Language Testing
The issue of immigration and language use is broad and requires intense research. The use of grammar and other language patterns may not be best for the analysis of the situation in Sweden. Discourse analysis comes in as the best analytical method as it involves the analysis of a language in terms of the involved parties. Discourse analysis treats the speaker and listener in a communication setting as equal participants since either can take either role. In the era where immigration appears has a world-wide challenge, communication and language should be given substantial attention to avoid cases of discrimination. An analytical framework needs to be developed before-hand to provide reliable results in the research on media discourse on citizen testing.
The media plays a significant role in the spread of ideologies, especially on international matters. The issue of language testing in Sweden has received different perceptions both locally and internationally hence a need for analysis. The reception of immigrants appears to be positive in Sweden, and language language has not been a challenge in the country. Besides, Sweden is not alienated to a specific language, and multiculturalism has been behind strict respect for different languages. The pre-construction of an analytical framework will be essential in bringing out the real picture of the impacts that language testing has had on the people of Sweden (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). An inductive approach, on the other side, will involve the generalization of results from previous activities and may lead to misleading results. Besides, the results for such a sensitive aspect should be based on reliable analysis of previous data to pave the way for a better conclusion and the development of effective policies. Moreover, language testing presents a differing course of contention with countries believing that a common language is essential so that individuals may have unlimited access to civil rights and other services available to them.
National cohesion is crucial in a country that is founded on multiculturalism. The development of a common language for all the communities to use gives positivity to a multicultural society. Language testing offers a chance to give a country an identity where residents can easily access civil rights and other services effectively (Milani, 2008). However, the issue of language testing has received both positive and negative criticism with both parties of the criticism providing evidence to support their course. First, language testing involves the assessment of citizens for fluency in a universal language that is used in the country in question. The requirement ensures that residents do not face challenges when receiving services from the government. However, another group of critics holds the argument that language testing may form an avenue for discrimination. For example, the requirement that residents should know a particular language has been viewed as to imply that the language is superior. Moreover, the media debate on language testing presents a discriminatory aspect from the implementation of language testing.
Language testing has been popularized by media debate, and views have been emerging concerning the acceptability of the discourse. Adrian Blackledge wrote an article to assess the impact of multilingual policies and their impact on social justice. Blackledge argued that a political discourse existed and led to an avenue where dominant languages continued to play superiority over other languages. Generally, speakers of dominant languages have been taking advantage of language testing to enhance their superiority over other languages that have been viewed as inferior (Blackledge, 2006). According to Blackledge, public discourse is essential in the identification of the methods used by dominant language speakers to discriminate against other languages. Generally, speakers of the dominant languages take advantage of language testing to make their language superior to other languages. Moreover, Sweden deviates from the European ideology of using language testing to integrate residents into European systems.
The reason behind language testing is that authorities try to allow the residents to have access to their civil rights without language barriers. Several European countries have set policies to have language testing made compulsory for residents before being offered total residence. Borevi (2014), in his article, assesses the impact of Sweden’s path dependency and shows how the Sweden system outlines the need to allow for freedom in terms of language use. Sweden has been blamed for lacking a clear language, but the system has proven otherwise (Borevi, 2014). Borevi uses Denmark as a reference for a failed language testing aspect. Generally, the Sweden deviation is an indication that language testing has been misused to create superior languages. Moreover, the difference in Swedish systems shows how citizen and language testing is associated with a power imbalance.
Sweden is known for its strong cohesion and high integration of new citizens. The integration comes from the fact that new citizens are not subjected to tests before being approved for citizenship. Furthermore, other European countries are used to citizenship testing to assess the ability of a resident to be integrated into the country (Joppke, 2007). However, the citizenship testing approach has come out to create a system of imbalance between new and existing citizens. Bridget Byrne presents a case of the UK where citizenship testing is responsible for the imbalance between the various languages. New citizens have been forced to showcase their fluency in English or be willing to learn English before being allowed to access their civil rights. The case in the UK shows that citizenship testing is not efficient in addressing the challenges that may come with language barriers (Byrne, 2017). Furthermore, citizen integration models across Europe have failed, and an imbalance of power is evident. Therefore, the case of Sweden is sufficient to prove that an independent path of language is essential to address language-related challenges. Moreover, the research on citizenship testing is subject to a set of challenges that may impact the results obtained.
The research has brought to light the real situation behind citizenship and language testing. Sweden is the point of reference since it has a different system from other European countries. The research first assesses the situation in Sweden and compares it with other European countries. For example, the empirical data provides information on the situation in the UK and Denmark and brings out success in the Swedish case. However, challenges are witnessed in the analysis of the article. A direct comparison between the Swedish case and other European countries is not made. Therefore, the results may be based on biased conclusions since the success of the system may depend on other factors not covered by the researchers. Also, the results from the various researches may be based on the response from new citizens at the expense of policymakers.
References
Blackledge, A. (2006). The magical frontier between the dominant and the dominated: Sociolinguistics and social justice in a multilingual world. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(1), 22-41.
Borevi, K. (2014). Multiculturalism and welfare state integration: Swedish model path dependency. Identities, 21(6), 708-723.
Byrne, B. (2017). Testing Times: The Place of the Citizenship Test in the UK Immigration Regime and New Citizens’ Responses to it.Sociology, 51(2), 323-338. (view that immigrants should be responsible for their own integration p.334; the idea of citizenship as a ‘reward’ p.328; the concept of the ‘super citizen’ p,334)
Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1-22.
Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Sage.
Milani, T. (2008). Language testing and citizenship: A language ideological debate in Sweden. Language in Society, 37(1), 27-59.