Trilingualism in education and social equity

1. Trilingualism in education and social equity

2. What is a language? “a dialect with an army and a navy”

3. Languages can … • Unite • Empower • Educate

4. Languages can also … • Divide • Suppress • Disadvantage

5. Language policies Policies can serve to strengthen a minority group’s sense of identity and provide enhanced access to mainstream opportunities Equally, they can result in marginalisation and social disadvantage (Edwards, 2004).

6. China: Linguistic Context Putonghua for national unity English for economic prosperity Minority language for social harmony

7. Putonghua • Dominant, high status language in China • Privileges northern Chinese • Strong regional language • Increasingly international language • Tendency to crush weaker languages through the education system

8. Putonghua in education • Taught in all schools • Mother tongue literacy after 1949; simplified characters & limited number • 1955 Ministry of Education: "Putonghua is the common spoken language of the modern Han group, the lingua franca of all ethnic groups in the country. The standard pronunciation of Putonghua is based on the Beijing dialect, Putonghua is based on the Northern dialects, and the grammar policy is modelled after the vernacular used in modern Chinese literary classics.” • Strongly promoted in education after 1985

9. English • The role and status of English in China is sustained by (and dependent upon) forces of globalization • The tension between the global and the local will continue to be played out in the case of English • English will be complementary to strong national languages • English could be a threat to minority languages with weak ethnolinguistic vitality • English could flourish as L3 in minority areas with strong ethnolinguistic vitality

10. English • Peripheral role of English (high status elsewhere in China) • Shortage of English teachers, particularly MT speakers of the ethnic minority language • Confusion as to the nature of English among parents • English tends to be strongest in Accretive and Depreciative Models of Trilingual Education

11. English in China • zhongxue weiti xixue weiyong • “the barometer of modernization” (Ross, 1982) • 1950s: Russian mainly taught • Since 1993, English “mania”

13. Linguists (1863) Nowadays those familiar with barbarian affairs are called “linguists”. These men are generally frivolous rascals and loafers in the cities and are despised in their villages and communities... Their nature is boorish, their knowledge is shallow, and furthermore, their moral principles are mean. They know nothing except sensual pleasures and material profit. Moreover, their ability consists of nothing more than a slight knowledge of the barbarian language and occasional recognition of barbarian characters, which is limited to names of commodities, numerical figures, some slang expressions and a little simple grammar.

14. English (2008) A vast national appetite has elevated English to something more than a language: it is not simply a tool but a defining measure of life’s potential. China today is divided by class, opportunity, and power, but one of its few unifying beliefs—something shared by waiters, politicians, intellectuals, tycoons—is the power of English ... English has become an ideology, a force strong enough to remake your résumé, attract a spouse, or catapult you out of a village. (Osnos 2008)

15. 155 autonomous areas in 64% of national territory 55 ethnic minority groups 106 million people (8.49% of population) Mainly border areas, rural, underdeveloped Plurality of educational decision-making Context of ethnic minorities

16. Minority languages • 1949-56: egalitarian respect • 1957-65: assimilation tendencies • 1966-76: suppression • 1977-90: egalitarian respect • 1991- : bilingualism/trilingualism Lam (2005)

17. Diversity of assimilatione.g. Zhuang (Guangxi) • Profoundly assimilated; little popular consciousness of being Zhuang Uyghur (Xinjiang) • Strong separatist tendencies • Own script, cultural & linguistic traditions Yi (rural W-SW China) • Isolation, less assimilated

18. Models of trilingualism

19. Four models of trilingual education Model 1: Accretive Strong presence of ethnic language in curriculum and as MoI. Chinese introduced at an early stage. English introduced at a later stage. Found in areas where ethnic minority language is robustly supported. Strong avenue for social equity.

20. Four models of trilingual education Model 2: Balanced Two streams: ethnic language and Chinese. Equal time in the curriculum. English introduced later. Found in areas of balanced demographics; serves to encourage social harmony and equity.

21. Four models of trilingual education Model 3: Transitional Strong presence of Chinese in curriculum and as MoI. Ethnic language plays a lesser role. English introduced at a later stage. Found in areas where ethnic minority language is less robust, and weakens its position. Reduces scope for social equity.

22. Four models of trilingual education Model 4: Depreciative School promoted as trilingual but only offers Chinese (as MoI) and English. No ethnic language even outside the classroom. Found in areas of linguistic and cultural assimilation. Damages social equity.

23. Contributory factors to models • Economic prospects • Geography • Demography • Historical degree of assimilation • Resources • Local ideology & political leadership • Ethnolinguistic vitality

24. Minority languages • Ethnic language is seen as a luxury in some regions • Stronger is areas with high sense of identity • Shortage of teachers and resources • Disappears by secondary school • Many groups give priority to Chinese/ Putonghua in schools for economic and political reasons • English where possible for international modernisation

25. Language challenges for social equity • Access to first language literacy throughout schooling • Access to high status languages • Avoidance of stigmatization (e.g. through affirmative action)

26. Acknowledgement I would like to acknowledge the generous funding received from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (General Research Fund 840012). Views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong.

27. 谢 谢 !Thank you! Bob Adamson badamson@ied.edu.hk