AILA Review - Volume 22, Issue 1, 2009

There has been a plurilingual tradition of communication in South Asia since precolonial times. Local scholars consider pluringualism as ‘natural’ to the ecology of this region. In plurilingualism, proficiency in languages is not conceptualized individually, with separate competencies developed for each language. The different languages constitute an integrated system to constitute a repertoire. After distinguishing plurilingualism from other forms of multilingual communication, the article shows how English has been accommodated in this tradition. What I label Plurilingual English is not an identifiable code or a systematized variety of English. It is a highly fluid and variable form of language practice. Speakers negotiate their different Englishes for intelligibility and effective communication. The article goes on to define plurilingual competence. For communication to work across such radical differences, it is important that acquisition and use go hand and hand. Such a competence is always in a state of becoming and, therefore, acquisition is emergent. Plurilingual communication works because competence does not rely solely on a form of knowledge, but rather, encompasses interaction strategies. In the final section, the article discusses how learner strategy training and language awareness go some way toward facilitating such interactional strategies and repertoire development.

Fixation on language in language policy debates is not a natural given. In fact, it has to be re-examined. This paper argues that another effective way to look at language policy is to suspend talk on language, and instead first engage with social development issues where people are at the heart of the social landscape. It discusses three ways of engagement with language policy as seen in the landscape of the politics of language, education and social development in the Philippines. The first way is engaging language policy which means debating the key features of the existing language policy usually based on ideological concerns. The second way is re-engaging language policy which highlights previously sidelined provisions of the policy such as those concerning local languages in education. The third way is disengaging from language policy which primarily sees language policy as part of a general social development framework, i.e. the imperative to focus on specific needs of local communities from which the roles of language emerge. The key point to note is that language does not seem to figure as a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed.

This paper focusses on language and education issues in Malaysia as they have unfolded in the context of nation building, societal multilingualism and globalization from independence to the present day. The paper first examines the origin and nature of language and medium-of-instruction policies in Malaysia and the rationale for them. Secondly, it discusses the conflicts and controversies pertaining to language and education analyzing the domains of contestation. The next part of the paper reflects on the various shifts in language policy over the decades, from the early institutionalization of Malay to the growing importance of English amidst globalization trends, and finally the recent shift back to Malay, also examining the positioning of the Chinese and Tamil languages in the country. This is followed by a discussion of the emergence of an indigenized variety of English and English as a lingua franca in the region. The paper ends with a critical evaluation of the impact of the language and medium-of-instruction policies, and the constraints of alternative policies, with suggestions for a possible way forward.

This paper considers the real mother tongues of Singapore, namely the Chinese ‘dialects’ and Singlish, the linguistic varieties which, respectively, arrived with the original immigrants to the rapidly developing British colony, and evolved in the dynamic multilingual ecology over the decades. Curiously these mother tongues have been regarded with fear and treated with loathing in the official language policies and accompanying prestige planning that have been developed and executed in Singapore since independence, being actively denigrated and discouraged in official discourse, viewed as not having a place in the globalization goals of the nation. Looking beyond the official line and census figures, actual linguistic practices of the community of speakers testify to the vitality of these varieties, in spite of the official sanctions; moreover, in spite of itself, the government does in fact allow itself the use of these mother tongues when certain contexts call for it. This paper suggests that an enlightened consideration of native ‘dialects’ and nativized Singlish and the plurilingual practices in which they are used, as well as of the question of intelligibility, must point policy makers in directions where fears are assuaged and spaces made for the natural existence and evolution of such varieties in multilingual ecologies.

Despite the Hong Kong SAR (Special Administrative Region) government’s determination to implement the ‘mother tongue education’ policy amid strong social resistance one year after the handover, English remains a prestigious language in society. The need for Putonghua (Mandarin/Standard Chinese) is also increasing following ever-expanding trade and other activities with mainland China. The societal demand for both English and Putonghua in postcolonial Hong Kong is important for understanding the SAR government’s language-in-education policy called ‘biliteracy and trilingualism’. The learning of English is fraught with two main problems: (a) the absence of a conducive language-learning environment outside the classroom, which makes English in Hong Kong more like a foreign than a second language, and (b) tremendous typological difference between Chinese and English on one hand, and considerable linguistic differences between Cantonese and Putonghua on the other. Given the significant phonological differences and, to a lesser extent, lexico-grammatical divergence between the majority’s vernacular and modern written Chinese, the learning of Putonghua is no straightforward task either. The dilemmas of the medium-of-instruction (MoI) debate will be discussed by elucidating the main concerns as seen from the respective vantage points of the government and five key stakeholder groups: employers, parents, school principals, teachers and educationalists, and students.

This paper starts with an overview of the sociolinguistic context and a series of policy documents concerning English language education promulgated recently in China. It moves on to an analysis of disparities in English language education policies practised in different regions, differences between urban and rural areas, between social classes and between linguistic minority and majority groups. The juxtaposition aims to reveal what different regions and social and ethnic groups in China have in common and how divergent they can be in terms of local policies and practices in English language provision. Also discussed in the paper are issues such as tensions between the spread of English and Chinese language education, and between mother tongue, Chinese and English language education in the case of minority groups, inequality in education and other linguistic, political and cultural dimensions.

This paper explores the ambivalent nature of Japanese attitudes toward English vis-à-vis the Japanese language, followed by a discussion of Japanese efforts in incorporating the concept of English as an International Language (EIL) into their educational system and teaching practice as a solution to this dilemma. While the Japanese have an indigenous language used for all purposes including academic discourse, in this age of globalization they seem to find it to their disadvantage. The recent move in Japan in both public and private sectors is to promote the use of English even among Japanese people, often at the expense of their native language. One practical approach to a solution or a mitigation of this dilemma is the teaching of EIL or de-Anglo-Americanized English as a means of expressing indigenous values in international communication. Although Japanese teachers of English have not really gone beyond the World Englishes paradigm, which describes the Expanding Circle Englishes including Japanese English as basically exonormative, efforts have been underway in Japan to put the idea of EIL into practice. The teaching of EIL in place of Anglo-American English provides a chance of reconciliation between the use of internal and external language resources.