Bilingualism and National Development

cover

next page >

Bilingualism and National Development Edited by Gary M. Jones and A. Conrad K. Ozóg

title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:

Bilingualism and National Development Ozóg, A. Conrad K. Multilingual Matters 1853592080 9781853592089 9780585255941 English Bilingualism--Congresses, Education, Bilingual--Congresses, Language policy--Congresses. 1993 P115.B546 1993eb 306.4/46 Bilingualism--Congresses, Education, Bilingual--Congresses, Language policy--Congresses.

cover

next page >

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

< previous page

page_ii

next page > Page ii

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bilingualism and National Development/Edited by Gary M. Jones and A. Conrad K. Ozóg. p. cm. 'This special number of the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development contains a selection of papers from the conference, Bilingualism and National Development (BAND91), which was held at the University of Brunei Darussalam in Bandar Ser Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, from December 9th to 12th, 1991.´ Includes bibliographical references. 1. BilingualismCongresses. 2. Education, BilingualCongresses. 3. Language policyCongresses. I. Jones, Gary M. II. Ozóg, A. Conrad K., 1950. III. Conference Bilingualism and National Development (1991: University Brunei Darussam). IV. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Special number. P115.B546 1993 306.4´46dc20 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1-85359-208-0 (hbk) Multilingual Matters Ltd UK: Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon, Avon BS21 7SJ. USA: 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007, USA. Australia: P.O. Box 6025, 83 Gilles Street, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Copyright © 1993 Gary M. Jones, A. Conrad K. Ozóg and the authors of individual chapters This book is also available as a special issue of the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development Vol. 14, Nos 1&2, 1993. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. Typeset by Photographics Ltd, Honiton, Devon. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Short Run Press, Exeter.

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_iii

Page iii

Contents Editorial

1

Introduction

3

An Overview of Language and Development Andrew Gonzales

5

Implementing Bilingualism: Brunei in Perspective John Edwards

25

Multilingualism and Bilingual Education in Brunei Darussalam Gary Jones, Peter W. Martin and A. Conrad K. Ozóg

39

Bilingualism and National Development in Malaysia A. Conrad K. Ozóg

59

Two Tongue Tied: Bilingualism in Singapore Anne Pakir

73

How Not to Embark on a Bilingual Education Policy in a Developing Nation: The Case of Nigeria J.A. Oladejo

91

European Models of Bilingual Education: Practice, Theory and Development Hugo Baetens Beardsmore

103

Fostering Bilingualism and National Development Through School Second Language Study Richard B. Baldauf, Jr

121

Planning English Language Acquisition in ESL and EFL Societies: Development and Maintenance of Languages and Cultures Björn H. Jernudd

135

The Hegemony of English in Science and Technology Robert B. Kaplan

151

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

< previous page

page_1

next page > Page 1

Editorial When, in 1980, this journal began under the editorship of Derrick Sharp, it announced a broad multilingual and multicultural mandate. Papers on research, theory, educational systems, teaching/learning strategies and assessment were solicited from a wide geographical range. Also stressed from the outset was a concern for academic rigour and objectivity. Now, a dozen years on, it can be seen that JMMDwith more than 400 published articles, many book reviews and other materialhas indeed lived up to the initial hopes. It is a widely read and cited journal with a distinguished editorial board and list of authors. I think it no overstatement that any scholar concerned with issues multilingual and multicultural must be aware of the contributions published in JMMD. As incoming editor I am, as may well be imagined, delighted to be taking the helm of such a valuable journal. I am also very grateful to Derrick Sharp, who has so admirably directed things up to now and whose hard work and dedication have made JMMD such a useful and visible vehicle for current thinking in the field. Old readers and new readers alike will agree that a course has been set which it now becomes my duty and my pleasure to maintain. At the same time, it is appropriate now to ask for comments and criticisms from our constituency; these will be both welcomed and carefully studied. Suggestions about neglected topics or situations are particularly solicited. I have always found the judicious mixture of more academic articles and those firmly seated in practical concerns (often educational ones) to be a major strength in JMMD, and it is one I shall continue to support. I would also like to encourage more articles which cross disciplinary boundaries, which are grounded in historical and contemporary context, and which are comparative. While there will always be a place for well-constructed, singlesetting descriptive efforts, I hope that we will also see more eclecticism in linking these, in attempting to move beyond them, and in striving to construct generalisableand hence more valuablemodels and theoretical formulations. All of this, I think, is necessary for growth, since the intrinsic nature of the JMMD ambit requires interdisciplinarity, contextual grounding and triangulation. I believe that JMMD will continue to gain strength, visibility and importance. Multilingualism, multiculturalism and all the associated phenomena are clearly of increasing salience in the world and the value of the journal, as an essential source of information about these matters, will likewise increase. In this, I intend to aim for the most scholarly coverage possible,

< previous page

page_1

next page >

< previous page

page_2

next page > Page 2

for information without rigour, especially in this area, is possibly even worse than rigour without informationa regrettable characteristic of some academic journals but never, I trust, of this one. JOHN EDWARDS

< previous page

page_2

next page >

< previous page

page_3

next page > Page 3

Introduction This special issue of the Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development contains a selection of papers from the conference Bilingualism and National Development (BAND91) which was held at the University of Brunei Darussalam in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam from December 9th to 12th, 1991. In addition, there are a number of papers which were solicited for this special compilation either during the conference or soon after. The subject of bilingualism is especially important in Brunei, a country with a multilingual population and a bilingual education policy. Since the introduction of the policy in 1984 the English Department of the University has worked closely with the Ministry of Education in examining and monitoring the progress of the policy. As a result of this liaison it was felt that an international conference which examined bilingualism and bilingual education in a variety of 'development contexts' would be especially useful in reviewing and fine tuning the policies already implemented in Brunei. Speakers were invited from Canada, Australia, Nigeria, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Britain and the United States. In addition, over 60 papers were presented with speakers coming from all corners of the globe. The majority of speakers came from Southeast Asia and for that reason three papers in this volume are directly concerned with that region. Brunei is covered by Jones, Martin and Ozóg * who look at the place of the indigenous languages in both the planned and unplanned environments. (Edwards also makes extensive reference to Brunei in his paper.) Pakir, in her paper on Singapore, examines the problems and issues associated with the implementation of a bilingual education policy in a society which is culturally, racially and linguistically diverse. Historical considerations are given prominence in Ozóg's* paper on Malaysia, a country which could be considered to have abandoned bilingual education. The other papers chosen for this volume were those that we felt best reflected the theme of the conference. Two of the papers tackle general and theoretical issues. Gonzales examines the relationship of bilingualism and national development in a variety of contexts while Edwards examines the problems that a country like Brunei has in implementing a policy of bilingual education. Four papers look at bilingualism and national development in other areas of the world. The dangers of inadequate planning are highlighted by Oladejo who characterises bilingual education policies in Nigeria as both too ambitious and unrealistic. Queensland's attempts at implementing foreign teaching programmes are critically analysed by Baldauf who discusses the implications of these programmes both in the school and on society. Baetens Beardsmore reviews well-established European models of bilingual edu-

< previous page

page_3

next page >

< previous page

page_4

next page > Page 4

cation, compares them with one another and with North American immersion programmes, and puts them in the context of the development of the European Community. The final two papers look at the different aspects of bilingual education. Kaplan analyses the dominant role of English in science and technology and the implication this has on both the teaching of science and the teaching of English. The relationship of teaching practices and the global function of English is examined in depth by Jernudd who also analyses how native languages and cultures can be maintained in this environment. It is always difficult to gauge the success of a conference. However, in this case, we think we can say with confidence that BAND91 was a success, if only because it has begun debate and discussion in Brunei on both the nature and future of bilingual education in the country. Officials of the Ministry of Education, principals, teachers and increasing numbers of parents are now taking an active interest in the subject. This debate will continue for many years and we would like to thank all conference delegates for their contribution. We wish to acknowledge the help and support we have had from a number of sources in the compilation of this volume: the Minister of Education, Brunei Darussalam for instigating BAND91; the Vice Chancellor and the Permanent Academic Advisor of the University of Brunei Darussalam for their cooperation and assistance both during and after the conference and our colleagues on the BAND91 Organising Committee for their support. Special thanks must be given to Professor John Edwards for his enthusiastic guidance in getting this volume to print. We are also conscious of the help given by Mike and Marjukka Grover in encouraging the compilation. GARY M. JONES & A. CONRAD K. OZÓG * BRUNEI DARUSSALAM, NOVEMBER 1992

< previous page

page_4

next page >

< previous page

page_5

next page > Page 5

An Overview of Language and Development Andrew Gonzalez De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines Abstract The components of language rights for social development are enumerated and discussed. They are listed under such rubrics as national language development, languages of instruction, access to a Language of Wider Communication (LWD), bilingual schooling, and the cultivation of the national language. Examples of differing situations in various countries are cited, and the insights gleaned from the experience of different societies attempting to meet these language needs are explained. Introduction In an earlier paper, Gonzalez (1979) examined the notion of 'language welfare indicators', that is to say, he attempted to characterise certain sociolinguistic situations by a series of scales. The summation of the scales resulted in what he called 'language welfare'. Language welfare indicators included such indicators as the choice, development and widespread use of a national language, respect for linguistic minority rights, use of the mothertongue or at least a regional lingua franca for literacy education, literacy (both basic and functional), availability of print and other media in the main languages of the country, access among all socio-economic sectors to a Language of Wider Communication (LWD). On the basis of the scoring, he was able to arrive at a rank ordering of countries according to the overall summation of 'language welfare'. Further, he did a correlation of certain indicators with the overall socio-economic development of the country and not surprisingly found that the only real significant correlation that was discovered was that between literacy and socio-economic development. Not expected was the lack of significant correlation between the state of the national language and socio-economic development. Elsewhere, Gonzalez (1980) tried to spell out in priori terms through qualitative descriptions the relation between language on the one hand and indicators of social development (including economic) on the other hand,

< previous page

page_5

next page >

< previous page

page_6

next page > Page 6

attempting to show the linguistic relevance of language aspects to social development. These previous studies are cited to establish the framework for the topic of this contribution, namely, language and development. Language and Development: Terms of Reference In line with more contemporary approaches to the meaning of development, per capita income is not the only index of socioeconomic development, although to be realistic, it is certainly the one dimension that easily comes to mind. However, there are oil-rich countries where the per capita income is high but where the population is not necessarily 'developed' in other dimensions. One thinks, in addition to a desirable level of per capital income, of such social welfare indicators (Mangahas, 1975) as a balanced distribution of wealth, perceived security and well-being, protection of legal and other rights, law and order, level and quality of education, the quality of the environment, housing availability, adequate supply of food and other necessities. Included under these social welfare indicators would be the protection of one's linguistic rights (Sibayan, 1991). Even more basic than linguistic rights of minorities however is the possession of a national language as a symbol of national unity and linguistic identity. Normally, this national language should be an indigenous one and as it develops, it receives not only official status (as the language of government and public administration) but likewise designation as the language of instruction in the schools. The levels at which this language of instruction is used will vary according to the development state of the language (development is used here in the context of language development, not national socio-economic development measured primarily by per capita income; see Ferguson, 1962; Haugen, 1972 for this concept of development). In addition, under ideal conditions, the home language would be the best medium to be used (UNESCO, 1953) as the language of initial literacy. Moreover, the vernacular or language of ethnicity within a larger nation has a right to be maintained at least as a language of the home and even the neighbourhood. Finally, every country, no matter how nationalistic, must have access to a Language of Wider Communication (LWD) for international relations and for commerical purposes. The need for a LWD continues even with rapid socio-economic development, since smaller nations, even if prosperous, need a LWD for international and scientific purposes. Not all language speakers, especially when their populations are small and presently do not command a position of political importance, can afford to be literate and cognitively able only in their own languages; they need a LWD for access to scientific literature. In this century and most likely in the next, this language will be primarily the English language since so much of scientific

< previous page

page_6

next page >

< previous page

page_7

next page > Page 7

literature printed in international journals is in English; see Kaplan, this volume, and Sheffield (1992: 122). Theses On the topic of language and development, a series of statements or theses which will summarise the main points of this overall view will be made: Every government should respect the linguistic and cultural rights of all the ethnic groups (especially minorities) which constitute the body politic. This seems to be a sine qua non for the forging of unity as a nation and is therefore a demand of nationalism. In the recent literature, this demand is now considered one of a person's linguistic rights which the government of the country should be pledged to protect and to promote. Some countries are blessed in that there is little ethnic division in the country since all belong to the same ethnic group. On the other hand, the more common situation is that a country, because of the past and the decisions made by its former colonisers in preparations for independence, is composed of many ethnic groups which somehow are expected to mould themselves into a nation. One radical source of disunity and even conflict is ethnic division and consequent ethnic loyalties, especially in situations where minority rights are submerged in favour of the majority tribe. This lack of cohesion consists not only in either active opposition to the maintenance of the language and culture and way of life of the minorities but sometimes outright suppression of these rights. The central government is courting disaster in such moves and sooner or later it will divide the country, a situation which may result in civil war. On the other hand, the more human and in the long run more successful strategy is not merely to respect minority linguistic rights because of the ethical reason that minorities have a right to exist but also because the country becomes all the more enriched as a result of these ethnic groups which contribute their own elements to the enrichment of national life and cultural diversity of any nation. A monolingual country is really the exception more than the rule, since the normal state of affairs is linguistic and cultural diversity with many of the citizens being bilingual, trilingual or even multilingual. Rather than suppress these languages, central governments should encourage this cultural and linguistic diversity and use it as a resource for the linguistic and cultural needs of the country. Need for a National Language Having stated the need for the conservation, preservation and maintenance of minority languages in the name of linguistic and cultural rights as a prerequisite for the welfare of the body politic and its constituents, one

< previous page

page_7

next page >

< previous page

page_8

next page > Page 8

must now state on the other hand the need for a national language ideally based on an indigenous language which will become for the nation-state a means of unifying the country and of constituting a symbol of national unity and linguistic identity. The language in some ways signifies and symbolises the entire culture, for in the language are embodied many features of the culture of the people as a cultural repository and artifact. The language need not always be indigenous, as the example of Spanish demonstrates in Latin America. The Hispanic case is unique in that the majority of the population of formerly colonised societies of Central and South America (because of the accidents of history, the coming of Hispanophone elites and their intermarriage with the local Indian population, the requisite proportion of these elites vis-à-vis the population, and the sociological developments in their respective societies) have never challenged the official and even national status of Spanish, a foreign importation, in lieu of the local indigenous languages which have now been marginalised except in countries where the Hispanic penetration was not as deep. Among the latter countries, one thinks of countries such as Paraguay where Guarani competes with Spanish and Quechua in Bolivia. For the rest, however, the place of Spanish has been unchallenged. On the other hand, in other colonised countries especially those colonised by Anglophone conquistadores, the national language, an indigenous one, is competing with the former dominant colonial language for a place in the sun, as it were. The ideal language for selection as the basis of the national language would be an indigenous one already spoken by many either as a first language (mother tongue) or as a lingua franca. This is what fortunately happened to Malay, which is the language of a small seafaring ethnic group in the Riau Archipelago off the coast of Singapore. Malay became a popular trade language and because of this has been accepted as the basis of Bahasa Malaysia, Bahasa Indonesia, and Bahasa Brunei Darussalam. In polyglot societies where no one language dominates, selection can be a problem, as it has been in the Philippines. In parts of Africa, because of competing major tribes, it has been wiser to keep all the large languages as official languages without a commitment to a national language. Or one can do as in Switzerland and declare three languages as official. Another alternative would be the Indian three-language formula: the language of the state, the language of the nation (Hindi), and a special language such as English as the second national lingua franca. In any case, assuming that the selection of a national language is not a divisive but a unifying factor, then the decision of the citizenry as a whole to select one indigenous language as the language of the nation, a symbol of national unity and linguistic identity, becomes unitive for the nation and a symbol around which the different members of society might rally as with its flag, its national flower, its national anthem. For some countries, the national language assumes a purely symbolic

< previous page

page_8

next page >

< previous page

page_9

next page > Page 9

purpose, as Malay does in Singapore, where it is used for ceremonial and official state functions and as the language of the national anthem; however, the really operative languages in Singapore are English and Mandarin, with the home languages or mother tongues taking a backseat and probably eventually disappearing. For some countries, the national language has become a powerful tool for unification and a cause around which to rally and bring the country together, especially in Malaysia, where the development of Malay as a national language has been rapid and impressive, and in Indonesia, where the spread has been quite remarkable and nearly complete in the archipelago among 180 million people. In the case of Indonesia, however, there was a headstart of some 60 years, since the national language was proclaimed as early as 1928. For the Philippines, the choice of national language has been divisive rather than unitive, especially now in Cebu (Gonzalez 1991), where Cebuanos are challenging Tagalog as the basis of the national language in their plea for a multibased national language incorporating elements from all the other Philippine languages and other languages used in the country. The selection, propagation, standardisation and cultivation of a national language, the dimensions of language development which Ferguson and Haugen point out, can become a unifying means and maintenance device of unity for a country, as it has been in the case of Malaysia. And even when a language has become a dead language and no longer living, in the face of a needed rallying symbol for the nation-state, the symbol can be resuscitated and developed as it has been in the case of Modern Hebrew in Israel, the immediate ancestor of which is Biblical Hebrew through an unbroken tradition of a people of the book. In the case of Arabic among the Middle Eastern Muslims, classical Arabic continues to be a living tradition but with a popular vernacular and lower counterpart which results in a situation of what Ferguson (1964) calls diglossia, or the simultaneous existence of two varieties of the same language; quite different from each other in features, according to uses under describable social circumstances, so that although the two languages are genetically related, the varieties are distinct enough to constitute practically two mutually unintelligible lects of the same language. Where therefore the language is not the cause of conflict, then it becomes a powerful aid to unity and identity for the movement of a society from being merely a state or politically legalised entity into a genuine nation or a community of peoples united by a common history, a culture and a language. Language(s) of Instruction The national language in ideal circumstances should become the main language of instruction in the schools at least for general education. The

< previous page

page_9

next page >

< previous page

page_10

next page > Page 10

use of the language in schools is a powerful means, though by no means the only means, of propagating and disseminating the language and ensuring that the next generation will speak it at least as a second language. The schooling of all the citizens in the language will likewise create a common tongue through which all have been raised and educated, pointing the way towards full dissemination among the ethnic groups in the state which have different or mutually unintelligible local languages as a mother tongues. For those citizens in the body politic whose mother-tongue is not the national language, then some form of transitional programme whereby initial schooling is in the mother tongue would be advisable, following the advice given by UNESCO (1953) that ideally initial schooling and therefore literacy training is best carried on in the mother-tongue. This choice is viable if the local languages are few enough to be affordable as media of schooling; where the country is multilingual, however, and there are many competing mother-tongues, then it does not become feasible to use so many languages of initial instruction. In this case, the mother-tongue can be an auxiliary medium of instruction, assuming that the teachers in the area where the mother-tongue is spoken are themselves native speakers of it. Another form of compromise, not mutually exclusive with this former option, is to use only the main lingua francas of the country as initial languages of literacy to make the transition from home to school easier. The objective of course is to make literacy in the country almost 100% as a condition for national and human development. Ultimately the students should be literate in the official national language(s) but initially the language of literacy is ideally the mother-tongue with which the students are already familiar, thus obviating the necessity of having to postpone reading while the students are trying to learn a second language. In the schema proposed by development workers, the language already spoken is now learned for reading purposes and reading taught as soon as possible. The UNESCO recommendation is that schooling be at least from four to five years to ensure permanent functional literacy and to prevent a return to illiteracy. Unless the students have an occasion to practice their reading through regular practice, the chances are that the students will revert to illiteracy and therefore not be able to function well in the society in the future. A corollary therefore to development is the provision of suitable teaching and reading materials both in school and out of school (through the printed media) so that pupils who do not remain in school for one reason or another are able to maintain their literacy in at least the main language of the country. To use Cummins' terms (1984), the students have first of all to attain basic interpersonal communicative skill (BICS) in one language so as to be able to do initial learning in school; this will have to be one of the main languages if one is a mother-tongue speaker of a minority language. Moreover, to avoid the peril of 'semilingualism' (see Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984) whereby a citizen is unable to carry on higher cognitive functions

< previous page

page_10

next page >

< previous page

page_11

next page > Page 11

because s/he has not learned a language sufficiently to use it for these purposes, then there should be enough time either in the initial language of literacy or the second language (local or foreign) to reach the level of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), which seems to be the basic necessity for truly functional literacy (Sibayan, 1991) and not merely one able to decode letters and combinations of letters, the most basic though inadequate stage of literacy for functional citizenship in a polity. Thus in societies where there are many minority languages, there has to be a form of transitional bilingualism (initially the use of the mother-tongue or lingua francas as media of instruction) for initial literacy coupled with rapid study at least towards the level of basic interpersonal communicative competence of the indigenous official language, which can then be used as the main medium of instruction from then on, up to the higher levels of schooling or side by side with an international foreign language under a form of bilingual scheme to ensure access to scholarly literature outside of one's country. The Role of a Language of Wider Communication (LWD) In addition to functional literacy in the mother-tongue, and the acquisition of content using the language as a medium of instruction and as a language for carrying on higher order cognitive activities in school, the citizens of any polity need a Language of Wider Communication (LWD) to gain access to scientific literature outside the country and to use the same language for international relations, especially business relations and trade. It is a debatable issue at present just what proportion of a society needs competence in this LWD. Across the history of mankind, there has always been need of a language surpassing the boundaries of any one country, which served as a superposed variety between nations. Usually this language is the language of the dominant nation or tribe or ethnic group within the political domain of the conquering or dominant nation. Earlier stages of mankind created this dominance through war and conquest; later it was through some kind of hegemony not through arms but through cultural dominance or what we would call a form of imperialism. The historical reasons vary, but no group has ever been truly an island unless it has chosen to separate itself and isolate itself, as the Tasadays in the Philippines chose to do (see Nance, 1977). Usually there has to be an inter-group medium of communication which can belong to a dominant communication group or a pidgin or trade language (as Riau Malay developed in Southeast Asia's ports of trade) or the language of the dominant majority which through commerce and later culture exercises the hegemony already cited. These LWDs, at the present time, recognised by the United Nations through the official languages used in its deliberations and the translation services it provides for these transactions, are at present French, English,

< previous page

page_11

next page >

< previous page

page_12

next page > Page 12

Russian, Chinese, Spanish and Arabic; most likely in the future the list will include Japanese. The choice is wider for trade relationships depending on the volume of trade being done between countries. Again, this is a matter of convention; for example in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and most of Asia, by convention and for convenience, it is English. In Latin America, it is of course Spanish. In Europe, the European Community has become wider in its scope with all languages of the member communities (presently 11) considered as official languages of transaction, although de facto English and French dominate. In the East European bloc countries, it used to be Russian. And of course in the Middle East, it is Traditional Formal Arabic, although English is likewise widely used. For external transactions of any country at present, at least a significant minority of the country must be conversant in one of the international languages for trade and for diplomacy to carry on business and official negotiations between nations. The use of interpreters can be resorted to, but interpreters are an inconvenience; negotiators and diplomats do their work better in a mutually agreed upon language which they can use within the domains of business and diplomacy. Another key function of an LWD is to be the language of scholarly discourse at the university level and related academic activities. Historically, depending on where one lived, it was Sanskrit in India and India-influenced cultural areas; Arabic in the Islamic world which saw a flowering of culture during the Early Middle-Ages, Greek and later Latin in the Western World up to the High Middle Ages and subsequently during the Renaissance. The use of Latin was artificially kept alive in the Roman Catholic Church in its seminaries and universities at least until Vatican II (19821985). In nineteenth century Europe it was German, one of the national languages which arose with the rise of independent nations after the Renaissance; earlier, in the eighteenth century, it was French. Now it is predominantly English (Kaplan, this volume) probably because of the high levels of scientific writing which appear in English, thanks to the excellent scientific research traditions of the United Kingdom and the United States. The status of English at present is unprecedented in the history of mankind in the extent of its use in a large geographical expanse and the number of speakers who use it as a second language for their intellectual discourse; the sheer number of English publications in world periodicals makes it a candidate for longevity, if nothing else, out of inertia to change and as a convenience, for a world language in academia can continue to be used for special registers and purposes long after native speakers of it have stopped using it, as the case of Latin demonstrates so well in the West and as the case of Sanskrit does within the Indic-speaking community. For most developing countries at present, largely a result of the colonisation of these countries by either the United Kingdom (and by the United States in the Philippines) and France, the language of scholarly discourse

< previous page

page_12

next page >

< previous page

page_13

next page > Page 13

has been either English or French, so that one refers for example to francophone and anglophone Africa. The Caribbean uses English, French or Dutch as a second language; much of Asia uses English or French. In Central and South America, Spanish continues to dominate as the language of academic discourse, although many Spanish speaking scholars have likewise learned to be conversant in English especially in the Americas, less so in Peninsular Spain. The use of a language as a medium of scholarly discourse for both lecturing and for publications depends on an infrastructure and living tradition of research and inquiry being done by communities which have internalised the tenets, ethos, and habits of work in science and technology. This is a mature stage of development wherein the language is now able to play a key role in harnessing the findings of science for applications to benefit the physical development of man and to provide him with the conveniences and creature comforts as well as leisure that are the fruits of technology. Since tremendous resources are needed for this kind of activity, countries less blessed with material and above all human resources must depend on importing technology or adapting it from other countries, which then makes access to the scientific literature necessary to make this adaptation possible. There are no magic numbers on what proportion of a society should have competence in this scientific language or its special register of science, but obviously the more members of society have access to it, the better. There is likewise a job of popularising or making these findings in the world language available in the national or official languages or the languages of instruction in the system for wider dissemination. Not all members of society need be conversant in the second language, but there has to be a substantial minority who will carry on the process of translation, popularisation and dissemination of the findings of science and make these available to the larger community. The classic example of this kind of arrangement, quite successful, is Japan, where translation services are available almost immediately after the publication of key works in the world languages; in fact, in Japan translations of important publications appear almost simultaneously with the dates of publication of the originals. This has been one of the key factors of scientific progress in Japan since the Meiji Restoration. With the wealth of Japan and the possibility especially among its younger generations to master English, especially among its scientists, Japanese scientists now publish in English to establish contact with a wider audience so that the Japanese are now not only consumers but producers of new knowledge for the world scientific community. What is an interesting development in the late twentieth century is the realisation among certain already developed countries that their size does not warrant full development of their own national languages and languages of instruction for general education (primary and secondary) to make them want to develop these languages as languages of scholarly discourse. This

< previous page

page_13

next page >

< previous page

page_14

next page > Page 14

decision is based on economy and convenience and the realisation that only a few languages at any one stage of mankind's global history can really be candidates as LWDs and that resources needed to develop local languages as LWDs are so vast as to make it impractical to develop them as such. Moreover, to enable their own scholars to have their findings disseminated, these nations choose to do so in a language well known outside the country rather than attempt to report these findings in the local developed language and then to have to provide translations for these works. Thus, in countries in Scandinavia, a conscious choice has been made to make English the dominant language of the university for instructional purposes since the minority in the society who will go to university does not warrant the expense and inconvenience of having university instruction done in the local language. It would be easier to have students attending universities, already blessed with great learning abilities, to learn English rather than to institutionalise the use of the national language as the language of scholarly discourse and investigation. Norway has done this and as a result of recent policy legislation Sweden has done something similar. Denmark of course has always had the educated members of its society handle English well, so has a small country like Holland. And in the Flemish-speaking universities of Belgium, English is widely used as a language of lecturing in their international programmes. A similar arrangement is going on in Japan at present in the universities' international programmes, so likewise in Thailand. In these Asian countries, unlike in Scandinavia, the local language still predominates as a language of the university, however. In post-colonial societies, especially those formerly colonised by the United Kingdom and by the United States, and hence, anglophone, the problem of what to do with the former colonial language vis-à-vis the development of the national language, largely in the domain of education, continues to be unresolved. One can essay the prediction that until this basic problem is solved, language becomes a barrier rather than an ingredient of national development because it causes problems of counterproductive division in society as a result of education. The situation in most post-colonial countries is that while society at large sees the need for a symbol of national unity and linguistic identity, many citizens are hesitant to take the next step of using the national language as the language of instruction and insist on maintaining the colonial language as the language of instruction because of its economic, scientific and even cultural advantages. For the nationalists the continuing use of the post-colonial language is a perpetuation of cultural imperialism and domination; moreover, the nationalists contend that as long as the language of education (and therefore of controlling domains in politics and administration) continues to be the colonial language, then the colonial mentality of the past will continue and there will be an existing cleavage between the upper classes and the lower classes. As Myrdal (1968) observes, as long as there is cleavage of this type, it is difficult to achieve integration and unity for development. (However,

< previous page

page_14

next page >

< previous page

page_15

next page > Page 15

this observation is questioned in the case of Hong Kong where the small number of elites competent in English vis-à-vis the large majority of Cantonese speakers has not hindered Hong Kong from becoming prosperous or with Singapore where until recently the number of locals who had competence in English was small compared to the large number who spoke Malay and different Chinese languages.) The cases of Hong Kong and Singapore are in a category by themselves because of their status as city-states with a small population, 2.5 million in Singapore and 6 million in Hong Kong. Theirs might not be typical of a larger country with a multiethnic composition. Moreover, as the presence of native speakers of the colonial language is reduced and as more and more of the educational system is controlled by the local population, reduction in the mastery of the colonial language or its 'deterioration' is bound to take place, which then places a tremendous burden on the educational system in terms of delivery of knowledge for basic and functional literacy since the pupils attend school year after year without attaining even the minimum level of competence necessary in the second language and spend their time learning a language instead of content. This becomes a relevant problem when it comes to wastage or drop-outs since pupils who remain only a short time in school end up wasting their time learning to use the colonial language and not learning content; when they drop out or leave the system, they end up having little or no content and then revert to illiteracy since they never really learned to be literate either in their mother-tongue or in the second language dominant in the society. In this case, then, the continuing use of the colonial language at least at the lower levels of the educational system as a medium of instruction is counter-developmental and ends up in continuing illiteracy and dysfunctionality for those who either drop out of school or continue but learn nothing since they often do not attain the status of basic communicators in the colonial language even after six or seven years of schooling. Bilingual Schooling A compromise arrived at in certain societies is the use of a bilingual scheme of schooling, which seeks to develop the local national and official language for further use (expanding its domains into government and eventually even the law and higher education) and the use of the colonial language as a medium of instruction or as a second language in the system; so as to ensure bilingual competence in the two languages especially at the higher levels of education and later in professional life, where the second language continues to be necessary and functional. There are many models of bilingual education or schooling worldwide (see Fishman, 1978) based on different arrangements and combinations of the use of the two languages in the curriculum and based on the timing

< previous page

page_15

next page >

< previous page

page_16

next page > Page 16

and sequencing of the two languages. Typologies (Kloss, 1968; Sibayan, 1987; Fishman, 1978) have been used. In the school system, one can divide the subjects in the curriculum under national language and second language. Or one can begin monolingually in the local language and slowly year by year increase the subjects to be taught in the second language until one comes up with a mix of 50:50 or more, with more for the second language at the higher levels including tertiary education (see the case of Brunei; Ozog *, Jones, this volume). Other models of bilingual education, difficult to implement because of manpower limitations, would be an alternate days approach (Tucker & Cziko, 1987) with Language 1 one day and Language 2 another day, and alternating. A modified form of this is the Florida Coral Glades model (Rojas, 1966) where one language is used one year, another language the succeeding year, and so forth. The problem of sequencing likewise admits of many combinations. One can be bilingual from Day 1, usually not practical since the pupils do not know L2 when they enter school. Usually there is a transitional phase in such an arrangement which is totally monolingual or as has happened in the Philippines, in the L2 medium class, the teachers do codeswitching on a continuing basis, explaining something initially in L2 and then reexplaining the same content in L1 (see Gonzalez & Sibayan, 1988). Or one can teach in L1 immediately going into reading and writing, since the pupils already speak and understand L1. Then oral activities in L2 can begin and reading and writing postponed until the pupils have sufficient competence in the second language to begin instruction in the second language. This may take from six months to as many as three years depending on the situation, or after six months, the double-medium scheme can be used with the second language used and with codeswitching to the first language in a double-medium manner of delivery (Sibayan, 1987). The possible combinations are legion. An alternate arrangement would be to conduct all the first four years in Language 1 or at least the local lingua franca, and then to start teaching L2 in the fifth year, with differing modes of concentration in preparing for the complete use of L2 after six years or a bilingual combination of L1 and L2 by subject matter at the secondary level of schooling (proposed by a congressional body for the Philippines; see Republic of the Philippines, 1982). In most post-colonial societies, however, tuition at the tertiary level is still for the most part carried on predominantly in English or totally in English. Some subjects may be taught in the national language (usually the cultural subjects) with the professional and scientific subjects taught in L2. One possible result of postponing the use of L2 as a medium of instruction may be the lack of competence of post-secondary school graduates in L2 making a transitonal year necessary (as in Malaysia) to continue instruction in L2 at the tertiary level. The lesson emerging from these post-colonial situations is that for a

< previous page

page_16

next page >

< previous page

page_17

next page > Page 17

society to continue competence in L2 it must continue using it as a medium of instruction and not merely as a subject for study. Once the L2 is relegated to a subject for study rather than a medium of instruction, conversational competence ceases and only the difficult path of reading through translation and using a dictionary becomes the alternative. In such cases, writing in the second language becomes a major difficulty for most students and conversational mastery needed for business transactions and international relations is hardly ever attained. In line with discoveries that the best way to be competent in a language is not to keep on studying aspects of the language and analysing its language structures or even translating its literature, but using the language pragmatically, then the only way really to maintain L2 is to continue to use it as a medium of instruction in school (see Gonzalez, in press). Otherwise, the pupils and eventually members of society who have gone through the educational system will cease attaining conversational mastery of the language and end up with only a reading knowledge without the writing skills. It is still a question for empirical validation whether or not one can really read a language well without speaking it and using it actively unless one attains the painstaking skills of the classical scholar of a dead language, an impossible burden for the nonscholar. Certainly a reading knowledge of the language alone will not lead to the easy writing style that is comprehensible to many, as can be demonstrated by writing in English by Japanese and even some European scholars who rely only on their reading knowledge of a language when writing scholarly papers in the foreign language. The notable weakness of these papers is that they tend to be incomprehensible to native speakers and other second language speakers. Ultimately, therefore, a society that was formerly bilingual must make up its mind on whether it wants to maintain L2 and in what mode, and make the necessary policy and programme decisions to maintain L2 in the educational system by continuing to use it as a medium of instruction. Once L2 is relegated to a subject for study, then active and conversational mastery of L2 becomes nearly impossible except for the gifted. This is based on the Asian experience; other countries such as Holland may have a different experience which must be investigated and systematically compared with the Asian situation to see why it is that the Dutch succeed where the Asians do not. The Cultivation of the National Language The most difficult and the costliest in terms of time and resources in the development of any language, especially a national language, is the fourth dimension of language development, as Haugen (1972) has developed his thesis, namely, the cultivation of the national language. Cultivation is many faceted and does not mean only the cultivation of a language as a language of literature. The latter takes place quite rapidly

< previous page

page_17

next page >

< previous page

page_18

next page > Page 18

and is relatively easy to do. Once a language has received official status or even before it, if it becomes widely accepted, its use as a vehicle for expression of the national psyche becomes almost a matter of course, and if society makes conditions favourable for the flowering of literature through outlets for publication and for performance, then soon enough, poetry, fiction, drama, and essays begin to appear in the mother-tongue or the local language chosen as the national vehicle for expression. A body or corpus of literature soon grows without much effort. Longer lasting though likewise relatively easy is the modernisation of the language, namely, the expansion of its domain from traditional domains such as the home and the family and the immediate community or even tribe, to domains beyond the local community as a medium of communication (oral for the most part) among members of a state or a state becoming a nation in the areas of business transactions in everyday life. The new concepts needed for modern life and realities have to be 'linguified' and given expression as neologisms and as expressions referring to everyday tangible realities in discourse. This is one aspect of the modernisation phase of the language. The most difficult and time-consuming is another aspect of modernisation, namely, the use of the language not merely for everyday conversation about current or modern realities but the use of the language primarily in writing to speak of nonpresent referents or what cognitionists call 'displaced speech', that is, speech that is not immediately referable to present physical realities but to abstract realities at different levels of abstraction and speech about speech or what the philosopher Gabriel Marcel (1951) called 'secondary reflection'. This is what I would call the intellectualisation phase (based on Havranek's (1932) stages of language development in the Prague School of thinking) or the use of the language as a medium of scholarly discourse. Once we move into scholarly discourse, then language modernisation or intellectualisation becomes subject- or disciplinespecific, or depending on what domains or areas of specialisation the language is used, it develops a special technical lexicon of its own, a special manner of argumentation or proving which uses language, a special style (realised in special syntactic and discourse structures) for explication and description as well as persuasion and argumentation. It is then used for purposes which hitherto it has not been used for before. The narrative mode of discourse seems to be the easiest to develop in this intellectualisation process; the problem becomes more difficult in the realm of description (where detailing and labeling become necessary and are initially ad hoc), the area of persuasion (through the logical arguments and mode of proving in that discipline), and explication, perhaps the most difficult of all, since it involves explaining from the point of view of the prevailing paradigm or dominant model of the discipline which likewise has to be mastered in its entirety and its details. Here modernisation and intellectualisation must take place discipline by discipline through the creation of specific subject registers for each area of

< previous page

page_18

next page >

< previous page

page_19

next page > Page 19

specialisation. The register will become institutionalised only when there are sufficient numbers of specialists who are willing to use the same technical terminology and the same acceptable styles of presentation and argumentation as the others by a developing consensus or by following a charismatic intellectual leader who creates a group of disciples willing to follow him in his use of the language for the development of the discipline in the society. This means creating a group of 'significant others' who exchange their ideas via conversation and writing in scholarly journals following the vocabulary and terminology of the leader and contributing to the pool of knowledge or build-up of the corpus for the specific register. At this level, one has to worry about economies of scale. Is publishing in the being-intellectualised L2 worthwhile? Are the benefits greater than the costs? The costs are that one's intellectual productions will be availed of only by the few in one's society who know the language, compared to the larger audience one might gather if one writes in a dominant world scientific language read by many. If resources permit, one can be translated, of course, or one can publish one's writings in two languages, but this presupposes the luxury of time and leisure and auxiliary help which are not always available even to the top academicians of their respective countries. The benefits, however, should likewise be weighed, for it is the experience of creative intellectual leaders that in certain areas of investigation, notably in culture and in psychology as well as sociology, the use of an indigenous language opens avenues of inquiry which might otherwise be overlooked when one is thinking only in the second language. Undoubtedly, this is a matter of prior conditioning and can be surpassed by a creative thinker who can think creatively and natively while using an L2. But the testimony of people who have worked using a developing language (see, for example, Enriquez & Marcelino, 1984) indicates that using one's local language suggests new insights that are otherwise not available in the international auxiliary second language. It seems that in the area of both national language development and social development, the intellectualisation of the indigenous national language is symbolic of the last conquest of development, for usually, once one can think in, do research, and make work available in L2 in its intellectualised variety, one has arrived both as an individual language user but likewise as a representative of the speakers of a language that has reached an adequate stage of scientific cultivation or intellectualisation. This attainment likewise signals the fact for some that a particular society has finally reached an acceptable stage of social development. What the literature on bilingual education has dramatised to those in developing countries is that strategies and tactics for bilingual education and schooling and for the attainment of a sufficient degree of bilingualism to be able to function at higher cognitive levels in one if not in both languages will differ from society to society, depending on the state of development of L1 and L2. If L1 is still in the process of developing as

< previous page

page_19

next page >

< previous page

page_20

next page > Page 20

in most post-colonial societies and L2 has already attained a stage of full development (as English, French, Spanish, and Russian have), then the balance is weighed in favour of L2 rather than L1. Moreover, the social problems of acceptance of any arrangement of bilingual schooling are very much a function of the prestige and status of L1 and L2, usually the indigenous L1 in a post colonial society having less prestige. The same would not be true where L1 and L2 have both prestige and intellectualised status (as English and French do in Canada). It likewise depends on the continuing prestige of the second language in a post colonial situation which does not equate nationalism with the language of instruction in the schools (which seems to be the case in francophone Africa and in Singapore and the Philippines). In francophone Africa, the use of French at the secondary/tertiary levels of the educational system seems to be the general rule even now because of the special social conditions of these African countries which are usually composed of competing ethnic tribes, no one of which can be favoured in the interests of national unity; the compromise is the continuing use of the colonial language which has both prestige and maturity and gives no special advantage to any other ethnic group. Summary, Conclusions and Implications In this short contribution, which serves as an introduction and overview of the subject of Language and (Social) Development, with bilingual education as one option in the strategy for social development, the terms of reference with regard to language and development were set down. The notion of development beyond per capita income has been expanded to include other desiderata for social welfare using different kinds of indicators. One of these indicators of well-being is linguistic welfare which is a composite of many factors: the respect for the ethnic and linguistic as well as cultural rights of all members of a society, the availability of mass media for all languages in the society; the proper combination of language(s) as media of instruction in the educational system, based on considerations of efficiency and feasibility taking into account the social, economic, political and historical dimensions which go into rational language planning, and spelling out the desiderata for proper language planning with these contexts in mind. The conclusions are that, ideally, for proper social development, linguistic rights of the ethnic tribes, especially minorities, have to be respected, there is need for a local language, ideally the mother-tongue but lingua francas sometimes, for the initial language of literacy; access to an LWD for higher level science and for business and international relations; different forms of bilingual arrangements for carrying on education; and the desirability of having a local language fully intellectualised for use in higher cognitive activities in the educational system, at least for general education (primary and secondary).

< previous page

page_20

next page >

< previous page

page_21

next page > Page 21

Insights into the implications of these statements and claims of a theoretical nature may be stated thus: For over-all social development, language welfare is a necessary, though not sufficient, ingredient. It is necessary since language is a necessary component of culture and one's identity; it is a vehicle for one's deepest thoughts and expressions and one's identity as a person. Because it is such an integral component of the human persona, it demands respect and cultivation as part of the complex of desiderata that we call linguistic rights. One is really not a full person unless one can identify oneself by one's native language and can express one's innermost thoughts and sentiments and feelings as well as insights in one's native language which constitutes part of one's personality and psychological physiognomy. A society that seeks the common good through the welfare of each and every citizen who is considered precious because s/he is an end, not a means, to use one of Kant's categorical imperatives, must seek language welfare for the individual as it seeks his economic and social as well as well-being in all aspects. But for full human, social as well as individual development, it is not sufficient since the person in society has other needs which the society seeks to provide in the social covenant of man with man to constitute the social contract that keeps societies existing as well as progressing. Human beings have needs which seek to be satisfied beyond the linguistic dimension, although since the linguistic dimension is part of the psyche, it must receive priority consideration. The needs are for the provision of physical well-being by making available the necessities of life, food, shelter, clothing, rights of individuals to found their own families; in Maslow's (1954) hierarchy of needs which society in its search for the common wealth must seek to satisfy, language seems to be part of the need for security and safety of one's persona, one's need for belonging and affiliation, and likewise the need for self-actualisation and altruism. Thus, one must be free to affiliate oneself with communities of a common first and a common second language, which satisfies the need for belonging. One must likewise have the freedom to use one's language(s) in one's professional needs and fulfillment or self-actualisation. And in the spirit of giving one's self as a person for others (altruism), one must be free to share one's insights using a common language which resonates in others similarly inclined. This is perhaps the highest fulfillment of the author, be s/he a narrative or expository author, poet or scientist. Indeed, language maturation is an index of full personhood known more currently as personal development and an indicator of social well-being known more currently as social development.

< previous page

page_21

next page >

< previous page

page_22

next page > Page 22

References Cummins J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education Issues in Assessment in Psychology. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Enriquez, V. G. and Marcelino, E. P. (1984). Neo-colonial Politics and Language Struggle in the Philippines. Quezon City: Akademiya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino, Philippine Psychology Research and Training House. Ferguson, C. (1962) The language factor in national development. Anthropological Linguistics 4, 1, 237. Ferguson, C. (1964) Diglossia. In D. Hymes (ed.) Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology (pp. 42939). New York: Harper and Row. Fishman, Joshua A. (1978) International socio-educational perspective on some uncomfortable questions about bilingual education. In B. P. Sibayan and A. Gonzalez (eds) Language Planning and the Building of a National Language. Essays in Honor of Santiago A. Fonacier on his Ninety-second Birthday (pp. 1234). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines and Language Study Center, Philippine Normal College. Gonzalez, A. (1979) Language and social development in the Pacific area. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 10, 1&2, 2144. Gonzalez, A. (1980) Language and social development: The contribution of the linguistic sciences. In Mehelinda G. Sison, Alice M. O'Rourke, Kazuoko T. Kay, Erlinda A. Cordero and Benjamin G. Tayabas (eds) Concepts on Social Development (pp. 334). Manila: Center for Advanced Studies on Social Development in Asia and the Philippine School of Social Work, Philippine Women's University. Gonzalez, A. (1991) Cebuano and Tagalog: Ethnic rivalry redivivus. In J. R. Dow (ed.) Language and Ethnicity. Focusschrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the Occasion of his 65th birthday Vol. 2, (pp. 11129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gonzalez, A. (in press) The Philippine Experience with the English Language: The Limits of Science in Language Teaching. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Language Institute. Gonzalez, A. and Sibayan B. P. (eds) (1988) Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines (19741985). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Haugen, E. (1972) Dialect, language, nation. In S. Anwar (ed.) The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Huagen (pp. 23754). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Havranek, Bohuslav (1932) Ukoly spisovneho jazyka a jeho kultura (The functions of the standard language and its cultivation). In Spisovna cestina a jaxykova kultura (Standard Czech and the cultivation of a good language) (pp. 32ff.) Prague: Cercle Lingistique de Prague. Kloss, H. (1968) Notes concerning a language-nation typology. In J. A. Fishman, C. A. Ferguson and J. Das Gupta (eds) Language Problems of Developing Nations, (pp. 698). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mangahas, M. (1975) The measurement of Philippine national welfare. In M. Mangahas (ed.) Measuring Philippine Development (pp. 140): Quezon City: The Development Academy of the Philippines. Marcel, G. (1951) The Mystery of Being. Chicago: Regnery. Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper. Myrdal, G. (1968) Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations Vols. 13. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Nance, John (1977) The Gentle Tasaday: A Stone Age People in the Philippine Rain Forest. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Rojas, Pauline M. (1966) The Miami experiment in bilingual education. In Carol J. Kriedler (ed.) On Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages Series II (pp. 435). Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Republic of the Philippines (1982) Education Act. Sheffield, C. (1992) Report on planet earth: A 50-year retrospective. In Special section, The World & I Magazine PWPA Fifth International Congress Study Papers 2042: A choice

< previous page

page_22

next page >

< previous page

page_23

next page > Page 23

of futures, introduced by M. Alonso (pp. 11623). Washington, D.C.: Professors World Peace Academy. Sibayan, B. P. (1987) Bilingual education in the Philippines: Strategy and structure. In James E. Alatis (ed.) International Dimensions of Bilingual Education (pp. 30230). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Sibayan, B. P. (1991) Literate in what: For what? (Multiple perspectives on literacy). Paper read before the UNESCO Regional Association Schools Project (ASP) Conference, University of San Agustin, Iloilo City, Philippines, September 67. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984) Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Tucker, G. R. and Cziko, G. Z. (1987) The role of evaluation in bilingual education. In James E. Alatis (ed.) International Dimensions of Bilingual Education (pp. 42346). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Unesco (1953) The Use of the Vernacular Languages in Education. Paris: UNESCO.

< previous page

page_23

next page >

< previous page

page_24

next page > Page 24

< previous page

page_24

next page >

< previous page

page_25

next page > Page 25

Implementing Bilingualism: Brunei in Perspective John Edwards Dept of Psychology, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada B2G 1CO Abstract Focusing upon the situation in Brunei, issues in bilingualismand, in particular, the establishment of stable bilingualismare addressed. The forces motivating a bilingual policy, the languageidentity linkage, the need for careful assessment of the current status of community languages, perceptions of these varieties and matters involving languages in education are discussed. Beyond this, the provenance, scope and potential of language planning itself are examined. The conclusion is that, while Bruneian policy may well prove to be less socially contentious than similar thrusts elsewhere, experience suggests the value of careful and repeated monitoring of both the immediate context and related ones in other countries. Introduction My home university is named for a man who, in the sixteenth century, observed that Malay was an important lingua franca, and whoalthough a poor linguist himselfmade efforts to use the language in his missionary activities. Whatever we may think now of his religious work, he was clearly a pragmatic advocate of bilingualism. In this, he reflected the dynamics and exigencies of language contact in all heterogeneous contexts. In this paper I propose to examine some of these, focusing upon Brunei as a particular instance of larger matters. In many societies, language-planning activities are characterised by some sort of internal struggle among indigenous varieties and a need to come to terms with the advantages and disadvantages of a powerful non-indigenous form, often of colonial provenance. In some cases, at least some of the indigenous varieties have standardised and literary forms. However, in almost all circumstances the familiar pull between communicative efficiencyespecially vis-á-vis the outside world, but also within a linguistically diverse homelandand nationalistic desires for a linguistic contribution to group solidarity ensures a continuing tension. Such tension is not necessar-

< previous page

page_25

next page >

< previous page

page_26

next page > Page 26

ily a bad thing; in some contexts (Brunei, perhaps, among them) it can assist in creative linguistic adaptations. Possible language policies of particular relevance in post-colonial settings have included, inter alia: (i) elevation of a strong internal variety to national/official status (e.g. Somali in Somalia); (ii) promotion of some 'supra-ethnic' variety which has neutral connotations but which is still, to some degree, 'indigenous' (e.g. Swahili in Kenya). Such varieties can become indigenised further (e.g. the promotion of a Kenyan Swahili); (iii) promotion of a standardised version of a widely spoken but dialectally fragmented indigenous vernacular (e.g. Standard Malay in Brunei); (iv) continuation of a colonial 'language of wider communication' (LWC)sometimes with the possibility of 'localising' it (e.g. the emergence of different 'Englishes' around the world); (v) some combination of the above (e.g. of (iii) and (iv)) is quite common. What sorts of factors are important in opting for one language policy or another? Several obvious ones suggest themselves. There is, of course, the animating tension I've already mentioned which may exist between internal and external varieties. One often sees, though, particularly in contexts in which modernisation, industrialisation and global market penetration are desired and/or necessary, that there is a powerful concern for linguistic practicality, communicative efficiency, social mobility and economic advancement. This is the largest single advantage possessed by internationally dominant languages. Coupled with nationalistic demands, linguistic practicality often leads to bilingualism but, in many areas, the progress of group aspirations and sociopolitical factors make this an unstable condition, particularly in the long term. Second, in many linguistically heterogeneous societies, competence in more than one language is required at individual levels but the increasing power of supra-ethnic forms may progressively restrict this competence to highly specific situations. Even mother-tongue maintenance can become a matter of group will more than anything else. Language planning itself can do little to stem the usually desired processes of urbanisation, modernisation and mobilityand these are the forces which have caused language shift and which will continue to do so. These are matters to which I shall return. Another point is that support for given languages becomes problematic when many exist within state boundaries. It is common, therefore, to adopt a lingua francaeither a strong internal variety or a prestigious and useful external onebut it should be remembered that attempting to favour no one group may result in pleasing nobody completely. Obviously, a lot depends here upon the number of different ethnolinguistic groups involved, as well as their sizes, concentrations and statuses. It is also true that what is linguistically possible may be neither practical

< previous page

page_26

next page >

< previous page

page_27

next page > Page 27

nor expedient. This applies, for example, to the standardisation and modernisation of internal varieties. When such languages are developed to national-language status (Somali, Guarani, etc.), the process rests upon a complex of historical variables which are not, and have not been, manipulable in any isolated fashion. There is, therefore, obvious scope for language planning here, but only in the sense of adjustments to linguistic phenomena made possible themselves by forces quite outside the boundaries of conscious planning. The key word here, perhaps, is isolated and, when I turn more directly to language planning, it will be seen that its role in some free-standing, independent sense is usually quite limited. Relatedly, even where indigenous varieties have achieved a developed status they are still not necessarily equal in all respects to external languages. Standardised Guarani and Somali are very much less useful, in a broad perspective, than are Spanish or English. Even a language like Malay, which is considerably more widespread than the (first) two just mentioned, isalthough an LWC among some 200 million peoplestill regionally restricted and without the global clout of, say, English. Well, all of these points are interrelated, and they all find a place in the discussion because they deal with language and social dynamics. We talk, in other words, of options, possibilities and policies because we are concerned with changekeeping up with it, reacting to it and attempting to regulate and monitor it in socially sensible ways. This is, in fact, a more generalised expression of that national-linguistic tension I referred to earlier. Even the most cursory glance at language in post-colonial countries reveals that most, while wishing to elevate or promote some more or less indigenous variety, have found it necessarysometimes more necessary than they might have likedto retain (either on an official or a de facto basis) the 'old' colonial variety (sometimes two: e.g. the case of French and English in Cameroon). The Arabisation policy in Tunisia, for example, has had to contend with a continuing need for French. In Tanzania, the everincreasing status and usefulness of Swahili is yet accompanied by English. Although about half the population of Senegal have Wolof as a mother tongue (and some 80% know and use it), French has remained co-official. In Peru, the powerful and widespread Guarani has not displaced Spanish. In Malaysia the official post-independence policy to retain English for ten years has hardly meant its elimination 35 years on. There is nothing very surprising in all this, particularly given the continuing worldwide potency of English-as-lingua-franca. Indeed, although there have always been lingua francasGreek and Latin in the classical western world, French in Europe generally, Italian particularly in the eastern Mediterranean, Swahili in East Africa and, of course, Arabic and Malayit is surely true that our technological 'global village' and the internationalisation of markets have conspired as never before to create what might be called a 'super lingua franca'. Not only, then, is there an immediate, commonsense motivation, in post-colonial contexts, to opt for a policy of 'co-

< previous page

page_27

next page >

< previous page

page_28

next page > Page 28

officiality' or bilingualism at a state level, it is also the case that English is eroding and supplanting that half of the bilingual picture traditionally occupied by other colonial European varieties. Certainly, there is French concern that its own global sphere of la francophonie is shrinking in both size and importance. Useful discussions here are provided by Weinstein (1983) and, particularly, Wardhaugh (1987), who makes it quite clear that language-in-competition is not a game played only between weaker and stronger, between 'small' languages and those of wider scope, but also exists within the ranks of the latter. I mention this as a salutary reminder that language-contact dynamics are, despite the obvious context-specific variations, in some ways remarkably similarparticularly insofar as they centre upon power, practicality and preference (I use the last term for alliterative reasons: what I mean, of course, are considerations of solidarity, ethnicity and nationalism). Two Languages in Malaysia and Brunei I want to turn now, more specifically, to the circumstance in which two languages are official, or promoted, in a society; this leads directly, of course, to a consideration of the Bruneian case but I hope that some generalisable points will emerge. To facilitate this, and to put the local case itself into some perspective, it is useful to consider another society which is both geographically and linguistically close; I refer to Malaysia (see also Edwards, in press-a). In Malaysia there are some 16 million people. While Malays form the majority (about 53%) in Peninsular Malaysia, they comprise less than half the population in the federation as a whole (i.e. when one includes Sabah and SarawakEast Malaysia). The Chinese population is strong in the peninsula (about 35%) but also in Sabah (21%) and Sarawak (30%). In these latter two regions Malays constitute only 3% and 19%, respectively. Many of the 'others' are of so-called Proto-Malay provenance but, as Gaudart (1987) suggests, it is probably inaccurate to classify them as Malay since, not being all Muslims, they do not fit the constitutional definition of a Malay, and since there are indications that they themselves feel a minority group rather than part of some overall Malay constituency. As noted above, Malay is official in Malaysia but the position of English remains strong. It is, in part at least, because of the large non-Malay population that this is so, and it is also among this group that resistance to official Malay has occurred. English was seen, by Malays, as a linguistic obstacle to advancement while the 'others'particularly the Chinese, more urbanised than the Malayswere viewed as unfairly benefitting from access to, and competence in, English. It was natural, then, for an independent Malaysia to promote Bahasa Malaysia, but it was also inevitable that this would lead to tension. Besides this, it has been found that plans to 'Malayanise', especially through the education system (up to and including tertiary

< previous page

page_28

next page >

< previous page

page_29

next page > Page 29

study: a 1971 plan proposed that, by 1983, all university education would be through Malay), have not replaced English with as much expedition as some had hoped. Recent reports indicate that, in terms of third-level language use, Malay has indeed made large gains, although English is still widespread in science domains. The Language and Literature Agency established in 1959 (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka) to assist in the development, standardisation and modernisation of Bahasa Malaysia has not been able to provide all the necessary Malay terminology, textbooks and so on required at university level. There has, at the same time, been a call for more English at the third level and, in fact, for a compulsory pass in the language. Fluency in English remains a prestigious ability, largely restricted to an elite with the desire and opportunity for outside contacts (see Platt, 1981; Platt, Weber & Ho, 1984). Turning to Brunei, we see a somewhat different pattern involving Malay and English and, on the surface at least, a more favourable climate for language planning and policy (for factual data here I am indebted to Jones, 1990, in press; see also Ozog, 1990). Brunei is small, both in population (some 256,500) and geographically (2,200 square milesabout the size of Prince Edward Island, or Trinidad, or the state of Delaware). It is wealthy, ranking well within the top ten countries in terms of GNP and, a member of ASEAN (the Association of South East Asian Nations), is situated within a trading area of rapidly-increasing importance and economic strength. Malays are in a clear majority (about 65% of the populace), with Chinese as the second ethnic group (some 20%); more than 80% of Bruneians, however, have Malay as a mother tongue. The Malay language and culture are therefore dominant and likely to remain secure, particularly in a region in which Malay is just as much a lingua franca now as it was in Francis Xavier's day, and where it is a national language in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. Such widespread usage also goes some way towards guaranteeing a continuing prestige and status for Malay. At the same time: Within Brunei English has never been strongly perceived as an instrument of colonial rulers. Brunei was a protectorate with internal self-government . . . as a result in the post-colonial period there was no clamour to unburden the country of all things British . . . Instead, English was regarded as the key to the outside world and something to be nurtured (Jones, 1990:297). So far, so good: a small, reasonably homogeneous and wealthy country able to approach the promotion of a 'key' LWC which is less tainted than elsewhere with colonial and imperial resonance.

< previous page

page_29

next page >

< previous page

page_30

next page > Page 30

Language Policy in Brunei General Observations We should next consider, then, the framework of language policy itself in Brunei. In 1972 the Education Commission aimed to make Malay the main medium of instruction in primary and secondary schools, and to promote English. In 1984, just after complete independence, the government reinforced this messagebut it was no longer stipulated that Malay be the chief instructional vehicle. In 1985 came the introduction, then, of a bilingual education system (Dwibahasa), which should be fully implemented by 1993. In this system, English-as-medium-of-instruction is largely replacing Malay, particularly for compulsory subjects. Thus, the educational picture in Brunei is almost a mirror image of that in Malaysia. Of course, as has already been pointed out, the social, ethnic and linguistic conditions in the two states are themselves dissimilar, and an awareness of these makes the two language policies more understandable. The Brunei casealthough apparently more straightforward and manageabledoes, however, include complicating and possibly hindering features. Language and Identity The policy of Dwibahasa was preceded, as noted, by the 1984 intention to reinforce English, and has led to an increasing emphasis upon that language as the medium for compulsory subjects. Yet the enlargement of the educational role of Malay is apparently a constitutional requirement (as noted in the 1972 Education Commission report). Either this requirement has been amended or there exists a legislated tension which, perhaps, should be resolved. Relatedly, the aim of the 1984 report 'to instil solidarity among the people of the nation by means of a single system of education' (Jones, 1990:299) makes sense given the previous variety of different language-medium schoolsthat is, given the desire to solidify and rationalise the educational system itself. What remains problematical here is the extension of this educational policy towards the promotion of a wider 'solidarity' particularly, of course, given the emphasis upon two languages. Jones (in press) adverts briefly to the possibility, which he thinks rather unlikely, of exposure to English leading to 'unwanted cultural practices' among pupils. This may indeed be unlikely, given the structure of Bruneian society; but, if the Dwibahasa policy is to have a more general solidarity function, then it follows that its influence is meant to be felt outside the school gates and this, in turn, suggests that any undesirable cultural influence might also go beyond them. What I am getting at here, on a broader scale, is the whole issue of the language-identity linkage (see Edwards, 1985). Although I would be the last person to say that a group's identity (or national solidarity) cannot survive communicative language shift, it seems obvious that retention of a

< previous page

page_30

next page >

< previous page

page_31

next page > Page 31

strong original variety is a major bulwark. As well, there is the not inconsequential matter of popular perceptions that language essentially equals identity. The nineteenth-century Irish nationalist, Thomas Davis, said that 'a people without a language of its own is only half a people' (1914:2), and this sentiment is expressed in many aphorisms across many global contexts. Consider Basso's (1990) Apache informant who told him that 'if we lose our language, we will lose our breath; then we will die and blow away like leaves'. Or, closer to Brunei, the Malaysian Prime Minister Rahman's observation of the need for a unifying national language without which the country would be 'without a soul' (Watson, 1980:147). This issue may or may not be salient in the Bruneian settingeither now or in the futurebut the strongly felt emotions here should, at the least, be carefully monitored. Assessment of Fact and Opinion This leads more or less directly to the need for a thorough assessment of public opinion and knowledge of the Dwibahasa plan. Jones (in press) observes that the policy has met little concerted opposition; probably this is due to the social and linguistic cohesion in Brunei which permits such a policy to be seen as nurturing an asset rather than weakening an inheritance. But Jones also notes that there are misperceptions of both Dwibahasa itself and of bilingualism generally. One would like to know more of these misperceptions and, more generally still, to assess public awareness of both the philosophy and the implementation of the plan. Given both the existing tolerance and the small size of the Bruneian community, there is surely a golden opportunity for a country-wide survey. It should, I believe, include: (i) A general survey of existing language abilities and usage, for all family members and with relation to differences across domains. Such information is always useful, but here particularly so, since (as Jones (in press) points out) Standard Malaythe school varietyis not that of the majority. Indeed, in addition to indigenous languages such as Dusun, Iban and Tutong, the population also speaks several dialects of Malay (Kedayan, Belandih and Brunei Malay). We need to know, simply, more about the languages of the community and the languages first brought to the schoolroom. (ii) Some indication of the popular perceptions of the languageidentity relationship. This could be expanded upon by also gathering information about other perceived supports of group identity/solidarityreligion, geographical rootedness (heimat), custom and folklore, endogamy, institutional and media support, and so on. Relatedly, it might be possible to assess the importance or salience of ethnic identity, with special regard, perhaps, to the language component (see Edwards & Doucette, 1987; Edwards & Levangie, in preparation).

< previous page

page_31

next page >

< previous page

page_32

next page > Page 32

(iii) Questions concerning the agencies (if any) thought to be appropriate for dealing with matters of language and ethnicity. (iv) Questions dealing with perceived changes over time in the relative importance of Malay, English and other varieties (by domain)with reasons given for answers. For example, to adapt a question found useful elsewhere, it might prove illuminating to present this sort of item: 'For me, a knowledge of (Malay, English, etc.) is now more important/as important/less important (in Domain ''X") than/as it used to be' or 'For me, a knowledge of (Malay, English, etc.) will be in the future more important/as important/less important (in Domain "X") than/as it is today'. (v) Questions about the perceived need to support Malay and other indigenous languages (related to questions concerning the LWC role of English). (vi) Questions about the perceived quality of informants' own dialects/ languages. (vii) Questions about the type of English to be taught, and about the perceived and desired utility of English competence. It would also be interesting, here, to consider the matter of an emerging Brunei English. (viii) Investigation of the expectations people have about education and the schooling of their childrenboth generally and, more specifically, with regard to language issues. Relevant here is Jones's observation that 'it would be wrong to promise parents that all pupils will achieve nativelike competence in the second language' (in press). For all these questions, it would be as well to over-sample within some sub-groups, including the relatively disadvantaged and powerless, those of minority status, but also power-brokers, policy-makers, teachers and so on. It should also be noted that much of what passes for attitude surveying in the literature is, in fact, assessment of belief; that is, questions usually probe the cognitive aspect without tapping the affective oneand, in psychology at least, attitude comprises both aspects. To give an example: one might ask a respondent if he thinks it important for his child to learn French at school. He answers 'yes'. All we know so far is that the respondent believes (for reasons unknown) that learning French is important; but, he might not have favourable attitudes towards French, indeed he might well loathe the language and culture for all we know. To ascertain the relevant attitude, we would have to probe further, to try to elicit the respondent's feelings which are connected with the belief he has rather baldly expressed. It is clearly unwise to base policy upon inaccurately or incompletely gauged responses. Indeed, I think a good case can be made for much more probing of reasons behind answers generally. As well, pushing a bit further in this direction might shed light upon another aspect of surveying that we typically neglect: the degree of confidence that respondents have in their answers to our questionnaires or interviews. If, on a survey instrument, the first question

< previous page

page_32

next page >

< previous page

page_33

next page > Page 33

is about an area of intense and longstanding interest to the subject, while the second touches upon something he/she has not thought about at all until that very minute, then clearly the two items are not of equal psychological weight for our respondent. If, however, the respondent is simply given a 7-point scale along which to answer and if, as is usually the case, the subject is 'co-operative', then all that the surveyor will have are two marks on a continuum. This is not very satisfactory, particularly since we know that, given a chance, subjects will tell us that they feel differentially informed, interested or confident about various items (Edwards, 1979). Revenons á nos moutons. Jones (in press) implies that an attitude survey is currently in the works, whose usefulness will be to 'distinguish prejudices and misconceptions' and which will enable the finer tuning of 'future propaganda'. Two points seem relevant here: (i) the sort of survey I have briefly outlined here goes beyond attitudes, and would provide information about linguistic abilities and usage as well; (ii) perhaps 'propaganda' does not strike the right note here. Its intrinsic meaning is neutral enough but its usual connotations are unfavourable. I would suggest that, on the basis of a properly-conducted and thorough survey, the existing policy can be explained to a public whose own position would now be better understood. Furthermore, it would allow fine-tuning of the policy itself and facilitate all future developments. Further to a formal assessment of language attitudes, abilities and usage, I suggest that some academic and schoolbased study is needed to: (i) Illuminate the extent of the differences among the various forms of Malay. (ii) Monitor technical arrangements of staffing, materials, etc. (iii) Investigate contents and procedures at the classroom level. Jones (in press) suggests a need for a less 'rigid' syllabus, and it certainly is a feature of modern language pedagogy that more attention to conversational skills and less to older, drill-like practices is called for. Relatedly, whatever the syllabus dictates, studies of what actually transpires in classrooms is vitalhow much Standard Malay is actually used, how teachers' competences are employed, how goals are set (and metJones (in press) asks about the definition of 'satisfactory' competence levels). In a word, we need classroom ethnographies (see Green & Wallat, 1981; see also Edwards, 1989). (iv) Assess the relationship between language medium and subject area. Compulsory subjects are taught largely through Englishindeed, from the Upper Primary level, only Malay itself and Islamic Religion are not English-medium topics. What are the implications of this for Malay competence and, almost more importantly, for perceptions of Malay and its place in school and beyond? What will happen, for example, to the Ordinary Level Malay Language Certificate now needed for university entrance? What levels of competence will itshould it

< previous page

page_33

next page >

< previous page

page_34

next page > Page 34

demand in the future? Could it come to be seen as a largely ceremonial nuisance? (v) Better consider the 'products' of the Dwibahasa policythe children. First, and most important, we should not see them as 'digits in language statistics' nor their minds as the 'battleground of a political wrangle' (to adapt the views of Akenson (1975:60) and O'Doherty (1958:268), who were commenting upon the school-based effort to revive Irish in Ireland). We wish, of course, to assess children's language progress. While native-like competence in the second language may not be on the cards, we should attempt to find out (à la Jones, in press) if we might/should expect some degree of balanced bilingualism or a more secondary variety. The matter of 'semilingualism', incidentally (also raised by Jones), is not one I take very seriously nor, I believe, do many linguists (see Martin-Jones & Romaine (1984) for a good discussion of what they call a 'half-baked theory'). With such coverage of both the school agenda and the views of those outside we would be some way towards firm ground. This should not be seen as a once-for-all exercise, however, as language and social issues are inherently dynamic. Regular monitoring is called forperhaps a Brunei Language Academy or Commission might be an idea; there is certainly a lot of precedent worldwide, and not all of it is of the narrow, prescriptive and overly puristic variety. Further Issues Assuming that school goes well and that public opinion remains committed and favourable, what then? Or, more specifically, what during? Let me turn now to some generalities which may prove problematic. The first has to do with the whole notion of language planning per se (see, generally, Cobarrubias & Fishman, 1983; Edwards, 1985; Haugen, 1966, 1983). If we accept that language planning involves the selection and codification of a variety, followed by its implementation and elaboration, then we should realise that selection and implementation (extra-linguistic features, social in nature) are usually dependent upon powerful policy makers who are, themselves, susceptible to political and economic forces of the broadest kind; language plannerslinguists and othersare most directly concerned with language codification and elaboration and their input, while requiring considerable skill, is very much secondary to that of the real planners. Can language planning, then, reinforce an élite who aim to ensure the retention of opportunities denied to others? Language planning is not an isolated, decontextualised exercise, nor is it always intended to result in the greatest good for the greatest number. The very process is put in train by those who have the power to do so, and these are not necessarily the people who would be nominated by disinterested observers. To repeat, language planning can be in the service of the few.

< previous page

page_34

next page >

< previous page

page_35

next page > Page 35

We might consider Kedourie's observation here (I have cited it quite frequently, but it is worth repeating again): It is absurd to think that professors of linguistics . . . can do the work of statesmen and soldiers. What does happen is that academic enquiries are used by conflicting interests to bolster up their claims, and their results prevail only to the extent that somebody has the power to make them prevail . . . Academic research does not add a jot or a tittle to the capacity for ruling, and to pretend otherwise is to hide with equivocation what is a very clear matter (1961:125). Or, consider the similar views of Noss, writing in 1984 about language issues in Southeast Asia: Language planners are seldom involved in policy formulation and implementation outside the educational context, except by accident. This is partly because of the institutional affiliations of potential language planners, and partly because national policymakers are not convinced that linguists, psycholinguists, and sociolinguists can give advice equivalent in value to the advice they get from economic advisers, military experts, applied scientists, and other technologists (p. 214). Noss goes on to say that this pattern should be broken, but I for one would not hold my breath. Of course, to be successful, language planning does not only depend upon the blessings of those in power; it also requires acceptance from those whose linguistic habits are to be affected. Haugen (1987) in his most recent discussion of the topic, cites the need to consider the wishes of the latter group (and this, of course, is a large part of the rationale behind careful surveys). Even the most dictatorial policies may result in social upheavals if they are repressive and/or unpopular enough and many tensions in the world today can be seen to have linguistic elements. More benign policies, on the other hand, may languish because the social context has not properly been understood (again, a rationale for thoughtful assessment). There is in some sense, then, a natural check on the implementation of 'top-down' planning that fails to engage the sympathies of its intended recipients; unfortunately, this may come too late to avoid distress or social disturbance, or the response of policy-makers may be unfeeling, inadequate or otherwise deficient. The second generality involves the reliance, the over-reliance, upon school as an agent of change. This problem is especially clear when the school is asked to lead, to take society in a direction not wholly endorsed by that larger body. As this is a subject I have discussed in some detail elsewhere (Edwards, 1985), I shall mention here only that schools can unfairly be asked to do more than they can hope to accomplish and that teachers may become resentful of the fact that they are to bein addition to everything elseboth agents of change and scapegoats for any failures. I am not suggesting that this is a particular problem in the Bruneian case,

< previous page

page_35

next page >

< previous page

page_36

next page > Page 36

but it is as well to bear in mind school-state relationships and relative strengths wherever policy is to be (even partially) effected through classroom practice. Thirdly, just as regular monitoring of public opinion is necessary for effective policy, so should policies themselves frequently be examined on the cui bono principle. There are a number of obvious constituencies to be attended to in this regard, including the mainstream population, the academic community, official policy-makers, and minority groups and their spokesmen (Edwards, 1985). Here I would simply paraphrase Dostoyevski and say that a good measure of benevolent policy is not how it treats the average member of society, but how it deals with the disadvantaged and powerless. Finally here, we should consider the matter of diglossia. I mentioned, with regard to surveying, that the question of language use in different domains is a vital one. Jones (in press) reminds us of the importance of context specifics when noting that Malay 'is perceived to have as much prestige, though often in different domains, as . . . English' (my italics). Particularly interesting with Malay itself, by the way, is its own polyglossic spectrum (see Omar, 1986, on Royal Malay, Common Malay, Refined Malay, Coarse Malay, etc.; see also Platt, 1977, on polyglossia and multilingualism in Singapore and Malaysia). However, the diglossia I refer to here is that between Malay and English (this is, of course, using the 'extended' sense of the termwhich has 'trivialised' it, according to Elgibali, 1988that is, where one talks of the functional differentiation of language throughout a speech community; good discussions can be found in Fasold, 1984 and Romaine, 1989). Diglossia tends to be more a societal phenomenon, bilingualism more an individual competence, and, consequently (especially where a stronger and weaker variety are involved), diglossia with or without bilingualism tends to be stable. Indeed, talking about stable bilingualism usually involves the retention of at least some domains of necessity for each varietyi.e. diglossia. The problem is that some domains may be seen as more important than others and may, in fact, come to be the preserve of a social elite. Could this be a feature in Brunei, particularly since (as we've seen) most of the 'modernised' or 'modernisable' subjects at school are associated with English? Everyone goes to school; everyone gets a thin wash of English; but not everyone has equal opportunity to deepen this fluency, or to practice it in rewarding ways. Those in more 'traditional' lifestyles may find little use, after all, for English and it may remain essentially a school matter. Is this possible in Brunei? Again, our survey should help to sort things out here. Another possible scenario might involve more and more people leaving, or wishing to abandon, traditional lifestyles, and moving into an 'English-medium' world. What then of the old ways? What then of that other aim of the 1984 report: 'to build a community and nation where the concept of a Malay Islamic Monarchy is paramount' (Jones, 1990:299)? In 1985 I observed that 'people do not maintain two languages for ever, when one is sufficient in all contexts' (p. 72), and 'a decline

< previous page

page_36

next page >

< previous page

page_37

next page > Page 37

in the existence and attraction of traditional life styles also inexorably entails a decline in languages associated with them' (p. 85). It is possible, then, that if diglossia remains it will involve the favouring of some social elite; if Malay domains give way, for a broader section of the population, then elements of a desired lifestyle may also be lost. Conclusions Well, perhaps my discussion here has really been a case of bringing oil to Brunei! I hope, however, to have made some contribution to the debate, both at a theoretical and a practical level. I also hope that problems, practices and policies in Brunei will feed back into the larger literature and awareness. I am, overall, very optimistic thatbecause of its circumstancesthe Bruneian Dwibahasa policy will prove both pragmatic and undamaging. However, I have thought it proper to raise some cautions and to discuss some issues that experience suggests are germane, even in 'favourable' settings. Indeed, I am currently quite sensitive to difficulties attaching to linguistically heterogeneous societies. I have just completed an article on the recent and turbulent Canadian context and, for it, I adapted Freud's title: 'Ethnolinguistic Pluralism and its Discontents' (Edwards, in press-b). The heart of the piece deals with the parlous state of official bilingualism (and, to some extent, multiculturalism) in Canada, and the strained relations between the English and French nations within the state. The important and generalisable issues are familiar ones in plural societies: simmering nationalisms, the question of indigenous and immigrant minorities and their treatment (and, indeed, the very nature of a 'minority'), state tolerance and/or promotion of ethnic identity (often through language policies), the tension between action on behalf of collectivities and that based upon individual rights and freedomsin short, all the constituents of the language-identity linkage. I should re-emphasise that these are not Canadian concerns alone, especially at a time when we are seeing the break-up and reconstitution of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It may be quite unlikely that such large-scale upheavals will figure in Bruneian society. At some level, however, at least some of the elements just mentioned are sure to. Consequently, it is prudent to study and plan the local scene with a weather eye on events and discussions elsewhere. All settings are specific, but it is in the combination of ethnic and linguistic features that their specificity lies, not in the uniqueness of the features themselves. Hegel tells us that people never learn from history, but we should always strive to prove him wrong. References Akenson, D. (1975) A Mirror to Kathleen's Face. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Basso, K. (1990) Western Apache Language and Culture. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

< previous page

page_37

next page >

< previous page

page_38

next page > Page 38

Cobarrubias, J. and Fishman, J. (1983) Progress in Language Planning. Berlin: Mouton. Davis, T. (1914) Our National Language. Dublin: Gaelic League. Edwards, J. (1979) Judgements and confidence in reactions to disadvantaged speech. In H. Giles and R. St. Clair (eds) Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. Edwards, J. (1985) Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Edwards, J. (1989) Language and Disadvantage (2nd edn). London: Cole & Whurr. Edwards, J. (in press-a) The role of education in language planning in Southeast Asia. In A. Hassan (ed.) Proceedings of the Third Tun Abdul Razak Conference on Language Planning in Southeast Asia. Edwards, J. (in press-b) Ethnolinguistic pluralism and its discontents: A Canadian study and some general observations. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Edwards, J. and Doucette, L. (1987) Ethnic salience, identity and symbolic ethnicity. Canadian Ethnic Studies 19, 5262. Edwards, J. and Levangie, D. (in preparation) Approaches to the measurement of ethnic salience. Elgibali, A. (1988) The language situation in Arabic-speaking nations. In C. Paulston (ed.) International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. New York: Greenwood. Fasold, R. (1984) The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Gaudart, H. (1987) A typology of bilingual education in Malaysia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 8, 52952. Green, J. and Wallat, C. (1981) Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Haugen, E. (1966) Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68, 92235. Haugen, E. (1983) The implementation of corpus planning. In J. Cobarrubias and J. Fishman (eds) Progress in Language Planning. Berlin: Mouton. Haugen, E. (1987) Language planning. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar and K. Mattheier (eds) Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Berlin: de Gruyter. Jones, G. M. (1990) How bilingualism is being integrated in Negara Brunei Darussalam. In R. Baldauf and A. Luke (eds) Language Planning and Education. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Jones, G. M. (in press) The bilingual education of policy of Negara Brunei Darussalam: Some implemental considerations. In J. T. Collins (ed.) Language and Oral Traditions in Borneo. Williamsburg, VA: Borneo Research Council. Kedourie, E. (1961) Nationalism. London: Hutchinson. Martin-Jones, M. and Romaine, S. (1984) Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Paper to the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism, Uppsala. Noss, R. (1984) An Overview of Language Issues in South-East Asia: 19501980. Singapore: Oxford University Press. O'Doherty, E. (1958) Bilingual school policy. Studies 47, 25968. Omar, A. (1986) Sociolinguistic varieties of Malay. In J. Fishman, A. Tabouret-Keller, M. Clyne, Bh. Krishnamurti and M. Abdulaziz (eds) The Fergusonian Impact. Berlin: de Gruyter. Ozog, C. (1990) The English language in Malaysia and its relationship with the national language. In R. Baldauf and A. Luke (eds) Language Planning and Education. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Platt, J. (1977) A model for polyglossia and multilingualism (with special reference to Singapore and Malaysia). Language in Society 6, 36178. Platt, J. (1981) The Chinese community in Malaysia. In J. Megarry, S. Nisbet and E. Hoyle (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1981: Education of Minorities. London: Kogan Page. Platt, J., Weber, H. and Ho, M. (1984) The New Englishes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Romaine, S. (1989) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Wardhaugh, R. (1987) Languages in Competition. Oxford: Blackwell. Watson, J. (1980) Education and pluralism in South-East Asia, with special reference to Peninsular Malaysia. Comparative Education 16, 13958. Weinstein, B. (1983) The Civic Tongue. London: Longman.

< previous page

page_38

next page >

< previous page

page_39

next page > Page 39

Multilingualism and Bilingual Education in Brunei Darussalam 1 Gary Jones, Peter W. Martin and A. Conrad K. Ozóg* English Department, Universiti Brunei Darussalam Gadong 3186, Brunei Darussalam Abstract The official language of Brunei Darussalam is Bahasa Melayu (Malay) yet the country is diverse both linguistically and culturally. The country has a long tradition of selective English medium education and since 1984 English has been available to all. This paper looks at three facets of language and language education in Brunei. Firstly it examines the relationship between Malay and the minority languages. Secondly the relationship between English and Malay in the unplanned environment is analysed. The last section looks at the place of bilingual education in the community and suggests future directions for the country's education policy. Introduction Brunei was for centuries the centre of a large thalassic empire which, in theory, extended from the Philippines in the north to Java in the south, although there is some debate about how much control was actually exerted from the centre. While the exact chronology of the arrival of Islam in Brunei is a matter of some dispute (Nicholl, 1989; Chen, 1992), it is certain that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the empire was a positive element in both the diffusion of the Malay language and Islam throughout what is now the Malay archipelago. In the eighteenth century, the power of Brunei began to decline and by the midnineteenth century Brunei was under the influence of Britain. By the end of the nineteenth century much of Brunei territory had been ceded to or acquired by the neighbouring state of Sarawak and North Borneo, leaving a relatively small land area of 5,765 sq km. Although Brunei is a small country, it is ethnically and linguistically diverse. Out of a total population of one quarter of a million, approximately 60% have a variety of Malay as their first language (Nothofer, 1991). A

< previous page

page_39

next page >

< previous page

page_40

next page > Page 40

number of other groups are designated 'Malay' for census and legal purposes, but their languages are clearly distinct from Malay. Of the seven groups which make up the 'indigenous peoples of the Malay race' (Government of Brunei, 1961), Brunei, Kedayan and Tutong groups are Muslims. Of the other groups, the Belait are predominantly Islamic, and members of the Dusun, Bisaya and Murut groups are either Islamic, pagan or Christian. The largest minority group is Chinese, numbering 41,000 (Niew, 1990:6). The linguistic and cultural diversity of the country is not immediately apparent, as Malay is such a dominant code, especially along the coast and in urban centres. The official language of the country is Bahasa Melayu and a dialect of it, Brunei Malay, has the largest number of speakers and acts as an effective lingua franca in all but remote areas where Iban or Dusun may fulfil this role. With the exception of the majority of expatriate workers, everyone in Brunei has access to at least one variety of Malay, usually a form of Brunei Malay. Brunei became a British Protectorate in 1888 and remained so until 1983. Although the royal court functioned in Malay, English was the language of British administration and a knowledge of the language become essential for career advancement. The rulers and the leading families recognised the importance of the language and their sons were either given private tuition or sent to English medium institutions such as Malay College, Kuala Kangsar in Malaya. As in other Southeast Asian countries, knowledge and use of English was a way of showing that one was a member of the elite. Following the discovery of oil in the 1920s, and the subsequent development of the oil field, the number of schools around the country increased. In 1952, the government opened the first English-medium secondary school. Education through the medium of English was only available to those deemed to have future academic potential (Ahmad, 1989). The development of Englishmedium schools perpetuated the notion of English carrying a high status in the country. However, it should be stated that English is perceived as having purely a functional role in modern-day Brunei, with there being little emotional attachment to the language. Malay, on the other hand, was and is seen as the language of national culture and spiritual identity, the language of the soul. The remainder of the paper is divided into three parts, all related to the concept of bilingualism and national development in Brunei Darussalam (henceforth Brunei). The first part looks at the position of the minor indigenous languages in Brunei and the convergence of speakers of these languages towards Brunei Malay, the local vernacular. The second part examines the unplanned use of language outside the classroom, especially the relationship between English and Malay. While recognising the importance of societal bilingualism in Brunei, this paper would be incomplete without an analysis and an appraisal of the bilingual education system.

< previous page

page_40

next page >

< previous page

page_41

next page > Page 41

Thus, the final part describes this sytem and analyses it in relation to bilingual education systems implemented elsewhere, and current theories of bilingualism. Malay and the Other Indigenous Languages in Brunei Darussalam In any treatise on bilingualism and national development in Brunei Darussalam the major discussion inevitably focuses on the roles of Malay, in its many varieties, and English. However, to preclude from the discussion any reference to the role of other languages spoken in Brunei, albeit a diminishing role, obscures the fact that Brunei is a multilingual country with a rich, though little-researched, linguistic history. Prior to the discussion on the roles of English and Malay within the community, and the bilingual educational system of the country which revolves around these two languages, this section gives some emphasis to the other languages in Brunei Darussalam and, in particular, their declining role in modern-day Brunei. In order to do this, a brief look at the language situation in Brunei from an historical perspective is necessary. Consequently, reference is made to the historical circumstances giving rise to the contact between the minor groups in the country and the Brunei Malays and, especially, the hegemony of this group over the minor groups. By providing an historical framework to this part of the paper, it should be possible to see and understand more clearly the complex interplay between languages, speakers and environments in the Bruneian context (cf. Edwards, 1990). In the nineteenth century, the number of ethnic groups under Brunei's sphere of influence was large. Twenty groups, not including the Brunei Malays and the Kedayans, are enumerated in 'Notices of the City of Borneo and its Inhabitants', many of them living close to Brunei Bay (1838, cited in Pringle, 1970:44, n.4). Today, the number of ethnic groups is somewhat smaller, although there are at least seven indigenous language groups represented in the country. The most important language group is Malay. This not only includes the official language, Bahasa Melayu, but the variety of the dominant group and the lingua franca of the country, Brunei Malay, as well as Kedayan. A number of other varieties of Malay are used in Brunei (Kampong Ayer, royal Malay and bazaar Malay). A discussion of all these varieties, and their roles in the Bruneian speech community, can be found in Martin (1990b). It is necessary, in the context of this paper, to emphasise the pivotal role of Brunei Malay in the country. It carries a very important social function and acts as a marker of Brunei identity. It is not only used in informal discourse, but encroaches on a number of formal domains. It functions as the vehicle for interethnic communication in Brunei and is increasingly becoming the first language of children whose parents have a different linguistic background (Martin, 1992).

< previous page

page_41

next page >

< previous page

page_42

next page > Page 42

Apart from the Malay varieties, there are at least seven other indigenous languages spoken in Brunei. These include Tutong, Belait, Dusun, Bisaya and Murut 2 whose speakers, along with the Brunei Malay and Kedayan, are referred to as 'Malay' in the constitution (Government of Brunei, 1961)3, and their languages are usually referred to as 'Malay dialects'. Two additional indigenous languages spoken in Brunei are Iban and Penan. There are also a number of Chinese languages spoken in the country. Of central significance to this discussion is the numerical, cultural and political dominance of the Brunei Malays over the other groups in the country. The hegemony of the Brunei Malays depended, to a large extent, on control of the coastal area (and thus trade), and a system of taxation based on a number of forms of tenure4. The minor ethnic groups, on the other hand, did not have any centralised governing institutions through which the affairs of their individual societies could be monitored (Brown, 1970:6). Space does not allow a detailed account of the contact between the various minor ethnic groups and the Brunei Malays. Besides, although a number of administrators (for example, McArthur, 1904) and travellers (for example, St John, 1862) left important records of life in and around Brunei, our knowledge of the relations between the various groups in Brunei is still rather sketchy. Obviously, those groups living close to Brunei Bay had more frequent contact with the Brunei Malays, who lived mainly in and around the Water Village on the Brunei River, than groups who lived in the more isolated parts of the country. Two groups which had close contact with the Brunei Malays were the Murut and Bisaya. The history of contact between the Murut and the Brunei Malays, for example, has been described as one of feuding and warfare, interspersed by periods of trading (Edwards & Stevens, 1971:68). Contact between the Brunei Malays and the minor ethnic groups living in outlying areas, such as the relatively large Belait and Tutong districts to the west of Brunei Bay, was less frequent. The populations of these districts were small and were made up of a number of different ethnic groups. The first contacts were established through visits by Brunei officials and tax collectors, as well as traders, into the area. According to Horton (1987), taxation was disproportionately high and this was one of the factors which led to the 18991901 disturbances in these districts. The discussion below concentrates on the Belait community in order to illustrate the historical process of language contact in the country. This group provides a good example of the phenomenon of language contact in Brunei. It was in the area inhabited by the Belait community that an important discovery was made which drastically changed the fortunes of the country. This refers, of course, to the discovery of oil in the Belait district in 1926. This discovery revolutionised the economic situation in the country and led to rapid and large-scale demographic changes, not just in the Belait district but in the country as a whole. Large numbers of people

< previous page

page_42

next page >

< previous page

page_43

next page > Page 43

flocked into the district, including many from the neighbouring territory of Sarawak, in order to seek employment in the fastemerging oil industry. In 1929, the headquarters of the British Malayan Petroleum Company was transferred from the interior, to the coastal settlement of Kuala Belait. In the following year Kuala Belait became the administrative headquarters of the district. Roads were built (see Harper, 1975), and the beginnings of an infrastructure, which up to that time, had been severely lacking, were laid down. In the space of a few years a number of communities from the interior came to be in constant contact with the coastal population, and the whole human ecology of the area changed dramatically. The results of this contact have had important consequences for the development of the modern-day Brunei state. Those people who found employment in the oil fields, or who worked in government administration, gave up many of their cultural practices and agricultural activities. At the same time, they adopted a number of facets of lifestyle associated with the Malay community on the coast, eventually becoming assimilated into what Florey (1990) has called 'coastal culture'. Undoubtedly, the two most easily identified factors in this cultural assimilation have been the large amount of intermarriage and the adoption of the Islamic faith. With the adoption of Islam came a shift away from identity associated with a pagan group towards Malay identity. Conversion to Islam resulted in a 'steady flow of individuals out of the non-Islamic ethnic groups . . . into the Malay ethnic category' (Maxwell, 1980:170). According to Brown (1970), the policies of the Brunei Malays actually promoted the merging of the ethnic groups and cultural assimilation under the 'Malay' umbrella by 'draining off potential leaders . . . , through the simple expediency of converting such leaders to Islam' (Brown, 1970:4). It is evident that for many of the small groups over the last half century there has been a convergence towards coastal Malay culture. Even in situations where cultural practices of these groups still exist, they are becoming unrecognisable from those of earlier generations. The mutable nature of cultures of minority groups is well-exemplified by a number of indigenous groups in the neighbouring Malaysian state of Sarawak whose cultures and identities have become totally submerged in the hotch-potch category 'Malay' over the last century (see Hasan, 1979). Linguistic Results of Contact But what of the linguistic results of the contact with the coastal Malays? How has the shift in cultural orientation away from minority cultures and towards the culture associated with the coastal population affected the use of the minor languages? According to Edwards (1985:85) 'a decline in the existence and attraction of traditional life styles also inexorably entails a decline in languages associated with them'. This statement would certainly

< previous page

page_43

next page >

< previous page

page_44

next page > Page 44

appear to be true for those members of the minor groups in Brunei whose life styles have changed. A number of macrosociological changes beginning with the move from the interior to the coast, the improvement in communication networks and economic status, and an increase in educational opportunities have motivated individuals to alter their choice of language and, in many cases, to completely abandon their mother tongue. As far as education is concerned, the new economic status has led to a proliferation of Malay vernacular schools in the last 50 years. In 1955 alone, eight Malay vernacular schools were opened. Such schools represented the first educational opportunity for many young people from the interior, and provided them with their first access to a written language. The language of the school system was Malay and, as such, the Malay language became powerful symbolically, giving students the key to a new economic market. This role of the school (and other institutions) as important agents in the 'reproduction of linguistic capital' (Bourdieu, 1977:6512) is of considerable significance. To date, no large-scale studies of age-related variation in language use among the minor language groups in Brunei have been reported in the literature. However, preliminary findings for two on-going studies, Kershaw (1992) on the Dusun, and Martin (1991, 1992) on the Belait are available. Both studies reach similar conclusions, viz., the language most often used by the younger generations, and the language transmitted to offspring in modern day Brunei is a form of Brunei Malay. Furthermore, both code-switching and 'unreciprocal' use of language (cf. Gal, 1979:110) are common. Increasingly within the family, networks are coming to include members who do not know the group language. This factor, along with the demise of the older generation (some of whom were monolingual in the minor language) has reduced the amount of the minority language spoken in the family group. The discussion so far has considered the economic or pragmatic factors behind the impetus to shift to the use of Brunei Malay. Edwards (1985:93) is of the opinion that most historical changes in language use are, indeed, due to economic factors such as social access and material advancement, and that these are of central importance. The new language is simply seen as having a greater value. Trudgill (1991) points out, however, that although people might acquire a majority language for sound instrumental reasons, failure to retain their own language is frequently due to attitudinal reasons. He suggests that such people are 'ashamed of their tribal, marginal, minority or unofficial language'. It is clear that the values associated with minority languages are important in any assessment of language shift among speakers of these languages.

< previous page

page_44

next page >

< previous page

page_45

next page > Page 45

The Position of the Minor Languages Today To date, there appears to have been neither any official policy statement nor any concerted effort to develop the minor languages. At the same time there has been no overt attempt to discourage the use of the languages. Basically, the minor languages have been left to fend for themselves, albeit in an environment with the odds stacked against them. The minor languages have become languages of limited range, potential and vitality due to the socioeconomic environment and the 'power' attributed to Malay. The premise that language contact dynamics 'centre upon power, practicality . . . and considerations of solidarity, ethnicity and nationalism' (Edwards, this volume) is, I feel, a useful one. The 'linguistic market place' notion of Bourdieu (1977), that is the notion that language will persist as long as it is useful socioeconomically, is appropriate too. Bourdieu's model emphasises the importance of the symbolic power of language which can receive different values depending on the market. Malay has a 'good market'; Brunei Malay more so than Bahasa Melayu. In other words, Malay is in high demand and is valued highly. The minor languages, on the other hand, are devalued, having little vitality. Malay, or English, is the language which speakers perceive will give them a better opportunity for upward mobility. The above discussion is echoed in Tollefson's (1991:75) statement that 'the survival of minority languages is not simply a function of the internal vitality of minority groups, but rather the strength of the dominant group and the historical consequences of hegemony' (original emphasis). To some extent, there has been no need to divert resources into developing the minor languages, as they are officially deemed to be Malay dialects, and Malay is the official language of the country. Furthermore, Brunei has never been beset by the sort of language or ethnic problems that other, neighbouring nations have faced. According to Mahmud Baky (1967:173), in 'no instance in Brunei history did the language issue play a prominent part in any public debate of nationalistic character'. Malay has been totally accepted by the vast majority of the population and was, indeed, the only candidate for the official language. Oladejo (this volume), in identifying one of the major problems in the Nigerian bilingual policy as 'its lack of sensitivity to the feelings of speakers of minority languages', makes the point that 'Brunei's language policy stands a better chance of success if the minor languages are not totally ignored'. He goes on to suggest that corpus planning activities should aim to develop these languages as this 'will ensure positive attitudes from the speakers of these languages towards the national language'. I think this is a little wide of the mark in the Bruneian context. There is nothing to suggest that speakers of the minor languages in Brunei have anything but a positive attitude to Malay, especially the local vernacular, Brunei Malay. It is this code, after all, which many of the speakers of minor languages are transmitting to their offspring.

< previous page

page_45

next page >

< previous page

page_46

next page > Page 46

Concluding Remarks It is clear, then, that there is an ongoing shift in language allegiance away from the minor languages towards Brunei Malay. This very brief analysis attempts to suggest why this shift is taking place. The shift away from the minor languages can be seen as the result of an adaptation process to the new ecological niche, that is, the coastal strip of the country. The assimilation of the minor groups into this coastal environment depended on successful interaction with other cultural and linguistic entities which share the same environment. Among the pragmatic reasons for the shift to Brunei Malay are the need for a language of wider communication, the desire to provide a firm language base prior to entry into the educational arena, as well as for social access. Above all, it is the symbolic power associated with Brunei Malay that is hastening the decline of the minor languages. While Brunei Malay has increasingly become the dominant indigenous language in recent years English has extended the linguistic equation. It is pertinent to examine the role of English within the community and to see how the language coexists with Malay. English and Malay in the Community This section examines the unplanned use of language outside the classroom and analyses the relationship between English and Malay. Data for the study comes from a language use survey conducted in 1989 and 1990. Five hundred and seventy randomly selected Brunei citizens were asked a series of questions on their language background and on their use of language in certain domains. English and Malay in the Unplanned Environment English is recognised by all sectors of the population as being important and, in the survey 30.5% of the 570 participants saw it as being the most important language of the country. Only Brunei Malay is rated higher. English is ranked higher than the official language, Bahasa Melayu, showing that Bruneians are very loyal to their national dialect even although it is not taught in the schools or used on formal occasions. It also shows that English rather than Malay is perceived as being the language of communication with the outside world. In many ways English in Brunei performs a role which runs counter to that of Bahasa Melayu. Apart from education, its one official domain is that of law where it is maintained both as a language of the written statutes and as the language of the courts. The language also has a place in the government-controlled mass media. About 40% of television broadcast time is in English. Apart from a news broadcast of about 20 minutes, most English language programmes are imported and are usually transmitted in

< previous page

page_46

next page >

< previous page

page_47

next page > Page 47

the early evening and late at night. English shares a radio station with Mandarin and Nepali 5. The only daily newspaper published in the country is in English although there is a small section in Malay. There is, however, a weekly government newspaper distributed free, which is published in Malay. Education and law then are the official domains of English and yet the use of English is much more widespread than that. Of the 570 Brunei citizens who responded to the questionnaire on language use, 69% said they used English in their daily lives. Of these, 75% were under the age of 35, confirming the widely held view that English is a language of the young, the language of those who grew up after the country acquired oil wealth and began to develop rapidly. This survey examined six domains of language use. They were chosen as the ones Bruneians are most likely to encounter in their daily lives. The domains chosen are home, friendship, employment, transactions (divided into the sub domains of the market, the mini-market and the supermarket), government offices and private sector offices. The family as an institution is central both to Malay culture and the Islamic religion. It is a domain which the planners have perceived as being the province of Malay (or one of the other indigenous languages). It is, and yet 18% of the respondents say they use English at certain times in the home. It is often used to exclude the non-English-speaking older generation from the conversation. It is found most frequently in sibling to sibling discourse but many parents claim to use English with their young children, presumably to prepare them for the demands of the bilingual education system. Another observable feature of language use in the home is that many children from the middle and upper income bracket use English in the home with the foreign (mainly Filipino) maids, many of whom cannot speak Malay. These children are almost as familiar with English as they are with Malay and some have marked Filipino accents when they begin school (Ozóg*, 1990). As one would expect, Malay dominates discussion of family matters such as children, weddings and religion. English is used to discuss the exogenous subjects such as education and employment and, increasingly amonst those under 20, western pop music and other topics related to western culture. Interviewed parents see this use of English as a mixed blessing. They take great pride in their children's perceived ability to use English. Fluency in English is the key to success and a teenager who can use English is assumed to be a student who is doing well in school. On the other hand, English is seen as the avenue by which alien culture can enter a very traditional cultural and social environment. This is a problem that has not been resolved, although a course in Brunei traditions and national ideology (Melayu Islam Beraja or the Malay Islamic Monarchy) is being introduced into the schools as a means of enforcing national identity and as a counter-

< previous page

page_47

next page >

< previous page

page_48

next page > Page 48

weight to Western culture (Government of Brunei, 1985:3539). Cath (1991) deals with the cultural issue at length, arguing that despite efforts by the government to promote Malay culture and values, students in Brunei are often as familiar with Western pop songs as their Singaporean, or even British and American peers. In Cath's survey of school students 74% of respondents recorded positive attitudes to English language songs and music. The role of English as a vehicle for dissemination of Western cultures has only been obliquely referred to by language planners in Brunei. In Singapore however the subject has been discussed at length. The former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, spoke about it at a gathering in the National University in August 1988 (see Pakir, this volume), claiming that the influence of Western culture would become a major problem in the future. However, he also notedand this must be good news for the planners in Bruneithat Malays were less influenced by Western values than others because of their attachment to Islam. While English is of some importance in the home environment, it is outside the home that it is used the most. In the friendship domain English is used by 61% of the English speaking respondents. About half of these claim to use English with friends of the same ethnic group. At first glance this is surprising but a deeper analysis reveals that, as in the family domain, intra-ethnic communication in English is concerned with professional topics and items related to non-Bruneian culture. Inter-ethnic communication is somewhat different. Here English functions as a neutral language. While there is no resistance, either culturally or politically, to Brunei Malay (Martin; 1990a:178) many educated speakers who do not have a variety of Malay as a first language seem to prefer to use English in certain situations. English is used to discuss all topics and informants say that it is used for topics related to family and friends as well as those of the workplace. The transactional domain can be conveniently divided into the three sub domainsthe traditional market, the small shop and the supermarket. As one would expect, the traditional market is one area almost totally resistant to the intrusion of English. The small market is the most traditional form of commerce in Brunei. Most of the sellers are from the older generation with little formal education and are thus unfamiliar with English. Informants point out that there is no need to use English. Indeed, any attempt to do so would be completely inappropriate and would be met with incredulity or even hostility, especially if the person was of the same ethnic group. In small shops or mini-markets, 158 respondents (28%) claim to use English for some or all of their transactions. Many of the small shops are owned by people who are ethnically Chinese and therefore much of the transactional discourse is across ethnic boundaries. Some informants have said they make a point of using Malay because Brunei is a Malay speaking country, but others are equally adamant that they would use English or at

< previous page

page_48

next page >

< previous page

page_49

next page > Page 49

least a form of mixed language in such a setting. Observation confirms the latter view that codeswitching is a very common linguistic event in these small shops. The supermarkets tell a different linguistic story. Here English plays a very important role. Of the 393 respondents who said they used English in their daily lives, 84% said they would use it in a supermarket. However, the pattern is not quite that simple. In the prestige stores, English is very dominant. Malay customers can be observed talking to Malay sales assistants in English, and Malay sales assistants often use English when talking to one another, especially about aspects of their work. There may be many reasons for this. Undoubtedly one is that many workers in the store are Filipino expatriates who may not speak Malay. The use of English has thus become habitual when talking to sales personnel. However, perhaps a truer reason is that these stores are prestigious and that shopping or working in them confers more status on the person than those working in less prestigious stores. As we have seen, English is a language carrying status and speakers feel obliged to use it in this setting. In the less prestigious supermarkets and department stores there is less pressure to use English. Even though many of the sales assistants are non-Malay and/or foreign, Malay is the dominant code between customers and sales personnel. Observation suggests, and informants confirm, that age and sex play a crucial role here in language choice. Obviously, further research needs to be undertaken. Malay is the official language of government and all government business is, in theory, conducted in that language. However, 33% of informants say they use English when conducting business in government offices. Again there is a good reason for this. English is the language of status and its use suggests that the Bruneian using it has high status. Informants say they command more respect, and therefore may get their business done more efficiently, if they use English or at least let the government officer know that he can use English. Although Malay is the official organ of government, career advancement is very difficult unless the officer can use English. A glance at advertisements for government posts shows that those posts commanding salaries of Scale D and above either require an ability to use English or require a professional qualification that can only be obtained in English. It should be stressed that the same advertisements specify a General Certificate Ordinary level pass in Malay language for Brunei citizens. However, the point is that a Bruneian without access to English is likely to be denied career advancement even although he or she may use it only infrequently in his or her job. In the private sector, the use of English is more common than in the government with 75.6% of speakers of English claiming to use the language in this domain. The private sector is dominated by Chinese and, as in Malaysia and Singapore, a great deal of English is used in interethnic business communication. Observation has shown that the English used in

< previous page

page_49

next page >

< previous page

page_50

next page > Page 50

this domain covers the entire lect spectrum, with many clerks using a basilectal variety of English for both intra-and inter-ethnic discourse. One area of the private sector where Malays enjoy a considerable presence is in the area of banking. Yet despite this fact, more people (over 90% of English using informants) say they use English more often in this sub-domain than any other. Like the supermarket, the setting is conducive to discourse in English. Informants have suggested that one reason for this is the fact that banks are big, unfriendly places where the atmosphere of formality does not encourage the feelings of solidarity common to discourse in Brunei Malay. Another reason is probably that banking is seen as an international business with English being the appropriate code. A similar situation can be found in travel agents and airline offices. English dominates at work although outside the workers may converse almost entirely in Malay. (Ozóg, 1990). In the employment domain, English is quite extensively used. Of the 393 respondents who use English, 62% said they used English at work either as part of their job or in casual discourse with colleagues. Less English is used by workers in Government offices than in the private sector, probably because of the dominance of Malay speakers in government employment. Government regulations stipulate that Malay is the language of government. There is no such rule in the private sector and so there is much more flexibility in language use. Also, more interethnic communication takes place in the private sector with Bruneians of Chinese origin using English extensively in communication with people from other ethnic groups. This then has been a rather brief view of language relationships in the six domains examined. We have seen that the boundaries are not fixed and that a language continuum exists between domains. Different individuals have different linguistic responses to different situations. However, it is clear that English does compete with Malay in certain domains. This occurs almost by definition in any country where English is the second language. (see Jernudd, this volume). However, as Fishman points out (1982:14) it is often the threat of English that provides a raison d'être and gives momentum to national language movements. There is no question that in Brunei the Malay lobby is stronger now than previously. There are many non-linguistic reasons for this including the upsurge of Islamic consciousness, the nationalism usually associated with a newly independent country and the diffusion and acceptance of the national ideology. However, English and the culture associated with English is perhaps a welcome scapegoat and so its strength and its domain promiscuity boosts rather than hinders the development of Malay in the community. Bilingual Education in Brunei Darussalam The question of whether the country's new education system (introduced in 1984), Dwibahasa (two languages), will be a success is of great concern

< previous page

page_50

next page >

< previous page

page_51

next page > Page 51

in Brunei. Unfortunately, it is not a question that can be answered easily or particularly satisfactorily. Having embarked along a bilingual road, a country's education authorities must be prepared to commit a great deal of their resources without any assurance that the returns will justify the commitment. However, trying to forecast the result of an education system is not entirely a matter of chance. Baetens Beardsmore (1986:116) has observed the following: What does appear clearly from the literature is that successful bilingualism appears in contexts where the environment allows for the full and harmonious development of the individual and where tension and conflict are not exacerbated by linguistic oppositions. Also, most, though not all, the evidence on successful bilingual education arises in cases where the bilingual element is introduced early in the child's development and continuously promoted in an uninterrupted and coherent programme. Almost without exception, what Professor Baetens Beardsmore has described above is, in fact, the situation in Brunei, which would suggest that it is possible to adopt a positive attitude to the future of bilingual education in the country. Nevertheless, we should remain aware that every country is different and that as a result not too much should be assumed, especially that conditions are transferableincluding the conditions necessary for the successful adoption of a bilingual education policy. Most importantly, we should be aware that many factors have a part to play, and possibly a decisive part, in the successful implementation of a bilingual education system. Although many of the factors involved may be beyond our immediate control, Swain (1983) has identified what she believes are three common denominators of successful bilingual education. These denominators and their relation to Brunei have been summarised elsewhere (Jones, in press), but it is pertinent to reiterate them here: (i) That in addition to acquisition of the second language the child's first language is psychologically, linguistically and cognitively maintained. (ii) That teachers use separate languages in the classroom rather than the concurrent use of both. (iii) That the community recognises bilingualism as a valuable bonus having political, economic, cultural, psychological, linguistic and cognitive advantages. As far as the first of these denominators is concerned, that stating 'the child's first language is psychologically, linguistically and cognitively maintained', some difficulty arises in as much that a Bruneian child's first language is unlikely to be the school language, Standard Malay. It is more likely to be Brunei Malay or one of its close associates, or one of the other indigenous languages of the country. Such linguistic diversity creates problems for the schools inasmuch that while the majority of children use

< previous page

page_51

next page >

< previous page

page_52

next page > Page 52

a variety of Malay, it is not the same as the variety taught in schools. In effect, if dialectal differences warrant describing Brunei Malay as a separate language from Standard Malay then the first second language that many Bruneian children have to learn is actually Standard Malay. The concern about maintenance of a learner's first language involves the Threshold Hypothesis (Cummins, 1976, Toukama & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1977). This proposes that the cognitive advantages of being bilingual can only be attained once a certain level of linguistic competence, or 'threshold', has been achieved in both languages. However, the theory assumes that this threshold will normally be achieved in the L1 and then the L2, rather than concurrently. Therefore, in the case of Brunei, development of cognitively advantageous bilingualism is dependent upon acquiring satisfactory linguistic competence in Standard Malay and then English, and until research into this area has been conducted we cannot assume that this is actually the case. The second denominator for successful bilingual education programming requires that teachers use separate languages of instruction in the classroom rather than the concurrent use of both. One reason for this is that the pupils have such little exposure to the L2 outside the classroom that the maximum time possible should be spent using it in lessons. There are other more empirically based reasons for avoiding mixed language classes. The observations of Wong Fillmore (1980) and LegarettaMarcaida (1981) are summarised in Cummins & Swain (1986). These suggest the following results: a lack of motivation to learn the L2 if the pupils know they will receive a translation in the L1; a need for both teachers and pupils to work harder when using the L2, thus ensuring greater cognitive reasoning; teachers, out of necessity, having to be more creative in the classroom, while at the same time being excused the exhausting task of simultaneous translation; codeswitching is avoided. An important point to include here is that, ideally, even if the teacher does not actually use the L1 in class, she should nevertheless be able to understand the L1 or at least give the impression that she understands it, especially in the early stages and with young children. These learners are in both a linguistically and psychologically demanding situation and, as Dodson (1985) has observed, at times need the natural support of their L1. Without it the language class becomes an unnecessarily traumatic and potentially educationally damaging experience. This is certainly the case in Brunei at the primary level: the dilemma facing the teachers is just how much language mixing should be tolerated and for how long. The third denominator states that the community should recognise bilingualism as a valuable bonus having political, economic, cultural, psycho-

< previous page

page_52

next page >

< previous page

page_53

next page > Page 53

logical, linguistic and cognitive advantages. While research supports these claims for bilingual communities it should be borne in mind that the claims are for successful programmes. Nevertheless, the point is that the advantages of becoming bilingual go beyond immediate educational and economic considerations, and this message needs to be properly spread to the whole community. Thought should be given about how best to promote the attributes of bilingualism: a positive attitude towards a bilingual education system among the population will in itself help to ensure the successful implementation of that system. The Forms of Bilingualism That Exist in Brunei The principles and denominators so far identified have to be assigned to a linguistic situation which is complex for such a small country. Multi, and not bilingualism, is the norm rather than the exception. A number of typologies are applicable to Brunei Darussalam: (1) We have a situation of mostly Malay-speaking children from an homogeneous (albeit multi-dialectal) language background entering school and being taught through two separate mediums. This has been described as bi-monolingualism by Dodson (1985:325). (2) We have children from similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds who have had no prior formal contact with the English language who are put together in a classroom setting in which this language is used as the medium of instruction, which is a description of immersion teaching. Some clarification of this description is necessary as the term can be interpreted in a number of ways. In a recent article on the subject, Harley (1991), working in Canada, described immersion education as occurring when 50% of the day's schooling takes place in the second language. In Brunei, English is introduced in stages, assuming greater importance at the secondary school stage. By the time they reach secondary school Bruneian pupils receive a lot more than 50% of their education in the L2. In many ways the Brunei model is the inverse of the Canadian models, which tend to have a higher input of the L2 at primary school than at secondary school. The system in Brunei should allow for the development of language and literacy skills in the L1 before the L2, a natural situation for secondary bilingualism and one supported by a number of researchers (Swain, 1974; Cziko, 1976; Barik, Swain & Nwanunobi, 1977; and by Baetens Beardsmore, in this volume). (3) A realistic objective of Dwibahasa is to maintain the first language, Malay, while trying to achieve a satisfactory level of competence in English, the second language. This can be described as secondary bilingualism (i.e. where a second language has been added to a first via instruction). (I think that it would be wrong for anyone in Brunei to assume that Dwibahasa will produce equi or balanced bilingualsthis

< previous page

page_53

next page >

< previous page

page_54

next page > Page 54

would be unrealistic given the nature in which the second language is acquired.) (4) Brunei Darussalam's L1 (Malay) is established and is perceived to have as much prestige, though often in different domains, as the L2 (English). Positive results tend to be associated with situations where both the L1 and L2 are highly regarded, resulting in additive bilingualism. From Here to Eternity? Brunei Darussalam's bilingual education system will only endure so long as it produces pupils competent in both English and Malay. This competency will most likely be measured by the general public and government by the rate of success in the General Certificate of Education public examinations. If pass rates in either language decline then the system will be in jeopardy. Although this is the situation today, it would be irresponsible to assume that such stability will continue (see Edwards' paper in this volume for further discussion). The system needs to be monitored, with changes implemented when necessary. As a result of ongoing research that is sponsored by the Bruneian Ministry of Education and being conducted in the country at the moment we believe that some action is necessary immediately, before problems develop. Dwibahasa Today: Some Recommendations Teachers While it would be impracticable to suggest that all teachers in Brunei should be bilingual, it is not unreasonable of the Ministry of Education to expect them to be sympathetic to the place of two languages in the classroom. This is particularly so of primary teachers, whose pupils suffer particular linguistic stress during the transition period. Teacher Training At present, trainee ESL teachers at the Universiti Brunei Darussalam receive courses on societal bilingualism and education which cover theories of language acquisition as well as analysing the advantages and disadvantages relating to societal and individual bilingualism. They prepare students for work in a bilingual environment and are thus relevant to everyone involved in education in Brunei. They could be offered as an in-service course to both school teaching staff, expatriate as well as local, and to school administrators.

< previous page

page_54

next page >

< previous page

page_55

next page > Page 55

School Language Syllabus The syllabus should be less rigid and structure based, particularly at the primary level, and instead provide greater opportunity for language use in meaningful contexts. Such a recommendation, if implemented, would necessitate an evaluation of the present examination system as well as require a tolerant and open-minded attitude from school administrators. Public Awareness The misconceptions about Dwibahasa and bilingualism that some sectors of the public hold need to be removed. The positive attributes associated with bilingualism should be disseminated to as wide an audience as possible while at the same time clarifying the likely limits of a bilingual education. It would be wrong to promise parents that all pupils will achieve native-like competence in the second language because the reality will only bring disillusionment. Future Research Research on Dwibahasa has been instigated by the current Minister of Education. This research is long term, over a 15 year period, and includes observation and analysis of selected school groups throughout their school careers. During this period other related research will be included. For instance, there is an immediate need to clarify attitudes towards Dwibahasa (among all sections of Brunei's population) so as to distinguish prejudices and misconceptions and then to use this information as a focus for future planning (Edwards in this volume expands on the subject of an attitude survey for Brunei). In addition to attitudes, some research needs to be instigated in the following areas: (1) Determine the level of motivation that exists in Brunei to learn languages other than Malay, including: which languages; whether motivation needs to be improved and, if it does, how this might be realised. (2) Clarification of what are acceptable language standards, for both Malay and English, and whether these are being achieved. (3) Determine whether standards in the use of language, for both Malay and English, are improving or deteriorating. (4) Involve other countries in the research. It should be possible to conduct parallel research in Brunei and other countries as well as to test whether research conclusions can be duplicated in different centres, thus validating or invalidating certain theories.

< previous page

page_55

next page >

< previous page

page_56

next page > Page 56

Conclusion While there is reason to be optimistic about the future of bilingual education in Brunei, it would be wrong to be complacent. Attitudes and circumstances can change very easily and what is acceptable today may be condemned tomorrow. Dwibahasa is now being monitored as part of a long-term longitudinal study and while data obtained from the classroom is relatively easily quantified, the external factors influencing attitude and motivation of pupils and teachers are not. In Brunei, prominent among these external factors are language domain, language shift and perceived language status together with cultural and religious influences. Culture and religion are particularly sensitive areas because of their emotional and often zealous appeal. Although initial research has been concerned with attitude, there is the immediate tandem requirement to educate the public about the purpose and likely outcome of pursuing a bilingual education policy. The positive attributes associated with bilingualism need to be disseminated to all members of the community along with a realistic acknowledgement of the policy's limitations: maintenance of Malay and satisfactory competence in English, however this is defined, must be the realistic objectives. Notes 1. This paper is an abbreviated version of the following papers presented at the International conference on Bilingualism and National Development in Brunei Darussalam, 912 December 1991: 'Language shift and language solidarity in Brunei: The ecology of a minority language' by Peter W. Martin; 'Bilingualism in Brunei: English and Malay in the community' by Conrad K. Ozóg *; and 'From here to eternity: Bilingual education in Brunei Darussalam' by Gary Jones. 2. Tutong, Belait, Dusun Bisaya and Murut are Austronesian languages, all less than 40% cognate with Malay (Nothofer, 1991). Tutong and Belait are categorised as languages of the 'Lower Baram' sub-group of a group of languages termed 'North Sarawak' (Blust, 1972). Dusun and Bisaya are Dusunic languages belonging to the Ida'an group (Prentice, 1970). Murut is included in the 'Apo Duat' group along with Lun Bawang, Lun Dayeh, Kelabit and Tring (Hudson, 1978). 3. A discussion of the term 'Malay' in the Brunei context is provided by Maxwell (1980: 14958). Suffice to say here that the term 'Malay' was not much in use in north-west Borneo up to the beginning of the present century (Pringle, 1970: xviixix). 4. Two forms of land tenure were common. In the kuripan form of tenure, the land was held by ministers or wazirs; the tulin form, on the other hand, consisted of private hereditary domains. 5. This is to cater for the Gurkha soldiers serving in the country. References Ahmad Hj. Jumat, Dato. (1989) A chronological study of the development of education in Brunei from 1906 to 1984 with special reference to educational policies and their implementation. Unpublished PhD thesis, California Coast University. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986) Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

< previous page

page_56

next page >

< previous page

page_57

next page > Page 57

Barik, H. C., Swain, M. and Nwanunobi, E. (1977) English-French bilingual education: The Elgin study through grade five. Canadian Modern Language Review 33, 45975. Blust, Robert A. (1972) Report of linguistic fieldwork undertaken in Sarawak. Borneo Research Bulletin 4, 1, 1214. Bourdieu, P. (1977) The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16, 6, 64568. Brown, D. E. (1970) Brunei: The Structure and History of a Bornean Malay Sultanate. Brunei: Brunei Museum. Cath, A. (1991). The social background of form 3 students in Sekolah Menengah Lambak Kanan and their attitudes to learning English. Unpublished RSA/Cambridge Diploma Dissertation. Chen Da-sheng (1992) A Brunei sultan in the early 14th century: Study of an Arabic gravestone. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 23, (2): 113. Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (1986) Bilingualism in Education. London: Longman. Cummins, J. (1976) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explantory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 143. Cziko, G. A. (1976) The effects of language sequencing on the development of bilingual reading skills. Canadian Modern Lanaguage Review 32, 5349. Dodson, C. J. (1985) Second language acquisition and bilingual development: A theoretical framework. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 5: 32546. Edwards, J. (1985) Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Edwards, J. (1990) Notes for a minority-language typology: Procedures and justification. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 11, 12: 13751. Edwards, L. and Stevens, P. (1971) Short Histories of the Lawas and Kanowit Districts. Kuching, Malaysia: Borneo Literature Bureau. Fishman, J. (1982) Sociology of English as an additional language In B. Kachru (ed.) The Other Tongue (pp. 1522). Oxford: Pergamon. Florey, M. (1990) Language shift: Changing patterns of language allegiance in western Seram. Unpublished PhD thesis. USA: Universiti of Hawaii. Gal, S. (1979) Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press. Government of Brunei. (1961) Undang2 Taraf Kebangsaan Brunei. Undang2 No. 4 (pp. 11535.) In Surat 2 Perlembagaan Negeri Brunei. Kuala Belait: Government Printer. Government of Brunei. (1985) Education System of Negara Brunei Darussalam. Brunei: Education Ministry. Government of Brunei. (1989) Brunei Darussalam Newsletter. Brunei: Ministry of Information. Harley, B. (1991). Directions in immersion research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 12:1&2, 919. Harper, G. C. (1975) The Discovery and Development of the Seria Oilfield. Brunei: Muzium Brunei. Hasan Mat Nor (1979) Beberapa masalah klasifikasi etnik di kalangan kumpulan minoriti di Sarawak. Unpublished thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia. Horton, A. V. (1987). The disturbances in the Tutong and Belait districts (18991901). Journal of Southeast Asian Studies XVIII, 1:93107. Hudson, Alfred B. (1978) Linguistic relations among Bornean peoples with special reference to Sarawak: An interim report. Studies in Third World Societies 3: 144. Jones, G. M. (1990) How bilingualism is being integrated in Negara Brunei Darussalam. In J. Baldauf and A. Luke (eds) Language Planning and Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jones, G. M. (in press) The bilingual education policy of Negara Brunei Darussalam: Some implemental considerations. In J. T. Collins (ed.) Language and Oral Traditions in Borneo. Williamsburg, VA: The Borneo Research Council. Kershaw, E. (1992) Final shifts. Some whys and hows of Brunei Dusun convergence on Malay. Paper presented at the Second Biennial Conference of the Borneo Research Council, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 1317 July. Legaretta-Marcaida, D. (1981) Effective use of the primary language in the classroom. In

< previous page

page_57

next page >

< previous page

page_58

next page > Page 58

California State Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 83116). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, State University of California. Mahmud Baky (1967) Brunei and the official language issue. In S. T. Alisjahbana (ed.) The Modernization of Languages in Asia. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Society of Asian Studies, Universiti Malaya. Martin, P. W. (1990a) The pattern of language communication in Brunei Darussalam and its pedagogic implications. In V. Bickley (ed.) Language Use, Language Teaching and the Curriculum. Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education. Martin, P. W. (1990b) Interlingual and intralingual communication in Brunei Darussalam: Some factors governing code choice. Paper presented at the 8th ASANAL Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 2831 May. Martin, P. W. (1991) Peralihan bahasa di antara puak Belait. Paper presented at the Seminar Dialek, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, 79 October. Martin, P. W. (1992) Shifts in language allegiance in Borneo: The Belait community of Brunei Darussalam. Borneo Research Bulletin 24. McArthur, M. S. H. (1904) Report on Brunei in 1904: Introduced and annotated by A. V. N. Horton, (1987). Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Monographs in International Studies. Maxwell, A. (1980) Urang Darat. An ethnographic study of the Kedayan of Labu Valley, Brunei. Unpublished PhD. thesis. USA: Yale University. Nicholl, R. (1989) Some problems of Brunei chronology: Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 20(2); 17595. Niew, S. T. (1990) Demographic Trends in Negara Brunei Darussalam. Brunei: University of Brunei Darussalam. Nothofer, B. (1991) The languages of Brunei Darussalam. In H. Steinhauer (ed.) Papers in Austronesian Linguistics; No. 1: Pacific Linguistics, A-81, 15676. 'Notices of the City of Borneo and its Inhabitants, Made during the Voyage of the American Brig Himmaleh in the Indian Archipelago, in 1837'. (1838). Chinese Repository VII, 3 (July 1838):133. Our Brunei (Radio Programme), 10 February, 1992. Ozóg *, A. C. K. (1990) Codeswitching in peninsular Malaysia and Brunei: A study in contrasting linguistic strageties. Paper presented at the 8th ASANAL Conference, Kuala Lumpur, May 2831. Ozóg*, A. C. K. and Martin, P. (1990) The bah particle in Brunei English. RELC Journal, 23, (2): 1428. Prentice, D. J. (1970) The linguistic situation in northern Borneo. In S. A. Wurm and D. C. Laycock (eds) Pacific Linguistic Studies in Honor of Author Capell. Linguistics Series C, No. 13. Canberra: Australian National University. Pringle, R. (1970) Rajahs and Rebels: The Ibans of Sarawak under Brooke Rule, 18411941. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. St John, S (1862) Life in the Forests of the Far East. Two vols. London: Smith, Elder & Co. Reprinted 1986, Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Swain, M. (1974) French immersion programmes across Canada: Research findings. Canadian Modern Language Review 31: 11729. Swain, M. (1983) Bilingualism without tears. In M. Clark, and J. Handscombe (eds) On TESOL '82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching. Washington, D. C.: TESOL, 3546. Tollefson, J. W. (1991) Planning Language, Planning Inequality. Language Policy in the Community. Longman: London. Toukama, P. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1977). The Intensive Teaching of the Mother Tongue to Migrant Children of Pre-School Age and Children in the Lower Level of Comprehensive School. Helsinki: The Finnish National Commission for UNESCO. Trudgill, P. (1991) Language maintenance and language shift, preservation versus extinction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 619. Wong Fillmore, L: (1980) Language Learning Through Bilingual Instruction. Berkeley: University of California Press.

< previous page

page_58

next page >

< previous page

page_59

next page > Page 59

Bilingualism and National Development in Malaysia A. Conrad K. Ozóg * Faculty of Humanities, University of Western Sydney, Nepean, P.O. Box 10, Kingswood, NSW 2747, Australia Abstract Malaysia had a long tradition of English medium education and bilingualism which effectively came to an end as a direct result of communal pressure in 1970. This paper looks at the place of bilingualism in the development of the country from the mid-nineteenth century until the present day. How far having a bilingual population contributed to national development is considered, as is the question of whether the abandonment of bilingual education has had an inhibiting effect on development. Introduction While most papers in this volume look at either countries with a long history of bilingualism or those that have recently adopted bilingual education, this paper looks at a country which could be said to have abandoned bilingual education, although as we shall see bilingualism, nevertheless, plays an integral part in the day-to-day lives of many in Malaysia. Over the last 20 years several studies have looked at the role of language planning in national development. In 1971 Rubin & Jernudd asked whether language could be planned and what contribution language planning made to national development. They and their fellow contributors expressed cautious optimism. Since then authors have taken different views on the subject with some like Haugen (1972) and Fierman (1992) believing that language planning plays a crucial role while others such as Fishman (1983) and Woolard (1986) view the role of language planning in economic and social development with scepticism. At the same time as studies were being conducted on the role of language planning in national development parallel, and sometimes overlapping, studies were being conducted which looked at language and language skills as assets to be exploited in the quest for national development: Bourdieu (1977)

< previous page

page_59

next page >

< previous page

page_60

next page > Page 60

was one of the pioneers in this field although his views were general and theoretical, rather than area specific. However, a number of area studies have been carried out in different parts of the world, including those on Indonesia (Alisjahbana, 1976) and Ireland (Commins, 1988). Coulmas (1992) makes the first attempt to synthesise the many studies in this field and examines the economic significance of language and language choice, and the influence of macro economic theory on linguistic development. Studies such as these are vital in understanding the role of bilingualism in the economic development of Malaysia. However, it must never be forgotten that for much of Malaysian history language was unplanned. It was seen as an asset to development but the role of language was not perceived as being central. Similarly, when the government did become actively involved they did not have the benefits of the studies mentioned above. They were not inhibited by the thoughts of linguists or economists and they believed that no problem, including those associated with language planning, was beyond them. This paper will show that their optimism was not totally misplaced. Historical Perspectives Since independence in 1957, a great deal of effort and vast resources have been channelled into the development of Malaysia. This development has been concerned not only with economic matters but also with the factors which have contributed to the ideas of nationhood. Development has revolved around a series of five year plans. These plans have covered all issues of development including education and language. Before independence, development was viewed by the British in mostly economic terms and ideas of social, political and educational development were hardly discussed until after the Second World War (Li, 1982: passim). From the late nineteenth century until independence in 1957, the country was made up of nine sultanates, a number of which were semi-independent of Britain, and the Straits Settlements of Singapore, Malacca and Penang. The first British colony was Penang, founded in 1786. This was followed by Malacca in 1818 and Singapore in 1819. However, the British decided not to intervene politically in the other parts of the Malay Peninsula at this stage, and it was only much later that they did so. Singapore was the main centre of trade while the peninsula was a wild, undeveloped country rich in natural resources (Andaya & Andaya, 1982: 11456). Tin and rubber were the major exploitable resources. Tin had been mined in a small way for centuries but in the late nineteenth century tin mining began to attract investment from Chinese entrepreneurs and the London capital market. Rubber was relatively new, having been introduced from Brazil in the 1860s. The industrial markets for rubber were enormous but it too needed investment to clear the land, plant the rubber and to import labourers to tap the sap from the mature trees (Li, 1982:83).

< previous page

page_60

next page >

< previous page

page_61

next page > Page 61

This economic exploitation and the vast revenues and strategic resources it brought to the British government meant that the British had to have definite goals for developing their colony. Few of these have any place in a study of bilingualism in Malaya but the importation of labour and the development of education are of significance. Although there are no accurate data it is clear that at the beginning of the nineteenth century Malaya was fairly homogeneous in terms of racial structure. The majority of people were Malays living in small villages on the coast or along rivers. In the interior were the Orang Asli aboriginal population and there were small Chinese communities in Malacca and Penang. The Malays spoke different dialects in different geographical locations but by and large the Malay states were monolingual societies. Even the Chinese community in Malacca (The Babas) had a dialect of Malay as their mother tongue. Economic exploitation meant that homogeneity gave way to heterogeneity. The second half of the nineteenth century witnessed a massive influx of Chinese into the region to work in the development of Singapore and the tin mines in the Peninsula. Some came as entrepreneurs but the vast majority came as unskilled labourers to work in the rapidly expanding plantation and mining enterprises. Most came from Southern China and had either Cantonese or Hokkien as their mother dialect although other dialect groups were also represented (Li, 1982:113). Different dialect groups tended to migrate to different parts of the peninsula with, for example, Cantonese speakers dominant in Kuala Lumpur and Hokkien speakers in Singapore. They had little to do with the predominantly rural Malays as they settled in established urban areas or the small, but rapidly developing, tin mining towns of the interior. As the exploitation of tin expanded their numbers grew rapidly, thus creating a society in the Peninsula which did not speak Malay. Commerce and other forms of contact meant that many of the migrants did become bilingual, either in another Chinese dialect or in a pidginised form of Malay. However, those bilingual in Chinese and Malay were probably few in number and it must not be forgotten that the Chinese dialects were mutually unintelligible and that speakers of different groups were often hostile to one another and fighting between them was not uncommon (Turnbull, 1989:124). Migration of a different sort came with the development of rubber. Labour was needed to clear the land and tap the rubber. The Chinese migrants were apparently not interested in this labour as it offered little chance for personal or economic advancement. The Malays, although mostly living in rural areas, were reluctant to get involved, preferring to carry on with their small agricultural plots and their fishing. There was, therefore, an acute labour shortage. The shortage was only solved by government recruitment of indentured labourers from Southern India (Turnbull, 1989: 1767). These labourers were overwhelmingly Tamil or Malayalan speakers and so another language was added to the linguistic equation. Other Indian

< previous page

page_61

next page >

< previous page

page_62

next page > Page 62

migrants came of their own free will and became shopkeepers, labourers in urban areas or government clerks. Unlike the European migrations to the New World and Australia, Chinese migration to Malaya and the Straits Settlements was meant to be temporary. The Chinese migrants were still subject to the laws of the Chinese Empire and in theory women were not allowed to migrate. The immigrants expected to make their fortunes and return home. Similarly, the colonial government expected the Indian labourers to return home after their period of bonded service was completed. Many did return home but many more stayed and slowly they and their families became part of Malayan society. It is unclear how many of these migrants were bilingual but the number was probably small as there is little suggestion that the different migrant groups mixed with each other, or with Malays, except perhaps in the transactional domain. Here inter-ethnic communication was conducted in the Malay Pidgin 1. However little the contact, there was here the beginning of a society in which a growing number of people had at least some bilingual ability. As greater numbers of migrants came in fewer returned home and those that stayed mixed more and more with the indigenous population. In this way the number of bilinguals increased. This in turn may have made it easier for certain individuals and groups to make the decision to stay. Thus the nascent bilingualism of the colony expanded and became a permanent feature in British Malaya. These migrations from China and India were encouraged by the British and there is little question that the successful exploitation of the natural resources was dependant on the influx of foreign labour (Li, 1982:135). The prosperity of the colony depended on the exploitation of the resources and successful exploitation depended on having sections of the labour force, such as clerks, supervisors and managers, who were bilingual. So, it can be argued that development and bilingualism went hand in hand in colonial Malaya. Although the colonial civil service employed bilingual clerks and supervisors the bilingualism described above grew up without any real encouragement from the colonial authorities. However, the economic development which sparked off the migration of groups into Malaysia, and the migration which in turn sparked off more economic development, did cause government intervention in one area of significance for this paper, namely in education. Bilingual education has a long history in Malaysia with suggestions that some form of bilingual education existed during the Portuguese or Dutch times in Malaysia, or even earlier (Solomon: 1988:6). The numbers involved at this time were obviously very small and the impact of such education was, one assumes, minimal. Malay education in the years before British rule was to some extent bilingual in that the mosque schools taught Quranic Arabic as well as basic Malay, good behaviour and martial arts (Solomon, 1988:9). However, these schools would not conform to any modern definition

< previous page

page_62

next page >

< previous page

page_63

next page > Page 63

of bilingualism because the students merely learned to recite Arabic rather than understand or use it. Bilingual education, as we understand the term today, arrived with the British. Although English medium education became a cornerstone of British educational policy in Malaysia from the late nineteenth century its development in the earlier years of the century reflected the British policy of nonintervention and schooling was left to individuals and the Christian missions (Watson, 1982:94). The first English school was established in Penang 30 years after the establishment of a British colony on the island. The school was not large and its aims were modest: to educate and keep native boys out of mischief. Other institutions followed, especially in Singapore, where prestige institutions were founded to educate the local elite and to provide English speaking administrators for the rapidly developing, young colony. The curriculum of these schools was entirely in English and, although not recorded, it is likely that even in the early years of English medium education, English was establishing itself as the medium of inter-ethnic communication for the rich and powerful of the colony. By mid century, English had a very definite place in the linguistic makeup of the colony. The number of English medium schools was expanding rapidly and English language newspapers were established in Singapore and Penang. English-knowing bilingualism was the key to personal and social advancement in the colony (Platt & Weber, 1980:143). Two kinds of English medium schools were established. Firstly there were the mission schools, over which the colonial government had no control, and secondly, the free schools which were given some government assistance. The establishment of these schools marked the beginning of government influence in education. Their specific aim was to produce 'junior administrative officers to support the British administration' (Solomon, 1988:16). These schools were established in the towns and so were attended mostly by Chinese and Indian students. Malays were largely excluded because they lived in the rural areas and because, as Muslims, they were afraid of the potential proselytisation of the Christian mission schools (Loh, 1970:53). As part of their policy of 'paternalistic protection' the British did establish schools for Malays but these were Malay medium institutions with English being deliberately excluded from the curriculum. The belief was that knowledge of English may have given rural Malays ideas above their station (Sadka, 1968:292). 2 No English was taught in government Malay schools and there were no Malay secondary schools. These schools were not universally accepted by the Malays and colonial administrators continually complained of the poor attendances. Stevenson suggests that the Malays were both indifferent to, and suspicious of, the new schools (1975:119). Loh contends that the schools brought little actual benefit to the Malays, arguing that Malay medium education was:

< previous page

page_63

next page >

< previous page

page_64

next page > Page 64

too conservative in that it offered the parents no significantly new prospect, social or economic, for their sons, and not traditional enough because of its emphasis on language and not religion. (1970:44) However, the Malay elite had no such problems. They sent their children to English medium schools and in 1903 the British opened a special boarding school for them in the royal capital of the sultanate of Perak, Kuala Kangsar (Stevenson, 1975:17492). Thus, while the ordinary Malays were denied access to the bilingual education which could lead to economic and social advancement, special provision was made to ensure the elite had that access. While large numbers of Chinese attended English medium schools it would be wrong to exaggerate their importance to the Chinese community. Of greater import were Chinese medium schools. These schools recruited teachers from China and followed a curriculum that was totally Chinese in philosophy and practice (Wong & Ee, 1975:11). The graduates of these schools attended tertiary institutions in China and they were dominant in the ever-expanding Chinese business community. By the early years of the twentieth century development and economic exploitation of the country were in full swing with the economic engine being driven by a small British elite and a larger group of locally recruited civil servants and entrepreneurs who were bilingual in English and their native tongue. Many of the non-Malays had by necessity to learn some Malay but it was knowledge of English that was the key to social and career advancement. Although the Malays were the largest ethnic group, for reasons previously mentioned, they were largely excluded from the benefits of English medium education and so from the career advancement that went with it. English-knowing bilinguals had the top posts and so, in effect, Malays were excluded from these positions because they did not have access to English medium education (Husin, 1981:124). An understanding of this point is crucial in order to understand language policy in Malaysia today, and the views that people have on bilingualism and its relation to development. To sum up then we can see that educational planning was at the best haphazard with little or no planning for the long term future and little or no recognition of anything approaching the idea of Malayan nationhood. Arfah & Chew take the argument further: From the point of view of national development . . . the education system before World War II was unplanned. There was no clear policy on the part of the government with regard to the role of education in the development of Malaysian society. The education institutions were essentially a divisive force in this society, tending to sustain its ethnically plural character (1980:107).

< previous page

page_64

next page >

< previous page

page_65

next page > Page 65

The Post-War Years The British regime that returned to Malaya in 1945 after the Japanese Occupation was very different to that which had collapsed in 1941. For the first time Malaya was seen, not so much as a series of semi-independent states, but as a unified country which should be prepared for independence. Two of the major obstacles on the road to independence were the place of the Chinese and Indian peoples and their languages, and the place of English. The Chinese were vocal in proclaiming their desire for citizenship but the rising Chinese nationalism and the rise of communism in the community in turn led to an increase in Malay nationalism and the call by the Malay nationalists to have Malay recognised as the sole national language. The British were aware that ethnic tensions were increasing and saw that economic, social and political progress could be slowed down if they got out of hand. They saw that educational and language policies which focused on unity rather than division were one way of diffusing them. Between 1945 and 1955 six reports were commissioned and they all called for some form of bilingual education (Ongkili, 1985:10612). The Barnes Report, for example, saw Malay as the cornerstone of a unifying education system with all pupils leaving school bilingual in English and Malay. This report was widely criticised by the Chinese community and a commission of Chinese educationalists, The Fenn-Wu Report, recommended primary school education in the pupils' mother tongue and secondary education in English. The details of these reports are not of immediate concern to this paper, suffice to say that in both widespread access to bilingual education was seen as essential to the well being of the future independent nation. The role of language in the quest for national unity was recognised and it was further acknowledged that education was the key to this. This point was underlined in The Razak Report of 1956 which promoted Malay as the national language and which argued for a gradual change to Malay as the main medium of instruction in primary schools (Federation of Malaya, 1956). In an attempt to placate the Indian and Chinese communities, Chinese and Tamil primary schools were to be allowed and English was permitted to be used as a medium in secondary schools (Ongkili, 1985:110). So, independence came and with it recognition of the importance of bilingualism both as a tool of national unity and also as a means of ensuring national development. The type of bilingualism envisaged was different to that which had been promoted by the British, where English-knowing bilingualism was the expected norm. As Malay was now recognised as the national language, everyone was expected to be able to function effectively in it. So the Chinese and Indian populations were expected to become Malay-knowing bilinguals. At the same time it was envisaged that many people would continue to be educated in English medium secondary schools and that the schools, which in the past had been expensive and elitist, would be available to everyone.

< previous page

page_65

next page >

< previous page

page_66

next page > Page 66

Independence saw a sharp rise in both the number of English medium and Malay medium secondary schools. Although a Malay medium teacher training college had been established in the 1920s it was only after independence that Malay medium secondary schools were established. Even then they were only established gradually and sixth-form Malay medium education came only much later in the mid-1960s. These Malay schools obviously attracted large numbers of Malay students eager to learn in their mother tongue. Equally important was the increase in enrollment in English medium education and again Malays accounted for the largest increase. So, for the first time in the country's history large numbers of ordinary Malaysmany from rural areashad access to bilingual education. The Barnes and Razak Reports had emphasised the importance of bilingual education in fostering the unity of the nation. However, the idea that bilingual education would help the Malays overcome their economic disadvantage was ill founded. After independence the gap between the non Malays, especially the Chinese, and the Malays increased. Economic growth was being achieved but the Malays, still largely a rural people, felt excluded (Ongkili, 1985:124). It seemed that even those educated in English were lagging behind the other races. Economic development and the resultant prosperity were not reaching the Malay community. By 1970 only 14.8% of the Malay population lived in urban areas (Chandler, 1972:30). Their literacy rate in English was estimated at only 10.8%, much lower than that of the Chinese and Indian communities. In the mid 1960s only 1.1% of students reading engineering and 12.8% of those reading medicine were Malays. The Chinese figures are 89% and 78.5% respectively (Solomon, 1988:39). Much of the blame for this situation was directed at the 1961 Education Act which implemented many of the provisions of the Razak Report. While this Act reaffirmed the eventual use of Malay as the sole medium of instruction in secondary schools, Chinese and Tamil primary schools were allowed to continue. However, the Act called for the conversion of Chinese secondary schools to English if they wanted to receive financial assistance from the government. This provision angered the Chinese who were calling for recognition of Chinese as a national language and the show implementation of the act angered the Malays who saw it as one way of improving their social and economic status (Andaya & Andaya, 1982:279). The story of the racial riots of 1969 has been discussed at length elsewhere and need not be documented here (see, for example Turnbull, 1989:2659 and Ongkili, 1985:193209). Suffice to say that present day language policies, and attitudes to English language education and bilingualism are still very much influenced by the events of the late 1960s.

< previous page

page_66

next page >

< previous page

page_67

next page > Page 67

The Present Day The events of the 1960s can be interpreted as part of the struggle to establish Malay dominance in politics and Malay-Chinese equality in business. Education and language were seen as important elements in the struggle and Malaysian politicians recognised that 'a language is worth what those who speak it are worth' and that language skills can be used as a form of capital (linguistic capital) to assist development (Bourdieu, 1977:652). In other words, language and economics go hand in hand, a truism recognised by those politicians anxious to establish Malay political and economic hegemony. If the status of the language were not upgraded then the political and economic status of the Malays would never improve. Therefore, one immediate result of the riots was a strict and rapid implementation of the national language policy which aimed to make Malay the sole medium of instruction in the schools. It was argued that while many believed English medium education was necessary for economic development it could not be considered national development if the largest ethnic group were excluded from the prosperity (Asmah; 1982:15560). English medium education was to be slowly phased out over a period of 14 years. English language was to be retained as a compulsory school subject but it was not necessary to secure a pass in it to be awarded a school certificate. In other words, the Malaysian government was, in effect, abandoning a policy of bilingual education for a monolingual one. It was felt that this would not only strengthen the role of the Malay community in education but would help end discrimination against Malays in the private sector. This policy was in marked contrast to those of many former colonial countries where there was a belief that underdevelopment could be overcome by spreading common European languages (Coulmas, 1992:52). Malaysia was not abandoning English per se: it was hoped that English would remain important and that fluency would remain high. The political elite were all English medium educated and they knew the importance of the language both for personal development and as tool for economic development. Malay was to the national language but English was to remain the medium of international communication. The New Economic Policy, introduced at the same time as the National Language Act, aimed to increase Malay participation in the economy over a 20 year period. Its aim was the restructuring of the economy and society, with language education being a major tool in the reshaping. It was assumed that the economy would continue to grow and that, while the Malays would increase their share of the cake, the cake was ever-expanding and therefore everyone would be better off. Although the implementation of the act was accompanied by both a massive programme in language modernisation and Malay language instruction many doubted whether an education system based on the Malay language was viable. There were few text books in Malay and there were many

< previous page

page_67

next page >

< previous page

page_68

next page > Page 68

teachers who were not fluent in the National Language. Others stated openly that standards of education, and by extension standards of living, were bound to fall. However, all attempts to question the role of Malay in society were effectively ended with the passing of the Sedition Act in 1970 which forbade any discussion of the subject (Lim, 1978:268). Of course, the change in status of English in the school system did not herald the end of English-knowing bilingualism in Malaysia. Many parents who had attended English medium schools passed the language on to their children and in high or middle income urban areas the standard of English remains high. Many families are bilingual in English and one other language and there are some families that have English as a first language (Gaudart, 1990). However, the abolition of English medium schooling inevitably meant that the number of English speakers has been considerably reduced over the last 20 years. Bilingualism is still widespread, especially in the non-Malay communities. Chinese and Indian children learn their native languages and dialects at home and many Chinese attend Mandarin primary schools. Indeed, the numbers attending Mandarin schools has increased since independence and in 1984 27.5% of all primary children attended Mandarin schools, a huge figure considering Chinese made up only 35% of the total population. 3 (Kok et al., 1990:69). Malay is taught as a subject in the schools and children wishing to attend Malay medium secondary schools have a year of intensive Malay after primary school. Many, especially those living in large towns, are also fluent in English. It is largely the Malays that have in effect become monolingual as a result of the National Language Policy. The policy designed to help the Malays may in the long term have hindered their development because, as will become apparent later, bilingualism, or rather a knowledge of English, is still an important element for anyone wishing to develop his or her professional career. Since the implementation of the New Economic Policy in 1970 Malaysia has undergone major changes in almost all aspects of life. The population has gone up from 10.4 million in 1970 to approximately 17.6 million in 1991 (New Straits Times, 31st October, 1992). Population growth is a cornerstone of Malaysian economic and social policy. It is hoped that the country will be industrialised by 2020 and that the large population will act as an effective domestic market and so cushion the economy from the fluctuations that a purely export economy encounters. A further cornerstone of economic development is education. The years after independence in 1957 saw a huge increase in the number of students attending English medium schools (Government of Malaysia, 1967). Fees were low and for the first time Malays attended in large numbers. The National Language Act ended English medium schools but the tradition of education for all was well established. Many have argued that standards fell with the ending of English medium education. This is debatable. What is clearly apparent, however, is the fact that standards of English proficiency have fallen.

< previous page

page_68

next page >

< previous page

page_69

next page > Page 69

Proficiency in English is no longer a requirement for advancement in either school or tertiary education. In theory a student could go from primary grade one to post graduate level and then throughout his/her professional life without passing an English exam or in fact knowing any English at all. Reality, however, is very different. English is essential for educational and career advancement in many fields. The top Malay students are selected after 'O' levels for study overseas. Many are sent to private schools in Britain while others attend colleges in Malaysia. Much time and effort is devoted to the study of English. A great deal of money is spent on this with expatriate teachers being employed and twinning arrangments made with colleges and universities in Britain, Australia and the USA. The more affluent urban children who enter the programme are already proficient in English but the poorer urban children and the rural children need many hours of English to bring them up to the required levels of proficiency. In theory, a student with no knowledge of English can study at a Malaysian university. A pass in English at any level is not an entry requirement and yet the student is expected to at least be able to read textbooks written in English and in some faculties, law for example, to demonstrate some proficiency in the spoken language. All universities have language proficiency units whose prime function is to teach students English and to produce teaching materials. Abundant resources are made available for these centres emphasising the importance that is attached to proficiency by both the universities and the government. Employers expect graduates to be proficient in English and express anger and disappointment when they are not. Government and quasigovernment organisations send graduates who are not proficient in English to courses run by organisations such as the British Council. Malaysia has embarked on new programme for development, Wawasan 2020 or Vision 2020. This is exactly what the name implies. It is not a formal development plan but is rather a series of ideas about the direction the nation should follow over the next thirty years. As in the formal plans, education has a major place. Of course, Malay is given pride of place in language education but it is recognised that English is important for economic development and that special provision has to be made for it. A conference held in late 1992, entitled 'The Role of English as a Language of Knowledge and as a Resource for National Development', showed that the government takes such a view seriously. A senior official of the Ministry of Education stated that Malaysians need a very high level of competence in the language and that proficiency in the language is important 'to take advantage of new career opportunities as the country experiences rapid development' (Wan Mohammed Zahid, 1992). He stressed that a population proficient in English was necessary if rapid development was to be achieved. This would seem to suggest that attitudes to English are on the whole positive. However, in the same paper Wan Mohammed went to great lengths to assure his audience that support of English in no way undermined the

< previous page

page_69

next page >

< previous page

page_70

next page > Page 70

role of Malay as the national language. He stressed that English was not a better language than Malay and that 'the richness and maturity of Malay is in no way inferior to that of English or any other languages'. So, English is recognised as being important for national development but in Malaysia it is not wise to praise English without at the same time praising Malay. This has been dealt with elsewhere (see for example Ozóg, 1990:316, and Jacobson, 1991:224) but it is pertinent to emphasise it again here. It is an ongoing issue which comes to the surface regularly. In September 1992 the relationship of English to Malay came to the fore again when the leading Malay language daily, Utusan Malaysia, criticised the Prime Minister for using English in an interview. This sparked off a major political argument over the place of English in national development. The Prime Minister, who has strong credentials as a Malay nationalist, argued that he was not talking about discarding Malay: But we should not become fanatical about it because that will make it difficult for us to acquire knowledge to benefit our race in a competitive world. Whether we like it or not English is an international language. (Malaysian Business, October 115, 1992). In a later comment he said English was necessary 'for Malaysians to compete commercially and continue to attract foreign investment' (Far Eastern Economic Review, 10th October, 1992). In other words, without English the pace of development will be slower. The replies were equally strong. Articles and letters appeared in Utusan Malaysia almost daily (Utusan Malaysia, September, 1992) and the editor wrote that by promoting English as a tool of development Malay 'was confined to the backwoods' (cited in Far Eastern Economic Review, 10th October, 1992). The Review article also quotes senior academics who feel that if English is viewed as the language of progress 'Malay will decline'. The debate, although ostensibly about language, is really about the best way of developing the country. Mahathir and his supporters are arguing that an English-knowing population is necessary for development. The other camp is arguing that while English may be important in the international arena, Malay can do the job at home and that any concession to English may result in the loss of Malay identity which they see as just as important as economic development. To quote Professor Ismail Hussein: Language is the soul of a race. We should master English but let it not master us! (Malaysian Business, October 115, 1992) Conclusion Lieberson (1980:12) stated that 'essentially no causal linkage exists in either direction between changes in a nation's development and its level of linguistic homogeneity'. Obviously such a notion is difficult to prove or

< previous page

page_70

next page >

< previous page

page_71

next page > Page 71

disprove but, as Lieberson points out, the feeling persists that those countries which are most developed are those with homogeneous populations. Malaysia is a heterogeneous country and many politicians see this a threat to development. Bahasa Malaysia is seen as an agent of unification and if the non-Malay groups are to be bilingual then they should be Malay-knowing bilinguals rather than English-knowing bilinguals. However, as we have seen, many feel that English is a necessary tool for development and that the future prosperity of the country requires at least a substantial minority of the population to be bilingual in English and Malay. The debate will continue for many years. There is obviously a need for some degree of proficiency in English. However, there seems little likelihood of a bilingual education system being introduced although it is possible that in future more emphasis will be given to English and that some elitist schools may become English medium. Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Gary Jones and Peter Martin who made detailed constructive comments on earlier drafts. Notes 1. This pidgin is also known as Pasar Melayu, Bahasa Pasar or Bazaar Malay. 2. Frank Swettenham, the colonial administrator feared the rise of a semi-literate class which was dependent on the government for employment. He said that he did not want the Malays, whom he admired, reduced to the level of 'Bengali Baboos'. 3. The percentage for national (i.e. Malay) primary schools was 69.5%. References Alisjahbana, S. T. (1976) Language Planning and Modernization: The Case of Indonesian and Malaysian. The Hague: Mouton. Andaya, B. W. and Andaya, L. Y. (1982) A History of Malaya. London: Macmillan. Arfah A. A. and Chew T. Y. (1980) Malaysia. In T. N. Posthelwaite, and R. M. Thomas (eds) Schooling in the ASEAN Region (pp. 97143). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Asmah, Hj. Omar (1982) Language and Society in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka. Bourdieu, P. (1977) The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Sciences Information 16(6) 64568. Chandler, R. (1972) 1970 Population and Housing Census. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. Commins, P. (1988) Socioeconomic development and language development in the Gaeltacht. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 70, 128. Coulmas, F. (1992) Language and Economy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Far Eastern Economic Review (October 10th, 1992). Hong Kong. Federation of Malaya (1950) Report of the Committee of Malay Education (The Barnes Report). Kuala Lumpur: The Government Printer. Federation of Malaya (1956) Report of the Committee on Education (The Razak Report). Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer.

< previous page

page_71

next page >

< previous page

page_72

next page > Page 72

Fierman, W. (1992) Language Planning and National Development: The Uzbek Experience. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fishman, J. (1983) Modeling rationales in corpus planning: Modernity and tradition in images of a good corpus. In J. Cobarrubias and J. Fishman (eds) Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives (pp. 10718). The Hague: Mouton. Gaudart, H. (1990) Ways of speaking Malaysian English and implications for language teaching. Paper presented at the 8th ASANAL Conference, Kuala Lumpur, May 2831. Government of Malaysia (1967) Report of the Royal Commission of Teaching Services (the Aziz Report): Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. Haugen E. (1972) Language planning in theory and practice. In E. Haugen (ed.) The Ecology of Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Husin Ali (1981) The Malays, Their Problems and Their Future. Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann. Jacobson, R. (1991) In search of status: Bahasa Malaysia for national unification. In U. Ammon and M. Hellinger (eds) Status Change of Languages (pp. 20028). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kok, W. K., Ling, L. S., Chua, J. M. and Yeoh, M. (1990) The Malausian Challenges for the 1990sStrategies for Growth and Development. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk. Li D. J. (1982) British Malaya: An Economic Analysis (2nd edition). Kuala Lumpur: Institute for Social Analysis. Lieberson, S. (1980) Procedures for improving sociolinguistic surveys of language maintenance and language shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25, 1127. Lim K. S. (1978) Time Bombs in Malaysia (Problems of Nation Building in Malaysia). Kuala Lumpur: Democratic Action Party. Loh, P. F-S. (1970) British educational strategy in the Malay states, 1874 to 1940. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Malaysian Business (October 5, 1992) Kuala Lumpur. Ongkili J. (1985) Nation-building in Malaysia, 19461974. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Ozóg *, A. C. K. (1990) The English language in Malaysia and its relationship with the national language. In R. Baldauf and A. Luke (eds) Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific (pp. 30518). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Platt, J. and Weber, H. (1980) English in Singapore and Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Rubin, J. and Jernudd, B. (1971) Can Language be Planned? Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Sadka, E. (1968a) Bilingual Education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk. Sadka, E. (1968b) The Protected Malay States 18741895. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malay Press. Solomon, J. S. (1988) Bilingual Education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk. Stevenson, R. (1975) Cultivators and Administrators: British Educational Policy Towards the Malays 18751906. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Turnbull, C. M. (1989) A History of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. Sydney: Allen and Unwin: Utusan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Wan Mohammed Zaid (1992) Keynote address. Paper presented at the conference on The Role of English a Language of Knowledge and as Resource for National Development. Universiti Utara Malaysia, October, 1992. Watson, K. (1982) Education and colonialism in peninsular Malaysia. In K. Watson (ed.) Education in the Third World (pp. 88107). London: Croom Helm. Wong, F. H. K. and Ee T. H. (1975) Education in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Heinemann. Woolard, K. (1986) The politics of language status planning: 'Normalization' in Catalonia. In N. Schweda-Nicholson (ed.) Languages in the International Perspective. Norwood: Ablex Publishers.

< previous page

page_72

next page >

< previous page

page_73

next page > Page 73

Two Tongue Tied: Bilingualism in Singapore Anne Pakir Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 0511 Abstract This paper examines the problems and issues connected with the implementation of the bilingual policy in Singapore which is a multiracial, multicultural and multilingual nation. Bilingualism in Singapore describes more than just a policy, a programme, a population, or a progression. It involves a major transformation since bilingualism is important insofar as English is 'claimed' as the cornerstone of that operation towards bilingual achievement. In other words, bilinguals in Singapore are increasingly English-knowing bilinguals. Some of the problems and issues connected to English-knowing bilingualism including language maintenance and shift and the inter-relationship between language and culture, are examined. The Importance of English-knowing Bilingualism 1 I shall begin by asserting the importance of bilingualism to Small Young Countries (SYCs)2. But it is not the general meaning of bilingualism which is to be understood here. The distinctive kind of bilingualism being referred to is peculiarly tied to knowledge of an international language, namely English, which will keep SYCs and/or global cities like Singapore thriving. According to John Naisbitt, author of the best-seller Megatrends and adviser to many of the world's leading corporations, one megatrend that can be easily identified is the use of English which is emerging as the language of the New World Order3. Next, I shall refer to the three-day visit to Brunei in 1989 by the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, who was invited to a royal birthday celebration. Lee, as reported in the Straits Times (2 August 1989) had described Brunei and Singapore as 'fragments of mankind' when compared to large countries like India and Indonesia, which could strive to be selfcontained. He had discussed Singapore's experience in language and education policy with his Bruneian hosts and said that small countries like

< previous page

page_73

next page >

< previous page

page_74

next page > Page 74

Singapore and Brunei 'had no alternative but to plug into the established international network, through the use of English'. At the same time, he stated that bilingualism 'should be promoted to prevent a gap forming between an English-educated elite and the rest of the population'. What interested me as a linguist was that the Straits Times reporter did not indicate what was meant by the term 'bilingualism' although it carried the heading: 'PM on the importance of bilingualism'. From the gist of the report, it could be construed that it was necessary for the entire population of a small country to be two tongue tied, using two (or more) languages, one its indigenous language (or languages) and the second an international language. In the case of Brunei and Singapore, two SYCs, English was the international language, and a kind of English-knowing bilingualism was implicit. The report went further to state that Lee had expressed 'an interest in how a young country like Brunei coped with the demands inherent in the process of opening up to the world through the use of English while retaining traditional values through the use of Malay'. From the above, it is rather clear that my intention in this paper is to deal with societal bilingualism, concentrating on the nature and type of a special bilingualism, i.e. English-knowing bilingualism. My claim here is that bilingualism in Singapore describes more than just 'a characterisation of individual linguistic versatility' (Fishman, 1972:102). Furthermore, it is more than just a policy, a programme, a population, or a progression 4. Bilingualism in Singapore involves a major transformation since it is important insofar as English is 'claimed' as the cornerstone of that operation towards bilingual achievement. In other words, Singapore bilinguals are increasingly English-knowing bilinguals. In Singapore the problems and issues connected to Englishknowing bilingualism revolve round language maintenance and shift and the interrelationship between language and culture. Bilingualism as the Transformation of a Society In Singapore, societal bilingualism has undergone a drastic change in terms of nature and type. It is a bilingualism that is accompanied by rising literacy rates in the population; and it is a bilingualism that correlates significantly with age-groups. The language environment has been so dramatically altered that individuals within the population could be said to have changed their verbal repertoires. For instance, Platt & Weber's 1980 description of the typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese (1980:139, see Table 1) can be considered inaccurate today, just eleven years later. Although the picture may hold true at present for Malaysian Chinese, or for older Singapore Chinese, it does not mirror the Singapore context of situation where, in a random survey of 62 students in the National University

< previous page

page_74

next page >

< previous page

page_75

next page > Page 75

Table 1 Typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese (Platt & Weber 1980:139) It usually includes It may include (a) the native Chinese dialect (e) English (b) the dominant Chinese dialect (f) Baba Malay (c) one or more additional (g) Bahasa Chinese dialects Malaysia/Malay (d) Bahasa Pasar (h) Mandarin of Singapore, I found that the typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean Chinese showed up in the simplified pattern in Table 2. Among the Chinese, who make up 77% of the population, the shift to English has been accompanied by a simultaneous language shift from other Chinese dialects towards Mandarin since 1979, when the Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched 5. Some official statistics on the languages spoken at home to indicate the massive language shifts are of interest as seen in Table 3 taken from the Census of Population 1990, Advance Data Release (1991:17). From this set of data, it is apparent that the use of English and Mandarin as home languages has increased. The percentage of households speaking English at home increased from 12% in 1980 to 20% in 1990. The percentage speaking Mandarin at home more than doubled from 10% to 26% while households with predominant use of 'Chinese Dialects' declined from 60% to 37%. However, the changes in predominant household language were more significant for the Chinese and Indian households than for Malay as indicated in Table 4, taken from the Census of Population 1990, Advance Data Release (1991:18). It was noted that 'Among Chinese households, there was a significant shift away from Chinese dialects towards the use of English and Mandarin as predominant household language. The use of Chinese dialects at home Table 2 Typical verbal repertoire of a Singapore Chinese undergraduate It usually includes It may include (a) English (d) another Chinese dialect (b) Mandarin (e) a foreign language (Japanese, French, German) (c) the native (f) Malay Chinese 'dialect'

< previous page

page_75

next page >

< previous page

page_76

next page > Page 76

Table 3 Predominant household language, 1980 and 1990 Language Per Cent 1980 1990 Total 100.0 100.0 English 11.6 20.3 Mandarin 10.2 26.0 Chinese dialects 59.5 36.7 Malay 13.9 13.4 Tamil 3.1 2.9 Others 1.7 0.7 Note: 1990 data are based on 10% sample Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore Table 4 Predominant household language by ethnic group 1980 and 1990 Language Per Cent 1980 1990 Chinese Households English Mandarin Chinese dialects Others

10.2 13.1 76.2 0.5

Malay Households English Malay Others

2.3 5.5 96.7 94.3 1.0 0.2

20.6 32.8 46.2 0.4

Indian Households English 24.3 34.8 Malay 8.6 13.5 Tamil 52.2 43.7 Others 14.9 8.0 Note: 1990 data are based on 10% sample Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore

< previous page

page_76

next page >

< previous page

page_77

next page > Page 77

dropped from 76% in 1980 to 46% in 1990. English-speaking Chinese households increased from 10% to 21% while those speaking Mandarin increased from 13% to 33%' (Advance Data Release, 1991:18). Examining the patterns among the Malays and the Indians, we find that 'The use of English as a predominant household language also increased among Malay and Indian households: 2% to 6% for the Malays and 24% to 35% for the Indians. The proportion speaking Tamil among Indian households dropped from 52% in 1980 to 44% in 1990, but the use of Malay increased slightly, from 9% to 14% in 1990. Malay remained as the predominant language of the Malay households' (Advance Data Release, 1991:18). The recent population statistics reveal that increasingly Singaporeans are becoming 'English-knowing' bilinguals. Whereas the older generation used to be bilingual in any two or more of the several language varieties, the younger generation Singaporeans tend to be bilingual with English as their common tongue. Correspondingly, they have begun to achieve a significant range and depth in their functional uses for English (see Pakir, 1991c:16779). Bilingualism in Singapore has involved a major transformation: being a Singapore bilingual today means having proficiency in English and one other official language, specifically one's ethnic mother tongue. Language Policy and the Bilingual Education Policy The policy regarding language is a major player in Singapore's management of success. Not surprisingly, the country's bilingual education provision for its young citizens, with English as a cornerstone of the bilingual education policy, is meant to further ensure this success. Singaporeans of all ethnic groups have undergone and will continue undergoing significant language shift towards English, a process which began with the inception of the official bilingual policy in 1956. The trend towards English became especially clear with dwindling enrolments in Chinese-medium, Malay-medium, and Tamil-medium schools. A national stream of education was introduced in 1987 by which English became the primary medium of instruction in all schools 6. Not surprisingly, the 'languages children speak at home' continue to come under close scrutiny by the Ministry of Education which is expected to provide guidelines for implementation of language policies. A further examination of the distribution of Primary One Chinese Pupils by first most frequently spoken language at home, 19801990, reveals that English has come to occupy a premier position, although over the general population, it is a predominant household language for only 20.3% (according to the 1990 Census data). Table 5 indicates a significant finding. The trends in the last five years (19861990) reveal that although the

< previous page

page_77

next page >

< previous page

page_78

next page > Page 78

Table 5 Distribution of Primary One Chinese pupils by first most frequently spoken language at home, 19801990 Dialect Mandarin English Others 25.9% 9.3% 0.3% 1980 64.4% 35.9% 10.7% 0.4% 1981 52.9% 44.7% 12.0% 0.5% 1982 42.7% 54.4% 13.4% 0.5% 1983 31.9% 58.7% 13.9% 0.4% 1984 26.9% 66.7% 16.9% 0.2% 1985 16.1% 67.1% 16.5% 0.3% 1986 16.1% 68.0% 19.1% 0.4% 1987 12.5% 9.5% 69.0% 21.0% 0.5% 1988 7.2% 69.1% 23.3% 0.4% 1989 5.6% 67.9% 26.2% 0.2% 1990 Source: Ministry of Education, Singapore Chinese dialect speakers (in the six-year old cohorts) are dwindling steadily, the gains are being made in favour of English rather than Mandarin. The Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched on September 7, 1979. In 1980, the Census showed that 64.% of the Primary 1 children (aged six years) spoke Chinese dialects ('Dialect') at home, 26% spoke Mandarin (not considered a 'Dialect'), and 9% spoke English. In 1990, it was clear that Mandarin had overtaken 'dialect' as the home language for Chinese students, with 68% speaking Mandarin and 6% speaking 'dialect', a complete reversal for Mandarin vs Dialect, after a decade. However, English had gained dramatically from 9% in 1980 to 26%, an increase of 17 percentage points. The implication here is that the switch to Mandarin from dialect-speaking homes has reached a maximum level against the trend for greater use of English. Based on the 1990 Primary 1 cohort (see Table 6), a further examination reveals another interesting pattern for English. The 1990 statistics for 38,259 six year old children in Singapore schools indicate that 'the most frequently spoken home language' is Mandarin (49.9%), followed by English (25%), Malay (18.0%), Chinese dialects (4.1%) and Tamil (2.3%). ('Chinese dialects' do not include Mandarin, which is the 'official language'). For Chinese pupils only, the most frequently spoken home language is Mandarin (68%), English (26%) Chinese dialects (5.6%). The comparable figures for 1980 (Chinese pupils only) indicate that 64% spoke Chinese dialects at home, compared to 25.9% who spoke Mandarin and the 9.3% who spoke English at home. These figures disclose a massive shift of language use from Chinese dialects in the home to Mandarin and/or English. 25.4% of the 1990 Primary 1 cohort (numbering 38,259) or a quarter of

< previous page

page_78

next page >

< previous page

page_79

next page > Page 79

Table 6 Languages children speak at home Race Most frequently spoken home language Chinese Malays Indians Others Overall 28,074 6,920 2,925 340 38,259 Total 26.2% 10.6% 46.6% 70.3% 25.4% English 67.9% 0.1% 0.4% 1.2% 49.9% Mandarin 0.2% 89.3% 19.4% 27.4% 18.0% Malay 30.0% 2.3% Tamil 5.6% 4.1% Dialects 3.5% 1.2% 0.1% Other languages 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: The Sunday Times, Singapore, November 18, 1990 these school children have English as the most frequently spoken home language, higher than the national average. However, Table 6 has a subset of figures for the second most frequently spoken home language where another 43.8% list English as the second most frequently spoken home language. Added together, the percentage of six year olds in 1990 who use English either as the most frequently spoken home language or the second most frequent home language is rather highalmost 35% (34.6%). In the case of Chinese pupils as a specific group, 26.2% list English as the most frequently spoken home language. For this group, the figures for English as either the most frequent or second most frequent home language add up to a 30 percentage point. And again for this group, Mandarin as the most frequent or second most frequent home language add up to 47% (46.95%), as against the national average of 26% for predominant household language. Compare the situation just a decade ago, where only 10% of Chinese pupils spoke English most frequently at home and 26% spoke Mandarin. In a matter of ten years, there has been a significant shift from other home languages (Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Hainanese, etc, or Malay, as in the case of the Peranakans) to English and Mandarin. This trend of greater English and Mandarin use among the Singapore Chinese will continue, barring any major reversal of policy. Table 6 gives us a picture of emerging cohorts of young citizens in Singapore becoming increasingly bilingual in the school or official languages, unlike their parents or grandparents whose bilingualism was of a different constitution and competency.

< previous page

page_79

next page >

< previous page

page_80

next page > Page 80

Literacy Rates by Age Group With the strategy of making the entire population literate in the school languages, trends and tendencies have shown up which point to the decline in use of the dialects. Literacy rates have gone up with the general upgrading of the educational level of Singaporeans. 'The general literacy rate rose from 84% in 1980 to 90% in 1990. The improved literacy rates have resulted from the government policy on bilingual education as well as the active promotion of continuing educational and training programmes for working adults, such as BEST (Basic Education for Skills Training) and WISE (Work Improvement in Secondary Education)' (Advance Data Release, 1991:16). It is reported that 'The increase in literacy was most significant for the Chinese. The literacy rate of the Chinese increased from 82% in 1980 to 90% in 1990, while that of the Malays increased from 87% to 92% and the Indians, 90% to 93%'. (Advance Data Release, 1991:16). With this increase in literacy rates for the Chinese, we see the significance of the statement that 'Literacy in English (English only or English and another language) increased from 56% in 1980 to 65% in 1990. Literacy in Chinese, Malay and Tamil did not change significantly during the last ten years. In 1990, literacy in the mother tongue of each of the three main ethnic groups remained as about the same level as in 1980 (see Table 7, taken from the Census of Population 1990, Advance Data Release, 1991:17). The implication here of course is that English will make a stronger impact since the readership and the writers' circles will widen at the expense of the other official languages. Singapore has a high literacy rate with under 23,000 of the population considered 'not literate'. The rest of the surveyed population (2,100,000) was literate. 10% (210,000), comprising the young section of the population Table 7 Literacy in official languages, 1980 and 1990 Language Per Cent Total 1980 1990 56.0 65.0 English 59.6 61.5 Chinese 16.6 16.0 Malay 3.3 3.4 Tamil Note: 1990 data are based on 10% sample Source: Department of Statistics, Singapore

< previous page

page_80

next page >

< previous page

page_81

next page > Page 81

(1019 years, 2029 years, and 3039 years) are bi-literate. This compares with the small percentage of bi-literates over 40 years (4049, 5059, over 60) who add up to 43,000 (i.e. 2%) of the population. The trends and tendencies are that those literate in two languages will increase in time to reach over 25%. The figures for both speaking and literacy levels indicate a major transformation for Singapore. Consequences of Major Language Shifts The consequences of major language shifts are, however, being examined in Singapore with questions of language and culture as central issues of concern. Real gaps between generations are obvious in terms of language use, language proficiency, and cultural values. However, more alarming, are the gaps which have recently received media attention regarding the divide between the English-educated and the Chinese-educated Singaporeans. In other words, the problems and issues connected to English-knowing bilingualism revolve round language maintenance and shift and the inter-relationship between language and culture. The commitment to bilingual education was to ensure that the younger generations would be bilingual in two of the official languages, the compulsory language being English. The goal was clearly that of having younger Singaporeans grow up with at least two of the official languages. The bilingual education policy has clearly raised the status of official languages in Singapore schools, although more so for English than for the other three official languages. More time is spent teaching languages than the other subjects at primary level; language examinations are important since the results are taken into account by the gatekeepers at the institutions of higher learning. Education was a political football during the turbulent years of managing multilingual instruction in schools in the early experience of self-government. Political expediency prevailed in the earlier years of the birth of bilingualism and functional rationality prevails currently. The commitment to bilingual education in the past three decades included the following goals: effective bilinguals, the use of English as a link language, and the decrease in the use of non-official languages. However, some of the goals had unexpected outcomes. After thirty years, the results were: receptive bilinguals, and the dominance of English. What are the consequences for Singapore, emphasising English as much as she does? Apart from the expected, viz. English has served Singapore well, enabling it to absorb information and technology from the West, helping it to keep ahead of the newlyindustrialising countries, and making it attractive to foreign investors, other outcomes were: (1) the creation of an Englishspeaking elite whose absorption of other than Asian values through the English language has become a matter of concern; (2) the noticeable increasing divide between the so-called Chinese-educated vis-à-

< previous page

page_81

next page >

< previous page

page_82

next page > Page 82

vis the English-educated; and (3) the establishment of Singapore English as a new non-native variety serving both High and Low functions in the society and as an agent for forging a new Singaporean identity. For this paper, I will examine only the first and second phenomena 7de-asianisation (or pseudo-westernisation) among the English-educated whose principal home language is English and the sentiments of the Chinese educated vis-à-vis the English-educated. The first phenomenon touches on the question of language and culture in Singapore which is open to outside influences via English; (making the country soft-shelled) and second touches on the potential disharmonynot between an English-educated elite and the rest of the population, but within the Chinese majority group itself. Soft-shelled Singapore It was inevitable that the formulation and co-ordination of policies on the use and promotion of English would make Singapore an extremely soft-shelled community8. The increase in the use of Englisha language of wider communicationhas left Singaporeans open to outside influences, a fact bought about through improved mass communications, through participation in information technology, and through increased travel and trade opportunities. Singapore's four official languagesEnglish, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamilhave native-speaking centres outside the country (Gupta, 1985; Kuo, 1985; Platt, 1985). While access to Asian cultures and communities via the other official languages is welcome, the concern about too much westernisation introduced with English was raised by the then Prime Minister in August 1988 when he addressed the students at the National University of Singapore. He believed, however, that the problem was evident only at the top layer of Singapore society. He said: Only the highly educated have that degree of bi-culturalism where they are more Western than Eastern. . . . In the middle and the lower ranges, it's still very much an Asian society . . . The problem is going to be acute over the next 10, 15 years . . . If we are unconscious of the stimulus that's working on us, that makes us automatically accept certain norms of behavior as desirablebecause the people who behave like that are successful, or apparently successfulthen we are at risk of losing that set of core values and unconsciously absorbing one which is not suitable to us as a people and to our environment. (The Straits Times, 30 August 1988) It was noted that Indians and Malays had changed less than ChineseMalays were least under assault by Western influence because they had their religion Islam; Indians still observed their customs and attended their temples (see The Straits Times, 30 August 1988:13). In the same newspaper report, the Prime Minister sounded a dire warning: it was 'vital to preserve our Asian qualities or we are lost'.

< previous page

page_82

next page >

< previous page

page_83

next page > Page 83

In an interview with three Taiwanese journalists (reported in The Straits Times, 11 March 1989), the then Prime Minister said that if he had had the chance to go back to 1965 or 1970, he would have kept the Chinese primary school, increased the English in it as the second language, and encouraged parents to send their children to the Chinese language school. Then, he would have given an additional year (either at primary or secondary level) to help the average student change from Chinese as First Language learning to English as First Language learning. In very unequivocal terms, he acknowledged the role of Chinese schools in transmitting the core values of a Chinese society and preserving the characteristics of Chinese Singaporeans 9. The programme to retain and strengthen Singaporeans' Asian values had to begin at primary school level. At a 1989 parliamentary debate (20 March 1989), the then Minister of Education revealed that ten primary schools in Singapore rather than just four (as previously implemented in 1987) would offer Chinese as First Language (CL1) and English as First Language (EL1) simultaneously in order to inculcate Asian traditional values through CL1. Offers were also made to Malay and Tamil communitiesif there were to be a demand for learning Malay and Tamil as First Languages too. The policy of having Chinese as Second Language (CL2), Malay as Second Language (ML2) and Tamil as Second Language (TL2) serve as counters to westernisation and for preserving cultural roots did not work; relegating these languages to Second Language (L2) status may have had a part in influencing present developments vis-à-vis English. Language planners are aware that status is a relative concept and may be advanced and diminished by degrees. For many languages, status changes are nearly always very slow, if not imperceptible. However, Singapore has improved the status of English dramatically over the others in one generation. Moreover, the loss in status of the other Chinese dialects (when Mandarin was made the official 'language' and 'ethnic mother tongue' of the Chinese) is also a factor to be considered in the desinicisation of the Chinese. The highly publicised Speak Mandarin Campaign (which started in 1979) has been highly successful. The goal of making Mandarin the lingua franca of Chinese Singaporeans has been reached: there is wider use of Mandarin (an official 'language' in place of the Chinese 'dialects'). The attempt to make Chinese Singaporeans Mandarin-speaking in such a short span of time had another unexpected effect. The carpet has been pulled out under the feet of many 'dialect'-speaking Chinese who may want to impart traditional Chinese values to their children or grandchildren in languages which have lost status in the country. In the past, traditional Chinese values were handed down from 'dialect'-speaking parents to their children. The lesson to be taken is that the school or official languages which were not the home languages for the older generation have not been successful in imparting traditional values to their learners. It is significant that the Malay-speaking and the Tamil-speaking were observed to have

< previous page

page_83

next page >

< previous page

page_84

next page > Page 84

kept their customs and ways amidst change in linguistic habits, and have been slower to change. If it is believed that language is not synonymous with culture but is closely related to it, then the boundaries maintained by the ethnic languages should be strengthened: linguistic habits of the speakers of languages other than English should be fostered for all languages and dialects found in soft-shelled Singapore. Potential Disharmony One other problem was that of potential disharmony between two groups in the majority population: the Chinese-educated who went to Chinese-medium schools and the English-educated. This potential problem was not ethnic but language-based. In the colonial period of the 1940s there were approximately 70,000 students in Chinese medium schools compared to 63,000 in English medium ones. With their different orientations and curricula (and even schools terms and holidays) these schools produced environments which undoubtedly had rather different influences on their students. However, with the attempts at integration in multi-stream schools from the 1960s, and the decline in enrolment (down to less than 1% in 1984) in non-English medium schools, the Prime Minister was certain that: In the generation that is under forty years, the differences between the Chinese educated and the English educated have been blended and blurred by interaction in integrated schools, the schools that first started to teach Chinese-stream and English-stream students in the same school. Then there were many integrated families where some children went to English-stream and others went to Chinese-stream schools. So the cultural differences have almost disappeared. (Lee Kuan Yew, 1984; as cited by Puru Shotam, 1989:516) In the 1990s, there are indications that the rigorous promotion of the official languages has had cross-over effects. It is well known that the television drama series aired in Mandarin and then dubbed in English or aired in English first and then aired in Mandarin have followings among the English-educated as well as the Chinese-educated. Then we have the phenomenon of the English educated beginning to cope in Mandarin for Singapore Broadcasting Corporation Mandarin programmes. There are also reports that some of the English-educated are taking up Chinese opera in Singapore. However, in order to discover whether the Chinese and the English-speaking majority group feel differently, we should turn briefly to two recent studies on language and ethnicity; one by a cultural/anthropological student researcher 10 and the other by a linguistics student researcher. The first is Jean Khoo's 'Once a Chinese, always a Chinese: Education and Ethnicity among the Chinese in Singapore' (1990). The second is Lionel Wee's 'Language and Identity among first-year Chinese undergraduates in Singapore' (1990).

< previous page

page_84

next page >

< previous page

page_85

next page > Page 85

In their separate and different studies, supervised in different departments (the first in Sociology, the second in English Language and Literature) and employing different strategies, both came to almost the same conclusionsthat Chinese Singaporeans, although having the same ethnicity, are not a homogeneous group. Furthermore, for the Chinese-educated, the Chinese language is seen as the most important factor in establishing and transmitting Chinese identity; for the Englisheducated, other markers of Chinese identity, rather than language, are more important (for example, descent, surname, Chinese customs and beliefs). Although the number of 40 informants (in Khoo's study) and 50 (in Wee's study) presents the problem of representativeness, the informants were carefully selected in each case to overcome the problem. Based on her indepth interview study of the Chinese educated Chinese and the English educated Chinese, Khoo concludes that 'These two groups have gone through two different educational systems which stressed different value orientations. Consequently, both groups have not only been imbued with different perceptions of their own ethnic identity but also of each other's ethnic identity' (1990:vi). She reports that, based on the interviews, the two groups have formed stereotypes of each other: 'the Chinese educated are seen to be ''conservative" and "traditional" while the English-educated are seen to be "westernoriented and modern" (Khoo, 1990:24). Wee's study focusing on the varying perceptions of ethnicity, as well as different attitudes and values of the Chinese, shows that 'the Mandarin-speaking respondents tended to associate Mandarin with the maintenance of Chinese roots, being critical of those who are not familiar with the language, while the English-speaking respondents seems less inclined to associate Mandarin with the maintenance of roots, and certainly appear more tolerant of those who do not speak it' (Wee, 1990:60). In the light of these findings, one would not expect to find a blurring of lines, a diffusion of boundaries between the two groups. However, as revealed in the apt title of her academic exercise, 'Once a Chinese, always a Chinese', Khoo discloses that there were core values which were adhered to by the two groups. The core ethnic markers identified by both groups of informants are (i) descent (ii) values, especially 'filial piety; (iii) the need to celebrate festivals particularly Chinese New Year (Khoo, 1990:37). Although the areas of differences between the predominantly Mandarin-speaking and the predominantly English-speaking were great, areas of affinity were pointed out in Wee's study. Similarities in perceptions included the importance of being born of Chinese parents in order to be considered a Chinese, the low value attached to the ability to speak the non-official Chinese dialects (itself a result of the highly successful Speak Mandarin Campaign 1979present), the tendency in both groups to show a trend towards individuality (which in this case means the reluctance to give full priority to the family unit) and, most important, the perception which both groups have regarding English. English has essentially a utilitarian value

< previous page

page_85

next page >

< previous page

page_86

next page > Page 86

associated with social mobility and transactional convenience (Wee, 1990:601). With the increase in the uses and users of English in Singapore, and its rising status, what seems at stake here is the changing disposition of the majority group in Singapore, the ethnic Chinese. The English-educated who obviously lead the country in its high-level information technology enterprises and the Chinese-educated who represent, on several levels, traditional Chinese culture are perceptibly different because of their different languages and worldviews. Tradition and its converse, change, are encapsulated and defined along linguistic lines: English for the new technoscape; Mandarin for time-honoured cultural habits and mores for Singapore's majority ethnic group. Such an agenda, for any country, is ambitious. In the wake of the recent general elections in Singapore (August 1991) there has been extensive coverage in the mass media of the sentiments of the Chinese-educated. Deputy Prime Minister Ong recognised that 'If the Government only wishes to fulfill the needs and aspirations of the English-educated and only develop one aspect of the society and is biased against the others, then it may lose the support of the others'. (Ong as reported in the Straits Times, 18 September 1991). Again, in Singapore, language and education have become bones of contention in that political management of them has given rise to different kinds of bilinguals, the predominantly English-bilingual versus the predominantly Mandarin-bilingual. Conclusion In Singapore, 'bilingualism' is peculiarly defined as proficiency in English and in one other official language of the country (Tay, 1983:176). This had led to the phenomenon which I have described as 'English-knowing bilingualism' (Pakir, 1991a:11120) with its attendant and sometimes unexpected consequences. Over a period of time, in line with modernisation and the technologising of the island through English, the language has assumed an importance in status and position not shared by the other co-official languages. The management of success in Singapore is directly related to the ascendancy of English in the world today and the widespread use of the language in Singapore, allowing it to plug itself into the international grid of business and finance. In other words, 'the central position of English in Singapore is cause and effect' (Edwin Thumboo, personal communication). English is responsible for the new technoscape in Singapore having brought phenomenal changes in the land and fortunes of the people. The language policies that have shaped modern Singapore have been the result of either political expediency, functional rationality or, at times, both in combination. One would expect to see some difficulties in intra-ethnic relations for those who belong to the same ethnic groups but had their education in different languages. The recent and relevant studies in linguis-

< previous page

page_86

next page >

< previous page

page_87

next page > Page 87

tics and cultural anthropology have shown that ethnicity and language are crucially interlinked in the world view of the Chinese educated; whereas it is less so for the Chinese who are English-educated. However, there has been a reduction of friction between the two groups as compared to the past. This blurring of distinctions is also the cause and effect of the creation of a Singaporean identity, which has to take cognisance first, of the Malay world Singapore is right in the middle of, and of the larger world for economic survival. In sum, the phenomenon of bilingualism cannot be examined separately from the existing parameters of race and/or ethnic identification, culture, religion, language and power structures, the history and geography of the country. Ultimately, Singapore will remain a soft-shelled community, highly open to outside influences that come with official languages which have native-speaker centres outside of the country. Moreover, multilingualism as a model in the nation has led to the extremely high linguistic thresholds that most multilinguals in the world have, and these may also be responsible for the high cultural thresholds experienced in inter-community discourses and interactions. Furthermore, with English being used 'with equal confidence' (Edwin Thumboo, personal communication) by the elite and by those on the lower cline of proficiency such differences will indeed get blurred especially when linguistic thresholds are already high. Intra-community discourse, among the Chinese, based on different language experiences, may affect the sub-groups' mutual perceptions of each other but pose no obstacle to their idea of a common ethnicity. Besides, the Chinese are also increasingly using English as an additional intralanguage among themselves. In the tourist slogan of 'Surprising Singapore' there is more than meets the eye: everyday social exchange processes, and cause and effect processes, are at work to make this an island of contradictions. Singapore is small but has assumed an importance out of proportion to its size. Singapore is trying very hard to establish a national identity while at the same time urging its people to be global and cosmopolitan. Contemporary Singapore with a view point to the future strives to evolve excellence in education, where political expediency outran functional rationality in the earlier years and the seeds of compromise had already been sown. On this island where several possible paradoxical situations obtain, language and linguistic policies sometimes result in policy failure in part but educational success on the whole. The bilingual policy (with shifting emphases in different periods, whether orchestrated or unplanned) has affected the character of Singapore society today, allowing it to move forward in information and technology enterprises. Yet, there is the growing concern that traditional values and belief systems may have been sacrificed somewhat along the way. In attempting to redress the problems and imbalances of the past regarding language policies, the future character of Singapore society may again be transformed. A new generation gap may once again open if a major policy

< previous page

page_87

next page >

< previous page

page_88

next page > Page 88

shift affecting the Chinese takes placethat of changing the main medium of education to Mandarin as a first language (see Khoo, 1990:2021). Trying to strike the perfect balance in achieving effective bilinguals capable of binocular vision for the entire population, the policy shiftif it is implementedmay affect again the current state of equilibrium. What has gone unnoticed is that, culturally pluralistic, the members of the populationincreasingly English-bilingualmay create yet another culture, which is a combination of the multi-cultures present in the society, but carried by the English language. While there have been various attempts to make bilingualism work in Singapore at several levelspolicy-making, educational implementation, curriculum planning, parental supportbasic data in a nation-wide survey have yet to be gathered and analysed. The role-quality, nature and consequence of bilingual competence in education will have to be studied in greater depth. Singapore cannot afford to be not a bilingual society. A Small Young Country, it has to be two tongue-tied, and cannot but spend resources to build up future resources. Notes 1. 'English-knowing bilingualism' a term first used by Kachru (1983:402), is particularly relevent to Singapore where in 1956, Lee Kuan Yew, chief visionary of the language policies in the country, had recommended bilingualism (English and a mother tongue) for all primary schools, and trilingualism (with the addition of Malay) for secondary ones. The phenomenal rise and spread of English in the world in this century coincided with the newly developing country's preference for using English as a 'working language', so much so that English is widely used throughout the Republic today, and there is a substantial population of English-knowing bilinguals here. 2. Strictly speaking, Brunei cannot be considered as a SYC. Its present ruler 'His Majesty Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah, the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam, is the 29th of his line, which dates back to the fourteenth century'. (Brunei Darussalam in Brief, 1991:5). Furthermore, its size, compared to Singapore, is comparatively large (ten times that of Singapore). However, SYC is used here as a convenient shorthand to refer to smaller nation-states coming into their own in this century. 3. The term 'New World Order' is used by Naisbitt to refer to 'democratic states associating with one another in creative ways' (Straits Times report, 24 September 1991). 4. In making the distinction between bilingualism and diglossia, Fishman asserts that 'bilingualism is essentially a characterisation of individual linguistic versatality, whereas diglossia is a characterisation of the social allocation of functions to different languages or varieties' (Fishman, 1972:102). Whereas this distinction is useful in comparing states of bilingualism with or without diglossia, the term societal bilingualism (dealt extensively by Fishman) would imply 'understanding what linguistic forces are present in a community, their interrelationships, the degree of connection between political, economic, social, educative and cultural forces and language'. (Baetens Beardsmore, 1986:4) 5. In his speech at the inaugural Speak Mandarin Campaign Launching Ceremony (7 September 1979), Lee was hopeful that 'within five years, once parents have decided that their children's learning load must be lessened by dropping dialect and concentrating on English-Mandarin, we can dramatically alter the language environment' (Speak Mandarin Campaign Launching Speeches, 1989:11).

< previous page

page_88

next page >

< previous page

page_89

next page > Page 89

6. For an account of the evolution of the bilingual education policy and milestones in the English language policy which has increased the status of English, please refer to Pakir, 1991b:11927. 7. Parts of this section have been published in 'Bilingualism in Singapore: Tradition and Change among the Chinese' (Pakir, 1991b:11745). 8. Saville-Troike maintains an informal typology of speech communities as 'hard-shelled' versus 'soft-shelled', distinguishable 'on the basis of the strength of the boundary that is maintained by language: the "hard-shelled" community has of course the stronger boundary, allowing minimal interaction between members and those outside, and providing maximal maintenance of language and culture'. (1982:20). Japan, Mongolia, and Korea are examples of hard-shelled communities in Asia. 9. Ten years earlier, in a post-script to his address to the Historical Society, Nanyang University (February 10, 1978) expressing concern regarding the kind of people and society that Singapore will have, the then Prime Minister had urged the study of 'mother tongues' to maintain traditional value systems: If economics were the only consideration, then there should be no need for concern that nearly all parents are choosing English schooling for their children. But with the study and use of a language, one understands and absorbs its culture, its value systems and philosophy of life of the people who speak and write or wrote in that language. We have developed and progressed not because we were a Western occidental-type society, but because we were an Asian, oriental-type society, hardworking, thrifty and disciplined, a people with Asian values, strong family ties and responsibility for the extended family which is a common feature of Asian cultures, whether Chinese, Malay or Indian. That we can also and do use English is an added advantage. 10. I am grateful to my Sociology colleague, Tong Chee Kiong, for pointing out that he was supervising this academic exercise (an honours years thesis) while I was simultaneously supervising a master's thesis on a similar topic. This is the best kind of inter-disciplinary exchange when independent studies investigating the same phenomenon in different disciplines and using different methodologies come to the same findings and conclusions. References Advance Data Release, (1991) Census of Population 1990 (1991) Education and Languages (pp. 1318). Singapore: Department of Statistics. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986) Bilingualism: Basic Principles (2nd edn). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Brunei Darussalam in Brief (1991) (3rd edn) Brunei Darussalam: Broadcasting and Information Department, PMO. Chua, Kwee-Fah (1984) A review of policy statements and research on bilingual education in Singapore Schools. Master's dissertation. Singapore: Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore. Costello, R. B. (1991) (ed.) Random House Webster's College Dictionary. New York: Random House. Fishman, Joshua A. (1972) The Sociology of Language: An Interdisciplinary Social Science Research to Language in Society. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Goh, Keng-Swee and the Education Study Team (1979) Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. Singapore: Singapore National Printers. Gupta, A. F. (1985) Language planning in the ASEAN countries. In D. Bradley (ed.) Language Policy, Language Planning and Sociolinguistics in Southeast Asia. Pacific Linguistics 9, 114. Kachru, Braj B. (1983) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Khoo Swee Hoon, Jean (1990) Once a Chinese, always a Chinese: Education and ethnic identity among the Chinese in Singapore. Academic Exercise. Singapore: Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore.

< previous page

page_89

next page >

< previous page

page_90

next page > Page 90

Khoo, Chian-Kim. (1981) Census of Population 1980, Singapore. Release No. 8: Languages Spoken at Home. Singapore: Department of Statistics. Kuo, C. Y. Eddie. (1985) Languages and identity: The case of Chinese in Singapore. In W. Tseng and D. Wu (eds) Chinese Culture and Mental Health. New York: Academic Press. Monthly Collection of Ministerial Speeches 19781991. Policy speeches. Singapore: Ministry of Culture. Pakir, Anne (1989) The role of language planning in education in Singapore. Paper presented at the Third Tun Abdul Razak Conference on Language Planning in Southeast Asia, 12 April 1989. Ohio University, United States. Pakir, Anne (1991a) The status of English and the question of 'standard' in Singapore: A sociolinguistic perspective. In Makhan L. Tickoo (ed.) Languages and Standards: Issues, Attitudes, Case Studies (pp. 10930). Anthology Series 26. Singpore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Pakir, Anne (1991b) Bilingualism in Singapore: Tradition and change among the Chinese. Metamorphosis in Asia, Journal of the Institute for Asian Studies 18, 11745. Pakir, Anne (1991c) The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World EnglishesJournal of English as an International and Intranational language. 10, 2, 16779. Platt, J. and Weber, Heidi (1980) English in Singapore and Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Platt, J. (1985) Bilingual policies in a multilingual society: Reflections of the Singapore Mandarin campaign in the English language press. In D. Bradley (ed.) Language Policy, Language Planning and Sociolinguistics in Southeast Asia. Pacific Linguistics 9, 1530. Puru Shotam, Nirmala (1989) Language and linguistic policies. In K. S. Sandhu and P. Wheatley (eds) The Management of Success. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Puru Shotam, Nirmala, Report of the All-Party Committee of the Singapore Legislative Assembly on Chinese Education. (1956) Ministry of Education. Singapore: Singapore Government Printing Office. Saville Troike, Muriel (1982) The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Speak Mandarin Campaign Launching Speeches (19791989) Singapore: Ministry of Communications and Information. Straits Times. (19811991) Singapore. Tay, Mary, W. J. (1983) The uses, users and features of English in Singpore. In J. B. Pride (ed.) New Englishes (pp. 5170). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Wee Hock Ann, Lionel (1990) Language and ethnicity among first-year Chinese undergraduates in Singapore. Master's dissertation. Singapore: Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore. Yew, Lee Kuan (1978) Bilingualism in our society. Text of a discussion on television with the Prime Minister, April 6, 1978. Singapore: Ministry of Culture.

< previous page

page_90

next page >

< previous page

page_91

next page > Page 91

How Not to Embark on a Bilingual Education Policy in a Developing Nation: The Case of Nigeria J. A. Oladejo Department of Language and Communication Studies, Papua New Guinea University of Technology, Lae, Papua New Guinea Abstract This paper traces the origin and development of bilingual education in Nigeria. Necessary facilities for a successful implementation of a bilingual education policy in a developing country such as Nigeria are discussed. The paper argues that, although there was a genuine need for Nigeria to embark on a bilingual education policy in the first place, the policy adopted was, however, too ambitious and unrealistic. It is further argued that, due to lack of foresight and inadequate planning, certain fundamental issues were ignored which were essential for the policy to succeed. Consequently, the difficulties being experienced now with its implementation are only a prelude to a predictable total demise of the policy. Introduction There is probably no country today which does not have some kind of language planning or some organised effort aimed at either preventing or solving already existing language related social problems. It is probably axiomatic also that language conflicts would always arise whenever people from different language backgrounds come into contact. Not only do the abstract linguistic systems in contact create conflicts but also the attitudes and perceptions of their speakers often differ considerably too. Consequently, language contact may generate purely linguistic conflicts leading to what Weinreich (1953) describes as interference, or it may create purely social conflict involving the ideological, social, political and economic values which different speakers attach to their languages (Haarmann, 1990). Of these two types of conflict, the latter is probably better known and is not a concern of linguists alone, but also of scholars in other disciplines such as Sociology, History and Politics. Language planning activities in different countries of the world often require the involvement of formal education,

< previous page

page_91

next page >

< previous page

page_92

next page > Page 92

partly as a focus of language planning itself and partly as a vehicle for the implementation of the plans. In this paper, I shall examine language and language education policies in Nigeria, with a view to identifying some of the problems that face the implementation of these policies in the country, and, by extension, in other countries of Africa and Asia, whose ethno-linguistic backgrounds may be similar to that of Nigeria. It should be made clear from the outset that the term bilingual shall be used in this paper in the way both Mackey (1962:51) and Weinreich (1953:5) have used it, namely, as a simple way of referring to the existence in a society of two or more languages. But in addition, I shall also use it in the sense Aucamp (1926) (in Beziers & Van Overbeke (1968:113) uses it to imply the presence in one single speaker of two or more languages. Thus my use of the term here may imply any or all of what is sometimes referred to in the literature as bilingualism, multilingualism, or plurilingualism, be it in a social context or in the individual language speaker (i.e. societal bilingualism and individual bilingualism) (Baetens-Beardsmore, 1982). The adoption of a single term here is to avoid any possible confusion in nomenclature, since what is often referred to as bilingualism often implies multilingualism too. The Linguistic Situation in Nigeria To further set the ground for this paper, it is relevant to examine very briefly the background to the present linguistic situation and the language policy of Nigeria. As in many other bilingual African and Asian nations today, the existence of a bilingual and bi-cultural society called Nigeria is one of the legacies of colonialism. Thus although small-scale ethno-linguistic pluralism might have been entrenched in some of the precolonial kingdoms, empires and emirates, none of these small states could have hoped to develop into a complex geopolitical entity of the size of the present-day Nigeria. The scramble for and partitioning of Africa, and particularly the amalgamation in 1914 of the Lagos, and Southern colonies with the Northern protectorate to form the present-day Nigeria, therefore, brought together for the first time several ethnic groups and languages (some of which have their own numerous dialects). Today, with an estimated total of about 400 languages, Nigeria is, no doubt, one of the most linguistically complex nations in Africa. During the struggle for independence, and especially in the campaign for the first general election in 1960, controversy raged over which one of the major languages should be designated the national language of Nigeria. But probably because of the politically sensitive nature of the problem; and in order not to play into the hands of the colonial masters, the different political parties seemed to have reached a tacit agreement to shelve the matter. It was not until 1977 that the first deliberate attempt was made to address the language problem in the country, through the formulation of

< previous page

page_92

next page >

< previous page

page_93

next page > Page 93

the Federal Republic of Nigeria National Policy on Education. Although the policy focuses on education in general, and reference is made to language only in a few lines, it is the first, (and still the only official) document, which has attempted to deliberately assign roles to languages in the education system. By 1979, when a new Constitution was being adopted for the nation, further attempts were made to delineate the specific functions and status of languages in national/official matters in the country, particularly in the legislative assemblies. A brief quotation of the relevant parts of both the 1977 National Policy on Education (henceforth the NPE) and the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (henceforth the Constitution) is in order here. Section 1 paragraph 8 of the NPE states as follows: In addition to appreciating the importance of language in the educational process, and as a means of preserving the people's culture, the Government considers it to be m the interest of national unity that each child should be encourated to learn one of the three major languages other than his own mother tongue. In this connection, the Government considers the three major languages in Nigeria to be Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. Section 3:15 (4) of the document states further: Government will see to it that the medium of instruction in the primary school is initially the mother tongue or the language of the immediate community, and at a later stage, English. For its part, the Constitution states in paragraph 51 as follows: The business of the National Assembly shall be conducted in English language, and in Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba when adequate arrangements have been made thereof. Paragraph 91 of the Constitution adds that: The business of a House of Assembly shall be conducted in English, but the House may in addition to English conduct the business of the House in one or more other languages spoken in the State as the House may by resolution adopt. 1 In a nutshell, the provisions in both the NPE and the Constitution seem to be deliberate attempts to ensure that the unique position occupied by the English language in the affairs of the country is shared with some of the indigenous languages. More importantly, the language policy represented by these provisions aims at accommodating at least three main interests. First is the interest of mother tongue and culture, through the use of the language of the child's immediate community at the initial stage of primary education. Second is to ensure national unity or at least prevent national disintegration which could arise as a result of linguistic differences. Third, the policy aims at tapping into the modern world of science and technology, through the retention of English for formal education beyond the initial

< previous page

page_93

next page >

< previous page

page_94

next page > Page 94

stage of the primary level. Obviously, taken at their face values, these objectives look attractive and they are desirable for building of a modern society that is not culturally anemic. But how successful is the language policy? Perhaps, it is only now, almost one and a half decades since the NPE was formulated, that one can begin to assess its impact on the linguistic situation of the country. The State of the Art Although the 1977 NPE and the 1979 Constitution both contain provisions aimed at defining and fine tuning the status and roles of languages in political, educational, and consequently, social matters in Nigerians, virtually nothing has changed as far as the roles and status of languages in the country is concerned, despite the provisions of the two documents quoted above. Adopting the framework used by Tay (1979), the following brief discussion of the present roles and status of languages in Nigeria will make the point clearer. First, although Nigeria has no publicly declared language for the expression of national identity, English is, for all practical purposes, the national language of the country. English is also the official language, even though the language policy represented by the relevant parts of both the NPE and the Constitution implicitly suggests that this role should be shared with the three major indigenous Nigerian languages, namely, Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. Thus English is the de facto, if not the de jure, official language of Nigeria. It is the language of administration, particularly at the Federal and States levels, and only at the local government level is this function shared with some of the dominant indigenous languages. Even so, English is the preferred language except where the intended goal will not be adequately served by that language, and particularly when the objective is to reach out to the largely illiterate population. In addition, English is the only language of justice except, again, at the local government level where the local indigenous languages are also used along with English. English is the main working language in both public and private sectors in Nigeria, except for small family businesses. It is also the language of formal education. Although the NPE stipulates the use of the language of the immediate community in the early stage of primary education, it is common knowledge that, in general, only English is used right from the primary level through to the tertiary. It has been noted that teachers, especially those in the primary school, tend to revert to indigenous languages in attempts to clarify points to their pupils in the course of teaching (Afolayan, 1979). While this observation is generally true, care should be taken not to interpret this as implementation of the provision of the NPE. Such teachers most probably resort to indigenous languages only to compensate for their own incompetence in the English language. In addition to its dominant role in administration, justice, commerce,

< previous page

page_94

next page >

< previous page

page_95

next page > Page 95

and the public service, English is also the language of inter-ethnic communication in Nigeria. Being the only language spoken across the length and breadth of the country, English is the natural language any two Nigerians meeting for the first time would employ for the exchange of greetings. 2 The various indigenous languages are used mainly for intra-ethnic communication, religion, and as home languages. In essence, the indigenous Nigerian languages still remain in their traditional positions and they perform virtually the same roles as ever before, despite the language policy which was ostensibly formulated to change the situation. Worse still, with formal education reaching more and more people, the roles of the indigenous languages in religion and in the home is fast diminishing. It should not be surprising therefore to find many homes, particularly in the urban centres, where the children do not speak nor understand the languages of their parents. Nor should one be amazed to run into religious functions in which English is the language spoken all through. It follows from the above that the position and roles of different languages in Nigeria can hardly be said to have been changed by the language policy provisions contained in both the NPE and the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it was not until January 1991 that any concrete step was taken towards the implementation of the provisions of the NPE in respect of the teaching and learning of the three major indigenous Nigerian languages in primary schools. Even so, the attempt is already proving to be an experiment which has had more than its normal share of difficulties. Given the present situation, one must be a stubborn optimist to believe that the experiment can succeed. Similarly, with regard to the adoption of indigenous languages in the legislative assemblies, it is a well known fact that this too was not successfully implemented during the short-lived civilian administration of 1989 to 1983. Adegbija (1989), Akinnaso (1989) and Bamgbose (1991) have suggested some insightful reasons for the failure of the language policy in this connection. In sum, it is no exaggeration to say that the Nigerian attempt to formulate and implement a coherent bilingual education policy has so far been an exercise in futility. Why then has this been so? Answers to this question constitute the main thrust of this paper. It should be stressed at this point that, in line with the title of this paper, the rest of the paper will focus only on the language policy in relation to education. In other words, aspects of the language policy relating to the failure to adopt it during the life of the defunct National Assembly will not be discussed here. Bilingual Education Policy: What Went Wrong Aspects of bilingualism which must be considered as contributory to the success of any bilingual education policy include its sociology, psychology, linguistics and pedagogy. For any bilingual education programme to be

< previous page

page_95

next page >

< previous page

page_96

next page > Page 96

successfully implemented, therefore, all of these factors must favour the existence of such a programme in the first place. A careful examination of the ways and manners in which the Nigerian bilingual education programme was embarked upon clearly reveals that none of these vital factors was in its favour. The bilingual education policy is characterised by a lack of sensitivity to its environment, built-in loopholes, lack of precision, and a seeming lack of foresight, all of which combine to ensure the failure of the policy, even before it could be implemented. First, the loopholes and imprecision. Section 1 paragraph 8 of the NPE states inter alia: 'each child should be encouraged to learn one of the three major languages other than his own mother tongue' (italics mine for emphasis). The phrase 'should be encouraged' can be interpreted to mean that it is desirable, but not compulsory, for every child to learn one of the major languages other than his own mother tongue; and it is not difficult to imagine that this is the interpretation the average person would like to give it for obvious reasons. After all, any learning is a task, and nobody would like to engage in a task, unless there is an obvious reason for doing so. In this particular situation, what makes such an interpretation more attractive is the fact that the policy statement does not contain any incentive to entice the would be learner, nor is any penalty entrenched within it to deter any violation. Whether such a loose interpretation is what the originators of the policy intended or not is a matter for debate. But one thing is clear: a policy meant to be taken seriously by the people cannot afford to be couched in such a language that makes it so easy for the intended populace to manoeuvre. A second loose end in the policy is contained in the same section 1 paragraph 8: 'Government considers it in the interest of national unity that each child should be encouraged to learn one of the three major languages'. The policy statement does not continue to make pronouncements on who is to do the job of encouraging the child, when, where, and how it is to be done. It is interesting also to note that while the policy states that each child should be encouraged to learn one of the major languages, no one is sure whether this should also commence at the initial stage of primary education, and if so, whether it should continue at the second stage, or even beyond it. Another flaw which may have contributed to the failure of the bilingual education policy is contained in Section 3.15 paragraph 4 of the NPE. This section states that: 'Government will see to it that the medium of instruction in the primary school is initially the mother tongue or the language of the immediate community, and, at a later stage, English' (italics mine for emphasis). What the phrases 'initially' and 'at a later stage' mean are, again, open to different interpretations. Whether the initial stage corresponds to the first three years of the six years of primary education while the later stage represents the last three years is uncertain. Suffice to say, however, that the point at which the mother tongue should cease, and where English

< previous page

page_96

next page >

< previous page

page_97

next page > Page 97

would be expected to take over as the language of education, could have been more clearly stated, if accuracy and precision were intended. Apart from loose ends and lack of precision, the Nigerian bilingual policy does not seem to be sensitive to its geopolitical environment. First, the view that it is in the interest of national unity for each child to learn one major language in addition to his own mother tongue presupposes and capitalises on the view that language is a major factor in national unity in Nigeria. While this may be generally true, it should be emphasised that the extent to which language is important for national unity in the country may have been exaggerated. As a matter of fact, it would seem that, in the Nigerian situation, language would enhance national unity only if no one indigenous language is allowed to dominate the political and social affairs of the country at the expense of other indigenous languages. While not dismissing the importance of language in national unity, therefore, one should emphasise that other matters seem potentially more dangerous than language to the unity of the country. Important matters such as the equitable distribution of the nation's wealth, the quota system which appoints officers to sensitive and important positions in the national civil service on the strength of their ethnic backgrounds rather than on the basis of qualifications and merit, religious intolerance, and unemployment, to name a few, probably constitute a greater threat to national unity in the country. Fishman's (1969:445) observation is relevant here: Divisiveness is an ideologized position and it can magnify differences: indeed it can manufacture differences in language as in other matters almost as easily as it can capitalize on more obvious differences. Similarly, unification is an ideologized position and it can minimize seemly major differences or ignore them entirely, whether these be in the realm of language, religion, culture, race, or any other basis of differentiation. Conscious and even ideologized language differences need not be divisive, whether at the national or the international level. The assumption that knowledge of the language of another ethnic group will enhance national unity seems to have been proved wrong in the Nigerian situation by some recent events in the country. For example, the thousands of souls lost in the various religious riots which engulfed the northern part of the country between 1983 and 1991 were mainly those of people who had lived in that part of the country for some time and who had acquired the local languages of their assailants. Obviously, reasons other than language must be sought in such a crisis. Another lack of sensitivity inherent in the Nigerian bilingual education policy is in connection with its psychology. The policy seems to ignore the feelings and attitudes of the minority language speakers who constitute about 40% of the population. The demand that every child should learn one of the major indigenous languages in addition to his own mother tongue means that children from minority language groups will have to learn at

< previous page

page_97

next page >

< previous page

page_98

next page > Page 98

least three languages, their own mother tongues, English, and any one of the major languages. But it also means that such children are being asked to embrace other people's languages and cultures while no one is interested in learning their own languages and cultures in return (see also Fakuade, 1989). Such a demand seems like an open invitation to minority language speakers to dispose of their own identities in exchange for those of rival ethnic groups. This is more so because the same policy does not seem to recognise the usefulness of the minority languages beyond the initial stage of primary education. Worse still, nothing concrete is as yet available to suggest that the government is committed to the development of these minority languages. It is clear therefore that speakers of minority languages could not have wished the bilingual policy a smooth sail. In addition to the possibility of generating ill-feelings among the minority language speakers, the bilingual policy also fails to indicate how it would ensure that speakers of the three major languages faithfully learn one another's language. For it is naive to assume that, in a country where ethnolinguistic division permeates every sphere of life, merely encouraging the child to learn the language of a rival ethnic group is sufficient to remove the mutual distrust that has always been part of the national polity. For instance, would the Igbos and Yorubas like to embrace Hausa, even when they are not sure that Hausas will equally learn Igbo and Yoruba in return? Would any of the three major ethnic/linguistic groups like to learn the language of another rival group (at the expense of his own ethnic language) and risk the possibility of that rival language suddenly becoming the indisputable national/official language of the country by virtue of the number of its speakers? Unless certain obvious and impartial provisions are inserted in the bilingual policy to guarantee that there would be no cheating in the matter, then one should expect a general state of mutual ethno-linguisitic suspicion among the major language groups. Perhaps, a little foresight on the part of the policy formulators would have ensured the insertion in the bilingual education policy of a clause which would guarantee fair play and remove such mutual suspicion. As for linguistic factors, the Nigerian bilingual education policy was put in place at a time when the majority of the languages in the country were (and still are) not reduced to writing. Yet, most, if not all, of these languages are expected to be used as the medium if instruction at the initial stage of primary education. The magnitude of the problem is revealed by the fact that, even now, Igbo, one of the three major languages, does not have a widely accepted standard orthography. As Fakuade (1989) points out, Igbo scholars are still locked in controversy over which of Onicha and Oweri dialects should be regarded as standard Igbo. The present economic situation of Nigeria can hardly be worse for the implementation of any meaningful large scale bilingual education as has been proposed. The impoverishment has meant difficulties in maintaining existing educational infrastructures, and any attempt to add more to the

< previous page

page_98

next page >

< previous page

page_99

next page > Page 99

problems might result in a total collapse of the system. It is not surprising, therefore, that, up to the present moment, no special attempt has been made to train a large number of teachers in any of the three major languages, who would serve as models and primary sources of raw linguistics data for children learning each of the languages in schools outside the area of its domain. For unless the education system intends to indulge in the false assumption that any speaker of a language can teach it, then large scale production of teachers in the three languages is unavoidable. In addition to teachers, textbooks and suitable teaching materials are pedagogical matters which should have been attended to before the bilingual education programme was embarked upon. These ought to have been produced in large quantity for each of the three major languages, and the minor ones which are expected to be adopted for instruction at the lower primary level. Apart from lack of resources for such a giant step, the fact noted above, that most of the languages are yet to be written, will obviously render any attempt to embark upon textbook production meaningless, unless these languages are first developed and standardised. Finally, since any bilingual education programme can only be implemented successfully through formal education, it would be expected that the policy establishing such a bilingual programme should also contain some enabling power that will make the education system a servant to the policy. As it were, the Federal government does not have any direct control over the primary and secondary levels of education, even though these are the two levels where the bilingual education programme is expected to be implemented. In addition to numerous schools in the hands of private operators, public primary and secondary schools are in the hands of local and state governments respectively. Decisions on primary and secondary school curricula are also taken at the state and local government levels. Without a central control of the education system, it is difficult to imagine how the system can be utilised to implement adequately the central bilingual programme. Conclusion The relevant questions one should begin to ask must include the following. Was the bilingual education programme deliberately put in place merely to pacify agitators for a national language policy, or was there a lack of foresight on the part of the policy makers? Whatever answers one may obtain, it is clear that any successful implementation of the bilingual policy as now formulated will be difficult, if not impossible; and unless care is taken, the policy may end up creating more problems than it sets out to solve, or even damage the very interests it was meant to protect. Perhaps, it is in recognition of this potential danger that the government itself seems unenthusiastic about the implementation of the bilingual policy. Given the problems identified above which make the implementation of

< previous page

page_99

next page >

< previous page

page_100

next page > Page 100

the existing bilingual education policy almost impossible, one genuinely wonders whether there is any solution other than the present pacifist approach and apparent avoidance strategy. To my mind, there is an answer, although it may not be an easy one. But first, we must remind ourselves that, at stake in the decision to formulate language policies in many, if not all, new nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are at least two main issues. First, there was the need to assert and maintain national identity, particularly immediately after political independence. Naturally, language is an easy target because it is one of the significant legacies of colonialism. Thus patriotism and nationalism often find expression in the call for linguistic independence, not only as a feature of political independence, but also as a marker of national self-esteem (Adegbija, 1989). The second issue is the need to keep in touch with scientific and technological innovations and to be a member of the international community to which all nations belong. Given the fact that the language of the former colonial master is, more often than not, also the language of modern science and technology, and the language of the international community, it would seem that these two goals are incompatible. But they are. The solution lies in the willingness of the nation concerned to be realistic and pragmatic in its approach to language planning and language politics. Such an approach will, among other things, have to realise and accept the inevitability and importance of English as a language of the international community which needs to be developed for its utilitarian values. It should also be recognised and accepted as a proper agent of multicultural and multilingual development in bilingual/bi-cultural settings (Afolayan, 1979). It is this line of reasoning which I have advanced elsewhere (Oladejo, 1991), by suggesting in the particular case of Nigeria, that a trilingual rather than bilingual education policy is needed. Such a policy will have to recognise the importance and usefulness of the Nigerian Pidgin English as a potential national language, and at the same time focus on the teaching and learning of the child's mother tongue and the retention of English for the purpose of higher education and for international politics and diplomacy. If properly planned and well executed, such a policy, I believe, will adequately take care of the concern for national identity, and of the need to keep abreast developments in the ever-developing world of modern science and technology. Yet, such a policy would also not be subject to the kind of problems earlier identified which have so far crippled the existing bilingual education policy in the country. Although the foregoing observations about bilingual education in Nigeria are meant to focus attention on the language education policy of the country as a typical example of how not to embark upon a bilingual education programme in a multilingual, multicultural, developing nation, this is by no means to say that the Nigerian situation is unique. For as Bamgbose (1991) rightly points out, language policies in Africa are generally characterised by avoidance, vagueness, arbitrariness, fluctuations and declarations

< previous page

page_100

next page >

< previous page

page_101

next page > Page 101

without implementation. In most of these cases also, the goals of bilingual education policies are not carefully established, nor are the means meticulously selected, with possible outcomes predicted in any systematic manner (Rubin, 1971). It is appropriate to conclude this paper with a word of advice on the Brunei bilingual education policy. There are at least three lessons which Brunei can learn from the Nigerian experience. First, while there is hardly any doubt about the usefulness and practicality of the national ideology of 'Melayu, Islam, Beraja' (Malay, Islam, Monarchy) (for further discussion of this policy, see Jones (1990:2989), in which the Malay language is the national language and a compulsory subject for every school child, it should be recalled that one of the major problems identified in this paper with regard to the Nigerian situation is its lack of sensitivity to the feelings of speakers of minority languages. In this connection, Brunei's language policy stands a better chance of success, if the minor languages are not totally ignored. Corpus planning aimed at promoting and developing such minor languages as Chinese, Iban, Dusun and Totong will be essential in order to generate positive attitudes from the speakers of these languages towards the over-all national language policy. The second important lesson from the Nigerian experience is in respect of adequate provision for teacher training and development. In any bilingual education policy the role of the teacher is comparable to that of the nurse or midwife in the delivery and care of a new born baby. Any act of commission or omission on the part of the nurse/midwife can be fatal to the child. In the same way, to ensure that a bilingual education policy succeeds, necessary training and adequate incentives must be given to language teachers, without which the policy may fail. Finally, the development of textbooks and teaching materials should be a priority on the agenda of the government bodies responsible for the implementation of the policy. For as we have seen in the case of Nigeria, lack of textbooks, and inadequate teaching materials could combine with other factors to render the bilingual policy inoperable. Notes 1. Although a new Constitution to be fully adopted in 1992 has been worked out, it is pertinent to mention that aspects of the 1979 Constitution relevant to the roles and status of languages in National and State Assemblies are not modified in the new Constitution. 2. The claim here is not that English is spoken by many more people than the population of the speakers of any one of the major indigneous languages, but that it is more widespread (geographically) than any of these. Indeed, since English is learnt primarily through formal education, it is difficult to suggest that it has more speakers than the major indigenous languages in a largely illiterate society as Nigeria.

< previous page

page_101

next page >

< previous page

page_102

next page > Page 102

References Adegbija, E. (1989) The implications of the language of instruction for nationhood: An illustration with Nigeria. ITL: Review of Applied Lingustics X, 2550. Afolayan, A. (1979) The English Language as an Agent of Proper Multilingual and Multicultural Development. University of Ife Inaugural Lecture Series. Nigeria: University of Ife Press. Akinnaso F. N. (1989) One nation, four hundred languages: Unity and diversity in Nigeria's language policy. Language Problems and Language Planning 13, 2, 13346. Aucamp, A. T. (1926) Bilingual Education and Nationalism, with Special Reference to South Africa, Pretoria: State Press. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1982) Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bamgbose, A. (1991) Language and the Nations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Beziers, M. and Van Overbeke, M. (1968) Le bilinguisme: essai de definition et guide bibliograhique. Louvain, Cahiers de L'Institut des Langues Vivantes. Fakuade, G. (1989) A three-language formula for Nigeria: Problems of implementation. Language Problems and Language Planning 13, 1: 549. Federal Ministry of Information (1977) National Policy on Education. Lagos. Federal Ministry of Information (1979) The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979. Lagos. Fishman, J. A. (1969) Nationality-nationalism and nation-nationalism. In J. A. Fishman, C. A. Ferguson and J. D. Gupta (eds) Language Problems of Developing Nations (pp. 3952) New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Haarmann, H. (1990) Elements of a theory of language conflict. In P. H. Nelde (ed.) Language Attitude and Language Conflict. Brussels: Research Centre on Multilingualism DummlerBonn. Jones, G. (1990) How bilingualism is being integrated in Negara Brunei Darussalam. In Richard Baldauf, Jr. and Allan Luke (eds) Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Mackey, W. F. (1962) The description of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 7, 5185. Oladejo, J. A. (1991) The national language question in Nigeria: Is there an answer. Language Problems and Language Planning 15, 3, 25567. Rubin, J. (1971) Evaluation and language planning. In J. Rubin and B. J. Jernudd (eds) Can Language Be Planned? Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Tay, M. W. J. (1979) The uses, users, and features of English in Singapore. RELC Occasional Papers 8, Reprinted in J. B. Pride (ed.) New Englishes. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact. New York: The Linguistic Circle of New York.

< previous page

page_102

next page >

< previous page

page_103

next page > Page 103

European Models of Bilingual Education: Practice, Theory and Development Hugo Baetens Beardsmore Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium Abstract The relationship between European Community initiatives in language management are linked to educational models involved in promoting active mastery of at least three languages. The Luxembourg model outlines a trilingual programme destined for the entire school population, the European School model illustrates a complex multilingual programme where all involved are on an equal footing with respect to language constraints, while the Foyer Project reveals how immigrant minorities can be handled in a mainstream school network that evolves in an already bilingual environment. The different models are analysed in terms of theoretical considerations which attempt to clarify how similar outcomes are attained, in spite of different strategies, with particular emphasis on contextual variables, some of which can be manipulated by programme designers and others which cannot. Introduction The rapidly growing momentum of European integration has led to an increase in investment in the promotion of linguistic skills via education, spearheaded by initiatives emanating from the Commission of the European Communities. These initiatives are likely to influence both linguistic and more general education throughout Western Europe. The Commission of the European Communities intervenes on a supranational level among the 12 member states of the EEC by means of a series of directives and programmes affecting language and education under the acronyms ERAMUS and LINGUA. The ERASMUS programme is designed to bring about collaboration amongst universities situated in different countries. The goal of ERASMUS is to encourage European integration by enabling students to spend a part of their studies in a university of a different member state; by the end of the century it is hoped that no students, whatever their discipline, will be able to obtain a degree without

< previous page

page_103

next page >

< previous page

page_104

next page > Page 104

having spent a part of their study period abroad. The budget investment for 19901995 is 200 million ecu or approximately 220 million US dollars. The nature of ERASMUS programmes varies enormously, based on negotiations between different universities according to their specific needs. One of the most ambitious programmes is between the universities of London and Paris where, in the law departments, second year students from both institutions exchange places so that the second year French students spend a year in London while their British counterparts spend a year in Paris. ERASMUS programmes have implications for language acquisition, since, as the London-Paris law department exchanges imply, not only do the students involved get training in the opposite country's legal systems but they also get taught through the medium of a different language, considerably enhancing their linguistic capacities and international job prospects. In cases where minor languages are involved extra subsidies are available from the EEC for students to spend a preparatory linguistic training period in the country they move to on the exchange programme. The general educational implications are self-evident. Students get confronted with a new culture and language in their host institutions, develop a greater awareness of European diversity and European commonalities, there is cross-fertilisation of teaching ideas and methodologies, a restructuring and rethinking of programmes and an impetus to innovation and adaptation, both on the institutional and individual levels. The LINGUA programme is aimed at developing linguistic competence at secondary school level. The EEC is encouraging the learning of three languages for all pupils in secondary education, irrespective of academic orientation. Choice of languages is left open among the nine official languages of the member states so as not to impose a major language on the diversified populations that make up Europe. Its flexibility allows, for example, the autonomous region of Catalonia in Spain to promote Catalan as the first language, Castilian as the language of inter-Spanish communication, and French or English as a language of wider communication. The LINGUA programme intervenes financially to promote language learning in professional and technical education, language learning in businesses and enterprises and inter-university collaboration on language teacher-training; the budget available for 19901995 is 200 million ecu or approximately 220 million dollars. The EEC also intends to set up a European Academy of foreign language teaching. The inspiration for both ERASMUS and LINGUA has evolved from an awareness of the need to respect the linguistic and cultural heterogeneity of the Europe of tomorrow and to enhance communication across linguistic borders, without imposing a unique lingua franca which would be unacceptable to certain member states, or privileging certain linguistic communities either traditionally predisposed towards multilingualism (like the smaller nations) or reticent towards it (like Britain and France). Inspiration has

< previous page

page_104

next page >

< previous page

page_105

next page > Page 105

also been taken from some of the multilingual education programmes of the type I intend to describe below. I shall describe three successful European models of multilingual education, destined for very different populations, and compare them with the Canadian immersion model, for the simple reason that the latter is the best documented and therefore more widely known. In so doing I will try to extract significant features that account for success, according to the circumstances. The models are: (1) The trilingual education system applied to the entire school population of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; (2) Multilingual education as developed in the network of European Schools situated in different European cities; (3) The Foyer Project, developed in Brussels to enable immigrant populations to benefit from mainstream education in a bilingual city. In all three cases a minimum of three languages are involved, which makes them more complex than standard Canadian immersion. My aim is to show how even complex language learning environments can cope with bilingualism in education while at the same time to warn against the adoption of any single model, no matter how well-tried, without the necessary modifications to specific local circumstances. This is because far too often well documented success stories, like Canadian immersion, have been taken over as a blue-print in circumstances where they do not satisfy local needs, merely because the research background has proved their effectiveness in the context for which they were developed. Trilingual Education in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg represents a unique example of a western nation where the entire school population undergoes developed education transiting through three different languages as medium of instruction (for details, cf. Baetens Beardsmore & Lebrun, 1991). The Luxemburger is monolingual by birth and becomes trilingual through education. This achievement is a complex, long-term process. In nursery schools and the first year of primary education Luxemburger is the sole medium of instruction but is progressively replaced by German. German is taught as a subject during the first year of primary school and by the end of Grade 6 the transition to the exclusive use of German as a medium must be completed. In Grade 2 of primary school French is introduced as a subject in preparation for its use as a medium in secondary education. In the first 3 Grades of secondary education most classes are taught through the medium of German, except for the French language and mathematics, which are now taught through the medium of French. The further the pupil progresses in secondary education the more subjects are taught through the medium of French, with German gradually disappearing as a medium,

< previous page

page_105

next page >

< previous page

page_106

next page > Page 106

except for language classes. This complex system operates on the principle of introducing the child to schooling by means of the home L1, rapid transition to a genetically related L2, German, and a gradual transition to a genetically unrelated L3, French. Throughout the programme German and French are the focus of attention as a subject matter in parallel to their being used as a medium of instruction, which may well have implications for the quality of the outcome in terms of productive accuracy. Figure 1 indicates the number of contact hours per language for the entire curriculum in Luxembourg for children following the standard programme from age 618. For illustrative purposes Table 1 indicates the amount of time in the secondary standard curriculum devoted to each language, expressed in percentages. As such it reflects the step-wise nature of the transition from one major language of instruction to another and is merely a continuation of a similar transition in primary education, but where the shift occurs from Luxemburger to German. Variations in percentages in Table 1 depend on course options selected by pupils but whatever the options at least one fifth of the time in school is devoted to the study of languages as a subject, a very different picture from standard Canadian immersion programmes where apparently very little time is devoted to the study of the languages per se. Of all pupils who completed the standard secondary school programme

Figure 1 Hours of language exposure during school career in Luxembourg schools

< previous page

page_106

next page >

< previous page

page_107

next page > Page 107

Table 1 Amount of time in the standard secondary curriculum devoted to each language, expressed in percentages Language Grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Luxembourg subject 3% Luxembourg medium German subject 13% 13% 10% 1013% 1013% 10% 017% German medium 50% 36% 36% 013% 013% 020% 027% French subject 20% 20% 15% 1316% 1016% 1016% 017% French medium 13% 1030% 26% 4060% 4060% 4370% 3883% Other languages May use French, German or the target languages in the 19851986 school year 70% succeeded in final examinations leading to higher education, indicating that trilingual education can have a high success rate, irrespective of social class, selection, or other variables so often considered as conducive to success (Fishman, 1977). This model is unique in that it proves that trilingual education can work for an entire school population. Moreover, since all university studies have to be followed in a country other than the Grand Duchy itself, there being no full university in Luxembourg, linguistic standards must be sufficiently high for students to be able to pursue their studies in a foreign country. Multilingual Education in European Schools The trilingual education system used in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was adapted by a far more complex system upon the foundation of the European School network in 1958. These schools have been described in detail elsewhere (Baetens Beardsmore & Swain, 1985; Baetens Beardsmore & Kohls, 1988), so that here I shall merely outline their characteristics. European Schools form a network of nine establishments situated in five different countries and intended primarily for the education of the children of European civil servants. The largest school is in Brussels, with about 3000 pupils ranging from kindergarten to secondary level. Each school consists of different linguistic sub-sections covering the nine official languages of the member states, where everyone follows the same programme, irrespective of the language of instruction. A European School is not an elite school, though it tends to have this reputation. Priority is given to European civil service children, but each school has an obligation to take in others if space is available, with particular emphasis on those from less favoured groups, including the handicapped (Schola Europaea, 1988). The programme is controlled by intra-governmental instances, education is free, though non civil service children may

< previous page

page_107

next page >

< previous page

page_108

next page > Page 108

pay a small subsidy, there is no selection on entry, no streaming, nor is there any specialisation until the fourth year of secondary education. The principles behind European Schools can be summarised as follows: (1) The child's distinct national, cultural, religious and linguistic identity should be maintained, underlining the significance of instruction in the L1. (2) Throughout schooling, all children must acquire a thorough knowledge of an L2 (to be selected from English, French or German) through which they will be able to learn content matter and be prepared to take examinations through the medium of both L1 and L2. (3) The higher the child progresses in the school the more lessons are taught via the medium of a second or third language. (4) The programme is designed to promote linguistic and cultural pluralism rather than assimilation so that all children are obliged to take on a second and third language, with no linguistic discrimination in favour of speakers of a major language like English or French. (5) From primary school onwards, communal lessons are taught to members of different sub-sections brought together for integration purposes. In the primary section these communal lessons are known as European Hours. The further the children progress in the programme the more lessons are taught to mixed groups from different sub-sections. (6) Study of an L3 becomes compulsory from the third grade of secondary education. (7) All teachers are qualified native speakers of the language they use as a medium of instruction. A pupil who progresses through the entire programme will receive L2 as a subject over the whole 12-year syllabus, giving a total of 1,100 hours of formal language instruction, in addition to lessons taught via the medium of an L2. The L3 programme consists of a minimum of 360 hours of core language instruction in addition to optional courses in which the L3 is the medium of instruction. Since the founding of the schools success rates on university entrance examinations have been approximately 90%, indicating that the strong language commitment has no detrimental effects on academic achievement. Moreover, the Commission of the European Communities and the Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of Europe, in May 1990, organised a conference aimed to examine to what extent experience gained in European School type education could be extended to the general population by examining the use of an L2 as a working language for non-language subjects and the creation of special bilingual or international language sections, indicating the faith and confidence in the model.

< previous page

page_108

next page >

< previous page

page_109

next page > Page 109

The Foyer Project in Brussels This project is a unique Belgian initiative aimed at producing bicultural children with trilingual competence (for details, cf. Bryan & Leman, 1990). The Belgian capital of Brussels has an official bilingual status where schools are divided into Dutch or French-medium establishments but where children are required to receive the second national language from the age of seven onwards for a minimum of three and a maximum of five lessons per week. Given that 24% of the population of Brussels is of immigrant origin, that 50% of new-born children are of foreign origin and that in certain areas these immigrants make up 8090% of the kindergarten and primary school population, there is a serious education problem for those who do not have Dutch or French as their primary language. To help these children fit into the mainstream educational system five schools have been involved in the Foyer Project, each working with a specific minority population in a different Dutch-medium school. The outside environment of the city is predominantly French so that the primary language of socialisation of the children involved may be, but is not necessarily, French. The home language may be a dialect variant of a standard language, e.g. Sicilian for the Italian group, Moroccan Arabic for the Moroccans. The school language is Dutch, while French becomes compulsory under legislation for Brussels from the age of seven onwards. The Foyer Project begins with a three year kindergarten period in which the minority group spends 50% of the time as a separate group and 50% of the time with the mainstream children. In the first year of primary school the minority group is separate for 60% of the time for lessons in the ethnic language and culture and mathematics, spends 30% of the time as a separate group learning Dutch and 10% of the time integrated with the mainstream children. In the second year of primary school 50% of the time is spent as a separate ethno-cultural group for language and culture, 20% as a separate group for Dutch lessons and 30% for integrated lessons with the mainstream group, including mathematics lessons. From the third year onwards 90% of the time is spent with the mainstream group using Dutch while the minority language is taught for three to four hours per week separately. French lessons are taught with the mainstream group according to the legal requirement. Certain characteristics identify the Foyer Project. The immigrant population is fixed at slightly lower than the Dutch-language population so as to avoid the displacement of Dutch as the medium in which the school operates. This is necessary because Dutch is a minority language in Brussels and could easily be displaced by French, or even the immigrant language, if numbers were not controlled. Immigrant languages are taught by native-speaker teachers and literacy skills are taught in the ethnic language first. The schools require strong parental involvement and make efforts to inte-

< previous page

page_109

next page >

< previous page

page_110

next page > Page 110

grate scholastic and extra-curricular activities with an aim to providing intercultural exchanges between the groups involved. Results from the project are encouraging, though given the experimental nature of the enterprise it is too early yet to predict the final outcome. There are no data available on the effects of this trilingual development on success in secondary school to date as the cohorts have not yet moved up sufficiently. Comparisons between Different Models Although one must be extremely prudent in making comparative assessments of the outcome of different bilingual education systems, given the multiplicity of diverging variables that need to be taken into consideration, it can be useful to examine results in support of claims about success. Table 2 provides a comparative overview of results on French as an L2 as attained on a series of standardised tests by 13 year old pupils in the Luxembourg trilingual system, the European School multilingual system and a Canadian immersion programme. When the tests were taken the Luxembourg pupils had received approximately 1400 contact hours with French both as a subject and a medium of instruction, European School pupils had received approximately 1300 hours of French as a subject and a medium, while Canadian immersion children had received about 4450 contact hours, primarily of French as a medium. The similarity of scores obtained across the three models of education reveals how diverging programmes can attain comparable results. What is significant in the interpretation of such results is an analysis of the factors that have contributed to them, in spite of such variations in programmes. For the manifest success of Luxembourg, European School and Canadian immersion models (and as far as can be judged, of the Foyer Project) requires careful analysis lest they be misappropriated for application in Table 2 Achievement scores on three standardised tests for the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Lux.), the European School (ES) and Canadian immersion pupils Lux. Stand. ES n Stand. Canada Stand. n = . dev. = 80 dev. n = 80 dev. 179 1325 4450 Total class contact 1450 hours Written 15.26 3.4 15.6 2.9 14.6 4.2 comprehension max. = 22 Auditory 14.84 3.5 17.7 3 14.9 3.7 comprehension max. = 22 Cloze 21.3 4.3 21.95 4.8 19.9 4.3 max. = 44

< previous page

page_110

next page >

< previous page

page_111

next page > Page 111

totally different contexts serving totally different populations, as has been the warning about immersion programmes imported from Canada into the United States (Hernández-Chávas, 1984). Such an analysis can hopefully bring to light a set of minimal criteria which are potentially conducive to the effective promotion of bilingual education in most contexts, to which must be added the specific criteria peculiar to any given population in a particular environment. Indeed, this is what the theoretical discussions of bilingualism in education have attempted to unravel, as reflected in the macrological analyses produced by Spolsky, Green & Read, 1974; Fishman, 1976; Fishman, 1977; Cummins, 1984; Baetens Beardsmore, 1992). An analysis of the level of language competence achieved by the end of the European School programme among 17+ year olds (Housen & Baetens Beardsmore, 1987) led us to consider what the theoretical explanations were for the ultimate attainment. This study forms part of a series on the model in question, including an examination of the nature of European Hours given in primary school (unpublished), an investigation comparing Canadian immersion results with European School results achieved by 13+ year olds (Baetens Beardsmore & Swain, 1985) a study comparing achievement on French as an L2 and French as an L3 among 13+ and 14+ year olds (unpublished) and a comparative study of results on English and French as an L2 among 13+ year olds in a European School, where these were not part of the wider, out-of-school environment (unpublished). In all cases, it became apparent that the success of the schools could be accounted for by a combination of curricular and extra-curricular factors. In any adaptation of a particular model of bilingual education it is important to bear these two types of factor in mind. Success in bilingual education depends in part on the extent to which the languages involved are dependent on school instruction alone, as is the case with Canadian immersion programmes, and one must bear in mind Fishman's (1977: 102) comment that 'School use of language is just not enough'. In cases where a particular languge in a bilingual programme is primarily school depenent expectancy levels for ultimate attainment must be realistically adjusted. A comparison between some of the factors that distinguish the models developed in Europe from Canadian immersion programmes clearly reveals why similar levels of achievement were attained by 13+ year olds who had received highly disproportionate classroom contact hours with the target language. In educational contexts there are some factors which the school can control and others which it cannot. For example, the research indicates that the most significant differences between the populations tested related to the pupils' self-motivated use of the L2; pupils in a European School initiate peer group interaction in the L2 whereas immersion pupils do not. However, the structure of the European School programme makes it necessary for linguistically mixed groups to use a common L2 as a medium of

< previous page

page_111

next page >

< previous page

page_112

next page > Page 112

communication. Since immersion children come from homogeneous English backgrounds it is only natural for them to communicate amongst themselves in English and not the L2. In the European School investigated the L2, French, serves as a lingua franca for cross-linguistic communication. In Canada there is no need for a lingua franca because of the homogeneous background of the pupils. In both cases this is a factor outside the schools' control. In the European School investigated there are considerable native-speakers of the L2 with whom communication can take place at peer-group level, whereas in Canada there are no native-speakers of French available for peer-group interaction. The European School can control this factor via the curriculum whereas an immersion programme cannot. A factor outside the control of both types of school is the nature of the out-of-school environment. For pupils from the Brussels European School French tends to be used at least sometimes and often more with friends outside school and between classes, and is used most or all of the time with Francophones in the community. In immersion cases there are no native-speakers available for the use of French outside the classroom. Although French as an L2 is not essential as a lingua franca in the Luxembourg case, the fact that this language is widely used in the out-of-school environment and prevalent in media and official instances, means that similar factors beyond the control of the school also intervene in influencing the linguistic climate in and around the schools which help to determine proficiency. The same is true for the Foyer Project, where the out-of-school French environment provides ample stimulus for the use of the language to compensate for the limited classroom contact hours, while the proportion of time devoted to Dutch and the first language varies as proficiency develops. Theoretical Considerations To explain success in bilingual education Cummins (1979, 1981, 1984) posited three conceptual arguments. The first is the Threshold Level Hypothesis, which assumes that if bilingual children attain only a low level of proficiency in either of their languages, their interaction with the environment is likely to be impoverished, thereby hindering intellectual growth. If children attain a high threshold level of proficiency in one or two languages, this will positively influence the potential for intellectual growth and lead to beneficial aspects of becoming bilingual. Cummins' second hypothesis suggests that there is a close relationship between proficiency in L1 and L2 for the development of literacy-related aspects of languge usage; this is known as the Common Underlying Proficiency, which assumes that adequate and sufficient instruction in one language will enable the transfer of sub-skills to another language, provided there is enough exposure to this L2 in the school and the environment and sufficient motivation to learn it.

< previous page

page_112

next page >

< previous page

page_113

next page > Page 113

The third hypothesis distinguishes between Context-Embedded, Cognitively Undemanding linguistic activity, and ContextReduced, Cognitively Demanding linguistic activity. The former reflects the lower threshold level and is typical of conversational interaction, whereas the latter requires a much higher level of proficiency necessary for handling content matter through the medium of a different language. In Luxembourg, the European Schools, and as far as can be judged from early results from the Foyer Project, these factors are reflected in the nature of the programmes. Although the L2 is introduced in a core language programme from early stages in education, it is not until the L1 has been solidly established that the L2 becomes a partial medium of instruction. In Luxembourg the switch is rapid, whereas in European Schools and the Foyer Project it is more progressive. The common underlying proficiency between L1 and L2 allows for the transfer of literacy-related sub-skills requisite for academic progress in two, and later three, languages in all the systems, including Canadian immersion. There is also a gradual but steady transition from context-embedded, cognitively undemanding activities in L2 to cognitively-demanding, context reduced activities of the type necessary for examinations through other languages than the L1. In his controversial hypotheses on language acquisition and language learning, Krashen (1981, 1982) developed the Comprehensible Input model to reflect what he felt to be the most significant factor in determining progress. This hypothesis suggests that acquisition progresses through a series of distinct stages where the pupil moves from one step to the next by processing the input provided. According to Krashen, for efficient progress the input must contain lexis and structures already acquired, labelled i, together with some language not yet acquired and a little beyond the current level of proficiency, giving i + l. According to Krashen, the non-acquired +1 element can be inferred from contextual, paralinguistic and general knowledged cues embedded in the message. This input must be intrinsically interesting and relevant by appealing to the acquirer's tastes and imagination and must be provided in sufficient quantity. Swain (1985) argued that comprehensible input, or i + 1 alone, is insufficient for the acquisition of high levels of L2 proficiency, based on results obtained on Canadian Grade 6 immersion pupils. The children concerned had received French comprehensible input for almost seven years, and although they had reached good levels in certain aspects of French, they were appreciably different from native-speakers, particularly in activities requiring high levels of grammatical knowledge. The subjects performed satisfactorily on subject-matter tests and therefore must have understood what was taught through the L2. This suggests that is is not input alone that is important in L2 acquisition. With immersion pupils, input is derived mainly from listening to teacher talk, so the less than native-like grammatical competence can only be accounted for by the inadequacy of the input hypothesis. On the other hand, Swain claims that output fulfills a vital role

< previous page

page_113

next page >

< previous page

page_114

next page > Page 114

in the process of L2 acquisition in that it enables the acquirer to apply the available linguistic resources in a meaningful way. This pushes the acquirer toward the delivery of a message that is conveyed as precisely, coherently and appropriately as possible, enabling experimentation with target language structures by trial and error. In Luxembourg, in European Schools and in the Foyer Project in Brussels, the nature of the environment, in school and outside school, pushes the speaker in the active use of the L2. In the three systems, unlike the Canadian experience, exposure to the L2 is not restricted to the classroom and output is fostered by two-way interactional exchanges in which meaning is actively negotiated. Although the above theoretical constructs go a long way to explaining the nature of the outcome of the four models discussed they fail to give sufficient emphasis to the social and psychological aspects of language acquisition contexts. These are felt to be of particular significance in a bilingual education system, since they may well be decisive in determining to what extent a learner makes use of the potential for Cummins' hypotheses to operate in cases where the programme takes his parameters into account. Similarly, there may well be sufficient opportunities for both input and output to have effect yet these opportunities may not be taken up, or else may be modified by other factors. This possibility was taken into account in the study of the European School by Housen & Baetens Beardsmore (1987) when it was noticed that there was differentiated ability in L1, L2, L3 and L4 amongst the pupils investigated which would not be explained in terms of the highly satisfactory test-score results. One case was that of an English pupil with French as an L2 who revealed signs of backsliding in the second language, another that of a Dutch girl who had higher proficiency in her L4, Italian, than her L3, English, in spite of the fact that she had greater classroom contact hours with English, significant opportunities for input and output, and a genetic similarity between her L1, Dutch, and her L3 English, all of which should have led to different predictions. Schumann's (1978: 1986) Acculturation Model provided the framework of interpretation to account for levels of achievement in the different languages. According to Schumann, acquisition depends on the degree to which the learner acculturates to the target language group. This he bases on the broad concepts of social and psychological distance. Social distance depends on the following seven factors which determine whether the target language acquisition context is good or bad for affecting social distance. (1) Social dominance pattern. The learner's group can be dominant, non-dominant, or subordinate in relation to the target language group. If it is dominant or subordinate, social distance will prevail, inter-group contact will be limited, and target language acquisition inhibited; if it

< previous page

page_114

next page >

< previous page

page_115

next page > Page 115

is non-dominant, social distance will be minimal and target language aquisition fostered. (2) Integration strategies. These can lead to (a) assimilation to the target language group's life style and values, (b) adaptation, which partly preserves original culture patterns and partly adopts those of the target language group, or (c) preservation, which rejects the target language group's values. Social distance is fostered by preservation and minimised by assimilation. (3) Degree of enclosure. This factor refers to the structural aspects of integration and involves such things as endogamy, institutional separation, and associational clustering. Sharing of social, religious and cultural institutions decreases the degree of enclosure thereby fostering intergroup contacts and the acquisition of the target language. (4) Cohesiveness and size of the learner's group. The larger and more cohesive the learner's group is, the more likely intragroup contacts will outweight intergroup contacts, thus increasing social distance and hindering target language acquisition. (5) Congruence. The more similar the two group's cultures are, the more likely integration will be facilitated and consequently social distance reduced. (6) Intended length of residence. The longer the learner intends to reside in the target language area, the more inclined he or she will be to seek contacts with the target language group and the smaller the social distance will be. (7) Attitudes. Favourable attitudes improve both the quality and the quantity of contacts between the learner and the target language group and facilitate the acquisition process. Unfavourable attitudes may have the opposite effect. Together with the above sociological factors the following three psychological factors also come into play, according to Schumann. (1) Language shock, culture shock, culture stress. These refer to the degree of anxiety engendered by expressing oneself in a weaker language, and the ease or difficulty with which one assimilates the cultural attributes borne by the other language. The greater these are felt, the greater the psychological distance from the acquisition of the target language. (2) Ego-permeability. This refers to the permeability of an individual's ego boundaries and comes about by lowering the inhibitions felt in speaking the weaker language. (3) Motivation. This can be integrative or instrumental. Schumann feels that integrative motivation minimizes psychological distance and increases opportunities to interact in the target language. When the above criteria of social and psychological distance were applied to an analysis of the pupils in the European School, where the curriculum clearly took into account Cummins' hypotheses, Krashen's i + l input

< previous page

page_115

next page >

< previous page

page_116

next page > Page 116

hypothesis, Swain's output hypothesis, and where there were ample opportunities for peer-group interaction both inside and outside the school, an explanation was found as to why the Dutch girl's L4 was higher than her L3 and why the English boy's L2 showed signs of backsliding. In both cases the pupil's individual profile reflected degrees of social distance from the target languages which coincided with levels of proficiency. The English boy's reactions towards the French language community showed signs of increasing rejection with age, accounting for his backsliding, in spite of good test scores. The Dutch girl was indifferent to all things English but strongly attracted to the Italian environment in her school, explaining her activation of opportunities to promote her competence in Italian. Standardised test score results were good for all the languages involved with both subjects, yet it was Schumann's acculturation model which brought out the more subtle differences and explanations which accounted for the real nature of their proficiency. A final hypothesis which encompasses all of the earlier mentioned parameters is related to the perception the pupil has of the language learning effort. Acquiring a second language to a substantial level of competence is a long-term process where the rewards of satisfactory ability and ease of interaction are often postponed. Core language lessons often attempt to overcome such postponement by the use of artificial techniques, whereby minimal interaction can be achieved within the limits of each lesson (particularly in the functional notional syllabus as promoted by the Council of Europe cf. Yalden, 1983). Bilingual education is far more sucessful on this count, however, by the fact that the languages involved are perceived as immediately pertinent by the recipients, in circumstances which are as near natural as is possible. Although it is not natural, in Canadian immersion programmes, for homogeneous English-speaking pupils to interact informally in the L2, the fact that the whole of the classroom experience is conducted in French and that subject-matter is also taught through this language means that French is immediately pertinent, at least within the limits of the classroom. In a European School, and to a slightly lesser extent in Luxembourg and in the Foyer setting, the L2 is needed for both curricular and extra-curricular activities, inside school and outside. In such cases it is believed that immediate pertinence is perceived in a way which works backwards to generate spontaneous output, by which further input is received, producing circular reinforcement. Conclusions If one attempts to summarise the major features which represent minimal conditions for a successful bilingual education programme, then the following elements require consideration. No single model of bilingual education is universally applicable and no single existing model should be transplanted to a totally different context

< previous page

page_116

next page >

< previous page

page_117

next page > Page 117

(Mackey, 1972). As Spolsky, Green & Read (1974) have pointed out, a bilingual programme depends on three types of factors, situational, operational and outcomes. On the situational level it is necessary to analyse the context in which bilingual education operates (i.e. the population, its status, size, resources, aspirations, etc.). On the operational level it is necessary to analyse the factors involved in the interaction of the school with the surrounding community. On the outcomes level it is necessary to appraise realistically what the goals of a given programme can achieve and be cautious about the myth of the 'perfect bilingual'. Comparisons between different models reveal how different paths can lead to high levels of proficiency, that such proficiency is tempered by contextual variables more so than by programme variables, and that the former play a considerable role in determining ultimate achievement. These contextual variables are only partially within the control of the school or the programme designer but are decisive in determining the nature and outcomes of any programme. All models share features in common. They all illustrate the significance of Cummins' hypotheses, the role of input and output and the notion of immediate pertinence. Research into the European School model has also revealed to what extent social and psychological distance play a decisive role in activating output. Apart from the contextual variables relating to the out-of-school environment and the population make-up within each programme, which the school cannot manipulate, what significant variables appear to affect success? Canadian research reveals how unrealistic it is to expect homogeneous English-speaking peers to interact in the L2 in selfinitiated peer negotiation outside the formal classroom. This feature appears significant in determining the productive proficiency in oral communication in the target language, if the output hypothesis plays the important role which research leads us to believe. Indeed, the speed with which English has displaced the other languages in Singapore as the common lingua franca would lend substance to the argument that the school alone cannot produce high levels of proficiency, since in Singapore crossethnic interaction, being conducted in English, lends immediate pertinence to the task of acquiring English and stimulates selfinitiated peer negotiation, as attested by Gupta (cf. this conference) in her observation of kindergarten classes. Hence Canadian immersion results reflect high levels of receptive competence in the L2 and realistically adjust expectancy levels on productive proficiency to take into account those features of linguistic ability that cannot reasonably be produced by an education system alone. The message to the educational planner, then, is not to expect bilingual education to produce native-like competence in two languages if the contextual variables do not allow for this to develop. Examination criteria must be adjusted and clearly specify levels of duallanguage proficiency on the outcome level accordingly, as has been done in the Canadian context.

< previous page

page_117

next page >

< previous page

page_118

next page > Page 118

Other points which the models share are the following. All four models are characterised by highly proficient teachers in the target language. European Schools only use native-speakers as teachers, Luxembourg's teachers all receive their qualifications in the countries of the language which they use, where they acquire native-like competence. Foyer project teachers are nativespeakers of the immigrant language or of Dutch, near-native speakers of French. Canadian immersion teachers are nativespeakers or highly competent bilinguals. All the models consider this teacher proficiency a significant feature when high levels of bilingualism are the goal. Unfortunately, in many cases where bilingual education is provided level of teacher proficiency is not always commensurate with the goals of the programme. Parental involvement in and understanding of the specificity of bilingual education is strongly encouraged in the models outlined. This is because bilingual education may require parents to receive reassurance about progress in cases where part of the curriculum is being taught through a language the parents do not know. Canadian immersion requires strong parental support, since it is voluntary, and parents are briefed on the nature of bilingual development so as to allay fears they may have about their children's linguistic and scholastic progress. Luxembourg parents are familiar with the system, having gone through it themselves. The Foyer project encourages parental participation and contacts to create racial harmony, as does the European School system. Although literacy need not be taught through the first language, as is the case in Canadian immersion, the European models all begin literacy in the first language, since this appears an easier solution for the transfer of skills to the second language. A major difference between Canada and the European programmes, however, is that the target language is taught as a subject, prior to its introduction as a medium. Moreover, the second language as a subject is continued in parallel to its use as a medium throughout the education process. It is felt that this parallelism helps to account for the higher rates of accuracy in written and spoken productive competence in Europe, as revealed by interviews with pupils from the Canadian, European School and Luxembourg models. This point is of even greater significance in cases where homogeneous school populations and a lack of stimulus in the target language from the outside environment imply that peer interaction cannot take place with native speakers. The difference between programmes where an L2 is taught merely as a subject in core-language lessons and truly bilingual education where the L2 is used as a medium is that in the latter the core language lessons have more immediate pertinence. Each language as a subject lesson can be perceived as of potential use for the language as a medium lesson, so that they are of greater relevance in the linguistic market place of the school. The short-term pay-off is apparent to the pupil, whereas in core language lessons the pay-off is often so long-term that the pupil loses sight

< previous page

page_118

next page >

< previous page

page_119

next page > Page 119

of the goal in the years of effort required to attain sufficient competence to be able to do anything realistically with the language. Hence, the motivational variable, so often called upon as the answer to acquiring language proficiency, is automatically built in to properly developed, long-term bilingual educatioin. Socio-cultural factors are stronger than linguistic factors in bilingual development, and in cases where bilingualism forms part of educational development it is these socio-cultural factors that require manipulation within the constraints of the situational context of the school. References Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1992) Bilingual education. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil and S. Modgil (eds) Cultural Diversity and the Schools: Consensus and Controversy Vol. I (pp. 17383). London: Falmer Press. Baetens Beardsmore, H. and Swain, M. (1985) Designing bilingual education: Aspects of immersion and 'European School' models. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 1, 115. Baetens Beardsmore, H. and Kohls, J. (1988) Immediate pertinence in the acquisition of multilingual proficiency: The European schools. The Canadian Modern Language Review 44, 4, 680701. Baetens Beardsmore, H. and Lebrun, N. (1991) Trilingual education in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In O. Garcia (ed.) Focusschrift in Honor of Joshua Fishman (pp. 10720). Benjamins: Amsterdam-Philadelphia. Byram, M. and Leman, J. (1990) Bicultural and Trilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49, 22151. Cummins, J. (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting education success for languge minority students. In Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 349) Los Angeles: Evaluation, Assessment and Dissemination Center. Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. (1976) Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley: Newbury House. Fishman, J. (1977) The sociology of bilingual education. In B. Spolsky and R. Cooper (eds) Frontiers of Bilingual Education (pp. 94105). Rowley: Newbury House. Gupta, A. (1991) English in the playground in the Singapore schools. Paper presented at the International Conference on Bilingualism and National Development: Current Perspectives and Future Trends (BAND91), Brunei Darussalam, 912 December 1991. Hernàndez-Chàvez, E. (1984) The inadequacy of English immersion education as an educational approach for language minority students in the United States. In Studies on Immersion Education: A Collection for United States Educators (pp. 14483). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Assessment and Dissemination Center. Housen, A. and Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1987) Curricular and extra-curricular factors in multilingual education. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9, 83102. Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Mackey, W. (1972) A typology of bilingual education. In J. Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Sociology of Language Vol. II (pp. 41332). The Hague: Mouton. Schola Europeae 1988 No 101. Schumann, J. (1978) The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R. Gringas

< previous page

page_119

next page >

< previous page

page_120

next page > Page 120

(ed.) Second Language Aquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 2750). Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Schumann, J. (1986) Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7, 5, 37992. Spolsky, B., Green, J. and Read, J. (1974) A model for the description, analysis and perhaps evaluation of bilingual education. In Navajo Reading Study Progress Report 23. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 23553). Rowley: Newbury House. Yalden, J. (1983) The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and Implementation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

< previous page

page_120

next page >

< previous page

page_121

next page > Page 121

Fostering Bilingualism and National Development through School Second Language Study Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia, 2/6 Campion Street, Deakin ACT 2600, Australia Abstract When we think of bilingualism, we normally first think of someone with substantial skills in two or more languages. However, on more careful consideration, we realise that bilingual language skills vary greatly, depending on the needs they serve and the uses to which they are being put. Queensland, Australia is embarking on a massive limited bilingual primary school second language learning programme, in the limited sense of the term. All students in the state are by the year 2000 to be studying a language other than English in their first eight years of schooling to foster individual and national development. This proposal, potential problems for its implementation, and implications for schools and the wider society are discussed. The emphasis on studying Asian languages in the programme suggests the desire for Australians to develop a closer relationship with their Asian neighbours. The concept of being bilingual is most frequently associated with being a balanced bilingual, someone with substantial fluency in two or more languages (Grosjean, 1982). Similarly, bilingual education is normally associated with school based instruction in which both language and content are studied in both languages. The dwibahasa (two languages) system in the schools in Brunei (Jones, 1990), the 'English knowing' bilingualism of Singapore (Pakir, this volume), and bilingual programmes in Europe (Baetens Beardsmore, this volume) exemplify such bilingual educational systems. However, in many respects, these views of bilingualism and bilingual education are stereotypic ways of conceptualising these terms. The sociolinguistic reality is that bilingualism exists, as Macnamara (1967) has argued, as a continuum, rather than being a binary attribute. Furthermore, this bilingual continuum is multidimensional. The amount and degree of fluency, the characteristic most frequently associated with bilingualism (Grosjean, 1982), represents only one of these dimensions. Other dimensions include orality versus literacy (i.e. bilingual in what, Scribner & Cole, 1981),

< previous page

page_121

next page >

< previous page

page_122

next page > Page 122

domains of language use (i.e. bilingual where; home, school, mosque), linguistic registers (bilingual with whom; academic, social, see Jernudd, this volume), etc. Similarly, bilingual education programmes also vary greatly in their nature and scope. In this paper developing this notion of a multifaceted bilingualism is discussed in the context of Australian language planning and language-in-education planning programmes for national development. In particular, programmes are examined which have been designed to lead to a very limited type of mass bilingualism 1. From some perspectives, one might even question whether what is being talked about is bilingualism at all. However, it seems clear that many policy statements made in Australia do conceptualise Languages Other Than English (LOTE) programmes as at least limited bilingual ones. While recent arguments for such programmes have tended to stress the 'economic imperatives' for LOTEs, LOTEs have also been seen as making a contribution to the development of a multicultural Australian identity in the national and global sense (Eltis, 1991; Smolicz, 1990), and to individual cognitive development. Recent evidence which suggests that studying a second language/becoming bilingual improves metalinguistic awareness and thinking skills and that the 'degree of bilingualism may have a stronger effect on cognitive abilities for children who are at the beginning stages of language learning' (Hakuta, Ferdman & Diax 1987: 296). This stance, which might be called the early bilingualism hypothesis, runs counter to the widely held view initially suggested by Cummins (1976) for a threshold hypothesis, that is that the 'pay off' for bilingualism comes only in the advanced stages of language learning. This use of language for national development through a programme for limited bilingualism will be illustrated through the Queensland government's language-in-education programme, which is arguably one of the most far reaching in Australia. However, before looking at programme specifics and the language planning problems which result, it is instructive to examine the context to see how this policy for a Language Other Than English (LOTE) for all has developed. Language and Identity in the Australian Context Pre-European Australia was multilingual; it is estimated that about 260 Australian languages and as many as 500 dialects were spoken there. European settlement beginning in 1788 brought predominantly English speaking settlers to Australia, and lead to the displacement of and language death for many Australian languages. Later, the gold rushes of the 1850s brought significant numbers of speakers of other languages to Australia, including substantial numbers of migrants from Germany and China. However, the Federal Immigration Act of 1901 restricted non-European migration and the World Wars created a climate for further non-English language restrictions. Therefore, by the end of the Second World War the Australian self-image

< previous page

page_122

next page >

< previous page

page_123

next page > Page 123

was of a monolingual monocultural society, with 90% of the population tracing its origins to Britain (Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, 1984). The Second World War and the emergence of the European Economic Community in the post war period made Australians only too aware that they lived in Asia and that they could no longer depend on British economic ties or military support. Furthermore, between 1947 and 1971 nearly three million migrants came to settle in Australia to meet the labour needs of an industrialising nation. About 60% of these migrants came from non-English speaking countries. Since 1973, when the 'White Australia' policy was officially abandoned, Australian immigration policies have been generally bipartisan, more broadly based, and have not discriminated by race (Baldauf, 1990). For example, Australia has accepted per capita a larger number of Indo-Chinese refugees than most other nations. These recent changes to Australia's linguistic and ethnic background have meant that Australia has become a multilingual and multicultural nation and state and national governments have had to develop policies and programmes which reflect these new social, cultural and economic realities. Language Policy Efforts in the Australian Context Australian language policy and planning efforts which have occurred over the last several decades as a result of the changing make up of the Australian community have been widely documented in the literature: government reports (e.g. SSCEA, 1984; Lo Bianco, 1987), chapters in books (e.g. Kaplan, 1989; Lo Bianco, 1990b), journal articles (Clyne, 1991; Ozolins, 1988; Lo Bianco, 1990a) and conference papers (e.g. Baldauf, 1990). Therefore, only a brief overview is provided for contextualisation purposes. This language policy debate about the best directions to take for the national development of languages dates back to the mid 1970s, and to the beginnings of language planning formulation, which follows nearly a decade later. As Moore (1991) has indicated, national policy statements from this period have at various times conceptualised language policy issue in terms of (a) English as a second language, (b) multiculturalism, (c) marketing of English to overseas students, (d) languages other than English, and (e) Asian languages, and have had major implications for language-in-education policy and planning. That is, these issues have become the focus of educational programme development. The most recent of these policy documents is the Commonwealth Department of Education Employment and Training's White Paper entitled Australia's Language: The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (DEET, 1991). This paper, which represents yet another reconceptualisation of what is important for language study in Australia, is framed in terms of literacy and Australian English. While it represents an attempt to develop a comprehensive language policy, critics are concerned that it may be moving Aus-

< previous page

page_123

next page >

< previous page

page_124

next page > Page 124

tralia away from the languages emphasis found in previous policy statements, away from multilingualism, and away from a focus on national development in a world context, to a more self-centred, English language based focus. What effect this policy may have on language-in-education policy and planningwhere education is a major way in which governments try to directly influence language changeis as yet unclear. Specific language-in-education planning in Australia is a more recent phenomena and stems primarily from Lo Bianco's (1987) National Policy on Languages recommendations which were largely accepted by the government for implementation in 1988. From the perspective taken by this paper, a key recommendation in this report was 'A second language for all', and a sizeable proportion of recent 'language policy' funding has been set aside for that purpose (Baldauf, 1990) 2. However, as primary and secondary education is primarily the concern of the states in Australia, language-in-education policy and planning has had to be a cooperative Federal-State initiative, with coordinated national materials development projects like the Australian Language Levels (ALL) Guidelines (Scarino 1988, Scarino & McKay, 1990) and a variety of school based state initiatives. Language-in-Education Planning in Queensland State based initiatives in languages other than English (LOTE) have varied from state to state3. Since 1990 LOTE has been a key element of the Queensland government's priorities for education, and A$65 million has been allocated to support these programme initiatives. Under the language-in-education policy which has been adopted, the State of Queensland is moving to make a language other than English (LOTE) available to all students in Grades 68 by 1994, a target which the Department believes will be achievable. This will mean that students will receive about 180 hours of LOTE instruction over this three year period. It is proposed that by the year 1996 all students in Grades 1 to 10 should have access to a LOTE, and that 25% of graduates (more than twice the current rate) should complete the study of a LOTE to Grade 12. Since the beginning of September 1989 the Department has been working to implement these LOTE policies. To accomplish the first part of this task, the State Department of Education is in the process of recruiting and training 100 additional language teachers a year for four years, upgrading the skills of those language teachers currently employed, and setting standards for language and methodological proficiency for new graduates. Work on curriculum materials to support these programmes is also proceeding (Braddy, 1991). It is interesting to note that this language-in-education planning exercise began not only with a statement of political intent, but is based on a report on the language situation in Queensland which made specific second language policy recommendations (Ingram & Johns, 1990). That language

< previous page

page_124

next page >

< previous page

page_125

next page > Page 125

policy statement has been followed up by continuing policy level consultation by the Department with teachers and the Universities with regard to the needs for the development of a quality and professionally oriented body of language teachers, both at the pre-service and in-service levels. The Languages and Cultures Unit (LACU) of the Department, which has been given the primary responsibility for developing and sustaining this massive exercise, has also been involved with materials development and has had its members out getting feedback from the community. At the policy level this programme represents an impressive start to what promises to be a long and complex language-in-education exercise aimed at creating limited bilingualism and biculturalism in five priority languages 4 (Chinese, German, French, Indonesian and Japanese) on a state wide basis for all students. It is interesting to examine the reasoning behind this programme. In his July 1991 ministerial statement, Braddy has argued there are three principal reasons for learning a LOTE: The principal reason to give priority to language learning is its impact on the intellectual development of children. That is, language learning gives deeper knowledge of the structures and processes of communication. It develops capacity in one's first language for most learners and it provides an analytical and communicative skill that enhances learning in other fields. In short, language learning develops the mind in some special and valuable ways and this is a good and sufficient reason for teaching languages in our schools and making them accessible to all students. The second reason for giving priority to language learning is cultural. Languages when taught in a cultural and social context, widen horizons of the mind. In some ways, in Australia, we suffer the tyranny of cultural distance from the great Asian and European civilisations of the world. Languages are one way of open the gates to those culturesthey help us look out and to participate in that world. Languages also help us to look into our own societyand to understand the need for sensitivity to and acceptance of the diversity and richness of the cultures that are celebrated in Australia. Underpinning these central reasons for language learning lies a third, economic interest. Australia is no off-shore island of Britain or Europe, though some still hanker after this. We are permanently anchored in the Pacific and Indian oceans, alongside that great region of dynamic change, Asia. For Australia, and for Queensland in particular, most of our economic fortunes lie in this region (1991: 2). In summary, where do these language policy efforts leave Queenslanders? It seems that language experts, policy makers and planners have developed a rational, linguistically sound and far reaching set of language policies. The enthusiasm generated for this potential revolution in second language learning must now be translated to the parents, teachers and students who

< previous page

page_125

next page >

< previous page

page_126

next page > Page 126

will have the ultimate task to do the language learning. If this revolution is to succeed, much must be done to translate this language-in-education policy into language-in-education planning, or to move from policy to practice. Key Issues to be Addressed As this brief overview has shown, the Australian Federal government and the statesto varying degreeshave taken on a massive task, to make the notion of a multilingual and multicultural Australia a reality for all Australians, not just for those coming from a non-English speaking background, by making mandatory for all Australians the study of a second language and culture. While these language-in-education policies and the consequent on-going language planning may not create a nation of bilingual Australians in the common usage of the term, Australia could become more bilingual in the sense that Grosjean and others have used it. This would be a positive development in the way Australians see themselves and in the way they relate to others, particularly our neighbours in the Asian and Pacific region. However, previous experience has shown that the provision of second language programmes does not mean that students will enrol in them. In the past only about 20% of students who took a language in Grade 8 (the first year of high school in Queensland) have continued with it in Grade 9. Language planning is about meeting needs, and the perceived needs of many Australians for language study is low (Baldauf & Lawrence, 1990; Berthold, 1991b). Therefore, if an Australia wide bilingualism is to develop, a number of language-in-education planning problems will need to be dealt with, and it is to these that I would now like to turn. Many of these problems are issues, which when taken in their local cultural context have arisen in other bilingual programmes, for example, the dwibahasa programme in Brunei Darussalam (Jones & Ozog, this volume). Motivation and Attitudes The current ideology in language teaching in Australia is strongly based in the communicative method, and on activity based teaching (Scarino, 1988). Underlying this is the assumption that communicative study will be more useful and motivating for students, than other approaches. However, Baldauf & Rainbow (1992) have argued elsewhere that the communicative method alone is unlikely to be highly motivating in what is basically a foreign language situation. While role-playing how to take a bus or train, or how to buy things in a shop in French or Japanese is undoubtedly more interesting than drill, many students will still feel they will never have the opportunity to use this skill or the vocabulary connected with it. It is argued, therefore, that the topics themselves and the way they are learned

< previous page

page_126

next page >

< previous page

page_127

next page > Page 127

must be interesting and motivating, especially for beginning students. A LOTE student teacher newly out practice-teaching, sums up nicely why students study and the role of student motivation and attitudes toward language learning: The general impression I received was that although the students enjoyed the unit and participated in all activities, it was still essentially school work that was to be done purely for its own sake. (Janine Wulf, 1991, personal communication) Motivating parents, teachers, and above all students will be a major challenge for this language-in-education programme. While an activity based programme is a step in the right direction, much more will need to be done to make language learning interesting, and even fun. This is a ten year project which will require continued high levels of enthusiasm and motivation both in the schools and in the community if it is to succeed. While factors related to extrinsic motivation may be on the increase in Australia (tourism, travel, etc.), unless a LOTE is again made mandatory for University entrance, intrinsic motivation will continue to be the primary source of motivation for most students in their LOTE students. There are a variety of topics and materials which can be used to make teaching programmes more intrinsically motivating. Exactly what will work best depends on teacher interests and skills, student interests and the general cultural setting in which the language is being learned. These motivational materials also need to be an integral, rather than an appended part of our language programmes. Teachers must embrace such activities with enthusiasm, if they wish to convince their students that such activities are worthwhile. Baldauf & Rainbow (1992) have suggested that cultural activities, songs, games, video and computer materials are some 'popular culture' sources that might be exploited to increase student motivation. Teacher Supply and Standards 5 The problems of language teacher training and standards are a major concern for the success of these LOTE programmes. The decline of language teaching in schools during the 1970s and early 1980s left a depleted core of mainly French and German teachers in the schools. Many of these teachers and the trickle of University graduates going into language teaching had limited or no oral fluency, having been trained in University language Departments whose sole focus was literature. The new language-in-education initiatives have created vast structural changes in education that (1) require the retaining or recruitment of large numbers of new school language teachers; (2) rapidly expands the range of languages from mainly French and German to include Indonesian, Japanese and Chinese in Queensland and a wider variety of languages in other states; and (3) makes communicative competence, rather than literary studies,

< previous page

page_127

next page >

< previous page

page_128

next page > Page 128

the focus of language teaching. These have meant structural changes to programmes in schools (e.g. LOTE has been changed from being an elective to a core subject in the P-10 curriculum) and Universities (e.g. Language and Education Departments are trying to take more students and to teach them communicatively). There is a great concern that these changes could be implemented with such haste that quality could be sacrificed just to get programmes in place. It is in this context that the Queensland Education Department in conjunction with the Board of Teacher Registration is looking at a minimum skills package as an essential link in the cycle of language renewal which is under way in the state (Commins & Mckay, 1991). Such a package would set standards for those seeking to enter language teaching in Queensland and provide goals for those already in the teaching service in the state. Such a package might include (1) core teaching skills; (2) language teaching skills; (3) cultural awareness and experience; (4) interpersonal skills; and (5) target language proficiency skills. If in the rush to get the programme up and running, quality is sacrificed, another generation of Australians could be alienated from learning a LOTE 6. Community Attitudes Edwards (this volume) points out that too often there is an over reliance on schools as agents of language change, when language change is a matter which will ultimately be determined by society as a whole. It is therefore interesting to note how the status of LOTEs has changed dramatically over the last 40 years in Australian society (Leal, 1991). Up until the early 1970s, a LOTE (i.e. a classical or literary language) was a requirement for university entrance and most universities required further study to at least second year level. Knowing a LOTE was therefore a high status, if rather low frequencyin society as a wholeoccurrence. Most government bureaucrats knew the grammar and structure of some second language, even if they couldn't speak it. On the other hand, it was only after the Second World War that Australia took in large numbers of migrants, many of whom came from non English speaking backgrounds and who spoke a wide variety of 'non literary' languages. By the early 1970s these migrants were making the transition from unskilled labourers to being more affluent members of the community, and demands were being made that their languages be recognised (Leal, 1991). Thus, it can be argued that during the 1970s knowing a LOTE moved from being associated with high status to being associated with low status community members. In the short term, this has made the selling of LOTEs more difficult in the community since it is now the bureaucratic elite which lack LOTE skills. In addition there are many Anglo-Celtic Australians who for a variety of reasons have never had a LOTE learning experience. Having been born at a time when English is the de facto world language, it is perhaps difficult

< previous page

page_128

next page >

< previous page

page_129

next page > Page 129

for many of them to see why they (or their children) should learn a LOTE (Bochner, 1989). These attitudes are only reinforced by statements by some government ministers who have stressed the importance of everyone learning Australian English, at the apparent expense of LOTE study, when these two language programmes should be mutually supportive. It is in this sense that the recent policy statement, Australia's language: The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (DEET, 1991) is a cause for concern (Sussex, 1991). Nevertheless, it appears that community attitudes are becoming more positive toward LOTEs, but much work remains to be done to create a climate favourable to LOTE learning in the general community. Without this support, LOTE education programme are likely to be limited in achieving their goals. Distance LOTE Teaching Although Australia is predominantly a nation of urban dwellers, with more than half the population living in the greater capital city metropolitan areas, there are still a large number of students living in small towns and on rural properties who need to be catered for, if a LOTE is to be availableas promisedto all Australians. This problem is being examined both through national (Scheil, 1992) and state level projects (Cunningham, 1992). It is not only student distance needs for LOTE study which need to be serviced, but those of teachers as well, if Australia is to maintain the quality LOTE teaching necessary for successful implementation of this language policy. Distance LOTE study will be a challenge for language-in-education planners and will require greater use of the technology that we have (Cunningham, 1992; Levy, 1991). It is important that we do not let a gap develop between rural and urban Australia in the provision of LOTE. Non-government Schools The national policy on languages and state language-in-education policies apply to both government and non-government (i.e. Catholic, other religious denominational and independent) schools. There is a continuing debate in Australia about government funding which is provided to these schools. In the case of religious schools, there is a belief that religion is an individual matter and should not be fully funded by the State. For independent schools, there is a perception that these schools are wealthy and for the privileged and thus deserve no public money. Without trying to resolve what are deeply held views on both sides, it needs to be recognised that 'A Language for All' is a new initiative supported at both the state and national levels which requires all schools to find additional short term resources in terms of teachers and materials if it is to be successful. In Queensland 30% of students go to non-government schools. If this is to be a truly a state-wide initiative, then these students must not be excluded from or given access to only to a second rate LOTE education.

< previous page

page_129

next page >

< previous page

page_130

next page > Page 130

Time on Task While all of the above problems are undoubtedly important, in the long term, the key element which will decide whether there will be the development of useful limited bilingualism in Queensland children is time on task. The movement of LOTE into the core curriculum has real implications for the use of school time. School days have not been lengthened to accommodate this change, so other subject areas have lost an hour to an hour and a half of time. As anyone who has worked in a school system would know, no subject area ever gets enough time, and there is a constant battle for space and quality time on the school's time table. In the case of LOTE, an hour and a half a week (or 60 hours a year in the primary programme) is not enough language study to begin to provide the 700 to 900 hours of study that it is estimated are needed to gain minimum vocational proficiency in a European language. Two to three times that amount of time may be needed to acquire character based languages like Japanese or Chinese. While it is clear to language experts that more time is needed, no more unique time can be provided given the pressures from the other teaching areas. The solution to this problem is clearly to use time more productively through joint language and 'content' time allocation, i.e. bilingual teaching. These partial immersion programmes are already occurring in a limited number of secondary schools around the country, e.g. Benowa (French) in Queensland (Berthold, 1991a) and at Mt Scopus in Melbourne (Eliskovits & McNamara, 1991). There is also the suggestion that partial immersion is the model favoured in the primary schools in Queensland as a half hour of the one and a half hours a week is often taken by the classroom teacher for extension activities. Evaluations of programmes indicate that in classrooms where this integrated activity occurs, the programmes are far more successful than where all the teaching is provided by the outside teaching specialist. Teaching Language, Teaching Culture Language teachers have a critial role to play in language and culture awareness and teaching. Language is a core component of any culture, and therefore language teaching must be culture teachingto some extent 7. This means that a programme of limited bilingualism must also have a component of biculturalism as well. This is a complex relationship, the outlines of which can only be touched on here. Two aspects however should be mentioned. First, teaching a second language (and culture) rises issues internal to the society in which the language is being taught. In the case of Queensland, justice and equity issues (gender, language background, socio-economic status, disadvantage, etc.) have become central considerations in the way

< previous page

page_130

next page >

< previous page

page_131

next page > Page 131

the educational system is meant to be providing services for all of its students. At a minimum this means that the fact that students bring different linguistic and cultural backgrounds and attitudes toward learning a second language to the classroom presents a teaching challenge for LOTE teachers. Second, using an external focus, the move to communicative language teaching, where that term encompasses both oral and written language, means that some aspects of culture, in the minimum case things like register and genre, must be included as part of a language teaching programme. Thus, culture, and how it should be appropriately dealt with in its 'internal' and 'external' senses, is a major issue that language teachers have to confront. The culture embedded in implicitly in language is about how human interactions occur in a particular society. These are much more difficult and sensitive issues to learn and teach than the 'Cultural Studies' materials often associated with this term. Summary and Conclusions For those interested in language-in-education planning in Australia these are exciting times. For the first tine there is a real opportunity to make the benefits of multicultural Australian society available to all citizens. The challenges in doing this are great, but worth the effort. However, this language-in-education process will be a long and involved one. Considerable persistence and insistence on quality will be necessary if the possibility of a truly multilingual and multicultural Australia is to be achieved for all. It is perhaps ironic then that even as language policy and planning are working toward creating a more multilingual Australia and Australian identity, language shift to English in Aboriginal and migrant communities continues apace (cf. Fishman, 1992). It is still to early to tell how these two types of language shift (gain and loss) may interact to create the language profile of the Australia of the future. It is becoming increasingly clear that language is becoming a key element in national development and language-in-education planning in Australia. Although the 'limited bilingualism' programme examined in this paper has had a particular Australian context, many of the challenges faced are similar to those faced in other bilingual education contexts. A major difference, however, is that many bilingual programmes are more akin to 'English knowing' bilingualism (Pakir, this volume), whereas in Australia the language roles are reversed, and the aim is to create a sustainable 'multilingual knowing' society. Acknowledgements The research reported in this paper was supported by an Australian government DEET ASLLP 1991/92 grant, and its presentation by travel grants from James Cook University and the Australian High Commission, Brunei

< previous page

page_131

next page >

< previous page

page_132

next page > Page 132

Darussalam. The opinions expressed in the paper are solely those of the author. Notes 1. This of course is not the only intended educational effect. It has been suggested that about 20% of students may voluntarily continue their language study through Grade 12, thereby developing significant second language fluency. 2. The DEET (1991: 25) policy statement indicate the following funding for LOTE:

Children's LOTE Adult LOTE

199091 199192 199293 199394 A$m A$m A$m A$m 16.90 14.29 17.59 17.45 5.29 6.25 6.33 5.35

3. For a summary of developments in some of the other states, see Eltis (1991) for New South Wales or Wilson (1988) for South Australia, and Clyne (1991: 14) for a brief summary. 4. Policy statements stress that there should be a balance among the priority languages, and that other languagesparticularly Italian which is a major community language in Queenslandmay be taught if there is the demand and the resources. The policy is therefore more open to language teaching diversity than it might otherwise appear. 5. Some specific information on this topic in its Australian context can be found in Malcolm (1991) and Mann (forthcoming). 6. Ingram (1992) provides a detailed argument for standard skill levels for LOTE teachers. 7. For example, Byram's (1989) model of foreign language acquisition has four components: Language learning, language awareness, cultural awareness and cultural experiencewhich he argues should be represented in equal measure over the course of a foreign language programme. Even programmes which focus on language learning must generate some internalised contrastive language, and therefore cultural information. References Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (1990) Australia's national language policy: Language use and language-in-education implementation. In V. Bickley (ed.) Language Use, Language Teaching and the Curriculum (pp. 7387). Hong Kong: Department of Education. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. and Lawrence, H. (1990) Student characteristics and affective domain effects on LOTE retention rates. Language and Education 4, 22548. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. and Rainbow, P. G. (1992) Motivation in language teaching: The key to quality in learning and teaching. In N. Bird and J. Harris (eds) QUILT and QUILL: Achieving and Maintaining Quality in Language Teaching & Learning (pp. 7696). Hong Kong: Department of Education. Berthold, M. (1991a) Effective language acquisition through the 'language immersion method' in Australian secondary schools. Babel (Aust.) 26(2), 2634. Berthold, M. (1991b) Expansion of languages in primary schools. Babel (Aust.) 26(1), 1720. Braddy, P. (1991, July) LOTE: A Statement from the Minister. Brisbane: Department of Education. Bochner, S. (1989) The relationship between language usage, cultural identity and multiculturalism in Australia: An empirical study. In V. Bickley (ed.) Language Teaching and Learning Styles Within and Across Cultures (pp. 43751). Hong Kong: ILE, Education Department. Byram, M. (1989) Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Clyne, M. (1991) Australia's language policies: Are we going backwards? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics S(8), 322. [Language Planning and Language Policy in Australia] Commins, L. and McKay, P. (1991: Oct.) Discussion paper: LOTE minimum skills package. Brisbane: Department of Education.

< previous page

page_132

next page >

< previous page

page_133

next page > Page 133

Cummins, J. (1976) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 143. Cunningham, D. (1992) Languages and distance education technology in Australia. Babel (Aust.) 27(2), 1015. DEET (1991) Australia's Language: The Australian Language and Literacy Policy. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Eliskovits, E. and McNamara, T. (1991) Evaluation of a late bilingual immersion program in Hebrew and English at Mt. Scopus College, Burwood. Melbourne: AGPS. [Victoria Technical Report No. 2 Melbourne-NLLIA]. Eltis, K. (1991) Shaping the future of languages: Meeting the challenges. Babel (Aust.) 26(2), 413. Fishman, J. A. (1992) Prospects for reversing language shift (RLS) in Australia: Evidence from Aboriginal and immigrant groups. Vox 6, 4862. Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Hakuta, K., Ferdman, B. M. and Diaz, R. M. (1987) Bilingualism and cognitive development: Three perspectives. In S. Rosenberg (ed.) Advances in Applied Linguistics Volume 2. (pp. 284319). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ingram, D. E. (1992) Specifying and assessing skills for language teachers. Babel (Aust.) 27(2), 1627. Ingram, D. E. and Johns, G. (1990) The Teaching of Languages and Cultures in Queensland. Nathan: C.A.L.L., Griffith University. Jones, G. (1990) How bilingualism is being integrated in Negara Brunei Darussalam. In R. B. Baldauf, Jr. and A. Luke (eds) Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific (pp. 295304). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B. (1989) Language planning v. planning language. In C. H. Candlin and T. F. McNamara (eds) Language, Learning and Community (pp. 193203). Sydney: NCELTR. Leal, B. (1991: Nov.) Keynote address to the conference on teaching languages other than English: Implications for teacher education and teacher registration. Brisbane. Levy, M. (1991) CALL Australia. CAELL Journal 2(3), 811. Lo Bianco, J. (1987) National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Lo Bianco, J. (1990a) A hard-nosed multiculturalism: Revitalising multicultural education? Vox 4, 8094. Lo Bianco, J. (1990b) Language policy: Australia's experience. In R. B. Baldauf, Jr. and A. Luke (eds) Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific (pp. 4779). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. MacNamara, J. (1967) The bilingual's linguistic performance: A psychological overview. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 5977. Malcolm, I. G. (1991) The management of language teaching and training in higher education: New directions for Australia. In V. Bickley (ed.) Where from Here? Issues Relating to the Planning, Managing and Implementation of Language Teaching and Training Programmes in the 90's (pp. 89115). Hong Kong: ILE, Department of Education. Mann, C. (forthcoming) Language teaching in tertiary institutions in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics S9. Moore, H. (1991) Enchantment and displacements: Multiculturalism, language policy and Dawkins-speak. Melbourne Studies of Education. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. Ozolins, U. (1988) Government language policy initiatives and the future of ethnic languages in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 72, 11329. Scarino, A. (1988) Australian language levels (ALL) guidelines: Latest developments. Babel (Aust.) 23(1), 2532. Scarino, A. and McKay, P. (1990) National curriculum renewal in language teaching: An Australian experience. In V. Bickley (ed.) Language Use, Language Teaching and the Curriculum (pp. 56476). Hong Kong: Department of Education. Scribner, S. and Cole, M. (1981) The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

< previous page

page_133

next page >

< previous page

page_134

next page > Page 134

Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts (SSCEA). (1984: Oct.) Report on National Language Policy. Camberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Scheil, M. (1992) Rethinking the teaching and learning of languages other than English in distance education: Educational equality for the twenty-first century. Vox 6, 336. Smolicz, J. J. (1990) Language and economy in their cultural envelope. Vox 4, 6579. Sussex, R. (1991) The green paper on language and literacy: An overview and critique. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics S(8), 3963. [Language Planning and Language Policy in Australia] Wilson, J. A. (1988) Language policy implementation in South Australia in 1987: An analysis of social, political and administrative factors involved in the drafting of the South Australian languages other than English plan 198795. In V. Bickley (ed.) Languages in Education in a Bilingual or Multi-lingual Setting (pp. 228245). Hong Kong: ILE, Education Department.

< previous page

page_134

next page >

< previous page

page_135

next page > Page 135

Planning English Language Acquisition in ESL and EFL Societies: Development and Maintenance of Languages and Cultures Björn H. Jernudd Department of English Language and Literature, Hong Kong Baptist College, 224 Waterloo Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong Abstract The paper juxtaposes two socio-educational value clusters that predict an ESL and an EFL approach, respectively, to English language acquisition management. The paper describes the two approaches, especially in educational terms, and relates them to the changing functions of English in the world and to national language development and maintenance. The paper discusses the potential consequences of an ESL and EFL approach on Brunei. Introduction In this paper I shall relate English teaching practices to the global functions of English and to language maintenance and development practices, within a broad language planning framework. ESL and EFL Approaches to English Language Acquisition I shall make a distinction at the society-wide policy level between socioeducational value clusters, in this paper between values that predict the teaching of English as a foreign language, on the one hand, and as a second language, on the other. This distinction will parallel much of the common understanding in the language teaching professions of differences between TEFL and TESOL as approaches of pedagogy but is not identical with it. By value cluster I mean, with Fishman, 'a set of community values characteristically enacted in a corresponding set of culturally defined, behavioral domains' (Fishman, 1971: 257). A value cluster comprises pedagogical approaches as well as the surrounding social and economic consider-

< previous page

page_135

next page >

< previous page

page_136

next page > Page 136

ations of decision-making in a society. The clusters enable me to put methodological considerations in foreign and second language pedagogies in the context of language acquisition planning goals which in turn are put in the broader context of social decision-making. This makes good sense because it also enables me to investigate facts of English usage, whether in the present or for the future, and to relate all these facts to understand the total situation of use of and behavior towards the English language in any given society. Value clusters that produce the ESL and EFL approaches to English teaching mainly affect educational domains which in turn are manifest in teaching situations. The ESL and EFL approaches are treated as distinct and opposite in this paper. This opposition is one of convenience rather than completeness. A scalar treatment based in the detailed study of all features that constitute them would be a reasonable next step of analysis. Goals for English acquisition policies flow from policy-makers' opinions, beliefs and feelings concerning why English should be acquired, by whom and when, relative to acquisition of other languages, and in the total context of negotiation of educational and other policies. The policy-makers' social-educational values obviously determine the direction of English acquisition policies. The two-way distinction does not mean that features that characterise or follow from one value cluster can not also co-occur with the other. To begin with, vagueness and oscillation are themselves universal meta-features of human behaviour; secondly, a construct of value cluster is a characterisation of typical or expected behaviour and therefore not hardened by utter exclusivity; thirdly, many pedagogical tasks may well be practiced in and suit both types, e.g. educational policies in both value clusters may be implemented through pedagogical methods that rely on replications of native situations, and may use native speakers as teachers. Also, terminology for purposes of classification is vague because the sociolinguistic situations of English acquisition planning and their accompanying pedagogical and methodological range of behaviours have not yet been seriously studied. I would like to do that study. I feel that discussion of language teaching approaches has been hampered precisely by a lack of study of the total sociolinguistic and planning conditions that surround, indeed drive, language teaching. Critical distinction has to be made at levels of group interests and practices that are socially, politically, economically and communicationally more inclusive than the professional-methodological and the educational-institutional practice. In a given society, it would be useful to be able to distinguish various networks of decision-makers by value clusters that influence if not fully determine acquisition planning processes at the most inclusive societal level as well as at dependent levels. However, the simplest distinction is binary and I shall therefore, at least as an experiment of thought which I intend to be useful, project and defend the separation of, at least and in this paper, an EFL from an ESL value cluster.

< previous page

page_136

next page >

< previous page

page_137

next page > Page 137

Changing Roles for English and Other Languages A language planning process makes sense only if it is explicitly connected to facts of language use among particular individuals. In acquisition planning contexts, these facts are often referred to as needs. Foreign language policies make assumptions about future language needs of learners. In a planning framework, these needs are the anticipated language problems, namely, lack of proficiency in the language that it is expected the person shall need to use. The acquisition process provides adjustment for this lack by enabling the person to become proficient in the language. My focus in this paper is on English. Therefore, to understand what these needs may be in regard to English, and for whom, one would have to have insight into changing language selections in international communication, and into changing roles for English in relation to other languages in global context. One would need to look into the future to see who would need English in discourse with whom (or what), about what, when and why, and what alternative solutions may lead to successful communication should English not be available in the equivalent situations. Development and Maintenance of Language My third area of enquiry concerns development and maintenance of language. This is so because gain, survival and loss of languages were topics of the conference, and this is also so because it would be a grave error in the analysis of and development of arguments for foreign and second language acquisition management processes to focus on speakers' and learners' use of only one language, English, without at the same time paying attention to the relationship of English to the learners' use of other languages, especially of course their mother-tongues. The acquisition and use of one language inevitably have some consequences for the acquisition and use of other languages, especially when policy which allocates national resources can be implemented in nationally comprehensive school systems. The term maintenance is strongly associated with bilingualism and ethnicity, as are the concepts of gain, survival and loss of languages. Maintenance refers to the migrant experience or to resurgent indigenous peoples' self-assertion as contemporary minorities. Maintenance does not refer to responses to pressure from English in language management on behalf of national or other languages. Instead, development is the positive term that refers to management efforts on behalf of a language the use of which is not threatened in its position in the society's language system by intrusion of other languages. At least this is how I shall use these terms in this paper. Claims I shall argue for, and inter-relate, three sets of claims: (1) In societies characterised by ESL social-pedagogical value clusters ('ESL

< previous page

page_137

next page >

< previous page

page_138

next page > Page 138

societies'), pedagogies that depend on daily, routine use of English in significant public domains by native speakers make sense. Otherwise, TEFL accomplishes the equivalent goals and at a lesser cost. (2) (a) More people in more places use English for cross-border communication. This applies to native speakers of English as well as to non-native speakers of English, in fact, native language competence is irrelevant. (b) More people in more places also use some other languages than English for purposes of wider communication. (c) Very many more people in more places use national (and regional) languages, other than English, for all public purposes of communication. (3) (a) EFL societies develop their national languages. (b) In ESL societies, the promotion of English may force concerned speakers of indigenous majority languages to adopt maintenance as a management strategy at a significant cost to local culture, or may contribute to group conflict. Description ESL and EFL Societies Much energy has gone into understanding the dichotomy between the EFL types and the ESL types of English teaching (cf. Judd, 1989). Kachru's immensely influential and insightful work is obviously of the greatest importance here (e.g. Kachru, 1986) and Larry Smith's work on international and auxillary English has created much relevant thought and inspired critical examination of assumptions behind English teaching practices. A literature review would be most worthwhile. Casual reading might begin with, for example, Smith (1983: 1415): I have given this a great deal of thought and am suggesting that English as an International and Intranational Language (EIIL) is a more accurate term for how English is being used in most of the world than is the cover term English to speakers of Other Languages(ESOL) which includes English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL). To this project and paper I bring a simpler, two-way distinction that makes use of features that are similar to Smith's. I intend to characterise values held by networks of people who manage English language acquisition in their societies. For simplicity's sake, I assume that there is a dominant value cluster in any one society although in fact there is always variation. My two types of EFL and ESL societies are hypothetical, bordering on caricature, for purposes of debate and as a backdrop for searching for hypotheses that may explain English acquisition policies and behaviours.

< previous page

page_138

next page >

< previous page

page_139

next page > Page 139

What is an ESL Society? I suggest that in societies dominated by decision-makers who hold ESL socio-educational values: (1) the society is dependent on native English language interests: (2) English is the dominant native language; or (3) the acquisition planning process aims at the creation of dominant use of English if not in the entire population so in the future lives of a limited number of successful learners. Either ESL societies already have a majority English-using population or they have a small English-using population which stands in intimate contact with natively English speaking societies elsewhere. This contact may have historical depth or it may be new. I refer here to dependency relationships of various kinds, i.e. to social, economic or political-security alliances with natively English speaking countries (Lewis, 1975: 24). An ESL society may also arise out of a multilingual situation, e.g. in a society that has a high degree of internal ethnic and linguistic diversity. In this latter situation of diversity, a feasible adjustment appears to be an English-only policy, especially when broad acquisition of English is regarded as desirable in any case in support of, e.g. economic and security policies (Fishman et al., 1977: 105). ESL policies may also be pursued because of lack of EFL models, i.e. simply because of lack of a comparative perspective or lack of expertise in language acquisition management. If decision-makers had comparative indepth sociolinguistic knowledge, e.g. concerning actual and possible systems of language use in institutions of higher learning and facilities available for rapid language adjustment by overseas students, facts of language selections in international business, facts of language use in information processing etc., they would make different decisions because they are better informed. The ESL society has an orientation of, and towards, the English native speaker and interaction first and foremost with native speakers. Settings for acquisition are the school, as well as the society at large. Because of the holistic orientation of native and/or dominant use, methods are incidental. Opportunities for acquisition beyond the very first stage are offered mainly by participation in the use of the language as a medium of instruction, and in situations outside school, to the extent that such situations exist. For many students they do not exist, certainly not in post-colonial societies and sometimes not even for migrants into natively English ones. It would be valuable to explore in comparative detail the features that characterise ESL societies. I obviously stress the native speaker orientation. In regard to personnel in language acquisition contexts, ESL societies will want to use and will in fact employ many native English speaking teachers in schools and in teacher training. Training will be British- (and sometimes US-) oriented. All school pupils will be required to acquire English. I surmise that examinations tend to continue to rely on formerly colonial

< previous page

page_139

next page >

< previous page

page_140

next page > Page 140

institutional arrangements: in the former colonies, British-authorised or linked by virture of participation in examination syndicates. Examinations are therefore essayistic and literary to a greater extent than examinations in EFL societiesobviously by virtue of reliance on natively English practices. Materials originate in native English using countries and are so oriented but are slowly being replaced by domestically originated and orientated materials. This is entirely logical since the larger goal is dominant English use which implies nativisation if the ESL policy is successful. Therefore, materials will tend to be literary and essayistic rather than present content which displays contact communication. For example, Dr Foley held up Australian materials in his presentation to the conference, I presume for use in Singapore. English use begins in the very early primary grades of school, is then not taught as its own subject but becomes the medium of instruction for content subjects except for 'home-native' and moral subjects or for subjects that, in the multilingual (multi-ethnic, 'multi-racial') societies, are explicitly associated with the ethnic and local cultural interests. Methods are various but assume fluency and in places live with another reality. There is tension between the community's own behavioural norm for English and some form of standard English which is accepted as the ideal and teaching norm. School may be slow to recognise language change in the reference norm and slower yet to accept one's own emerging English norm of usage as a legitimate teaching norm (cf. Lewis, 1975: 26); eventually, this latter norm will become the standard of correctness. Consequences for the individual of failure in ESL societies are severe! What is an EFL Society? The setting for acquisition of English in an EFL society is typically the English-learning classroom (cf. Lewis, 1975: 235; Ringbom, 1987: 267). The classroom setting does not exclude a role for native speakers as teachers and models, nor does it exclude immersion method. The study of English teaching in ten countries by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) answers its rhetorical question 'What is a foreign language' by: it remains true that in acquiring a foreign language the student cannot rely on non-institutional forces which, however, can be relied on to advance the learning of the second language. Except in rare cases the foreign language is learned in school or not at all. The confusion about the necessity for a high degree of formality in teaching a foreign language arises from a failure to make explicit this distinction between a foreign and a second language. In the latter case the value of such formality is subordinate to the operation of informal environmental factors, while in

< previous page

page_140

next page >

< previous page

page_141

next page > Page 141

the case of a foreign language there are few environmental factors available to influence learning. (Lewis & Massad, 1975: 24) Although native norms play an important organising role, sociocultural and interactional communicative orientation is not necessarily towards interaction with the native speaker: it doesn't matter if the other is native or not because the domain of interaction is an 'off shore' one, such as international conferencing, international consortial business negotiating, media productions for global consumption. Interactional targets for teaching are crossborder business anywhere a market can be found, learners' exposure to English is youth entertainment on a global scale, travels anywhere on the globe, and other non-native contact use of English. In an EFL society, there is a 'relatively low level of societal support for English' (Lewis & Massad, 1975: 234) although people are of course exposed to English and make some use of it in their domestic lives. For example, an interesting account of the 'consistent use of English in Sweden' is summarised by Ljung (1986: 374). Also, and critically in a comparison with ESL countries, English is not the only foreign language of wider communication to be taught at school. In many EFL societies, and especially in Europe, several other foreign languages are acquired by a majority of pupils, as illustrated for example, in Professor Baetens Beardsmore's paper in this volume. If ESL societies are dependent on intimate native speaker contact, EFL societies include native speaker contact but do not depend on it. They expect to use English in any cross-border contact communication. A contemporary member of an EFL society may well resent and reject as pretentious a native speaker who in a contact discourse situation notes deviations from a native norm rather than letting intelligibility and negotiated continuation of communication be the criteria of successful communication. In metadiscourse, EFL values are likely to bring out strong criticism of implementation of native norms for native norms' sakewhereas native norms would be acceptable if evaluated as pedagogical devices or as devices that may be useful in coordinating contact discourse. People of the EFL society have free choice of norm and other discoursal strategies, native ones of course included. People in EFL societies recognise that learners' subsequent uses of English will not be anchored in native-speaker discourse, cultural practices and society but in international interaction between people from anywhere on the globe or in internationally broadcast usages for which native-speaker origination is incidental. Görlach & Schröder claim that there has been a rediscovery in European countries in the 1980s of British English as 'the idiom of a ''neighbouring culture"' (1985: 230). This stands to reason as English and Britain become incorporated, however reluctantly, in the new Europe as one of many co-

< previous page

page_141

next page >

< previous page

page_142

next page > Page 142

equal partners. Professor Baetens Beardsmore (this volume) illustrates new developments in Europe that also stand outside this EFL-ESL distinction in important ways. The new configuration for acquisition and use of English is induced by the realisation that it is incongruent to maintain that English is acquired because of anticipation of needs to communicate only with native speakers in Anglo-America. One EFL orientation is indeed connected with the +native interaction but another EFL orientation is neutral on the criterion of native interaction. A dominant +native orientation in EFL societies characterises an earlier concrete historical phase which is still present but which is being overtaken by the neutral orientation. Also, I should introduce two subsets within the EFL value cluster, one that is primarily oriented towards Britain or the United States and one that is globally oriented by virtue of a generalised reliance on English for contact communication in any foreign interaction. An EFL society would also have a tradition of use and management of indigenous languages including developing standards for public language use, or would be developing such a management system and standards now. As ESL values in Malaysia weaken, and as Indonesia continues its spectacular growth, both may become cases in point. What they require is putting in place a vigorous, rigorous EFL system. Perhaps one may say that the Philippines has oscillated between the two value setswhich would then be reflected in the weak management system for Pilipino and even weaker for other languages in the Philippines. Paradigmatic EFL examples are of course the European countries. English teaching there is spectacularly successful, as is national language development. At a risk of caricature, these are some features of pedagogical implementation of English in EFL societies. As for personnel, most teaching is done by endogenously trained teachers and the role of native speakers is limited to that of serving as models. There is a local tradition in teacher training, based then in philological, now in linguistic-literary study. Not necessarily all pupils participate in English teaching although in contemporary societies, compulsory English seems the normal case. There is however variation in requirements of achievement and participation. Assessment of English proficiency takes place according to established practices in the domestic educational system, without foreign (native) input. Time allocation of teaching hours is up to perhaps six hours per week, fewer hours in primary school. There is a trend towards third grade introduction of English (cf. Lewis & Massad, 1975: 1936). The relation of English to other school subjects is free. Methods rely on 'a limited quantity of highly structured, selected and sequenced input' (Ringbom, 1987: 27). There has been change from grammar-translation to audio-lingual to communicative to interactive methods, in pace with socio-economic development and according to domestic recep-

< previous page

page_142

next page >

< previous page

page_143

next page > Page 143

tivity to global educational trends. In a few schools, methods would include immersion, and would also include monolingual English approaches in the English classroomthe latter however would not be the dominant practice but could be practiced by particularly confident teachers or in special schools. Norms are defined on the basis of native speaker models, normally an idealised British norm (Lewis & Massad, 1975: 27), sometimes with multiple models (British and American) and sometimes including orientation about the 'new Englishes' (Görlach & Schröder, 1985: 230). Students acquire a 'foreign' behavioural norm of language use. Writing about English-teaching in today's multilingual Europe, Görlach & Schröder note that the 'result, with many learners, is an odd mixture of speech levels and an uncontrolled "Mid-Atlantic," an artificial jargon acceptable neither to the educated Briton nor to the educated American' (1985: 230). Consequences for the individual of failure are 'not particularly disastrous' (Ringbom, 1987: 29). Changing Communication Patterns Changing Functions of English Governments are working to develop information-intellectual resources, or to acquire them through immigration policies, and multinational corporations make use of every denser and faster global information-producing and -despatching networks to juggle their factors of production and markets wherever they may exist. Indeed, information is the means and the end for some of these corporations. These information flows depend on aggregate literate capacity in some languages more than others, and especially in English. Today, English is the lingua mundi, the lingua franca for global information networks. This is as true for business as it is for the scientific communities. While it is possible to work as a scientist and not speak or write English, it is difficult to function as a scientist without access to others' work. Much of that work originates in English-using offices and laboratories and if not, that work is dominantly communicated in English when it is made available to the broader scientific community. English has become the language of information management as well. For example, most computer languages use English language motivated structure and vocabulary. To the extent that finance for manufacturing is international, English is the language in which the legal documentation is drafted. Foreign direct investment flows through English. Individuals may not like English, and many of the people who interact in networks whose transactions depend on the use of English may not know English very well or may not wish to speak it though they read it. Nevertheless, English gains; liberated from its native-speaking homelands, and I

< previous page

page_143

next page >

< previous page

page_144

next page > Page 144

include the new Englishes, it is put to use world-wide to facilitate contact communication, to organise information flows, and to manage information systems. In these new functions, English has become the lingua mundi. Accelerating National Language Development But other languages than English gain even more. This century is the century of the arrival of national languages as languages for public use and their deliberate development. Consolidation of nation states through their public languagestheir standard[ised] languagesthrough a complex process in turn mobilised ethnicities and other sub-national interests around their languages which were thus entered into the public domains of use and became subject to development. Post-modern political-ethnic fragmentation and expressions of group-based interests reinforce this process. Claims for recognition and allocation of resources for languge management now embrace more languages than ever before. I need only mention the fate of Malay, point to India, and foreshadow language debates elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Productive innovation, scientific discovery, and original thought originate in individual efforts, singly or in teams, that are located in national resource support systems. What this means is that national languages are used to carry information created through work in these nationally resourced institutions and this information would be of interest far beyond national boundaries. This information about new knowledge or new application will likely find its way into English but only with time delay, and after editing. Baldauf & Jernudd (1983) have been studying the relation between use of international languages and national languages. National languages are of course used for national content. For example, the annual reports of the association of Swedish teachers in Sweden include a bibliography of the previous year's publications on 'literature concerning the teaching of Swedish'. Consistently over the last 40 years the overwhelming number of publications appeared in Swedish, Norwegian or Danish (or occasionally in Icelandic). This is what we might expect from scholars who deal with their own language and literary traditions within their own native language communities. The point is that the use of national languages is an expanding phenomenon. While English language articles registered in the database MATHFILE over a seven year period increased proportionally to the total for each year using 1973 as the base line year, Russian, German and Japanese language articles were relatively stable in absolute terms. This data suggests that while the English language is becoming proportionately more dominant in the scientific literature, there continues to be a large and relatively stable non-English language scientific literature. It is only too easy to underestimate the amount of work published in national languages. This is partly because databases and citation patterns deceive. For example, Lange (1985) has examined the language of citation

< previous page

page_144

next page >

< previous page

page_145

next page > Page 145

for the theoretical sections of psychology journals in four countries. In the Russian journal, 10% of the articles cited were in English, in the two American journals, 89.1% and 94.2% of the articles cited were in English, while in the two German language journals the percentages of citations in English were 38 (GDR) and 69.4 (FRG). Studies indicate that science which we sometimes regard as a universal and unitary enterprise is fragmented by diversity of language and language selection. While we may take exception to calling languages other than English 'exotic' or to the self-fulfilling prophecy inherent in Garfield's statement (1983) that 'the best papers' are published in some journals, we must ask whether he is, as a matter of scientists' behaviour, right? I claim with Baldauf that he is possibly not right and that whether he is right or not, much valuable information is being published in national languages and some only in national languages. The German-speaking parts of Europe provide another example of how major databases exclude information. The Zentralstelle für psychologische Information und Dokumentation provides the most comprehensive documentation of German-language psychological literature in the world. Part of this service includes PSYNDEX, a German-English database of German-language psychological literature containing over 20,000 references since 1977, only about 10% of which are found in another very reputable data base, PsychINFO (Becker, 1984). Clearly PsychINFO is far less comprehensive in some areas and exhibits far more language bias than native English speaking researchers who rely on it would like to think. Spanish, German, French, Arabic, Persian, Japanese and Chinese have long and uninterrupted histories of use and many other languages such as Swahili, Hindi, Vietnamese, Thai, perhaps Pilipino are being adopted, consolidated and developed into public use and are being integrated with use of English and other languages of wider communication. For Brunei, it is highly significant that among these national languages, Bahasa Malaysia and Indonesia have arrived and will consolidate, too. Spread of New LWCs Including Regional Languages Alongside the lingua mundi and national languages, there are regional languages as well that are used for cross-border communication flows, or to borrow the information scientists' term, for transnational data flows. Contemporary formation of regional blocks favour acquisition and use of some languages more than others. In Europe, not all national languages are equally likely to be cross-acquired; German and French and Russian are more likely candidates of adoption than Danish, Greek, or Turkish. In the Americas, Spanish rules the region. In Southeast Asia, the century-old expansion of Mandarin Chinese is noteworthy, and the explosion in interest in foreign language learning of Japanese will have some effect in acceptance

< previous page

page_145

next page >

< previous page

page_146

next page > Page 146

of use of Japanese in cross-border contact although probably mostly in contact with native Japanese people. Above all, Bahasa Indonesia/Malaysia as a cross-border and within-region public language is likely to gain LWC following in contact with peoples not just within each of these nations but with people from further afield. Brunei stands to benefit. The impressive growth rates of these countries and their combined large populations will force attention to the region and increase interest in and necessity of learning varieties of Malay. Another example of a potential language of wider communication is Russian. People are free to use Russian now that Soviet domination has been removedand the proficiency base, linguistic distance base, areal Sprechbund, and history are there to support its adoption and use transnationally. English does not have a monopoly in transborder communication but it has become associated with particular functions. These functions are not native speaker based. The world needs to know more about its global languages; we need a study of the penetration of English by virtue of its global functions, as the lingua mundi. Interrelationships: Consequences of ESL and EFL Policies for the National Language System Both ESL and EFL societies respond to demands for English. ESL societies that rely on English to manage a multilingual domestic situation have to allocate massive resources over a long period of time to bring about language shift to a natively English-speaking population. In already dominantly English-using societies, ESL values are typically embraced also by immigrant groups. But practically any other situation leaves scope for evaluation in the sense that an assessment of the situation could lead to change in policies. The ESL Policy and Brunei A model has emerged from the above discussion according to which ESL policies would benefit from domestic support of significant use of English in the public domain; for an ESL policy to be successful, school language has to be continuous with life or the policy won't work within reasonable limits of cost. It would seem to follow that if one were to reconstruct an ESL pedagogy, it should rely on full immersion from the earliest school age with full parental and societal support of use, and it should include also teaching of and about English. Should Brunei go the full distance to embrace an ESL policy it may well become necessary for the success of that policy to discourage the use of Malay in many areas of public discourse because the ultimate success of ESL policies depends on continuity of educational with public language

< previous page

page_146

next page >

< previous page

page_147

next page > Page 147

use. Apart from the inherent difficulties in bringing about a shift in public language use, such a policy would dampen the youth's willingness to acquire standard public Malay, and would therefore have effects on the distribution of communicative competency in Malay. The policy is likely to help build an image of Brunei as an internationally 'easy' country. If manufacturing, information, commerce, travel and (paradoxically) eco-tourism policies indeed were to benefit from both image and practice, disfavouring Malay in these public domains may well be thought to be worthwhile. Frankly, I don't think these other policies would so benefit in international communication from an ESL situation any more than it would from an EFL one so why sacrifice the convenience of one's own language in the first place? Another likely effect is that speakers of other Malay languages and Chinese languages will prefer English to Malay standardafter all, they already have their languages and by virtue of living in a vernacularly Malay-speaking sea they will acquire enough spoken Malay to manage individual encounters without having to compete for certificates in a different standard. This effect supports English in public, but undermines the development and use of Malay. A concomitant danger is that Bruneian Malay will become more susceptible to English pressure, and more dependent on external normation at an increasing linguistic distance from Bruneian usage norms. Elite youth may develop an English-based or strongly English-influenced vernacular; this, differential language behaviours between ethnic groups, and a de facto weakened public position of standard Malay are factors that are likely to be sharply supportive of perpetuating social class distinction partly based in educational success with English functioning as gatekeeper, or, to be an expensive educational policy to implement in order to avoid such distinction by virtue of accumulatively differential educational success rates. A proportion of the school cohorts will learn English well but many will not. An ESL policy would have to off-set the possible discontinuity of trading of traditions, such as the telling of children's moral tales, the reading of Malay literature, even religious teachings that are closely supported by Malay. Brunei apparently does take decisive action in the domain of religion. Public usage plays a significant role in the trading across generations of lore, not the least by a school curriculum which involves children in cultural activities synchronous with continuing parental traditional practices. When English is interposed, deliberate, therefore costly, efforts have to be added into a split language curriculum to maintain interest in tradition. Separating out traditional practices in this manner is likely to further alienate the youth. English is being set up to pull in a different direction from Malay, despite inevitable albeit partial indigenisation of English. Dysfunctional effects can be countered by determined off-setting policies but the total cost for a successful balancing of at least the two languages of standard

< previous page

page_147

next page >

< previous page

page_148

next page > Page 148

Malay and English in the public domain is likely to become high. One off-set already is the use of Malay in certain school subjects only. Should these subjects come to be regarded as less important, and should a perception develop that it is a burden to also have to perform well in standard Malay, yet more measures have to be introduced to counter balance these effects; and so on. Should, on the other hand, pupils and parents value Malay and locally oriented subjects more than English, there would seem to be little reason to continue an ESL policy. The EFL Policy and Brunei Well managed implementation of EFL policy can produce a very high level of English competency among school leavers with reasonable expenditure. The level of competency that can be expected would allow the school leaver to engage in university studies that depend on reading and listening comprehension of Englishthe typical use of English in EFL societiesand that can be developed into competency of use of English in a matter of months at that age. An EFL policy articulates well with a policy to develop Malay. An EFL policy is obviously compatible with and reinforcing of alternative paths of language acquisition and a range of other communication alliances, e.g. of those for which Arabic would be expected or an advantage. An EFL policy allows school to communicate subject matter in the pupils' own vernacular languages which is generally regarded as sound unless there are very strong reasons for doing otherwise; and if not in all local languages, at least in standard Malay. The assumption here is, as with ESL situations, that continuity of school language use with life language use is beneficial. The less disruption in young lives by sustaining the greatest amount of cognitive and emotional co-articulation between school and family and society, the better. Furthermore, such practice would be compatible with self-sustaining and proactive management of local tradition, therefore be less disruptive of social order and leave room for language policies to manage ethnic relations. However, since English remains an auxiliary, additional, out-communicating language, an EFL policy must be supported by translation and information policies to facilitate the transfer of foreign-originated information into Malay discourse, and vice versa; in fact, it requires active measures by the state and by the individual to maintain English competencies in the individual's life cycle. I conclude with the note that the EFL policy allows variations and fine-tuning of educational behaviours and materials, and it allows fine-tuning of resource allocations. It works well for teaching other languages than English in most countries around the world and it works for teaching English, too.

< previous page

page_148

next page >

< previous page

page_149

next page > Page 149

References Baldauf Jr., Richard and Jernudd, Björn H. (1983) Language of publication as a variable in scientific communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 6, 1, 97108. Becker, J. H. (1984) German-language psychological journals: An overview. German Journal of Psychology 8, 32344. Fishman, Joshua (1971) The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. In Joshua Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Sociology of Language (Vol. 1) (pp. 217404). The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Fishman, Joshua, Cooper, Robert L. and Conrad, Andrew W. (1977) The Spread of English: The Sociology of English as an Additional Language. Rowley: Newbury House. Garfield, E. (1983) Mapping science in the third world. Science and Public Policy 10, 11227. Görlach, Manfred and Schröder, Konrad (1985) 'Good Usage' in an EFL Context. In Sidney Greenbaum (ed.) The English Language Today (pp. 22732). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Judd, Elliott L. (1989) Language policy curriculum development and TESOL instruction: A search for compatibility? In Chris Kennedy (ed.) Language Planning and English Language Teaching (pp. 3541). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. Kachru, Braj B. (1986) The Alchemy of English. The Spread of Functions and Models of Non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lange, L. (1985) Effects of disciplines and countries on citation habits: An analysis of empirical papers in behavioural sciences. Scientometrics 8, 20515. Lewis, E. Glyn and Massad, Carolyn E. (1975) The Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Ten Countries (International studies in evaluation: IV) (A Halsted Press book.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell; New York: Wiley. Ljung, Magnus (1986) The role of English in Sweden. In Wolfgang Viereck and Bald Wolf-Dietrich (eds) English in Contact with other Languages. Studies in Honour of Broder Carstensen on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (pp. 36986). Budapest: Akadémia Kiado. Ringbom, Håkan (1987) The Role of the Mother Tongue in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Smith, Larry E. (1983) Some distinctive features of EIIL vs. ESOL in English language education. In Larry E. Smith (ed.) Readings in English as an International Language (pp. 1320). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

< previous page

page_149

next page >

< previous page

page_150

next page > Page 150

< previous page

page_150

next page >

< previous page

page_151

next page > Page 151

The Hegemony of English in Science and Technology Robert B. Kaplan Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA 90089-1693, USA Abstract It is clear that English exercises a powerful hegemony in certain transnational domains, including (but not limited to) the international register of science and technology. There are a number of complex issues created by that hegemony of English. Both proximate and distal causes underlying the hegemony of English are briefly explored. A research project (conducted with the cooperation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) based on a questionnaire survey of all the members of the relatively small Hungarian Academy of Sciences and of a random sample of 'Doctors of Science' in Hungary is reported. Dr. Peter Medgyes collected and analysed the Hungarian data, which has been reported in detail in Kaplan & Medgyes (1992); only a cursory summary is presented here. The data show that the ability of Hungarian scientists to be heard beyond Hungary can be differentiated on the basis of their relative English proficiency. The data also show, incidentally, that 40 years of required Russian study in Hungarian educational institutions has not succeeded in disseminating Russian through the Hungarian population. It is suggested that the Hungarian data pose an object lesson for other developing nations seeking access to scientific and technological information as a means to modernisation. Since this paper was initially presented at a language policy/planning conference in Brunei, the implications for that nation are briefly reviewed. There are a number of complex issues created by the hegemony of English in certain domains and in the national development of polities in which English is not widely spoken. To some extent, the hegemony of English seems to militate against bilingualism, though ultimately it probably does not. It is these issues which will be the centre of concern in the following discussion. Why English Hegemony? It is probably the case that most of the world shares in common an ability to function bilingually and an appreciation for bilingualism. If one scans

< previous page

page_151

next page >

< previous page

page_152

next page > Page 152

the human population at large, it would appear that bilingualismindeed, multilingualismis the natural human condition, and that monolingualism is an aberrant state. But the natural bilingualism/multilingualism of the human population is periodically infringed by the rise of a monolingual power. To some extent, that was the case of the great former colonialist empirese.g. the Greeks, the Romans, the Normans, the Arabs, the Spaniards, and the French. Leaving aside the political and economic issues for a moment, the fact is that great segments of the world's population were dominated by single languages at various times in the past and that native speakers of those single languageslargely through unconscious language planningattempted to impose their languages on the groups they came to dominate. The case of English is uniqueindeed, each of the cases I have named was marked by particular featurese.g. great military prowess in the case of the Romans, Islam in the case of the Arabsbut the case of English is unique for several special reasons: it is the most recent case, it is the most extensive case, it is a case which arose largely by accident, it is a case that has been marked by economic rather than by military expansion, and it is a case in which only certain limited domains and registers have come to be dominated. The ubiquity of English is an historical accident based on several coincidences. One of those coincidences lies in the fact that the English, living on a small island, were a seafaring people and that, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, they succeeded in spreading their influence around the world. A second of those accidents is that the English people adopted different manifestations of Protestantism earlier in their national history; this is important because the Protestant groups hold, as a matter of faith, the idea that personal salvation can be accomplished through direct access to the Gospels, which in turn implies that the Gospels must be made available to everybody and that everybody must be able to read them. Thus, one cannot ignore the importance in the spread of English of the missionary efforts of British and later of American Protestant churches (Masagara, 1991). (Catholic churches also engaged in missionary activity, but their ritual did not require literature participation, and their role as language disseminators was quite different. While Islam also engaged in missionary activity, Koranic literacy constitutes a somewhat different problemone which will not be discussed here.) The notion of religious literacy is responsible for the fact that the earliest English settlers along the northeast coast of North America were perhaps the most literate colonising population in history; among their first official acts, after basic survival was assured, was the establishment of schools for the entire population and the universal dissemination of religious literacy not only among themselves but among the Native Americans with whom they came in contact. (While I recognise the complexity of the term literacy, it is not possible to discuss that here in detail either.)

< previous page

page_152

next page >

< previous page

page_153

next page > Page 153

But these phenomena are quite literally historical, having occurred in the more or less distant past; a more recent set of coincidences centres around the period immediately following World War II. Because Britain and the United States (and Australia and New Zealandall English-speaking) were among the countries on the victorious side of the war, they were in a position to impose their will on the post-war settlement and on the globalism that emerged at the end of the war. That globalism coincided with the development of the first international data bases and with the arrival of the computer age. Simultaneously, there was an important change in the nature of science and technology. These several issues will be explored in some detail. Throughout most of human history, science has advanced at a slow and stately pace. Science was, for a very long period of time, largely the province of skilled amateurs, and technological change was essentially independent of the progress of science. Most scientific innovations were a matter of accidentwitness the invention of the steam engine which was at the heart of the first industrial revolution. As a consequence of the deliberate pace of scientific conceptualisation and technological innovation, most human beings were for centuries able to live full, useful and happy lives without being much bothered by changes in technology and without being much aware of science at all. But in the latter stages of the first industrial revolution, science and technology were linked together. Industrialists recognised that they needed to harness science in the service of technology; as a consequence of that recognition, a new class of professional scientists came into existence, and industry began to support science as a normal and natural function of the enhancement of profit. Industrialists began not only to support science with rhetoric but even to invest in basic science research, and subsequently (though considerably later) in scientific information. At present, for example, the pharmaceutical industry invests almost as much money in information management as it does in advertising, and as a consequence the turn-around time between scientific discovery and technological innovation has decreased from decades to days. (The turn-around time from the first scientific breakthroughs in the transmission of sound through the air and the subsequent availability of commercial television was something in the order of 150 years; at the moment, there are documented cases of scientific data searches conducted electronically in a matter of hours leading to technological innovations occurring literally days laterfor an example, see Grabe & Kaplan, 1985.) Furthermore, a new relationship also developed between industry and the academy, because for the first time industry was prepared to pay for basic scientific research conducted in entities which have gradually come to be known as 'research universities'. And in the most recent period, government has also become involved in the support of science, indirectly influencing the directions of research because of the large sums of money that government is able to invest in basic university-sited research (e.g. the famous 'Manhattan Project' which

< previous page

page_153

next page >

< previous page

page_154

next page > Page 154

produced the atomic bomb may be the most dramatic case, but the governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, Japan, Australia, and other states have directly interposed themselves into the directions of scientific research by defining the kinds of research they believed central to the national interest and therefore eligible for funding). In the first part of the present century, the world language of science was German, but as the century progressed and Germany turned its scientific endeavour to weaponry and as it perverted its great scientific tradition with pseudo-science, English began to play a greater role in scientific development, in technological innovation, and in science information. There are some 'laws' in science information; the more a group is involved in scientific innovation, the more it is likely to need science information (because the practice of science is cumulative, every innovation in science depending on the existence of prior science), and the more a group uses science information, the more it is likely to contribute to the existing pool of science information. Further, those groups who most use science information and who most frequently contribute to the pool of such information are likely to capture the global information networks for their own purposes. At the end of World War II, the United States (essentially an English-speaking community) was the only major industrial power to emerge from the war with its scientific and educational infrastructures completely intact. For a complex variety of reasons, the US scientific and educational establishments became extraordinarily productiveindustry, stimulated by the war effort, needed to develop new products and new markets for its products; the US assumed an official view of itself as helping the rest of the world recover from the effects of the war (e.g. the 'Marshall Plan'), and the US had in place vast scientific enterprises, initially spurred by military necessity, but now ready to undertake peacetime objectives. Further, because the US educational infrastructure was fully in place, the US education sector became a magnet for students, particularly from the third worlda phenomenon that had the greatest implication for the emergence of new nations out of the collapse of the old colonial empires, and that also had the greatest implications for the US itself because over the nearly 50 years since the end of the war it has educated literally millions of the third world's youth and has enriched itself not only through the retention of the best minds but through the invention of a new 'export' commodity (education) which has brought billions of dollars in new money into the US economy. These students were attracted particularly to science and engineering studies, and other nations were anxious to have their youth study in the US so that those young people might return with scientific knowledge to help these nationsespecially new nationsto modernise. These students have supported research not only through their tuition dollars but perhaps more importantly through their willingness to serve as cheap research labour. The cold war and Sputnik provided additional stimulus to the already extensive scientific activities of the US educational and industrial sectors,

< previous page

page_154

next page >

< previous page

page_155

next page > Page 155

and government invested even more heavily in basic research in order to maintain the national place in the cold war competition. At the same time, the newly created international information systems were coming on line, most of them taking advantage of recently invented electronic instrumentations. After all, the computer was, in the early 1950s, a new if somewhat ungainly toy, and its capabilities were just beginning to be understood. Under the auspices of newly emerging international governmental structures, operational rules were negotiated. English, French, and Russian were declared the official languages of science information. (Chinese was technically eligible but was not ultimately included because the state-of-the-art equipment of the time could not deal with Chinese characters, and Russian came to be used only in a limited way because Soviet science perceived a need for secrecy as a function of the cold war.) The outcome of all of this linguistic politics was that English emerged as the language of science and technology, and consequently at the present time, according to the Fédération Internationale de Documentation, something like 80 to 85% of all the scientific and technical information available in the world is either abstracted in, or intially published in, English. Indeed, the extent of use of English in these domains continues to expand. But the economic domination of the United States through the middle years of the century served also to expand the use of English into other domains; as a consequence, the world language of tourism, of aircraft and maritime communications, of banking, and of business management, as well as of science and technology, is English. As the late Peter Strevens was fond of pointing out (e.g. Strevens, 1992), with complete accuracy, the great majority of the world's population now uses English as a first or alternative language, and the prior colonial areas of the British Commonwealth have to a large degree retained English in the lists of their official languages. The hegemony of English is an important issue in the contemporary world. Not only is the bulk of the material stored in the world's great information storage and retrieval networks in English, but the access dictionaries are based on an English sociology of knowledge. This fact has the most important consequences; not only does it mean that one has to understand English in order to read the great bulk of scientific information, but it also means that one has to understand the Aristotelian logic and Galilean systematisation underlying the English sociology of knowledge and the English terminology of that classificatory system even in order to access the technical and scientific literature in the first place. The English speaking nations now hold an information cartel which makes OPEC look like child's play. There are several reasons for this condition. First, petrochemical substances decrease as they are used, but information increases as it is used; second, petrochemical substances involve vast costs for exploration, exploitation, refining, and transporting, and petrochemicals are not uniformly distributed around the world while information is, and its exploitation involves much smaller incremental costs. Although the English

< previous page

page_155

next page >

< previous page

page_156

next page > Page 156

speaking nations control such a cartel, for most of the past 50 years they have not exercised its awesome power, perhaps out of lack of awareness that the cartel existed, perhaps out of altruism, but in the last 15 years they have begun, in the name of national security and economic stabilitythat is, to protect patents, copy-rights, and industrial processesto exert real influence over the flow of information. The Reagan administration invented the term technology hemorrhage to characterise what was perceived to be the undesirable outflow of scientific information, at the same time failing to perceive that science can only exist in an environment in which information flows freely in all directions. That exercise of power over the flow of information has caused a perturbation in north/south relations and a continuing and justifiable demand for free access to information on the part of the neediest nations. (It has had little effect on east/west relations since the nations across that divide largely participate in the information networks, although some smaller states in the Eastern bloc were to some extent excluded from participation because their national languages are not widely spoken beyond their borders and because their access to English language instruction was severely curtailed for political reasonsa circumstance which is now rapidly changing.) This syndrome of symptoms has characterised the conditions under which English has become the most important language in human history and has created an environment in which English has become a highly valued commodity. The value placed on the ability to use English has, in turn, created a world market for teachers of English. The People's Republic of China, for example, since it has recognised a need for English in order to achieve modernisation, constitutes a potential market which could easily consume the total annual production of English language teachers from Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States for the foreseeable future. The problem is that such a very large expatriat teacher population could destabilise the domestic environment (as it was in danger of doing at the time of the Tiananmen Square incident). A number of countries have sought to increase their domestic production of English teachers but the problem in this context is that locally produced English teachers may have limited knowledge of the cultural contextof the pragmaticsof English, and such teachers often promote a local non-metropolitan variety of English, potentially increasing the distance, over time, between the international variety of English primarily used in science and technology and that local variety. This phenomenon has given rise to the spread of what Kachru (1982) has called 'nativized Englishes'perfectly viable varieties, complete with literary production, but often limited in spread to the locality in which they arose. In these varieties, the local English serves a number of domains and takes on specialised functions somewhat different from those of the metropolitan variety. Indeed, this situation defines the price that English speakers have had to pay for the internationalisation of their language. English is no longer the property of

< previous page

page_156

next page >

< previous page

page_157

next page > Page 157

English-speakers; rather, it belongs to English users wherever they live and without reference to the 'nativeness' of their use. In summary, I have tried to suggest, in this paper, that the hegemony of English is an accident arising largely out of political adjustments at the end of World War II and the circumstance that those political adjustments coincided with the invention of the computer, that the circumstances underlying the spread of English have been economically driven (despite the fact that the US has intefered militarily in the affairs of other states in the recent paste.g. Vietnam, Panama, Iraq), and that the hegemony of English exists only in certain domains. In an article in World Englishes (1987), I attempted to compare the spread of English through the Pacific Basin with the use of Chinese throughout the Chinese diaspora in the same geographic region. The point I tried to make is that English has come to exercise an important influence in certain communicative domains but that it has had little or no effect on the personal and group identities of vast populations who remain fixed in a cultural and ethnic orientation quite independent of English. When I talked about this topic with governmental leaders in the Philippines a decade ago, they suggested that they could simply translate all of science and technology into Tagalog. I would want to argue that such a task is virtually impossible, for a number of reasons. First, some languages will require elaboration to increase their capacities to deal with a variety of scientific and technical fields. Second, the sheer bulk of existing material and the rate of information growth is so great that, were the project to be undertaken at this moment and all available resources put to it, it would take several decades just to catch up to this moment, leaving an increasing gap. Third, even if the objective were technically feasible, the cost of achieving it would be so great that many nations, especially in the third world, simply could not afford it. In the period since the end of World War II, three nations have devised successful strategies to deal with the problem. Japan, already a developed nation which had successfully engaged in war with the west, recognised at the end of the War that it had to have access to scientific information to recover from the devastation of the War and to take its place among the industrial states. The Japanese government, in the very late 1940s, established JISTThe Japanese Institute for Science and Technologywhich procured the first computers in Japan, sent bibliographic experts to the west to learn the information storage systems, and offered its services to Japanese business and industry. The Japanese government committed a huge fraction of its GNP in the early years to the development of scientific and technical information management systems, directed Japanese research universities to assume certain projects deemed critical to national development, and used a variety of other strategies to achieve the widest possible information access. The core of its strategy was the development of an extremely effective and efficient translating system. Its success has been apparent.

< previous page

page_157

next page >

< previous page

page_158

next page > Page 158

Saudi Arabia adopted a quite different strategy; it took the expedient of sending a very large segment of its technocrats to the west to learn English and to study technical and scientific subjects. It created very attractive incentives to draw back substantial numbers of those who went, and it employed those trained, returned technocrats to develop its own tertiary educational sector and to assume the management of its industrial sector. It too has been markedly successful. Taiwan represents still a third approach to the problem. Because of a relationship between itself and the United States arising out of the events of World War II, Taiwan was able to negotiate a political partnership with the United States which permitted dual citizenship. This condition has permitted Taiwanese scientists to travel regularly across the Pacific and to have free access to the information storage and retrieval system of the United States. With the advent of a variety of rapid electronic communication processes, even physical travel is no longer necessary, and access can be achieved directly through those electronic systems. (In more recent times, Israel has, to some extent, been able to emulate the successes of Taiwan in this context, although the economic development of the two states is rather different.) It is not an accident that the few states which have been able to devise means to penetrate the great science and technology information storage and retrieval networks are not poor states. Solving the information access problem is an expensive process, and only relatively wealthy states have been able to attempt solutions. The fact remains that the states most in need of scientific and technical information are precisely the poorest states least likely to be able to devise viable access strategies. And, as already noted, access seems to fall out along the east/west axis; the states with the least effective access capabilities tend to lie in the southern segment of the north/south polarisation. The Hungarian Study Let me now turn my attention to recent events in Eastern Europe. Medgyes Peter and I had an opportunity to survey the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1989. 1 Hungary was an ideal site for the sort of survey we undertook, partly because it is a small country with a relatively small Academy of Sciences, partly because it is a country using, a 'minor' languagei.e. a language not much spoken beyond the boundaries of that state. Baldauf & Jernudd, in an article concerned with the language use among Scandinavian psychologists, expressed the notion that: '. . . Science consists of cooperative networks formed amongst invisible colleges of scholars . . .' (1987: 98) and examined the role of language in scholarly communication in such cooperative networks. In other words, scientists tend not to communicate with the general public, but rather among themselves. While, in

< previous page

page_158

next page >

< previous page

page_159

next page > Page 159

principle, it is possible (perhaps desirable) for scientists to communicate across disciplines, in fact they tend to write for discipline-specific audiences (that is, chemists write for other chemists, not for astronomers or economists). Baldauf & Jernudd conclude that: . . . the data collected strongly suggests that language poses a barrier to communication within the broad discipline of psychology, and that members of minority language groups bear most of the burden of communication imposed by language differences. The significance of this language problem may still not be readily apparent to native English speakers . . . (1987: 11415). As Grabe (1984) has shown, the discourse structure of different genres even within particular sciences varies; that is, popular science is different from technical science, and both differ from such genes as textbooks and technical proposals. These differences can be attributed, at least in part, to different assumptions about audience. Scientists who write in what may be defined as a minority language may be said to be at a distinct disadvantage in that they can communicate only within the constrained local community of scholars but cannot reach the larger community if that community is unable (or unwilling) to read the literature in any language not generally accepted as the dominant language of disciplinary communication (e.g. a 'world language'). It is a peculiarity of the contemporary world that, in many scientific disciplines, the language of wider communication happens to be English (Kaplan, 1983, 1989, 1990). Detailed publication counts show not only that English is the dominant language in most scientific disciplines, but also that the hegemony of English is increasing (Baldauf, 1986). Although the indispensability of English as the international language of scientific communication has been tacitly admitted in Hungary, political obstacles have obstructed the ability to address the issue. However, in more recent times, the ice has gradually melted a bit and in a paper entitled 'Will there be another exodus of our braincells,' Vizi was allowed to assert that: The problems and questions that sciences address are the same for any scholar in the world, irrespective of national borders and political systems. There is no such thing as a national science . . .; scholars are not imprisoned in their national language: they can and must make their achievements public in internationalEnglish languagejournals and books. This is the only way a scholar's work can be appreciated and, quite often, the only and most important reward he can obtain (1988: 376). The present investigation coincided with the revolutionary changes that shook Hungary (as well as other East European countries) at the end of 1989. Consequently, while this study provides a state-of-the-art analysis of a limited segment of contemporary Hungarian society from a socio-linguistic

< previous page

page_159

next page >

< previous page

page_160

next page > Page 160

perspective, it may be regarded as a retrospective, summary document concerning an already bygone, historical period. The History of L2 Teaching in Hungary Even though the notion that language-in-education planning is insufficient to spread language learning and use throughout a society has been questioned, the importance of school instruction cannot be dismissed. In order to clarify some of the problems encountered in Hungary, a brief outline history of foreign language teaching in that country over the past 40 years is necessary. Prior to World War II, German was the major foreign language taught in Hungarian schools, followed by French, English, and Italian. After the Communist take-over in 1949, all foreign languages were virtually banned, except Russian, which became the compulsory foreign language in all types of schools. For 40 years, every student studied Russian for eight consecutive years, and those who went on to tertiary study had an additional two years. The very low cost-effectiveness of Russian teaching was apparent from the start, as were the political motives which kept Russian in the curriculum. 2 Despite the inefficiency of the system, in 1982 the authorities pushed back the starting age for the study of Russian to nine, thereby adding a year to the length of study. Apparently, the additional year did not improve the results. Three times as many primary school childen (6 to 14 years of age) had learned two foreign languages during the 1930s (Fülöp, 1984). Only the gimnázium (secondary grammar school) offered second foreign language instruction to a relatively high proportion of the population. However, with Russian being the obligatory first foreign language, the scope of foreign-language teaching was necessarily curtailed (Medgyes, 1984). With respect to the teaching of English, the fact that in 1980 only 1.1% of all Hungarians claimed to speak English at all (Központi Statisztikal Hivatai, 1981)3 can be explained primarily by constraints on the school curriculum. In the 198889 school year, for example, less than 3% of primary school and 16.5% of secondary school students had access to instruction in English, despite the upsurge of interest in English. By comparison, in neighbouring Austria (with a population smaller by 30%) more than five times as many students learned English at school (Dörnyei, 1990). An additional problem lay in the restricted exposure to English (a total of approximately 350 contact hours over the four years of secondary schoola cumulative contact insufficient to produce reasonable proficiency). From the beginning of the 1970s, not withstanding the retention of Russian as the first foreign language de jure, English became the first foreign language de facto. In 1981, private and cooperative language schools were permitted to admit adult learners, who attempted by the thousands to make up for what had been lost during their formal schooling (Dörnyei & Medgyes, 1987). Then, in the autumn of 1989, consonant with the dramatic changes occurring in Hungary, Russian was officially deprived of its status. Since

< previous page

page_160

next page >

< previous page

page_161

next page > Page 161

then, it has been possible for Hungarian school children to learn any foreign language they wished, provided only that the school they were attending was able to offer that languagelargely a matter of teacher supply. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that, if English teachers were available, English would dominate the foreign language market in Hungary for years to come. The Survey In the Spring of 1989, with the support of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (the major scientific body in Hungary), a questionnaire was distributed to 502 scholars; one month later, a reminder letter was sent, including a second copy of the questionnaire. 4 Of this sample, 202 respondents were Members of the Academy (that being the highest honour to which a Hungarian scholar can aspire); the remaining 300 respondents held the title Doctor of Science (Doctor Scientiarum). In sum, 100% of the Members of the Academy and a representative sample (25%) of the total population of Doctors of Science were invited to participate in this research.5 In fact, 483 questionnaires reached their targets, and of these 342 (70.8%) were completed and returned. This high rate of return may be variously accounted for, but it is more interesting to speculate about the 141 questionnaires which were not returned. Beyond the obvious reasons (e.g. lack of time, distrust of surveys of this type, indifference, absence from the country, etc.) some respondents might have abstained for fear that knowlege of their poor command of languages in general and of English in particular might leak out despite the repeated assurances of anonymity in the survey. The researchers are, nevertheless, confident that the data reported below is representative of the Hungarian scholarly community. A 22-item questionnaire was employed; it was divided into three sections: (1) General background information4 items (14); (2) Foreign language competence9 items (513); (3) English competence-9 items (1422). The majority of the items were designed for multiple choice response; a few required minimal completion. Only three items needed elaboration. It is estimated that completion of the questionnaire required no more than 30 minutes. Seven of the items required varying degrees of introspection; consequently, the results may be viewed as somewhat subjective.6 It is impossible to judge the accuracy of these self-evaluations because no objective language test data are available to confirm them. There is, however, evidence in the literature that self-evaluation is an accurate measure of real language proficiency (Bachman & Clark, 1981). While this research project accepts the validity of self-reported data, it is nevertheless necessary to interpret the results with appropriate caution. Women represent only 4.7% of all the respondents (16 individuals); given

< previous page

page_161

next page >

< previous page

page_162

next page > Page 162

that the number is so small, it was pointless to divide the population by gender. At the same time, the data reveal that women scholars in Hungary, while they enjoy de jure equality, may be at some disadvantage de facto. In general, the number of women in all leadership positions is disproportionately low. Age, on the other hand, does provide interesting data. There is no one in the sample younger than 35, and only 12.4% of the population is under 50. It appears that one must reach maturity in Hungary in order to be admitted to the highest academic ranks. The Academy fulfills its research and development functions through ten scientific sections. This sort of division appears arbitrary in at least two ways: first, it is difficult in contemporary science to demarcate disciplines, and interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research does not lend itself to the discrete categories employed; second, there are a number of disciplines in which the membership is so small that discrete categories are impossible so these disciplines must co-exist with others in not invariably harmonious groups. 7 In order to facilitate the needs of this study, the respondents have been regrouped into two umbrella categories, one comprising the humanities and social sciences, the other the natural sciences. The representatives of the natural sciences enjoy a comfortable majority (71.1%) over those in the humanities/social sciences (26.3%). Nine individuals (2.6%) did not respond to this item in the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to signify their perceived foreign-language competence on a four-point scale (low, medium, high, and near-native or native); the average Hungarian scholar indicated a rather polyglot profile even from the international perspective. For the majority of respondents, English constitutes part of their overall foreign language competence. It can be argued that below the high level, one cannot communicate effectively in the language. In the present sample 174 respondents (50.9%) possess an adequate command of English, while 20.7% of the respondents admit that they either do not speak English at all or have low proficiency. An average mathematician's proficiency ranges from medium to high, whereas the competence of an average historian does not reach the medium level. Humanities/social sciences respondents speak far more languages far better, but English occupies a disproportionately small segment of their language volume, while natural sciences respondents tend to be more English-centred but speak fewer languages (that is, they are more likely to speak English as part of their linguistic inventoryEnglish constituting 30% of their overall foreign language competence). This is not peculiar to Hungarian scholars; English has become the universal lingua franca in the natural sciences, but the humanities/social sciences lag behind. It is hypothesised, however, that the gap may be wider in Hungary than in other global regions. German has the next highest frequency, probably because German was the prestige language in Eastern Europe for many years. The relatively small number of people who claim a knowledge of Russian supports the earlier contention that Russian language teaching was inefficient and ineffectual.8

< previous page

page_162

next page >

< previous page

page_163

next page > Page 163

The data show that the oldest segment of the population (65+) has the highest mean for number of languages known whereas the middle group (5165) has the lowest, lagging only slightly behind the youngest group (3550). Scholars who had been educated before or immediately after 1945 had a greater probability of mastering foreign languages than those educated after 1949. With respect to the relationship between age and English competence, a different conclusion seems justified. The mean value of English language competence is significantly greater for the 3550 age group than it is for either of the other groups, with the 65+ group having the lowest rating. These results serve to validate the conclusion that the younger a scholar is, the better his English competence is. Respondents were asked to assess their language aptitude on a five-point scale. The mean value falls exactly between good and average. Only five scholars considered themselves ungifted, while 30 respondents professed that they were very gifted in learning foreign languages. A very high correlation was found between language aptitude and language volume. Subjects who claimed to be gifted in language learning tended to speak more languages at a higher level of proficiency while scholars who claimed to be ungifted tended to have a scanty knowlege of foreign languages. The mean for the length of time respondents spent in English and non-English speaking countries is, respectively 7.2 and 16.7 months. Both groups (humanities/social sciences and natural sciences) have spent relatively similar total time abroad (e.g. 24.3 vs. 23.7 months) with more time spent in non-English-speaking countries. With regard to time in English-speaking countries, the difference is significant, implying that natural science respondents visited English-speaking countries more frequently than their humanities/social science colleagues. Conversely, humanities/social science respondents prefer to (and actually do) visit non-English speaking countries. There are various reasons to explain this tendency. One appears to be based in Hungarian government policy; since supporting scholars in English-speaking countries is generally more costly, Hungarian authorities have set priorities with respect to the allocation of travel grants for conference attendance. The decision as to who should be awarded the bulk of the meagre resources available has traditionally been in favour of the natural sciences, on the grounds that the sciences are more likely to yield short-term benefits. One further observation: 183 respondents (53.5%) have not been to English-speaking countries for any significant time. Next, the length of time spent in English-speaking countries was compared to age and English language competence. The results clearly suggest a tendency for the length of stay in English-speaking countries to decrease with age. To be able to interpret these data accurately, one must be aware that Hungarian scholars were virtually barred from visiting English-speaking countries in the 1950s and 1960s either as tourists or as professionals. Not surprisingly, very strong correlations were observed between time spent in English-speaking countries and the level of English proficiency. Thus, the

< previous page

page_163

next page >

< previous page

page_164

next page > Page 164

longer one stays in an English-speaking country, the greater the English language proficiency is likely to be, and conversely the better one speaks English, the more opportunity one is likely to have to visit English-speaking countries. Respondents were asked to indicate three major factors they believed had helped them learn foreign languages, other than extended stays in countries in which the language being learned were spoken. Since this question elicited free responses, evaluation was necessarily subjective. Respondents were asked to rate their responses in order of importance using a three point scale. Respondents attached by far the greatest significance to conscious learning, an umbrella-term encompassing school instruction and private tutorial study as well as self-study. This is not a particularly surprising finding, though the significance of conscious learning has recently been disparaged by some researchers (e.g. Krashen, 1981). The questionnaire asked the respondents to report the total number of their publications, without specifying any detail. The average scholar published between 51 and 75 pieces in the past 15 years, but except for indicating that the group is fairly active, the figure is not particularly revealing. The differences between respondents in the humanities/social sciences and those in the natural sciences were examined in relation to their cumulative productivity, and that difference was not found to be significant. Inquiry was made about the languages in which respondents had published; i.e. the proportion of their publications in Hungarian, in English, and in other languages. Close to 50% of all publications are in the respondents' mother tongue. The differences in the mean values between respondents in the humanities/social sciences and those in the natural sciences were explored, showing, among other things, that humanities/social science respondents published as much as three quarters of their papers in their native language as opposed to less than 10% in English. In sharp contrast, natural science respondents published over 50% of their results in English, a clear indication both of their better command of English and of the fact that, for them, publishing in English is of great importance. All respondents recognised English as the world language, and this response showed a significantly positive correlation with publishing in English, and a significantly negative correlation with publishing in Hungarian. What accounts for the relatively low proportion of English language publications among humanists/social scientists since almost unanimously the respondents claim English to be the most important language of their disciplines? One explanation is that they lack adequate writing proficiency in English; however, there is probably more to it than that. Respondents were asked briefly to describe their preferences for alternating between Hungarian and English language publications. In their justification of the use of English language publications, a number of issues were raised. First, respondents stressed the notion that achievements in science can only reach an international audience if they are published in English

< previous page

page_164

next page >

< previous page

page_165

next page > Page 165

language journals. (It is becoming general practice that certain Hungarian journals now accept articles written in English.) On the other hand, the respondents were rather critical of Hungarian publications, repeatedly noting that even first-rate manuscripts may have to wait years to appear. They also observed that opportunities to publish in certain fields were, in any case, disappointingly limited. Yet another argument advanced by the respondents was that in certain relatively new disciplines the Hungarian language was simply not a natural mechanism for communication. Nevertheless, as noted above, the language of publication for the majority of the respondents remains Hungarian. It was pointed out, however, that papers written in Hungarian differ from those written in English in several respects. For example, Hungarian-language publications often have a summative character, addressing not so much fellow professionals as university students or laymen. Alternatively, they may be inherently related either to the Hungarian language (such as articles concerned with Hungarian literature, history, or law) or to the Hungarian environment (where the research findings are intended to be used locally). Some scholars assume a nationalistic attitude when insisting that the Hungarian language is or should be made suitable for scientific communication through an abundance of Hungarian publications. To conclude this segment of the study, the age of respondents was compared to the proportion of publications in Hungarian, in English, or in other languages. It appears that the older the scholar, the higher the proportion of Hungarian publications, and conversely, the younger the scholar, the more s/he has published in English. As noted earlier, these results can be explained by two factors: the circumstances prevailing in the recent history of Hungary, and the worldwide onslaught of English. The relative influence of these factors cannot be determined. An attempt was made to explore the respondents' work style with regard to the language of scholarly papers; 214 respondents said that they do a first draft in Hungarian. Out of this number 144 (67%) give the Hungarian text to a translator, while 70 (33%) translate into the target language themselves. In contrast, 218 respondents indicated that they write directly in the target language without recourse to translation. Five options were supplied for the respondents to specify the variety of English they claim to speak: American English, British English, some other English variety, a mixture of varieties, or 'Hunglish'. In most European countries, British English has traditionally been the prestige variety (Medgyes, 1982); however, American English is gradually becoming more widespread. Hungary is no exception to the general pattern, although certain processes have slowed down the tendency in eastern Europe. 9 The data confirm a gradual movement in the direction of American English. Within the youngest generation of scholars there is a rather high proportion of speakers of American English, whereas among the oldest respondents a relatively high proportion claim to speak British English. The middle group shows no significant deviation from the expected values. There was only one individual who claimed to speak

< previous page

page_165

next page >

< previous page

page_166

next page > Page 166

an 'other' varietyCanadian English; of the group of 41 respondents claiming to speak a mixed variety, 39 reported speaking some sort of British/American blend, one claimed to speak an amalgam of British, American, and Canadian English, and one claimed to speak a British and Indian mixture. Hunglish represents a non-standard, non-metropolitan variety, characterized by features common only to Hungarian speakers of English (what Kachru (1983) called a 'nativised' variety). Although only 21 (7.3%) respondents classified themselves as speaking this variety, one may speculate that some portion of those who classified themselves as speakers of some metropolitan variety are in fact speakers of the nativised variety. 10 The questionnaire sought to determine the age at which individuals began to learn English. The frequency results obtained from the total sample were compared to the scores of advanced English speakers (i.e. high or nearnative/native levels). Those indicating that they began English study prior to the age of 18 were consistently among the advanced speakers, but the trend clearly reverses itself when the onset of English study occurred after the age of 18. These results suggest a positive relationship between the onset of instruction and the ability to achieve advanced proficiency. Conversely, the later in life one commences the study of English, the less likely the individual is to master it; those respondents whose knowledge of English was reported as poor started learning English well after the age of 18, whereas their more proficient colleagues started between the ages of 14 and 18 or even earlier. Respondents were asked to specify where they had studied English, marking more than one option if they wished. Self-study is the preferred way of learning, which provides additional documentation of the limited school-based opportunity to study English. A significantly greater number of scholars in the natural sciences was found to have started learning English in the family, and significantly more respondents from the science group indicated that they had taken private lessons. Respondents were asked to rank the level of their English proficiency in various skills on a seven-point scale. The results demonstrate that, as expected, scholars marked reading in their own professional area as one of their best skills; a significantly greater number of respondents claimed to be good at technical reading than the number who indicated any other skill. Listening occurs at the bottom of the list. Significantly fewer respondents indicated listening as one of their strengths. The relative underdevelopment of the listening skill may be due to the political isolation of Hungary, on the one hand, and on the other to the employment of traditional teaching methodology, which pays little attention to listening. Given the overall higher English proficiency of the natural science group, it is no surprise that this group scored higher means across all the skill areas, with the exception of literary reading. Individuals who can, for example, write letters in English without difficulty can in all probability also converse fluently in everyday situations and demonstrate similar competence in all aspects of global proficiency (see Kaplan & Medgyes, 1990a).

< previous page

page_166

next page >

< previous page

page_167

next page > Page 167

For several decades, there were few native English speakers regularly available in Hungary. Although the number has been increasing rapidly, there is still a definite shortage. As mentioned above, the lack of native English support has indirectly impeded the development of science and research in Hungary. An average scholar came in contact with native English speakers between once or twice a month and a few times a year. The respondents from the natural sciences met native English speakers far more frequently than did their colleagues in the humanities/social sciences. Tests carried out to determine whether frequent contact with English speakers fostered general English proficiency, listening skill, and informal speaking skill, respectively indicate a highly significant difference between the two groups (frequent vs. infrequent contact) in their mean English language proficiency; in other words, the everyday experience that the level of language proficiency is in direct proportion to the frequency of opportunities to converse with native speakers of the target language is borne out by the empirical evidence. Subjects who meet native English speakers only infrequently exhibit significantly lower mean scores than their more fortunate colleagues in both listening and informal speaking skills. The implication is that frequent contact with native speakers is likely to have a positive impact on the level of oral communication, though it is also possible that low proficiency inhibits frequent contact or even causes individuals to avoid such contact. The opportunity for Hungarian scholars to interact with native English speakers has been observed to have been limited; the opportunity to attend conferences out of the country is even more limited. Respondents were asked to indicate the number of conferences each had attended over the past five years, citing only those conferences at which English was the official language (or one of the official languages). As expected, representatives of the natural sciences attended a great many more conferences than had representatives of the humanities/social sciences, not only in absolute terms, but relatively as well. The ratio in favour of the natural sciences reflects their clearly privileged status. The tendency may have been further strengthened by the peculiarities of Hungarian scientific life; that is to say, a Hungarian scholar was virtually barred from participation unless the organising committee had sent him/her an official invitation declaring, among other matters, that the inviting organisation would cover all applicable expenses. 11 Information was elicited about the number of lectures delivered at international conferences. The results show that, as in the case of conference attendance, scholars in the natural sciences were far more active than their humanities/social science colleagues; the relatively high proportion may be explained in part by the fact that Hungarian scholars were rarely able to attend conferences unless they were specifically invited to give a paper. Finally, correlations were computed to see how conference attendance and lecturing related to the level of English proficiency in general, and to oral communication skills in particular. The results reveal very strong corre-

< previous page

page_167

next page >

< previous page

page_168

next page > Page 168

lations across all variables. The results for the first three variables (overall English proficiency, listening skills, and informal speaking skills) imply that respondents with a good command of English were more likely to attend many conferences and give many lectures and, conversely, that the more conferences a scholar attended, the more effective his/her English skills are likely to become. It follows that the frequency of conference attendance is directly proportional to the number of English language publications. Conversely, the higher the proportion of Hungarian (and to a lesser degree, other language) publications, the smaller the number of conferences attended. It is no exaggeration to say that Hungarian scholars are caught in a vicious cycle; that is, one cannot hope to be invited to international conferences unless one has achieved some professional stature, but in order to achieve such international stature one must be invited to conferences. In order to enter the mainstream of international professional life, Hungarian scholars are obliged to throw off the shackles of what one respondent termed the 'impenetrable Hungarian language'. This study was conducted in the last year of Stalinism; in the new environment, the kinds of changes hinted in the survey data are likely to speed up, and the situation is likely to change more in the next four years than it has in the past 40. In retrospect, it is difficult to attribute cause; is it the relatively low level of English proficiency in Hungarya level that impedes scientific innovationthe result of the recognised importance of English as the world language of science, or is it the outcome of Stalinist policies? Granted that causation is difficult to disambiguate, granted that the data reported in this study are descriptive and therefore limiting with respect to the conclusions that may be drawn, granted that conditions are changing daily in all of eastern Europe and in Hungary in particular, it remains undeniable that the issue of English language proficiency is directly tied to the condition of Hungarian science. The relative development of a nation may be gauged by the ability of that nation to access and use scientific informationa condition currently determinable in terms of the English language proficiency of scholars, information scientists, and information managers. Summary and Conclusions To summarise, while knowledge of foreign languages is extensive among Hungarian scholars, it appears that middle-aged scholars know fewer languages, that few Hungarian scholars know English well (if at all), that knowledge of English distributes across the population in inverse proportion to agethe older the scholar, the less likely that s/he will control Englishand that the knowledge of English is tied to disciplinethe humanist is less likely to know English than the natural scientist. Among those who use English, discipline specific technical reading is the skill reported most available, while the ability to understand the spoken conversational register

< previous page

page_168

next page >

< previous page

page_169

next page > Page 169

is least available. The generalisation carries over to time spent abroadthe older the scholar, the less time s/he is likely to have spent abroadand the humanist is less likely to have had opportunities to go abroad than the natural scientist. On the whole, the relative proportion of English-language publications is low, but scientists tend to publish more than half of their work in English while humanists and social scientists tend to publish two-thirds of their work in Hungarian. And the basic relationship continues to obtainthe older the scholar, the less likely s/he is to have published in English. This is not an accidental effect; Hungarian scholars choose the language of publication. The end result is that material published in English is intended for a professionally more relevant audience; Hungarian publications tend to have a different character and to be intended for internal consumption. Hungarian scholars have few opportunities to interact directly with English native-speakers; natural scientists are in general better off because they have had greater contact and because they have enjoyed greater freedom to travel. While British English has great currency, it appears that American English is gaining ground, especially among younger scholars. The 1989 General Assembly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences noted that: Owing to the ever-diminishing financial resources available, science and research in Hungary are in danger of gradually falling behind the international average; should these unfavorable tendencies continue, Hungarian sciences may get into a state of irreversible backwardness. (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1989: 759). While the document does not specifically make reference to the language issue, it is the case that diminishing financial resources also mean a decrease in the ability to purchase journals, to access international data bases, and to train information scientists and information managers (Grabe & Kaplan, 1985). It would appear that, as Hungary moves toward democratisation, it will need to give attention to a national languages policy (Lo Bianco, 1987) and, as a sub-set of such a policy, to a language-in-education policy, to determine what languages are key to national development, who will learn them, when they will be introduced into the curriculum, for how long they will be taught, who will teach them, and how the nation can afford to implement an appropriate policy (or whether the nation can afford notto implement an appropriate policy). Perhaps the best summary statement comes from a comment in one of the questionnaire responses: The first condition of being a European scientist today is to be able to speak and read in English, German, French, and, possibly, Russian. Therefore I am dissatisfied with my foreign language competence. The individual who wrote this commenta meteorologistreported himself to have low-level proficiency in French, medium-level proficiency in Russian

< previous page

page_169

next page >

< previous page

page_170

next page > Page 170

and German, and high-level proficiency in English. While his comment provides the best summary, the most telling comment was made by one individual who indicated that he had learned most of his English abroadas a prisoner of war. These data tend to suggest that the Hungarian scholar is at a disadvantageone which is in part at least largely linguistic in origin. Hungarian is not a widely read language outside of Hungary; English is, but it is not well understood within Hungary. Thus, the Hungarian scholar is cut off at both ends from participating in the international '. . . cooperative networks formed amongst invisible colleges of scholars . . .' on the basis of language. What has been found to be the case of Hungarian scholars can, to some extent, be generalised to scholars in non-English speaking developing states around the world. It may be the case in Brunei Darussalam as well. If it is, there is a clear object lesson in these results. As Brunei works toward the development of a national languages policy and the accompanying language-in-education policy (e.g. Lo Bianco, 1987), it must seek to serve several purposes: to preserve and enhance its indigenous languages and at the same time to permit some segment of its population to have access to the international scientific community and to other international discourse communities. These seemingly conflicting objectives can, I believe, be achieved without in any way endangering any of the languages involved, though achieving these objectives requires careful, systematic planning, adequate funding, and adequate allocations of time devoted to language study. I trust that the lessons underlying these comments may prove beneficial to Brunei Darussalam as it moves ahead in its own planning. Notes 1. The present study was conceived and launched when the Hungarian collaborator in this study was a visiting Fulbright Scholar at the American Language Institute at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles. The collaborators wish to express their gratitude to all the scholars who participated in the study for having completed the questionnaire. The assistance at various stages of this project of Andrea Fischer, Eszter Székács, Sarah Thurrell, and Hedvig Turai is also acknowledged. We are also indebted to Zoltán Dörnyei for his assistance with the statistical analyses and for his valuable comments on earlier drafts. We note with interest that many respondents expressed their thanks for the survey, many requested that the results be published in Hungary (they have beensee Kaplan & Medgyes, 1990b), and some urged the authors to develop English-language courses for scholars in Hungary or at least to publish some advice on how to learn languages more effectively. At the same time, we note that some respondents criticised various parts of the questionnaire, and that a small number rejected the notion of questionnaire research in general and of this project in particular. 2. According to the statistics derived from the 1980 national census, a mere 1.2% claimed to speak Russian, 31 years after Russian was made the mandatory first foreign language in the educational system (see Központi Statisztikai Hiyatal, 1981). 3. The following is a typical joke told in Hungary: A foreign tourist approaches two Hungarian policemen in Budapest, asking directions: Tourist: 'Do you speak English?'

< previous page

page_170

next page >

< previous page

page_171

next page > Page 171

Policeman: No response. Tourist: 'Sprachen sie Deutsch?' Policeman: No response. Tourist: 'Parlez vous Francais?' Policeman: No response. Tourist: ['Govorite po Russke?'] Policeman: No response. Shrugging his shoulders in frustration, the tourist moves on. Policeman 1: 'I wish I could speak foreign languages.' Policeman 2: 'What for? The tourist does, and he still can't get very far, can he?' 4. Only those scholars who were still active at the time of the study were invited to participate. It was simply too complex logistically to involve retired scholars. 5. The Doctors of Science were randomly selected from the available pool. 6. After the questionnaires had been collected, the data were computerised and subjected to analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS+). More complete details of the analysis, together with the questionnaire text, may be found in Kaplan & Medgyes, 1992. 7. For example, Military Science, Psychology, and Education have been assigned to the Section of Philosophy and History, whereas Sociology has ended up in the Section of Economics and Law. (See Kónya et al., 1975; Székely, 1988.) 8. These data would reflect an even gloomier picture if those who had spent several years in the Soviet Union in graduate or postgraduate study were deducted from the number. It is important to note that these data represent the most highly educated sector of Hungarian society; a more general survey of the population would probably reveal an even more attenuated view of language proficiency. 9. The aggressive marketing policies of British ELT publishers have played an important role in maintaining the dominance of British English in Hungary and, concurrently, in disseminating the British cultural value system. Events in western Europe and the emergence of a European economic community in which Britain will have a greater role while the United States will have a lesser one may over time have an impact on the greater acceptability of British English. 10. Some odd non-technical labels specifying 'Hunglishness' occurred in the responses: e.g. uninhibited version, Budapest British, potpurri English, coursebook English, broken physicist English, etc. 11. Quite often, even such a letter of invitation would not guarantee permission to go; scholars' applications were flatly rejected by Hungarian authorities for purely political reasons, or they were permanently lost at some stage of the approval process. References Bachman, L. F. and Clark, J. L. D. (1981) Self-assessment of communicative competence in English. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah (mimeo). Baldauf, R. (1986) Linguistic constraints on participation in psychology. American Psychologist 41, 2, 2204. Baldauf, R. and Jernudd, B. H. (1987) Academic communication in a foreign language: The example of Scandinavian psychology. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 1, 98117. Dörnyei, Z. (1990) Lemaradásunk Európától az angoltanitas területén [How far are we lagging behind Europe in TEFL?] In Z. Báthory and N. Horánszky (eds) A magyar tanulók 'elsajátitottoe' tudásáról. [The 'Acquired' Knowledge of Hungarian Students.] Budapest: Országos Pedagógiai Intézet. Dörnyei, Z. and Medgyes, P. (1987) Nyelvoktatás kisvállalkozásban. [Language teaching in private language schools.] Kritika [Critica] 87, 12, 315.

< previous page

page_171

next page >

< previous page

page_172 Page 172

Fülöp, K. (1984) Idegen nyelvek a mai iskolában III. [Foreign languages in schools today III.] Pedagógiai Szemle [Educational Overview] 84, 34, 24955, 2918. Grabe, W. (1984) Toward Defining Expository Prose Within a Theory of Text Construction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California. Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. B. (1985) Science, technology, language and information: Implications for language and language-ineducation planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 59, 4771. Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1989) The decisions of the 1989 general assembly. Magyar Tudomány [Hungarian Science] 89, 9, 75864. Kachru, B. B. (1982) The Indianization of English. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1982) The bilingual's creativity: Discoursal and stylistic strategies in contact literatures in English. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 13, 2, 3756. Kaplan, R. B. (1983) Language and science policies in new nations. Science 221: 4614. Kaplan, R. B. (1987) English in the language policy of the Pacific rim. World Englishes 2, 6, 13748. Kaplan, R. B. (1989) English as language of science. Vox 2, 4953. Kaplan, R. B. (1990) Introduction: Language planning in theory and practice. In R. B. Baldauf and A. Luke (eds) Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific (pp. 313) Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B. and Medgyes, P. (1990a) The language-related problems of advanced non-native English speakers during an extended stay in the United States. Journal of Intensive English Studies 4, 2145. Kaplan, R. B. and Medgyes, P. (1990b) A Magyar Kutatók Idegennyelv-Tudása [The foreign language competence of Hungarian scholars {in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences}]. Magyar tudomány [Hungarian Science] 90, 10, 121932. Kaplan, R. B. and Medgyes, P. (1992) Discourse in a foreign language: The example of Hungarian scholars. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Kónya, S. et al. (eds) (1975) A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia másfel évszázada: 18251975. [150 years of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 18251975.] Budapest Adakémiai Kiadó. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal (1981) The Demographic Data of the 1980 National Census Vol. 21. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Krashen, S. D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. Lo Bianco, J. (1987) National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Office. Masagara, N. (1991) Oath-taking in Kirundi: The impact of religion on language change. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California. Medgyes, P. (1982) Which to teach: British or American? English Language Teaching Forum 20, 1, 911, 16. Medgyes, P. (1984) Angoltanitásunk fö gandjai. [The major problems of ELT in Hungary.] Pedagógiai Szemle [Educational Overview] 84, 6, 56671. Strevens, P. (1992) Applied linguistics: An overview. In W. Grabe and R. B. Kaplan (eds) Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Székely, D. (ed.) (1988) The Hungarian Academy of Sciences: Information of its Organization, Role, and Research Network. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Science. Vizi, Sz. (1988) Szürkeállományunknak lesz-e üjabb exodusa? [Will there be another exodus of our brain cells?] Magyar tudomány [Hungarian Science] 88, 5, 37580.

< previous page

page_172