STAR Project, Research brief #2 Language and migration into Luxembourg Bernardino Tavares, Jurdana Martin & Kasper Juffermans Institute for Research on Multilingualism University of Luxembourg This is the second in a series of research briefs in the STAR project. STAR stands for “Sociolinguistic trajectories and repertoires: Luso-Luxo-African identifications, interactions and imaginations”, and is a three-year CORE research project funded by FNR, Luxembourg. This multi-sited project contributes to the field of sociolinguistics of globalization by investigating language and migration between the global South (Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau) and the global North (Luxembourg) from the perspective of both accomplished and aspiring migrants. In this second research brief we outline sociolinguistic aspects of migration into Luxembourg, with a focus on its Lusophone population. Trilingual Luxembourg Luxembourg is a very small country located at the heart of Europe with a population of around 500,000 people (cf. Statec 2014). It is one of the most diverse countries in Europe in terms of language use and its population. Due to its favourable location between France, Belgium and Germany and its affluence derived from the financial sector and as home of important EU institutions, it has the highest proportion of both foreign residents (45 per cent) and cross-border workers (about 42 per cent of the domestic labour force, see weblink: lesfrontaliers.lu) in the EU. The main foreign community hails from Portugal (90.800 or 17 per cent of the total population), followed by France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, former Yugoslavia, as well as from Brazil, USA, Canada, Cape Verde and other African countries (cf. Statec 2014). These factors together with its official trilingual policy of Luxembourgish, French and German, make Luxembourg a highly multilingual country. However, this official multilingualism of Luxembourg is controversial as its educational system is concerned. For instance, Kristine Horner and Jean Jacques Weber (2008) in their comprehensive description of Luxembourg’s language situation, emphasise the spoken/written distinction as a key element to understand the language situation in Luxembourg. They draw on the Baleine project (Fehlen et al., 1998) as a good start for a more comprehensive study of Luxembourg’s multilingualism. According to them, the Baleine study casts doubt on the generalization that all Luxembourgish citizens have Luxembourgish as their (only) home language. The survey results suggest that language use in the home is not limited to Luxembourgish, i.e. that the language situation is more diversified than most academic publications indicate (p.79). They draw on Davis (1994) and Fehlen (2002) to “call attention to the fact that there exists socio-economic stratification among the autochthonous Luxembourgish-speaking population, which correlates in part with the speakers’ competence in other languages, especially French” (p.83). Furthermore they point out that the preoccupation in classifying Luxembourgish as a minority language or not has lead to the ignorance of the existence and stigmatization

of speakers of vernacular and contact varieties of French and/or Portuguese, especially within the framework of Luxembourg’s educational system (p.83). Traditionally French has been considered the “language of prestige” (mostly in writing) in Luxembourgish society but according to the authors it is spoken role is “thorny” because Luxembourgish speakers often find it difficult when they have to speak it although this is not mentioned in official discourses and academic literature (p.84, cf. Fehlen 1997; Davis 1994). The authors criticize the traditionally based studies of the language situation in Luxembourg viewing it as composed by the dichotomies of: majority vs. minority or instrumental vs. integrative: “it may be more productive to view the Grand Duchy as a space in which there exist different communities of practice and/or a community of multiple practices” (p.84). For Weber and Horner there is a problematic coexistence of both monolingual and trilingual constructs of national identity in Luxembourg in that the first is based on the ideal of the homogeneous nation-state, the essentialist criteria of one nation, one language. This is problematic especially in the context of the changing heterogeneous composition of Luxembourgish society. This change caused by growing immigration ironically is also leading to the increasing visibility of Luxembourgish also as a written language while French has become a lingua franca. The authors complain that the educational system of German-French bilingual education with Luxembourgish predominating from précoce to préscolaire has remained static to these changes and functions as a “gate-keeping device” (p. 88 and cf. Weber 2014). That leads some non-germanophone residents to opt for education across the border in Belgium or France. The authors defend that the logical – and long overdue – consequence would be the establishment of a two-track literacy system. A choice between German-language literacy and French-language literacy would seem even more obvious as both German and French are officially recognized in the 1984 language law (p. 96).

Weber (2014) advocates for more flexibility in Luxembourg educational system and analyses the actual language and educational situation in Luxembourg in the light of in-migration and processes of globalisation. According to him, Luxembourgish language has been imparted to a higher position in the hierarchy of languages in Luxembourg as a consequence of attempts to construct it as an endangered language. This debate has been fuelled by fears over the survival of Luxembourgish in the presence of French as a lingua franca and fears of Luxembourgers becoming a minority in their own country. This discourse of endangerment concerns both the survival of the Luxembourgish language as well as the nation itself. Weber sees this as the reason why language policy makers introduced a language clause in the constitution (the language law of 1984) and recognizes that there is a constant increase in the use of Luxembourgish in written domain and more visibility of its standardization. He criticizes the presupposition “that children who do not speak Luxembourgish will acquire it through natural interaction with other pupils and teachers” (p.146) while neglecting the other way around, i.e. Luxembourgishspeaking children learning other languages (e.g., French) by interacting with their mates with a different linguistic repertoire. He points out that “the official languagein-education policy does not build on the whole of the children’s home linguistic resources; instead, it simplifies the children’s complex multilingual use and reduces it to monolingualism” (p.148). There is a tension between educational policy concerning language and actual language practices in Luxembourg. A more flexible multilingual education with http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

2

greater access to French and English, as Weber argues for, would potentially offer students better education and social, economic and professional integration (p.152). In the next section we will turn to the largest group of people with a migration background and review two monographs that have appeared about them. The Portuguese Turning to the issue of particular communities in Luxembourg, Delfina Beirão (1999) and Sarah Vasco Correia (2013) offer important insights about the largest foreign community in Luxembourg, the Portuguese. Although these two books have the ‘same’ topic and even title (Les portugais du Luxembourg), there is considerable difference in their social critique. Both present long quotes from their informants but Beirão’s work has a slightly more critical perspective than Correia’s, when analysing their informants’ voices. Beirão focuses her study on a dozen of Portuguese families. The families have strong similarities in the way they live both in their country of origin and in Luxembourg, the men being mostly construction or factory workers and the women working in the cleaning industry. The author interviewed the parents and their children separately in order to confront their way of life, aspirations and issues of education, job, identity and identifications concerning language, nationality and the returning plan envisaged by most parents. The idea of returning is constructed on the wish to have saved enough and have a house beforehand in Portugal, but it becomes more and more uncertain or even impossible, for instance, due to the schooling of their children. As she points out, the life circumstances impose the trajectory of each one, so their migration project evolves according to their different stages of life (p.42). Like Weber, she also criticises the Luxembourgish educational system mainly because of the teaching of German not as a foreign language and the assumption that students from “latino” family background can acquire Luxembourgish during their two years of pre-scolaire. She draws attention to another negative aspect: the fact that some Portuguese parents are more interested in their children securing a job quickly in order to help with family income than investing in their further education. Some other families Beirão observed are interested in the education of their children but found it challenging to get sufficiently involved due to their inability to understand Luxembourgish language. For Beirão, schools and teachers must do more to narrow this gap (p.122). Vasco Correia adopts a comparative-generational approach with a focus on culture and language transmission from the first generation to their children in order to offer useful insights of the life of Portuguese immigrants in Luxembourg. Comparing the first generation with the second generation, she tries to figure out if the social trajectory and attitudes of Portuguese immigrants in Luxembourg lead to better integration or to change their cultural and linguistic practices. Like Beirão, Vasco Correia highlights the fact that most first generation immigrants initially planned to return to Portugal. This may have influenced their aspiration to learn the languages of the host country and to get more involved with the local people socially. Return migration never happened massively either because most immigrants could not attain a stable economic situation or because they wait for their children to have a safe life. After that, the grandchildren came, who made them stay in Luxembourg even after their retirement. Instead, they opt for short visits to Portugal (where sometimes they feel like a foreigner too, p.134). Most of them opt to run their http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

3

life within their immigrant community, and according to the author this is partially due to the choc culturel from their arrival. In relation to language and the educational system, Vasco Correia makes some remarks about German as language of literacy at school and draws attention to the fact that this method constitutes a barrier to children of romanophone background (p.54). The Portuguese immigrants reveal some distance to the Luxembourgish language not because of their will but due to the fact that it is mostly out of their reach. They come to work and do not have enough time to learn it since most work in industries (construction, cleaning) where most of their colleagues speak Portuguese or French. Concerning the second generation Vasco Correia points at their bi-culturalité through their family, cultural associations and complementary schools and their mainstream schooling in Luxembourg which generally leads to a better integration than that of their parents. The link with the country of origin consists in the learning of Portuguese and their travelling to Portugal for holidays and to visit relatives. Some immigrants from the second generation, Vasco Correia points out, assimilate the culture of the host society even to deny their culture of origin. In some cases this rupture with the transmission of the language of the country of origin is due to mixed-origin couples. Vasco Correia concludes that there is a degree of marginalization of the first generation and she highlights their role as cultural mediator of the second generation. Related to this, Weber (2009) analysed the linguistic ideologies and processes of identity construction in second and third generation Lusophone adolescents. He carried out a study that asked to what extent adolescents adhere to the mainstream language ideologies and also to shed some light on educational integration issues in Luxembourg. Weber shows that many adolescents encounter difficulties in their studies due to the social hierarchy of languages in Luxembourg. Romanophone students especially struggle with German; some of them articulated that they are not able to speak the “correct language” because they code-switch frequently or have an accent; or, expressed frustrations that they are constantly reminded that Luxembourgish is the national language and mother tongue of the Luxembourgers. Despite the linguistic difficulties they encounter, Weber argues, these teenagers are “integrated” into Luxembourgish society. He argues that a new identity or ethnicity emerges: The teenagers tend to orient towards a tri- or multilingualism but their own tri/multilingualism is different from the traditional trilingualism of Luxembourgish society […]. Indeed, they construct new and emergent multilingual ethnicities and identities on the basis of residual (mostly Portuguese) and dominant (mostly Luxembourgish and French) cultural elements; the residual, dominant and emergent elements combine to form a new structure of feeling which […] could be referred to as Lusobourgish or Romanobourgish identities. These new Lusobourgers are “integrated” linguistically. (p. 144)

He argues that this new ethnicity brings along an alternative form of integration that has nothing to do with the “intransigent nativism” or “forceful assimilation” processes that “desire to eradicate everything that is foreign in society, either by removal of the immigrants themselves or through forced surrender of the immigrants’ languages and cultures” (p.145). Weber insists that the future of social cohesion is in the hands of politicians and policy-makers with respect to rethinking Luxembourg’s language-in-education policy. In the next section we will discuss two of the most important and politicized categories in the debate on language and migration in Luxembourg, on the basis of a critical academic paper and a European-funded research report on integration. http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

4

Integration and citizenship Horner (2009) seeks to better understand the current massive discourse of integration in Europe based on language testing as a pre-requisite toward citizenship. She draws attention to the centrality of this discourse which advocates the learning of the language of the host country (national and/or official language(s)) by immigrants as a way to solve migration problems and have “more harmonized forms of citizenship legislation within the European Union” (p.109). She reminds us that migration policies are (constantly) reframed according to the enlargement phases of the EU, in order to fit the accelerated processes of globalization. For her the focus on multilingual Luxembourg offers insights of interactions between the broader discourse of the EU and the state-level discourses on integration, citizenship legislation and language proficiency. As she points out, “in relation to the increasing degree of societal multilingualism in Luxembourg together with intensifying processes of EU consolidation, the active promotion of Luxembourgish has been gaining momentum steadily since the 1970s” (p.111). Turning to the question of citizenship, as Horner points out, there is both an opening and a closing of the nation with the 2001 amendments to the law of nationality. This is due to the reduction from ten to five years of residency and the introduction of language requirements respectively (applicants must demonstrate basic knowledge of Luxembourgish). Horner draws attention to simultaneous developments across EU member-states and she stresses that “an analysis of the discourse of integration is central to understanding the dynamics of these developments” (p.113). Drawing on what Blommaert’s has called the “dogma of homogeneism” (the believe that the ideal society is linguistically and culturally homogeneous, p.113), Horner considers this “illusion of nation-state congruence” central to European nationalisms, whether in their typical monolingual representation or in the specific trilingual imagination of Luxembourg. In Luxembourg, the imposition of the 2001 amendments is not uncontroversial, while the defenders of the language clause see it as “the key to full participation in social and political life in Grand Duchy” (p.117) and use the words assimilation and integration, with the latter being a mere ornamentation of the former based on the goal to achieve social cohesion. Thus the successfulness of one’s application is portrayed as depending entirely on the applicants’ responsibility. Horner cites a naturalized Luxembourger (p.121) whose views point to the goodwill of both parts (citizenship applicants and “the system”) and challenge the idea that “Luxembourgish language is, in itself, a key to successful integration” (p.121) rather than a means to survive. Horner criticises the way Luxembourgish is overgeneralized as a key to integration in that it is taken for granted that those who were born in Luxembourg are fully integrated. Her observations draw attention to questions like: are all Luxembourgish speakers (or those with Luxembourgish nationality) “fully” integrated? She worries that the new loi sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise will “stipulate stricter language requirements together with more rigid testing procedures” (p.122) and can be seen as an attempt to control migration and to protect “socio-economic privileges of certain members of the ethnic core” (p.124). A report from the Centre d’étude et de formation interculturelles et sociales (CEFIS), authored by Jacobs and Mertz (2010) and funded by the European Integration Fund and the Ministry of Family and Integration, focuses on the “parcours de personnes originaires du Cap-Vert & de l’ex-Yougoslavie.” Primarily concerned with integration and social cohesion this report offers important insight into these two http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

5

migrant communities in Luxembourg. While Fehlen et al.’s Baleine report and Beirao’s and Vasco Correia’s studies cited above focus on intra-European immigrants to Luxembourg, the CEFIS project of “Intégralux” is the only qualitative study exclusively concerned with non-EU migrant communities. The report recognises the more difficult situation of Cape Verdean and former Yugoslavian communities in juridical terms (cf. p. 65) compared to migrants from other non-EU communities (Americans, Swiss, Chinese, etc.). The report is divided in two parts. In the first part the authors outline the definition of integration which they consider a problematic concept due to its subjectivity and use in politics (cf. ps. 9-10), but nevertheless point to its indicators in Luxembourg based on a quantitative analysis. The second part focuses on social dynamics and includes migrants’ voices reflecting on their transnational lives. The report highlights that from a political perspective the word integration is very often used en mettant l’accent sur une pression morale à l’integration, surtout auprès des communautés étrangères, en prétextant que moyennant des mesures politiques mises à leur disposition et en s’appuyant sur une idéologie contemporaine de l’autonomie individuelle, celles-ci et leurs membres ont les moyens, les capacités, voire la responsabilité de s’intégrer (p. 9).

Drawing on Schnapper (2007), they stress that the word integration originated from the natural sciences in that it was about understanding and studying the participation of an external element in the coherence of a system, e.g., the human body. By analogy, the more a society is integrated, the more its members (institutions, people, groups or communities) are coherently linked to one another (cf. Entziger, 2003). According to the authors the integration is made by re-socialization of immigrants in the host society through schooling, employment, social networks and the media. They posit that an intense link to the country of origin may reduce the immigrant’s effective integration into the society of the hosting country. They also point out that integration is a systematic and dynamic as opposed to a linear process because society is always in transformation. Concerning the integration of immigrants in Luxembourg, the authors concentrate on political and social integration and point out that integration is taken as a problem mainly when it concerns non-European immigrants due to their different cultural and religious practices from the autochtone population. From a political perspective, there is a demand for social cohesion and integration through the reciprocal will of immigrants and autochtones respectively. It is a process “à double sense” (p. 15) with various dimensions (political, economic, cultural and social). According to Conseil Economique et Social (CES – a permanent advisory body of the government in economic and social policy), (im)migrants have to make an effort to adapt to the rules and values of the hosting society (without abandoning their own identity) as both condition and consequence of employment, training and education. The state and municipalities have an active role in facilitating the immigrants in their process of integration by creating programmes and measures to grant immigrants access to the programmes of integration. Thus, in Luxembourg, there is a contract of integration in that the learning, at least, of one of the official language and instruction civique are considered paramount. From the social perspective, the process of integration is viewed differently according to each nationality of immigrants once there are differences in the importance of the dimensions and it also depends on the degree of tolerance in the neighbourhood in coping with “la difference et la diversité.” According to the CEFIS report, the social dimension has a stronger influence on the integration of immigrants than the political dimension has. They highlight that http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

6

education, training and employment are important indicators of integration, however, immigrants face difficulties in order to have their diplôme recognized. The second part of their study concerns the domains of social integration. They remind us that Cape Verdean and former Yugoslavian communities have different migration trajectories into Luxembourg. Cape Verdeans mostly came to Luxembourg as part of the Portuguese labour migration of the 1970s, while many people from former Yugoslavia came as refugees displaced by the Balkan wars in the 1990s. The report cites an earlier study by Laplanche and Vanderkam (1991) depicting the sociocultural situation of Cape Verdeans in Cape Verde and Cape Verdeans’ everyday migrant life in Luxembourg but call for more detailed research focussing on the process of integration. Their study interviewed 65 people of which 42 people are from the two migrant communities (with at least seven years of residence in Luxembourg) and 23 from what they call “personnes-réseaux” (p. 61) in the host society (Luxembourg). The study comments on different spheres and their connections in the process of integration, i.e. education, language, nationality, employment and associations. The importance of participating in associations is viewed differently among the interviewees: some consider participating in community associations important tools for integrating and keeping the traditions of their origin; others see it as a way to marginalization and find it more integrating if immigrants adhere to Luxembourgish associations (cf. p. 72). Several participants found the learning of one of the official languages the most important sphere for integration. Most of the immigrants recognize the importance of learning languages as a way to enrich oneself culturally and interact in a diverse society but some of them find it difficult to decide which language to start learning first, due to the complexity of Luxembourg’s multilingualism (cf. p. 85). Most of them considered it most important or practical to learn French first as this is the language most spoken in the job market (cf. p.88). Several participants lamented that there is lack of patience from autochtones towards immigrants struggling to learn the Luxembourgish language. Locals typically quickly switch to French when talking to foreigners. Concerning education, the authors draw attention to the fact that school is also viewed in Luxembourg as a factor of exclusion. They draw on Martin, Dierendonck, Meyers and Noesen (2008) to show that there is a need for some reforms in the educational system in order to reduce the inequalities but the reforms are still not in the plan. They point out that students of Cape Verdean and Portuguese origin have higher rates of grade repetition, followed by students of former Yugoslavian origin and they suppose that this may be related to the hypothesis that students who speak one of the official languages at home have more chance to success in the primary school. The report also criticizes the imposition of the German language as the language of learning in primary school in that it represents not only a linguistic selection but a real social selection which creates an opposition between luxembourgophones and romanophones (cf. p. 103). The authors envisage reforms in the education system in order to offer the students the same chances at the start of their schooling (cf. p. 110). The authors draw attention to the importance of securing jobs in the formal economy, which is for many the most important sphere for integration. Non-EU immigrants do not have free access to the market of employment (cf. p. 119), so EU citizenship facilitates immigrants’ employment possibilities. An additional field of research on language and migration in Luxembourg needs to be added to our review, the phenomenon of cross-border labour and its sociolinguistic impact.

http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

7

Cross-border workers and multilingualism in Luxembourg As noted, Luxembourg not only has the highest shared of foreign immigrants in the EU (45 per cent) but also the highest number of cross-border workers (42 per cent). Seminal work on the phenomenon of cross-border workers (transfrontaliers, i.e. people living in one and working in another country) in Luxembourg has been carried out by Anne Franziskus and Julia de Bres (2012). They present an analysis of the linguistic practices of cross-border workers in Luxembourg by means of ethnographic and discourse analytical research on workplace communication. Their work draw attention to the impact of communication in the workplaces for the overall sociolinguistic situation of Luxembourg. For their study they selected three different professionally, socially, and linguistically heterogeneous workplaces – a supermarket, a logistics company and an IT company. Each of these represented a different multilingual profile with French, German, Luxembourgish, English and Portuguese. Throughout their study, Franziskus and de Bres observed different degrees and scales of the use of Luxembourgish language by cross-border workers. In order to facilitate the understanding of Luxembourgish use in this domain, the authors present a continuum of this use ranging from no usage of Luxembourgish to its current usage, with three intermediate phases, those of routines and keywords (specific for each workplace and domain of work); as receptive multilingualism, and the usage of elaborated expression or passages in Luxembourgish. The routines can consist on one word, for instance greetings ‘moien’, or a sequence of words/ expressions (e.g., wéi ass et [how are you], alles am gréngen [everything is alright]). The sequence of words and key words permit cross-border workers to interact (with each other and/or with their Luxembourgish-speaking colleagues and costumers) and to navigate their professional environment without being full-fledged users of standard Luxembourgish. The authors conclude that in Luxembourg cross-border workers choose to use phrases and expressions in Luxembourgish with Luxembourgish colleagues or even between each other in order to facilitate integration in their professional environment, and as a way to show respect and reduce the relationship gap to their Luxembourgish colleagues and get positive reactions from them. It is symbolically important for many Luxembourgers to see a cross-border worker or immigrant trying to speak and learn Luxembourgish. However, some participants of the study revealed negative attitudes of narrow-minded Luxembourgish costumers or colleagues, often toward immigrants and cross-border workers in general. Although they call for a questioning of the concept of integration, they see Luxembourgish as an important tool to “integrate” in one’s professional environment of Luxembourg for cross-border workers and foreign residents alike. Moving to the university as a workplace setting, de Bres and Franziskus (2014) bring new insights to the study of language and migration. Based on single day language diaries of 24 university students, the authors draw attention to a changing situation regarding multilingualism in Luxembourg. The authors provide the students with a language grid they were asked to fill. All of them filled their diary in English (since it was the language of the course). During the lectures students (in group work) were asked to interview each other relying on important aspects they found in each other’s diaries, followed by a group discussion about what surprising aspects of language they discovered. The students were then asked to fill a table indicating their nationality or nationalities, as well as their recent family background in terms of nationality and home languages (p. 66). Based on the results, the authors categorized http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

8

the students in three groups: first, students with strong Luxembourgish backgrounds, second those with migrant backgrounds and thirdly those with international backgrounds. To the authors’ surprise, they could see how they underestimated the share of students with migrant backgrounds and overestimated the share of students with strong Luxembourgish backgrounds (p. 66-7). The results confirm the high level of multilingual practices by students with no monolingual language diary and with all the diaries revealing the use of four to six languages a day, including receptive multilingualism. The use of English and French covered both formal and informal, written and spoken domains; “German was often associated with listening to the radio, reading the newspaper and watching television” (p. 68) and Luxembourgish with interacting with family and friends and digital media. Conclusion In this research brief we reviewed literature concerning language and migration in the context of multilingual Luxembourg. Our focus is to understand the language practices and life trajectories of immigrants (especially Lusophone immigrants). The existing literature brings general insights about migrant communities in which the Portuguese community is considerably researched, but with research on African and other non-EU communities being nearly uncharted terrain. If we are to understand the dynamics of language and migration in Luxembourg in relation to and beyond the official Luxembourgish-French-German trilingualism, there is a need for more sustained ethnographic and critical research on smaller and less visible communities. The STAR project seeks to contribute to this through investigating flows of migration from Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau that are historically linked to the sizeable and relatively well-researched Portuguese community in Luxembourg. References Beirão, D. 1999. Les portugais du Luxembourg: Des familles racontent leur vie. Paris: L’Harmattan. Conseil Economique et Social. 2006. Pour une politique d’immigration et d’intégration active. Avis, Luxembourg 12 Octobre. Correia, S. V. 2013. Les Portugais du Luxembourg: Question sur la transmission intergénérationnelle de la langue et de la culture d’origine. Luxembourg: d’Letzeburger Land Davis, K. A. 1994. “Language Planning in Multilingual Contexts: Policies, Communities, and Schools in Luxembourg”. Amsterdam: Benjamins de Bres, J. and Franziskus, A. 2014. Multilingual practices of university students and changing forms of multilingualism in Luxembourg. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(1), 62-75. Entzinger, H. and Biezeveld, R. L. 2003. Benchmarking in immigrant integration. Erasmus University Rotterdam [Host]. Fehlen, F. 2002. Luxembourg, a multilingual society at the Romance/Germanic language border. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23: 80– 97. Fehlen, F. 1997. De l’importance économique du luxembourgeois About the economic importance of Luxembourgish. Forum, 177: 31–36. http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

9

Fehlen, F., Piroth, I., Schmit, C. and Legrand, M. 1998. “Le sondage BALEINE: Une étude sociologique sur les trajectoires migratoires, les langues et la vie associative au LuxembourgThe WHALE survey: A Sociological Study of Migratory Trajectories, Languages, and Association Life in Luxembourg”. In Hors Série 1, Luxembourg: Recherche Etude Documentation. Fehlen, F. 2010. Le point de non retour. La réforme de l'enseignement des langues. In Forum für Politik, Gesellschaft und Kultur in Luxemburg (Vol. 294). Forum asbl. Franziskus, A. and De Bres, J. 2012. Les pratiques linguistiques des frontaliers au Luxembourg: focalisation sur leur utilisation du luxembourgeois. Le travail frontalier: pratiques, enjeux et perspectives. Horner K. and Weber J. J.2008. The Language Situation in Luxembourg. In Current Issues in Language Planning Horner, K. 2004. “Negotiating the language-identity link: Media discourse and nation-building in Luxembourg”. In State University of New York at Buffalo, Ann Arbor: UMI. PhD dissertation Horner, K. 2007a. “Language and Luxembourgish national identity: Ideologies of hybridity and purity in the past and present”. In Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000), Edited by: Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J. and Vandenbussche, W. 363–378. Berlin: de Gruyter Horner, K. 2009. Language, citizenship and Europeanization: Unpacking the discourse of integration. In Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in …, Jacobs, A. and Mertz, F. 2010. L’intégration au Luxembourg. Indicateurs et dynamiques sociales. Parcours de personnes originaires du Cap-Vert et de l’exYougoslavie, CEFIS Red, (14). Jones, K., Martin-Jones, M. and Bhatt, A. 2000. Constructing a critical, dialogic approach to research on multilingual literacy: Participant diaries and diary interviews. Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds, 319-351. Laplanche, C. and Vanderkam, M. 1991. Di nos...: nous, des Capverdiens au Luxembourg... Ministère des Affaires Culturelles, Centre National de l’Audiovisuel, Luxembourg. Loi du 23 octobre 2008. Sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise. Mémorial A, nº 158. Martin, R., Dierendonck, C., Meyers, C. and Noesen, M. 2008. La place de l’école dans la société luxembourgeoise de demain. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université. Ribbert, A. and Ten Thije, J. D. 2007. Receptive multilingualism in Dutch-German intercultural team cooperation. Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts, 73-103. Sayad, A. 1997. L'immigration ou les paradoxes de l'altérité. De Bock Université. Schnapper, D. 2007. Qu’est-ce que c’est l’intégration? Folio Actuel inédit. Statec. 2014. Le portail des statistiques: Grand Duché du Luxembourg. www.statistiques.public.lu Zeevaert, L. and Jan, D. ten Thije. 2007. Introduction. Jan D. ten Thije, Ludger Zeevaert (Eds.). Receptive Multilingualism: Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Dialectic Concepts. Weber, J.J. 2009. “Constructing Lusobourgish Ethnicities”, in: Language Problems & Language Planning, 33:2, pp. 132-152, John Benjamins Publishing Company. Weber, J. J. 2014. Flexible Multilingual Education: Putting Children's Needs First. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

http://starprojectlux.blogspot.com

10