Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts

Amy B.M. Tsui, James W. Tollefson, Amy B.M. Tsui, James W. Tollefson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351560887
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Bringing together scholarship on issues relating to language, culture, and identity, with a special focus on Asian countries, this volume makes an important contribution in terms of analyzing and demonstrating how language is closely linked with crucial social, political, and economic forces, particularly the tensions between the demands of globalization and local identity. A particular feature is the inclusion of countries that have been under-represented in the research literature, such as Nepal, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Pakistan, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Korea. The book is organized in three sections:

• Globalization and its Impact on Language Policies, Culture, and Identity
• Language Policy and the Social (Re)construction of National Cultural Identity
• Language Policy and Language Politics: The Role of English.

Unique in its attention to how the domination of English is being addressed in relation to cultural values and identity by non-English speaking countries in a range of sociopolitical contexts, this volume will help readers to understand the impact of globalization on non-English speaking countries, particularly developing countries, which differ significantly from contexts in the West in their cultural orientations and the way identities are being constructed.

Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts will interest scholars and research students in the areas of language policy, education, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and critical linguistics. It can be adopted in graduate and advanced undergraduate courses on language policy, language in society, and language education.

1

Language Policy
and the Construction
of National Cultural Identity

Amy B. M. Tsui

The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

James W. Tollefson

International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan

Since the 1990s, it has become clear that globalization has made a profound impact on the political, socioeconomic, and cultural dimensions of our societies (Harvey, 1990). Though there are multiple interpretations of globalization, there seems to be little dispute that it is typified by time-space compression, captured in the metaphor of the global village, and characterized by interconnectivity (where boundaries expand and interpenetrate) as well as intensity, simultaneity, and instantaneity of knowledge generation, information transmission, and interaction (Albrow, 1990, 1996; Giddens, 1990, 2000). Globalization is effected by two inseparable mediational tools, technology and English; proficiencies in these tools have been referred to as global literacy skills. In order to respond to the rapid changes brought about by globalization, all countries have been trying to ensure that they are adequately equipped with these two skills. The challenge posed by globalization for non-English-speaking countries is dire because one of the most important mediational tools is not their native tongue. The intensity, simultaneity, and immediacy of interaction and knowledge generation have rendered obsolete the reliance on translation and have made a lingua franca indispensable. English, being the de facto lingua franca of international communication, has become a much sought-after commodity (Crystal, 2003; Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1999). The unprecedented rapid spread of English, fuelled by globalization, has generated heated debates about its sociopolitical, economic, and cultural impact on non-English-speaking countries, most of which belong to the developing world. Since Phillipson (1992) characterized the spread of English as linguistic imperialism, the debates seem to have centered on three major questions:

1. Is the spread of English cultural-linguistic imperialism/neo-colonialism or the democratization of an elitist resource?
2. Is English a tool for economic exploitation or a multinational tool that enables former colonized regions to participate in the world capitalist system?
3. Does the spread of English necessarily lead to the displacement of local languages and cultural identities?

It has been asserted that English has become an inter-national language. Therefore, the question of the linguistic domination and economic exploitation of the English-speaking world over the non-English-speaking world does not arise. It has also been argued that “many people,..., of Africa, India and Europe are fully fluent in English, even speak it as their principal language, with no loss of their cultural identity” (Conrad, 1996, p. 21). However, language is not a purely technical tool; it is a cultural artifact created within specific sociocultural and historical contexts, and thus carries the characteristics of these contexts (Vygotsky, 1978). Embodied in a language is the history, the beliefs, the cultures, and the values of its speakers. Language and cultural identity are mutually constitutive. The recognition and promotion of the importance of English by non-English-speaking countries, often over and above their own languages, has profound implications for their national cultural identities.

Fishman (1996) calls for research on regional differences or clusters of countries where the processes of change in the status of English vary in order to avoid the application of catch-all theories to differing and complex situations. This volume in some sense responds to Fishman’s call because it brings together the experiences of a number of Asian countries in a range of sociopolitical contexts. Most of these countries are former colonies of Western superpowers. Many are developing countries; some are still engaged in nation building and some are still suffering from poverty and illiteracy. However, some are well developed and have become, or are rapidly becoming, major players in the world economy. All of them are keen to participate or to stay competitive in the global economy and international politics. In order to do so, all of them have to revisit their language policies so that they do not lose out in the global competition.

In relating the lived experiences of Asian countries, scholars in this volume have tried to address the following questions:

• In what ways have Asian countries responded to globalization, and what roles have their language policies played?
• Do these policies lead to the democratization of English or do they exacerbate the inequality between the haves and the have-nots?
• Do these policies foster multilingualism and multiculturalism or do they legitimate the hegemony of English over other languages, hence aggravating the cultural domination of the West over the rest of the world?
• How do governments in Asian countries resolve the paradox of preserving or building national cultural identities and promoting a foreign language that embodies different values, cultures, and traditions?
• What is the relationship between language and national cultural identities, and what role does language policy play?

The discussions by authors in this volume in relation to the preceding questions constitute three recurrent themes. The first theme is the language policy responses to globalization made by governments, and how they have tried to resolve the paradox outlined previously. The second theme is the relationship between language policy and the social (re)construction of national cultural identities, and how this relationship has been exploited to achieve political ends. The third theme is the tensions generated by linguistic homogeneity as part of nation building and national identity construction in multilingual societies, and the role of English in relation to these tensions. These three themes provide the framework for organizing this volume. Part I includes five chapters that focus on the first theme. These chapters, on Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Cambodia, discuss current developments in language policies in response to globalization. Part II includes three chapters that focus on the second theme. These chapters, on Hong Kong, Brunei, and New Zealand, provide historical accounts of language policies before and after colonization and explore the relationship between language and the social (re)construction of national and cultural identities. Part III consists of four chapters on India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. These chapters focus on the third theme, which is the constructive and destructive roles played by English in contexts where pressures for linguistic homogeneity have generated resistance. These three themes are intertwined and are unified under the overarching theme of this volume, that is, our understanding of the dialectical relationship between language policy and national cultural identity and the mediating role of English. Because these three themes are intertwined, the discussions in each chapter cover more than one theme.

Language Policy Responses to Globalization

In the discussion of language policy responses to globalization, we examine three components of language policy: language planning or management, language ideology, and language practices (Spolsky, 2004). Language management is a form of intervention, which could be at supranational, national, or subnational levels, to decide on linguistic preferences. Language ideology refers to the underlying cultural beliefs about language varieties and communicative practices. Language practices refer to the everyday uses of language varieties, as well as language pedagogy. These three components are intertwined. Language management shapes and is also shaped by beliefs and practices.

Language Management

Learning English as a National Mission. In all the Asian countries discussed in this volume (except perhaps for Singapore), English is a language of the educated elite and is not commonly used in daily interaction. Yet, since the turn of the century, learning English has been proposed in a number of Asian countries as a national mission. In Japan, since the 1990s when the country’s economy was adversely affected by globalization, the government has set as a national goal for “all Japanese [to] acquire a working knowledge of English,” Hashimoto (chap. 2) points out. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Sports, Science and Technology (hereafter MEXT) launched the “National Strategy Design for Raising the Level of English Communication of the Japanese People” to improve the teaching of English in Japan (MEXT, 2002). In South Korea, Yim (chap. 3) reports that since the declaration by the then-President Kim Young Sam in 1995 that South Korea had entered an era of globalization, English language education has been the focus of educational reform, though, unlike in Japan, it has not been explicitly declared as a national strategy. The metaphor used to describe the national enthusiasm for learning English is young uh yul poong (English study fervor).1 In Malaysia, the government emphasized that the nation’s success in the global competition hinges on the English competence of its people, and that, unless Malaysia achieves such success, its national language will not be respected (Gill, 2004).

English as an Official Language and Medium o f Instruction. The adoption of a language as a national language, an official language, or a medium of instruction (MOI) is the strongest form of language intervention. In Asia, the extent of the impact of globalization and the hegemony of English can be seen from the resurgence of the debate on the recognition of English as an official language and its adoption as an MOI, even in countries that are highly protective of their national languages and cultures.

Japan is well known for the importance that it attaches to the preservation and promotion of its own language and culture, both internationally and intranationally. However, Hashimoto (chap. 2) informs us that, in 2000, a proposal was put forward by advisers to the then-Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi to recognize English as a second official language on the ground that not only the elite but also ordinary citizens should be equipped with global literacy skills (see also Matsuura, Fujieda, & Mahoney, 2004). The proposal was eventually dropped because of strong objections that the policy would undermine Japanese culture, identity, and proficiency in the national language. Nevertheless, MEXT decided to adopt English as an MOI in 100 “ super English language high schools” by 2005 (see Tanabe, 2003, cited in Tsui, 2004).

A similar proposal was put forward in South Korea to make English the second official language. Yim (chap. 3) reports that in 1998, a Korean novelist even went as far as to propose that English be made the new mother tongue and that Korean together with most other national languages should be put in museums. The proposal was denounced by the media and academics, and South Korea’s reaction to the proposal was described by Yim as “a second crisis” after Japanese colonization, during which Japanese was made the sole official language and the Korean language was forbidden.

In Malaysia, the Malay-medium education policy that had taken 26 years to complete since independence was recently abandoned. The réintroduction of English as the MOI is the epitome of the hegemony of English brought about by globalization. David and Govindasamy (chap. 4) report that with English as the lingua franca of globalization, the Malaysian government increasingly feels that Malaysia has been losing out in the global economic race. The key reason, in the government’s view, is that Malay-medium university graduates have inadequate English competence to access up-to-date information about science and technological advancements. Given the strong commitment that the Malaysian government had repeatedly expressed to the centrality of Bahasa Malaysia to nation building, the readoption of English as a medium of instruction in tertiary education in 1993 and in basic education in 2003 was a major compromise.

In India and Pakistan, although it was explicitly stated in the constitutions after independence that English should no longer be an official language after a transitional period, English has retained its status and has continued to be a medium of instruction for the elite (Agnihotri, chap. 10; Rahman, chap. 12). Similarly, in Bangladesh, despite the political success of the Bengali language movement, English remains the most important medium of instruction in schools for the elite and in higher education (Hossain & Tollefson, chap. 13). In Brunei, English has remained a prestigious language since independence and English has been used as a working language and an MOI as early as the fourth year of primary education (Saxena, chap. 8).

In Cambodia, the hegemony of English can be seen from the displacement of French by English not only as the most important foreign language but also as an MOI in tertiary institutions, although French has had a much longer history of influence than English. Clayton (chap. 6) points out that the transition from a centrally planned to a market economy and participation in the global economy have led to “an explosion” of foreign investments that have opened up job opportunities where English competence is the prerequisite for employment in managerial positions. Similarly, participation in international organizations such as ASEAN and UNTAC, where English is either the only or the preferred medium in which business is conducted, has led to a dramatic increase in the demand for English.

Countries such as Cambodia, Nepal, and Bangladesh, which are still struggling against poverty and illiteracy, have opened up to the rest of the world as a result of globalization. Consequently, there is a strong presence of international aid agencies in these countries, and the language preferences of these agencies have played a critical role in shaping their language policies. In Cambodia, the displacement of French by English as a medium of instruction was determined by competing financial assistance from English-speaking countries (Clayton, chap. 6). In Nepal and Bangladesh, for the same reason, English remained the medium of instruction after independence and is much sought after, though it is affordable only to middle-and upper-class children (Sonntag, chap. 11; Hossain & Tollefson, chap. 13).

Curriculum Time and Resources. Increasing curriculum time and resources is one of the commonly adopted intervention measures. This is achieved by either starting learning at a younger age or increasing the number of class hours. In Asian countries where English is a foreign language (not a second language), English used to be introduced at secondary level as a subject. However, since the turn of the century, English learning has been pushed to an earlier age from Secondary One (Grade 7) to Primary Three (Grade 3) in Japan and South Korea. In Bangladesh, the learning of English as a compulsory subject had been pushed to an earlier age from Grade 6 in the 1970s to Grade 3 in the year 2000 and more recently to Grade 1 (Hossain & Tollefson, chap. 13). Similar trends can be found in other Asian countries not included in this volume, such as China and Vietnam (Tsui, 2005).

The preceding discussion shows that in many Asian countries, there has been strong intervention by the state to promote English by making the learning of English a national mission. English increasingly is becoming an official language, a medium of instruction, a second language, or a working language, with more resources and curriculum time allocated to the learning of English. For countries that are still suffering from extreme poverty and high illiteracy rates, the allocation of substantial resources to English language education because of the hegemony of English raises ethical questions (Tsui & Tollefson, 2004). One could argue that the promotion of English democratizes English by liberating the linguistic resource from a handful of elites to the masses. The very fact that taxi drivers, shop attendants, and hotel workers in Asian countries are learning English is a case in point. However, as we see in many chapters in this volume, in most Asian countries, English is still very much in the hands of the elite, though to varying extents. In Malaysia, the access to English by a mino...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• List of Contributors
• 1 Language Policy and the Construction of National Cultural Identity
• Part I: Globalization and Its Impact on Language Policy, Culture, and Identity
• 2 Japan’s Language Policy and the “Lost Decade”
• 3 Globalization and Language Policy in South Korea
• 4 The Construction of National Identity and Globalization in Multilingual Malaysia
• 5 Remaking Singapore: Language, Culture, and Identity in a Globalized World
• 6 Transition, Culture, and Language in Cambodia
• Part II Language Policy and the (Re)Construction of National Cultural Identity
• 7 Language Policy and the Construction of Identity: The Case of Hong Kong
• 8 Multilingual and Multicultural Identities in Brunei Darussalam
• 9 Mauri or Mirage? The Status of the Maori Language in Aotearoa New Zealand in the Third Millennium
• Part III Language Policy and Language Politics: The Role of English
• 10 Identity and Multilinguality: The Case of India
• 11 Change and Permanence in Language Politics in Nepal
• 12 The Role of English in Pakistan With Special Reference to Tolerance and Militancy
• 13 Language Policy in Education in Bangladesh
• 14 Issues in Language Policy, Culture, and Identity
• Author Index
• Subject Index