrants are limited. More specifically, two surveys conducted in Athens in 2003 by MRB Hellas (Greek Statistical Service) showed that 70 per cent of immigrant
children are fluent in Greek, while 28 per cent of adult immigrants who live in Greece for more than 6 years have low linguistic proficiency (Baldwin-Edwards, 2005). The study by Lyberaki and Maroukis (2004) and Maroukis (2010) found that the majority of adult Albanians spoke Greek well, while the number of those who could write was smaller. The most common places or means to learn the Greek language, according to this survey, were the workplace (69 per cent) and television (50 per cent). Simultaneously, the percentage of immigrants who have attended Greek language courses appears to be very low (18 per cent) (Lyberaki and Maroukis, 2004, p. 17).
The survey of Iosifides (2007), in contrast, showed a significantly improved image of language proficiency among immigrants, compared to previous studies. Thus according to estimations, 56.5 per cent of Albanians and 45.7 per cent of Bulgarians have medium-level language skills, while some of those who participated in the survey declared that they had attended Greek language courses at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2007, p. 47).
Similarly, the study of Papadopoulou (2009) found that the majority of her sample – immigrants living in Athens, Thessaloniki and Ioannina – were sufficiently proficient in Greek (92.9 per cent) (2009, p. 50).
A more representative picture of the language proficiency of immigrants who live in the Greek territory is provided by the recent study of Pavlopoulos et al. (2011, p. 23). More specifically, this survey found that the overall indicator of Greek language proficiency is low.
With regards to the immigrant group, Albanians have the highest score of Greek language learning, and immigrants from Asia, Africa and South America the lowest. Between the two groups we have immigrants from European states that are not members of the Union.
Regarding the years of residence, it is clear that the greater the number of years of residence in Greece, the greater the language proficiency.
As far as educational level is concerned, those who have completed tertiary education display the highest score. Then comes the group that has completed secondary education, while the lowest score is held by those who have completed their primary education.
The international literature on the subject makes it clear that language proficiency is a key parameter of socio-economic integration. In the Greek case, while most immigrants do not learn Greek through organized language programmes, there is also little by way of an organized institutional framework to ensure this. Furthermore, there is no acknowledgment of the multicultural facet of the Greek context in the public sphere.