COURSE: GGGE6413

LANGUAGE POLICY

ASSIGNMENT 2

PAIR ESSAY

NAME: NITHIA PRATHIBA THEVAR D/O KAMALANATHAN

THEEBANRAJ S/O NAGARAJAN
MATRIC NO: GP 05685 / GP05731
PROGRAM: PROGRAM SISWAZAH EKSEKUTIF (TESL)
LECTURER: ASSOC. PROF. DR. PARILAH M. SHAH
SESSION: SEM 1 2017/2018
DATE: JANUARY 15TH 2018
 LANGUAGE PLANNING IN THE PHILIPINES AND NIGERIA:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Edward Sapir (1921) defines language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of
communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by mean of voluntarily produced symbols. In his view,
language is described as a mean of communication by human beings to interact with each other. It
is also referred as the natural process. Language is also a system of communication by sound,
operating through the organs of speech and hearing among the members of a given community
and using vocal symbols possessing arbitrary conventional meaning (Pei 1996). Wayne Weiten
(2007) has defined language consists of symbols that convey meaning, plus rules for combining
those symbols, that can be used to generate an infinite variety of messages. Hence, a language is
a system to communicate ideas which represents a community or society. In many countries across
the globe has multiracial society which practices number of languages in daily conversations. For
example, in Malaysia, where various races practice number of languages such as Malay Language,
Tamil Language, Chinese Language, English Language, Iban, Kadazun, and so on. Most
importantly, in most of the countries, English Language has become one of the major languages
that is being in use among the citizens.

“A language achieves a genuinely global status when it develops a special role that is recognized
in every country” (Crystal, 1997 p.2). Clearly, the English language has achieved such a role. It
has become the world‟s lingua franca. Currently, because of its association with global economy,
it is deemed to be “the natural choice for progress” (Crystal, 1997 p.75). Phillipson (2003),
observes that English has acquired a narcotic power in many parts of the world, an addiction that
has long-term consequences that are far from clear. As with various trades which have major
commercial interests involved in the global English industry. Kumuravadivelu (2008) observes
that just as we have to deal with the globality of the English language we also have to deal with its
coloniality. According to some other researchers, the globality of the English language rode on the
back of colonialism (Pennycook, 2001). There is also the indelible impact it has had on the
identities of people around the world (Krishnaswamy & Burde, 1998), as well as practice of
resistance (Canagarajah, 1999). Similarly, English has great impact in Nigeria and Philippines. In
this composition, a comparative language planning in Nigeria and Philippines will be looked into.
2.0 LANGUAGE PLANNING IN NIGERIA

Back in the 1977, the Nigerian National Policy on Education as revised (NPE, 2004) promoted the
use of the mother tongue or the language of the immediate community as medium of instruction
in early formal education. This means, every Nigerian child should and is required to learn one of
the three major Nigerian languages namely Igbo, Hausa and Yoruba. In addition to Nigerian’s own
language, English Language is also taught by specialised teachers of English. Omamor (1984)
states that the 1981 revision of the 1977 policy statement outlines the importance of language in
the educational process as a means of preserving the peoples culture, stressing in the process, the
necessity in the interest of national unity.

However, the formal western education was introduced in Nigeria by Christian Missionaries.
These believed that the child would be best taught in his native language which will be best served
in propagating interest of Christian religion in indigenous language (Taiwo 1994). Hence, the
teaching and learning of indigenous languages received much genuine attention in the 1950s.
However, this approach, was not accepted and mostly against by everybody especially the elite
citizens. This is because, in their view the products of such education was not suitable for the job
market of those days. Those with reasonable command of the English language were in high
demand. The priority was given to those who have mastered English Language. Hence, the
government of Nigeria has started giving more attention to the English Language and its
implementation in school level. The result was that the government around 1960s has gradually
intervened English Language to a lot more prominence in the education of their country. Over the
time, the education policy on language, initiated by the Nigerian government succeeded, shifting
interest in language very much away from indigenous languages to English, the language of the
colonial masters. Thus, the English language has been accorded a second language status in
Nigeria. It is the official language used in all provinces.

English has also been regarded as symbol for wealth, success, political, intellectual and economic
power. English Language also greatly influences the speed and rapid decision-making characterize
this new high-tech age. Therefore, acquiring and mastering English proficiently and quickly will
determine the economic success in this global village due to its status. This statement is true, but
certainly there are few other factors that have traditionally led to economic success. Obviously,
there are other factors that traditionally contributed to national wealth and prosperity such as first
language literacy, work ethic, birth-rate, education and social stability. But in the globalization ear,
the acquisition of English as a means to further economic success and political power is a reality.
But government must know and understand exactly why they believe that English proficiency is
necessary and more importantly how non-implementation of the existing national language policy
has continuously affected national culture and identity of Nigerians. Educational policies were
reviewed from time to time and tailored to the economic needs and cultural situation of the
individual country. In realization of this fact, the government should see the indigenous languages
more clearly for what functions that they had before, which is serving as a means of
communication. These considerations are explicitly spelt out in section one, paragraph eight of
the National Policy on Education, which is a document that contains the general objectives,
philosophy, goals and aims of education in Nigeria (NPE, 2004).

Today, English has grown to become the official national language of Nigeria and continues to
play important roles in the nation as the language of education, media, religion and the language
of politics, governance and law. It has become the language of the elites and also for some
Nigerians, English is their first language. In Nigeria, the variety of English Language used is called
Nigerian Pidgin. It is a neutral language spoken across every ethnic and social boundary in the
nation. Other exogenous languages with less influence are Arabic and French. The Arabic
language has a major political and religious weight in the northern part of the country after the
Usman Dan Fodio Jihad war (1804-1808). The present language ethnography in Nigeria records
over 521 languages and ethnic groups in the nation. These indigenous languages have been
stratified as majority and minority languages based on the population of speakers. However from
a linguistic standpoint, the government has conveniently recognized three major languages -
Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba - because they all have over twenty million speakers (Oyetade 2003).
Other languages such as Tiv, Istekiri, Urhobo, Esan, Fulfude, Ebira, Nupe, Kanuri, Ibibio, Efik
and Gwari to mention a few with over one million speakers are considered the minority languages
(Bamgbose 1991).

Table 1: Language Types

Exogenous English, Fench, Arabic

Indigenous Over 521
Neutral English pidgin
Language planning has been defined as the deliberate intervention by the government on a
language. It is a conscious effort made on a language to change the condition and status of the
language. Such changes are targeted towards altering the status of a language and the linguistic
range and functionality of the language. Hence, language planning improves the social status of a
language by a policy that empowers a language. Oyetade (2003) observes that language planning
as an organized and systematic pursuit of solutions to language problems has remained largely
peripheral to the mainstream of national planning. However, since Nigeria got independence in
1960, there has not been such initiatives. Thus, the complex linguistic situation described above,
there are many questions that can be raised such as which language should function in special
domains in the lives of Nigerians and what is the linguistic right of the people in the minority
group?

The suggestion is to adopt one of the indigenous languages as the national lingual Franca. By doing
this, the position appears beneficial when one thinks of the fact that Nigeria has over five hundred
languages none of which is used at any national capacity. This view promotes the suppression of
English and the promotion of indigenous languages and culture. However, the question that
immediately arises is which indigenous language should be chosen and accorded the preferred
status of a national language? Some have argued that one of the three majority languages should
be chosen given that they have a considerable number of speakers. That however has a divisive
capacity to steer ethnic consciousness and defeat the sense of nationhood that the nationalist
agenda seek to project. Akinnaso (1994) observes that Nigerians are religiously loyal to their
mother tongues and are contemptuous of other local languages. Hence, closer consideration should
be given before selecting the native languages to be the lingua franca.

Another attempt on the issue of national language policy in Nigeria is the one that favours an
exogenous language over the indigenous ones. Those who are of this of this view centres
multiculturalism and multilingualism of Nigeria. English performs the task of unifying the
different ethnic groups in Nigeria. Therefore, English should be seen as serving a pragmatic
advantage in the life of the nation. Nigeria cannot exist as a national entity without English as the
mechanism for governance and administration as English is Nigeria’s language of literature; it is
Nigeria’s archival and library language. They believe that no indigenous language could bear the
functional weight that English carries in the nation’s linguistic economy and as such it should
continue to hold sway as the nation’s lingua franca. The contention with this position is that the
exogenous language has successfully displaced the indigenous languages from performing visible
functions in the lives of the people.

An alternative proposal raised by some scholars assumes a neutral position on the indigenous-
exogenous debate on national lingual franca. They are neither in support of English as a national
language nor support any indigenous language as a possible national official language. They
believe that the variety of the English language spoken in Nigeria called the Nigerian Pidgin (NP)
could perform the task of an official language. This is because it is not a native of any tribe or
ethnicity and as such it has the capacity to create ethnic cohesion. Another justification for Nigerian
Pidgin is that it is the language of the masses. While English continues to perform ‘high’ language
functions in Nigeria, Pidgin English has almost taken over the role of lingua franca in informal
domains. It is to be noted that every citizens in Nigeria uses it, educated and illiterates, the rich
and the poor, the upper class or lower class all use pidgin for communicative purposes. As a major
linguistic factor in Nigeria, it has evolved from a commercial language between mercantilist
Europeans and Nigerians in trade situations in the nineteenth century into a more functional
language of interethnic communication between Nigerians of different ethnic backgrounds.

From the forgoing, it is clear that the language situation in Nigeria is so complex that it will be
unrealistic to explain this complexity engaging only one model of policy. The approach proposed
is a multilingual policy in which there is a language hierarchy from the local to the national. The
language multilingual language policy will assign functions to languages in the order of :

1. National Lingual Franca

2. Regional Lingual Franca

3. State Lingual Franca

4. Local languages

In vignette, by doing this, none of the indigenous language will be harmed.

3.0 LANGUAGE PLANNING IN PHILIPPINES

The official language in Philippines is Filipino. However, the linguistic and cultural diversity in
the Philippines brings much complexity to the issue of language policy in education. With more
than 7000 islands and 181 distinct languages the Philippines offers a challenging environment for
implementing a language policy that can serve the whole country (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig,
2013).Consequently, language policies for Philippines’ schools have fluctuated greatly over the
last century with a different policy for nearly every generation. In the years of 1974 and 1987,
Bilingual Education Policies determined the language of instruction in schools to be Filipino and
English. This is despite the fact that about 80% of the population does not speak either of these as
a first language.

In the year of 2009, the Department of Education challenged the Bilingual Education Policy by
issuing an order that called for institutionalization of mother tongue-based multilingual education
(MTB-MLE). This issue was raised in order to require the use of the learners‘ first language as the
medium of instruction for all subject areas in pre-kindergarten through grade three with Filipino
and English being taught as separate subjects (Philippines Department of Education, 2009).
Another order was also issued in 2012 that offered more specific guidelines for MTB-MLE and
embedded the reform in the newly adopted K to 12 Basic Education Program‖ (Philippines
Department of Education, 2012). This order shifted from the original mother tongue approach by
specifying twelve major regional languages to be used as the languages of instruction. Under this
order, teachers are provided government-issued materials in their regional languages but are
expected to adapt them to reflect the students’ first languages.

However, in January 2013 the Philippines’ Congress officially supported this effort by passing the
Enhanced Basic Education Act. In addition to shifting toward a K-12 educational structure, this
legislation requires instruction, teaching materials, and assessments to be in the regional or native
language of the learners‖ from kindergarten through grade three with a mother language transition
program from grades four through six. This shift in language policy is part of a growing trend
around the world to support mother tongue instruction in the early years of a child‘s education. In
Southeast Asia, this is apparent in a rising number of educational programs that utilize a mother
tongue approach. Examples can be found in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. In all
of these cases, the programs are being piloted at the community level with support from
international non-governmental agencies (INGOs). While the use of non-dominant languages in
education is allowed in each of these countries, the Philippines is the single country to institute a
national policy requiring their inclusion in the early grades. As a result, the implementation of
MTB-MLE in the Philippines is being looked at as an example for the rest of the regions.

Some of the conflicts in Philippines, has led to a situation where those who were victims of
unification strategies desire education in an international language as opposed to their mother
tongue. Benson (2004) pointed out that hesitance to adopt mother tongue policies might be due to
hundreds of years of colonial thinking that devalues indigenous languages. English in education
led to tensions within and between communities as English-only campaigns led to feelings of
insecurity for language minority speakers since English became associated with elite and educated
populations (Brigham and Castillo 1999)

These notions of English have lasted into the 21st century where language minority speakers
continue to feel inferior and push for English in classroom instruction. They believe that English
proficiency can open doors of opportunity for children as they move through life, and that the poor
should have access to the language that provides for these opportunities. (Sibayan, 1999, p. 291).
As Williams and Cooke (2002) claim, English is seen as a language as the first step toward a
coveted white-collar job. The economic value associated with English has pushed it to the top of
the learning agenda for many stakeholders, while sacrificing local languages (Hornberger & Vaish,
2009) The strong ideologies favouring English and other European languages naturally create
resistance to mother tongue instruction from many stakeholders. This has been noted in
multilingual contexts across several continents.

The language policy is often implemented from a top-down approach in which a national
governing body makes decisions to be implemented at a local level. These top-down approaches
are typically prescriptive and generalized across multiple contexts. Even though language policies
are often made in positions of authority, the decision to adopt them may be in response to pressure
from advocacy groups, nongovernmental organizations, or other funding agencies. Globally and
regionally, there is increased interest in the use of the mother tongue as a language of instruction
in education. International organization such as UNESCO, intergovernmental agencies such as
SEAMEO, and various donor agencies advocate for this policy shift. In addition, organizations
such as SIL International and Save the Children have actively promoted MTB-MLE through their
work in the Philippines, as well as in many countries around the world.

In many instances MTB-MLE reforms start as small pilot projects through the support of an
international organization. The intent is to build political and national support for the program‘s
expansion by sharing the success stories of the pilot programs. However, scholars acknowledge
that moving from experimental pilot phases to more widespread implementation is one of the most
difficult aspects of language planning and policy (Benson, 2004). Programs may find success at
community levels, but their national implementation is detracted by larger systemic issues.
Political, economic, and social issues often collide at the national policymaking level around
language of instruction in schools. MTB-MLE has rarely been contested on pedagogical ground,
but structural challenges can impede proper implementation of a program. Amidst claims of
success with MTB-MLE, Dutcher (2003) admitted that it is ultimately ineffective when there is a
lack of materials, poor teacher training, and inadequate language development. Ambatchew (2010)
argued that unless a rich environment of books, posters, television and radio programmes is created
in the medium or media of instruction, the students are doomed to failure. In order to accommodate
for limited resources, top-down reforms often rely on a training method called cascade training.
This approach begins with a group of lead trainers who train another group of trainers, who may
then train a group of teachers in their own regions or districts. This is touted as a cost-effective
means for training a large number of teachers in a short amount of time (Wedell, 2005).

Hence, in order to fully implement the MTB-MLE policy, there are many aspects that need to be
considered.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The language policy in both countries are complex and depends on the government’s policies. In
Nigeria, the main focus is economy advancement. Hence, English Language is being focussed and
being accorded the status of lingua franca. On the other hand, in Philippines, the use native
language in formal education is being focussed even though English is also part of the major
languages spoken in Philippines.
REFERENCES

Ambatchew, M. D.2010. Traversing the linguistic quicksand in Ethiopia. In K. Menken & O.

García (Eds.) Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp.
211-231). New York: Routledge
Akinnaso, F.N.1994. Towards the Development of a Multilingual Language Policy in Nigeria.
Oxford Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. (12).pp. 29-61.
Bamgbose, A.1991. Language and the Nation: The Language Question in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Benson, C.2004. Bilingual schooling in Mozambique and Bolivia: From experimentation to
implementation. Language Policy, 3, 47-66.

Brigham, S. & Castillo, E.1999. Language policy for education in the Philippines. Technical
background paper for the Philippines Education for the 21st Century—The 1998
Philippines Education Sector Study. Manila: Asian Development Bank and World Bank.

Canagarajah, S.1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University press.
Crystal, D.1997. English as a global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hornberger, N., & Vaish, V.2009. Multilingual language policy and school linguistic practice:
Globalization and English-language teaching in India, Singapore and South Africa.
Compare, 39(3), 305-320.

Krishnaswamy, N. & Burde, A.1998.The Politics of Indians‟ English Delhi: Oxford

University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B.2003. A Postmethod Perspective on English Language Teaching. World
Englishes, 22, 539-550.
Lewis, P., Simons, G. & Fennig, C. (Eds.).2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. (17th ed.)
Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from
http://www.ethnologue.com
National Policy on Education (NPE). 2004. Lagos; NERDC Press.
Omamor, A.1984. Language Planning: Theory and Practice in Some African Countries. Paper
presented at the National Seminar on Innovative Approaches to Development Theory,
 Organized by NISER University of Ibadan Jan. 23-27th.
Pei, M. 1965. The Story of Language. Philadelphia: Lippincott Company.

Phillipson, R. 2003. English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge

Philippines Department of Education.2012. Guidelines on the implementation of the mother

tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) (Order no. 16). Pasig City: Author.

Oyetade, S. 2003. Language Planning in a multi-ethnic state: The majority/minority dichotomy

in Nigeria. www.njas.helsink.fi/pdf.files/vol12nom1/oyetade
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt: Brace and
Company.

Sibayan, B. P. 1999. The intellectualization of Filipino. Manila: Linguistic Society of the

Philippines.

Taiwo, S. 1994. Linguistics and the National Policy on Education in Nigeria 1977/1981:
Nigerian Language Studies. Journal of National Institute for Nigerian Languages 1;2.
Wedell, M. 2005. Cascade training down into the classroom: The need for parallel planning.

International Journal of Educational Development, 26(6), 637-661.

Weiten, W. 2007. Psychology: Themes And Variations (7th ed.). Thomson Wasworth.

Williams, E., & Cooke, J.2002. Pathways and labyrinths: Language and education in

development. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), 297-322.