Elite bilingualism? Language use among multilingual teenagers of Swedish background in European Schools and international schools in Europe

Abstract

This article explores the language use and language attitudes as reported by a number of multilingual teenagers with a Swedish background in European Schools and international schools in Europe. Special attention is given to the concepts of Third Culture Kids and elite bilingualism in relation to teenagers’ multilingualism. This study is based on a sociolinguistic survey comprising 72 participants. The results show a relationship between the language of instruction in two different international education programmes and participants’ reported language use and attitudes.

Keywords

Elite bilingualism international education programmes language attitudes language use linguistic diversity multilingual teenagers Third Culture Kids

Introduction

Owing to increased mobility in the globalized world, many children and teenagers are schooled in international education programmes. For many of them, their first language (L1) does not coincide with the language of instruction nor with the society’s majority language. In the plurilingual and multicultural environments where they grow up, they become multilingual using different languages in their daily lives.

One of the factors and processes promoting multilingualism is voluntary migration (Lainio, 2013; Myers-Scotton, 2006). Voluntary migrants have not received much attention in research on multilingualism (Day and Wagner, 2007), in part because research tends to focus primarily on involuntary migration within ‘an “ethnic minorities” paradigm’ (Blommaert and Rampton, 2011: 1).

Individuals who become multilingual through their own free choice are often referred to as elite bilinguals (Paulston, 1978). The multilingualism of elite bilinguals is commonly perceived to be a result of schooling (Butler and Hakuta, 2004) and tends to include a high proficiency in English (Boyd, 1998) or the knowledge of another world language or colonial language (Kamwangamalu, 2004). Implicit in the concept of elite bilingualism is also the presumption that the multilingualism, besides being a resource, is entirely unproblematic for the individual, since it is a matter of free choice (Paulston, 1978; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981).

One group of children and teenagers often referred to in discussions of elite bilingualism is that of the so-called Third Culture Kids (TCK), the children of expatriates and transmigrants. Many TCK study elite, or prestigious, bilingual education programmes (De Mejia, 2002; García, 2009), such as those found in international schools and European Schools, with English as the language of instruction. Research on TCK (cf. Fail, 2007) falls primarily within a sociocultural paradigm, with a major focus on issues presumed to be problematic in the lives of TCK. This research centres on the effects of an international lifestyle on the youth with respect to, for example, identity, dual national and cultural belonging, repatriation and schooling (Cockburn, 2002; Fail et al., 2004; Grimshaw and Sears, 2008; Lee, 2010).

Despite increased research interest in the field of international education in recent decades (Hayden and Thompson, 2007), ‘little research has been done in the area of bilingualism in international schools’ (Carder, 2007: 99). This lack of focus on linguistic issues may be explained by the premise that TCK multilingualism is associated with elite bilingualism and thus disregarded because of its assumed unproblematic nature. As multilingualism is often a part of TCKs’ lives (Hayden, 2012), it is important to position firmly the linguistic perspective not only in the existing field of sociocultural research but also within that of international education. The aim of this article is to investigate language use and language attitudes as reported by a number of multilingual teenagers with a Swedish background attending international schools and European schools and, in this way, to contribute a linguistic dimension to the existing research on TCK and elite bilinguals.

Theoretical principles and previous research

TCK

As noted above, TCK are the children of expatriates and transmigrants. Whereas expatriates generally work abroad for a company or an institution which may be linked to their home country, transmigrants are more autonomous and mobile in their migration; mobility often constitutes a part of their lifestyle (cf. Pries, 2004). They belong to the international society and are ‘immigrants whose daily lives depend on multiple and constant interconnections across international borders and whose public identities are configured to more than one nation-state’ (Glick Schiller and Basch, 1995: 2). In this article, I will treat the children of both groups under the heading of TCK.

Thus, TCK grow up in a mobile, international and globalized world, interacting in a significant manner with several cultural worlds. It is not unusual for TCK to enjoy a privileged lifestyle (Pollock and Van Reken, 2009) or to come ‘from upwardly mobile middle-class backgrounds’ (De Mejia, 2002: 303). The term ‘TCK’ was coined in the 1960s (Useem et al., 1963) and refers to the fact that TCK grow up neither in their parents’ home culture (the first culture) nor in the culture of the host country (the second culture) but in the international society’s conglomerate of cultures, the ‘third culture’ (Pollock and Van Reken, 2009). Pollock and Van Reken (2009) provide an often-used definition:

A third culture kid (TCK) is a person who has spent a significant part of his or her developmental years outside the parents’ culture. The TCK frequently builds relationships to all of the cultures, while not having full ownership in any. Although elements from each culture may be assimilated into the TCK’s life experience, the sense of belonging is in relationship to others of similar background. (p. 13)

International education programmes

As transmigrant families tend to lead mobile lives, many TCK attend international schools in order to follow one curriculum, instead of being tossed between education systems of different countries. Hill (2007) defines international schools as

independent institutions charging tuition fees or offering scholarships and catering specifically for students of many nationalities, some of whom will be transient; the educational programme is usually different from that of the host country and English is the main language of instruction in most institutions. (p. 253)

De Mejia (2002) refers to both international schools and European schools as offering elite bilingual education programmes. García (2009), on the other hand, divides up types of bilingual education according to the monoglossic and heteroglossic language ideologies of the education programmes. According to García, international schools fall within the former group, offering a prestigious bilingual education leading to additive bilingualism (cf. Carder, 2007), while European schools fall within the latter, as a poly-directional form of bilingual education leading to dynamic bilingualism.

A predominant international education programme offered at international schools is the International Baccalaureate (IB), introduced in 1968 in Geneva, Switzerland (International Baccalaureate Organization [IBO], 2015). Today there are approximately 1,116,000 students enrolled in 3968 IB schools in 146 countries (IBO, 2015). English, French and Spanish are IBO’s official languages, with English as the dominant language of instruction. It is possible to choose Swedish as a Language A (first language) subject within the pre-university IB Diploma Programme. The subject is taught approximately four periods per week.

Another international education programme is the pre-university European Baccalaureate offered by the European schools. The European schools were established in 1957 to provide education for children of the personnel of the European Union (EU; Baetens Beardsmore, 1993). Today, there are approximately 25,000 students enrolled in 14 European schools in seven countries (Eursc [Schola Europaea], 2014). English, French, German or Spanish are offered as languages of instruction together with each student’s first language. Depending on the school, Swedish is either taught as a subject or used as a language of instruction. In the latter case, philosophy, mathematics and natural sciences are taught in Swedish. About 600 Swedish students are enrolled in European schools (Svensk utlandsundervisnings förening [SUF], 2015).

The main difference between the two school forms addressed in this study is that the European schools are intended primarily for the children of civil servants in the EU (De Mejia, 2002). Other differences concern the language of instruction and the possibility of studying Swedish. In international schools, English is a dominant language of instruction, and Swedish may be offered only as a subject within the IB Diploma Programme, whereas in European schools, Swedish may be used as a language of instruction in some core subjects. De Mejia (2002) argues that ‘European Schools are committed to a philosophy of first language maintenance and the promotion of academic multilingualism in at least two languages for all students during their school career’ (p. 25).

Swedish education abroad

In addition to the international schools and European schools, some Swedish national education programmes offer the possibility of studying Swedish abroad. The two dominant Swedish national education programmes are Swedish Schools Abroad and the extra-curricular mother tongue classes in Swedish. Both programmes are governed by The Swedish National Agency for Education. Today, approximately 7000 children and teenagers participate in some kind of Swedish education abroad, including those in international schools and European schools (SUF, 2015).

The substantial number of students participating in various forms of Swedish education abroad is not a matter of chance, but rather the result of a long tradition of promoting the Swedish language abroad (Rydenvald, 2014a). In 1908, The Royal Society for Swedish Culture Abroad was established, the first organization with the explicit commission of safeguarding the Swedish language, culture and education outside Sweden (Riksföreningen Sverigekontakt [RSK], 2015), and since then several other associations have been founded. During the 20th century, the Swedish language has expanded abroad: it is offered as a subject at 220 universities around the world, it is a working language within the EU, and it is well-represented in the United Nations and other international organizations as a result of sustained Swedish engagement in international relations.

Elite bilingualism

The term ‘elite bilingualism’ is commonly used as a contrast to the term ‘folk bilingualism’ (Boyd, 1998; De Mejia, 2002; Fishman, 1977; Paulston, 1978), which describes individual multilingualism where the individual is forced to become multilingual, for example, via involuntary migration. As noted above, the term ‘elite bilingualism’ (Paulston, 1978) applies to individuals who have become multilingual due to their own free choice, often through schooling, and whose multilingualism ‘represents a definite advantage’ (De Mejia, 2002: 41). Elite bilingualism tends to be seen as a status-driven investment (Butler and Hakuta, 2004) rather than a vital necessity, facilitating future access to the global job market and higher studies. As De Mejia (2002) puts it, ‘elite bilingualism may be seen as a valuable personal possession which is consciously chosen and worked for’ (p. 41).

Commonly, TCK serve as an example of elite bilingualism since, like elite bilinguals, they are perceived to belong to a privileged social class; have become multilingual of their own volition (Boyd, 1998; Romaine, 1995; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981); and are highly mobile, well-educated and proficient in at least one of the languages spoken by the international community (De Mejia, 2002).

The flip-side of the voluntary element of elite bilingualism is the belief that elite bilinguals could always return to monolingual circumstances where they encounter language difficulties (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981). However, Baker and Prys Jones argue that among elite bilinguals ‘there has historically not been a debate about the disadvantages and problems of bilingualism. … [They] have continuously accepted that bilingualism causes no problems in thinking, academic achievement or cultural acceptance’ (Baker and Prys Jones, 1998: 16). The element of free choice combined with the assumed language attitudes of the group could explain why elite bilingualism is rarely studied in sociolinguistic research (Rydenvald, 2014b).

Linguistic diversity

Since the 1990s within social science research, there has been a tendency to avoid essentialism regarding social groups and their ways of life. Instead, society is understood to be composed of individuals, each with a unique set of characteristics and a fluid identity that belong to various intersecting networks. Poststructuralist sociolinguistic research regards multilingualism and multilingual practice as a complex and dynamic process rather than a balanced and static product (Cameron and Larsen-Freeman, 2007; García, 2009; Holmen, 2006). While with a balanced perspective (Lambert, 1977), the multilingual individual’s languages are understood to be different entities to be kept separate and multilingualism is considered to be additive or subtractive (Lambert, 1977), a dynamic perspective (García, 2009) views the languages as interchangeable systems, where the multilingual individual’s linguistic resources and competences interact. Within the research paradigm of super-diversity, today’s multicultural and multilingual society is characterized by ‘a dynamic interplay of variables’ (Vertovec, 2007: 1024) rather than a combination of different independent variables. According to Blommaert (2012), super-diversity ‘is driven by three keywords: mobility, complexity and unpredictability’ (p. 12).

Multilingual teenagers

Using linguistic profiling, Fraurud and Boyd (2011) investigated to what extent the dichotomous relationship between native and non-native speakers often found in linguistic research (Block, 2003) existed in a group of Swedish multilingual teenagers. They observed that multilingual teenagers seldom have their linguistic belonging in only one linguistic group – native or non-native speakers. By definition, TCK have multifaceted cultural and national belongings, and it seems important to see whether this applies even from a linguistic perspective. Furthermore, TCK as a group are a product of the postmodern, international and globalized world (Rydenvald, 2014b), which makes postmodern and poststructuralist paradigms suitable perspectives for exploring their multilingualism.

The participants in this study live in a multicultural and multilingual setting, where they use two or often three languages on a daily basis and are involved in various social contexts and networks, with different linguistic demands (Rydenvald, 2014b). Although there has been very little research on TCK multilingualism, sociolinguistic research on language use shows that the domains (Fishman, [1965] 2007) of family, school and social life with friends play a central and crucial role in the lives of teenagers (Bellander, 2010; Rampton, 1995). Hence, it is plausible to assume that the domains are important for the language use of TCK as well, and in this study they have been kept as an analytical tool.

Rationale and questions

During recent decades, there has been a marked increase in the amount of research on both international education and TCK. However, this research has focused primarily on educational, curricular, social and psychological issues. The characteristics of many of the students enrolled in international education match several of the defining criteria for TCK and elite bilinguals. While research on TCK favours a sociocultural approach that focuses on presumed difficulties, research on elite bilinguals is almost non-existent (De Mejia, 2002).

Multilingualism is an inextricable part of international education, where most students are multilingual. Be they TCK or elite bilinguals, the students in international schools and European schools belong to a multilingual teenage group, on which very little sociolinguistic research has so far been done. To gain a better understanding of the students’ lives, it is vital to explore their language use and language attitudes in conjunction with their international education.

The focus of this study is the reported language use and language attitudes of some TCK with a Swedish background who attend international schools and European schools abroad. As social and migrational circumstances are significant features in the concepts of TCK and elite bilingualism, attention will also be given to the students’ backgrounds, especially concerning migration and family. The following questions will be addressed: To what extent are language use and attitudes of the participants in this study influenced by the public and private domains of school, family and social life with friends? What relationships exist between their reported language use and attitudes and the educational forms? Is their multilingualism as multifaceted as their social, cultural and national belongings? As elite bilinguals, can their multilingualism be regarded as completely unproblematic?

Method

The method used in this study is a sociolinguistic survey. Data were collected through a questionnaire on language use and language attitudes. Seventy-two high school students comprised the informant group, 40 female and 32 male, aged 15–19, who live in nine different cities spread over five countries in central and southern Europe. The informants’ linguistic backgrounds differ; 42 have two parents who both have Swedish as their L1, and 25 have one parent whose L1 is Swedish and one parent with a different L1. Finally, there are five informants both of whose parents have other L1s than Swedish. These informants have lived a major portion of their lives in Sweden, and they perceive themselves, and are perceived by their teachers, as native speakers of Swedish.

Twenty three of the informants attend international schools and 49 attend European schools. The majority of the informants attending international schools have English as their language of instruction, and they all study Swedish as a subject within their IB Diploma Programme. In total, they have Swedish as a school subject for approximately four periods per week. The majority of the informants attending European schools have both Swedish and English as languages of instruction. In total, they have Swedish as a language of instruction for approximately 16 periods per week.

Questionnaire and procedures for data collection

The questionnaire was designed to investigate the teenagers’ perception of their multilingualism and is modelled in part on Fraurud and Boyd’s (2011) study on linguistic diversity. Questions were included regarding criteria often used in definitions of a native speaker; for example, age of onset, proficiency, preference, use, context and identity. Furthermore, the questions addressed language use in private and public domains; for example, family, social life with friends and school and language attitudes. Questionnaires were provided to the informants on paper and were answered by hand. I handed out the questionnaire directly, or I sent copies to the informants’ teachers, who then distributed them. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to answer, and during that time, the person distributing them was present and available for questions. Very few questions were asked; however, a notable number of participants asked if they could answer questions about language use with two languages even though only one language was asked for.

Results

The analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics, mainly by cross-tabulations and cross-tabulations in layers. In total, 40 variables relating to the informants’ backgrounds, language use and language attitudes were analysed. To relate the informants in the study to the sociocultural research of TCK, the results commence with the informants’ backgrounds regarding their migration and family background. Then follow the results concerning language use and attitudes.

Migration and family background

As Table 1 indicates, the majority of the 72 informants in both European schools and international schools come from families where both parents have Swedish as their L1. At international schools, 17% of the informants come from families where the parents have different L1s, whereas the corresponding percentage among informants in European schools is 43%. Finally, 82% of the informants in international schools come from families where the parents share the same L1.

Table 1.

Distribution of parents’ first language.

Parents	International schools	European schools
Swedish/Swedish L1	65%	55%
Swedish/Other L1	17%	43%
Other/Other L1	17%	2%

Table 2 presents information regarding the students’ country of residence and indicates that the majority of them immigrated into the country where they reside. Few of the informants were born in the country of residence, and of those, the majority attending international schools come from families where both parents have Swedish as L1, whereas the majority attending European schools come from families where the parents have different L1s.

Table 2.

Results related to country of residence.

Variable	International schools	European schools
Parents: Swedish/Swedish L1	65%	55%
Informants: born in country of residence	17%	14%
Arrived in country of residence in late childhood (>10 years)	52%	14%
Lived in three or more countries	39%	43%

There is also a difference between the school forms concerning the informants’ age of arrival in the country of residence. In international schools, the majority of the informants immigrated to the country of residence after 10 years of age (that is, in late childhood) while the reverse situation is found in the European schools, where the majority immigrated before 10 years of age. Finally, almost half of the informant group has lived in one or more countries in addition to the country of birth and country of residence.

Contacts with Sweden

According to the results summarized in Table 3, the majority of informants have regular contact with Sweden. Most visit Sweden at least twice each year and stay in Sweden for 3 weeks or more during the summer. The majority also report that the family has a summer residence in Sweden and regular contact with their relatives, with whom they use Swedish as the language of communication.

Table 3.

Results related to country of origin.

Variable	International schools	European schools
Stay in Sweden 3 weeks or more per summer	51%	86%
Visit Sweden twice or more per year	61%	59%
Summer residence in Sweden	65%	67%
Speak Swedish with relatives	83%	98%

Socio-economic factors

As shown in Table 4, the majority of the informants live in nuclear families where both parents have an academic education and are employed.

Table 4.

Background results related to social factors.

Variable	International schools	European schools
Live with both parents	78%	92%
Parents work	83%	88%
Parents have university education	80%	89%

Results related to language use and language attitudes

All the informants report that they use two or more languages every day. Language use is broken down here by domains: family, social life with friends and school.

Language use in the family domain

As demonstrated in Table 5, the dominant language in the family domain is the L1 of the mother and/or father. The majority of the parents use their L1 with the informants.

Table 5.

Parents’ language in family domain.

Uses L1	International schools	European schools
Mother	91%	85%
Father	87%	80%

When it comes to the language chosen for communication between siblings, 52% of the informants in international schools and 75% of the informants in European schools report that they use a single language between themselves.

On the contrary, a cross-tabulation of the six variables, namely, language mother often uses, language often used to mother, language father often uses, language often used to father, language siblings often use and language often used to siblings, reveals that only 31% of the informants, evenly distributed over the school forms, report that all family members use the same language for communication. Within this group, this language is Swedish for 90%, and other languages for the remaining 10%.

Language use with friends

If the parents’ L1 in a general sense dominates the family domain, an explicit multilingual practice dominates the domain of social life with friends, as shown in Table 6. When the students were asked which language they used most frequently with friends in school as well as in their spare time, their answers differed between the school types. Although only one language was requested, many informants ticked several languages, indicating that several languages were used most with friends.

Table 6.

Language use with friends.

Language use with friends	International schools	European schools
2 or more languages every day	87%	98%
Swedish with friends	83%	100%

Table 7 breaks down language use with friends in school and during the students’ spare time. The results indicate that English has a strong position for the group of informants in international schools, whereas the use of several languages is the most frequent choice in the group of informants in European Schools.

Table 7.

Language use with friends in different domains.

Language	In school		In spare time
	International schools	European schools	International schools	European schools
Several languages	35%	80%	39%	78%
English	57%	10%	43%	6%
Swedish	0%	8%	9%	16%
Local majority language	9%	2%	9%	0%

The results in Table 8, showing the reported use of language in sports activities, support the view that English has a strong position in the friends domain among informants from international schools.

Table 8.

Language use in sports activities.

Language	International schools	European schools
Several languages	17%	39%
English	44%	8%
Swedish	9%	2%
Local majority language	3%	41%

Language use in the school domain

The language of instruction dominates in the school domain. For the informants, the language of instruction strongly coincided with the language they reported as their preferred language for school-related proficiencies and skills such as reading, writing, expressing an opinion and discussing politics. The informants who attend international schools have English as the language of instruction. Within this group, English is the preferred language for writing for 57% of them and for reading for 61%. The informants at the European schools have English and Swedish as languages of instruction. Among these students, 59% prefer Swedish for writing and 29% prefer English. For reading, 61% prefer Swedish and 22% prefer English.

Language attitudes

When the informants were asked about their strongest language, 49% reported two languages. When they were asked to rank their languages, starting with the strongest one, only 8% listed two languages as equally strongest. Among the informants in European schools, 76% ranked Swedish and 16% English as their strongest language. Among the informants in international schools, 39% ranked Swedish and 39% English as their strongest language. In the international schools, 78% self-assessed their level in English as excellent, fluent. In the European schools, 57% self-assessed their levels in both English and Swedish as excellent, fluent.

As Figure 1 shows, the language of instruction, English, coincides with the language the informants at international schools report as the one most frequently used. When it comes to the language they report as most preferred, English decreases in favour of Swedish. This tendency becomes even stronger when the informants report the languages with which they identify. Fifty-two percent of the informants report Swedish as the language with which they identify, and 35% report English. For the majority of the informants at international schools, the results suggest that the local majority language plays only a marginal role in their lives.

Figure 1.

Attitudes among informants in international schools.

As Figure 2 indicates, the majority of the informants in the European schools perceive Swedish to be the language they use most, the one they prefer to use and the one they identify with. Interestingly, the usage of two languages scores highly among the informants at European schools. For language preference, 41% chose Swedish, 24% English and 31% two languages.

Figure 2.

Attitudes among informants in European schools.

Discussion

Family background and educational form

As a group, the informants share several of the defining criteria for TCK and elite bilinguals (see e.g. Butler and Hakuta, 2004; Fail, 2007; Paulston, 1978; Pollock and Van Reken, 2009). The majority of the informants come from stable socio-economic backgrounds and are brought up in mobile, voluntary migrant families in an international environment. Most of them have immigrated to the country of residence, and many of them have lived in three or more countries. Furthermore, they are multilingual, with schooling contributing significantly to their multilingualism. Finally, they participate in elite bilingual programmes and have a high proficiency in English. Their multilingualism, however, is best described as composite, complex and diverse, harbouring several linguistic belongings. Their multilingualism appears to be as multifaceted as their social, cultural and national belongings (cf. Fail et al., 2004; Grimshaw and Sears, 2008; Pollock and Van Reken, 2009). The results clearly illustrate that the informants on a daily basis move between several languages and several domains with different sets of dominating languages.

Not surprisingly, the results support earlier studies showing that the social domains of family, school and friends constitute important parts of teenagers’ lives and have an impact on their language use (Bellander, 2010; Rampton, 1995). In this study, the domains also prove to be important for the informants’ language use and language attitudes, where especially the parents’ L1s and the languages of instruction have a significant impact. The boundaries between the domains are blurred and language use partly overlaps, but in general terms, the domain of the family is dominated by the parents’ L1s, the domain of social life with friends by multilingual practice and the domain of the school by the language of instruction.

As the language of instruction is related to the educational programme, the choice of school becomes a factor contributing to the informants’ language use. Furthermore, the results suggest an interrelationship between the students’ educational programmes and their migrational patterns as well as the parents’ linguistic backgrounds and language ideologies. The majority of the informants attending international schools come from families where the parents share the same L1 and are mobile in their migration or emigrated when the children were in their late childhood or early adolescence. International schools, and specifically the IB programme, provide the opportunity for a coherent schooling for mobile families. In addition, English is the predominant language of instruction, which can potentially facilitate the children’s transition between schools. On one hand, a single language used across different schools can promote a smoother educational process, and on the other, it can enable many parents to take part in their children’s schooling.

As for the informants in European schools, approximately half of the group comes from families where parents do not share the same L1, and the majority immigrated before the children were 10 years of age. The results indicate that those parents in the study who work for the EU immigrated when their children were young and that the majority of the informants began attending European schools at primary level.

Apart from the fundamental difference between international schools and European schools, where the latter serve principally employees of the EU, the results suggest a relationship between the choice of educational form and the parents’ linguistic backgrounds. Traces of the parents’ language ideologies may implicitly affect the choice of school. Results suggest that families with a monolingual background are orientated towards an educational programme in international schools using predominantly one language of instruction, whereas families with a bilingual background are found in an education programme at European schools using two languages of instruction.

Parents as a group share several factors related to language, work and migration, but the factors vary in their combinations. Within the research paradigm of super-diversity, today’s globalized society is claimed to be characterized by a ‘dynamic interplay of variables’ (Vertovec, 2007: 2024) as well as ‘mobility, complexity and unpredictability’ (Blommaert, 2012: 12), which the results of the informants’ backgrounds clearly illustrate.

Language Use and Language Attitudes

The diversity trait also permeates the informants’ language use and language attitudes. Diversity is present both on macro and micro levels, reflecting a multilingualism that is dynamic in its ongoing process of interaction between domains and linguistic repertoires (García, 2009; Holmen, 2006). On a macro level, the informants use different languages in different domains.

In the family domain, the majority of the parents use their L1 in communication with the informants, but on a micro level, the patterns of language use in the family are diverse. The results show that only one-third of the families use one single language among themselves. This diversity can be understood to be evidence not only of the multilingualism of the informants and their families but also of the multilingual and international environment in which they live.

TCK and elite bilinguals are often raised outside the parents’ first culture in the international society’s conglomerate of cultures where they lead mobile lives (De Mejia, 2002; Pollock and Van Reken, 2009; Hayden, 2012). Despite the informants’ multilingual and internationally framed lives, they have an active contact with the parents’ first culture, which for the majority is Swedish. They report a regular contact with their relatives and several visits to Sweden each year, where they also spend longer periods during the summer. The majority of the informants’ families have summer homes in Sweden, which may contribute to the prolonged summer stays. The contact with Sweden functions as a cultural extension of the family domain, but it also becomes an important linguistic extension with the potential of enhancing language maintenance.

Multilingualism within the friends’ domain appears to be predominantly a multilingual practice that stems from the impact of the other domains, especially the school domain. For instance, among the informants in international schools, English dominates in several aspects of the domain, including with friends in school, in their spare time and in organized sports activities outside school. However, in one aspect, the informants differ from many other multilingual young people: the local majority language is of minor importance with friends and in their multilingualism on the whole, which can likely be a result of their elite bilingualism.

The role of the languages of instruction is also relevant for the study’s findings regarding school, both in the domain itself and in academically oriented skills such as reading and writing. The overall tendency is for the informants attending international schools to be orientated towards English, whereas the informants attending European schools are orientated towards a multilingual practice.

García (2009) argues that prestigious bilingual education, as found in, for example, international schools, is based on monoglossic language ideologies and that additive bilingualism is the linguistic outcome of the educational type. However, García categorizes the bilingual education of the European schools as a poly-directional type, which is based on heteroglossic language ideologies, with dynamic bilingualism as an outcome. The results relating to the informants from European schools could be said to bear evidence of a more actively dynamic multilingualism where the individuals’ linguistic resources and competences explicitly interact (García, 2009).

The impact of the language of instruction could also be traced in the informants’ language attitudes. English takes a prominent position among the informants in international schools, while a combination of Swedish and English is employed by the informants at European schools. The exception to this conclusion would be the language with which the informants identify, where the majority of the whole group report Swedish. The result may not be surprising, bearing in mind the Swedish dominance in the parents’ linguistic background and the active cultural and linguistic extension of the family domain.

As in the case of language use, diversity is also present in the informants’ reported language attitudes. The majority do not report the same language for the three variables: the most used language, the most preferred language and the language with which they identify. Furthermore, the study found an interesting discrepancy between the informants’ reports and rankings of their strongest language. This discrepancy might reflect evidence of the informants’ perception of themselves as multilingual. While one language was requested, half of the group reported the two languages they most often use to be their strongest ones, which could be seen as a statement, a position taken. As Fraurud and Boyd (2011) demonstrate, it cannot be taken for granted that multilingual teenagers have their sense of linguistic belonging in one language group. The assumption that the question about language preference would be a single language can be read as an imposition of a monolingual-orientated categorization.

Multilingualism of TCK and elite bilinguals

As for TCK and elite bilinguals in general, the informants’ multilingualism could be concluded to be uncomplicated (Baker and Prys Jones, 1998), lacking the struggle often attached to many multilingual groups of teenagers (De Mejia, 2002). Through an international education that uses English as the language of instruction, they have a potential advantage regarding future access to the global job market; at the same time, they have social as well as economic means to maintain their Swedish. The drawback, however, seems to be the marginal use of the local majority language, which would have been an asset in their multilingualism.

On the whole, the multilingualism of elite bilinguals and TCK cannot be regarded as completely unproblematic in its nature. This study contributes to the existing research on TCK by clearly showing that the linguistic situation of the TCK is as complex and diverse as the sociocultural patterns surrounding them (cf. Fail et al., 2004; Lee, 2010; Pollock and Van Reken, 2009). Likewise, their multilingualism is multifaceted, harbouring several belongings.

While it can be argued that a multilingual, international future lies in store for all the informants, there are differences between the two groups: where the international schools largely prepare for an international Anglophone future and the European Schools prepare for a future with international overtones in Europe. Regardless of the educational programme, it is worth querying whether these teenagers could successfully complete an education in a different language should they encounter problems with English. One could also ask how easily their international education could be replaced by an education designed to prepare for a national, monolingual future.

Previous research on elite bilingualism (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981) claims that the teenagers could always return to their country of origin, and thus implicitly the language of origin, should they encounter problems in the host country. Today, this conclusion is a conspicuously outdated monolingual perspective on both multilingualism and migrational patterns, one not always compatible with the contemporary globalized world. As the results of this study demonstrate, a substantial number of informants immigrated to the country of residence as children. Others have lived in several countries and are presumably at ease in the international society. Although the informants have continuous contact with Sweden, it does not function as their country of origin, but rather as their parents’ country of origin.

As this study shows, the alleged free choice and privileged social class of TCK and elite bilinguals do not result in multilingualism more superfluous and less complicated than that of other multilingual teenage groups. The multilingualism of TCK and elite bilinguals has implications not only for the teenagers’ own lives but also for social, migrational and educational aspects, which call for the importance of adding a linguistic perspective to the existing research field.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Marie Rydenvald is a PhD student in Swedish as a second language at the Department of Swedish, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. She was previously a teacher at the international school of Geneva and has also served as an International Baccalaureate examiner in Swedish.

References

Baetens Beardsmore

(1993) The European school model. In: Baetens Beardsmore

(ed.) European Models of Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp 121–154.

Baker

Prys Jones

(1998) Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bellander

(2010) Ungdomars dagliga interaction. En språkvetenskaplig studie av sex gymnasieungdomars bruk av tal, skrift och interaktionsmedier. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.

Block

(2003) The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Blommaert

(2012) Chronicles of complexity: ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies. Paper 29, April. Tilburg: Tilburg University.

Blommaert

Rampton

(2011) Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13(2): 1–20.

Boyd

(1998) North Americans in the Nordic region: elite bilinguals. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 133: 31–50.

Butler

Hakuta

(2004) Bilingualism and second language acquisition. In: Bhatia

Ritchi

(eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 114–144.

Cameron

Larsen-Freeman

(2007) Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(2): 226–239.

10.

Carder

(2007) Bilingualism in International Schools: A Model for Enriching Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

11.

Cockburn

(2002) Children and young people living in changing worlds: the process of assessing and understanding the ‘third culture kid’. School Psychology International 23(4): 475–485.

12.

Day

Wagner

(2007) Bilingual professionals. In: Auer

Wei

(eds) Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 391–404.

13.

De Mejia

(2002) Power, Prestige and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

14.

Eursc (Schola Europaea) (2014) Available at: http://www.eursc.org (accessed 25 November 2014).

15.

Fail

(2007) The potential of the past in practice: life stories of former international school students. In: Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Research in International Education. London: SAGE, pp. 103–112.

16.

Fail

Thompson

Walker

(2004) Belonging, identity and third culture kids: life histories of former international school students. Journal of Research in International Education 3: 319–340.

17.

Fishman

([1965] 2007) Who speaks what language to whom and when? In: Wei

(ed.) The Bilingualism Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 55–70.

18.

Fishman

(1977) The social science perspective. Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives. Social Science 1: 1–49.

19.

Fraurud

Boyd

(2011) The native – non-native speaker distinction and the diversity of linguistic profiles of young people in multilingual urban contexts in Sweden. In: Källström

Lindberg

(eds) Young Urban Swedish: Variation and Change in Multilingual Settings. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, pp. 67–88.

20.

García

(2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

21.

Glick Schiller

Basch

(1995) From immigrant to transmigrant: theorizing transnational migration. Anthropological Quarterly 68(1): 48–63.

22.

Grimshaw

Sears

(2008) ‘Where am I from?’ ‘Where do I belong?’ the negotiation and maintenance of identity by international school students. Journal of Research in International Education 7: 259–275.

23.

Hayden

(2012) Third culture kids: the global nomads of transnational spaces of learning. In: Brooks

Fuller

Waters

(eds) Changing Spaces of Education: New Perspectives on the Nature of Learning. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 59–77.

24.

Hayden

Thompson

(2007) Introduction. In: Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Research in International Education. London: SAGE, pp. 1–8.

25.

Hill

(2007) Multicultural and international education: never the twain shall meet. Review of Education 53: 245–264.

26.

Holmen

(2006) Finding a voice in a second language – a matter of language learning or intercultural communication? In: Jensen

Dahl

Nynäs

(eds) Bridges of Understanding: Perspectives on Intercultural Communication. Oslo: Unipub forlag, pp. 197–212.

27.

International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) (2015) Available at: www.ibo.org (accessed 15 February 2015).

28.

Kamwangamalu

(2004) Bi-/multilingualism in South Africa. In: Bhatia

Ritchi

(eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 725–741.

29.

Lainio

(2013) Tvåspråkighet och språkkontakter i Sverige. In: Sundgren

(eds) Sociolingvistik. Stockholm: Liber, pp. 274–312.

30.

Lambert

(1977) The effects of bilingualism on the individual: cognitive and sociocultural consequences. In: Hornby

(ed.) Bilingualism: Psychological, Social and Educational Implications. New York: Academic Press, pp. 15–27.

31.

Lee

(2010) Home versus host – identifying with either, both or neither? The relationship between dual cultural identities and intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 10: 55–76.

32.

Myers-Scotton

(2006) Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

33.

Paulston

(1978) Education in a bi/multilingual setting. International Review of Education 24(3): 309–328.

34.

Pollock

Van Reken

(2009) Third Culture Kids: The Experience of Growing Up among Worlds. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

35.

Pries

(2004) Transnationalism and migration: new challenges for the social sciences and education. In: Luchtenberg

(ed.) Migration, Education and Change. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 15–39.

36.

Rampton

(1995) Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. Harlow: Longman Group Limited.

37.

Riksföreningen Sverigekontakt (RSK) (2015) Available at: www.sverigekontakt.se (accessed 15 February 2015).

38.

Romaine

(1995) Bilingualism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

39.

Rydenvald

(2014a) ‘Det var svårt att välja eftersom jag har två språk’. Svenska bland flerspråkiga ungdomar i Europa. In: Lindström

Henricson

Huhtala

(eds) Svenskans beskrivning 33. Helsingfors: Helsingfors universitet, pp. 417–426.

40.

Rydenvald

(2014b) ‘eftersom jag har två språk’. Språkbruk bland svensktalande ungdomar i Europa. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.

41.

Skutnabb-Kangas

(1981) Tvåspråkighet. Lund: Liber Läromedel.

42.

Svensk utlandsundervisnings förening (SUF) (2015) Available at: http://www.suf.c.se (accessed 15 February 2015).

43.

Useem

Donoghue

Useem

(1963) Men in the middle of the third culture. Human Organization 22(3): 169–179.

44.

Vertovec

(2007) Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6): 1024–1054.