Language Policy at the Supranational Level: English and the ASEAN
... Education systems allocate resources to teach English as a second or additional language as part of their recognition of the responsibility to prepare their students for a changing future (Copland et al. 2023) and 'to equip learners with skills such as communication and interpersonal relationships, personal resilience, selfawareness, critical thinking, and international language skills' (Israeli Ministry of Education [IMOE] site 2023). This trend is evident across diverse educational contexts, from East Asia to Europe, where countries are reforming their English education policies to meet future challenges (Lee 2024). However, teaching and learning English as a foreign language presents a complex challenge for both teachers and students alike, and regarding spoken language acquisition, it requires students to gain confidence and mastery in using oral language for real-time communication (Copland et al. 2014). ...
English is known as a language of domination and hegemony making. But in certain contexts, it can function as a liberatory tool that can be used to overcome hindrances for emancipation and progress. The objective of this paper is to exemplify how Dalits—marginalised and oppressed communities—in India view English as a means of resisting injustice and freeing themselves from oppressive conditions. This article reports findings of an attitude study: specifically, it looks at the English attitudes found among the Dalit community in Tamil Nadu. The findings are derived from the analysis of 57 questionnaires filled up by research students and 25 teacher interviews. Although English, in most circumstances, does have an upper caste monopoly, findings show that it is also seen as a language of democracy and an emancipatory tool, as it provides an opportunity for social mobility and escape from the caste identity encoded in their mother tongues. We conclude that English is important for the Dalits in Tamil Nadu. They recognise and appreciate the instrumental and enriching role it plays in their lives. But mother tongue remains equally important for them.
When Timor–Leste became the first new nation of the 21 st century in 2002, one of the many decisions that needed to be made concerned language. Timor–Leste is a country of around one million people, with at least 16 indigenous languages and three foreign languages contributing to its multilingual character. For reasons related to its 400-year colonial history and the resistance to Indonesian occupation from 1975 to 1999, the new constitution declared that Portuguese would be one of two official languages, the other being the indigenous Tetun Dili. The choice of Portuguese rather than English was controversial, and criticised in some quarters, for it appeared to defy geographical location (e.g. Savage, 2012). After all, Australia lies an hour's flight south of Timor–Leste, and English has been adopted as the working language of ASEAN, an organisation which the country has aspirations of joining. English is certainly the regional lingua franca, and very often referred to as the global lingua franca. Not, however, that the constitution was ignoring this reality. As well as naming Portuguese and Tetun as official languages, it named English and Bahasa Indonesia as working languages, and all indigenous languages as national languages. Thus the decisions around language in the constitution laid claims to identity and culture, as well as remaining open to global engagement in trade, technology, education and other contributors to modernisation.
“English as a Subject in Basic Education (ESBE) in
ASEAN: A Comparative Study” is regional-based
research report funded by the British Council. It is a
key element of our ‘English Language Teaching in
Education’ programme in East Asia, which aims to
bring transformational change in English language
policy and practice. The overall purpose and impact of
this research monograph is to contribute to education
systems that support inclusive, quality teaching,
learning and assessment of English.
This research monograph specifically focusses on
English as a subject in basic education (ESBE) in the
education systems of the member states of
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The
member states are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The term ‘ESBE’ is
used in this monograph to cover the teaching of
English as a subject in basic education, which
encompasses primary and secondary education in
public schools. The monograph takes a comparative
approach to the policies and practices concerning
ESBE in all ASEAN member states.
Drawing on the epistemologies of the Global South and the sociolinguistic reality of English in postcolonial Bangladesh, this article conceptualises English as a Southern language. This conception recognises the imperative of English for postcolonial societies in an English-dominant world while also emphasising the necessity of breaking away from its hegemony as represented by so-called native speaker or Standard English norms. It is argued that since English works as the principal epistemic tool for knowledge construction and theorising in most disciplines, decolonising knowledge and epistemology in favour of Southern perspectives may not be achieved without decolonising the language in the first place. While English as a Southern language builds on the paradigms of world Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and translanguaging, the proposed conception also seeks a notable departure from them. Calls for the co-existence of epistemologies of the North and South need to recognise English along the same lines. (English as a Southern language, epistemologies of the South, English in Bangladesh, English and representation of the world)*
Choosing which additional language to include in national curricula and when to begin teaching it are important educational policy decisions. The current study aims to provide a contextually embedded picture of such policymaking process in the Iranian context. More specifically, the study is intended to explain the agency mechanism of different actors involved in the choice of foreign languages and its start age. Data come from official documents, interviews with key officials in Iran’s Ministry of Education, a questionnaire and textual and on-line archival data. Data analyses revealed that despite official acknowledgement of diversity in foreign language education couched in a monopoly/antitrust discourse to manage English spread and attempts to delay its learning, Iranian (in)visible planners choose English exclusively and formulate their own policies to begin learning it much earlier. I argue that foreign language policymaking in Iran is torn between the religious and state officials’ English demotion rhetoric rooted in post-Revolutionary de-Westoxication and anti-imperialism ideology and the need of the state for defused English to meet its neoliberal globalization goals on the one hand, and the growing obsession of policy arbiters with English viewed by officials as soft power asset of the West, on the other. I also suggest that to understand Iran’s foreign language policymaking one needs to consider both the long-strained Iran-America relations as well as the unique authority and power mechanism of people-with-power actor conferred to him by Shia-Islam system of governance and how/why his directives, statements, orientations and speech carry significant implications to foreign language policymaking process in all key state organizations and entities including the Ministry of Education.
This open access book consists of essays written by Kishore Mahbubani to explore the challenges and dilemmas faced by the West and Asia in an increasingly interdependent world village and intensifying geopolitical competition.
The contents cover four parts: Part One The End of the Era of Western Domination. The major strategic error that the West is now making is to refuse to accept this reality. The West needs to learn how to act strategically in a world where they are no longer the number 1. Part Two The Return of Asia. From the years 1 to 1820, the largest economies in the world were Asian. After 1820 and the rise of the West, however, great Asian civilizations like China and India were dominated and humiliated. The twenty-first century will see the return of Asia to the center of the world stage. Part Three The Peaceful Rise of China. The shift in the balance of power to the East has been most pronounced in the rise of China. While this rise has been peaceful, many in the West have responded with considerable concern over the influence China will have on the world order. Part Four Globalization, Multilateralism and Cooperation. Many of the world’s pressing issues, such as COVID-19 and climate change, are global issues and will require global cooperation to deal with. In short, human beings now live in a global village. States must work with each other, and we need a world order that enables and facilitates cooperation in our global village.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has deployed English not only as its sole working language but also as a tool for forging regional identity, unity and solidarity among its ten member‐states. Drawing on the concept of ‘imagined communities’ and, by extension, ‘imagined identity regionalism’, this article provides a critical examination of this policy desire and asks the question whether the desire should be read as a form of political rhetoric or an achievable goal for ASEAN. We argue that the unifying potential of English language as an imagined regional community and identity has yet to be realised. At best, English can be seen as contributing to ASEAN's ‘functional identity’, rather than a more substantive ‘socio‐cultural identity’. It is suggested that although the birth of a distinct hybridised variety of ASEAN English may facilitate a bottom‐up linguistic identity imagination for ASEAN, such an ideal appears utopian at this time.
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has become one of the most widely cited documents in language education across the globe, its influence now felt far beyond the confines of Europe, the context for which it was originally produced. In Malaysia, CEFR was given particular prominence in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 and English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025, both of which positioned the framework as the primary yardstick by which curricula were to be developed and against which achievements (or lack thereof) were to be evaluated. This paper examines CEFR from the perspective of language policy, focussing particularly on the implications this document has for local agency in the Malaysian context. The paper begins by examining the constructs of language and language education underlying CEFR, pointing in particular to how these reflect the socio-political context for which the framework was developed. The next section examines how policy texts in the Malaysian context, in particular the 2015 Roadmap, have interpreted CEFR, highlighting in particular the way that these texts (as other policies across the globe) have tended to treat the CEFR reference levels as a global standard, with little scope for local agency. The final section considers alternative, localized models for using CEFR as language policy in Malaysia, in particular how the framework may be used in support of an inclusive agenda in which diversity and multilingualism are embraced.
This book brings to life initiatives among scholars of the south and north to understand better the intelligences and pluralities of multilingualisms in southern communities and spaces of decoloniality.
Chapters follow a longue durée perspective of human co-existence with communal presents, pasts, and futures; attachments to place; and insights into how multilingualisms emerge, circulate, and alter over time. Each chapter, informed by the authors’ experiences living and working among southern communities, illustrates nuances in ideas of south and southern, tracing (dis-/inter-) connected discourses in vastly different geopolitical contexts. Authors reflect on the roots, routes and ecologies of linguistic and epistemic heterogeneity while remembering the sociolinguistic knowledge and practices of those who have gone before. The book re-examines the appropriacy of how theories, policies, and methodologies ‘for multilingual contexts’ are transported across different settings and underscores the ethics of research practice and reversal of centre and periphery perspectives through careful listening and conversation.
Highlighting the potential of a southern sociolinguistics to articulate a new humanity and more ethical world in registers of care, hope, and love, this volume contributes to new directions in critical and decolonial studies of multilingualism, and to re-imagining sociolinguistics, cultural studies, and applied linguistics more broadly.
Translation pays a pivotal role in the workings of the European Union, the most multilingual body of institutions in the world – with 24 official and working languages. This paper offers an exclusive and transdisciplinary look into the EU’s translation policies, practices and ideologies, drawing together theoretical and epistemological threads from applied and sociolinguistics, translation studies, philosophy of language, political theory and language policy research to analyse both the EU’s acquis communautaire and interviews recently conducted by the author with EU translators and decision-makers. Its chief argument is that translation remains trapped within a mechanistic, utilitarian framework increasingly predicated on English as a lingua franca of sorts, heightening the EU’s de facto (English-speaking) monolingualism and flying in the face of its de jure multilingualism policy. The paper also stresses the detrimental effect that the effacement of translations – currently in practice through the authentication of language versions – has on the status of translation and translators, as well as on language hierarchy. Drawing insight from Jacques Derrida’s and Paul Ricoeur’s visions for Europe, the paper ends with a call for a translation turn in the EU, encompassing a renewed role for language and translation in its bodies, agencies and institutions.
In the past 20 years, both school choice policies and dual language bilingual education (DLBE) programs have proliferated across the US. This project examines the intersection of the two trends, examining how school choice policies have shaped DLBE at the district, school, and program level, through the eyes of 22 public school administrators in Arizona, California, and Texas. Prior work has shown how general neoliberal logic has shaped parents' desire for DLBE as well as how DLBE is marketed and who attends, but we argue here that school choice—itself a product of neoliberal logic—is a unique and powerful force shaping DLBE. We found that it spurred both the creation of new DLBE education programs (i.e., to help districts compete) and influenced existing programs (e.g., made principals hesitant to collaborate with those whom they see as competitors). We address the potential of these shifts to undermine goals of equity for Latinx and Spanish-speaking students. Yet, we also address the potential for administrators to co-opt the language and logic of school choice as a means to create programs that might ultimately serve the ends of social justice.
This chapter outlines the multilingual and multiethnic context in which language policy in Malaysia should be interpreted, and discusses how the nation tackles the dual task of nation building and
preparing its citizens to take part in globalization processes. It examines the role of English-language textbooks in promoting national pride and national identity, in balancing the interests of the various ethnic groups, and in enhancing the global outlook of Malaysia's citizens. The textbooks bear enough evidence to show that the textbook writers are prepared to transcend their own ethnic makings and contribute towards the common goal of nation building and globalization. The analysis of the textbooks shows that the Textbook Division of the Ministry of Education has successfully engineered textbook writers so that the curriculum materials they produce help to fulfill the goals of the nation. Textbook writers have been given clear guidelines by the government so that they may contribute to the objectives of globalization and national integration.
This paper suggests an explicatory model for language policy reform (or lack thereof) at the level of the state. This is accomplished by assessing the value of the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ model of public policy analysis (Howlett and Migone, Policy and Society 30(1):53–62, 2011), which I argue can be strengthened by a genealogical approach (Foucault, Social Science Information 10(2):7–30, 1971). Singapore’s Mother Tongue (MT) policy is used as a case for illustration. There is a consensus amongst local linguists (e.g. Tan, World Englishes 33(3):319–339, 2014; Wee, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 35(5):649–660, 2014) that the current MT policy of assigning an official MT based on one’s race is essentialist and untenable in light of language shift toward English and increasing diversity through immigration. Using the model, the MT policy is argued to be part of a larger system of policies that maintain a particular understanding of racial equality through a unique brand of multiracialism. The pressures of increasing immigration and diversity are insufficient as exogenous shocks that might lead to changes to the MT policy. Instead, partisan interests in maintaining this brand of multiracialism serves to entrench existing ethnolinguistic policy positions, contributing to inertia in language policy reform.
The final decolonization of Timor-Leste, in 2002, happened during an era characterized by intensification of globalization processes and, as a result, the reconstruction of the country involved diverse types of multilateral and bilateral cooperation. The cooperation projects of Portugal and Brazil took on the main role in the development of local language-in-education policies contributing, for example, to the construction of the legal framework for education, the national curriculum and the training of teachers. The first objective of this article is to present an analytic account of the trajectory of the Portuguese and the Brazilian cooperation initiatives in Timor-Leste in the field of teacher training. The second objective is to analyse the positionings of social actors who had an involvement in one specific project, in relation to the processes surrounding language policy implementation since Independence. The data to be analysed in detail in this article are from narratives emerging in interviews, conducted during fieldwork in Timor-Leste in 2012. The focus of my analysis is on the interviewees’ lived experiences and the ways in which they indexed the multiple language ideologies circulating in this context. The interviewees’ accounts brought to the fore different ways of accommodating tensions and achieving consent in the construction of language-in-education policies in post-colonial contexts such as this one, reminding the importance of looking, in close detail, at the constant negotiation and recasting of priorities even among social actors aligned in the same politically hegemonic field.
The future of the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) have been debated for more than 20 years (Bergan and Deca 2018). From the very start, even as the implementation of this continental-wide project in higher education got underway and in parallel to historical analyses (“looking back” too) that begun slowly to emerge, the future of the EHEA has been a constant preoccupation. It is perhaps in the nature of things that while the future can be close or distant, it never quite arrives, like a textitfata morgana, so that any discussion of “the future” can in principle be endless. Or, it could be that in this case discussions about the future indicate continuing uncertainty about the substance, shape and timeline of a European area for higher education. As we are completing the second decade of the Bologna Process and, if we take a formal approach, the first decade of the EHEA, this debate nevertheless takes on added urgency and includes some new elements. We are encouraged by the fact that few if any voices have been heard advocating an end to the EHEA. We therefore disregard this option here.
This paper explores the arguments offered in support of a new form of linguistic cosmopolitanism, within which English as the current world language inevitably plays a central/pivotal role. These arguments are illustrated via discussion of the work of three prominent political theorists, Abram de Swaan, Philippe Van Parijs and Daniele Archibugi, all of whom advocate this broad position. The conclusions drawn from their work are demonstrably apparent. In our increasingly globalized world, nation-states must incorporate English as the language of wider international connectedness and trade in a privileged diglossic relation to local languages. For individuals, English must either be a replacing language or, at the least, a key language in any individual’s bi/multilingual repertoire. At both the collective (state) and individual levels, the almost de rigueur assumption is that English is crucial for wider social and economic mobility. This paper problematizes this increasingly widespread and influential position by highlighting the following key limitations therein: the failure to address issues of power and inequality; the monolithic construction of English; the over-elaboration of the links between language and mobility; the deleterious implications for education; and the wider negative juxtaposition of supposedly local and global linguistic identities upon which these arguments are invariably based.
The role of agency in language planning and policy (LPP) is a recent focus of scholarship. Interest in agency has seen new issues and contexts being given prominence in LPP research. In this introduction, we present an overview of theoretical definitions of agency and the ways it has emerged as a concept in LPP scholarship. We consider how developments in methods and approaches to LPP research have led to a greater focus on social actors and their agency in LPP decision-making. We also consider how agency can be conceptualised within the field of language planning, how it may be exercised and who may exercise agency.
The Oxford Handbook of Southeast Asian Englishes describes both the history and the contemporary forms, functions, and status of English in Southeast Asia (SEA). Since the arrival of English traders to Southeast Asia in the 17th century, the English language has had a profound impact on the linguistic ecologies and the development of societies throughout the region. Today, countries such as Singapore and the Philippines have adopted English as a national language, while in others, such as Indonesia and Cambodia, it is used as a foreign language of education. The chapters in this volume provide a comprehensive overview of current research on a wide range of topics, addressing the impact of English as a language of globalization and exploring new approaches to the spread of English in SEA. The volume is divided into six parts that investigate, respectively: historical and contemporary English contact in SEA; the structures of the Englishes spokes in different SEA nations; the English-language literatures of the region; approaches to English in education throughout the region; and resources for researching SEA Englishes. The handbook will be an invaluable reference work for students and researchers in areas as diverse as contact linguistics, English as a foreign language, world Englishes, and sociolinguistics.
The Oxford Handbook of Southeast Asian Englishes describes both the history and the contemporary forms, functions, and status of English in Southeast Asia (SEA). Since the arrival of English traders to Southeast Asia in the 17th century, the English language has had a profound impact on the linguistic ecologies and the development of societies throughout the region. Today, countries such as Singapore and the Philippines have adopted English as a national language, while in others, such as Indonesia and Cambodia, it is used as a foreign language of education. The chapters in this volume provide a comprehensive overview of current research on a wide range of topics, addressing the impact of English as a language of globalization and exploring new approaches to the spread of English in SEA. The volume is divided into six parts that investigate, respectively: historical and contemporary English contact in SEA; the structures of the Englishes spokes in different SEA nations; the English-language literatures of the region; approaches to English in education throughout the region; and resources for researching SEA Englishes. The handbook will be an invaluable reference work for students and researchers in areas as diverse as contact linguistics, English as a foreign language, world Englishes, and sociolinguistics.
The Oxford Handbook of Southeast Asian Englishes describes both the history and the contemporary forms, functions, and status of English in Southeast Asia (SEA). Since the arrival of English traders to Southeast Asia in the 17th century, the English language has had a profound impact on the linguistic ecologies and the development of societies throughout the region. Today, countries such as Singapore and the Philippines have adopted English as a national language, while in others, such as Indonesia and Cambodia, it is used as a foreign language of education. The chapters in this volume provide a comprehensive overview of current research on a wide range of topics, addressing the impact of English as a language of globalization and exploring new approaches to the spread of English in SEA. The volume is divided into six parts that investigate, respectively: historical and contemporary English contact in SEA; the structures of the Englishes spokes in different SEA nations; the English-language literatures of the region; approaches to English in education throughout the region; and resources for researching SEA Englishes. The handbook will be an invaluable reference work for students and researchers in areas as diverse as contact linguistics, English as a foreign language, world Englishes, and sociolinguistics.
The article describes a project involving teachers, parents, and university researchers in collaborations to support multilingual children’s development and use of language. Strategies for fostering an inclusive climate included building on the interests and resources of the local community, involving community members in curriculum development, and creating a work environment supportive of collegial dialogue.
Language ideologies are cultural representations, whether explicit or implicit, of the intersection of language and human beings in a social world. Mediating between social structures and forms of talk, such ideologies are not only about language. Rather, they link language to identity, power, aesthetics, morality and epistemology. Through such linkages, language ideologies underpin not only linguistic form and use, but also significant social institutions and fundamental nottions of person and community. The essays in this new volume examine definitions and conceptions of language in a wide range of societies around the world. Contributors focus on how such defining activity organizes language use as well as institutions such as religious ritual, gender relations, the nation-state, schooling, and law. Beginning with an introductory survey of language ideology as a field of inquiry, the volume is organized in three parts. Part I, “Scope and Force of Dominant Conceptions of Language,” focuse on the propensity of cultural models of language developed in one social domain to affect linguistic and social behavior across domains. Part II, “Language Ideology in Institutions of Power,” continues the examination of the force of specific language beliefs, but narrows the scope to the central role that language ideologies play in the functioning of particular institutions of power such as schooling, the law, or mass media. Part III, “Multiplicity and Contention among Ideologies,” emphasizes the existence of variability, contradiction, and struggles among ideologies within any given society. This will be the first collection of work to appear in this rapidly growing field, which bridges linguistic and social theory. It will greatly interest linguistic anthropologists, social and cultural anthropologists, sociolinguists, historians, cultural studies, communications, and folklore scholars.
I do not claim to be a political theorist—my academic background is in sociology, education, and linguistics—and so it is with some trepidation that I venture directly onto this terrain here. But I do so because of the ongoing misconceptions—and, in some cases, blatant misrepresentations—evident in political theory debates around minority language rights; misconceptions and misrepresentations, moreover, that are still apparent at times in this present collection.
Due to the widespread use of English around the world, the native‐speaker construct has diminished and the traditional English as a second language/English as a foreign language (ESL/EFL) dichotomy is no longer the dominant view. English is the current global lingua franca and, unlike former lingua francas, is no longer connected to a single country or empire. The predominance of English is driven by education, including science and technology, leading to its use as both a subject and medium of instruction particularly in higher education and the global economy, and its perceived importance in employment and the media. English itself is changing, as observed in the simplification of its grammar, affecting the teaching and learning of the language. The future of English is to be determined more by those who learn it and use it as an additional language than by L1 speakers.
This handbook takes stock of recent advances in the history of English, the most studied language in the field of diachronic linguistics. Not only does ample and invaluable data exist due to English’s status as a global language, but the availability of large electronic corpora has also allowed historical linguists to analyze more of this data than ever before, and to rethink standard assumptions about language history and the methods and approaches to its study. In 68 chapters from specialists whose fields range from statistical modeling to acoustic phonetics, this handbook presents the field in an innovative way, setting a new standard of cross-theoretical collaboration, and rethinking the evidence of language change in English over the centuries. It considers issues of the development of Englishes, including creole and pidgin varieties. It presents various approaches from language contact and typology and rethinks the categorization of language, including interfaces with information structure. The book highlights the recent and ongoing developments of Englishes in Africa, Asia, and Australia, and celebrates the vitality of language change over time, in various contexts, cultures, and societies, and through many different processes.
The book contains 8 chapters consisting of articles published earlier in journals and books between 1998 and 2009. It also includes four book reviews published in journals. It also includes an 'introductory encyclopaedia entry' on Linguistic Imperialism.
Research on language policy and planning (LPP) of international organisations has predominantly focused on the United Nations and the European Union, while the context of ASEAN is otherwise overlooked due to a perceived lacklustre interest in analysing discourses and phenomena in the Global South. This paper firstly explicates the rationale for research on ASEAN and the Southeast Asian region and argues for a case for rethinking the supranational-LPP of ASEAN. Drawing on theoretical concepts on actors and agency in language planning, the paper discusses an innovative methodological approach in LPP research– engaging with scholars (sociolinguists) in imagining LPP possibilities of ASEAN. The paper fundamentallygives credence to the hitherto underutilised and undervalued agentic ‘voices’ of scholars as ‘people with expertise’ in LPP, in an attempt at ‘re-humanising’ LPP research in the Global South. This paper therefore brings to the forefront the critical role of (socio)linguists with expert knowledge in language planning processes and re-emphasises the agency of LPP scholars as linguistic experts in supranational LPP. While the research methodology is grounded in solid theoretical foundations, offering refreshing contributions to LPP scholarship, the data collection process proved to be challenging due mainly to a need for Covid-related adjustments, i.e., towards online interviews. The pandemic has, inadvertently, performed the role of a ‘catalyst’ which expedites a transition towards online/virtual data gathering methods. Reflecting on the researcher’s experience in data collection, this paper elucidates the advantages and challenges of conducting online interviews, as well as proposes useful strategies employed while collecting data during pandemic times.
In the context of English’s apparent worldwide spread, this book brings together the fields of postcolonial studies and world Englishes, arguing that this is a necessary and long overdue connection. Although postcolonial studies appears to have its origins in literary studies, and accordingly in the study of language, in fact there have been few connections with fields in linguistics that are clearly relevant to postcolonial approaches to English in particular. The book chiefly makes connections with the growing field of World Englishes studies, considering points of contact, differences in emphasis, and fundamental disagreements. It proposes that postcolonial studies can be renewed through engaging with World Englishes studies, but also that postcolonial studies as a discipline can offer powerful frameworks for World Englishes studies itself. The book examines the existing and potential connections between the fields through examples such as postcolonial dictionaries, postcolonial composition, the language of global citizenship, and the interface between World Literatures and World Englishes. It concludes that World Englishes, by contrast with a monolithic Global English, contribute to a vision of communication that resists globalization’s demand for accessibility and transparency.
Over the past few decades, many Southeast Asian governments have promoted English language education (hereafter ELE) as a linguistic pathway for developing human capital and improving global economic competitiveness of their nations. However, Kirkpatrick (2017. Language education policy among the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2017.2) raises a valid concern that if the current language education policy of teaching only the national language plus English is retained in Southeast Asian polities, future multilinguals in the region will likely be transformed into bilinguals with proficiency in the national language and English. While instrumentalist discourses have shaped ELE policy in the region, the current status of English has also been facilitated, to a large extent, by a set of common ELE ‘fallacies’ [Phillipson (1992 Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press]. This paper seeks to firstly address the ideological fallacies of ELE that underlie the pursuit of English. We then call for a reorientation towards viewing multilingualism-as-resource(s), and propose a ‘Na/ver/in’ multilingual model for Southeast Asian primary education. This model seeks to promote the combined use of the (na)tional language, (ver)nacular language(s)/regional lingua franca and (in)ternational language for primary education. We further argue that the way forward is a more balanced, inclusive, socially equitable and ethical approach to language policy and planning, informing the Naverin model.
This volume analyses the policymaking, expectations, implementation, progress, and outcomes of early language learning in various education policy contexts worldwide. The contributors to the volume are international researchers specialising in language policy and early language learning and their contributions aim to advance scholarship on early language learning policies and inform policymaking at the global level.
The languages considered include learning English as a second language in primary schools in Japan, Mexico, Serbia, Argentina, and Tanzania; Spanish language education in the US and Australia; Arabic as a second language in Israel and Bangladesh; Chinese in South America and Oceania; and finally, early German teaching and learning in France and the UK.
This exciting book brings all new attention to an often overlooked but critically important issue. Zein and Coady make a compelling argument to move beyond debates over critical periods and benefits of early language learning, and instead engage in practical language policy research that best informs the conditions under which early language learning programs can be most successful for teachers and young children. The rich international examples from expert scholars across six continents and several world languages perfectly captures the complexities of early language learning policy making and implementation.
Wayne Wright, Professor, Purdue University, USA
Zein and Coady break new ground with this publication – an edited collection of papers providing insights to the implementation of widely spoken languages in the primary school curriculum. Policies for the introduction of Arabic, German, Kiswahili, Mandarin Chinese and Spanish are discussed alongside English as a foreign language, adopting a historical approach in accounting for how the neoliberal turn presents a continuing challenge to valuing languages other than English. Each chapter is informed by the author’s detailed knowledge of the policy context, including countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Chile, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, Serbia, Tanzania, United Kingdom and United States. Together, this collection serves as a rallying call to policy makers for comprehensive investment in additional language programmes for early language learners. I strongly recommend this volume for graduate students, researchers and decision-makers interested in understanding the challenges of early language teaching policy and practice worldwide.
Janet Enever, Professor Emerita, Umeå University, Sweden
Although most international organisations are, in principle, multilingual, the ten-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has adopted a radical approach by operating monolingually, ostensibly for convenience and pragmatism. In order to provide an evaluation of the ASEAN policy context, this paper compares and contrasts ASEAN to two other more familiar international organisations, namely the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU). The paper attempts to rationalise language policy and planning (LPP) in these organisations, grounded in principles such as equality, inclusivity, practicality, instrumentality, economic viability and even arguably, ‘neutrality’ in the context of ASEAN. These principles are discussed in relation to two underlying models of language ideology, i.e. linguistic pluralism and internationalisation, which characterise ASEAN, EU and UN LPP. The article presents the argument that ASEAN has embraced English-only monolingualism, rooted in internationalisation, while both UN and EU strive to achieve plurilingualism, albeit through divergent multilingual operational models. The analysis, however, shows that the ideology of linguistic pluralism characterising UN and EU is at best symbolic, as this ideology has practically maintained the hegemony of English and, to some extent, the other languages of power. This suggests that ASEAN may not have much to learn from EU or UN for an alternative to its English-only policy.
This article responds to recent calls to investigate the role of agents and the connections between layers of agency in the development and implementation of language policy and planning (LPP). Using a corpus linguistic and discursive approach to language policy, we identify interventions made in plenary sessions by Secretary-Generals and Member States at the United Nations when discussing language issues over 46 years (1970-2016). The article identifies which individuals prioritise language issues and the change agents and/or (un)successful brokers in matters of LPP. Analysis reveals that language issues were discussed infrequently, suggesting benign neglect in matters of multilingualism: the silent majority were agentive in largely maintaining the status quo. However, in exploring power in discourse and power over discourse we were able to determine which interventions resulted in minor changes to policy and who were the powerful agents. The study points to the importance of using corpus-assisted methods in diachronic and synchronic studies of agency in LPP. Future research should explore networks of agents, using CL to investigate longitudinal trajectories of decision-making and policy change over time. Moreover, CL can usefully complement other approaches, (e.g. interviews and ethnography), to further explore the dialectic relationship between agency and structure.
Asia is now home to some 800 million multilingual speakers of English, more than the total number of native English speakers, and how they use English is continuously evolving and changing to reflect their cultural backgrounds and everyday experiences. Can English, therefore, be considered an Asian language? Drawing upon the Asian Corpus of English, this book will be the first comprehensive account of the roles, uses and features of English in Asia, encompassing several different varieties of Asian English. Chapters cover the distinctive linguistic features of English in different settings, such as in law, religion and popular culture, as well as the use of local rhetorical, pragmatic and cultural styles and its use as a lingua franca among Asian multilinguals. It will also examine the role of English in education - from primary through to higher education - and consider the implications of this for other languages of Asia.
Perspectives on the spread of English in the Asian region vary greatly, from the purely descriptive to the ideologically oppositional, from the linguistic to the political. This chapter presents an overview of the current status and functions of the spread of English in Asian higher education, based largely on a review of the literature, but also informed by authors' own empirical research on this topic in Singapore and in a range of other settings across the Asian region. It discusses English‐medium instructions (EMI) in higher education in Outer Circle contexts of South Asia (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), Southeast Asia (Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore), East Asia (Hong Kong), Southeast Asian Expanding Circle societies (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam), and East Asian Expanding Circle societies (China, Japan, Macau, Taiwan, South Korea). The chapter discusses the role of English as an international academic lingua franca and the impact of international rankings in promoting EMI education.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprises 10 countries of Southeast Asia, namely Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, and Vietnam. It is a region of great linguistic diversity, with more than 1000 languages being spoken across the 10 nations. The language policies of the ASEAN nations promote the respective national languages and English as languages of education. This chapter provides a brief history of English in ASEAN in order to contextualize the current important roles of English as the lingua franca (ELF) of ASEAN. It describes the multilingual context of ASEAN and the developing role of English as an ASEAN lingua franca. The chapter considers the presence of distinctive linguistic and sociocultural features of ASEAN English. In any discussion of the linguistic and sociocultural features of ASEAN ELF, it is important to point out at the outset that ASEAN ELF is not a stable single variety of English.
This chapter briefly reviews developments in both status planning, that is the social and official roles languages may have in political systems, and corpus planning, that is how languages can be standardized so that they can better fulfill particular functions. It presents an overview of a range of issues connected to language‐in‐education policies, including policies relating to the choice of language, policies relating to programs, policies relating to personnel, and policies relating to pedagogy. The chapter discusses a number of case studies which illustrate the linguistic and cultural diversity of East Asia and countries which comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) while, at the same time, showing that there is an overall trend toward regional language‐in‐education policies promoting the respective national language and English, often at the expense of regional and local languages.
This chapter adopts Kachru's Three Circles Model, where the Inner Circle refers to English as a Native Language speakers, the Outer Circle refers to English as a Second Language speakers, and the Expanding Circle refers to English as a Foreign Language speakers. It focuses on 10 Outer Circle and 10 Expanding Circle countries/regions and examines English in schools in these Asian countries/regions, thus totalling 20 countries/regions. For the Outer Circle countries/regions, the chapter covers Bangladesh, Brunei, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka. For the Expanding Circle countries/regions, it focuses on Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Macao, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. The chapter presents a meta‐analytic discussion that provides the similarities and differences in the issues that have arisen in each group of focal countries in the Outer and Expanding Circles, which, in turn, signpost areas for future research in the field.