English as a global language
In 1997 the British Council's English 2000 project published The Future of English? written by David Graddol. It has now developed an on-line course to develop and train a worldwide
network of ELT professionals able to share their own perspectives on English as a global language. The presenters described some of the more striking findings that have arisen in the project and encouraged participants to respond to these ideas referring to their own experiences. Several participants from the on-line courses shared their own views and the impact of the courses on their work.
Introduction
The English language has become the world's most important
language and its rise to the status of global lingua franca must rank as one of the most significant facts in the cultural history of the twentieth century world. It is perhaps appropriate, as the new millennium approaches, that we should pause to reflect on how English reached this position, what might happen next, and what it all means, both for those who speak English and for the substantial proportion of the world's population who do not.
Equally, we need to consider the implications of these changes on our own role as language teaching professionals.
David Crystal's book, English as a Global Language, (Crystal, 1997) concludes that English became the world language not because of any intrinsic linguistic qualities, but because at significant moments in history it happened to be 'in the right place at the right time'. "The Future of English?" (Graddol, 1997) suggests that English is at a turning point in its development as an international language: it has become a global language at a time when the world itself is undergoing rapid change. Indeed, English is very much a part of the process of transformation, which is creating a more closely interconnected world in which people and machines talk easily to each other across vast spaces.
There are two key markers of this transition point in the
development of English. First, the number of people speaking
English as a second language will shortly outnumber those who
speak it as a first language.
Second, it is clear that more and more people learning English as a foreign language do so in order to communicate with other non-native speakers of English. This marks a significant change in the nature and purpose of teaching and learning English around the world, which has hitherto been built on the idea of teaching a native speaker model of English (usually British or American) to allow communication between the learner and native speakers.
The British, in particular, have been accustomed to think of
themselves as the historic 'centre' of the language. There has been little dissent from the idea that native speakers (of any language, but perhaps especially of English) are the basic reference point when issues of 'authenticity' are considered. The most authoritative grammar books and dictionaries are compiled not only within the native speaking countries but are also based on native speaker usage.
The boundaries between increasingly unsatisfactory categories of English speakers are being blurred.
For example, the definition of a 'second language speaker' traditionally rests on whether English is used in a person's country as a language of national communication. This kind of definition may have made sense in the days where national borders represented effective limits on communication, but hardly captures the importance of English to a growing number of professional and middle class speakers around the world. Should we not count, for example, a Chinese professional who is fluent in English and uses it in daily communication with colleagues overseas, a second language speaker rather than an EFL speaker?
Communities of discourse are no longer bound by national
boundaries in the way they were. It is not uncommon for close
communicative ties to arise between people in different
countries. This is one of the ways in technologies such as the Internet are reconstructing patterns of communication across the world. We believe that the future of English will depend on those second language speakers of English.
What does this mean for ELT professionals?
We feel that individuals will need to consider the changing role of English very carefully to ensure that their work is relevant to the changing needs of learners, and so that they can continue to be confident of their own role in their profession. If English is to be used increasingly as a lingua franca between second language speakers, native speaker teachers may ask themselves "are we the right people for the job?" Equally, language schools and colleges, publishers, examiners, and all those involved in creating ELT commodities will ask themselves "what should the product be?" This question is particularly pertinent for British providers of ELT goods and services.
We do not want to devalue the role of native speaker teachers, though we hope that this discussion might encourage non-native speaker teachers of English to feel more confident about their role in the future teaching of English. All teachers, non-native and native speakers, will need to work with their learners to establish exactly what kind of English the learners need, and adapt their teaching accordingly. As part of this process, some teachers are already developing special courses for their advanced level learners, which focus on language awareness activities, helping learners develop a better awareness of Global English issues, by contrasting its contexts and usage with their
own language(s).
We plan to support such teachers by developing a new online course for members of our English Language Teaching Contacts Scheme (ELTECS), most of whom are currently based in Europe.
Many ELTECS members are involved in teaching advanced level students, particularly training future teachers of English. Many teacher training degrees include a fairly traditional "History of the English Language" type course, which often fails to interest students. The reason for the students' poor response appears to be that the students do not respond well to studying someone else's history. The story of the Anglo Saxons and the Norman invasion of England does not always engage the interest of students based in continents far from a small island in the North Sea.
More positively, a University teacher in Argentina has reported that her use of "The Future of English?" as the core text of a reworked "History of English" course was very successful. The reason for this success seems to be that the students could identify their own history (and get a feel for what might be their future) in the ideas contained in this book.
We are not necessarily advocating the whole scale adoption of our publication as the way forward for teaching such courses, but would like to offer it as an interesting example of the materials that can be developed for advanced learners of English. We certainly did not imagine that the book could be used in this way when it was commissioned and written.
Advanced learners of English, particularly when they are future teachers, are an important group. They have hopefully reached a stage where they can develop, and eventually teach, different varieties of English available for the new communicative contexts we discussed earlier in this paper. But they are probably a small minority of the hundreds of millions of people who are currently learning English in some sense.
The challenge for the ELT profession is to develop courses and resources that are meaningful for the diverse and changing contexts in which English will be used.
We will continue to try to help support the profession by developing our Futures series of online courses, tailored to British Council staff and key partner institutions, language planners and other groups for whom this approach is useful.
What else is the British Council doing to support the profession?
We look forward to the publication of "The Future of English?" translated in Japanese, Chinese, and, we hope, Spanish and Indonesian. We particularly hope that these translations will enable us to have a dialogue with some of the world's majority which does not speak English. We imagine that they might offer very different perspectives, and some such readers might be more
critical and hostile towards English than those we have interacted with so far.
We will continue to publish our electronic Global English Newsletter (see subscription details below), which serves as a free current awareness service for those interested in new developments that have an impact on English.
The British Council has also commissioned three new reports on areas which we think are significant for the ELT profession:
The Internet and ELT
David Eastment has revised his original report published in 1996.
There have been many developments since the original report was published, particularly as there are far more internet users now than there were in 1996, when only a minority of ELT professionals had access to or even experience of the Internet (arguably still the case in some regions and contexts).
Worldwide survey of Primary ELT
This sector of ELT has been expanding in recent years. Shelagh Rixon has been commissioned to survey the teaching of English in the state and private sectors, and to consider the significance of the often discussed "critical age" for language learning.
The Language Machine
This report by Eric Atwell, examines how the latest developments in Speech and Language Technology might constitute the language machine of the report's title. Follow up events and discussion will focus on the potential impact of such a machine on the demand for and delivery of ELT.
We plan to share our findings from these activities with as wide an audience as possible, particularly using Internet discussion groups and the British Council's website for publication and discussion.
And finally...
"The Future of English?" has turned full circle in that it has helped inform a new initiative in the UK, the Nuffield Languages Inquiry which began in Spring 1998. This Inquiry was commissioned in response to an apparent decrease in the interest among young people in learning foreign languages in the UK. Prominent individuals had written to the press to claim the British are learning the wrong languages.
The most widely taught language has always French, which is the language spoken by Britain's nearest neighbour on the continent of Europe and a major world language, but many believe that other languages should be taught more widely. Some employers find it difficult to recruit British staff with the right mix of professional and language skills and are recruiting from overseas. There is a shortage of foreign modern languages teachers, and this shortage looks likely to worsen.
One of the most crucial questions asked by the Inquiry is:
what kind of foreign language capability is appropriate for a country whose first language is a major world language?
The co-author of this paper and author of The Future of English?, David Graddol, is working closely with the Inquiry, has helped publish their initial report and convened the Inquiry's online discussion group. The British Council will support the Inquiry in several ways, working with the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges (CBEVE) which already works closely with the Modern Foreign Languages profession in the UK.
The Inquiry is due to be completed in late 1999.
It is chaired by Sir John Boyd (Churchill College, Cambridge) and Trevor McDonald (ITN News).
Caroline Moore and David Graddol
What makes a global language?
Why is English a leading candidate?
And will it hold this position?
Subject: English as a Global Language
Posted by: Cheryl Fonda on 20:13:14 3/15/99:
Hey everyone-hope you all had a great spring break!
This article is something I've thought about before. A few years ago I travelled around Europe with a friend. Although we knew
only a little French, we were able to travel with no problem. Everyone we encountered, with a few exceptions, spoke English.
It was comforting to be able to communicate with others when we were lost, needed help or just wanted to talk.
Personally, I
think a universal language would benefit most people. I agree, however, that one should not replace native languages. Native
languages are symbols of culture, the past and its people. From what we have learned so far in this class, I think a universal
language would have maybe eliminated some othe oppression and subordination some peoples faced at the hands of colonizers.
What do you all think? I know it wouldn't have completely ended all the problems but would have made things easier-for
example for the british and the zulus.
Subject: Re: English as a Global Language
Posted by: shandana khanzada on 11:43:52 3/16/99:
In Reply to: English as a Global Language posted by Cheryl Fonda on March 15, 1999 at 20:13:14:
Undoubtedly, the English language is a powerful tool and has been a dominant force in supressing the colonies during
Imperialism.
Fortunately,Pakistan ( my native country) which was under British rule did not let go of it's native language despite
British influence. English remains the official laguage, but we have our own national language called Urdu, which is quite
dominant.
Subject: Re: English as a Global Language
Posted by: Wesley Edwards on 10:24:11 3/16/99:
In Reply to: English as a Global Language posted by Cheryl Fonda on March 15, 1999 at 20:13:14:
I guess from the heading of this posting that we would assume that english would be a great candidate for this universal
language. I do feel that it might eliminate some tension if everyone had access to a certain universal language and couldn't be
exploited as easily. However, most diplomats and such already speak english. It is the poor of every nation that don't have
access to english education, so the hierarchy still continues.
The universal language would cause exploitation of poor by the rich.
The only difference is that it would not be a nation exploiting another but people of a nation exploiting there own countrymen.
Subject: Re: English as a Global Language
Posted by: Elizabeth Nelson on 20:34:01 3/15/99:
In Reply to: English as a Global Language posted by Cheryl Fonda on March 15, 1999 at 20:13:14:
We as english speakers take a lot for granted... when it comes to languages we are very self-centerd.
In most countries English
is taught beginning in grade school. Here we complain about the three year minimum required by most High Schools and UNC.
True a universal language would make business and politics much easier, but each language carries much of a culture. If you
have ever tried translating poetry from one language to another you know how words don't have exact translations and almost
all subtelties are lost. Think about even within the English language..
. each dialect ( southern, midwest, New England) has its
own character.
Subject: Re: Re: English as a Global Language
Posted by: Laura Sykes on 11:37:15 3/16/99:
In Reply to: Re: English as a Global Language posted by Elizabeth Nelson on March 15, 1999 at 20:34:01:
A universal language sounds great in theory but the work that implementing it would entail is overwhelming to say the least. I
too have travelled to other countries and have felt very lucky when others know english and were able to help me.--Americans
should really know other languages well considering the resources we have here, but the truth of the matter is that we do not. I
think a universdal language would be more convienent but it would eventually wipe out certain difference among us that serve as
positive vehicles for learning and experience.
Subject: Re: Re: English as a Global Language
Posted by: Tareq Arafat on 10:17:09 3/16/99:
In Reply to: Re: English as a Global Language posted by Elizabeth Nelson on March 15, 1999 at 20:34:01:
Speaking from the other side of the coin, I would like to say that how hard it was for me to learn English. I had to go through
five years of English in middle to high school to be able to speak at a decent level. It would have made my task so much easier
if my mother tongue was English. No wonder people with English as their mother tongue find it easy to travel anywhere in the
world and still have the same privilege and comfort of communication. Do you know that I cannot express my anger with
people over here over a daily chore because I have to repeat myself to make my statements be understood properly: albeit
effectively taking out the venom?
Other than the sole purpose of communication, I had to learn English because it was thought my education could never be
fully accepted had I not studied Englsih diligently. Learning English well and to be able to speak with as little accent as possible
is considered a prestigeous thing (if you come from a colonized part of the world).
If you speak good Englsih, then you are
never seen with the same pair of eyes.
Because of the history of colonization , English became widespread and I peronally don't see it as an evil because things were
different in the distant past and somehow the bad things that happened came up with something good: the emergence of a
language (Englsih in this case) as a global language. The bad part was our languages never gained a sense of respect remotely
close to the other European languages because they were languages from the colonies!
As far as the author's concern, I think Swahili is now an official language in the United Nations.
Subject: Re: Re: English as a Global Language
Posted by: Amanda Hearring on 09:52:40 3/16/99:
In Reply to: Re: English as a Global Language posted by Elizabeth Nelson on March 15, 1999 at 20:34:01:
I have always thought that the world would be a less confusing place if there was a universal language, and money, and
everything else was the same all over the world. But who's to say which language would be the one we all must know. SInce
the CHinese are the largest country, we might be might all have to learn CHinese, and I wouldn't like that very much.
And if
everyone knew only one language, it would take away the opportunity for us to show off our abilty of being able to speak
another language, and all of those Mexicans that lived in my apartment complex couldn't talk about me when I walk by because
I would understand them.
English as a global language
The conference theme for which this keynote address has been prepared is in its entirety so relevant to the
evolving language situation in South Africa that I should perhaps begin by complimenting the organisers for having
invited a South African to make the initial input under this rubric. However, the reality of the global village and the
processes of conquest and dispossession by which it was overtly inaugurated in 1415 could equally have let the
choice fall on virtually any of the countries of the economic South. South Africa, thanks particularly to the aura that
still surrounds the heroic figure of Nelson Mandela is simply one of the more prominent sites which illustrate the
modalities of an international movement, i.e., the ever-expanding global hegemony of the English language and the
apparently inexorable corollary marginalisation of local, national and regional languages.
The situation is, naturally, much more complex than that which is reflected in this generalisation. In a recent
comprehensive review of three authoritative works on the future of the English language, Robert Phillipson points
to the many contradictions involved. About Graddol’s British-Council sponsored book on the future of English, he
believes that
If the book can reach beyond those who are committed to the promotion of English to those with a more
open, multilingual agenda, it represents a promising starting-point for disentangling some of the many
factors that currently strengthen English and might weaken it.
The impressive tome compiled by Fishman et al leads him to establish the need for much more scholarly research
by "critical scholars working with grassroots forms of English and alternatives to English dominance", while
Crystal’s essay on global English throws up questions of linguistic human rights, for Phillipson since Crystal
foresees the consolidation of "World Standard Spoken English", which he does not see as replacing
other languages or (national) forms of English. This seems to imply a belief that English has become
"global" without being causally linked to global trends and global injustice: the language happened to
be at "the right place at the right time" (110). One wonders where it will be if and when all the globe's
citizens and languages are to enjoy basic human rights.
(Phillipson 1999, forthcoming)
A question that is foregrounded once again is that of the dialectical relationship between one or a few world
languages on the one hand, and the death or extinction of numerous local and national languages. "Again",
because this issue was debated especially in the then Soviet Union as the result of the facile speculations of Stalin
(whose views on the matter, as is now generally accepted, were based on the linguistic theories and vision of
Nicolai Marr, whom he subsequently denounced because of "gross errors"). Stalin’s views were popularised in a
book that for a few decades influenced the political Left and all manner of lay linguists as regards the destiny and,
thus, the importance of their own and other languages.
In South Africa, let me note parathetically, during the ‘fifties, we debated with waxing passion the question whether
we should pay any attention at all to the "tribal languages" instead of concentrating on English, the "international
language". The debate was exacerbated and rendered particularly vicious by the fact that at the time, the
Afrikaner National Party was using the very sensible UNESCO declarations on the importance of using vernacular
languages as media of instruction in schools in order to justify and beautify its racist curriculum, which the world
came to know as Bantu education.
Since this debate was left in the air, more or less, in the late ‘fifties, new factors have come into play.
Of these, the
most important is our modern understanding of the value of human diversity, biological, political and cultural.
Murray Gell-Mann, the 1969 Nobel prizewinner for Physics, among others, makes this point simply but effectively.
He accepts that, under unfavourable conditions, differences among groups of people, sometimes so minute as to be
invisible to the outsider continue to be used to justify social conflict and oppressive behaviour, including genocide.
And, although we may be sceptical about his reasoning, we cannot fault the conclusion he arrives at, when he
asserts that
…cultural diversity is itself a valuable heritage that should be preserved: that Babel of languages, that
patchwork of religious and ethical systems, that panorama of myths, that potpourri of political and
social traditions, accompanied as they are by many forms of irrationality and particularism. One of the
principal challenges to the human race is to reconcile universalizing factors such as science,
technology, rationality and freedom of thought with particularizing factors such as local traditions and
beliefs, as well as simple differences in temperament, occupation and geography (Gell-Mann 1994:341)
As a result of this ethos, those of us who are proponents and supporters of the value of multilingualism can be
compared with ecological and environmental activists who happen to be operating in the socio-linguistic domain. As
in the domain of biology, the critical question is whether we will be able to make our product "profitable" and/or
whether the ideological dimension can supersede the purely materialistic in such a way that people prefer to be
multilingual even if it is not obviously of immediate or short-term material benefit to them.
Coulmas (1992:148-149)
discusses the relationship between economic and social costs in the determination of national and regional language
policy and concludes that it is usually counter-productive to consider "economic costs" as though language were a
purely micro-economic issue. He stresses the fact that the richer a country is the more possible it is for the rulers
to take the social costs of language policy into account. Thus, countries such as the Netherlands and Canada can
spend vast sums on different aspects of language policy, especially on the learning of foreign languages and on the
accommodation of the languages of immigrant minorities, whereas most African countries are constrained to
implement language in education policies that are, to put it mildly, irrational. They choose these options
in plain view of the social costs of a monolingual system, that is, the costs of an elitist system where 25
percent of the national budget is spent for the education of 12 percent of all pupils...
. (Coulmas
1992:149)
Language policy in the post-colonial situation
Because of the multilingual character of most colonially defined states in Africa and elsewhere and because of the
intuitive policies of imperialist powers, the languages of Europe, specifically Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, English
and French (on the African continent) became the languages of power. With very few exceptions, there were no
systematic attempts during the colonial era to use any African language in high-status functions, not even in
domains such as secondary and tertiary education. These are well-known facts and it is unnecessary to repeat the
details on this occasion. Suffice it to say that on the morrow of political independence, the black elite which took
over the reins of power were faced with a cruel dilemma. This has been formulated best by writers such as Ngugi
wa Thiong’o.
His famous essay on "The language of African literature" is one of the most eloquent and passionate
denunciations of the cultural implications of colonialism and imperialism.
The real aim of colonialism was to control the people’s wealth...(but) economic and political control can
never be complete or effective without mental control. To control a people’s culture is to control their
tools of self-definition in relationship to others.
For colonialism, this involved two aspects of the same
process: the destruction or the deliberate undervaluing of a people’s culture, their art, dances,
religions, history, geography, education, orature and literature, and the conscious elevation of the
language of the coloniser. The domination of a people’s language by the languages of the colonising
nations was crucial to the domination of the mental universe of the colonised. (Ngugi 1994:16)
The arguments which were marshalled by the new rulers in order to justify the adoption of the ex-colonial
languages as the "official" languages of the respective independent, or liberated, countries are well known now. In
summary, they fell into three different categories. Politically, it was said that the choice of any indigenous language
would unleash a separatist dynamic which would destabilise the mostly very plurilingual African states. The
second-best option was, therefore, to continue using the colonial language which, at the very least, was accepted by
everyone and would not facilitate disruption and discontinuity.
From having been the language of the oppressor,
English, for example, became the language of national unity and of national liberation. Economically and
technically, the use of the ex-colonial language made sense because there was already in existence in the countries
concerned and through the overt and covert links between ex-colony and "mother country" a language
infrastructure and a pool of skills in the form of appropriate books, dictionaries, registers, publishers, printers,
trained professionals of all kinds as well as discourses and traditions which it would be both costly and unnecessary
to imitate and duplicate in any of the African languages, never mind the quixotic notion of doing so in all of them.
Culturally – although it must be said that this set of arguments was not used very often in Anglophone African
countries, with the tragi-comic exception of Malawi under Dr Hastings Banda – it was taken to be axiomatic that
the wealth of creative as well as scientific and technical literature and related artifacts in the European languages
rendered them superior to the indigenous "vernaculars".
By way of reminding us of the agonising decisions which had to be made, allow me to cite two statements made by
leaders of African independence movements, the first by President Milton Obote at the very beginning of the
struggle soon after Uganda was given its independence by Britain , the second by Prime Minister Hage Geingob of
Namibia in the last phase of the anti-colonial struggle. Obote, addressing the central question of national unity,
hesitantly put forward the following positions:
The problem of culture..
.is essentially a problem of how best we can maintain and develop the various
cultural forms in Uganda through a common language. I have no answer to this. I am well aware that
English cannot be the media (sic) to express Dingidingi songs, I have my doubts whether Lwo language
can express in all its fineness Lusoga songs, and yet I consider that Uganda’s policy to teach more and
more English should be matched with the teaching of some other African language. We are trying to
think about a possible answer to the question of why we need an African language as a national
language? Do we need it merely for political purposes, for addressing public meetings, for talking in
Councils? Do we need it as a language for the workers; to enable them to talk and argue their terms
with their employers? Do we need an African language for intellectual purposes? Do we need such a
language to cover every aspect of our lives intellectually, politically, economically?
I would not attempt to answer that question but it appears to me that Uganda at least is faced with a
difficult future on this matter and the future might confirm that a decision is necessary to push some
languages deliberately and to discourage the use of some other languages also deliberately (Obote,
cited in Alexander 1989:40-41)
By the time Namibia was ready to take its independence from the increasingly demoralised apartheid regime, there
was much more clarity on the implications of choosing one policy rather than another. Yet, the fundamental decision
for English remained exactly the same.
For reasons that have to do with the modalities of colonial oppression in the
19th and 20th centuries, it seemed as though every newly independent African state was doomed to take the same
language policy detour by accepting in practice the primacy of the ex-colonial language, in spite of all the eloquent
rhetoric to the contrary. Geingob, the Director of the United Nations Institute for Namibia at the time, wrote as
follows in 1981:
In spite of the difficulties inherent in the task of implementing English as the official language for
Namibia, the Namibian people will rise to the occasion. This decision, however, does not imply that the
indigenous languages are being dismissed. Local languages have a vital role to play in society and
there will be a need for an overall multilingual language planning policy, both long-term and short-term,
in which the various languages are institutionalized to their greatest advantage.
The aim of introducing English is to introduce an official language that will steer the people away from
linguo-tribal affiliations and differences and create conditions conducive to national unity in the realm
of language. Inherent in the adoption of this policy are a number of issues and implications.
... Will
English become an elitist language, thereby defeating the goals for which it was intended? Will Namibia
be able to obtain a sufficient supply of teachers trained in English to teach English? How cost effective
and cost beneficial will the choice of English prove to be for Namibia?...
. (UNIN: 1981)
From our own (South African) archives, the following statement gives some indication of the dilemma faced by the
colonial and mission elite already at the beginning of this century. Dr Abdurahman, one of the early leaders of
the"Coloured" community in South Africa, who was called upon, as President of the African People’s Organisation
(APO), to persuade the intellectual leadership of this group of people of diverse origin to decide which way to go in
the light of the imminent dominion status that was to be conferred on South Africa after the defeat of the Boers in
1902, had no doubts whatsoever in regard to the language question. For a South African, what is most significant
about this statement is the fact that it does not even consider it worthy of mention that besides Afrikaans and
English, there was (and is today) a wealth of African (Bantu) languages used by more than 75% of the population
as their principal means of communication.
The question naturally arises which is to be the national language. Shall it be the degraded forms of a
literary language, a vulgar patois; or shall it be that language which Macaulay says is "In force, in
richness, in aptitude for all the highest purposes of the poet, the philosopher, and the orator inferior to
the tongue of Greece alone?" Shall it be the language of the "Kombuis" [kitchen, NA] or the language
of Tennyson? That is, shall it be the Taal [Afrikaans, NA] or English?.
...
In the official newsletter of the APO, we read the following editorial, probably written by Abdurahman himself, in
which the coloureds are enjoined to:
endeavour to perfect themselves in English - the language which inspires the noblest thoughts of
freedom and liberty, the language that has the finest literature on earth and is the most universally
useful of all languages. Let everyone..
.drop the habit as far as possible, of expressing themselves in
the barbarous Cape Dutch that is too often heard (APO, 13/8/1910, cited in Adhikari 1996:8)
Needless to say, examples of this kind can be multiplied at will, not only from South African political and cultural
leaders but from the rest of the continent as well.
Against the background I have sketched here, we ought not to be surprised, therefore, at the debilitating language
attitudes of the vast majority of African people as they emerged out of the formal colonial era. However, these
attitudes could not have been sustained if they were not integral to, and reinforced by, the political economy of the
neo-colonial state. The nature of the post-colonial state in Africa has been analysed in great detail by many African
and European scholars since the early ‘sixties in terms of whatever paradigm was fashionable at the time such
analyses were written, most recently that of post-modernism. I shall refer to it presently when I discuss
globalisation, the latest buzzword we use to describe the often baffling developments that have changed so radically
the modalities of the world economy.
For the moment, I wish to refer to Pierre Alexandre’s insightful and
illuminating analysis of the relationship between neo-colonial language policy and the reproduction of social
inequality. At the end of the ‘sixties already, he noticed the way in which knowledge of English or French was
tantamount to the acquisition of what we now refer to as "cultural capital" by the post-colonial elites.
On the one hand is the majority of the population, often compartmentalized by linguistic borders which
do not correspond to political frontiers; this majority uses only African tools of linguistic communication
and must, consequently, irrespective of its actual participation in the economic sectors of the modern
world, have recourse to the mediation of the minority to communicate with this modern world. This
minority, although socially and ethnically as heterogeneous as the majority, is separated from the latter
by that monopoly which gives it its class specificity: the use of a means of universal communication,
French or English, whose acquisition represents truly a form of cultural accumulation. But this is a very
special kind of capital, since it is an instrument of communication and not one of production. It is
nevertheless this instrument, and generally this instrument alone, which makes possible the
organization of the entire modern sector of production and distribution of goods (Alexandre1972:86).
Let us make it explicit, therefore, that it is an indisputable fact that in the post-colonial situation, the linguistic
hierarchy that was built into the colonial system led to knowledge of the conquerors’ language becoming a vital
component of the "cultural capital" of the neo-colonial elite. It was and remains their knowledge of English and/or
French that sets them apart from the vast majority of their African compatriots and which keeps them and their
offspring in the privileged middle and upper classes. Pierre Bourdieu, among others, has refined the sociological
analysis of this phenomenon as it manifests itself in both multi- and monolingual societies, so that, today, we have a
very clear understanding of the intersection of language policy, language practice and socio-economic realities,
including socio-economic stratification. The only question we need to pose here is the extent to which these elites
cynically deny the realisation that for the overwhelming majority of "their" people, the type of proficiency in the
relevant European, or world, language that would empower them is actually unattainable under present conditions.
Alternatively, is it possible, that the argument from convenience emananting from bureaucratic inertia and from the
opportunism of politicians for whom politics is no more than "the art of the possible" are the real explanation for
what we call the "lack of political will" among African leaders when it comes to improving the status of African
languages in their countries and the modernisation of the corpora of these languages? The debate on these issues
is ongoing and is now hotting up because of developments in South Africa, among other things.
Globalisation, the ESL industry and the "underdevelopment" of African languages
In recent years, scholars such as Robert Phillipson and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (1986), James Tollefson(1991), and
others, have established the existence of what has been called the ESL industry and have criticised the pernicious
effects of this industry.
I want to do no more here than draw attention to the marginalising effects of this industry
on the African languages and the consequent disempowerment of the speakers of those languages. A recent
dissertation by Anjuli Gupta-Basu traces this process in detail for some of the languages of the Indian
subcontinent. Among other things, she concludes that the popularity, spread and dominance of the English language
has nothing to do with the popular perception of mythical or inherent linguistic properties of the language. Instead,
she maintains that
The dominance of English is due to conscious, co-ordinated and heavily funded (Anglo-American)
institutional promotion programs, combined with functional, financial and professional incentives for the
learners, in a world where hierarchically ordered and selected English-speaking people dominate all
high-level political, military, scientific and cultural arenas. (Gupta-Basu 1999:249)
She traces the development and growth of this industry in Great Britain, the U.S.
A. and English-dominant,
Europeanised countries such as some of those of the British Commonwealth. In relation to India, she quotes
Phillipson’s observation that
Those who fail in their quest for the alchemy of English see their life chances reduced. Those who
become proficient in the alien language may sacrifice the language of their parents and their own
culture in the process. The dominant language partially displaces other languages, through exclusive
use of that language in certain domains (for instance in the media, or in the modern sector of the
economy), and may replace the other languages totally. For well established languages the addition of
English should represent no substantial threat, but in many parts of the world linguicist structures and
processes have resulted not in English enriching other languages and cultures but in English
supplanting them (Gupta-Basu 1999:255.
Also, see Coulmas 1992:46).
As far as Africa itself is concerned, we have numerous studies which demonstrate that these processes are
replicated on our continent and that they are integral to what we call globalisation. Most recently, Alamin Mazrui
(1997) has denounced the deleterious effects of the global ESL industry on the languages of Africa. In a
hard-hitting article on the effects of World Bank policy on education and on the African languages as media of
instruction, he concludes that
The European languages in which Africans are taught are...
important sources of intellectual control.
They aid the World Bank’s efforts to enable Africans to learn only that which promotes the agenda of
international capitalism. Partly because of this Euro-linguistic policy, intellectual self-determination in
Africa has become more difficult. And, for the time being, the prospects of a genuine intellectual
revolution in Africa may depend in no small measure on a genuine educational revolution that involves,
at the same time, a widespread use of African languages as media of instruction (Mazrui 1997:46)
Against the tide? The South African debate
The indisputable hegemony of English in the former African colonies of Great Britain gives rise to many profound
questions about the future of the continent and its people. One such question is that relating to the developmental
capacity of African people. Kwesi Prah (1996) and Paulin Djité (1993), among others, have stressed that the failure
of virtually all economic development programmes and campaigns in many African countries may well derive from
the fact that the concepts of science and technology are not embedded in the consciousness of the people of the
continent, most of whom have either no grasp, or only a very inadequate grasp, of the European languages in which
modernisation comes packaged to the continent.
While much detailed research would be necessary in order to
substantiate such a far-reaching hypothesis, I do not doubt that it is intuitively correct. If people are unable to
acquire those habits of mind that constitute the substratum of the creativity of scientists and other innovators
because these practices, like the priestly rituals of yore, are conducted in what is virtually an impenetrable secret
language, the thinness of the residual social layer of people who have access to the language concerned guarantees
that the nation as a whole will become mired in mediocrity and stagnation.
Everywhere in Africa, there is a struggle taking place between those of us who realise that, for the next few
generations at least, there is no hope of English becoming the universal second language of the people of the
continent, on the one hand, and those, on the other hand, who cynically, or even sincerely, promote the illusion that
this is possible. There are profound socio-historical reasons for our caution as well as first principles, of democratic
polities among other things. There is first of all what I call Tollefson’s paradox, according to which
..
.inadequate language competence is not due to poor texts and materials, learners’ low motivation,
inadequate learning theories and teaching methodologies, or the other explanations that are commonly
proposed. Instead, language competence remains a barrier to employment, education, and economic
well being due to political forces of our own making. For while modern social and economic systems
require certain kinds of language competence, they simultaneously create conditions which ensure that
vast numbers of people will be unable to acquire that competence. A central mechanism by which this
process occurs is language policy (Tollefson 1991:7)
Beyond this basic feature of the political economy of modern industrial societies, there is the historical fact that
there are simply not enough proficient speakers of the English language in any African country, not excepting
South Africa itself, to replicate the conditions of some of the countries of Britain’s "Old Colonial Empire" such as
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean islands and the U.S.
A. In these dominions, as we know, the native
populations were either eradicated or enslaved or, via conquest and immigration, reduced to the status of minorities
on their own land, so that the English language and Anglo-Saxon cultural forms became hegemonic in what seemed
to be a completely "natural" process. Above all, however, there is the simple truth that no people, however small,
can ever be content to transact their most important and most intimate business in a language which they do not
command intuitively. None of the established nations of Europe would tolerate this for more than the space of a war
in which they might have been temporarily defeated. There is no reason to assume that African people, or any
people of the economic South, are different. For this reason, it is high time that the superficial and manipulative,
number-crunching techniques of market research, on which the legitimation of the ESL industry is based be put to
the question, along with its empiricist paradigm which, generally, does no more than measure the extent of the
dominance of the ideas of the most powerful strata of the given society.
This position must not be confused with an anti-English prejudice or programme of action. On the contrary, as will
become evident presently, we are in the vanguard of those in South Africa who demand that access to English
become the right of all those who want it, precisely because such access is the key to power at certain levels of
South African society as it is at present structured. It is because we have come to understand the relationship
between underdevelopment, poverty, undemocratic political regimes and langauge policy that we, in South Africa,
are committed to a policy of promoting multilingualism and modernising of the African languages. In doing so, we
are in fact reviving the OAU Language Plan of Action for Africa written as long ago as 1986. Besides the intrinsic
value of being proficient in a number of languages, it is obvious that in the post-colonial situation where lingua
francas which cater for the whole nation either do not exist or where the former colonial language functions as such
in restricted domains, knowledge of two or more national languages is a viable alternative and an essential
practical strategy for the creation of national consensus and even of a sense of national unity. Moreover, given the
arguments I have put forward above in respect of the absurdity of expecting African people to accept voluntarily
that they must normally function in a foreign language, the imperatives of immediate empowerment (via that
foreign language) and the broadening of democracy (via modernisation and the enhancement of the status of the
indigenous languages) prescribe a policy of multilingualism in all social domains.
In an earlier review of David Crystal’s book on English as a Global Language, Phillipson (1998) criticises the
author for misrepresenting the position of those who oppose the displacement of indigenous languages by English:
His admission that there are other views is reflected in quotations from Gandhi and Ngugi ‘rejecting’
English. However, the implications of this position are buried in comments on the expense of
bilingualism. He does not name the counter-examples, such as Scandinavian competence in English
being compatible with all affairs being conducted in local languages. Nor reflect on the cultural distance
between the world of English and that of education for cultural continuity or subsistence farming needs
in Africa. Ngugi has in fact nothing against the English language as such. What he objects to is the
purposes to which it is put in global capitalism.
In South Africa, we have been witness to one of the most fascinating processes of language planning and language
policy development for the past fifteen years or so. During the first five or six years what I have called "language
planning from below" was conducted semi-underground in NGOs and peoples’ organisations which were mobilising
constituencies around the language question consciously with a view to changing the status of the African
languages and of Afrikaans. I believe that there are many interesting aspects to this process, some of which may
be useful to other countries in Africa and elsewhere. A forthcoming article by my colleague, Kathleen Heugh, and
myself, traces the process in some detail and discusses the most important developments critically.
For our purposes, I wish to concentrate on the new language policy in education and discuss the dilemmas and the
problems that this has given rise to. The official language policy in education was announced by Minister Sibusiso
Bengu on 14 July 1997 (see Appendix).
In doing so, he said, among other things, that
The new language in education policy is...conceived of as an integral and necessary aspect of the new
government’s strategy of building a non-racial nation in South Africa. It is meant to facilitate
communication across the barriers of colour, language and region, while at the same time creating an
environment in which respect for languages other than one’s own would be encouraged. This approach
is in line with the fact that both societal and individual multilingualism are the global norm today,
especially on the African continent.
As such, it assumes that the learning of two or more languages
should be general practice and principle in our society. This would certainly counter any particularistic
ethnic chauvinism or separatism through mutual understanding. Being multilingual should be a defining
characteristic of being South African (Bengu 1999:38).
In putting forward this position, the Minister was locating the new language in education policy squarely within the
most progressive tradition of the post-colonial African intelligentsia, as it is enshrined in the OAU resolution of July
1986, which is called the Language Plan of Action for Africa.
In a nutshell, the most important feature of the policy in regard to language medium is its commitment to an
additive bilingualism approach as the desirable norm in all South African schools. This implies, firstly, a
commitment to what used to be called "mother-tongue instruction", i.
e., L1-medium education, under the most
favourable circumstances; secondly, parallel-medium schools in most situations, for economic as well as political
and cultural ("nation-building") reasons; thirdly, dual-medium schools as the ideal, certainly for the next two or
three generations, i.e., until such time as the African languages can hold their own with English and Afrikaans in
high-status functions throughout the economy and the society. It also implies that single-medium educational
institutions which are funded from the public purse in whole or in part will in future be the exception, not the rule, in
South Africa.
The fundamental principle of the additive bilingualism approach to language in education, i.
e., that the L1 of the
learner should be maintained throughout the educational career of the learner and that other languages should be
added on to this platform has a very significant political implication in the South African context. This derives from
the fact that under the apartheid regime, so-called mother-tongue instruction had been used to indoctrinate black
schoolchildren with a racist curriculum for social inferiority, an experiment that came to a catastrophic end with the
children’s rebellion which we know as the Soweto Uprising of 1976. As a result, besides the hatred for Afrikaans
which Bantu education generated among black people, and the corollary orientation towards English as the
language of power, of "unity" and of "liberation", L1-medium education came to be equated in the minds of most
black people with inferiority and racial ghettoisation. This truly baneful legacy of apartheid is, next to the lack of
political will among most of the leadership of the country, the greatest impediment to the implementation of a
successful policy of multilingualism, multilingual education and even of the modernisation of the African languages
at the macro-linguistic level of planning.
Beyond its commitment to an additive bilingualism approach, the new language in education policy makes it
abundantly clear that there is no single correct approach to the language medium question (see Appendix).
It
concludes by stating that
Whichever route is followed, the underlying principle is to maintain home language(s). Hence, the
Department’s position that an additive approach to bilingualism is to be seen as the normal orientation
of our language-in-education policy. With regard to the delivery system, policy will progressively be
guided by the results of comparative research, both locally and internationally.
This apparent opening, or weakness, in the policy document has been taken as an opportunity by some scholars to
question, and by others positively to undermine, the very foundations of the policy. As students of language
planning and policy know well, this situation means that, in South Africa, we are about to enter one of the most
decisive periods of debate, polemics and conflict in the domain of language policy. For, very few issues inflame the
passions more than language-medium policy for schools.
Our own history in the 20th century has seen two major
rebellions, the first against the language-medium prescriptions of Lord Milner and the second against those of Dr
Verwoerd, which the affected people considered to be oppressive.
It is regrettable that one of the most strategic research reports in the recent history of education in South Africa
has failed to deal with the question of language medium policy with the requisite seriousness. I refer to the Report
of the President’s Education Initiative, which was pubished a few weeks ago (Taylor and Vinjevold 1999). In regard
to the language medium issue, the report, after detailing in a very selective manner the findings of various research
initiatives, poses - correctly, in my view - the two basic options with which we are faced in the new South Africa.
Allow me, for the sake of accuracy, to cite the relevant passages in full.
In these circumstances [they conclude, NA] it seems that government is faced with one of two
alternatives:
Allocating substantial resources to promoting added (sic) bilingualism
The following steps would be needed to promote this course:
advocating the advantages of additive bilingualism.
the provision of books and materials in the indigenous languages of South Africa and ensuring that teachers
in the lower primary are fluent in the primary languages of the pupils in their classes.
the establishment of linguistically homogenous(sic) schools.
Accepting the growing use of English as language of instruction at all levels of the schools system and
promoting the conditions requisite for effective teaching and learning through English.
The following conditions are most frequently quoted in the international research as important for
instruction in a second language:
teachers’ language proficiency in the target language.
teachers’ competence as language teachers with an understanding of problems of learning in a second
language and how to overcome these.
exposure to the target language outside the classroom.
the provision of graded language textbooks especially in the content subjects in the early phases of
learning...
[They go on to say that, NA] It would seem that modernisation in South Africa and, the inexorable
urbanisation in particular, is undermining the possibilities for the first alternative and that the more
realistic option is a straight for English approach, except in linguistically homogenous(sic) classes
where there is little exposure to English outside the classroom or where parents expressly request an
alternative.
Under these conditions, a research priority could be to examine the minimum requirements for
successful teaching in English in South African schools - the teachers’ English language competence,
the books and materials required, the most effective ways of bridging the learners’ language and
English and other possible forms of support(Taylor and Vinjevold 1999:225-226).
In this forum, it is unnecessary to scrutinise these disastrous passages in detail.
They can (and will) be faulted on
numerous grounds in various South African forums during the next few months. There are, however, two
fundamental reasons why they are simply not to be countenanced. In the first place, besides going diametrically
against the existing language in education legislation, they may be deemed to be unconstitutional, a matter which,
clearly, would require a court of law to decide on should it be challenged by one or other lobby. More basic,
perhaps, is the consideration that in a plurilingual country, it ought to be axiomatic that the languages of the citizens
should be seen as assets or resources to be used in the most effective manner for the full development of all the
people. One could compare this, in the South African context, to the existence of low-grade ore in many of our gold
mines. Rather than close down such mines, the authorities and the owners do everything in their power to keep
them going both because of their revenue-producing (wealth-creating) potential and because they provide jobs for
thousands of people.
It is the merest blindness and even callousness to be prepared to push to the margin the
indigenous languages of the majority of our people which, as I have intimated variously in this paper, constitute an
inestimable cultural legacy and potential on the one hand and the basis of a potentially vast (language) industry, on
the other.
The hubris implicit in this lightminded recommendation is breathtaking, to put it mildly. It is exacerbated by the fact
that the authors are among the best-intentioned educators in South Africa. Leaving all conspiracy theories aside,
the global ESL industry, which is integral to the processes of globalisation as we have come to know it, could not
have been offered a more attractive bonus at a more opportune time and place!
The wisdom of Joe Slovo
Against such thinking, we have to put the real alternative, based on a consideration of all the relevant data and
comparative research in the light of a larger view of where we appear to be heading. To begin with, we have to
reject the empiricist paradigm within which the data and the conclusions of such studies are generated. Because of
the hegemonic effects of domination, generally speaking, surveys of the kind on which these studies are based can,
at best, indicate the extent of what we can advisedly call false consciousness.
Because it is axiomatic that
democracy and empowerment are served by people being able to use the languages they command best, it follows
that formative research and advocacy (or awareness raising) rather than specious statistical misinformation are
required in the kind of situation in which we find ourselves on the African continent. On the logic of the empiricist
approach, if we were to give in to the male chauvinist ignorance of most of the people in Africa, we should be
opposing the use of condoms in order to"fight" against the blight of AIDS!
These recommendations, which, unfortunately, are going to be very influential in the coming debates about the
restructuring and reorientation of education in the new South Africa, are paradoxically parochial and even myopic,
in spite of their seeming "internationalism" . They do not derive from a careful consideration of the global tension
between the need for one or two world languages in order to facilitate trade, technology and diplomacy, on the one
hand, and the national, sub-regional, and regional need for strong indigenous languages in which are captured the
history as well as all the treasuries of culture of the world’s diverse peoples and through the command of which
alone, the individual human beings are able to develop their capacities to the full. Instead, like so much other
fashionable "research", they have climbed on to the bandwagon of the marketisation of education.
In South Africa, we would be foolish to ignore the dynamics of language planning and language useage in the
evolving systems of the European Union. Coulmas (1992:117) makes the point that the monolingual heritage of
most European states is, ironically, the reason why the EU is willing to spend more on the maintenance of
multilingualism in its institutions than any other international organisation.
And, a recent conference where the
question: Which Languages for Europe? was considered, concluded,
| Anmerkungen: |
| impressum | datenschutz
© Copyright Artikelpedia.com
