Author Archives: ld-sylff

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Six Athens Fellows Named under New Scheme

March 2, 2016

Six outstanding students at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens were awarded Sylff fellowships under the New Sylff Fellowship Program in February 2016 (see details of the new program ). Athens was the second university to successfully switch to the new scheme.

Sylff fellows, from left to right:  Maria Kyritsi, Anna Ventouratou, Nikolaos Galanopoulos, Vasiliki Gkeka, Evangelia Chaldaiaki, and Emilia Savva.

Sylff fellows, from left to right: Maria Kyritsi, Anna Ventouratou, Nikolaos Galanopoulos, Vasiliki Gkeka, Evangelia Chaldaiaki, and Emilia Savva.

The Sylff program at Athens has been energized under the new financial scheme. The six latest fellows not only have excellent academic credentials but have also demonstrated strong leadership in their research and social activities, both locally and internationally. The Tokyo Foundation is visiting the university in April, and we are looking forward to learning more about their activities.

We wish them a great success in their graduate studies and their careers.

From left to right: Despina Karvela (Sylff program executive), Loukas Spanos (SSC member and Sylff alumnus), Professor Costas Dimitracopoulos (SSC member), Maria Kyritsi (Sylff fellow), Vasiliki Gkeka (Sylff fellow), Anna Ventouratou (Sylff fellow), Vice Rector Konstantinos Buraselis (SSC Chairman), Emilia Savva (Sylff fellow), Professor Andreas Helmis (SSC member), Evangelia Chaldaiaki (Sylff fellow), Professor Stavros Thomadakis (SSC member), and Nikolaos Galanopoulos (Sylff fellow).

From left to right: Despina Karvela (Sylff program executive), Loukas Spanos (SSC member and Sylff alumnus), Professor Costas Dimitracopoulos (SSC member), Maria Kyritsi (Sylff fellow), Vasiliki Gkeka (Sylff fellow), Anna Ventouratou (Sylff fellow), Vice Rector Konstantinos Buraselis (SSC Chairman), Emilia Savva (Sylff fellow), Professor Andreas Helmis (SSC member), Evangelia Chaldaiaki (Sylff fellow), Professor Stavros Thomadakis (SSC member), and Nikolaos Galanopoulos (Sylff fellow).

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Chinese Investment in Central and Eastern Europe

February 25, 2016
By 19675

Ágnes Szunomár, a 2015 Sylff fellow at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, summarizes her research on the recent trend of Chinese investment in Central and Eastern Europe. In her article, she describes how it differs from investments by other Asian and European countries.

* * *

Introduction

Chinese outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) is one of the most spectacular developments in recent international economics in terms of its rapid growth, geographical range, and takeovers of established Western brands. Chinese firms mainly invest in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, where they search for markets and natural resources. They have also been active in the developed economies of Western Europe and the United States, however, that offer markets for Chinese products and assets that Chinese firms lack, such as advanced technologies, managerial knowledge, and distribution networks. Chinese firms are also increasingly investing in Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs). These investments are quite a new phenomenon and still constitute a small share of China’s total foreign direct investment (FDI) in Europe (10%), but since 2006 we have seen a growing influx of Chinese investments into the region, which is expected to increase further in the future (see the figure below).

The aim of my research was to analyse the motivations and location determinants of Chinese FDI in the largest recipient countries within the CEECs, with a special focus on the role and impact of host country macroeconomic and institutional factors.

Background

China’s rise is often compared to the postwar “Asian Miracle” of its neighbors. An analysis of the internationalization experiences of Japanese, Korean, and Chinese companies reveals several common features as well as some differences. One of the main common characteristics shared by all three is the creation and support of the so-called national champions, that is, domestically based companies that have become leading competitors in the global market. In fact, during their developmental period, both the Japanese and Korean governments gave strong state financial support to their companies in order to protect and promote them as well as to strengthen them for international competition. China has followed this example in subsidizing domestic industries and supporting their overseas activities, for example in the form of government funding for OFDI.

Although the CEECs differ in many respects, they do have some features in common as possible locations for East Asian investors. Their economies have been in the process of catching up over the last decades, defined mainly by European powers. FDI has played a key role in their restructuring. Investment from East Asian countries in the CEECs began as early as the 1990s (with a Japanese Suzuki factory in Hungary).

In the past decade most of these countries became increasingly interested in boosting trade and attracting investments from East Asian economies. The global economic and financial crisis of 2008 intensified these ambitions. The largest recipient countries of East Asian investments within the CEECs are Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Around 90% of foreign investments in the four countries are from Europe, with an average of only 7.4% of FDI from other countries, mainly from the USA, South Korea, Japan, and China.

Utility of the Research

Typically, the international literature examines the motivations of Chinese OFDI on a global basis, and most previous studies have focused on China's growing investments in the developing world. Studies dealing with the characteristics and motivations of Chinese FDI in Europe rarely deal with the Central and Eastern European region. Although significant research has been done on FDI flows to the CEEC region, most of these studies do not include Chinese investments. The literature is thus incomplete, and detailed description and analysis of this issue is lacking. The primary aim of this research was therefore to complement the literature.

Besides complementing the literature, my results also have an inherent message for CEEC corporate decision makers and policy makers. For the CEECs, the Chinese relationship is increasingly a priority, especially since the economic and financial crisis of 2008. Most countries in the region see a closer relationship with emerging economies such as China as a promising way of recovering from the recession. The further development of corporate or government strategies in this regard may be supported by the results of this research.

Methodology

Given the broad concept and geographical scope of Central and Eastern Europe, instead of focusing on the relations of all the region’s countries with the main East Asian investors, the research concentrates on a fair sample of CEEC countries: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. These countries were selected in consideration of their size, reflecting their proximity, growing business ties, and geographic location, as well as their political and economic relations with China. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia are the most developed and most important players in the CEEC region and are members of the Visegrad Group as well as the EU and the Schengen Area.

At the beginning of the research I reviewed theories and literature on FDI location determinants with a special focus on FDI determinants in the CEECs. The next step was to analyze the changing patterns and motivations of Chinese and other East Asian OFDI as I tried to find similarities and differences between the characteristics and motivations of Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean FDI in the CEECs. In addition, I provided a detailed description of the impact of both macroeconomic and institutional factors based on case studies and interviews with East Asian firms established in the CEECs.

To continue this research in the near future I also prepared an online opinion survey on East Asian companies' investment patterns, which will be sent out to several Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean companies operating in the CEECs to collect more information on their activities, motivations, and strategies.

Research Results

My investigation into the motivations of Chinese OFDI in the CEECs shows that Chinese investors mostly search for markets (market-seeking investment). Investors are attracted by the relatively low labor costs, skilled workforce, and market potential. EU membership allows Chinese investors to avoid trade barriers, and the countries serve as an assembly base due to the relatively low labor costs (efficiency-seeking investment). However, in parallel with the increasing number of mergers and acquisitions in the region, strategic asset-seeking motives have become more important for Chinese companies in recent years. Chinese investments are also motivated by the search for brands, new technologies, or market niches that they can fill in European markets. For example, in early 2012 Liugong Machinerys acquired Huta Stalowa Wola’s construction equipment division and its distribution subsidiary, Dressta. Secondly, in 2013 China’s Tri Ring Group Corporation acquired Polish Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych (the biggest Chinese investment in Poland so far), a producer of bearings for the automotive sector.

Chinese investment has flowed mostly into manufacturing (assembly), but over time services has attracted more and more investment as well. For example Hungary and Poland are home to branches of the Bank of China and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, as well as offices of some of the largest law offices in China (Yingke Law Firm and Dacheng Law Offices). Regarding the Chinese entry mode, there are examples of greenfield or quasi-greenfield investments (Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo), as well as mergers and acquisitions (Wanhua) and joint ventures (Orient Solar, BBCA).

Having examined the CEEC-East Asian economic ties, my conclusion is that while Japan and South Korea previously had larger roles, China has increasingly come to the fore in recent years. Analyzing the difference in motivations before and after the global economic and financial crisis suggests that although the crisis did not have a direct impact on East Asian investments in the CEECs, there was an indirect impact since it was in the aftermath of the crisis that the CEECs started to search for new opportunities to help them recover from the recession. For example, Hungary's “Opening to the East” policy was initiated after (and partly as a result of) the crisis, but the crisis also made Poland look eastward. China took these opportunities and has increased sectoral representation of Chinese firms in the CEECs in recent years.

The results of my research suggest that the characteristics, motivations, and location determinants of Chinese investments in the CEECs differ somewhat from Western as well as other East Asian investors’ motivations. While macroeconomic factors, such as labour costs, market size, and corporate taxes, had and continue to have a decisive role in selecting FDI locations for investors from other countries, Chinese firms seem to attach greater importance to institutional factors. Country-level institutional factors that impact Chinese companies’ location choice within the CEECs seem to be the size of the ethnic Chinese population, as well as investment, privatization and public procurement opportunities, but also good political relations between the host country and China. One example is Hisense’s explanation of the decision to invest in Hungary. Besides traditional economic factors, this decision was apparently motivated by the “good diplomatic, economic, trade, and educational relations with China, the sizable local Chinese population, Chinese trade and commercial networks, and associations already formed.” Another example is the Nuctech company, which established its subsidiary in Poland in 2004 and participated in public procurement.

My research also suggests that the CEEC region is not homogeneous and that there are differences in the economic relations between the CEEC countries and China. Moreover, the CEECs often view each other as competitors rather than working together to achieve shared goals (that is, to attract more Chinese investment). This is unfortunate, since according to the literature on the perceptions of the CEEC region among Chinese, many Chinese business investors consider the region to be a unified bloc.

Conclusion

To conclude, I found that:
(1) The role of Chinese investments within the CEE region increased significantly after the crisis, and investment from China will be increasingly important for the countries of the region in the future, as the Chinese share of total inward FDI in the CEECs increases.
(2) Chinese investments in the CEECs differ somewhat from other countries’ investments in the region in terms of motives, which in the Chinese case are driven by both political and economic factors.
(3) The level and warmth of political relations with the host country have an increasingly important influence on Chinese companies’ investments in the region. And (4) the CEE region tends to be seen more as a unified block than as a group of countries by the Chinese. Greater cooperation among the CEECs might therefore help to increase the chances for successful economic relations with China.

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

How Can Mathematics Help Us to Understand Complex Systems?

February 18, 2016
By 19676

Network analysis has emerged as a key technique in many fields of study, including economics, geography, history, and sociology. One fundamental concept that researchers try to capture is centrality: a quantitative measure revealing the importance of nodes in the network. The values assigned to the nodes are expected to provide a ranking which identifies the most important vertices. Naturally, the word “importance” has a wide range of meanings, leading to many different definitions of centrality. László Csató, a Sylff fellow at Corvinus University of Budapest in Hungary, is exploring the methodological background of some centrality indices.

* * *

In the analysis of complex social and economic structures, actors and the relationships among them are often interpreted as a network. The topology of the network can provide insight into its characteristics and functioning independently from the chosen system (a group of people, a supply chain, international trade relations). The graph-theoretical approach offers a possible approach to modelling these networks. Its strengths lie in the measurement of structural attributes as well as in visualization.

A well-known concept of the graph-theoretic analysis is centrality, which reflects the relative importance of the nodes in the whole network. Many methods exist for this purpose, although not every metric is suitable for every network – the choice depends on the nature of processes in the network and the aims of the analysis.

Most centrality measures have an interpretation on the network graph. However, their axiomatic background deserves more attention: little is known about which measures are excluded and which are supported by accepting a plausible property. The adopted approach is a standard path in (cooperative) game and social choice theory, and is gradually coming to prominence in economics, illustrated by the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences awarded to Alvin E. Roth and Lloyd S. Shapley in 2012. It can significantly contribute to the effort to find the right measures for a network.

Since my research has a strong theoretical orientation, I want to illustrate it through an example. Readers interested in the details can consult two working papers by me on the topic.1,2

This paper attempts to develop an index for measuring the accessibility of nodes in networks where each link has a value such that a smaller number is preferred. Examples might include distance, cost, or travel time. In the following, we will give some insight into the results.

Measuring Accessibility

The Marshall Islands in eastern Micronesia are divided into two atoll chains, one of which is Ralik. Figure 1 shows a (simplified) graph of the voyaging network among the 12 islands of the Ralik chain (Ailinglaplap, Bikini, Ebon, Jaluit, Kwajalein, Lae, Lib, Namorik, Namu, Rongelap, Ujae, Wotho). The links between the nodes show the possible routes of inter-island journeys by canoe. For example, it is not feasible to directly travel from Bikini to Jaluit: this journey requires at least five inter-island hops through Rongelap, Kwajalein, Namu and Ailinglaplap. We can therefore say that the distance between Bikini and Jaluit is 5. The problem is to provide a numerical answer to the question “How accessible is a node from other nodes in the Ralik chain?” The islands should be ranked with respect to the probability that they might become the centre of the chain.

An obvious solution is distance sum, the sum of the distances to all the other nodes. For example, Ailinglaplap has a distance sum of 25 since its distance to Bikini is 4, to Ebon 2, to Jaluit 1, and so on. The distance sum is characterized by three independent properties (axioms) such that it satisfies all of them, but any other accessibility index violates at least one property. The three conditions are as follows:

  • Anonymity: The accessibility ranking does not depend on the name of the nodes. Note that Jaluit and Namorik are structurally equivalent in the network, both being connected only to Ailinglaplap and Ebon.
  • Independence of distance distribution: If the distance of a node is decreased and the distance of another node is increased by the same amount, the accessibility ranking does not change.
  • Dominance preservation: A node not far from any other is at least as accessible. For instance, Rongelap should be more accessible than Bikini since the former is closer to certain nodes (e.g., Kwajalein), and there does not exist any island which is farther from Rongelap than from Bikini.

The distance sum focuses exclusively on the shortest paths. Sometimes this is not a desirable feature, as these paths can be vulnerable to link disruptions. Therefore a generalized distance sum, a parametric family of accessibility indices, is suggested. It is linear (easy to calculate), considers the accessibility of vertices besides their distances, and depends on a parameter in order to control its deviation from distance sum. This means that it should violate one axiom of the characterization above, which turns out to be the independence of distance distribution. However, the generalized distance sum is anonymous and satisfies dominance preservation if its parameter meets an appropriate condition.

Figure 2 shows the generalized distance sums for some nodes (on the vertical axis) as a function of a parameter (on the horizontal axis), which measures the influence of the other (i.e., not the shortest) paths. If the parameter is zero, the generalized distance sum is equal to the distance sum, however, some changes can be observed by increasing the value of the parameter:

  • The tie between Ailinglaplap and Wotho (25) is broken for Wotho. This makes sense since the nodes around Wotho have more links among them.
  • The tie between Rongelap and Ujae (27) is broken for Ujae. This is justified by Ujae's direct connection to Lae instead of Bikini as the former is more accessible than the latter.
  • Lae (26), Rongelap, and Ujau gradually overtake Ailinglaplap (25) and Bikini (34) overtakes Jaluit and Namorik (32) in the accessibility ranking. The reason is that the network has essentially two components: the link between Ailinglaplap and Namu is a cut-edge, and the above part around Kwajalein (where Lae, Rongelap, Ujae, and Bikini are located) is bigger and has more internal links.

Kwajalein (with a distance sum of 20) and Namu (21) are the first and second nodes in the accessibility ranking for any value of the parameter. Ebon (34) is “obviously” the least accessible node. These nodes are not shown in Figure 2.

To summarize, the generalized distance sum seems to reflect the vulnerability of accessibility to a disruption on the edge between Ailinglaplap and Namu: if this occurs, then the islands of Ailinglaplap, Ebon, Jaluit, and Namorik suffer more as they have a smaller “internal” network. The parameter can be said to measure this danger to a certain extent.

What Is It Good For?

Accessibility measures can be used in a number of interesting ways:

  • Knowledge of which nodes have the highest accessibility could be of interest in itself (e.g., by revealing their strategic importance);
  • The accessibility of vertices could be statistically correlated to other economic, sociological, or political variables;
  • Accessibility of the same nodes (e.g., urban centers) in different networks (e.g., transportation, infrastructure) could be compared;
  • Proposed changes in a network could be evaluated in terms of their effect on the accessibility of vertices;
  • Networks (e.g., empires) could be compared by their propensity to disintegrate. For example, it may be difficult to manage from a unique center if the most accessible nodes are far from each other.

Network analysis has emerged as a key technique in modern sociology as well as in anthropology, biology, economics, geography, history, and political science. My methodological research aspires to support these applications to get an insight into different networks. I believe robust mathematical foundations are crucial to a better understanding of similar complex systems.


1Csató, L. (2015): Measuring centrality by a generalization of degree. Corvinus Economics Working Papers 2/2015. URL: http://unipub.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/1846/ This paper contributes to network analysis, dealing with the issue of how to identify key nodes in a network. For this purpose a new centrality measure, called the generalized degree, is suggested, based on the idea that a link to a more interconnected node is preferable to a connection to a less central one.
2Csató, L. (2015): Distance-based accessibility indices. Corvinus Economics Working Papers 12/2015.URL: http://unipub.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/1986/

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

Sylff@Tokyo:Jagiellonian University’s Prestigious Leadership Program

February 15, 2016

From left to right, Takashi Suzuki, Sanae Oda, Andrezej Mania, Dorota Maciejowska, and Yoko Kaburagi.

From left to right, Takashi Suzuki, Sanae Oda, Andrezej Mania, Dorota Maciejowska, and Yoko Kaburagi.

On February 1, 2016, members of the Sylff steering committee at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, visited the Tokyo Foundation during their trip to Japan.

Professor Habil Andrezej Mania, vice rector for educational affairs and chairperson of the Jagiellonian Sylff steering committee, and Ms. Dorota Maciejowska, head of the university’s international relations, shared stories of outstanding JU fellows who have gone on to become leaders in various fields through the skills and knowledge acquired during their Sylff fellowship years.

The Jagiellonian University joined the Sylff community in 1992 and has since successfully supported over 250 fellows. Many of them now assume important positions in academia and government, including international organizations, and have become role models for younger fellows.

The Sylff program at the university is very prestigious, the visitors noted, because it is the only fellowship that attaches great importance to leadership. The Jagiellonian Sylff steering committee looks for high-level language skills and leadership qualities in assessing candidates through application documents and interviews.

The meticulous selection process is very time-consuming, Professor Mania and Ms. Maciejowska noted, but Sylff steering committee members are committed to the task because they are eager to nurture future leaders through the Sylff program.

Congratulations to the Jagiellonian Sylff steering committee on its efforts to elevate the quality and status of the Sylff program thus far, and we look forward to further success in the future.

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

[Report] The Refugee Crisis in Europe and the Role of the Czech Republic

February 10, 2016
By null

Martin Faix and Věra Honusková, Sylff fellows from Charles University in Prague, organized a conference on the migrant and refugee crisis in Europe that was supported by an SLI grant. Tokyo Foundation director Mari Suzuki and program officer Keita Sugai attended the conference as observers. The following is a report by Keita Sugai.

* * *

Introduction

The migrant and refugee crisis in Europe has the potential to precipitate social and geopolitical changes that could prompt the European Union to thoroughly reexamine its border policy from political, pragmatic, and humanitarian perspectives. Today, news of refugees fleeing from war-torn, failed states or oppressive dictatorships reaches readers around the world every day, and the issue has elicited both sympathy and hostility toward the migrants within the EU. While EU ministers voted for a plan to relocate 120,000 migrants and refugees in September 2015, central European countries, including Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, voted against the plan. The issue has been highly divisive.

In an attempt to gain a fuller understanding of this issue through objective, impartial discussion, Sylff fellows Martin Faix and Věra Honusková organized a one-day conference in Prague—supported by a Sylff Leadership Initiatives (SLI) grant—that focused on the legal dimensions of the debate. As an observer at the conference, I became acutely aware that the legal foundations of the refugee issue were often completely overlooked in the discussions intended to consider and articulate the plight of the refugees.

The SLI-funded conference on the “Refugee Crisis on the Borders of Europe and the Role of the Czech Republic” was held on November 12, 2015, at Charles University in Prague, from whose Faculty of Law both Faix and Honusková received their PhDs. The fellows have profound legal knowledge of refugee-related issues, with Honusková having substantial practical experience through her career at an NGO and in academia.

In this report, I will first provide background information and then summarize the main arguments for the legal foundations of this issue, along with other topics covered at the forum. I will also share my observations on how the two Sylff fellows succeeded in fulfilling the purposes of the conference.

Background Information

Věra Honusková

Věra Honusková

In my conversations with the fellows, I learned that the refugee issue has been politicized in their country and that attempts to stir up public sentiment have resulted in strong anti-refugee opinions and policies. When the number of refugees entering the EU increased dramatically in spring 2015, discussions oriented toward accepting them were difficult to initiate because the political environment was very negative. This was challenged by humanitarian groups on several occasions, and a groundswell of sympathy emerged when the photo of a Syrian boy found dead on the southern Turkish coastline caught worldwide attention. Arguments were made calling for a more flexible policy, and stakeholders became more willing to listen to different viewpoints.

Dr. Martin Faix

Dr. Martin Faix

Faix and Honusková carefully timed the conference to coincide with this shifting mood. Their primary objective was to examine the legal foundations of the refugee issue, and waiting until November was quite fortuitous, as policy stakeholders became more interested in different perspectives and were in need of objective policymaking guidelines.

They were successful in laying out the legal foundations in the presence of diverse stakeholders: Speakers included academics from the Czech Republic, Belgium, Hungary, and Austria; administrators from the Czech Ministry of the Interior and the Office of the Public Defender of Rights; and a judge from the Czech Constitutional Court. Their presentations stimulated intense debate, which, as planned, sometimes became very heated. Audience members included academics from domestic and other EU universities, Czech public officials and administrators, and media personnel. This diversity of participants enabled information to be conveyed from a broad spectrum of viewpoints and facilitated multifaceted discussions.

Legal Foundations

This report will not delve into the technical details of the debate, and I will only provide the essence of the legal foundations presented and discussed during the conference.

Schengen Agreement and Dublin Regulation

Legally speaking, the refugee crisis has seriously diluted the effectiveness of two important EU agreements signed by most member states. One is the Schengen Agreement, which abolished internal border controls to allow individuals to move freely within the Schengen Area. In response to the massive influx of migrants, however, some countries closed their borders to prevent their entry. These countries point to national security concerns. Many experts believe that the Schengen Agreement is no longer working and that it needs to be reconsidered.

The other is the Dublin Regulation, under which almost all migrants seeking asylum in the EU must apply to the first country of entrance—which then is responsible for reviewing the application. This convention is being questioned from the viewpoint of practicability, as it forces coastal states like Italy and Greece to be inundated with applications. Germany’s announcement in August 2015 that it will accept applications from Syrians who had neither applied for refugee status nor had their applications reviewed was seen as the moment that made states give up on the strict enforcement of the Dublin Regulation.

It is important to note, though, that the massive scale of the migration in 2015 was totally unforeseen by these two agreements. This is not to say that they are flawed but that emergency, intervention measures are needed.

Convention on Refugees

The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is a UN multilateral treaty that contains a definition of a refugee, the rights of individuals granted asylum, and the responsibilities of nations granting asylum.

According to the definition that was amended in a 1967 protocol, a refugee is a person who is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable or unwilling to return owing to a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Refugees are protected by the principle of “non-refoulement,” or forcible return, which the parties to the convention must observe. It is a safeguard to prevent refugees from being returned against their will to territories where their life or freedom could be threatened.

The speakers talked of the convention as something like a Magna Carta, serving as the basis of all other legal documents on the rights and entitled protections of refugees.

European Union Law

Article 67 of European Union law (Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) states: “[The Union] shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity between Member States.” Article 77, meanwhile, states: “The Union shall develop a policy with a view to: (a) ensuring the absence of any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders; . . . [and] (c) the gradual introduction of an integrated management system for external borders.” And Article 78 states: “The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement.”

The provisions concerning asylum for refugees thus reaffirm the Refugee Convention’s protocol regarding the rights of refugees and responsibilities of member states. It is notable that EU law upholds a “common policy” on the protection of refugees. This is a strong argument for EU member states to undertake necessary measures collectively, especially if the Schengen and Dublin agreements are not fulfilling their originally envisioned common policy goals.

What emerged from the conference was a message that member states are required, under the Geneva Convention and EU law, to provide relief measures for refugees to some extent but that they can fulfill those requirements in a number of ways. There is a need to respond to the humanitarian crisis, but states do not necessarily have to allow all people who come to Europe’s shores to settle in the EU. The issue is made more legally complicated by the fact that many of those entering Europe are not refugees in the conventional sense. The most difficult and controversial aspects of the issue are how the legal foundations should be applied in enabling practical policy measures when political interests and orientations dictate a different response. EU member states were divided over their policy choices, as the actual number of migrants in 2015 far exceeded levels envisioned under the current policy framework.

Many of the EU members opposed to allowing the entry of refugees, including the Czech Republic, pointed to national security concerns. The tone of the debate was dominated by a sense of crisis, and political emotions ran high, fostering negative views toward the acceptance of refugees.

The conference highlighted the point, though, that EU member states cannot avoid their responsibilities. The fellows explained to me that many participating political and government officials, as well as the mass media, came away from the conference with a heightened interest in the legal dimensions of the issue. There is no doubt a need to keep political emotions in check and encourage more objective discussions; this conference could be the first step toward that goal.

The fellows were thus very careful about downplaying the influence of emotion and creating an environment conducive to objective, sober debate. For example, speakers were discouraged from using visual images of refugees, particularly of children, which could trigger a sympathetic, humanitarian response.

Other Issues

These discussions raised more fundamental questions about the nature and role of the European Union. The EU was established to consolidate certain functions of national governments and promote solidarity. Member states must act as one on a broad range of policy issues. The refugee crisis alone will not erode the EU’s spirit of solidarity, which is required in addressing the many challenges it faces, including financial crises, economic stagnation and unemployment, conflict with Russia over Ukraine, and Britain’s possible withdrawal. But a critical mistake in a key policy area could produce seeds of fragmentation. The fact that the conference addressed the refugee problem with reference to fundamental aspects of the EU was an excellent idea.

Another insight into the fundamental aspects of the refugee crisis was gained through the introduction of historical documents from about a hundred year ago, which showed that sovereign states did not have a key role in maintaining migrant controls. Culture was, in some ways, a bigger factor in human mobility, not only leading to a reexamination of the status quo but also prompting major changes. Adapting to changing circumstances enabled cultures to grow stronger, thereby facilitating their continued and sustainable development. Discussions of the refugee crisis thus shed new light on the fundamental role and historical significance of the EU process.

Conclusion

The Sylff Leadership Initiatives program is intended to support fellows wishing to address socially relevant issues. Honusková and Faix were well aware of the aims of SLI and had a shared interest in taking an objective look at the influx of migrants into Europe. Their efforts to promote thorough debate from a legal point of view—whose importance had often been overlooked—contributed to the success of the conference. Honusková and Faix are both experts on the legal aspects of the refugee issue; the two worked effectively as a team, with Honusková taking the lead in shaping the substance of the discussions, while Faix was mainly responsible for administrative matters.

There was no time to bask in the afterglow of their success, however. On November 13, 2015, only one day after the conference, terrorists launched coordinated attacks in Paris that killed over a hundred people. This tragedy has negatively impacted on efforts to protect and accept refugees, making it all the more imperative to promote levelheaded, legally grounded debate. I have invited Faix and Honusková to write about the conference and the refugee crisis in their own words in a forthcoming Voices article.

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff

The Sociolinguistics of Greek Teenage Language Practices on Facebook

February 2, 2016
By 19604

Christopher Lees, a Sylff fellow at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, spent time at the University of Hamburg, Germany carrying out analysis and refining his research on youth language on social networking sites. In this article, he describes his findings on digital literacy practices among Greek teenagers using Facebook, and describes how they use linguistic creativity to achieve their communicative goals.

* * *

Background

The way teenagers speak and interact has long been a matter of interest in sociolinguistics, while often being a matter of concern and even controversy in academic circles and among the general public. There can be no doubt that teenagers seem to have their own codes of communication, which are markedly different from those of their elders. This has given rise to many questions both within and outside academia. What is it, for instance, that makes teenagers use different varieties of language? How do we classify these varieties and can we claim, as many do, that these “alternative” uses of language pose a threat to the future of the languages we speak? A new element to this debate in recent years is the question of how teenagers communicate on social networking sites such as Facebook. This has brought a whole new set of questions related to an oral-like style of writing, inconsistent grammar and punctuation, and frequent mixtures of various different, particularly in countries whose languages are regarded as “less widely spoken.”

My field of sociolinguistics aims to provide answers to these questions. For example, it is widely accepted that one of the reasons why teenagers exhibit such unique linguistic practices is because they mix in narrower circles than was the case in previous generations, largely due to the fast-paced development of technology (Kakridi-Ferrari 2005: 195). Since the Second World War, technology has replaced many previous professions, rendering many skills obsolete. This has created a need for young people to be educated for longer than was previously the norm in order for them to keep pace with the new demands created by new technology. This has forged a closer bond between teenagers and other young people who spend more time with each other and have developed a new type of “youth culture” as a result of this new social dynamic. This culture has brought with it new ways of communicating that differ from the varieties of language used by these people’s parents and previous generations and reflect the shifting social reality of which young people are a part.

Social networking sites and Facebook in particular have provided young people with an entirely new “meeting place” where they can chat with their friends, exchange ideas, play games, and share and comment on videos and images. Such a platform is in itself an entirely new social reality for teenagers that has facilitated the development of new language practices. The study of the language practices seen on social networking sites is one of the latest areas of interest to linguists involved what is known as Computer Mediated Communication. This is the area that my research focuses on.

The Research

Following the traditions of sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication, my PhD research focuses on the language practices of Greek teenagers on Facebook. A total of 15 secondary school pupils are participating in my PhD research, 10 of them enrolled at the Model Experimental School of the University of Thessaloniki and the remaining five at the Model Experimental Secondary School of the University of Macedonia in the area of Neapoli. The two schools are located in different areas of the Greek city of Thessaloniki. The latter is located in a socially underprivileged area of the city, whereas the former is in the center and enjoys a reputation as a school of academic excellence, not least due to its affiliation with the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The rationale behind this selection was the hope that the linguistic data derived from the pupils might reveal differences that could be attributed to the different social backgrounds of the pupils. Consent was obtained from parents and guardians, as well as from the pupils themselves. In addition, pseudonyms have been used whenever reference is made to the data, so as to protect the identity of the participants, in line with research ethics (D’Arcy & Young 2012: 540-541).

Sunset over the Alster, Hamburg.

Sunset over the Alster, Hamburg.

After receiving my SRA scholarship, I travelled to the University of Hamburg in Germany to refine and discuss the categories to be included in my analysis. In total, I spent two and a half weeks at the Department of German Philology, where I was able to discuss my research with experts in my field and use their resources to develop a concrete qualitative and quantitative approach to analyzing the data collected from the pupils. I was also able to see at first hand how research has been conducted for similar projects in German using the model of online ethnography (Androutsopoulos 2008). Online ethnography refers to observing the linguistic practices of specific communities of Internet users, together with real contact with the users themselves by means of interviews, discussions, etc. The advantage of this approach is that the researcher is able to cross-check and verify his or her interpretations against the explanations and opinions of the producers of the language practices under study. This blended approach can therefore help produce a more reliable data analysis.

In comparison with German, Greek is one of the less widely spoken languages of the EU. One of the consequences of this is that its speakers are exposed to a much greater variety of languages—particularly English through the mainstream media—than speakers of more widely spoken languages like English and French. Three main tendencies observed in Greek teenagers’ linguistic practices on Facebook form the core of my research. These are as follows:

1. Features of digital orality in teenagers’ “written” linguistic practices on Facebook
2. Use of alternate script choices
3. Use of English

In general terms, the term digital orality refers to “oral-like” features employed by users of digital media while communicating in writing (Soffer 2010: 388). The features of digital orality studied in my PhD research are diminutives and augmentatives, as well as oral discourse markers. Such features, in particular, are highly common in the language practices of Greek teenagers on Facebook and fulfill specific pragmatic functions for the users and their fellow participants, as can be seen in Examples 1 and 2 below:

1. Σε ευχαριστώ Άννα, θεάρα μου [se efcharisto Anna mu, theara mu]
Thank you Anna, my [big] goddess
2. εε κι εμείς φοβόμασταν να πάμε στο δωμάτιο και να φανταστείς ήταν πρωί [ee ki emis fovomastan na pame so domatio ke na fantastis itan proi]
errr we were afraid to go to the room, too and that was in the morning, if you can believe it

In Example 1, the use of the augmentative –ara attached to the word theara, characterising the user’s friend as exhibiting “goddess” functions as a way of showing admiration and enthusiasm for the referent (see Daltas 1985). Conversely, in Example 2, the use of the oral discourse marker ee, which resembles but does not have the exact same functions as English er, acts as a way of framing the message that follows, while signifying a relevant part of the conversation, which could be an answer to a previous comment made by another Facebook user. The use of diminutives, augmentatives and oral discourse markers belongs almost entirely to the linguistic repertoire of female pupils. This is believed by the pupils to be due to the fact that, particularly in the case of diminutives and augmentatives, these elements are used to express affection and tenderness.

As far as Greek is concerned, script choice in Computer Mediated Communication has been a subject of debate ever since people started using computers to communicate with each other. Greek users would use Latin transliteration to represent Greek characters, initially due to the fact that Greek characters were not available. However, after this problem was resolved with the invention of the so-called UNICODE system, computer users, and most notably young computer users, continued using the Latin script. In my research I investigate the current situation in the language used by Greek teenagers in my data. In addition, I noted an interesting new trend for English and other languages that use the Latin script to be written in the Greek alphabet (Spilioti 2013), such as in Example 3 below:

3. oφκορσ ι λοβ γιου μαι ντιαρ [ofkors i lov yiou my diar]
Of course I love you, my dear

From my data, this use of Latin script to write Greek is practiced by boys significantly more than by girls. This is recognised by pupils as indicative of boys’ more relaxed attitude to language use and a way for them to avoid the hassle involved in changing keyboard settings between one alphabet and the other.

Finally, my research looks into how English is used by Greek teenagers in their communication with friends on Facebook. Rather than simply communicating in the English they learn at school, Greek teenagers use various features of English, including vernacular ones, often mixed in with Greek, producing an entertaining multilingual puzzle. Such practices are referred to in the literature as polylingual languaging (Jørgensen 2008). According to this model of analysis, what is important in this type of communication is not linguistic accuracy and proficiency but the way in which users exploit features of various languages to accomplish their own communicative needs. For example, the phrase, “are you working me?” in Example 4 below is not a phrase used in Standard English but a direct translation of the Greek phrase, με δουλεύεις [me dulevis], which means ”Are you kidding me?”

4. Δεν σου αρέσει ο Spiderman τώρα? Are you working me? [Den su aresi o Spiderman tora? Are you working me?]
You don’t like Spiderman now? Are you kidding me?

The Facebook user who produced the comment in Example 4 knows that the phrase in question is not an idiom in Standard English, but has used it for the benefit of his Greek-speaking friends, who, because of their knowledge of Greek, are able to understand the humor behind the “Englishification” of a well-used Greek phrase. No significant difference was noted related to gender use of this kind of English; it seems that both sexes use the English language in much the same way and for the same communicative purposes.

Conclusions and Hoped-for Influence on Wider Society

A transliterated, as opposed to translated, sign reading “no entrance.”

A transliterated, as opposed to translated, sign reading “no entrance.”

I hope that this short article has provided a useful overview of my PhD research and given some insight into the ways that Greek teenagers communicate through Facebook. As the examples show, Greek teenagers make use of all the cultural and linguistic resources at their disposal to produce highly creative language practices, which do not reflect any difference in social background between the pupils at the two schools. It seems that Greek secondary school teenagers in Thessaloniki use much the same types of language practices, although some differences can be discerned depending on gender. For example, as we have seen, the use of diminutives, augmentatives and oral discourse markers appears to make up a more significant part of the language repertoire of girls, whereas boys use the Latin script to write Greek significantly more than girls do.

My hope is that this research will help to construct an argument that will enable society to appreciate the creative and intricate ways in which Greek teenagers use language to play, joke, and achieve their communicative goals in the specific context of Facebook. People often view teenage linguistic practices as a degenerative and “cheap” variety of Greek, but far from posing a threat to the integrity of the Greek language, these highly imaginative and creative practices in fact make a positive contribution to enriching linguistic creativity.

In other words, it should not be assumed that teenagers’ use of language is in any way inferior to that of previous generations, or that they do not know how to use language “appropriately,” simply because they combine English with their Greek, use the Latin script, and use features of orality in their written language practices On the contrary, my ethnographic data shows that Greek teenagers are well aware that their use of language on Facebook is for Facebook only and not suitable for academic writing or formal correspondence. I hope that my research will help to dispel the myths and foreground teenagers’ language practices on Facebook as examples of linguistic ingenuity and creativity, and contribute to a better perception of the roles played by language in society.

References

Androutsopoulos, J. (2008) Discourse-centred online ethnography. In Androutsopoulos, Jannis & Michael Beißwenger (eds.) Data and Methods in Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis. Special Issue, Language@Internet 5 (2008). http://www.languageatinternet.de

Daltas, P. (1985) Some patterns of variability in the use of diminutive and augmentative suffixes in Spoken Modern Greek Kini (MGK). Γλωσσολογία/Glossologia 4, 63-88

D’Arcy, Α. & Young, Τ.Μ. (2012). “Ethics and social media: Implications for sociolinguistics in the networked public. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16/4, 2012. 532-546

Jørgensen N. (2008). “Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5:3. 161-176

Kakridi-Ferrari, Maria. 2005. Glossa kai koinoniko perivallon: Zitimata koinonioglossologias (A Meros) [Language and Social Environment: Issues in Sociolinguistics: Part 1]. Contribution 64: Parousia Journal. Athens

Soffer, O (2010) “‘Silent Orality’: Toward a Conceptulization of the Digital Oral Features in CMC and SMS Texts” In Communication Theory 20. 387-404. International Communication Association

Spilioti, T. (2013) “Greek-Alphabet English: vernacular transliterations of English in social media.” In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, 5-7 September 2013, pp. 435-447. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

  • HOME
  • 投稿者 : ld-sylff