LANGUAGE POLICY IN A MULTILINGUAL COUNTRY

SOCIOLINGUISTICS

MID TERM TEST

LECTURER:

Prof.Diemroh Ihsan, MA, PhD.

Sary Silvhiany, S.Pd.,M.Pd.,M.A.

by

Diana luspa

20072006029

Department of Language Education

Graduate School Sriwijaya University

2008

1

LANGUAGE POLICY IN A MULTILINGUAL COUNTRY

Introduction

In a multilingual country, the number newcomers-immigrants and transborder

commuter- is increasing. People encounter communication problems to interact

among others. This is a figure that conjures up a great deal of anxiety and

subsequently raises questions regarding the integration of the newcomers, particularly

from a linguistic standpoint. Language then is not only a means of communication; it

is also ‘an instrument of power’ to deal with the interferences of wider

communication.

Language development is multidimensional and has many facets. Some

multilingual countries have their national languages which they hold up as symbol of

unity and linguistics identity. However, the national language is not as a medium of

instruction for scholarly discourse. Symbolism takes priority over use in some

domain but not in others.

Therefore, since the phenomena is probably cause language shift and even

language loss of a linguistic identity. Multilingual governments evoke language

policy to their multilingual society. For example, the citizen must hold their national

language as their national identity, set the official language used in official setting,

and determine on what language should be taught at school.

This should be formulated since multilingual competence can not be ignored

towards the multilingual setting. It is because the influence of economic and political

developments most often requires the practitioners posses more than one language.

In this paper, I would like to explore research discussing government language

policy in a multilingual country. Furthermore to see the contribution of the language

policy in holding the national and official language and its attempt to face language

demand for factual interaction.

2

Anthology of the articles

The first articles I would like to share is written by Fernan Fehlen (2002).

This paper focuses on two aspects : the study of the interference between

Letzeburgesh on the one hand and French, German and English on the other. In order

to properly understand the linguistic situation in Luxembourg, we must take into

account Luxembourg’s geographical position, which places it on the linguistic border

that cuts Western Europe more or less along the length of the river Rhine in a

Germanic and Romance area. Here are some of the findings for the Luxembourgish

nationals: Lëtzebuergesch is of course the language of Luxembourgers, but 1% of

them can’t speak it. It is the mother tongue of only 85% of them. Luxembourgers are

multilingual, but their linguistic competencies depend on social position, age and also

the region of the country.

In general more Luxembourgers speak better French than ever, as they are

going to school longer and as they have more opportunities to communicate in that

language. This is not true for most elderly and the less educated people, who often are

forced to use French which they consider a foreign language. Luxembourgers also

speak better German, as they are immersed by German mass media, especially

television. So Lëtzebuergesch is deeply penetrated by German due to the lack of

distance between these two languages. Even if functionally standard-Lëtzebuergesch

has undoubtedly the status of a language, linguistically it is moving closer to standard

German. While French dominates some sectors of professional life and the

communication between the established and the newcomers, Lëtzeburgesch is

generally accepted as the language of integration and courses in Lëtzebuergesch are

becoming more popular with foreigners, who are choosing to stay in Luxembourg.

Since 1848 a policy of bilingual instruction has been followed, with German

predominating in the lower and French in the higher classes. At the age of six the

pupils start learning to read and write in German and at the end of the second class

they begin with French.

The climax of this evolution was the law of 1984:Lëtzebuergesch was declared

the national language of Luxembourg; French and German were accepted as

administrative languages, while French was confirmed as the language of the law. In

3

this case the government policy helps to keep their national language, but still

consider the linguistic competence towards their multilingual country.

The second article entitled Language Choice in an acutely Multilingual

Society in Papua New Guinea is written by Geoff P.Smith (1995). The writer presents

the background situation showing how language diversity has led to the emergence of

various languages of wider communication over the last century. Then the

government policy in education and administration is also reviewed. Finally, a

promising tertiary program in Communication for development at the Papua New

Guinea University of technology is described.

Melanesia is an area in the south-west Pacific characterized by extreme

linguistic diversity. Since the definition of Melanesia is based on fundamentally

racial criteria, its boundaries include the independent states of Papua New Guinea. It

possesses a high degree of multilingualism. Firstly, colonial power established

administrations based on the language of the metropolitan power. The western half of

the island was colonized by the Dutch in 1828, while Britain and Germany occupied

the remainder of the Island. The whole of the eastern part of New Guinea came under

Australian administration in the second decade of the 20 th century, while Dutch New

Guinea became the Indonesian province of Irian jaya in 1963. Thus, English, French,

German and Dutch and more recently Bahasa Indonesia came to be spoken in the

region.

Papua New Guinea, with over 850 indigenous languages is an interesting case

to study how a recently independent country (1975) deals with extreme linguistic

diversity. According to the constitution, there are three national languages, English,

Tok Pisin and Hiri Motu, although none is designed as the official language. English

is the official language of most formal education, and is widely respected as both a

key to employment opportunities and a means of communicating with the outside

world. Hiri motu was used by the Australian administration, especially the police, as

a lingua franca in papua, and, although the number of speakers was considerably less

than Tok Pisin, it was retained as a national language after independence largely for

political reason.

But since Children were seen to be losing their cultural identity especially

their language identity, in a major policy initiative issued a program which restored a

greater role for cultural identity in education, including vernacular literacy program.

It was hoped that the child would make the transition to English as lingua franca.

4

Moreover, in the government primary schools, the English-only policy is still

officially in operation, although in practice, it appears that more and more Tok Pisin is

being used in the earlier grades.

The article written by Nikhat Shameem discusses about language attitude in

multilingual primary schools in Fiji and the school policy towards the multilingualism

might encounter by the children. Fiji is a multilingual country in the South Pacific

with English, Fijian and Hindi being the official languages. As is inevitable in

multilingual societies, language use is functional with Fiji Hindi and Fijian being the

mother tongues of the two main ethnic groups in the country, the Indo-Fijians and the

Fijians. English, because of Fiji’s colonial history, is a powerful language of choice as

language of instruction in Fiji schools and as the language of public systems,

bureaucracy, law courts and parliament. It is also the preferred language of literacy for

Indo-Fijians, who form nearly half of Fiji’s population. Most Indo-Fijians do not read

or write Standard Hindi well. Fiji Hindi is a pre-literate language of low status within

the Indo-Fijian community and is used only for informal, communicative purposes.

Language attitudes in the nation’s education system influence the ways in which

language is taught and used in Fiji’s classrooms. This article reports on attitudes

towards languages in Indo-Fijian education by reporting on research conducted in

eight primary schools in Fiji. It looks specifically at the language attitudes of the

school policy makers: the head teachers and class teachers, and of 48 Indo-Fijian

primary school children. Language attitudes shape language behavior and this

inevitably affects language proficiency and use in subsequent generations, particularly

when attitudes to language are shaped by political and social events, and driven by

economic need in a diglossic nation like Fiji.

However, in multilingual communities, the different motivations to learn each

language would depend on the perceived usefulness of each and the functions each

fulfils for the individual and the society. Instrumental motivation is particularly

important for Indo-Fijians in Fiji who perceive English language study as the key to

economic and educational advancement and an escape from the political, social and

racial problems resulting from the three coups.

Finally, headteachers and teachers proposed some statements if students to

achieve academic success and get good jobs, English must be taught monolingually,

English must be taught as early as possible in the school system, English must be

5

taught as much as possible; Students need to have a teacher of English who uses it as

their mother tongue.

Language policy towards the multilingualism is also studied by Linda B.

Akanbi in her article entitled Promoting Literacy Development in a Multilingual

Society: The South Africa Language in Education Policy.

On her recent trip to South Africa as a member of the People to People

Ambassador Program’s Literacy and Reading Education Delegation to that country,

she had the occasion to attend a briefing by the Chief Education Specialist, Mr.

Mandelo Maseko, from the South Africa Ministry of Education, to make site visits to

Project Literacy, the University of South Africa (UNISA), the Shine Center, the

University of Cape Town, and the Center for Early Childhood Development, among

other places.  She learned first-hand the challenges that the country faces as it strives

to promote a culture of reading while at the same time promote multilingualism. 

While each site visited is worthy of its own topic, she limits the article to a discussion

of South Africa’s Language in Education Policy According to one of the architects of

the Language in Education Policy, Dr. Carol Bloch of the University of Cape Town,

the impetus for the policy came from the passion of the Afrikaners not wanting to give

up their language to English (as so frequently happens when an African nation gains

its independence--English becoming the lingua franca). Also this policy is the

culmination of a curriculum innovation project designed to promote African language

development and multilingualism. But since even in a classroom, there is a lack of

native language speaking subject advisors to the education department because of

rapid changes of wider communication.

However, there are few literacy English specialists in African continent. This

situation influences the language education policy to promote the literacy in their

multilingual society: learners have the right to be taught in the language of their

choices; the governing body of a school may decide on the language policy of the

school, schools must provide for more than one language of teaching where

necessary. In Grade 3 upwards: Two approved languages; one has to be an official

language. Grades 5-9: One of the two approved languages taken must be passed.

Grades 10-12: Two languages must be passed and one of these must be an official

language.

South Africa has strong commitment to literacy development in all of its

official languages and for the positive steps that are currently underway to address the

6

myriad of issues surrounding effective implementation of their Language Policy in

Education.  It certainly puts what the schools in the U. S. are facing in terms of

teaching English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) or English Language Learners

(ELL) into perspective. Yet there are some commonalities. I think there are policy

implications for countries around the globe (including the U.S.) that are facing similar

challenges regarding language diversity in school classrooms.  Ways need to be

sought to make these vital connections.

In Harmut Harberland’s article about Domains and domain loss, in my opinion

this is also a language policy attempt to sort out different areas of language use in

multilingual societies, which are relevant for language choice. In Fishman’s version,

domains were considered as theoretical constructs that can explain language choice

which were supposed to be a more powerful explanatory tool than more obvious (and

observable) parameters like topic, place (setting) and interlocutor. In order to

identify “disastrous” bilingual situations, he distinguished at least

eight types of these situations according to the distribution of

several languages (standard and dialect) across different situations

of language use.

The family German dialectThe playground and street German dialectThe school language of instruction Standard ItalianSubject of instruction Standard ItalianLanguage of breaks and conversation Standard ItalianThe church Standard GermanLiterature Standard ItalianThe press Standard Italian, possibly Standard GermanThe military Standard ItalianThe courts Standard ItalianGovernmental administration Standard Italian

However, the fact is users behavior sometimes makes them choose the

language randomly since one country is sometime not a ‘stable multilingual

community’, at least not with stable in-group multilingualism for the majority group.

The language policy then permits the users to extend the domain concept with a

dominant majority language but widespread elite multilingualism for out-of-group

interaction. Finally, the problem could be solved to code switching as a legitimate

expressive resource.

7

Another study dealing with multilingualism is conducted by Andrew Gonzales

with his article entitled language planning in multilingual countries. He uses the

Philippines as a case study of multilingual country.

There are 120 mutually unintelligible Philippine languages in use in the

islands although all are genetically related. In addition, based on the National

Statistics Office 1990 survey, about 99% of Filipino households speak Filipino or

Tagalog as a first or second language. About 56% of Filipinos report themselves able

to speak English (see Social Weather Stations 1994). The lack of resources and the

multilingual situation in the archipelago make it impossible to try to develop all

languages although the Komisyon sa Wikang Filiino, or the academy, has a division

that focuses on the conservation and maintenance of these languages and their

literatures. The official languages continue to be Filipino and English, the national

language Filipino, but the language most commonly in use in schools is English and

in the print medium, still English. Other media are now dominated by Filipino.

Officially Filipino can be used in government work and in legislation as well as

judicial judgments, but English still dominates. What we have in the Philippines in

2003, therefore, is a multilingual society still trying to crystallize itself as a nation,

having 120 separate languages, but now, by consensus, having accepted Tagalog

based Pilipino (renamed Filipino because it is perceived to have incorporated

vocabulary and elements from the other Philippine languages). The population uses

English for its intellectual and business needs and Filipino for local communication

and entertainment. A scattering of foreign languages, learned by some in special

schools and through travel, are also heard: Japanese, French, Spanish and Mandarin

(in order of popularity as choices by students).

Policy and reality do not match. The official language is supposed to be

Filipino and the language of the schools to be increasingly Filipino. In fact, however,

English continues to dominate government and business transactions at the highest

levels as well as international communications and education, especially science and

mathematics classes, at all levels and all subjects at university level. In brief, there has

been language policy but not implementation and realization. In actual fact, no matter

what the policy has been, the local vernaculars have been used in schools as the initial

languages of instruction among entering school children, but the languages have not

been given the official recognition that they deserve.

8

The last article that I want to share is “language Policy and Planning:

Understanding UKM’s Past, Present, and Future Concerns and Response by Saran

Kaur Gill. The article is about UKM’s as one university more than any other that has

worked tirelessly towards the use, development and modernization of Bahasa Melayu

as a language of knowledge and education. Unfortunately, because of political and

administrative priorities, the proposed plan drowned in the colonial British

educational policy. This was not followed up by any concrete measures to implement

the dream.

To rectify this social and economic imbalance, the Malays felt strongly that

the institution of Bahasa Melayu as the national language, its legislation as official

anguage and its development as language of knowledge was necessary to provide it

with national and administrative capital that would lead to its development as a

language of higher status. Therefore, having mastery of this language would provide

the Malays with linguistic capital with greater value for economic opportunity which

would then lead to social and professional mobility. Through the landmark

recommendation of the Razak Education Commission in 1956, the Government

implemented the National Education Policy, which stipulated Bahasa Melayu as the

medium of instruction in schools. The aim of this policy was to remove the

identification of a particular ethnic group with school achievement and reduce the

inequality of opportunity among ethnic groups.

Having legislated Bahasa as the national and official language for the domains

of education and administration, over time, the Malays started to feel frustrated to see

their language, which was such a strong symbol of national and ethnic identity,

progressing at a very slow pace with regards its implementation in the education

sector, particularly in the field of higher education.

If we examine the history of UKM and all that it has done over these years to

develop and promote Bahasa Melayu as a language of science, the responses of the

UKM lecturers of the science and technology disciplines can be understood. Their

responses are a reflection of the frustration and disappointment over the work done for

the promotion of the language and the fact that it has succeeded as the language of

education all these years – at least in terms of being used as a medium of instruction –

the transmitting the information to students via lectures and tutorials as well as the

language of research.

9

After all, the linguistic value and the power and strength of a language largely

hinges on the breadth of domains in which it is used, and ensuring this is what

universities and academia need to work towards sincerely and to ensure a continued

strong role for Bahasa Melayu. The Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, UKM

can take a lead role in these efforts. Presently, Bahasa Melayu is being researched and

taught at two different schools at the Faculty – the School of Language Studies and

Linguistics, and the School of Malay Language, Literature and Culture Studies. In

addition, the Institute of Malay World and Civilization plays an important scholarly

role regarding Bahasa Melayu.

This diverse situation dilutes efforts to provide a concerted stand for the

language. Instead what needs to be done at UKM is to set up a school of excellence,

where all those knowledgeable and passionate about the language will devote their

energies to the researching, teaching and learning of Bahasa Melayu (this will enable

UKM to still adhere to its original mission and vision). This, capped by dynamic and

visionary leadership, could plan, create and provide ideas for future exciting

developments for Bahasa Melayu in the face of globalisation.

Conclusion

Towards the multilingualism in a country, the government contributes

language policy. Based on some article that I summarize, the government proposes

the policy in order to keep on holding their national language as the national identity.

As it happens in Malaysia in which the governments try hard to struggle with the

dilemma of the hard realities and demands of internationalization and its impacts on

language use in academia.

As the case in Philippines, policy and reality do not match. Economics seem

to be one of the most determinative factors. The new initiatives in improving

competence in English and the fact that the national language is taking a back seat to

English are easier to understand. Economic considerations and survival make

language planning for the national language unrealistic.

In short, the policy is made to keep the national identity. But rationally, the

language user also struggle to overcome the wider communication among

multilingual society in their country since recently there are so many newcomers such

as expatriates, immigrants, various commuters from the borders of the country.

10

Therefore, policy may not be fully carried out in practice. It presumes rationality on

the part of the language planners in drafting action plans, but these action plans

likewise presume rationality on the part of economic and political decisions makers

and would be beneficiaries (parents and children) of these rational policies.

REFERENCES

Akanbi, Linda. Promoting Literacy Development in a Multilingual Society: The

South Africa Language in Education Policy.

www.kennesaw.edu/education/eece/TTLS/pages, accessed on October

25, 2008.

Fehlen, Ferdinand. Luxemburg, a Multilingual Society at the Romance/Germanic

Language Border. www.multilingual-matter.net/jimmd/023/jimmd ,

accessed on October 30, 2008.

Festinger, Nancy. Courthouse in a Multilingual Society: Maintaining Good Relations

with Your Court Interpreters. www.nyc.gov/htm/oath/pdf/courthouses

in multilingual society.pdf. Accessed on October, 2008.

Gill, Saran Kaur. Language Policy and Planning: Understanding UKM’s Past,

Present, and Future Concerns and

Responses.www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/035e.htm. Accessed on Oct,

2008.

Gonzales, Andrew. Language Planning in Multilingual Countries: The case of the

Philippines.www.ifla.org/IV/ifl a66/papers/035e.htm. Accessed on

Oct, 2008.

Haberland, Harmet. Domains and Domain Loss.

http://www.ruc.dok/cuid/publicationer/mobility/haberland.

Holmes, Janet. An Introduction to Linguistics. Longman: New York

Shameem, Nikhat. Language Attitudes in Multilingual Primary Schools in Fiji.

www.multilingual –matters.net/lcc/017/0154/pdf.

11