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...
