Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation : Sociolinguistic Issues [1 ed.] 9781443860642, 9781443858137

Citation preview

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation: Sociolinguistic Issues

Edited by

Martin Solly and Edith Esch

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation: Sociolinguistic Issues, Edited by Martin Solly and Edith Esch This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Martin Solly, Edith Esch and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5813-7, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5813-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 MARTIN SOLLY AND EDITH ESCH Chapter One ............................................................................................... 13 Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms: Recommendations on Providing for Equal Language Rights ANDROULA YIAKOUMETTI Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 33 Medium of Instruction Policy and Multilingual Pupils’ Experience of Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon GENEVOIX NANA Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 67 Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guangzhou in the Era of Multilingualism and Superdiversity SIHUA LIANG Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 93 Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es) FILIO CONSTANTINOU Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 111 Languages in Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan TAYYABA TAMIM Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 135 English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic LUCIE BETÁKOVÁ Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 155 What is “Acceptable”? The Role of Acceptability in English Non-native Speech BETTINA BEINHOFF

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 175 Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility in Spoken Interactions between Non-native English Speakers: A Case Study PEDRO LUIS LUCHINI Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 195 University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico ANNA V. SOKOLOVA G. AND MARÍA DEL CARMEN A. HERNÁNDEZ Y LAZO Contributors ............................................................................................. 213



INTRODUCTION LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBALISATION MARTIN SOLLY AND EDITH ESCH

Introduction In 2012 we jointly edited a volume, The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts (Esch and Solly 2012), which turned a sociological lens on some of the key areas of concern for researchers and practitioners in language education: critical awareness of power and identity issues; competence in dealing with new sociolinguistic repertoires, modalities and literacies; ethical concerns for all who are involved. The volume drew attention to the complex and controversial nature of some of the theoretical aspects, contexts and practices relating to language education and language learning. The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts derived from a seminar held at the University of Turin on 24-28 August 2010 as part of the X Conference of the European Society for the Study of English, and the present volume is also centered on a series of papers first presented at a seminar we convened as part of the XI International Conference of the European Society for the Study of English held at Bo÷aziçi University, Istanbul, on 4-8 September 2012. The seminar provided a forum for reflection and discussion of sociolinguistic issues in language education, with a particular focus on theoretical issues such as concepts of communities and critical reflections on the issues of the presentation of self in discourse, as well as educational problems linked to language planning and the revitalization of indigenous languages, and the divide between English Medium Schools and Vernacular Medium School. Like The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts, the present volume is a collection of peer-edited chapters written by an international group of scholars, engaged in the analysis of language

2

Introduction

education from a sociolinguistics-oriented perspective. It can be seen as a kind of sequel or companion volume to that publication, given that it focuses on many of the themes looked at in The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts; it also shares its case study approach.

Themes A number of recent studies have highlighted uncomfortable sociolinguistic issues in language education stemming from the notion that the maintenance of social inequalities in access to language education has led to a picture whereby society would be stratified between economically powerful classes enjoying full access to language education, middle classes competing to gain access to education and social mobility, and dominated classes excluded from the benefits of education: such a picture is particularly evident in settings where the language of academic literacy and socio-economic power is that of the former colonial / current economic power (cf. Esch and Solly 2012). Yet, to quote Blommaert (2010, 5) the established paradigm of “the sociolinguistics of distribution” focusing on language-in-place is rapidly giving way to “the sociolinguistics of mobility”, focusing on “language-inmotion, with various spatiotemporal frames interacting with one another”. New approaches to fundamental constructs such as ‘communities’, new conceptualisations of the social realities of constantly growing urban centres for individuals and their multiple identities require that such views be revised to take into account the multiple ways in which individuals discursively signal their belonging to linguistic communities which are sometimes in conflict with the educational context, thus defining new sociolinguistic spaces and configurations. The realities of the role of English as a Lingua Franca in a globalized postcolonial world, of linguistic pluralism and multiculturalism, as well as of the expectations associated with the effects of recent mobile technologies and social networking have led to a reassessment of language education policies and the need to meet local / regional / global requirements to ensure language rights and to avoid the marginalization of linguistic groups. Among the most controversial sociolinguistic issues are those related to power and (in)equality. Moreover, as Blommaert points out: Sociolinguistics is the study of language as a complex of resources, of their value, distribution, rights of ownership and effects. It is not the study of an abstract language, but the study of concrete language resources in which people make different investments and to which they attribute different values and degrees of usefulness. In the context of globalization, where

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation

3

language forms are perhaps more mobile that before, such patterns of value and use become less predictable and presupposable. (2010: 28)

The various investigations presented in this volume are often united and interconnected in their approaches to these key areas of focus. Some of the contributors also share an interest in an ecological perspective. Leo van Lier emphasizes the centrality of ecology in educational linguistics, but also the complexity of such an approach: Ecology is the study of the relationships between all the various organisms and their physical environment. It’s a complex and messy field of study about a complex and messy reality. Its primary requirement is, by definition, that the context is central, it cannot be reduced, and it cannot be pushed aside or into the background. The context is the focal field of study. (2002, 144, our emphasis)

The concept of ‘messy’ is also taken up by Blommaert, who aptly titles the second chapter of his 2012 volume The Sociolinguistics of Globalization, ‘a messy new marketplace’, and who observes that “a sociolinguistics of globalization is perforce a sociolinguistics of mobility, and the new marketplace we must seek to understand is, consequently, a less clear and transparent and a messier one” (2012: 28, our emphasis). In this ‘messy’ field, alongside the concept of ‘super-mobility’ can usefully be set that of ‘super-diversity’ (Vertovec 2007) to describe the importance of the personal experience, language repertoires and life trajectories of individuals even within their language communities, as well as within and across the various spaces (including virtual spaces) where communication takes place. As Busch observes: […] the meanings that speakers attribute to languages, codes, and linguistic practices are linked with personal experience and life trajectories, especially with the way in which linguistic resources are experienced in the context of discursive constructions of national, ethnic, and social affiliation/non-affiliation. These meanings are subject to changes which involve both biographical discontinuities (through migration, for example) and socio-political reconfigurations (e.g. the establishing of boundaries). (2012: 520)

National, ethnic, local, family and social background all influence an individual speaker’s personal language practices and trajectory, and can be subject to great changes and discontinuities in times of migration and the displacement / relocation of peoples. Research on multilingualism in the United Kingdom, for example, has shown how speakers code-switch into

4

Introduction

language varieties not generally thought to be theirs, thus crossing and overcoming social or ethnic boundaries (Rampton 1995), and how young multilingual language users ‘translanguage’, creatively, going between and beyond different linguistic structures and systems, “[…] bringing together different dimensions of their personal history, experience and environment, their attitude, belief and ideology, their cognitive and physical capacity into one coordinated and meaningful performance, and making it into a lived experience” (Li Wei 2011, 1223). Each study in this volume brings its own relevance to the work as a whole and each reflects the complexities and practices of the particular contexts and speech communities examined. As regards speech communities, as Morgan has pointed out: […] describing speech community is no simple matter. It cannot be defined by static physical location since membership can be experienced as part of a nation-state, neighborhood, village, club, compound, on-line chat room, religious institution, and so on. What’s more, adults often experience multiple communities, and one’s initial socialization into a speech community may occur within a culture with communicative values that differ from those of other cultures and communities one encounters later in life. (2004: 4-5)

Moreover, there are many myths about language (Schiffman 1996), and these are often intertwined with issues of culture and identity (see for example Joseph 2004, Riley 2007). A current, extremely pervasive myth links proficiency in English to economic prosperity and upward social mobility, thus to prestige and status. Yet the reality is more complex as, for example, Jin He (2012) has shown in her study of what she describes as the ‘four myths’ underpinning the current drive for language proficiency (thus linguistic capital) as regards English in China. Nevertheless, in many countries quality education and socio-economic mobility are increasingly linked to proficiency in English and this has led to justified concern over its widening spread and the related issue of economic and social elitism. Another important thread running through the two volumes is linked to the constant changes that take place within languages and communities, which is well-evidenced by the work of Sihua Liang, in this volume, also as regards a Chinese context. It is also worth noting that while language communities and language use are sometimes constrained by political decisions and policies taken at a national level, this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, as Stecconi notes as regards the European context, language use often transcends borders:

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation

5

[…] many Europeans, especially those living in smaller countries, tend to be familiar with the languages of larger neighbours. [thus] German is popular in the Slovak and Czech Republics, Hungary and Slovenia; Italian in Malta and Croatia: and Russian in the former Baltic Republics and Bulgaria. (2010: 156)

This observation is reiterated in the comments made here by Betáková in her chapter about cross-border language use.

Contributions In her chapter Androula Yiakoumetti observes that globalisation and transnationalism are undoubtedly enhancing linguistic diversity in educational settings and have created a new and common classroom reality. She identifies this emerging reality as transglossia, the many language practices of transnational groups in functional interrelationship, and suggests that current educational approaches largely fail to harness it. Indeed, many act even to distinctly disadvantage students who are speakers of varieties other than that which is socially pre-eminent, while only a very few favour maintenance of languages and cultures which are associated with minority, indigenous, or nonstandard varieties. Yiakoumetti argues that only by building on the actual language realities found in today’s globalised classrooms and by promoting linguistic diversity can we move closer to the ideal situation of equal linguistic rights. The chapter reconsiders current educational policies and approaches and offers some concrete recommendations for the promotion of what Yiakoumetti considers to be true plurilingualism. These recommendations focus on the role of language educators, the importance of teacher training which highlights current sociolinguistic challenges, the need for language planning to be informed by the specific linguistic landscape in which it is to be employed, and the place of English in today’s world. Genevoix Nana presents the results of a case study in his chapter on the medium of instruction policy and multilingual pupils’ experience of learning to read and write in primary school in Cameroon. The study draws on the experience of 4-7-year-old Year 1 pupils learning to read and write in English and French for the first time in two Anglophone and two Francophone primary schools in Cameroon. It uses focus groups and individual interviews to elicit pupils’ views about their experience of language learning in and out of the classroom and teachers’ perception regarding children’s language use in school. A participant observation

6

Introduction

approach also proved useful in following up the pupils’ language practice in the playground in the schools studied. While a ban on using Pidgin English permeated English speaking pupils’ perception of the relevant language to use in school, the teachers’ insistence on the use of the school language contributed to the inhibition of the pupils’ mother tongue and the misconstruction of its value. However, the pupils’ views showed their attachment to these languages due to their using them at home with relatives. Nana’s study highlights a divide between home and school languages in a multilingual socialisation context and problematizes the official bilingualism construct of Cameroon at a time when an apparent language in education policy shift was still to be evidenced by a paradigm shift in teachers’ perception of the appropriate language to be used in schools. The picture provided by Nana of the pupils’ views in Cameroon is followed by a chapter which also looks at school pupils’ perceptions, but in a Chinese, rather than an African context. Indeed, recent studies on multilingualism have increasingly regarded notions such as identity, speech community and even ‘multilingualism’ itself as social constructions and problematised the assumed boundaries in such notions. However, important questions remain unanswered. For example, to what extent does language living at school echo such intellectual problematisation? And how do school pupils perceive and construct their ethnolinguistic identities in a large city with a multi-million and multidialectal population that is being rapidly transformed by modernisation and massive migration? Drawing on data from an ethnographic study in two primary schools in Guangzhou, South China, Sihua Liang examines how the pupils discursively construct multiple and shifting linguistic identities in interaction by making use of language choice, language crossing and other discursive strategies. It is in such interactions that the monolingual bias towards the links between linguistic proficiency, linguistic loyalty and linguistic identity become foregrounded and questioned. While the skills and flexibility of students in discursive and multidialectal negotiation of subject positions are worth school recognition, the tension and symbolic violence observed in the interactions reveals that the negative impacts of the monolingual norms also call for immediate educational responses. It is often the case that the ideological agenda of education, aligning typically with the ideals of democracy and inclusion, undergoes a process of “degeneration” in the course of its translation into practice. This is particularly evident in the domain of language education which, more often than not, becomes transformed into an arena that nurtures inequality

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation

7

and exclusion. In her chapter which focuses specifically on the language education of immigrant students Filio Constantinou discusses how certain language education policies assist the perpetuation of social inequalities and, through a holistic examination that extends from the macro-level of educational ideology to the micro-level of classroom practice, identifies instances of such degeneration. Taking the position that language education pathways can lead to social inequality, she exposes, in particular, the underlying role of national ideologies in the formation of such policies by drawing on data from a study on second language writing conducted in Greek Cypriot schools on the bidialectal island of Cyprus, a country which hosts an increasingly large immigrant population but has relatively limited experience in dealing with linguistic diversity in the context of education and where the language of instruction (i.e. Standard Modern Greek) does not coincide with the children’s mother tongue (i.e. Greek Cypriot Dialect). The source of this discrepancy is mainly ideological and derives from the strong identification of Greek Cypriots with Greece and the Greek culture. This has given rise to the monodialectal orientation of the Cypriot educational system which, as the findings of the study suggest, tends to affect the writing performance of pupils, especially those of immigrant background. Specifically, immigrant pupils appear to incorporate significantly more dialectal forms in their writing compared to their Cypriot peers, as a result of their lower awareness of the differences which exist between the two language varieties. Given that formal writing is not very tolerant to the presence of non-standard forms, it can be argued that the ideologicallydriven language planning as carried out in Cyprus victimises specific groups of pupils. Tayyaba Tamim’s chapter looks at languages in education and the dual system of education in Pakistan, which is marked by the use of English in private education and vernacular in government schools. Her research is based on the findings of two different qualitative studies carried out in Pakistan, where she conducted 45 interviews (16 secondary school final year students and 29 graduated with at least 2 years of college education), in two of the country’s provincial capitals. Her findings reveal a projection of shame and guilt in the participants’ discursive construction of self and local identity, and she argues that the dual system of education in the country perpetuates symbolic violence which cuts into the very existence as human beings of those involved. Tamim’s research exemplifies Bourdieu’s ‘logic of dominance’, whereby those who succumb to domination are more successful, yet the success comes at the cost of self-derision and dislocation of self. Indeed,

8

Introduction

although there was unofficial use of Urdu, the national language, within private education classrooms for pragmatic reasons both teachers and students conveyed a strong sense of conflict as they found it useful but rejected its utility. Thus the dual education system of private and government education added yet another dimension of language to the class divided society, where the participants discussed fear and inhibition in the use of local languages in their struggle for ‘distinction’. In her chapter, Lucie Betáková looks at the role of English in the Czech Republic, a country that has recently undergone a curricular reform at the primary and secondary school levels. English has become the only compulsory language for all school children in the third form, i.e. from the age of nine or ten. Other languages like German or French can be studied as a second foreign language if there are enough children interested in the particular language. The school, however, does not guarantee that the children will have a chance to continue the study of the language when they finish their primary education. On the other hand, the state schools guarantee that the school leavers will be able to continue the study of English at their level. Betáková compares this policy to that of the Council of Europe and assesses the disadvantages (and also possible advantages) of all children learning English. She also relates the current sociolinguistic situation in the Czech Republic and in the EU to the ideas of the famous Czech philosopher Jan Ámos Komenský (Comenius, 1592-1670) who advocated, apart from learning Latin as a lingua franca, learning the languages of the neighbouring states. What is ‘acceptable’? is the question that Bettina Beinhoff faces in her chapter on the role of acceptability in English non-native speech. Studies in the domain of English as a Lingua Franca stress that non-native speaker (NNS) accents of English should become increasingly acceptable as our social realities change towards a world of linguistic pluralism. More recent developments, such as the increase in mobile technologies and social networking, seem to accelerate this process, thereby increasing the likelihood of contact between NNS of English from different cultural backgrounds. Because her findings indicate that the concept of acceptability is very complex and needs further investigation, Beinhoff develops a more detailed definition of ‘acceptability’ for sociolinguistics in language education which is also based on studies from the wider field of social science research. Her chapter then looks at NNS’ and native English speakers’ attitudes towards their own (ingroup) and other (outgroup) accents of English. Participants rated English speech samples on their

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation

9

‘acceptability’ and on traits representing the solidarity dimension (i.e. how much a person identifies with an accent) and the status dimension (i.e. how much prestige is assigned to an accent). Beinhoff’s results suggest that the perceived prestige and status of an accent is considered more important than solidarity and, also, that ‘acceptability’ is closely linked to status traits. In his chapter, Pedro Luis Luchini also looks at acceptability, in particular with the aim of identifying aspects of speech which decrease intelligibility in spoken interactions between non-native English speakers. Nowadays, communication in English is not restricted to interactions only between native speakers (NSs) and native speakers of other languages. Indeed, English is most commonly used worldwide as a lingua franca in interactions between non-native speakers (NNSs). This use of English for the most part as a lingua franca has been largely ignored in research on the use and/or learning of English as a second or foreign language (L2). A relevant example is research on the pronunciation and intelligibility of NNSs, where the great majority of the research has used native speakers of English as the frame of reference for the acceptability and intelligibility of NNSs’ speech. However, it is also essential to investigate how intelligible NNSs are to each other, and the main purpose of Luchini’s study is to evaluate how intelligibility between NNSs is affected by particular L2 phonological variations in NNS speech. His analysis is framed in a set of phonological features which recurrently bring about unintelligibility in interactions between NNSs (Jenkins 2000), and the study also aims to identify a set of speech sounds and syllabic and prosodic elements which are essential for mutual intelligibility between NNSs. Luchini examines four speech samples drawn from three non-native speakers of English (ENNSs): two from Hindi background and one from Spanish background. His findings suggest that segmental deviations along with misplacement of nuclear stress constitute the major obstacle for the attainment of mutual intelligibility in interactions of this type. Anna V. Sokolova G. and Maria del Carmen A. Hernández y Lazo present some of the findings of their survey of university students’ perception of the role of English in Mexican society. The study was carried out with the aim of examining what Mexican university students as social actors thought about the role of English in their country and how they came to hold these views. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews and group discussions with university students in order to investigate their opinions and beliefs as regards a number of questions, including two main ones. First, is it possible that at some moment in the future the Mexican population will be bilingual; that is, will the Mexican

10

Introduction

population use both Spanish and English in their everyday life? Second, to what extent would such a situation affect the Mexican national identity? The study shows in discourse analysis terms how the students as language learners constructed their group reality and also how they represented themselves in this respect. Their sociocultural, academic and demographic features, together with the place conferred to English in the national arena, would seem to be of great importance in the construction of their representations of this language. Although the investigation is a case study, the researchers suggest that it can also provide a helpful picture of the perceptions of students in other Mexican higher education institutions.

Reflections A number of themes run through this volume, some of them complex and controversial. Language education is focused on at the various levels of schooling: primary (Nana), secondary (Tamin) and tertiary (Sokolova and Hernández y Lazo, Tamin) and in different contexts of immigration (Constantinou) and superdiversity (Liang). Moreover, language policy issues run through and across the different levels of education (Yiakoumetti, Constantinou, Betáková). Two of the papers make suggestions as to how to improve language education (Yiakoumetti and Betáková), while the issues raised by the ‘native speaker’ construct (Liang), bilingualism (Nana) and non-standard forms (Constantinou) are explored, as well as the role of acceptability in non-native speech (Beinhoff, Luchini). We suggest that the insights presented here provide an extremely useful way of looking at the current state of the art of language education across the different levels of schooling and also within the various contexts analysed. Because of the increasing interest in language education as a result of the growing number of migrant children in schools and globalization associated with the rapid spread of English (Yiakoumetti 2012) the volume is likely to be of interest to a wide international readership, including scholars and students of sociolinguistics and language education. As this second volume of our ongoing project goes to press, we would like to thank very warmly all those who have contributed to the two seminars and the volumes. Finally, we would also like to draw our readers’ attention to an exciting and innovative new research initiative, which has recently been set up by the second language education group at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. The CRiCLE-Net (Cambridge Research in Community Language Education Network) provides a research

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation

11

forum where policy makers, academics, practitioners and research students in Cambridge and East Anglia, and more broadly at national and international levels, can engage in critical debates on research in community language education. Such initiatives are likely to prove extremely valuable in helping sociolinguists in their continuing endeavour to make sense of changing language use in the increasingly messy but fascinating new marketplace.

References Blommaert, J. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Busch, B. 2012. The Linguistic Repertoire Revisited. Applied Linguistics 33(5), 503–523. Esch, E. and M. Solly. eds. 2012. The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. Jin He. 2012. The Myths of English Proficiency: The Socially Constructed Ideas about English in China. In The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts, ed. E. Esch and M. Solly, 47-68. Joseph, J. 2004. Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Li Wei. 2011. Moment Analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1222–1235. Morgan, M. 2004. Speech Community. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. A. Duranti, 3-22. Oxford: Blackwell. Rampton, B. 1995. Language crossing and the problematisation of ethnicity and socialisation. Pragmatics 5(4), 485–513. Riley, P. 2007. Language, Culture and Identity. London: Continuum. Schiffman, H. 1996. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge. Stecconi, U. 2010. Multilingualism in the EU: a developing policy field. In Political Discourse, Media and Translation, ed. C. Schaffner and S. Basnett, 144-163. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. van Lier, L. 2002. An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives, ed. C. Kramsch, 140-164. London: Continuum. Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(6), 1024–54. Yiakoumetti A. 2012. Harnessing Linguistic Variation for Better Education. Berlin: Peter Lang.

CHAPTER ONE LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN OUR GLOBALISED CLASSROOMS: RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROVIDING FOR EQUAL LANGUAGE RIGHTS ANDROULA YIAKOUMETTI

Introduction We are now, in late post-modernity, experiencing the effects of globalisation and transnationalism on societies in general and on education in particular. As we continue to travel and/or migrate, there is a heightened interconnectivity between people which breaks the traditional boundaries associated with national states. For many, the congruence of social and geographic spaces has become blurred because of their transnational ties to multiple spaces. These ties are, no doubt, facilitated by increased global transportation and telecommunication technologies. Inevitably, the coming together of peoples has led to enhanced levels of linguistic diversity in education which is manifested in the co-occurrence of multiple linguistic varieties in the classroom. This emerging reality is characterised by new opportunities and also by new challenges: opportunities because multiple varieties gain voices in educational settings which were once less linguistically diverse and challenges because new pedagogical approaches are called for to better serve today’s speakers. Perhaps most importantly, the challenge is for the co-occurrence of multiple languages not to be suppressed but to be promoted such that monolingual students, emerging bilingual students, and multilingual students alike can be equipped with multilingual competences. Students who arrive at school as monolinguals should have opportunities to learn additional languages from their multilingual counterparts and from the curriculum while students who

14

Chapter One

arrive at school as multilinguals should have the right to use, maintain, and develop their multiple languages. Current research in many educational settings worldwide points to the fact that, when supported, transnational learners employ language practices which resist homogenising tendencies (García et al. 2006): despite the usual stipulation to use a single standard linguistic variety exclusively, these learners use their different varieties concurrently to serve their learning purposes. Nevertheless, current educational policies largely fail to acknowledge and to subsequently harness the emerging reality of linguistic variation. Although the rhetoric of these policies seems to reflect positivity towards multilingualism and multiculturalism, on closer examination, only a very few favour maintenance of languages and cultures which are associated with minority, indigenous or nonstandard varieties. Even fewer favour promotion of these languages and cultures. The majority of policies demonstrate a sociolinguistically ill-informed attachment to linguistic and cultural homogeneity which is almost always manifested in the classroom use of a prescribed power-associated single linguistic variety. Unfortunately, the schism between what should ideally happen in today’s multilingual classrooms and what policies prescribe tends to disadvantage mostly those who need to be protected in the educational system. Minority- and indigenous-language speakers are such peoples because, very often, their languages and cultures are threatened by the majority and/or power-associated languages and cultures. As Cummins (2001) explains, assimilationist policies in education discourage students from maintaining their mother tongues because such retention is viewed as inability to identify with the mainstream language and culture. He argues that linguistic and cultural diversity is very often seen as a problem which many educational policies aim to eradicate. However, it is clear that banning or discouraging native voices in education inhibits learners’ access to a meaningful education. This chapter argues that only by building on the actual emerging language realities found in today’s globalised classrooms and by promoting linguistic diversity can we move towards the ideal situation of equal language rights. After reviewing research carried out around the world, this chapter makes the case that multilingual competence be seen as an essential goal of education. This exhortation accords well with UNESCO’s strong commitment to quality education for all and, indeed, to cultural and linguistic diversity in education (UNESCO 2003a). This recommendation comes at a time when, as May (2012a) astutely notes, a rapid and significant retrenchment of multilingualism and

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

15

multiculturalism within education can be observed. In the United States, for example, one can see that, despite the linguistic landscape’s having become demonstrably more multilingual, English-only ideals are promoted (Crawford 2007; García and Kleifgen 2010; May 2012b): English-only statutes that banned bilingual education in states with large Spanish-speaking populations were passed in California in 1998 and Arizona in 2000. In addition, the word “bilingual” was struck out of federal education and legislation: the Office of Bilingual and Minority Language Affairs came to be called the Office of English Language Acquisition and the Bilingual Education Act itself is now named Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students (García et al. 2012). In Europe, bilingual educational programmes also face significant devaluation as minority groups are increasingly urged to strive towards dominant cultural and linguistic mores (May 2012a; Modood 2007). In taking stock of these regrettable developments, it is clear that language education policies ought to be reassessed to meet the local, regional, national, and global needs of today’s citizens. There is no doubt that linguistic diversity becomes more complex as a result of globalisation, technology, and transnationalism: it is time to eliminate the linguisticallyintolerant language policies and to embrace educational frameworks that reflect today’s realities, ensure language rights, and avoid marginalisation of linguistic groups.

Language rights and education Language is not simply a means of communication. It is a fundamental attribute of cultural identity and empowerment, both for the individual and the group. Majority-language speakers, minority-language speakers, and indigenous-language speakers all have the right to have their varieties respected and promoted. We are our languages and so it is not surprising that claims for language are among the first rights that minorities have voiced in cases of political change (May et al. 2004). Skutnabb-Kangas (2001) convincingly argues that granting education-based and languagebased rights to minorities can be part of conflict prevention. UNESCO has a central role to play in providing international frameworks for educational policy on the important issue of which language should be used as the medium of instruction. Throughout the last sixty years, a number of declarations on children’s rights in early education, the role of the mother tongue, and linguistic diversity have been adopted. UNESCO is strongly committed to promoting the use of a child’s

16

Chapter One

own language as the medium of instruction in the early years of formal schooling (UNESCO 1953, 2003a, 2003b). International Mother Language Day, proclaimed in 1999 and marked on 21 February each year, is an example of UNESCO’s recognition of the key role of the mother tongue. In addition, UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity (2001) addresses the significance of languages for cultural diversity and emphasises the benefits of linguistic diversity at all levels of education and the promotion of multilingualism from an early age. As far as educational language rights are concerned, the following have been framed for minority and indigenous groups: schooling in the minority and indigenous languages, if desired; access to the language of the larger community and to that of national educational systems; intercultural education that promotes positive attitudes to minority and indigenous languages and the cultures they express; and access to international languages (Ball 2011). The ultimate rationale for the promotion of mother-tongue education is the empowerment of underprivileged groups. In Europe, commendable efforts to promote linguistic diversity and language learning in the field of education have been made. The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) (1992), both prepared under the auspices of the Council of Europe, aim to protect regional and minority languages as they see them to be an integral part of European cultural heritage. The ECRML’s contribution to linguistic diversity is considerable as it is the first legal instrument devoted to the protection of minority languages (Arzoz 2007; Hogan-Brun and Wolff 2003). Beyond the work of UNESCO and the Council of Europe, language rights as an academic paradigm is also well established in the discipline of sociolinguistics. As May (2005) explains, its presence is demonstrated by three academic movements: the language ecology movement which situates the loss of many of the world’s languages within a wider ecological framework (Mühlhäuser 1996, 2000, Nettle and Romaine 2000); the linguistic human rights movement that argues for the greater institutional protection and support of minority languages and their speakers (Skutnabb-Kangas 1998, 2000, 2002; Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 1995); and the academic legal discourse associated with minority language rights law (de Varennes 1996a, 1996b; Henrard 2000). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to further review the literature on educational language rights. However, some bleak estimations about the world’s spoken languages are provided here to highlight the importance of

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

17

actively pursuing the maintenance of linguistic diversity in education. Education receives special emphasis here as it remains one of the most powerful institutionally-organised environments that linguistically positions novices into society (Stroud 2003). It is estimated that, by 2100, there may remain only 300-600 (out of the currently spoken c.7000) oral languages transmitted by the parent generation to children (Krauss 1992; SkutnabbKangas 2009). Using emotive language, Skutnabb-Kangas (1994) argues that linguistic genocide is committed in relation to minorities when educational systems do not build on linguistically-diverse children’s rich repertoires but instead suppress them. Other similarly powerful terms sometimes used are those of glottophagie and linguistic cannibalism (Calvet 1974; Brenzinger 1992; Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1995). It is clear that, if we are to slow down the exponential loss of the world’s languages, education needs to start delivering support for language diversity. Education should not result in the exclusion of some groups based on language criteria.

The importance of the mother tongue No discussion of language education should overlook the immeasurable importance of people’s mother tongues. The theoretical justification for the role of incorporating the mother tongue in education is well developed and supported (Cummins 2000). In addition, there is abundant empirical evidence which demonstrates that utilising the mother tongue in formal (monolingual as well as bi/multilingual) education is beneficial. For instance, when children are given the chance to be educated in their mother tongue, they are more likely to enrol and succeed in school (Kosonen 2005). Importantly, studies have demonstrated that instruction in the mother tongue is beneficial to literacy in the first language, achievement in other subjects, and learning of a second language (Dutcher and Tucker 1997; Dutcher 2004). It has been argued that mother tonguebased education is especially beneficial for disadvantaged groups, such as children from rural communities (Hovens 2002). It has also been shown that, in developing countries with unequal sex-based opportunities, girls achieve better when they are taught in their mother tongue (UNESCO 2005). A few examples from the literature will be briefly presented here in order to demonstrate some of the benefits (outlined above) of incorporating the mother tongue into education. It has been documented that, when minority-language students’ mother tongues are part of education, more such students enrol and achieve learning at high levels

18

Chapter One

(Ding and Yu 2013). Drawing on Yi (the seventh largest of the 55 officially recognised ethnic minority groups in China), Ding and Yu (2013) argue that, despite the battle between maintaining and developing Yi and spreading Putonghua, it is clear that a bilingual educational model that utilises students’ native variety is beneficial. The authors compared two models of bilingual education adopted in Liangshan (China): the first model represents a strong form of bilingual education (Baker 2011) in that students are required to use the Yi language and learn standard Chinese as a school subject; and the second model represents a weak form of bilingual education as cultivation of specialised knowledge in the Yi language is not a priority. In comparing these two models, the authors explain that students who participate in education based on the first model have better prospects for going to colleges, compared to students who participate in education based on the second model. This is mainly because of preferential higher-education policies towards students who develop expertise in more than one language. Beyond improved attendance, benefits have been shown with regard to literacy. The Foyer programme is testament to the fact that educating students in their native minority languages improves literacy in both the minority and the majority languages (Cummins 2000). This programme which commenced in Belgium in 1981 embraces linguistic diversity and promotes multiliteracy in students’ mother tongues (Arabic, Italian, Spanish or Turkish) as well as Dutch and French. The programme is successful as students (i) develop better mother-tongue knowledge compared with students in monolingual Dutch schools and (ii) develop a level of Dutch that enables them to keep up with subsequent education in secondary school. It thus serves as evidence of the benefits of multilingual education. Benefits have also been recorded beyond literacy, in subjects such as mathematics. For instance, Mohanty and Saikia (2008) examined the school achievement of Bodo tribal children in Assam (India) by comparing children educated in Bodo (the tribal mother tongue) and children educated in Assamese (the regional majority language). They found that the mother-tongue-educated children performed better in language and mathematics compared to their Assamese-educated counterparts. As far as the role of the mother tongue in second and/or foreign language learning is concerned, there have been numerous studies that report on the advantages of using students’ familiar languages (alongside the targeted second/foreign languages) in education (Brooks-Lewis 2009; Auerbach 1993). Indeed, over the last three decades, a number of scholars

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

19

including Atkinson (1987, 1993), Harbord (1992), Butzkamm (1998, 2003) and Cook (2001) have made the case that the mother tongue has a variety of beneficial roles to play in monolingual foreign-language education. As evidenced above, the potentially huge benefits that can be gained when the mother tongue is utilised in education cannot be overstated. This is especially relevant when we consider that about 476 million of the world’s illiterate people speak minority languages and live in countries where children are mostly not taught in their mother tongue (UNESCO 2003b). Given that the evidence suggests that speakers are better off when their minority languages are present in education, how do we ensure that linguistic diversity and multilingualism are promoted in schools? Furthermore, does allowing minority languages into formal schooling mean that majority and/or power-associated varieties are out of reach for minority-language speaking students? An educational sociolinguist would readily reply in the negative. However, huge political and economic obstacles are ever-present when considering language education for minority pupils. Indeed, such obstacles have been the reason for the failure of some mother-tongue programmes which did manage to get the green light for implementation. Several African countries (in which economic, political, cultural, and social aspects all affect education) serve as ideal vantage points from which to discuss this failure. Stroud (2001, 2003) explains that attempts to use mother tongues in schools are plagued by curricula skewed towards metropolitan languages (such as English, French, and Portuguese). Language policies enacted to promote local varieties are seen as futile by lay persons. It is therefore natural that mother-tongue based programmes remain illusive when policy makers undermine non-metropolitan languages and emphasise the utility of metropolitan languages. Indeed, many parents wish for their children to be educated in the metropolitan languages and consider instruction through national languages to be a waste of time (Banda 2000). Kamwangamalu (2012) questions the two extreme ideologies associated with African countries, namely the ideology of decolonisation and the ideology of development. The former favours the use of indigenous African languages as media of instruction and the latter favours instruction in the languages of former colonial powers. Kamwangamalu (2012) calls for new policies which assign to indigenous African languages some of the advantages that are currently associated only with colonial languages.

20

Chapter One

English: a threat to linguistic diversity? Globalisation is inextricably linked to the dominant role of English and the growing literature on English as an international language (Crystal 2003; McKay 2002; Sharifian 2009) attests to the widespread recognition that English is the world’s lingua franca. A number of factors offer English unprecedented power including (i) the economic and political dominance of English-speaking countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada), (ii) the employment of English as the lingua franca on the internet, and (iii) the retaining of English as a working language in many postcolonial countries. English is the language of business and the language in which most of the technical and scientific knowledge is distributed. English is perceived as the language of mobility and its presence in educational systems all around the globe is hence immensely prominent. English today is unique: when L1 and L2 speakers are taken together, English is the language with the greatest number of speakers and, at the same time, the language with the widest geographical distribution (McKay 2012). In addition, English is used by many kinds of speakers for diverse purposes. Some learn English as a foreign language (as part of their compulsory education) but do not use it in their daily lives. Others are motivated to learn English because they believe that English is associated with economic and technological advancement. Others yet strive for English acquisition because, as a South African teacher bluntly put it, “English puts bread on the table” (Probyn et al. 2002). The fact that English has many types of speakers who employ the language for diverse purposes has pedagogical implications. Briefly, this means that contextdependent socially-sensitive pedagogies are required when teaching English. As each context is unique, with learners having particular needs and expectations relating to English learning and proficiency, pedagogies that are tailor-made to suit these needs and expectations are required. As English continues to spread, concerns have been voiced as to its undermining linguistic and cultural diversity (Phillipson 1992, 2003; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). Mohanty (2006, 2010), for instance, argues that the powerful presence of English has obliterated the language tolerance that once characterised India. The author explains that English pushes the major languages (including Hindi) into positions of relative weakness and that these languages, in turn, further marginalise the minor and tribal mother tongues. However, I argue that English and linguistic diversity can co-exist and that the ever-growing English language does not necessarily pose a threat

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

21

to multilingualism. Other researchers (McKay 2012; House 2003) have also taken this stance. McKay (2012) suggests that English can continue to spread in a manner that preserves linguistic and cultural diversity worldwide when the value of multilingualism is concomitantly affirmed. This affirmation can be achieved by building on students’ existing linguistic repertoires and by developing curricula that accurately reflect the local linguistic landscape. It is imperative that curricula have an appropriate interpretation of the role of English in the context at hand because, as stated above, English is used by different types of speakers and for diverse purposes (which makes each context unique). Learning and using English should not be seen as an activity that necessarily displaces national, indigenous or nonstandard linguistic varieties. In fact, English can contribute towards multilingualism in that, when English is presented and taught appropriately, it can add to people’s linguistic repertoires. In a study carried out in the Norwegian higher-education context, Ljosland (2011) argues that both Norwegian (the mother tongue of the students) and English (the language of the study programme that was investigated) co-existed harmoniously. The author explored the language use and language attitudes of students studying for a course which introduced English (as opposed to Norwegian) as the medium of instruction. The findings revealed that students displayed a dualistic attitude in that Norwegian was seen as part of their identity and English was seen as the language of research in their subject field. Students did not express the view that English took over from Norwegian. As the author explains, their frequent switching between Norwegian and English allowed them to be both themselves, as well as aspiring experts in their field. This bilingual and bicultural identity is precisely what Arnett (2002) describes as a positive consequence of globalisation: one part of the identity of these learners is rooted in their local culture and language while another stems from their relation to the global culture and language. House (2003) is another researcher who argues against the widespread assumption that English, in its role as a lingua franca, is a serious threat to linguistic diversity. She makes a distinction between languages for communication and languages for identification and explains that using English for instrumental purposes does not necessarily displace local languages as these are used for different purposes. She makes the case that English can stimulate speakers of minority languages to revive their languages such that they can balance out the spread of English. Drawing on her native Germany, she notes that, paradoxical as it may sound, the spread of English in Germany brought about the revival of songs in local dialects such as Bavarian to counteract pop music in English only.

22

Chapter One

English as an international language need not be a threat: mother tongues, regional, and national varieties can thrive alongside English. A meaningful multilingual education that promotes multilingual competence, supports and maintains indigenous languages, and offers access to English as an international language should be the aim of today’s societies.

Reconsidering language education in our globalised classrooms Education is a key environment for conferring legitimacy on specific practices of language (Stroud 2003). Traditionally, in most educational contexts in the world, the teaching of the majority language and, subsequently, the reproduction of the cultural capital of the dominant group have been the norm. Such education is a long way from respecting and promoting minority children’s linguistic and cultural diversity. Indeed, such education does not allow children who speak non-dominant varieties to enjoy education that goes beyond monolingual boundaries, purity, and correctness. Children are being constrained to employing just one ‘legitimate’ variety and are being subjugated to ideologies of nation states. A subtractive ideology is encouraged whereby students end up losing their other languages such that they can come closer to ‘one pure’ national language. This chapter calls for multilingual competence to be seen as an aspiration, given the nature of most societies where multi-languages are a reality at both the local and national levels. As Shohamy (2006) convincingly argues, our reality does support a multilingual ideology. Indeed, looking at the discourse of today’s speakers, it is clear that daily language use takes place in complex multilingual ecologies and is characterised by linguistic practices that employ a multilingual mix and fusion of form and function. To re-iterate the sentiment of other authors such as García et al. (2006), how can we create an education that can support the multiplicity of languages and literacies in our globalised world? How can we make sure that linguistically-diverse children can have both their mother tongues and a future? Where it is legitimate to use and develop multiple languages, how can we do it meaningfully, creatively, inclusively, and objectively? Below, I offer some recommendations: Use language awareness to achieve a meaningful and sociolinguisticallyinformed education: Language approaches/policies which promote language awareness, build on the sociolinguistic context at hand, and promote a

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

23

collaborative partnership between teachers and parents have been shown to lead to linguistic and cultural empowerment. For instance, a language awareness project in a primary school in Alsace (France) transformed the traditional monolingual habitus of the school and paved the way for multilingual education (Hélot and Young 2006). This was achieved by making all pupils, monolingual and bilingual alike, aware and respectful of the regional and immigration languages of the pupils in that school. Children were thus in the fortunate position of learning about the wealth of linguistic and cultural diversity that surrounded them before they formally commenced learning a foreign language. Similarly, many other languageawareness projects have provided empirical evidence that, when students are made aware of the richness of the linguistic varieties spoken within their homes and broader communities and when their first language is seen as a resource, they perform linguistically better and have positive attitudes towards linguistic variation. Such projects have been carried out worldwide, including in Australia (Malcolm and Truscott 2012), Canada (Ball and Bernhardt 2012), the Caribbean (Siegel 2012), Europe (Yiakoumetti 2006, 2007), and the United States (Adger et al. 2007) and had various aims including contrastive analysis between the native and the target varieties, awareness of variation in language (e.g. regional and social varieties, pidgins and creoles), and awareness of equality of linguistic varieties. Use the pedagogy of translanguaging for a creative education: Minority-language speakers worldwide are most often educated within pedagogical frameworks which have been designed for majority-language speakers. This translates to education in usually one language, the dominant state language. As García et al. (2012) note, even when minority-language speakers are given the opportunity to be educated bi/multilingually, they are exposed to frameworks which are still diglossic in nature. (This diglossic nature means that one language (Fishman 1967), or one linguistic variety (Ferguson 1959), or one feature (Labov 1966) is used for unique purposes and the other language/linguistic variety/feature is used for different functions.) The authors challenge such frameworks and argue for the creation of different educational designs which would better cope with the emergent linguistically-diverse classrooms of today. The solution they offer transgresses monolingualism and bilingual dualities and acknowledges that the language practices of today’s bilinguals do not respond to an additive or a subtractive model of bilingualism. These language practises need a different pedagogy if they are to thrive: the recommended pedagogy is translanguaging.

24

Chapter One

Translanguaging as pedagogy refers to building flexibly on bilingual students’ language practices in order to develop new language practices, including academic language practices. It is important to differentiate between translanguaging and codeswitching: the former goes beyond a shift between two languages and refers to the use of original and complex discursive practices that cannot be easily assigned to one code or another. Translanguaging is particularly important for minority-language students who are emergent bilinguals because it builds on students’ strengths by allowing them to create language hybrids and fusions whereby different codes are used for communication and expression. It is especially important to note that, in classrooms where the translanguaging pedagogy is employed, teachers need not be fluent in students’ native varieties. Teachers draw on students’ entire linguistic repertoire and translanguaging practices by encouraging them to make sense of their knowledge and expertise. It should become obvious that a pedagogy like translanguaging best suits the ever-growing linguistically-diverse classrooms of today. Policies worldwide ought to respond to the demands posed by globalisation, global mobility, technology, and transnationalism. Learners today are not being served efficiently when their various linguistic varieties are separated or, worse, restricted to one dominant standard language discourse. As Herdina and Jessner (2002) explain, the interactions of bilinguals’ interdependent language systems create new structures that are not found in monolingual monolithic systems created by nation-states. Involve parents to achieve an inclusive education: The role of the parents in maintaining their children’s linguistic heritage has been highlighted in the literature. Baker (1992) cautioned that parents’ stated attitudes regarding their child’s acquisition/education in a minority language do not necessarily match their behaviour. Most minoritylanguage parents wish to see their children succeed in the majority school language. At the same time, many also want their children to learn and be proud of their cultural and linguistic heritage. When it comes to practice, these dual language desires tend to lean towards promoting the majority language rather than towards parents’ expressed desire for mother-tongue learning. It is important therefore for language policies to include parents in their children’s education so that parents feel confident to promote multilingualism. It has been demonstrated that, when the help of parents is enlisted, parents are more likely to collaborate with teachers and participate in their children’s learning (Benson 2002). Fettes (1998) suggests that acknowledgement of the importance of community ownership

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

25

and the centrality of the home environment are prerequisites for successful indigenous-language programmes. Appropriately assess emerging bilinguals to achieve an objective education: Escamilla (2006) makes a clear case that emerging bilinguals ought to be assessed in both of their languages. For her case study, she compared academic achievement in reading and writing between students who were assessed in Spanish and English and students who were assessed in English alone. Findings indicated that the former outperformed the latter and that Spanish outcomes exceeded district-wide English averages. Similarly, Shohamy (2006) explains that, in Israel, students who were presented with bilingual tests (Russian and Hebrew) performed significantly better than a control group of students which was exposed to Hebrew alone. Looking at the recommendations above, the central point is schooling as experienced by the students and the relationship of the students with the languages of the school.

Conclusion Multilingualism is more a way of life rather than a problem to be solved. Multilingual speakers use their many languages to carry out their daily activities and this is considered normal practice. The challenge is for educational systems to adapt to the emerging complex language realities and to provide quality education which takes into consideration learners’ needs and safeguards linguistic and cultural diversity. It may sound simplistic but perhaps all educational systems sometimes need to do is to reflect what goes on outside the classroom. Society consists of users of multiple linguistic varieties: local, regional, national, and global varieties, as well as a mixture of languages and dialects. This is the ecological reality and it is nowhere near notions of sameness. We need an education which not only stays in touch with the changes in our society but which also pushes to the forefront innovative approaches which promote societal equity and multilingual voices. In today’s globalised classrooms, empowering learners with confidence means offering them the ability to communicate within and outside their own language groups. Transnational learners have already found out for themselves that employing their various linguistic varieties (as opposed to restricting their voices to one prescribed variety) best serves their learning purposes. It is essential therefore that, as population patterns change with

26

Chapter One

heightened levels of migration, pedagogical practice also evolves to embrace this emerging reality. Quite simply, if we are to have a healthy society, we can no longer continue with outdated policies of linguistic assimilation.

References Adger, C., W. Wolfram, and D. Christian. 2007. Dialects in Schools and Communities, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Arnett, J. 2002. The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist 57(10), 774-783. Arzoz, X. 2007. The nature of language rights. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 6, 1- 35. Atkinson, D. 1987. The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELT Journal 41(4), 241-247. —. 1993. Teaching in the target language: A problem in the current orthodoxy. Language Learning Journal 8(1), 2-5. Auerbach, E. 1993. Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27 (1): 9-32. Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. —. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ball, J. 2011. Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Backgrounds: Mother Tongue-based Bilingual or Multilingual Education in the Early Years. Paris: UNESCO. Ball, J. and B. Bernhardt. 2012. Standard English as a second dialect: a Canadian perspective. In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, ed. A. Yiakoumetti, 189-225. Oxford: Peter Lang. Banda, F. 2000. The dilemma of the mother tongue: prospects for bilingual education in South Africa. Language, Culture and Curriculum 13(1), 51-66. Benson, C. 2002. Real and potential benefits of bilingual programmes in developing countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 5(6), 303-317. Brenzinger, M. 1992. Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brooks-Lewis, K. 2009. Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics 30(2), 216-235.

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

27

Butzkamm, W. 1998. Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 1(2), 81-99. —. 2003. We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal 28(1), 29-39. Council of Europe. 1992. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. —. 1995. Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Calvet, L-J. 1974. Linguistique et Colonialisme: Petit Traité de Glottophagie. Paris: Payot. Cook, V. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57(3), 402-423. Crawford, J. 2007. The decline of bilingual education in the USA: how to reverse a troubling trend? International Multilingual Research Journal 1(1), 33-37. Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. —. 2001. Bilingual children's mother tongue: why is it important for education? Sprogforum 19, 15-20. de Varennes, F. 1996a. Language, Minorities and Human Rights. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. —. 1996b. Minority aspirations and the revival of indigenous peoples. International Review of Education 42, 309-325. Ding, H., and L. Yu. 2013. The dilemma: a study of bilingual education policy in Yi minority schools in Liangshan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16(4), 451-470. Dutcher, N. 2004. Expanding Educational Opportunity in Linguistically Diverse Societies, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Dutcher, N., in collaboration with G. R. Tucker. 1997. The Use of First and Second Languages in Education: A Review of International Experience. Washington, DC: World Bank. Escamilla, K. Monolingual assessment and emerging bilinguals: a case study in the US. In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Glocalisation, ed. O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M. Torres-Guzmán, 184-199. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ferguson, C. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15, 325-340.

28

Chapter One

Fettes, M. 1998. Life on the edge: Canada's Aboriginal language under official bilingualism. In Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities, ed. T. Ricento and B. Burnaby, 117150. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Fishman, J. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia: diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23(2), 29-38. García, O., N. Flores and H. Woodley. 2012. Transgressing monolingualism and bilingual dualities: translanguaging pedagogies. In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, ed. A. Yiakoumetti, 45-75. Oxford: Peter Lang. García, O. and J. Kleifgen. 2010. Educating Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, Programs and Practices for English Language Learners. New York: Teachers College Press. García, O., T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and M. E. Torres-Guzmán. 2006. Weaving spaces and (de)constructing ways for multilingual schools: the actual and the imagined. In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Language in Education and Glocalisation, ed. O. García, T. SkutnabbKangas and M. E. Torres-Guzmán, 3-47. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Harbord, J. 1992. The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal 46(4), 350-355. Hélot, K. and A. Young. 2006. Imagining multilingual education in France: a language and cultural awareness project at primary level. In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Glocalisation, ed. O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M. TorresGuzmán, 69-90. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Henrard, K. 2000. Devising an Adequate System of Minority Protection. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Herdina, P. and U. Jessner. 2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hogan-Brun, G. and S. Wolff. 2003. Minority Languages in Europe: Frameworks, Status, Prospects. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: a threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4), 556-578. Hovens, M. 2002. Bilingual education in West Africa: does it work? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 5 (5), 249-266. Kamwangamalu, N. M. 2012. The medium-of-instruction conundrum and 'minority' language development in Africa. In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, ed. A. Yiakoumetti, 167-188. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

29

Kosonen, K. 2005. Education in local languages: policy and practice in Southeast Asia. In First Languages First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for Minority Language Contexts in Asia, 96-134. Bangkok: UNESCO. Krauss, M. 1992. The world's languages in crisis. Language 68(1), 4-10. Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Ljosland, R. 2011. English as an academic lingua franca: language policies and multilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4), 991-1004. Malcolm, I. and A. Truscott. 2012. English without shame: two-way Aboriginal classrooms in Australia. In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, ed. A. Yiakoumetti, 227-258. Oxford: Peter Lang. May, S. 2005. Language rights: moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(3), 319-347. —. 2012a. Educational approaches to minorities: context, contest and opportunities. In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, ed. A. Yiakoumetti, 11-43. Oxford: Peter Lang. —. 2012b. Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. May, S., T. Modood, and J. Squires. 2004. Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Minority Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKay, S. L. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2012. English as an International Language, multilingualism and language planning. In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, edited by A. Yiakoumetti, 97-114. Oxford: Peter Lang. Modood, T. 2007. Multiculturalism: a Civic Idea. Cambridge: Polity Press. Mohanty, A. 2006. Multilingualism of the unequals and predicaments of education in India: mother tongue or other tongue? In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Language in Education and Glocalisation, ed. O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M. Torres-Guzmán, 262-283. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. —. 2010. Languages, inequality and marginalization: implications of the double divide in Indian multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 205, 131-154. Mohanty, A. and J. Saikia. 2008. Bilingualism and intergroup relationship in tribal and non-tribal contact situations. In Perspectives and Progress in Contemporary Cross-cultural Psychology, ed. G. Zheng, K. Leung

30

Chapter One

and J. G. Adair, 163-172. Xi'an: International Association for CrossCultural Psychology. Mühlhäuser, P. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Region. London: Routledge. Mühlhäuser, P. 2000. Language planning and language ecology. Current Issues in Language Planning 1, 306-367. Nettle, D., and S. Romaine. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World's Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2003. English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R., and T. Skutnabb-Kangas. 1995. Linguistic rights and wrongs. Applied Linguistics 16(4), 483-504. Probyn, M., S. Murray, L. Botha, P. Boyta, M. Brooks, and V. Westphal. 2002. Minding the gaps - an investigation into language policy and practice in four Eastern Cape districts. Perspectives in Education 20(1), 29–46. Sharifian, F. 2009. English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Shohamy, E. 2006. Imagined multilingual schools: how come we don't deliver? In Imagining Multilingual Schools: Language in Education and Glocalisation, ed. O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M. E. Torres-Guzmán, 171-183. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Siegel, J. 2012. Educational approaches for speakers of Pidgin and Creole languages. In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, ed. A. Yiakoumetti, 259-292. Oxford: Peter Lang. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 1994. Mother tongue maintenance: the debate. Linguistic human rights and education. TESOL Quarterly 28(3), 625631. —. 1998. Human rights and language wrongs - future for diversity? Language Sciences 20, 5-27. —. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. —. 2001. The globalisation of (educational) language rights. International Review of Education 47(3-4), 201-219. —. 2002. Marvellous human rights rhetoric and grim realities: language rights in education. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 1, 179-206. —. 2009. Multilingual education for global justice: issues, approaches, opportunities. In Social Justice Through Multilingual Education, ed. T.

Language Education in Our Globalised Classrooms

31

Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty and M. Panda, 36-62. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., and R. Phillipson. 1995. Linguistic human rights, past and present. In Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, ed. T. Skutnabb-Kangas and R. Phillipson, 71-110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stroud, C. 2001. African mother-tongue programmes and the politics of language: linguistic citizenship versus linguistic human rights. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development 22(4), 339-355. —. 2003. Postmodernist perspectives on local languages: African mothertongue education in times of globalisation. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6(1), 17-36. UNESCO. 1953. The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education: Monographs on Foundations of Education. Paris: UNESCO. —. 2001. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris: UNESCO. —. 2003a. Education in a Multilingual World: UNESCO Education Position Paper. Paris: UNESCO. —. 2003b. The mother-tongue dilemma. Education Today 6, 1-12. —. 2005. Advocacy Brief on Mother Tongue-based Teaching and Education for Girls. Bangkok: UNESCO. Yiakoumetti, A. 2006. A bidialectal programme for the learning of standard modern Greek in Cyprus. Applied Linguistics 27(2), 295-317. —. 2007. Choice of classroom language in bidialectal communities: to include or to exclude the dialect? Cambridge Journal of Education 37(1), 51-66.

CHAPTER TWO MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION POLICY AND MULTILINGUAL PUPILS’ EXPERIENCE OF LEARNING TO READ AND WRITE IN PRIMARY SCHOOL IN CAMEROON GENEVOIX NANA

This study draws on the experience of 4-7-year-old Year 1 pupils learning to read and write in English and French for the first time in two Anglophone and two Francophone primary schools in Cameroon. It uses focus groups and individual interviews to elicit pupils’ views about their experience of language learning in and out of the classroom and teachers’ perceptions regarding children’s language use in school. A participant observation approach was useful in following up pupils’ language practice in the playground in the schools studied. While a ban on using Pidgin English permeated English speaking pupils’1 perception of the relevant language to use in school, the teachers’ insistence on the use of the official language contributed to the inhibition of the pupils’ mother tongue and the misconstruction of its value. However, the pupils’ views showed their attachment to these languages due to their using them at home with relatives. While language in education policy seems to be slowly changing, the teachers’ perception of the appropriate language as medium of education remains stuck in the colonial past2. The study thus highlights the divide between home and

1

The use of Pidgin English is prevalent in the English speaking regions of Cameroon and children from English speaking families are more likely to use this language in school than their Francophone peers who may have little or no knowledge of the language, especially in the early years of primary education. 2 Language policy application was however dissimilar in French and British Cameroons. In French Cameroon such policy was largely assimilationist while in

34

Chapter Two

school languages in this particular multilingual socialisation context and problematizes the Cameroon government’s official bilingualism construct.

Introduction Decisions about language use in education are central to the promotion of languages and identity shaping in a given country. In supposedly monolingual countries, linguistic ideology has been instrumental in the promotion of a single standard variety for all in education (McCarty 2005). Even in such contexts, the rhetoric of a unifying medium has been tamed by a discourse of unity in diversity; even though the seeming diversity proclamation is only limited to some languages (May 2004; Jones and Martin-Jones 2004). While linguistic ideology grounded in the notion of “one nation, one language” might justify language essentialism in contexts where “monoglot” ideologies prevail, the notion becomes less relevant in multilingual contexts where each language is a vehicle of ethnic identity. In these settings, reasons accounting for the adoption of a language as a medium of instruction in education may be economic and political rather than motivated by nationalistic ideologies about the value and preservation of languages. However, while language in education policy-making in some multilingual contexts, and especially in Africa, may give precedence to some western languages as the media of instruction in schools over local ones, there are concerns that such policies may be limiting the education potential of many African children as a great number of them could successfully be educated in a language of their sociocultural environment (Alidou 2004; King 1989). The main issue seems to be the perception attached to the value of languages and their global influence to the extent that even countries with nationalistic language in education policies such as Malaysia are trapped in the representation of the Malay language as a language of low epistemic value (Gill 2004, 2005)3. Chinese also apparently plays along the same lines even though the language is gaining considerable global influence and is being taught almost all over the world now. The example of Chinese suggests that the importance of a language is directly linked to the British Cameroons it was accommodative of local languages (see ACNETA 1925; Colonial Office 1927). 3 There is a double-edged sword economic argument in language policy determination in multilingual settings, and Africa in particular, which perceives the practicality of using many languages as the media of instruction in school as problematic, yet represents the option for the adoption of a foreign language as official language as devoid of ideological underpinnings.

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

35

economic and/or political4 influence of the country where it originated5 or is considered as a national language and not necessarily justified by its assumed epistemic superiority over other languages as all languages are capable of mediating thought. Taken from that angle, the question for language planning and the selection of languages as the media of instruction in schools is that of whether to privilege local, regional or global identity and culture and the implications of such privilege. In the context of Cameroon which is the site of this study, a discourse of official bilingualism in English and French has prevailed since the country’s independence in the 1960s. Such discourse has tended to view the promotion of English and French as the media of instruction in schools as an instrument of national integration and a symbol of the country’s unity. Official bilingualism in English and French has thus been pursued fervently in education, the administration and other aspects of national life with little regard to the many other Cameroonian languages, sidelined by language policy-makers. Even with a tardy language in education policy legislation acknowledging the promotion of Cameroonian languages and cultures in schools, the teachers’ attitude towards the pupils’ mother tongue use in school is still that of ostracism, thus consolidating in the pupils’ minds and in theirs the fallacy of language superiority; even though Pidgin English outweighs English and French as a language of everyday communication with over six million speakers nationwide (Todd and Jumbam 1992, 4).

Background In 18th century Europe, language served as a theoretical construct in the formation of nation-states as it was perceived as fundamental to any claims to nationhood (Fichte 1808/1968; Humboldt 1936/1999; Herder 1765-1800/2002). Theoreticians of the language ideological model reified some languages as civilised while denigrating others as barbaric and expounded the need for a single language to promote unity of thought, consciousness and of the nation-state (Mill 1991, chap 16; Michelet 1846, 161; Goody 1975, 2, 1977). The theorisation of language as a construct for nationhood then legitimised the imposition of one language over the others and the sidelining and/or the suppression of these superfluous languages 4

As was the case for Latin. However, while the English language originated from England, its prestige and widespread use today depends on the global influence of the United States as a superpower and not on England which is no longer a global power.

5

36

Chapter Two

for the sake of a common good (Fishman 1968, 1969). Language policy in many countries around the world including those with a history of colonisation has thus been formulated around a monoglot ideology promoting linguistic uniformity (Silverstein 1996; Blommaert 2005; Blommaert et al. 2006; Ricento 2013). However, in a globalisation and mobility context, linguistic essentialism has been problematised in superdiverse environments (Fairclough 2006; Vertovec 2007; Blommaert and Rampton 2011) as has been monolingual policy in the everyday interaction of multilingual classrooms (Leung, Harris and Rampton 1997; Blackledge 2000; Spotti 2011). Research in postcolonial contexts highlights the incongruity of such policy in multilingual educational settings where language practice in school often overlooks the linguistic repertoire that children bring with them to the classroom (Magwa and Mutasa 2007; Moyo 2009). Monolingual policy determination in these contexts also impacts on the countries’ development as it is argued that socialisation in a foreign language in school inhibits developmental knowledge in a language that is not that of the sociocultural environment of learners (King 1989; Alexander 1999; Djité 2008; Qorro 2009; Simango 2009). While the choice of western languages as the media of instruction in many postcolonial contexts could have been justified, among other reasons, by the necessity to relate with the rest of the world, linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988, 2000) has relegated varieties of western languages used in these contexts to the level of indigenisation (Anchimbe 2009; Canagarajah and Said 2011; Kamwangamalu 2013) with speakers outside the inner circle (Kachru 1985, 1990, 1997) trying to accommodate to the standard variety or legitimising the local varieties as languages in their own right (De Feral 1994; Mendo Ze 1999). Against the backdrop of increasing research in mother tongue and community language literacy (Trudell 2004, 2008; Tadadjeu 1975, 1990, 1991), the Cameroon government’s language in education policy shifted to acknowledge the promotion of Cameroonian languages and cultures in schools (see the 1996 Constitution and Law No. 98/004 of 14th April 1998 laying down the guidelines for education in Cameroon). However, policy acknowledgement of the promotion of local languages in school is yet to be followed by an acquisition and status planning (Cooper 1989; Phillipson 2009) that would insert Cameroonian languages in the curriculum and permit their effective teaching in the classroom.

Cameroon language landscape The language map of Cameroon (see Lewis 2009) presents over 250 languages spoken by its equally ethnically diverse population. Linguists

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

37

are not unanimous about the number of languages documented in the country, with (Breton and Fohtung 1991) recording 248 languages while the Ethnologue6 (Gordon 2005) registered 279 and Bitja’a Kody (2003) listed 285. The languages of Cameroon belong to three language families: the Afro-Asiatic, the Nilo-Saharan and the Niger-Congo. Among these languages, Arabic, Kanuri, Fulfulde, Duala, Basaa, Pidgin English, Ewondo, Hausa, Wandala have been described as languages of wider communication or lingua franca (Dieu and Renaud 1983, 20; also see Lewis, Simons and Fennig 2013) and play a functional role in interpersonal communication between people of different linguistic extractions. Languages from the Indo-European language family such as French, English, German, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Japanese and Latin are also present in Cameroon as is Chinese, from the SinoTibetan family. Among the Indo-European languages found in Cameroon, English and French are official languages of the country. Like German, which is now taught as a subject from secondary to tertiary education, English and French are languages inherited from the country’s colonial past. Spanish is also taught from secondary to tertiary education. Latin is a religious language and is taught and used for this purpose in Roman Catholic seminaries and churches. Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese are taught in secondary and high schools in Cameroon (see article 8, paragraph 2 and article 107, paragraph 3 of decree n°2002/004 of 4th of January 2002 organising the Ministry of National Education and article 9, paragraph 2 and article 101 paragraph 1 of decree n°2005/139 of 5th of April 2005 organising the Ministry of Secondary Education). With reference to Chinese, the perception of China as a growing superpower has spurred many Cameroonians to learn the language in order to be able to seize the opportunities that may become available to those who are fluent in Chinese (see also Makoni et al. 2012). The Chinese language is taught up to the primary level in Saint Andre Bilingual School in Douala. Chinese is also taught in the Universities of Maroua, Yaoundé I and II. The Chinese language centre, opened in 1997, was transformed in 2007 into the Confucius Institute based at the University of Yaoundé II which, in conjunction with the University of Maroua, now trains Chinese language teachers (Khan and Baye 2008, 4).7 Arabic is also taught in schools in the three northern regions of Cameroon (Fotso 2007). An overview of Cameroon’s language landscape thus highlights the country’s 6

Figures presented about the number of languages found in Cameroon are held as an inaccurate reflection of the present language situation in Cameroon, given that they sometimes include varieties of the same language as distinct languages. 7 See also: http://english.hanban.org/confuciousinstitutes/node_10903.htm

38

Chapter Two

multilingualism and multiculturalism. However, such stock of linguistic and cultural wealth has been undermined by a language policy that sought to emphasize the use of English and French in education, the administration and the public sphere.

Language policy and language in education policy Since the reunification of both parts of Cameroon under French and British rules at independence in the 1960s, the country has adopted an official bilingualism policy in English and French with the aim of consolidating national unity. The successive constitutions of Cameroon acknowledge these languages as official languages and they are used as such in all sectors of national life. A state official bilingualism policy has thus been pursued with a staggering resolve which has not always guaranteed its effectiveness, especially in education (Biloa 2012; Ngala 2012; Nana 2013a). Of importance in the language policy determination is the constitutional revision of 18th January 1996 which made a significant change in the official language policy. Article 1, paragraph 3 of that Constitution states that: The official languages of the Republic of Cameroon shall be English and French, both languages having the same status. The State shall guarantee the promotion of bilingualism throughout the country. It shall endeavour to protect and promote national [indigenous] languages” (Presidency of the Republic of Cameroon 1996).

Following the revision in the fundamental law about the government’s orientation with regard to language policy, law No. 98/004 of 14th April 1998 laying down the guidelines for education in Cameroon was promulgated by the national assembly. It states in its Part 1, Section 3 of the General Provisions that: “The state shall institute bilingualism at all levels of education as a factor of national unity and integration.” And Section 5(4) defines, inter alia, the objective of education as to “promote national languages” (Presidency of the Republic of Cameroon). The responsibility of the Ministry of Culture is also engaged in the promotion of Cameroonian languages. In part 5, chapter 2, article 25 of decree n° 98/003 of the 8th of January 1998 it is stated that the Ministry of Culture is in charge of “l´étude des strategies de promotion des langues nationales en milieux scolaires et universitaire, et à travers les media”8 (République du 8

The Ministry of Culture is in charge of ‘planning strategies for the promotion of national languages in secondary and tertiary education and in the media.’

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

39

Cameroun 1998). The ministry also has the responsibility of registering organizations and institutions working with national languages and to work in cooperation with other institutions through its “Service des langues nationales” for the promotion of the latter. While it could be said that there is no gainsaying the promotion of Cameroonian languages on state media, (Mimboé Fouda 2000-2001; Tabi Manga 2000, 102-109; Rosendal 2008, 39-40), there is, however, little evidence of such promotion in the educational milieu. Besides, it is argued that the policy for the use of Cameroonian languages on state media lacks consistency (Echu 2003, 12). Also, following the law laying down the guidelines for education in Cameroon, the then Ministry of National Education appeared to lead the way for the introduction of national languages in secondary schools by incorporating “national languages” under the “pedagogic inspectorate” in charge of the teaching of letters, arts and languages. Article 8, paragraph 2 of decree n°2002/004 of 4th of January 2002 organising the Ministry of National Education thus states: Of the General Inspectorate of Pedagogy;9 (2) They are organised as follows: The inspectorate general of pedagogy in charge of the teaching of letters, arts and of foreign languages: French, English, German, Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Portuguese;

At the central level, there seems to be no mention of national languages, however, further perusal of the decree in its article 107, paragraph 3 appears to indicate that the duty of promoting Cameroonian languages is devolved to the provincial (now regional) inspectorate in charge of the teaching of letters, arts and languages. The article thus reads: Article 107 (3) The provincial pedagogic inspectorates are organised as followed:10 The provincial pedagogic inspectorate in charge of the teaching of letters, arts and of languages: French, English, German, Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Portuguese, national languages;

While the insertion of Cameroonian languages within the regional inspectorate in charge of the teaching of letters, arts and languages 9

Original in French, my translation. Original in French, my translation.

10

Chapter Two

40

apparently shows the then Ministry of National Education’s commitment to an effective introduction of these languages in secondary education, the fact that the “langues nationales” are mentioned at the tail end of a series of languages all foreign to the country is telling of the importance of Cameroonian languages in the ministry’s valuation of languages and application of policy for their promotion. In this regard, the lack of inclusion of the “langues nationales” in the enumeration of subjects falling under the general inspectorate in charge of the teaching of letters, arts and languages, which is the central structure setting programmes for these subjects and overseeing their effective teaching in schools through relay inspectorates at the regional, divisional and sub-divisional levels, is symptomatic of the little concern given to Cameroonian languages at the central level by both language practitioners and policymakers. By entrusting the responsibility of introducing Cameroonian languages in schools to the regional inspectorate for the teaching of letters, arts and languages, central educational policymakers appear to see the task of introducing Cameroonian languages in schools as regional, communal and not national.11 Seemingly, this explains the lack of consistency in language policy application with special reference to local languages. Such inconsistency may account for the fact that with the split of the Ministry of National Education into the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education in 2005, there was no longer provision for the teaching of the “langues nationales” under the regional inspectorate for the teaching of the letters, arts and languages. According to article 9, paragraph 2 of decree n°2005/139 of the 25th April 2005 organising the Ministry of Secondary Education, the subjects falling under the general inspectorate of pedagogy in charge of the teaching of letters, arts and languages still included all the subjects mentioned in the decree of January 4th 2002, except the “langues nationales”. Unlike the 2002 decree which mentioned Cameroonian languages at the level of regional inspectorates, article 101 of the decree of 2005 did no more mentioned the “langues nationales.” The article thus stipulates: Article 101 : The provincial inspectorates of pedagogy are organised as follows:12 The provincial inspectorate in charge of foreign languages (French, English, German, Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Portuguese); 11 12

Original in French, my translation. Original in French, my translation.

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

41

Cameroonian languages are no longer mentioned in the pedagogic structure of the Ministry of Secondary Education, neither are they in that of the Ministry of Basic Education (see decree n° 2005/140 of the 25th of April 2005 organising the Ministry of Basic Education). There appears to be a systemic sidelining of Cameroonian languages in a nationist application of language in education policy (Bamgbose 1991, 20), even with the adoption of legislation stressing their promotion in education. The constancy in making Cameroonian languages peripheral in the application of language policy in education consolidates the teachers’ opinion in schools about their value as opposed to that of the two official languages. Besides, many teachers are unaware of language policy orientation regarding the introduction of Cameroonian languages in school and their opinion about the use of the pupils’ mother tongue is illustrative of their ignorance. In a multilingual context like Cameroon, the marginalization of pupils’ mother tongue in schools is presumably detrimental to their learning (UNESCO 1953), especially when international educational organizations such as UNESCO aim at achieving EDUCATION for All by 2015. (Arnold et al. 2007; Brock-Utne and Skattum 2009; Ouane and Glanz 2010, 2011) and research in language acquisition and learning highlights the interdependency of first and second language acquisition/learning processes (Vygotsky 1986, 159-160; Cummins 1979, 222), as well as the relevance of using, at the level of basic education, the languages best known to learners for teaching and learning (Cook 2010; Walter and Benson 2012).

Research in language education Research in second language education in Cameroon has sought to underscore the multilingual nature of the country and advocate the use of Cameroonian languages in education. As early as the 1960s, different language models were suggested by linguists mindful of the linguistic landscape of the country and desirous to see local languages taught in school (Kisob 1963; Ngijol 1964; Bot Ba Njok 1966; Tadadjeu 1975; Todd 1983; Gfeller 2000; Tabi-Manga 2000). The cogency of mother tongue education was already stressed during the colonial period by a UNESCO publication (UNESCO 1953, 11). However, at independence, nationist and other views were put forward to justify the use of English and French as official languages (Fonlon 1964, 1969; Tangwa 1999). Nonetheless, the use of English and French as official languages for the sake of national unity has since left the country in a linguistic ferment as it is argued that national unity in English and French is not representative of

42

Chapter Two

Cameroon’s cultural and linguistic diversity (Essono 1981; Tadadjeu 1981, 1990) and is far from being a true reflection of its people’s language identity (Anchimbe 2008, 2013; Mforteh 2007). In spite of the Cameroon government’s lethargic attitude towards a full implementation of existing laws promoting the teaching of Cameroonian languages in school or adopting more empowering legislation with regard to the use of local languages in education, studies have focused on making Cameroonian languages visible on Cameroon’s linguistic landscape by introducing them in education and preparing teaching material in the mother tongue (Tadadjeu 1991), (Kouega 2011), even though the task of the standardization of Cameroonian languages is still enormous. Research in mother tongue education has also emphasised the right and role of communities in the development of literacy in their languages (Trudell 2004, 2008). Although the importance of Pidgin English as a major lingua franca has been highlighted since the early years of independence, this language has been somewhat marginalised in the advocacy of mother tongue education in Cameroon despite the fact that it has about 6 million speakers (Todd and Jumbam 1992, 4). This marginalisation is apparently consequential to Cameroonians’ perceptions about the language which is deemed to be inferior with low social prestige (Alobwede Epie 1998; Kouaga 2008; Ngefac 2012)13. The negative attitude associated with the use of Pidgin English stems from the fact that ‘Kamtok’14 is described as broken English, with some studies defining it as a basilectal variety of English (Mbassi-Manga 1973; Ubanako 2008). Nonetheless, the view of Pidgin English as a “bricolage language” has been challenged by researchers seeking to countenance its system as independent, rulegoverned and having a lexico-morphological and syntactic structure that is different from English (Ngome 1982; Menang 2008; Ngefac 2009), thus the call for its recognition as a language in its own right and its teaching in school (Todd 1983; Schröder 2003; Atechi 20011). Seemingly, the difference between official and local languages lies in their status, with local languages not being legally and functionally empowered to the same standing as official languages (Adegbija 1994; Anchimbe 2006; Ngefac 13 Another opinion holds it that while the mother tongue is considered an affective language and valued as such, higher regard should continue to be attached to English and French and other foreign languages as they are instrumental on the global market place. This perception appears to undermine the alienative affects associated with the use of a language other than the mother tongue for education (see Levy et al. 2007). 14 This is a coinage referring to Cameroon Pidgin English.

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

43

2011) and thus missing out on their developmental potential (Neba et al. 2006). While local language politics idealise English and French as opposed to other languages in the Cameroonian context, language ideology at the global level tends to view Cameroonian English and French as varieties of the RP15 (Received Pronunciation) or Standard English and Île-de- France French faced with a creolization process (Anchimbe 2009; Kamwangamalu 2013). That is perhaps why students from the outer circle countries seeking to pursue their studies in the inner circle countries (Kachru 1985, 1990, 1997) are subject to the torment of still proving their proficiency in the English language even though, for some, this language has been the one spoken at home and learnt in school from the primary to the tertiary level (Khan 2009). The perception is that the purity and sanctity of English has been defiled, desecrated by a tongue that has not been originally trained to the apertures and contours of English pronunciation (Bourdieu 1977, 661; Guiraud 1965). This perception is made relevant locally in everyday interaction in schools when the pupils’ mother tongue is derided by teachers with a rather biased view about its value (Obondo 2007; Apuge 2008; Nana 2010) in a globalisation context where multilingualism is presented as a resource (García et al. 2006; García 2009, 384) and where translanguaging in educational settings calls for a paradigm shift in teachers’ monoglot language ideology and ushers in a novel pedagogy in language education (Bernstein 1975, 260, 2000; Cadiero-Kaplan and Billing 2008; Ngomo 2011; Spotti 2011).

Ethnography and interviews in schools with pupils and their teachers I undertook a participant observation of two Anglophone and two Francophone schools between September 2008 and March 2009. One of the schools, called Madubon16 is located in Buea, the capital of one of the two mainly English speaking regions of the country and is an Anglophone school. The other three schools are found in Douala, the economic capital of Cameroon and a mainly French speaking area. One of these schools is 15

RP is also used as an abbreviation to refer to région parisienne and symbolically to the French spoken there. English Received Pronunciation is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as ‘the standard accent of English as spoken in the south of England’ (Concise Oxford Dictionary 1999, xiv). 16 For privacy and confidentiality reasons, participants and schools’ names have been altered in this study’s report.

44

Chapter Two

named Massanabo 1 and is a Francophone school while the other two, labelled Ribenabo 1 and Ribenabo 2, are two distinct Anglophone and Francophone schools forming a bilingual school in the same enclosure and sharing the same playground. My choice of sample was dictated by theoretical issues (Bernstein 2000; Schieffelin and Ochs 1986; Vygotsky 1986) regarding the language socialization and learning of young children and by practical considerations with reference to access and the potential to learn as much as possible about each case. The selection of schools in Buea and Douala was determined by the goals set up in my study, mainly how education in two linguistically different locations permeates the pupils’ perception of themselves as language learners and speakers. The catchment area also influenced pupils in the schools studied with regard to their perceptions of the school’s institutional language and their understanding of the appropriate language to be taught or used in their schools. In all four schools, I conducted group and individual interviews with 186 Year 1 pupils which were tape-recorded. Individual interviews were also held and taped with 4 Year 1 teachers and 3 headteachers. The use of focus groups was necessary for the respondents’ triangulation and they also served as a means of generating general perspectives on the issues investigated, with the aim of conducting further in-depth investigation with 16 pupils in oneto one interviews. Thus, using group interviews provided more detailed accounts of events, interactions and personal experience of learning in the school language or being exposed to many languages at the same time in a multilingual language socialisation and learning context. The cohort of 186 Year 1 pupils in all four schools appeared to be large enough (Morgan 1988) to provide general views about the experience of learning in English and French and using other Cameroonian languages, and to permit the selection of pupils for individual interviews based on their performance in the group discussion. In each class, sampling for group interviews was convenient (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990, 53) and mostly sought to facilitate communication flow in the group. In this respect, though the sampling was randomised, friendship ties were often involved in the constitution of groups. Groups were made up of 5-7 pupils selected from the classroom sitting arrangement with no major consideration for equal gender representation. Having this number of pupils in a group made it easier for the interviewer to manage the group in terms of turns of talk and allowed participants enough time to express their views regarding their experience of language socialisation in school. A reduced number of participants in a group interview also means less lengthy interviews. With fewer participants in a group, time control is

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

45

facilitated across groups and the task of transcription made less laborious. With regard to the number of groups appropriate for a study, Morgan (1988 42) suggests that there should be a good number of them as investigating one group may be synonymous to observing just that group’s dynamics and nothing more. Pupils were all asked the same questions which elicited their experience of learning in English/French. Interviews with pupils were conducted under the teacher’s watch either in class or in the classroom’s corridor from 8:30 am to 2:30 pm. After group interviews, one-to-one interviews were conducted with each of the 16 pupils, 4 in each school, chosen from the 186 initially interviewed. The selection for one-to-one interviewing was dictated by their performance in the group interviews (and not by gender balance concerns, although, incidentally, the participants’ gender representation for individual interviews appeared balanced); these suggested that they were more able to provide detailed quality data regarding their experience of language socialization in school. Two girls and two boys were selected for individual interviews in each of the schools. In comparison to their peers, their choice was based on their ability to understand and provide intelligible answers to the questions put to them in French, English or even Pidgin English, as they had an acceptable degree of fluency in those languages. All the interviews were semi-structured in order to ensure that similar questions were addressed, but also to allow the interviewees the space to give their individual views and experiences. Interviews with Year 1 teachers and the headteachers took place in the classrooms and headteachers’ offices respectively and explored issues related to observed classroom language practices, their approach to socialising pupils to the use of English and French in school, their understanding of language policy, school culture, discipline and their perceptions about the introduction of Cameroonian languages and national culture in school. There were, however, a few problems with the group interviews. The first issue was that extroverts in the group tended to monopolize or override the views of introverts to the extent that the latter, feeling that their opinion was not valuable, preferred to keep quiet; this was the case when some talkative pupils, usually boys, were part of a group. Although groups were formed at random, it often happened that two friends found themselves in the same group and, instead of listening and providing answers to the questions put to them, they most of the time tended to discuss between themselves. By doing so, they disrupted the flow of the interview as the interviewer constantly had to call for order. Shyness did

46

Chapter Two

not only result from talkative pupils’ attempts to override the turn of talk of their peers. While it could also be perceived as a trait of personality, shyness in most instances was to be understood as an inability to speak in English. Some pupils were not yet able to meaningfully express themselves in the school language. Also, subjecting the pupils to interviewing, an experience they were certainly undertaking for the first time, could have been at the origin of their shyness. Nonetheless, on starting each interview, I always tried as much as possible to create a friendly atmosphere where they could feel comfortable and free to speak. Shyness among pupils was mostly prevalent in Madubon 2, a rural school, where a great number of children prior to their first experience of schooling were socialised at home in their mother tongue or in Pidgin English. In order to avoid ‘response bias’ that could ensue for instance from using a language in which the interviewees did not feel very confident, I resorted to the use of Pidgin English with such children and this allowed them to provide elaborate answers about their experience of socialisation in the school language and into the other languages to which they were exposed. Labov (1984: 40) states that “it is not uncommon for interviewers to make partial phonetic shifts towards a local dialect; as long as this is not so extreme as to be seen as an imitation of that dialect, it will be accepted as a symbolic entry into the local value system.” In the case of Pidgin English, it was a shared dialect between the interviewees and the interviewer and no perceived accommodation attempts could result from the researcher’s use of Pidgin English that could have indicated that he was not very fluent in the latter. However, the idea that Pidgin English should not be used in school impacted on the pupils’ perception of the appropriate language to be used in a formal situation and, in the case of the interviews, between the pupils and the researcher viewed as a teacher even though the researcher’s frequent switch to Pidgin English signalled a liberty to use the latter. Another setback with group interviewing is that some participants’ answers may have an influence over other group members’ opinion in what I termed the “parrot or chorus effect”. Attention has been given to this by Myers (2004). I always underscored, on starting each interview, that pupils should give their own answer rather than echoing that of someone else. The pervasive noise from the classroom was another issue when conducting interviews. Working against a backdrop of classroom activities, I realised that the noise was sometimes so intrusive that I could not continue with the recordings. On such instances, I sought permission from teachers to continue doing the interviews in the veranda in front of the class, under their close watch, in compliance with the Child Protection

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

47

Act requesting a third party interacting with pupils in school to do so in the presence of their teacher. The intensity of the noise was thus reduced and this solution even turned out to be rewarding as the pupils’ attention, initially shared in the classroom between the interviewer’s voice and that of the teacher, was much more focused on the interview. This relaxed and less formal environment, as opposed to the classroom, where children could play and tease each other, had the advantage of making even shy children feel at ease to speak, although sometimes talking about issues unrelated to the interview (also see Labov 1984). During individual interviews, pupils were more confident in expressing their views and there was less disruption. While girls instantaneously answered questions, boys sometimes requested that questions be repeated to them. Their attention was at times directed towards some other happenings taking place in class. The girls’ spontaneity in answering questions in individual interviews voided personal assumption held during group interviewing that their shyness could, in addition to their inability to be articulate in the school language, be caused by the fact that a male figure was interviewing 4-7year-old girls and the perceived authority and respect associated with such a figure by both girls and boys, especially in an African school context. Being conscious of the perceived gender and authority assumption I sought, at the start of each interview, to be friendly, by asking pupils to call me “uncle”17 rather than “sir” as they did when I started observing in each classroom. My use of Pidgin English, which was not welcome by teachers in all the schools, also contributed in reducing the gender and authority gap and making my interaction friendlier with the pupils. My being fluent in English, French and Pidgin English was useful for the study as I was able to interview pupils in all three languages. By using participant observation as an enquiry approach to capture the intricacy of the phenomenon, it was possible for me to map the participants’ language use in the classroom and across the school as my movements were not limited to the classroom environment. Following the pupils’ language practice during break and at other instances during the school day enabled me to construct an “eco-ethnography” of the school linguistic environment through notes and the documentation of notices and written documents (such as the school’s rules and regulations) in school about learning, discipline and language use that added to classroom observed practice and data from interviews. Specific conventions for 17

In Africa, children are not taught to address adults by their first name and asking pupils to call me by my first name could have presumably made my rapport with them complex rather than easier. ‘Uncle’ is a commonly used term to address adults with whom children may be more or less familiar.

48

Chapter Two

representing various features of spoken discourse were used when transcribing the interview data (Ochs 1979). In the case of this study, conventional punctuation marks have been used to aid readability. Where pupils’ responses were unclear on the tape during transcription, I transcribed the meaning as best I could. For instance, during an interview with pupils, to the question “why do you come to school?” A Madubon 2 School pupil gave the answer “I come pikini”. The word “pikini” was neither English nor Pidgin English, even though it sounded like “picnic”. Attempts to have the pupil explain further what he meant were unfruitful. His peers could not understand what he meant by “pikini” either. Unable to make sense out of the pupil’s pronunciation of “pikini” after listening to it three times, I deemed that it was unintelligible and ignored it. I did this because I did not need a detailed linguistic transcript as I was not looking at language use at the micro level, but at respondents’ explanations and representations of experience. I also translated into English18 interview data in French from the two Francophone schools of Massanabo 1 and Ribenabo 2. Data were thematically analysed. It became evident through observing the participants’ interaction and language use in school and carrying out interviews with them, that there was a divide between the use of the school language in school and other languages that the pupils spoke. This opposition, engendered by the schools’ rule about the use of languages on their premises and the teachers’ perception about the negative influence of the pupils’ mother tongue and Pidgin English on their learning of the school language, tended to construe the pupils’ home languages as unimportant, with teachers referring to the many languages that pupils bring with them from home to the classroom as a handicap for communication, as upheld by the Ribenabo 1 Year 1 teacher: “first of all, they are many19 of them and you cannot learn all those languages, so I don’t really see the importance of the languages in school” (interview with the Year 1 teacher of Ribenabo 1, 29/01/2009). By making the pupils’ home languages peripheral in the 18 This raised some methodological issues related to the translation of literary and cultural knowledge from one language to another that cannot be discussed here because of lack of space. 19 The argument about the pupils’ home language being too many ties in with the pre-independence one regarding unity of language and unity of territory (see Djité 1990). However, the prioritization of school language learning and the stigmata associated with the use of the mother tongue could lead to a phenomenon known as “first language attrition” in pupils’ experience of language socialization in school, with the internalization of such experience potentially inhibiting the use of their mother tongue by the pupils (see Levy et al. 2007).

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

49

school environment, the school also contributed to making them peripheral in their mind as shall be exemplified by interview data below.

Data report Data about school discourse on learning and language use are examined in this section and highlight an institutionalized ostracism of the pupils’ mother tongue through a ban on its use in school. The pupils’ mother tongue and Pidgin English20 were thus perceived as detrimental to their learning of the school language. Rule number five of Madubon II school’s rules and regulations for instance stipulates that pupils, “should speak only good English/French and not Pidgin” (observation, Madubon II, Wednesday, 01/10/08, highlighted in red for English/French and Pidgin in original). While Madubon 2 school’s rules and regulations for the pupils made official this institutional language divide, the ban on the use of Pidgin English and the pupils’ mother tongue in school in the other Anglophone institution and the two Francophone schools was implicit and mostly consisted of the teachers’ strict instruction to the pupils not to speak these languages (see interviews with the Year 1 teacher of Ribenabo 1, 29/01/2009, where she points out that “Pidgin is strictly forbidden in school” and with the Year 1 teacher of Massanabo 1, 11/11/2008, who does not encourage mother tongue use in school). The teachers believed that the pupils’ mother tongue and Pidgin English negatively impacted on their learning of the school language and shunning these languages, and in particular Pidgin English, was to purposefully “help them to speak the English that is being taught in school and to use it well” (interview with Madubon 2 headteacher, 07/10/2008). English is thus viewed as a language vested with some utilitarian value as pupils “read and learn in English and as they continue school in the future when they are working, they are using it in their offices” (interview with Ribenabo 1 Year 1 teacher, 29/01/2009). This argument relates with the one put forth by the various colonial administrations of Cameroon who mostly perceived education as a means of equipping a local elite with the necessary linguistic skills to enable them to carry out auxiliary administrative duties in their respective languages (Atangana 1996; Hardy 1917; Mbala Owono 1986; Robinson 1996). The argument also ties in with the preindependence elite’s perception about the value of local and western languages, especially with regard to the utilitarian value of these languages 20 Pidgin English actually stands as a mother tongue for many children in the two Anglophone regions of Cameroon (see Alobwede 1998; Neba et al. 2006).

50

Chapter Two

and their potential as languages of global influence (Fonlon 1969; Tangwa 1999). It appears, however, to be in opposition to the British colonial administration’s language in education policy that allowed the teaching of local languages in the early years of primary education (DeLancey and DeLancey 2000; Robinson 1996) and mostly fits in with the French colonial rule’s policy of banishing local languages from schools. In the two French schools studied, the practice of prohibiting the use of the pupils’ mother tongue in school was still in force. In these schools, just as in their two Anglophone counterparts, the teachers believed that the use of the pupils’ mother tongue in school was likely to inhibit their learning of French. Referring to mother tongue use in school, a Massanabo 1 Year 1 teacher stressed that “I do not encourage that because it limits their learning of French” (interview with Massanabo 121 Year 1 teacher, 11/11/2008). The teachers’ discourse about Pidgin English and the pupils’ mother tongue influencing their learning of the school language apparently contributed to the development of a perception by the pupils that speaking these languages put them to shame. Pupils like Praise of Madubon II were afraid to use their country talk22 in school during break time “because they will laugh at me” (Group interviews with Year 1 pupils of Madubon 2, 02/10/2008). Johnson, her peer of Ribenabo 1, would not use Pidgin English during break time because if he did “my friends will run from me because I am speaking Pidgin” (individual interview with Johnson, a Ribenabo 1 Year 1 pupil, 29/01/2009). The sentiment of guilt felt by Praise and Johnson in speaking Pidgin English in school was consequential to the ban placed on the use of this language and its representation as an undesirable language by the school. Nonetheless, Praise felt no shame using this language with her parents and siblings at home; nor did Marceline, Joel, Marie, Essombe and many other of her peers in the other three schools researched (see individual interview conducted with Praise, a Madubon 2 School Year 1 pupil, 4/10/2008, group interview conducted with Year 1 pupils of Massanabo 1 School, 6/11/2008 and individual interview conducted with Essombe, a Ribenabo 2 School Year 1 pupil, 09/12/2008). The sentiment of derision associated with the use of the mother tongue has been documented among educated Cameroonians (Kouega 2008) who mostly have the official languages (English and French) as their languages of predilection (Mpoche 2012). This highlights the role of the school as a state’s ideological apparatus in 21

Interviews with pupils and their teachers in Massanabo 1 and Ribenabo 2 schools were in French and have been translated into English. 22 Country talk refers to the mother tongue.

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

51

the training of an elite that conforms to the establishment. Such an elite is seemingly refractory to change, including change in language policy and practice in education. The sentiment of guilt emerging from the pupils’ views regarding the use of their mother tongue is reminiscent of the opposition of notions such as “civilised” and “savage”, “dialect” and “language” during the colonial era (Calvet 1979). While such oppositions had as an underlying motive the fostering of colonialist ideology (Hardy 1917, 6), it appears however surprising that with independence and the adoption of legislation promoting diversity in language in education policy (see the Cameroon Constitution of 1996 and the education orientation law of 1998) and development in curriculum accommodating both Cameroonian cultures and cultures inherited from colonisation, the teachers’ perception about the use of Cameroonian languages in school is still that of exclusion. Clearly, at a time when legislation at a continental level calls for the introduction of African languages in school (see the OAU Language Plan of Action) and when even in Britain and France the discourse on language in education policy has long been that of diversity and the revitalisation of minority languages backed by EU legislation (see the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages adopted by the Council of Europe in 1992), in Cameroon, a policy shift is yet to be followed by a paradigm shift in the teachers’ conception of the role and value of the pupils’ mother tongue in scaffolding their learning of the school language (UNESCO 1953, 11). The role of the mother tongue has been described as fundamental in pupils’ learning, mostly in their learning of a second language (Vygotsky 1986, 159-160; Cummins 1979, 222), and the use of this language in and out of school is their inalienable right (see UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights adopted in 1996). While in the rules and regulations for the pupils from Madubon 2 School mentioned above the use of English and French in that school is presented as unproblematic, observation and data from the bilingual school of Ribenabo however suggest that the cohabitation of both languages on the same premises was likely to generate language ideology relating to a community of speakers and a shared culture. Pupils like Bernard of the Anglophone Section of the bilingual school thought that English should not be taught in the Francophone Section “because they are not English people” (individual interview with Bernard, a Ribenabo 1 pupil, 29/01/2009). Likewise, Flaubert of the Francophone Section did not see any use in teaching French to pupils of the Anglophone Section because “English is good for them” (group interview with Ribenabo 2 pupils, 04/12/2008). The language ideological divide between English

52

Chapter Two

and French in schools in Cameroon has been discussed elsewhere (see Nana 2013b; 2013c). The divide mostly relates to the education systems inherited from the country’s colonial past and is highlighted in the postcolony by claims about Anglophone and Francophone identities that tend to undermine the government’s policy of official bilingualism and problematize Cameroon as a multilingual and multicultural country. However, beyond local ideologies about languages in the context of Cameroon, imperialist ideology about a hierarchy of languages and their conceptualisation potential has been deconstructed as all languages are valuable and capable of mediating thought.

Conclusion: Linguistic imperialism and the deconstructing of language ideology The processes by which languages have been reified have been researched by Makoni and Pennycook and Irvine and Gal (Makoni and Pennycook 2007; Irvine and Gal 2000). During the colonial era such reification was made possible through the writings of missionaries, colonial administrators and other travel adventurers who produced a simplistic description of a rather complex linguistic situation where western languages were raised to the status of superior languages (Errington 2001). In the context of globalisation and diversity, linguistic ideology has shifted to the politics of immigration and recognition (Blackledge 2005; Leeman 2004; Nobles 2000; Rodríguez 2000; Shohamy 2006) or the discourses of global/local and first/second languages and the underlying implications in terms of value laden perception attached to language categorisation. (Pennycook 1998) suggests that such perception is prevalent because languages such as English are still laden with colonial meanings. These meanings are being perpetuated in schools in the former colonies where western languages are still being viewed as languages of “great tradition” and of “major cultural importance” (Fishman 1972, 193) with a supposed epistemological superiority over national languages (Hardy 1917; Atangana 1996; Alexander 2000). This perception has been equated by (Esch 2010)23 to epistemic injustice. In particular, King (1989) 23 The concept of epistemic injustice was developed in the field of analytical philosophy by Miranda Fricker in her book entitled: Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007). In this book, Fricker perceives epistemic injustice as a powerful and mostly silent dimension of discrimination. She describes two aspects of epistemic injustice: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. Esch (2010) extended the concept of epistemic injustice to language education to illustrate the experience of

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

53

upholds that the sidelining of African languages in education is detrimental for the development of many African countries as western languages cannot operate as the vehicle for development information. In the context of linguistic human rights, (Phillipson 2003) refers to dominant western languages both in Africa and elsewhere as “killer languages”. In the context of Africa, Batibo (2005, 22) also extends this ascription to dominant African languages which he identifies as endangering, to a varying extent, minority languages. While the rhetoric of official language and language of instruction in the context of Cameroon may account for the reification of the school language and the maintenance of the pupils’ mother tongue in the periphery (Blommaert 1999; Blommaert et al. 2006), it has been however remarked that […] for the teacher’s culture to become part and parcel of the child’s world, the child’s culture shall first be part and parcel of the teacher’s world. Perhaps, in order for this to happen, the teacher would be required to understand the child’s talk rather than derisively trying to change it.24 (Bernstein 1975, 260)

This underlines the role of the teacher as the language ideology agent of the schooling institution which, in the context of Cameroon, has the agenda of promoting English and French and the cultures mediated by these languages. There is therefore need of a paradigmatic shift in teachers’ perception of the value of Cameroonian languages for the implementation of policy promoting these languages to be effective. The training of teachers of national languages and cultures by the Department of National Languages and Cultures of the National Higher Teacher Training College of Yaoundé (see ) appears to be the move that will bring about such epistemic revolution.

References Advisory Committee on Native Education in Tropical Africa (ACNETA), 1925, 2. Adegbija, E. 1994. Language attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A sociolinguistic overview. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. multilingual Cameroonian teachers and their pupils using English and French as media of instruction in school. 24 My translation.

54

Chapter Two

Alexander, N. 1999. “English Unassailable but Unattainable: The Dilemma of Language Policy in South African Education.” Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the International Federation for the Teaching of English, University of Warwick, England, UK, 710 July 1999. —. 2000. Language policy and planning in South Africa: some insights. Cape Town: Buchu Books. Alidou, H. 2004. “Medium of instruction policies in postcolonial Africa.” In Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? ed. J. Tollefson and A. Tsui, 195-214. Mahweh NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Alobwede, C. 1998. “Banning Pidgin English in Cameroon.” English Today 14(1), 54-60. Anchimbe, E. 2006. “Socio-pragmatic Constraints to Native or Indigenous Language Education in Cameroon.” In Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. O. Arasanyin and M. Pemberton, 133-141. Somerville MA: Cascadilla. —. E. 2008. “Multilingual backgrounds and the identity issue in Cameroon. Annual Review of Basque Linguistics and Philology 39(2), 33-48. —. E. 2009. “Local or International Standards: Indigenized Varieties of English at the Crossroads.” In English as an International Language Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, ed. F. Sharifian, 271-286. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. —. E. 2013. Language Policy and Identity Construction: The Dynamics of Cameroon’s Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Apuge, M. 2008. “Language Conflict and Pedagogic Implications in Cameroon.” Language, Literature and Education in Multicultural Societies: Collaborative Research on Africa, ed. K. Harrow and K. Mpoche, 110-120. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Arnold, C., K. Bartlett, S. Gowani and R. Merali 2007. Is everybody ready? Readiness, transition and continuity: Reflections and moving forward. Working Paper 41. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation. Atangana, E. 1996. Cent ans d’education scolaire au Cameroun : Reflexion sur la nature, les moyens et les objectifs de l’entreprise (1885 a nos jours). Paris: L’Harmattan. Atechi, S. 2011. “Pidgin English in Cameroon: To teach or not to teach.” International Journal of Language Studies 5(1), 17-30. Bamgbose, A. 1991. Language and the Nation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

55

—. 2004. “Language of instruction policy and practice in Africa.” Dakar: Regional Office for Education in Africa UNESCO. Retrieved April 2013. Batibo, H. 2005. Language decline and death in Africa: Causes, consequences and Challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bernstein, B. 1975. Langage et classes sociales: codes sociolinguistiques et contrôle social. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. —. 2000. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Biloa, E. 2012. “Bilinguisme official au Cameroun: Facteur d’integration nationale ou de fragmentation?” In Cinquante ans de bilinguisme officiel au Cameroun (1961-2011): État des lieux, enjeux et perspectives/ Fifty Years of Official Language Bilingualism in Cameroon (19612011): Situation, Stakes and Perspectives, ed. G. Echu and A.Ebongue, 119-134. Paris: L’Harmattan. Bitja’a Kody, Z. 2003. Annuaire des langues du Cameroun. Yaoundé: CERDOTOLA. Blackledge, A. 2000. “Monolingual ideologies in multilingual states: Language, hegemony and social justice in Western liberal democracies.” Estudios de Sociolingüística 1(2), 25-45. —. 2005. Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World. London: John Benjamins. Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1999. Language Ideological Debates. The Hague: Walter de Gruyter. Blommaert, J., L. Creve and E. Willaert. 2006. “On being declared illiterate: Language-ideological disqualification in Dutch classes for immigrants in Belgium.” Language &Communication 26(1), 34-54. Blommaert, J. and B. Rampton. 2011. “Language and Superdiversity: A position paper.” Diversities 13(2), 1-21. Bourdieu, P. 1977. “The economics of linguistic exchanges.” Social Science Information 16(6), 645-668. Bot Ba Njok, H. 1966. “Le problème linguistique au Cameroun.” L’Afrique et l’Asie 73, 3–13. Breton, R. and B. Fohtung. 1991. Atlas administratif des langues nationales du Cameroun. Yaounde/Paris: CERDOTOLA/CREA – ACCT. Brock-Utne, B. 2001. “Education for all-in whose language?” Oxford Review of Education 27(1),115-134.

56

Chapter Two

Brock-Utne, B. and I. Skattum. 2009. Languages and Education in Africa a comparative and transdisciplinary analysis. Oxford: Symposium Books. Cadiero-Kaplan, K. and E. Billings. 2008. “Developing Socio-Political Active Teachers: A Model for Teacher Professional Development.” Forum on Public Policy Online 1, 1-28. Calvet, L-J. 1979. Linguistique et colonialisme, petit traité de glottophagië, 2e edition. Paris: Petite Bibliothèque Payot. Canagarajah S. and S. Said 2011. “Linguistic Imperialism.” In The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. J. Simpson, 388-400. London: Routledge. Colonial Office. 1927. “The place of the vernacular in native education.” African No. 1110: 10-11. London: HMSO. Cook, V. 2010. “The Relationship between First and Second Language Learning Revisited.” In The Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition, ed. E. Macaro, 137-157. London: Continuum. Cooper, R. 1989. Language planning and social change. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. 1979. “Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children.” Review of Educational Research 49(2), 222-251. De Feral, C. 1994. “Appropriation du français dans le sud du Cameroun.” Langue française 104, 37-48. DeLancey, M., and M. D. DeLancey. 2000. Historical dictionary of the Republic of Cameroon. Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press. Dieu, M. and P. Renaud. 1983. Atlas Linguistique du Cameroun (ALCAM). Paris/Yaounde: ACCT, CERDOTOLA-DGRST. Djite, P. 2008. The sociolinguistics of development in Africa. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. —. 1990. “Les langues africaines dans la nouvelle francophonie.”, Language Problems and Language Planning 14(1), 20-32. Echu, G. 2002. “Multilingualism as a Resource: the Lexical Appropriation of Cameroon Indigenous Languages by English and French.” Trans: Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 13. . —. 2003. “Coping with Multilinguism: Trends in the Evolution of Language policy in Cameroon.” PhiN 25: 31-46. Retrieved 28 April 2013 from www.fu-berlin.de/phin/phin25/p25t2.htm. Esch E. 2010. “Epistemic Injustice and the Power to Define: Interviewing Cameroonian Primary School Teachers about Language Education.” In

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

57

Discourses of Deficit, ed. C. Candlin and J. Crichton, 235-255. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. —. 2012. “English and French pedagogic cultures: convergence and divergence in Cameroonian primary school teachers’ discourse.” Comparative Education 48(3), 303-321. Errington, J. 2001. “Colonial linguistics.” Annual Review of Anthropology 30, 19–39. Essono, J-M. 1981. “De l’enseignement des langues nationales dans le secondaire: Les problèmes d’organisation.” In L’Enseignement des Langues au Cameroun/Language Education in Cameroon, ed. M. Tadadjeu, 104-118. Yaoundé: University of Yaoundé. Fairclough, N. 2006. Language and Globalization. London: Routledge. Fichte, J. G. [1808]1968. Thirteenth Address, Addresses to the Gerrnan Nation. New York: Harper Torch Books. Fishman, J. 1972. Language in Sociocultural Change. Stanford: Stanford University Press. —. 1968. “Nationality-Nationalism and Nation-Nationism.” In Language Problems of Developing Nations, ed. J. Fishman, C. Ferguson and J. Das Gupta, 39-51. New York: John Wiley and Sons. —. 1969. “National languages and languages of wider communication in the developing nations.” Anthropological Linguistics 11(4), 111-135. Fonlon, B. 1964. “A case for early bilingualism in Cameroon.” Abbia 4(15), 56-94. —. 1969. “The Language Problem in Cameroon: A Historical Perspective.” Comparative Education 5(1), 25-49. Fotso, G. 2007. L’enseignement de l’arabe au Cameroun: Enjeux sociaux et politiques. Paris: L’Harmattan. García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden MA: Wiley/Blackwell. García, O., T, Stutnabb-Kangas and M. Tores-Guzmán. 2006. Imagining Multilingual Schools. Languages in Education and Globalization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gfeller, E. 2000. La société et l’école face au multilingualisme: Intégration du trilinguisme intensif dans les programmes scolaires au Cameroon. Paris: Karthala. Gill, S. 2004. “Medium of instruction policy in higher education in Malaysia: nationalism versus internationalization.” In Medium of instruction policies Which agenda? Whose agenda? ed. J. Tollefson and A. Tsui, 135-152. Mahweh NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. —. “Language policy in Malaysia: Reversing direction.” Language Policy 4(3), 241-260

58

Chapter Two

Goody, J. 1975. Literacy in Traditional Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1977. The Domestication of The Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, R. 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas: SIL International. Guiraud, P. 1965. Le français populaire. Paris: PUF. Hardy, G. 1917. Une conquête morale: l’enseignement en A.O.F. Paris: A. Colin. Herder, J. Gottfried von. [1836] 1999. Herder: Philosophical Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1765-1800/2002. Humboldt, W. von [1836] 1999. On Language: On the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of human species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Irvine J. and S Gal. 2000. “Language ideology and linguistic differentiation.” In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, ed. P. Kroskrity, 35-83. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press. Jones, D. and M. Martin-Jones. 2004. “Bilingual education and language revitalization in Wales: past achievements and current issues.” In Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? ed. J. Tollefson and A. Tsui, 43-70. Mahweh NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kachru, B. 1985. “Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle.” In English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, ed. R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson, 11-30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. “World Englishes and Applied linguistics.” World Englishes 9(1), 3-20 Kachru, B. 1997. “World Englishes and English-using communities.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 17, 66-8. Kamwangamalu, N. 2013. “English in language policies in Africa: challenges and prospects for vernacularization.” In The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. R. Bayley, R. Cameron and C. Lucas, 545-562. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Khan, S. 2009. “Imperialism of International Tests: An EIL Perspective.” In English as an International Language Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, ed. F. Sharifian, 190-205. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Khan S. and F. Baye. 2008. China-Africa Economic Relations: The Case of Cameroon. Nairobi: African Economic Research Consortium.

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

59

King, K. 1989. “Primary schooling and developmental Knowledge in Africa.” Studies in Science Education 17(1), 29-56. Kisob, J. 1963. “A live language: ‘Pidgin English.’” Abbia 1, 25-32. Kouega, J-P. 2008. “Minority language use in Cameroon and educated indigenes’ attitude to their languages.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 189, 85–113. —. 2011. “Non-official Languages in Secondary School Education in Cameroon: Attitudes and Prospects.” Sino-US English Teaching 8(5): 285-296 Labov, W. 1984. “Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation.” In Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics, ed. J. Baugh and J. Sherzer, 28-53. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. Leeman J. 2004. “Racializing language: A history of linguistic ideologies in the US Census.” Journal of Language and Politics 3 (3): 507- 534 Leung, C., R. Harris and B. Rampton. 1997. “The Idealised Native Speaker. Reified Ethnicities, and Classroom Realities.” TESOL Quarterly 31(3), 543-560. Levy, B., N. McVeigh, A. Marful and M. Anderson. 2007. “Inhibiting your native language: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting during second-language acquisition.” Psychological Science 18(1), 29-34. Lewis, M. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, sixteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. available at http://www.ethnologue.com/country/CM/maps Lewis, M., G. Simons and C. Fennig. 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Magwa, W. and D. Mutasa. 2007. “Language and Development: Perspectives from Sub-Saharan Africa.” NAWA: Journal of Language & Communication 1(1), 57-68. Makoni, S. and A. Pennycook. 2007. Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S., B. Makoni, A. Abdelhay and P. Mashiri 2012. “Colonial and post-colonial language policies in Africa: historical and emerging landscapes.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, ed. B. Spolsky, 523-543. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May, S. 2004. “Medium of instruction policies in New Zealand.” In Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? ed. J. Tollefson and A. Tsui, 21-41. Mahweh NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mbala Owono, R. 1986. L’Ecole coloniale au Cameroun: approche historico-sociologique. Yaoundé: Editions de l’Imprimerie Nationale.

60

Chapter Two

Mbassi-Manga, F. 1973. “English in Cameroon: A Study of Historical Contacts, Patterns of Usage and Current Trends.” University of Leeds, PhD thesis. McCarty, T. 2005. Language, Literacy, and Power in Schooling. London: Routledge. Menang, T. 2004. “Cameroon Pidgin English (Kamtok): phonology.” In A Handbook of Varieties of English A Multimedia Reference Tool. Volume 1: Phonology. Volume 2: Morphology and Syntax, ed. B. Kortmann and E. Schneider, 902-917. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mendo Ze, G. 1999. Le français, langue africaine: enjeux et atouts pour la francophonie. Paris: Publisud. Mforteh, A. 2007. “In search of new identities in multilingual Cameroon.” In Linguistic Identity in Postcolonial Multilingual Spaces, ed. E. Anchimbe, 87-101. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Michelet, J. 1846. The People. New York: D. Appleton. Mill, J. S. 1991. On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mimboé Fouda, M. 2000-2001. “Les émissions en langues nationales à la CRTV: Le cas de Bebela Ebug.” Ecole Française des Attachés de Presse EFAP, Paris, MA thesis. Morgan, D. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park CA: Sage. Moyo, T. 2009. “Linguistic Diversity and Development: the Language Question and Social Justice in Southern Africa.” Forum on Public Policy Online 1, 1-9. Mpoche, K. 2012. “The Sociolinguistics of Language Education: Contextualising Language Policy and Language Education in Cameroon.” In The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts, ed. E. Esch and M. Solly, 95-122. Bern: Peter Lang. Myers, G. 2004. Matters of Opinion: Talking about Public Issues. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Nana, G. 2010. Language Related-Issues on Beginning Primary School in Cameroon: Researching Adults’ Recollections of Their Experiences of the Home-School Divide. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. —. 2013a. “Official bilingualism and field narratives: Does school practice echo policy discourse?” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16(1), 64-99. —. 2013b. Children, Their Schools and What They Learn on Beginning Primary School: English and French Educational Legacies in

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

61

Anglophone and Francophone Schools in Cameroon. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. —. 2013c. ‘“This is no French school’, language and education traditions in primary schooling in Cameroon: A comparative perspective.” Research in Comparative and International Education 8(4), 468-509. Neba, A., E. Fogwe Chibaka and G. Atindogbe. 2006. “Cameroon Pidgin English (CPE) as a Tool for Empowerment and National Development.” African Study Monographs 27(2), 39-61. Ngala, B. 2012. “Ecole et politique linguistique au Cameroun aujourd’hui : le cas du programme d’éducation bilingue spécial.” In Cinquante ans de bilinguisme officiel au Cameroun (1961-2011): État des lieux, enjeux et perspectives/Fifty Years of Official Language Bilingualism in Cameroon (1961-2011) : Situation, Stakes and Perspectives, ed. G. Echu and A. Ebongue, 268-284. Paris: L’Harmattan. Ngefac, A. 2009. “Towards a re-definition of Cameroon Pidgin.” Iranian Journal of Language Studies 3(3), 345-358. —. 2011. “Globalising a local language and localising a global language: the case of Kamtok and English in Cameroon.” English Today 27(1), 16-21. —. 2012. “From skin colour mutilation to tongue rejection: Cameroonians’ attitudes towards their local tongues.” In Cinquante ans de bilinguisme officiel au Cameroun (1961-2011): État des lieux, enjeux et perspectives/Fifty Years of Official Language Bilingualism in Cameroon (1961-2011): Situation, Stakes and Perspectives, ed. G. Echu and A. Ebongue, 163-180. Paris: L’Harmattan. Ngijol, P. 1964. “Nécessité d’une langue nationale.” Abbia 7, 83–99. Ngome, M. 1982. “Cameroon Pidgin English Vocabulary: A LexicoSemantic Study.” University of Yaoundé, PhD thesis. Ngomo, P. 2011. “Exploring New Pedagogical Approaches in the Context of Multilingual Cameroon.” In Language policy for the multilingual classroom: Pedagogy of the possible, ed. C. Hélot and M. ÓLaoire, 128-145. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nobles, M. Shades of Citizenship. 2000. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Obondo, M. 2007. “Tensions between English and mother tongue teaching in post-colonial Africa.” In International Handbook of English Language Teaching, ed. J. Cummins and C. Davidson, 37-50. Berlin: Heidelberg: Springer.

62

Chapter Two

Ochs, E. 1979. “Transcription as theory.” In Developmental Pragmatics, edited by E.Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin, 43-72. New York: Academic Press. Ouane, A. and C. Glanz. 2010. Why and how Africa should invest in African languages and multilingual education: An evidence- and practice based policy and advocacy brief. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. —. 2011. Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor. A Review and Analysis of Theory and Practice in Mother-Tongue and Bilingual Education in sub-Saharan Africa. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, the Association for the Development of Education in Africa and the African Development Bank. Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. 2003. English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge. —. 2009. “Language Policy and Linguistic Imperialism.” In An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, ed. T. Ricento, 346-361. Oxford: Blackwell. Presidency of the Republic of Cameroon. 1996. “Law No. 96-06 of 48 January 1996 to amend the 1972 Constitution of 2 June 1972.” Journal Officiel de la République du Cameroun (Official Gazette of the Republic of Cameroon). Yaounde: Presidency. Qorro, M. 2009. “Mother-Tongue Education in Africa for Emancipation and Development: Towards the intellectualisation of African Languages.” In Languages and Education in Africa: a comparative and transdisciplinary analysis, ed. B. Brock-Utne and I. Skattum, 5782. Oxford: Symposium Books. République du Cameroun. 1998a. “Décret No 98/003 du 8 janvier 1988 portant organisation du Ministère de la Culture.” Cameroon Tribune, no 6517 of 13 January 1998. —. 1998b. “Law No 98/004 of 14 April 1998 to lay down guidelines for education in Cameroon.” Cameroon Tribune, no 2869 of 17 April 1998. —. 2002. “Décret No 2002/004 du 4 janvier 2002 portant organisation du Ministère de l´Education Nationale.” Online version retrieved on 08/04/2013 from: Site officiel des Services du Premier Ministre. Le Portail du Gouvernement.

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

63

—. 2005a. “Décret n° 2005/140 du 25 avril 2005 portant organisation du Ministère de l’Education de Base.” Available at: . Accessed on 08/04/2013. —. 2005b. “Décret n°2005/139 DU 25 avril 2005 Portant organisation du Ministère des Enseignements Secondaires.” . Accessed on 08/04/2013. Ricento, T. 2013. “Language Policy, ideology, and attitudes in Englishdominant countries.” In The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. R. Bayley, R. Cameron and C. Lucas, 525-544. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robinson, C. 1996. Language Use in Rural Development: An African Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rodríguez, C. 2000. Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States. New York: New York University Press. Rosendal, T. 2008. Multilingual Cameroon Policy, Practice, Problems and Solutions. Gothenburg Africana Informal Series – No 7, Department of Oriental and African languages, University of Gothenburg. Schieffelin, B. and E. Ochs. 1986. “Language Socialization”, Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 163-191. Schröder, A. 2003. Status, functions, and prospects of Pidgin English: an empirical approach to language dynamics in Cameroon. Berlin: Gunter Narr Verlag. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London, Routledge. Silverstein, M. 1996. “Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardisation and metaphors of linguistic hegemony.” In The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology, ed. D. Brenneis and R. Macauley, 284-306. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Simango, S. 2009. “Weaning Africa from Europe: Toward a MotherTongue Education Policy in Southern Africa.” In Languages and Education in Africa: a comparative and transdisciplinary analysis, ed. B. Brock-Utne and I. Skattum, 201-212. Oxford: Symposium Books.

64

Chapter Two

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 1988. “Multilingualism and the education of minority children.” In Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle, ed. T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Cummins, 9-44. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. —. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education, or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? London: Routledge. Spotti, M. 2011. “Modernist language ideologies, indexicalities and identities: Looking at the multilingual classroom through a postFishmanian lens.” In Applied Linguistics Review, ed. Li Wei, 29-50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stewart, D. and P. Shamdasani. 1990. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. London: Sage. Tabi-Manga, J. 2000. Les politiques linguistiques du Cameroun: Essai d’aménagement linguistique. Paris: Editions Karthala. Tadadjeu, M. 1975. “Language Planning in Cameroon: Towards a Trilingual Education System.” Patterns in Language, Culture and Society: Sub-Saharan Africa, Colombus, Ohio State University. Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 53–75. —. 1981. L’Enseignement des Langues au Cameroun/Language Education in Cameroon. Yaoundé: University of Yaoundé. —. 1990. Le Defí de Babel au Cameroun. Yaoundé: University of Yaoundé. —. 1991. Training manual for the teaching of national languages in primary schools. Yaounde: Collection PROPELCA. Tangwa, G. 1999 “Colonialism and linguistic dilemmas in Africa: Cameroon as a paradigm.” Quest XIII (1-2), 03-17. Todd, Loreto. 1983. “Language Options for Education in a Multilingual Society: Cameroon.” In Language Planning and Language Education, ed. C. Kennedy, 160–171. London: George Allen and Unwin. Todd, L., and M. Jumbam. 1992. “Kamtok: Anatomy of a Pidgin.” English Today 8(2) 3-11. Trudell, B. 2004. “The power of the local: education choices and language maintenance among the Bafut, Kom and Nso’ communities of Northwest Cameroon.” University of Edinburgh, PhD thesis. —. 2008. “Language, Literacy and Equality: minority language communities in the Cameroon.’ In The Changing Landscape of Education in Africa: Quality, Equality and Democracy, ed. D. Johnson, 137-160. Oxford: Symposium Books. Ubanako, V. 2008. “Varieties of Cameroon English: Sources, forms and characteristics.” University of Yaoundé I, PhD thesis.

Learning to Read and Write in Primary School in Cameroon

65

UNESCO 1953. The Use of vernacular languages in education. Monograph on fundamental education VIII. Paris: Unesco. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000028/002897EB.pdf Vertovec, S. 2007. “Super-diversity and its implications.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6),1024-1054. Vygotsky, L. 1986. Language and Thought. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Walter, S. and C. Benson 2012. “Language policy and medium of instruction in formal education.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, ed. B. Spolsky, 278-300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CHAPTER THREE PROBLEMATIZING MONOLINGUAL IDENTITIES AND COMPETENCE IN GUANGZHOU IN THE ERA OF MULTILINGUALISM AND SUPERDIVERSITY SIHUA LIANG

This chapter argues that traditional notions such as monolingual identity and monolingual competence can no longer describe the lived experience of residents in the gigantic urban center of Guangzhou, Southern China. Not only are an increasing number of Chinese dialects1 spoken by the residents due to waves of internal migration, but these dialectal resources also reshuffle and interact as speakers creatively use their repertoires when moving around and across borders. The sociolinguistic situation in Guangzhou is part of a larger trend worldwide, which has been conceptualized as superdiversity (Vertovec 2007; Blommaert and Rampton 2011) – the diversification of diversity – concerning people's immigration histories, socio-economic status, social networks (Milroy 1987), sociolinguistic histories, and what such superdiversity means for their ethnolinguistic identities, language socialization (Kulick and Schieffelin 2007) experience, and educational needs. Research on these sociolinguistic issues related to superdiversity is emerging and a number of studies can be found in other settings (Blommaert and Backus 2011; Rampton 2011, 2006; Li Wei 2011b; 1

The debate on whether the numerous linguistic varieties of “Chinese” are regional dialects or independent languages remains open and laden with ideologies. The positions on this not only affect the choice of terminology, such as between multidialectalism and multilingualism, but also in many ways affect the interpretation of the data. I would argue that in an ethnographic study, it is necessary to adopt the participants’ terminology (i.e. dialect) but use it in a critical way to bridge emic meaning and etic theorizing.

68

Chapter Three

Lotherington 2003), but the setting of China is seriously under-researched. Furthermore, the overwhelming spread of Putonghua (also known as Mandarin, the official and standardized variety of Chinese) due to ideological and institutional support has had great impact on the vitality of the dialects, which adds to the complexity of the language situation. The current study aims to fill this gap by critically describing and analyzing the case of a multidialectal Chinese city, Guangzhou, based on data collected through an exploratory ethnographic study. The research questions are as follows: 1. How do ethnolinguistic identities in the context of superdiversity differ from traditional ones? How do participants discursively construct such identities? 2. What challenges do these ethnolinguistic identities and discursive practices pose for language education in the era of multilingualism and superdiversity?

In order to answer the questions, the current paper uses data from a one-year linguistic ethnography on the language attitudes and identities in the multilingual/multidialectal city of Guangzhou (Liang 2013). To help the readers understand the rationale of the data collection and analysis procedure, I will first introduce the sociolinguistic context of Guangzhou before proceeding to discuss the research methodology. Guangzhou is a gigantic urban center in Southern China, in the close vicinity of Hong Kong, and is also known as Canton. It is traditionally considered as a stronghold for Cantonese, which is a prestigious Chinese regional dialect with a long history, written tradition and millions of speakers at home and abroad. However, the sociolinguistic profile of the city has been significantly changed by the unprecedented internal migration, rapid urbanization and systematic Putonghua (Mandarin) promotion language policy during the past decades (Zhou and Sun 2004, 15). As a leading economic power in the country, Guangzhou is among the top destinations for in-migration from other parts of the country (Zhang 2003). Despite the institutional inhibition of the Hukou system (Ren et al. 1996; Chan 2009) – a household register system for controlling population mobility and access to resources2 – the resident population of Guangzhou has soared from nearly 5.3 million at the end of 1983 (Guangzhou Bureau of Statistics 1984) to just over 12.7 million at the end of 2010 (Guangzhou Bureau of Statistics 2011), thus has more than doubled in less than 30 2

Some even argue that the Hukou system in China divides people into castes with vastly different privileges and inhibitions (Mackenzie 2002).

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

69

years. 99.49 per cent of the population in 1983 belonged to the category of “Hukou population”, which, at that time, was essentially the same as “the local3 population”. In 2010, this figure dropped significantly to 62.52 per cent, which means the growth of the immigrant population in Guangzhou is much faster than that of the “local population”, and currently at least 37.48 per cent of the population in Guangzhou are relatively recent immigrants. The new city center is most affected by the immigration with the population growing 158 per cent from 1990 to 2000 (Liao, Wu and Zheng 2001). It is currently the new financial and commercial center of the city, and also where one of the schools, the Grand-Estate School, is located. The other school, the Sandwood School, lies in the manufacturing-based inner suburban area, where the immigrant population has also grown significantly. The Sandwood Township is home to several active traditional close-knit communities with long settlement histories, or what would be termed by anthropologists as lineage villages (Freedman 1966). The two school communities together provide a wide spectrum of cultural, institutional and individual differences in terms of ethnolinguistic profiles, language attitudes, language ideologies and language socialization experience, which is important for an exploratory study. The main ethnographic study was done from 2009 to 2010 in these two communities, but I have also kept in contact with them since. The overall changes in the language-use patterns in Guangzhou have been partially documented in language-attitude research over the last three decades (Kalmar, Zhong, and Xiao 1987; Miao and Li 2006; Tang 2006; Zhou 2001). These studies often use the social cognitive model of attitude that views language attitudes as relatively stable dispositions to act favorably or unfavorably towards language or other language-related attitudinal objects (Baker 1992; Garrett 2010). Surveys and experiments are the dominant research designs (Giles and Billings 2004; Garrett, Coupland, and Williams 2003), especially speaker evaluation studies based on the Matched-Guise Technique (Lambert et al. 1960). The findings indicate that the language situation has changed from Cantonese monodialectalism (or Cantonese-dominant multidialectalism) to multidialectalism with more or less functional differentiation among Putonghua, Cantonese and other regional dialects. However, careful comparison across the studies shows that findings on language attitudes towards Putonghua and Cantonese in Guangzhou are far from conclusive (Liang 2013). Age group, locality (area of the city), ethnolinguistic background, group membership, and socio-economic status all seem to 3

I will touch on the meaning of “local” in the next section.

70

Chapter Three

interact with language attitudes, but are only superficially touched on due to methodological limitations. The changing, ambiguous status of Cantonese is often taken for granted as an explanation of the findings rather than an object of investigation. The emerging superdiversity is usually glossed over in a background information paragraph like the one above, or forced into predetermined “migration status” categories for statistical tests. How the changing sociolinguistic conditions, namely the circumstances of language and ethnic superdiversity, is constructing people's everyday language practice, ethnolinguistic identity and attitudes is rarely investigated in detail. Under the circumstances of superdiversity, the meaning of questions such as “where are you from” and “what is your mother tongue/first language” becomes very ambiguous. The questions themselves should be questioned and discussed rather than presented as unproblematic survey questions. “Societies now face fundamental challenges of knowledge: knowing who is who, what we are and what it is we do” (Blommaert and Backus 2011, 4). Linguistic ethnography (Creese and Blackledge 2010a; Rampton 2007) which combines the sensibility of ethnography and the analytic toolkit of sociolinguistics, is well placed to meet the challenges. I adopt the discursive psychology (Potter 2003) definition of attitude as discursively constructed evaluative practice in situated communication. Language is not treated as the transparent reflex of meanings, but as constitutive of the meanings, contexts, relationships and subjectivities. Therefore, the analysis of the data goes beyond what is said, and looks at the conversational and interactional structures (Auer 1998; Gumperz 2008), language ideology (Woolard 1998), and the ethnographic, social, historical bearings (Ivanov 1999; Ochs and Schieffelin 2011). The data come from multiple sources, including one-year sustained participant observation in and out of the classroom, interviews with teachers, students and parents, focus group discussions and the collection of documentary materials. The original study is focused on the school setting, while the current chapter is interested in the broader picture. I ask what the changes in the language situation of the city mean for its residents, particularly concerning the transmission of the languages/dialects. School is seen as a key site of language contacts embedded in the overall changing situation of the city, where language learning takes center stage. In the first section, I will illustrate the sociolinguistic situation in Guangzhou by analyzing a newspaper title and the related news on language loss and maintenance among immigrant children in Guangzhou. Then I will proceed to the

Probleematizing Monoolingual Identitiies and Compettence in Guanzh hou

71

discussion oof emerging new and hy ybrid ethnolinnguistic identtities and finally the chhallenges for language education based oon interview data. d

T The sociolin nguistic situ uation in G Guanzhou: uncerrtainties an nd ambiguitties People who pay cllose attention n to the staatus of Canttonese in Guangzhou will remembeer a piece of news n in the G Guangzhou Da aily at the end of 20088 (He 2008). While there had been sim milar news beefore, this news receivved great attenntion and seem med to mark th the beginning of an era when issuees of multilingualism in Guangzhou became reg gular and sensitive toppics in the pubblic arena. No ot only the coontent of the news n (see Figure 1) bbut the discuursive constru uction of thee actual new ws text is sociolinguisstically significant (see Tablle 1). Figure 1 Maain title in bolld: Many Guaangzhou kids ccannot speak Cantonese. C Smaller subtitle underneath: XLZ Primary School designaates one day eacch week to be the “Canntonese Day” in order to eliminate e “Canntonese illiteraacy”. It is advocated thhat the studennts should not speak more than twenty Putonghua P sentences on that day.

There arre several ideational aspectts in the new ws title that we need to attend to. F Firstly, the draamatic effect intended by the main titlle “Many Guangzhou kids cannot speak s Cantoneese” hinges onn the presump ption that “all Guangzzhou kids shouuld be able to speak Cantonnese, the nativ ve tongue of the city””. The fact that this new ws caused grreat sensation n reveals considerablee identificationn with or debaates over suchh a presumptio on among the general ppublic. It raises two series of questions: (1) what doees it mean by “Guangzzhou kids”? Those T who weere born in Guuangzhou? Th hose who were living in Guangzhhou? Those whose w familiees are consideered “the native of G Guangzhou”?? (2) what does it meaan by “cann not speak Cantonese”?? Does it meean that a ceertain (vague)) category off children cannot speaak any Cantoonese? Or doees it mean thhat they cann not speak Cantonese too a certain sattisfactory stan ndard? These ttwo series of questions illustrate thhe dilemma I mentioned earlier, thatt linguistic identities, i membershipp and linguisttic competencce in the eraa of superdiveersity are

72

Chapter Three

fundamentally problematized. The meanings of “mother tongue” and “native speaker” are so vague and variable that they are rarely useful for describing the lived experiences, which have long been critiqued by linguists (Rampton 1990; Singh 2006; Gupta 1994). People have various means to define their identities and membership, and particularly the younger generation often discursively rejects an absolutist one-on-one connection between an ethnolinguistic identity and competence in a single linguistic variety. They discursively construct variable and situated ethnolinguistic identities with the semiotic resources in their multilingual repertoires. Participants in the study used a wide range of ad hoc categories or discursive strategies to construct their multiple and flexible identities, and problematized the traditional expectation for them to speak like ideal monolingual native speakers (Liang 2013). Similar phenomena have also been documented in studies in other multilingual settings (Blommaert and Rampton 2011; Li Wei and Zhu Hua 2010; Rampton 1995; Bokhorst-Heng and Caleon 2009). The second notable ideational aspect in the title has to do with language policy. The Chinese government has been consistently promoting Putonghua as the official and common spoken language for the Han Chinese 4 population in the country (Zhou and Sun 2004; Lam 2008). While Chinese regional dialects are not definitively banned from school according to written national regulations, Putonghua is the only officially sanctioned school language. The language environment imagined by the national language policy is a Putonghua-monolingual one. Therefore, the school must walk a thin line if it publicly encourages students to use Cantonese at school and to keep the use of Putonghua to the minimum – as implied by the subtitle of the news. As can be expected, this generated heated debates on whether or not it is necessary, possible or legitimate for school to take an active role in protecting regional dialect. Five months later when I visited the school and enquired about the “Cantonese Day” activity, the head teacher completely denied it and said it would be against national laws to hold such an activity. Such contradictions precisely illustrate how sensitive the issue is. Furthermore, the reporter of the news ventured the term “Cantonese illiteracy”, which again presumes there can be literacy in Cantonese. In a context where students are not taught to read or write in Cantonese (although it was once widely used as the medium of instruction), it is no small wonder “Cantonese literacy” is talked about in the press media. 4 The non-Han Chinese ethnicities are known as minority nationalities. The language policies concerning them are different from those concerning the Han Chinese ethnicity (Zhou 2006, 2005).

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

73

While the reporter may only have had oral proficiency in mind, the form of the main title happened to embody the kind of comprehensive literacy a reader in Guangzhou needs to fully understand the story. The main title of the news is not written in Standard Modern Chinese (SMC) (see Table 1), which is the only variety of written language taught in school. Ĺ and ĺ in the table are distinctively Cantonese structures which do not exist in written SMC, and therefore they immediately identify the title as written in Cantonese. ķ and Ļ are grammatically possible in written SMC but stylistically inappropriate, and therefore are replaced by synonyms in the SMC translation. ļ exists both in Cantonese and SMC but refers to totally different things due to historical and cultural factors. “ ⲭ 䈍 ( ᮷ )”, which literally means “plain speech (literary language)”, refers to the vernacular written language based on the Northern (Mandarin) dialects, which replaced Classical Chinese as the official written language in the earlier twentieth century, and later became the prototype of written SMC. It is a rather technical term and generally not used in everyday life. In the academia, it is romanized as Baihua according to Hanyu Pinyin, the official phonetic annotation system used in Mainland China. In the Cantonese-speaking context, however, “ⲭ䈍” is habitually used by Cantonese speakers for referring to all varieties of Cantonese, that is, Yue dialects in general. It can be romanized as Baakwaa, according to Jyutping, the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Cantonese Romanization Scheme. This semantic difference should be understood against the background that in Cantonese-speaking regions, spoken and written Cantonese were the “low” varieties vis-à-vis the “high” variety of Classical Chinese in the Chinese diglossia (Ferguson 1959/2007) before the twentieth century. Cantonese, therefore, is the everyday “plain speech/literary language” for them. The reason why the superimposed meaning of “ⲭ䈍” has not been “accepted” by the Cantonese, or why other regional dialect speakers did not keep the habit of referring to their dialects as “ⲭ䈍”, is a curious case. Based on such differences, I propose that Baakwaa should be used to represent “ⲭ䈍” when the participants mean “Cantonese”, whether or not they actually say it in Cantonese or Putonghua. In my main ethnographic study (Liang 2013), a frequency count across over 40 hours of interviews reveals that the term Baakwaa was adopted by all categories of participants, regardless of their places of origin or whether they can understand or speak Cantonese. While the non-Cantonese participants (for want of a better descriptor) use the terms “Guangzhou Speech” and Baakwaa at roughly the same frequency, the Cantonese participants are three times more likely to use the term Baakwaa instead of “Guangzhou

Chapter Three

Original Cantonese Romanization In SMC SMC Romanization (pinyin) In English ĸᒯᐎ gwong jau ᒯᐎ guang zhou Guangzhou

ķྭཊ hou do

ᖸཊ hen duo

Many

kid

ሿᆙ xiao hai

Ĺ㓶䐟 sai lou

Table 1 Translation and romanization of the main title

74

don’t know

нՊ bu hui

ĺୄ䇶 m sik

speak

䈤 shuo

Ļ䇢 gong

Cantonese

㋔䈝 yue yu

ļⲭ䈍 Baakwaa

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

75

speech”. These figures indicate that the reference to “Cantonese” as Baakwaa is understood and widely used in the context of Guangzhou among all residents, while the Cantonese speakers are much more likely to use it actively. Now if we reconsider the titles of the news, we can see that this short piece of text is loaded with sociolinguistic, historical and ideological complexities. Issues concerning citizenship, linguistic identities and language maintenance would most certainly (and they did) cause heated debates. However, it is also likely that its linguistic complexity would pass without raising an eyebrow among the readers of the newspaper. This is because what is innovative to the analytical and sociolinguistic eye is often conventional and effortlessly done in ordinary language users’ lives (Blommaert and Rampton 2011). What is required for constructing and understanding such a news title is not merely the knowledge of both SMC and Cantonese separately. Rather, it requires the ability to simultaneously manipulate semiotic resources that are traditionally regarded as belonging to different discrete linguistic varieties, as one organic, coherent system. This is more or less what Li Wei (2011b) names as multicompetence, Kramsch (2006) as symbolic competence, and Blommaert (2010) as (heteroglossic, truncated) repertoires. I would argue that the prevalence and lack of recognition of such types of competence is exactly the challenge that our language education is now facing and failing to respond to in the era of superdiversity. This will be discussed in the third section. It is to the issue of identities in superdiversity that we now turn in the following section.

Problematizing monolingual norms about language identities The “problems” caused by superdiversity became concrete when I tried to force monolingual identity labels on the participants for “methodological convenience” and found it impossible in some cases. I believe such “inconveniences” happen much more frequently than they are acknowledged in writing, because the long-standing beliefs that there are “discrete languages” and “bounded membership” lead researchers to suppress “orderly heterogeneity” (Milroy 2001), often without being aware of what they are doing. Two typical cases that raise the flag in the main study come from the Grand-Estate School in the new city center, where first and second generation immigrant students significantly outnumber the “local” students. Forty-six per cent of the students in the class claimed Putonghua to be their first dialect, and thus a notable group of “native Putonghua

76

Chapter Three

speakers” emerged (Liang 2013). The phenomenon is sociolinguistically significant because Putonghua as a constructed standard language is not supposed to have native speakers, let alone the problematic definition of “native speaker”. The Putonghua spoken by this group of children does not resemble any existing dialects in the Mandarin dialect group5 (the base dialect of Putonghua). It is a variety of the standard language, not its base dialect. It has emerged as a result of “regional dialect leveling” (Britain 2010) in Guangzhou where there are extensive language contacts between different dialect speakers, and Putonghua has increasingly become the common language. The two cases are a ten-year-old Luo (girl) and a Hong (boy), whose fathers are brothers and from the city of Maoming, Guangdong Province (of which Guangzhou is the provincial capital). It is a small city where several varieties of the Cantonese, Hakka and Teochew dialects 6 are spoken. Migration into the city since the 1970s mainly originates from other Cantonese, Hakka or Teochew dialectal areas, and the common language for interdialectal communication remains a local variety of Cantonese (Maoming 2008). Luo’s mother is also from Maoming and shares the same dialect with Luo’s father, a variety of Cantonese. Luo gave none of this information in her interview. She was not sure where her parents were from and what their first dialects were. She moved to the city of Shenzhen when she was very young and grew up there until she moved again to Guangzhou in 2009. The city of Shenzhen is adjacent to Hong Kong and close to Guangzhou. It is the first special economic zone in China since ‘the Reform and Opening Up’ began in the late 1970s. Since then it has attracted an even greater influx of migrants than Guangzhou has. The percentage of immigrants without a local Hukou at the end of 2001 was 71.86%, which is why it is often known as ‘a city with no locals’ 5

Debatably, the Chinese language family may be divided into seven or eight dialect groups, which in turn are made up of hundreds of mutually unintelligible dialects (Yan 2006). The Mandarin Dialect group or the Northern Dialect group is by far the largest group in terms of area and population. The other dialect groups are also collectively called the Southern Dialects. “Cantonese” refers to the standard variety/varieties of the Yue Dialect group spoken in and around Guangzhou and Hong Kong. However, as the notion of “standard” is vague and problematic among the Yue dialects, in most sociolinguistic research, the term “Cantonese” often serves as an umbrella term for most varieties within the Yue dialect group. 6 Hakka (Kejia) dialects are one of the seven/eight major dialect groups. Teochew (Chaozhou) dialects belong to the Min or South Min Dialect group. Cantonese, Hakka and Teochew dialects are the three main groups of dialects in Guangdong province.

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

77

(Miao and Li 2006). The dominant language in Shenzhen is undoubtedly Putonghua. Luo’s home language is, as expected, Putonghua, and she identified Putonghua as her first dialect. In the interview, I asked about her regional identity after asking about her parents, effectively suggesting that she could make her own decision. The following two conversations (Excerpt 1 and 2) are both in Putonghua (Liang is my surname). Table 2 Excerpt 1: I don't know where am I from. 1 2

ằ 㖇

3 4

ằ 㖇

1 2

Liang Luo

3 4

Liang Luo

䛓֐ᱟଚ䟼Ӫ୺˛ ᡁ୺ˈᱟˈ૾ˈᡁн⸕䚃ᡁᱟଚ䟼ӪDŽഐѪᡁˈഐѪ ᡁᖸሿቡࡠҶ␡ൣDŽᡁҏн⸕䚃ᡁࡠଚˈᡁᱟˈᡁᱟ ଚ䟼ӪDŽ 䛓࡛Ӫ䰞֐֐ᘾѸഎㆄ˛ ᡁнഎㆄDŽ So where are you from? Me? I am…er…I don’t know where I am from. Because I, because I came to Shenzhen when I was very young. I don’t know where I…I am…where I am from. So how do you answer when others ask you? I don’t answer.

Luo seemed to think that constant relocation was the reason why she could not decide her place of origin – not growing up in her birthplace, and not staying in a place long enough to make it home. It is typical of what Walker (2011) notes in the context of New Zealand that the multiple identities of young migrants can be as enriching as dislocating, and in some cases lead to a sense of “neither here or there”. Luo knew very little about her parents’ hometown, although it is also in Guangdong province. Neither could she give an example of the dialect spoken by her parents or name the dialect. She said she would refuse to answer questions on regional identity. However, as the interview went on, it became clear that her refusal was not simply because she did not know the answer. Rather, she might be aware that her answers did not match existing social norms about the relationship between dialect, hometown and ethnolinguistic membership.

Chapter Three

78

Table 3 Excerpt 2: All are Waidi (out-of-town) people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

㖇 ằ 㖇 ằ 㖇 ằ 㖇 ằ 㖇 ằ 㖇 ằ 㖇

1

Luo

2 3

Liang Luo

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Liang Luo Liang Luo Liang Luo Liang Luo Liang Luo

␡ൣ୺ˈ⧟ຳᖸྭ୺ˈ❦ਾӪ৸ቁˈ❦ਾ䛓䗩… 䛓䗩Ӫቁ˛ ᱟ୺ˈ␡ൣˈ␡ൣᖸቁӪⲴDŽ㘼ф‫ޘ‬䜘䜭ᱟཆൠⲴ (㿱㝊⌘7)DŽ ‫ޘ‬䜭ᱟཆൠⲴDŽ ୺ˈ❦ਾ⧟ຳᖸྭDŽ ␡ൣᴹᵜൠӪੇ˛ ⋑ᴹˈ⋑ᴹᖸཊDŽ ቡᱟDŽ ᡰԕ䈤‫ۿ‬ᡁ䘎ⲭ䈍䜭нՊ䈤ҶోDŽ ӰѸਛ␡ൣᵜൠӪ‫˛ݸ‬ ੳˈቡᱟˈ⋑ᴹᒯьⲴ䛓⿽ˈ‫ޘ‬䜘ᱟཆൠⲴDŽ 䛓֐㇇ཆൠੇ˛ ᡁˈᡁн⸕䚃DŽ Shenzhen? The environment is very good, and plus there aren’t a lot of people, and then there… There aren’t a lot of people? Sure, Shenzhen, there are few people in Shenzhen. Moreover, all are Waidi7 (“out-of-town”). All are Waidi. Yep, and then the environment is very good. Are there Bendi (“local”) people in Shenzhen? No, not many. I thought so. That’s why I even cannot speak Baakwaa, you see. Hold on, what do you mean by Shenzhen Bendi (“local”) people? Er…that is…there aren’t those from Guangdong…all are Waidi. Then do you count as a Waidi (person)? Me, I don’t know.

In turn 3, Luo mentioned that the vast majority in Shenzhen are nonlocal people, which is in line with the common perception of Shenzhen mentioned earlier. In turn 9, however, she suddenly attributed her lack of 7

Waidi (“out-of-town”) and Bendi (“local person”) are examples of expressions that are so ideologically laden and extremely variable in their localized meanings that it would be misleading to simply translate them into existing English expressions. The ways that the participants used the two expressions is closely related to the purpose of the study, and therefore the original expressions are kept in the English translation and I asked them to explain when they used the terms.

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

79

Cantonese competence to the lack of local (Bendi) people in Shenzhen. It was two and a half minutes into the interview and we had not touched upon any language issues explicitly before this. It almost seemed to come out of nowhere. When examined closely, this causal relationship implies two premises. One is that the Bendi people in Shenzhen speak Cantonese, so that the lack of Bendi people means the lack of a Cantonese learning environment, which is why Luo did not learn it. The other is that she knew she was somehow expected to be able to speak Cantonese, so that she would need to explain herself if she could not. Does this mean she aligned herself with the Bendi people in Shenzhen? Thus, I asked the question in turn 10: who are the locals? These identity questions are all difficult questions for her as we can clearly see her hesitation in both excerpt 1 and 2. For a city that almost did not “exist” before the massive immigration of the past three decades, it makes very little sense to say who are the “true” local people. The cultural identity of modern Shenzhen citizens perhaps has little to do with “localness”. Putonghua, the lingua franca in Shenzhen, which is a national standard variety, cannot offer the sense of “localness” – the sense of place and belonging – either. Growing up with Putonghua as her first dialect, she could not claim a local identity (Shenzhen identity) that is traditionally available through speaking the dialect of that locality. Cantonese, which seems to be a key to the rare “Bendi”/local identity, is not readily accessible to Luo. In fact, unlike what she claimed, Luo can understand most Cantonese conversations and can speak some Cantonese as well. What she meant by “I cannot speak Baakwaa” (turn 9) is probably that she cannot speak Cantonese like a stereotypical “local” person, an idealized (monolingual) native Cantonese speaker. In turn 11, Luo’s tentative definition of the local identity is rather broad – anyone from the province of Guangdong, not just the city of Shenzhen. By this standard, she was without doubt eligible since her parents are from Guangdong and she was born and grew up there as well. However, she surprised me again in turn 13 by saying that she was not sure. It is of course possible that she had not quite come round to her own logic, but it also means that the issue of identity categorization is especially complicated here. After all, she may have realized that being local according to traditional norms is not just about place but also about language. Compared with Luo’s ambiguous description of her regional identity, her cousin Hong did not hesitate to say that he is “of course” from Maoming, where his father comes from, even though his mother is from another province. He was also very assertive about his Cantonese competence, asking to be graded at the highest level in a language proficiency survey. He occasionally spoke Cantonese in the class so that

80

Chapter Three

he was a ‘well-known’ Cantonese speaker, while very few people knew that Luo could speak Cantonese at all. Comparing the two cousins who have very similar migration and schooling experience, the main disparities seem to be gender, Cantonese competence and potential differences in language socialization experience at home. It is not clear how these different factors relate to their different positions in claiming ethnolinguistic identities, but it is clear that the senses of belonging and localness are, after all, constructions. Hong’s constructions more closely correspond to existing social norms: speaking the regional dialect of the regional identity that he claims. However, the case of Luo shows that it is just one of the possible constructions. Many other “native Putonghua speakers” face the same situation as Luo: the existing norms about the connection between regional dialects and local identities do not match their lived experiences. They speak a supralocal “dialect” as their first dialect and find it unhelpful for identifying with local identities based on monolingual competence norms. In the main study (Liang 2013), I find that these “native Putonghua speakers” were able to discursively construct a “safe space” (Li Wei 2011b) where they openly problematized and rejected being defined by such monolingual identities. However, it is also clear from what they and their parents said that they are well aware of the pressure from such norms in ordinary situations. In addition, it should be made clear that the “native Putonghua speakers” or the immigrants are not the only ones affected by the mismatch between linguistic superdiversity and the monolingual identity norms. Superdiversity transforms the linguistic experience of everyone. Assertive as Hong was about his Cantonese competence, he was challenged by other “more native” Cantonese students in the class when making the claim. In turn, those students’ parents were generally not satisfied with their children’s Cantonese competence. This reminds us of the news title in the last section: many children in Guangzhou are considered not to be able to speak Cantonese up to a certain standard nowadays. What is often ignored is that children living in superdiversity are often in contact with multiple linguistic varieties under various circumstances. They learn and unlearn repertoires from “different languages”, which are biographically given and indexical. If we judge such “truncated repertoires” (Blommaert and Backus 2011) by the traditional monolingual standard, many students would appear as inadequate in all the languages they know. They become inadequate members of all the “ethnolinguistic communities” they wish to belong to as much as they are inadequate speakers of those linguistic varieties. However, if we may agree that knowing languages is a different

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

81

matter in superdiversity, as is the position of this paper, we can see that the current language education system founded on monolingual models of linguistic competence is facing serious challenges.

Heteroglossic repertoires: challenges for language education In the context of superdiversity, the patterns of language learning are widely diverse and by degree. People may acquire different types of knowledge about languages through comprehensive, specialized, or embedded language learning, or encounters with language. Such knowledge merges into repertoires, which “reflect the polycentricity of the learning environments in which the speaker dwells” (Blommaert and Backus 2011, 15). The problem is that the current language education system has not taken into account such polycentricity and continued to assess learners’ heteroglossic 8 repertoires with linear, uniform and monolingual language tests, and to teach them as if they are monoglossic (Mick 2011). It is a problem for the learners rather than of the learners. It is also a challenge that educators must respond to an increasingly polycentric language-learning context in superdiversity and lift the stigmatization currently imposed on certain language learners. I will illustrate the challenge with the following mini case study. Yan was eleven years old when I did my fieldwork in Grand-Estate School. Her father was born in Guangzhou and speaks Cantonese natively, but her paternal grandparents are from the neighboring province of Guangxi where Cantonese is also spoken in some regions. Occasionally, Yan claimed to be a “Guangxi person”, but most of the time she would say she is from Guangzhou. Yan’s mother comes from a small city in Guangdong province where both Cantonese and Hakka dialects are spoken and she speaks both. Yan often goes back to her mother’s hometown and claims that she can speak Hakka dialects as well. Yan’s mother owned a small barbershop and the customers were mainly university students and low-income workers in the neighborhood. Yan spent time in the barbershop every day after school. She said the customers spoke all sorts of dialects or Putonghua with dialect accents. She enjoyed imitating those accents and often said one or two phrases in various regional dialects in the focus group sessions. Once she showed me a tabloid magazine she 8

Terms like “heteroglossic” and “monoglossic” borrowed from Bakhtin (1981) by linguists seem more appropriate if we are turning from whole languages to repertoires.

82

Chapter Three

bought with her pocket money, which mainly covers gossip topics on Hong Kong popular stars. The writing style was colloquial and jam-packed with Cantonese expressions like the title in Figure 1 and many other hybrid/heteroglossic expressions noted by Bauer (1988) in the context of Hong Kong. Yan was outgoing and sociable, and actively participated in all the sports and arts activities in the class and school whenever she was allowed to. However, she did not do well in schoolwork and often failed exams. Tina, who is a native Cantonese speaker and the Chinese teacher of Yan’s class, commented on Yan in the interview: “Her foundations are too weak. When she writes, at least three to four out of the ten words she writes will be wrong.” Tina said that Yan was a fluent and expressive speaker but she had always been an underachiever and was not working hard enough in schoolwork. However, I found through the interview that significant aspects of Yan’s linguistic repertoires, which made her a bright student and a great communicator, were not recognized by the teachers and the current school assessment measures. In the interview, Yan and I discussed how she discovered what regional dialects the teachers spoke. Teachers in Grand-Estate School tended to use only Putonghua with students and mainly communicated in Putonghua among themselves. Therefore, the matter became a sort of detective game for the students. The students detected such information through various means. Yan commented on each teacher in great detail. In the following two excerpts, she gave examples of two types of clues, both of which illustrate the language skills she had but which were neglected by the teachers. (Note on transcription conventions: Different fonts and formatting (such as underlining) are combined to indicate emphasis and the use of different linguistic varieties in the conversations. For example: In Cantonese (transcripts in the Arial font indicate the use of Cantonese); author’s emphasis (double underline indicates the author's emphasis); [ ] indicates phonetic transcription; () indicates explanation; (()) indicates “stage directions”)

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

83

Table 4 Cream soup 1

྽

ₙ₹ⷵ㦮㦘⠁劐゗᧨☂侊➣侊㧝劐゗㟨㒠❚᧨⇱䞮BB⟙ ⢪᧨䏅⚝⛱᧨☂侊㦘₹劐゗㟨㒠❚ℕ᧨力₣⃃㢅⋩㒠❚ 䙼⃊↊ᇭ䏅⃚⚝⛱⇱⻀幬᧨“幁⡿₹䞷㣽抩幬嫷才㈦➣ Ⰼ”ᇭ⇱⻀幬᧨“䤌幬⇱♺⋩‘㉛ㅘ㻳’ ⠣⡿₹⢱”ᇭ

2

ằ

⣊⣊ᇭ⃫⢱劐゗⟙⡿₹᧻

3

྽

侊喀幼劐゗ᇭ

1

Yan

2 3

Liang Yan

There was a teacher last term. I mean, Miss Lee did not teach us last term, because she went to have [be-be] (“baby”). Therefore, we had another teacher, who temporarily acted as our head teacher. Then she said…she said “it was no good to express it in Putonghua”, so that she said, “the thing was called ‘[gei lim tong]’ (cream soup) in Baakwaa”. ((laughter)) What teacher was that? English teacher.

I have underlined two expressions in turn 1. They are examples of the heteroglossic repertoires that are characteristic of language use in sustained language-contact contexts. The use and understanding of such terms requires specific linguistic and cultural knowledge. The first term “BB” is borrowed from English to Cantonese. It is pronounced with Cantonese tones9, the first syllable with a low level tone and the second with a high level tone. Combined with the tones, the word sounds distinctively Cantonese rather than “foreign”. It is commonly used by Cantonese speakers including the elderly. While “BB” is still intelligible to non-Cantonese speakers, the second term “ᗼᓹ⊔” ([gei lim tong], cream soup) would, more often than not, be misunderstood by non-Cantonese speakers. “Cream soup” is a western dish that is probably popularized first in Hong Kong, so that the Cantonese-speaking residents transliterated “cream” as [gei lim] and transcribed it as “ᗼᓹ”. Like many other Cantonese-English hybrid terms, 9

Cantonese is a tonal language, which means the tones will change the meanings of the syllables. Based on different principles, the number of tones in Cantonese ranges from six to ten (Bauer and Benedict 1997).

84

Chapter Three

“ᗼᓹ” was then “imported” into SMC and other regional dialects in its written form through the largely shared Chinese writing script. However, the context or logic of transliteration is lost in the process – the two Chinese characters have completely different pronunciation in Putonghua or other dialects. Because of this loss, I quite often hear non-Cantonese speakers say that they just could not understand why the Cantonese use a weird translation for English terms. On the other hand, there is also an SMC translation for “cream soup”, which is now also the case for most terms borrowed from “foreign” culture. “Cream soup” is translated as “ྦ⋩⎃⊔” through paraphrasing rather than transliteration. For those with the necessary linguistic and cultural knowledge in Cantonese, the translation of “ᗼᓹ” may be “better”, as it conveys both the meaning and the sound of the English word. This is probably what the teacher meant when she said “it was no good to express it in Putonghua”. As the condition suggests, however, not everyone could equally benefit from this translation. The teacher seemingly assumed that the students’ linguistic and cultural repertoires would allow them to understand such terms. This was not the case though. Yan gave several similar examples, but according to her, not everyone understood and responded. This demonstrates that people’s heteroglossic repertoires in the context of superdiversity are also highly diverse. Common ground could not be assumed and we need to “increase our sensitivity to a huge range of non shared, asymmetrical interpretations” (Blommaert and Rampton 2011). It is not simply the “intercultural difference” we used to talk about (even this is ignored in the Chinese context), but asymmetry or inequality in communicative resources because of different trajectories of learning in diverse contexts. We can see that Yan’s particular repertoire gives her an advantage when it is congruent with the configuration of the learning context. The problem is, that with the current official drive towards a Putonghua-monolingual school context in Guangzhou, this kind of opportunity has become increasingly rare for Yan. In the following example, Yan demonstrated another way of identifying the teacher’s native dialect. It shows yet another aspect of her multicompetence (Li Wei 2011b), which is directly relevant to the standard language literacy valued by the school. (Transcription convention examples: In Cantonese (伳幼捷⒕)˗in Putonghua (Პ䙊䈍䜘࠶))

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

85

Table 5 "Freeze" and "cold" 1

྽

ↁ㦘⡿₹椣䱊劐゗᧨⡿₹ₘ䙼⡿₹煓劐゗(掌幕幁䤌幬)ᇭ

2

ằ

煓劐゗᧨侊⟙᧨⇱♗幕幁⟙ᇭ⇯♗≑┭⏻⸳⚻Ⓙ⤅᧻

3

྽

侊⟙ᇭ␅⸭㒠掌㡸⻀䩴拢⇱幕幁ᇭ

4

ằ

⇯䍈㫆㡸⻀䩴᧻

5

྽

⇱桽⇱₹Ⅳ᧨Ā‫ݯ‬ᆀˈ߫н߫୺ā" ₏咻掌侊幁 Āߧнߧ ୺ā侊✹᧻

1

Yan

2

Liang

3 4

Yan Liang

5

Yan

Also the teacher next door, the Miss Wong of Class Three (can speak Cantonese). Miss Wong, oh yes, she can speak (Cantonese) too. Did you hear her talk in the office too? I knew it long ago How, why did you know long ago? She (Miss Huang) asked her son (Li) “Son, [dong bu dong] (freeze or not freeze)?” Usually you should say “[leng bu leng] (cold or not cold)”, right?

Yan got the clue from Miss Huang’s choice between two morphemes when speaking Putonghua (turn 5): “߫” (“freeze) and “ߧ” (“cold”). Both morphemes exist in Putonghua and Cantonese, but are used in different collocations and contexts. When asking someone if he/she feels cold in Putonghua, “cold” is the proper choice; while asking in Cantonese, “freeze” is used instead. If someone uses “freeze” in Putonghua or “cold” in Cantonese for such a purpose, the interlocutors would usually notice a problem but not everyone would know the origin of the “mistake”. That was exactly Miss Huang’s mistake. Yan was not only observant but also reproduced the mistake in the best possible way by code switching in turn 5. The switch to Putonghua when impersonating (or “animating” in Goffman’s (1981) term) Miss Huang in saying “son, [dong bu dong] (freeze or not freeze)” can be attributed to the need for direct quotation. However, it is also most appropriate to say it in Putonghua, because that is what causes the problem. If Yan had continued to say it in Cantonese, I would still be able to understand what she meant because we share this type of repertoire, but the sentence would sound awkward. Similarly, Putonghua is the appropriate variety for demonstrating the “correct” word choice because to say the same thing in Cantonese would be another

86

Chapter Three

“mistake”. This time Yan was not quoting anyone. It was her decision to say it in Putonghua. The process happened so quickly that Yan may not even have been conscious of it, but there is no denial that it is a skilled accomplishment. It requires considerable cross-linguistic and cultural knowledge to know that Miss Huang made a mistake, how to correct the mistake, and that the mistake is indexical of Miss Huang’s linguistic repertoire. We can see that Yan demonstrated various types of linguistic competence in the two stretches of conversation. The sort of competence she demonstrated is not the competence in several single discrete languages, but the ability to manipulate various elements as one organic system and construct or interpret sophisticated heteroglossic meanings. She not only activated the communicative competence to convey her meanings accurately in the conversation, but also shaped the context of the conversation and adopted multiple voices by code-switching appropriately. It has been noted that such ability to manipulate semiotic resources and reshape contexts is the basis of criticality and creativity (Li Wei 2011b). Various studies in other multilingual settings have also reported similar abilities among multilingual youth (Lytra and Martin 2010; Rampton 2006; Mick 2011). Unfortunately, Yan’s competence was not recognized at school. The school-learning context is not configured in such a way as to let her capitalize on her heteroglossic repertoire. In her Chinese teacher Tina’s eyes, Yan had serious problems in learning the Chinese subject, even in acquiring the most basic things. It appears as if Miss Tina and I are seeing two persons, one linguistically deficient and the other linguistically versatile. Yet we are talking about the same person, whose multicompetence was forced into compartmentalization. Yan was but one example. The current sociolinguistic economy (Hymes 1996) at school values only one type of style or repertoire – an ideal monoglossic repertoire in the standard language, Putonghua – as the sign of distinction (Bourdieu and Thompson 1991). All other styles or repertoires, whether it is competence in other linguistic varieties or ability to translanguage, (Creese and Blackledge 2010b; Li Wei 2011a), are systematically devalued. Therefore, Tina’s failure to recognize Yan’s multilingual competence is not a personal but an institutional failure. Language education based on such principles is out of touch with the current sociolinguistic context of superdiversity, and would not facilitate students’ learning so as to cater to the demands of a global, decentered, and multilingual world (Blommaert 2010).

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

87

Conclusion In this paper, I have analyzed the current linguistic superdiversity in Guangzhou and its implications for ethnolinguistic identities and language education. In section one, I illustrated the changing language situation in Guangzhou by analyzing the title of a piece of news. We can see in the analysis that, as the demography of Guangzhou changes with massive immigration, linguistic resources are also reshuffled. The discursive construction of the new title reveals many assumptions about language and identity that used to be taken for granted but are increasingly problematized. In the second section, we unfolded the problem of ethnolinguistic identities in the era of superdiversity by discussing the phenomena of an emerging group of “native Putonghua speakers”. Their language socialization experiences and discursive construction of linguistic identities demand that we must “re-examine the current language ideology about “native speakers”, “mother-tongue dialects”, and citizenship at a time when mobility and hybridity is prominent. If we recognize that not only these “native Putonghua speakers”, but also the “native dialect speakers” are multilingual, we must reconsider the students’ learning trajectories afforded by these experiences and the kind of language education they need at home and at school. Then in the last section, we examined the learning trajectory and heteroglossic repertoire of one native Cantonese child. We found that the child’s linguistic competence may appear dramatically different depending on our perspectives on what counts as valuable competence. Moreover, the child would be able to capitalize on her repertoire if the learning context permits, and she would become linguistically handicapped if the learning context systematically inhibits her. The case of Yan also shows us that the linguistic competence possessed by multilinguals is beyond the communicative competence that enables them to communicate effectively. It includes “a particularly acute ability to play with various linguistic codes and with the various spatial and temporal resonances of these codes” (Kramsch and Whiteside 2008, 664). This ability is the basis of criticality and creativity, which should be recognized and valued for the purpose of improving language education for the era of multilingualism and superdiversity. In this paper, I have only set out to problematize existing monolingual norms on language identities and language competence, in an attempt to understand the current challenges faced by language education. We are still far away from finding the solutions to these challenges, but recognizing problems is the first step to solving them.

88

Chapter Three

References Auer, P. 1998. Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London; New York: Routledge. Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Trans. M. Holquist and C. Emerson. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bauer, R. 1988. “Written Cantonese of Hong Kong.” Cahiers de Linguistique - Asie Orientale 17(2), 245–293. Bauer, R. and P. Benedict. 1997. Modern cantonese phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. and A. Backus. 2011. Repertoires revisited: “Knowing language” in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies 67. London: King's College. Blommaert, J. and B. Rampton. 2011. “Language and superdiversity.” Diversities 13(2), 1-21. Bokhorst-Heng, W. and I. Caleon. 2009. “The language attitudes of bilingual youth in multilingual Singapore.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30(3), 235–251. Bourdieu, P. and J. Thompson. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity. Britain, D. 2010. “Supralocal regional dialect levelling.” In Language and identities, ed. C. Llamas and D. Watt, 193-204. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Chan, K. 2009. “The Chinese hukou system at 50.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 50(2), 197-221. Creese, A. and A. Blackledge. 2010a. “Towards a sociolinguistics of superdiversity.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 13(4): 549-572. —. 2010b. “Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?” The Modern Language Journal 94(1), 103– 115. Ferguson, C. 1959/2007. “Diglossia.” In The bilingualism reader, ed. Li Wei, 34–46. London and New York: Routledge. Freedman, M. 1966. Chinese lineage and society: Fukien and Kwangtung. London: Athlone Press. Garrett, P. 2010. Attitudes to language, Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

89

Garrett, P., N. Coupland and A. Williams. 2003. Investigating language attitudes: Social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Giles, H. and A. Billings. 2004. “Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies.” In The handbook of applied linguistics, ed. A. Davies and C. Elder, 187–209. Oxford: Blackwell. Goffman, E. 1981. “Footing.” In Forms of talk, ed. E. Goffman, 124–59. Oxford: Blackwell. Guangzhou Bureau of Statistics. 1984. Guangzhou statistical yearbook 1984 (ㄎね兮帰㄃攃 1984). Guangzhou: China Statistics Publications (₼⦌兮帰⒉䓗䯍). —. 2013. ㄎねゑ 2010 ㄃䶻⏼㶰⏷⦌ⅉ♲㣽㩴⃊尐㟿㗽⏻㔴 (report on main results of the sixth national census in Guangzhou in 2010) http://www.gzstats.gov.cn/tjgb/glpcgb/201105/t20110517_25227.htm 2011 [cited June 4 2013]. Gumperz, J. 2008. “Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective.” In The handbook of discourse analysis, 215–228. Malden MA: Blackwell. Gupta, A. 1994. The step-tongue: Children's English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. He, X. 2008. “Ⰼ⮩ㄎね兕恾➣幕幁䤌幬 (Many Guangzhou children cannot speak Cantonese).” Guangzhou Daily, 12-24. Hymes, D. 1996. Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice, Critical perspectives on literacy and education. London: Taylor & Francis. Ivanov, V. 1999. “Heteroglossia.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(12), 100–102. Kalmar, I., Y. Zhong and H. Xiao. 1987. “Language attitudes in Guangzhou, China.” Language in Society16, 499–508. Kramsch, C. 2006. “From communicative competence to symbolic competence.” The Modern Language Journal 90(2), 249-252. Kramsch, C. and A. Whiteside. 2008. “Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a theory of symbolic competence.” Applied Linguistics 29(4), 645-671. Kulick, D. and B. Schieffelin. 2007. “Language socialization.” In A companion to linguistic anthropology, ed. A. Duranti, 347-368. Malden MA: Blackwell. Lam, A. S. L. 2008. “Language education policy in greater China.” In Encyclopedia of language and education, ed. by N. H. Hornberger, 405-417. New York: Springer.

90

Chapter Three

Lambert, W., R. Hodgson, R. Gardner and S. Fillenbaum. 1960. “Evaluational reactions to spoken language.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60(1), 44-51. Li Wei. 2011a. “Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(5), 1222–1235. —. 2011b. “Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Codeand modeswitching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools.” The Modern Language Journal 95(3), 370–384. Li Wei, and Zhu Hua. 2010. “Voices from the diaspora: Changing hierarchies and dynamics of Chinese multilingualism.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 205, 155–171. Liang, S. 2013. Construction of language attitudes in multilingual China: Linguistic ethnographies of two primary schools in Guangzhou, University of Cambridge, PhD thesis. Liao, X., Y. Wu and J. Zheng. 2001. “ㄎね⏻をℛ⚆ⅉ♲⏻㔴᧶⒇㣍⩝ ゑ▥扪䲚 (Guangzhou released the no.2 population report: Trends of urbanisation figured prominently).” 㠿㉺㔴 (Guangzhou New Express Daily), 04-23. Lotherington, H. 2003. “Multiliteracies in Springvale: Negotiating language, culture and identity in suburban Melbourne.” In Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies, ed. R. Bayley and S. Schecter, 200–17. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lytra, V. and P. Martin. 2010. Sites of multilingualism: Complementary schools in Britain today. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham. Mackenzie, P. 2002. “Strangers in the city: The hukou and urban citizenship in China.” Journal of International Affairs 56(1), 305. Maoming. 2008. 喑⚜㡈岏⇤␅⮩ (what a large number of dialects there are in Maoming) [cited 13 June 2011]. Available from http://www.maoming.gov.cn/arshownew.asp?ArticleID=24966. Miao, R. and J. Li. 2006. “Urban migration and functional bilingualism in guangdong province, China.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 16(2), 237–57. Mick, C. 2011. “Heteroglossia in a multilingual learning space: Approaching language beyond ‘lingualisms’.” In Language policy for the multilingual classroom: Pedagogy of the possible, ed. C. Hélot and M. ÓLaoire, 22–41. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Milroy, J. 2001. “Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(4), 530–555. Milroy, L. 1987. Language and social networks. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guanzhou

91

Ochs, E., and B. Schieffelin. 2011. “The theory of language socialization.” In The handbook of language socialization, ed. A. Duranti, E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin, 1-21. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Potter, J. 2003. “Discursive psychology: Between method and paradigm.” Discourse Society 14(6), 783–794. Rampton, B. 1995. “Language crossing and the problematisation of ethnicity and socialisation.” Pragmatics 5(4), 485–514. —. 2006. Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2007. “Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(5), 584–607. —. 2011. “From ‘multi-ethnic adolescent heteroglossia’ to ‘contemporary urban vernaculars’.” Language & Communication 31(4), 276-294. Rampton, M. 1990. “Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance.” ELT Journal 44(2), 97-101. Ren, X., B. Tian, G. Huang and S. Li. 1996. “China's ‘registration taboo’.” Chinese Sociology & Anthropology 29(1), 15-26. Singh, R. 2006. “Native speaker.” In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. B. Keith, 489-492. Oxford: Elsevier. Tang, Y. 2006. ㄎねゑ₼ⷵ䞮幼岏㊐ㄵ䪣䴅 (middle school students' language attitudes in Guangzhou). Guangzhou: ₼⦌䩴几(CNKI). Vertovec, S. 2007. “Super-diversity and its implications.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6), 1024-1054. Walker, U. 2011. “Linguistic diversity as a bridge to adjustment: Making the case for bi/multilingualism as a settlement outcome in new zealand.” In Language policy for the multilingual classroom: Pedagogy of the possible, ed. C. Hélot and M. ÓLaoire, 149–73. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Woolard, K. 1998. “Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry.” In Language ideologies: Practice and theory, ed. B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard and P. Kroskrity, 3–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yan, M. 2006. Introduction to Chinese dialectology. Munich: Lincom Europa. Zhang, S. 2003. ₼⦌ⅉ♲⦿䚕 (China population geography), ₼⦌ⅉ㠖 ⦿䚕₪⃵ ᧤China human geography series). Beijing: 䱠ⷵ⒉䓗䯍 (Science Publications). Zhou, M. 2001. “The spread of Putonghua and language attitude changes in Shanghai and Guangzhou, China.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 11 (2), 231–53.

92

Chapter Three

—. 2005. “Legislating literacy for linguistic and ethnic minorities in contemporary China.” Current Issues in Language Planning 6 (2), 102-121. —. 2006. “Language education policy in China.” In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. B. Keith, 442-446. Oxford: Elsevier. Zhou, M. and H. Sun. 2004. Language policy in the People's Republic of China: Theory and practice since 1949. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

CHAPTER FOUR LANGUAGE EDUCATION OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS: OPENING THE BLACK BOX(ES) FILIO CONSTANTINOU

Introduction In many contemporary states of increasing ethnic, cultural and linguistic heterogeneity, the educational discourse brings education to the forefront as an institution capable of, and responsible for, promoting democratic values and social justice. However, the egalitarian ideology that normally underpins the educational manifestos of such states seems to undergo a process of degeneration in the course of its translation into educational practice. This is particularly evident in the case of immigrant students who, despite the host countries’ proclaimed commitment to the ideals of equality and inclusion, tend to experience inequality and exclusion. Proficiency in the dominant language represents a key prerequisite for the educational success of immigrant students. This inevitably renders the area of language education an important arena for witnessing how the official equality rhetoric is deployed. This chapter will attempt to trace precisely the trajectory of the egalitarian ideology – starting from its inception at the macro-level and following it through its implementation at the micro-level – with the aim of casting light on factors that contribute to its gradual “erosion”. It will examine this process by focusing on the case of the language education of immigrant students in Cyprus, a country which has only relatively recently been confronted with the challenge of responding to the needs of a linguistically diverse student population. As Figure 1 shows, language education is here conceptualised as a vertical continuum which runs between three levels, ranging from the most abstract to the most concrete: the macro, the meso and the micro. The

94

Chapter Four

macro- and the micro-levels are positioned at the two opposite ends of the continuum, with the former representing the goals of education as outlined in the curriculum and the latter, the classroom practice. The meso-level occupies an intermediate point on the continuum and encapsulates the educational policies which operate as mediators between the curriculum (macro-level) and the classroom (micro-level). The discussion that follows focuses on these three levels and draws the attention to the “black boxes” that mark the transition from one level to another. The transitions acquire particular importance as their examination provides explanations for the discrepancy often observed between consecutive levels, thereby enhancing the understanding of the process of degeneration. Transitions are visualised as black boxes as they are seen to carry information which, despite being of great significance, tends to remain “invisible”.

MACRO Curriculum

Black BlackBox Box1 1 MESO Policy Black Box Black Box22

MICRO Practice

Figure 1 – The macro-, meso- and micro-levels in the educational process and the intervening black boxes

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es)

95

Linguistic diversity in Cypriot schools Historically, Cyprus has had very little experience of dealing with linguistic heterogeneity in the context of education. Despite hosting two different ethnic communities, a Greek one and a Turkish one, its schools remained linguistically homogenous due to the existence of two distinct educational systems on the island (Hadjioannou 2006). This educational segregation was not just a consequence of the 1974 war that led to the geographical separation of the two ethnic communities and the de facto partition of the island, but existed long before that. It was not until the 1990s, however, that the demographics of schools in the Greek-speaking part of Cyprus – the part of Cyprus that constitutes the focus of this chapter and will henceforth be referred to as Cyprus – started to change. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, residents of the Soviet Union who were of Greek descent, making use of a bilateral agreement between Greece and Cyprus that enabled Greek citizens to settle freely on the island, moved to Cyprus. The immigration wave grew in 2004 when Cyprus joined the European Union. Since then, Cyprus has been serving as a host country for an increasing number of EU nationals coming mainly from Eastern Europe. In particular, in 2011, relative to the size of the resident population, Cyprus was the country with the second highest number of immigrants in the EU after Luxemburg, moving up from third place which it held in 2009 (Eurostat 2012). In fact, in 2011, the approximately 200,000 immigrants living in Cyprus accounted for nearly a quarter of the overall population (Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus 2012a), while in the same year the number of immigrant students enrolled in Cypriot primary and secondary schools had doubled when compared with the number for 2002-2003 (Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus 2004, 2012b). In 2012-2013, the immigrant pupils enrolled in primary schools accounted for 13.4 per cent of the overall pupil population (Ministry of Education and Culture 2013). For these immigrant pupils to succeed in Cypriot schools competence in the dominant language, namely Greek, is an important precondition. However, developing such competence does not constitute a straightforward task as two different varieties of Greek are used on the island, Standard Modern Greek and the Greek Cypriot Dialect. The two varieties are genetically related, but have a series of differences at the levels of phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon (Newton 1972). They are in a diglossic relationship, with the standard variety occupying formal domains of communication and the non-standard variety employed in informal contexts (Ferguson 1959/2003). Standard Modern Greek,

96

Chapter Four

which is the variety spoken in mainland Greece, constitutes the language of education and the medium of written communication, while the Greek Cypriot Dialect, Cypriots’ native language, is the variety used in the context of everyday interactions (Arvaniti 2006; Pavlou and Papapavlou 2004). At the level of primary education, the state’s response to the challenge of meeting the educational needs of an increasing number of non-Greekspeaking immigrants came in the form of a mainstreaming policy involving pull-out or withdrawal classes. According to this policy, which is still in place, newly-arrived immigrant pupils are pulled-out of their home classes for one or two teaching periods, for a maximum period of two years, to receive supportive instruction in Greek (Ministry of Education and Culture 2008). The frequency of the pull-out classes is dependent on the number of extra teaching hours allocated by the Ministry of Education to schools on the basis of the number of immigrant students enrolled in them. Schools hosting a large immigrant student population are classified as “Educational Priority Zone Schools” and are entitled to more teaching hours. The subsequent sections examine the extent to which the policy of supporting the language development of immigrant pupils in the context of pull-out classes (meso-level) and its implementation at a classroom level (micro-level) follow the democratic dictates of the curriculum (macrolevel), namely, the provision of equal opportunities to achieve academic success for all pupils. The aim is to direct attention to any inconsistencies and problematic aspects of the system that currently go unnoticed by the state. The examination of these issues is informed by the outcomes of an ethnographic study of a pull-out class in a primary school in Cyprus. The study was carried out in an “Educational Priority Zone School” which, at the time of the data collection, had a population of 254 pupils, only 35 of whom were Greek Cypriots. The rest of the pupils originated from Georgia, Russia, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Romania, Greece and Iran. Two pull-out groups were operating in the school, both taught by the same teacher; one group comprised beginners and the other intermediateand advanced-level pupils. The latter group, which was the focus of the ethnographic study, consisted of ten pupils: seven from Georgia, one from Russia, one from Ukraine and one from the United Kingdom. Data were collected by means of interviews and unofficial discussions with several parties (i.e. headteacher, teacher and pupils), as well as through classroom observations and textbook analysis (Constantinou 2007).

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es)

97

From the macro to the meso: Opening the black box Cyprus’s accession to the European Union in 2004 resulted in the reconsideration of its national policies regarding education. Under the pressure of complying with EU directives, Cyprus adopted a pro-inclusion discourse with respect to the education of immigrant students (Hajisoteriou 2012). In 2003, in particular, in light of the country’s imminent entry into the EU and the increasing ethnic and linguistic diversification of the student population, the Ministry of Education appointed a committee of seven academics to assess the Cypriot educational system and develop guidelines for its improvement and modernisation. The report produced by the committee highlighted the democratic role which the Cypriot school should play (Educational Reform Committee 2004) and formed the basis of a government circular which was subsequently sent to schools. The circular foregrounded the role of education as a democratic institution and specifically stated that Cypriot education should work towards “a democratic school that includes and does not exclude. This means providing equal opportunities for access, participation, success […], recognising the diversity and multiculturalism of the student population, as well as individual needs” (Ministry of Education and Culture 2008). This circular set the tone of the Ministry’s official policy in relation to the education of immigrant students and articulated the rationale permeating the revised curriculum introduced in 2010. However, the measures taken for the support of immigrant students do not seem to align with the democratic and social justice discourse of the new ideological agenda. In particular, a close look at the education model adopted for the language support of immigrant students, namely the pullout model, does not serve – as will be argued below – the explicitly voiced institutional intention to provide all pupils with equal opportunities to achieve academic success. To begin with, the pull-out model is a form of a mainstreaming policy that promotes the transition from immigrant students’ use of their first language to that of the dominant language (Baker 2006). The transition is achieved through the teaching of the dominant language and the exclusion of students’ mother tongues from the classroom. This practice underlines and reinforces the symbolic power of the dominant language, while indirectly downplaying the importance of the minority one (Coelho 1998; Cummins 2000). As such, it enhances homogeneity, exposing the assimilationist orientation of the model. It could be argued that, by silencing minority languages and cultures, this practice serves the dictates of the nationalistic discourse, that is, the cultivation of a coherent national

98

Chapter Four

identity and the enhancement of national unity. The current retreat of multicultural education across Europe and the United States is seen as having its roots precisely in the nation-building project (May 2012). Regardless of the underlying objectives it seeks to achieve, this lack of institutional recognition of minority languages is likely to have an adverse impact on immigrant students’ academic development. Immigrant students might interpret the marginalisation of their mother tongue as a rejection of their identity and adopt a discourse of resistance against the dominant culture. This could weaken their motivation to learn the dominant language, undermine their attitudes towards schooling and consequently jeopardise their academic achievement (Corson 2001; Ogbu 1992). Furthermore, pull-out classes tend to stigmatise immigrant pupils. Pupils’ absence from the regular class might lead to derogatory labels being ascribed to them, for example, labels that portray them as suffering from a language or cognitive deficit (Ovando, Combs and Collier 2011). It could be argued that this negative effect is counterbalanced by certain emotional gains that immigrant pupils receive from attending the pull-out classes. These are encapsulated in a statement made by the teacher of the pull-out class I observed: These classes offer pupils plenty of opportunities to give correct answers and experience success during the lesson. Plus, pupils receive a lot of attention, so they feel they have a place here, whereas in their regular classes their presence goes almost unnoticed. (Teacher, Interview)

Providing substantial experience of success and acknowledging the learners’ contribution to the lesson are likely to boost pupils’ selfconfidence and have a positive impact on their attitudes and motivation to learn the second language (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011). However, these potential benefits tend to pale when compared, on the one hand, to the “deficiency” stigma often attached to “withdrawn” pupils and, on the other hand, to the learning gap created as a result of not being present in the regular class when the curriculum is delivered. An additional factor that tends to preserve, rather than alleviate, the disadvantage experienced by immigrant pupils – especially by the newly arrived ones – is the limited period for which they can attend the pull-out classes. In particular, the maximum period of two years during which they are entitled to supportive instruction in Greek allows them merely to develop conversational skills in the dominant language. However, while conversational skills are sufficient for pupils to survive in the mainstream classroom, they are not enough to enable them to succeed in the educational system (Gibbons 2006; Schleppegrell 2004). Contrary to

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es)

99

informal domains of communication that typically employ registers naturally acquired by pupils (e.g. home, playground), school favours registers which are formally learnt and are therefore less familiar to children. Success at school precisely presupposes competence in these academic and more formal registers (Snow and Uccelli 2009). However, as research has shown, while conversational skills can develop in the course of two years, the ability to operate adequately in these academic registers requires a substantially longer period, namely five to seven or more years (Cummins 1979 1984). This provides further support for the argument that the language education model adopted by Cypriot schools, that is the two-year pull-out support, is not very likely to offer immigrant pupils the opportunity to compete on an equal footing with their non-immigrant peers. A more favourable alternative to the pull-out model would be a form of maintenance bilingual education, a type of education that would enable immigrant pupils to maintain their mother tongue while becoming proficient in the dominant language. As suggested by the Developmental Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins 2000), competence in a second language is to some extent dependent on the level of competence achieved in the first language. As concepts and skills learnt in one language can be easily transferred to another language (Common Underlying Proficiency Principle, see Cummins 1983), a high level of proficiency in the first language can render the acquisition of the second language easier while enhancing academic achievement (Thomas and Collier 2002; Verhoeven 1994). Therefore this model encourages linguistic and cultural pluralism in school, allowing immigrant pupils to benefit from the cognitive and social advantages of full bilingualism (García 2009). Contrary to maintenance bilingual education, programmes that promote monolingualism and do not cater for the development of the learners’ L1, have been found to have a damaging effect on students’ prospects of educational and social success. Such programmes tend to decrease students’ likelihood of entering tertiary education and accessing prestigious professional careers, while contributing to the creation of “a large underclass of people capable of doing little but providing manual labor” (Walter 2010, 140). Despite the undesirable implications of pull-out classes, pull-out programmes seem to constitute a very common means of dealing with linguistic diversity not only in Cyprus, but also in other contexts. In the United States, for instance, ESL pull-out and transitional programmes have been reported to be the two most common programmes employed for the language support of immigrant pupils (August and Hakuta 1997), with the ESL pull-out model remaining “the program of choice for many school districts” (Crawford 1997, 17). On the one hand, opting for such language

100

Chapter Four

education models could be seen as reflecting the assimilationist orientation of US federal policy (Ferguson 2006). On the other hand, this preference for monolingual over bilingual models could be regarded as being linked to a series of practical constraints. Specifically, it could be argued that objective obstacles, such as the restricted financial resources and the unavailability of a sufficient number of qualified bilingual teachers (Harklau 1994), constitute an additional factor that, alongside the ideological one, dictates the adoption of models that promote a “subtractive” rather than an “additive” view of bilingualism. In the case of Cyprus, the governmental decision to implement a pullout model does not seem to have been an exclusively ideologically driven response. A close look at the circumstances in which the decision was made exposes another dimension of the matter, the practical one. The need to take immediate action to meet EU directives in light of Cyprus’s accession to the EU, in all probability did not allow the state sufficient time to engage in a long-term and research-informed planning and develop the necessary infrastructure. This, coupled with the existing policy vacuum and the country’s limited experience of linguistic heterogeneity at an educational level, led to the adoption of emergency measures and shortterm solutions. These solutions constituted an easy way out of the “problem” as – compared to maintenance bilingual education – the pullout programmes represented a model whose implementation was less demanding and consumed fewer resources; its introduction would not require a major restructuring of the educational system or recruitment of a large number of bilingual teachers who would have to be proficient in the mother tongues of immigrant pupils. Under the influence of these factors, the language education measures enforced resulted in placing immigrant pupils in a disadvantageous position in relation to their non-immigrant peers. This clearly represents a failure on the part of the state to remain faithful to its ideological commitment – a commitment formally declared in the curriculum and other official documentation (see e.g. Ministry of Education and Culture 2008) – to promote social justice through education. In the context of the “black box” rationale introduced earlier, these factors are seen as representing the first black box (see Figure 1) and, as such, cast light on the process of degeneration occurring at the transition from the macro- to the meso-level.

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es) 101

From the meso to the micro: Opening the black box Signs of degeneration are also recorded in the transition from the meso- to the micro-level. In particular, a close look at language education policy and practice reveals a discrepancy between the goals of the pull-out model (meso-level) and the practices employed in the implementation of these goals at school and classroom levels (micro-level). This discrepancy is reflected in the outcomes of an ethnographic study I carried out in a pull-out class and is discussed in more detail below. One of the objectives of the case study I conducted was to construct the instructional profile of pull-out classes. In light of the special circumstances in which these classes were operating, gaining an insight into the language teaching process was identified as an interesting objective with useful implications. The special circumstances that created the need for this investigation lay in the fact that the pull-out lessons were taught (a) in the absence of a specialised curriculum, namely, a curriculum that focused on the teaching of Greek as a second language and was tailored to the needs of second language learners of Greek in Cyprus and (b) by Greek Cypriot mainstream teachers who did not speak the pupils’ mother tongues. To describe the language instruction taking place in these classes, I focused on observable dimensions of the teaching process, such as the types of activities carried out, teaching content, teaching material, roles of the teacher, roles of the students, interaction patterns and class organisation (for a delineation and operationalisation of the concept of teaching method, see Richards and Rodgers 2001). Two important findings that emerged from this analysis and could be seen as preventing the programme from fulfilling its goal were the unsuitability of the teaching material used and the traditional character of the instruction. These are two of the factors represented by the second black box (see Figure 1), the box located between the meso- and the micro-level. As will be argued below, these factors are likely to have served as an impediment to immigrant pupils obtaining the maximum benefit from their participation in the pull-out classes: (a) Unsuitability of teaching material: Two main textbook series were available at the school at the time of the data collection, both provided by the Cypriot Ministry of Education. The first series comprised textbooks designed for a specific population of Greek-language learners, namely Greek-origin children who were born and brought up abroad. Given that the target population in this case was immersed in an environment where

102

Chapter Four

Greek was not the dominant language, the content of these textbooks was based on the needs of foreign language learners of Greek. However, these did not satisfy the language learning needs of immigrant children in Cyprus, who were learning Greek as a second rather than as a foreign language. Unlike the first textbook series, the second one was designed precisely for second language learners of Greek. However, it was developed by the Pedagogical Institute of Greece and addressed the needs of immigrant pupils who resided in mainland Greece (Hadjioannou 2006). As a result, it was largely irrelevant to the experiences of immigrant pupils in Cyprus. As the teacher particularly noted: For various reasons I avoid using these textbooks. First of all, I don’t like the topics which the texts and the activities are based on. The topics are related to some particular regions in mainland Greece and, as such, are irrelevant to the Cypriot context and the lives of pupils. I taught some of these texts in the past, but the pupils didn’t like them. Plus, the vocabulary used in the texts is difficult. Some of the words and expressions in the texts are used mainly in Greece and are not very common in Cyprus and as a result pupils find them hard to understand. (Teacher, Interview)

As the teacher stressed, the textbooks published in Greece did not take into account the culture- or the language-specific aspects of the Cypriot context; they contained material that immigrant pupils in Cyprus could not relate to and, most importantly, language not commonly used in the host community. As far as the language dimension is concerned, what added to the unsuitability of the textbooks was the fact that the textbook material did not acknowledge the bidialectal character of the Greek speech community of Cyprus or account for the linguistic complexities associated with it. As mentioned earlier, in Cyprus two genetically related language varieties are used as a medium of communication, that is, Standard Modern Greek and the Greek Cypriot Dialect. As is typically the case with bidialectal contexts, the structural proximity which exists between the two language varieties tends to cause negative transfer, namely, transfer of non-standard features into standard production (Cheshire 1982; Stijnen and Vallen 1989; Williamson and Hardman 1997), thus affecting pupils’ school language performance. Even though negative transfer or interference can be dealt with instructionally through the enhancement of pupils’ awareness of the linguistic features differentiating the two varieties (Yiakoumetti 2006), the textbooks were not able to contribute to this.

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es) 103

Dissatisfied with the two series of language textbooks available at school, the teacher of the focal pull-out class in collaboration with a colleague of hers who had taught pull-out classes in the same school in previous years attempted to compile their own textbook. This textbook was in the form of a spiral-bound booklet that consisted of a set of exercises and texts taken from Year 1 language textbooks. The textbooks that provided the material for the spiral-bound booklet were designed for native speakers of Greek, aged 5 to 6, beginning to develop literacy skills in Greek. They contained non-authentic texts, up to seven lines long, and exercises following a parts-to-whole phonics approach in learning to read and write. The spiral-bound booklet, despite being deemed by the teacher as more appropriate and useful than the textbooks provided by the Ministry, still had important inadequacies, as revealed by the responses of pupils attending the pull-out class. In particular, a 10-year-old girl, one of the two advanced-level pupils in the class, expressed a dislike for the texts that she and her classmates were asked to work with, on the grounds that they were “very short and childish”. One of these texts, entitled “The dwarf and the giant”, could be described as typical of the texts in the booklet and is provided in translation below: You might find it strange, but the dwarf and the giant are good friends. They are always together and one helps the other. The giant is huge, whereas the dwarf is very short. Today they went to their garden. The dwarf collected the tomatoes and the giant carried the big baskets. But they got tired and sat down to eat. The dwarf ate only one tomato, while the giant ate many tomatoes. (“The dwarf and the giant”, text from the booklet used in the focal pull-out class)

As the above text indicates, the texts included in the booklet were simplified and adapted to the cognitive and language level of Year 1 children, as this was the target audience of the books from which the texts were taken. As a result, the pupils in the pull-out class, whose age ranged from 8 to 11, found them unattractive. The same pupil who characterised the texts as “childish” made also the following statement about them: “I don’t like them very much. I find them quite boring because they are too easy for me”. This exposes another problematic aspect of the booklet material, one that relates to the material’s inability to respond to the needs of a diverse group of learners. However, flexibility, a characteristic that is normally required of language textbook material (Tomlinson 2003), was difficult to achieve in this case

104

Chapter Four

owing to the substantial heterogeneity of the learners comprising the target group. In the teacher’s words: One of the main problems I face as a teacher of these language support classes is the fact that the group I teach consists of pupils of different proficiency levels. It has intermediate- and advanced-level pupils and the differences between them are huge. (Teacher, Interview)

The focal pull-out group was very diverse not only in terms of language proficiency, as the teacher noted, but also in terms of age. It consisted of one third-grader, three fourth-graders, two fifth-graders and four sixth-graders. Given that the material itself was originally developed for first-graders, it was natural that older or more advanced-level pupils should find it “childish” or “boring”. This constitutes a serious problem that, if left unaddressed, could turn the affected pupils into disengaged learners. It could have a detrimental effect on their motivation to learn the second language (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011) and a negative impact on their attitudes towards schooling. Apart from failing to engage all pupils and address their needs, the booklet also disregarded another important issue, the fact that its users, even though newly enrolled in Cypriot schools, had attended school before and were therefore already literate. Despite having received formal education in their home countries, immigrant pupils were seen as entering Cypriot schools and the language support programme as a tabula rasa, when the literacy skills and experiences they had in their mother tongues could have been used to support their second language learning. (b) Traditional character of instruction: The form of language instruction carried out in the pull-out classes is another micro-level factor, other than the teaching material discussed above, that seems to affect the efficiency of the pull-out programme and consequently the second language development of immigrant pupils. As the classroom observations revealed, the language instruction in the focal pull-out class had overall a traditional and teacher-centred orientation. The majority of the activities that the pupils were invited to engage in were form-focused. Typical exercises carried out during the lessons involved reading aloud short texts, detecting the target phoneme or syllable in given words, putting a set of syllables in the right order to form words, filling missing graphemes or syllables in given words and copying letters, words or sentences several times. Tasks, on the other hand, such as role-plays, that encouraged a more contextualised use of language and emphasised meaning and communication, did not have a strong presence

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es) 105

in the lessons. As a result, pupils acted more as “language learners” rather than as “language users”, treating language more as an object than as a tool (Ellis 2003). The prevalence of form-focused activities was not unexpected, as the spiral-bound booklet that the teacher compiled was used extensively in the lessons. However, mere familiarity with the form, which is what the pull-out instruction seems to have largely worked towards, is not sufficient for successful communication. Examining form in context and in relation to meaning is also important. This is particularly relevant to a sociolinguistic context such as that of Cyprus where two language varieties, a standard and a non-standard one, are used for communication. The choice of linguistic code each time depends on the context of communication. The standard variety is typically used in formal contexts, while the nonstandard variety is employed in informal interactions. In light of this, employing the “wrong” linguistic code, that is, the code not called for by the communicative context, could lead to communication pitfalls and misunderstandings (Papapavlou 2004). Apart from having a more form-focused orientation, the pull-out classes seemed also to have a teacher-centred character. Even though the teacher performed the role of the scaffolder by facilitating pupils’ learning on various occasions during the lesson, the teacher was seen to act as an instructor or knowledge provider comparatively more frequently. This, combined with the more frequent interaction between the teacher and the pupils and the resulting limited interaction between pupils themselves, ensured that the classes were more traditional learning environments. Specifically, the most common class organisation patterns were individual work and whole-class teaching, while pair work and group work were fairly limited. This, however, deprived pupils of opportunities to interact with their classmates and engage in a negotiation of meaning, factors that could enhance their second language learning (Keck et al. 2006; Long 1996). The traditional features of the pull-out language instruction could be seen as indications of the teacher’s limited experience and training in teaching Greek as a second language. As the teacher herself pointed out, she had not received any training in teaching Greek as a second language during her undergraduate degree, while the training she had as an inservice teacher was relatively limited. The training provided by the Ministry of Education, in particular, took the form of optional afternoon seminars that, as the teacher stressed, in addition to being infrequent, were mostly of a theoretical nature and did not offer teachers practical guidelines and advice. At the time of the data collection, the teacher had

106

Chapter Four

had only four years of teaching experience in state Cypriot primary schools, two of which were in the pull-out programme. What is important and should be recognised is that, despite the fact that the Cypriot educational system is highly centralised, the teacher and her colleagues did not act as “soldiers” (see Shohamy 2006, 78) or blind implementers of top-down policies. Being very committed to their immigrant pupils and their mission to support them educationally as much as possible, they exercised their agency and engaged in micro-policymaking (see Menken and García 2010). Specifically, they disregarded the textbooks provided by the Ministry of Education and attempted to compile their own textbook. Also, as the school’s headteacher noted, teachers took additional measures, such as avoiding withdrawing pupils from their favourite classes or from classes that offered pupils extensive opportunities to socialise with their classmates and practise their oral skills (e.g. physical education and art). Even though such manifestations of human agency at a micro-level open up new possibilities, it needs to be acknowledged that they are still significantly constrained by macro-structures. As has been shown, they are still subject to the restrictions imposed by the lack of adequate teacher training and the imposition of a language education model that has inherent limitations and is not conducive to pupils learning the language of schooling and generally succeeding academically.

Conclusion This chapter has attempted to capture the process of “degeneration” that the democratic agenda of education often undergoes in the course of its translation into practice. This “degeneration” is particularly evident in the domain of language education of immigrant pupils, a population whose success in the educational system is highly contingent upon proficiency in the dominant language and competency in the school register. Cyprus provided an interesting – but by no means unique – case of a country which was confronted with the challenge of dealing with linguistic diversity in schools, but was unable to fulfil its commitment to promote social justice through its educational system. A macro-to-micro examination of the Cyprus experience exposed a gradual deviation from the democratic spirit pervading the country’s educational manifesto. This examination shed light on the “hidden” sources of the occurring deviation through opening the “black boxes” and revealing a set of factors that initiate and sustain this situation but often go unnoticed.

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es) 107

Starting from the macro-level and moving to the meso-level, ideological factors relating to a bias towards homogeneity and monoculturalism, combined with contextual factors, such as the urgency to comply with the regulations of the European Union against a backdrop of a policy vacuum and a lack of experience of educating linguistically heterogeneous student populations, gave priority to the pull-out model over other language education models. However, as argued, the pull-out model promotes monolingualism, while undermining immigrant pupils’ prospects for academic success. Moving from the meso-level of language policies to the micro-level of classroom practice, further intervening factors seem to come into play, such as the absence of appropriate teaching material, the large variation within the pull-out groups in terms of language proficiency and age, and the lack of adequate teacher training. Exposing these factors is a necessary step towards enhancing the language development of immigrant pupils and thus reinforcing the democratic and inclusive orientation of education. However, identifying all those critical instances that mark a deviation from the intended educational path and detecting the factors responsible for it, presupposes a holistic examination of the situation, namely, an examination that extends from the macro- to the micro-level and looks at policies and practices not in isolation, but as contextually determined and interrelated processes.

References Arvaniti, A. 2006. “Erasure as a means of maintaining diglossia in Cyprus.” San Diego Linguistic Papers 2, 25-38. August, D. and K. Hakuta. 1997. Improving Schooling for LanguageMinority Children: A Research Agenda. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Baker, C. 2006. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cheshire, J. 1982. “Dialect features and linguistic conflict in schools.” Educational Review 34(1), 53-67. Coelho, E. 1998. Teaching and Learning in Multicultural Schools. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Constantinou, F. 2007. Teaching Greek as a Second Language: An Insight into a Pull-Out Class in a Greek Cypriot Primary School. University of York, MA thesis. Corson, D. 2001. Language Diversity and Education. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

108

Chapter Four

Crawford, J. 1997. Best Evidence: Research Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. 1979. “Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters.” Working Papers on Bilingualism 19, 197-205. —. 1983. “Bilingualism and special education: Program and pedagogical issues.” Learning Disability Quarterly 6(4), 373-386. —. 1984. Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. —. 2000. Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. and E. Ushioda. 2011. Teaching and Researching Motivation, 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson. Educational Reform Committee. 2004. “Democratic and humane education in the Euro-Cypriot state: Prospects for modernisation.” [in Greek] Accessed 9 March 2013. Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eurostat. 2012. Europe in Figures: Eurostat Yearbook 2012. Luxemburg: European Union Ferguson, C. 1959/2003. “Diglossia.” In Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings, ed. C. Paulston and R. Tucker, 345-357. Oxford: Blackwell. Ferguson, G. 2006. Language Planning and Education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Gibbons, P. 2006. Bridging Discourses in the ESL Classroom: Students, Teachers and Researchers. London: Continuum. Hadjioannou, X. 2006. “Linguistic variation in Greek Cypriot elementary education.” In School Systems in Multilingual Regions of Europe, ed. W. Wiater and G. Videsott, 395-413. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Hajisoteriou, C. 2012. “Intercultural education? An analysis of Cypriot educational policy.” Educational Research 54(4), 451-467. Harklau, L. 1994. “ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments.” TESOL Quarterly 28(2), 241-272. Keck, C., G. Iberri-Shea, N. Tracy-Ventura and S. Wa-Mbaleka. 2006. “Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis.” In Synthesising Research on Language

Language Education of Immigrant Students: Opening the Black Box(es) 109

Learning and Teaching, ed. J. Norris and L. Ortega, 91-131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. 1996. “The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.” In Handbook of Language Acquisition. Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition, ed. W. Ritchie, and T. K. Bhatia, 413468. New York: Academic. May, S. 2012. “Educational approaches to minorities: Context, contest and opportunities.” In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, ed. A. Yiakoumetti, 11-43. Bern: Peter Lang. Menken, K. and O. García (eds.) 2010. Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers. New York: Routledge. Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC), Cyprus. 2008. “Intercultural Education (Circular),” Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture. [in Greek] Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC), Cyprus. 2013. “Intercultural Education.” [in Greek] Accessed 9 March. Newton, B. 1972. Cypriot Greek: Its Phonology and Inflections. The Hague: Mouton. Ogbu, J. 1992. “Understanding cultural diversity and learning.” Educational Researcher 21(8), 5-14 Ovando, C., M. Combs and V. Collier. 2011. Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in Multicultural Contexts, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Papapavlou, A. 2004. “Verbal fluency of bidialectal speakers of SMG and the role of language-in-education practices in Cyprus.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 168, 91-100. Pavlou, P. and A. Papapavlou. 2004. “Issues of dialect use in education from the Greek Cypriot perspective.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(2), 243-258. Richards, J. and T. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schleppegrell, M. 2004. The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. Snow, C. and P. Uccelli. 2009. “The challenge of academic language.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, ed. D. Olson and N. Torrance, 112-133. New York: Cambridge University Press. Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus. 2004. “Statistics on Education 2002/2003.” Nicosia, Cyprus: Statistical Service. [in Greek]

110

Chapter Four

—. 2012a. “Demographic Report 2010/2011.” Nicosia, Cyprus: Statistical Service. [in Greek] —. 2012b. “Statistics on Education 2010/2011.” Nicosia, Cyprus: Statistical Service. [in Greek] Stijnen, S. and T. Vallen. 1989. “The Kerkrade project: Background, main findings and an evaluation.” In Dialect and Education: Some European Perspectives, ed. J. Cheshire, V. Edwards, H. Münstermann and B. Weltens, 139-153. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Thomas, W. and V. Collier. 2002. “A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students' Long-Term Academic Achievement.” University of California, Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Tomlinson, B. 2003. “Developing principled frameworks for materials development.” In Developing Materials for Language Teaching, ed. B. Tomlinson, 107-129. London: Continuum. Verhoeven, L. 1994. “Transfer in bilingual development: the linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited.” Language Learning 44(3), 381-415. Walter, S. 2010. “The language of instruction issue: Framing an empirical perspective.” In The Handbook of Educational Linguistics, ed. B. Spolsky and F. Hult, 129-146. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Williamson, J. and F. Hardman. 1997. “To purify the dialect of the tribe: children’s use of non-standard dialect grammar in writing.” Educational Studies 23(2), 157-168. Yiakoumetti, A. 2006. “A bidialectal programme for the learning of Standard Modern Greek in Cyprus.” Applied Linguistics 27(2), 295317.

CHAPTER FIVE LANGUAGE IN EDUCATION AND SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE IN PAKISTAN TAYYABA TAMIM

Introduction The international emphasis on education is based on the assumption of its role in positive social change, transformation and a more equitable society. Hence, education is emphasized not just from a human rights perspective, but is endorsed by human capital theory too, for collective economic prosperity. It is also advocated by the capability approach to human development because of its intrinsic value for human beings and its instrumental role in the expansion of their freedom of choices. Nevertheless, research indicates that the trajectory of education into collective or individual wellbeing is neither automatic nor guaranteed (Unterhalter, Vaughan and Walker 2007). Education, if not equitable, can be a divisive factor through which “old prejudices are transferred and new ones are added” (Hettne 1995, 68), leading to the resurrection of the very social structures that it had set out to address (Bourdieu 1991; Bowles and Gintis 1976). A major source of discrimination within education, in multilingual contexts like Pakistan, can be the choice of languages used and taught within it. Language-based choices, embedded within the hierarchy of a wider language policy, can have implications for inequality and poverty that are seldom voiced in development discourse. Despite increasing evidence that language can be implicated in issues of discrimination, inequality and power (Tollefson 1991; SkutnabbKangas 2000; Rahman 2006), both within education (Cummins 2000; Cummins 1996) and outside (Norton Peirce 1995; Bruthiaux 2002), its connection with narrowly defined poverty remains largely under-explored with the exception of a few studies (Robinson 1997; Harbert, McConnellGinet and Miller 2008). Hardly ever is the debate of the choice of

112

Chapter Five

languages in education set against the perspective of such issues. Hence the discourses of language-based inequality and development may often run parallel but seldom intersect. This chapter, based on two different qualitative studies in Pakistan, aims to integrate the discourses of development and language education by exploring the processes by which the current language policy and languages used and taught in the multilingual context of Pakistan, perpetuate ideologies and language-based practices that result in inequality and lead to discursive constructions of the self that force the dominant into complicity with their own dominance. Hence if not dispelling, diminishing the transformative outcomes of education for those relatively disadvantaged. In this regard, the paper uses the theoretical framework of Pierre Bourdieu, specifically his construct of “symbolic violence” (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), to explore how the language policy and languages used in education inhibit and constrict the agency and wellbeing of those involved and arrest processes of transformation, mobility and positive orientations of self. The paper rejects the linguistic and cultural deficit theories following Bourdieu (1991), and grounds its arguments on the assumption that “transformative” education, i.e. education that can bring about meaningful change, is possible for all (Hart, Dixon, Drummond and McIntyre 2004). The concept of poverty here is relative and multidimensional, having both material and non-material forms. Informed by Sen’s (1990) capability approach it is understood as “capability deprivation” i.e. lack of opportunities and freedom of choices to achieve goals one has reason to value. In this paper I focus on only three aspects of relative poverty, i.e. the freedom to: a) live without shame; b) negotiate valued identities or maintain one’s identity; c) participate in valued social processes. The capability to go without shame lies at the core of poverty (Sen 1983), an argument that can be traced back to Adam Smith. Identity formation is an intransitive effect of choices whether made by self or others (Alkire 2002); while being able to maintain one’s identity is related to one’s wellbeing (ibid.). The equality of participation forms the basis of social justice as argued by Sen (1990) and Fraser (2008). I begin with an outline of the theoretical framework within which my arguments are situated, followed by a description of the context of the study and methodology. The subsequent sections present the findings and discussion. I conclude by summarizing the key points.

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

113

The Context Pakistan is a developing country with 49% of its population suffering from multidimensional poverty (Human Development Report 2011). Participation in higher education is only 5%, and is fraught with gender and regional disparities (Economic Survey 2011). Although the Economic Survey (2011) has estimated the country’s literacy rate as 57.7% and informs of rise in school enrolments, studies such as Andrabi, Das, Khwaja, Vishwanath and Zajonc (2007) and those undertaken by ASER (2011; 2012) report poor learning outcomes, specifically in government schools. Such studies reveal that there is a large majority of those “in” schools but “silently excluded” from any meaningful learning (Lewin 2007a in Lewin and Little 2011). Pakistan has no less than 25 languages in addition to a national language, Urdu and an official language, English. Of these, Punjabi is spoken as a mother tongue by 44.15%, Pashto by 15.42%, Sindhi by 4.10%, Siraiki by 10.53%, Urdu by 7.57%, Baluchi by 3.57%, and other languages by 4.66% of the population (Census 2001). In Pakistan, the official language policy demonstrates a strong commitment to Urdu in relation to regional languages but stays ambiguous regarding the relative status of Urdu and English. Despite Urdu being declared a national language, and the lingua franca in the country, historically, it has been the use of English that has been pervasive in government, bureaucracy, the higher judiciary, higher education and almost all official business, since the country’s independence from British colonial rule in 1947 (Mansoor 2005; Rahman 2006). The question of languages in education has been much debated among educationists and politicians and continues to-date in Pakistan. With regional languages given little importance beyond primary level in education and that only in a few provinces (with the exception of Sindh), the debate after the cessation of the East wing of Pakistan in 1971 has centred around Urdu vs. English as the medium of instruction in the country. Sindh is an exception in this regard, where the choice of secondary school education in Sindhi exists, and where taking a paper on Sindhi language is mandatory for those appearing in provincial secondary school board examination. Nevertheless, the population of these schools is also shrinking fast, leaving Urdu and English as the two languages contesting social and educational space. On the one hand, Urdu is promoted as the national language for the purpose of achieving national solidarity and identity; on the other, English is advocated for pragmatic concerns and the need to compete in the global market. The different

114

Chapter Five

education commissions and national policies (1957-1998), and even the constitution of 1973, are a testament to this conflict, where commitment to Urdu as medium of instruction and as an official language is made but delayed for one reason or another. This ongoing debate, however, has had little impact on the private English-medium schools which have continued to prosper. Although in the late 1970s, the government nationalized private schools to impose Urdu as the medium of instruction, the attempt failed, as even the government’s own institutions, such as those run by the Ministry of Defence, resisted the change. The policy was reversed and the denationalization in 1979 led to a surge of English-medium private institutions in the1980s, especially in urban areas, which charged varying levels of fees. The choice of the medium of education has ever since been left to the provincial governments. Currently, almost all private schools in urban areas use English as a medium of subject study and offer Urdu as a subject. The quality of English language teaching/learning in these schools often coincides with their fee structure. In contrast, the free of charge government schools that are the only viable educational opportunity for the poor, have until now offered instruction in Urdu, or, in some cases, regional languages,1 while English has been taught as a subject. In 2002 the local government of Punjab initiated English-medium instruction for one section within selected government schools from grade VI onwards on an experimental basis. Since this required a certain level of prior English language proficiency, access to these was limited to those who had been attending private schools in the past. Now the governments of Punjab and Sindh have decreed the conversion of instruction in government schools from Urdu to English medium from class I onwards since 2012, though Sindhimedium schools have been allowed to continue. In this respect, these government schools are now on a par with low-paid English medium schools that only poorly achieve the teaching of English because of the paucity of human and financial resources. This decision, made with the enthusiastic verve of equalizing opportunities to learn English, can be argued to have aggravated the educational dilemma of the poor, for many of whom even Urdu is a second language; and who have had almost no exposure to English. The major challenge of conceptual understanding in this case is not hard to imagine, while no mention need be made of the

 1

As discussed these are at primary level, except in Sindh where secondary education in Sindhi language is provided in a few selected schools. None of these were part of the sample for the current study.

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

115

poor English proficiency of teachers. Hence, fraught with pragmatic concerns, political tensions, and little research, the status quo continues. .

Theoretical Framework: Symbolic Violence Of the several studies that highlight the role of education in the reproduction of social structure, Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1977) theory of symbolic violence stands out in centralizing the role of ideology (Lakomski 1984). Symbolic violence constitutes the “subtle imposition of systems of meaning that legitimize and thus solidify structures of inequality” (Wacquant 2008, 278). This imposition takes place in connivance with “misrecognition” of what is only “arbitrary”, as “natural” and common sense (Cushions and Jones 2006; Bourdieu 1991). As such the framework of symbolic violence offers a profound account of the manifold processes by which “the social order masks its arbitrariness and perpetuates itself”, by forging “practical acceptance if not willed consent” of the dominated (ibid. 1). However, much more than a deterministic account of which it is accused (Lakomski 1984), the framework of symbolic violence also highlights “the social conditions under which hierarchies can be challenged, transformed and overturned” (Wacquant 2008, 268). In the construct of symbolic violence in tandem with the toolkit of “habitus”, “capital”, “field”, and “doxa” (ibid.), Bourdieu dissolves the opposition between subjective perceptions and objective structures. Habitus represents the confluence of agency and structure, a social history inscribed in the body: an internalized schema of social constraints that generates practices and perceptions of possibilities for the self. Crucially, I view habitus not as “irreversible” (Lakomski 1984) but as evolving through prolonged exposure to different fields. An example in this regard is the concept of “institutional habitus” that results from interaction within formal educational institutions (Reay 1998). Habitus is thus essentially a principle of “both social continuity and discontinuity”, because while being an embodied repository of power structures within which the individual is socially grounded (and as such, it is also shared with others similarly positioned), it is amenable to modification and can “trigger innovation” with prolonged exposure to different fields (Wacquant 2006, 273). Field is the concept of hierarchal social space where individuals are positioned in relation to the value of the capitals they possess. Different fields exist in relative autonomy to each other (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). This means that although each field has its own operative rules that govern valuation of capitals, these are not completely independent “from the fields of economic and political power which dominate society.”

116

Chapter Five

Hence fields simultaneously exhibit features “homologous to the wider social structure,” and those specific “to its own structure and logic” (Maton 2005, 689). The complexity of these interrelationships weaves the social fabric (ibid.) and are reflected in “doxa”, “the taken for granted shared assumptions and beliefs” (Hunter 2004, 175). It is important however to understand that the relational positions of individuals that structure a field are not reducible to only interactions because individuals may be positioned higher or lower in relation to others they have never met (Maton 2005). Capitals are the social economic and cultural resources that hold an exchange value in participation for individuals (Swartz 1997). However, it is with reference to the symbolic value allocated to capitals possessed by individuals in the given field that determines their relative social positioning (Sullivan 2002). The plight of the dominated often lies in the fact that their capitals are poorly valued. Although, the allocation of differential value is only an act of social construction, the “doxa”, impregnated with issues of power and inequality, conceals its arbitrary nature and generates a belief, the “misrecognition” that these judgments are only “natural,” resulting from “common sense” (Cushion and Jones 2006). Such processes perpetuate symbolic violence, that diminishes and constrains the agency of the dominated to achieve their valued goals by conjuring up a poor sense of self efficacy and identity, limiting perceptions of possibilities for the self and misrecognizing structural inequalities, as deficits of self, and eventually affecting resignation to the given order. The education system for Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) can be a major instrument through which symbolic violence and the resulting inequality can persist. It is through “pedagogic action (PA)”, that the educational system seals the privilege of the dominant by imposing a hierarchy of values that align with the cultural capital already possessed by the dominant. Simultaneously, the system restricts the equitable distribution of the valued capital/s by providing differential educational access across classes. The pedagogical action is based on the assumption of possession of certain capitals by all, which in reality only the dominant actually have. In this case, the teacher has only to teach equally to create inequality (Lakomski 1984). With pedagogical “authority” (PAu) the regimes of classification are legitimized under the guise of neutrality and meritocracy, whereby academic failure is misrecognized as individual lack of talent (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). The success of the pedagogical “work” (PW), i.e. inculcation, relies on the misrecognition of the given order as absolute, to the exclusion of any other possibility. This misrecognition results in symbolic violence that forces the dominated to accept their given

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

117

dominated position. Following their failure to perceive other possibilities, they self-deselect themselves from pathways that may lead to upward social mobility and achievement of valued goals. Not only this, the dominated attribute their failure to their own lack of natural ability, without realizing that the entire rules of the games were structured to conspire in their defeat. Although a few may succeed and cross the social border, to identify with those who hold distinction in the field, such success comes at the price of “dislocation of the self,” that demands renunciation of their past, their identity, and even their language. The conflict experienced at this conjuncture results from the “internalized class division” (Bourdieu 1991). Nevertheless, the “logic of dominance”, requires acceptance of dominance to succeed (Bourdieu 1987).

Methodology This paper is based on some findings of two different funded qualitative studies (Tamim 2005, 2010) in Pakistan that used a multiplecase study design. The studies were conducted with final year secondary school participants and others with at least two years of college experience in urban areas of Karachi (in Sindh) and Lahore in the province of Punjab in Pakistan. These were geared towards exploring language related issues within and outside education, situated within the complexities of the given sociocultural context. The methodology of both the studies was qualitative and in-depth ethnographic style semi-structured individual interviews formed the main data source. Although the qualitative nature of the studies restricts the extent to which the findings can be generalized, it offers unique in-depth insights, not possible otherwise. The first study was “ethno-cognitive” (Woods 1996) in nature and combined the social and the cognitive to explore the perceptions of teachers and students in the context of English language teaching and learning at a university in Pakistan. The data of this qualitative study was based on in-depth stimulated recall and ethnographic interviews of 4 teachers and 6 students in a three-year English language course in a Nursing Diploma programme at an international university in Pakistan. Of these, half of the students and teachers were from the first year, while the others were from the final year of the programme. The second study was interdisciplinary in nature. It used Amartya Sen’s capability approach to human development and Pierre Bourdieu’s social critical theory to explore the impact of institutionally acquired linguistic capital in private and government schools, on participants’ capabilities to achieve their valued goals. Sixteen cases (8 male pairs and 8 female pairs of siblings) were

118

Chapter Five

selected from 7 schools (4 private and 3 government) in urban areas from Karachi (Sindh) and Lahore (Punjab). The sampling was purposive and the aim was to study typical cases of urban, private and government schools, leaving out the elite private schools following a foreign examination system and very small schools. Snowball sampling was also used to facilitate access to schools in the climate of political unrest, and general mistrust, at the time of data collection in Pakistan. In addition, this also helped in reaching out to siblings who had completed schooling, and assisted me in overcoming, to some extent, the cultural barriers that I faced owing to my gender and class. The choice of siblings within a case served to capture time-related processes, i.e. comparisons within the time span corresponding to the age difference between the siblings in relation to four main areas: a) parental schooling choices b) sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts c) language learning experiences in schooling and d) language-based experiences beyond schooling. In addition, the older sibling offered a pragmatic window to the wider social life, while the younger sibling provided more recent and vivid representations of schooling processes. However, the comparison between siblings lies beyond the scope of this paper. The gendering of the cases helped avoid gender-related distortion of comparisons. The data for this paper emerges from single session ethnographic style interviews in both studies. The interviews lasted 1-2 hours and were conducted individually. The interview structures of both studies differed because of the difference in research questions. However, in both cases the participants were requested to give authentic examples for any abstract idea they expressed (Woods 1996) and it was these events and their evaluative comments that formed the point of discussion. The data analysis in both studies was a cyclical rather than a linear process, following the grounded approach, as suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998). However, it shifted between two broad phases. In the first phase, each interview was fully transcribed and analysed and, in the second, data within and across the cases were studied for patterns and themes. The process began with line-by-line coding of the transcribed interviews. This gave a general feel of the data and the coding here comprised mostly key words used by the participants, while notes or memos2 were posted side by side as some concepts seemed to develop. These codes were then revisited, leading to the merging of the initial codes

 2

Memos are defined as “the researcher’s record of analysis, thoughts, interpretations, questions, and directions for further data collection” (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 110).

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

119

into more abstract categories. This rigorous coding of each interview was both an attempt to retain the link between the question asked and the response given, on the one hand, and to gain an awareness of the positioning of the discourse within its surrounding argument, on the other, so that the implicit meanings in the articulation of the perceptions and the following conflicting or confirming statements could be captured. The emerging themes seemed to divide themselves into some broad descriptive domains within which the participants’ perceptions related to language use and affect were embedded, for example, family, education, work and other aspects of social life. In the second phase, the data across the cases was analysed within specific domains. I followed it with “axial coding” as larger relationships and patterns seemed to emerge, and the old categories merged into “higher order concepts” (Sarantakos 2005, 350). The question asked here was “what seems to go with what?” (Robson 2002, 477), as detailed data matrices were made. The strategies of: a) clustering and counting to check recurrence of the data; b) contrasting and comparing; c) “partitioning [of] variables,” and d) checking the “plausibility” of interpretations, were also rigorously used (Robson 2002, 480). Finally, more selective coding3 and core categories led to a higher degree of abstraction (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The themes thus arising from both studies suggesting the pervasiveness of symbolic violence have been selected in the writing of this paper.

Participants In the first study, the teacher participants were female, and 30-55 years of age. Their first language was Urdu, though they were also familiar with at least one regional language. They had a professional degree or certificate in teaching English language and they had a teaching experience of 10-35 years at different levels. They had been with this university for 27 years. The nursing student participants were 20-25 year old females from diverse ethno-linguistic backgrounds, and all, except one, were from the disadvantaged socioeconomic strata like the majority of the student population at this university. All of them were fluent in Urdu, although only two of them had it as their mother tongue. They had a prior exposure of 8-12 years of formal English language learning at school/college level. With the exception of one, who was from an expensive private school, all the participants had their schooling from low-paid English-medium

 3

By which I refer to the process of integrating and refining the theoretical approach.

120

Chapter Five

schools or government-run Urdu-medium schools. All, except one, reported poor English language proficiency. In the second study, the private school graduates (PSGs) had Englishmedium schooling and belonged to relatively stronger economic backgrounds than the government school participants (GSGs) in the study. The PSGs also had educated parents, who were supportive of their education. In contrast, all the government school graduates (GSGs) reported low parental education and lower income background. Four of the eight GSG cases formed the lowest income group. They reported disruptive schooling journeys and poor value attached to education by the parents. The other group of GSGs, with relatively higher income, shared with PSGs a parental commitment to and appreciation of the value of education. The GSGs, specifically those from the working class, were found to be disadvantaged in the “primary habitus of the family” (Bourdieu 1991), Research has highlighted how these differences advantage the middle class children in terms of cognitive and verbal development (Nisbet 1953; Bernstein 1964; Lawton 1968). Even if not seen in deterministic terms, there can be no doubt that this social positioning placed the lowest income group of GSGs most disadvantageously. At the end of secondary school, the participants reported learning of the most valued linguistic capital (English) corresponding to their socioeconomic background. Though only seven of the 16 PSGs were confident of their English, all of them reported having learnt English to a considerable extent. In contrast, the GSGs described their English skills as only minimal, with those with the lowest income having benefited least from schooling. Those from private schools invariably qualified their Urdu learning as “poor”, but they hardly felt concerned; while a majority of the GSGs reported learning Urdu, but did not really consider it an achievement, because they felt it was too “common”. With the exception of one, none of them reported learning Sindhi.

Findings The findings discussed here are related to Urdu and English, the two dominant languages and those most valued and used by the participants. The implications of regional languages within education would require a detailed discussion that lies beyond the scope of this paper.

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

121

The Doxic Order: Urdu-Mediums as Rejects Applying Bourdieu’s theory requires capturing the “doxa” of the field, the intersubjective meanings assigned to social phenomena, which effectively define interaction and represent the pattern of social fabric that weaves onto individual subjectivities, reproducing the social. In this context, the doxa was the unambiguous divide between the “Urdumedium” (UM) and the “English-medium,” (EM) whereby the Urdumediums emerged as the rejected other. Hira (EM) emphasized that “Urdu medium is a stigma” and explained: These Urdu-medium children remain uneducated even after being educated… they don’t know anything… they are villagers and their parents also… they must have that kind of environment at home that they did not study in English-medium. If they have studied in Urdu-medium then their choice of clothing will also be bad. They would also wear clothes like that… a whole picture emerges in the mind. (Interview PSG, Lahore, 12 April 2008)

Unais (EM) had never come into contact with an “Urdu-medium” (UM), yet he knew what to expect: For example he is Urdu medium he has bad language… meaning he verbally abuses… this is the way his language is but the class environment is different… these things are strictly disallowed and so are bad languages. (Interview PSG, Karachi, 22 June 2008)

Unais and Hira’s discourse exemplifies the prevalent “othering, stereotyping and essentializing” (Kubota 2004, 39) and the powerful rejecting of the other. Consequently, they indicate “a legitimizing of an almost colonial dichotomy between the Self and the Other” whereby “the Self is conceptualized as civilized, rational, logical, and thus superior,” and the other is rejected as “uncivilized, irrational, illogical, and thus inferior” (Pennycook 1998 in Kubota 2004, 39). The strength of the doxa in the given context was evident in that not only those who knew English, but also those who did not, mutually defined “good education” and “good family background” and (in the case of some teachers) even “intelligence” as synonymous with knowing English. Those with poor English skills were excruciatingly aware of this dichotomy, and tried to improvise their positioning by disguising it: “I mix a word or two of English as I talk in Urdu,” explained Seema (UM), indicating unquestioning acceptance of the given order as “natural” and hence, the stepping stone for the perpetuation of symbolic violence.

122

Chapter Five

Conflict and Legitimization of Hierarchy The instinctive awareness of the positioning of Urdu-medium is particularly perplexing in this context, given that impervious to the ideological bias, it was Urdu that functioned as the lingua franca and all the participants used Urdu commonly in their daily lives. In addition, a majority explained it as the medium in which they expressed their innermost thoughts to friends and family. This conflict in the use and rejection of local languages was apparent in the educational context too. Significantly, all the EMs reported either strict punishments or strong discouragement of speaking in Urdu, or any regional language in school. However, the policy was inherently conflictual because Urdu was not only taught but also used in classrooms for “pragmatic reasons” (Tamim 2005). This theme of denial and conflict was very strong here. Both learners and teachers expressed the need to use Urdu in class only to reject it later, as a certain threat to distinction is perceived both at institutional and individual level. Teacher A commented: I would be afraid to use Urdu… I would be afraid of my own understanding of it because we are doing it just for our children4 but still feeling guilty about it. (Interview teacher A, 5 April 2005)

This threat to distinction emerges at institutional level in the sanctions placed on speaking Urdu, stricter in the case of the high fee structure of the school. Salman (EM) described the humiliation his friend had to undergo when he could not express himself in English to the Head teacher: Now Sir was asking him to clarify his point only in English. He is telling Sir that I Sir I can’t ...don’t know how to speak in English, I only know Urdu [but he was sent back...] Then he felt very bad. Then he got his speech translated and then after fully understanding it went to Sir that Sir this is my point… Even if I was in his place I would have felt very bad. My point is perfectly alright but I am not being able to explain to Sir. Sir is insisting that you have to do it in English…then […] the whole class then says that Sir did not listen to him. (Interview EM, Lahore, 7 May 2008)

Shazia (EM) remembered the “horrible experience” of being punished for speaking in Urdu in grade VII at school:

 4

Whenever the participants mentioned using L1, they always hastened to explain its use almost apologetically. It could signify a sense of guilt and shame in the use of L1

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan It was a horrible experience. I was talking to my friend in Urdu. The teacher stopped me in Urdu but after a while I started talking in Urdu again. She [the teacher] dragged me from the class… I apologized and pleaded… and cried but she dragged me and locked me in the washroom for fifteen minutes… It was very shameful… Whenever I meet her I remember how she really/ how important is English in life. (Source Interview, EM, 6 April 2005)

It is significant in Shazia’s case that the teacher, who stops her from speaking in Urdu and punishes her for it, was herself using Urdu to do that. This is because English language proficiency is not common in this context, even in teachers. The punishment was harsh and the agony of shame at this tender age can be well-imagined, yet the message, “how important English is in life”, has been learnt. Similarly, despite relating a story of humiliation that his friend underwent because of the rule of speaking only in English, and not actually condoning it, he emphasizes: “there should be fines and punishments so we are forced to speak in English” (Interview, EM, 7 May 2008). By equating the “right to speak” and the “right to be heard” with knowing English, the pedagogical action can be seen to legitimize the hierarchy of languages, in contrast to the hierarchy of actual language use by the learners. In the case of teacher A, the success of the pedagogic work is evident in the guilt and fear she shares with other teachers, in the denial of her positive experience of using Urdu in class. The threat to her educated identity is real and powerful. The doxa of the symbolic power of English is all pervasive and so is the conflict omnipresent, though ignored, whereby the need for local language is realized, utilized but officially dismissed and denied, stimulating feelings of “guilt” (Macaro 1997, 76). A problem with the human capital approach to education that currently dominates the educational field is that it forces education to be subservient to the market; as such it absolves the institution of education of its power to challenge the existing norms. Hence, educational institutions mediate, strengthen and reproduce symbolic violence in the wider social life, manifest in the unquestioned acceptance of hierarchy of languages. It is the “censorship which stems from the structure of the market” that eventually “transform[s] into self censorship” as the participants anticipate profits of distinction. Hence, complicity to dominance is constructed (Bourdieu 1991, 19).

123

124

Chapter Five

The Discursive Construction of Self: Shame and Guilt Aisha (EM) vividly remembered the “shame” she felt when she had to disclose in her first college class that she was “Urdu medium” and she was not alone. In the field of higher education, as the medium of instruction changed from Urdu to English, and the UMs studied next to EMs, the UMs described painful struggle, “shame” and “guilt” as they tried to grasp the texts in a language they barely understood.5 Here the “misrecognition” that higher education was providing equal opportunities appears only to increase their distress as they compared themselves with the EMs, who “completed the task in 5 minutes”, while they took “hours”. Hence, the onrush of “guilt” and “shame” was obviously arising from the misrecognition of cultural inequality, as “lack of natural talent” (Bourdieu 1991). Imran (EM) exemplified with reference to his fellow students: It [English] becomes his limitation… he will not ask any question. It happens in our class. Those who are very weak in English… if Sir is explaining and someone asks he would explain in Urdu but that boy or girl feels guilty in oneself that they all know English and I don’t know. (Source Interview, UM Lahore, 4 April 2008)

Hussein (UM), who joined a prestigious college in Lahore, after coming from a small town and winning a gold medal for excelling in secondary school board examination, described the distressing experience of symbolic violence. Once he learnt that his Punjabi accent was a huge disadvantage, he could not even muster up courage to inform his teacher that his name was not in the class register so his attendance was not being marked. Eventually, his name was struck off from college: I did not have any confidence…I did not have command over language […] My confidence at that time was so low that I could not say [to the teacher] why have you struck me off [from the class register ]. You cannot be in a college, in a department and speak in Punjabi … how many people might be standing there, how much embarrassment you must feel… that I am speaking in Punjabi… everyone is looking. Laughing...This is a major thing that comes in the way (Interview PSG, Lahore, 5 April 2008).



5 There are certain subjects offered in Urdu, but the professional subjects leading to medicine, engineering, economics are offered either only in English or are offered only at lower level in Urdu and later changed to English. As the terminology used in these subjects is different in English and Urdu, the participants expressed their distress at not being able to connect new concepts with old.

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

125

Hussein’s low confidence was not only because he felt limited in English but also because he had a regional accent in Urdu. Ridiculed and silenced, he was painfully aware of “everyone looking.” This is in striking contrast to the higher education experience of Faizan (EM), who revelled at the thought of how “everyone was looking” when he made his first presentation in English with “an American accent,” that he was able to fake. Both of them anticipated people as thinking, “Where is he from?” as Faizan (EM) explains. Ironically, both boys were from Punjab. One of them, though, had been able to disguise his local identity, while the other had failed to do so. Hence, Faizan’s “distinction” was acquired at the price of “dislocation of self” (Swartz 1997), and distancing from local identity, which was intersubjectively ascribed an inferior status in this context, a result of the symbolic violence. In the field of work too, the stigma of Urdu-medium seemed to be all consuming, triggering shame. Sameen (UM) after completing two years of college was teaching at a local private EM school, at a salary of ten pounds per month. This was a remuneration lower than that given to an illiterate domestic servant in this context. However, she had to accept it because of her poor English. Yet the job brought neither financial independence nor a sense of valued educated identity. She explained that the “embarrassment” of being UM was inescapable, giving the example of her grade III math class: There are small things. I used the word ‘parkar’ [Urdu term for compass] in class and a student said “miss this is a compass” and then I did not know what tables were because we always said paharei [an Urdu term for multiplication tables]... it is such an embarrassment…Then the other student in my class started asking “Miss how educated are you?” and I told him it was none of his business. It is such a shame. (Interview GSG, Karachi, 21 May 2008)

It is noteworthy that Sameen neither defended her use of the Urdu word, which was a legitimate academic term, nor reply to the question about her education. Rather, she sums up the narration of the incident with the evaluative comment: “it is such a shame.” This reflects the low selfesteem and sense of powerlessness experienced by the UMs because of the low value ascribed to their linguistic capital on the one hand, and their limited opportunities to access the symbolic capital of English, on the other. The roots of the shame and guilt can be traced to the misrecognition of the arbitrary social values as absolute; hence, the inferiority of their own language and the superiority of English only appear as common sense. This defines the contours of symbolic violence. I would argue here, that “shame” is worse than humiliation, because while humiliation results

126

Chapter Five

from a feeling of unfair treatment, “shame” and also “guilt”, result from acceptance of wrong doing, exhibiting internalization of the given norms and conformity to the given social order. The deep emotional distress following a “sharp drop in social status, negative judgments, and social rejection” (Oxford et al. 2007, 141), that the UMs face in higher education institutions, acts to transform their attempt to participate on an equal basis with EMs, into self-derision, manifest in the shame and guilt they expressed, a suffering resulting from symbolic violence. Bourdieu argues that the “ultimate spring of conduct is the thirst for dignity, which society only can quench” by assigning meaning to existence. However, this can only be achieved “by submitting to the judgment of others” (Wacquant 2008, 270); that ironically also makes one vulnerable to symbolic violence. In this light, the struggle for saving face and maintaining one’s dignity clearly stands out as a valued freedom. Hence, the capability approach’s emphasis that the “ability to go without shame lies at the absolutist core” of poverty (Sen 1983 in Alkire 2002, 183), gains legitimacy.

Positioning of Self and Complicity to Power As the English language became a symbol of “distinction,” because of its restricted access and high value, it not only became a symbolic tool for dominating the other, it itself became a site of struggle for power. Rehana (EM) asserted: I know English. I am good enough to be in the group… I know English…I belong to a good family. I have a good car… good sense of dressing whatever is required …to be in a good gathering… if you have all this you don’t have to be afraid of anyone. You can go and speak out aloud. (Interview EM, Karachi, 21 May 2008)

The apposition of “a good car” with “I know English”, both accepted signs of privilege and power that Rehana perceives bestow upon her the authority to “speak out aloud”, without being “afraid of anyone,” and enjoy the membership of valued elite groups, reveals much about the symbolic power of English here. Her discourse, however, also indicates that by implication those who do not have access to English “naturally” do not have the right to “speak out aloud” and have much to “fear”, and neither can they achieve membership of valued groups. Farah (EM) related how her friend, at college, won a fight with a senior girl, just because she spoke English, fluently all the while, whereas the other failed to answer back in English. As the latter stood “ridiculed” for

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

127

her poor English by students who had gathered around them, she had little choice but to leave. Maria (UM) quietly described the other end of the perspective: “I used to be silent… when she [my friend] used to speak in English. I could understand to some extent but I could not answer her in English… so I would be silent.” Maria’s silence and the senior girl’s retreat, and the ridicule exhibit the power of the prevailing doxa and intersubjective understanding of the given social order. While the more fluent in English among the EMs positioned themselves for leadership roles which they argued were conferred upon them “just like that”, without any attempt on their part, the UMs seemed to consign themselves to subordinate roles. Naila (UM) explained, “If someone speaks to me in English and I speak to them in Urdu, then I think their level is higher and my level is lower.” The prevalent symbolic violence seemed not only to blind the UMs towards the injustice of the system, it also conjured up a self-image for the EMs of being naturally superior, and meant to be leaders. Richards (1997) terms this as considering oneself as “superior in principle”, i.e. “superior as a human being” (p. 96). This is intrinsically linked to considering the other as “being inferior in principal”, i.e. “inferior as human being” (ibid.). However, inequality in this mutual understanding is often concealed. Richards (1997) argues that in such a situation both the dominant and the dominated fail to acknowledge the “domineering and exploitative nature of their relationship and consider unequal relations of power and unfair treatment as justified” (pp.96-97), because of the intersubjectivity of the doxa. The consequence of this complicity in the power and privilege of others, enforced by symbolic violence, was not just emotional distress but also material deprivation from what seems to be the “choice” of the UMs. Hussein (UM) wanted to join a business school but “chose” otherwise, in anticipation of English presentations expected of him as a part of the course. Hassan (UM) a healthy, good looking young man, was overwhelmed with self-doubt. “English…,” he stuttered, when I proposed the interview spot to be an elite university, a convenient spot for both of us to meet. Later, he explained how the prospect of having to face the receptionist, who might speak to him in English, was deeply unsettling for him. Aqeel (UM) passionately explained that he wanted to get into a banking career rather than work as an electrician, following his father, yet he expressed doubts as to whether he would be able to: A: If there [everything] is in English then we have to do English. [If] someone talks to us in English, [if] we are not able to speak it will not feel good.… Meaning English will have to do English […] meaning we cannot

128

Chapter Five get a job like this. This we know. We have to keep our respect [face] or do we not? For our self-respect we will not be able to go… just like that. We will not have the courage… to go, we know nothing… we do not have the courage to go in the bank. I: But you would know […] we are talking about only language here? A: Language… difference is there. Language… makes a huge difference… when we do not know the language why… should we go into it. (Interview: EM, Karachi, 3 September 2008)

The suffering resulting from the symbolic violence is clear here. And so are the multiple dimensions and forms in which it works: relegating the dominated to their lower social positioning and to keeping their distance, as if by their own choice, as in the case of Aqeel and Hassan, and coercing all into accepting the inequality of the social structures without question.

Discussion The findings reveal the role of languages in education within the context of the wider national policy in perpetuating symbolic violence, and thereby depreciating the transformative impact of education. This was evident in the sustained inequality between the two groups, in terms of freedom to participate, maintain their dignity and negotiate valued identities. The link between symbolic violence and relative inequality and poverty becomes evident through the “struggle” of the social agents. The dominated in their desire to succeed have little choice but to accept the rules of the game in the field. Ironically, it is by the proviso of abdication to the rules of the game that they reinforce and strengthen the given structures that are constructed to their disadvantage (Swartz 1997). Suffering from the ensuing shame and guilt they are coerced not only to accept their lower position in the social hierarchy, but also they self-deselect themselves from valued education and career opportunities, hence curtailing their own participation by “choice.” It is here that the value of Bourdieu’s social critical theory and the capability approach becomes manifest. The emphasis of both on the exegesis of social choice, exploring the reasons working behind the choice making process rather than capturing the ahistorical moment of the actual choice that unravels the processes of symbolic violence. It is only when the objective realities of the sociocultural context are taken into account, that the symbolic violence working upon individual subjectivities can be understood. Hence, the emphasis of Bourdieu on taking into account both subjective and objective aspects of the field and the stress of the capability approach on evaluating the freedom of choices with relevance to the given context.

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

129

Given the ubiquitous phenomenon of language in the collective social, it becomes an important tool in the struggle for power and dominance. The doxa perpetuated by the national language policy breaches the relative autonomy of different fields and gathers force from becoming all pervasive, affecting participants in the fields of work, education and wider social life. The institutional authority that accompanies pedagogical action gives legitimization to the existing linguistic social hierarchy, whereby those disadvantaged can be seen being stigmatized and marginalized. This is despite the fact that Urdu is the primary means of communication used by participants here. What results is an example of what Bourdieu (1991) terms as a “class turned against it, whose members are seeking, at the cost of constant anxiety to produce linguistic expressions that bear the mark of habitus other than their own” (p. 21) and thereby destroying their own modes of expression (ibid.). The question of languages in education then needs to be dealt with in reference to social inequality. The concept of social equality itself must be constructed with the acceptance of the diversity of human beings on the one hand, and an understanding the difference between means and ends on the other, as suggested by the capability approach (Sen 1990). If the needs of people are different, the provision of the same commodity (language) would not lead to equitable outcomes, as was evident in the UMs’ experience in higher education. Hence, the provision of education in multilingual contexts needs to take into account the diversity of languages for equitable outcomes. This, however, must be synchronized with the national language policy to open opportunities for positive social change and transformation. The study also underscores the significance of conceptualizing language as a tool, a means to an end: the end of enhancing the agency of individuals to make choices and achieve valued goals within the given context and not just an end in itself. However, since the act of valuation and choices may be the result of social conformity, it can conceal symbolic violence; it is important then to challenge the values themselves. This is exactly what Bourdieu’s theory enables one to do. Bourdieu’s theory has been critiqued for lacking an account of agency (Lakomski 1984). The application of the theory in my study, I felt, highlighted “struggle”, rather than just “reproduction” (Wacquant 2008, 272) and enabled me to locate agency as “socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (Ahearn 2001, 1). The disadvantaged in my study did not just mechanically settle into the ascribed positions, rather they struggled to create a space for themselves, as is evident in the case of Aqeel, who harbours the passion to enter a banking career, or in their attempt at “mixing of Urdu with English,” and in the UMs’ struggle “to be equal”.

130

Chapter Five

But their agency to achieve what they value is constrained by the institutional structures that devalue their linguistic capital, while restricting their access to English. The ensuing symbolic violence, stemming from the misrecognition that the system is only natural and absolute and that their failure is their own fault, blinds them to the possibility of challenging the existing values. They are coerced to draw upon the prevailing values to abide by the rules governing the field, without realizing that their very acceptance of these rules disadvantages them from the start and will only reproduce the existing system. Hence, the participants in the study do not “mechanically reproduce” the structures but “draw upon” the repertoire of discourses in the given social context (Fairclough 2001, 32). The practices of the struggling agents, and I would say their agency was then a “constructed relationship between the habitus and the field” that did not just reflect the social structures but also shaped them (Wacquant 2008, 273). As such, reproduction sustains itself only to the extent to which it is replicated ensuring continuity, yet leaving room for agency and transformative change (Fairclough 2001, 32), with the positive mediation of social institutions.

Conclusion This chapter has explored the impact of languages in education in Pakistan within the context of the wider national language policy on participants in terms of poverty and inequality. To this end I have used Bourdieu’s theoretical concept of symbolic violence that centralizes the role of ideology. The analytical tool of symbolic violence reveals the processes by which the individual subjectivities stemming from intersubjective understandings of social structures, constructed by language policy, and strengthened by languages in education blind and bind the disadvantaged to their social positioning, by what seems to be their choice. I agree with Lawler (2004) that Bourdieu’s work is not “deterministic” but “pessimistic.” Lawler suggests, following Gramsci that pessimism is a trigger to change: “it demands that we pay attention to inequalities and injustices and rests on the belief that things do not have to be the way they are, and that they will not improve without intervention.” (p.125). However, “change is difficult to effect,” because “this is what it means to be dominant’ (ibid.). Despite the limitations of the study because of its qualitative nature, it opens a new dimension of research in language education, language policy and development studies in relation to each other. It shows how deeply language polices can affect people and perpetuate symbolic violence. It captures the process by which individuals are affected by both language

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

131

policy and their schooling experiences in relation to languages. It draws attention to the importance of considering the impact of language used in development interventions, while offering language educators an insight into the implications of their language teaching and its far reaching impact on the lives of individuals. The solution is not as simple as providing everyone with English, as the capability approach indicates, because losing local linguistic capital means a disconnection with their cultural knowledge and local identity, and disassociation with those less privileged. Rather, it lies in accepting the multilingual reality of the country and valuing this diversity both within education and in the language policy for equality of opportunities to achieve goals one has reason to value. Acknowledgments: The funding of the first study came from the British Council and the Aga Khan University. The second study was funded by the Research Consortium for Educational Outcomes and Poverty (RECOUP), spearheaded by the Cambridge University Faculty of Education. RECOUP’s aim was to evaluate the outcomes of education in relation to poverty reduction across four countries: Pakistan, Ghana, Kenya and India. I am indebted to Dr Edith Esch and Dr Michael Evans for their guidance and support during the research. I would also like to thank Elsa Strietman (Vice President, Murray Edwards) for her invaluable encouragement and support that enabled me to complete the research.

References Ahearn, L. 2001. Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30, 109-137. Alkire, S. 2002. Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Andrabi, T., J. Das, A. Khwaja, T. Vishwanath and T. Zajonc. 2007. Learning and Educational Achievements in Punjab Schools: Insights to Inform the Educational Policy Debate.

Bernstein, B. 1964. “Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. American Anthropologist 66 (6): 55-69. Bourdieu, P. 1987. “What makes a social class ? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups.” Berkley Journal of Sociology 32, 1-17. —. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

132

Chapter Five

Bourdieu, P. and J-C Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. and L. Wacquant 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bowels, S. and H. Gintis. 1976. Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books. Bruthiaux, P. 2002. “Hold Your Courses: Language Education, Language Choice, and Economic Development.” TESOL Quarterly 36, 275-93. Cummins, J. 1996. Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education. —. 2000. Language, Power and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cushion, C. and R. Jones 2006. “Power Discourse and Symbolic Violence in Professional Youth Soccer: The Case of Albion Football Club.” Sociology of Sports Journal 23, 142-161. Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power. London: Routledge Fraser, N. 2008. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Cambridge: Polity Press. Government of Pakistan. 2001. Census Report of Pakistan: 2001. Islamabad: Population Census Organization Statistics Division Government of Pakistan. —. 2011. Pakistan Economic Survey Report 2010–11. Islamabad: Finance Division Government of Pakistan. Harbert, W., S. McConnell-Ginet and A. Miller. 2008. Language and Poverty.NewYork: Multilingual Matters. Hart, S., A. Dixon, M. Drummond and D. McIyntyre. 2004. Learning without Limits. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Heller, M. 2008 “Bourdieu and ‘literacy education’.” In Pierre Bourdieu and Literacy Education, ed. J. Albright and A. Luke, 50-67. London, Routledge. Hettne, B. 1995. Towards an International Political Economy of Development. New York: Longman. Hunter, L. 2004. “Bourdieu and Social Space of the PE Class: Reproduction of Doxa Through Practice.” Sports, Education and Society 9, 175-192. Kubota, R. 2004. “Critical Multiculturalism and Second Language Education”. In Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, ed, B. Norton and K. Toohey, 30-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Language Education and Symbolic Violence in Pakistan

133

Lakomski, G. 1984. “On Agency and Structure: Pierre Bourdieu and Jean Claude Passeron’s Theory of Symbolic Violence.” Curriculum Inquiry 14(2), 151-163. Lawton, D. 1968. Social Class, Language and Education. London: Routledge. Lawler S. 2004. “Rules of engagement: Habitus, power and resistance.” In Feminism After Bourdieu, ed. L. Adkins and B. Skeggs, 110-128. Oxford: Blackwell. Lewin, K. and A. W. Little. 2011. “Access to Education Revisited: Equity, Drop out and Transitions to Secondary School in South Africa and Sub Saharan Africa.” International Journal of Educational Development.3(4), 333–347. Macaro, E.1997. Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. Mansoor, S. 2005. Language Planning in Higher Education: a Case Study of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Maton, K. 2005. “The Question of Autonomy: Bourdieu’s Field Approach and Higher Education Policy.” Journal of Education Policy 20(6), 687–704. Nisbet, R. 1953. The Quest for Community. New York: Oxford University Press. Norton Peirce, B. 1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 29(1), 9-31. Oxford, R., Y. Meng, Z. Yalun, J. Sung and R. Jain. 2007. “Uses of Adversity: Moving Beyond L2 Learning Crisis.” In Reconstructing Autonomy in Language Education: Inquiry and Innovation, ed. A. Barfield and S. Brown, 131-142. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rahman, T. 2006. Language and Politics in Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Reay, D. 2001. “The Paradox of Contemporary Femininities in Education: Combining Fluidity with Fixity”. In Investigating Gender: Contemporary Perspectives in Education, ed. B. Francis and C. Skelton, 152-163. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Richards, J. 1997. “Power Imbalance and Human Worth.” In Philosophical Perspectives on Power and Domination: Theories and Practices, ed. L. Bove and L. Kaplan. 93-106. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Robinson, C.1996. Language Use in Rural Development: An African Perspective. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Sarantakos, S. 2005. Social Research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schubert, J. 2008. “Suffering.” In Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts, ed. M.

134

Chapter Five

Grenfell, 183-198. Stocksfield: Acumen. Sen, A. 1983. “Poor, Relatively Speaking.” Oxford Economic Papers 35: 153-69. —. 1990. “Development as Capability Expansion. In Human Development and the International Development Strategy for the 1990s, ed. K. Griffin and J. Knight, 51-54. London: McMillan. Sullivan, A. 2002. “Bourdieu and Education: How Useful is Bourdieu’s Theory for Researchers”. The Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences 38, 144-166. Swartz, D. 1997. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education - or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. California: Sage Publications. Tamim, T. 2005. The Perceptions of Teachers and Learners Regarding the Role of L1 in Learning of L2, in an ESP Situation in the Context of an International University in Pakistan. University of Cambridge, MPhil thesis. —. 2010. Capability Development: A Sociological study of Languages in Education in Pakistan. University of Cambridge, PhD thesis. Tollefson, J. 2000. “Policy and Ideology in the Spread of English”. In The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching, ed. J. Kelly Hall and W. Eggington, 7-21. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. United Nations Development Programme. 2011. Human Development Report, Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Unterhalter, E., R. Vaughan and M. Walker. 2007. “The Capability Approach and Education”. Prospero 13(3), 13–21. Wacquant, L. 2008. “Pierre Bourdieu”. In Key Sociological Thinkers, ed. R. Stones, 266- 277. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Woods, D. 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decision-making and Classroom Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CHAPTER SIX ENGLISH IS (NOT) ENOUGH? THE ROLE OF ENGLISH IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC LUCIE BETÁKOVÁ

Introduction First presented in the form of a conference paper at the ESSE (The European Society for the Study of English) conference in Istanbul in 2012, the original aim of the presentation was to critically assess the language teaching policy of one of the member states of the European Union – the Czech Republic – in relation to the language policy of the Council of Europe. Criticism was founded on the discrepancy between the language teaching policy of the Czech Republic and the recommendations of the Council of Europe concerning plurilingualism, in that in the Czech Republic, only one compulsory language was taught in primary and lower secondary education and it was primarily English. The paper, on the other hand, provided a rationale for and suggested ways of implementing the Council of Europe’s policy to promote the teaching of a variety of foreign languages in Czech primary and secondary education. It seemed to be of a very limited value, though, to present such an academic paper written in English at a conference abroad. I was fully aware of the fact that this type of information had to be widely spread in Czech among academics and language teachers in the country if it was to have any influence on public opinion and subsequently on the language teaching policy of the Ministry of Education. That is why it was really surprising to find out later that the Ministry of Education was interested in collecting arguments in support of plurilingualism in society. Used as an argument in the process of negotiating the possibility of introducing a second compulsory foreign language into lower secondary education, just a few months later it was announced in the media that the Ministry of

136

Chapter Six

Education had decided to introduce a second foreign language for all children in lower secondary education starting in September 2013. This little “happy ending” shows how important it is for language teachers and academics to focus on sociolinguistic issues. We are not always listened to, we do not always influence language policies but we can at least make people aware of the relationship between language and society, i.e. the objectives of sociolinguistics. The aim of this paper is to present the philosophy of the language education policy of the Council of Europe and compare it with the language teaching policy of the Czech Republic before and after the reform of 2013.

Plurilingualism – fundamental principle of language education policy in Europe The two following sections present a brief overview of language education policy in Europe as described in various documents of the Council of Europe: from the 2001 “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages” (CEFR) through the “Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe” called “From Diversity to Plurilingual Education” (Beacco et al. 2007, henceforth Guide 2007) up to the “Guide for the Development and Implementation of Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education” (Beacco and Byram 2010, henceforth Guide 2010). The Council of Europe in its Guide 2007 defines Plurilingualism as a fundamental principle of language policies in Europe. The authors claim that: “Europe needs common linguistic principles more than it needs common languages” (p.31). To define plurilingualism, the CEFR compares it to the term of multilingualism which is the knowledge of a number of languages. In the plurilingual approach, on the other hand, languages are not separated. According to the CEFR, the plurilingual ideal is “a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact” (CEFR, 4). The authors provide an example of partners in communication who may switch from one language to another, giving both partners an opportunity to express themselves in one language and understand the other. From the perspective of plurilingualism, the aim is not to achieve mastery in one, two or more isolated languages. Instead, the speaker can take advantage of various skills in various languages. It is claimed in connection with this aim that, “languages offered in educational institutions should be

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic

137

diversified” (CEFR, 5), so that the learners have a chance to develop a plurilingual competence. Plurilingual competence is linked to pluricultural competence and defined as the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent has proficiency of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures. (CEFR, 168)

According to the Guide 2010, plurilingual and intercultural competence is the ability to use a plural repertoire of linguistic and cultural resources to meet communication needs. Plurilingual competence refers to the repertoire of resources which individual learners acquire in all the languages they know or have learned, and which also relate to the cultures associated with those languages. (Guide 2010, 8)

Elsewhere in the Guide 2010 it reads that plurilingualism is the ability to use more than one language. It centres on learners and on developing their plurilingual repertoire, and not on the specific languages they are supposed to acquire. According to the authors, this approach would be incomplete without the pluricultural and intercultural dimension. Pluriculturality is understood as the desire and ability to identify with several cultures, whereas interculturality is seen as the ability to experience another culture and analyse that experience. Plurilingual and intercultural competence can be defined as the ability to mobilise the plural repertoire of linguistic and cultural resources. Recommendation 1539 (2001) of the Council of Europe states that: “Plurilingualism should be understood as a certain ability to communicate in several languages, and not necessarily as perfect mastery of them (cited in Guide 2007, 35). In accordance with this idea, the CEFR describes “partial” qualifications that are appropriate when “only a more restricted knowledge of a language is required (e.g. for understanding rather than speaking)” (CEFR, 1). The authors of the Framework believe that “giving formal recognition to such abilities will help to promote plurilingualism through the learning of a wider variety of European languages” (CEFR, 2). The authors of the Guide 2007 claim that the development of plurilingualism is not only a functional necessity, but rather they view it as an “essential component of democratic behaviour” (p.36). They present three possible interpretations of plurilingualism:

Chapter Six

138 x x x

to enable national foreign language syllabuses to ensure better communication among Europeans; to consider it as a principle that aims to increase the offer of languages by education systems; to preserve the living diversity of European languages.

They argue that plurilingualism is an unexceptional ability shared by all speakers. The Guide 2007 sees it as a competence that can be acquired: “All speakers are potentially plurilingual in that they are capable of acquiring several linguistic varieties to differing degrees, whether or not as a result of teaching” (p. 38). They add: “Being plurilingual does not mean mastering a large number of languages to a high level, but acquiring the ability to use more than one linguistic variety to degrees for different purposes” (p. 38). The idea that all people are plurilingual is shared by other authors. Janík (2012) claims, supported by evidence from the literature, (e.g Wiater 2010; Janíková 2011), that every human is plurilingual, regardless of whether they have learned a foreign language or not, as all people master different varieties of the mother tongue for different purposes at different levels of formality.1 Janík understands plurilingualism as a gate from one foreign language to other foreign languages. It is important to note, as Janík points out, that if we learn more languages, we never start a new language from point zero. Rather, we always develop the already existing skills and competencies. The aim of the methodology of plurilingualism, as has been already mentioned, is not a full mastery of all the foreign languages at the same level but is related to practical and situational usage. Janík argues that the aim of a plurilingual methodology is the formation of a mental framework which enables the learner to learn more effectively than when learning languages in an additive way. In language learning, the role of language transfer or crosslinguistic influence (Odlin 1989) is crucial, hence it is necessary to exploit the existing knowledge and skills and transfer such experience into the learning of other languages.

1

It is definitely true of Czech where the standard variety used for formal purposes and used officially at school differs immensely from the everyday spoken language referred to as either common Czech or common Moravian. The situation in the Czech Republic may be seen as diglossic, i.e. where two codes perform two separate sets of functions – see Sridhar 1996.

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic

139

Implementing plurilingual education The Council of Europe sees the heritage of diverse languages and cultures in Europe as priceless and believes it should be protected. The Council claims that it will be possible to facilitate communication and interaction among Europeans of different mother tongues only “through a better knowledge of European modern languages,” which will “promote European mobility, mutual understanding and cooperation, and overcome prejudice and discrimination” (CEFR, 2). In the field of modern languages, the political objectives of the Council of Europe can be summarized as maintaining and developing the richness and diversity of European cultural life through “greater mutual knowledge of national and regional languages, including those less widely taught” (CEFR, 3). The purposes of plurilingual education, according to the Guide 2007, should be to: x

x x

make everyone aware of and value the nature of their linguistic and cultural repertoire (defined by the CEFR as all the resources acquired in each of the languages known or used and the cultures attached to them); to develop and improve this repertoire; to give all speakers the means of developing it themselves through autonomous acquisition (p.39).

The Guide claims that it is the state’s responsibility to implement a form of plurilingual education into their educational systems. The authors argue, though, that it does not have to be done through similar educational curricula or an identical organization of teaching. They explain that plurilingualism is “plural” and that is why there are multiple ways to achieve it. On the other hand, they show what aspects the implementation of plurilingualism should be involved in, in general terms: x x x x

implementing education for plurilingual awareness linked to education for democratic citizenship; coordinating teaching of national, regional or minority and foreign languages, sign languages and classical languages as a common basis on which to develop language skills; the expression in syllabuses of the concept of diversified competence in various languages; introducing as much cohesion as possible between different educational levels.

140

Chapter Six

To achieve the plurilingual ideal, the CEFR has proposed language curricula which include the teaching of three modern languages other than the language of instruction. They are referred to as foreign languages and numbered FL 1, FL 2 and FL 3. The first foreign language (FL 1) would start in primary education, the second foreign language (FL 2) in lower secondary schools, and at upper secondary level the learners may be offered an optional foreign language (FL 3). In other words, the students could learn two languages out of several on offer that would be compulsory and a third foreign language that would be optional. The CEFR goes further and suggests two possible scenarios for dealing with foreign language teaching in member states. In Scenario One the first foreign language (FL 1) is introduced in primary school focusing on developing language awareness in comparison with the mother tongue. In lower secondary education, the development of FL 1 continues with an emphasis on developing the communicative competence of the learners. At the same time, the second foreign language FL 2 is introduced but this time the main focus is on comprehension, i.e. the development of receptive skills. In upper secondary school, FL 1 becomes the language of instruction whereas teaching of FL 2 still focuses on comprehension. The third foreign language is introduced as optional with the main emphasis on developing learning strategies and autonomous learning. Scenario Two does not count on a foreign language becoming a means of instruction at any stage. In primary education, FL1 is introduced with the aim to achieve basic oral communication skills. In lower secondary school FL 1 continues in all four skills, both receptive and productive, whereas FL 2 is introduced for intercultural discussions through contact with other languages in the curriculum and is related to media education. At upper secondary level both FL 1 and FL 2 continue at more demanding levels, while at the same time the optional FL 3 is introduced for vocational purposes. The authors of the Guide 2010 argue that the most common pattern of foreign language teaching in Europe is the introduction of the first foreign language at the primary level and a second at lower secondary level; the first foreign language is usually English, the second then German, French, Spanish or Russian. They claim, though, that when planning a curriculum geared to plurilingual and intercultural education, it is necessary to analyse the existing situation, the sociolinguistic context and school culture and find a type of curriculum best suited to the given context. Whatever curriculum would be chosen for the particular context, it should be ensured, according to the authors of the Guide 2010, that they:

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic x x x x

141

adopt a holistic approach, in which curriculum planning covers learners’ repertoire languages, languages in their environment, and languages taught in schools; give all teaching of languages and other subjects an intercultural dimension; include partial competences and inter/translingual strategies; allow for languages’ function as a knowledge building instrument.

The authors of the Guide 2010 point out that crossover links between languages as subjects are the central element in plurilingual and intercultural education. The development of the learners’ mother tongues plays a crucial role in language education. They argue that the language of schooling is a part of plurilingual and intercultural education. If we want to make the language of schooling contribute to plurilingual and intercultural education, the authors claim, we should coordinate language aims in foreign languages with those in the language of schooling, paying special attention to cognitive operations common to all language activities and using the language of schooling as a starting point for teaching other languages. It is important to note, though, that although the acquisition of languages represents an ideal platform for developing intercultural competence, intercultural education is not limited exclusively to language teaching. Intercultural competence can be also developed in other, even newly introduced subjects. The traditional school subjects should be organized in such a way as to link knowledge and skills from individual subjects for the purpose of developing intercultural competence, claim the authors of the Guide 2010.

Case study – Language policy in the Czech Republic up to 2013 Having presented the plurilingual ideal of the Council of Europe and having described the proposals concerning language education policy in Europe, including the basic principles of curriculum design together with possible practical scenarios how to achieve this ideal in language education in member states, I would consequently like to ask whether the individual member states’ language policies comply with this language policy of the Council of Europe. Another question is whether the ideal of plurilingualism can realistically be achieved in the individual member states; and the third question is whether it is what the citizens of the member states really wish to accomplish.

Chapter Six

142

Naturally, it is beyond the limits to survey the language policies of all 47 member states in this paper. I will present here only the sociolinguistic situation in the Czech Republic. Without any doubt a comparison of more countries would lead to very interesting results showing how far the language education policy of the Council of Europe has been implemented in member states in harmony with their particular needs and resources. The data of several member states (including Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia) are available in Language Education Policy Profiles which were developed by each country with the assistance of the Council of Europe. These profiles represent an excellent source of knowledge of the language policies of some member states. One problem to be confronted, though, lies in the many reforms and innovations which have recently brought changes into national language policies as will be shown through the example of the Czech Republic. In the Czech Republic, a curricular reform called Framework Educational Programme (Rámcový vzdČlávací program) for Primary and Secondary Education was introduced in 2004. In comparison with the past when strict curricula had to be followed, the Framework Educational Programme provides a general educational framework each school has had to comply with, but within this programme a specific school programme is worked out by each particular school according to its aims and needs. The school programme then has to be made public for learners and their parents. The Framework Educational Programme: x x x

defines key competences of learners at different levels; defines key educational areas (e.g. language and communication); defines cross curricular topics which have to be dealt with within all subjects (e.g. multicultural education, media education, environmental education).

According to the document, language education involved teaching two foreign languages. At the primary level the first foreign language (FL 1) was introduced in the third form at the latest with three weekly hours. FL 1 could be introduced earlier if the schools had the necessary resources for that, i.e. especially qualified language teachers. The focus was communicative so that the learners should reach A1 level according to the CEFR. At lower secondary school FL 1 continued with three weekly hours, this time aiming at A2 level. A second foreign language (FL 2) had to be introduced in the eighth form at the latest but offered to the students only as an optional subject, again with three weekly hours. In the case of FL 2, the language level aimed at was A1.

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic

143

At upper secondary school two languages had to be taught: FL 1 aimed at B2 and FL 2 at B1 levels. In other words, at upper secondary level two languages were taught from which one was to be English. In case the learner could not continue in one of the languages from lower secondary level, another language for beginners had to be offered. Nevertheless, the school had to guarantee that all learners would reach at least B1 level in one language. Given the language choice the learners in compulsory education in the Czech Republic have had up to now, we can see that English has to be offered to every pupil in the third form at the latest. In case the learners do not want to choose English, their parents have to be warned that there is no guarantee that their children will be able to continue with the language if they change schools (from primary to secondary or from lower secondary to higher secondary). This decision, obviously, has had serious consequences for the teaching of other languages. As has been said, another foreign language had to be offered in form eight but only as an optional subject. According to the Framework Educational Programme pupils could choose from German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Slovak and Polish. English, on the other hand, had to be offered to those who did not choose it at the primary level. However, it is only viable in theory and not in practice because all children take English as it is much easier for schools not to offer any other option so as not to get into difficulties with continuity in language teaching. A comparison of the language policy of the Council of Europe and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages with the language policy of the Czech Ministry of Education before 2013 shows that the Czech system did not comply with the idea of plurilingualism. Not only in the fact that English was (and still is) viewed as a compulsory language for everybody and that much less language diversity was offered, but also in that there was more emphasis on developing all language skills, as could be seen from the description of the required language competence described in Framework Educational Programme. On top of that, we could see very little or no connection between the languages taught. Languages including the mother tongue were taught strictly separately and the second foreign language was offered only as an optional subject at the lower secondary school level.

Advantages It would be unfair, though, to see only disadvantages in the language policy of the country. Unlike European language policy makers, we can

144

Chapter Six

see some advantages in the Framework Educational Programme. In the country where English is viewed as a lingua franca (defined by Sridhar 1996, 53 as “a common language used by speakers of different language backgrounds”), where there are nevertheless not many opportunities to communicate with native speakers of English, the policy may seem democratic in that every pupil in the Czech Republic has the right to learn English and thus, at least in theory, enjoy the advantages of the knowledge, e.g. in being able to communicate with people in Europe or elsewhere with whom they would not otherwise be able to express themselves. We can sit for a moment and think whether English helped us to learn something new, i.e. whether the language functioned as “a knowledge building instrument” (see Guide 2010) or whether some new prospects have been opened to us thanks to English. The advantage of English as a global language (Crystal 1997) is that it is often used when none of the participants is a native speaker of English and thus no one is at an advantage. Communication with ordinary people in the streets is the best way to combat cultural and national stereotypes; it is the best means of fighting racism and any sort of discrimination, the best way to understanding and tolerance among states and nations (Betáková 2005). Another advantage is that people with knowledge of English would not be dependent only on media sources in Czech but they could benefit from getting a different range of perspectives about political, social and environmental issues from the Internet, from international newspapers and television. English is also a powerful tool in education as most scientific results are published in English and English is absolutely necessary for managing any information and communication technology. English is the language of the Internet and the Internet is thus responsible for the further spread of English all over the world. In the modern, unifying Europe, English has, quite naturally, taken over the role of Latin and later French and has become a means of everyday communication in European administration, although the European agenda is still translated into the languages of the member states.

Disadvantages On the other hand, there are clear disadvantages in the language policy that focuses on English being the only compulsory language taught at schools. From my own long experience as a teacher trainer and a person in charge of syllabi for language teacher education, I can say that other languages are neglected even though having the knowledge of the

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic

145

particular language would correspond better to the language needs of the particular groups of learners. This concerns especially the languages of the neighbouring states, mainly German and Polish.2 There have been many borderline initiatives in education, especially with Austria and Germany and knowing German is very useful even for social purposes in the areas bordering with German-speaking countries. Another problem connected with the “English–only–approach” is that many originally fully qualified teachers of other languages – especially German and Russian – have been forced to teach English. Universities have been offering in-service courses for teachers of other subjects who need to gain qualifications in teaching English. Most of them are teachers of German, which seems to be a waste of human resources. The fact that there are not enough qualified teachers of English in Czech schools may be at least one of the reasons why not many learners are able to use English effectively for communication. The teachers’ insufficient qualifications are connected with their low language proficiency, inappropriate teaching methods and may result in the low motivation of the learners.

Solutions Are there any solutions for improving the language teaching policy in the Czech Republic that would correspond better to the idea of plurilingualism of the Council of Europe and at the same time would be more sensitive to the real needs of the learners? We think that first of all it is necessary to allow for a greater variety of languages to be taught even at the primary level. The schools should offer languages which are needed by the learners and their parents, and also languages for which there are fully qualified teachers in the particular schools, with a high level of proficiency and also a strong motivation to teach it. As has been said, in many geographical areas learners would benefit more from learning the languages of the neighbour states (especially German and Polish). As was said at the beginning of the paper, the Czech Ministry of Education has decided to incorporate significant changes into the Framework Educational Programme concerning foreign language teaching. The reform was implemented in September 2013 and, in accordance with it, all lower secondary schools have introduced a second foreign language compulsory to all pupils in the eighth form at the latest. The ministry claims that the main reason for the change is the fact that the Czech 2 The Czech Republic neighbours Austria in the South, Germany in the West, Poland in the North and Slovakia in the East.

146

Chapter Six

language teaching policy did not correspond to that of the Council of Europe mentioned above. Another reason is that all the countries in the former eastern bloc have already improved their foreign language teaching policies by introducing a second foreign language as compulsory, usually from the seventh form. Other arguments for teaching two compulsory foreign languages as pronounced by the Ministry of Education are economic, political and cultural reasons, as it is extremely important for the citizens of the country to be able to communicate in at least two foreign languages. The ideal, according to the Ministry of Education, is to be able to communicate in a global language and in a foreign language of the region or a foreign language that is “culturally” close. The change in the status of the second foreign language also corresponds to the general tendency to start learning foreign languages earlier in life. The Ministry of Education also argues that learning more foreign languages contributes to the development of the personality of each individual. They build on the argument of the CEFR that within an intercultural approach, it is: a central objective of language education to promote the favourable development of the learner’s whole personality and sense of identity in response to the enriching experience of otherness in language and culture. (CEFR, 1)

The Ministry of Education also believes that by teaching two foreign languages we will be able to move further toward the fulfilment of the ideal of plurilingualism. The aim would be, then, not to know both or all languages at the same level, but to be able to communicate in all of them. In practice, the schools have been given a minimum of six hours to be spent on teaching the second foreign language. The distribution can be, for example, two hours a week in the eighth form and another two hours in the winter term of the ninth form, or three hours a week in year eight only. It is interesting that pupils from various forms and of different ages can be put together for the second foreign language learning in order to cater best for the individual needs especially in relation to the choice of the second foreign language. It will give the schools a certain flexibility. There will be some exceptions to the learning of the compulsory second foreign language, though. It will concern especially learners with special needs and learning disabilities. If the headteacher of the school thinks that there are learners who would not be able to cope with the second foreign language, they will be able to decide, in cooperation with the parents, to move the hours allocated to the second foreign language to teaching the first foreign language. We can only hope that the headteachers

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic

147

will be using this right only exceptionally and that it is not going to be imposed on all children with learning disabilities. Together with this curricular change new educational standards were introduced in September 2013 by the Ministry of Education to ensure that schools would really reach the aims stated in the Framework Educational Programme and that all pupils would reach the required level which is characterized through “can do” descriptors. In foreign languages, learners should reach A1 level according to the CEFR in the first foreign language in the fifth form and A2 level in the ninth form. In the second foreign language, A1 level should be reached in year nine. Thus from 2013 the foreign language curriculum guaranteed by the Czech state will correspond to the language curriculum proposed by the Council of Europe.

Methodological possibilities to achieve plurilingual ideal Another important issue does not concern the choice of languages but rather the aims of teaching the language and also the methods used. As has been shown as regards the language policy of the Council of Europe, language teaching should build up plurilingual competence by comparing the existing knowledge of languages, not developing each language separately with no connection to what the learners already know either from their mother tongue or from other languages they have been learning. The positive role of language transfer or influence is well known and has been already mentioned. In schools, it would be useful to use the knowledge of pupils whose mother tongue is not Czech (e.g. Roma, Ukrainian, Vietnamese or English). From my own experience as a teacher, teacher trainer and textbook writer I can say that pupils at the elementary school level in their language classes keep learning about the cultures of English speaking countries but know nothing about the culture of their closest neighbours, the Roma. Many bilingual children may have problems in Czech schools, especially those whose mother tongue is the language taught at schools – either English or German. Teachers often tend to neglect them due to the fear that the students’ language proficiency is higher than their own. Teachers with lower language proficiency are not often willing to accept their bilingual pupils as priceless resources of the target language and excellent communication partners for the rest of the class. To be able to compare the languages their learners have been acquiring or to be able to use the knowledge of bilingual pupils, their teachers would need special training either at the university or through in–service training. There are many teachers who have been qualified as teachers of two

148

Chapter Six

languages, or at least of a foreign language and their mother tongue, and who would thus be able to use a language comparison naturally. It is not necessary, though, in my opinion, to know more languages than the one taught, if the teacher wishes to use the existing knowledge of their students. It is only necessary to know the methodology of how to do it. Such comparison of languages can be done only occasionally, when there is an opportunity to compare either vocabulary or grammatical structures in more languages. The teacher can easily ask for an equivalent in another language or translation of the particular grammatical structure into more foreign languages. Awareness of language influence seems to be more important than knowledge as such. Such awareness can be raised from an early age through such subjects as language propaedeutics which could show learners very simple examples of similarities between languages (e.g. the word for sun in various European languages), or show them seemingly identical words which have an opposite meaning, i.e. false friends (e.g. úžasný – in Czech meaning wonderful, whereas uzhasnyj in Russsian meaning terrible) and can cause misunderstanding. Having fun with language learning is one of the prerequisites for motivation to learn more languages. Janík (2012) presents the so-called “tertiary methodology” which concentrates on teaching the second foreign language, i.e. the third language of the learner if we include the mother tongue. As English is usually taught as the first foreign language in most European countries, tertiary methodology looks at teaching other foreign languages; in the Czech Republic this usually means German. The tertiary methodology aims at exploiting the already existing knowledge and skills from the previously learned or partially learned language. Such methodology should develop learner autonomy and learning strategies, teach how to use previous knowledge and skills effectively to acquire another language, and teach awareness of similarities and differences between languages. To achieve plurilingualism, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) offers the solution of “partial knowledge”. In the plurilingual approach, for example, partners in communication may switch from one language or dialect to another, exploiting the ability of each to express themselves in one language and understand the other. It could be successfully adopted by many national systems of language education. Many people have partial knowledge of more languages but are not aware of it. The situation in former Czechoslovakia would be a good example of using partial knowledge. Until twenty years ago the Czech Republic was a part of Czechoslovakia where there were two official languages – Czech and Slovak. Both languages were used for TV

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic

149

broadcasting, so there were some programmes in Czech, others in Slovak. It was alike with radio broadcasting. Some announcers were Czech, others Slovak. The news was read partly in Czech, partly in Slovak. This practice resulted in a kind of bilingualism where most people understood the other language, but for mutual communication they spoke their mother tongue. It can serve as an example of good practice that could be implemented into learning other Slavic languages which have many features in common. With some awareness training on language influence the languages would be mutually comprehensible. When the Czechoslovak Republic was divided into two independent countries, Slovak disappeared from all Czech media but not vice versa. A few years later it was found on the Czech side, however, that it was not reasonable and practical from the point of view of language learning. Now there is a strong tendency to show programmes, especially for young people, in which both languages are used. Thus, again, the young generation has the opportunity to acquire the language in a natural way, as the language input the listeners are getting is comprehensible (Krashen and Terrell 1983). This technique of speaking one language and understanding another can be used very effectively not only with languages that are close to each other. It can be a good practice in case the speakers share two languages but have a higher level of receptive than productive skills. Each speaker can speak in their mother tongue and listen to the other language. Such language switching gives them a chance to communicate directly with the communication partner, but also to express themselves at the required intellectual level. Such practice has been described by the CEFR.

Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius) The idea of partial competence is not new. It was already pronounced by Jan Amos Komenský, known as Comenius, a Czech philosopher, writer, teacher and education reformer. I would like to present here his ideas concerning language learning and language teaching policy in Europe to achieve the ideal of plurilingualism. Although J. A. Komenský wrote his books on pedagogy and methodology in the 17th century (he was born in 1592 and died in 1670), many of his ideas may sound familiar when talking about European language teaching policies at the beginning of the 21st century. Komenský can also be seen as the father of modern methodology (Didactica Magna, Informatorium maternum). Apart from theoretical works he was an author of language textbooks (Orbis Pictus, Janua Linguarum Reserata). According to Kumpera (1992), Janua

150

Chapter Six

Linguarum was, apart from the Bible, the most often reprinted book in the 17th century and was translated into 11 languages (in 1631 into English). Komenský thought about the roles of individual languages in Europe. It is very interesting that his ideas concerning the choice of language remain generally acceptable in the united Europe of today, although the Council of Europe does not promote the idea of one language learned by all. Komenský believed, though, as many people today, that there should be a common language of communication. At his time the lingua franca was still Latin whose position was different from that of the lingua franca of today – English. The difference lies in the fact that English is a live language used in many varieties whereas Latin in the 17th century was already a dead language. Komenský was aware of this drawback. That is why he was convinced that Latin was not the ideal language for all as it was not spoken as a mother tongue, it was not used for communication and thus could not be acquired naturally. In his utopia called VzkĜíšené Latium (Latium Restored) he suggested opening a special college in which only Latin would be spoken for everyday communication and where it could be acquired naturally by others. He was dreaming of creating a new universal language that would borrow the best possible characteristics from a number of European languages. Such a language would be named Panglottia and should be an international language of philosophy. It should be first of all accurate, appropriate, easy and harmonic. His effort was in line with the everlasting effort of some European intellectuals to create an ideal language of European communication, a language that would be universal and practical. In the foreword to his book The Search for the Perfect Language (1995), Umberto Eco points out that in the centuries critical for the linguistic and political unity of the Roman world, when the new languages spoken in today’s Europe started coming into existence, European culture referred back to the biblical episode of the confusion of tongues and attempted to recreate the Adam’s language and reconstruct it into an ideal one. But in reality, Eco argues, in supranational communication not even the most well-known, Esperanto, has reached the importance of any natural language. Today, the Council of Europe argues that what we need are common language principles, not a common language. Komenský argued that it is also necessary to know other languages, especially those of neighbours, but that partial passive knowledge of these languages would be sufficient. He presented the advantages of such practice in that each communication partner would be given the chance to communicate with their neighbour in their mother tongue, no one would be disadvantaged. Komenský believed that such practice would from both

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic

151

sides contribute to a better understanding between neighbouring states or nations, which he already perceived as crucial. This approach originally advocated by Komenský is still alive even in modern Europe. Spanning the borders of two or more neighbouring countries there are the so-called Euroregions which serve as platforms for strengthening cross-border cooperation often also through the teaching of the languages of the neighbours. Apart from the importance of foreign language learning, he stressed the necessity of mother tongue cultivation. It seems somehow forgotten at present that not only learning foreign languages but also developing and improving the mother tongue is very important. The Council of Europe is aware of the role of the mother tongue claiming that the language of schooling should be used as a basis for developing plurilingual and intercultural education (Guide 2010). Between foreign language learning and mother tongue improvement, specific relations have been formed. Without knowing the mother tongue, success in the foreign language is impossible. On the other hand, foreign language learning influences back the mother tongue development. It usually improves understanding of the linguistic system of the mother tongue and might have an important motivational role in that only when learning a foreign language can the learners see the importance of understanding the language system of their mother tongue. In the area of foreign language teaching Komenský was troubled by very similar issues to those we have to face nowadays. He asked himself how it was possible that learners learning a language for ten years or more were not able to use it effectively. Komenský criticized the methods used for teaching languages, especially Latin. He argued that it was absolutely necessary to learn the language by usage, not by learning rules, which means that in the 17th century he was aware of the significance of language acquisition. He also pointed out that if we learned the language in a real context, it would be fun. In his opinion, we should learn words together with objects or realia. He came up with the idea of “schola ludus”, i.e. learn through play and at the same time school should be “a workshop of humanity”. Piaget focuses on Komenský’s modern approach to education in that he always stressed “the primacy of action” (1993, 5) and wanted all children learn to write by writing, to speak by speaking, to sing by singing, and to reason by reasoning. Komenský transferred this idea into language teaching as well where he advocated that examples must precede rules. He also proposed a new language teaching method. In his opinion, each language should be learned in three steps: from comprehension through writing towards speaking. He claimed that

152

Chapter Six

listening is the easiest skill, that it can be mastered by everyone. He perceived writing as easier than speaking, as for writing aids such as dictionaries can be used in comparison with speaking which is ex tempore, i.e. impromptu or spontaneous. We can see that Komenský was fully aware of the fact that language learners may have a different command of particular language skills as has been pronounced in the CEFR through the common reference levels for each skill.

Conclusion In conclusion, we have explained the language educational policy of the Council of Europe as it is set out in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, and in other documents. Some of the ideas presented there are not new as was shown on the proposals by J. A. Komenský dating back to the 17th century. In the case of the Czech Republic we have demonstrated that the national language educational policies of member states of the European Union may still differ from the European ideal, but that sooner or later many European countries might decide to adopt such language policies that would correspond more to the philosophy of plurilingualism because they will also meet their particular needs. As is stated in the conclusion of the Guide 2007, plurilingualism is a realistic goal if it is accepted that plurilingual repertoires can be diverse, that the languages of the repertoire do not have to be acquired at the same level and that language education is a life long process. In contrast to the ideal of plurilingualism, we have shown some advantages of English as lingua franca in that it enables us to communicate with geographically and culturally distant people. On the other hand, as the title of this article suggests, English is not enough. Learning other languages, even minority languages, gives us new communicative and cultural opportunities. On the other, while constantly focusing on foreign language learning, we should not forget to stress the necessity to cultivate our mother tongue at the same time because the mother tongue represents our national culture in the framework of a united Europe.

References Beacco, J-C. and M. Byram. 2007. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

English is (not) Enough? The Role of English in the Czech Republic

153

Beacco, J-C., M. Byram, M. Cavalli, D. Coste, M. Cuenat, F. Goullier and J. Panthier. 2010. Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Betáková, L. 2005. The role of English in the Pluralingual Europe. Proceedings from Profilingua 2005. PlzeĖ: University of West Bohemia. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. Language Education Policy Profiles. Available at:

Crystal, D. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eco, U. 2001. Hledání dokonalého jazyka. Praha: NLN. Janík, M. 2012. Koncept mnohojazyþnosti ve výzkumu. In Aktuální témata výzkumu uþení a vyuþování cizím jazykĤm, ed. V. Janíková, M. Píšová and S. Hanušová, 169-181. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Pedagogická fakulta. Janíková, V. 2011. “Mnohojazyþnost v jazykovém vzdČlávání a ve výzkumu.“ In Európske dimenzie v jazykovom vzdelávaní, ed. S. Gálová and K. Klimentová, 100-108. SPU Nitra. Komenský, J. A. 1973. Didactica. In Opera Omnia 11. Academia Praha. —. 1956. VzkĜíšené Latium. In Pansofický vychovatel. SPN Praha. Krashen, S. and T. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach. New York: Pergamon. Kumpera, J. 1992. Jan Amos Komenský. Ostrava: Amonium Servis a Nakladatelství Svoboda. Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piaget, J. 1993. Jan Amos Comenius, in Prospects (UNESCO, International Bureau of Education) XXIII (1/2). 173-196. Rámcový vzdČlávací program pro základní vzdČlávání. 2005. Prague: Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze. Rámcový vzdČlávací program pro gymnázia. 2007. Prague: Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze. Sridhar, K. 1996. “Societal multilingualism.” In Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, ed. S. L. McKay and N. H. Hornberger Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

154

Chapter Six

Wiater, W. 2010. “Mehrsprachigkeit als Herausforderung fur die Schule in systematischer Perspektive.” In Sprachen lernen durch Sprache, ed. F. Bitter Bättig and A. Tanner, Zurich: Seismo Verlag.

CHAPTER SEVEN WHAT IS “ACCEPTABLE”? THE ROLE OF ACCEPTABILITY IN ENGLISH NON-NATIVE SPEECH BETTINA BEINHOFF

Introduction The concept of “acceptability” or “acceptable” is extensively used in a wide range of areas in applied linguistic research. It is especially crucial in Second Language Acquisition (SLA), for example when measuring the proficiency of non-native speakers (NNS) or when evaluating differences between native speakers (NS) and NNS in grammaticality judgement tasks. More recently, social approaches to second language acquisition have turned their attention increasingly towards acceptability ratings in the context of changing perceptions of norms and models in language learning and teaching. For example, in the context of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) it is often argued that the increasing number of NNS of English leads to more and more ELF communications in which no NS of English is present, thus making NNS accents more acceptable in ELF contexts (cf. e.g. Dewey 2007; Kachru 1988; Jenkins 2002). This development is further accelerated by the increasing use of mobile technologies and digital media, thus bridging cultural boundaries, while predominantly using English as the main medium of communication (Berns, de Bot and Hasebrink 2007; Shuter 2012). However, while the concept “acceptable” is widely used, for example in sociolinguistics (e.g. acceptability of regional or social varieties of English, cf. Lippi-Green 1994, Alford and Strother 1990), psycholinguistics (especially with regard to processing difficulties of grammaticality variation, cf. Hofmeister et al. 2011), in computational linguistics (Duchier and Prost 2011) and in language acquisition (e.g. typically in grammaticality judgement tasks, cf. Sorace 2010; and in the assessment of

156

Chapter Seven

norms and targets for language learners, e.g. Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei 1998), very little attention has been devoted to its definition. What exactly are we talking about when we refer to “acceptability”? How can we be sure that we all mean the same thing and how can we be sure that those involved in our studies share the same idea of what “acceptability” actually is? This paper is mainly concerned with the social dimension of acceptability and its application in SLA research. The following sections present examples of sociolinguistic studies that have dealt with “acceptability” but which did not explicitly define this concept. I will then present approaches towards defining “acceptability” in other areas of social research with the aim of suggesting a more detailed definition of “acceptable” and “acceptability” for SLA. This will be followed by results of a study which focuses on participants’ first languages and their status as NS or NNS of English as main determinants of their social background. This study further exemplifies the applicability and relevance of the concept “acceptable”.

1. Acceptability in linguistic research The term “acceptability” is commonly used to describe something as adequate with regard to certain standards which – for example – can be grammar rules (e.g. in grammaticality judgement tasks) or reference points which evolved during the process of socialisation (e.g. judgements in a social context which rely on attitudes towards the object of interest). In the latter case, acceptability can be considered to relate to a norm or a mutually agreed standard specified by a particular social group in a certain social context. Both group and context determine how far from the norm something (e.g. an accent) can deviate in order to still be acceptable.

1.1 Acceptability as a social construct In her seminal work on the acceptability of accents, Lippi-Green (1997, 13) distinguishes between “linguistic grammaticality and socially constructed grammaticality”. In first language (L1) contexts, these two types of grammaticality are closely connected as social conventions can change what is perceived as linguistically grammatical (see for example recent changes in the use of “be like”; Macaulay 2001; Tagliamonte and D’Arcy 2004). In second language (L2) contexts, however, the connection is less clear. Even though there has been some debate about a possible shift in the “ownership” of English (as proposed by Widdowson as early

What is “Acceptable”?

157

as 1994), NNS still look towards specific English-speaking regions for norms and this is usually reflected in how acceptability of language and specifically accents is judged.1 Interestingly, Lippi-Green does not explicitly define the notion of “acceptability”, though from her discussions it is clear that she understands it to include the social context within which the judgement is made, the social background of the persons making the acceptability judgements and the assumed social background of the persons whose language is being judged (cf. Lippi-Green 1997). For this reason, it would seem important to define these features in any given study involving acceptability (e.g. within which particular context should the perceived acceptability of a given accent be rated?). However, this is not consistently done in language research. For example, in a study by Tomokiyo, Black and Lenzo (2005) subjects were asked to rate the acceptability of synthesised NNS speech on a Likert scale. The subjects were given no context for their judgements and therefore, it is not clear what kind of standard and setting they used as reference for their judgements. Yet, the subjects were able to make judgements, which implies that they must have had a fairly similar concept of acceptability across the group while participating in this study. However, we do not know if subjects in a different context would have a similar notion of “acceptability”. This may be especially crucial in SLA research where participants are often from a variety of different cultural and social backgrounds. Thus, the understanding of what constitutes “acceptability” may vary greatly between participant groups.

1.2 Acceptability as an attitude Acceptability is a prominent feature in research on language attitudes. For example, in a study on ELF vs NS accents, Jenkins (2007, 152) asked specifically about the accent’s “acceptability for international communication”. In this way, some context was provided as a basis for acceptability judgements, but Jenkins also indicated that “acceptable” might be understood to mean slightly different things for ELF2 and NS accents. In her study, NS accents of English were clearly ranked far more 1

The situation is slightly different in countries where English has some official status, such as India and Singapore, where the concept of “ownership” of English is beginning to gain ground (Higgins 2003). 2 In Jenkins (2007) study, the term ELF speaker was used to avoid the NS vs NNS dichotomy and to account for the ELF environment in which her study was conducted.

158

Chapter Seven

acceptable for international communication than the ELF accents. Of the ELF accents, the two most acceptable accents were those from Germanic L1 backgrounds (in her study represented by Swedish and German accents of English). Given that Jenkins’ study was conducted in a positively ELF environment with participants who were sensitised to the issues relating to the increasing use of English in international communication and across cultural boundaries, these results are somewhat sobering, but also leave us to wonder what the concept of “acceptable” entails for ELF users and NNS of English. In contrast to Jenkins’ study, most studies attempt to make statements about the acceptability of NNS speech by inferring the degree of acceptability indirectly, for example through ratings on traits representing the two main sociolinguistic dimensions: “solidarity”, i.e. how much somebody identifies with an accent or how much social value is attached to an accent; and “status”, i.e. how much prestige is assigned to an accent (cf. Ryan and Giles 1982). In these studies, the solidarity dimension is typically represented by traits such as “likeable” and “generous” and the status dimension is represented by traits like “intelligent” and “successful”. For example, McKenzie (2008) found that Japanese learners of English expressed a strong sense of solidarity with speakers of English who are clearly identifiable as Japanese (note though, that his study was not clearly directed at examining issues of acceptability). A study by Dalton-Puffer et al. on Austrian students’ attitudes towards Austrian and NS accents of English made use of these dimensions and found that advanced Austrian EFL learners generally had negative attitudes towards their own accent of English and that they favoured NS accents that they were most familiar with (Dalton-Puffer et al. 1997, 126). Similarly, van den Doel (2006) conducted a study on how “errors” in NS and NNS English pronunciation are perceived and inferred the accents’ social acceptability from data gathered in error detection tasks and in interviews. According to his results, supraregional accents of English (i.e. Received Pronunciation or a General American accent) are the most acceptable accents as models for NNS of English. The latter two studies seemed to have slightly different interpretations of the concept “acceptability”. Where in the study by Dalton-Puffer et al. (1997), the accents’ acceptability seemed to relate more to the status dimension, van den Doel (2006) elicited judgements on social acceptability explicitly and referred to the accents’ prestige in language education, taking both status and solidarity aspects into consideration. The question remains, however, if the participants would distinguish between

What is “Acceptable”?

159

these two meanings of “acceptable” or if they would assign “acceptable” to only one of these dimensions.

2. Towards a definition of the concept “acceptable” The brief discussion of the use of “acceptability” in linguistic research given in the previous section reveals a possibly inherent belief that we all know what we mean when we talk about acceptability. In other areas of social research, however, acceptability is a central issue and as such its definition receives more attention and rigour. The following sections provide an overview of some discussions that attempt to define “acceptability” more closely and may help to establish a more widely applicable framework for acceptability research in SLA.

2.1 Acceptability as an evaluation The definition of acceptability is discussed at length in the context of contraception methods, where it is a major concern. Due to this highly specific context, results from this area of research may not be applicable to research in SLA and sociolinguistics in general. The theoretical discussion on the nature of “acceptability”, however, may help towards developing a more refined definition of this concept. According to Marshall (1977, 65) acceptability “is a quality which makes an object, person, event, or idea attractive, satisfactory, pleasing, or welcome”. Therefore, acceptability is inherently evaluative. Marshall continues “[a]cceptability is a subjective evaluation because perceptions vary, as do the qualitative meanings attached to perceptions. Thus, the acceptability of a given phenomenon may differ according to the source, context, and timing of the evaluation” (1977, 65). This definition stresses the importance of the overall context within which the evaluation is placed. For SLA research this would mean that the combination of the following factors influences the perception and evaluation of acceptability: a) b) c)

participants (as the source of the evaluation; for example, language teachers may evaluate instances of the L2 different from language learners), the physical context and the research design (as the overall context and methodology) and the timing (e.g. whether acceptability judgements are elicited straight after a language class or at a time that is typically not linked to language studies, such as during social activities).

160

Chapter Seven

This definition is expanded by Severy (1999, 104) who objects that the above definition only involves “the positive side of the continuum”, i.e. people may find an object acceptable not because it is attractive, satisfactory or pleasing to them, but because they are forced to choose something. In such a situation they are likely to choose what they are most willing to tolerate. The same applies to the discussion of acceptability by Stankey and Shindler (2006, 29) which mainly refers to acceptability of wildlife protection methods in natural resource management. They stress the multidisciplinary roots of social acceptability and point out that social acceptability is above all a judgmental process in which all known alternatives are compared. This active comparison of known alternatives could in fact explain results such as the one found in Jenkins’ (2007) study, where participants expressed ambivalent attitudes towards their own (non-native) accents of English. NNS may have a “model” variety of English in mind when thinking of the most acceptable English, but when faced with the decision which accent in English to adopt for themselves, they may realise that for them this model may be impossible to reach and thus make the decision regarding their own accent based on a different – smaller – subset of varieties. For example, if we were to ask a NNS of English what the most acceptable accent for a teacher of English would be, she may consider all varieties of English known to her and then select the British Received Pronunciation. However, when asked which accent would be the most acceptable accent of English for her if she were to teach English, she might reduce the number of possible varieties of English to those which appear to be realistically achievable targets for her. This suggests that “acceptability” is a type of evaluation which is highly context-dependent.

2.2 Differences between attitudes and acceptability The discussion on acceptability shows that this concept interacts very closely with attitudes or is used as a trait to reflect attitudes (e.g. Jenkins 2007; Dalton-Puffer et al. 1997). It is quite possible, though, that acceptability is not an attitude but rather a concept which is influenced by attitudes. Just like attitudes, acceptability is created by groups, it is evaluative and it can establish a sense of groupness and identity; e.g. the use of a distinct local accent might be acceptable for taxi drivers but unacceptable for newsreaders. Attitudes can change over time and this influences acceptability judgements; e.g. attitudes towards a rural accent might change after visiting the area and gaining new information about it. Familiarity

What is “Acceptable”?

161

might change acceptability judgements to some extent, however, social conventions would still have a stronger influence on acceptability judgements; e.g. the rural accent might sound pleasant and kind but would be perceived as not acceptable for a politician or for a newsreader. Therefore, it is possible to change general attitudes without changing the perceived acceptability at the same time. This indicates that there is a strong link between attitudes and acceptability, but that the two are not identical. It also shows that whether something is acceptable or not relies strongly on the context. Attitudes do not necessarily depend on context; for example, the rural accent might still sound pleasant when spoken by a newsreader on BBC, but it could seem strange, displaced and not acceptable in the particular context. According to Severy (1999, 104), people sometimes judge something as acceptable although they have negative attitudes towards it only because it is what they are most willing to tolerate. For example, a person might have negative attitudes towards the Received Pronunciation and regard it as posh or snobbish and still might find it is the only acceptable accent for teachers of English. In addition, Stankey and Shindler (2006, 29) describe social acceptability as a judgmental process, i.e. as an active development. People – consciously or unconsciously – evaluate their attitudes towards the object, the information they have about the object, the context and social conventions before deciding whether something is acceptable or not. In summary, attitudes influence whether something is considered acceptable or not, but the context and the current social conventions which apply in the specific context determine the acceptability judgement.

3. Research questions The above discussion suggests that sociolinguistic research in SLA left many aspects on what constitutes “acceptability” implicit and undefined; aspects which in other areas of social research are explicitly discussed. This should leave us to wonder whether we as SLA researchers and language practitioners should follow suit and treat the notion of “acceptability” differently. There are two main areas of uncertainty that the present study will address; one has to do with whether “acceptable” could generally be considered to belong to the solidarity or status dimension, the other is concerned with the social context and its influence on “acceptability” ratings. The above definitions of “acceptability” have shown that both sociolinguistic dimensions of solidarity and status may be relevant. This

162

Chapter Seven

issue was also (implicitly) addressed in the studies by Dalton-Puffer et al. (1997) and van den Doel (2006) and certainly also played a key role in Jenkins (2007). Thus, our question is if NS and NNS of English distinguish between status and solidarity in “acceptability” judgements and if they do, how do they make this distinction? Given the focus on various aspects of context in defining whether something is acceptable or not, this study seeks to explore different types of context. In SLA research, differences between L1 and L2 contexts (which determine whether somebody is considered a NS or NNS of a given language) are highly relevant. For this reason, this study will include NS and NNS accents of English which will be rated by NS and NNS of English on a variety of traits and on their acceptability. Of course, NS and NNS are not homogeneous concepts, as within every group there are bound to be numerous subgroups. However, for the sake of this study, we will assume that speakers who share a specific accent will probably feel that they share at least some common background, if only the geographical origin. Given our focus on the geographical origin of the accents and of the listeners, the question is whether there will be any difference between NS and NNS of English in how the “acceptability” of accents is evaluated. In addition, many previous studies included only one NNS group, which does not reveal any potential differences in how different NNS groups may perceive “acceptability”. At the same time, this also fails to reflect the increasing use of English as a means of communication between NNS. Given that the L1 determines a significant part of an individual’s social background, it is quite possible that participants from two very different L1 backgrounds might have very different ideas of what constitutes an acceptable accent. Therefore, a further aim is to find out whether NNS participants from two very different L1 backgrounds judge the acceptability of accents differently.

4. Methodology To address the above research questions, the experiment is based on speech stimuli which are assessed through rating tasks. These tasks include traits which reflect solidarity and status in addition to “acceptability” as a further attribute. If the participants consider “acceptability” as reflecting status then this will be reflected in their ratings (i.e. “acceptability” ratings will be very similarly to the ratings on the status traits). If, on the other hand, “acceptability” is considered to be

What is “Acceptable”?

163

closer to solidarity then the ratings for “acceptability” and the solidarity traits would be very similar. The sociolinguistic dimensions “solidarity” and “status” can be represented by a great variety of traits, such as “kind”, “warm” and “friendly” for the solidarity dimension and “successful”, “wealthy” and “educated” for the status dimension. Given this wide selection of traits, it was important to narrow down the number of traits used in this experiment to a few meaningful items. This was achieved through extensive pretesting (reported in Beinhoff, 2013); the resulting traits are “friendly”, “honest”, “reliable” and “sincere” for the solidarity dimension and “educated” and “intelligent” for the status dimension (resulting in a 2:1 majority for solidarity traits). These traits are used in addition to “acceptability” as the attributes according to which the speech stimuli are assessed. These pre-tests also ensured that all speech stimuli were considered representative of the regions and L1s of the speakers. In addition, the speech stimuli were also checked to make sure they are intelligible, as issues with intelligibility and perceived comprehensibility may influence acceptability judgements (cf. Luchini, this volume).

4.1 Selection of stimuli Previous research suggests that accents that are considered to be “standard” accents, such as RP, are highly “acceptable” accents for NS and NNS of English. In addition, RP can certainly also be considered as highly prestigious because it is widely used in educational environments across Europe. Therefore, in this study a “modern” RP accent and a Scottish accent are used as representative NS accents of English. They also stand – respectively – for what might be perceived as a “standard” accent and a British regional accent, which will show whether the listeners differentiate between different NS accents of English in their acceptability ratings. Results of previous studies (Jenkins 2007, Lippi-Green 1997) reveal that NNS accents with less L1 influence were generally considered to sound more acceptable by NS and NNS of English. Therefore, German and Greek accents with two different degrees of influence from the L1 are included in this study; i.e. a German accent of English which is clearly identifiable as “German” and a German accent of English with less influence from the German sound system. The same applies to the Greek accents of English. Previous studies have shown that NNS accents of English from Germanic L1 backgrounds are considered to be more

Chapter Seven

164

“acceptable” than NNS accents from other L1 backgrounds (e.g. Jenkins 2007); therefore, it is likely that German accents might be rated as more “acceptable” than Greek accents of English. German and Greek accents were selected because they are very distinct and represent very different geographical regions and cultures in Europe while having a very wide distribution outside of their L1 territories. In order to provide listeners with enough information to detect accent variation, speech stimuli were selected so that they provide ample opportunity for sound variation. The following 8 items were used as speech stimuli: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

Let me text you my new phone number, you better not use my last one anymore. I asked my tutor about an appointment on Monday but she is busy until next week. It seems almost impossible to go on a long holiday when you really need one. Do you think he’ll get away with it? Honestly, he doesn’t have a chance. He is sure something went wrong with his exam, you know. It’s just not fair. I’m not able to fix this chair in your garage, but Jane said that she might help us. I’m sorry but my shirt is too small, could I get a larger one? Oh, I’m sure you’ll be fine, you’re smart and the questions will be easy for you.

These relatively short stimuli were selected to capture the listeners’ initial impression of the speaker and to keep them focused on the task in order to avoid them thinking about what responses would be expected from them. The speakers of the NNS accents were selected according to how “typical” of a German and Greek accent of English they sounded. Both degrees of L1 influence for each NNS accent were spoken by one speaker (who adjusted his accent) to avoid influence of different voices (i.e. one speaker for the two German accents and one speaker for the two Greek accents). In this way, the “matched-guise technique” (MGT) was used for each NNS accent. This resulted in a mixture of MGT (one speaker for two accents) and verbal-guises (i.e. different speakers for different accents). The same text was read in all accent conditions. The same selection process applied to NS of English; there was one speaker for the RP accents and one speaker for the Scottish accent. The candidate for the RP accent was asked to speak with as little regional

What is “Acceptable”?

165

influence as possible. The same procedure applied to the selection of the Scottish accent. All accents for this study were thoroughly pre-tested to make sure listeners can assign the appropriate L1 and/or region to the speaker and to distinguish between degrees of L1 influence in the NNS accents. The speech samples were recorded in a sound-treated room with a digital recorder at a sample rate of 44100, which is the native sample rate for .wav-files at “mono” setting. Several recordings were made of each speaker and the recordings which represented the desired accent were selected as speech stimuli. The selection of accents was based on listeners’ judgements in pre-tests and additional auditory analyses. The sentences were then isolated using PRAAT3 and put in random order to keep the listeners focusing on the accent variations rather than on one speaker. At the beginning of each experiment session, the listeners were told that within-speaker variation may occur in the speech samples to prevent them from rating a particular voice rather than the accent.

5.2 Subject groups and procedure Each listener-group consisted of eight individuals (called “listeners” from here on), adding up to a total of 24 listeners. On average the listeners in the Greek L1 group were 26 years old (between 20 and 32 years old) and had lived in English-speaking countries for 2;5 years (from two months to six years, with most students having lived in English-speaking countries between one and two years); two of them were female and six of them were male. The listeners of the German L1 group were on average 27 years old (between 22 and 32 years old) and had stayed in Englishspeaking countries for 2;8 years (from two months to seven years, with the largest proportion of them having spent between one and two years in English-speaking countries); two of them were female and six of them were male. On average, the Greek listeners started learning English at the age of 8 and the German listeners at the age of 11. None of them grew up bilingual. All NNS-listeners had about the same level of proficiency in English, i.e. at least a TOEFL result of about 600, a CPE of level A or an IELTS result of 7.0. The listeners in the southern English NS group were on average 29 years old (between 22 and 47 years old); five of them were female and three of them were male. Since there was a bias within groups regarding 3

PRAAT is a signal processing package developed by Boersma and Weenink, available on www.praat.org.

166

Chapter Seven

gender and length of stay in English-speaking countries, all of the following results were checked for possible influences from these factors. None of these factors influenced the results significantly. The procedure followed Beinhoff (2013); stimuli were presented over headphones in silent conditions using a PRAAT-script. The listeners rated the speakers’ accents on a 7-point-Likert-scale. The scale ranged from 1 to 7 for all traits (e.g. 1 = “highly acceptable” 7 = “completely unacceptable”). Ratings were indicated by the listeners on the computer screen in a self-paced task. A short practice task with the trait “kind”, which contained a balanced set of stimuli from all speakers, familiarised the listeners with the task. Listeners rated one trait for all 48 speech samples (6 accents x 8 sentences) before rating the next trait. No further information regarding the social context of the assessment (e.g. whether the speakers should be suitable for a specific task, as in for example Dalton-Puffer et al. 1997) was given to leave more room for variability as expressed through listeners’ L1 backgrounds. The stimuli were randomised in two different sequences of sound files which were played alternatingly so as to avoid the listener getting used to a certain succession of sound files. An additional questionnaire collected background information on the listeners’ age and language learning career. The procedure took about 45 minutes; it was broken down into several shorter batches with breaks. Due to a lack of funding, the participants were not paid and took part out of their own personal interest.

6. Results Since the focus of this paper is on the trait “acceptable”, results for the other traits will not be discussed in greater detail. For a detailed discussion of the other traits and results see Beinhoff (2013). The results for “acceptability” show some differences between how the accents were rated for this trait and in how they were assessed by the different listener groups (see figure 1). The RP accent was considered to be the most acceptable accent by the German and Greek listener-groups, whereas the English listeners rated this accent similar to the Scottish accent. Overall, Greek listeners rated all accents as more acceptable than the other groups except for the Greek accents, where they (together with the English listeners) rated the Greek accent with more L1 influence as the least acceptable. For the NNS accents, there seems to be a general tendency of German listeners rating the German accents less acceptable than the Greek group and Greek listeners rating the Greek accent with more L1 influence less acceptable

What is “Acceptable”?

167

than the German listener group. In general, the English listener-group rated all NNS accents relatively low on their acceptability. These observations, however, do not necessarily reflect statistically significant results. For this reason, further statistical analyses were conducted.

Figure 1: Average ratings for “acceptability” (ratings were 1 = “totally acceptable” to 7 = “completely unacceptable”). “German L1” and “Greek L1” refer to the accent conditions with more L1 influence; “German” and “Greek” refer to the accent conditions with less L1 influence.

A one-way between-group ANOVA with the factor Listener-Group (3 = German, Greek and English) was carried out on the Likert scale ratings for “acceptability”. Listener-Group has a significant effect on the acceptability ratings for the Scottish accent only (F(2, 21) = 5.805, p = 0.010). The effect for the English accent is just about not significant at (F(2, 21) = 3.436, p = 0.051). There are no significant effects for any of the other accents. A post-hoc Tukey test reveals that the Scottish accent was rated as significantly less “acceptable” by the German listener-group as compared to the Greek listener-group. Paired t-tests reveal that across the board the RP accent was rated as significantly more acceptable than any of the other accents involved. The Scottish accent was rated significantly more acceptable than the German L1 accent and the Greek L1 accent; however, there was no significant difference between the Scottish and the German and Greek accents with less L1 influence. The differences in the acceptability ratings between all NNS accents were significant, except for the German and Greek accents with less L1 influence.

168

Chapter Seven

To analyse whether “acceptable” was rated similar to other traits, paired t-tests were carried out, comparing the ratings of each of the six “trait” conditions with the ratings of the “acceptability” condition. The resulting value for “t” was then compared to the critical value tcrit = 4.54. This analysis reveals that for the English RP accent there is a significant difference between the ratings of all four solidarity traits (i.e. friendly, honest, sincere, reliable) and “acceptable”. There is no significant difference between the ratings for the status traits (educated and intelligent) and “acceptable”. The only further significant difference is between the ratings for the trait “intelligent” and “acceptable” for the German accent with less L1 influence, which received higher ratings for “acceptable” than for “intelligent”.

7. Discussion The results of the ratings overall reveal that the RP accent was rated as sounding significantly more acceptable than any of the other accents involved. This was to be expected as this accent was also highly favoured by participants in other studies (e.g. Dalton-Puffer et al. 1997). At the same time, RP also represents the model (or possibly even target) accent that listeners in this study reported as most relevant throughout their English language learning career. Note also that this study was conducted at a university in south-east England where modern RP is spoken by many members of staff and students. With regard to the overall acceptability ratings it is certainly interesting to note that the Scottish accent was rated very similar to the German and Greek accents with less L1 influence and all three accents were rated as sounding significantly more acceptable than both NNS accents with more L1 influence. This suggests that there does not seem to be an NS vs NNS divide in the perception of acceptability, but rather, accents seem to be judged according to their approximation of a specific model or target – and this seems to apply to both NS and NNS. As far as it is possible to tell based on these data, the model or target of listeners in this study is clearly RP. Based on the choice of accents, the listeners preferred those NNS accents that were closer to their “mental model accent”. Looking at the previous discussion of definitions of “acceptable”, they have made their selection from a restricted amount of accents to choose from. For this reason, it is quite possible that they made their ratings based on what they were most willing to tolerate (cf. Severy 1999) rather than what their actual preferences would have been. This means that it is possible that

What is “Acceptable”?

169

they may have judged the accents differently if other accents would have been present (for example, a wider selection of NS accents or including NNS accents with a greater variety of L1 influence in their pronunciation). In this case, listeners may not have compared all known alternatives (cf. Stankey and Shindler 2006) but rather only those that were present. When looking at differences between listener-groups, results suggest that all listeners seemed to have a similar concept of what constitutes “acceptable” accents as there were almost no significant differences between groups. The only difference was in the way the Scottish accent was evaluated by the German and the Greek listeners, where the German listeners rated this accent as less acceptable than the Greek listeners did. It is difficult to speculate about possible reasons for this difference without further information. The German listeners may be more norm-oriented but information from the background questionnaire does not offer any insights to further explain this result. In any case, the German listeners seem to have a different concept of “acceptable” NS accents than Greek listeners, which may possibly be due to the listeners’ experience of learning English and depends on the listeners’ L1 background. The discussion of previous studies has shown that “acceptability” could potentially be part of the solidarity dimension and the status dimension. The data from this study show a clear difference between the ratings on the four solidarity traits (i.e. friendly, honest, sincere, reliable) and “acceptable” but no significant difference between the ratings for the status traits (educated and intelligent) and “acceptable”. However, these differences could only be found in the results for the RP accents and for none of the other accents. This suggests that acceptability is understood to reflect the status dimension and indicate the speaker’s prestige for RP only, and across all listener-groups. It has to be noted at this point, that none of the solidarity and status traits received as clear-cut results as the RP accent did, emphasising the rather special status this accent seems to have for listeners in this study. The only other accent that stood out in the comparison of “acceptability” with other traits is the German accent with less L1 influence. This accent was judged to sound significantly more “acceptable” than “intelligent”, suggesting a differentiated view of the status dimension, as the difference between “acceptable” and the other status trait “educated” was not significant. This could be taken to indicate that Germanic-based L1 accents in English are evaluated differently from other NNS accents in English (as discussed with regard to results in Jenkins 2007). But still this results seems rather curious, given that it affected only

170

Chapter Seven

one accent condition (German with less L1 influence) while no other trait was significant.

8. Conclusion This paper presented an overview of how the concept of “acceptable” accents is used in sociolinguistic research in SLA. It became clear that although researchers tend to have an implicit idea of what “acceptable” means in the contexts of their studies, they rarely define it explicitly. This is different in other areas of social research, where definitions of “acceptability” are of central concern. The discussion on how to define acceptability for sociolinguistics and SLA suggested placing more emphasis on the context of the given study (including methodological restrictions) and the current social conventions which apply in the specific context as they determine acceptability judgements. Based on the discussion of sociolinguistic SLA studies and relevant definitions of “acceptability” from other fields, a study was designed to find out whether “acceptable” could be considered to belong to the solidarity or status dimension and to investigate if the L1 background (as a major part of a person’s general social context) influences acceptability ratings. The study included an RP accent, a Scottish accent, a German accent of English with a very distinctive influence from the L1 on its pronunciation, a German accent of English with very little L1 influence, a Greek accent of English with a very distinctive influence from the L1 and a Greek accent of English with very little L1 influence as speech stimuli. These six accents were rated by southern British NS of English, German NNS of English and Greek NNS of English on their perceived “acceptability” and on a number of traits representing the solidarity dimension and the status dimension. With regard to the research questions, the results suggest that when the perceived acceptability of a prestigious accent (in this case RP) is assessed, listeners tend to assign “acceptability” to the status dimension. There was no clear pattern for the other accents. The only other accent that received some significant ratings was the German accent with less L1 influence which was rated to sound significantly more “acceptable” than “intelligent”. This result, however, does not allow for a definite statement on the position of “acceptable” within the sociolinguistic dimensions, as the second status trait (i.e. “educated”) did not show significant results for this accent. It seems as if “acceptability” gets only clearly assigned to one of the sociolinguistic dimensions for specific accents, though this point certainly requires further investigation.

What is “Acceptable”?

171

The discussion on what constitutes “acceptability” suggested that the judge’s social context will have some influence. Given that the L1 is a strong marker of a person’s social background, judges – or in this case, listeners – from three different L1 backgrounds were included. One group were NS of English, the other two groups were German and Greek NNS of English to account for the growing use of English between NNS and in ELF settings. Their judgements on the “acceptability” of the six accents did not show any significant differences between NS and NNS listeners. The only significant difference was between the German and the Greek listeners’ ratings of the Scottish accent. This implies that they had a very clear idea of what an “acceptable” accent should be, which for the German listeners did not include a Scottish accent as much as it did for the Greek listeners. The lack of further significant results could be explained with the fact that all of them shared certain other social factors; for example, all of them studied at the same university, albeit different subjects, and lived in the same town in south-east England at the time of the study. Still, the results reveal that NNS participants from two very different L1 backgrounds judge the acceptability of accents differently – in this case for the Scottish accent – therefore it is important to take the social background explicitly into consideration in studies on acceptability. There seem to be some differences and it is possibly worth looking into this in more detail in a more qualitative study which should get more detailed information on how the social background influences acceptability judgements. Not all of the observed differences yielded statistically significant results. For example, there was a general tendency of German listeners to rate German accents as less acceptable than the Greek group. A similar pattern emerged for the Greek listeners who rated the Greek accent with more L1 influence as less acceptable than the German listener group. This difference can possibly be explained by referring to the listeners’ career in English language learning. It is highly likely that the NNS listeners will have been made aware of pronunciation errors and deviations that are typical of their L1 and thus have become sensitised to them and attach a certain stigma to them which renders these accents less acceptable than other accents. In view of the increasing use of English between NNS of the language, as promoted through the growing use of digital media, mobile technologies and social networking, it is a relief to see that NNS of English judge NNS accents from other L1 backgrounds relatively favourably on “acceptability”, though it would be highly desirable to further reduce the stigma attached to NNS accents of English The focus of this study was on the listeners’ L1 background and status as NS or NNS as determiners of their social context. Undoubtedly, there

172

Chapter Seven

are various other factors which influence acceptability judgements, such as intelligibility (see Luchini, this volume) or levels of familiarity with certain accents, which could not be covered here. For future studies, it would be desirable to include a greater variety of accents to be judged since the restriction of choice in the present study will have biased the results and listeners may judge accents differently in the presence of other accents. Therefore, it would seem important to take into consideration that listeners are evaluating what is “on offer” and they do not necessarily take any other aspects which are not in the immediate context into consideration. Overall, this study has shown that social acceptability is a complex concept which needs to be taken into consideration more thoroughly in sociolinguistic SLA research if we, as researcher and language practitioners, want to be able to make the acceptability of accents more relevant beyond the immediate context of the individual study.

References Alford, R. and J. Strother. 1990. “Attitudes of native and nonnative speakers toward selected regional accents of US English.” TESOL Quarterly 24(3), 479-496. BardoviȬHarlig, K. and Z. Dörnyei. 1998. ”Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning.” TESOL Quarterly 32(2), 233-259. Beinhoff, B. 2013. Perceiving Identity through Accent – Attitudes towards Non-Native Speakers and their Accents in English. Oxford: Peter Lang. Berns, M., K. de Bot and U. Hasebrink. 2007. In the Presence of English – Media and European Youth. New York: Springer. Dalton-Puffer, C., G. Kaltenboek and U. Smit. 1997. “Learner attitudes and L2 pronunciation in Austria.” World Englishes 16(1), 115-128. Dewey, M. 2007. “English as a lingua franca and globalization: an interconnected perspective.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17, 332-354. Duchier, D. and J-P Prost. 2011. “A model-theoretic framework for grammaticality judgements.” In Formal Grammar, 17-30. Higgins, C. 2003. “‘Ownership’ of English in the outer circle: An alternative to the NSȬNNS dichotomy.” TESOL Quarterly 37(4), 615644. Hofmeister, P, T. Florian Jaeger, I. Arnon, I. A. Sag and N. Snider. 2011. “The source ambiguity problem: distinguishing the effects of grammar

What is “Acceptable”?

173

and processing on acceptability judgments.” Language and Cognitive Processes, 1-40. Jenkins, J. 2002. “A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language.” Applied Linguistics 23(1), 83-103. —. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. 1988. “The sacred cows of English.” English Today 16(4), 3-8. Lippi-Green, R. 1994. “Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts.” Language in Society 23, 163-198. —. 1997. English with an Accent: Language Ideology and Discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. Luchini, P. This volume. “Identifying aspects of speech which decrease intelligibility in spoken interactions between non-native English speakers.” Macaulay, R. 2001. “You’re like ‘why not?’ The quotative expressions of Glasgow adolescents.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(1), 3-21. Marshall, J. 1977. “Acceptability of fertility regulation methods: Designing technology to fit people.” Preventive Medicine 6, 65-73. McKenzie, R. 2008. “Social factors and non-native attitudes towards varieties of spoken English: a Japanese case study.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1), 63-88. Ryan, E. and H. Giles eds. 1982. Attitudes towards Language Variation. Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold. Severy, L. 1999. “Acceptability as a critical component of clinical trials.” In Advances in Population: Psychosocial Perspectives, Volume 3, ed. L. Severy and W. Miller, 103-122. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Shuter, R. 2012. “Intercultural new media studies: The next frontier in intercultural communication.” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 41(3), 219-237. Sorace, A. 2010. “Using magnitude estimation in developmental linguistics research.” In Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research, ed. E. Blom and S. Unsworth, 57-72. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Stankey, G. and B. Shindler. 2006. “Formation of social acceptability judgments and their implications for management of rare and littleknown species.” Conservation Biology Volume 20(1), 28-37. Tagliamonte, S. and A. D’Arcy. 2004. “He’s like, she’s like: The quotative system in Canadian youth.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(4), 493-514.

174

Chapter Seven

Tomokiyo, L., A. Black and K. Lenzo. 2005. “Foreign accents in synthetic speech: Development and evaluation.” Interspeech 09/2005, 14691472. van den Doel, W. 2006. How Friendly are the Natives? An Evaluation of Native-speaker Judgements of Foreign-accented British and American English. Utrecht: LOT. Widdowson, H. G. 1994. “The ownership of English.” TESOL Quarterly 28(2), 377-389.

CHAPTER EIGHT IDENTIFYING ASPECTS OF SPEECH WHICH DECREASE INTELLIGIBILITY IN SPOKEN INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS: A CASE STUDY PEDRO LUIS LUCHINI

Introduction With the advent of instant communication and advanced technology, the world now calls for a global language. There never before has been a single language which has spread worldwide as English has done in this century. English is spoken in every part of the world, both among native speakers (ENSs) and across speakers whose L1 backgrounds are totally different. English is used in interactions among ENSs and among ENNSs (English non-native speakers) from a wide range of countries around the world. This last group of speakers is the largest, amounting to around 1.5 billion worldwide (Crystal 1997, 2003; Graddol 1997, 2006). This last use of English is often referred to as ELF or English as a Lingua Franca. The use of ELF has been nearly overlooked in research on the use and/or learning of English as a second (ESL) or foreign language (ELF). One such example is research on the pronunciation and intelligibility1 of NNSs (non-native speakers). Nonetheless, it is crucial to examine how intelligible NNSs are to each other, since the use of English between NNSs is much more common than the use of English involving NSs. 1

Intelligibility is defined here as the degree to which a given utterance is understood by a listener (Derwing and Munro, 2005), or, as Smith and Nelson put it, a listener’s recognition of a speaker’s utterance (2006).

176

Chapter Eight

The purpose of this exploratory case study is to identify those L2 phonological variations that may produce breakdowns in communication in interactions among ENNSs whose L1 backgrounds are different. Based on the nature of these breakdowns and using some of the features presented in the Lingua Franca Core (LFC) proposed by Jenkins (2000), the status of these phonological deviations will be examined and classified according to their effect for the attainment of phonological intelligibility. Finally, some suggestions will be given for the adoption of some core phonological features in the L2 pronunciation class that are considered essential for promoting mutual global intelligibility.

Literature Review Given the impact of globalization and the advance of technology, the barriers that once prevented nations from communicating fluently with one another have now been brought down. This fact has positioned English in a leading role as a pivotal means of communication. To date, English is taught and used all over the world because it has become the lingua franca of our times. English is used for international communication in business, education, transportation, technology, diplomacy, and sciences in general, to name a few contexts (cf. Björkman 2010; Ehrenreich 2009; Pullin Stark 2009; Sifakis and Fay in press; Smit 2003; Smit 2010). In fact, it is often the common language of choice in settings such as seminars, conferences and political gatherings (Jenkins 2007). It is this use of English (ELF) and in particular its phonological system, that will be addressed in this paper. At one time, global communication in English happened primarily between ENSs and ENNSs. However, at present, this is no longer the case because most interactions in English happen between speakers who do not speak English as their L1 (first language) (Jenkins 2006; Rajadurai 2005; Seidlhofer 2001). The most frequent use of English is between ENNSs. Jenkins (2000, 2006) and others (e.g., Kachru 1992, 52-53; Pitzl 2005, 51) contend that because NNSs most often speak English to each other, it is not reasonable or useful to expect their speech to sound native-like. Yet it is important that NNSs remain intelligible to each other even if their accents do not resemble those of ENSs. To establish effective communication, phonological intelligibility among ENNSs from different backgrounds, whose L1s are different, should be guaranteed. From a socio-linguistic perspective, one potential way to achieve this pluralistic aim of English would be to identify what all L2 varieties have in common, that is, a Lingua Franca Core (henceforth, LFC), and to work on it, given that acceptance of such variety is dependent

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

177

on establishing a foundation to safeguard mutual intelligibility (Jenkins 2000). Jenkins proposes a LFC, that is, a list of the most important features for the preservation of global phonological intelligibility that emerged from previous studies on LFC and her own data sources. Based on this literature and my own L2 experience with other NNSs, those phonological features that are considered primary for the achievement of global intelligibility will be addressed here. Some deviations, for example, those comprising the substitution of Indian /s/ for /‫ݕ‬/ as in ‘seven’, being realized as /‫ݕޖ‬egwԥn/, and Chinese conflation of /ș/ as in ‘math’, being pronounced as /‫ޖ‬mæs/ are caused either by difficulties based on perception or articulation. When deletion takes place, for example, a sound or a chain of sounds is dropped completely. This phenomenon is often observed in Chinese English. Chinese speakers frequently delete the combination /ܼtܼ/ in the word ‘activities’, thus, rendering the word as /æktܼvz/. In some other cases, one sound is replaced by the glottal stop /‫ݦ‬/, as in the Chinese pronunciation of the word ‘truck’, often perceived as /tr‫ݦݞ‬/. Addition may take the form of epenthesis or paragoge. The first phenomenon often refers to the addition of an intrusive vowel to facilitate a difficult pronunciation. For instance, Spanish speakers find it difficult to produce clusters beginning with /s/ plus consonant. They often add /ԥ/ to such words, e.g.: /ԥ‫ޖ‬spaܼs/ “spice”, /ԥ‫ޖ‬stres/, “stress”. Paragoge, on the other hand, consists in the addition of a sound at the end of a word. For example, a Chinese speaker of English may pronounce the word “college” as /‫ޖ‬kolܼd‫ݤ‬i/. Phonological unintelligibility may be the result of one single deviation source, that is, communication breakdowns caused by problems related to sound substitution, conflation, deletion, or addition. However, an intelligibility problem may also be the consequence of a combination of phonological deviations such as segmental deviation combined with misplacement of lexical or nuclear stress. In the case of vowels, for example, the conditioned variation is frequently determined by the contour of the syllable, the phonological environment (i.e. pre-fortis clipping), or stress. Tense vowels are, to some extent, longer than lax vowels. In British English, the low back unrounded tense vowel /‫ޝܤ‬/ as in “palm” is actualized longer than the lax vowel /ܼ/ as in “Tim” in the same context. The duration or quantity of vowels depends on the quality of the subsequent consonant. English speakers generally shorten any vowel before a final fortis consonant (voiceless consonantal sound) and maintain its length before a final lenis consonant (voiced consonantal sound) (Jenkins 2000). For example, in the pairs of words

178

Chapter Eight

“seat – seed”, “foot – food”, “bit – bid”, the vowels in “seed”, “food” and “bid” are longer than the vowels in “seat”, “foot” and “bit” (Cruttenden 2008). In her data, Jenkins found several instances in which the mispronunciation of /‫ޝܮ‬/, in particular its replacement with /‫ޝܤ‬/ as in the word “bird” produced as /b‫ޝܤ‬d/, led to intelligibility problems. For this vowel, both its quality and quantity should be preserved to avoid breakdowns in interactions among ENNSs. Jenkins also observed that intonation seldom affects intelligibility. When it does, intonation acts concomitantly with other linguistic features, usually phonological and intermittently grammatical. Because of its relatively low incidence in the attainment of global intelligibility, the treatment of intonation will not be addressed in this study. However, a feature that does deserve considerable attention for the preservation of intelligibility between ENNSs is nuclear stress2 production and placement. In her data, Jenkins (2000) found out that misplaced and/or misproduced nuclear stress, in particular when it is combined with a deviant phonological form, became the greatest barrier for the achievement of intelligibility. Almost all of the breakdowns in communication between her participants were caused by misplaced or misused nuclear stress, above all, contrastive stress, either alone or in conflation with segmental deviations. Because appropriate placement of nuclear stress also requires speakers to pause their speech at appropriate boundary points, word groups are also included in the LFC. Based on these data, pronunciation teachers should target their instruction to the teaching of correct nuclear stress placement and exclude from their teaching list those items that are either unimportant for intelligibility, unteachable, or both (Hahn 2004; Jenkins 2000; Levis 2001, 2005; Levis and Cortes 2008; Luchini and Kennedy 2013; Derwing, Rossiter, Munro and Ron 2004; Derwing, Thomson, Foote and Munro 2012; Munro and Derwing 1995, 1998, 2001; Trofimovich and Baker 2006; Trofimovich and Baker 2007; Walker 2010, among others) Another category included in Jenkins’ LFC was voice quality (henceforth, VQ)3. VQ greatly influences the production both of individual 2

Nuclear stress highlights the part of an utterance which is key for the listener. That is, that part which provides new or important information, the syllable that bears the nuclear tone (a fall, rise, fall-rise, rise-fall or level). This syllable is accented by giving it a prominent change in pitch, or movement in pitch, or the initiation of pitch movement. 3 The term “voice quality” refers to those characteristics which are present more or less all the time that a person is talking: it is a quasi-permanent quality running through all the sound that issues from the mouth (Abercrombie 1967:91).

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

179

sounds and suprasegmentals, and as such this aspect should be given high priority. Individual sounds, nuclear stress, and VQ are three vital aspects for the attainment of intelligible pronunciation between NNSs; thus, they should become the focus of instruction for teachers who wish their NNS students to become more intelligible (Borissoff 2011, 2012; Jenner 1996; Jenkins 2000; Schaeffler, Scobbie and Mennen 2008; Thornbury 1993, among others). Jenkins’ LFC is by no means collectively accepted. Researchers such as Berns (2008), Dauer (2005), Trudgill (2008), and Gibbon (2008) have criticized the LFC in terms of its rationale and content. For example, Gibbon (2008) states that the unquestionable influence of ELF speakers’ diverse L1 phonological systems means there is little to no possibility of a core set of phonological features which are intelligible to every potential ELF speaker. With the exception of a few studies (cf. Deterding and Kirkpatrick 2006; Luchini 2008; Luchini 2012a, 2012b; Luchini and Kennedy 20134; Osimk 2009; Pitzl 2005; Zoghbor 2011) there are not many other investigations in which NNS intelligibility has been empirically investigated with reference to the LFC. The aim of the current study, hence, is to explore whether unintelligibility between NNSs is in reality associated with the phonological features which comprise the LFC, and thus, to provide further information on the implication of Jenkins’ LFC for spoken communication between NNSs.

The Case Study Case studies typically involve the collection and presentation of detailed information about a particular participant or small group, regularly including the accounts of subjects themselves. The case study is a form of qualitative descriptive research which seeks to look at an individual or small participant pool in depth, drawing conclusions only about that participant or group and only in that particular context. They do not aim to focus on the discovery of a universal truth, nor do they typically look for cause-effect relationships. Emphasis is placed, however, on exploration and description (Nunan 1992; Myers 1994). 4

These authors conducted a similar study to the one presented here whereby they analyzed four different episodes drawn from these same speech data (Luchini and Kennedy 2013). Although in their study they looked at different speech material, there is a strong correlation between the results emerging from both investigations. This fact reinforces partially Jenkins’ former claims.

180

Chapter Eight

Case studies typically explore the relationship of all variables involved to provide as complete an understanding of an event or situation as possible. This type of comprehensive understanding is arrived at through an in-depth description of the entity being evaluated, the circumstances under which it is used, the characteristics of the people involved in it, and the nature of the community in which it is situated (Hitchcock and Hughes 1995). Unlike quantitative methods of research, case studies may be the preferred method when the researcher has little control over the events, and when there is a contemporary focus within a real life context. Differently from directed experiments, case studies require a puzzled area that seeks a holistic understanding of the event or situation in question using inductive logic reasoning from specific to more general terms (Campbell 1975; Myers 1994). In this exploratory case study, the event under analysis is a conversation in English between two male L1 Hindi speakers and one male L1 Spanish speaker. Its puzzled area consists in identifying a set of speech sounds and syllabic and prosodic elements which are essential for mutual intelligibility between NNSs. One innovative aspect of this case study is that, to date, no published research has investigated the pronunciation of ELF between speakers of these nationalities and in this context. Another important aspect is that the author, acting as one of the interlocutors in his capacity as researcher-participant, provided an insider's perspective of the phonological phenomena analyzed and the culture studied.

Context and Participants The conversation took place at a private college in the state of Punjab in India. The two L1 Hindi speakers, both aged 23, were students at the college, while the L1 Spanish speaker, aged 37 at that time, was participating in an international conference held at the same college. For research ethical reasons, the three speakers were given pseudonyms to protect their identities.

Instrument for data collection: The interview The three participants held an unstructured two-hour conversation which was recorded. The conversation was later transcribed using standard English orthography. The author, working as researcher and participant, listened to the recording and added phonetic transcription and information about stress placement at places in the transcript where an interlocutor had

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

181

explicitly indicated non-understanding of another interlocutor. An EnglishSpanish bilingual instructor, external to the project, listened to and transcribed the recording. Later, both the researcher-participant along with the bilingual teacher checked their transcripts against the entire tapedconversation. Inter-rater agreement was used to measure the degree of agreement among raters and to guarantee how much homogeneity or consensus there was in their work. Whenever the judges encountered differences in their transcriptions, they discussed them until they reached consensus.

Analysis and interpretation of speech material In this section, only four exchanges drawn from the two-hour recording are presented. Although these four episodes may not be fully representative of the whole conversation, they illustrate important instances in which communication between the three interlocutors was impaired. Interlocutors’ production of selected words which signal nonunderstanding are transcribed phonetically with the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). Stress placement in selected phrases is indicated with a superscript accent mark (c) before the stressed syllable. A: Anil, an Indian male student (L1: Hindi) P: Argentinian male teacher of English (L1: Spanish) S: Sudhir, Indian male student (L1: Hindi)

Exchange I: Socio-political system in India P: Why do you say union territory? S: mean to say - there is a democracy in India. Other part pertaining to the Member of Parliament and Prime Minister is also pertaining to Parliament and member, but it is democratic. Is something different - mean to say - is administrator, is something another compared to state government. That is...it is called union territory. P: OK. All right. S: There are seven among India. All over India. There are seven such kind of /‫ݕޖ‬egwԥn/ /‫ݕޖ‬egwԥn/ union territories. P: What is “shewen”, “showen”? There are...? /‫ݕޖ‬egwԥn/ /‫ݕޖ‬owԥn/ S: Seven, seven, seven. /‫ݕޖ‬jiegwԥn/ /‫ݕޖ‬egwԥn/ /‫ݕޖ‬jiegwԥn/ A: Seven /‫ޖ‬sewԥn/

182

Chapter Eight S: Five, six seven. /‫ޖ‬fai/ /‫ܼݕޖ‬ks/ /‫ݕޖ‬egwԥn/ A: Seven /‫ޖ‬sewԥn/ P: Oh! Seven! S: Seven, OK? /‫ݕޖ‬ewԥn/ S: Yeah! Now you understood! P: Now, yes! (laughs) S: And, at this time, I am feeling very comfortable to here, and I am thinking, at this time, that this decision was very correct and accurate.

In this exchange, unintelligibility was caused by the mispronunciation of the word “seven”. On the one hand, Sudhir substituted the word-initial voiceless, post-alveolar, fricative sound /‫ݕ‬/ for the voiceless, alveolar, fricative /s/ -a common speech characteristic of Hindu people brought up in the rural areas, particularly, in the northern part of India, where Sudhir was from. On the other hand, he replaced the voiced, labio-dental, fricative /v/ with the voiced, velar, stop sound /g/, followed by the voiced labialvelar glide /w/. These phonological substitutions, which led to a breakdown in communication, were eventually repaired after some clarification requests and the contribution of Anil's participation. As the two Hindu speakers shared the same L1, Anil was able to decode the phonological deviation as understandable and thus provided a more comprehensible version of the problematic word. On this occasion, nuclear stress location was preserved, but segmental deviation impaired understanding.

Exchange II: On learning English in India S: You want to know how did I learn English? Actually, according to me, we should have a madly passion, kindle desire, indomitable will, if we /‫ޖ‬pesn/ /‫ޖ‬ki‫ޝ‬nli/ /dܼ‫ݕޖ‬aܼr/ /ܼndomܼ‫ޖ‬teܼbl/ /‫ޖ‬vܼl/ want to get something. P: OK. You said something at the beginning that I didn't get. You need to...? S: Madly passion, passion, we should have passion. /‫ޖ‬pesn/ /‫ޖ‬pesn/ /‫ޖ‬pesn/ A: Passionate! Passionate! /‫ޖ‬pæ‫ݕ‬onܼt/ /‫ޖ‬pæ‫ݕ‬onܼt/ P: Oh! Passion! Passionate! You need to be passionate. S: Yeah, kindle desire. Desire should be kindle. /‫ޖ‬ki‫ޝ‬ndli dܼ‫ݕޖ‬aܼr / /dܼ‫ݕޖ‬aܼr/ /‫ޖ‬ki‫ޝ‬ndli/ A: Kindle desire! /‫ޖ‬ki‫ޝ‬ndl dܼ‫ޖ‬zaܼԥr/

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

183

S: Desire! /dܼ‫ݕޖ‬aܼr/ P: Desire? /dܼ‫ޖ‬zaܼԥr/ S: Desire should be sharp, indomitable will, indomitable will. /dܼ‫ޖ‬zaܼr/ /ܼnd‫ܧ‬mܼ‫ޖ‬teܼbl ‫ޖ‬bܼl/ /ܼnd‫ܧ‬mܼ‫ޖ‬teܼbl ‫ޖ‬vܼl/ P: In…? A: Indomitable will, invincible will! /ܼnd‫ܧ‬mܼ‫ޖ‬teܼbl ‫ޖ‬vܼl/ /ܼn‫ޖ‬vܼnsܼbl ‫ޖ‬vܼl/ P: Oh! Oh! Invincible will. OK. These are very difficult words. They are very sophisticated words. My students don’t use these words... S: Yes. These are very difficult words.

In this exchange, the first problem occurred with the word “passion”. Speaker S did not pronounce either the vowel /æ/ nor the consonant /‫ݕ‬/. There were two incorrect phonemes out of four in this word. To repair the breakdown in communication, Speaker A rendered the word “passionate” as /‫ޖ‬pæ‫ݕ‬onܼt/. This new lexical item seemed to facilitate P's comprehension. The second obstacle arose with the phrase “kindle desire”, said by speaker S to explain the meaning of “passion”. In this awkward construction, the speaker deleted the sound /‫ݕ‬/ in the word “kindle” and used paragoge with /i/, realizing it as /‫ޖ‬ki‫ޝ‬nli/. In “desire”, Sudhir substituted the sound /‫ݕ‬/ for the voiced alveolar fricative /z/ and replaced the triphthong /aܼԥ/ with /aܼr/. The word as such was perceived as /dܼ‫ݕޖ‬aܼr/. It is not surprising that the listener had problems understanding this phrase because this is a very awkward construction which contains both phonological and grammatical errors. Another communication problem occurred with the lexical chunk “indomitable will”. Sudhir misplaced the lexical stress in the second syllable of the word “indomitable”, thus rendering it as /ܼnd‫ܧ‬mܼ‫ޖ‬teܼbl/. This phenomenon led to the production of an unpredictable sound alteration that rendered the word a different phonological realization, somehow difficult to understand. The speaker replaced the weak sound /ԥ/ with the diphthong /eܼ/, and thus originated a completely unrecognizable word. To repair this breakdown, Anil intervened again. In his production, he put the stress on the correct syllable, but he made a segmental alteration in /eܼbl/. He then provided the word “invincible” to aid understanding between the interlocutors. When pronouncing the second element of the chunk “will”, Sudhir reverted to the substitution of the voiced, labio-dental, fricative /v/ for the voiced labial-velar glide /w/. Hindu speakers frequently have this problem when trying to pronounce /w/. This substitution is oftentimes confusing for listeners because “Wednesday”, for example, sounds like “Vensday”,

184

Chapter Eight

“will” sounds like “vill” and “week” sounds like “veek” (Nihalani, Tongue and Hosali 1979). As can be observed here, deviation of segmental target forms conflated with stress misplacement present an important phonological risk for the attainment of global intelligibility.

Exchange III: On keeping a secret S: Her father and my father doesn’t know about our secret. P: I know. You don’t need to tell them this. S: I don’t think I should tell them. If I would tell them... P: You would be dead! S: (laughs) A: (laughs) S: Yeah! It is very secret. P: So, just secretly, you will get your degree, then, you get a good job. You get a good job, you make some money, then, you tell both your and her parents what you want to do, and you show everything you’ve done. And you have the right to choose... S: Your wishes are with me! /ju‫ޝ‬r ‫ޖ‬gwܼsܼs ‫ޝܤ‬r gwܼð mܼ/ P: Ah? (Asking for clarification) S: Your wishes are with me. /j‫ޝܤޖ ޝܧ‬rgwܼs ‫ޝܤޖ‬rgܼd mܼ/ P: I’m always with you? S: That’s why! Your wish... your wishes! /ju‫ޝ‬r ‫ޖ‬gwܼ‫ܼݕ‬s/ /ju‫ޝ‬r ‫ޖ‬gwܼ‫ܼݕ‬s/ A: ...he thinks that your blessings are with him! P: Oh! “your wishes!” /j‫ޝܧ‬r ‫ޖ‬wܼzܼs/ A: Your blessings are with me? P: I think that... I think that... you will be lucky. I think... A: ...that is why I’ve... P: ...you have the possibilities. You are studying at a good college. You are going to get a good degree. S: You are consolances with me, or not? I am saying to you. /j‫ޝܧ‬r ‫ޖ‬k‫ޝܧ‬nsԥ‫ޖ‬l‫ޝܤ‬nsܼs/ P: If I am what? S: You are consolance. /‫ޖ‬k‫ޝܧ‬nsԥlԥns/ A: You are sympathy. /‫ޖ‬sempti/ S: You are sympathy. /‫ޖ‬sempti/ A: You are sympathy for him or not? /‫ޖ‬sempti/

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

185

P: Empathy? No, I don’t think it is empathy! I think... A: Sympathy! Sympathy! Pity! /‫ޖ‬sempti/ /‫ޖ‬sempti/ /‫ޖ‬peti/ S: Pity! /‫ޖ‬peti/ P: No! Why pity? I think that everyone goes through difficult situations in life, at a given time.

In this last episode, communication was impaired twice. The first breakdown occurred with the phrase ‘your wishes are with me’. The word ‘wishes’ was actualized as /‫ޖ‬gwܼsܼs/. Speaker S added the voiced velar stop /g/ in front of /w/ and replaced the sound /‫ݕ‬/ with /s/ and the partially voiceless /z/ with the voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ in final position. After the listener asked for clarification, speaker S rephrased the whole chunk, but he made some segmental and prosodic changes. He first shifted the information focus from the word ‘wishes’ to ‘are’. The verb 'To be' is habitually de-accented in this context. By focusing the listener's attention on ‘are’, and leaving ‘wishes’ unstressed as a post-tonic element, the listener was unable to understand the message. The misplacement of nuclear stress, combined with the omission of the sounds /ܼz/ in “wishes”, brought about a detrimental effect on the part of the listener who misguidedly perceived the chunk “you're always are with me” as /j‫ޝܧ‬ ‫ޝܤޖ‬rgwܼs ‫ޝܤޖ‬rgܼd mܼ/. Speaker A rephrased his partner's outcome and added the word “blessing” to facilitate P's comprehension. The conversation was then interrupted a second time because Sudhir used a non-existent word “consolances” which he realized as /‫ޖ‬k‫ޝܧ‬nsԥ‫ޖ‬l‫ޝܤ‬nsܼs/. To repair this breakdown, speaker A said the word “sympathy”, which he mispronounced as /‫ޖ‬sempti/. Anil replaced the vowel /i/ for /e/ in the first syllable, deleted /ԥ/ in /pԥ/ and substituted /ș/ for /t/ in the last one. To facilitate understanding, speakers A and S uttered the word “pity”, which apparently helped P decipher the intended meaning. Close examination of all these episodes suggests that the correct use and placement of lexical and nuclear stress is a decisive factor for the attainment and preservation of mutual intelligibility among ENNSs. It should be noted that along with stress misplacement, there comes along another important phonological problem: sound deviation. So, given the role and importance in communication of stress placement, teachers should assign this prosodic feature high priority in their classes.

186

Chapter Eight

General discussion In the exchanges analyzed above, speaker (P) was the one who had difficulty understanding the other interlocutors. This may be because P, Anil, and Sudhir had different types of experiences interacting in English, leading to different abilities to accommodate to each other’s speech, a condition highlighted by Jenkins (2000) to preserve mutual intelligibility. P, an L1 Spanish speaker, usually speaks English with other L1 Spanish speakers (his students and colleagues). Additionally, he had had extensive interaction with ENSs as well as with other ENNSs, whose L1 were different from Spanish. However, by the time he interacted with Sudhir and Anil, he had had very little experience communicating with L1 Hindi speakers. This apparent lack of experience interacting with Hindi speakers might have been the cause why he had some difficulties understanding them. It should also be born in mind that Anil and Sudhir lacked familiarity with different ENNSs' accents and that P had a lighter accent in L2 English, since he was an English instructor. However, P’s capacity to accommodate and slow down his speech may have finely tuned his intelligibility to a degree that Anil and Sudhir had little difficulty understanding him. In most of the exchanges, substitutions and deviations of individual segments, often combined with misplaced lexical and nuclear stress were the major causes of breakdowns in communication. These results corroborate, in part, with Jenkins’ findings in which she claims that deviations of individual sounds combined with misplacement of nuclear stress are the greatest causes of unintelligibility in interactions among ENNSs from different backgrounds and L1s. However, it seems that the use of certain low-frequency words in English such as “indomitable”, or non-existent words such as “consolance” also contributed to decrease intelligibility. The effect of ENNSs using non-prototypical word meanings on ENNS listeners’ comprehension has yet to be explored in depth, though Seidlhofer (2009) and Pitzl (2005, 2010) have examined the use of idiomatic expressions among NNSs. Although lexical stress is not part of Jenkins’ LFC, in these episodes it appears as a factor that affects intelligibility. However, Jenkins (2000) points out that when lexical stress did affect a word’s unintelligibility, it was almost always in combination with some other related deviation, especially of a segmental nature. And this last case is frequently observed in the data analyzed here. The nature of interlocutors’ cultural or pragmatic knowledge may also affect speakers’ intelligibility. While analyzing the transcripts, P

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

187

acknowledged having had no previous familiarity with the fact that India is divided into “seven union territories”. If some of the problematic lexical items (e.g. “union territories” or “indomitable will” or “kindle desire”) had been produced with the same segmental substitutions in a context which was more familiar to P, perhaps he might have been able to recognize them more easily without the aid of so many clarification requests. That is, if P had known that India is divided into “seven union territories” or if he had expected the low-frequency chunks “indomitable will” or “kindle desire” to be used in an informal conversation like that, before engaging in that interaction, he probably might have been able to recognize or deduce them as such. Because this is a case study, no claims for generalization can be made. Therefore, the results presented here are by no means comprehensive or exclusive, nor do they identify all possible sources of intelligibility in NNS spoken interactions. However, these results, to a certain degree, match the phonological features presented in Jenkins’ LFC and other outcomes emerging from similar studies that comprise the LFC (cf. theoretical background). Therefore, for people who teach or learn English for the purpose of communicating not only with NSs, but also with NNSs, this suggests that individual sounds and stress placement (both nuclear and lexical) are decisively important to NNSs’ mutual intelligibility and as such should be targeted in self- or classroom instruction.

Some pedagogical implications Pedagogically speaking, Walker (2010), in his latest book on the teaching of ELF, describes the benefits of adopting both this approach and Jenkins’ LFC. Important aspects of Walker’s approach include raising learners’ awareness of ELF. Recordings of authentic speech from ELF speakers are used in activities to introduce the LFC and improve learners’ accommodation skills. In his book, Walker provides extensive guidance on how teachers could use the LFC to take an ELF approach. In 2004, Luchini conducted an experiment with 268 college students at Shanghai Normal University in China in which he incorporated an ELF pronunciation component into a spoken English course and evaluated its results. The fundamentals underlying this phonological component were rooted mainly in Jenkins’ proposal of LFC. The inclusion of this component was to help learners become more intelligible with other ENNSs whose L1s were not Chinese. Results demonstrated that after being taught some of the LFC's features, almost 80% of the students acknowledged having made some gains in their overall pronunciation.

188

Chapter Eight

They also recognized having raised their self-esteem and confidence to go on learning the language, important predictors for language acquisition. As these results speak to the students’ own perceptions of their pronunciation ability, a logical next step then would be to conduct research based on instruction which uses features from the LFC and triangulate these findings using different data collection methods. In 2012a, Luchini evaluated the effect of a consciousness-raising task on ELF for the acquisition of English pronunciation in an EFL context. After completing this task, his participants -whose L1 was Spanishrevealed some degree of acquisition of explicit phonological knowledge and awareness of how ELF operates in international contexts. In a different study, this same author compared and reported the results of this last investigation with those coming from another group of pre-service trainees -under a controlled condition- who did not receive this treatment (Luchini 2012b). After having completed the ELF task, the experimental group gained more accuracy in their pronunciation than the students in the control group. Evidently, tasks on ELF that promote consciousness-raising foster pronunciation awareness, a fact that may lead to phonological accuracy.

Conclusion In this case study, a few speech samples drawn from an interaction between three ENNSs were analyzed to explore cases of phonological unintelligibility. The findings show a partial match with Jenkins’ proposal of a LFC. However, another extra feature, lexical stress, not considered part of the core, was found to affect intelligibility. These results indicate that some of the pedagogical approaches to targeting the sources of unintelligibility between ENNSs might need to be revisited in further investigations. In general terms, both segmental as well as suprasegmental features were found to affect intelligibility. Pedagogically speaking, then, teachers and learners should focus their attention on the production of both aspects if they intend to promote or sound intelligible to other ENNSs. The findings in this study are modest and limited in a number of ways. However, they may be used as a trigger to set up further investigations in this area. The fact that the author himself acted as researcher-participant provided an interesting perspective from the inside of the study itself rather than simply counting on an external observer’s interpretation. Yet, the weakness of this point lies in that the voice of the other two interlocutors could not be heard. Listening to the two other participants’ opinions and interpretations would have provided rich information which

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

189

could have been crosschecked with that coming from the researcherparticipant. This process of crosschecking data coming from different sources would have allowed to further validate results. The next limitation was given by the small number of interlocutors who participated in the interactions. A bigger number of participants, from different nationalities may have allowed the researcher to identify further relevant pronunciation features which are important for ELF intelligibility. We have now some more empirical evidence indicating that there are some vital phonological features for the attainment of intelligibility that should be addressed in the pronunciation class. In a recent study, Derwing, Thomson, Foote, and Munro (2012) suggest that instructors should spend more time focusing on pronunciation features that are unlikely to improve naturally such as vowel distinctions in pairs like “can” vs. “can’t”, final endings in numbers such as “-ty” vs. “-teen” and the correct placement of word stress, just to name a few, and less time on areas that may improve to native or near native levels through input and interaction alone. There seems to be no reason to push learners to acquire non-core items and, in so doing, eradicate as much as possible their L1 accents and, along with them their local identities (Jenkins 2007). If they intend to acquire a more native-like pronunciation, then, it should be up to the learners’ choice to acquire outside the classroom those phonological aspects such as pitch movement, weak forms, and some sound distinctions that do not seem to have a serious effect on intelligibility. What needs to be guaranteed, however, is that all L2 learners are equipped with those phonological features that will enable them to communicate successfully with other speakers, being them ENSs or ENNSs. Pronunciation teachers should expose their learners to a varied range of NN accents of English so that they can understand them easily, and focus their pedagogic attention on those phonological items that are vital in terms of intelligible pronunciation. Although a substantial amount of research has been conducted on the factors that affect intelligibility in L2 (see cited works above), further experimental studies should be carried out with other bilingual English speakers, in different multilingual speech communities and with wider populations. This will allow researchers to establish additional comparisons and thus investigate potential pedagogical uses of some of the phonological assumptions held in this work and see what happens as a result.

190

Chapter Eight

References Abercrombie, D. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Berns, M. 2008. “World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and intelligibility.” World Englishes 27, 327-334. Björkman, B. 2010. “Spoken lingua franca English at a Swedish technical university.” University of Stockholm: PhD thesis. Borissoff, C. 2011. “Basis of articulation and articulatory setting in pronunciation teaching: Focusing on English and Russian.” Birkbeck College, University of London: Master’s thesis. —. 2012. “Basis of articulation or voice setting?” Speak Out! 46, 1-4. Campbell, D. 1975. “Degrees of Freedom and the Case Study.” Comparative Political Studies 8, 178–193. Cruttenden, A. 2008. Gimson's Pronunciation of English. 7th ed. Revised by A. Cruttenden. London: Hodder Education. Crystal, D. 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dauer, R. 2005. “The Lingua Franca Core: A new model for pronunciation instruction?” TESOL Quarterly 39(3), 543-550. Derwing, T. and M. Munro. 2005. “Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: An empirical approach.” TESOL Quarterly 39, 379-397. Derwing, T., M. Rossiter, M. Munro and R. Thomson. 2004. “Second language Fluency: Judgments on different tasks.” Language Learning 54(4): 655-679. Derwing, T., R. Thomson, J. Foote and M. Munro. 2012. “A Longitudinal Study of listening Perception in Adult Learners of English: Implications for Teachers.” The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 68(3), 247-266. Deterding, D. and A. Kirkpatrick. 2006. “Emerging South-East Asian Englishes and intelligibility.” World Englishes 25(3), 391-409. Ehrenreich, S. 2009. “English as a Lingua Franca in multinational corporations – exploring business communities of practice.” In English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, ed. A. Mauranen and E. Ranta, 126–151. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Gibbon, D. 2008. “Afterword: Navigating pronunciation in search of the Golden Fleece.” In English pronunciation models: A changing scene

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

191

(2nd ed), ed. K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and J. Przedlacka, 439-464. Bern: Peter Lang. Graddol, D. 1997. The Future of English? London: British Council. —. 2006. English Next. London: British Council. Hahn, L. 2004. “Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals.” TESOL Quarterly 38(2), 201-203. Hitchcock, G. and D. Hughes. 1995. Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research, 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Jenner, B. 1996. “Changes in objectives in pronunciation teaching.” Speak Out! 18, 41-44. Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2002. “A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language.” Applied Linguistics 23, 83-103. —. 2006. “The spread of English as an international language: A testing time for testers.” ELT Journal 60, 42-50. —. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. 1992. The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press. Levis, J. 2001. “Teaching focus for conversational use.” English Language Teaching Journal 55(1), 47-54. —. 2005. “Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 39(3): 369–377. Levis, J., and V. Cortes. 2008. “Minimal pairs in spoken corpora: Implications for pronunciation assessment and teaching.” In Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic language assessment, ed. C. Chapelle, Y. R. Chung and J. Xu, 197–208. Ames: Iowa State University. Luchini, P. 2004. “Developing oral skills by combining fluency- with accuracy-focused tasks: A case study in China.” Asian EFL Journal (1), 141-151. —. 2008. “El inglés como lengua internacional: Factores fonológicos que afectan la inteligibilidad. Paper presented at XV Congreso Internacional de la ALFAL (Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de América Latina) Project 19: Fonología: Teoría y Análisis, Montevideo.

192

Chapter Eight

—. 2012a. “Monitoring the impact that an exploratory task on ELF had on Spanish-L1 trainee pronunciation skills.” Speak Out! 46, 18-22. —. 2012b. “An experimental study on ELF pronunciation integrating a language awareness component.” The Journal of English as an International Language 7(2), 57-79. Luchini, P., and S. Kennedy. 2013. “Exploring sources of unintelligibility between non-native English speakers: A case study.” The International Journal of English and Literature 4(3), 79-88. Mauranen, A., and E. Ranta eds. 2010. English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Munro, M. and T. Derwing. 1995. “Foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners.” Language Learning 45, 73-97. —. 1998. “The effects of speech rate on the comprehensibility of native and foreign accented speech.” Language Learning 48, 159-182. —. 2001. “Modeling perceptions of acccentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 51-468. Myers, Michael. 1994. Quality in Qualitative Research in Information Systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Australasian Conference on Information Systems Melbourne, 27-29 September 1994, 763-766. Nihalani, P., R. K. Tongue and P. Hosali. 1979. Indian and British English: A handbook of usage and pronunciation. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Nunan, D. 1992. Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osimk, R. 2009. “Decoding sounds: An experimental approach to intelligibility in ELF.” Vienna English Working Papers 18(1), 64-89. Pitzl, M-L. 2005. “Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context.” Vienna English Working Papers 14(2), 50–71. —. 2010. “‘We should not wake up any dogs’: Idiom and metaphor in ELF.” In English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, ed. A. Mauranen and E. Ranta, 298-322. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pullin Stark, P. 2009. “‘No joke – this is serious!’ Power, solidarity and humour in business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF).” In English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, ed. A. Mauranen and E. Ranta, 152-177. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Rajadurai, J. 2005. “Revisiting the concentric circles: Conceptual and sociolinguistic considerations.” Asian EFL Journal 7(4), 111-130.

Identifying Aspects of Speech which Decrease Intelligibility

193

Schaeffler, S., J. Scobbie and I. Mennen. 2008. “An evaluation of interspeech postures for the study of language-specific articulatory settings.” In Proceedings of the ISSP Seminar Strasbourg, 8-12 December 2008, ed. R. Sock, S. Fuchs and Y. Laprie, 121-124. Seidlhofer, B. 2001. “Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 133-158. —. 2009. “Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6, 195-215. Sifakis, N., and R. Fay 2011. “Integrating an ELF pedagogy in a changing world: The case of Greek state schooling.” In Latest Trends in ELF Research, ed. A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins, 285-298. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Smit, U. 2010. English as a lingua franca in higher education. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. —. 2003. “English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) as medium of learning in a hotel management program: An applied linguistic approach.” Vienna English Working Papers 12(2), 40–75. Smith, L., and C. Nelson. 2006. “World Englishes and issues of intelligibility.” In The Handbook of World Englishes, edited by B. Kachru, Y. Kachru and C. Nelson, 428-444. Oxford: Blackwell. Thurnbury, S. 1993. “Having a good jaw: voice setting phonology.” English Language Teaching Journal, 42 (2), 126-131. Trofimovich, P., and W. Baker. 2006. “Learning second language superasegmentals: Effect on L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1-30. —. 2007. “Learning prosody and fluency characteristics of second language speech: The effect of experience on child learners’ acquisition of five suprasegmentals.” Applied Psycholinguistics 28, 251-276. Trudgill, P. 2008. “Native speaker segmental phonological models and the Lingua Franca Core.” In English pronunciation models: A changing scene, ed. K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and J. Przedlacka, 77-98. Bern: Peter Lang. Walker, R. 2010. Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zoghbor, W. 2011. “Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca: Reducing Skepticism and Increasing Practicality.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1(8), 285-288.

CHAPTER NINE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ VIEWS ON ENGLISH AND ITS ROLE IN MEXICO ANNA V. SOKOLOVA G. AND MARÍA DEL CARMEN HERNÁNDEZ Y LAZO

Introduction Nowadays, many nations are strongly promoting teaching and learning English because of the special role this language plays in various fields of human activity both locally and globally. In this connection, it is worth recalling why and how English has become widely recognized as one of the most important languages in the present-day world as far as its usage in different spheres of life is concerned. English was originally spoken by some Germanic tribes who had migrated from different parts of presentday Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands to the territory of modern England around fifteen centuries ago. Many years later, by 1500, this language was used by 5-7 million English people (Görlach 2002, 3). Its spread beyond the boundaries of England coincided with the era of British colonialism. In 1852, the German philologist Jakob Grimm observed that English could already be called a “world language” (cf. Crystal 2003, 112). By the beginning of World War I, it was a second language for 20 million speakers (Jespersen 1938, 234). In 1962, according to Samarin (1962, 72), English met most of the requirements to be described as a world lingua franca. Today, it has an official or special status in 87 countries and territories (Richler 2006, 162), and is used as a first language by around 375 million speakers, and as a second language by approximately 375 million people; moreover, there are around 750 million users of English as a foreign language (British Council 2013). Such a process of worldwide language expansion has taken place due to various factors among which are science, technology, mass media, trade, culture, and literature (cf. Kachru 1992).

196

Chapter Nine

It is necessary to note that language is by no means a neutral tool of communication. Any language carries an ideological function by actively reinforcing and reproducing cultural elements of the society where it is used as a first/second language, and by spreading these values inside and outside this community. Also, language introduces new cultural and social elements of any nation, thereby challenging its traditional social value system (cf. Pennycook 1998). The modern socioeconomic and geopolitical age often called globalization has been in increasing need of trained people who would be able to use modern technologies in order to manage constantly changing information, as well as to work with the newest systems and with different counterparts in the scientific, technological, cultural, and sociopolitical environments. That is why, the English language as a lingua franca (Mauranen 2005; Seidlhofer 2006, among others) can be defined as “a language of knowledge distribution” (Malee Bassett 2006, 26). Hence, a certain level of competency in it is indispensable for those whose mother tongue is not English, and whose goal is to become involved in the numerous activities of the “global village”.

Position of English in the Mexican society In relation to the role of English in Mexico, it is useful to mention some historical facts that have boosted the use of this language in Mexican society. Thus, in 1847, North American troops under the command of General Scott invaded Mexican territory. In the same year, US businessmen started up different kinds of commerce and services in Mexico. At the end of the 19th century, many entrepreneurs from the USA invested their capital in railways, petroleum, mining, and other industries in this country; they also built hospitals, schools, churches, clubs, etc. In 1888, the first North American college, the English School for Boys, was opened in Mexico City to meet the needs of the children of those North American citizens who resided in Mexico at that time (Hidalgo et al. 1996). During World War II, the trade exchange between Mexico and the USA continued growing, and both commercial negotiations and financial transactions were often carried out in English. As for the different sorts of Mexican-Canadian contacts, they have been developed continuously since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Mexico and Canada in 1944. In the 1990s, Mexico accelerated its economic integration with the USA and Canada as a result of the trilateral ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. Having redirected its policy

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico

197

towards closer relations with the two partners, Mexican society started feeling the importance of the English language more than ever before. At the same time, the US and Canadian economies continued to attract many Mexicans across the US-Mexican border to the north where English is the dominant language. Today, English is used in different areas of Mexican life linked to all kinds of collaboration between Mexico, the USA and Canada. For example, it is one of the working languages during diplomatic meetings on security, competitiveness, environment, and other issues. In the economic sector, in 2010, the US firms located in the Mexican territory generated 30% of jobs in the country by investing around US$ 2,500,000 in their business (Empresas de Estados Unidos invertirán dos mil 500 MDD en México 2010). More than 2,500 Canadian firms that currently operate in Mexico deal with trade, investment, innovation, agribusiness, housing, community development, environment, forestry, human capital development, energy, and labour mobility. Annually, Canada receives more than 17,000 temporary agricultural workers from Mexico under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Programme (Government of Canada 2013). Therefore, a great number of the US and Canadian firms in Mexico require a minimum command of English (60%) from their employees (La importancia del idioma inglés en lo laboral 2011). As far as the Mexican mass media sector is concerned, various newspapers (for example, Excelsior that is published in two languages – Spanish and English – on Mondays) and nearly 500 magazines (Insight, Newsweek, etc.) in English are sold in bookstores, newsstands, and stores in Mexico (Hidalgo et al. 1996, 131); in addition, there is satellite TV broadcasting as well as cablevision with numerous channels in English. With respect to foreign tourism in Mexico, 67% of foreign visitors to the country are from the USA (Explorando México 2013), followed by Canadian and British tourists (Turismo en México 2013). It is useful to point out that Mexico is the second most important tourist destination for Canadians with some 1.8 million visits per year (Government of Canada 2013). As for British visitors, 45,401 tourists from Great Britain travelled to Mexico in the first three months of 2011 (Registra importante crecimiento el arribo de turismo ingles al Caribe Mexicano durante el 2011). Academic and cultural ties are also essential components of the relationship between Mexico, the USA, and Canada. Thus, there are more than 270 scientific cooperation and student exchange agreements between different Mexican and Canadian universities (Government of Canada 2013). In 2010, Canada and Mexico signed Youth Mobility MOU, a

198

Chapter Nine

programme aimed at benefiting Canadian and Mexican youth by making it easier for them to gain invaluable travel, work, and life experiences in each other's country for up to one year (Ibid.). In order to meet these and other needs of the members of Mexican society in relation to the use of English, the latter is taught not only at all levels of formal education, but also in industrial and commercial companies, government offices, binational cultural centres, private language schools, institutes, etc. With the aim of promoting and reinforcing English language teaching in this country, in 1973, the Mexican Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages was created. Nowadays, the Secretariat of Public Education of Mexico stresses the importance of mastering foreign languages, principally English, in student education, especially at the higher educational level (Programa Nacional de Educación 2001-2006). Nonetheless, despite the efforts of the Mexican governmental and non governmental institutions and organizations towards the fostering of foreign language learning, only 9% of Mexicans can speak a foreign language today. It is English that these people (86%), mostly university graduates, have studied at some moment of their life. It is estimated that 4% of these users of English can read or speak it well, 3% poorly, and 83% understand nothing while reading in it. As for listening comprehension in this language, 9% of these people assess their skill as that of good listeners, 9% as that of poor ones, and the rest of them cannot understand anything while listening to English (México hoy 2013). So, in spite of the outstanding role of English both at national and international level, the statistics show that there is little interest on the part of the Mexican population in achieving proficiency in this language.

Educational values of teaching-learning English The process of learning and teaching a foreign language implies the development of different beliefs, attitudes, values, feelings, etc. related to the content and usefulness of the target language. Their formation and transmission largely depend on the educational objectives and priorities of both language learners and teachers. In the case of English, its teachinglearning is commonly associated, on the one hand, with progress that can be linked, according to Clark (1987), to the educational values of classical humanism, reconstructionism, and progressivism. On the other hand, there are attitudes towards English related to resistance. Such a difference in stances exists in the modern world because of different functions that the

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico

199

English language fulfils in the three circles of its spread around the globe described by Kachru (1992): inner, outer and expanding. Classical humanism as one of the three educational components of progress sees convention and tradition as cornerstones in language learning; however, it does not exclude the student’s choice and control over the course of his/her education. Reconstructionism, in its turn, is aimed at promoting social well-being and equality values. Finally, progressivism examines educational values in accordance with integral personal development (Clark 1987), contextualizing the learning process in terms of the interaction of social interests, and political and economic forces, on one side, and of academic knowledge and practice, on the other (Giroux 1983, 44). The latter, knowledge and practice, usually form part of a school or college curriculum based on different norms, values, and beliefs that are not obligatorily explicit. These can be instilled in the students through subjacent criteria that organize academic rules and social relations, and are influenced by the classroom-teaching methodology (Giroux 1983, 47). Therefore, teaching can be described in conformity with traditional, liberal, and radical approaches. The traditional method pursues its objective of keeping a status quo society (Giroux 1983, 48). According to this approach, learning a foreign language is regarded as a valuable cultural and social commodity even though the acquired knowledge may not have any important usage. Furthermore, the supporters of this approach are not interested in preparing language learners to be ready for communication with native speakers on terms of unequal linguistic skills. Those who are in favour of the liberal method reject decontextualized knowledge. They are, rather, interested in both classroom interaction and the production and negotiation of social meaning; however, they do not take into account inequality in power or hierarchical structures. Finally, the radical approach considers a classroom to be a place of struggle and conflict where students freely express their viewpoints and construct social meaning. It is necessary to emphasize that learners can react negatively to the target language by showing defiant behavior that can be, on the one hand, resistance disclosed in their ideology and commitment to collective action for social transformation, and, on the other, opposition that is not very obvious; instead, it is ambivalent and prominently passive (Canagarajah 1999, 98). We should stress the importance of taking into consideration these ideas while conducting a research that has to do with the perception of a foreign language and its role in a particular society.

200

Chapter Nine

Linguistic policy in Mexico It is worth indicating that despite the increasing consolidation of the position of English in Mexican society, the response to the spread of this language in Mexico has not always been favourable (Hidalgo et al. 1996). First of all, we should emphasize the specific character of Mexican linguistic policies related to the status of the local spoken languages (Spanish and 68 indigenous languages), as well as to the reasons to learn a foreign language in the country. In the different periods of Mexican history, the linguistic policies have largely depended on interior sociopolitical, economic, and educational factors. Nowadays, Mexican people generally choose English as a first foreign language to study; a preference dictated primarily by the proximity of Mexico to the USA. But it should be pointed out that there are numerous language schools and language teaching materials in Mexico which are linked not only to the North American variety of English but also to the British and Canadian ones. Generally speaking, the attitudes of the Mexican government towards teaching English have been formed in terms of its usefulness for learners. While the statuses of the Spanish language and of the local indigenous languages are specified in the Mexican Constitution (Article 2) and in the General Law of Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous People (Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas 2003), there seems to be no official document on the status of foreign languages in Mexico (Lara 2006, 489). In this regard, English has been a de facto language in Mexican society since the 18th century when social, economic, and political relations were initiated between Mexico and the United States. And, as different authors (Sierra and Padilla 2003, among others) emphasize, Mexico has maintained a perspective of national independence as well as political and economic symmetry in its relationship with the USA. Today, many researchers in the field of Mexican linguistic policies observe that English represents a linguistic threat for the Mexican society. Thus, Lara (2006, 497) argues that: One thing is to speak English freely, and the other is to submit the commerce, intellectual life, and science to English-speaking monolingualism imposed by the USA. In these life domains, dangerous diglossia is produced where English has a high place and Spanish a low one.

This threatening phenomenon started right after the end of World War II when teaching English in Mexican public schools became an important

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico

201

part of the curricula due to the obligation to study a foreign language (Hidalgo et al. 1996, 118). Nowadays, there is much more need for Spanish speakers to use English in their workplace, whereas indigenouslanguage speakers may be feeling an increased need for Spanish since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. As Scholte (2000) notes, in such a linguistic context, the differences in prestige between Spanish and English have not diminished; what is more, the prestige of English is increasing, and that of Spanish is being threatened in the sense that the use of English has become part of the process of constructing a dominant value system. In addition, the growing contact of Mexicans with English has taken place through their migration to the USA for business, tourism, education, etc.1 In this situation, the influence of English accelerated by globalization is endangering the preservation of Mexican linguistic diversity, too. Indeed, the research that is presented in the next section shows that many Mexican university students would rather learn English than an ethnic language of their country even though they could benefit from having a good command of some local indigenous languages in their future professional life.

A case study on the perception of English in Mexico Research methods and procedures A study was conducted among English-language learners in a Mexican public higher educational institution, namely, the Metropolitan Autonomous University-Xochimilco, Mexico City. The prime objective of this research was to determine how the students perceive the target language and its role 1

It is worth mentioning that a great number of Mexican farm hands and labourers, or so-called “wet backs”, leave for the USA for economic reasons. They receive no education in Spanish while residing in that country. However, many of them gave their votes to the present US president Barak Obama during the recent presidential elections, thereby contributing to his triumph in that process. The educational level of these people is commonly low; moreover, they usually do not come into contact with the English language before going to the USA. When they arrive there, Spanish is their only language of communication with the other people who form their limited world of contacts. These workers live with the hope of returning one day to their hometowns which can be one of the reasons for not considering learning English to be their priority. However, their illusion of getting back home is diminished because of the adverse economic situation in Mexico, and thus the realization of their dream is being postponed.

Chapter Nine

202

in Mexico. The data were collected through questionnaires distributed to 738 survey participants. 41 semi-structured interviews, as well as group discussions with 92 students, were also held. It should be pointed out that it is a case study, i.e. it implies a particularist, descriptive, heuristic, and inductive approach focused on the phenomenon of the English-language learners’ beliefs and opinions. So, its purpose is not to generalize the results obtained with regard to all the students of the university in question.

Research findings and discussion The study found that the learners view the role of English in presentday Mexican society either positively or negatively despite the outstanding position of this language in their country in comparison with other foreign languages. In addition, some students adopt English in their lives, while others partly or completely reject it. According to the survey conducted within the research, almost all the participants consider English to be the most used language in world communication. In this regard, many students describe English as a “basic”, “important”, “global”, “international”, “indispensable”, “universal” language in the modern world. Here are some examples of such value judgements:2 x

x x

x

“It’s of great importance. If you speak English, you can live and overcome problems in any place around the world. It is very important because the person who can speak it is a well-prepared one.” “It’s basic. It’s a common language. It is spoken in many countries.” “English is an international language.” “I think English is indispensable. It’s a universal language.”

However, more than half of the students consider the importance of English in the modern world to be overestimated. These students characterize this language negatively by associating it with the concepts of “war”, “domination”, “imposition”, etc. The following discourse excerpts contain some of these value judgments: x

2

“I think English is imposed through movies, music, and everything.”

The students’ arguments were translated from Spanish into English by the authors of the present article.

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico x

x

203

“It has become a very wide-spread language, sometimes an exaggerated one, in comparison with other foreign and native languages here in Mexico, besides Spanish.” “It seems to be an imposition of power by the first world countries over the third world ones like ours.”

One of the students sees everyday communication in Mexico, especially among Mexican young people, as dictated by some kind of vogue as a result of a marketing policy in Mexican society: x

“Here in Mexico, there exists a kind of fashion to include English words in our vocabulary. Especially, young people combine Spanish and English words. Instead of saying ‘adiós’ in Spanish, they say ‘bye’. Thus, they combine words, and that is a kind of imposition, too. Or, if we take, for example, the marketing policy to offer products in English, like when we go to a store, we can see the name of a product in English.”

During the interviews and group discussions the learners identified different domains of human life both at local and worldwide level where English, in their opinion, plays an essential role. These areas can be distinguished as follows: communication and information x “Almost all the information on the Internet is in English.” science and technology x “In the scientific and technological fields, if you examine the statistics, you can find out that half of the data are in English. In fact, the Anglo-Saxons and North Americans have developed many medicines and other inventions. economy x “In economic terms, it’s important to speak it. They say that everything comes from economics. The latter moves the world, especially nowadays with different petroleum disputes and all this stuff.” politics x “It’s indispensable for communication, business, work, culture, even politics. For everything.”

Chapter Nine

204

culture x “Let’s take the modern music. Even some Mexican groups compose it in English because it works better for them.” x “More than 50% of movies are in English. And many books, for example, Harry Potter, are first published in English. Even they are better in edition and covers.”

Finally, 78.5% of the students also stress the importance of English in the Mexican job market. The following arguments illustrate this idea: x x

x

“If you go abroad, you have to know how to speak English. For example, in Europe they speak English as a second language from childhood, so professionally it’s important to master it.” “In this country, speaking a foreign language is crucial for many people and firms because there are foreign business owners. That’s why they say in the interviews: ‘We’ll give you a job if you speak English well.’” “The fact is that in many firms you can get a better job and a better salary if you know English. If you go and say: ‘I know English’, the doors are open for you; but if you say: ‘I know French or German’, they are not opened so easily. By saying ‘bilingual’ you mean you speak Spanish and English, for sure.”

Thus, in the students’ opinion, a good command of English can help them to grow professionally: x x x

x

“I’d like to work in a transnational company. Therefore, I need to be fluent in English”. “In many companies, for high positions and even for lower ones they need English speakers”. “From a pragmatic point of view, it can help us to find better job opportunities.” “It’s important because if you get a job proposal in the USA, you have to be fluent in English.”

These and many other arguments reveal the fact that, on the whole, the survey participants are highly motivated to study the target language in both intrinsic and extrinsic terms. Thus, nearly one third of the survey population learn English for pleasure. The following testimonial can serve as an example of such an attitude: x

“I cannot say I am obliged to study it. I am studying it for pleasure as well. Otherwise, I would look for other ways to get my university diploma. Maybe, I would study French or another language.”

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico

205

It should be recalled that the survey participants were asked to reply both to close and open ended questions. Among the latter, there were two questions related to the future role of English in Mexican society: 1) Is it possible that in the future Mexico will become a bilingual country where English will be used by the people as a second language? 2) To what extent would such a linguistic situation affect the Mexican national identity? The students’ viewpoints vary on the matter. As far as the first question is concerned, almost half of the students doubt the possibility that Mexico will become bilingual in the future. One of the main arguments in favour of this position is based on certain drawbacks that exist, in the students’ opinion, in the Mexican system of public education. In this regard, the survey participants explain that in public schools English is usually taught during a short period of time. Some of these students also make the observation that, although the number of private schools with a greater emphasis on English courses is constantly increasing, fees in these educational institutions are too high to be afforded by the majority of the Mexican people. In other words, there is inequality in the access to good education in Mexico. Moreover, some students remark on the poor quality of the teaching of English in Mexican primary and secondary schools, even in private ones. The following discourse segments can serve as examples of such opinions: x

x

“I think Mexico will never become a bilingual country because of its educational system; they teach English to us at elementary and high school, but we can’t speak or understand this language.” “The problem consists in our public educational system. Actually, we don’t have English as a subject. However, nowadays, there are more and more bilingual and even trilingual schools (they think that we also need to speak French). The problem is for those who are studying now: they don’t have education in a foreign language. There will be a problem in the future because these people will be limited in their growth. I think that our government has to make English an obligatory subject in public schools in order to eliminate such inequality in education.”

On the other hand, some participants admit the possibility of the creation of a bilingual situation in Mexico in the future. They argue that English is used in many fields of present-day Mexican society:

Chapter Nine

206 x

x

“We use English while dealing with food, science, and culture. In Mexico, people travel to places such as Monte Albán, and most of these places have tours in English. You can rarely hear other languages. Maybe, French.” “It’s possible because nowadays English is taught in private schools and even in kindergartens.”

These students coincide in the opinion that the geographical proximity of the USA and Mexico favours the possibility of converting Mexico into a bilingual society: x

“I think that it’s possible in a future because the educational level of the Mexicans has been increasing. And one of the academic requirements is English because it is spoken internationally. Moreover, as the USA neighbours, we’re obliged to be able to speak it.”

One of the students notices that present-day Mexican young people have a higher educational level in comparison with that of the previous generations. In his opinion, today’s Mexican youth need more than ever to master a foreign language, especially English, if they are going to succeed in their academic and professional life. According to another student, Mexico is already bilingual, although not totally, because, for example, there are lots of people working in Mexican resorts who speak English well. Moreover, many Mexican residents have relatives in the USA; these people like many others go to the north as tourists or to get a better job. On their return to their native country, they already have a certain command of English. Finally, many students insist on a greater inclusion of the English language in primary and secondary school in Mexico. As for a possible threat for the national identity as a consequence of using English as a second language in Mexico, many students agree on the risk of such a situation. In this way, they show their awareness of a possible loss of Mexican cultural customs and traditions as a result of the increasing influence of English in Mexico. Some students even believe that there is already a process of weakening the national traditions because those Mexicans, especially indigenous people, who leave for the USA and then return home, bring back and implement alien cultural customs in their native country. One of the negative consequences of this situation consists in changing the mentality of the Mexican ethnic groups, in how they see the surrounding world. The following discourse fragments illustrate such opinions:

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico x x

207

“We can lose our traditions. We would know other things, become interested and, thereby, lose what we are and had before.” “I feel it would greatly affect our identity as Mexicans. The fact is that our compatriots are going and coming back; they are modifying their customs and are bringing new ones. If we start speaking a foreign language in this country, we’ll change our way of seeing things.”

Nevertheless, there are some students who believe that the use of English as a second language would not affect Mexican society. They argue that a stronger status of this language in the country would promote progress, would be one more instrument to know better other cultures, would help the Mexicans to become more competent, would lead to the growth of the national economy, would allow them to get a better job not only in Mexico but abroad, and so on. Here are some arguments of this kind: x x

x

x

“It is part of change, part of progress. I don’t see any harm in mastering English. I don´t understand how it could harm our country.” “It’s an advantage for someone who has a strong identity. If it isn’t so, one becomes a hybrid with no self-esteem. Otherwise, there would be no problem for him. English is just an instrument to know better other cultures.” “We would be more competent, and, obviously, that would help our economy a lot.” “The job market would be better because we’ll have more opportunities to work abroad. It will be very important to Mexico because our country needs more incentives.”

One student’s remark concerns the fact that a greater expansion of English in Mexico will affect only him because he will have to study it much more even though he does not like this language in itself. Finally, it is worth mentioning the students’ comments on the future of the English language itself. In this regard, most of the survey participants believe that English will continue to occupy an outstanding position both locally and globally for many more years due to the economic power of the English-speaking countries. x

“I think English will continue dominating because of many contemporary tendencies. Each year more and more people are speaking English, and more countries are dealing with the US currency. There are more and more agreements with the USA. I think you have to compare the tendencies related to English with those

Chapter Nine

208

x

linked to other languages. There will be a moment when everything will be in English; it doesn’t mean that everybody will speak it, but all the information will be in English.” “What makes English continue dominating in this world? It depends on the big English-speaking countries, first of all, on the USA. While they are at the top as the most powerful country, their language will prevail over others. Since I was child, they have distinguished the USA as a powerful country as well as their dollar.”

On the other hand, there are students who believe that the English language position will be gradually weakened because there are other languages, mainly Chinese and Spanish that are increasing their popularity due a great number of its native speakers as well as of its learners: x

“I think English is considered to be important because of the USA. But recently the USA has been losing its prestige. Today, it’s with the Asian countries. So, the Chinese language is getting more importance these days.”

Conclusion This paper includes some of the results of a larger research that was conducted to explore the social representations of Mexican university students with regard to the English language. Though it is a case study, we expect that the information obtained will give an idea of what is possibly happening in other Mexican higher educational institutions in connection with English-language learning. The data provided by the research participants show that the English learners’ knowledge about the target language is constructed through their social interaction in different contexts. Consequently, their specific beliefs and opinions with regard to English are manifested in positive, negative, or neutral attitudes towards this language. Another implication of this study consists in the fact that the type of information the students have about English can influence either directly or indirectly how they might make use of available linguistic and nonlinguistic means in order to solve possible problems they might confront during their learning as well as using the target language. In this sense, the knowledge about the English language and its native speakers is fundamental in developing the students’ intercultural competence that is widely considered to be crucial in achieving integral learning of any foreign language. Language teachers, in their turn, should place a greater emphasis on the

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico

209

different sociocultural topics to be taught while elaborating didactic materials and applying various data collection techniques (discussions, survey, presentations, observation, etc.). The purpose of all these procedures should be to present a wider outlook of the English-speaking countries as well as the position of English in the modern world, in general. In this way, the students will be able to overcome all sort of prejudices and stereotypes regarding the culture of the Anglophone societies, and will become more interested in studying and, finally, mastering the target language. All in all, the research shows that good control of English as part of their qualifications is considered by the research participants to be indispensable for their present-day and future personal and social life, because fluency in English definitely contributes both to their academic success and to their moving around in Mexico and abroad. Finally, achieving proficiency in English can help the students to shape their perceptions of self-worth, expectations, prospects, and even material rewards.

References British Council 2013. Accessed May 6, 2013. Canagarajah, S. 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, J. L. 1987. Curriculum Renewal in School Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, D. 2003. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giroux, H. A. 1983. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Empresas de Estados Unidos invertirán dos mil 500 MDD en México 2010.

Accessed 6 May 2013. Explorando México 2013. Accessed 6 May 2013, at . Görlach, M. 2002. English in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press. Government of Canada 2013. Accessed 6 May 2013 at: . Hidalgo, M., B. Cifuentes and J. Flores. 1996. “The position of English in

210

Chapter Nine

Mexico: 1940–1993”. In Post-Imperial English: status change in former British and American colonies, ed. J. Fishman, A. Conrad and A. Rubal-Lopez, 113-137. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jespersen, O. [1938] 1982. Growth and structure of the English language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kachru, B. 1992. “Teaching World Englishes”. In The other tongue: English across cultures, ed. B. Kachru, 355-365. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. La importancia del idioma inglés en lo laboral 2011. Accessed 6 May 2013, at http://www.terra.com.mx/articulo.aspx?articuloId=1199831. Lara L. F. 2006. “¿Por qué no hay una política lingüística de México?”. In Los retos de la planificación del lenguaje en el siglo XXI, ed. R. Terborg and L. García Landa, Volumen II, 489-500. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas 2003. Accessed 6 May 2013. Malee Bassett, R. 2006. The WTO and the University: Globalization, GATS, and American Higher Education. New York and London: Routledge. Mauranen, A. 2005. “English as Lingua Franca: An Unknown Language?”. In Identity, Community, Discourse, ed. Cortese, G. and Duszak, A. Bern: Peter Lang. Mexico hoy 2013. Accessed 6 May 2013. Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge. Programa Nacional de Educación 2001-2006. Accessed 6 May 2013 at: . Registra importante crecimiento el arribo de turismo ingles al Caribe Mexicano durante el 2011. Accessed 6 May 2013, at . Richler, H. 2006. Global mother tongue: the eight flavours of English. Montréal: Véhicule Press. Samarin, W. 1962. “Lingua francas, with special reference to Africa”. In Studies of the role of second languages in Africa and Latin America, ed. F. Rice, 54-64. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics of the Modern Language Association of America. Scholte, J. 2000. Globalization: A critical introduction. New York: St. Martins Press.

University Students’ Views on English and its Role in Mexico

211

Seidlhofer, B. 2006. “English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn't”. In English in the world: Global rules, global roles, ed. R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni, 40-50. New York: Continuum. Sierra A. and A. Padilla. 2003. “United States’ Hegemony and purposes for learning English, in México.” In Language: Issues of Inequality, ed. P. Ryan and R. Terborg, 215-234. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2003. Turismo en México. . Accessed 6 May 2013.

CONTRIBUTORS

Bettina Beinhoff is Lecturer in Applied Linguistics and English Language at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge. She has previously worked at the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, where she also did her PhD. Her main research interests are at the crossroads of sociolinguistics and second language acquisition, and specifically in the areas of attitudes towards accents and the negotiation of identities in cross-cultural and intercultural settings. She has just started a new project which looks at the structure of non-native speaker accents of English and the interrelation of production and perception in acquiring second language speech. Her latest book Perceiving Identity through Accent - Attitudes towards Non-Native Speakers and their Accents in English has just been published with Peter Lang. Lucie Betáková is the Head of the Department of English Studies at the Faculty of Education of the University of South Bohemia in ýeské BudČjovice in the Czech Republic. She graduated from the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague as a teacher of English and Czech. In 1997 she completed an MA in TEFL course at the University of Reading in Great Britain. In 2002 she finished her PhD studies in the English language at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University Prague by defending her thesis titled Identifying Language Needs of Non-native Speaker teachers. Her main professional interest is training English teachers in both pre-service and in-service courses. She is interested in the language of non-native speaker teachers of English, in testing language skills, in classroom discourse analysis and material development. Her major publications are Discourse and Interaction in English Language Teaching (Prague 2010), a textbook of classroom English for Czech teachers called Angliþtina uþitele angliþtiny (2006 and 2013) and a series of textbooks of English for Czech lower secondary schools called Way to Win. She is married and has two sons. Filio Constantinou completed her PhD in Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. Her research interests include second language acquisition, second dialect acquisition, non-standard varieties in education, school-based writing, language awareness and language

214

Contributors

ideologies in education. Her current research focuses on the challenges which the language of schooling poses for students in linguistically diverse settings. Edith Esch was Senior Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education of the University of Cambridge and is an Emeritus Fellow of Lucy Cavendish College. She was the Director of the Cambridge University Language Centre from 1990 to 2000. Her main current research is in second language education with a special interest in the influence of the British and French pedagogical cultures in post-colonial contexts and more particularly in multilingual societies in Africa where both are in contact. Co-editor of Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors (2002) and The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts (2012), her recent publications include ‘Researching Language Education in Cameroon’ in Kenneth Harrow and Kizitus Mpoche (eds) Language, Literature and Education in Multilingual Societies (2008), ‘Epistemic Injustice and the Power to Define: Interviewing Cameroonian Primary School Teachers about Language Education’ in Christopher Candlin and Jonathan Crichton (eds) Discourses of Deficit (2010) and ‘English and French pedagogical cultures: convergence and divergence in Cameroonian primary school teachers’ discourse’ Comparative Education 48 (3) August 2012. María del Carmen A. Hernández y Lazo is a research professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, Campus FES-Acatlan, with a Master’s degree in applied linguistics from the same university. She has taught English as well as English literature for more than 25 years, and has participated as a paper presenter in numerous academic events organized both in Mexico and abroad. She has written several books and articles related to literature and English-language teaching. Sihua Liang is a postdoctoral researcher in the School of Foreign Languages at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou. She completed her PhD and MPhil in Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. The title of her PhD dissertation is Language attitudes in a multidialectal large urban center: linguistic ethnographies of two primary school communities in Guangzhou, South China. It is undergoing revision and scheduled to be published by Springer in 2014 under the title: Language attitudes and identities in multilingual China. Her research interests lie in sociolinguistic and educational issues in multidialectal and multilingual societies, ranging from language attitudes, language ideologies,

Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation

215

language identities, language policy to language education, with a focus on analyzing language-in-interaction. Sihua was born and grew up in Guangzhou. She speaks Cantonese as her first dialect, learned Putonghua in primary school, and is proficient in both dialects. She also has a functional repertoire in the South Min dialects (also known as Teochew dialects or Hokkien). The three dialects are routinely used in her family, and thus her passion in researching multilingualism is both personal and professional. Pedro Luis Luchini is a graduate teacher of English at the Universidad Nacional Mar del Plata (UNMDP), Argentina. He holds an MA in ELT and Applied Linguistics, King's College, University of London. Doctorate in Letters, UNMDP. Full-professor at Teacher Training College, UNMDP. He teaches Discurso Oral II, Comunicacion Avanzada I & II. Head of the Language Department at UCAECE MdP and CADS Superior. His main areas of interest are applied phonology, writing skill teaching and ELF. Genevoix Nana is a postdoctoral researcher with comprehensive experience of Cameroon’s education context. His research focus is on language socialisation and the role of language in identity shaping and representation in learning contexts. His research interests also lie in the fields of comparative education, language politics and policy and research methodology in the social sciences in general and language and educational enquiry in particular. Anna V. Sokolova G. is a research professor at the Metropolitan Autonomous University, Campus Xochimilco in Mexico City, Mexico with more than 20 years’ experience in teaching foreign languages. She holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in philology from Moscow State University after M. Lomonosov, and a PhD degree in social sciences from the university where she is presently working. She has participated in different academic events both in Mexico and abroad related to languages. Her academic research interests are focused on sociolinguistics, interculturality, and discourse analysis, and the results of her investigation in these fields are presented in a number of articles as well as a book. Martin Solly is Associate Professor of English Language and Linguistics in the Department of Culture, Politics and Society at the University of Turin. His current areas of interest include language education, language policy, sociolinguistics, multilingualism, language teaching / learning methodology, specialised discourse and literacy in academic and

216

Contributors

professional settings. He is particularly concerned with the relationship between language and context (institutional, disciplinary, intercultural, community), as well as with how language choice impacts on the construction and representation of identity. Co-editor of Verbal/Visual Narrative Texts in Higher Education (2008), Identity and Culture in English Domain-specific Discourse (2008) and The Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts (2012), his recent publications include ‘Communicating with the Wider Audience: the Case of a Legal Blog’ in the International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse (2012), and ‘Dialogic monologues: commencement speeches as an evolving genre’ in Diachronic Perspectives on Genre (2012). An active participant in various research projects at both European and national level, in 2011-2012 he was a visiting scholar at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. Tayyaba Tamim has her PhD in Education from the University of Cambridge, as a fully funded RECOUP scholar, and her MPhil from the University of Cambridge, as a British Council Chevening scholar. In addition, she has a Masters degree in English Language Teaching from Kinnaird College for Women University and a Masters in English Literature from the University of Punjab and a Diploma in ELT from the University of Punjab. She has 18 years of experience of teaching at different levels. She is currently working as Associate Professor and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Humanities and Social Sciences and the Centre for Research in Economics and Business, Lahore School of Economics, Pakistan. Her areas of interest are languages, education and issues of social justice across gender, class and caste. In addition, she is interested in the socio-politics of language policy, the capability approach to human development and Pierre Bourdieu’s social critical theory. Androula Yiakoumetti is an applied linguist at Oxford Brookes University. Her research focuses on regional and social variation within linguistic systems and, more specifically, on the implications of such variation for education. She is interested in sociolinguistic aspects of linguistic variation and works within the research fields of multidialectism and multilingualism, second-language acquisition, and language-teacher development. Her publications span a variety of language issues including bidialectism, bilingualism, language attitudes, learning of English as a foreign language, and language-teacher training.