Oped»
To speak or not to speak?
SEP 08 -
The famous British linguist David Crystal estimates that more than two billion people speak English around the world. He further claims that this number is increasing every year because people have to learn English in order to stay up-to-date with the world events. In general, we learn English not because it is the world’s largest language but because it is a huge social and economic resource. Especially people from developing economies are learning English not because it is the language of the United Kingdom, America or Australia, but because we assume that English develops our lifestyle, helps us get jobs and enriches our knowledge. In this regard, another British linguist and researcher David Graddol in his book The Future of English claims that 19th century British colonialism and 20th century American capitalism and culture are the two fundamental reasons for the establishment of English as a world language. Along the same lines, Braj Kachru, an India-born applied linguist, describes English as a gateway to economic prosperity. Due to this perceived materialistic charisma of the English language, people from developing economies assume that learning English is a must.
Although there are a number of benefits to learning English, we should not ignore the fact that its spread has had serious socio-economic and political ramifications, not only in the developing countries, but developed countries as well. One line of argument blames English language for increasing the gap between haves and have-nots. If we look back to the history of English in Nepal, it has traditionally been the language of the affluent. The Rana’s protection of English as the language of rulers, and the Panchayat’s covert willingness to make it the language of elites clearly divided the society into two groups: the dominant English-literates and the dominated English-illiterates. Moreover, after the restoration of democracy, English became the language of the expensive private schools, affordable only to affluent families. This clearly indicates that the English language has not been a mark of social equality in Nepal; rather it has given the elite the power to dominate the whole society.
But people from different language communities are gradually becoming aware of their vanishing lingual identities as well as different universal declarations (for example, the Declaration of Human Rights). Education in native tongue is also being seen as a basic human right. Realising this, Nepal has already introduced Education for All (EFA) programme in which mother-tongue education is a major focus.
Many human rights activists and indigenous community leaders have claimed that English Language Teaching, especially in early schooling, marginalises the ethno-indigenous cultures and language, and creates inequality between the rich and poor. Despite the long domination of the Nepali language, now English has been introduced from grade one in schools without any intensive research. It has been introduced because policymakers from elite groups assume that English is important in this modern age. However, they have never looked at the problems children face learning English from such an early age. They are not serious about the vanishing local language and culture. Although there is the provision of mother-tongue education, due to the socio-economic power ascribed to English, innocent children and parents are motivated to learn English while forgetting their own ethno-linguistic identity— which could have serious future economic and political implications.
Paradoxically, the focus of developed countries has shifted to producing competent multilingual manpower. They have seen that a multilingual employee is more competent than one who only speaks English. However, in Nepal, we are trying to make our students monolingual speakers of English through the overemphasis on the language in our education system. This will of course be a serious disadvantage for forthcoming generations. This indicates the urgent need for meaningful discussion on the policy of English language teaching in Nepal and in other developing economies.
Another issue which has not been explored so far is whether teaching in English makes Nepali students more amenable to believing certain worldviews. We thus need to ask ourselves: Do we want to follow the methods developed in the West or create our own methods to fit Nepal’s context? Are we promoting critical thinking or just making students parrot English grammar? Do our textbooks address learners’ identities, cultures and values or only borrow ‘foreign’ ones? Are we teaching English in isolation or by linking it with local and global issues? These questions have no definite answers. However, they help us decide how to embed English education in the diverse context of Nepal.
With the global spread of English, not only is the population of English speakers increasing but also the varieties of English. In this context, we should contemplate whether we should develop a Nepali English. How feasible would it be to use this as a medium of instruction in schools? At this moment, I hypothesise that one day we will have a separate variety of English. This may emerge with the publication of more textbooks and material in Nepal by local authors and writers instead of importing of books from abroad.
In this regard Numa Markee, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, argues that Nepali applied linguists and English teachers should take a leading role in framing the discussion of language issues. In particular, “what (quasi) official role (if any) should English play in relation to indigenous Nepali languages, and in particular sectors of the economy like education, science, business, and tourism?”
The above discussion suggests that there is an urgent need for a comprehensive survey of language issues in Nepal, closely examining the role of English in education and the social lives of people. English instructors should not only be teachers, they have a social responsibility to address the beliefs
and values of learners. We should
move beyond the English-Only emphasis to English-With-Other-Languages approach. Professor Makee emphasises the need for discussions on appropriate measures to protect the country’s linguistic and cultural heritage from the potential “killer” characteristics of English. Otherwise, as 19th century philosopher Antonio Gramsci says, English will only become the symbol of ‘hegemony’.
(The author researches and writes on the issue of English in multilingual contexts, and ethno-linguistic and cultural identity)
pphyak@gmail.com
Posted on: 2010-09-09 08:42
Headlines
Advertisements
