The Power of Language in Pluralist Societies- Language Policy and its Social Implications

Cathrine Thue

Master of Education 1999

University of Bristol, Graduate School of Education

Education Policy in Developing Countries (Course 7D004/10)

&

International Multicultural Education (Course 7C010/20)

2

CONTENTS

Introduction 3

1.0 How important is mother tongue? 4

2.0 Language policy 6

3.0 Official explanations to language policy 8

3.1 National integration 8

3.2 National communication 10

3.3 International communication 11

3.4 Comparative costs 11

4.0 Unofficial explanations to language policies and “hidden agendas” 13

4.1 “Elite closure” 14

4.2 The world-system explanation 15

Conclusion 18

References 20

3

Introduction

According to Hogg &Vaughan (1995:486), the majority of societies are multicultural

containing a dominant high status group whose language is the lingua franca of the nation,

and a number of other ethnic groups whose languages are subordinated. In 1948 the United

Nations declared that education is a basic human right (Graham-Brown 1996:1). UNESCO

argued the advantages and the importance of using mother tongue in education already in

1953 (Romaine 1994:38). Education and knowledge is said to be essential, maybe

increasingly so, but what kind of knowledge is important? Whose knowledge, communicated

in whose language?

This essay deals with language in education and in society in general. It focuses on language

policy in pluralist societies in developing countries and how the choice of language affects

individuals and their place in society. The question of investigation will be: to what extent can

lack of multicultural approaches to language policy create and sustain weak or subordinated

groups? It will be argued that language, the usage of mother tongue or not, is decisive for the

outcome of education, the possibilities available for individuals and their positions in society.

This essay will focus on the usage of a language of wider communication ( LWC), which

often means a European colonial language, and the usage of mother tongue defined as ‘the

language one has learned first and identifies with’ (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988:18). According to

Noam Chomsky (Romaine 1994:1) questions of language are basically questions of power.

Power will in this context refer to the ability of influencing, and taking part in society

(including education) and making the decisions shaping one’s own life. Multiculturalism will

be defined as any approach or action recognising the experiences and contributions of diverse

cultural groups. Multiculturalism is about allowing cultural and linguistic diversity in the

name of equality and social justice.

Firstly this essay presents some linguistic theories on the importance of mother tongue.

Language policy is then presented and some official and unofficial arguments explaining why

the LWC option is often chosen is discussed. Related topics such as language rights and

empowerment through language policy will not be directly dealt with. The themes of this

essay will be approached on the macro level and the practical challenges of making language

4

policies more multicultural and implementing these will thus not be focused on.1

1.0 How important is mother tongue?

Since there are some 200 states and 4-5,000 languages in the world, very few countries are

monolingual (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988:10). To learn a second language and become bilingual

is thus a necessity for a lot of people. Does it matter what language is used in education,

students’ mother tongue or a second language2? How important is language when it comes to

learning, understanding and thinking? If one has to learn a second language what is the best

way of learning this language?

The research evidence on mother tongue is not consistent and there is no international

consensus on what is the best education in multicultural settings (Cummins 1988:262). The

research findings can be placed on a continuum between, on one side, the claim that cognitive

development is not negatively affected by the educational use of another language than the

mother tongue and, on the opposite side, that mother tongue is crucial for thinking, learning

and personal development.

One example indicating that education in a second language does not create problems for the

learners is seen in Canadian immersion programmes (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988:27). There are,

however, other examples indicating that education through a foreign language can be less

successful. In many African countries majority children are educated through the medium of a

second language, most often a former colonial language. In this case the results are often poor

academically and linguistically (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988:26). The results are often dominance

in the majority language at the expense of the mother tongue, only partial development of

linguistic skills in both languages and poor school achievement.

1 It is of no use if negative effects of language policies lacking multicultural approaches are discussed withoutpresenting more multicultural alternatives. Presenting alternative options are of no use if they cannot beimplemented because of e.g. economic constraints, or the fact that students who speak a multitude of differentlanguages all go to the same school. On the other hand such theoretical discussions are prerequisite for alteringexisting policies. One must be aware of the drawbacks as well as the strengths to get the full picture of the latter.Only then can the value of introducing multicultural approaches bee appreciated, and language policies altered.

2 In reality the language many students use in school may not even be their second language. Often students’

5

Skutnabb-Kangas stresses that whether education through a second language is successful or

not is dependent on the context. Research findings cannot be directly applied across context

(Cummins 1988:263). Successful education through the medium of a second language in one

education system in one country may, in other words, not be a good option in another country

where the sociolinguistic context and other factors are different. Education both through the

medium of students’ mother tongue and their second language, can lead either to a low degree

of success or to a high degree of success. It is dependent on how the program is carried out,

on the teachers’ training and bilingual abilities, on motivation, on the access of materials, on

the status of the languages etc.

James Cummins (1988:262-272) further explains the role of language in education. He

presents four principles of language learning that apparently can be generalised from context

to context. According to the additive bilingual enrichment principle learners can develop two

forms of bilingualism (Cummins 1988:265). Additive bilingualism allows students to learn a

second language at no cost to the development of their mother tongue (e.g. the French

immersion programmes in Canada). High levels of fluency and literacy in both languages can

be obtained. No negative consequences seem to be found for these learners’ academic,

linguistic or intellectual development. On the contrary, additive bilinguals seem to benefit

from the fact that they use two languages and have had to analyse language and meaning to a

larger extent than monolinguals. The recent studies conclude that bilingual children are often

more sensitive to linguistic meaning and may be more flexible in their thinking than

monolingual children. The learners who develop this kind of bilingualism do, however, often

profit from educational support to develop their mother tongue. When bilingualism is

developed in less favourable conditions, which is often the case, the result may be subtractive

bilingualism. The advantages of bilingualism then disappear and a second language is

developed at the expense of proficiency of the mother tongue (Cummins 1988:265).

third or even fourth language is the school language.

6

The conversational/academic language proficiency principle emphasises that there is a

difference between becoming fluent in conversational skills and developing academic skills.

Academic language proficiency in a second language generally takes far longer to develop

than conversational skills. Where learners are seldom exposed to the second language outside

school conversational language skills are likely to be less developed.

The linguistic interdependency principle is central in explaining the importance of mother

tongue education. If bilingual programmes reinforce students’ mother tongue these students

appear to do better in their second language than when all-second language instruction is in

use (Cummins 1988:266). When students develop skills in their mother tongue they also

develop a deeper conceptual and linguistic proficiency, which form the base for the future

development of the second language. Cognitive, academic and literacy skills can be

transferred from the mother tongue to a second language. According to Cummins there is

consistent support for this theory in different studies conducted in different contexts using

different research methods (Cummins 1988:268).

The interactive pedagogy principle stresses that in order to develop language proficiency the

exposure to the language must be meaningful to the learner. Exposure to a language in itself

(for example through drill exercise etc.) will not necessarily make a person learn the target

language.

The importance of mastering one’s language is exposed in the theories by e.g. Vygotsky,

Sapir and Whorf (see Hogg &Vaughan 1995:480-482). Vygotsky suggests that inner speech

is the medium of thought and that inner speech is strongly linked to external speech, the

medium of social communication. Sapir and Whorf develop this idea further when presenting

their linguistic relativity theory saying that language entirely determines thought. According

to Hogg and Vaughan (1995:482) this theory is too extreme- language does not determine

thought, but it allows us to communicate more easily and it can constrain thought.

2.0 Language policy

Language policy is generally linked to language planning which is traditionally defined as ‘all

conscious efforts to affect the structure or function of language varieties’ e.g. allocating

certain functions to particular languages within multilingual communities (Tollefson

7

1996:16). Language policy is then defined as language planning by governments. The

historical-structural theories on language policy emphasise the need to locate language policy

within social theory. They hold that there is a dynamic relationship between social relations

and language policy and that language is central in determining who has access to political

power and economic resources (ibid.:16).

At the individual level one can be privileged enough to be able to use one’s mother tongue in

all arenas of society. One can be less privileged and be made to use some one else’s mother

tongue in parts of society such as education (all education or parts of it), in official business or

for political purposes. Some may have to live ‘through’ a second language outside their

immediate community. It is hardly controversial to claim that persons using their mother

tongue have certain advantages compared to non-mother tongue speakers when sharing the

same arenas. They are probably in a stronger position when it comes to comprehending and

articulating their wishes and can more easily guard their interests. There are multitudes of

possible language policy options. This fact becomes visible in the way Sonntag (1995:92)

defines the concept of official language as being a language recognised and sanctioned by a

government for official use in official business conducted by and in governmental institutions

such as administration and education.3 She stresses that more than one language can be

recognised as official and/or designated as official in particular governmental institutions (e.g.

in the administration but not in state schools). The same goes for sub-national units. India, for

instance, has fifteen recognised languages that are official languages in different states of the

federation.

The focusing on one language must necessarily mean that other languages will have less focus

or even be dominated. This is one reason why the LWC policy is central when discussing

linguistic and cultural diversity and the potential for creating disadvantaged groups in the

power struggle of society.

3 Official language is not to be confused with national language that is a language used to provide national unityand commonality among people (Sonntag 1995:92). In practice the official language may, however, also be thenational language.

8

3.0 Official explanations to language policy

3.1 National integration

National unity is one of the most common explanations behind choosing one language to be

the official medium, dominating other languages and their speakers. Linguistic diversity is

often seen as a threat to the nation. In the case of Africa, colonisation meant the creation of

nation states, where borders were drawn in such a way that new combinations of cultural and

linguistic groups emerged as entities. The inherited borders were kept at independence in the

1960s which helps explain the extreme multilingual reality of many African states.

As Clayton explains (1998:146), the former colonial LWCs were often kept out of fear that if

one of the state’s languages were chosen as national and educational language, speakers of

other languages would feel disadvantaged. This could in turn lead to ethnic conflict. History

shows that language choice can lead to conflict as it did e.g. in South Africa in 1976 and

Malaysia in 1969 (Clayton 1998:147). It is however, difficult to fully accept this argument to

why one foreign language is needed to promote national unity. If the disadvantage of not

being able to use one’s mother tongue would be so great that people would go to war, it must

necessarily mean that it is a disadvantage that the official language is not one’s own, this

being of national or foreign origin. This option avoids giving advantages to one out of several

ethnic groups, but this does not make the disadvantages of using a second language any less.

The disadvantages connected to non mother tongue languages are equally shared by all ethnic

groups. It seems, however, logical that languages should be chosen because their use are

practical and favourable to the entire population of a country, and not on the basis of equally

spreading disadvantages. It is in addition, naive to believe that people are in the same

situation when using an LWC. Some will stand better chances of dealing with the difficulties

of a second language being more resourceful economically and other wise.

It should be clear that learning through the medium of a second language poses certain

problems. Without a resourceful education system the chances of developing subtractive

bilingualism are considerable (see 1.0). If the language in which knowledge is communicated

is not properly learnt neither is academic knowledge. The LWC is seen as beneficiary to the

nation as a whole, but what about the individuals? To what extent do they profit from this

approach? In Mali, for instance, education is basically offered in French (Clayton 1998:145).

It may have a positive effect nationally, but the ordinary Malian will still have to deal with the

9

additional difficulties of learning through a foreign language.

It may well be that the chasms between ethnic groups are reduced through this monolingual

policy, but will it necessarily promote national unity? By choosing the LWC option it seems,

however, as the divisions are just moved from ethnic to social groups. Nations’ elite, the

economically well off, can overcome the disadvantages connected to the use of a foreign

language through extra tuition and foreign education. The majority of people doesn’t have

these possibilities and have to deal with the difficulties of an unfamiliar language in education

and official contexts- equally disadvantaged, but still disadvantaged

Nations can be described as abstract imagined communities (Tomlinson 1991:79). Language

is commonly seen as the pillar of groupness central in maintaining national feeling. There is

however no consensus that one common language functioning as the significant marker of

group distinctiveness is a prerequisite to keep pluralist nations together. As early as in the 19 th

century, Ernest Renan claimed that no particular characteristic is necessary for the

maintenance of national sentiment- there must be ‘something greater’ uniting a nation:

willpower 4(Edwards 1994:133). In other words the shared tasks and the will to ‘pulling

together’ are, or should be, more essential than language. Even though the role of language in

uniting members of a nation shouldn’t be ignored, language must not, however, be the very

cornerstone of national identity. National unity can be constructed in different ways. The

social anthropologist Hylland Eriksen, questions the idea that allowing pluralism in language

policy will necessarily lead to disintegration. He points to the possibility of building national

identity on pluralism as it is done in Mauritius (Hylland Eriksen1995). This island is poly-

ethnic with fifteen languages and a French-based creole. Their internal sense of community,

their ‘we-hood’ identity5, is constructed on their multicultural reality. Tolerance and respect

for all inhabitants is seen as a prerequisite. Being conscious of their plurality in a way that

gives them a sense of uniqueness can function as a source of uniting national pride.

That one language must be more unifying than running a society using different languages

4 This was originally stated as follows:’ Il y a dans l’homme quelque chose de supérieur à la langue; c’est lavolonté’ (Edwards 1994:133)5 Hylland Eriksen identifies two modes of social identification and group cohesion: we-hood and us-hood. Bothprinciples play a part in the forming of the ever- developing national identity. We-identity means that themembers of a group (e.g. a nation) experience interdependence and internal cohesion as they have shared tasks.Us-identity, on the other hand, is based on dichotomization- the group-members feel united by virtue of anexternal agent. It’s a more dangerous way of creating unity since it is linked to enemy images of ‘the other’.

10

seems to be perceived as obvious. Is this an ‘objective’ truth or may this idea of a crucial link

between national unity and monolingualism just be an established ‘lie’ related to the

European perception of the nation state concept as a monolingual homogeneity? If unity and

national sentiment are to be decisive in policy decisions, one would think that the alternative

of creating a new written language for the nation, based on indigenous languages, would

promote national unity better than using foreign languages of previous colonial powers. As

Brock-Utne (1997:249) comments about the situation in Namibia where English is used for

official communication and as medium of education from upper primary school: ‘It seems

unlikely that a language spoken by less than one per cent of the Namibian population will

create unity in the nation.’

3.2 National communication

National communication is one reason why many states opt for monolingual policies.

Inhabitants of a country obviously need means of communication. The question is how this is

to be achieved. Is the policy of only one language in education and in all official contexts the

only way of providing national communication? There is the possibility of using several

languages nationally, using regional languages 6(as is the case in India), or developing a

national LWC based on the multilinguistic reality of the specific country7. What policy that

will give a nation adequate communication possibilities and at the same time suit the

population vary from county to country. If a strictly monolingual policy is seen as the only

possibility, there is still a choice between a more or less familiar language. Had Namibia

chosen Kiswahili as the official language, all the bantu-speaking people of Namibia would

easily have learnt the common language of the nation. In addition it would have promoted

regional communication, since it is spoken by more than 40 million Africans (Brock-Utne

1997:249).

It is also worth noting that the need of one common language doesn’t have to result in this

language being the medium of instruction. According to the interdependency principle

exposed in 1.0, learners can be given the advantages of using their mother tongues and still

6 If different linguistic groups are highly mixed in the same region, having one official language for the regionmay be just as problematic as choosing one language for a nation.7 The details on the different options will not be looked into. To find out what option will be best and whatsolutions are actually feasible, e.g. if it is practical to create a new written language, are extremely dependent onthe national context. It is thus difficult to deal with this in general terms.

11

learn a second language. In other words, ensuring access to the national arenas at the same

time as learning becomes easier by the use of their mother tongue. As Brock-Utne stresses in

the case of Namibia it might be wiser to strengthen the teaching of the LWC as subject and

leave instruction of other subjects to local languages. In this way abilities both in the LWC

and in general knowledge can be improved.

3.3 International communication

Another functional explanation to the choice of LWCs is the need for international

communication. Languages such as English and French are ’world languages’ of which the

national use is meant to ensure national participation in the global community (Clayton

1998:148). These LWCs dominate international communication, world trade, and academic,

scientific and technical publications. The use of LWCs is thus seen to promote economic

development. Not having the linguistic means of participating internationally and accessing

global knowledge sources, will obviously not help developing countries or eradicate global

inequality. The question is whether developing countries need to use these languages of

international communication in education and as official languages in their countries, in order

to access international arenas. Considering linguistic theories exposed in 1.0 one would think

that learning the LWCs as subjects could give people sufficient language abilities so that they

and their nations could ensure international communication. It is, however, important to

notice that if people nationally or internationally are excluded from arenas and weakened by

lack of knowledge of the language of power they risk being in a subordinated position in the

(inter-)national community. Both forcing people to use an LWC and not giving them a chance

of learning it, may restrict their possibilities of taking part in society and thus guarding their

interests. In both cases people can be excluded from knowledge and power.

3.4 Comparative costs

Yet a central argument for the use of LWCs rather than indigenous languages is that it is

cheaper. At independence switching from a colonial language to indigenous languages was

seen to be a waste of scarce resources. Even though the use of several languages in education

and other wise, may cost more than using only one language, the comparative cost

explanation has been challenged. According to Clayton (1998:147), economic models often

capture only the easily quantified costs. The fact that more educational time will have to be

12

spent in order to teach pupils a second language is ignored. When comparing the costs of the

two policy options (LWC or indigenous languages) there are hidden costs which should be

considered. These include high failure and drop-out rates, unfamiliar school environment and

maybe even cultural alienation. Can a country afford to jeopardise children’s acquisition of

knowledge, because it seems cheaper to use one language which has the drawback of not

being mastered by most students? If students don’t learn the school language, how can they

learn school subjects through it?

In the case of the Solomon Islands, only English is allowed in education even though it is a

multilingual nation where seventy languages are spoken 8 (Watson-Gegeo &Welchman

Gegeo 1995). It may be a cheap alternative to use one language in which a lot of books are

printed internationally, but school achievement is poor. This is explained by the fact that

many teachers don’t master English sufficiently, pupils are seldom exposed to English outside

school, and the material used is adapted to a Western/Northern reality and is not meaningful

to the children. The lack of exposure to the school language and the lack of relevant education

are according to the theories exposed in 1.0, serious disadvantages when academic and

linguistic skills are to be developed. If one agrees with the assumption that learning is easier

when students’ mother tongue is used, teaching in a language students do not fully understand

may restrict their learning possibilities. It may even be seen as discrimination, since their

(semi- )exclusion from knowledge is due to who they are and their linguistic heritage.

Choosing to keep a language because it is already installed in society, or choosing a LWC for

some reason or another does not mean that school material and the way of teaching should be

static. Education needs to be adapted to the national and local context- culturally and other

wise. It may be cheap to buy other countries’ old books in their mother tongue, but if the

content is not useful and suitable for the local situation, the gains might be small. Maybe is it

just as expensive, at least if social costs are considered, to use an LWC? The hidden social

costs of denying a language to its speakers are, according to Pattanayak (1988:381),

enormous. If one language really is needed, it might be worth considering developing a

language with national roots from different indigenous languages. This will often implicate

that the second language is more similar to their mother tongue and thus easier to learn, at

least in the when grammar and linguistic structure are more familiar than that of a second,

8 The article describes the situation in the mid-1980s.

13

more foreign, language. The chances of ordinary people to acquire the ‘language of power’ in

society will increase. Giving more people the chance of mastering this language can in turn

increase their possibilities of more equally taking part in society and thereby maybe

improving their life. If this is the case, the risk of creating or sustaining weak or subordinated

groups in society will decrease if a nationally based LWC is chosen than if a more unfamiliar

LWC is the language of power. It costs a lot to convert society to the use of a different

language. But, if it makes it easier for ordinary people to learn and take part in society will it

not pay off at least on a long-term basis?

In Namibia a successful project offers San children education in their own language through a

school system and a curriculum which is culturally sensitive (Brock-Utne1997). These

minority children who before the implementation of this project were seen as educationally

marginalised, were later considered being far ahead of other learners. These educational

changes are seen to be important in restoring the pride and thus self-esteem of a group of

Namibians other wise often discriminated against. Brock-Utne refers to Lund who states that

not offering San children education in their mother tongue in lower primary, in reality means

excluding them from learning (ibid.). In other words reducing their chances of equally taking

part in society. This case shows the advantages of using mother tongue and adopting more

multicultural policies where the cultural and linguistic contributions of social minorities are

recognised.

4.0 Unofficial explanations to language policies and“hidden agendas”

National integration, practical problems concerning language choice and the position of

mother tongue, and international communication, are important matters. In many cases these

arguments can point in the direction of the use of LWCs as a reasonable choice. Even so,

considering radical-functional perspectives, these arguments may also function as an ‘excuse’

to ignore mother tongue languages in education and in national affairs. There may be

underlying reasons for the choice of language that are not openly communicated. These

‘hidden agendas’ may be just as explicative as the official argumentation and cannot be

ignored if language policy is to be understood and the degree of multiculturalism investigated.

14

4.1 “Elite closure”

The high costs of mother tongue use in education are by some seen as a convenient argument

for the elite to legitimise the maintenance of the status quo. Scotton for example, introduced

the concept of ‘elite closure’ to explain the use of LWCs in sub-Saharan Africa (Clayton

1998:148). Language policy is seen in relation to the national society where classes are

struggling for limited resources. The choice of language is a way for the dominant or elite

class of society to maintain power. The dominant classes have the power to influence the

choice of language in education and official society, which often means the choice of a

colonial LWC. This language becomes the language of power and a ‘gate-keeper’ to certain

areas of society. People must master the LWC to access higher education, get certain jobs etc.

Language-use then separates the elite from the non-elite, and function as a ‘closure’ on access

to power. Clayton (ibid.) refers to an example by Oyelaran who claims that the vast majority

of Nigerians are excluded from participating in the productive parts of their society because

they do not master English. He further mentions O’Barr’s claim that inability to communicate

in the LWC makes people politically and economically ‘disenfranchised’, which is most

strongly seen in subordinate social groups. In other words, the choice of not using different

indigenous languages and instead of running society by one language (generally an LWC), is

explained by the fact that the powerful strata of society get advantages by so doing. They, in

contrast to the rest of the population, often master the LWC or they have the possibilities of

doing so. Keeping the LWC is a way of keeping the social stratification and ensuring that

powerful elites will remain in their dominant positions of oligarchic control.

This explanation also indicates why calls for the use of mother tongue are not being heard.

Many scholars argue forcefully for language policies that may result in a more equitable

access to opportunities and to power. To reform language policy from the LWC option to

more multicultural approaches, can however be difficult since those who make governmental

decisions benefit from the use of LWCs (Clayton 1998:148). Enhancing linguistic diversity

(in order to strengthen people in the power struggle of society) is thus a complex affair.

It is also important to remember that education is not neutral. As Parekh (1986:20)

emphasises, education cultivates certain values, ideas, attitudes and it is not apolitical. Its

content is formed by the world-view of the dominant culture. By deciding what is taught and

in what language, ideas are simultaneously past on to the learners about what is worth

15

knowing and what is irrelevant - plus what language is suitable for learning. What are the

effects on learners of the message that their mother tongues are not ‘good enough’ to deal

with academic knowledge? Can it affect their self-esteem and cultural pride to know that their

language, a part of their culture and identity, is ‘subordinated’ to the educational language?

The answer to this will of course vary depending on who is asked and in what context, but it

would be reasonable to believe that it can have some negative effects. After all it is important

to feel ‘at ease’ at school. As Price (1992) says, it is important that one’s cultural and

academic contributions are ‘visible’, that people from the same background are represented in

educational contexts so that self-esteem and belief in one’s own academic achievement can be

promoted.

4.2 The world-system explanation

This explanation of the use of LWCs in developing countries relates to the global level.

National language policy is seen as a part of the inter-state domination and subordination in

the global power struggle. LWCs are according to this view, promoted by groups in countries

where the LWCs are native and who see the spread of their own mother tongue as beneficial

(Clayton 1998:149). This explanation is rooted in Wallerstein’s theory of unequal economic

relations between ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ states in the world system (ibid.). As classes struggle

for advantages and control within societies, states similarly struggle in the world system. This

theory links the use of ‘core languages’ in ‘periphery’ countries to international exploitation.

Through education and LWCs, core cultures and ideologies are exported world wide in ways

that legitimise and strengthen the dominant position of core states in the world system. In

other words, the use of LWCs is seen in relation to cultural imperialism.

The educational policies can be influenced by core states, since the latter have the means of

offering educational programs. Educational assistance has as Clayton notes (1998:150), strong

effects on deciding what languages are to be used in teaching. LWCs are strongly promoted

by organisations such as Alliance Française and the British Council at the same time as the

mother tongues of the people in developing countries are not being developed or used in

education. Indirectly, agents in ‘core’ countries influence other countries’ educational policies

by installing ‘preferred ways of thinking and acting’ i.e. transmitting their own ideas, policy

options and supplying educational consultants (Clayton 1998:150). This includes spreading

16

the idea that it is better to use LWCs, than the local languages. When an independent Namibia

was to decide upon her language policy, the research and the international conference set up

to choose official and educational languages were dominated by British and American

participants. The way of selecting a main official language has been criticised by, amongst

others, the British linguist Robert Phillipson. He concluded: ‘It is difficult to avoid the

conclusion that the criteria seem to have been selected so as to make English emerge as the

absolute winner’ (Brock-Utne 1997:249). The results were the selection of 10 Namibian and 3

European languages for instruction in the first grades of schooling. A lot of work, strongly

supported by overseas agencies, has been done to make English the official language. The

growth of English has however happened at the detriment of the Namibian languages.

Brock-Utne refers to the World Bank, an institution that by the power of its money easily can

influence most international agendas. The LWC policy is promoted in their paper from 1980

which claims that the emphasis on local languages can diminish an individual’s chances of

further education and limit access of specific groups or countries to the international body of

knowledge (Brock-Utne 1997:253). This statement clearly contradicts the linguistic

interdependency principle (see 1.0) and it takes for granted that people best learn a second

language by using this as medium of instruction and not by developing their mother tongue.

Samoff (1996:254) notes that the priorities of the World Bank often conflict with those of

African countries. Innovative educational approaches developed by African educators for

African contexts, are often muted by the bank’s narrow view on education.

There is also the problem of lack of neutrality. That is, the ‘international body of knowledge’

has not appeared in a social and cultural vacuum. On the contrary, it is a product formed by

dominant ‘Western’ cultures, and imprinted by their point of view, their perceptions of the

world and their solutions to world problems. By using the LWCs and the education programs

of a small number of countries, their culture is simultaneously introduced in other cultures

where local needs and local problems might require local solution and local knowledge. The

world system theory emphasises that an effect of LWC use in developing countries is a

transfer of core ideologies and intellectual socialisation. Thus, by promoting their mother

tongue for use world-wide countries can ensure a strong position in the world system (Clayton

1998:151). There are also perceived political and economic gains for the ‘core’ countries. If

people in the ‘periphery’ are educated by the means of an LWC through books made by ‘core’

nations, not only will they be familiar with these nations’ culture, ideas etc. but they may also

be supportive of these countries. In other words it is a question of establishing political and

17

also economic alliances. It is about creating markets for Western products such as books.

Clayton synthesises this theory as follows: ‘World theory scholars see educational assistance

as legitimating the role of core states and reinforcing the global advantages of core producers’

Even though the world system explanation focuses on some central points important to

understand why monolingual LWC policies are so common, it is easily criticised. Clayton

(1998:153) refers to Pennycook who criticises the deterministic and reductionistic elements in

this explanation. It is easy to agree to this claim. World System Theory assumes that people in

‘periphery’ states automatically and unconsciously adopts the ‘core’ ideas and ideologies they

are introduced to through the use of LWCs. In other words that they are contributing to their

own subordination without being aware of it. This theory itself is thus being rather

patronising. It cannot be ignored that people know about negative aspects of LWC use, but

still prefer an LWC e.g. to oppose the certain ideas or make the international community

recognise their contributions in global affairs. Clayton (1998:154) refers to Brock-Utne who

points out that attempts to strengthen African languages has often been resisted in Africa

since it has been perceived as a way of restricting opportunity among certain groups. The use

of LWCs may be exploitative on an international level, but it is still preferred by many

African students due to the gains associated with this policy. LWC use may have a drawback,

never the less at the individual level it can offer political, social and economic opportunities

(Clayton 1998:154). Language policy is dependent on resources that are unequally distributed

in the world system. If a country has a choice of offering education in an LWC with the

assistance of agents in a ‘core’ country or not being able to offer any education, clearly the

LWC option is the most beneficial.

It is a bit conspiratorial to believe that the so called ‘core’ countries and individuals are

dedicated to global exploitation through the spread of LWCs, even though it may be

convenient that their mother tongue is used internationally. The power distribution in the

international community is not as well described by the term cultural imperialism as that of

globalisation (Tomlinson 1994:175). The global agendas are not so much set by dominant

states through the intended spread of a social system from a centre of power to other

countries. The global forces influence all countries without aiming at global weakening of

individual cultures- nonetheless this may be the result. Even though the globalisation process

is not controlled by any states, some states such as the ‘Western’ states seem to be able to

contribute more than other states in setting the global agendas. There are reasons to be critical

18

of such development, since the potential appearance of one world culture includes a risk of

reducing alternative ways of thinking and acting.

Conclusion

This essay has attempted to present the problematic nature of language policy in pluralist

states. It has introduced linguistic theories, which even though no consensus is found, in most

cases seem to conclude that mother tongue development is crucial for second language

acquisition and learning in general. Official arguments for the monolingual LWC policies

such as national integration, inter-/national communication and costs have been presented and

discussed. Even though the latter are important, this essay holds that the unofficial

explanations related to elite closure and the world system, may explain why LWCs are often

chosen instead of more multicultural approaches.

From the material hereby presented it seems obvious that language policy affects all

individuals and their position in the power struggle of society. Not being able to use one’s

mother tongue represents an obstacle for learning, for taking part in society and accessing the

arenas of power. This exclusion can be seen as equivalent to racism as it negatively affects

people because of who they are and what language they speak. It seems that LWC policies,

even though often chosen to avoid giving advantages to specific linguistic groups, put some

social groups in a privileged position. Those who master this language of power can easily

dominate society. When society is run by a single-language policy, other languages and the

contributions of their speakers are often not taken into account. Those who do not have the

resources of learning the LWC are easily turned into subordinated groups while elites who

master the language of power, assume a dominant position. Monolingual LWC policies seem

to reinforce social stratification. What language policy is most suitable and what negative and

positive effects will be seen in relation to each option will vary from context to context. One

can understand why one language is chosen as official language. Yet it is important to

acknowledge the educational and social difficulties this approach entails for a lot of people.

The dominance of some languages may lead to the dominance of only a few cultures,

nationally and internationally. This is not a beneficial situation. Problems and challenges are

19

different from context to context. Different culturally sensitive solutions are thus needed-

solutions which one single culture, nationally or globally, will not necessarily be able to offer.

Diversity is thus needed for the sake of the individual as for the ‘global village’. Realising the

value of the use of peoples’ mother tongues is one step in the direction of increasing the

degree of multiculturalism in society. Mother tongue use can play a central role in allowing

people to take part in the national and international community on a more equal footing than

today. This said, enhancing linguistic diversity in order to strengthen people in the power

struggle of society is clearly a complex affair.

20

References

Brock-Utne, B. (1996) Globalisation of Learning – The Role of the Universities in the South:with a special look at Sub-Saharan Africa, International Journal of Educational Development,16, 4, pp. 335-346.

Brock-Utne, B. (1997) The language question of Namibian schools, International Review ofEducation, 43, 2/3, pp.241-260.

Clayton, T. (1988) Explanations for the use of languages of wider communication ineducation in developing countries, International Journal of Educational Development, 18, 2,pp.145-157.

Cummins, J. (1988)’Language Planning in Education in Multi-lingual Settings’ in Bickley, V.(ed.) Languages in Education in a Bi-lingual or Multi-lingual Setting, Hong Kong: Instituteof Language in Education, Education Department, Hong Kong.

Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society,Ontario,CA.: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Galjart, B. (1995) ‘Counter Development: Possibilities and Constraints’ in Craig, G. & Mayo,M.(eds.) Community Empowerment. A Reader in Participation and Development, London:Zed Books.

Garrett, R. (25.02.99) Lecture Notes, Planning and Managing Educational Development,Bristol: University of Bristol, The Graduate School of Education.

Hogg, M. A. & Vaughan, M. (1995) Social Psychology. An Introduction, London:Prentice/Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Little, A. (1996) ‘Globalisation and Educational Research: Whose Reality Counts?’,International Journal of Educational Development , 16, 4, pp.427-438.

Mayo, M. & Craig, G.(1995) ‘Community Participation and Empowerment: The Human Faceof Structural Adjustment or Tools for Democratic Transformation?’ in Craig, G. & Mayo, M.(eds.) Community Empowerment. A Reader in Participation and Development, London: ZedBooks.

Pattanayak, D. P. (1986) ‘Educational use of the mother tongue’ in Spolsky, B.(ed.) Languageand Education in Multilingual Settings, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Pattanayak, D. P. (1988) ’Monolingual myopia and the petals of the Indian lotus: Do manylanguages unite or divide a nation?’ in Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Cummins, J. (eds.) MinorityEducation: From Shame to Struggle, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Romaine, S. (1994) Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Oxford, NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Skutnabb-Kangas,T. (1988) ‘Multilingualism and the education of minority children’ in

21

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Cummins, J. (eds.) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle,Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Cummins, J. (1988) ‘Concluding Remarks: Language forEmpowerment’ in Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Cummins, J. (eds.) Minority Education: FromShame to Struggle, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

The World Bank (1995) Priorities and Strategies for Education. A World Bank Review,Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Tollefson, J.W. (1995) ‘Language policy, power and inequality’ in Tollefson, J. W. (ed.),Power and Inequality in Language Education, Cambridge New York: Cambridge UniversityPress

Tollefson, J. W. (1996) Planning Language, Planning inequality: Language policy in thecommunity, London: Longman.

Tomlinson, J. (1991) Cultural Imperialism, London: Pinter Publishers.