Chronicles of ordinary racism 2011 - Cronache di ordinario razzismo

(e) points out that there is no empirical correspondence between what a person can
do and the criteria outlined for a given level of the Cefr;
(f) takes issue with the fact that citizenship can be denied on the grounds of failure
to pass a language test based on the Cefr. 161
Plurilingualism by hook or monolingualism by crook
The social acceptance of a symbolic, punitive law was rendered easier – as well as by
the ethic‐civic conditions in which we live – by the typically backward attitude of Italian
culture on the subject of communicative skills. One imagines that, in order to achieve
social cohesion, it is necessary to impose a strongly structured language, free of internal
tensions and of diastratic, diatopic and diamesic differences. There is a tendency to
underestimate the plurality of dialects, strata and registers of what we know as the
“Italian language”. We find it hard to accept that “[…] the normal linguistic status of
any speaker will be bilingual […]. Next to bi/(multi)lingualism corresponding to the
code‐switching between two (or more) languages by the same speaker, linguistic
variation and the knowledge of other languages also relates to the alternating between
style‐, register‐ and situation‐based varieties which is charachteristic of any speaker.
From this we can infer that there are, strictly speaking, no monolingual speakers”. 162 We
do, however, attempt to impose this forced monolingualism on those who come from
abroad and already interact with natives, adapting their own habits and helping to
enrich well‐established ones. 163 The tenacity with which other institutions try to flatten
any hint of variety in language, thought and behaviour is extended to these new
arrivals, making them sit tests that are not able to assess their communication skills, but
rather offer boxes to tick, in order to prove that we know what is required by the people
in charge of marking who are sadly underqualified, thanks to the decree: the latter, in
order to continue in his badly‐paid job, will grow to hate it more and more and with it
any obstacle that might get in the way and that would lead him to question its
unsubstantiated assertions. The knowledge of a limited, flat language cannot be a
condition for social inclusion: on the contrary, within the linguistic sphere of
communication a plural, adapted language will be born, more as a result than as a
premise of a good inclusion process. 164
It is worrying that academic experts in search of a social mandate (or an assignment),
who go to work everyday, queue behind a counter, etc, remains largely inexplicable. In a collective intercession,
Van Avermaet points out that “an apparently friendly, direct and simple approach, actually entails the choice of a
level without any obvious basis or validation” (G. Extra, M. Spotti, P. Van Avermaet, Introduction, in G. Extra, M.
Spotti, P. Van Avermaet (edit by), Language Testing, Migration and Citizenship: Cross-national Perspectives,
Continuum 2009, p. 17).
161 This is equally true for recognition of “lesser” rights such as the “long-term permit” paper.
162 M. R. Manzini, L. M. Savoia, Work Notes on Romance Morphosyntax. Appunti di morfosintassi romanza,
Edizioni dell’Orso 2008.
163 “[…] the CEFR, which is essentially meant as a tool to promote plurilingualism, is used by some policy makers
as a scientific justification to promote monolingualism in official state languages and to focus more on what
newcomers lack than on what they might be able to contribute and add in terms of resources to a more diverse
society.” ( G. Extra, M. Spotti, P. Van Avermaet, Introduction, in G. Extra, M. Spotti, P. Van Avermaet (a cura di),
Language Testing, Migration and Citizenship: Cross-national Perspectives, Continuum 2009, p. 18).
164 “Language is crucial for integration but not necessarily a condition for integration, sometimes a result. Language
and integration are intertwined, go hand in hand.” (P. Van Avermaet 24/25-06-2010, Language requirements for
adult migrants. Results of a survey. Observations and challenges,
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/ConfMigr10_P-VanAvermaet_survey.ppt)
59