linguistics in language education

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

Linguistics in Language Education

Rajesh Kumar Reva Yunus

AbstractThis article looks at the contribution of insights from theoretical linguistics to an understanding of language acquisition and the nature of language in terms of their potential benefit to language education. We examine the ideas of innateness and universal language faculty, as well as multilingualism and the language–society relationship. Modern linguistics has studied language both as a phenomenon internal to individuals and as a social reality. We argue that understandings from both these areas together should be brought to bear on the conceptualisation of language teaching–learning. Multilingualism is indicative of tremendous language ability on the part of the speaker, and needs to be acknowledged as such, irrespective of which languages form part of the individual’s repertoire. It is also of great significance to learners who need to participate in a pluralistic, democratic society. Indeed, the concept of ‘a language’ needs to be replaced by the idea of ‘multilingualism’. We discuss a possible transformation in the goals and means of language education in the light of explanations and perspectives gained from the study of language. Since such a transformation would require a much greater and longer-term partnership between the study of language and language education, we suggest directions for future research. There does not seem to be an emphasis on linking these two fields in the literature at present; this article is an effort to establish the importance of addressing this gap.

Contemporary Education Dialogue 11(2) 197–220

© 2014 Education Dialogue Trust SAGE Publications

Los Angeles, London,New Delhi, Singapore,

Washington DCDOI: 10.1177/0973184914529036

http://ced.sagepub.com

Rajesh Kumar teaches linguistics at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai. His research interests include structure of South Asian languages, language and mind, and language and education. E-mail: [email protected] Yunus is a doctoral researcher in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Article

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

198 Rajesh Kumar and Reva Yunus

Contemporary Education Dialogue, 11, 2 (2014): 197–220

KeywordsFormal linguistics, language education, innateness, e-language, knowledge of language, multilinguality, sociolinguistics

Introduction

Language is central to being human. It would be extremely difficult to imagine our lives and worlds without it, particularly when it comes to learning. It would be impossible to imagine a learning process or context that does not require the use of language. Halliday (1993, p. 93) points out that

when children learn language[,] they are not simply engaging in one kind of learning among many; rather they are learning the foundation of learning itself. The distinctive characteristic of human learning is that it is a process of making meaning—a semiotic process and the prototypical form of human semiotic is language. Hence the ontogenesis of language is at the same time the ontogenesis of learning.

Britton (1971) describes how language learning is an indispensable part of both growing up and of building relationships with others. He argues that it is in speaking—and in the response of others to that speech—that a young child ‘discovers … what he is’ over time. The child begins to understand that it is through language that he can make sense of the world around him. It, therefore, becomes imperative to understand lan-guage learning. One of the most convincing explanations of how children acquire language is made by Chomsky. Chomsky (1965) argues that a human child is born with the ability to acquire language from her imme-diate environment and society.

This article evaluates the contribution of the study of language in for-mal linguistics to language education. Linguistic theory, as we know it today, has transformed the ways in which linguists study language, lan-guage faculties and language acquisition, as well as the similarities and dissimilarities among languages across the world. Linguists have long been aware of the implications of linguistic theory for the study and understanding of language. We propose to study its possible implications for education in general and for the teaching–learning of language in

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

Linguistics in Language Education 199


particular. We understand that formal language education currently revolves mostly around literacy, but we believe that it has to create space for the use of spoken language as well. While we do not go into the mer-its of the arguments or explanations for why or how oral language plays a major role in children’s language development, our discussion of lan-guage teaching–learning in this article would be relevant to the use of both spoken and written language in the classroom. At this stage, it does not appear to be necessary to make specific or distinct pedagogic sugges-tions for the use of spoken or written language in the classroom, as this is a preliminary effort to bring together two usually separate strands of linguistics, namely, formal linguistics and sociolinguistics. We are sim-ply interested in developing views of language use and of the language learner that emerge from these two strands, and in building a possible framework for a transformed language classroom. Finally, we aim to discuss language acquisition and multilingualism to see how these can help in making language teaching–learning more effective.

Both formal linguistics and language pedagogy necessarily assume particular views of language as an object of study, which then determine practices in these two fields. In this article, we will briefly discuss how formal linguistics has given a more sophisticated meaning to the scien-tific study of language, and to the view of language underlying it. We will also discuss the implications of this view for language pedagogy.

Further, the article unpacks two crucial aspects of formal linguistics. First, it briefly explains the innateness hypothesis, and goes on to show how this hypothesis leads to a new and changed perception of language learners as well as of language teaching–learning. Second, it examines the explanation provided for similarities and dissimilarities among lan-guages. This explanation, as we will discuss, bears directly on the status of various languages and of their native speakers. We argue that an understanding of similarities and dissimilarities among languages can help shape language policy in education.

In relation to this question of the differential status of languages across communities, we also engage with the idea of multilingualism. As we shall claim, formal linguistics allows us to make a case for treat-ing all languages and their speakers equally. Further, we will argue that human language represents a universal faculty of mind and that individ-ual languages are simply particular examples of this faculty. This under-standing of linguistic diversity, when viewed in juxtaposition with the

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



contemporary understanding of multilingualism and its linkages with cognitive ability, leads to a much transformed view of the goals and means of language education. Such a transformation includes develop-ing a socially sensitive programme of language education. We shall be taking into account the work done in the area of sociolinguistics as well as evaluating some of the previous efforts made to forge linkages between formal linguistics and language education.

Sociolinguistics offers insights into how social settings affect lan-guage ability and patterns of language use (both oral and written). Labov (1969), Lankshear (1997), Delpit (1988), Sapir (1933) and Britton (1971) have revealed linkages among language, thought and experience, as well as between wider social relations and the language classroom. We pro-pose that combining insights from sociolinguistics with those from for-mal linguistics can prove highly beneficial in developing research and pedagogic agendas in language education. Finally, we offer a programme of research that linguists and language educators might pursue in order to develop a better understanding of the relationship between linguistics and language pedagogy, and of how this relationship can benefit lan-guage teaching–learning.

Linguistics as the Science of Language

Before we go in search of an explanation of language acquisition, let us see how language has been scientifically studied. In the earlier phases of the discipline, the ‘scientific study of language’ had a very limited mean-ing which was based on taxonomy, that is, the science of classification (of features of language), what Smith (2004) calls ‘a naive methodology’. Soon after, in a continuously evolving approach to the study and under-standing of languages, linguists began to work with data from natural language, which contributed far more to the understanding of nature and the structure of language (Poole, 2002). However, even if we were to consider all the available data as ‘facts’ about a language, it would still not help us deduce a theory of language. Such an approach would elicit an infinite set of data which may say much about particular languages and yet not enough about language in general. Nor would it explain the basic fact that almost all human children manage to pick up the lan-guages spoken around them without explicit or systematised instruction.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



Classification could be an endless process that does not meaningfully add to our knowledge of the nature of language, unless our data can also explain this classification (Smith, 2004). This is where Chomsky’s inter-vention in terms of proposing a far more sophisticated conceptualisation of the scientific study of language proved to be useful and far-reaching. The scientific method involves forming hypotheses and testing them against existing evidence. This approach immediately makes ‘facts’ about language more manageable. Instead of trying to find patterns in a huge set of data, methods in linguistics focus on explaining data, thus bringing several underlying facts of language to our attention. These explanations could prove or disprove hypotheses regarding features of language, language faculty and acquisition of language. As Agnihotri (2013) points out in a recent essay in The Hindu (19 December 2013), this approach has tremendous relevance for the teaching of both first and second languages in schools as well.

In this section, we outline some of the contributions of the study of language faculty for the understanding of language as a scientific phe-nomenon. In one of the following sections, we will evaluate the peda-gogical implications of this approach. The recourse to classification as a means of studying language implied the study of specific languages as separate systems. Instead, formal linguistics sees language as a property of the human mind and seeks to study the properties of language in general (Smith, 2004). This shift in what we study when we study language(s), and how we study it, involved a transformation in the way language was viewed within the field of linguistics. Instead of being viewed as an entity external to individuals, language was now being con-ceived as knowledge internal to the human mind. In other words, it was what came to be termed I-language, that is, it was seen as the object of study, not E-language. I-language is the language of an individual speaker, as opposed to that of a community or a society; E-language is that about which we might have a shared understanding, but it is knowl-edge external to individuals (Smith, 2004). This shifting of the focus from the latter to the former makes sense if we also realise that in doing this, linguistics explicitly defines its domain as understanding and explaining the ‘individual human capacity for language’ rather than lan-guage as a ‘social or supra-personal’ phenomenon (Smith, 2004).

Once it is settled that the scientific study of language has to do with understanding the individual’s knowledge and acquisition of language,

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



we can now wrestle with the subsequent question of what counts as admissible proof of an individual’s linguistic knowledge. And how do we go about conceptualising the means of obtaining such proof? Here, an important distinction has been made between ‘what people know’ and ‘what they do’, or rather ‘what they say’ (Poole, 2002). Listening to a conversation between two friends, we are likely to hear incomplete sen-tences and ungrammatical or broken utterances. This is not necessarily a reliable indicator of either speaker’s actual knowledge of the language in which they are conversing. What might be a better indicator is their abil-ity to judge the grammaticality of some set of utterances and sentences presented to them. This difference between the everyday ‘performance’ of language and the ‘competence’ of language, that is, what they actually know about their language, is an important distinction that formal lin-guistics has brought to our attention (Chomsky, 1965). This distinction also points to problems with the earlier approach to studying language, which advocated collecting data from natural language to enable a better understanding of the structure of language.

Innateness Hypothesis

Now, if we look at the extent and depth of most people’s knowledge of their first language(s), it is astonishing how much they know. This knowledge may not necessarily pertain to the literary works in their lan-guages, but it certainly pertains to their ability to judge what is unaccept-able/acceptable and ungrammatical/grammatical. They can also produce utterances in these languages to get them through most situations in eve-ryday life. It is not at all necessary, nor even possible, that they should have come across, or have been taught, all these kinds of sentences that they can judge and/or produce at one point of time or another. So, then the question is: How do they know what they know? When and how did they learn so much about their language(s)? If they were not taught, then this knowledge of language(s), or rather the ability to figure out language in general, must be innate. If it is not the one, then it must be the other. This hypothesis does not claim magical powers on the part of human beings, which would imply that they can pick up any language to which they are exposed at any time. Instead, it postulates a critical period (Lenneberg, 1967) or a window of opportunity (Smith, 2004) for

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



language development, when the language ability of humans can develop best. There is evidence (Poole, 2002) that if children are not exposed to language during this period, they may not develop language at all, or at least not beyond a point. The concept of such a critical period does seem to explain the relative ease with which children pick up languages com-pared to adults.

The innateness hypothesis tells us two important things about the acquisition of language in human children: one, that the ability—not the knowledge of any particular language—to pick up language is innate and genetically hardwired; and two, that to unfold and develop, this ability must be stimulated by the environment of the child ‘beginning at birth and extending to the first decade of life’, except in ‘cases of pathology’ (Smith, 2004, p. 124). Otherwise, human children will not be able to build on this intrinsic capacity.

There is another vital implication of the concept of this critical window of development that concerns second- and third-language development. A second or third language can be learnt far less painfully if children are exposed to it before they are 10 years old. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that once people have learnt a language, they always remain capable of learning other languages, even if slowly. This simply means that the farther one moves from the critical period of language development, the harder it is to acquire a language. However, once triggered, the innate ability to figure out new languages is always retained by people. Indeed, as Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) show, with the use of well-designed pedagogic interventions and strategies, older learners may reach high levels of proficiency in a new language as well. What is affected as a result of increasing distance from the critical window of opportunity and development is the ease of learning new languages, not the possibility. In the process of language acquisition, all the languages that a child picks up before 10 years of age will be counted as her first languages, and the languages that she learns after this age will be her second or third languages.

This innate ability to learn language operates by means of what has been called Universal Grammar (UG). Let us summarise the idea of Universal Grammar. The UG is a finite set of principles common to lan-guages and a set of parameters along which languages differ from one another (that is, language-specific rules). This set of abstract principles encoded in the human brain facilitates the language output we observe in

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



young children. That is, human infants are born with the ability to figure out language. The inputs they receive are limited in both quantity and diversity, and yet their output is immeasurable—even in the period before they begin to attend school and formally learn language.

While human beings possess an innate language faculty and ability, children are not born speaking or knowing a particular language. Their language capability unfolds and develops as they mature, and is deter-mined by their environment as well. Children move from crying to bab-bling unintelligible sounds, and to single-word utterances and then to two-word utterances and simpler sentences. Throughout this process, before children’s sentences begin to reflect something akin to adult grammar, they commit mistakes, and go through patterns of sentence formation that hint at some process at work other than learning by imita-tion. Indeed, it is evident from existing research that the learning of structure and grammar does not really happen by imitation, as children continue to use certain incorrect sentence formations despite being cor-rected by adults (Jackendoff, 1993).

For instance, research shows (Jackendoff, 1993 among others) that children commit errors when it comes to tenses, and that this cannot be the result of such imitation or correction. When first confronted with past tense forms of verbs in English, children think of them as separate words (come and came for them are not different forms of the same verb, but are two different words). Then they realise that these words are just new forms produced by the addition of -ed to signify happenings in the past. Then all verbs end up with this suffix—comed, goed, and holded. It takes them another step of moving through forms like camed, wented, etc. before they end up with the right forms for everything and begin to understand the concept of exceptions in the formation of past tense forms. In any case, what this example shows is that there is something that can be termed ‘systematic errors’ that are made by native speakers of English as young learners—which cannot be the result of imitation because no adult would use those forms. As Jackendoff (1993) points out regarding the second stage, that is, applying the -ed form to all verbs irrespective of exceptions found in English, ‘we see a rule of grammar—a correct one this time—which is creating things the child has never heard (nor has the rule been taught explicitly yet) and children say these things in preference to the correct forms that they do hear’ (Jackendoff, 1993, p. 111). That is, children ‘construct’ their own rules.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



What is the kind of exposure to language in their environment that triggers the language capacity of babies? As Chomsky notes, this capacity, despite being innate to a large extent, is ‘heavily determined by the nature of the environment, and may be severely limited unless [the] environ-ment is appropriate’ (Putnam, 1995, pp. 331–332). Yet this environment for any child is characterised by a remarkable poverty of stimulation when one takes stock of the remarkable grasp of language that this child will soon develop. Even at the beginning stages, one must remember, the child is figuring out much more than what she is able to produce. She can understand quite a bit of what adults and older children say, even though she herself may not yet exhibit a command over a similar vocabulary or grammar.

As Jackendoff (1993) discusses, experiments done with young speak-ers of English show that children pick out proper and common nouns in sentences uttered by adults correctly, even if they are not familiar with the names of things being discussed. Linguists (Jackendoff, 1993) have suggested that children figure out meaning based on an understanding of sentence structures that has not been explicitly taught to them. So, there is ample evidence (Chomsky, 1971; Jackendoff, 1993) that children figure out the grammar of languages in their environment on their own. Similarly, there is evidence for the existence of a critical window for language development as well (Jackendoff, 1993). For example, when children move from one region to another, they pick up second languages quite quickly; they are much better at this, in terms of speed and com-mand, than adults.

If language is prefigured in the human brain, what might this innate-ness hypothesis tell us about language learning in more formal contexts? Let us begin by noting that young children possess adequate knowledge of language. However, their linguistic ability is not restricted to judging the grammaticality and acceptability of sentences and assessing the other grammatical values of their languages. They also know how to use this knowledge. This knowledge of the use of language is termed communi-cative competence (Cummins and Swain, 1986). Children come to lan-guage classrooms already possessing this tremendous communicative competence that they could not have been taught either prior to begin-ning school or in school. So, learning about rules governing the produc-tion of language might understandably seem pointless to them at this stage. After all, they employ that language to get through the everyday

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



business of life; they already do exciting things with it—they compete, quarrel, argue, learn, bond, plead and play. To put it another way, they have tremendous knowledge of E-language, which is the knowledge of the use of language (linguistic performance) in the real world; it is the entity existing outside individuals and residing in a group of speakers. We need, therefore, to think of things that would hold children’s interest in the light of their existing linguistic ability and of their knowledge of E-language.

Considering the innateness hypothesis and the current state of knowl-edge of language use and linguistic ability possessed by children when they enter school, we would have to conceptualise first-language educa-tion differently. Instead of thinking of grammar as something that children do not know, we would view it as knowledge that they put to use instinc-tively, but about which they are not necessarily conscious. The focus, then, would be on making these rules of grammar and usage explicit, but not on memorising lists of words, verb forms, etc. or doing grammar exercises. Language education would be thought of in concert with eve-ryday language use. Classrooms would not have to be isolated from the life outside their confines, but would become spaces for reflecting on life experiences as mediated by language.

Indeed, theoretical linguistics offers a possibly new strategy for the teaching and learning of grammar. In order to make explicit the rules that children already know and use, language educators can guide them in developing ways of hypothesising and testing possible rules of grammar. This would include, for example, understanding the way plurals are formed and eliciting patterns in the various forms taken by verbs when they are used to express the past and the present. Using data drawn from the language produced by them and their peers, children could be encour-aged to become aware of the grammar they follow, that is, to gain ‘meta-linguistic awareness’ (Bruner, 1986). Language classrooms could be places where children are encouraged to reflect on their patterns of lan-guage use, instead of places where they are told about the right and wrong rules of language use. Children know right from wrong to a large extent when it comes to their first language. What they could be discuss-ing instead is why, that is, the patterns and rules that determine this right and wrong, as well as the underlying social relations and behaviour codes. So, drilling and endless rote and recitation could be replaced by children studying their own language, and reflecting on their current

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



usage and ability, as well as exploring the possibilities of changing and improving it.

Thus, the innateness hypothesis also indicates a different view of learners, making us see them as language users and as individuals with the capability to pick up language. What classrooms need to do is pro-vide stimulation and freedom to think about this usage. Most impor-tantly, classrooms must make space for all children to think and reflect.

We would like to point out that guiding students to reflect on language use is central to guiding them to reflect on language in context. In that sense, developing this ability to analyse language use could be the essen-tial first step to reflect on and appropriate all other knowledge as well. To understand this idea better, let us take a look at Bruner’s (1986) ideas regarding the language–culture relationship and the language of educa-tion. He rightly claims that language mediates reality, that is, ‘our encounters with the (social, biological, physical) world’ (Bruner, 1986, p. 122). That is, while culture is the process through which we learn to make sense of this world and its realities, language is the medium of this process. According to Bruner, culture is as much about re/making and re/negotiating meaning as it is about learning a set of rules by children. In addition, Bruner perceives education as an important site of participation in culture by youngsters, that is, ‘doing culture’ (Lankshear, 1997, p. 25). Thus, encouraging reflection on language use becomes a means of offer-ing these learners–participants a chance to play ‘active roles’ (Bruner, 1986, p. 121) in learning, instead of being passive recipients. In their participation, Bruner sees possibilities for reflection and social change. But it is clear that the materialisation of this view depends crucially on the way we perceive and use language in, and for, education.

The possibility for participation emerges from the transformation in the patterns of language use in classrooms. First, we need to remember that meaning is negotiated socially, not autonomously (Bruner, 1986). Second, we need to keep in mind that language in general, and the lan-guage of education in particular, always makes a way towards what it is trying to convey about the phenomenon and knowledge under discussion.

[I]f it is to be an invitation to reflection and culture creating … [I]t must express stance and must invite counter-stance and in the process leave place for reflection, for metacognition. It is this that permits one to reach higher

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



ground, this process of objectifying in language or image what one has thought and then turning around on it and reconsidering it. (Bruner, 1986, p. 129)

Such a view of language, and the need for reflection and metacognition, is vital not only to language learning, but to all learning.

Multilingualism and the Language in Education

There is another important consequence of the innateness hypothesis and of the idea of Universal Grammar. A child can pick up multiple lan-guages at a time. When a child has picked up one language, it is suffi-cient evidence that she can pick up others too. The theory of Universal Grammar postulates that children already have this ‘universal inventory of possible elements’, or possible features of various languages. That is, ‘everything the infant needs to find out about the language it is exposed to is already innately specified; all it needs to do is make the right choices from the items listed’ (Smith, 2004, p. 41). The human brain contains all possibilities, and the child, as she grows up and is exposed to language(s) in the society around her, identifies out of a universe of features prefig-ured in her brain the ones found in these language(s). This means that as long as a child’s innate language faculty is working well enough for her to pick up one language, she is capable of picking up any other language as well, if provided sufficient input, preferably during the critical win-dow of opportunity in her life. So there is no reason to think that children cannot learn languages that do not belong to their socio-cultural back-ground. Thus, linguistics offers quite a convincing explanation for the fact of effortless multilingualism at the level of individuals. The innate capability of humans to learn language in a way predicts multilingual-ism. Language that works as ‘input’ for a child acquiring language from the immediate society around her is rather ‘fuzzy’ (in terms of mixed languages), and not pure. This is because of the nature of language in society. If we observe language in the real world (society), we see that it is fuzzy and imperfect (not inaccurate by any means) in its nature. It is quite mixed too. No society speaks just ‘a language’ that is ‘pure’ in its appearance. This is the language that constitutes the input for any child learning language in any society in any corner of the world. Therefore,

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



the fact of the output being ‘impure’ is not a surprise. It is this impurity of language in the real world that constitutes multilinguality at the micro level. Indeed, the human linguistic repertoire can only be a continuum, and not ‘a language’. People transact everyday business with and along this continuum, that is, multilingualism, and not with ‘a language’. Thus, multilingualism is the logical conclusion and the default pattern or posi-tion among human beings. This follows from the principles of language acquisition (Kumar, 2012, 2013). This eventually substantiates the argu-ment that the concept of ‘a language’ is a human artefact, and that ‘purity’ in language is not a viable concept (Agnihotri, 2007, 2009). Thus, lin-guistic competence is actually multilingual competence, which is guar-anteed, and does not contradict, in any sense, the innateness hypothesis and the principles of language acquisition.

Such multilingualism certainly reflects considerable linguistic ability on the part of children. So, we need to understand how language class-rooms and curriculum planners could better acknowledge and tap this ability. The study of language helps us better understand the significance of multilingualism for language teaching–learning. At the same time, social and political factors determining the entry of particular languages into schools and classrooms must also be understood and transformed for the achievement of greater socio-cultural justice. This is one of the areas where insights from sociolinguistics become invaluable to the planning for language education.

As NCERT (2006) notes, despite the ‘multilingual competence’ with which children enter schools, they ‘leave schools with dismal levels of language proficiency … even in their own native language’ (p. v). This is because schools do not ‘relate to languages of their (children’s) homes and neighbourhood’. So, we need to understand multilingualism in terms of its role in building more socially sensitive agendas for language classrooms, in particular, and for education, in general. Our own experience of classroom studies only adds to the seriousness and validity of the observations mentioned above. Let us look at two examples from the field that substantiate the above claim.

Yunus (2014) found that Ajju (a standard III student) was fluent in Nimari (his mother tongue) as well as Hindi (a language that he had picked up in his neighbourhood). He was not doing well in English at school. This was at a low-fee-charging, private English-medium school in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Ajju could identify some of the words

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



‘done’ at school, but could barely read and process entire sentences on his own. The teacher encouraged rote learning, drilling and the writing down of spelling meticulously. Unsurprisingly, this pedagogy was inadequate. Ajju had otherwise a keen intelligence and a keener sense of humour. He was an enthusiastic talker and a sensitive caregiver for his baby sister. This kind of a role required substantial cognitive, social and emotional abilities. Yet he would not speak in class and was not making any progress in learning English. Now, it is clear that the child was capable of learning and using language. So why was learning English proving so difficult? Given that science, social science and mathematics were being taught in English, it is not difficult to imagine that sooner or later the child may be pushed out of school purely because of language-related issues.

The second example is of Rupa, an eight-year-old girl studying in standard III in an urban Kendriya Vidyalaya in Madhya Pradesh. She was part of a study that sought to understand the differential socio-cultural backgrounds of three children in a classroom in terms of their impact on the classroom interactions of the children. Compared to the parents of the other two children, Rupa’s parents were the least educated and the least capable of helping her cope with the demands of the school. The first language of neither parent was Hindi. Rupa could speak the language spoken in her mother’s village, and was fluent in Hindi because she had grown up in an urban area surrounded by Hindi-speaking people. Theirs was a warm, close-knit family, with the parents doing their best to provide a useful education for both Rupa and her brother. Rupa loved to talk—with her mother and her friends. However, she did not do well in her exams, did not speak much in class, nor did she participate in any other way unless she was forced to do so.

Rupa’s problem was one of the motivation and confidence. Let us see how this relates to the questions of multilingualism and exclusionary pedagogies. The languages and the forms of expression with which she is comfortable do not receive much appreciation in the classroom. It is the knowledge of English that is greatly appreciated. But

… she does not have the opportunity to interact with adults who would cor-rect or question her on factual information, or style of speech, or add English words and phrases to her repertoire. At the same time, her school neither rec-ognizes nor tries to build on her or her parents’ linguistic abilities. This exclu-sion of certain languages–cultures from institutions of formal schooling affects

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



her own and her parents’ self-esteem and their perception of their abilities … Ironically, her parents can actually contribute to her learning in ways that most schools never can. Most significant among these contributions are the ideas and language of dissent and resistance, and of political organization[,] that are part of the lives of many communities engaged in agricultural and wage labour. (Yunus, 2010, pp. 52–53)

Clearly, valuing multilingualism in the language classroom and in the school in general has implications not only for a child’s language devel-opment and education, but also for her participation in the wider social and cultural arena. For example, by rejecting languages used by certain communities to express dissent, the school precludes children from understanding and participating in the process of language learning. The language classroom neither builds on Rupa’s linguistic abilities, nor does it explore the possibilities of culture-making inherent in those abilities. Rather, it simply focuses on and rewards children whose languages are valued by the school, or those who can summon the resources (parental help with doing homework, studying for exams, etc. or private coaching) required for learning the languages imposed by the school.

Some of the major dominant languages have broader acceptance in schools. Children from these language backgrounds have a clear advan-tage over others. Schools do not appreciate the emotional, cultural or cognitive significance of other languages for their speakers. In this sense, schools deny the intimate relationship between language and culture, thereby also denying children from marginalised languages–cultures the best possible opportunities to participate in learning and in what Bruner (1986) terms ‘re/making culture’. At the same time, these learners are also perceived as less capable of learning the languages of the school. Their linguistic competence remains unacknowledged and unappreci-ated; this is how their language ‘brokes subordination’ for them in school (Lankshear, 1997, p. 34). These processes of subordination and domina-tion operate through the culture and power relations of schools that, Delpit (1988) argues, are embedded in the language of education. By refusing to reflect on, and to make explicit, these power relations and rules of culture, schools perpetrate an enormous injustice against children not coming from cultures and backgrounds that most closely resemble those of schools. Ultimately, schools fail to build on the tremendous lin-guistic ability of these children, and persist in teaching them the lan-guages valued and used at school.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



Thus, bringing together insights from formal linguistics and sociolin-guistics to bear upon analyses of classroom processes fundamentally transforms the way we understand learners and their ‘success’ or ‘failure’ in learning language. Clearly, the onus of valuing and building upon the linguistic capabilities of learners must necessarily lie with the school. Formal linguistics has helped to establish that neither a language nor its native speaker has any inbuilt ability or inability that would make her more or less likely to learn other languages. Since children obviously are capable of learning language or languages, any failure to foster this abil-ity or to build upon it is the failure of the school, not that of the learner.

There is another equally important reason to centre our language class-rooms on children’s multilingualism. Studies have shown that there is a high correlation among multilingualism, cognitive flexibility and scho-lastic achievement (Cummins and Swain, 1986). Multilingual children while speaking several different languages are more creative and socially more tolerant. They control a wide range of the linguistic repertoire that makes them more flexible in different social situations (Cummins and Swain, 1986; Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Peal and Lambert, 1962).

Appreciating the significance of multilingualism means that educators, policy makers and curriculum designers need to intervene at two levels. First, we have to open up to diverse languages and linguistic combinations at the level of education policy and curriculum frameworks. Second, while designing appropriate and relevant pedagogic principles, we need to understand how to tap into the multilingual ability of children. Thus, multilingualism will be a default perspective for school curriculum and instructional design.

The two examples we discussed earlier show that while both children had mastered other languages, they had not learnt the languages valued by the school. Without going into the details of the possible pedagogic strategies employed in these two situations (which is beyond the scope of this article), we would like to simply argue that children need to be taught in a way that welcomes, celebrates and pedagogically builds on their multilingualism instead of denying it. The teaching of a foreign language in Indian classrooms needs to build on the multilingual com-petence that children bring to school (for example, English can still be defined as a foreign language for certain sections of Indian children). Multilingualism in schooling would serve several purposes. The need to accept multilingualism in education is apparent and self-evident.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



A scientific understanding of the process of language acquisition estab-lishes that language output is critically dependent on input into the language-acquisition device. As discussed earlier in this section, if the input is insufficient and fuzzy (that is, multilingual in nature), the natural output will be multilinguality, which turns out to be natural human speech. The concepts of ‘a language’ and of the ‘purity of language’ are human artefacts. These concepts play a huge role in the existing practices of education. Introducing multilingualism in education will help educators remove these unscientific and artificial concepts, and instead build on the natural human repertoire. Therefore, all language classrooms need to be reimagined as multilingual spaces instead of as solely English, Oriya or Malayalam classrooms. Doing anything else would discourage and demotivate most learners. We see classrooms, particularly language classrooms, as important spaces where learners from diverse back-grounds can develop a voice, can learn the importance of self-expression and dialogue, can hone the ability to participate in self-expression and dialogue and can listen to and respond sensitively and respectfully to others. To achieve these ends, conceptualising all language classrooms around the idea of multilingualism would be a most useful and construc-tive step. Once people begin to recognise and value their own and others’ multilingualism, they can learn to build better relationships with other communities for achieving greater tolerance, increased understanding and a more meaningful dialogue in classrooms.

What is being suggested here is that the traditional grammar classes need to be replaced by language awareness-and-analysis classes guided primarily by the languages already available in the classroom. Such a process takes children through a process of scientific enquiry, empowers their languages, generates self-esteem, sharpens their cognitive skills[,] and enhances mutual respect for each other’s languages. (Agnihotri, 2013)

Language and Education—Moving Forward

In this section, we present an outline for research in the field of language and education, particularly in India. The significance of language in edu-cation has been described clearly in this article and elsewhere. Language occupies a prominent position in the field of education, and it deserves

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



careful attention. Given the bulk of the existing literature discussed in this article, we emphasise the need for serious work on issues of lan-guage in relation to education. The existing research agenda in the field of language and education could probably draw more upon the work being done in the domain of the study of language that could really be of great help in understanding the role of language in education. There are two broad streams of research in the study of language. Some study for-mal properties (I-Language) and others study the function or use of lan-guage (E-Language) in the real world. Existing research on theoretical linguistics has been restricted largely to the second stream, that is, formal properties of language, with language being seen as a homogeneous entity with ‘ideal native speakers and hearers’, whereas research in soci-olinguistics and applied linguistics looks at the relationship between lan-guage and wider social relations or power structures with a focus on applications. Given this situation, that is, the practical reality of language in terms of how it works in society in general, and in education in par-ticular, there seems to be a disconnect between formal linguistics and the need to understand language in terms of its practical use in education. Hence, there is an urgent need for the findings of research studies in linguistics to cater to the needs of language education and policy. Such an agenda must be informed by what sociolinguists and formal linguists can tell us about the nature and structure of language, language acquisi-tion, and language use. Research agendas and approaches need to be informed by both the relationship between language and mind as well as the relationship between language and society. At the same time, the direction of research in both formal linguistics and sociolinguistics must aim to be educationally and socially more relevant and realistic. In addi-tion, language research has to be carried out within a framework that acknowledges and appreciates multilingualism, which ‘includes [the] language of [the] marginalized lot of the society’ (Agnihotri, 2009). The significance and relevance of language research in multilingual societies is related to the rapidly changing global cultural scenario. As Heath (1984) predicted 30 years ago, advances in language research would become a matter of general knowledge. Equally important would be the fact that linguists, educators, policy makers and teachers would work with one other in translating research findings into pedagogic practices.

There are two dominant positions that have been adopted by scholars regarding the tensions between the promotion of multilingualism and the

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



promotion of English. The first position seeks to demolish what it terms ‘English linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson, 1992). The dominance of English on the global scene has effectively and systematically eclipsed the use—and hence the importance—of other languages (not the least, those spoken by marginalised communities in both the developed and developing worlds). This state of affairs has led marginalised groups to believe that their (native) languages are incapable of brokering success for them and that they must learn to use English even if that effort costs them mastery of, and fluency in, their own languages. The second posi-tion holds that the dominance of English has not really curbed the use of other languages. Scholars taking this position (Pennycook, 1998, among others) argue that the widespread use of English has only resulted in what can be called ‘hybridity’, that is, languages have intermingled and learnt to coexist. Singh’s (2012) argument echoes similar claims when he describes Indian English as any other language belonging to the ‘linguis-tic ecology’ of India.

We take a stance that lies between these two positions. Despite an ongoing and, often heated, debate between scholars on the two sides; it has become clear that hybridity or multilingualism can be the answer. However, this debate also requires us to determine whether the develop-ment of such hybridity can be left to spontaneous occurrences or whether it needs to be meticulously nurtured, for example, through and in lan-guage classrooms. Again, our answer is that we need a combination of the two. In everyday interactions among people, spaces for the coexist-ence of languages are regularly created and used. The problem seems to be that while people continue to prefer using their first languages (doubt-less with English terms thrown in to varying degrees) in most social or non-formal contexts, English has become the preferred language of com-munication in institutional contexts. This has understandably led to a demand by diverse groups for both English education as well as educa-tion in English. This is why the institutional context of schools must proactively encourage the use of multiple languages. Such an approach would serve two purposes: first, it would greatly facilitate language development in learners given the multilingual competence that they already possess; second, it would further the cause of social justice and empowerment in and through education.

The scientific study of language tells us that the ability to figure out language is naturally inherent in humans but that their environment

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



needs to provide appropriate stimulation for it to develop. A research agenda based on this understanding would focus on identifying and ana-lysing features of the environment that stimulate language development. For example, as Cummins and Swain (1986) have pointed out, whether or not a learning context demands speech production (in the second lan-guage) is crucial to the development of syntactic understanding among second-language learners in that context. Comparing classroom and home or neighbourhood contexts to discover and identify opportunities and patterns of language use could offer insights into what helps and/or hinders children in learning language.

At the same time, research should also focus on the ways in which language learners and speakers understand and negotiate power struc-tures as reflected in and shaped by language. Such an understanding on their part affects their linguistic choices (for example, code-switching) as well as their motivation and ability to pick up second or foreign lan-guages. In multilingual settings, research should focus on how speakers read and respond to linguistic demands in a given context, and on the factors that affect differential development and the patterns of the use of multiple languages.

While work on language and society has informed us about what and how children learn, it has not focused on incorrect usages in the way that Jackendoff (1993) discusses the role of systematic errors in language learning. Greater focus on such patterns in language development can help teachers understand where their young learners are and assess what can realistically be expected from them. This also implies that class-rooms have to offer space for children, not only for the use of the lan-guage of their choice, but also to make and correct errors.

Further, research should focus on classroom practices and processes in terms of the extent and nature of language use, as well as the social dynamics represented and fostered by these practices and processes. Research should involve the evaluation of pedagogic practices in order to understand how children engage with semantic and syntactic analyses, as well as the kinds of strategies that could encourage and facilitate reflection on their own and others’ language usage.

All these ideas imply that research should not be limited to written language, and instead should extend its ambit to the study of spoken language (as mentioned in the introduction), as well as to the ways in which learners’ language responds to the cultural, technological and

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



other changes around them. Such studies of change, and the responses to it, could also help us understand how socio-cultural background affects language performance and competence.

At another level, research should help us understand how teachers use their knowledge of particular languages as well as their knowledge of language in general; how they view and approach multilingualism in their own lives and in classrooms; and their views of learners’ perform-ance and competence. This kind of research can help us understand what happens inside classrooms and why, as well as what needs to change. If, as Heath (1983) suggests, teachers are themselves engaged in such research, this could be a process of reflection for them, allowing them to reflect on their knowledge, views and practices.

Conclusion

In this article, we have laid out a rationale and outlined a possible plan for bringing insights from linguistics to bear on language education. Language has been studied as both a social phenomenon as well as a property intrinsic to human minds. Both these approaches have yielded tremendously valuable insights into how language is acquired and used, and how it reflects and shapes social relations and practices. At one level, language acquisition has to be understood as the result of putting to use the universal language faculty with which human beings are born. This faculty consists of a set of principles and parameters that help human beings figure out the grammar of the languages to which they are exposed. However, there is a catch in the way in which this faculty oper-ates: it works best if children are immersed in language in the first 10 years of their lives. As we move away from this window of opportunity for development, language acquisition becomes harder, although it never becomes impossible except in cases of accident or disease leading to brain damage. First, the conception of such innate language ability in human beings explains the astonishing language development that we can observe in young children who have not received any formal and systematic training. Second, this explanation of linguistic ability when applied to language education has the potential of transforming our understanding of the language classroom in ways we could not have imagined previously. It offers excellent reasons to move away from rote

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



and recitation as ways of learning grammar and instead to focus on con-tent and meaning. In addition, the scientific study of language can be brought into classrooms and learners taught to generate and test their own hypotheses regarding grammar and the usage of language. Encouraging and facilitating such reflection on language use can prove beneficial not only to language learning, but also to learning in general.

We have discussed the ideas of Halliday, Britton and Bruner to argue that all learning is a meaning-making process. As such, it is imperative that students learn to reflect on both the form of language (grammar, acceptable patterns of use in diverse contexts) as well as the use of lan-guage. Such pedagogy can help change what language classrooms can do for learners as well as for societies. However, in order to achieve that, we have to pay attention to both the study of I-language as well as the study of language–society and language–culture connections. This would help set a transformed agenda for language education, one that serves the educational needs of learners while also allowing them to function as members of a pluralistic and democratic society. To this end, we have discussed the need for a socially responsive conception of language edu-cation, keeping in mind a globalising world and the socially and linguis-tically significant phenomenon of multilingualism. Multilingualism can, and urgently needs to, replace the concept of ‘a language’ that we cur-rently assume as the default. That is, we must base our ideas of language education on the fact of multilingualism; theoretical linguistics shows that multilingualism is natural to human beings and provides evidence of linguistic ability on the part of individuals. Any pedagogic and curricular programme for language education must take multilingualism into account, not the least because it is highly correlated with cognitive and scholastic ability. As we have discussed, there is a need to develop a research plan for this partnership between the study of language and lan-guage education.

ReferencesAgnihotri, R.K. (2007). Towards a pedagogical paradigm rooted in multilingual-

ity. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(2), 1–10.———. (2009). Multilinguality and a new world order. In A.K. Mohanty, M.

Panda, R. Phillipson & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 268–277). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



Agnihotri, R.K. (2013, December 19). New ways of learning old rules. The Hindu. Retrieved 9 February 2014, from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/new-ways-of-learning-old-rules/article5474824.ece#.

Britton, J. (1971). Words and a world. In A. Jones & J. Mulford (Eds), Children using language: An approach to English in the primary school (pp. 27–39). London: Oxford University Press for the National Association for the Teaching of English.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.———. (1971). Language acquisition. In J.P.B. Allen & P. van Buren (Eds),

Chomsky: Selected readings (pp. 127–148) (Language and Language Learning Series No. 31). London: Oxford University Press.

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and practice. London: Longman.

Delpit, L.D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298.

Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. (1984). Linguistics and education. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 251–274.

Jackendoff, R. (1993). Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Kumar, R. (2012). Multilinguality and English: Choice of language for education in India. Fortell, (25), 24–26.

———. (2013). Linguistic analyses: Implications for language teaching. Language and Language Teaching, 1(2), 22–26.

Labov, W. (1969). The logic of nonstandard English. Monographs series on language and linguistics, 22. Washington, DC: Georgetown University School of Languages and Linguistics.

Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing literacies. Buckingham: Open University Press.Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.Marinova-Todd, S.H., Marshall, D.B., & Snow, C.E. (2000). Three misconceptions

about age and L2 learning. Tesol Quarterly, 34(1), 9–34.National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (2006).

National focus group on teaching of Indian languages. Position Paper 3. New Delhi: NCERT.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE



Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76(27); whole no. 546, 1–23. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Poole, G. (2002). Syntactic theory. New York: Palgrave.Putnam, L. R. (1995). An interview with Noam Chomsky. The Reading teacher,

48(4), 328–333. Retrieved 9 February 2014, from http://adultlearning.wikispaces.com/file/view/Chomsky.pdf/30381554/Chomsky.pdf

Sapir, E. (1933). Language. In D.G. Mandlebaum (Ed) (1963), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality (pp. 7–13). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Singh, R. (2012). Reflections on English in India and Indian English. In R.K. Agnihotri & R.Singh (Eds), Indian English: Towards a new paradigm (pp. 15–46). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.

Smith, N. (2004). Chomsky: Ideas and ideals (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge University Press.

Yunus, R. (2010). Can there be dialogue in Ajju’s classroom? A term paper, MA in Education (Elementary), Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

———. (2014). No talking, children! Speech and silencing in language classrooms: Of difference, dialogue and learning. Language and Language Teaching, 3(1), 5, 6–11.

linguistics in language education

Documents