|
Spotlight On: A glimpse at worldwide language policies The following four pieces are collected for this issue to explore the motivations that drive language policy worldwide. tongue.tied has tried to glimpse into nations throughout the world, but not all nations that offer astonishing studies of political linguistics could be included due to space. Spain, Canada, India and most nations in South America are further countries that deserve a discriminating examination under our microscope. Please enjoy these examples that t.t has provided. Read the entire piece or click on the country names below to do directly to their study. To go back to articles index, go here. AMERICA Turning our gaze inward, English in America is a hotly debated matter. There are numerous national dialects, up to 24 by certain counts, and attempts have been made to normalize stigmatized dialects such as African American Vernacular English (AAVE), or Ebonics. American English is often compared to British English (oftentimes labeled "Standard English"), in several cases pejoratively. English is America's undeclared standard language, and recent additions to the American linguistic milieu (such as Spanish) are not given appropriate status for students in the education system who must quickly adopt a language that is not theirs, leading to poor instruction and confusion. Organizations, such as U.S. English, Inc., exist for the sole purpose of edifying an already standard language and ensuring that access to English-language instruction is available for all residents of the country. The dark side to this coin is that those who don't speak the language are pressured into assimilating and, unfortunately, abandoning the rich linguistic heritage that they have brought to America. Below are excerpts from a variety of sources on the English language in America. › A message from U.S.ENGLISH Chairman Mauro E. Mujica, on the organization's website, http://www.usenglish.org/inc/: "I immigrated to the United States from Chile in 1965 to study architecture at Columbia University. While English was not my first language, I am perfectly bilingual today. Learning English was never an option nor was it something to which I objected or feared. It was required for success if I wanted to enjoy a prosperous life in the U.S. "Now, I am chairman of U.S.ENGLISH, the nation's oldest and largest organization fighting to make our common language, English, the official language of government at the federal and state levels. "Why? The high, uncontrolled rate of immigration to the U.S. is rapidly changing the face of our great country. From culture to politics, the way we function as a society is under stress. According to U.S. Census 2000 data, the U.S. is experiencing the highest rate of immigration since 1850 - with 31.1 million newly arrived immigrants living here today (a 57 percent increase since 1990). Of these newcomers, it is reported that 21.3 million, or 8.1 percent of our total population, do not speak English very well. "Even so, English, the greatest unifier in our nation's history, is under assault in our schools, in our courts and by bureaucrats. Using scare tactics and divisive rhetoric, self-appointed leaders of immigrant groups are trying to prevent newcomers from learning our shared language. This vocal minority wrongly claims that an immigrant's culture and heritage will be lost if he or she agrees to have English as the official language. "Let me be clear: Encouraging immigrants to learn English is not about bigotry or exclusion. On the contrary, teaching newcomers English is one of the strongest acts of inclusion to our society our government can provide. The whole notion of a melting pot culture is threatened if immigrants aren't encouraged to adopt the common language of this country. "We're not suggesting that people give up their native languages. Bilingualism and multilingualism are quite advantageous in our fast-paced global economy. I, in fact, speak four languages. "While using a multitude of languages in business, at home or in worship is valuable, it is burdensome, needlessly expensive and inappropriate in government. What's more, it only serves as a disincentive to immigrants to learn English; the language 97 percent of our country speaks. We believe it makes far more sense to funnel the money spent on translation services to providing newcomers with the most important instrument in their life's toolbox - the knowledge of English so they can go as far as their dreams take them. › In an interview by Shula Neuman at the University of Chicago, Salikoko Mufwene has high hopes for new book on African American English: Salikoko Mufwene, Professor and Chairman of Linguistics, has spent much of his career researching the development of Creole languages in the Caribbean and in the southeast United States. His most recent contribution to linguistics takes a turn into new territory - African American English - as the editor of African American English: Structure, History and Use. Shula Newman: "How did you become involved in the study of African American English?" Salikoko Mufwene: "I was critical of the literature on African American Vernacular English (AAVE), and specifically of theories of its development and of some of the ways people have accounted for its grammatical features, especially when they presented those features as if they were deviations from Standard English." SH: "Why don't you consider AAVE a deviation from Standard English?" SM: "In the first place, AAVE should not be compared to Standard English. It should be compared with other non-standard varieties of English spoken in North America -- Appalachian English or Ozark English, for example. There are no two varieties of English that are identical, but these varieties are very similar in structure with AAVE. Their syntactic features are very similar." SN: "How do such varieties of English develop?" SM: "All North American varieties of English are new varieties, and they are all the result of the restructuring of linguistic systems. Once English as it came from England reached North America, it never remained the same. What should catch our attention is that even though African American English is different from Standard English, it shares so many features with white non-standard forms of English that we should try to understand the connection between these varieties of English, especially because they all developed concurrently." SN: "How did they develop concurrently?" SM: "It is not as if Africans arrived here and people were already speaking English. Many whites didn't speak English when they arrived here, and so were in a situation very similar to the Africans. Everyone was appropriating English as their new vernacular. It became their new means of communicating. During this process, nobody acquired English exactly the same way it was spoken by native speakers in the United Kingdom. In the process, English was restructured, a little more in some communities and a little less in others. "It is my hope that this book can bridge cultural misunderstandings. In my experience of teaching AAVE to a mixed classroom, I have noticed that people have developed special relations and mutual respect for each other. I do hope that more people take classes on AAVE because, as a country, we need to develop respect for AAVE and similar varieties on all fronts. African Americans need to realize there is nothing wrong with the way they speak. At the same time, all people need to realize that there is a division of labor among the varieties of English; they cannot all be spoken everywhere." SN: "What do you mean by 'division of labor'?" SM: "There is a way to speak in one's home and community and a way to speak in the business world. That is the way the world works. Everybody who speaks a non-standard variety of English may find it necessary to learn Standard English. If a person is not interested in functioning in the business world, they probably don't need Standard English. By the same token, if a person is going to be a teacher in the African American community, it is a professional imperative that they be familiar with African American English, just as if they were to teach English in China they would become familiar with Chinese." The website http://www.wonderfulwritingskillsunhandbook.com speaks of the place for a standard of English. › A living language such as English is a dynamic flow of spoken and written terms, eternally evolving. Each time a new person is born into a language, each time a person who speaks that language dies, the language becomes something different. Whenever people use the language they cause it to flow in and around itself, creating new meanings, new ways to express, new ways to think about that very language. Non Standard English reflects that process of language becoming. This "English" is really a collection of "English's" comprised of dialects, slang, technical jargon and slogans we learn from TV, movies and politicians. There are rules of grammar found in each of them, some of those rules are common to all, many of them are different. Whether you are a hip teenager growing up in Harlem or a cultured patriarch of the Deep South or a Louisiana native singing some Zydeco blues, there are rules, certain grammatical structures unique to each way of speaking English. These rules are there, but they are not the rules spoken of in grammar books or in handbooks or in manuals of style. Grammar books commonly describe one of the many dialects spoken in America, "Standard English." When people use terms such as "good" grammar; or when they describe a different dialect as "bad" English, they usually mean good or bad (correct or incorrect) in "Standard English". In any of the forms of English "good" or "bad," however, is more a quality of whether or not your words convey the meaning you intend, rather than any particular combination of the language. There is nothing "naughty" about the word "ain't." But, as there are times when "ain't" carries meaning better than any other word, there are also times when "ain't" will get in the way of good communication. Sometimes Standard English is what will most convey our intended meaning. Just as the use of some slang words could get you in trouble with your mother, using a dialect different from Standard English can get you in trouble with your boss, your teacher, or any other audience that expects to communicate with you on a more formal level than, perhaps, your friends and family expect when you are all just hanging out. The meaning of "I ain't got no money." is perfectly clear, and you would not expect someone saying that to bankroll your next trip to the movies. Nor should you expect your teacher to respond to that phrase with anything but a lower grade. You have good instincts, and can already tell when and where to use a more formal way of speaking than your everyday style. You will also need to know how. You already know 99% of how to use Standard English. It is that nasty, little 1% that can get us all in trouble. Lower grades on your essays, failing to get a job because of how you filled out the application, being rejected by your college of choice, or not winning an election are a few of the ways not knowing that final 1% could make a difference. Speaking of someone's language patterns as "bad" or "good" is not only poor logic, it is cruel and unusual punishment, because the judgment tends to flow onto the person using that pattern, and he becomes branded as "bad" or "ignorant". However, when we unthinkingly use language without considering our audience's expectations, we are indeed unthinking. In America, at this point of time, you have the freedom to speak aloud any of our more colorful expressions that are most often used when we strike our thumb with a hammer. But if we should rise in church and use the same colorful language we ought not be surprised if the congregation becomes angry with us. Nor should any of us consider the constitutional right to free speech challenged because an essay grade is lowered when he carelessly peppered the essay with comma splices. In writing audience is everything. We need to tailor our language usage to be appropriate to our intended audience. Learn and use Standard English not because it is "good" grammar or better grammar than you now use, but because it can be the dialect most appropriate for a particular audience, the one most often expected in school. Back to top.
SOUTH AFRICA The nation of South Africa has been a land ripe with discontent evident worldwide, most notably with the atrocious apartheid of the last century. The cultural differences are mirrored in the nation's language policy; until 1994, the Constitution recognized only two national languages, English and Afrikaans. Ratified multiple times, the Constitution now recognizes 11 official languages to include the African languages spoken in South Africa. The University in Stellenbosch mired itself in controversy via a provisionary Afrikaans-only lecture policy. In 1997, nearly 66 percent of the school's tuition was conducted in Afrikaans, down from the previous year, and in 2002 the language policy was instituted by the university to ensure that Afrikaans is the default language of undergraduate learning and instruction. By February of this year, the argument over language instruction came to a head, described in the following article by Jeanne Van Der Merwe published in the New Zealand Sunday Times. An eleventh hour deal between senior politicians and Stellenbosch University students this week headed off a public battle in the growing language war at South Africa's oldest Afrikaans university. But the conflict is far from resolved. Black students at the still mostly white Afrikaans university had threatened a march to protest against Afrikaans-only lectures. It would have coincided with President Thabo Mbeki's visit to receive an honorary doctorate at the university on Friday. But on Wednesday the students agreed to postpone the protest indefinitely, after an emergency meeting with Western Cape ANC leader Ebrahim Rasool, university management and representatives from the national Department of Education. University management agreed to investigate the students' grievances and produce a plan that would make their studies easier. Students supporting the march said the university's language policy made it difficult for non-Afrikaans speaking undergraduates to perform well academically - and some felt marginalised by the university's insistence on using Afrikaans. The language conflict coincided with rector Chris Brink's attempts to diversify the university's student body, a process which has stirred up controversy in some quarters. Brink had actively wooed black students, but the students said that the language issue had not been dealt with properly, fuelling resentment and discontent. Sabelo Mahlathi, chairman of Stellenbosch's ANC Youth League, said: "We would like to practise our right to education in a language of our choice." Daphney Molewa, also a member of the ANC Youth League and a fourth-year consumer science student, pointed out that needy students did not necessarily think of language when they decided to study at Stellenbosch. "We get bursaries that pay for our class fees, lodging and books. Only once you arrive here do you realise the implications of the language policy," she said. Molewa was pleased at the outcome of the meeting with management. "There is no reason for us to march any more because in principle, our grievances have been addressed," she said. Students' opinions on the language policy seemed to vary, according to their races and home languages. Afrikaans-speaking BA student Audrey Appollis said: "I think there is a place for an Afrikaans university." Andreas Tredoux, a PhD student in chemistry, said having all his undergraduate classes in Afrikaans made his postgraduate studies - which are in English - more difficult. Lodina Shoba, a Xhosa-speaking food science student, said: "I don't have a choice - I have to come here for this course. Sometimes I don't understand what's happening in class." An advisory document for prospective international students said: "The responsibility to acquire the necessary language skills required to follow a course rests on the student." Permission for lecturers to teach in English or in Afrikaans and English could only be granted under very special circumstances, such as when Stellenbosch was the only university offering a particular course. University spokesman Mohamed Shaikh said the committee set up after this week's crisis meeting would find ways of addressing "academic hindrances". Back to top.
SWITZERLAND Switzerland is unique in that all of the national languages, German, French, Italian & Romanche, are accorded recognition despite the fact that Romanche is natively spoken by only one percent of the population. Does Switzerland exemplify linguistic unity in light of these facts? In the following article, François Grin of the University of Geneva's Department of Economics provides an introduction and analysis of the variegated linguistic situation in Switzerland. Switzerland is often quoted as a success story for its handling of linguistic and cultural diversity. Despite a small population of barely over 7 million, Switzerland has four national languages, namely German (declared as their "main language", in the standard or dialectal form, by 63.6% of the resident population), French (19.2%), Italian (7.6%) and Romanche (0.6%), according to 1990 Federal Census returns. Accordingly, 9% of the resident population claims a non-national language as their main language, which is a very high percentage in international comparison. The official vision of Switzerland's emergence, therefore, is one of peace-loving and fiercely independent small nations (the cantons) aggregating to preserve their freedom. Of course, this is an overly rosy representation: quarrelling between cantons was commonplace, power play was always present, and some cantons were, until admitted as full-fledged members of the Confederation, mere vassals of others. Hence, Switzerland had to legitimise its existence, including its unusual features such as multilingualism; [a so-called] national myth was more or less consciously developed to this end. In practice, this meant that the supposedly destabilizing quadrilingualism of the country had to be turned into an advantage and more precisely, construed into a worthy trait. What could be perceived as a fatal rift had to be asserted (and was actually proclaimed) as the essence of the Swiss nation: a Willensnation ("nation of the will") defined precisely by its linguistic diversity, gaining its sense of national self and expressing its very soul through diversity, not in spite of it. The 1848 Constitution mentions German, Italian and French as the three national languages on an equal footing. The self-representation of Switzerland as a multilingual country found confirmation as recently as March 1996, when an overwhelming majority of voters accepted a change to the Federal Constitution, allowing the federal government to increase its support for Romanche and Italian language and culture, and to engage in measures with the specific aim of improving inter-group contacts and communication. Switzerland may be quadrilingual, but to most intents and purposes, each point of its territory can be viewed as unilingual. Correspondingly, living in Switzerland means living entirely in German, in French or in Italian. The case of the much smaller Romanche-speaking areas, actually language islands almost entirely surrounded by German-speaking areas, is less clear-cut; a longstanding pattern of language attrition has resulted in a strong presence and visibility of German and Swiss-German dialect even in the core of the traditional "Romanche territory". The three language regions do not display the same degree of homogeneity; in particular, over 20% of the population in the linguistically more diverse French-language region claim a language other than French as first language; yet, in each language region, one sole language is designated as official. This reflects the interplay of three institutional principles that represent the pillars of diversity management (or diversity governance) in Switzerland. These three principles are language territoriality, language freedom and subsidiarity. Territoriality is defined as an unwritten constitutional principle, incumbent upon the cantons, within their boundaries, to ensure the extent and homogeneity of their language territory. Language freedom implies the right for residents to use any language of their choice in the private sphere, which includes the language of business and commerce. The third pillar of the Swiss arrangement is the principle of subsidiarity. It must be recalled that sovereignty rests with the cantons, which only delegate some areas of competence to the Confederation. One direct result, of course, is that there is practically no federal-level language policy, contrary to what one can observe in Canada, whose federal authorities are constantly involved in it. In short, the Swiss system is deeply territorial (although there currently is a drift towards a softer, or "differentiated", application of territoriality), and also very localised. The arrangement that has prevailed over the past 150 years (roughly, since the 1848 Constitution) is currently being questioned from a variety of perspectives, three of which seem to be receiving particular attention at this time. First, there is a concern that the Swiss way of dealing with diversity pays insufficient attention to the presence of immigrants from an increasingly diverse linguistic and cultural background. In particular, it is being argued by many that mother tongue education for migrant children should be extended and eventually become the norm, in order not to hamper the acquisition of cognitive skills and future educational prospects. If this type of language rights, however, is granted to young speakers of Albanian or Portuguese, it would become difficult to explain why speakers of national languages (but from another language region) should be denied the same. Second, the traditional arrangement is accused of having failed to live up to its promises. In particular, the inadequate visibility of Italian and the continuing decline of Romanche are sometimes blamed on the rigidity of territoriality. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the traditional way of dealing with linguistic diversity may be failing to adapt to deep-seated processes that are beyond the control of the Swiss as citizens - or of their government. Prima facie, the problem has to do with the perception that speakers of French rarely achieve sufficient competence in German to interact easily with German-speakers, while the latter, which had the reputation of earning, on average, respectable skills in French as a second language, no longer bother to do so. At the price of much simplification, it can be said that in the eyes of large segments of the population, national languages are losing relevance by comparison with English. This means that for many, it is considered enough to learn English as their first (and perhaps only) foreign language and to disregard the acquisition of another national language (normally, German in French-speaking Switzerland and French in German-speaking Switzerland). Several opinion polls do suggest a drift in this direction, which is, abetted by recent decisions of some cantonal authorities. However, in the particular context of Switzerland, it carries with it some implications that can have particularly deleterious effects. To be sure, many Swiss citizens consider that English could be the most efficient way to solve communication problems between distinct language communities, particularly the German-speaking group on one side, and the "latin" minorities on the other side. Independently of the fact that this would significantly damage the credibility of the traditional Swiss model, its worrisome aspect (in my view) is that it implies a de-legitimisation of Switzerland's national languages - or, more specifically, a de-legitimisation of the languages of other communities in the country. De-legitimisation of the language may be a forerunner of the de-legitimisation of the communities who speak these languages. This is serious enough as such; however, it seems to be associated with (and possibly accelerated by) an emerging socio-economic rift which carries major risks. Unfortunately, this independence of economic dimensions from linguistic dimensions seems to be eroding, and perilous patterns of association may be emerging. To the extent that the economic fabric of the three main language regions remains comparable, these discrepancies can only be interpreted as forms of language-based discrimination, which work against native speakers of Italian and in favour of native speakers of German or Swiss-German dialect - the position of native French-speakers being somewhere in between and usually not statistically different from that of native German-speaking residents. On balance, therefore, Switzerland represents an undeniable historical success in the management of linguistic diversity. At present and for the years to come, it is becoming clear that the national myth will no longer be sufficient, because it does not address new problems which reflect broad trends such as "globalisation" and because it provides no way to deal with emerging socio-economic rifts. In the face of these challenges, the low-key approach to language policy maintained so far by the federal government and administration is no longer sufficient and a shift to a more active policy is becoming a clear necessity. It is therefore incumbent on the Swiss, for their own sake and as a contribution to others, to design and implement the policy measures required for the renewal and continuation of a unique experience with diversity in society. Abridged from an article by François Grin entitled, Language Policy in Multilingual Switzerland: Overview and Recent Developments published in 1998. Back to top.
SINGAPORE Singapore is a nation of nearly three million people at the southern tip of peninsular Malaysia in Southeast Asia. Chinese and Malay comprise nearly 90 percent of the nation's ethnic composition and there are four national languages: Mandarin Chinese, Malay, Tamil and English. Sparking controversy, English has steadily been gaining ground. The 1990 census reported that 21 percent of Singaporeans use English at home and circulation of English-language newspapers exceeds that of the other national languages. The following is a portion of a transcript of a radio broadcast by Felix Tan at Radio Singapore International concerning the Mother Tongue Language policy in the country's education system. It was originally broadcast January 14, 2004. This week, we look at the recent refinement of the Mother Tongue Language policy in Singapore. The mother tongue language, or MTL, has been a much debated issue in Singapore society for a very long time. As more and more Singaporean families begin to use English instead of their mother tongue, there is fear that the standards of the mother tongue language will drop drastically. Indeed, there is already a steady growth of Singaporean students who are finding difficulties coping with the MTL in schools. The debacle surrounding the Mother Tongue Language has also raised issues such as the necessity of learning the mother tongue. Many parents and critics have questioned the rationale of making students take up mother tongue because of economic reasons. At a recent media briefing, I managed to speak to Mr Wee Heng Tin (WHT), the Director-General of the Ministry of Education and first asked him about the importance of the mother tongue for economic purposes: WHT: "I think the economic reasons cannot be ignored. But at the same time, I think, the economic reasons cannot be the only reasons for us to learn our mother tongue language. So, I think mother tongue language has also has this element of helping us to understand our roots, our culture as well as our values. So, I think if we put the two together, so the reasons for wanting to learn the mother tongue language becomes quite powerful, I must say." FT: "There have been quite a number of people voicing out that this policy could be racist in a certain way, I mean, if I am a Chinese, I must study Mandarin, but is there a necessity to do that - can I learn Malay for example?" WHT: "Now, that will, of course, be another subject, you know - whether or not students can also be allowed to learn other mother tongue language, which are not his own. This will be something we will like to look at and, of course, we do not have a decision now. But it is not something that we will not be looking at." FT: "Now, the schoolteachers are trying to encourage students, but there are other teachers that kind of demean students who cannot learn that particular language. Now, what is the [Ministry of Education] going to do about such incidents?" WHT: "Our role, really, is to help our teachers to teach well. So, well, this is what we are going to do - that is to help improve the teaching and learning of the mother tongue language. As in all other subjects, in our schools, and this development of expertise is an ongoing process that is happening all the time." This latest refinement to the Mother Language Tongue policy took effect on the 9th January 2004. The Ministry has advised schools and MTL centres to work out arrangements to make available the various MTL options as far as possible, within their current resources. But since the school term has just started, how has this affected the schools, especially teachers and students? That was the question that I posed to the Mrs Lenie Cho (LC), the Vice-Principal of Anglo-Chinese Secondary School (Independent): LC: "Well, I think we were given enough time to really prepare something because we had a meeting on Thursday, which was 8th ofJanuary and on the 9th morning, I called the relevant teachers - that is the head of level one and head of mother tongue. So, we decided that we will create two forms - one request to do Higher Mother Tongue and the other one for the Chinese syllabus 'B'. So, in the end, we have only six students who would want to do Higher Mother Tongue. So, it was not really something that is a big change. There are only six students who requested that they wanted to do Higher Mother Tongue. So, we can easily transfer them to the classes that have mother tongue languages." FT: "What are the challenges for these sort of students who have difficulties in grasping the mother tongue language?" LC: "Well, I think the syllabus 'B' is actually a very simple level. And most of the students, I think we have already two years into the syllabus 'B' and all my students passed with merit or distinctions. This means that they will be able to cope if the language is brought down to a lower level - not the Express level. And they will enjoy the language better and we do not send our students out to centres. We teach them ourselves in the school." FT: "The MOE also mentioned that the dominant home language of Chinese students is English instead of Mandarin. Now, do you think speaking Mandarin or English at home will adversely affect the language skills of these students?" LC: "I do not think unless you are talking about oral skills. But when it comes to written skills, it really does not make any difference. We have a lot of students from English-speaking homes, but they do very well for Chinese. Because they do…they may not speak, but I think they watch a lot of Mandarin TV and also in their written work, they do have teachers who teach them to write very well. So, basically, their Chinese language exams, they are still tested on their writing skills. Although their component of oral is increasing, but they are still tested on written skills. So, they can speak and they can write well. I do not see any, really any problem because they can speak Mandarin if they want to at different circumstances with different friends." Back to top.
|