Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World : Prospects and Challenges [1 ed.] 9781443850018, 9781443847544

Citation preview

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

By

Navin Kumar Singh

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges, by Navin Kumar Singh This book first published 2013 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2013 by Navin Kumar Singh All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-4754-2, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-4754-4

Namaste! I dedicate this book to my beloved grandparents: Shreemati Dulari Devi Singh (my grandmother) and Shree Bhikhari Singh (my late grandfather), to my parents: Shreemati Sita Devi Singh (my mother) and Shree Balram Parsad Singh (my father), and my aunty and uncle: Shreemati Meena Devi Singh and Shree Krishan Mohan Singh. Thank you! —Navin Kumar Singh

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................. ix Preface ..................................................................................... xi Foreword by Jon Reyhner ..................................................... xiii Chapter One ............................................................................. 1 Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses Chapter Two ........................................................................... 21 Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions Chapter Three ......................................................................... 39 Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices Chapter Four .......................................................................... 63 Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages Chapter Five ........................................................................... 87 Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education Chapter Six ........................................................................... 111 Globalization of English and Other Languages and Cultures Chapter Seven ...................................................................... 125 Diglossic Communities and Languages of Instructions Chapter Eight ....................................................................... 139 Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

viii

Table of contents

Chapter Nine ........................................................................ 165 Globalization and Changing Parental Perceptions for Multilingualism Bibliography......................................................................... 173 Index..................................................................................... 209

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In completing this book, I received constant support and encouragements from many individuals to whom I would like to express my sincere gratitude and note of thanks. First, I am grateful to Dr. Jon Allan Reyhner who accepted my request to write a foreword for this book and offered much needed guidance, motivation, support and the foremost inspiration to accomplish this project. I also owe gratitude to Dr. Willard Gilbert and Dr. Norbert Francis for their scholarly inputs, guidance and suggestions. I would also like to express my note of thanks to April Brady and Brian Sun for their interests, encouragements and cooperation. My thanks also go to Dominic Thompson who served as a proofreader and helped me to improve the quality of the book. I would also like to thank Cambridge Scholars Publishing’s Amanda Millar and the entire team for their kind and continued support and cooperation that they gave me through this entire process. Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude (kritgytagyapan) to all my senior family members who gave me inspiration and made immense sacrifices to enable me to complete this book. My thanks (dhanyabad) also go to all younger members of my family and friends for all their unconditional support and cooperation.

PREFACE

This book presents evolving language education trends, multilingualism in terms of prospects and challenges by drawing examples and case studies from around the world. Over the past few decades, significant economic and political changes have taken place across the globe. These changes also have put a significant mark on language teaching and learning practices across the globe. There is a clear movement towards multilingual practices in the world, which is also evident in the title of UNESCO 2003 education position paper, “Education in a Multilingual World.” With globalization, the focus of language education has shifted from monolingualism towards bilingualism and multilingualism, in that multilingual practices have become norms rather than the exception in most part of the world. Nonetheless, most existing books on language education in general and books on bilingualism and multilingualism in particular have largely ignored or just eluded to the concept of globalization and its influences on language education policies and practices. This book is an attempt to fill this gap with its special focus on cultural and linguistic aspects of globalization with reference to multiannual trends in a globalized world. This book elucidates some of latest controversies and case studies from diverse and multilingual contexts of the world that are presented into nine chapters. It is my belief that this book will be of interest to graduate students and advanced undergraduates in sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, bilingual and multicultural education, second and foreign language educators, and specialists in these fields. In addition, it will be of interest to

xii

Preface

educators, researchers, policy makers, language rights activists, and others. There is always room for improvement in any piece of work, so any constructive comments, suggestions and inputs will be highly appreciated.

FOREWORD

The United States of America, militarily the most powerful country in the world, is having trouble accepting the globalization that Dr. Singh describes in this book. Many US citizens cling to the ethnocentric idea of American Exceptionalism that see their country as a beacon of freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, which should emulate despite the numerous challenges the United States faces with high rates of crime, drug addiction, and poverty as well as a large percentage of their children, especially children of color, not doing well in school. The United States expresses its support for human rights around the world but then has not signed major human rights initiatives, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the United Nations in 1989. A failure it shares in 2013 with only one other country, Sudan. Dr. Singh describes how instead of embracing the growing trend towards multilingualism, major efforts are taking place in the United States to make English its official language after two centuries of having no official language and half its states have adopted some kind of official English policy that limit the use of other languages. Too often the United States in its admirable promotion of democracy has allowed the majority of voters to take away the freedoms of minorities and to dominate them, especially its Indigenous populations of Native Americans, including American Indians and Native Hawaiians and Alaskans. Religious views of Manifest Destiny that put forward the belief God gave the Americas to immigrants from Europe to exploit have given rise to genocide and ethnocide across the Americas.

xiv

Foreword

Too often the United States has taken a one-size-fits-all approach to educational reform through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, President Barak Obama’s “Race to the Top” initiative, and the current push in many states for Common Core Standards. These initiatives tend to devalue minority languages and cultures and mandate the assimilation of recent immigrants as well as Native Americans into the dominant culture. Dr. Singh brings in this book a refreshing global perspective that emphasizes mother tongue education, multilingualism, and cultural pluralism. After the initial rejection in 2007 by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, of the United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is encouraging to know that each of these countries have reversed their position towards it. Hopefully, as the people of the world learn more about other people’s languages and cultures, the goals of the United Nations for world peace, understanding and human rights as expressed in its founding charter, many declarations, conventions, and other documents will be realized. Jon Reyhner Northern Arizona University April 2013

CHAPTER ONE LOOKING AT GLOBALIZATION THROUGH LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL LENSES

“I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any” —Mahatma Gandhi

Over the past three decades, the world has seen many changes in the field of education, in the light of information technology and globalization. The term “globalization” gained popularity in the 1980s when the first and the last president of the Soviet Union, named by the BBC in 1999 and Time in 2000 as the greatest leader of the 20th century, Mikhail Gorbachev, introduced his open door policy in terms of “glasnost” and “perestroika.” As once he said, “The market is not an invention of capitalism. It has existed for centuries. It is an invention of civilization.” However, the notion of globalization is not new. The notion of a globalized world is as old as humanity, as is stated in the Rig Veda (the oldest Hindu religious text extant on the planet) in the Sanskrit, “Vashudhav Kutumbkam” (the whole universe is a family, and all its inhabitants are family members and relatives). Similarly, the concept of globalization was interpreted in many different ways throughout the centuries in terms of colonization, missionary activities, and alliances, such as NATO, the WARSAW PACT and the Non Align Movement

2

Chapter One

(NAM). Under the world capitalist system, the concept of globalization began in the 15th century (Wallerstein, 1997), but the term globalization has been in frequent usage since the late 1980s (Held & McGrew, 2007; Hothi, 2005: Robertson, 1992; Steger, 2003). Although globalization has been under way for a long time, it intensified in its degree and took a new form in the late 20th century. Moreover, globalization in the 15th century, with the exploration of Vasco de Gama, Christopher Columbus, and others, is different from its current form in which advanced technologies enable people, commodities, capital, and ideas to flow beyond socio-political boundaries around the world with greater ease (Jameson, 1998). It is important to consider the fact that many globalizing tendencies such as grand alliances of nations and dynasties, and the unification of previously captured territories under such empires as Rome, AustriaHungary, and Britain, as well as events, such as the rise of transnational agencies concerned with regulation and communication, and an increasingly unified conceptualization of human rights evolved in the past (Epstein, 2002; Hothi, 2005; Robertson, 1992, 1995). Despite globalization’s prevalence in every walk of life today, the confusion is still persistent over exactly what the term means. It is almost impossible to explore all the concepts of globalization offered by economists, international development scholars, sociologists, social workers, and others. Scholars have interpreted “globalization” in many ways from theoretical, political or ideological perspectives, and there are many differing views on its timing and consequences (Scholte, 2000; Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hillard, 2004). Although globalization is, and will probably remain for some time, one of “the most nebulous and misunderstood” concepts (Beck, 2001, p. 19), there is some common ground to be found amongst all the confusion. That is, the idea of

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

3

connections and relationships that goes beyond the immediate, local environment (Brown, Lauder, & Ashton, 2011; Kumaravadivelu, 2008, 2012; Suarez-Orozco & QinHillard, 2004; Zakaria, 2009). In the words of Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hillard (2004): While each discipline has generated its own idiosyncratic use of the term globalization, certain characteristics converge. Most scholars…agree that it is characterized as a set of processes that tend to de-territorialize important economic, social, and cultural practices from their traditional boundaries in natation-states. (p. 14)

Ronald Robertson is one of the few scholars who wrote on globalization in the 1990s, when the new trend of globalization emerged. In his seminal book, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (1992), he argues that globalization was initially discussed from economic perspectives, but soon became a topic for discussion among intellectuals from cultural perspectives as well. Therefore, it is essential to interpret globalization from both economic and cultural perspectives simultaneously to grasp its impact in every walk of life (Robertson, 1992). A similar view is expressed by Duderstadt, Taggart, and Weber (2008) in their chapter, “Globalization of Higher Education”, where they note, “Globalization implies a far deeper interconnectedness with the world—economically, politically, and culturally” (p. 274). For Robertson (1992), globalization is both theory and process. He writes, “Globalization is the process by which all peoples and communities come to experience common economic, social and cultural environments; but globalization as a theory deals with the compression of the worldintensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (p. 8). Others view globalization as multi-dimensional, and emphasize the need for paying close attention to the dialectic of the local and global domination and local resistance

4

Chapter One

(Ammon, 2001; Giddens, 1991; Held & McGrew, 2007; McGrew, 1992; Scholte, 2000; Tomlinson, 1999). According to the well-known sociologist and political mentor of former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Anthony Giddens (1991), “globalization is the dialectic of homogenization and heterogenization” (p. 22). In other words, globalization, by intensifying the interconnectedness among different people, things, and ideas, homogenizes the world, but at the same time, the world becomes heterogenized as people are more aware of differences owing to the increasing exposure to them across the globe (Giddens, 1991). Anthony McGrew, who is one of the few scholars to view globalization from a multi-dimensional perspective, writes, “Globalization refers to the multiplicity of linkages and interconnections that transcend the nation-states in that events, decisions and activities in one part of the world can come to have significant consequences in quite distant parts of the globe” (1992, p. 65). He continues: Nowadays, goods, capital, people, knowledge, images, communications, crime, culture, pollutants, drugs, fashions, and beliefs all readily flow across territorial boundaries. Transnational networks, social movements and relationships are extensive in virtually all areas of human activity from the academic to the sexual. Moreover, the existence of global systems of trade, finance, and production binds together in very complicated ways the fate of households, communities, and nations across the globe. (McGrew, 1992, p. 65)

Globalization impacts our day-to-day activities in many ways. A more integrated world community brings both benefits and challenges for all; it affects the balance of economic, political and cultural power between nations, communities and individuals, and it can both enhance and restrict freedoms and human rights (Brysk, 2000; Epstein, 2002; Howe & Lisi, 2014; Singh, 2012). Under globalization,

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

5

not only does the world appear compressed as economic, political, and cultural relationships among people and nationstates become interconnected more tightly, but also people understand and talk about the world differently. Levin (2001) argues that open capitalism and global multi-national corporations projects a perception that the world is becoming a shared social place by technological and economic advances. For Levin, the world has become so interlinked that there is a common consensus among educationists and policy makers that it is having a lasting impact on overall educational missions and goals: “It may be that consciousness of a global society, culture, and economy and global interdependence are the cornerstones of globalization, and these consciousness and interdependency have saliency in knowledge based enterprises” (2001, p. 9). Globalization is a matter of change in the way the world is and also a matter of the way in which people perceive the world (Tomlinson, 1999). So it is important to pay close attention to the dialectic of the local and global for having a deeper understanding of the concept of globalization and its impact in our day-to-day business. Globalization from Various Perspectives The term globalization has become a catchphrase and appears on the front pages of newspapers these days. However, it evokes mixed feelings, based upon whether it is being praised by the business community for expansion of the world markets or condemned by those who blame it for widening the gap between rich and poor nations and people around the world (Cummins, 2000, 2007; Epstein, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2008, 2012). According to Fareed Zakaria (2009), “Today when people think about globalization, they still think of it mostly in terms of the huge amount of cash-currency traders

6

Chapter One

swap about $2trillion a day—that sloshes around the globe, rewarding some countries and punishing others” (p. 23). Under today’s globalization, more and more social problems become both local and global. Social activists are urged to become transnational to tackle today’s social issues (Held & McGrew, 2007). Globalization implies different consequences and meanings to different people. Thus it needs to be examined from multiple dimensions, without reducing its complexity, and by paying considerable attention to contexts. In today’s globalized world, the borders between cultures and societies are becoming increasingly blurred. Cultural and national ideologies are becoming intertwined in a process that is extremely difficult to observe or define due to its complexity (Epstein, 2002; Held & McGrew, 2007; Pieterse, 1995, Robertson, 1992, 1995; Steger, 2003; SuarezOrozco & Qin-Hillard, 2004). At a more conjectural and secondary level, globalization is affecting all of the social, political and economic structures and processes that emerge from this global restructuring. One critical issue that emerges from all of this restructuring is the central role of knowledge, education and learning for the success of what has been called the Global Information Society (GIS) and global information economy. The emergence of the term globalization parallels the rise of neoliberalism, which is “the theoretical underpinning logic of the most recent wave of globalization” (Fitzsimons, 2000, p. 506). Classical liberalism developed by Smith, Ricardo, Bentham, and the two Mills (Conway, 1995), among many others, assumes that a civil society consists of atomistic and rational individuals who pursue their interest freely. Liberalism stresses that a just society is produced by uncoerced market exchanges, and is tied to capitalism because its assumption of society and people is realized best through capitalist economy (King, 1995, p. 17). This means that the

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

7

neo-liberalism that has become influential in the last two decades promotes “free, unregulated markets coupled with aggressive individualism” (Wells, Camochan, Slayton, Allen, & Vasudeva, 1998, p. 324). In the 19th century, Marx and Engels (1848/1985) used the term “globalizing” characteristic of capitalist economy: “The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country” (cited in Hothi, 2005, p. 31; Robertson, 1992, 1995). In other words, capitalist economy globalizes the world because capitalists keep exploring and exploiting new markets in order to make profits. For Duderstadt, Taggart and Weber (2008), globalization is a process characterized by increasing economic openness, growing economic interdependence and deepening economic integration in the world economy (p. 274). Robertson (1995), referring to the Japanese word dochaku-ka (global-localization), calls this condition “glocalization” (p. 174). He argues that local diversity is created in the process of globalizing markets. Under globalization, gigantic private corporations, which are often multinational, gain mobility and flexibility. Then it is a logical consequence that those who can make full use of globalization are corporations of the core area (Harvey, 1990). Therefore, for people who critically examine globalization, globalization means further exploitation and domination of people by large corporations in the core nation-states, the first world nations. Taking advantage of mobility and flexibility that globalization provides, transnational corporations accumulate more capital and become more powerful by dominating the global market (Freed, 2012; Singh, 2012). In this sense, globalization is “an increasingly pure form of imperialism” (Smith, 1997, p. 182) and is “intensified colonialism” (Miyoshi, 1993. p. 750) in which uneven development is further accelerated, and the gap between the

8

Chapter One

“globalized” rich and the local poor becomes more enlarged. In this respect, Freed (2012) posits that mass media have caused global consumerism, stating: The press talks about our interdependence in news stories on global trade… food, and water shortages…. Media advertising is indoctrinating us as global consumers in a world marketplace that links fishing villages to farm towns to major cities…. Ironically, in conditioning us to see global ‘free trade’ as good, the transnational corporations behind the mass media foster global thinking that prompts us to ‘fair trade’ instead. (p. 9)

Globalization does not simply divide a nation-state in the core and the periphery, it increases the gap between the rich and the poor within a nation-state (Miyoshi, 1993). For Cummins (2008), population mobility is one of the main factors of globalization. People from around the world move to different places in search of better educational and job opportunities, leading to major demographic shifts in different parts of the world. According to UNICEF (2009), most affluent countries are experiencing a large number of immigrants from underdeveloped countries and many nationstates are developing special programs to provide better educational facilities to immigrants and their children. The document states, “The current well-being of children with immigrant parents will have a profound impact on the prospects of these families and the nations in which the children live for years and decades to come” (p. 1). Globalization from Cultural Perspective According to a UNDP Report (1999), Globalization of culture is contacts between people and their cultures—their ideas, their values, their ways of life—which have been growing and deepening in unprecedented ways. Referring to its impact, the report further states, “For many, the exposure to new cultures

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

9

is exciting, even empowering…. For others, it is disquieting, as they try to cope with a rapidly changing world” (p. 33). When globalization is seen from cultural perspectives, it involves both homogenization and heterogenization. The dialectical relationship between homogenization and heterogenization of cultures is being interpreted in many ways. For example, Barber (1996) argues that homogenization provokes heterogenization in that globalization is primarily concerned with homogenization, and heterogenization is a reaction to homogenization. Cultures around the world have become homogenized as people, wherever they live, consume the same cultural products, mostly originating in the United States, such as Hollywood movies, US pop music, McDonald’s hamburgers, and Nike shoes. But at the same time, parochial nationalism or localism emerges in response to this “McDonaldization” of the world (Barber, 1996; Kumaravadivelu, 2008; Ritzer, 2004, Singh, 2012). Since globalization suppresses the differences of people and culture by disseminating a global mass culture, people in the periphery, those who are marginalized and not the part of global community, try to restore their differences by turning to their national, ethnic, and local identities. People in the periphery do not have the same luxury that the people in the edges have in this globalized world. Middle class or common people cannot afford all luxury goods and services that affluent ones can in most parts of the world, such as one percent vs. ninety-nine percent in the US. For Hall (1997), “the return to the local is often a response to globalization” (p. 33). While, Featherstone (1996) states that “the difficulty of handling increasing levels of cultural complexity, and the doubts and anxieties they often engender, are reasons why ‘localism,’ or the desire to return home, becomes an important theme” (p. 47). Globalization is unsettling people by its subversion of national and/or local cultures around the world.

10

Chapter One

Appadurai (1996) argues that homogenization is not separate from heterogenization in that homogenization always contains heterogenization within itself. Globalization does homogenize people and cultures, since it involves the use of a variety of instruments of homogenization (armaments, advertising techniques, world languages, and clothing styles) that are absorbed into local political and cultural economies. People around the world may watch the same films (e.g., Hollywood movies), dress similarly (e.g., blue jeans), and learn the same language (e.g., English), but these things are appropriated in different cultural communities and are utilized to assert their cultural uniqueness (Appadurai, 1996). For example, fashion TV is broadcasting different versions of programs for Muslim and non-Muslim worlds, and different versions of Hollywood movies are produced for different cultures. Similarly, McDonald’s and other fast-food American companies are using different materials and ingredients in their products, catering to local cultures and traditions of different societies and religious communities. For example, fast-food companies are catering to the needs of Indians by using vegetables and chicken in their products, given the fact that more than 70% of the population is vegetarian in India and the majority of the population is Hindu. On the other hand, India is a secular nation, having the second largest population of Muslims in the world, so these fast-food companies cannot take risks by using pork in their products. In other words, globalization deals with both economy and culture, and involves both homogenization and heterogenization (Appadurai, 1996; Pieterse, 1995). For Pieterse (1995), globalization triggers hybridization, and thus it overlaps with post-modernity, and accelerates hybridization or mixture of different cultures. In this respect, it is worthwhile to note that recently, Sakira’s song Wakka-Wakka (the theme song of the

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

11

FIFA Football World Cup 2010) got more than one billion hits on YouTube. Globalization from Linguistic Perspective Johnson (2001) argues that in a globalizing world, languages are no longer tied to or associated exclusively with discrete territorial areas or single nation states. Languages, along with “goods, capital, people, knowledge, images, communications, crime, culture, pollutants, drugs, fashions, and beliefs”, also “readily flow across territorial boundaries” (McGrew, 1992, p. 65). Globalization is having far reaching consequences for languages and to view globalization from a language perspective, there is a need to consider the use and status of languages in a global context, or what Maurais (2003) calls “their relationships and their competition on the world’s checkerboard” (p. 13), using a sociolinguistic perspective on globalization. The organization of languages and their relationships in a global context are explained by de Swaan (2001): “It is multilingualism that has kept humanity, separated by so many languages, together…. It is this ingenious pattern of connections between language groups that constitutes the global language system” (p. 1). According to de Swaan (2001), at the bottom of this system are the world’s many small languages that he called peripheral languages. Peripheral languages, constituting 98% of the world’s languages, are used by under 10% of the world’s population. Often these languages have no orthography (writing system), are passed on orally, and rely on people remembering them rather than recording them. At the next level, connecting peripheral languages are central languages (e.g., Chinese, Hindi, and Russian). There are about 100 central languages in the world and they are acquired as second languages by speakers of peripheral languages. Central languages are often

12

Chapter One

national or official languages and are used in politics, courts, education systems, television, textbooks and newspapers. At the center is English, which de Swaan calls the hypercentral language. English is the one language that “connects the supercentral languages with one another and that therefore constitutes the pivot of the world language system” (2001, p. 6). English obtained this position at the core of the global language system owing to a variety of historical reasons, including “large scale migration and settlement of native language speakers, military imposition (colonialism), commercial or political power and prestige derived from scientific, cultural or other achievements” (Leitner, 1992, p. 186). English is now the most prevalent language of books, newspapers, academic conferences, science, technology, international business and medicine, and has official or special status in over 70 countries across Africa, Asia and the Pacific (Crystal, 2003). For Blommaert (2010), linguistic resources still carry with them associated socioeconomic values shaped their spatial distribution. Consequently, transcultural flows and their consequential linguistic forms are constrained by sociolinguistics of mobility and languages used in periphery, contact zone, or transcultural contexts are often devalued...such use of language outside of the periphery or transcultural context would likely to be deemed “errorful” or otherwise problematic (p. 23). A similar view is expressed by Tonkin (2003): What makes the present and the future different from the past is that the ebb and flow of languages, accompanying shifting economic, political and military relationships, once a local and regional phenomenon, has now become more visibly (or audibly) global. Seismic shifts in the political and economic organization of the world are producing seismic shifts in language use. Problems long recognized by epidemiologists of language decline as afflicting small languages are now increasingly besetting major

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

13

languages like French, German and Russian as the cultural force of English erodes their position. (p. 324)

Nevertheless, globalization has not acted solely to homogenize language and the promote use of English. We also find examples of heightened political activity to gain recognition of, and to generally promote, regional languages like Scots Gaelic, Welsh, Catalan and Kurdish (Hjarvard, 2004). Most of these movements have not identified their adversary as globalization per se (or, for that matter, English when used as an international lingua franca), but rather the dominant language of the dominant national culture, like, for example, Turkish in Turkey (Hjarvard, 2004, p. 77). Hence, Sue Wright (2004) argues that language revitalization may be a phenomenon which coexists more easily with globalization than with nation states. Those who were incorporated politically into nation states but were not culturally and linguistically akin to the dominant national group have often been in a perilous position. So, as political and economic power moves away from the national capital to the more distant and more dispersed sites of global power, it may be that one effect will be that space opens up for minorities (p. 14). For Dubner (2008), “Globalization is giving a new (virtual) planetary presence to hundreds of languages and cultures through millions of Web sites, mixing text and videos.” Over the years, the push for Indigenous selfdetermination and sovereignty has intensified, culminating in the passage of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes that one-sizefits-all educational systems have failed Indigenous children in regards to both respecting their human rights and providing academic success (Reyhner, 2011; Reyhner & Singh, 2010). In her foreword to The Concept of Indigenous Peoples in Asia, Jannie Lasimbang (2008) notes, “The global Indigenous peoples’ movement achieved a major success in its decade

14

Chapter One

long struggle for international recognition of their rights when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (cited in Erni, 2008, p. 9). A sociolinguistic perspective on globalization allows us to see that the phenomenon of globalization presents English language teachers with two central dilemmas. The first relates to the nature of languages in a globalizing world (de Swaan, 2001; Tonkin, 2003; Wright, 2004). As a global language, English represents a potential danger to the languages and cultures of learners. This is because the power and influence of English puts pressure on other already endangered languages. While, Swain (1996) warns that a majority of children across the globe face a language gap that must be bridged when they move from learning the target language to using the target language as a medium of instruction. A similar argument is being made in the US by those who are against the English-only policy of the states, Arizona California and Massachusetts (Crawford, 2000; Gandara & Hopkins, 2010; Spolsky. 2011). Spolsky (2011) argues that a monolingual English-only hegemony seems to prevail in American society, since English still dominates in the US, even in immigrant communities. As a result, most nonEnglish-speaking immigrants to the United States will have lost or almost lost their heritage languages. Nonetheless, “recent efforts by U.S. English to make English the official language have so far been firmly resisted, so their efforts have been redirected to resolutions to city governments and state legislatures” (Spolsky, 2011). The second dilemma relates to how we teach English. In recent times Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has become the most influential and dominant language teaching approach, and there is considerable pressure for English language teachers to use it. However, CLT may not be

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

15

appropriate in all contexts and situations (Gil & Najar, 2008), such as learners who are learning English for academic purposes (e.g., to pass the course or exam), and in a formal setting (Singh, 2012). In the following chapters, we discuss the changing trends of language education across the globe with reference to some of the perennial themes and issues of language education, by drawing examples and case studies from around the world. Organization of the book is as follows: Chapter one: The concept of globalization is interpreted from linguistic and cultural perspectives in which both the homogenization and heterogenization of societies and cultures will be elaborated. This dialectical relationship between homogenization and heterogenization of societies and cultures will be discussed in various ways and it will be put forward that globalization is not merely economic and business transactions as well as military and political agreements— rather it is the shared consciousness of being part of a global family that brings nations, peoples, and societies together. Chapter two: The relationship between language forms and functions is discussed, and different perspectives on various functions of language are elaborated with specific examples. Language is a unique human possession. It serves a variety of functions; however, its foremost function is to communicate. The nature of language is closely related to the demands that we make on it, and the function it must serve. However, there is no one-to-one correspondence between language forms and functions, as different forms can serve one function, while several functions can also be served by one form of language. Chapter three: The status of mother-tongue education across the world, in terms of practices and prejudices, is described.

16

Chapter One

The concept of mother-tongue education emerged along with UNESCO’s declaration on the use of vernacular languages in 1953. Recently, the importance of mother-tongue education is being acknowledged by some educational researchers and linguists for the improvement of children’s learning. It is argued that children who come to school with a solid foundation in their mother-tongues can develop stronger literacy abilities. However, the concept of mother-tongue is very complex and it entirely depends on how it is interpreted, by whom, and for what purposes. Chapter four: With the underpinning concepts on language transfer and second language acquisition, this chapter presents influences of language transfer in second language learning and acquisition. It summarizes different studies and observations that suggest many second language learners’ errors bear a strong resemblance to characteristics of their mother-tongue/first language. Language transfer can take place at any level, including phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. However, the majority of studies concentrate only on phonological and morphological transfer. In the end, this chapter maintains that language transfer is not something that has to be overcome, but rather it is the part and parcel of the language learning process of constructing implicit knowledge of the target language. Chapter five: The changing trends of language education in the wake of globalization and international developments are presented. In the past three decades, significant economic and political changes have occurred all across the globe, leading to cross-cultural contact being at an all-time high in human history. The identities of all societies are evolving as social and political boundaries are shrinking day-by-day. With globalization, the focus of language education has shifted from monolingualism towards bilingualism and multilingualism.

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

17

There are more than 200 countries in the world that recognize two or more official languages (e.g., Canada, Hong Kong, India, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Singapore, and South Africa). However, a small number of languages including Arabic, Bengali, English, French, Hindi, Malay, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish are also used as lingua-franca or languages of wider communication across the globe. Chapter six: The global spread of English and its impact on other languages and cultures is presented. The context in which languages operate now has global proportions and the fact that English occupies a very important position as the global language has far reaching consequences. Globalization has accelerated the spread of the English language, which initially emerged with British and U.S. political, economic, and cultural influences along with the colonization of Africa, Asia and other parts of the world, followed by American imperialism. Consequently, a large number of endangered languages are not being used in education. They are limited in use by the older generation and a generally accepted estimate is that 50% of the world’s existing languages will not survive by the end of this century. Chapter seven: The concept of diglossia is defined and the selection of medium of instruction in diglossic contexts is discussed. The concept of diglossia emerged with the publication of Charles Ferguson’s paper in 1959. In some situations, two varieties of a language or two different languages exist side-by-side for different social functions and different purposes, without overlapping each other’s domains in a society. The use of multiple languages in education may be attributed to numerous factors, such as the linguistic heterogeneity of a country or region, specific social or religious attitudes, or the desire to promote national identity.

18

Chapter One

Chapter eight: The concept of code-switching from various perspectives is elaborated along with some of the social, cultural and other factors that lead to code-switching by bi/mutilinguals during conversation. It is unusual for a speaker to have command of or use only one code or system in spoken discourse. Command of only one variety of language, whether it is dialect, style or register, would appear to be an extremely rare phenomenon. Instead, code-switching is a normal linguistic behaviour or characteristic of individuals who are fluent in more than one language or code. There are some pros and cons of code-switching that need to be taken into account by teachers of diverse student populations. Chapter nine: Children have enormous potential for contribution to their communities, to their nations, and to the international community. Having so much potential, parental perceptions are pivotal for instilling positive attitudes in children to show respect and honour to other languages, peoples, and cultures. Parents’ positive attitude toward bilingual/multilingual education is a significant aspect in the changing contexts of a globalized world, where linguistic and cultural competencies in global cooperation have become norms and standards. Conclusion Over the past few decades, significant economic and political changes have taken place around the world. These changes also have put a significant mark on language teaching and learning practices across the globe. With globalization, the focus of language education has shifted from monolingualism towards bilingualism and multilingualism, in that multilingual practices have become norms rather than the exception in most part of the world. The concept of globalization needs to

Looking at Globalization through Linguistic and Cultural Lenses

19

be interpreted multi-dimensionally, dialectically, and above all, context-specifically. Globalization means the actual or material change of the world and also the change of people’s view of the world (Appadurai, 1996; Ritzer, 2004, Singh, 2012). Globalization deals with both economy and culture and involves both homogenization and heterogenization. Globalization, which overlaps with post-modernity, accelerates hybridization or mixture of different cultures. Pieterse (1995) argues that globalization triggers hybridization, and thus hybridity, multiplicity, and heterogeneity often misses the “acknowledgement of the actual unevenness, asymmetry and inequality in global relations” (Pieterse, 1995, p. 54). It is true that under today’s globalization, people have access to different cultures, worldviews and products, among others, such as a sense of global family, citizenship, interdependence, outsourcing of resources and population mobility. The majority of the world population, however, does not belong to either the core or the transnational class. The transnational class, producing and consuming their cultural products, comes to construct a common way of interacting with each other (Freed, 2012; Held & McGrew, 2007; Singh, 2012). In this regard, Judah Freed (2012) presents a nuanced perspective in her recent book Global Sense: The 2012 Edition: A Spiritual Handbook on the Nature of Society and How to Change the World by Changing Ourselves, as she writes: Because we are globally interactive, everything we think, feel, say and do has a real impact in the world. When we ‘think globally and act locally,’ our daily choices tend be enlightened. A global sensibility affects what foods we eat, what clothes we wear, what cars we drive, what books we read, what jobs we accept, what candidates we elect. ‘Global sense’ affects how we live, love, learn, work, play, and vote. Each enlightened choice, in turn, helps enlighten our world—whether gradually or miraculously. Indeed, we are powerful! (p. 1)

20

Chapter One

In the wake of globalization, the focus of language education has shifted from monolingualism to bilingualism and multilingualism, in that there are many more bilinguals or multilinguals than monolinguals in the world now (Broeder & Martyniuk, 2008; Dolby, 2012; Tucker, 1999). But at the same time, a majority of children face a language gap between schools and homes that must be bridged (UNESCO, 2003). In this regard, Phillipson (2001, 2012) contends that in order to fully take advantage of globalization, each country should learn English as an additional language after the mothertongue, however not to the extent that it endangers one’s native language. Discouraging children from developing their mother-tongues is a violation of child and human rights (Phillipson, 2012; Reyhner & Singh, 2010; Singh, 2012; Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010). In an era of globalization, a society that has access to multilingual and multicultural resources has an edge in its ability to play a major role on the world stage, socially and economically (Dubner, 2008; Hamel, 2005; Singh, 2011, 2012). For Hamel (2005), multilingualism is not only requisite for ecological sustainability, but also as an individual and collective asset, for professional development.

CHAPTER TWO LANGUAGE AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITS FORMS AND FUNCTIONS

Language is a unique possession of human beings that all human beings acquire within a certain period of time. It serves a variety of functions but its foremost function is to communicate and express thoughts and emotions. In this regard, Ruth Nanda Anshen (1957) wrote: Language as communication commits man unequivocally whether silent or expressed. It commits him to the reality that finally the differentiations of cultures may be compared with the multiplicity of dialects throughout civilization. The essential content of the language of the spirit is the same for all mankind. The only difference is that of words employed, words expressing the same basic ideas and aspirations, frequently even in the same idioms. Even God is God also as word for all mankind as such is a promise and germ of being. (p. 355)

The nature of language is closely related to the demands that we make on it, and the functions it has to serve. However, one of the pioneers of psycholinguistics, Noam Chomsky (1975, 2000) is against any fixed function for language: “how good a solution is language to certain boundary conditions that are imposed by the architecture of the mind (Chomsky 2000, 17)?” It is virtually impossible to pinpoint all the functions of language. Similarly, there is no one-to-one correspondence between language forms and functions, as different forms serve one function while several functions can also be served by one form (structure) of language. For

22

Chapter Two

example, a directive sentence can serve more than one function, such as making a statement, presenting a fact, or eliciting information. There are a limited number of studies to trace the relationship between language forms and functions. Therefore, in this chapter, the relationship between language forms and functions is discussed in light of current and seminal literature in anthropology, sociology and linguistics. This chapter illuminates that there is no one-to-one correspondence between language forms and functions, as several functions can be served by one form of language while several forms can also have only one function. The function of language is obviously to communicate, but the question is what do we communicate? A readymade answer to this question is the expression of thoughts and emotions. In fact, language functions include more than expressing thoughts, and emotions, for example, opening the conversation channel (i.e., the use of set phrases “Hello or Hi/Hey,” in English, “Namaste” in Hindi, “Ni hao ma” in Chinese, “Zdravstvuj” in Russian, “Selam” in Amharic, “Aloha” in Hawaii and “Ya'at'eeh” in Navajo) can initiate a discourse or conversation between interlocutors. Likewise, it can also function for the creation of literary works, facilitating cognitive development, serving the language itself, etc. These are only a few functions to mention. Earnest Horn (1942) writes: Progress in civilization has been attributed to the proper use of language; from one point of view, language is less than it symbolizes; it cannot be examined and manipulated in the same way as the object, but from another point of view, it is more; i.e. it makes possible uses, transformations and organizations which would be impossible without it. (p. 389)

Functions are essentially the purposes that we accomplish with language (e.g., greeting, stating, requesting, promising, parting etc.). In the words of the renowned British linguist

Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions

23

who developed systemic functional linguistic model of language, M. A. K. Halliday (1976), “While forms are outward manifestation of language, functions are the realization of those forms” (p. 23). It is virtually impossible to pinpoint all the functions of language. It depends upon how we classify them, how broad or narrow our classification is. Let us take some examples: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What is your name? Where does he live? Go straight and turn left. Mind your head. Close the door.

The previous five sentences serve five functions, e.g. “asking,” “inquiring,” “directing,” “warning,” and “commanding” respectively. So, how many functions does language have? This question cannot be answered definitely, partly because of the complex nature of language and society (their interrelationship defies any such enumeration) and partly because there is no such thing as the right or proper way of classifying language functions. In the words of Horn (1942): The power of words to select, abstract, emphasize, generalize or interpret from particular instances and to refer to things nonexistent or hypothetical, or to things which vary from particular instance in one or more ways, is the source of innovation, problem solving and artistic creativeness. (p. 389)

There are a limited number of studies that have been carried out to trace the relationship between language forms and functions. This chapter examines the language form and function relationship in light of the literature available so far. However, this is not a study based on empirical data. Some of the specific questions that this chapter will explore are:

24

Chapter Two

1. What is language? Why is it called “species specific”? 2. What function does language serve in our day-to-day life? 3. What is the relationship between language forms and their functions? 4. How many types of functions does language have? Origin and Definitions of Language The word “language” is so varied that any attempt at definition may pose some problems. However, one of the best definitions of language comes from world famous linguist Edward Sapir (1921), who states that “language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols. These symbols are in the first instance auditory and they are produced by so-called organs of speech” (p. 41). The implication and value of Sapir’s statement lie in its emphasis on language as a specifically common attribute, capable of expressing ideas and emotions, as well as other fundamental desires, which man may have in common with other animals. He stresses that language operates as a system of symbols of which the spoken form is of primary importance. However, he has not mentioned sign language, which is very much in practice in today’s world. According to Peter A. Verburg (1998), “The discussion of language as a part of behavior is a recent development, but language per se had been regarded in many earlier centuries with greater or lesser emphasis as a part of intellect or reason” (p. 4). In their Outline of Linguistic Analysis, the U.S. linguists Bernard Bloch and George L. Trager (1942) characterize language as a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperates (Gnanasundaram & Rangan, 2000; Verburg, 1998). It makes no appeal, except indirectly and by implication, to the communicative function

Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions

25

of language; instead, it puts emphasis upon its social function. In his Essay on Language, Hall (1968) notes, “Language is an institution whereby humans communicate and interact with each other by means of habitually used oral-auditory arbitrary symbols” (p. 158). In this definition of language, Hall (1968) highlights both communication and interaction; he presumably means by language “symbols” the vocal signals and [signs] that are actually transmitted from sender to receiver in the process of communication and interaction. Likewise, Horn (1942) writes: Language plays an important if not dominant part in all human culture. Language and meaning are social in their origin, structure and function. They are formed by social processes and in turn largely control the processes themselves; while there may of course be private aspects, language, meaning and ideas are potentially inter-subjective and social. (p. 377)

On the other hand, Volosinov (1973) argues that historically language has been viewed largely in two different ways: Idealism and instrumentalism. The first view considers a language as expression or as embodiment of the spirit shared by people in a language community. The basis of language is placed on individual psyche and creativity, which triggers linguistic changes and constitutes the rules of language. For instrumentalist, on the other hand, the sole purpose of language is to function as an instrument of communication. In other words, language is dissociated from human motives, intentions, and emotions; it is conceptualized as an instrument that people learn to use after being/having been born into a language community (Volosinov, 1973). Language and Thought “Language is the dress of thought,” is the famous statement of Dr. Samuel Johnson, the18th century British lexicographer.

26

Chapter Two

If what we wear reflects what we are, then our style of speech indicates our thinking. The Sorbonne cultural revolution of the 1960s did not affect only dress and manners, but also speech. It is said that language and thought stand largely parallel to one another. For example, the intentionality of each is defined independently of that of the other: 1) Thought is possible without language; and 2) Language is possible that does not convey any thought. A popular view (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) suggests that our thoughts are determined by the systems of organization of the specific language we speak. According to this hypothesis, the perception of an English speaker may be entirely different from that of an IsiZulu (an Indigenous but official langue of South Africa) speaker because they happen to speak different languages. However, this view has not been unchallenged as some (e.g., Chomsky, 1975, 2000; Pinker, 2007) argue that we do not literally think in words all the time. Thus, verbal language and thought should in principle be considered to be independent. There is no one-to-one correspondence between language and thought. For example, patients with a language deficit should not automatically have a deficit in thought. Nevertheless, this does not mean that thought is not a system that manipulates symbols. Instead, a popular current model, the “computational model of the mind,” suggests that the mind should be examined by analogy with a computer, which controls abstract symbols (not necessarily verbal language but mental imagery) that may be part of what Pinker (2007) calls “mentalese” (p. 44) in the place of “language of thought.” However, Bonvillian (2013) argues that Sapir-Whorf hypothesis does not relate to this sort of ‘mental imagery,’ but rather how language shapes the speakers perceptions and also affects their behavior and language. She further argues that this hypothesis is a valid theory which describes the processes of mental thought in any given language. While Bang, Døør,

Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions

27

Nash, and Steffensen (2008) see “dialectical relations between these three aspects of our existence: language, communicative interactions and society” (p. 3). Some Approaches to Classifying Language Functions Ethnographic Approach

Malinowski’s (1923) ethnographic account of language functions based on the distinction between “pragmatic” and “magical” properties of a language, by which language is used for “communication” and “incantation.” In all primitive societies, these two language functions have been found. According to Malinowski (1923), all uses of language, throughout all stages of cultural evolution, had left their imprint on linguistic structure, “language in its structure mirrors the real categorize derived from the practical attitudes of the child” (p. 134). In this regard, Anthony Green (2012) posits that Green (2012) posits that it was Malinowski, “whose ethnographic studies of the organization of Polynesian societies led him to recognize the importance of ‘context of situation’ – the context in which an utterance is spoken – as well as the ‘context of reference’ – the topical content of a text – in explaining linguistic choices” (p. 11). Green further posits that, “Malinowski was the first to use the term ‘phatic communion’ to characterize conventional greetings, gossip and other exchanges that served the primary purpose of ‘creating an atmosphere of sociability’ between individuals rather than conveying information; an idea picked up in the socializing functions of the T-series” (2012, pp. 11-12). For Malinowski (1923), each and every community has its own phatic communion (i.e., ‘Namaste!’ in Hindi for initiating a discourse and ‘see you’ in English to end a conversation between two people) for serving social functions of language.

28

Chapter Two

Socio-Cultural Approach

German psychologist and linguist Karl Ludwig Bühler’s (1934) classification of language functions corresponds to three persons, first person, second person, and third person, leading to three types of communicative functions: “expressive,” “conative,” and “representational” or “referential”. First person expresses emotion and thought. For example, “I love you” has an “expressive” function. The “conative” function is that in which the behaviour of the second person or the addressee is regulated, i.e. asking someone to do something that may be physical or verbal, e.g. “shut the door.” Third person’s related function exists when things other than addresser and addressee make reference or representation, i.e. “Tom is leaving.” has a “referential” function. A renowned Russian linguist and theorist, Roman Jakobson (1971/1990), was very much influenced by Karl Buhler’s classification of communicative functions of language. He distinguishes six communicative functions of language, each associated with a dimension of the communication process. His classification of language states that for any kind of communication, there are six required components: addresser, addressee, contact, code, context and message. Hence, language serves six functions—emotive, conative, phatic, metalingual, referential and poetic. The addresser relates to emotive; the addressee relates to conative; contact relates to phatic; code relates to metalingual; context relates to referential; and message relates to poetic functions of language (Green, 2012).

Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions

29

Pedagogical Approach

M. A. K. Halliday (1973) is more interested in the pedagogical functions of language and their relevance to language teaching. He categorizes seven language functions: 1. The instrumental function (using language to get things) serves to manipulate the environment, to cause certain events to happen. For example, “Do not touch the fire.” 2. The regulatory function (using language to control behaviour of others) is the control of events. For example, “Upon completion of an MA degree, you will be eligible for the teaching post.” 3. The interactional function (using language to create interaction with others) serves to ensure social maintenance. Successful interactional communication requires knowledge of slang, jargons, jokes, cultural mores, politeness and formality expressions and other social exchange keys. 4. The representational function (using language to communicate) is the use of language to make statements, convey facts, and knowledge, explain or report something as someone sees it. For example, “The sun is hot”. 5. The personal function (using language to express personal feelings and meanings) allows a speaker to express feelings, emotions, personality and gut level reactions. 6. The heuristic function (using language to learn and to discover) involves language used to acquire knowledge, to learn about environment. It is often conveyed in the form of a question that leads to an answer. Inquiry is a heuristic method of eliciting representations of reality from others.

30

Chapter Two

7. The imaginative function (using language to create a world of the imagination) serves to create imaginary systems or ideas. Telling fairy tales, joking or writing a story are all uses of imaginative functions. Poetry, puns, and comics all fall into the imaginative function of language. (p. 56) Brown (2007) argues that these seven “functions of language are neither discreet nor mutually exclusive…. A single sentence or conversation might incorporate many different functions simultaneously” (p. 225). Nonetheless, it is the understanding of how to use different forms of language to obtain various language functions is the main objective of second language learning. This means that a learner might have acquired knowledge of linguistic structures but not able to obtain a desired language function, in terms of the proper choice of “words, structure, intonation, nonverbal signals, and astute perception of context of a particular stretch of discourse” (Brown, 2007, p. 225). Later, Halliday (1976) re-categorized these seven language functions into three major categories: Ideational, interpersonal and textual. In the first place, language serves for the expression of content; it has a representational or ideational function. It is through this function that the speaker or the writer embodies in language his experience of the internal world and his linguistic acts of speaking and understanding. In the second place, language serves what we may call an interpersonal function. Here, the speaker is using language as the means of his own intrusion into the speech event. The expression of his comments, his attitudes and evaluations and also of the relationship that he sets up between himself and the listener is the interpersonal function of the language. According to Halliday (1976), “The interpersonal function thus subsumes both the linguistic system: to give one

Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions

31

example, the meanings “I do not know,” (expressive) and “you tell me” (conative) are combined in a single semantic feature, that of question expressed by an interrogative; the interrogative is both expressive and conative at the same time” (p. 62). The third function is textual: This came to be specifically associated with the term functional in the work of the Prague scholars who developed Karl Buhler’s (1934) ideas within the framework of linguistic theory of functional syntax or functional sentence perspective. Halliday (1976) states: “It is through this function [textual] that language makes links with itself and situation and discourse becomes possible because the speaker or writer can produce a text and listener or reader can recognize one” (p. 36). Primary Language Functions Schievella (1987) lists five functions of language, which he has termed as primary functions of language: 1. The ceremonial function: to be polite; it is a kind of ritual such as is used in greetings, a convention for getting along in society with neighbours. Since man is a herd animal and must communicate if he is to develop a community or social structure, social intercourse is a prerequisite to any such development. For example, we sometimes say “Good morning,” when we mean “Drop dead”. “The ceremonial function is social customs, habits, rituals and expressions of politeness show one’s membership in society, indicating one’s ability to get along with others.” (p. 62) 2. The expressive function: to relieve emotional tension, to indicate feelings; it is the manifestation of the emotions felt by the person speaking, (painting, playing an instrument without an audience, etc.). The intent is not to

32

Chapter Two

arouse emotion in anyone else. For example, when we say to someone “You’re an idiot,” we do not necessarily mean the person is an idiot. We really are expressing only the anger within us. The expressive function possesses an emotive character and serves only to express emotions. Sometimes, it is accompanied by the logical function. For example, when we say “The young fool broke his arm,” we are both expressing our feelings and giving information. To a large extent, then, the expressive, practical and aesthetic functions are similar in that they all involve emotion, often through the use of highly emotionally-charged words. 3. The aesthetic (poetic) function: to create aesthetic experience and a sense of beauty or art. This function is merely to arouse aesthetic emotion. In other words, what it arouses stays within the configuration of the listener’s own mind and body without consequent action. 4. The practical function: to stimulate (overt) action, (sometimes by excitation of emotions, attitudes and feelings). It operates to induce and control the activities of others in various ways through the stimulation of emotion or by other means. The simplest method is the use of command: “Shut the door,” or “Study the next ten pages”. 5. The logical function: to express knowledge, to communicate language (informative or scientific) to convey information (neutral language). This function purports to give information regarding, and literal meaning to, the facts of our experience. For example, “Columbus discovered America in 1492.”

Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions

33

In linguistics, form refers to the physical shape assumed by a linguistic unit. It is a realization of a combination of units in a language. Linguistic meanings are the proper functions of various language forms. For example, “come away” is a form, which includes two smaller forms, “come” and “away”. This written piece of language (come away) is made up of eight letters which are their substance. If we utter this piece of language /kšm/ /awei/ then this form will be made either graphic or phonic depending upon whether it is written or spoken language. Moreover, language has some forms made up of some substances (e.g. sounds for speech and letters for writing), and it has certain functions or use. Change in form (graphic or phonic) brings about change in meaning. However, sometimes words having different forms may have the same meaning (synonyms), or the same form (homonym) may have different meaning. Some examples are given below: 1. Dog = a kind of animal. 2. Dig = act of digging (to move earth and make hold on it). 3. God = a supreme power that controls the world, to whom people pray. Only one bit of substance has been changed between the forms dog and dig but the meaning is entirely different. In first and third examples, the substances are the same, but they have been arranged differently. As a result, they are two different forms, dog and god which have two different meanings. Similarly in the second example, one substance has been changed (o into I) and so they are two forms with two different meanings. Look at the following examples:

34

Chapter Two

1. Tense = worried or nervous. A grammatical category. 2. Foot = part of leg on which we stand. A unit of measuring length (Technical term). In the above example, the form “tense” has two meanings. Similarly, in example two, the form “foot” has two meanings. 3. Wind = current of air. Wind = to move something in a twisting manner. 4. /bai/ Buy (purchase: opposite of sell). Bye (an expression used in farewell). By (preposition). Examples three and four show that the graphic and phonic forms do not always match each other. The form, wind has one graphic but two phonic forms and two meanings. Similarly, the form /bai/ has one phonic but three graphic forms and three meanings. We should be aware of the fact that a form can be without meaning. Meaningless forms are always possible, but then they are not used for communication. Functions are sometimes directly related to forms, for example, “How much does the pen cost?” is a form, functioning as a question; and “He bought a van” functions as a statement. All these examples suggest that the form and meaning relationship is very interesting and unpredictable. Let us look at some more examples:

Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions

1. 2. 3. 4.

What is your name? Where does he live? Go straight and turn left. Close the door.

35

5. Long live the king 6. May I go out? 7. I am sorry. 8. He said that he was very tired.

The above sentences serve different functions like, “asking,” “inquiring,” (eliciting specific information) “directing,” (could be a warning, could be a command or request), “commanding,” “wishing,” “making an apology,” “drawing attention” and “reporting,” but they do not correspond directly one-to-one with the forms. Halliday (1976) states, “There are innumerable types of situations in which language plays a part and innumerable purposes which the speaker makes language serve” (p. 89). Similarly, Allen and Widdowson, (1975) have asserted that the three main options in the English mood system correspond to the three main functions of language: telling someone something; asking someone something; and getting someone to do something. Form Function Problem: A Case Study An example from a study of a Japanese verb pattern illustrates the misunderstanding that arises in confusing form with function. In structural analyses of Japanese, it is claimed that polite requests are commonly formed by using V+-te kudasai (Jorden & Noda, 1987, pp. 93-94). However, anecdotal evidence indicates that this form is not always interpreted as signalling politeness. If a person on a bicycle has run into a jogger and only utters a phrase with +-te kudasai, the addressee, who anticipated an apology, will not view this as a polite request. An empirical study carried out a functional analysis of the uses of this form in a variety of contexts. The results indicated that V+ -te kudasai is used for requests, orders, instructions,

36

Chapter Two

directions, offers, invitations, complaints, and encouragements. Further, it became clear that, in situations where a speech act of polite request would be the most likely to occur, the form was used only 2.9 percent of the time. It was concluded that V+ -te kudasai is most frequently used: a) When the speaker has the right to ask the hearer to do the act; b) When the imposition on the hearer is not heavy; and c) When the speaker has a higher rank than the hearer or the acts are beneficial to the hearer. These felicity conditions were found for the V+ -te kudasai form. However, an exception was found in emergency situations, where the form was used frequently. The form may function in the bicycle-jogger incident as a complaint, an order, or a direction to walk elsewhere. It shows that the form V+ -te kudasai itself does not carry the label “request” in all instances of use (Summarized from LoCastro, 1998, p. 176). Conclusion Language is a unique possession of human beings. It serves many functions, but its foremost function is to communicate. We use language to express our feelings, thoughts and expressions in a given situation and for a purpose. However, the relationships between forms and functions are very complicated, as several functions can be served by a single form of language, whereas one function can also have different kinds of forms in a real discourse. To perform certain functions, the forms should meet some satisfactory conditions, but not all complete functional units of languages have satisfactory conditions. For example, “Hello” has no satisfactory conditions, but it has a function. It can initiate a

Language and Relationship between its Forms and Functions

37

conversation between two individuals. In fact, as Sapir (1921) suggests: It is difficult to see adequately the functions of language because it is so deeply rooted in the whole of human behavior that it may be suspected there is little in the functional side of our conscious behavior in which language does not play its part. (p. 141)

In the end, it can be inferred that language is one way we humans communicate with the world around us, but it is much more than mere communication. It is species specific; not only do we use language to communicate, we use it to define and agree upon our reality. With language we are able to find understanding of our ideas, thoughts and observation in general. Language is also the thing that gives our ideas and emotions shape, and distinctions like cultures, beliefs and societies are possible. In the words of Gnanasundaram and Rangan (2000), “Language is used for the members of a social group to co-operate…. groups do not employ other than language for the purpose of communication…. However, language is a significant mode of communications that a society possesses.”

CHAPTER THREE MOTHER-TONGUE EDUCATION, GLOBAL PRACTICES AND PREJUDICES

It is said that along with concept of a nation-state, the idea of language policy and planning emerged in the early 19th century, where a one language one nation ideology was prominent. Many sociolinguists argue that it is the joint venture of nation-states and linguists that created or labeled languages, such as mother-tongue, national, official, native, non-native and many different categories, so that nation-states were able to control and manipulate linguistic behaviour of citizens (May, 2001; Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2004, 2009). May (2001) argues that before the Civil War in the US, there was a laissez-faire attitude towards language, and speakers were free to speak whatever languages they wished. Consequently, English was not the official language of the US and there were many communities that were largely bilingual and multilingual all across America. After World War II, many new independent nation-states emerged, which were bilingual and multilingual polities, however, most of them tried to maintain status-quos by adopting the former colonial languages, mostly in Asia and Africa. Most of these newly independent states followed the same old path of their former colonies by adopting the colonizer’s educational policies in general and language polices in particular (Ruiz, 1984; Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2009; Wright 2004). Some of the examples from Asia include Cambodia and Vietnam where French was retained as an

40

Chapter Three

official language, but also India, where English was kept as an official language along with Hindi. Similarly, in Africa, many new nation-states kept French as their official language, including Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Mali, Niger and Rwanda (Brock-Utne, 2008, 2010; Kamwangamalu, 2010). The Evolution of Mother-tongue Education UNESCO’s 1953 declaration on the use of vernacular languages in education brought a heated discussion in academia. It was based on worldwide surveys of classroom instructions where researchers found that in most cases the media of instruction were the dominant languages of the nation-states and/or former colonial languages were used, whereas minority and indigenous languages were discarded as mere dialects or local vernaculars. In contrast, this UNESCO declaration emphasized the importance of vernaculars and local minority languages (mother-tongues) instruction in place of the so-called languages of wider communication or linguafranca, to give equal access to education to all. Underscoring the importance of mother-tongue education, the declaration stated: Mother-tongue instruction should be the best way for children to learn as it bridges the gap between home language and language of instruction. Every language is sufficient enough to give high cognitive skills to its users and there are no major or minor languages. Therefore, mother-tongue instruction should be extended as long as possible. A lingua-franca or a language of wider communication cannot be a substitute for the mother-tongue, and it should be avoided until the child fully acquired their mothertongue. (UNESCO, 1953, p. 11)

UNESCO proposed that “education is best carried on through the mother-tongue of a pupil” (1953, p. 6) declaring that the mother-tongue plays a huge role in the defining of culture, identity, and learning new knowledge. It further stated

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

41

that “a child will find it difficult to grasp any new concept which is so alien to his cultural environment that it cannot readily find expression in his mother-tongue…every effort should be made to provide education in the mother-tongue” (1953, p. 47). However, it was also acknowledged by the 1953 UNESCO declaration that the concept of mother-tongue was not straightforward and there were many languages which did not even have scripts and literary texts available. UNESCO reiterated its stand on the use of mother-tongue in its 2003 educational position paper. The UNESCO position paper emphasized not only mother-tongue education but also the use of national and official languages of wider communication, along with some global languages, so that indigenous and marginal communities can participate in and contribute to the whole society (UNESCO, 2003). So it is understandable that there are lots of complications for ensuring mother-tongue instruction for all children in many regions of the world. For example, in some situations, mother-tongues of particular groups of children are not recognized by nation-states, and some might not be languages of wider communication, and/or have enough literary resources available. In these contexts, some of the most outstanding issues that investigators are facing now include how to categorize mother-tongue, whether or not mothertongue acquisition helps or hinders with literacy in second or third languages, whether or not the mother-tongue of some children is rich enough to cater to the needs of learners and whether or not this helps learners to acquire high cognitive skills. Based on the complexities associated with mother-tongue instruction, it can be argued that educators, policy makers, and sociolinguists do not agree on the viability and implication of mother-tongue education. For some (e.g.,

42

Chapter Three

Baker, 2011; Cummins, 2000; Phillipson, 2012; Singh, 2011), this is the ideal situation because a child can learn fully through his/her mother-tongue and he/she also develops higher cognitive skills. But for others (e.g., Francis, 2012; Krashen, 1996; Wagner, Spratt, & Ezzaki, 1989; Walter, 2008), mother-tongue education is not very viable owing to several factors, such as lack of materials, absence of orthographies, and lack of trained teachers in the mothertongue. It is also important to note that the concept of mothertongue is very complex and depends on how it is interpreted, by whom, and for what purposes. This means the interpretation of mother-tongue could be different for policy makers, and in social and political contexts of nation-states, and the status and functioning of languages in a society (Singh, Zhang, & Besmel, 2012), what Einar Haugen (1972), a Norwegian born American linguist has called, “‘the ecology of language’— the study of interactions between any given language and its environment that is determined by the people who learn it, use it, and transmit it to others” (p. 325). Status of Mother-tongue Education across the Globe: Some Case Studies India

After independence from Britain, India adopted, in 1968, a three language formula (TLF): Hindi and English as official languages and a local-state based recognized language. In addition, India also made its commitment to ensure mothertongue education to children, including indigenous peoples and minorities (Khubchandani, 2008; Mohanty, 2008). As Article 350 (A) of the Indian Constitution states regarding mother-tongue instruction at the primary stage of education to children of linguistic minorities, “It shall be the endeavor of

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

43

every State, and of every local authority within the State, to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mothertongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups.” These constitutional safeguards and guarantees are important for sustaining India’s linguistic diversity. However, despite the constitutional definition of mothertongue, recently in some court decisions of Tamilnadu and Karnataka states, the concept of mother-tongue has been interpreted in different ways. According to the 2001 verdict of Madras High Court, mother-tongue could be more than one for a particular region, such as Tamil and Tulu (local indigenous languages), and both could be recognized as mother-tongues of some children in Tamilnadu. Also it is not necessary that the mother-tongue of children must be the language as their parents, family, or language community (Mohanty, 2008). Thus, the notion of mother-tongue is complex and there are many languages which do not have their own written scripts, but they are being used as mothertongues in different parts of the world. With reference to India’s language policies in education, UNESCO (2007) states: The 3-language formula says a child has to learn the mothertongue/regional language, Hindi and English. If the medium of instruction is the mother-tongue or a regional language, Hindi and English are introduced between Class I and Class IV. Hindi is continued up to Class VIII (end of the elementary school) and the child completes high school in English and the mothertongue/regional language.

In reality, most Indian children are taught today in language(s) that are not their mother-tongues (Gupta, 2001; Hornberger & Vaish, 2008; Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2009). Less than one percent of tribal children in India have any real opportunity for mother-tongue instruction (Skutnabb-Kangas

44

Chapter Three

et al., 2009, p. 287). Hornberger and Vaish (2008) argue that despite India’s egalitarian-Three Language Formula (TLF) of 1968, many Indian children are being educated in a language which is not their own. In some parts of India, mostly in Hindi speaking states (e.g., UP, Bihar, MP and Rajasthan) English is being taught as a foreign language, while in some other states, mostly in Southern India, English is being taught as a second language. According to UNESCO (2007), “many minority language children continue to speak their mother-tongue at home, but learn to read and write in the dominant regional language….against the principle of learning in one’s mothertongue contained within the spirit of the 3-formula policy.” While Jhingran (2005) points out that over 12 percent of children in India suffer severe learning disadvantages because they are denied access to primary education through their mother-tongues. A similar concern was reiterated in NCERT’s Position Paper on Teaching of Indian Languages (2006), stating: It is indeed a pity that educational planners and language policy makers are not able to capitalize on this innate potential of the child. In a country like India, most children arrive in schools with multilingual competence and begin to drop out of the school system because, in addition to several other reasons, the language of the school fails to relate to the languages of their homes and neighborhoods. (p. iv)

It further states, “It is with a sense of regret…that the three-language formula has rarely been implemented in its true spirit anywhere in the country” (p. 21). In light of the above stated language learning and teaching situations in India, the NCERT Position Paper has emphasized the need for proper educational policies of mother-tongue education and quality teacher training:

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

45

It is imperative that we make provisions for education in the mother-tongue(s) of the children and train teachers to maximize the utilization of the multilingual situation often obtaining in the classroom as a resource rather than a strict implementation of the three-language formula, it is the survival and maintenance of multilingualism that should be at the heart of language planning in this country. (NCERT, 2006)

However, it is important to note that a country like India cannot afford to implement mother-tongue instruction in all its languages. There are also many other factors that determine whether a mother-tongue can be a sole medium of instruction or not. According to the sixth educational survey by National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) India, there are 40 languages that are being used as media of instruction at one or more than one level of education. However, Skutnabb-Kangas et al. (2009) and Gupta (2001) note that even today most Indian children are being taught in language(s) that are not their mother-tongues. Nepal

Since the restoration of democracy and multi-party system in 1990, the government of Nepal has realized the importance of mother-tongue education in consonance with the UN declaration, 1953. Some of the steps the government has taken in connection to this are reflected in its laws and acts. For the first time, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal (1990) has made provision for the right to gain primary education through mother-tongues. Accordingly, the National Commission for Language Policy (1992) strongly recommended the use of mother-tongues as medium of instruction at the primary level of education. It was followed by the seventh amendment of Education Act (2001) and different policy documents envisaged under the tenth National Plan such as Education for All (EFA), Vulnerable Community

46

Chapter Three

Development Plan 2004, have opened up the venues for setting up schools which encourage inclusive modalities by way of MT education (NCF, 2007). Later, in consonance with the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal (1990) and Education for All (EFA) National Program, the Government of Nepal adopted a policy to introduce different mother-tongues as medium of instruction at primary level of education. It is believed that the use of the child’s mother-tongue in school will develop a good homeschool relationship, and relieve him/her from psychological shock as the child can express his/her ideas well and communicate well if the classroom environment is in his/her mother-tongue and the subjects taught in class are dealt in his/her mother-tongue (Cummins, 2000, 2007, 2009). Hence, it is important to promote mother-tongue education in Nepal. It is also important to note that a huge number of children drop out of school in Nepal due to various factors, and one of them is the language of instruction; Nepali. Referring to the gap between home languages of children and the language of instruction in Nepal, Skutnabb-Kangas and Dunbar (2010) argue that “it would therefore be appropriate to educate the children in their mother-tongue in order to make the break between home and school as small as possible” (p. 51). Although the existence of multiple languages in Nepal has long been recognized, there have been many shifts of policy concerning their recognition and usage within the education system. For example, the first education plan (NNEPC, 1956) adopted a policy of language transfer, whereas the second education plan (1962) proposed Nepali as the medium of instruction in public schools, as did subsequent education plans (NESP, 1971). It was only after the advent of democracy in 1990 that language issues in education came to the forefront. Consequently, the constitution of the Kingdom

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

47

of Nepal (1990; article 3:18:2) and the subsequent education plans (NEC, 1992; HEC, 2000) advocated mother-tongue education (CRED, 2005; Singh, 2011; Taylor, 2010; UNESCO, 2007). With the Jomtein Declaration (1990) and Dakar Framework for action (2000), the Government of Nepal endorsed the Education For All (EFA) program (2004-09) to ensure equity in quality basic education for all Nepalese children. As a strategy, the EFA program adopted the use of students’ mother-tongue as the medium of instruction from grades 1 to 3 in a monolingual situation, while from grade 4 onward the medium of instruction is Nepali, as a strategy for the transitional bilingual education. It has been decided to translate textbooks for Social Studies and Arithmetic into five mother-tongues, (Maithili, Newari, Awadhi, Limbu and Tamang) as a follow-up action for Mother-Tongue (MT) teaching at primary level education (CRED, 2005; NCED, 2008; NCF, 2007; Taylor, 2010; UNESCO, 2007). Some of the important steps that have already been initiated in Nepal for mother-tongue teaching are that, during the Basic and Primary Education Project, Phase I (BPEP- I, 1991-2001), seven languages (Newari, Maithili, Tharu, Awadhi, Limbu, Tamang and Bhojpuri) are introduced at primary level as optional subjects. This measure proved to be a landmark towards the introduction of mother-tongue instruction. Accordingly, teaching/learning materials (textbooks) were also designed and introduced. Later, five other mother-tongues (Sherpa, Chamling, Bantawa, Magar and Gurung) are introduced (CRED, 2005). Altogether, twelve languages (19 languages, based on personal communication with government officials of Nepal) have so far been introduced as optional subjects in the different primary schools of more than 17 districts (NCF, 2007; UNESCO, 2007).

48

Chapter Three

South Africa

In 1996, South Africa adopted a multilingual approach and declared eleven languages as official, including nine African Indigenous and minority languages: Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swazi, Tswana, Tsonga, Venda, Xhosa and IsiZulu along with English and Afrikaans in its constitution (Bamgbose, 2001, Francis, 2012). It has also emphasized teaching more than two languages as media of instruction in schools at local levels. However, it is facing enormous challenges to implement its mother-tongue instruction, owing to a lack of planning and resources in many African languages (Francis, 2012; Kamwanagmalum, 2010). Consequently, English has almost become the sole language of instruction in many parts of South Africa (Bamgbose, 2001; Brock-Utne, 2008, 2010; Kamwanagmalu, 2003, 2010). According to Francis (2012), “The accelerating ascendency of English in postapartheid South Africa, however, poses a unique challenge for democratic language policy” (p. 35). On the other hand, Anand Singh (2006) reported that most parents preferred their children to have English as a medium of instruction in place of mother-tongue, in this case, IsiZulu. In a study, Zubaida Desai (2001) found that most students performed much better when they had to express themselves in their mother-tongue (Xhosa). She asked students to arrange a given set of pictures and write a story, first in English and then in their mother-tongue. Most students used some features of their first language in their English translation. Their writing was much more comprehensible and accurate in their mother-tongue, in comparison to their English version. On the other hand, Francis (2012) raises the issues of Afrikaans and posits, “In South Africa today, a long term transitional bilingual instructional program for Afrikaans-speaking L2 English learners is posed as a linguistic right and citizen responsibility” (p. 36)

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

49

However, Brock-Utne (2008, 2010) argues that African parents are preoccupied with the benefits of this English language education, despite the fact that many studies have shown African students performed much better in their mother-tongues rather than former colonial languages, such as French, English, and Portuguese. She cites the example of Tanzania in the 1970s, when the then President, Julius Nyrere, implemented the education policy that gave the revival of Kiswahili and also helped it developed as a national language. It is noteworthy to mention that Nyrere was famous for his “Education for Self Reliance,” in which he emphasized the need for mother-tongue education in the local language, Kiswahili. With the Ujamma program 1967, Kiswahili was made the sole language of instruction for primary education, and it was planned to extend it in to secondary education as well. However, it did not go as it was originally planned. Instead, a project supported by the British Council was implemented in 1985, which put the original plan into jeopardy, in that it reversed the language of instruction policy in schools from Kiswahili to English, given the pressure of the British government for funding support (Brock-Utne, 2008, 2010). Similarly, Alexander (2009) contends, “In the African context, there are few relevant cases…Kiswahili and, with some qualifications, Amharic, are perhaps the best African candidates for the status of the exceptions that prove the rule” (p. 57). On the other hand, Kamwangamalu (2010) and Walter (2008) cite many other projects that are currently going on in Africa to sustain mother-tongue education, especially at the secondary level. In Cameroon, it was found that children performed very well when they were taught in their mothertongues, in place of the former colonial languages (e.g., French and Portuguese). Kamwangamalu (2010) appreciates success stories of mother-tongues in African languages and

50

Chapter Three

sees the need for literacy programs for adults and emphasizes the need for further developments of African languages in terms of developing scripts for those languages which do not have them, increasing research, teaching resource materials, literary texts and literature in local African languages. However, Alexander (2009) writes: Unless African languages are given market value and exchange and distribution is enhanced, no amount of policy change at school level can guarantee their use in high-status functions… eventual escape from the dominance and the hegemony of English (or French or Portuguese) where these are relevant postcolonial European languages. (p. 62)

Baltic States

Like South Africa, some of the post Soviet Union, Baltic States are facing enormous challenges in terms of ensuring individual rights of children to get education in their mothertongues, and also giving them opportunities for learning new official languages and or languages of wider communication. These new nation-states are still trying to follow old European ideology of one nation one language in the name of establishing their own national identities with new state or official languages. The problems become more severe where national language policies are more stringent and do not guarantee mother-tongue education at all to the minority children (e.g., Russian speaking children in Latvia). In Latvia, the government has tried to adapt the 1970s Quebec model, when French was promoted through highly restrictive language policies by the provincial government (Schmid, 2008, Schmid, Zepa, & Snipe, 2004). In this respect, it is important to note that the Latvian Language Policy (1999) was very restrictive as it did not give recognition to Russian as a language of instruction in public schools; it could only be studied as a foreign language

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

51

(Schmid, 2008; Schmid, Zepa, & Snipe, 2004; Pavlenko, 2011; Hornsby & Agarin, 2012). Referring to the Latvian Language Law, Article, 5, 1999, Schmid, Zepa, & Snipe (2004) state, “it proclaimed Latvian the official language, and with the exception of the protection of the Liv language (an almost extinct language on the coast of Latvia), all other languages would be regarded as foreign languages” (p. 239). A similar concern is expressed by Dilans (2009), “Despite the presence of significant numbers of Russian speakers and the cultural and economic value of Russian, the official language and educational policies discourage younger generations Latvians from learning Russian by labelling it as a ‘foreign’ language” (p. 2). The Council of Europe criticized the Latvian Language Policy (LLL) of 1999, stating that it was too restrictive for the Russian speaking minority in the country and contravened European Union policies. The Russian speaking community demonstrated against the restrictive Latvian language policy on the eve of its inclusion in the European Union, resulting in a compromise between the government of Latvia and the Russian speaking community (The Latvian Association for the Support for Russian Language Schools). A bilingual model resulted, based on 60 percent of subjects being taught in Latvian and 40 percent Russian (Schmid, Zepa, & Snipe, 2004, p. 245), which is still in practice. Dilans (2009) writes: The current 40% of L1 proportion within language-minority education curriculum for the Russian secondary schools was granted by the Latvian government as a last-minute concession to Latvia’s Russian-speaking community…produce common trend towards monolingualism…the existing bilingual guidelines do not seem to emphasize Russian as the language of a coexisting social group. (p. 10)

It is challenging for policy makers to ensure that Russian children (who are a minority) get proper education through

52

Chapter Three

Latvian. But at the same time, it is also challenging to give rich inputs in the national or official language, which is not a language, like Latvian, of wider communication. According to Lazdina and Marten (2012), “In all other domains, however, Latvian society functions fully bilingually—there are Latvian and Russian schools and media and there are no restrictions on everyday practices” (p. 68). Considering the demographics of Latvia, it makes sense to allow Russian speaking children to have primary education in their mother-tongue and gradually give them the opportunity to acquire the Latvian language through bilingual education programs. The Council of Europe (2012)’s country profile of Latvia states, “Today in Latvia the Russian speaking population constitutes about 37% of the population and is larger than the ethnic Russian minority because a majority of Byelorussians and Ukrainians also have Russian as their mother tongue.” It is also important to note that the Russian language is far more advanced than Latvian in terms of literary texts and reading materials for children. However, in a controversial referendum in February 2012, Latvians rejected the notion of Russian as a second official language of Latvia, “Latvians have resoundingly rejected the option of making Russian the country’s second official language” (BBC, 2012, February 18). Not all Baltic States have similar language polices to Latvia. For instance, Lithuania has adopted a very liberal language policy, as it has provided an opportunity to receive instruction in their mother-tongue as well, along with the official language, Lithuanian, by the minority children in general and Russian speaking minority in particular (Pavlenko, 2011; Hornsby & Agarin, 2012). In contrast to the Baltic States, Armenia has recognized Russian as a foreign language and Russian minorities can use their language for communication. Russian has almost an equal status by law in Armenia, although Russian speakers are

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

53

less than 3 percent of Armenia’s population. It has adopted functional bilingual/multilingual education for their minority groups and it has given special status to the Russian language. In its Country Language Education Profile (2009), The Council of Europe has appreciated the language policy of Armenia. Here it is worthwhile to refer to Francis (2012) who has made nuanced proposition, stating: Integrating minority-language speakers into pluralistic educational settings also facilitates learning of L2s, in this case a new NL. For example, providing Russian speakers in the former Soviet republics with extended bilingual instruction, a long-term transition program consisting of Russian-medium content teaching in the primary and secondary levels facilitates their academic integration. In the long run, such integration also compatible with L2 learning of Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Armenian, and so on. (p. 32)

Effectiveness of Mother-tongue Education There is no doubt about the fact that the mother-tongue is the best medium of instruction for children, as they can more easily understand and express themselves more competently through the language they learn first at home. In this regard, we also have some empirical evidence that supports the argument that mother-tongue instruction can be the best tool for children to fully develop their potentiality. There are many studies (e.g., Cummins, 1979; Hakuta, 1986; Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002; Shohamy, 2006) that have shown mother-tongue instruction has an edge for higher learning and cognitive development of children. It is also proven that children who have developed fluency in their mother-tongue can also acquire other languages more easily (Cummins, 1979, 86; Thomas & Collier, 2002).

54

Chapter Three

Thomas and Collier’s Study (2002) In a national study, from 1996 to 2001, Thomas and Collier (2002) collected records of English Language Learners (ELLs) for a minimum of 4 years of their education and examined achievement trends of those students. They collected data from three types of students: those who remained on language support programs for longer periods (56 years), those who received language support programs for shorter duration (1-3 years), and those who had never received any language support programs from five school districts all across the United States. They found that ELLs involved in one of the language support programs tended to graduate high school above the 50th percentile. They also found that students without any type of bilingual education had lower reading and math scores than those who did (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Levin, Shohamy and Spolsy’s study (2003) In a national study on learning achievements of immigrant students in Israel, Levin, Shohamy, and Spolsky (2003) found that it took between eight to eleven years to acquire academic achievements in Hebrew and mathematics for Russian and Ethiopian speaking children, compared to the native Hebrew speaking children, when there was a test in a monolingual form of Hebrew only. However, both groups of immigrant students performed much better when the test was in both Hebrew and their home languages (Russian and Ethiopian). Some Russian students out performed Hebrew speaking students in mathematics when they took tests in both languages (their home languages and Hebrew). Although this was not the case for Ethiopian students; they underperformed in mathematics. What is most surprising is that the better performance of immigrant children on a test that used two languages continued over 8 years of their immigration. Later,

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

55

Levin and Shohamy (2008) note comparing their findings with Thomas and Collier’s study in the US: The results demonstrating the long time it takes for immigrants to perform at the level of natives concur with Collier (1995) and Thomas and Collier (1997, 2002), who found that in US schools…it took 7-10 years or more reach age and grade-level norms of their native English speaking peers. (pp. 8-9)

Wagner, Spratt and Ezzaki’s study (1989) One of the classic studies by Wagner, Spratt, and Ezzaki (1989) reported that illiteracy in the first language or mothertongue did not affect literacy in second or third languages. They used a longitudinal study design, in which 166 children (83 Arabic speaking and 83 Berber speaking) from Grade 1 to Grade 5 for their academic achievement (literacy) in second and third languages. The students came from two distinct linguistic communities (Moroccan Arabic and Berber), who lived in the same village, attended the same schools, and received literacy instruction in Arabic and then French. The researchers also examined a number of background variables that might have influenced learning to read capacity of students, such as Quranic pre-schooling experience, parental literacy, gender, and socio-economic status (SES). Analyses showed that while there were significant differences in Arabic (first literacy) reading achievement between Berber- and Arabic-speaking groups in the first year of the study, such differences virtually disappeared by year five. Quranic pre-schooling, also conducted in Arabic, was found to be a mediating influence on achievement in grade 1. Learning to read in French (second literacy) was unrelated to Berber or Arabic linguistic background, but highly related to reading achievement in Arabic, thus providing support for Cummins's (1979) “interdependence” hypothesis (Wagner, Spratt, & Ezzaki, 1989, pp. 37-38). It was reported that there was no significant difference between Arabic speakers and

56

Chapter Three

Berber speakers’ learning achievements over the time period of Grade 5. There was slight initial advantage to Arabic speakers in comparison to Berber speaking children, but that disappeared over the time. There were many constraints of that study in terms of a lack of compulsory mandatory primary education in Morocco, and the fact most students dropped out of school during the study. There was also a lack of resources for reading materials for children, and most importantly controlling of extraneous variables (what kind of exposure Arabic speakers received at homes and how far Berber speakers were exposed to Arabic during those time periods). That is why Wagner, Spratt, & Ezzaki’s study (1989) was categorized as an exceptional one, since the rest of the studies confirmed the claim of UNESCO and others for the support of mother-tongue education (Wojtowicz, 2006). Nevertheless, Wagner, Spratt, & Ezzaki’s (1989) study raised some serious issues in regards to sole mother-tongue instruction, which was being advocated by UNESCO and other researchers and sociolinguists. Later, Wagner (1998) contends that “the present findings provide an important counterexample to the generally accepted claim…many language specialists have come to regard mother-tongue literacy as the natural panacea for children from minority-language backgrounds who are at risk for school failure” (pp. 180-181). Francis (2012) also sees this study as an important contrast to the South African language policy objectives and the research that views exclusive L2 literacy for vernacular-language speakers as problematic (p. 38). Recently, in a summary report, Jessica Ball (2010) states that UNESCO, in its Educational Equity for Children from Diverse Backgrounds: Mother-tongue-based Bilingual or Multilingual Education in the Early Years (UNESCO, 2011), has emphasized the need for the development of functional

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

57

bilingualism/multilingualism through mother-tongue education. Further, she states that UNESCO is suggesting nation-states to sustain their mother-tongue education up to the university level, in the light of some recent research studies showing that the mother-tongue can be the best tool for functional bilingualism/multilingualism in this globalized world. However, it is important to see how sustaining a mothertongue can help to develop functional bilingualism/ multilingualism in children. One assumption could be that the sustaining of mother-tongue education gives children opportunities to develop their high level of cognitive thinking, because literacy in the mother-tongue can also help children to acquire other languages of national and global significance. Children probably feel more competent and perhaps more confident when they express themselves through their own mother-tongues (Cummins, 2000, 2008; Kamwangamalu, 2010; Skutnabb-Kangas & Danbar, 2010). The sustaining of a mother-tongue can also bridge the gaps between the home language of children and the language of instruction; in most cases, the language of instruction is the language of the dominant community. Skutnabb-Kangas and Dunbar (2010) argue that there are huge gaps between home languages and the medium of instruction in Nepalese education contexts, and many students dropped out of school due to this. So they maintain that it is ideal to have mothertongue instruction at least for primary school level education in Nepal. It is important to note that despite a good deal of empirical evidence in support of mother-tongue instruction, even UNESCO has changed its position from 1953 to 2003. Considering the changed local and global scenarios, and also recognizing the complexities of mother-tongue education in terms of its interpretation and many other constraints that can

58

Chapter Three

inhibit mother-tongue instruction for all children in the world, UNESCO (2003) has emphasized that there are positive arguments for mother-tongue education, but careful consideration should be given to the national and official language of wider communication and languages of global communication. UNESCO has emphasized having appropriate training and resource material for ensuring the implementation of mother-tongue education. As it states, “all educational planning should include at each stage early provision for the training…of fully competent and qualified teachers…to teach in mother-tongue” (UNESCO, 2003, p. 31). In Hudleson’s (1987) study, it was found that the children, who already acquired their mother-tongue (French), learned their second language (English) quickly. Perhaps because they already had developed their cognitive skills of language learning that helped them to acquire their second or third language easily. Similarly, Swain et al.’s study (1990) confirmed Hudleson’s findings (1987) in that the researchers found students who were additive bilinguals and learning a third language, picked up the target language quickly and easily. However, the researchers also discovered that students who did not have literacy in both languages (mother-tongue and second language), did not have any advantages in learning a third language. This means that it is biliteracy that gave them advantages in acquiring their third language, but there were no advantages for those who were mere bilinguals. However, According to Vygotsky (1978), “learning a second language gives high level of cognitive thinking in mothertongue or first language” (p. 30). In most studies, researchers found that students who already had literacy in their mother-tongues (Catalonia and Basque; and Spanish) learned English or French easily. On the other hand, those students who were not (additive bilinguals), and learned either Catalan or Basque mostly in

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

59

schools but not at home, did not have any advantages for learning English or French (Cenoz, 2008; GilLacruz & GilLacruz, 2012). All these examples give some perspectives showing that ensuring mother-tongue instruction is not an easy task. However, it is desirable for the benefits of minority and indigenous children, because mother-tongue instruction helps not only to develop high level learning, but at the same time, it also helps to revitalize and preserve languages and cultures, which are on the verge of extinction. Conclusion Recently, the importance of using a child’s mother-tongue is acknowledged by some educational researchers and linguists (e.g., Baker, 2011; Ball 2010; Cummins, 2000, 2007, 2008; Ovando & Combs, 2011; Phillipson, 2001, 2004, 2012, Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010) for the improvement of children’s learning. Children who come to school with a solid foundation in their mother-tongue can develop stronger literacy abilities in the school language. When parents and other caregivers (e.g. grandparents) are able to spend time with their children and tell stories or discuss issues with them in a way that develops their mother-tongue vocabulary and concepts, children come to school well-prepared to learn the school language and succeed educationally. They argue that educators are often much less aware of how quickly children can lose their ability to use their mother-tongues, even in the home context. The extent and rapidity of language loss will vary according to the concentration of families from a particular linguistic group in the school and neighbourhood. Where the mother-tongue is used extensively in the community outside the school, language loss among young children will be lower. However, where language communities are not concentrated or ghettoized in particular neighbourhoods,

60

Chapter Three

children can lose their ability to communicate in their mothertongue within 2-3 years of starting school (Cummins, 2000, 2007; Walter, 2008). To reduce the extent of language loss, parents should establish a strong home language policy and provide ample opportunities for children to expand the functions for which they use the mother-tongue (e.g. reading and writing) and the contexts in which they can use it (e.g., community mothertongue day care or play groups, visits to the country of origin, etc.) (Cummins, 2008, 2009; Ovando & Combs, 2011). Despite several decades of extensive sociolinguistic fieldwork in many areas, many of the world’s languages have yet to be written, codified, or elaborated (Francis, 2012; Singh, 2011, 2012; Walter, 2008). Furthermore, there is neither material available for initial literacy training or for advanced education for many languages; nor are there teachers who have been trained to teach via many of the world’s languages. These are all issues that have been identified as crucial by the World Bank (1995) report of priorities and strategies for enhancing educational development in the 21st century (Singh, 2011, 2012). These are issues that must be dealt with effectively before systemic reform that will encourage multilingual proficiency can be widely implemented. The cumulative evidence from research conducted over the last three decades around the world demonstrates conclusively that cognitive, social, personal, and economic benefits accrue for the individual who has an opportunity to develop a high degree of bilingual proficiency when compared with a monolingual counterpart (Baker, 2011; Cummins, 2000, 2007; Dutcher, 1994, Francis, 2012; Spolsky, 2009; Thomas & Collier, 2002). In this regard, Francis (2012) writes: The research on childhood bilingualism has resolved at least one important long standing question, correcting previous misconceptions

Mother-tongue Education, Global Practices and Prejudices

61

that early bilingual development was a potential source of cognitive confusion…that knowledge of two or more languages in early childhood does not contribute to language deficiency. (p. 142)

Likewise, Genesee and Cloud (1998) argue that multilingual students who have access to people, places and information available in other languages, in turn, give them cognitive advantages. Skills in other languages let children to expand their knowledge of the world, leading to greater understanding and appreciation of diversity.

CHAPTER FOUR INFLUENCES OF FIRST LANGUAGE ON LEARNING OF OTHER LANGUAGES

In the absence of an accepted theory of how people learn a second language (or a first language), explanations of the processes are still somewhat speculative. The widely accepted theory of transfer states that second language learners transfer the knowledge and skills of their mother-tongue into their performance in the second language. If the systems of the first language resemble those of the second language, there is facilitation (positive transfer), and where they differ there is interference (negative transfer) or, at least, a learning difficulty for second language learners (Birch, 2007; Bonvillian, 2013; Gass & Selinker, 1992; Jiang, 2004; Koda, 2005; Lems, Miller, & Soro, 2010). Interlanguage is the journey a foreign/second language learner makes in the continuum from beginner stage to nativelevel stage, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. Most second language learners start from beginner’s level and move towards the ideal of native-like competency. Though reaching native-like competency is considered to be very difficult, if not impossible, it is the goal of the journey. In the changed global scenarios, languages are being learned for various purposes and not all language learners are intended to develop native-like competency in a target language, English.

64

Chapter Four

Beginner Level stage

Native-like

Fig. 1 Journey of a language learner

As the above figure shows, learners in the beginner stage, tend to make utterances that are inappropriate-and often unintelligible. These kinds of inappropriate utterances are called errors. The errors can be at various levels, such as vocabulary, structure, and usage. The order of development in the acquisition of a second language has been regarded as a movement along the continuum; the ideal end is the mastery of the target language. The starting point is a basic, simple and possibly interlanguage that second language learners developed from their previous linguistic knowledge. It is quite a common experience that language learners in the early stages produce linguistic forms that can be related neither to their mother-tongue nor to the target language. The bulk of recent work on transfer has been concerned with identifying when transfer occurs and when it does not (Agullo, 2006; Birch, 2007; Bonvillian, 2013; Kellerman, 1983; Ming, 2004; Odlin, 1989; Selinker, 1972; Van-Gelderen et al., 2007). In this regard, a renowned linguist, S. Pit Corder (1992) states, “If anything which can be appropriately called transfer occurs, it is from the learner’s mental structure, which includes the implicit knowledge of the mother-tongue as it

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

65

applies to the separate and independently developing knowledge of the target language” (p. 20). The part played by the mother-tongue in the acquisition of a second language is often subtle. It plays a part at the start of learning, in the process of learning and in the use of the target language in communication. Corder (1992) believes that the mothertongue does not appear to play a decisive role in the order of development in the target language, at least in the earlier stages. As he further states “if simplification is part of second language acquisition, it must be the mother-tongue which is simplified and stripped of its specific properties and features to serve as a basis upon which the learning and elaboration of the second language proceed” (Corder, 1992, p. 20). Pedagogical grammarian, and one of the proponents of contrastive analysis, Robert Lado (1957), states that knowledge of the mother-tongue is a cognitive element in the process and might reasonably be expected to decisively affect the order of the developmental process of language learning. The learner is transferring prior linguistic knowledge, resulting in interlanguage (IL) forms which, when compared by the researcher to the target language norms, can be termed positive, negative or neutral (Gass & Selinker, 1992). It is assumed that whenever challenges of using or understanding a second language arise, learners may retain some elements of their L1 or some other language to aid in coping with the new challenges. The notion of retention is applicable whether or not the attempt at coping converges with the target language (e.g. positive transfer) or diverges (e.g. negative transfer). With the underpinning concepts on language transfer and second language acquisition, this chapter presents pros and cons of language transfer in second language acquisition. Different studies and observations (e.g., Agullo, 2006; Bialystok, 1997, 2007; Bonvillian, 2013; Cummins, 1979, 1986; Gass & Selinker, 1992; Koda, 2005; Lems, Miller, & Soro, 2010;

66

Chapter Four

Ming, 2004; & Reima, 2000) suggest that many second language learners’ errors bear a strong resemblance to characteristics of their mother-tongue; indeed, many erroneous utterances read like word-for-word translations. Language Learning and Age Despite the vast research on the effects of age on second language (L2) learning, controversy over the degree and nature of its influence continues. Three pedagogical suggestions emerge for overcoming age-related issues in the L2 learning process: (a) creating learning activities that accommodate students’ learning styles, (b) helping learners feel affectively secure, and (c) increasing students’ motivation by providing authentic learning experiences (Bonvillian, 2013; Brown, 2007; Francis, 2012). As interest in second language (L2) education increases, the factors affecting L2 learning have also drawn many people’s attention. One of the factors considered most influential in L2 learning is age. The nature and extent of this influence has been a controversial issue in the discussion on L2 learning in recent decades. Contributing to the popular opinion that “earlier is better,” some researchers have claimed that there is a critical period, or “a biologically determined period of life when language can be acquired more easily and beyond which time language is increasingly difficult to acquire” (Brown, 2007, p. 57). Consequently, many have advocated introducing foreign language (FL) education at an early age, stressing the superior ability of young children in learning an FL (e.g., Bonvillian, 2013; Bouffard & Sarkar, 2008; Clyne, Hunt, & Isaakidis, 2004; Francis, 2012; Morgan, 1938; Steig, 2003; Woolbert, 1920). On the other hand, others have contradicted this claim, proposing alternate explanations for the differences between younger and older learners in L2

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

67

learning, including different learning styles and learning environment. Dunkel (1948) asserts the necessity of considering other factors in the discussion on L2 learning. Furthermore, some have argued that adult learners are superior to younger learners (e.g., Snow & Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1977). At the very heart of the critical period hypothesis is an argument that the maturation of the brain inhibits L2 learning. Although there are many other aspects constituting the success of L2 learning, the discussion about effects of the biological development on L2 learning has mainly focused on learners’ oral production. According to results from neurological research, as the human brain matures, certain functions, including language functions, are lateralized to the left hemisphere, and others are assigned to the right hemisphere (Brown, 2007). With regard to L2 learning, Scovel (cited in Brown, 2007) claims that the plasticity of the brain before the lateralization occurs makes it possible for learners to acquire an L2 easily, whereas it becomes difficult for older learners to acquire an L2 as a result of the completion of the lateralization. Similarly, Dunkel (1948) and Woolbert (1920) argue that the flexibility of speech organs enables young learners to achieve native-like pronunciation, while adult learners cannot take advantage of this flexible speech mechanism anymore. These claims have contributed to the formation of the belief that “earlier is better,” which has resulted in the early introduction of L2/ FL education to public schools. Contrary to the general belief that children are better learners in L2 learning, especially in acquiring pronunciation, some research has found evidence of adult learners who reach native-like proficiency in an L2 (Bialystock, 1997; Bonvillian, 2013; Francis, 2012; Neufeld, 1980). Even in the case of L2 pronunciation, Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle (1977) proved that older learners can be better than younger learners in a short

68

Chapter Four

period of time. In order to draw that conclusion, they conducted both, a laboratory study where English speakers in different age groups were asked to repeat five Dutch words 20 times, hardly learning in L2; and a naturalistic study which tested pronunciation of English speakers during their first year in Holland. According to Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle (1977), even if we admit children’s superiority in acquiring L2 pronunciation, the reason may be explained with other factors, such as the tendency to rely on correct pronunciation and conformity to peer pressure. Putting together the diverse research results, it appears that children might take advantage of their immaturity in acquiring native-like pronunciation in the L2 learning process. However, reaching native-like pronunciation itself should not be equated with success in L2 learning, and having less intelligible pronunciation does not mean failure in L2 learning. As Brown (2007) notes, many people reach excellent proficiency in an L2 despite imperfect pronunciation (e.g., Joseph Conrad, Henry Kissinger, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc.) and they make us re-evaluate the importance of native-like pronunciation in an L2 learning situation. While some researchers have tried to explain differences between younger and older learners in connection with biological development, others have approached the issue differently. Cognition is one of the alternate explanations that many researchers have provided for the differences. Older learners differ from younger learners in learning styles and intelligence, and it is this difference, according to Neufeld (1980), that accounts for much of the variation in adult L2 learning. Agullo (2006) states that because of highly developed cognition, older learners learn an L2 more successfully when explicit attention, analysis, and metalinguistic reflection are emphasized. On the other hand, younger learners perform

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

69

better when implicitness, memory, repetition, and meaning are highlighted (Agullo, 2006; Cook, 1999; Morgan, 1938; Woolbert, 1920). As a result of these different learning styles, Agullo (2006) finds that older learners excel in morphosyntax, language form, and written language, while, younger learners are proficient in semantics, pronunciation, and oral language. Differences in intelligence between younger and older learners have also been thought to be an important factor, and some researchers have claimed the merit of adults’ highly developed intelligence in L2 learning process. Dunkel (1948) suggests that older learners can improve their L2 because they are “able to use grammar, to apply reason to language learning, and to utilize organized information about language” (p. 73). West (1959) further maintains that older learners can surpass children with the help of their matured intelligence because abilities needed for L2 learning correlate with the development of general intelligence. However, the assumed relationship between high intelligence and success in L2 learning needs to be reconsidered, in that the concept of intelligence itself is difficult to define. As new approaches to intelligence (e.g., Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences) develop, intelligence becomes a more complex concept to define. As children enter puberty, they experience radical emotional changes, which in most cases result in avoidance of speaking out in L2 learning process (Cook, 1999; Dunkel, 1948; Woolbert, 1920). However, according to the claims of some researchers (e.g., Dunkel, 1948; Morgan, 1938; Woolbert, 1920), young children make easier progress with learning the L2 because they are less self-conscious and more willing to participate in learning activities without emotional disturbance. Children also seem to enhance their learning with their high motivation to acquire an L2 (Dunkel, 1948; West, 1959). In addition, as Brown (2007) proposes, children are

70

Chapter Four

more likely to take advantage of positive attitudes toward the language and culture of the target country as well as peer pressure in their L2 learning process. While Francis (2012) posits that “the evidence points to a gradual decline, but no categorical cut-off as in normal L1 versus late L1 development. If L1 acquisition proceeds normally during early childhood, L2 learning outcomes range from native-like to rudimentary interlanguage competence” (p. 153). The effects of a first language (L1) on L2 learning cannot be ignored in the discussion about the differences between younger and older learners. Second language learners’ L1 can bring negative transfer to L2 learning; however, their learning experience of the L1 can also have positive influence on the L2 learning process (Cook, 1999). As the research about the effects of an L1 on L2 learning develops, it has been found that not all transfer from an L1 is negative. In fact, older learners can benefit from the success of their previous language learning experience. In other words, older learners can positively transfer the successful language learning experience to language learning because they know what language learning is and what strategies are effective for language learning. According to Bialystok (1997, 2007), L2 structures which differ from those in an L1 are especially difficult for adult learners to acquire because they tend to understand the L2 on the basis of their stable knowledge of the L1. In the same manner, Dunkel (1948) notes that it is difficult for older learners not only to think in an L2 but also to speak in it once they have established thinking habits in their L1. Conversely, young children accept an L2 on the new L2 basis itself (Bialystok, 1997, 2007); further, it appears to be relatively easy for them to begin thinking in the L2 (Dunkel, 1948).

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

71

The Notion of Language Transfer Historically, the notion of language transfer raised by Selinker (1966) was obscured for a decade by an important research trend linking first and second language acquisition (Selinker, 1972, 1982). Later, Dulay and Burt (1974) proposed an alternative approach to Contrastive Analysis (CA), known as the L2 = L1 hypothesis; they were greatly influenced by first language studies, so they made an analogy between the processes of first language acquisition and those of second language acquisition. According to Dulay and Burt (1974), “language transfer does indeed take place, but importantly some aspects of language are more likely to be transferred than others (e.g. elements that are perceptually salient or semantically transparent” (cited in Gass & Selinker 1992, p. 6). According to Myles (2002) transfer is “influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously acquired” (p. 7) The term “language transfer” encompasses a wide range of phenomena. Although its status as a cover term is undeniable, much of what is called cross-linguistic influence can be viewed in terms of retentions (Selinker, 1982). Likewise, Hagboldt (1935) argues that the notion of transfer as a doctrine, which was known as a “formal discipline,” remained unchallenged for many years. He states, “The notion of language transfer is not new as up to1890 it was commonly assumed that a large share of training gained by one type of exercise or learning in any given subject was automatically carried over to other types in other subjects” (p. 47). It is important to note that some linguists prefer to use the terms cross linguistic influence rather than the term transfer. Cross linguistic influence refers to the action, conscious or unconscious, of applying features of a first language to the learning of a new language (Agullo, 2006; Birch, 2007;

72

Chapter Four

Genesee, Geva, Dressler, & Kamil, 2006; Koda, 2005; Odlin, 2003; Van-Gelderen et al., 2007). Hence, teachers need to be mindful to take note of linguistic features that learners try to use in their second language learning not only unconsciously but sometimes consciously too. It is a challenge for teachers of ELLS to take note of their learners’ transfer skills and successful use of new forms during their second language learning journey, even when they are not perfect. In other words, teachers should not just notice errors caused by interference, but the transfer skills that facilitate second language acquisition (Koda, 2005; Lems, Miller, & Soro, 2010; Odlin, 2003). On the other hand, Kellerman (1983) argues that there are definite constraints on transfer which go well beyond mere similarity and dissimilarity of the language in question. Those constraints ultimately cause the learner to make decisions about what can and cannot be transferred. He suggests two interacting factors which are involved in language transfer: One is the learners’ perception of the nature of the L2, and the other is the degree of markedness of an L1 structure. The constraints that have been identified include the learner's stage of development, the degree of similarity between the target and native language rule, conformity to universal operating principles, language-specific tendencies in the target language, the degree of markedness of the L1 rule and the target language rule it is seeking to replace, and the perceived magnitude of the distance between the two languages. There is every reason to suppose that these constraints will operate in tutored, as well as untutored, learning contexts. Transferability is a relative notion depending on the perceived distance, which constantly changes for learners as they acquire more of the target language. Kellerman (1983) states “language transfer is promoted in cases where the results is a more systematic, explicit and logical interlanguage” (cited in

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

73

Gass & Selinker, 1992, p. 7). Similarly, Gundel and Tarone (1992), assuming with Adjemian (1976) that a learner’s language is a natural language, propose the L1-L2 Facilitation Hypothesis (LLFH): 1. When all natural languages are alike with respect to some linguistic property, L1=L2 facilitation is guaranteed. Such properties do not have to be (re) learned. 2. When L1 and L2 are alike with respect to some linguistic property, but not all languages are alike with respect to the property, L1=L2 facilitation is not guaranteed. (p. 87)

While, Lambert (1964) believes that language transfer has long been a controversial issue, many recent studies support the view that cross-linguistic influences can have an important impact on second language acquisition. Language transfer also views as positive (facilitation) vs. negative transfer (interference). Grosjean (2001) and Paradis (2004) have proposed two types of “interference” as dynamic and static. According to Grosjean (2001), “Dynamic interferences are ephemeral deviations due to the influence of the deactivated language” (p. 7), but Paradis (2004) sees dynamic interference as performance transfer or incidental crosslinguistic influence in speech production, when an element of one language appears unintentionally in a sequence of another language. In static interference, “actual representations from one language subsystem are integrated into the other” (Francis, 2012, p. 268). In other words, static interferences are those that have become part of the embedded grammar of an individual. While others (e.g., de Bot, 1992; Grosjean, 2001; Paradis, 2004; Poplack, 1990; Treffers-Daller, 2009) have tried to relate cross-linguistic influence or language transfer to codeswitching, which I discuss more in a separate chapter in this volume (see chapter eight). According to de Bot (1992) “Many instances of cross-linguistic influences are related to

74

Chapter Four

code-switching and cannot be simply separated from this on theoretical or empirical grounds” (p. 19). However, for Poplack (1990), “Each of the mechanisms for combining material from two grammars within a single utterance results from different processes and is governed by different constraints” (p. 39). On the other hand, Paradis (2004) argues that in terms of processing, cross-linguistic influence cannot be separated from code-switching phenomena. Language Transfer and Second Language Acquisition It is often suggested that learners in the earlier stages of language learning simplify the target language. Again and again researchers have addressed the question of what constraints, if any, there are on cross-linguistic influence. Some linguists have implied that virtually no constraints exist (e.g., Cook, 1999; Thomason & Kaufman, 1988); whereas, others have seen the constraints as very far reaching and transfer involving either morphology or syntax was considered to be minimal (Dulay &Burt (1974; Krashen, 1982). In other words, second language learners transfer their previous linguistic knowledge to comprehending the meaning of new vocabulary of a second language. This kind of transfer poses problems in second language learning as the two languages are not always similar and they have their own system for deriving the meaning of a word (Weigel, 1919). According to Myles (2002) transfer is “influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously acquired” (p. 7). It is important to note that some studies (Faghih, 1997; Jiang, 2004; Koizumi, 1998; Ming, 2004) of error analysis have shown that there exists a common body of errors pointing to some universal learning strategies. So, it can be inferred that the interlanguage and approximate systems are relatively independent of “transfer” from the mother-tongue.

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

75

It is obvious that large numbers of errors cannot be explained by the transfer theory. Although many problems remain unsolved, the growth of the empirical record has made it increasingly clear that some supposedly nontransferable structures, like basic word-order patterns and semantically opaque idioms, do indeed find their way into interlanguage. For example, Faghih’s study (1997) on language transfer by Iranian students’ learning the English definite article “the,” shows that in Persian, there is no single word corresponding exactly to the English definite article “the”. So, it was found that the acquisition of article “the” constitutes a problem for the Iranian students. Another study which also deals with language transfer errors is Koizumi’s study (1998) that focused on written language based on classroom research. Data collected from the 65 Japanese high school students’ writing samples from correspondence course and assignments in English showed they made errors in their writing due to their language transfer, such as incorrect phrases “see a dream”, the selection of the subject of the sentence, and the use of the attributive adjective “asleep.” Despite the evidence of cross-linguistic influence in some error analyses, the credibility of Contrastive Analysis (CA) was seriously questioned during 1970s and 1980s. James (1980) argues that some scholars (e.g., Lee, 1968; Wardhaugh, 1970/2010) believed that a comparison of native language and target language would only be useful for explaining why certain errors are caused, but not all errors are caused because of transfer, and predictions cannot be made about them for second language learners. Thus, the notion of CA has been challenged by some linguists as they believe that every learner, language and classroom is unique, so predictions about a particular learner cannot be made on the basis of the comparison between the native language and a target language.

76

Chapter Four

Language transfer can take place at any level, including phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. However, the majority of studies concentrate only on phonological and morphological transfer. Some of the studies given below are strong evidence of transfer, and they show that the transfer can occur at different levels in second language acquisition. Phonological Level It is believed that at phonological levels most transfer occurs from learners’ first language or mother-tongue. Some linguists like Sparks and Ganschow (1993) believe that there is a strong link between the L1 and L2 learning as the success or failure of second language learning depends on the mastery of the first language acquisition by a learner. For Sparks and Ganschow, “if learners have problems with the phonological skill in their native language, they will have difficulties with foreign language learning” (1993, p. 295). Likewise, Sapon (1952) states, “the transfer of native language pronunciation system creates hindrances in mastering the pronunciation system of the target language for learners” (p. 112). On the other hand, some linguists believe that transfer occurs at the phonological level to some extent but not in the way that some others believe. For example, Broselow’s study (1992), which was based on native Arabic (Iraqi and Egyptian) speakers’ phonological forms in English, suggests a differential treatment of phonological rules based on constraints on those rules; namely, syllable-conditioned versus morphologically-conditioned. This study shows that syllable-conditioned phonological rules promote transfer while morphologically-conditioned rules do not. In a recent study with a sample of 36 adult native speakers of American English, who were living on the campus of a South Korean university and participating in a six-week

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

77

course of intensive Korean language instruction, Chang (2012) found that learning an L2 influences production of the L1 in the short term, leading to assimilatory changes to the L1 on a number of phonological structural levels: segmental, subsegmental, and systemic. In other words, results of Chang’s (2012) study suggest that cross-language influences are found from the beginning of second-language learning at multiple levels of phonological structure, letting to widespread influence of second-language experience on first-language representations. Morphological/Grammatical Level The lack of contextualized input and the presence of an existing conceptual and L1 system make L2 vocabulary acquisition fundamentally different from vocabulary acquisition in the L1. Vocabulary acquisition in L2 is accompanied by little conceptual or semantic development of the existing L1 linguistic and conceptual systems to promote transfer in the L2 learning process (Jiang 2004). Jarvis and Odlin (2000) believe that of all the subsystems of language, there has probably been more scepticism about the transferability of morphology than about any other. Their study on morphological transfer in the spatial expressions of Finnish-speaking (n = 140) and Swedish-speaking (n = 70) adolescent learners of English indicates that both the bound, agglutinative morphology of the L1 Finnish spatial system and the free prepositional morphology of the L1 Swedish spatial system constrain the types of options that learners pursue in their L2 English spatial reference. Additionally, however, the structural and semantic differences between the two L1 systems result in different patterns of spatial reference in the L2. It has been found that different learners choose different prepositions, as some Finns chose to write sit to the grass whereas others chose sit on the

78

Chapter Four

grass. Both choices by the Finns reflect transfer; negative in the case of the former and positive in the case of the latter. Even within the restricted scope of retention, however, the notion of morphological transfer includes many phenomena. For example, cross-linguistic influence involving any free or bound morpheme technically qualifies as morphological transfer. On the other hand, different issues can be involved when bound morphemes, as opposed to independent words, are in question. Transfer involving bound morphology can itself be subcategorized in several ways. Second language users may make interlingual identifications that involve both semantic and phonological structures (Jarvis & Odlin, 2000). Similarly, Eubank argued that “NL influence appears to be more limited: Lexical as well as functional projections transfer, as do directionality characteristics of those projections, but morphology-driven information like the strength of the inflection does not transfer” (cited in Jarvis & Odlin, 2000, p. 538). Further in the same paper, he cited previous work of Dulay and Burt which lends support to the idea that inflection does not transfer even though other aspects of the NL may transfer to the acquisition of second language. Syntactic Level Some studies show that transfer also occurs at the syntactic level, although there are only a few studies at this level. One of the well-known studies of syntactic-level transfer is Ard and Homberg’s (1982) study on lexical acquisition. They investigated not just native language look-alikes in interlanguage production, but also different learning patterns among learners of different native languages. Their data were based on responses of 194 Spanish and 100 Arabic speaking adult learners of English as a second language to the vocabulary section of the “Michigan Test of English

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

79

Language Proficiency.” Their findings suggest that differences in response patterns between Arabic and Spanish L2 learners of English occur in places where the Spanish lexical item is orthographically similar to the English item in question and where the native language Arabic lexical item is not similar to the given English one. More importantly, there were significant differences in the results between these two groups of learners, even in cases where there was no overt similarity between either any Spanish or Arabic lexical item and the English item in question. In both cases, Spanish learners’ responses were more accurate than Arabic learners’ responses. In another study, Jorderns (1992) examined both occurring and non-occurring errors of American and Dutch speakers acquiring German as an L2. He took into account the typological organization of the discourse and cognitive function of the case marking system. He contends that the interlanguage system of the learners is a result of the L1 relationship between role and referential prominence (a discourse-based-function) and between subject and object (grammatically based functions). The data were taken from 73 German and Dutch university students and 46 advanced American learners of German. His findings show differential transfer effects to the concept of markedness, suggesting that marked items are less transferable than unmarked ones. Semantic/Meaning Level Jiang (2004) studied semantic transfer in second language learning in regard to vocabulary teaching, where some Korean ESL speakers were asked to perform the semantic judgment task of determining whether or not two English words were related in meaning. The participants in the study included 15 Korean-English bilinguals including 5 females and 10 males, all undergraduates except one graduate student, and 15

80

Chapter Four

English native speakers. They were given two types of related word pairs: word pairs whose two members shared or did not share the same Korean translation. The Korean ESL speakers responded to the same-translation pairs significantly faster than to the different-translation pairs, whereas no such sametranslation effect was found among native speakers of English. The same-translation effect found in L2 speakers was taken as evidence for the presence of first language semantic structures in L2 lexical representations and their continued involvement in L2 processing. The semantic content of a same-translation pair comes from the same Korean translation and therefore is identical in principle. Thus, Korean ESL speakers were less likely to make an incorrect No decision on these items than on the differenttranslation pairs that have different semantic content transferred from two different Korean translations. This difference in semantic content made Korean ESL speakers more inclined to make an “unrelated” judgment on the different-translation pairs, particularly if the two Korean translations were less identical in meaning than their corresponding English words. Pragmatic Level Ming’s (2004) study on the compliment response behavior of two groups of Chinese learners of English, one living in the United States and the other in Taiwan, is the latest study of pragmatic level transfer. The data were collected from 128 college undergraduates, consisting of 64 non-native speakers and 64 native speakers of English and Chinese. The study compared the behaviour of these learner groups with that of native Chinese and English speakers in order to determine how they respond to compliments in different situations when two contextual variables, addressee’s status and gender, varied. The findings indicated that, in many respects, the

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

81

compliment response performance of ESL learners in the United States, compared with that of their Taiwanese counterparts, was more similar to Native English speakers’ behavior (32%), but less similar to those of the Chinese. The percentage difference between these two groups (22% vs. 32%) seemed to suggest that the L2 group had not really approached the native English norms. On the other hand, Scarcella’s study (1992) on “discourse accent” in multi-ethnic communication, for example, in conversation between native and non-native speakers of English (10 English and 10 Spanish speakers), shows evidence of the transfer of some conversational features (e.g., topic sequence, back channel cues, and pause fillers) but not all. She raises the issue of fossilization as it relates to transfer. The highly proficient non-native speakers in her study, despite their many years of stay in the United States, have not overcome their discourse accent. Her findings show that some conversational features persist in the interlanguage, diverging from native speaker norms are potential objects of fossilization. She, however, proposes an alternative explanation, suggesting that rather than fossilization, the learners’ development may have evolved into a fully developed dialect learned from childhood. Likewise, Selinker and Lakshmanan (1992) think that there is retardation of development in areas where there is congruence between a developmental feature and a feature of the native language. This congruence may prolong the restructuring of the rule and eventually lead to a fossilized form in the learners’ language. Rhetorical Level Bartlet’s (1992) study on the transfer of rhetorical strategies, based on written compositions in English of native Apachean speakers, shows that redundancy (in the form of lexemes, phrases and sentences), appropriately used by these students

82

Chapter Four

in English compositions, has the same functions in their English interlanguage as in their native language: that of emphasis. This study shows that transfer may occur even in the writing of second language learners. However, Sasaki and Hirose (1996) argue that even well-developed L1 writing ability may not be able to be positively applied to L2 writing unless and until the learners reach the threshold level in the new language. In this regard, Dressler and Kamil (2006) found, “ELLs who have learned to read and write in their first language make spelling errors due to interference from the way sounds and sound patterns are represented in their L1 writing system” (p. 203). Metalinguistic Level Transfer not only occurs at linguistic levels, but it goes beyond. Language learners use different kinds of strategies, such as top down and bottom up for processing the information in the target language (Bonvillian, 2013; Pritchard & O’Hara, 2008). Top-down processing refers to utilizing schemata (background knowledge and global understanding) to derive meaning from and interpret the message. While, bottom-up processing refers to deriving the meaning of the message based on the incoming language data, from sounds, to words, to grammatical relationships, to meaning (Bonvillian, 2013: Pritchard & O’Hara, 2008). ELLs benefit from practicing metalinguistic skills in the ESL classroom, and these activities can be introduced from an early age. It can also benefit learners in understanding the concepts of language distance (Bonvillian, 2013; Bouffard & Sarkar, 2008; Lems, Miller & Soro, 2010). A study of Spanish speaking ELLs who were also fluent in English found that they used different strategies to read for Spanish and English readings (Pritchard & O’Hara, 2008). They concluded that “We cannot assume that proficient readers will automatically

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

83

transfer the ability to use those strategies from Spanish to English” (Pritchard& O’Hara, 2008, p. 637). However, Francis (2012) argues that metalinguistic skills may be helpful in specific leaning contexts where L2 learners apply advanced cognitive strategies for: “comparing and contrasting grammatical features of L1 and L2, focusing attention on their own errors and noticing differences between native speakers’ speech and their own interlanguage patterns, ‘negotiating meaning’ with native speakers and more advanced L2 learners, and learning to apply strategies of selective attention in reading and writing” (p. 247). Language Transfer and its Pedagogical Implications Language transfer is a common phenomenon for all second language learners. It is not always problematic or interfering, but also facilitating for the acquisition of a second language. It is worthwhile referring to Lambert (1964), who finds that the similarities and differences between languages can influence the acquisition of second language as he found linguistic inter-dependency assists in second language learning rather than creating inhibitions for those bilinguals who were tested in Canada. However, although transfer is one factor, it is not the only factor responsible for all types of errors committed by second language learners. There are several other factors, such as the target language itself, overgeneralization, age, interests, motivation, quality and quantity of classroom instruction, which are equally important for success or failure in the target language. In addition to the studies of Sey and Singler (cited in Odlin, 1989), which indicate that learners with considerable formal education manifest less cross-linguistic influence than those with little, there is Pica’s (cited in Odlin, 1989) study of naturalistic, instructed, and mixed groups of learners, which

84

Chapter Four

showed that pidgin-like forms which mirror LI forms were more prevalent in the first than in the other two groups. It seems reasonable to assume that explicit knowledge enables instructed learners, those who received formal instructions, to overcome at least some negative transfer effects, possibly by sensitizing them to the differences between the target and native language forms. According to Broselow (1992), “Language transfer plays a significant role in the second language acquisition: certain systematic errors can be directly attributed to language learners’ transfer of native language phonological rules” (p. 84). She further states that the range of inter-language phenomena that can be explained as resulting from influence of L1 on L2 can be broadened if we view second language acquisition as a process of hypothesis testing. Likewise, Reima’s study (2000) on learners’ transfer competence and the difficulties they face in L1/L2 translation (159 grammatical agreement errors collected from the translation projects of nine Saudi graduating seniors majoring in translation) showed that 62% of the errors of grammatical agreement were interlingual and 38% intralingual. Nevertheless, her study only covers errors of grammatical agreement from three sources: interlingual, intralingual and performance errors. Although there remains much to be learned about the contexts and strategies that facilitate transfer across languages, the fact that such transfer occurs should not be a topic of debate. The work of Hakuta (1986) and his colleagues provide clear evidence that a child who acquires basic literacy or numeracy concepts in one language can transfer these concepts and knowledge easily to a second or third or other later-acquired language. The literature and our practical experience are replete with examples confirming the importance of nurturing the child's mother-tongue (Hakuta,

Influences of First Language on Learning of Other Languages

85

1986). Similarly, Gonzalez (1998) writes and speaks especially compellingly about the need to develop basic functions of literacy, numeracy, and scientific discourse in the first language to the fullest extent possible while facilitating transfer to the second language. Swain (1996) described the need to “transfer” the stages and processes of evaluation— theory building, generation of hypotheses, experimentation, and further evaluation that will help to ensure the implementation of programs appropriate for the unique sociocultural contexts in which they will operate. Conclusion The results of different studies on language transfer broaden the view of second language acquisition; the native language background plays a more subtle and pervasive role than is generally recognized by advocates of contrastive analysis. Knowing a language which is closely related to the target language can help an individual to learn the target language in many ways, only some of which can be accounted for by the mechanical carryover of native language items and structures (Bonvillian, 2013; Francis, 2012; Hakuta, 1986; Pritchard & O’Hara, 2008). The interlanguage and approximate systems are relatively independent of “transfer” from the mother-tongue. Recent studies in error analysis that we already encountered in this chapter, have shown that there exists a common body of errors pointing to some universal learning strategies. However, though the L1 transfer is more conspicuous in adult learners, it is also found in children’s second language learning. The studies mentioned above show that language transfer occurs at different levels during the process of second language acquisition. It is also obvious that a large numbers of errors of language learners cannot be explained by the transfer theory. Besides language transfer, a language learner makes

86

Chapter Four

errors due to several other factors, such as knowledge of the target language, amount of exposure, quality of exposure, and learner’s attitude. All these factors are equally important in the acquisition of a second language and should be taken into account along with language transfer for second language learners. The studies mentioned above also show that in certain situations, the influence of the L1 is clearly visible. However, it is the nature of these situations that is not always clear. Thus, it is reasonable to acknowledge the role of cross linguistic influence in second language acquisition. In the end, it can be inferred that in line with current thinking on language transfer and some of the studies in second language acquisition, the learner’s L1 should be seen as constituting potentially a positive resource rather than as an inhibiting factor in language learning process.

CHAPTER FIVE GLOBALIZATION AND CHANGING TRENDS OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION

In the past three decades, significant economic and political changes have occurred all across the globe, leading to crosscultural contact being at an all-time high in human history. The identities of all societies are evolving as social and political boundaries are shrinking day-by-day (Cummins, 2000, 2008; Epstein, 2002; Ovando & Combs, 2011; Singh, 2012; Spolsky; 2009, 2011; Zakaria, 2009). In regard to multilingualism and multiculturalism, globalization has become the most significant and widely used term over the past two decades, leading to contradictory forces of global homogenization and local hybridity, and global domination and resistance (Ammon, 2001; Beck 2001; Brown, Lauder, & Ashton, 2011; Giddens, 1991; Higgins, 2011; Howe & Lisi, 2014). With globalization, the focus of language education has shifted from monolingualism towards bilingualism and multilingualism (Crawford, 1992, 2000). Some researchers have even contended that there are many more bilinguals or multilinguals than monolinguals in the world now (Broeder & Martyniuk, 2008; Tucker, 1999). Emphasizing the importance of multilingualism for minority children, Skutnabb-Kangas et al. (2009) state, “marginalized peoples who undergo culturally and linguistically appropriate education are better equipped both to maintain and develop their cultures and to participate in the wider society” (p. xvii). However, a majority of

88

Chapter Five

children in the world face a language gap, the languages that they speak at their homes and the languages of instruction in school, between their schools and homes that must be bridged (Anders-Baer, Dunbar, Skutnabb-Kangas, & Henrik-Magga, 2008; UNESCO, 2003). Moreover, study after study (e.g., Gerena, 2010; Levin, Shohamy, & Spolsky, 2003, Lindholm-Leary & Ferrante, 2005; Thomas & Collier 1997, 2002) shows that students who learn bilingually not only have higher test scores in English, math, science, and history, but also have positive attitudes towards other languages and cultures. Globalization and Language Education Over the past few decades, the world has seen many changes in the field of education, in the light of information technology and globalization. Language education is not an exception, since its trends have also changed with the expansion of communications technology and globalization. The impact of a globalized world is visible in every walk of life. It can also be seen in the changing trends of language education towards multilingualism all across the globe (Singh, 2012). According to Sue Wright (2004), “Currently globalization is producing worldwide social diglossia and ever extending personal bilingualism. Whether there will be massive language shift or not is not known yet” (p. 14). Likewise, Genesee (2008) contends that expansion of communications and technology has generated a need for proficiency in multiple languages, since Internet communication is not restricted to world languages, such as English, Chinese, Hindi, and Spanish. While referring to the multilingual contexts of Africa and the United States, Roy-Campbell (2001) writes:

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

89

Despite efforts to enforce a monolingual policy in education, both in African countries and the United States, children continue to speak languages other than the dominant language of instruction. One reason for this is that the concept of monolingualism in education is an anomaly in these countries, where multilingualism is a prominent part of the social reality (p. 269).

It is important to note that the 1953 UNESCO declaration on the use of vernacular languages in education represented an historic turning point in the debate on multilingualism in the world. Along with concept of a nation-state, the idea of language policy and planning emerged in the early 19th century, where the “one language, one nation” ideology became prominent (May, 2001; Ruiz, 1984; Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2009; Wright 2004). After the Second World War, many new independent nation-states emerged in Asia and Africa, which were largely multilingual polities, however, most of them tried to maintain status-quos by adopting the former colonial languages. Most of these newly independent states followed the same old colonial path of one nation one language for all, by adopting the colonizer’s language polices in particular (May, 2001; Ruiz, 1984; Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2009; Wright 2004). Some of examples from Asia are Cambodia and Vietnam where French remained an official language, and India, where English remained an official language along with Hindi. In Africa, many new nation-states kept French as their official language, such as Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Mali, Niger and Rwanda (Brock-Utne, 2008, 2010; Kamwangamalu, 2010). Many sociolinguists contend that it is the joint venture of nation-states and linguists that created or labeled languages such as mother-tongue, national, official, native, non-native and many different categories so that they (nation-states) were able to control and manipulate the linguistic behaviour of citizens (May, 2001; Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2009). May (2001) contends that before the Civil War in the US, there

90

Chapter Five

was a laissez-faire attitude towards language and speakers were free to speak whatever languages they wished. Consequently, English was not the official language of the US and there were many communities that were largely bilingual or multilingual across America (p. 210). The UNESCO 1953 declaration on the use of vernacular languages in education brought a heated discussion in academia. The UNESCO declaration was based on worldwide surveys of classroom instructions where researchers found that in most cases the languages of instruction were the dominant languages of the nation-states, or that former colonial languages were used and minority and indigenous languages were discarded as mere dialects or local vernaculars. As a result they emphasized the use of vernaculars and local minority language (mother-tongues) instruction in place of the so-called languages of wider communication or lingua-franca, to give equal access to education to all. By emphasizing the importance of mothertongue, the declaration stated: Mother-tongue instruction should be the best way for children to learn as it bridges the gap between home language and language of instruction. Every language is sufficient enough to give high cognitive skills to its users and there are no major or minor languages. Therefore, mother-tongue instruction should be extended as long as possible. A lingua-franca or language wider communication cannot be a substitute for the mother-tongue, and it should be avoided until the child fully acquired their mothertongue. (UNESCO, 1953, p. 11)

However, it was also acknowledged in the UNESCO declaration (1953) that the concept of mother-tongue was not straightforward and there are many languages which did not have even scripts and literary texts available. UNESCO also reiterated its stand on the use of mother-tongue in its 2003 education position paper. However, this document emphasized

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

91

mother-tongue education and recommended using national and official languages of wider communication along with some global languages, so that indigenous and marginal communities can be able to participate and contribute for a large part of the society (UNESCO, 2003). In this regard, it is important to note that after independence from the British, India has adopted a Three Language Formula (TLF) with Hindi and English as official languages and a local-state based recognized language since 1968. It also made its commitment to ensure education to all children in their own languages, including indigenous and minority children (Khubchandani, 2008; Mohanti, 2008, Singh, 2011). India has recognized the importance of its multi-cultural and multi-ethnic social realities by accepting multilingual education, giving recognition to indigenous languages along with Hindi as a National language in its constitution. However, Skutnabb-Kangas and her colleagues (2009) and Gupta (2001) note that most Indian children are being taught even today in language(s) that are not their mother-tongues or local languages. The Indian 2001 Census reported 57 languages with more than a million speakers and in some areas children have to learn four or five languages by the time they complete primary school. However, less than one percent of tribal children in India have any real opportunity for Mother-tongue instruction (Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2009, p. 287). A similar observation was made by Hornberger and Vaish (2008) who argue that despite India’s egalitarian-Three Language Formula of 1968, many Indian children are being educated in a language which is not their own. It is important to note that a country like India cannot afford to implement education in all its languages. According the sixth educational survey by NCERT, India, there are forty languages that are being used as media of instruction at one or more levels of education

92

Chapter Five

(Khubchandani, 2008; Mohanti, 2008; Singh, Zhang, & Besmel, 2012). Similarly, in 1996, South Africa adopted a multilingual approach and declared eleven official languages, including nine African languages along with English and Afrikaans in its constitution. It also has emphasized the ensuring of more than two languages as media of instruction in schools at local levels. However, it is facing enormous challenges to implement its mother-tongue instruction owing to a lack of planning, curriculum, and teaching and resource materials in many African languages. Consequently, English has almost become the sole language of instruction in many parts of South Africa (Bamgbose, 2001; Brock-Utne, 2008, 2010; Francis, 2012; Kamwanagmalu, 2003, 2010). In this regard, Francis (2012) writes: The accelerating ascendency of English in postapartheid South Africa, however, poses a unique challenge for democratic language policy…the progressive displacement of Afrikaans with the real of public education…alongside the other national, indigenous languages, appears to be a necessary and inevitable task for the new South African democracy. (p. 35)

On the other hand, in a study, Anand Singh (2006) found that most African parents preferred to have their children experience English as the medium instruction, in place of their local language, in this case, IsiZulu. In this regard, Brock-Utne (2008, 2010) argues that African parents are preoccupied with the benefits of English language education, despite the fact that many studies showed African students performed much better in their mother-tongues rather than former colonial languages, such as French, English and Portuguese (Kamwanagmalu, 2003, 2010). Citing the dominance of monolingual education in the past in Africa, which put the continent at an economic disadvantage, and

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

93

emphasizing the need for promoting multilingual practices in the continent, Roy-Campbell (2001) writes: We as educators can help bring people closer together through languages, not simply by a common language but by also affirming, valuing and learning other languages. The South African experience provides a way out of the box in which the quest for a monolingual education policy has imprisoned us. Educators should begin to take up that challenge by examining ways in which this can be and is being done in a practical way (p. 277).

Globalization of English and Multilingualism English is learned not only in former British and U.S. colonies in Africa and Asia. In Europe, the expansion of the European Union has been accompanied by expanded opportunities for language learning, recognition of the rights of regional and minority languages, and greater emphasis on intercultural communication and plurilingualism as policy goals. In the European Union, 90 percent of students choose to study English in secondary schools. For example, in Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg, and other European countries, English is virtually a second language (Eurostat, 2001; Murray & Dingwall, 2001). Although in Switzerland the first foreign language taught at schools was one of the official Swiss languages until 1998, owing to a strong demand for English education from people, some state schools started introducing English to primary school students before Swiss languages (Murray & Dingwall, 2001). Although learners may have positive images of English, which is described as “cool,” or “fashionable” (Kubota, 2002), they also learn English for practical reasons. Both South Koreans who supported the idea of adopting English as an official language in South Korea and Cambodian students who held a demonstration requesting their college to offer English classes know that English proficiency benefits them

94

Chapter Five

in job markets and thus promises them a better standard of living (Kubota, 2002). Likewise, Rubdy (2001) discusses the Singapore government’s language policy and movement to eliminate the use of Singlish, the non-standard version of English with a combination of Malay and Chinese words. She asserts that Singlish could be the language that brings cohesion to the multicultural country with Chinese, Malay and Indian populations. However, due to the hegemonic forces of globalization, Singlish is seen as an obstacle to the country’s economic and political competitiveness by the Singaporean government. Rubdy (2001) also tries to resist the British linguistic colonization and criticizes the Singaporean government's policy on language that might possibly intrude on personal preferences and freedom on how to speak. She notes how, on a governmental level, more value is placed on certain types of English (British, North American) in order to prepare the citizens to be more globally competitive, thus creating another level of hierarchy. Such phenomena can be seen in many countries, through vast educational policy changes to prepare the citizens for the globalized world (Howe & Lisi, 2014; Francis, 2012; Singh, 2012). While, Skutnabb-Kangas et al. (2009) contend that marginalized peoples who undergo culturally and linguistically appropriate education are better equipped both to maintain and develop their cultures and to participate in the wider society (p. xvii). The fact of the matter is without multilingual practices, a child’s right to education through mother-tongue cannot be ensured in multilingual societies like India, South Africa and the US. Moreover, multilingual practices are also equally important for preserving indigenous communities and their heritages from becoming extinct (Reyhner, 2011; Francis, 2012; Singh, 2012).

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

95

Multilingual Trends across the Globe With globalization, the focus of language education has shifted from monolingualism towards bilingualism and multilingualism (Crawford, 1992, 2000; Genesee, 2008). Some researchers have even contended that there are many more bilinguals or multilinguals than monolinguals in the world now (Broeder & Martyniuk, 2008; Dolby, 2012; Genesee, 2008; Tucker, 1999). However, a majority of children face a language gap, between the languages they speak in their homes and the languages of instructions in school, which must be bridged (Anders-Baer et al., 2008; UNESCO, 2003). Moreover, study after study (e.g., Gerena, 2010; Levin, Shohamy, & Spolsky, 2003, Lindholm-Leary & Ferrante, 2005; Thomas & Collier 1997, 2002) shows that students who learn bilingually not only have higher test scores in English, math, science, and history, but also have positive attitudes towards other languages and cultures. Emphasizing the importance of multilingualism in a globalized world economy, Dubenar (2008) notes: Globalization means that we have more reason than ever to learn a language. Nothing opens more doors to you and provides more access to Japan than speaking some Japanese and if you’re bidding on a contract in India, the proposal written in Hindi is sure to stand out. A philosopher who can read German articles before they are translated has an edge on his peers.

On the other hand, Spolsky (2009) asserts that massive demographic movements in the newly globalized world are revealing complex multilingual contexts in most urban areas, stating: Between 1996 and 2006, the number of multilingual people in New Zealand increased by over 43 percent, in urban Auckland, over 25 percent were reported to be able to speak more than one language… in 2007 a fifth of children in the United States were

96

Chapter Five

reported to live with one foreign born parent, … and nearly half speak English fluently and another language at home. (p. 8)

Based on some estimates, it is believed that almost 6,000 languages are still being spoken throughout the world (Grimes, 1992) and some 200 countries in the world recognize two or more official languages (e.g., Canada, India, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and South Africa). However, a small number of languages including Arabic, Bengali, English, French, Hindi, Malay, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish are also used as lingua-franca or languages of wider communication across the globe. These are also often spoken as second, third, fourth, or later-acquired languages (Genesee, 2008; Grimes, 1992; Tucker, 1999). Some even argue that there are many more bilinguals or multilinguals than monolinguals in the world, and they believe that irrespective of government policies, there are many more children throughout the world who are being educated through a second or a later-acquired language. If not fully, then at least some portion of their formal education is in more than one language (Dolby, 2012; Genesee, 2008; Grimes 1992; Howe & Lisi, 2014; Tucker, 1999). Recently, a new school of thought that is known as translingualism has emerged that emphasizes for moving beyond the categorical approach to languages, bilingualism, multilingualism and or pluralingualism. According to Lu and Horner (2013), “A translingual approach defines languages not as something we have or have access to but as something we do. It centers attention on language how we do language and why” (p. 27). While Canagarajah (2013) writes: I must emphasize that the neologism ‘translingual’ is indeed needed. Existing terms like multilingual or pluringual keep languages somewhat separated even as they address the co-existence of multiple languages…. However, the term translingual enables a consideration of

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

97

competence as not restricted to predefined meanings of individual languages, but the ability to merge different language resources in situated interactions for new meaning. (p. 1)

Similarly, Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur (2011) calls for embracing a translingual approach in language classrooms, stating, “Translingualism teaches language users to assume and expect that each new instance of language use brings the need and opportunity to develop new ways of using language, and to draw on a range of language resources” (p. 312). While Genesee and Cloud (1998) emphasize that educators should consider the growing diversity of students by stating that one area in which multilingualism has many benefits is the economy, “employment opportunities in education, the diplomatic corps, and tourism arise from knowing more than one language” (p. 62). They further emphasize that in today’s diverse contexts, language learning is a “value-added benefit of not only developing a second language, but also building cross-cultural skills at no cost to other educational goals” (p. 63). Genesee and Cloud (1998) continue that multilingual students who have resources to people, places and information available in other languages, in turn, give them cognitive advantages: competence in more than one language enhances their educational experience. Moreover, knowledge in other languages allows people to expand their knowledge of the world, leading to greater understanding and appreciation of diversity. A comprehensive review of research on the use of first and second languages in education was carried out for the World Bank in three different types of countries: (1) those with no (or few) mother-tongue speakers of the language of wider communication (e.g., Haiti, Nigeria, and the Philippines); (2) those with some mother-tongue speakers of the language of wider communication (e.g., Guatemala); and (3) those with many mother-tongue speakers of the language of wider

98

Chapter Five

communication (e.g., Canada, New Zealand, the United States). The results show that in many parts of the world, multilingualism and innovative approaches to education that involve the use of two or more languages constitute the normal everyday experience. The development of multiple language proficiency is not only possible, but viewed as desirable by educators, policy makers, and parents (Dutcher, 1994; World Bank, 1995). The Foyer program in Belgium which develops children’s speaking and literacy abilities in three languages (their mother-tongue, Dutch and French) in the primary school most clearly illustrates the benefits of bilingual and trilingual education (Cummins, 2000, 2009). Contrary to empirical evidence there still remains an incorrect belief that when an additional language is introduced into a curriculum, the child must go back and completely relearn the academic concepts that they already mastered (Baker, 2011; Cummins, 2000, 2009; Ovando & Combs, 2011). Some educators and parents are suspicious of bilingual education or mother-tongue teaching programs because they worry that these programs take time away from the majority school language—the national or official language and language of wider communication. In other words, many policy makers still have characterized bilingual education as a high risk undertaking in that it is necessary to attend to a complex set of interacting educational, sociolinguistic, economic, and political factors (Baker, 2011; Cummins, 2000, 2008; Phillipson, 2001, 2012; Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2009). Wright (2004) argues that the residual legacy of nationalism, the perception that bilingualism is a disadvantage and is to be avoided is fading as more people become bilingual to function at supra-and international level. For Wright (2004), national minorities in non-English-speaking countries are now more likely to be bilingual. Even English native speakers have a clear need to develop bidialectal skills to maintain their own

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

99

language of community in all its first language complexity and to learn to communicate effectively in international English (p. 249). Instead, Krashen (1996) argues that people in reality are not opposed to the idea of bilingual education, but are opposed to certain practices or are opposed to regulations connected to bilingual education. Multilingual Practices in the US As the world becomes a smaller place because of the global economy, language and how it is learned becomes significant to the United States growing as a world leader. For some, the US is becoming more diverse, multilingual and multicultural, and is producing new faces of American culture—transculture, even though the world has embraced English as the common language of the current process of globalization (Cameron, 2002; Genesee, 2008; Kumaravadivelu, 2008, 2012; Spolsky, 2009, 2011; Warschauer, 2000; Wright, 2004). However, the New York Times bestselling author Fareed Zakaria (2009) argues that Americans are lagging behind on the global stage owing to lack of skills in and knowledge of other languages and cultures, “Americans are quite unaware of the world beyond their borders. Americans speak few languages, know little about foreign cultures…Americans rarely benchmark to global standards… [and] they are increasingly suspicious of this emerging global era” (p. 46). While Spolsky (2009) contends that in the USA, two issues in particular have drawn attention to the need for improving the language skills and cultural awareness of the population: the events of September 11, 2001, and the impact of globalization. Nonetheless, despite some of the latest legal provisions, such as Proposition 227 of California in 1999, and Proposition 203 of Arizona in 2000 that have restricted bi/multilingual education in these states, the US has a prolonged history of

100

Chapter Five

multilingualism (Cameron, 2002; Crawford, 2000; Dolby, 2012; Garcia, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2008, 2012; May, 2001; Warschauer, 2000). The 2001 US Census Bureau reported 322 languages being spoken in the US. Thus, it is important to note that the US Federal government declared itself as multilingual when then President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order 13166 into law in 2000. According to the 1790 US census, which did not include either Native Americans or African slaves, 25 percent of the American citizens spoke languages others than English (Garcia, 2009, p. 160). Similarly, May (2001) argues that freedom of language use was prevalent in most contexts; it was the emergence of nation-state, among several other factors, that brought the notion of controlling and manipulating the use of languages, stating: Before the American Civil War, there was an attitude of laissezfaire with regard to language policy. In the USA, English was not an official language and multilingualism was evident in terms of communication across language groups. A large number of minorities were speaking different languages and there was a great flexibility in terms of language use. (p. 210)

As a result, there were a number of schools that used nonEnglish languages as the media of instruction. However, on a number of occasions, schools were criticized and even attacked for using other languages, based on the origin of the immigrants, in the second half of nineteenth century (Crawford, 2000; Roy-Campbell, 2001). As Roy-Campbell (2001) contends, “The ethnic diversity of the United States, as a country of immigrants, both voluntary and involuntary, has from its early days, meant a multiplicity of languages being spoken within its borders” (p. 270). Similarly, Spolsky (2009) argues that the Americanization campaign began around 1910 when Theodore Roosevelt believed that foreign-language speaking immigrants remained divided in loyalty; that

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

101

apprehension became stronger during the First World War. In his recent publication, “Does the United States Need a Language Policy,” Spolsky (2011) writes: During the First World War, xenophobic feelings bolstered by warinduced nationalism…Thirty states passed laws obligating foreignborn residents who could not speak English to attend evening schools, and thirty-four states made English-only language of instruction in public schools…earlier positive attitudes toward bilingualism had been replaced by a widespread belief that it had little to contribute and that the teaching of foreign languages in school was a bad thing….Bilingualism became associated with inferior intelligence and lack of patriotism.

Citrin, Reingold, Walters, and Green (1990) contend that the “Americanization” movement that flourished between 1900 and 1920 insisted that national unity depended upon cultural homogeneity and a common language. This movement was further reinforced by the US involvement in World War I, leading to fifteen states passed laws making English the only language of instruction in the schools (pp. 536-537). A milestone in US multilingual practices came into existence on May, 6, 1828, with the Cherokee Nation. According to Article Five of the Cherokee Treaty the US government agreed to purchase a printing press “to aid the Cherokee in the progress of education, and to benefit and enlighten them as people, in their own language” (Garcia, 2009, p. 161). By 1852, Oklahoma Cherokee ran 21 bilingual schools and 2 academies, and also had a higher English literacy level than the white population of Texas or Arkansas. However, in 1871 the US government stopped making treaties with Indian tribes and changed its policy from relocation of Indians to the West to assimilation to the general population. The 1878 Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs recommended that children be removed from their parents and put into boarding schools. Between 1879 and 1902 the US

102

Chapter Five

government established 25 boarding schools where students were forbidden to speak their native languages (Garcia, 2009, pp. 161-162). Another milestone came in 1883 when the Modern Language Association was founded to promote modern language study through literary culture, philosophical scholarship and linguistic discipline. However, the major setback for bilingual education in the US came immediately after the First World War when bilingual education was abandoned and the study of foreign language restricted. There was no consideration given to languages other than English spoken in the US. In 1903, only 14 of the 48 states had regulations that required that English be the sole language of instruction, but by 1923, that number rose to 34 (Garcia, 2009, p. 166). In some states the laws forbade the use of other languages of instruction in all subjects except foreign language classes, and in seven states, statutes revoked certification of teachers caught in the “criminal act” of using any language except English to teach in the public schools. Students who violated this English-only rule were subjected to sundry indignities, such as small fines or detention. “Spanish detention” for example, became a household word in the Southwest (Garcia, 2009). However, Spolsky (2011) contends, “recent efforts by U.S. English to make English the official language have so far been firmly resisted, so their efforts have been redirected to resolutions to city governments and state legislatures.” In the meantime, a major Supreme Court decision came for the sustaining of language rights of individuals and groups when, in 1923, the Court overturned language-restrictive laws in Nebraska, Idaho and Ohio. In Meyer vs. Nebraska, the Court used the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to overturn a 1919 Nebraska statute claiming that “no person, individually or as teacher, shall, in any

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

103

private denominational, parochial, or public school teach any subject to any person in any language than that English language”. The Supreme Court ruled out the Nebraska statute and asserted that Meyer, a parochial—narrow minded/close minded teacher in Nebraska, had not violated the state’s 1919 statute that mandated English only instruction, when he taught a Bible story in German to a 10-year old child. This decision had a lasting impact since it paved the way for the rights of language minority communities to protection under the constitution. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated: The protection of the constitution extends to all— to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced with methods which conflict with the Constitution. (cited in Garcia, 2009, p. 166)

In 1929 The Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages in the United States, also known as the “Coleman Report,” recommended the teaching of languages other than English. The report recommended that reading be the primary aim of foreign language study and that be limited to two years (Huebner, 1961, cited in Garcia, 2009, p. 167). In another major decision in 1954, the US Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education declared segregated schools as unconstitutional. This decision brought a new era in American civil rights as it established the precedent that when it came to education, same was not always equal, a principle that was later to be used for the education of language-minority students in Lau vs. Nicholas (Garcia, 2009, p. 168). The Second World War and the launch of Sputnik by the Russians gave a new light to the study of foreign languages in the US. In 1958 the National Defense Education Act was passed to ensure funding support for the study of foreign languages (Spolsky, 2009). Later in 1964, Title VI of the Civil

104

Chapter Five

Rights Act was passed by Congress, prohibited all kinds of discriminations against race, colour, or national origin. The act states: “No person shall, on the grounds of race, colour, or national origin, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal Financial assistance” (cited in Garcia, 2009, p. 169). In other words, this act brought a new perspective in developing bilingual education in the US. In 1968, the US Congress passed Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as the Bilingual Education Act. A major milestone for multilingualism in the U.S. came with the passage of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, which was the first federal legislation for accommodating the needs of linguistic minority children. However, this act did not require bilingual education, rather Congress appropriated some money for school districts that had large minority enrolments and desired to start up a bilingual education program or develop teaching material. The act stated: In recognition of the special educational needs of the large of numbers of children of limited English-speaking ability in the United States, Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies to develop and carry out new imaginative elementary and secondary school programs designed to meet these special educational needs.

For Michael Fillerup (1996), in the 1950s and 60s, ESL programs became prevalent in American public schools to accommodate the influx of immigrant and refugee children. However, the ESL programs were focused on the development of English language skills of children of immigrants and refugees. There were a few exceptions; content-area subjects such as mathematics and social studies were the main focus of ESL teachers. Similarly, bilingual

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

105

programs in the U.S. were mostly geared towards the development of oral and written English skills of learners (TESOL, 1995). It is important to note however, that the legal impetuses for the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 were created with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. These acts provided safeguarding of the rights of linguistic minority children in the U.S. It was stated that no individual could be denied equal protection under the law, nor could he/she be denied equal rights based on race, colour and or national origin (U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment; Civil Rights Act of 1964). Referring to the “May 25th Memorandum” of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1970, Fillerup (1996) contends, “It forbade districts from arbitrarily placing LEP children in special education classes and required that parents of nonEnglish speaking students be notified of school activities “adequately” in languages other than English” (p. 22). Another significant development of the 1970s gave a real push toward multilingual practices in the US in the 1974 Lau vs. Nichols Supreme Court decision. In the decision, Chief Justice William O. Douglas wrote: There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education. Basic English skills are at the core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the education program, he must have already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.

For many researchers, the Lau vs. Nicholas decision was the major turnaround for the sustainability of multilingual

106

Chapter Five

practices in the U.S. where English was the sole language of instruction in American public schools (Crawford, 2000; Garcia, 2009; Roy-Campbell, 2001; Spolsky, 2009). Citing the Lau vs. Nicholas court verdict of 1974, Michael Fillerup (1996) writes: Lau vs. Nicholas did not deny the need for immigrant students to learn English, nor did it specifically require public schools to educate students in their native language. It did mandate public schools to provide NES students with an educational program that would provide comprehensible content area instruction while the NES child was acquiring English. (p. 22)

Citing the US Census Report 1980, Dorothy Waggoner (1993) contended that the rise of multilingualism in America in the 1980s was very dramatic. The number of speakers using non-English languages in their homes had increased significantly more than those of the English speakers. In the 1980s, the Department of Education maintained that there were 1.8 million limited-English-proficient language minority children (Waggoner, 1993, p. 10). Despite some advancements towards multilingual practices, throughout the 1960s and 70s the linguistic and academic needs, as well as the legal rights of minority children were largely ignored (Baker, 2011; Crawford, 2000). While, Citrin, Reingold, Walters, and Green (1990) argue that the changing political and demographic scenarios of the 1960s gave the impetus for a new phase of controversy, since Hispanic activists forwarded the concept of language rights as a constitutional entitlement and they called on government to think beyond the mere toleration of the use of other languages for active promotion of bilingualism in public institutions. These actions, along with a stream of federal and state laws, judicial decisions and administrative regulations of the 1960s and 1970s, sparked a reaction in the “Official English” movement in the 1980s. In this regard, Citrin, Reingold,

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

107

Walters, and Green (1990) further contend, “In many states, support for “Official English” took the form of a simple declarative resolution, much like the designation of a state mascot” (p. 539). Referring to the emergence of the “Official English” movement in the1980s, Thomas Ricento (1995) writes: Many Americans, especially in large cities, felt their way of life was under assault. The sounds of Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Arabic, and many other languages were heard with increasing frequency in American towns and cities; the American border in the southwest was too porous; projections of demographic patterns showed that older immigrant populations were not replacing themselves as quickly as were the newer non-European groups.

In a survey study, Citrin, Reingold, Walters, and Green (1990) found that for most citizens, English proficiency was a highly patriotic symbol of American nationality. They concluded that the popularity of “Official English” centered on the strong public desire to reaffirm an attachment to a traditional image of American (p. 536). However, Spolsky (2011) argues that a monolingual English-only hegemony seems to prevail in American society, since English still dominates in the US, even in immigrant communities. As a result, most nonEnglish-speaking immigrants to the United States will have lost or almost lost their heritage languages. Nonetheless, “recent efforts by U.S. English to make English the official language have so far been firmly resisted, so their efforts have been redirected to resolutions to city governments and state legislatures” (Spolsky, 2011, p. 1). Similarly, Draper and Jimnez (1996) term the appearance of the English Only Movement as an irony in the light of growing demands for multilingual abilities in the world marketplace, advocating a return to a mythic era of English monolingualism.

108

Chapter Five

On the other hand, Roy-Campbell (2001) argues that despite efforts to roll back bilingual education, there have been several successes (p. 276). She cites a growing “English Plus” movement that, while acknowledging the importance of English proficiency in the United States, advocates teaching other languages and cultures. In this regard, it is important to note that in 1998 some senators highlighted the cultural diversity and multilingual practices of American societies as great assets for the US to be a global leader. During the hearing of English Plus Other Languages (Senate Resolution 236) to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, most senators emphasized the need for sustainable development of multilingualism in the US. As the resolution stated: Whereas knowledge of other languages and other cultures is known to enhance the United States diplomatic efforts by fostering greater communication and understanding between nations, and can promote greater understanding between different ethnic and racial groups with the United States: Now therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States Government should pursue policies that-(1) support and encourage Americans to master the English language plus other languages of the world;…(4) recognize that a skilled labor force in crucial to the United States competitiveness in a global economy, and the ability to speak 1 or more languages in addition to English is a significant skill;…(7) develop our nation’s linguistic resources by encouraging citizens of the United States to learn and maintain Spanish, French, German, Japanese, Chinese, Italian, Korean, Vietnamese, Farsi, African languages, sign language, and many other languages of the world, in addition to English. (Senate, Resolution, 236, 105th Congress, 1998)

Conclusion In this chapter, we have seen that we are living in a world that has changed dramatically with the advent of a new trend of globalization and advancement of information and communication technology. Within the past few decades, significant economic, social, cultural and political changes

Globalization and Changing Trends of Language Education

109

have happened across the globe. As a result, national, geographical and physical boundaries have shrunken, leading to cross-cultural contact and frequent movement of people around the world, which is at an all-time high in human history (Cummins, 2008; Dolby, 2012; Francis, 2012; Singh, 2012; Spolsky, 2009). These changes that came along with the new trend of globalization have influenced the educational contexts and classroom practices in general and language education in particular. Bilingualism and multilingualism, that is, the use of more than one language in daily life, is a normal practice in these contexts (UNESCO 2003, p. 12). The focus of language education has shifted from monolingualism to bilingualism and multilingualism, in that there are many more bilinguals or multilinguals than monolinguals in the world now (Broeder & Martyniuk, 2008; Cummins, 2008; Dolby, 2012; Singh, 2012; Spolsky, 2009; Tucker, 1999). But at the same time, a majority of children face a language gap between schools and homes that must be bridged (UNESCO, 2003). In the global marketplace where services and information are of prime importance, language has become an economic commodity. This has a bearing on how and why a language is taught in a society. In this regard, Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hillard (2004) argue that children of present generation have face with multicultural and multilingual realities of a globalized world, “Children growing up…are more likely than any previous generation in human history to face a life of working and networking, loving and living with others from different national, linguistic, religious and racial backgrounds” (p. 4). So it is challenging for policy makers to frame a visionary agenda to give each and every child an equal quality education, and for this they need to maximize the potentiality of linguistic and cultural diversity of society, nations, and the world.

CHAPTER SIX GLOBALIZATION OF ENGLISH AND OTHER LANGUAGES AND CULTURES

Globalization accelerates the spread of the English language, which initially emerged with British and U.S. political, economic, and cultural influences. English is predominantly used as the common language for global businesses under the intensification of capitalism, as well as in the expansion of the latest communication and transportation technologies (Graddol, 1997, 2006). With the growing influences of the United States, English has spread to become a global language. It is estimated that over one third of the people living on earth are in contact with English in everyday life and 1.5 billion are able to communicate fairly well in it (Crystal, 2003). The spread and the status that the English language occupies in today’s global village can be attributed to two main factors: “The expansion of British colonial power, which peaked towards the end of the nineteenth century, and the emergence of the United States as the leading economic and military power of the twentieth century” (Crystal (2003, p.106). In other words, the English language spread around the world because of the colonization of Africa, Asia, and other parts of the world by the British Empire and the following political, economic, and cultural power exercised by the United States. The current forms of globalization accelerate the spread of English as the most dominant language of business, the Internet, and influential cultural products such as films and

112

Chapter Six

music. Today English is called a global language (Crystal, 2002), an international language (Smith, 1983), or a world language (Conrad, 1996). Although historically there have been international languages such as Arabic, French, and Spanish, the scale and scope of the global spread of English is not comparable to these languages (Kachru & Nelson, 2001). In the 1880s, the number of scientific publications in English was less than 40 percent of the total number of publications, whereas by 1980 it was nearly 70 percent (Ammon, 2001). However, the data gathered by Crystal (2002) indicated that 85 percent of international organizations made English an official language, and academic journals with international readership are published predominantly in English. Similarly, about 80 percent of electronically stored information is in English, although, the number of non-English language Internet users are surpassing the number of English language users. Mass media play a key role in spreading English via Hollywood movies, MTV, CNN, and Time magazine among many others. The U.S. film industry controls about 85 percent of the world film market (Crystal, 2002). As of 2001, a quarter of the world population is estimated to be capable of communicating in English (Crystal, 2002). English is the global dominant language on the Internet, in international politics, in academia, and in entertainment. The Internet is “the technological tool of globalization par excellence” (Gray, 2002, p. 154). In the twentieth century, Great Britain and the United States dominated world trade, however, some of Asia's newly industrial countries, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, China and Vietnam, gradually emerged as strong economic rivals that slowly destabilized the world’s bipolar trade relations (Slaughter, 1998). These Asian countries’ economic growth and industrialization opened their nations to great exposure to Western cultures and ideologies

Globalization of English and Other Languages and Cultures

113

in various facets of peoples’ daily lives. One significant area is these nations’ contact with English (Slaughter, 1998). As the international business market is gearing towards a globalized economy, there is much more demand for English speakers with intercultural communicative competence (Warschauer, 2000). The rise of Transnational Corporations (TNCs) promotes the global spread of the English language (Gray, 2002). In other words, when transnational corporations enter into joint ventures with local companies, they often use English as the language of operation, which increases English language learning at local schools (Canagarajah, 1999; Graddol, 1997, 2006; Howe & Lisi, 2014; Singh, 2012). Under globalization in which the distinction between economy and culture is blurred, English as the language of globalization cannot be just cultural but comes to be linked with economics. As Jameson (1998) states, “English itself is not exactly a cultural language; it is the lingua franca of money and power” (p. 59). The world of business has adopted English as the common language. As people travel and move to other parts of the world, they increasingly use English as the means of communication, particularly among non-native speakers. One of the best examples is in Europe, where people who used to speak English as a foreign language have gained enough proficiency in English to use it interchangeably with their own native language. According to the Eurobarometer surveys, more than 80 percent of citizens of The Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark claim to be able to hold conversations in English (Broeder & Martyniuk, 2008; Murray & Dingwall, 2001). Nevertheless, globalization has not acted solely to homogenize language and promote use of English. We also find examples of heightened political activity to gain recognition of and generally promote regional languages, such as Scots Gaelic, Welsh, Catalan and Kurdish.

114

Chapter Six

Most of these movements have not identified their adversary as globalization per se (or, for that matter, English when used as an international lingua franca), but rather the dominant language of the dominant national culture, for example, Turkish in Turkey and Spanish in Spain (Hjarvard, 2004, p. 77). That is why Sue Wright (2004) argues that language revitalization may be a phenomenon which coexists more easily with globalization than with nation states. Those who were incorporated politically into nation states but were not culturally and linguistically akin to the dominant national group are often in a perilous position. So, as political and economic power moves away from the national capital to the more distant and more dispersed sites of global power, one effect can be that space opens up for minorities (p. 14). In line with Europe, in a survey study by Voigt (2001), about one-third of Japanese corporations responded that they would make English proficiency a requirement for promotion, even though most people performed a job in which they did not use English at all. Likewise, the South Korean government decided to adopt English as an official language in areas specifically designated for international business. In Switzerland, the regular meetings of three biggest Swiss banks are conducted in English; Europe's fourth biggest appliance company in Italy has also adopted English as the company language (Tagliabue, 1998). However, not all are happy with the global spread of the English language, as they argue that globalization demands more English language education from non-English speaking nation-states. As the language of globalization, English threatens nationalism in those nation-states whose national language is not English (Cameron, 2002; Crystal, 2002, 2003; Gray, 2002; Holly, 1990; Kaplan, 2001, Modiano, 2001; Phillipson, 1992, 2012; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2001; Tonkin, 2003). Opponents of the global spread of English language

Globalization of English and Other Languages and Cultures

115

use different terms for this: “a new form of colonization,” “linguistic imperialism,” “linguistic-genocide,” and so on. For example, Holly (1990) states, “English is not simply a language like any other language, it can also act as a means of politico-cultural colonization serving the interests of the most powerful concentrations of economic power in the contemporary world” (p. 18). Thus the dominant position of English in many countries where it is not the first language is not without cost to the native languages and cultures. Modiano (2001) writes: In the rush to participate in the global movement, the spread of English can potentially wreak havoc on any number of languages and cultures. While it is capable of ushering in the ‘beneficial’ fruits of technology and of so-called ‘Western advances,’ the English language is a dangerous bedfellow. (p. 345)

Using the spread of English as colonization and linguicide, Phillipson (1998) observes that there is evidence of linguicide of foreign languages by English and other dominant languages. Phillipson (2001, 2012) contends that in order to fully take advantage of globalization, each country should learn English as an additional language after the mothertongue and not to the extent that it endangers one’s native language. Likewise, Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) argues that keeping the mother-tongue should be enforced as a human right. For her, discouraging children from developing their mother-tongues is a violation of the child’s rights. She goes a step further, asserting that globalization of English is a “linguistic genocide” in that the mother-tongue is discouraged in different parts of the world. Similarly, Swain (1996) warns that a majority of children face a language gap that must be bridged when they move from learning the target language to using the target language as a medium of instruction. Kaplan (2001) argues that the globalization of English is a new form of colonization as English language education and

116

Chapter Six

education using English as the language of instruction are a big business for English-speaking countries, such as the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia. For Gray (2002), British ELT (English Language Teaching) industries such as textbook publishing, standardized exams, and private language schools earn a considerable amount of money worldwide, since English is the global dominant language on the Internet, in international politics, in academia, and in entertainment. Currently about 80 percent of electronically stored information is in English, although the number of nonEnglish language Internet users is surpassing the number of English language users (Crystal, 2002). In a globalizing world, oral and interpersonal communication tend to be emphasized in the work place, where communication is regarded as equivalent to technical skills such as computer skills or driving skills that can be acquired through training and need to be employed at work. As multinational corporations expand around the world, so do communication norms and skills employed in the AngloAmerican corporate world then spread together with English (Block, 2002, 2011; Butler & Iino, 2005; Cameron, 2002). Even still, a standard for effective communication is always in practice based on habits and values which are not culturally universal, but are specific to a particular cultural milieu (Cameron, 2002). For Cameron (2002), “Globalization promotes particular interactional norms, genres and speech-styles across languages, on the grounds that they are maximally “effective” for purposes of communication” (p. 69). He contends that these particular communication norms, genres, and speechstyles which come from “Western educational traditions” are regarded as “better,” whereas those of others are seen as “deficient” (p. 69). In other words, U.S. English and its communication standard becomes the world standard under

Globalization of English and Other Languages and Cultures

117

globalization, despite the fact that varieties of English are spoken in different parts of the world (Butler & Iino, 2005; Cameron, 2002; Canagarajah, 1999, 2006). However, in reality, it is British English that still is the most prominent across the globe. Since, almost all publications of the United Nations Organization are in British English and so are most academic publications outside of the US. Contrary to all these arguments and labelling, Fishman (2002) warns against talk of English as “a killer language” and “linguistic genocide.” He suggests that there is too much reliance on metaphor in sociolinguistics, making for imprecise conceptualization. These terms push us to misplace agency. For him, “A language can do nothing, even if that language is English, only speakers can decide or not whether they will use a language... speakers are always the final arbiters of whether a language survives or not” (Fishman, 2002, pp. 4-5). Similarly, Wallraff (2000) argues that there is little doubt about the dominance of English language as its importance is growing in today’s world. However, the domination of English does not lead to the replacement of local languages, and more importantly it does not wipe out cultural differences at all. While, Fred Genesee (2008) contends that the spread of English does not mitigate the importance of multilingualism. In other words, multilingual competencies of individuals and communities will have many political and economic advantages in the future, compared to those who know only English. Even so, many of the world’s languages are in serious danger as result of the so-called “hyper-central, and central languages” (de Swaan, 2001). A generally accepted estimate is that 50% of the world’s languages will not survive the twenty-first century. If this estimate is correct, we stand to lose around 3000 languages (Crystal, 2002; Dalby, 2002; Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2009, 2010; Sutherland, 2003).

118

Chapter Six

Nicholas (2008) expresses a similar view, writing “since language is the foundation of culture, its destruction in individuals on a mass scale, inevitably leads to the disruption, even destruction of whole communities and cultures” (p. 6). Contrastingly, Genesee (2008) argues that the existing domination of English language on the Internet may pave the way for the regional and languages, since “e-commerce takes hold and begins to commit resources to communicating with local and regional markets” (p. 23). In addition, implications of globalization are different in each nation-state. For example, in the United States, the global spread of the English language does not seem to be often discussed as a main issue of globalization, whereas in non-English speaking countries, such as Japan, globalization is frequently discussed along with the issue of the English language (Funabashi, 2000). Likewise, Kubota (2002) contends that in Japan, English language education is considered essential to develop logical thinking, selfexpression, and debate skills. These skills are regarded by the Japanese, more specifically, the business community as “lacking” in their own language, owing to the nature of the Japanese discourse pattern, which is known as a high context discourse. In other words, the use of Japanese language reflects its interlocutors’ hierarchy in terms of socio-economic and political status in the Japanese society. He warns that the discourse of internationalization in Japan can make a rigid barrier between American and Japanese, and mislead the language learner to have an essentialist perspective— competency in English is a must for global business transaction and technological advancement. Although the global spread of English poses a threat to other nations whose national language is not English and thus is criticized as linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992, 2012), it is often the case that people are willing to learn English and

Globalization of English and Other Languages and Cultures

119

demand more and better English education. In other words, people are not simply forced to learn English but also agree to learn English. This willingness of people to learn English can be better interpreted with Gramsci’s (2000) concept of hegemony, which is maintained not simply through domination, but also as a result of negotiating and reaching some kind of consensus with the dominated where people want to learn English because of the domination of English in the global market. This means that a false assumption that English proficiency alone provides people with both symbolic and substantial economic power. For Kachru (1984), “English as the lingua franca of money and power and a symbol of modernization offers an extra arm for success and mobility in culturally and linguistically complex and pluralistic societies” (p. 176). Ironically, most non-English speaking nation-states support and enhance English education not only because of the dominant linguistic power of English, but also because they need to survive, intensifying economic competition under globalization. In this regard, Mohd-Asraf (2005) states, “As an international and a world language, its influence spans the entire globe, and there is hardly any country today that does not use English in one way or another or that is not affected by its spread” (p. 103). It is difficult to determine the exact scale of language endangerment, not least because there are many classification systems in use and the criteria for classifying a language as endangered, or even extinct, vary greatly (Dalby, 2002; Sutherland, 2003). However, there is no doubt that many of the world’s languages are in serious danger. Holly (1990) states “English is not simply a language like any other language. In the contemporary world it can also act as a means of politico-cultural colonization serving the interests of

120

Chapter Six

the most powerful concentrations of economic power the world has ever known” (p. 18). Pennycook (1994, 2007) argues that in the past, the British Empire imposed English language education on Indians through missionaries and educators, but the ruling class Asian Indians also demanded English language education. So it can be inferred that most non-English speaking nation-states are in a dilemma between their nationalistic sentiments and the necessity of promoting English language education, as an English-speaking population invites more investment from overseas and more business opportunities. In Asia, besides the countries colonized by Britain and the United States (e.g., the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, and India), most students are exposed to English by secondary school: In China, 75 percent; in Indonesia, 100 percent; in Japan, 90 percent; in South Korea, 100 percent; in Thailand, 100 percent (McConnell, 2001). In a telephone survey conducted in South Korea, more than half of the respondents supported the idea of adopting English as its official language (McConnell, 2001). In Cambodia, college students held demonstrations demanding that English classes be offered when the college attempted to return to French as the language of instruction in the early 1990s after the Vietnamese left (Prusher, 2001). At a nation-wide meeting of university professors of English in 2001, a newly elected mayor of Taipei stressed the importance of English for Taiwan to be competitive in world business (Savignon, 2003). A similar thought can be found in a comment made by a Chinese English teacher: “studying English is the road to selfimprovement, breeds patriotism, and builds a strong country” (quoted in Funabashi, 2000, p. 39).

Globalization of English and Other Languages and Cultures

121

Globalization of English and Pedagogical Implications As already stated, the context in which languages operate now has global proportions and the fact that English occupies a very important position as the global language has far reaching consequences. Influences of globalization in school classroom settings have various cultural and teaching implications. As a result, English language learners have adapted themselves through hybrid language practices and different methodologies to meet the needs of growing global competition. Globalization presents English language teachers with two central dilemmas: First, English as a global language exerts a potential danger to the languages and cultures of learners. Spolsky (2011) argues that a monolingual Englishonly hegemony prevails in American society, since English still dominates in the US, even in immigrant communities. As a result, most non-English-speaking immigrants to the United States are losing their heritage languages. So it is obvious that the power and influence of English puts pressure on other languages, cultures and communities. A second dilemma relates to how we teach English (Gil & Najar, 2008). In recent times Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has become the most influential and dominant language teaching approach, and there is considerable pressure for English language teachers to use it. However, CLT may not be appropriate in all contexts and situations, such as learners who are learning English for academic purposes (e.g., to pass the course or exam), and in a formal setting (Singh, 2012). Concentrating on issues of globalization from the microlevel of the classroom setting, Lin (1999) examined the postcolonial EFL classroom in Hong Kong. She explored the importance of English for social mobility, but she also looked at how difficult it was for working class students to learn English compared to their upper class counterparts. For this,

122

Chapter Six

she used Bourdieu’s (1977) notion of “habitus” in which students build “cultural capital” through their living environments. Lin (1999) found that through alternative creative, discursive practices by teachers, such as re-designing the curriculum and lesson plans to be adaptable to students with less English exposure, there is a chance of transformation in the students’ habitus, which could lead to students’ learning of English and social mobility in the future. She stresses the need to examine how schooling can be changed to create wider access, how social class differences affect learning English, and argues that a teacher can make the difference and help under achieving students by assessing and providing for their needs through creating an adaptable curriculum (Howe & Lisi, 2014; Singh, 2012). Conclusion In the last few decades, the focus of language education in general and English language education in particular has shifted towards communication based curricula and teaching materials in the place of literary based practices (teaching language through literature) in the wake of globalization in almost every part of the world. The influence of globalization is also visible in the emerging trends of language learning/teaching practices all across the globe. Given the perceived inadequacies of the public education system to teach English as a foreign language in particular, students and parents have invested heavily in private tutoring or language institutes to provide extracurricular activities for their children (Ellinger & Beckham, 1997; Kim, 1999). Globalization has accelerated the global spread of English as it is largely used as the common language for global business, communication and transportation technologies. In reverse, both globalization and the global spread of English have threatened many minority languages and cultures around

Globalization of English and Other Languages and Cultures

123

the world as many of them are on the verge of extinction (Cummins, 2008; Phillipson, 2004, 2012; Reyhner & Singh, 2010; Singh, 2012; Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010). However, implications of globalization are different in each nation-state. For example, in the United States, the global spread of English does not seem to be an issue of globalization, whereas in many non-English speaking countries like Japan, globalization is frequently associated with English (Funabashi, 2000).

CHAPTER SEVEN DIGLOSSIC COMMUNITIES AND LANGUAGES OF INSTRUCTIONS

In some situations two varieties of a language or different languages exist side-by-side for different social domains, situations, functions and different purposes, without overlapping each other’s domains in a society. This type of co-existence of two or more varieties of a language or different languages in a social context is known as a diglossic community. In most multilingual polities, such as India, South Africa and Baltic states, it is natural for a child to acquire more than one language before he/she goes to school. For example, in Papua New Guinea, it is common for a child to grow up speaking one local indigenous language at home, to speak another in the market place, to add Tok Pisin to her repertoire as a lingua franca, and to learn English if he/she continues his/her schooling. The use of multiple languages as media of instruction depends on several factors, such as the linguistic heterogeneity of a country or region, specific social or religious attitudes, or the desire to promote national identity. In the words of Christina Higgins (2011): Even as continued mobility and global flows produce new forms of language and culture, and social life in the new millennium, modern ideologies about standard varieties of language, national identities, and clear cut notions of cultural identity will still continue to circulate. (p. 283)

126

Chapter Seven

On the other hand, Norbert Francis (2012) argues that selection of a language or languages as medium of instruction involves policy decisions with broader repercussions in that exclusionary language policies (e.g., one state one language and English-only) perpetuate imbalanced levels of literacy learning and academic achievement. He further argues that choice of medium of instruction also impacts children’s ability to maintain proficiency in their native language and to learn a second one. In other words, for speakers of vernaculars or smaller languages, the need to develop competency in a second language, or national-officiallanguage of wider communication is dependent upon the degree of diglossic situation in the realm of literacy between the national language and their native language. In this regard, Francis (2012) posits, “For most multilingual states there remains an escapable distinction between nation-officiallanguage of wider communication and vernacular, indigenous, or minority language…raises the need to take account of both language-learning constraints and linguistic rights…apply most directly to child language learners” (p. 27). However, Francis (2012) also acknowledges that under no circumstances all languages of a multilingual school system spoken by children and their families can, or should be accorded the same status in the language learning curriculum. Language Learning Approaches: Idealism and Instrumentalism

Historically language has been viewed largely in two different ways: Idealism and instrumentalism (Volosinov, 1973). The first view considers a language as expression or as embodiment of the spirit shared by people in a language community. The basis of language is placed on individual psyche and creativity, which triggers linguistic changes and constitutes the rules of language. Language is treated as “an

Diglossic Communities and Languages of Instructions

127

aesthetic phenomenon” (Volosinov, 1973, p. 52), and thus the role of linguists is to study language as an art, like studying music, literature, or painting. On the other hand, instrumentalism regards language to be furnished with an unchangeable law, language purism, and therefore, individual variations are seen as distortions of norm. For instrumentalist, the sole purpose of language is an instrument of communication, and denies the other aspects of language, such as social functions. In other words, language is dissociated from human motives, intentions, and emotions; it is conceptualized as an instrument that people learn to use after being/having been born into a language community (Volosinov, 1973). These two views on language also have influenced the ways in which national language is conceptualized. The Notion of Diglossia The concept of diglossia emerged with the publication of Charles Ferguson’s paper in 1959. The term “diglossia” basically originated from the French word “diglossie,” which was from Latin, meaning “bilingualism.” According to Ferguson (1959): Diglossia is a stable situation, in which in addition to its common variety, there is a very divergent, highly codified (grammatically complex), vehicle of large literary texts… largely learned through formal education and, which can be used for formal written and spoken contexts, but it is not being spoken by any of its community members in their regular discourses. (p. 336)

In some places, there are two varieties of a language existing side-by-side for different social functions, and different purposes, without overlapping each other’s domains in a society. In a diglossic situation, apart from a regular and common variety of a language (L), such as Colloquial Arabic,

128

Chapter Seven

Khariboli of Hindi and Swiss German, a highly codified and grammatically complex (H) variety also exits, such as Classical Arabic, Standard Hindi and Standard German, mostly for literary and religious purposes. So basically, diglossia is a situation where two varieties of the same language function separately, which is very much stable, in that one variety is used for day-to-day communication and interpersonal activities, while the second variety is used in formal situations (e.g., in offices, in courts), on special occasions (e.g., during a political speech by a leader, in religious ceremonies), and in literary and religious texts (Hudson, 1991). With reference to diglossia, it is worthwhile to note that Ferguson (1959) was most interested in different functions of a language’s varieties in a society. That is why he was not solely basing his interpretations of diglossia on linguistic purposes, as he acknowledged himself. For interpretations of the concept of diglossia, in terms of H [High] variety—most formal and prestigious and L [Low] variety—informal and less prestigious of a language, Ferguson gave examples of Classical Arabic (H) vs. Colloquial Arabic (L), Tamil (H) vs. Tamil (L), Classical Greek, Katharevousa (H) vs. Dhimotiki (L), and Standard German (H) vs. Swiss German (L) diglossia. According to Ferguson (1959), these varieties function separately in various domains specified in a society. For example, Classical Arabic was only used for sermons, in religious texts, for teaching, etc., mostly in formal situations, and it was regarded as holy, pure, and expressive by its users. But on the other hand, Colloquial Arabic was used for day-today business, for interpersonal communication and spoken by its users at home. According to Britto (1991), the two main defining features of diglossia are function and acquisition. However, there are some other features that include: prestige, standardization, stability, grammar, lexicon, and phonology, which help in explaining and comparing diglossia (Matiki,

Diglossic Communities and Languages of Instructions

129

2010). Alfred J. Matiki (2010) studied Tamil diglossia and concluded: In a true diglossic situation, therefore, the two codes will be complementary in their functions with the superposed code (H) being utilized in situations that can easily be characterized as formal while the underposed code (L) is used in non-formal contexts. In terms of acquisition, the H code is learned through formal means of instruction while the L code is acquired naturally as an L1; the H code does not have native speakers while the L has.

The two varieties H and L of diglossia are almost set for their use in social functions and for their social domains. For example, a formal speech should not be made in an L variety, and family gossip should not be based on an H variety of the specific language. According to Schiffman (1996): Diglossia arises from a social situation, and once it established, it controls both the corpus and status planning of a language. In India, diglossia has existed for millennia, despite all sort of impositions…because people resisted any policies against the practice of diglossia…and nobody can ever imagine stopping it…the policy would certainly fail. (p. 18)

Fishman (1967) extended the concept of diglossia, stating that the function of two varieties, H and L, in a society could be accomplished by two different languages, rather than a single language. This means that in place of the two distinct varieties of a particular language, it is possible that two different languages could be used as an H and an L variety for assigned social functions and for specified domains in a diglossic context. Fishman used the example of Paraguay where two different languages were used in the same (diglossic) situation, in that Spanish was the language for teaching, formal speech and news broadcasts etc., whereas an indigenous language, Guarani, was used for day-to-day businesses, for personal communication, and at home.

130

Chapter Seven

Contrary to Ferguson (1959), Fishman (1991) argued that diglossia can exist with bilingualism in some situations. For this, he presents four situations: Bilingualism (+) diglossia (-) such as German and English in Germany; bilingualism (-) diglossia (+) such as Classical Arabic and Colloquial Arabic in Egypt; diglossia (+) bilingualism (+) such as Standard German and Swiss German in Switzerland; and diglossia (-) bilingualism (-) such as Spanish in Cuba and English in the monolingual situations of the US and the UK. However, it is also worthwhile to note that the so-called L varieties of Classical Greek, Dhimotiki and of German, Swiss German, in Ferguson’s (1959) diglossia, are also being used today in formal situations and in religious and literary texts as well. In the late 1960s and in the early 1970s, after the restoration of democracy in Greece, the Bible was translated into the so-called L variety of Greek, Dhimotiki (Schiffman, 1996). The extended form of diglossia can be cited in many past monolingual situations. For example, French and English, Spanish and English, and Navajo and English in the US; English and French in Canada; Catalan and Spanish, and Basque and Spanish in Spain. Fishman (1991) argued that a stable diglossia can function to reverse language shift and presented a model for language revitalization, which he called Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS). According to him intergenerational transmission is essential for language revitalization process. In his last book on diglossia, Fishman (2001) cites example of revitalization of Yiddish (a variety of the Hebrew language) in New York among ultra-orthodox Jews. Romaine (2006) contends that “the main features of Ferguson’s diglossia were largely overlooked…it is L variety of a language that is being acquired by children, naturally as their mother-tongue, but on the other hand, H variety can only be learned through formal instruction.” In this regard, citing

Diglossic Communities and Languages of Instructions

131

Tamil diglossia, Matiki (2010) notes, “Tamil H is learned in school through other formal means of instruction while Tamil L is acquired naturally as one’s first language (L1)…. The H code cannot be acquired as anybody’s native language because it has no native speakers.” However, in a different example, Hornberger (2002) stated that some communities (e.g., Guarani in South America, Quechan in North America and other Indigenous tribes in different parts of the world) completely opposed the use of their language(s) for formal education, as they insisted on keeping their language(s) pure and sacred. This means that many indigenous communities believe that the spoken form of language is pure and sacred in that it is acquired by the native children of speech communities. They also believe that their language should not be used to teach other people who are not native speakers of the specific indigenous communities. In this regard, it is relevant to note that some sociolinguists have also attempted to relate mother-tongue education with language revival processes of indigenous communities (Fishman, 2001; Romaine, 2006; Wright, 2007). Examples include Catalonian and Basque, which were revived in the 1980s. On the other hand, Francis (2012) discusses new types diglossia where the contact between a less populous language/nationality or minority language with prolonged literary tradition and a national language with very rich resources pose diglossic situations in some newly independent states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In the words of Francis (2012), “bilingualism/diglossia continues to evolve in an imbalanced way, between a former NL and the new official language of newly sovereign state, formerly subordinate language of an autochthonous nationality” (p. 30). Likewise, Annamalai (2005) argues that local or Hindi languages should have taken (H) position in the place of

132

Chapter Seven

English by increasing their usages in many social domains where English was being used in India. A similar argument is being made in South Africa by the supporters of Afrikaans, who argue that it is essential for Afrikaans to be the language of instruction so that it can prevail in its H form in literary texts along with its L form in home language situations (Alexander, 2009; Francis, 2012). As Alexander (2009) writes: Unless African languages are given market value and exchange and distribution is enhanced, no amount of policy change at school level can guarantee their use in high-status functions… eventual escape from the dominance and the hegemony of English (or French or Portuguese) where these are relevant postcolonial European languages. (p. 62)

Difference between Diglossia and other Linguistic Varieties

Diglossia is different from other varieties of a language, such as dialects, registers, and standards, in that these are relative terms and there are no hard and fast societal norms for their usage. Meanwhile, diglossia reflects a social situation where all its members tacitly agree to follow the societal norms in the usages of two varieties; and in general, members of the society follow the norms. This means that H variety is not used in informal contexts, and L variety is not used in formal contexts or vice versa. Diglossia is the coexistence of two standards (two different languages or two different varieties of a language) for the preference as the linguistic code, each dominant in its own set of domains. In other words, diglossia is regarded to be linked with a compartmentalization of social roles by each individual. One of the major characteristics of diglossia is that its prestigious H variety is superposed over the less prestigious L variety (Britto, 1991; Ferguson, 1959, Fishman, 1967, 1991, Matiki, 2010; Nercissians, 2001; Tamburelli, 2010).

Diglossic Communities and Languages of Instructions

133

On the one hand, language varieties in terms of dialects, registers and standards are recognized on social and geographical parameters, rather than unified ones tending towards identical verbal behaviour. However, in a diglossic situation, the use of the high variety is not restricted to any one geographical area or any one social class, in that every person is required to learn and use it for the purposes for which it has been prescribed by social conventions in a given community. The education system ensures that the high variety is taught to everyone who goes through it, but all learn it—many are exited at the lower grades. Here, a similarity might be seen between high varieties and standard usages: both have a unifying influence; both are educationally inculcated; and so forth (Britto, 1991; Ferguson, 1959, Fishman, 1967, 1991, Matiki, 2010; Nercissians, 2001; Tamburelli, 2010). Nonetheless, there is a basic difference between high varieties and standard usages, which is that, while the high variety in a diglossia has socially determined domains of function, standard languages do not necessarily have such delimited functioning (De Silva, 1976). According to Stewart (1962): Dialect differences, far from being part of the productive linguistic repertoire of the members of the wider speech community, are historically imposed upon individuals by their geographical provenance or group membership… It is possible for originally different geographical or social dialects to come to be used conterminously in a diglossia relationship. But when this happens, the speech forms cease to be geographical or social dialects as such, and become instead the potentially common property of all members of the speech community. (p. 150)

A similar view was expressed by Gumperz (1962) when he stated that the phenomenon that is closest to diglossic behaviour is the differentiation of styles or registers in

134

Chapter Seven

linguistic communities (of course more particularly in complex linguistic communities); this form of diglossia (e.g., Ferguson, 1959) is also different from bilingualism because bilingualism is the characteristics of individuals, while diglossia is a characteristic of a community. In most situations, an individual is free to use one or other variety of dialects or language, or mix them, also called code-switching and codemixing during a discourse, based on several social and personal factors (more information about code-switching and code-mixing is given in chapter eight of this volume). Diglossia and Language Revitalization: A Case Study of Eastern Cham of Vietnam Mark Brunelle (2008) presents an example of diglossia along with bilingualism in the southern and central part of Vietnam. He found Eastern Cham, an Indigenous language, has two varieties, an H for literary texts, script (Akhar Thrah), and manuscripts and inscriptions on stone, but it also has its L variety that is spoken at home by indigenous people of the Eastern Cham community. He states that this is a very unique situation for diglossia, since the speakers of Eastern Cham are also bilinguals, equally competent in Eastern Cham and Vietnamese. The H variety of Eastern Cham is very old as it originated from Sanskrit in ancient times (Sanskrit like Latin is one of the oldest languages on the planet and is not used by its speakers in day-to-day communication). The H variety of Eastern Cham, in the form of its script (Akhar Thrah), was found recently inscribed on some classic monuments and buildings. Now it is being developed for the revitalization of Eastern Cham through the use of Akhar Thrah in formal education. However, its L variety was in use for millennia, and it is still being spoken, even outside of Vietnam. The L variety of Eastern Cham is entirely different from its H

Diglossic Communities and Languages of Instructions

135

variety (Akhar Thrah) in terms of its vocabulary, grammar, and lexicon. Eastern Cham is being revitalized in its H variety for literary texts, teaching materials, grammar books, and a dictionary. It is also being used for news broadcasts in its H variety for two hours a week. The children of the Eastern Cham community pick it up at home because the community where they live is dominated by Vietnamese speakers. In most cases, Eastern Cham speakers are in a minority in the community and Vietnamese is the predominant language. In this respect, Brunelle (2008) observes: A peculiarity of Eastern Cham communities is that virtually all their members are bilingual to some extent. People older than forty typically speak Vietnamese with a Cham accent and a few older women speak it with some difficulty, but younger speakers have native ability in each language. (p. 31)

Pedagogical Implications of Diglossia In this globalized and market economy oriented world, the tasks of language policy makers and educationists become extremely challenging. There are many more bi/multilinguals than monolinguals today. Many languages are really in diglossic situations in the world. For example, despite Luxembourgish being the national language in Luxembourg, it is functioning as an L variety of English because it is the competency in English language that has had an edge in job markets (Klein, 2007). In a pilot study, Daniel Redinger (2009) investigated language attitudes towards the linguistic diversity in Luxembourg through a semi-structured interview. With reference to languages in education, Redinger (2009) contends “The multilingual situation of Luxembourg is undoubtedly reflected in its education system…is, therefore, characterized by both extensive language teaching and the use of multiple languages of instruction” (p. 109). Based on his

136

Chapter Seven

data, he concludes, “The majority of informants express desire for multiple languages of instruction. Only 27% of all informants express a sense of satisfaction with the current use and distribution of French, German and Luxembourgish as media of instruction in the classroom” (p. 111). However, Redinger (2009) expresses concerns over the existing language in education policy of the state in which the use of Luxembourgish is restricted to a small number of school subjects—arts, music and sports—at primary level. It is important to note that a similar concern is reiterated in the report of the Council of Europe (2006) stating, “The current language education system of Luxembourg demonstrates limitations and is unable to satisfy the needs of the society as a whole” (cited in Redinger, 2009, p. 107). A question arises, which language should children learn in Luxembourg to be a competitive work force in global job markets? If they are to be instructed only in English, how can their mother-tongue, Luxembourgish ever be developed or even sustained? If they are to be taught in their mothertongue, how can they develop their competency in English, which is required for job opportunities? There are not definitive answers to these questions, nonetheless, a balance should be achieved for the selection of language of instruction, so that a child can fully develop his/her potentiality. UNESCO’s 1953, 2003 and 2010 reports and empirical evidence suggest that mother-tongue instruction gives an edge to children in acquiring other languages and in developing their high cognitive level of thinking. It can be argued that diglossia, such as Hindi (H) variety and local language(s) (L) variety in the Indian context can be advantageous for developing a high level of thinking in children. This is because children might not feel much of a language gap due to the similarities of their home language vernaculars (L) with Standard Hindi (H) when they move

Diglossic Communities and Languages of Instructions

137

from their home language contexts to their school contexts, where the Hindi (H) is the medium of instruction. Considering the complexities associated with language policies of bi/multilingual polities of the world, Francis (2012) has made a much nuanced argument: In South Africa today, a long term transitional bilingual instructional program for Afrikaans-speaking L2 English learners is posed as a linguistic right and citizen responsibility. This objective is analogous to the right and responsibilities of Russophone Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians; Spanish speakers in Catalonia; and English-speaking residents of Qubec. Such a rationalization of multilingual policy and additive bilingual instruction….is the most effective means for efficient L2 learning…the same high expectations for English as L2 should apply to speakers of all of the ILs (indigenous languages). (p. 36)

Conclusion In this chapter, we have seen that the decision for the use of a language or multiple languages in education is determined by various factors, such as the linguistic heterogeneity of a country or region, specific social or religious attitudes, social and political situations of a nation or the desire to promote national identity. According to Nercissians (2001), “We consider the choice of a language or variety to be used in specific conditions to be a decision influenced by different motivational factors and often-times conflicting norms and values prevailing in that society” (p. 60). In diglossic communities, it is the High (H) variety of a language or a different language with high social status that is generally used as a medium of instruction. In this regard, some (e.g., Blommaert, 2010; Higgins, 2011; Reyhner & Singh, 2010; Singh, 2012) argue that despite the liberating elements of forging new identities in new spaces, languages used in periphery, or transcultural contexts are often devalued vis-à-vis center, standardized varieties and hence, they are

138

Chapter Seven

treated as deficient. In this regard, Anders-Baer et al. (2008) write: The dominant language medium of education prevents access to education because of the linguistic, pedagogical and psychological barriers it creates …most indigenous peoples and minorities have to accept subtractive education where they learn a dominant language at the cost of the mother-tongue which is displaced, and later often replaced by the dominant language. (p. 3)

Nevertheless, some innovative language education programs are also implemented to promote proficiency in international languages of wider communication, together with proficiency in national and regional languages. Similar situations exist in many parts of the world where multilingualism predominates and in which children are exposed to numerous languages as they move from their homes out into surrounding communities and eventually through the formal education system.

CHAPTER EIGHT SOCIETAL BILINGUALISM/MULTILINGUALISM AND CODE-SWITCHING

With the new trend of globalization, bilingualism and multilingualism are a common phenomenon across the globe. In general, many people command several varieties of a language or more than one language and they choose to use one variety or more than one variety of the same language or different languages based on several factors and purposes. Most bi/multilinguals use different codes or languages as per the needs of the situations and purposes. For example, a fluent speaker of a Native American language may use Navajo, Hopi and another tribal language and follow tribal members and English when speaking with non-tribal members. In other words, code-switching is a normal social behaviour of bi/multilinguals. However, a major difficulty in understanding the phenomenon of code-switching is accounting for a particular choice or switch on a particular occasion. The term code-switching (CS) is broadly discussed and used in linguistics and a variety of related fields. A code may be a language or a variety or style of a language. The term code-switching emphasizes movement from one language or a variety of a language to another. Code-switching may meet with certain kinds of resistance as certain social situations may require that one code be used rather than another, even though that second code is known to all participants but the first only to some. For instance, heads of state may be

140

Chapter Eight

required to use their state national languages when addressing one another, at least in public. People select a particular code or a language because of several factors and purposes whenever they choose to speak, and they may also decide to switch from one code to another or mix codes. For example, in a multilingual country like Singapore, the ability to shift from one language to another is normal. Singapore has four official languages: English, Mandarin, Tamil and Malay, the last of which is also the national language. However, the majority of its population are native speakers of Hokkien, a variety of Chinese. National policy promotes English as a trade language, Mandarin as international Chinese language, Malay as the regional language, and Tamil as the language of one of the important minority ethnic groups in the republic (Rubdy, 2001). What this means for a ‘typical’ Chinese child growing up in Singapore is that he or she will tend to speak Hokkien with parents and Singapore English with siblings. Nevertheless, the actual choice of code in a setting clearly marked as bilingual can be a difficult task. Heller (1992) has observed that language plays a symbolic role in our lives and when there is a concurrent shift in the relationship between the languages, as is occurring in Montreal between English and French. What might cause a speaker to switch from variety x to variety y or from language A to language B? A number of answers have been suggested, including solidarity with listeners, choice of topic and perceived social and/or cultural distance. In other words, the motivation of the speaker is an important consideration in the choice. Moreover, such motivation need not be at all conscious, for apparently many speakers are not aware that they have used one particular variety of a language rather than another or sometimes even that they have switched languages, (e.g., have code switched

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

141

or have mixed codes). The study of language alternation has been fruitful over the past several decades. By ignoring questions of function or meaning, though, this structural focus fails to answer basic questions of why code switching occurs. This chapter surveys the use of the term code-switching in sociolinguistics and discusses some of the social factors influencing code-switching in conversation. The Notion of Code-switching The majority of work on “code-switching,” or changing codes, has been based on a strict identification between the notions of “code” and “linguistic variety,” be that a language, dialect, style, or prosodic variation—linguistic and paralinguistic aspects of dialogue structure like frequency, loudness, and duration, and register. However, this structural focus fails to convincingly explain certain conversational phenomena, such as body language, sign, gesture and nod, relative to the relevance or significance (or lack of relevance) of alternations between contrasting varieties. The history of code-switching research in sociolinguistics is often dated from Blom and Gumperz’s (1972) Social Meaning in Linguistic Structures, which introduced the terms situational and metaphorical switching. The ideal bilingual person switches from one language to the other according to appropriate changes in the speech situation (interlocutors, topics, etc.), but not in an unchanged situation, and the notion of “switching codes” appears to have been borrowed from information theory. Weinreich (1953) refers to an “ideal bilingual” who appears to be a rather speculative figure, based on expectations or preconceived notions of bilingual behaviour, rather than empirical observations (Duran, 1994). Woolard (2004) suggests that Bakhtin’s (1981) socially oriented voicing may be more useful to understanding codeswitchingbehaviour than Goffman’s individually oriented

142

Chapter Eight

footing. She writes, “Bakhtin’s approach better enables codeswitching analysts to articulate the linkages of linguistic form, social context, macro social identity, and consciousness of all of these” (Woolard, 2004, p. 87). She also predicts that the degree of switching may differ among different societies. “If excessive switching should be demonstrated to be the result of too early and unspecialized use of two languages, the possibility of social causation is all the more far-reaching” (Woolard, 2004, p. 83). Some of the seminal studies on code-switching were done by Gumperz and his colleagues. One of the highly cited sociocultural linguists in the study of code-switching is J. J. Gumperz (1958, 1972). His notions of code-switching developed alongside the emerging ethnography of the communication model (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972; Hymes & Gumperz, 1964), and his work has been influential (Nilep, 2006). Much of Gumperz’s early work was carried out in northern India and focused on Hindi and its range of dialects (Gumperz 1958, 1961, 1964). On the other hand, Goffman (1979, 1981) cites several of Gumperz’s descriptions of “code-switching” as examples of “footing”—a process in interaction similar to some functional descriptions of code-switching. The difference Goffman draws between his own theory of footing and Gumperz’s and others’ descriptions of code-switching, is a formal one. Whereas, code-switching necessarily includes a shift from one language or dialect to another, footing shifts may also be indicated by changes in prosody—pitch, body alignment, etc. Prosody functions as an indication for information content and for mutual conformity or lack thereof between interlocutors. Even so, Goffman (1981) writes, “For speakers, code-switchingis usually involved” in footing shifts, “and if not this then at least the sound markers that linguists study: pitch, volume, rhythm, stress, tonal quality” (p. 128). It is far

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

143

from clear that early code-switching research assumed such strict separation of languages. For example, Blom and Gumperz (1972) focus on two dialects of Norwegian, Ranamål and Bokaamål. For Goffman (1981), footing is the stance or positioning that an individual takes within an interaction. He explicates these stances primarily by unpacking the notions of speaker and hearer, and also by exploring the multifaceted character of the speech event. Within a single interaction – even within a short span of talk – an individual can highlight any number of different roles. He suggests that changes in purpose, context, and participant role are common in interaction, and offers footing as a useful theory of the multiple positions taken by parties in conversation. Alternating languages, among other linguistic markers, can serve to mark these shifts in footing. Scholars of bilingualism and code-switching have taken up Goffman’s notions of footing as an explanation or extension of code-switchingin at least two ways. For Zentella (1997, 2005), footing provides a functional rationale for much of the code-switchingshe sees practiced by Puerto Rican children in New York. Goffman’s concept of footing provides the principle that underlies a broad variety of switches. The children of el bloque in New York used code-switchingprimarily to signal a change in footing via two approaches; they switched languages to underscore or highlight the realignment (e.g., topic shift, indirect and direct quotations, declarative/question shift, checking, role shift, rhetorical answer, narrative frame break) they intended, or to control their interlocutor’s behaviour and appeal/control (e.g., aggravating requests, mitigating requests, and seeking attention). Thus, footing is a (functional) explanation for the (formal) description of language alternation; this matching of form and function constitutes code-switching. Most instances of code.

144

Chapter Eight

switchingcan be seen as language alternation which signals a change in footing. In a slightly different but similar way, Woolard (2004) sees footing as super-ordinate to code-switching. She suggests that footing is a bridge between the specific study of codeswitchingand broader understandings of related linguistic phenomena. The description she provides of footing relates it both to Gumperz’s (1982) discussion of contextualization cues and to Myers-Scotton’s (1993) rights-and-obligations sets. Woolard (2004) sees footing as similar to, but distinct from, code-switching, and suggests that recognition of the nuanced roles that footing gives will lead to the notion of code-switching beyond Gumperz’s or Myers-Scotton’s models. Code-switching and Contextualization The meanings marked and interpreted via code-switching are, though, like all contextualization cues, highly local and negotiated by speakers and listeners in interaction. Gumperz’s list of code-switchingfunctions inspired many subsequent scholars to refine or propose their own lists of functions (McClure & McClure, 1988; Nishimura 1997; Romaine 1989; Zentella 1997, 2005). Gumperz 1958 describes three levels, village dialects, regional dialects, and standard Hindi, each of which may be comprised of numerous varieties, and which serve different functions. Gumperz found “Most male residents, especially those who travel considerably, speak both the village and the regional dialect. The former is used at home and with other local residents; the latter is employed with people from the outside” (1958, p. 669). Thus the relationship between speakers affects the choice of language variety. This interest in formal variation and its effect on the communicative event serves as a basis for

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

145

descriptions of code-switchingas well as contextualization. The idea that linguistic form is affected by setting and participants as well as topic was emergent during this period. Ervin-Tripp’s (1964) definitions of setting, topic, and function provide an important base for sociolinguistics research. Her study of bilingual Japanese-born women living in the United States observed considerable correlation between language choice and discourse content, providing an example of “semantic” analysis of language choice. She noted that topic and participants’ identities could affect form (including style, register, and sociolinguistic variants). This work influenced scholars of language and social interaction, including Gumperz (1964; Blom & Gumperz, 1972). Gumperz (1964) compared the use of two dialects, standard literary Bokmål and local Ranamål, in Hemnesberget in North Norway to the use of standard and local dialects of Hindi in northern India. In each population, the local dialect appeared more frequently in interaction with neighbours, while the standard dialect was reserved for communication across “ritual barriers” (p. 148); barriers of caste, class, and village groupings in India, and of academic, administrative, or religious setting in Norway. On the basis of these comparisons, Gumperz argued that verbal repertoire is definable in social as well as linguistic terms. Distinct repertoires are identified in terms of participants, setting, and topic, and then described in terms of phonological and morphological characteristics. Blom and Gumperz (1972) expanded the analysis of the functions of Bokmål and Ranamål in Hemnesberget in what has come to be a touchstone in code-switchingresearch. They posited that social events, defined in terms of participants, setting, and topic, “restrict the selection of linguistic variables” (p. 421) in a manner that is somewhat analogous to syntactic or semantic restrictions. That is, in particular social situations, some linguistic forms may be more appropriate than others. For

146

Chapter Eight

example, among groups of men greeting each other in workshops along the fjord, the variety of language used differed from that used by teachers presenting text material in the public school. Different Models of Code-switching It is important to recognize that different social events may, for example, involve the same participants in the same setting when the topic shifts. It is worth noting that, although many scholars (Myers-Scotton, 1993) have seized upon Blom and Gumperz’s seemingly deterministic suggestion that language form indicates “participant’s definition of each other’s rights and obligations” (1972, p. 424), Blom and Gumperz’s description of situational switching allows for considerable variation for different speakers, settings, and types of events. The definition of metaphorical switching relies on the use of two language varieties within a single social setting. Blom and Gumperz describe interactions between clerks and residents in the community administration office wherein greetings take place in the local dialect, but business is transacted in the standard. In neither of these cases is there any significant change in definition of participants’ mutual rights and obligations. They proposed a basic type of codeswitching, situational code-switching, which is rooted in a social separation of activities (and associated role relationships), each of which is conventionally linked to the use of one of the languages or varieties in the community repertoire. The variety of understandings of metaphorical switching is no doubt attributable to the brevity of Blom and Gumperz’s description of the phenomenon. They acknowledged that it is generally difficult for analysts to identify particular language choices as situational or metaphorical, and that native

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

147

speakers generally have few intuitions about or recognition of their own conversational code-switches (Nilep, 2006). Except in cases of diglossia (two different languages or two different varieties of the same language used in different social contexts or for purposes), the association between linguistic form and settings, activities, or participants is highly variable, and rarely definable by static models. Since conversational code-switchingis not amenable to intuitive methods, and not strictly relatable to macro-sociological categories, on the basis of his analyses of Slovenian-German switching in Austria, English-Hindi switching in northern India, and Spanish-English switching in the United States, Gumperz (1982) suggested a list of six code-switching functions: “quotation marking, addressee specification, interjection, reiteration, message qualification”, and “personalization versus objectivization” (p. 80) across language situations, but by no means is the list exhaustive (Nilep, 2006). Hence, code-switching can be categorized in many ways, such as situational metaphorical, conversational, and markedness vs. unmarkedness models. Situational Code-switching Situational code-switching occurs when the use of languages is changed according to the situations in which the speakers find themselves: they speak one language in one situation and another in a different one. No topic change is involved. When a change of topic requires a change in the language used we have metaphorical code-switching. The interesting point here is that some topics may be discussed in either code, but the choice of code adds a distinctive flavour to what is said about the topic. The choice encodes certain social values. Code mixing occurs when interlocutors use both languages together to the extent that they change from one language to the other in the course of a single utterance. Instances of situational

148

Chapter Eight

code-switching are usually fairly easy to classify for what they are. What we observe is that one variety is used in a certain set of situations and another in an entirely different set. However, the change over from one to another may be instantaneous. Sometimes the situations are so socially prescribed that they can even be taught, e.g. those associated with ceremonial or religious functions. Others may be more subtly determined but speakers readily observe the norms. This kind of code-switching differs from diglossia. In diglossic communities the situation also controls the choice of variety but the choice is much more rigidly defined by the particular activity that is involved and by the relationship between the participants. Diglossia reinforces differences, whereas code-switching is generally used to reduce them. In diglossia too, people are quite aware that they have switched from H to L or L to H variety. In codeswitching people may not be aware that they have switched or may be unable to report, following a conversation, which code they used for a particular topic. Auer (1984) argued that Gumperz’s conception of situation is problematic, in that it is defined externally, and from the perspective of the analyst. While Auer acknowledged that Gumperz’s own uses of situational and metaphorical are less clear-cut that some scholars have taken them to be, he nonetheless disapproved of the distinction. Based on the work on Blom and Gumperz (1972), one would either have to conclude that (in the situational case) code-switching is without social meaning because it is a necessary consequence of certain situational parameters, or that (in the metaphorical case) it is dependent on an (almost) one-to-one-relationship between language choice and situational parameters which can be purposefully violated. Far from pre-existing and determining language choice, Auer (1984) argues that situation is created by talk in interaction. The form of each

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

149

speaker’s utterances helps to define the unfolding situation. Further, this negotiation itself has social meaning. Metaphorical Code-switching As the term itself suggests, metaphorical code-switching has an effective dimension to it: we change the code as we redefine the situation–formal to informal, official to personal, serious to humorous and politeness to solidarity. In a number of places, Gumperz (1972) cites examples of metaphorical code-switching from three sets of languages (Hindi and English; Slovenian and German; Spanish and English) to show how speakers employ particular languages to convey information that goes beyond their actual words, especially to define social situations. What happens to each case is that one language expresses “we-type” solidarity among participants and is therefore, deemed suitable for in-group and informal activities, whereas the other language is they-oriented and is considered appropriate to out-group and more formal relationships, particularly of an impersonal kind. Markedness Model of Code-switching Myers-Scotton (1993) further develops Gumperz’s situational or metaphorical dichotomy and presents the “Markedness Model” of code-switching from the point of view of social motivations. For her, language choice indexes an identity. If a speaker’s language choice is unexpected or ‘marked’ in the given situation, it redefines the role relations and situations. Li and Milroy (1995) propose a social-network approach which integrates two previous approaches: the macro community level language choice and micro interactional level codeswitching. With some bilinguals, for example those who grow up in a bilingual family, code-switching are often the unmarked choice (Myers-Scotton 1993).

150

Chapter Eight

According to Myers-Scotton (1993), “Each language in a multilingual community is associated with particular social roles, 'rights-and-obligations' (RO) sets” (p. 84). By speaking a particular language, a participant marks her understanding of the current situation, and particularly her relevant role within the context. By using more than one language, speakers may initiate negotiation over relevant social roles. Code-switching (CS) in general is a type of skilled performance with communicative intent. From the socio-psychological point of view, CS can be characterized as symptomatic either (a) of unwillingness or an uncertainty on the speaker's part regarding the commitment to indexing any single rights-andobligations set between participants in a conversation, or (b) of a negotiation to change the rights-and-obligations set. This is because each linguistic variety used in CS has sociopsychological associations, making it indexical of a “rightsand-obligations” set (Myers-Scotton, 1993). Thus, the social meanings of language (code) choice, as well as the causes of alternation, are defined entirely in terms of participant rights and obligations. While this description suggests a relatively inflexible arrangement of language and identity mappings, Myers-Scotton (1992) argues that the model allows for “dynamic variability”; although the mapping between a code and the social categories is fairly static, the salience of particular social categories may vary from one community to another. Similarly, a category may be significant for some types of interactions, but less for others. Thus, determining which code is unmarked for a particular interaction requires attention to all potential elements of identity, situation, and purpose. Code-switching and Interaction In most multilingual communities, language varieties function in in-group interactions, such as a more formal variety being

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

151

used between different status people and a more casual variety being used between people of similar status (friends and spouse). Sebba and Wootton (1998) describe specific interactional functions of switching from London Jamaican to London English, and other, only partially overlapping functions for switches from London English to London Jamaican. They go on to argue that particular switches highlight participant identities, but these ‘identities’ are locally constructed and highly variable. Their analysis shows that macro-sociological categories such as race, gender, or ethnicity may be less salient than particular positions within a current interaction. Evidence from London Jamaican data suggests that in addition to local, sequential explanations of code-switching, it is also necessary to look at the interaction as a whole, as well as the wider context in which it is located. For Sebba and Wootton (1998), interpretations must take into account the shifting and negotiated nature of social identities within talk as well as the values attached to the different codes by their speakers. They further suggest that the interactional functions and the identity construction functions of code-switchingare linked. The marking or creation of identity is a locally situated function of talk in interaction. According to Sebba and Wootton (1998), relating conversational structure and social structure in bilingual conversation becomes a nonissue, as the conversational structure is ‘occasioned’ by the language-defined social structure, which is locally established in and through the conversational structure. Language choice or code-switching is occasioned by the demands of conversation itself; attempts to relate this linguistic structure to an overarching view of ‘culture’ or ‘society’ is misguided. In addition, citing the examples of Poplack 1987, TreffersDaller (2009) further distinguishes the code-switching as smooth vs. flagged, stating, “Smooth CS is effortless and

152

Chapter Eight

fluent (e.g., Puerto-Rican-English bilinguals in New York City), whereas flagged switching (e.g., French-English bilinguals in Ottawa-Hull) draws attention to itself, marked by repetitions, hesitations, metalinguistic comments and the like” (p. 61). Code-switching at Different Levels Consider when a Malay/English bilingual says: This morning I hantar my baby tu dekat babysitter tu lah (hantar took, tu dekat to the, lah a particle marking solidarity) (McArthur, 1991, 1998). We have seen earlier that code-mixing and codeswitching probably occur to some extent in the speech of all bi/multilinguals, so that there is a sense in which a person capable of using two languages, A and B, has three systems available for use: A, B, and C (a range of hybrid forms that can be used with comparable bilinguals but not with monolingual speakers of A or B). According to Tom McArthur (1991, 1998), there are four major types of code-switching: (1) Tag-switching, in which tags and certain set phrases in one language are inserted into an utterance otherwise in another, as when a Panjabi/English bilingual says: It's a nice day, hana? (hai nƗ isn't it). (2) Intrasentential switching, in which switches occur within a clause or sentence boundary, as when a Yoruba/English bilingual says: Won o arrest a single person (won o they did not). (3) Intersentential switching, in which a change of language occurs at a clause or sentence boundary, where each clause or sentence is in one language or the other, as when a Spanish/English bilingual says: Sometimes I'll start a sentence in English y termino en español (and finish it in Spanish). This last may also occur as speakers take turns. (4) Intra-word switching, in which a change occurs within a word boundary, such as in shoppã (English shop with the Panjabi plural ending) or kuenjoy (English enjoy with the Swahili prefix ku,

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

153

meaning ‘to’). Some communities have special names, often pejorative or facetious, or both, for a hybrid variety: in India, Hindlish and Hinglish are used for the widespread mixing of Hindi and English; in Nigeria, amulumala (verbal salad) is used for English and Yoruba mixing and switching; in the Philippines, the continuum of possibilities is covered by the terms Tagalog—Engalog—Taglish—English, in Quebec, by français—franglais—Frenglish—English. A special issue on code-switching in a 1992 The Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development summarizes (a) the wide use of code-switching in different contexts and with different languages-in-contact, (b) the major purpose of codeswitching as being both a social/discourse phenomenon as well as a structured linguistic one, (c) a comparison to the related notion of borrowing, (d) a description of codeswitchingpatterns not as an aberration but as systematic and logical, and (e) the negative view many users and nonusers of code-switching still hold about it. In this special issue, an important statement drawn from Monica Heller (1992) is that “the absence of code-switching can be as significant as the presence of it” (p. 124). Code-mixing Code-switchingcan include “code-mixing,” using part of an utterance in one language, dialect, variety or register, and part in another, or combining the grammatical features of one language or style with the words of another. In other words, code-mixing or code-meshing refer to hybridization of codes (e.g., languages, dialects and registers). For example, a Chinese and English bilingual can mix codes of English and Chinese along with some varieties of Standard Chinese (e.g., Mandarin, Cantonese and others) while he/she is conversing with a native Chinese speaker in a specific context. Similarly, Australian aboriginal children may switch between “talking

154

Chapter Eight

flash” (using Standard Australian English) and “talking language” (speaking an Aboriginal language or Creole) and speaking Aboriginal English, often mixing the four registers (Wigglesworth & Simpson, 2008). However, code-switching and code-mixing themselves are not uniform phenomena in that the norms vary from group to group even within what might be regarded as a single community (Nilep, 2006). On the other hand, Bamgbose (2001) argues that the increased use of written communication across different linguistic backgrounds has largely contributed to code-mixing. Sometimes, code-mixing is also done by late-night TV hosts or comedians for creating humour and satire. Reasons for Code-switching Traditionally, code-switching has been viewed as a strategy to compensate for diminished language proficiency. The premise behind this theory is that bi/multilinguals code-switch because they do not know either language completely. This argument is also known as semi-lingualism, which underscores the notion that bilinguals “almost” speak both languages correctly (Baker, 2011; Cummins, 1979, 2000). However, one concern about this is that the notion of language proficiency is not clearly defined. It is not clear whether reading and writing language skills should take precedence over spoken language. A reliance on reading and writing is problematic because most bilinguals receive their formal education in one language, whereas a majority of their social interactions may take place in the other languages. So, when their reading and writing abilities are tested in both languages, the language in which bilinguals received more formal education will usually fare better. Another current view suggests that language dominance (i.e., which language is used more frequently) plays an important role in code-switching. For example, Spanish-

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

155

English bilinguals report more code-switching when they communicate in Spanish, their first-language, and little or no code-switching when they communicate in English, their second-language. This code-switching may be indicative of difficulties in retrieval affected by a combination of closelyrelated factors such as language use (i.e., how often the firstlanguage is used) and word frequency (i.e., how much a particular word is used in the language) (Nilep, 2006, Zentella, 1997, 2005). In this regard, Zentella (1997, 2005) discusses three major code-switching conversational strategies: 1) Footing: realignment (e.g., topic shift, indirect and direct quotations, declarative/question shift, role shift, rhetorical answer) and appeal and/or control (e.g., aggravating requests, mitigating requests, and drawing attention), 2) Clarification and/or Emphasis (e.g., translations, appositions, accounting for requests, and double subject), and 3) Crutch-like code mixing (e.g., crutching, filling in, recycling, triggers, parallelism and taboos). Finally, people use code-switching as a strategy in order to be better understood and to enhance the listeners’ comprehension and often serve such important functions as marking ethnic and group boundaries. For example, among minorities, the home language (the ‘we’ code) is used to signify in-group, informal, and personalized activities, while the other language (the ‘they’ code) is used to mark out-group, more formal and distant events. Speakers use a change of language to indicate their attitude to what is being said. In the following, Panjabi marks the in-group and English the outgroup among immigrants to the UK: Usi ingrezi sikhi e te why can't they learn? (We learn English, so why can't they learn [an Asian language]?). The switch emphasizes the boundaries between ‘them’ and ‘us’ (Chana, 1984). Baker and Jones (1998) propose that bilinguals “tend to use their different

156

Chapter Eight

languages in different contexts or domains and with different people” (p.51). Other reasons for switching include the prestige of knowing the out-group or dominant language, often a language associated with a religion, empire, education, and a wide sphere of operation and interest: for example, social status has long been marked among Hindus in India by introducing elements of Sanskrit and Pali into vernacular use and among Muslims by bringing in Arabic and Persian. In Europe, the same effect has been achieved by introducing elements of Latin and Greek. Today, social status is marked in India and elsewhere by introducing elements of English. It is not always the case that borrowing or switching occurs because speakers do not know the words in one or the other language. Widespread code-switching often indicates greater or less shift towards the more dominant of the two languages (Anwar, 2007; McArthur, 1991, 1998). Currently, English is the most widely used language in the world for mixing and switching. The centrality of language use in the expression of ethnicity among multilingual communities is an established fact in sociolinguistics. Anwar’s (2007) study shows that in Pakistan, Urdu-English code-switching is a common characteristic of educated Pakistani bilinguals to show social prestige, power, and success, as well as social superiority. Similarly, De Fina’s (2007) study on code-switching in the Italian community of New York, shows that language choice and code-switching figure as the most prominent linguistic strategies in the negotiation of Italian ethnicity. In the case of the domain of the game, the use of Italian is enforced in socialization practices through code-switching into Italian and the learning of target words. Code-switching seems to serve important communicative and cognitive functions. However in the majority of

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

157

communities studied, some social stigma has been attached to this mode of speaking by both in/out groups. Gibbons (1983) studied language attitudes and code-switching in Hong Kong between Cantonese and English. He found that Chinese speakers used English with one another to give an impression of status and westernization. They used Cantonese with one another to give an impression of Chinese humility and solidarity. However, a mix was considered ill-mannered, show-off, ignorant, not good-looking, aggressive, and proud, from the Cantonese point of view. Stevens (1983) found similar attitudes between French and Arabic in Tunisia with Arabic being the favoured language. Chana (1984) studied listeners’ evaluative reactions to code-switched speech by a speaker who was also heard as a perfect Punjabi and as a perfect English speaker. When he used the code-switched form he was considered less fluent, less intelligent, and less expressive than when he used only Punjabi or only English. The findings by language researchers about the linguistic and communicative integrity of this language form seem not to have been widely understood or accepted yet. Conversational Analysis and Code-switching Code-switchingmay serve any of a number of functions in a particular interaction, and a single turn at talking will likely have multiple effects. Therefore, any finite list of functions will be more or less arbitrary. “Why do bilinguals switch languages?” is the broad general question of sociolinguistic studies of CS. In order to answer this question, studies have been conducted from two perspectives: the macro-level and the micro-level. With macro-level studies, the language choice at community level is explored. Ferguson (1959/2000) introduces the notion of ‘Diglossia’ where ‘High’ and ‘Low’ varieties of a language are used. Each variety has distinct functions and is used in specific situations. Fishman

158

Chapter Eight

developed Ferguson’s concept and introduced the framework of ‘domain analysis’ (1965/2000). Language choice is constrained by ‘domains’ consisting of topics, interlocutors and settings. On the other hand micro-level analysis has been done on code-switching at a conversational level. Blom and Gumperz (1972) introduced two patterns of CS, namely situational CS, in which the speaker switches languages according to the change of the situation and metaphorical CS in which the speaker switches languages to achieve a special communicative effect. They developed this concept and introduced another term ‘conversational CS’ (1982) which includes functions such as quotations, addressee specification, interjections, reiteration, message qualification, and personalization vs. objectivization. Auer (1998) developed Gumperz’s work using a conversation analysis (CA) approach. Auer (1984) was interested in language alternation in general. Language alternation is further divided into transfer, language alternation for a structurally bounded unit (e.g., a word, phrase, or sentence) followed by return to the original language; and code-switching, or language alternation without a predictable point of return to the first language. Speakers may use language alternation to accomplish any number of conversational functions. The occurrence of “new” language is thus available to mark changes in footing, participant structure, or other elements of context. The difference between code-switching and transfer, then, is not determined primarily by the analyst, but by participants in talk in interaction. Auer’s (1984) analyses of Italian migrant children in Germany did not find a significant correlation between topic and language form. He suggested that code-switchingis not essentially ‘semantic’ in nature (not derived from the ‘meanings’ of the available languages) but rather is “embedded

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

159

in the sequential development of the conversation” (p. 93). He found that the following speakers preferred to maintain the language of the previous turn. Language alternation was then available to mark contrast, either to bracket a sequence from the preceding discourse (what Auer calls discourse related code-switching) or to negotiate (or re-negotiate) a common language (participant related code-switching). Auer recommended this procedural analysis of language alternation over individualistic analyses based on introspection, or macro-sociological approaches that define the meaning of potential language choices outside of actual language use. Myers-Scotton (1993) also develops Gumperz’s situational or metaphorical dichotomy and presents the “Markedness Model” from the point of view of social motivations. According to Myers-Scotton, language choice indexes an identity. If a speaker’s language choice is unexpected or ‘marked’ in the given situation, it redefines the role relations and situations. Li and Milroy (1995) propose a social-network approach which integrates two previous approaches: the macro community level language choice and micro interactional level code-switching. With some bilinguals, for example those who grow up in a bilingual family, code-switching are often the unmarked choice (Myers-Scotton 1993). Whereas the markedness model and subsequent work seeks to provide a systematic and generalizable account of the process of code switching, much work in linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, and other areas of sociocultural linguistics provides interpretive and interactional understandings of code-switchingin particular contexts. Two main arguments are apparent in critiques of conversation analysis based discussions of code-switching. Auer (1984) cites both Goffman’s (1979) work on footing and Gumperz’s (1982) contextualization cues, however, he cautions against analyses that regard changes in footing or

160

Chapter Eight

context as causing code-switching. Language alternation is available as a contextualization strategy, but context or footing is created by participants’ joint efforts, which may or may not make use of language alternation. Stroud (1998) maintains, “My argument is that conversational codeswitching is so heavily implicated in social life that it cannot really be understood apart from an understanding of social phenomena” (p. 322). This vital understanding is often provided by analysts’ focus on populations that they are themselves a part of; however, it may also be desirable to undertake some broader examination of the social context within which discourse takes place. Several subsequent studies have examined sequential or interactional functions of language alternation. Conversation analysts have suggested that code-switchingmay serve to enhance turn selection or soften refusals and is a possible resource to accomplish repair (Auer 1998; Sebba & Wootton, 1998) or mark dispreferred responses (Bani-Shoraka, 2005; Wei 1998). In addition to these interactional functions, empirical studies have examined how switches in language variety make particular elements of situation, speaker identities, or background relevant to on-going talk. Sebba and Wootton (1998) describe alternation between London English and London Jamaican. They suggest that interactional function is insufficient to account for the codeswitchingbehaviour they observe, and that additional consideration of identity is necessary to enrich the overall analysis. They divide language varieties into an out-group, hegemonic they-code and an in-group, solidarity building wecode, as suggested by Gumperz (1982). They argue that this type of division is complicated for Caribbean Londoners, since both London English and London Jamaican serve wecode functions. Indeed, the strict identification of a single wecode is highly problematic.

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

161

In conversation analysis terms, responses which serve to accomplish the projected action of a previous turn are generally considered preferred, while those that work against such accomplishment are dispreferred. As is the case for situational versus metaphorical switching and the enumerated functions of conversational code switching, the we-code and they-code functions suggested by Gumperz as rough preliminary categories have been reified as essential categories by later scholars, then subsequently critiqued as rough and preliminary (Gafaranga, 2005). A more central place of code-switching and language contact studies within variationist sociolinguistics, showing that comparisons of monolingual to bilingual data can yield fruitful results for the field as a whole, where the tendency has been to marginalize bilingual speakers and view language contact as a complicating factor that is best abstracted away from when studying linguistic variation (Labov, 2001). Pedagogical Implications of Code-switching In her analysis of students’ code-switching in native speakersnon-native speakers’ discourse, Burt (1992) affirms that “each choice of code is open to a systematic ambiguity of pragmatic interpretation” and that even “attempts at mutual convergence are not necessarily accommodating, if the speakers in question are both learners of each other's language” (p. 173). Indeed, there is an “in-principle infinite number of ways in which language alternation may become meaningful” (Auer, 1984, p. 11), and the present study of Burt (1992) confirms that it is sometimes impossible to decide why someone has switched from the use of his native language to his L2, or vice versa. Nonetheless, most of the tandem learners’ borrowings and turn-length switches appear to have been made for fewer than a dozen different reasons. A strictly linear analysis of the data in the corpus revealed that there were more than 1,400 turn in

162

Chapter Eight

which students based their contributions on a language other than the one that their partners had used in the last visible utterance on their screens. This figure suggests that the matrix language of their interactions, that is, the language that contributes more morphemes than the other to a given stretch of discourse, changed after an average of only nine turns (Myers-Scotton, 1992). There were, however, also several situations where two partners in a team conversed in one code while their partners used a different language. Similarly, all students sometimes communicated with their NS partner(s) in German and their NNS partner(s) in English (or vice versa), or they even addressed their two NNS partners in different languages. Recently, in the U.S. various new terms have been used in the place of code-switching or code mixing for bi/multilingual students. For example, Canagarajah (2006) posits that students in the United States should be allowed to use their non-standard dialects and other varieties of English in their standard code through what he calls “code-meshing” (p. 597). For Canagarajah, “code-meshing” is a way to acknowledge a wide variety of linguistic heritage of multilingual students. While Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur (2011) calls for embracing a translingual approach in the U.S. classrooms by moving beyond African American or speakers of World Englishes, “sees difference in language not as a barrier to overcome or as problem to manage, but as a resource for producing meaning in writing, speaking, reading, and listening” (p. 303). For Horner et al. (2011), “Translingualism teaches language users to assume and expect that each new instance of language use brings the need and opportunity to develop new ways of using language, and to draw on a range of language resources” (p. 312). In a recent study, Code Switching in the Teaching of English as a Second Language to Secondary School Students

Societal Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Code-switching

163

in Labuan, Malaysia by Hyginus Lester Junior Lee (2010) found that the majority of teachers, 85.7 % (n = 36) had positive attitudes towards code-switching in the English classroom (p. 16). The majority of teachers also believed that if they code-switched, students were able to feel comfortable and secure in their second language learning, English. Based on her results, Lee (2010) concludes: The findings of this study reveal that the majority of teachers agree that code switching plays a positive role in promoting language learning... contributes towards the development of the teaching and learning process of a second language...capable of developing the target language to a greater extent especially in promoting speaking. (p. 36)

Conclusion It is unusual for a speaker to have command of, or use only one code or system in spoken discourse. Command of only one variety of language, whether it is a dialect, a style or a register would appear to be an extremely rare phenomenon. However, a major difficulty in understanding the phenomenon of code-switching is accounting for a particular choice or switch on a particular occasion. In order to give such an account, we must look at the total linguistic situation in which the choice is made (e. g., the linguistic situation in New York City). One’s choice of code also reflects how one wants to appear to others. People have distinct feelings about various codes; they find some accents unpleasant, others beautiful; some registers stuffy, some styles pedantic, some languages or kinds unacceptable or their speakers less desirable and so on. Some arguments against code-switching say it is not a true language; one is not fluent enough in either language if codeswitching is necessary; or, code-switching is not academically appropriate. On the other hand, there seem to be more

164

Chapter Eight

arguments in support of code-switching. For example, codeswitching is a form of personal expression and preserving one’s culture; the ability to code-switch signifies a strong knowledge of two languages; code-switching requires creativity since, for example, some Spanish words cannot be easily translated. According to Moore (2002), “A code-switch can help bridge the gap in the discourse...can set off negotiated lateral sequences about content and/or form...can generate interactional changes that may potentially entail acquisitional dimensions” (p. 290). Nonetheless, the debate is on-going about the advantages and disadvantages of codeswitching for second language learners. In the end, it can be inferred that code-switching is often understood as the simultaneous use of different languages with emphasis on the difference and the plurality. There are several social factors that make someone switch codes in a discourse, such as topic, situation, group solidarity and the relationship between interlocutors.

CHAPTER NINE GLOBALIZATION AND CHANGING PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS FOR MULTILINGUALISM

The importance of parental attitude towards other languages and cultures is advocated by Oskamp (1977), stating that a child’s attitudes are largely shaped by its own experience with the world. But this is usually accomplished by explicit teaching and implicit modelling of parental attitudes. Oskamp explains how parents may have a particular bearing on language attitudes: “There are many other areas where the average child has no direct experience at all, and in these areas, parental influence on the child’s attitudes may be very great. Examples include attitudes towards foreigners, towards other countries” (cited in Bartram, 2006, p. 212). This undoubtedly means that parents have significant roles in the development of their children’s attitudes and that they can also influence children’s perceptions of foreign languages and cultures. Similarly, Gardner (1985) concurs with the view that parents are the major intermediary between the cultural milieu and the student, and categorizes parental influence on language attitudes on the basis of two roles, namely the active and the passive role. According to Bartram (2006), in his earlier research, Gardner suggested that there is a relationship between parental attitudes towards foreign language learning and the level of language proficiency achieved by the child. As Gardner wrote:

166

Chapter Nine

Relationships between the parents’ attitudes and the students’ orientations suggest that the students’ orientation grows out of a family-wide orientation and consequently . . . the degree of skill which the student attains in a second language will be dependent upon the attitudinal atmosphere in the home. (cited in Bartram, 2006, p. 213)

On the other hand, Young (1994) presents some of the ways in which parents exert their attitudinal influence: (a) through discussion, (b) by encouraging participation in foreign language exchange programs and excursions, (c) helping the child with homework, encouraging the child to read material written in the foreign language; and (d) by making the target language country the destination for a family holiday (p. 85). In a study, Bartram (2006) found that lacking multilingualism sometimes appeared to be associated with positive motivational factors for some learners (e.g., German and Dutch). But for others (e.g., English children), the lack of multilingualism of their parents appeared to support their view of other languages as unimportant things for them. With reference to parental influence on foreign language learning, Bartram (2006) concludes that the most important influence in all three national contexts (e.g., German, Dutch and English), however, appears to be the ways in which parents help to construct their children’s understandings of language importance, utility and status. Some recent studies in the US also show that parents are more positive towards multilingualism. In 2000, the General Social Survey (GSS), which was a personal in-home interview that was completed in about 90 minutes with a national probability sample of 2817 adult respondents aged 18 and older, one adult person in each selected household was interviewed at random using sampling procedures. Interviewing took place between February and mid-June 2000. A factor analysis suggested that public responses to

Globalization and Changing Parental Perceptions for Multilingualism

167

seven questions clustered around two distinct dimensions; one on issues associated with more restrictive views of the role of languages other than English in the United States, and the other on support for second language acquisition in high school. The five questions that covered the dimension of the more “restrictive” FL (foreign language) attitudes varied markedly in support – from the 78% who favoured making English the “official” American language to the 22% who favoured elimination of bilingual education. The other two GSS questions tapped the dimension of basic support for learning a second language in high school (with 64% and 75% support) (Robinson, Rivers &, Brecht, 2006, p. 432). It was reported that while Americans believed that English should be their official language, most parents also felt that their children should learn other languages in high school (Robinson, Brecht, & Rivers, 2006; Robinson, Rivers, & Brecht, 2006). In a study by King and Fogle (2006), a sample of welleducated, mostly professional bilingual couples of Washington, DC metropolitan area reported that bilingualism was good and it was their task as good parents to be producing bilingual children. Similarly, the 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa Gallup Poll (2005) reported that the majority of parents felt their children should spend more time in school learning about other nations; 85 percent viewed learning a second language as very or somewhat important, and 70 percent felt that second language instruction should begin in elementary school (p. 12). However, in terms of parents’ attitudes toward English learning in bilingual kindergartens, some Taiwanese parents were reported to believe that their children can obtain more job opportunities if they start English at an early age. Most parents were satisfied with the qualifications of Englishlanguage teachers in the kindergartens. Conversely, parents

168

Chapter Nine

hardly thought that bilingual kindergartens could serve as a vehicle to increase children’s self-confidence and English communicative ability (Shang, Ingebritson, & Tseng, 2007). The findings of that study were in line with a similar study (Oladejo, 2006), in which it was found that parents expressed their hope that early exposure to English could enhance children’s skills in this language for academic achievements or better career opportunities. Similarly, with reference to Korean parents, especially the role of English education for their children, Park and Ablemann (2004) contend that parents, particularly mothers seem to be regarded as catalysts supporting English language study in Korea. According to Caroline Linse (2011), “Korean teachers of English working with school-age learners in Korea have complained in my professional preparation classes that they are often under a great deal of pressure from parents” (p. 475). She further continues, “Children do not wake up clamoring to attend English class. Instead parents make a decision that their children will benefit from studying English…select private schools their children attend, vote for legislators who support or oppose English language programs” (p. 475). Linse (2011) studied what teachers believe parents think about English language study to prepare teachers to be more responsive when engaging in interaction with parents. She collected her data through a mixed method study from two groups of Korean teacher participants: the teacher researcher group and the survey participant group. The teacher researcher group consisted of 13 teachers enrolled in a Korean university’s MA/TESL program and who had direct experience of parents’ expectations and more than 180 years of collective experience of teaching English to Korean schoolage learners. The survey participant group was comprised of 120 teachers who also had working experience with school-

Globalization and Changing Parental Perceptions for Multilingualism

169

age learners in public and private sectors (pp. 477-478). In light of her results, Linse (2011) notes, “Korean parents want their children to embark on the path to English language success as early as possible” (pp. 484-485). However, she also observes that “It was surprising to note that native English speakers were not always identified as the best people to teach English because they generally do not possess the cultural and linguistic capital to prepare learners for the KSAT (Korean Scholastic Aptitude Test)” (p. 487). In another study on linguistic minority parents’ perceptions and views on bilingual education, Lee (1999) found that many parents felt they knew or understood the objectives of bilingual education, however, only a few really knew the different models or programs of bilingual education. Some recent studies show that parents are becoming more accepting of multiple languages in the U.S. In King and Fogle’s study (2006), a large sample of parents interviewed reported that bilingualism was good and that a task of good parenting is to produce bilingual children. Similarly, the 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa Gallup Poll (2007) reported that the majority of parents felt their children should spend more time in school learning about other nations; 85 percent viewed that learning a second language was very or somewhat important, and 70 percent felt that second language instruction should begin in elementary school (p. 12). Stavans, Olshtain, and Goldzweig (2009) did a study on parental attitudes of Amharic speaking Ethiopian communities towards language education of their children in Israel. They found that the Ethiopian parents were in a dilemma, as they regarded the maintenance of L1 (Amharic) as very important for their identity, culture and family, but they also regarded the maintenance of L1 as secondary, once their children began schooling. However, it was found that most Ethiopian parents tended to preserve their multilingualism at home.

170

Chapter Nine

Nevertheless, there still remains an incorrect belief that when an additional language is introduced into a curriculum, the child must go back and completely relearn the academic concepts that they already mastered. Some educators and parents are suspicious of bilingual education or mother-tongue teaching programs because they worry that these programs take time away from the majority school language—the national or official language and language of wider communication (Baker, 2011; Bonvillian, 2013; Cummins, 2008; Howe & Lisi, 2014; Ovando & Combs, 2011; Spolsky, 2009; Wright, 2004). When parents and other caregivers (e.g. grandparents) are able to spend time with their children and tell stories or discuss issues with them in a way that develops their mother-tongue vocabulary and concepts, children come to school well-prepared to learn the school language and succeed educationally (Baker, 2011; Cummins, 2000, 2008; Dolby, 2012; Dutcher, 1994). Conclusion To conclude, it is important to understand the fact that multilingual children have enormous potentiality for contribution to their communities, to their nation, and to the international community. Having so much potentiality, parental perceptions are pivotal for instilling positive attitudes in children to show respect and honour to other languages, peoples, and cultures. Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hillard (2004) argue that children of present generation have face with multicultural and multilingual realities of a globalized world, “Children growing up…are more likely than any previous generation in human history to face a life of working and networking, loving and living with others from different national, linguistic, religious and racial backgrounds” (p. 4). In this regard, Genesee and Cloud (1998 emphasize that in today’s diverse contexts, language learning is a “value-added

Globalization and Changing Parental Perceptions for Multilingualism

171

benefit of not only developing a second language, but also building cross-cultural skills at no cost to other educational goals” (p. 63). Moreover, knowledge in other languages allows children to expand their knowledge of the world, leading to greater understanding and appreciation of diversity. Similarly, multilingual practices are pivotal for preventing indigenous communities’ languages and their cultural heritage from becoming extinct. Thus parents’ views on bi/multilingual education are significant in the changing contexts of a globalized world and international developments, where global cooperation is the social norm (Genesee & Cloud, 1998; Singh & Espinoza-Herold, 2011).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agullo, G. L. (2006). Overcoming age-related differences. ELT Journal, 60(4), 365-373. Alexander, N. (2009). The impact of hegemony of English on access and quality of education with special reference to South Africa. In W. Harbert, S. McConnell-Ginet, A. Miller & J. Whitman (Eds.), Language and poverty (pp. 53-66). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Allen, J. P. B., & Widdowson, H. G. (1975). Grammar and language teaching. In J. P. B. Allen & S. P. Corder (Eds.), Papers in applied linguistics (pp.45-97). London: Oxford University Press. Ammon, U. (2001). English as a future language of teaching at German universities: A question of difficult consequences, posed by the decline of German as a language of science. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities (pp. 343-362). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Annamalai, E. (2005). Nation building in a globalized world: Language choice and education in India. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-ineducation policy and practice (pp. 21-38). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Anders-Baer, L., Dunbar, R., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & HenrikMagga, O. (2008). Forms of education of indigenous children as crimes against humanity? Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/E_C19_20 08_7.pdf.

174

Bibliography

Anshen, R. N. (1957). (Eds.) Language: an enquiry into its meaning and function, (Science of Culture Series, Vol. VIII). New York: Harper & Row. Anwar, B. (2007). Urdu-English code-switching: The use of Urdu phrases and clauses in Pakistani English. English for Specific Purposes World, 3(16), 167-175. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions in globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Ard, J., & Homberg, T. (1992). Verification of language transfer. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Language acquisition & language disorders (pp. 47-70). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. Auer, P. J. C. (1988). A conversation analytic approach to code-switching and transfer. In M. Heller (Ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 187-214). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Auer, P. (1998). (Ed.). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction, and identity. London: Routledge. Baker, C. (2011). Fundamentals of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th Ed.). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. & Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Ball, J. (2010). Educational equity for children from diverse language backgrounds: Mother-tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. Retrieved from http://reach.uvic.ca/documents/UNESCOSummary2010.pdf.

Bamgbose, A. (2001). World Englishes and globalization. World English, 20(3), 357-363.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

175

Bang, J, C., Døør, J., Nash, J., & Steffensen, S. V. (2008). Language, ecology and society: A dialectical approach. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bani-Shoraka, H. (2005). Language choice and codeswitching in the Azerbaijani community in Tehran: A conversation analytic approach to bilingual practices. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Barber, B. (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books. Bartram, B. (2006). An examination of perceptions of parental influence on attitudes to language learning. Educational Research, 48(2), 211-221. Bartelt, H. G. (1992). Transfer and variability of rhetorical redundancy in Apachean English interlanguage. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Language acquisition & language disorders (pp. 101-108). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Beck, U. (2001). Living your life in a runaway world: individualization, globalization and politics. In W. Hutton & A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism (pp. 164-174). London: Vintage. Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: In search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13(2), 116-137. —. (2007). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 57, 45-77. Biava, T. (2001, February). Creating a post-communist identity in English, “a small lane between optimism and pessimism.” Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL) conference, at St. Louis, MO.

Bhabha, K. H. (1994). Location of culture. London: Rutledge. Birch, B. M. (2007). English L2 reading: Getting the bottom (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. Bloch, B., & Trager, G. L. (1942). Outline of linguistic analysis. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.

176

Bibliography

Block, D. (2002). McComrnunication. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 117-133). London: Routledge. —. (2011). Citizenship, education and global spaces. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(2), 162-170.

Blom, J. P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 407-434). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bonvillian, N. (2013). Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of messages (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Ed USA. Bouffard, L. A., & Sarkar, M. (2008). Training 8-year-old French immersion students in metalinguitic analysis: An innovation in form-focused pedagogy. Language Awareness, 17(1), 3-24. Britto, F. (1991). Tamil diglossia: An interpretation. Southwest Journal of Linguistics: Studies in Diglossia, 10(1), 60-84. Brock-Utne, B. (2008). Democracy in a multilingual and multicultural society. In L. Timm. (Ed.), Mother-tongue and bilingual education: A collection of conference papers (pp. 33-42). Copenhagen: Danish Education Network. Retrieved from http://www.uddannelsesnetvaerket.dk/rdb/1205421604.pdf. —. (2010). English as the language of instruction or destruction–How do teachers and students in Tanzania cope? In B. Brock-Utne, Z. Desai, M. A. S. Qorro & A. Pitman (Eds.), Comparative and international education: A diversity of voices (5) (pp. 77-98). Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

177

Broeder, P. & Martyniuk, W. (2008). Language education in Europe: The common European framework of reference. In N. Hornberger & N. van Deusen-Scholl (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 209-226). New York: Springer. Broselow, E. (1992). Nonobvious transfer: On predicting epenthesis errors. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Language acquisition & language disorders (pp. 71-86). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th Ed.). NY: Pearson Education. Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2011). The global auction: The broken promises of education, jobs and incomes. New York: Oxford University Press. Brunelle, M. (2008). Diglossia, bilingualism, and the revitalization of written Eastern Cham. Language Documentation & Conservation, 2(1), 28-46. Brysk, A. (2000). From tribal village to global village: Indian rights and international relations in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Buhler, K. (1934). The theory of language: The representational function of language. New York: John Benjamins. Burt, S. (1992) Code switching, convergence and compliance: The development of micro-community speech norms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13, 169-85. Butler, Y. G., & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 “Action Plan.” Language Policy, 4, 25–45. Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and the teaching of communication skills. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.),

178

Bibliography

Globalization and language teaching (pp. 67-82). London: Routledge. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. —. (2006). The place of world Englishes in composition: Plurization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57, 586-619. Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2013). Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge. Cenoz, J. (2008). Achievements and challenges of bilingual and multilingual education in the Basque country. AILA Review 21, 13-30. Center for Research, Education and Development (CRED) (2005). Mother-tongue intervention at primary level in Nepal. A Study Report Submitted to Research and Education Information Management Section, Department of Education. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Author. Chana, U. (1984). Evaluative reactions to Punjabi/English code-switching. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 5(6), 447-473. Chang, C. B. (2012). Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language speech production. Journal of Phonetics, 40(2), 249-268. Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon. —. (2000). The architecture of language. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Citrin, J., Reingold, B., Walters, E., & Green, D. P. (1990). The “Official English” movement and the symbolic politics of Language in the United States. The Western Political Quarterly, 43(3), 535-559.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

179

Clyne, M., Hunt, C., & Isaakidis, T. (2004). Learning a community language as a third language. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 33-52. Congressional Record—Senate (1998, May 22). Senate Resolution 236—To Express the Sense of the Senate Regarding English Plus Other Languages. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-0522/pdf/CREC-1998-05-22-pt1PgS54572.pdf#page=1. Conrad, B. M. (1996). A prognosis for language management in the third republic. In P. Martin (Ed.), Language contact and language conflict (pp. 165-180). Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. Constitution of India (1949). Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, India. Retrieved from http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf. Conway, D. (1995). Classical liberalism: The unvanquished ideal. London: Macmillan. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185–210. Corder, S. P (1992). A role for the mother-tongue. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Language acquisition & language disorders (pp. 18-31). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Council of Europe/ERICarts (2012). Compendium of cultural policies and trends in Europe (13th Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.culturalpolicies.net/down/latvia_052012.pdf. Crawford, J. (1992). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of “English Only.” New York: Addison-Wesley. —. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Crystal, D. (1999). The future of Englishes. English Today, 15(2), 10-20. —. (2002). English as a global language (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

180

Bibliography

—. (2003). English as a global language (3rd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 221-251. —. (1986). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In J. Cummins & M. Swain (Eds.), Bilingualism in education (pp. 138-161). New York: Longman. —. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. —. (2007). Promoting literacy in multilingual contexts (Research Monograph 5). Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/res earch/Cummins.pdf. —. (2008). Foreword. In J. Cenoz &, D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingualsm and minority languages: Achievements and challenges in education. AILA Review, 21, 1-2. —. (2009). Fundamental psychological and sociological principles underlying educational success for linguistic minority students. In A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 21-35). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Dalby, A. (2002). Language in danger. London: Penguin Books.

de Bot, K. (1992) A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13(1), 1-24. De Fina, A. (2007) Code-switching and the construction of ethnic identity in a community of practice. Language in Society 36, 371–392. Desai, Z. (2001, July) Multilingualism in South Africa with particular reference to the role of African languages in education. International Review of Education, 47, 323–339.

De Silva, M. W. S. (1976). Diglossia and literacy. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

181

de Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the world: The global language system. Cambridge: Polity Press. Dilans, G. (2009). Russian in Latvia: An outlook for bilingualism in a post-Soviet transitional society. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 1-13. Dolby, N. (2012). Rethinking multicultural education for the next generation: The new empathy and social justice. New York: Routledge. Draper, J. B., & Jimenez, M. (1996). A chronology of the Official English Movement. Official English? NO! TESOL’s recommendations for countering the Official English Movement in the US, TESOL. Dressler, C., & Kamil M. (2006). First-and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners (pp. 197-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dubner, S. (2008, May 28). What will Globalization do to Languages? A Freakconomics Quorum. Retrieved from http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/05/28/what-willglobalization-do-to-languages-a-freakonomics-quorum/. Duderstadt, J., Taggart, J., & Weber, L. (Eds.). (2008). The globalization of higher education. In L. Weber & J. J. Duderstadt (Eds.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 273-290). Glion, Switzerland: Glion Colloquium. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24, 37-53.

Dunkel, H. B. (1948). Factors in second-language learning: The student's age. Second language learning (pp. 61-79). Boston, MA: Ginn and Company. Duran, L. (1994). Toward a better understanding of code switching and interlanguage in bilinguality: Implications for bilingual instruction. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 69-88.

182

Bibliography

Dutcher, N. (1994). The use of first and second languages in education: A review of educational experience. Washington, DC: World Bank, East Asia and the Pacific Region, Country Department III. Earnest, H. (1942). Language and meaning. Yearbook of the national society for the study of education. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing. Ellinger, T. R., & Beckham, G. M. (1997). South Korea: Placing education on top of the family agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(8), 624-626. Erni, C. (Ed.). (2008). The concept of indigenous peoples in Asia. A Resource book. International Work Groups for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact Foundation (AIPP). Epstein, H. E. (2002). Globalization of education. Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.com. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1964). An analysis of the interaction of language, topic, and listener. American Anthropologist, 6(2), 86-102. Eurostat. (2001). Information society statistics. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Author. Faghih, E. (1997). A contrastive analysis of the Persian and English definite articles. IRAL, 35(2), 127-138. Featherstone, M. (1995). Undoing culture: Globalization, postmodernism and identity. London: Sage. Ferguson, C. (1959/2000). Diglossia. Word, 15(3), 325-340. Fillerup, M. (1996). The effects of sheltered English instruction of the achievement of Navajo limited English proficient students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff: AZ.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

183

Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional notional approach: From theory to practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Fishman, J. (1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(1), 29-38. —. (1971). In advances in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton. —. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (2001). Can threatened languages be saved? Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. —. (2002). Endangered minority languages: Prospects for sociolinguistic research. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 4(2), 1-9. Fitzsimons, P. (2000). Changing conceptions of globalization: Changing conceptions of education. Educational Theory, 50(4), 505-520. Francis, N. (2012). Bilingual competence and bilingual proficiency in child development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Freed, J. (2012. Global sense: The 2012 Edition: A spiritual handbook on the nature of society and how to change the world by changing ourselves. Kauai, Hawaii: Hoku House. Funabashi, Y. (2000). Aete eigo kouyougo ron [My argument for English as an official language]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjyu. Gafaranga, J. (2005). Demythologising language alternation studies: Conversational structure vs. social structure in bilingual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 281–300. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

184

Bibliography

Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1992). Language transfer in language learning. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. Genesee, F. (2008). Dual language in the global village. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 22-45). New York: Multilingual Matters. Genesee, F., & Cloud, N. (1998). Multilingualism is basic. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 62-65. Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships. In. D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners (pp. 153-183). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. Gerena, L. (2010). Student attitudes toward biliteracy in a dual immersion program. The Reading Matrix, 10(1), 55-78.

Gibbons, J. (1979). Code-mixing and koineising in the speech of students at the University of Hong Kong. Anthropological Linguistics, 21,113-23. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gil, J., & Najar, L. R. (2008). ELT today: From dilemmas to professional obligations. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(4), 465-472. GilLacruz, A.I., & GilLacruz, M. (2012). Mother-tongue and school failure in a multilingual country. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(2), 157-179. Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. New York: Harper & Row. —. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English: A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. London: British Council. —. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of English as a foreign language. London, British Council.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

185

Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-researchenglish-next.pdf.

Gramsci, A. (2000). Some aspects of the southern question. In D. Forgacs (Ed.), The Antonio Gramsci reader: Selected writings 1916-1935 (pp. 171-185). New York: New York University Press. Gray, J. (2002). The global coursebook in English language teaching. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 151-167). London: Routledge. Green, A. (2012). Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Grimes, B. F. (1992). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1-22). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Gumperz, J. J. (1958). Dialect differences and social stratification in a North Indian village. American Anthropologist, 60, 668-681. —. (1961). Speech variation and the study of Indian civilization. American Anthropologist, 63, 976-988. —. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), The ethnography of communication, American anthropologist, 66(6), 137-153. —. (1972). The communicative competence of bilinguals. Language in Society, 1(1), 143-154. —. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. D., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

186

Bibliography

Gnanasundaram, V., & Rangan, K. (2000). Language, speech or writing: Which is primary? Retrieved from http://www.infitt.org/ti2000/tamilinaiyam/papers/B5gnanas.pdf.

Gundel, J. K., & Tarone, E. E. (1992). Language transfer and the acquisition of pronouns. In S.M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Language acquisition & language disorders (pp. 87-100). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Gupta, F. A. (2001). Realism and imagination in the teaching of English. World Englishes, 20(3), 365-381. Hagboldt, P. (1935). Language learning: Some reflections from teaching experience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Hall, R. A. (1968). An essay on language. New York: Chilton Books. Hall, S. (1997). The local and the global: Globalization and ethnicity. In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, globalization and the world-system: Contemporary conditions for the representation of identity (pp. 19-39). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland. —. (1976). System and function in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hamel, R. E. (2005). Language empires, linguistic imperialism, and the future of global languages. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Department of Anthropology México, D. F. Retrieved from: http://www.hamel.com.mx/ArchivosPDF/Work%20in%20 Progress/2005%20Language%20Empires.pdf. Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

187

Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2007). Globalization/antiglobalization: Beyond the great divide. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Heller, M. (1992). The politics of code switching and language choice. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13, 123-142. Higgins, C. (2011). Hybridizing scapes and the production of new identities. In C. Higgins (Ed.), Identity formation in globalizing contexts: Language learning in new millennium (pp. 279-284). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Hjarvard, S. (2004). The globalization of language. How the media contribute to the spread of English and the emergence of medialects. Nordicom Review, (1-2), 75-97. Nordicom: Gothenburg University. Retrieved from http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/157_075098.pdf. Holly, D. (1990). The unspoken curriculum - or how language teaching carries cultural and ideological messages. In B. Harrison (Ed.). Culture and the language classroom. ELT documents 132, (11-19). London: Modern English Publications and the British Council. Hopkins, G. A. (2002). The history of globalization-the globalization of history? In G. A. Hopkins (Ed.), Globalization in world history (pp. 11-46). London: Pimlico. Horn, E. (1942). Language and meaning. Yearbook of the national society for the study of education. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing. Hornberger, N. & Vaish, V (2008). Multilingual language policy and school linguistic practice: globalization and English-language teaching in India, Singapore and South

188

Bibliography

Africa. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 115. Horner, B., Lu. M. Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur J. (2011). Opinion: Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73, 303-321. Hornsby, M., & Agarin, T. (2012). The end of minority languages? Europe’s regional languages in perspective. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 11(1), 88-116. Hothi, N. R. (2005). Globalization and manufacturing decline: Aspects of British industry. Suffolk, UK: Arena Books.

Howe, W. A., & Lisi, P. L. (2014). Becoming a multicultural educator: Developing awareness, gaining skills, and taking action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hudelson, S. (1987). The role of native language literacy in the education of language minority children. Language Arts, 64(8), 827-841. Hudson, A. (1991). Toward the systematic study of diglossia. Southwest Journal of Linguistics: Studies in Diglossia, 10(1), 1 - 22. Hymes, D., & Gumperz, J. (Eds.). (1964). The Ethnography of communication (Special issue). American Anthropologist 66(6), II. Jakobson, R. (1990). The speech event and the functions of language. In L. R. Waugh & M. Monville (Eds.), On language (pp. 69-79). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. Essex, UK: Longman Group. Jameson, F. (1998). Notes on globalization as a philosophical issue. In F. Jameson & M. Miyoshi (Eds.), The cultures of globalization (pp. 54-77). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Jarvis, S., & Odlin, T. (2000). Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 535-556.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

189

Jhingran, D. (2005). Language disadvantage: The learning challenge in primary education. New Delhi: APH. Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 416-432. Johnson, K. (2001). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Jorden, E. H., & Noda, M. (1987). Japanese: The spoken language, part I. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jordens, P. (1992). Discourse functions in interlanguage morphology. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Language acquisition & language disorders (pp. 138-175). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Kachru, B.B. (1984). The alchemy of English: Social and functional power of non-native varieties. In C. Kramarae, M. Shultz & W. O’Barr (Eds.), Language and power (pp. 176-193). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (2001). World Englishes. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analyzing English in a Global Context. London: The Open University. Kamwangamalu, N. (2003). Globalization of English, and language maintenance and shift in South Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 164(1), 65-81. —. (2010). Vernacularization, globalization, and language economics in non-English-speaking countries in Africa. Language Problems & Language Planning, 34(1), 1-23. Kaplan, R. B. (2001). English-the accidental language of science. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science (pp. 3-26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

190

Bibliography

Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112-134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Khubchandani, L. M. (2008). Language policy and education in the Indian subcontinent. In S. May & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 369381). New York: Springer. Kim, S. (1999). Sub-phonemic duration difference in English /s/ and few-to-many borrowing from English to Korean. (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle: WA. Retrieved from https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/iverson/www/sooheekimphd.pdf.

King, F. (1995). Neo-liberalism: Theoretical problems and practical inconsistencies. In M. Mills & F. King (Eds.), The promise of liberalism: A comparative analysis of consensus politics (pp. 15-36). Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company. King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695-712. Klein, C. (2007). The valuation of plurilingual competencies in an open European labor market. International Journal of Multilingualism, 4(4), 262-281. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Koizumi, M. (1998). Some observations in Japanese senior high school learner's language transfer. Journal of Japan Korean Association of Applied Linguistics, 1, 73-88. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. —. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

191

Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 13-28). London: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. Yale, CT: Yale University Press. —. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analysing, recognizing, doing, and seeing. New York: Routledge. Labov, W. (2001). The social stratification of English in New York City (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lambert, E. W. (1964). Psychological approaches to the study of language part II: On second language learning and bilingualism. Modern Language Journal, 47, 114-21. Lau v. Nichols, 414 US 563 - Supreme Court 1974. Lazdina, S., & Marten, H. F. (2012). Latgalian in Latvia: A continuous struggle for political recognition. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 11(1), 66-87. Lee, H. L. J. (2010). Code switching in the teaching of English as a second language to secondary school students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 6, 1-45. Lee, S. K. (1999). The linguistic minority parents’ perceptions of bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(3), 199-210. Lee, W. R. 1968. Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of foreign language teaching. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics and its pedagogical implications (pp. 185-94). Report of the Nineteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies (Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 21). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

192

Bibliography

Leitner, G. (1992). English as a pluricentric language. In M. Clyne (Ed.), Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations (pp. 179-237). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lems, K., Miller, L. D., & Soro, T. M. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners: Insights from linguistics. New York: The Guilford Press. Levin, J. S. (2001). Globalizing the community college: Strategies for change in the 21st century. New York: Palgrave Books. Levin, T., & Shohamy, E. (2008). Achievement of immigrant students in mathematics and academic Hebrew in Israeli school: A large scale evaluation study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 1-14. Levin, T., Shohamy, E., & Spolsky, B. (2003). Educational achievement of immigrant students. Research Report submitted to the Ministry of Education. Tel Aviv University, School of Education (Hebrew). Li, W. & Milroy, L. (1995). Conversational code-switching in a Chinese community in Britain: A sequential analysis. Journal of Pragmatics. 23, 281-299. Lin, A. (1999). Doing-English-lessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 393-412. Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Ferrante, A. (2005). Follow-up study of middle school two-way students: Language proficiency, achievement and attitudes. In R. Hoosain & F. Salili (Eds.), Language in multicultural education (pp. 157-179). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Linse, C. (2011, December). Korean parental beliefs about ELT from the perspectives of teachers. TESOL Journal, 2(4), 473-491. LoCastro, V. (1998). Learner subjectivity and pragmatic competence development. Paper presented at the annual

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

193

meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Seattle: WA. Lu, M. Z, & Horner, B. (2013). Translingual literacy and matters of agency. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (26-38). New York: Routledge. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive language. In C. Ogden & I. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul. Matiki, A. J. (2010, November). A case review of Tamil diglossia. Language in India: Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow, 10:11. Retrieved from http://www.languageinindia.com/nov2010/tamildiglossia.p df. Maurais, J. (2003). Towards a new linguistic world order. In J. Maurais & M. A. Morris (Eds.), Languages in a globalizing world (pp.13-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and politics of language. London: Longman. McArthur, T. (1991). Code-mixing and code-switching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. —. (1998). Companion to the English language. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.com. McClure, E., & McClure, M. (1988). Macro-and-micro sociolinguistic dimensions of codeswitching in Vingard (Romania). In M. Heller (Ed.), Codeswitching (pp. 25-51). Berlin: de Gruyter. McConnell, D. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan’s JET program. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. McGrew, A. (1992). A global society? In S. Hall, D. Held, & A. McGrew (Ed.), Modernity and its futures (pp. 61-116). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

194

Bibliography

Ming, C. Y. (2004). Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behavior. Modern Language Journal, 88, 102-119. Miyoshi, M. (1993). A borderless world: From colonialism to transnationalism and the decline of the nation-state. Cultural Inquiry, 19(4), 726-751. Modiano, M. (2001). Ideology and the ELT practitioner. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 159-73. Mohanty, A. (2008). Perpetuating inequality: Language disadvantage and capability deprivation of tribal mother-tongue speakers in India. In W. Harbert (Ed.), Language and poverty (pp.102-124). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Mohd-Asraf, R. (2005). English and Islam: A clash of civilizations? Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 4(2), 103-118. Moore, D. (2002). Case study: Code-switching and learning in the classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(2), 279-293. Morgan, B. Q. (1938). Foreign languages in the elementary school. Modern Language Journal, 22(8), 639. Murray, H. & Dingwall, S. (2001). The dominance of English at European universities: Switzerland and Sweden compared. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities (pp. 85-112). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Common and uncommon ground: Social and structural factors in code-switching. Language in Society, 22, 475-503. Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej22a1.html.

National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (2006) National Focus Group Position Paper on Teaching of English. New Delhi, India: Author.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

195

National Curriculum Framework (NCF) (2007). National Curriculum Framework for School Education in Nepal– 2007. Curriculum Development Center, Nepal: Author. Nercissians, E. (2001). Bilingualism and diglossia: Patterns of language use by ethnic minorities in Tehran. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 148, 59-70. Neufeld, G. G. (1980). On the adult’s ability to acquire phonology. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 285-298. Nicholas, B. A. (2008). Educational policy for first nations in New Brunswick: Continuing linguistic genocide and educational failure or positive linguistic rights and educational success? Educational Policy, 1-39. Retrieved from http://www.educatorsforimmersion.org/LI_pdf/Genocide. Nilep, C. (2006). Code switching in sociocultural linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ling/CRIL/Volume19_Issue1/paper_NIL EP.pdf.

Nishimura, M. (1997). Japanese/English code-switching: Syntax and pragmatics. New York: Peter Lang. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. (2003). Cross linguistic influences. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436-486). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Oladejo, J. (2006). Parents’ attitudes towards bilingual education policy in Taiwan. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 147-170. Oskamp, S. (1977). Attitudes and opinions. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ovando, C. J, Combs, M. C. (2011). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

196

Bibliography

Paradis, M. (2004) A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Park, S. J., & Abelmann, N. (2004). Class and cosmopolitan striving: Mothers’ management of English education in South Korea. Anthropological Quarterly, 77, 645-672. Pavlenko, A. (2011). Language rights versus speakers rights: On the applicability of Western language rights approaches in Eastern European contexts. Language Policy, 10, 37-58. Pennycook, A. (1994). Cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. —. (2007). Global English and transcultural flows. New York: Routledge. Phi-Delta Kappa (2007). The 39th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(1) 33-45. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. (1998). Globalizing English: Are linguistic human rights an alternative to linguistic imperialism? Language Science, 20(1), 101-120. —. (2001). English for globalization or for the world's people? International Review of Education, 47(3), 185 200. —. (2004). English in globalization: Three approaches. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(1), 73-84. —. (2012). Imperialism and colonialism. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 203235). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pieterse, J. N. (1995). Globalization as hybridization. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 45-68). London: Sage. —. (2004). Globalization and culture. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

197

Pinker, S. (2007). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. Poplack, S. (1987). Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities. In E. Wande, J. Anward, B. Nordberg, L. Steensland & M. Thelander (Eds.), Aspects of multilingualism (pp. 51-77). Helsinki, Finland: Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism, 1984.

—. (1990). Variation theory and language contact: Concepts, methods and data. Network on Code-switching and Language Contact, 33-65 Pritchard, R., & O’Hara, S. (2008). Reading in Spanish and English: A comparative study of processing strategies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(8), 630-638. Prusher, I. R. (2001). The language of change in Cambodia. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2001l0828/p7s2-wosc.html. Redinger, D. (2009). Multilingual Luxembourg: Language attitudes and policies. Language at the University of Essex (LangUE) Proceedings, 107-119. Reima, J. A. (2000). Analysis of grammatical agreement errors in L1/L2 translation. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 1-15. Reyhner, J. (2011). Healing families and strengthening communities through language revitalization. In M. E. Romero- Little, S. Ortiz & T.L. McCarty (Eds.), Indigenous language across the generations: Strengthening families and communities (pp. 281-303). Tempe, AZ: Center for Indian Education, Arizona State University. Reyhner, J. & Singh, N. (2010, Spring). Aligning language education policies to international human rights standards. eJournal of Education Policy. Retrieved from: https://www4.nau.edu/cee/jep/journalterms.aspx?term=1& year=2010.

198

Bibliography

Ricento, T. (1995). A Brief History of Language Restriction in the United States. In Official English? No! TESOL’s Recommendations for Countering the Official English Movement in the US. TESOL Sociopolitical Concerns Committee. Retrieved from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/tesol/official. Ritzer, G. (2004). The globalization of nothing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. Sage Publication. Robertson, R. (1995). Globalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25-44). London: Sage. Robinson, J. P., Brecht, R. D., & Rivers, W. P. (2006). Speaking foreign languages in the United States: Correlates, trends, and possible consequences. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 457-472. Robinson, J. P., Rivers, W. P., &Brecht, R. D. (2006). American attitudes towards foreign language policy. Language Policy, 5(4), 419-440. Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. —. (2006). Planning for survival of linguistic diversity. Language Policy, 5, 441-473. Roy-Campbell, Z. M. (2001). Globalisation, language and education: A Comparative study of the United States and Tanzania. International Review of Education, 47(3/4), 267-282. Rubdy, R. (2001). Creative destruction: Singapore’s speak good English movement. World Englishes, 20(3), 341355.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning, NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-34. Sapir. E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

199

Sapon, S. M. (1952). An application of psychological theory to pronunciation problems in second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 36(3), 111-114. Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137-174. Savignon, S. J. (2003). Teaching English as communication: A global perspective. World Englishes 22, 55–66. Scarcella, R. C. (1992). Interethnic conversation and second language acquisition: Discourse accent revisited. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Language acquisition & language disorders (pp. 109-137). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Schievella, S., P. (1987). Critical analysis: language and its functions. New York: Sebastian. Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. New York: Routledge. Schmid, C. (2008). Ethnicity and language tensions in Latvia. Language Policy, 7, 3-19. Schmid, C., Zepa, B., & Snipe, A. (2004). Language policy and ethnic tensions in Quebec and Latvia. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 45, 231–252 Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. New York: Routledge Scholte, J. A. (2000). Globalization. A critical introduction. London: Palgrave. Sebba, M., & Wootton, T. (1998). We, they and identity: Sequential versus identity-related explanation in codeswitching. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity (pp. 262286). London: Routledge. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209-231.

200

Bibliography

Selinker, L., Lakshmanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and fossilization: The multiple effects principle. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Language acquisition & language disorders (pp. 197-216). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Shang, F. H., Ingebritson, R., & Tseng, L. C. (2007). Taiwanese parental perceptions toward English learning in bilingual kindergarten. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(2), 135-148. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agenda and new approaches. London: Routledge. Singh, A. (2006). Towards a theory of national consciousness: Values and beliefs in education as a contribution to ‘cultural capital’ in post-apartheid South Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 40(5), 323-343. Singh, N. K. (2011). Culturally appropriate education theoretical and practical implications. In J. Reyhner, W. S. Gilbert & L. Lockard (Eds.), Honoring our heritage: Culturally appropriate approaches to indigenous education (pp. 11-42). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. —. (2012). Globalization and language teacher education trends: The evolving language education trends in the US. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAMBERT Academic Publishing. Singh, N., & Espinoza-Herold, M. (2011). Globalization and the changing of parental perceptions towards multilingualism. The National Association for Bilingual Education. (NABE News), 33(2/3), 12-13. Singh, N. K., Zhang, S., & Besmel, P. (2012, April/June). Globalization and language policies of multilingual societies: Some case studies of South East Asia. The Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics, (Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada), 12(2), 349-380.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

201

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education-or worldwide diversity and human rights. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. —. (2001). The Globalization of (educational) language rights. International Review of Education, 47(3), 201-219. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Phillipson, R., Mohanty K. A. & Panda, M. (Eds.). (2009). Social justice through multilingual education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Dunbar, R. (2010). Indigenous children’s education as linguistic genocide and a crime against humanity? A global view. Gáldu ýála – Journal of Indigenous Peoples Rights (1). Resource Center for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino. Slaughter, S. (1998). National higher education policies in a global economy. In J. Currie & J. Newson (Eds.), University and globalization. London: Sage. Smith, L. E. (Ed.). (1983). Readings in English as an international language. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Smith, N. (1997). The satanic geographies of globalization: Uneven development in the 1990s. Public Culture, 10(1), 169-189. Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1977). Age differences in the pronunciation of foreign sounds. Language & Speech, 20(4), 357-365. Sparks, L. R., & Ganschow, L. (1993). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning difficulties: Linking first and second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 77 (3), 289-302. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. —. (2009). Language management. New York: Cambridge University Press.

202

Bibliography

—. (2011, March). Does the United States need a language policy? CALdigest. Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D. C. Retrieved from: www.cal.org. Stavans, A., Olshtain, E., & Goldzweig, G. (2009). Parental perceptions of children’s literacy and bilingualism: The case of Ethiopian immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(2), 111-126.

Steger, M. B. (2003) .Globalization: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Steig, W. (2003). CDC? New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Stroud, C. (1998). Perspectives on cultural variability of discourse and some implications for code-switching. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity (pp. 321-348). London: Routledge. Stewart, W. A. (1962). The functional distinction of Creole and French in Haiti. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 149-59). Washington, DC. Suarez-Orozco, M. M., & Qin-Hillard, D. B. (Eds.). (2004). Globalization: Culture and education in the new millennium. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning, pp. 115-131. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sutherland, W. J. (2003). Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species. Nature, 423, 276279. Swain, M. (1996). Discovering successful second language teaching strategies and practices: From program evaluation to classroom experimentation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17, 89-104.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

203

Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N. & Hart, D. (1990). The role of mother-tongue literacy in third language learning. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 3(1), 65-81. Tagliabue, J. (1998, July19). Achung! English spoken here: In Europe, steps toward a common language. The New York Times, p. Dl. Retrieved from LexisNexis database. Tamburelli, M. (2010). The vanishing languages of Italy: Diglossia, bilingualism, and language shift. Languages in Contact. Retrieved from: http://www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/documents/publications/Languages_in _Contact_2010_book.pdf.

Taylor, S. K. (2010). Beyond bilingual education: Multilingual language education in Nepal. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 138-154. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) (1995). TESOL statement on the role of bilingual education in the education of children in the United States. Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 661-669. Thomason, S., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. University of California Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/65j213pt. Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tonkin, H. (2003). The search for a global linguistic strategy. In J. Maurais, & M. A. Morris (Eds.), Languages in a

204

Bibliography

globalizing world (pp. 319-333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Treffers-Daller, J. (2009). Code-switching and transfer: An exploration of similarities and differences. In B. E. Bullock & A. J. Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 58-74). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tucker, G. R. (1999). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. UNDP (1999). Human Development Report 1999. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_1999_EN.pdf. UNESCO. (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education (Monographs on Fundamental Education-VIII). Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. —. (2003). Education in a multilingual world. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129728e.p df. —. (2007). Mother-tongue-based literacy programmes: Case studies of good practice in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001517/151793e.p df. —. (2011). Educational equity for children from diverse backgrounds: Mother-tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002122/212270e.p df. UNICEF (2009, August). Children in immigrant families in eight affluent countries: Their family, national and international context. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Center. Retrieved from

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

205

http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/uploads/gmgtopics/c hildren/2.AChildren_in_immigrant_families_in_eight_affl uent_countries_UNICEF_IRC.pdf. United States Congress. (1968, January 2). Congressional Record (Section 702 of Public Law 90-247, Bilingual Education Act). Washington, DC: Author. Van Gelderen, A, Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijin, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & et al. (2007). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 19-30. Verburg, P. A. (1998). Language and its functions: a historiccritical study of views concerning the functions of language from the pre-humanistic philology of Orleans to the rationalistic philology of Bopp. New York: John Benjamins. Voigt, K. (2001,). Japanese firms want English competencyfluency is seen as a way to internationalize industry. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/enUS/catalogs/databases/detail/p qdt.shtml. Volk, L. (2000, April). Education between globalization and local culture: A world without frontiers for students without traditions. Paper presented at the workshop, at Harvard University. Voloshinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waggoner, D. (1993). The growth of multilingualism and the need for bilingual education: What do we know so far? The Bilingual Research Journal, 17(1/2), 1-12.

206

Bibliography

Wagner, D. A. (1998). Putting second language first: Language and literacy learning in Morocco. In A. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 169-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wagner, D. A., Spratt, J. E., & Ezzaki, A. (1989). Does learning to read in a second language always put the child at a disadvantage? Some counterevidence from Morocco. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 31-48. Wallraff, B. (2000). What global language? The Atlantic Monthly, 286, 52-66. Wallerstein, I. (1997). The national and the universal: Can there be such a thing as world culture? In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, globalization and the world-system: Contemporary conditions for the representation of identity (pp. 91-105). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Walter, S. (2008). The language of instruction issue. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 129-146). Malden MA: Blackwell. Wardhaugh, R. (1970/2010). Anintroduction to th sociolinguistics (6 Ed.). West Sussex, UK: WileyBlackwell. Warschauer, K. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 51135. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.

Wells, A. S., Carnochan, S., Slayton, J., Allen, R. L., & Vasudeva, A. (1998). Globalization and educational change. In A. Hargreves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 322-348). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. West, M. (1959). At what age should language study begin? English Language Teaching, 14(1), 21-26.

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

207

Wigglesworth, G., & Simpson, J. (2008). The language learning environments of preschool children in Indigenous communities (pp.13-29). In J. Simpson & G. Wigglesworth (Eds.), Children’s language and multilingualism: Indigenous language use at home and school. London: Continuum International.

Woolard, K. (2004). Codeswitching. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 73-94). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Woolbert, C. H. (1920). Speech and the learning process. Quarterly Journal of Speech Education, 6(1), 55-75. World Bank. (1995). Priorities and strategies for education. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Wojtowicz, S. (2006). The role of literacy in second and third language acquisition. Proceedings of the CATESOL State Conference. Retrieved from: http://www.catesol.org/Wojtowicz.pdf. Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. —. (2007). The right to speak one’s own language: Reflections on theory and practice. Language Policy, 6(2), 203-224. Young, A. S. (1994) 20. Motivational state and process within the socio-linguistic context. Birmingham, AL: Aston University. Zakaria, F. (2009). The post-American world. New York: W. W. Norton. Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Maiden, MA: Blackwell. —. (2005). Premises, promises, and pitfalls of language socialization research in Latino families and communities. In A. C. Zentella (Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 1330). New York: Teachers College Press.

INDEX A academic, 4, 12, 13, 15, 53, 54, 55, 98, 106, 112, 117, 121, 126, 145, 168, 170, 180, 192, 203 aesthetic, 32, 127 Africa, 12, 17, 26, 39, 48, 49, 50, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 96, 111, 125, 132, 137, 173, 180, 188, 189, 200 African languages, 49, 50, 92, 108, 132, 180 Afrikaans, 48, 92, 132, 137 Agullo, 64, 65, 68, 71, 173 Akhar Thrah, 134 Alexander, 49, 50, 132, 173 Allen and Widdowson, 35 America, 32, 39, 90, 106, 131, 175, 177 American, 10, 14, 17, 42, 76, 79, 94, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 116, 118, 121, 139, 162, 167, 175, 182, 185, 188, 193, 198, 207 Amharic, 22, 49, 169 Ammon, 4, 87, 112, 173, 189, 194 Anders-Baer, 88, 95, 138, 173 Annamalai, 132, 173 Anshen, 21, 174 Anwar, 156, 174 Apachean speakers, 81 Appadurai, 10, 19, 174 Arabic, 17, 55, 56, 76, 78, 96, 107, 112, 127, 128, 130, 156, 157

Ard and Homberg, 78 Armenia, 52 around the world, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 60, 109, 111, 116, 123 Asia, 12, 13, 17, 39, 89, 93, 111, 112, 120, 182, 200, 204 attitudes, 17, 18, 27, 30, 32, 70, 88, 95, 101, 125, 135, 137, 157, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 175, 184, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198 Auer, 161, 174 Australia, 116 Austria-Hungary, 2 B Baker, 42, 59, 60, 98, 106, 154, 155, 170, 174 Ball, 56, 59, 174 Baltic States, 50, 52 Bamgbose, 48, 92, 154, 174 Bang, 27, 175 Bani-Shoraka, 160, 175 Barber, 9, 175 Bartelt, 175 Bartram, 165, 166, 175 Basque, 58, 130, 131, 178 Beck, 2, 87, 175 Berber speaking, 55 Bhabha, 175 Bialystok, 65, 70, 175 Biava, 175 bilingual education. See also multilingual education Bilingual Education Act, 104, 105, 205

210

bilingualism, 18, 20, 57, 61, 87, 88, 95, 96, 98, 101, 106, 109, 127, 130, 131, 134, 139, 143, 167, 169, 174, 177, 181, 183, 186, 190, 191, 196, 202, 203, 204 bilinguals, 20, 58, 59, 79, 83, 87, 95, 96, 109, 134, 149, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 185 Birch, 63, 64, 71, 175 Block, 116, 176, 177, 185, 191 Blom, 141, 143, 145, 146, 148, 158, 176 Blommaert, 12, 137, 176 Bokaamål, 143 Bonvillian, 26, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 82, 85, 170, 176 Botswana, 40, 89 bottom-up, 82 Bouffard & Sarkar, 66, 82 Britain, 2, 42, 116, 120, 192 British, 4, 17, 22, 26, 49, 91, 93, 94, 111, 116, 117, 120, 184, 187, 188 Britto, 128, 132, 133, 176 Brock-Utne, 40, 48, 49, 89, 92, 176 Broeder & Martyniuk, 20, 87, 95, 109, 113 Broselow, 76, 84, 177 Brown, 3, 30, 66, 67, 68, 69, 87, 103, 177 Brunelle, 134, 135, 177 Brysk, 4, 177 Buhler, 28, 31, 177 Burt, 71, 74, 78, 161, 177, 181 Burundi, 40, 89 Butler & Iino, 116, 117 Byelorussians, 52

Index

C Cambodia, 39, 89, 120, 197 Cameron, 99, 100, 114, 116, 176, 177, 185, 191 Cameroon, 40, 49, 89 Canada, 17, 83, 96, 98, 116, 130 Canagarajah, 96, 113, 117, 162, 178, 193 capitalism, 1, 5, 6, 111, 175 Catalan, 13, 59, 113, 130 Catalonia, 58, 137 Cenoz, 59, 178, 180 Census, 91, 100, 106 central languages, 11, 117 ceremonial, 31, 148 Chana, 155, 157, 178 Chang, 77, 178 Cherokee Nation, 101 China, 112, 120 Chinese, 11, 22, 80, 88, 94, 107, 108, 120, 140, 153, 157, 192 Chomsky, 21, 26, 178 Citrin, 101, 106, 107, 178 civil rights, 103 Clyne, 66, 179, 192 CNN, 112 code mixing, 147 code-switching, 18, 73, 134, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 174, 175, 178, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199, 202, 204 colonization, 1, 17, 94, 111, 115, 119 Communicative Language Teaching, 14, 121 conative, 28, 31 Congressional Record—Senate, 179

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

Conrad, 68, 112, 179 Constitution, 42, 45, 46, 102, 103, 105, 179 contemporary world, 115, 119 contextualization, 144, 145, 160 contrastive analysis, 65, 85, 182 Conway, 6, 179 Cook, 69, 70, 74, 179 Corder, 64, 173, 179 corporations, 5, 7, 114, 116 Council of Europe, 51, 52, 53, 136, 179 Crawford, 14, 87, 95, 100, 106, 179 CRED, 47, 178 cross-cultural, 16, 87, 97, 109, 171 cross-linguistic influence, 71, 73, 74, 75, 78, 83 Crystal, 12, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 179 Cuba, 130 cultural heritage, 171 Cummins, 5, 8, 42, 46, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 65, 87, 98, 109, 123, 154, 170, 180 D Dalby, 117, 119, 180 de Bot, 73, 180 De Fina, 156, 180 De Silva, 133, 180 de Swaan, 11, 12, 14, 117, 181 Desai, 48, 176, 180 dialects, 21, 40, 90, 132, 133, 134, 142, 143, 144, 145, 153, 162 diglossia, 17, 88, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136,

211

147, 148, 176, 183, 188, 193, 195 diglossic communities, 137, 148 diglossic situation, 126, 127, 129, 133 Dilans, 51, 181 diverse student populations, 18 Dolby, 20, 95, 96, 100, 109, 170, 181 dominant, 13, 14, 25, 40, 44, 57, 89, 90, 111, 114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 132, 138, 156 Draper, 107, 181 Dressler, 72, 82, 181, 184 Dubner, 13, 20, 181 Duderstadt, 3, 7, 181 Dulay, 71, 74, 78, 181 Dunkel, 69, 70, 181 Duran, 141, 181 Dutch, 68, 79, 98, 166 Dutcher, 60, 98, 170, 182 Dynamic interferences, 73 E Earnest, 22, 182 Eastern Cham, 134, 135, 177 Egyptian, 76 Ellinger, 122 English Plus, 108, 179 English-only, 14, 101, 102, 107, 121, 126 English-speaking, 14, 98, 104, 107, 116, 120, 121, 137, 189 Epstein, 2, 4, 5, 6, 87, 182 Erni, 14, 182 Ervin-Tripp, 145, 182 ESL programs, 104 Ethiopian, 54, 169, 202 Eurobarometer, 113 European Union, 51, 93

212

Eurostat, 93, 182 expressive, 28, 31, 128, 157 F Faghih, 74, 75, 182 Featherstone, 9, 182, 196, 198 Ferguson, 17, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 134, 157, 182 FIFA, 11 Fillerup, 104, 105, 106, 182 Finnish, 77 Fishman, 117, 129, 130, 131, 133, 157, 183 Fitzsimons, 6, 183 footing, 142, 143, 144, 158, 159 foreign language, 44, 51, 52, 66, 76, 93, 102, 103, 113, 122, 165, 166, 167, 184, 189, 191, 198, 201 formal, 15, 71, 83, 84, 96, 121, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 138, 142, 143, 144, 149, 150, 154, 155 forms and functions, 15, 21, 23, 36 Francis, 42, 48, 53, 56, 60, 66, 67, 70, 73, 83, 85, 92, 94, 109, 126, 131, 132, 137, 183 Freed, 7, 19, 183 French, 13, 17, 39, 49, 50, 55, 58, 89, 92, 96, 98, 108, 112, 120, 127, 130, 132, 136, 140, 152, 157, 176, 202 Funabashi, 118, 120, 123, 183 G Gaelic, 13, 113 Gafaranga, 161, 183

Index

Garcia, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 184 Gardner, 69, 165, 183 Gass, 63, 65, 71, 73, 174, 175, 177, 179, 184, 186, 189, 190, 199, 200 General Social Survey, 166 Genesee, 61, 72, 88, 95, 96, 97, 99, 117, 118, 171, 184 Genesee & Cloud, 171 Genesee and Cloud, 97 Gerena, 88, 95, 184 German, 13, 28, 79, 95, 103, 108, 128, 130, 136, 147, 149, 162, 166, 173 Gibbons, 157, 184 Giddens, 4, 87, 175, 184 Gil, 15, 121, 184 Gil & Najar, 15, 121 GilLacruz, 59, 184 GilLacruz & GilLacruz, 59 glasnost, 1 global market, 7, 119 globalization, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 87, 88, 94, 95, 99, 108, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 139, 174, 175, 176, 181, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 196, 198, 201, 205, 206, 207 globalized world, 1, 6, 9, 18, 57, 88, 94, 95, 109, 170, 173 Gnanasundaram, 24, 37, 186 Goffman, 141, 142, 143, 159, 184 Graddol, 111, 113, 184 Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale, 130 Gramsci, 119, 185 Gray, 112, 113, 114, 116, 185

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

Great Britain, 112 Greek, 128, 130, 156 Green, 27, 28, 101, 106, 107, 178, 185 Grimes, 96, 185 Grosjean, 73, 185 Guarani, 129, 131 Gumperz, 134, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 158, 159, 160, 161, 176, 185, 188 Gupta, 43, 45, 91, 186 H Hagboldt, 71, 186 Hakuta, 53, 84, 85, 186 Hall, 9, 25, 186, 193, 195 Halliday, 23, 29, 30, 31, 35, 186 Hamel, 20, 186 Harvey, 7, 186 Haugen, 42, 187 Hawaii, 22, 183 Hebrew, 54, 130, 192 Held, 2, 4, 6, 19, 187, 193 Held & McGrew, 6 Heller, 140, 153, 174, 187, 193 heterogenization, 4, 9, 10, 15, 19 heuristic, 29 Higgins, 87, 125, 137, 187 Hindi, 11, 17, 22, 27, 40, 42, 43, 44, 88, 89, 91, 95, 96, 128, 132, 136, 142, 144, 145, 147, 149, 153 Hjarvard, 13, 114, 187 Hokkien, 140 Holly, 114, 119, 187 homogenization, 4, 9, 10, 15, 19, 87 Hong Kong, 17, 96, 112, 121, 157, 184 Hopkins, 14, 187, 206

213

Horn, 22, 23, 25, 187 Hornberger, 43, 91, 131, 177, 187, 190 Hornberger & Vaish, 43 Hornberger and Vaish, 44, 91 Horner, 97, 162, 188, 193 Hornsby, 51, 52, 188 Hornsby & Agarin, 51, 52 Hothi, 2, 7, 188 Howe, 5, 87, 94, 96, 113, 122, 170, 188 Howe & Lisi, 5, 87, 94, 96, 113, 122, 170 Hudelson, 188 Hudson, 128, 188 human rights, 2, 4, 13, 20, 196, 197, 201 Hymes, 142, 176, 185, 188 Hymes & Gumperz, 142 I imaginative, 30, 104 immigrants, 8, 14, 55, 100, 104, 107, 121, 155, 202 India, 10, 17, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 120, 125, 129, 132, 142, 145, 147, 153, 156, 173, 179, 180, 187, 193, 194 Indigenous, 13, 26, 131, 134, 182, 197, 201, 207 informal, 128, 132, 149, 155 information technology, 1, 88 instrumental, 29 interactional, 29, 116, 149, 151, 159, 160, 164 intercultural communication, 93 interlanguage, 64, 65, 70, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 175, 181, 189

214

international, 2, 12, 13, 16, 18, 98, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119, 138, 140, 170, 176, 177, 196, 197, 201, 204 international community, 18, 170 intralingual, 84 Iraqi, 76 IsiZulu, 26, 48, 92 Italian, 108, 156, 158 J Jakobson, 28, 188 James, 75, 188 Jameson, 2, 113, 188 Japanese, 7, 35, 75, 95, 108, 114, 118, 145, 177, 189, 190, 195, 205 Jarvis, 77, 78, 188 Jarvis & Odlin, 78 Jhingran, 44, 189 Jiang, 63, 74, 77, 79, 189 Johnson, 11, 26, 189 Jorden & Noda, 35 Jordens, 189 K Kachru, 112, 119, 189 Kamwangamalu, 40, 49, 57, 89, 189 Kaplan, 114, 115, 189 Kellerman, 64, 72, 190 Khubchandani, 42, 91, 92, 190 Kim, 122, 190 King, 7, 167, 169, 186, 190, 206 Kiswahili, 49 Klein, 135, 190 Koda, 63, 65, 72, 190 Koizumi, 74, 75, 190

Index

Korean, 77, 79, 80, 107, 108, 168, 190, 192 Krashen, 42, 74, 99, 190 Kubota, 93, 118, 191 Kumaravadivelu, 3, 5, 9, 99, 100, 191 Kurdish, 13, 113 L L1, 51, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 129, 131, 169, 197 L2, 48, 53, 56, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 137, 161, 175, 197 Labov, 161, 191 Lakshmanan, 81, 200 Lambert, 73, 83, 191 language alternation, 141, 143, 158, 159, 160, 161, 183 language choice, 145, 148, 149, 156, 157, 159, 187 language community, 25, 43, 126 language endangerment, 119 language forms and functions, 15, 22 language policy, 39, 44, 48, 51, 52, 53, 56, 60, 89, 92, 94, 100, 135, 179, 187, 190, 196, 198, 199, 202 language transfer, 16, 46, 65, 71, 72, 73, 75, 85, 86, 174, 188, 190 later-acquired language, 84, 96 Latin, 127, 134, 156, 177 Latvia, 50, 51, 52, 181, 191, 199 Latvian, 50, 51, 52 Lau v. Nichols, 191

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

Lau vs. Nichols, 105 Lazdina, 52, 191 Lazdina and Marten, 52 Lee, 75, 163, 169, 191 Leitner, 12, 192 Lems, 63, 65, 72, 82, 192 Lems, Miller, & Soro, 63, 65, 72 Levin, 5, 54, 88, 95, 192 Li, 149, 159, 192 Lin, 121, 173, 192 Lindholm-Leary, 88, 95, 192 Lindholm-Leary & Ferrante, 88, 95 lingua-franca, 17, 40, 90, 96 linguistic behaviour, 18, 39, 89 linguistic changes, 25, 126 linguistic knowledge, 64, 65, 74 Linse, 168, 192 literacy, 16, 41, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 84, 98, 101, 126, 180, 181, 184, 188, 193, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208 Lithuania, 52 Lithuanian, 52, 53 Liv, 51 LoCastro, 192 logical, 7, 32, 72, 118, 153 London, 151, 160, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 191, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 207 Lu, 96, 97, 162, 188, 193 Lu and Horner, 96 Luxembourg, 17, 93, 96, 135, 136, 182, 197 Luxembourgish, 135, 136 M Malay, 17, 94, 96, 140, 152

215

Malaysia, 17, 96, 112, 120, 163 Mali, 40, 89 Malinowski, 27, 193 Mandarin, 17, 96, 140, 153 markedness, 72, 79, 147, 159 markets, 7, 94, 118, 135, 136 Matiki, 129, 131, 133, 193 Maurais, 11, 193, 203 May, 35, 39, 89, 100, 101, 105, 179, 181, 190, 193 McArthur, 152, 156, 193 McClure & McClure, 144 McConnell, 120, 173, 193 McDonald, 9, 10 McGrew, 2, 4, 6, 11, 19, 187, 193 medium of instruction, 14, 17, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 57, 115, 126, 137 metaphorical, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 158, 159, 161 metaphorical switching, 141, 146, 161 Meyer vs. Nebraska, 102 Ming, 64, 66, 74, 80, 194 minority and indigenous children, 59 minority and indigenous languages, 40, 90 missionaries, 120 Miyoshi, 7, 8, 188, 194 Modiano, 114, 194 Mohanty, 42, 43, 180, 194, 201 Mohd-Asraf, 119, 194 monolingualism, 16, 18, 20, 51, 87, 89, 95, 107, 109 monolinguals, 20, 87, 95, 96, 109, 135 Montreal, 140 Moore, 164, 194 Morgan, 66, 69, 194

216

Index

Morocco, 56, 206 morphological, 16, 76, 77, 78, 145 morphologically-conditioned, 76 mother-tongue, 15, 16, 20, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 74, 76, 84, 85, 89, 90, 92, 94, 97, 98, 115, 130, 131, 136, 138, 170, 179, 194, 203 mother-tongue education. See mother-tongue instruction mother-tongue instruction, 42, 47, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 136 multi-dimensional, 3, 4 multilingual education, 18, 53, 91, 99, 171, 174, 178, 201, 204 multilingual practices, 18, 93, 94, 101, 105, 106, 108, 171 multilingualism, 11, 17, 18, 20, 45, 57, 87, 88, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 104, 106, 108, 109, 117, 138, 139, 166, 170, 184, 197, 200, 206, 207 multilinguals, 20, 87, 95, 96, 109, 135, 139, 152, 154 multinational, 7, 116 Murray, 93, 113, 194 Myers-Scotton, 144, 146, 149, 150, 159, 162, 194 Myles, 71, 74, 194

native language, 12, 20, 72, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85, 106, 113, 115, 126, 131, 161, 188 native-like competency, 63 NATO, 1 Navajo, 22, 130, 139, 182 NCERT, 44, 45, 91, 194 NCERT Position Paper, 44 NCF, 46, 47, 195 negative transfer, 63, 65, 70, 73, 84 neo-liberalism, 6 Nepal, 17, 45, 46, 47, 57, 178, 195, 203 Nercissians, 133, 137, 195 Neufeld, 67, 68, 195 New York, 99, 130, 143, 152, 156, 163, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208 New Zealand, 95, 98 Nicholas, 103, 105, 106, 118, 195 Niger, 40, 89 Nigeria, 17, 96, 97, 153 Nilep, 142, 147, 154, 155, 195 Nishimura, 144, 195 non-native, 39, 80, 81, 89, 113, 161, 189 Norwegian, 42, 143

N

O

national language, 49, 50, 114, 118, 126, 127, 131, 135, 140 nation-states, 4, 5, 7, 8, 39, 40, 41, 42, 50, 57, 89, 90, 114, 119, 120

Odlin, 64, 72, 77, 78, 83, 188, 195 Official English, 106, 107, 178, 181, 198

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

official language, 14, 39, 40, 51, 52, 58, 89, 93, 98, 100, 102, 107, 112, 114, 120, 131, 167, 170, 183 official languages, 12, 17, 41, 42, 50, 91, 92, 96, 140 Oladejo, 168, 195 Oskamp, 165, 195 Ovando & Combs, 59, 60, 87, 98, 170

217

practical, 27, 32, 84, 93, 190, 200 pragmatic, 16, 27, 76, 80, 161, 192 Pritchard, 82, 85, 197 Pritchard & O’Hara, 82, 85 professional development, 20 prosodic variation, 141 Prusher, 120, 197 Q

P Pakistan, 156 Pali, 156 Papua New Guinea, 125 Paradis, 73, 196 Park, 168, 196 Park and Ablemann, 168 Pavlenko, 51, 52, 196 Pennycook, 120, 196 perestroika, 1 peripheral languages, 11 personalization vs. objectivization, 158 phatic communion, 27 Phi Delta Kappa, 167, 169, 196 Phillipson, 20, 42, 59, 98, 114, 115, 118, 123, 180, 196, 201 phonological, 16, 76, 77, 78, 84, 145 phonological structure, 77 Pieterse, 6, 10, 19, 196 Pinker, 26, 197 pluralingualism, 93, 96 policy makers, 5, 41, 42, 44, 52, 98, 109, 135 Poplack, 73, 151, 197 Portuguese, 17, 49, 50, 92, 96, 132 positive transfer, 63, 65

Quebec, 50, 153, 199 Quranic, 55 R Ranamål, 143, 145 Redinger, 135, 197 Reima, 66, 84, 197 representational, 28, 29, 30, 177 revitalization, 13, 114, 130, 134, 177, 197 Reyhner, 13, 20, 94, 123, 137, 197, 200 rhetorical, 81, 143, 155, 175 Ricento, 107, 198 Rig Veda, 1 rights-and-obligations, 144, 150 ritual barriers, 145 Ritzer, 9, 19, 198 Robertson, 2, 3, 6, 7, 196, 198 Romaine, 130, 131, 144, 198 Roy-Campbell, 88, 93, 100, 106, 108, 198 Rubdy, 94, 140, 198 Ruiz, 39, 89, 198 Russian, 11, 13, 17, 22, 28, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 96, 181 Rwanda, 40, 89

218

S Sanskrit, 1, 134, 156 Sapir, 24, 26, 37, 198 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, 26 Sapon, 76, 199 Sasaki, 82, 199 Savignon, 120, 199 Scarcella, 81, 199 scenarios, 57, 63, 106 Schievella, 31, 199 Schiffman, 129, 130, 199 Schmid, 50, 51, 199 Schmid, Zepa, & Snipe, 50, 51 Scholte, 2, 4, 199 Scots, 13, 113 Sebba, 151, 160, 199 second language acquisition, 16, 65, 71, 72, 73, 76, 84, 85, 86, 167, 175, 181, 190, 195, 199 second language learners, 16, 63, 64, 66, 74, 75, 82, 83, 86, 164 Selinker, 63, 64, 65, 71, 73, 81, 174, 175, 177, 179, 184, 186, 189, 190, 199, 200 semantic, 16, 31, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 145, 158 Shang, 168, 200 Shohamy, 39, 53, 54, 88, 89, 95, 192, 200 Singapore, 17, 94, 96, 112, 120, 140, 187, 198 Singh, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, 20, 42, 47, 48, 60, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 109, 113, 121, 122, 123, 137, 171, 197, 200 Singlish, 94 Situational, 147 Skutnabb-Kangas, 20, 43, 45, 46, 57, 59, 87, 88, 91, 94, 98,

Index

114, 115, 117, 123, 173, 180, 201 Slaughter, 112, 201 Smith, 6, 7, 112, 201 Snow, 67, 201 social domains, 125, 129, 132 sociocultural, 85, 142, 159, 195 sociolinguistic, 11, 14, 60, 98, 145, 157, 174, 183, 193 South Korea, 93, 112, 120, 182, 196 South Korean, 76, 114 Soviet Union, 1, 50, 131 Spanish, 17, 58, 78, 81, 82, 88, 96, 102, 107, 108, 112, 114, 129, 130, 137, 147, 149, 152, 154, 164, 197 Sparks and Ganschow, 76 Spolsky, 14, 39, 54, 60, 87, 88, 89, 95, 99, 100, 102, 103, 106, 107, 109, 121, 170, 192, 196, 201, 206 static interference, 73 Stavans, 169, 202 Steger, 2, 6, 202 Steig, 66, 202 Stewart, 133, 202 Stroud, 160, 202 Suarez-Orozco, 2, 6, 109, 170, 202 Sullivan, 202 Sutherland, 117, 119, 202 Swain, 14, 58, 85, 115, 180, 202, 203 Swedish, 77 Swiss, 93, 114, 128, 130 Switzerland, 93, 114, 130, 181, 194 syntactic, 16, 76, 78, 145

Multilingual Trends in a Globalized World: Prospects and Challenges

T Tagliabue, 114, 203 Taiwan, 80, 112, 120, 195 Taiwanese, 81, 167, 200 Tamburelli, 133, 203 Tamil, 43, 128, 131, 140, 176, 193 Tanzania, 49, 176, 198 target language, 14, 16, 58, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 85, 86, 115, 163, 166 Taylor, 47, 203 TESOL, 105, 179, 181, 192, 195, 198, 203, 206 textual, 30, 31 Thomas & Collier, 53, 54, 60, 88, 95 Thomason, 74, 203 Tomlinson, 4, 5, 203 Tonkin, 12, 14, 114, 203 top down and bottom up, 82 Top-down, 82 transcultural, 12, 138, 196 Translingualism, 97, 162 transnational corporations, 7, 8, 113 Treffers-Daller, 73, 151, 204 Tucker, 20, 87, 95, 96, 109, 204 U Ujamma, 49 Ukrainians, 52 UNDP Report, 8 UNESCO, 16, 20, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 56, 57, 88, 89, 90, 95, 109, 136, 204 UNICEF, 8, 204, 205 United States, 9, 14, 54, 80, 81, 88, 89, 95, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 107, 108, 111, 112, 116,

219

118, 120, 121, 123, 145, 147, 162, 167, 178, 198, 202, 203, 205 unmarkedness, 147 Urdu, 156, 174 V Van Gelderen, 205 Vashudhav Kutumbkam, 1 Verburg, 24, 205 vernaculars, 40, 90, 126, 137 Vietnam, 39, 89, 112, 134 Vietnamese, 108, 120, 134, 135, 202 Voigt, 114, 205 Volk, 205 Voloshinov, 205 Vygotsky, 58, 205 W Waggoner, 106, 206 Wagner, 42, 55, 56, 206 Wakka-Wakka, 11 Wallerstein, 2, 206 Wallraff, 117, 206 Walter, 42, 49, 60, 206 Wardhaugh, 75, 206 WARSAW PACT, 1 Warschauer, 99, 100, 113, 206 Weinreich, 141, 206 Wells, 7, 206 Welsh, 13, 113 West, 69, 101, 184, 206, 207 Wigglesworth, 154, 207 Wojtowicz, 56, 207 Woolard, 141, 144, 207 Woolbert, 66, 67, 69, 207 World Bank, 60, 97, 182, 207

220

Index

World War, 39, 89, 101, 102, 103 worldwide, 40, 88, 90, 116, 201 Wright, 13, 14, 39, 88, 89, 98, 99, 114, 131, 170, 207

Y

X

Z

Xhosa, 48

Zakaria, 3, 5, 87, 99, 207 Zentella, 143, 144, 155, 208

Yiddish, 130 Yoruba, 152 Young, 166, 207