Language Education for European Citizenship

Nikolina Tsvetkova

Abstract: The paper focuses on a review of recent studies in the field of language education through the
lens of developing intercultural communicative competence and active citizenship skills. It discusses the
results of some recent research done by the author into the readiness of secondary English language teachers
to implement EU-related topics and develop ICC and active citizenship skills and into the potential of the
newly introduced educational standards, syllabi and just-published school books for teaching English at
primary and secondary level to contribute to this process. It also argues the need to create the conditions
for an educational continuum on a national level in order to utilize the potential of language education to
contribute effectively to developing European citizenship skill at all levels (from primary to tertiary).

Key words: intercultural communicative competence, intercultural citizenship, language education.

Introduction
Languages have always occupied a special place in human life in general and in education more
specifically. One of the motives for pursuing language proficiency has always been related to the
need to communicate across borders and, respectively, to the opportunity to do so by effective
(even if not proficient) language use. Today, with the more and more affordable transnational
transport and the practically limitless affordances of modern ICTs, this need and the accompanying
opportunities are especially intensified. The result is that more and more people participate in
various forms of ideas and information exchange and they often have to do this in languages
different from their mother tongue with representatives of different cultures, from different regions
of our continent and even of the world. The above processes are often related to study and labour
mobility although they are not restricted to experiences of visiting another country only.
That is why among the major tasks of modern language education is preparing learners to
communicate skillfully, appropriately and competently in a variety of contexts. Successful
communication requires taking into consideration various factors such as the specific context of

1
the interaction, the roles of the participants and their relationship, the message aim, etc. Successful
communication also relies on using both linguistic and extra-linguistic means which are, above all,
appropriate to the particular situation (Byram M, Gribkova B & Starkey H, 2002: 5) [1]. A lot of
researchers working in the field of linking language learning to preparing students for the
challenges of the globalizing world and intensified interactions between representatives of
different cultures in the last decades of the 20th century (see for example Damen, 1987, Kramsch,
1993; Seelye, 1998, Byram 1997, Byram and Risager, 1999, Roberts et. al., 2000 among others)
[2] tackled this issue although in different ways. It is possible to trace a development of ideas from
articulating the need for language teaching to include teaching culture to defending the view that
language teaching should also be aiming at the purposeful development of learners’ intercultural
communicative competence (ICC), the latter referring not only to school language education but
to learning languages at university level as well. In recent years, the focus has been shifted from
ICC towards the need to use language teaching as a vehicle of developing active citizenship skills
(Byram, 2001, Byram 2008, Porto, 2014). [3]

Language education, intercultural communicative competence, intercultural citizenship.

European perspectives
When discussing modern language education from a European perspective, we cannot miss to
emphasise the importance of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR, 2001) [4] as a language-neutral tool in creating transparency and comparability of
language teaching and assessment. The framework is also a powerful instrument of innovation in
language teaching across Europe and beyond. This is due to its openness and flexibility as well as
to the fact that it is not tied in with a particular didactic or pedagogical theory, concrete situation
or context. As Stoicheva (2006) [5] puts it, the CEFR is based on a more general, activity based
communicative approach focusing on communicative language competence and its linguistic,
sociolinguistic and pragmatic components and communication and learning strategies.
Furthermore, the CEFR views language and culture learning as one whole and the languages and
cultures one learns or acquires are seen to form a complex whole, the constituent elements of which
influence one another. Thus “…the learner of a second or foreign language and culture does not
cease to be competent in his or her mother tongue and the associated culture. Nor is the new
competence kept entirely separate from the old. The learner does not simply acquire two distinct,

2
unrelated ways of acting and communicating. The language learner becomes plurilingual and
develops interculturality. The linguistic and cultural competences in respect of each language are
modified by knowledge of the other and contribute to intercultural awareness, skills and know-
how. They enable the individual to develop an enriched, more complex personality and an
enhanced capacity for further language learning and greater openness to new cultural experiences.”
(CEFR: 43) [6].
This framework has led to a number of results, among which:
- the creation of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) which helps learners assess
their linguistic and cultural competences in all languages spoken by them;
- using one’s mother tongue as the basis for studying a second, third, etc. language;
- emphasising the importance of acquiring one’s language and culture as a source of
better knowledge of other languages and cultures;
- encouraging intercomprehension;
- consciously developing learning to learn skills, etc. (Tsvetkova, 2013). [7]
Current research into intercultural competence sheds light on the crucial role of preparing students
to engage and collaborate in a global society (Castle Sinicrope, Norris, & Watanabe, 2007) [8] by
communicating successfully across cultures and learning languages creates a natural environment
for doing so. This is in line with the model of intercultural communicative competence proposed
by Byram in 1997, which comprises a complex entity of intercultural relations (savoir être),
knowledge of social groups and practices in both the target and home cultures (savoirs), skills of
interpreting and relating (savoir comprendre), skills of discovery and interaction (savoir
apprendre/faire), critical cultural awareness (savoir s'engager), which consists of abilities to
evaluate perspectives, practices and products of both home and target cultures (Byram:1997). [9]
Far from the view that it is possible to teach students a strictly defined intercultural communicative
competence (ICC), we rather accept Zarate’s view that it is often more appropriate to talk about
intercultural communicative competences (ICC’s) – in the plural – due to the unstable development
of ICC and to the fact that a high level of language proficiency does not automatically mean a high
level of intercultural competences (Zarate 2003). [10]
Furthermore, in a European context, there has been a strong emphasis on intercultural dialogue for
decades and in more recent years – on exploiting the potential of language education for
developing what Byram (2008) [11] terms ‘intercultural citizenship’ which enables young people

3
to contribute to social cohesion at a local, national and European level. It should be noted that
citizenship education has been seen as closely related to language education (Byram 2001, Starkey,
2002). [12] Thus learning a foreign language coupled with acquiring intercultural communicative
competence is expected to result in “intercultural speakers” of that language. If the process is
combined with citizenship education, this enriches language education with “meaningful content”
and leads to “education for intercultural citizenship in the foreign language classroom”. Byram,
Golubeva, Han and Wagner (2017) [13] suggest that such integration of the above takes place
when transnational and critical perspectives of foreign language education are combined with civic
action in the community.

Foreign language education, intercultural communicative competence and intercultural

citizenship - a Bulgarian perspective
Since it appeared, the CEFR has naturally led to an alignment of language teaching and assessment
across the different EU countries. In Bulgaria, for example, this tendency was evident even before
our country joined the EU – in 2000, State Educational Requirements for all foreign languages
taught in the system of Bulgarian secondary education were adopted. They include a clear
statement that the aim of foreign language teaching in the country is “to prepare students to
communicate with people belonging to other cultural and linguistic communities in situations that
go beyond the boundaries of the native language environment; to teach them to seek, discover and
understand information from sources in a foreign language; to enhance their language culture; to
develop skills for further autonomous learning and improving their foreign language skills” (State
Educational Requirements (for foreign languages), 2000). [14] The newly adopted Preschool and
School Education Act (2016) [15] is accompanied by new Standards. Thus the State Educational
Standard for General Education includes the requirements for foreign language teaching directly
referring to the CEFR. These requirements are described by level of education as well as level of
language proficiency “from A1 to B2.1 according to the CEFR (Ordinance No 5 of 30 November
2015 for General Education). [16] The aims of foreign language education within the system of
Bulgarian secondary education are thus specified as follows:
- enhancing students’ language, general culture and communication culture;
- encouraging pupils to understand their national identity in terms of linguistic and
cultural diversity;

4
 - developing students’ intercultural competences and preparing them for communication
with other cultural and linguistic communities;
- developing skills for autonomous development through: initiative-taking, creativity,
problem solving, independent-decision making, critical thinking, etc.;
- developing students’ skills in team work;
- teaching students to use information from foreign language sources;
- using the foreign language as a means of acquiring knowledge in different general
subjects;
- developing learning skills related to understanding information and applying it in new
situations, performing analysis, synthesis and evaluation;
- creating the conditions for building language competences in the relevant language,
including knowledge, skills and strategies for successful communication.
What is more, all foreign language syllabi for all grades and levels of education, which are derived
from the above requirements, explicitly state the need to enrich foreign language lessons with civic
education content.
Along with the European Language Portfolio, in 2008, another portfolio was made
available – the Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters. However, empirical research done by
Bulgarian teachers of English prove that the very existence and wide availability of such
documents is not enough. In their view, pupils need targeted and sustained support in this area,
starting in their foreign language learning at school (Tsvetkova, 2012). [17]

The potential of Bulgarian foreign language education to foster European citizenship

In a survey of Bulgarian foreign language teachers’ attitudes to including European
citizenship topics into their classroom practice, the teachers pointed out several important factors
which can facilitate this process. Put in the order of priority the teachers attributed to them, these
are:
- systematic and purposeful implementation of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning), not only at the so-called “language schools” with intensive teaching of a
foreign language in the 8th grade, which are most commonly associated with this
approach, at all schools and all stages of secondary education;

5
 - systematic and purposeful use of ICT in classroom activities and communication, in
line with the current trends in e-learning and electronically mediated communication;
- internalising the results of schools’, teachers’ and students’ involvement in European
projects in order to implement good pedagogical practices resulting from the exchange
of ideas and concrete solutions between partners within the EU with a view to enriching
the methodological approaches applied in foreign language classes in Bulgaria and
other European countries;
- creating conditions in class and extra-curricular activities for authentic communication
in the foreign language being studied, leading to increased motivation to learn and to
enhance foreign language skills and intercultural communication skills (Tsvetkova,
2016). [18]
The analysis of the current State Educational Requirements (SER) for languages and the syllabi
stemming out from them proves that while there is little direct reference to Europe and the EU, it
is possible to look for support towards implementing EU topics in language education on the basis
of the prescribed activities leading to developing ICC, acquiring social and civic competences and
encouraging creativity. In line with the CEFR, teaching the Bulgarian language is seen as
inseparable from teaching the first and the second foreign language in the SER and this is
emphasised in all respective syllabi too, which gives ground to expect that activities aiming at
critical analysis of texts (of different sources and genres), creating own texts and communicating
about topics such as protection of human rights, valuing diversity and multiperspectivity among
others while actively drawing on other subjects such as History, Literature, Geography, etc., will
allow students to develop their skills as European citizens. Furthermore, taking part in projects
under EU programs such as Erasmus+ or using the affordances of the eTwinning platform
(Borisova, 2017, Borisova, 2018) [19] are especially beneficial in this respect.

Looking forward – by way of conclusion

At the tertiary level, however, further research is needed to establish the role of language learning
especially in view of the processes in the European Higher Education Area which imply intensified
exchange not only among EU universities but also with universities from other parts of the world.
An empirical study of the practical implications of language policy at Sofia University was carried
out in 2010 – 2011 (Stoicheva, 2011) [20] and it helped understand the language repertoires of

6
university students and formulate some recommendations for a more structured approach to
teaching languages and assessing language proficiency at the tertiary. Two years later, a similar
survey was undertaken to establish the connection between language education in the secondary
and in the tertiary (Chavdarvova et al., 2013). [21] It established that school leavers have a positive
attitude to continuing enhancing their language skills in both Bulgarian and the foreign languages
they had studied at school. In summary, all the above lead to the conclusion that there are both
conditions and a need for an educational continuum to guarantee ensuring the continuity and
interdependence of learning L1 and L2, L3, etc., at all levels of education. Nevertheless, what the
results of involving university students is European projects are, or how their spending a semester
abroad using the opportunities of the Erasmus programme influences them as language learners,
intercultural speakers and active EU citizens, are topics which deserve researchers’ attention.

Acknowledgements
*The paper is the result of the author’s work on a small-scale research project funded by Sofia
University – “The EU starts at school”.

References and Notes:

[1] Byram, M., Gribkova, B. & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in
language teaching – a practical introduction for teachers. Language Policy Division Council of
Europe, Strasbourg, p. 5.
[2] Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seelye, H. N. (1992, 1998). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication.
Lincoln-wood (Illinois): N.T.C.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., & Risager, K. (1999). Language teachers, politics and cultures. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Roberts, C.; Byram, M. Barro, A.; Jordan, S. & Street, B. (2000). Language Learners as
Ethnographers. Clevedon UK: Multilingual matters.

7
[3] Byram, M. (2001). Language teaching as a political action. In M. Bax, & J. Zwart (Eds.),
Reflections on language and language learning. In honour of Arthur van Essen (pp. 91–104)
Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship.
Porto, M. (2014). Intercultural citizenship education in an EFL on-line project in Argentina. In:
Language and Intercultural Communication, 14, pp. 245–261.
[4] Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.
(2001). Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press.
[5] Stoicheva, M. (2006). European Language Policy. Sofia: University Publishing House “St.
Kliment Ohridski”. (In Bulgarian)
[6] Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.
(2001). Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press, p. 43.
[7] Tsvetkova, N. (2013). How Intercultural Am I or the European Language Portfolio as a Tool
in Intercultural Education. In: Language Identity and Culture in language education. ICC the
international language association. British Council/Macmillan.
[8] Castle Sinicrope, J. N., Norris, J. & Watanabe, Y. (2007). Understanding and assessing
intercultural competence: A summary of theory, research, and practice. Second Language Studies,
26 (1), pp. 1-58.
[9] Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.
[10] Zarate, G. (2003). Identities and plurilingualism: preconditions for the recognition of
intercultural competences. In: Byram, M. (2003). (Ed.) Intercultural competence. Language
Policy Division, DG IV – Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education. Council
of Europe. Strasbourg.
[11] Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural
citizenship.
[12] Byram, M. (2001). Language teaching as a political action. In M. Bax, & J. Zwart (Eds.),
Reflections on language and language learning. In honour of Arthur van Essen (pp. 91–104)
Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Starkey, H. (2002). Democratic citizenship, languages, diversity and human rights. Guide for the
development of Language Education Policies in Europe. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual

8
Education. Language Policy Division, Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher
Education. DGIV. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
[13] Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Hui, H., & Wagner, M. (2017). From principles to practice in
education for intercultural citizenship. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
[14] (State Educational Requirements (for Foreign Languages), 2000. In: Ordinance No 2 of 18
May 2000 for Educational Content. https://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2136697599. Retrieved on
15.01.2018. (In Bulgarian).
[15] Preschool and School Education Act (2016)
[16] Ordinance No 5 of 30 November 2015 for General Education. In: Ordinance No 2 of 30
November 2015 for General Education. https://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2136697599. Retrieved
on 15.01.2018. (In Bulgarian).
[17] Tsvetkova, N. (2012). English language learning at a secondary school level and interculturality. In:
Foreign Language Teaching, 2012, vol. 3, pp. 236-246.
[18] Tsvetkova, N. (2016). Language teachers and European dimension of modern language
teaching. In: Bulgarian journal of education. Volume 2, 2016, pp. 59-76.
[19] Borisova, T. (2017). EU Language policies – multilingualism and multiculturalism and their
place in foreign language teaching at Bulgarian secondary schools. In: i-spisanie. Volume
12/2017. https://diuu.bg/emag/6985/. Retrieved on 15.01.2018. (In Bulgarian).
Borisova, T. (2018). Introducing European Integration topics in Secondary ELT. . In: Carson, L.,
Kwok, C.K., & Smyth, C. (2018). Identities in urban contexts: The European multilingual city.
Trinity College, Dublin: CLCS Occasional Papers. (Pending publication).
[20] Stoicheva, M. (Ed.) (2011). Bulgaria - Europe: Language Policies. Sofia: University
Publishing House “St. Kliment Ohridski”. (In Bulgarian)
[21] Chavdarova, A., Penkova, R. & Tsvetkova, N. (2013). “School Leavers’ Attitudes to,
Evaluation of and Perspectives on Language Learning”. Foreign Language Teaching. 40/1, 2013,
27-38. (In Bulgarian).

Bibliography:
Borisova, T. (2017). EU Language policies – multilingualism and multiculturalism and their place in
foreign language teaching at Bulgarian secondary schools. In: i-spisanie. Volume 12/2017.
https://diuu.bg/emag/6985/. Retrieved on 15.01.2018. (In Bulgarian).

9
Borisova, T. (2018). Introducing European Integration topics in Secondary ELT. . In: Carson, L., Kwok,
C.K., & Smyth, C. (2018). Identities in urban contexts: The European multilingual city. Trinity College,
Dublin: CLCS Occasional Papers. (Pending publication).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2001). Language teaching as a political action. In M. Bax, & J. Zwart (Eds.), Reflections on
language and language learning. In honour of Arthur van Essen (pp. 91–104) Amsterdam / Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship.
Byram, M. Gribkova, B. & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language
teaching – a practical introduction for teachers. Language Policy Division Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Byram, M., & Risager, K. (1999). Language teachers, politics and cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Hui, H., & Wagner, M. (2017). From principles to practice in education for
intercultural citizenship. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Castle Sinicrope, J. N., Norris, J. & Watanabe, Y. (2007). Understanding and assessing intercultural
competence: A summary of theory, research, and practice. Second Language Studies, 26 (1), 1-58.
Chavdarova, A., Penkova, R. & Tsvetkova, N. (2013). “School Leavers’ Attitudes to, Evaluation of and
Perspectives on Language Learning”. Foreign Language Teaching. 40/1, 2013, 27-38. (In Bulgarian).
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. (2001).
Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press.
Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ordinance No 5 of 30 November 2015 for General Education.
https://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2136697599. Retrieved on 15.01.2018. (In Bulgarian).
Porto, M. (2014). Intercultural citizenship education in an EFL on-line project in Argentina. In: Language
and Intercultural Communication, 14, 245–261.
Preschool and School Education Act (2016). https://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2136641509 Retrieved on
15.01.2018. (In Bulgarian).
Roberts, C.; Byram, M. Barro, A.; Jordan, S. & Street, B. (2000). Language Learners as Ethnographers.
Clevedon UK: Multilingual matters.

10
Seelye, H. N. (1992, 1998). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication. Lincoln-wood
(Illinois): N.T.C.
Starkey, H. (2002). Democratic citizenship, languages, diversity and human rights. Guide for the
development of Language Education Policies in Europe. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual
Education. Language Policy Division, Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education. DGIV.
Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
State Educational Requirements (for foreign languages). In: Ordinance № 2 on the educational content of
18.05.2000. (In Bulgarian).
Stoicheva, M. (2006). European Language Policy. Sofia: University Publishing House “St. Kliment
Ohridski”. (In Bulgarian)
Stoicheva, M. (Ed.) (2011). Bulgaria - Europe: Language Policies. Sofia: University Publishing House “St.
Kliment Ohridski”. (In Bulgarian)
Tsvetkova, N. (2012). English language learning at a secondary school level and interculturality. In:
Foreign Language Teaching, 2012, vol. 3, pp. 236-246.
Tsvetkova, N. (2013). How Intercultural Am I or the European Language Portfolio as a Tool in Intercultural
Education. In: Language Identity and Culture in language education. ICC the international language
association. British Council/Macmillan.
Tsvetkova, N. (2016). Language teachers and European dimension of modern language teaching. In:
Bulgarian journal of education. Volume 2, 2016, pp. 59-76.
Zarate, G. (2003). Identities and plurilingualism: preconditions for the recognition of intercultural
competences. In: Byram, M. (2003). (Ed.) Intercultural competence. Language Policy Division, DG IV –
Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education. Council of Europe. Strasbourg.

Сп. „Реторика и комуникации“, брой 34, май 2018 г., http://rhetoric.bg/

Rhetoric and Communications E-journal, Issue 34, May 2018, http://journal.rhetoric.bg/
Special Issue – “Dialogues without borders: strategies of interpersonal and inter-group
communication”, 29 – 30 September 2017, Faculty of Philosophy, Sofia University “St.
Kliment Ohridski”, Sofia, Bulgaria

11