ENG512 Treasure

Traditional second or foreign-language programs often aim to use only the target language in instruction, whereas bilingual education programs always include some form of more than one language in at least some parts of instruction. Although the approach may be different, the development of some type of bilingualism is accomplished in both language-teaching programs.

Language-teaching programs in the twenty-first century increasingly integrate language and content, therefore, coming to resemble bilingual education; and bilingual education programs are paying more attention than ever to explicit language instruction also.

Throughout the world, bilingual education practices are becoming more popular than ever, and we use the term “bilingual education” because it enables us to link to the research, scholarship, policy, and practice of the last fifty years. We also use it because bilingual education is centered in schools where curriculum and assessment are mostly linear, inducing educators to think of language acquisition in similar ways. Thus, usually children are initially schooled bilingually, that is, in two languages, even when the intent is to develop proficiency in more than two languages, or even when many more than two separate languages are used in instruction.

Beneficiaries: The overarching principle of this book is that some form of bilingual education is good for all education, and therefore good for all children, as well as good for all adult learners. This is a principle that we have always held; one that was well established by Fishman (1976). Bilingual education is good for all language majorities, that is, powerful ethno-linguistic groups, as well as language minorities, those without power. Bilingual individuals enjoy cognitive and social advantages over monolinguals. As Fishman (1978b: 47) has said: “In a multilingual world it is obviously more efficient and rational to be multilingual than not.” Dialects: For linguists, the term “dialect” is a neutral term used for variants of a specific language. Romaine (1994) defines dialect as “a subordinate variety of a language,” and refers to regional dialects, associated with a place, social dialects, associated with social class, and historical dialects referring to ancestors of present language varieties. There are also ethnic dialects spoken by ethnolinguistic groups.

Dialects and Varieties: Many lay people also assume that dialects are varieties of a language that are mutually intelligible, that is, speakers are able to understand each other. However, mutual intelligibility has little to do with language, and more to do with people, since it is people who understand each other. Many cases contradict the assumption that dialects are mutually intelligible whereas languages are not. For example Hindi and Urdu, though mutually intelligible are considered two languages.

Pidgins and Creoles: Pidgins are defined by linguists as languages that come into being in contact situations, and are used by speakers with different language backgrounds to communicate, typically to trade or in plantation contexts. For us, they are just another manifestation of how people language. Structurally speaking, pidgins are simplified; that is, they have little morphology and limited syntax, and they are not mutually intelligible with the language from which they derive their lexicon. Pidgins are always learned as second languages.

In contrast, when pidgins become nativized and standardized, and adopted as the language of the home by a majority of the population, they are known as creoles. Creoles are said to be lexically and structurally complex, and are learned as first languages. Michel De Graff (1999) has argued against what he calls “creole exceptionalism,” that is, the idea that because creoles had no time to incorporate the parentlanguages’ complex grammars, and because they are so new, creoles are similar to each other and different from other languages. Standardization of Language: Standardization is not an inherent characteristic of language, but the result of a deliberate process. Standardization occurs by fixing and regulating such features as the spelling and the grammar of a language in dictionaries and grammar books which are then used for prescriptive teaching of the language. The term standard language is often used in opposition to standard is “vernacular:” the local language practices. Coulmas (2005: 215) defines standard as “a prestigious variety of language, providing a written institutionalized norm as a reference form for such purposes as language teaching and the media.” The standard norm is decided and codified by a central group, disseminated through the institutions of the state such as education and then usage is constantly policed and users dissuaded from divergent practices, both formally and informally.

Standardization of Language and Literacy: Standardization and literacy are intrinsically linked, because, as Romaine has pointed out, “the acquisition of literacy presupposes the existence of a codified written standard, and standardization depends on the existence of a written form of language” (1994:

86. .Since, literacy relies on the standard, the standard language itself is taught explicitly in school, and it certainly needs to be taught. Without its acquisition, language minority children will continue to fail and will not have equal access to resources and opportunities. However, the exclusive use of a standard variety for school has important implications for bilingual education. Without a lot of caution, the school’s insistence on using only the standard variety of the home language can be detrimental, and may even aggravate the linguistic insecurity that many minority speakers feel.

Imposition of Standard Language: Powerful groups impose their language on the less powerful. In some countries, children are schooled in a language spoken only by a powerful minority within the country, and not by the majority of speakers. This educational practice privileges those who spoke the imposed language at home, severely curtailing educational opportunities for those who were schooled in a language they did not understand. This guarantees that the power stays in the hands of the Indigenous elite.