The 'One nation, One language' Ideology
Introduction
The term
ideology, coined by the French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796,
could be said, according to Nana (2016, p. 168), to refer to:
'the very habits of mind, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, which govern the life of an individual and a group and which often are superimposed on the world in order to give it structure or meaning'.
Given this
description, as I see it, ideology might be viewed as a way of projecting the
inner workings of the mind, whether consciously or unconsciously, to create
external structure/s or realities, as well as the projection itself. In other
words, ideology encompasses the thought, the action, and the outcome.
Nana (2016)
argues that the relationship between language and ideology is one that includes
concepts related to the social and linguistic, and accompanying interests of a
moral and political nature. One incarnation of language ideology is “the ‘one
nation, one language’ model of language and identity that developed in Europe
in the eighteenth century.” (Nana, 2016, p. 169). This construct, Nana (2016)
clarifies, seeks to create language uniformity and a shared sense of identity
and national pride.
However, the
existence of varieties and dialects of the same language suggests that seeking
to establish this common language and identity is a futile endeavour. In fact,
these variants might be seen as deviating from the so-called
standardised norm, often resulting in stigmatisation and social categorisation
(Nana, 2016; Rosa, 2016). A dialect can be defined as “a variety of a language
that differs from others along three dimensions: vocabulary, grammar and
pronunciation (accent).” (Edwards, 2009, p. 63).
In the case of
English, even before exploring its numerous varieties, it is worth reminding
ourselves of its broad and diverse lexical range. Crystal (2011) likens English
to a vacuum-cleaner as its speakers from all levels of society and varying
contexts suck in phrases from other languages encountered along the way. In
fact, hundreds of languages have added something to the English lexical
character. Additionally, unlike some other languages where the ideal is to
adhere to cultural tradition, and an aversion to loanwords is perpetuated, English
speakers often create new vocabulary, showing a willingness to depart from
convention when doing so (Crystal, 2011).
TESOL in South Africa
It seems
inevitable that when there is a call for language and identity uniformity, a
dichotomy will emerge. One such dichotomy is the native/non-native English
speaker (NES/NNES) divide. Although the concept native speaker often comes in
for criticism (Rampton, 1999), for the sake of brevity, we might broadly define
it as someone who learned a language in childhood (Cook, 1999).
In South
Africa, in my experience, NES/NNES are often defined along racial lines.
Briefly, white people are assumed to be NES, while everyone else is not. That
said, this is also true in at least one other context, Canada, where immigrant
teachers of English reported that their students believed being a NES was the
privilege of white Canadians only (Sutherland, 2012). The truth is, the vast
majority of South Africans, irrespective of racial classification, speak more
than one language in the professional sphere as well as at home (Alexander, 2021).
This makes South Africa a truly multilingual society, which is something to
take pride in.
However, in the
teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) field in the South
African context, some teachers seem to feel that admitting any knowledge of any
of the other eleven official languages might somehow diminish their
professional identity. It appears that being a NES is seen (at least by
teachers) as the primary, if not quite the only, criterion for becoming an
English Language teacher. This situation is not unique to South Africa. Speaking
globally, Sutherland points out that “There is sometimes the assumption that
simply speaking English well is enough to qualify someone as a teacher.” (2012,
p. 62). This might be because NES teachers are often given preferential
treatment in TESOL (Sutherland, 2012).
However, as
mentioned before, not all NES are created equally. In the TESOL field, only a
select group of NES teachers will be privileged. These are usually those who
are exponents of English as it is used by the most socially powerful
(Sutherland, 2012). Referencing Kachru, Peirce (1989) writes about the
linguistic power that comes with knowing English, and citing Cooke, she states
that English belongs to the elites, serving the dominant classes. Further,
Peirce asks if TESOL aims “to entrench the power of an elite, privileged
group…” (1989, p. 402), suggesting its goal should be to transform.
This view that
NES status and being white are inextricably linked also leads to cases where
NNES are employed as English language teachers on the basis of their perceived
race (Sutherland, 2012). This is only a problem if the selection is made on
this basis rather than on competence, experience and qualifications. All things
being equal, race, nationality and English language speaker status should be of
no consequence to a teacher’s suitability for any position.
Conclusion
While the goals
of the ‘one language, one nation’ ideology might be to establish unity and a
single identity amongst diverse groups of people, the reality is that this
perceived ideal could lead to discord. For one, different forms of a language
means different discourse communities, with their own, unique identities, exist
within the same language. Further, the prominence of a language form is often
due to social power, and might create a situation of elitism. Thus, speaking
the same language, and even being of the same nationality, cannot guarantee the
realisation of these ideological goals. In the TESOL field, South Africa’s
multilingualism is usually not celebrated. An English-only status and being
white are often used as markers of competence, and to which greater importance
is assigned. With all that said, it would seem that a far better ideology might
be one where all varieties are celebrated and an openness to accepting
influences from other languages maintained.
References
Alexander, M. (2021)
The 11 languages of South Africa. Available at: https://southafrica-info.com/arts-culture/11-languages-south-africa/ (Accessed: 19 March 2022).
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2),
pp. 185-209.
Crystal, D.
(2011). The Story of English in 100 words. Suffolk, England: Profile
Books.
Edwards, J.
(2009). Language and identity: An introduction. New York, USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Nana, G. (2016). Language ideology and the colonial legacy in Cameroon schools: A historical perspective. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), pp.
168-196.
Peirce, B. N. (1989). Toward a Pedagogy of Possibility in the Teaching of English Internationally:
People’s English in South Africa. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), pp. 401-420.
Rampton, M. B.
H. (1990). Displacing the ‘native speaker: Expertise, affiliation, and
inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), pp. 97-101.
Rosa, J. D.
(2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 26(2), pp. 162-183.
Sutherland, S.
(2012). Native and non-native English teachers in the classroom: a
re-examination. Arab World English Journal, 3(4), pp. 58-71.
Comments
Post a Comment