Changing the Language Policy of an Institution - Essay Example

Changing the Language Policy of an Institution Student’s Name Institution Date Top of Form 2A. Summary The Kaplan international institution can be ranked among some of the finest institutions that promote gender and ethnicity. The institution enrolls students from all over the world, regardless of gender, since enrolment is based on merit and qualification thereby promoting gender equality (Reynolds, 1998). Gender equality is observed in the institution since similar rights apply to all students and staff and also to the residents of Melbourne, Australia. When it comes to ethnicity, this institution is one of the most diverse and is set up in a multicultural city of Australia. Students from the world over meet and interact in the student lounge, the classrooms and even in the residences. Their computers in the computer study center can be accessed using every language and have tailor made software to enable students from all over the world be comfortable in their ways. Bringing together people of all ethnicities and genders help the institution promote gender and ethnicity (Pavlenko, 2001). Since it engages in teaching the English language for the students to conquer the business world, the school uses this means to promote learning from other cultures (Auer et al., 2007). Having a basic form of communication helps the students engage in discourses through which they learn from each other. Getting the different perspectives enables one to be open minded and regard each ethnicity the respect and dignity they deserve (Argamon et al., 2003). The institution encourages students to use or deploy totally the language learned in the speech community they exist in. This is enabled through encouraging the use of English language in the day to day communication and even in the community. English is the principle language used, and the use of whiteboards in the classroom allows for an interactive learning session. Students engage in various sports activities that encourage them to use the academic language in social settings. Such social activities allow the students to engage in discourses that give them a better understanding of the English language. The student center allows them to interact with each other and thus enables them totally deploy their sociolinguistic repertoire. The talk in the school is aimed at allowing the students practice their learned concepts in social and other settings thus giving them a chance not only to get better but also be proficient in the use of the language. With the convergence of various ethnicities and the formation of a new speech community, the institution does well in encouraging the full use of the learned English language (Wardaugh R., 2010). There exist some policies in the institution regarding the use of language that allows the students to learn and master the art of the English language (Argamon et al., 2003). Some of the formal policies applied in the institution include the use of English in teaching and also in communication. The use English as a means of communication within the campus is encouraged, and this enables students to have fun the process of learning through practical application of taught principles. Even though it is an unspoken rule, English is the language that is used to propagate ideas and students make use of the language since it is the main objective of the institution. It also allows one to live at home with a family in Australia and this serves to enable them to speak the language in a natural situation thus furthering the student's application of the language in relaxed settings. Changing the language policy in the institution is important because it enables the institution embrace not only diversity and multilingualism but also helps the international students from different nationalities feel at home in the new environment (Thonus T 1999). Even though English is the primary language in use, there is still need for the institution to have another language being used in communication, preferably a second or a third. This would promote different cultures and even help advance cultural diversity while at the same time enabling the students to interact with the new cultures (Bamman et al., 2014). A change in policy where the school can encourage students to be competent in their home language while also learning the official language can be used to encourage multilingualism. This can be achieved through maintaining and developing the home language while becoming competent in the additional language. This is important since it allows all students to be unique in their ways. This can be done through creating clubs or organizations that allow students to develop their home languages. Another idea would be introducing a second international language such as French or German in the system. This would create a multilingual environment in the school since the two languages introduced are recognized internationally (Anchimbe, 2013). Using French as the second language in the institution would avail to the students more opportunities because they may be able to communicate effectively in Europe and abroad. Since the institution is aimed at making people proficient in English, adding a second language allows the students to become more competent in the market place and even empowers them to face all kinds of challenges they may get in the future. Encouraging the use of a second language in communication, sporting activities and more would also promote a multilingual culture in the institution (Sankoff et al., 2008). Adopting the language for use in teaching and even teaching the language in the institution would also promote multilingualism. Such can be done through tentatively introducing the language as the second language for repertoire in the institution and also introducing a curriculum for teaching the language for free. Making it a mandatory or a common unit in the school would allow the students take a short time in learning the new language and encouraging its use in class and off campus would promote the multilingual culture in the institution (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998). The institution would remain the go to school for English since it would not require the side lining of the English language for the new one but what would be required is the integration of both. This would help the school maintain its identity while also promoting a multilingual and diverse culture (Hyland K, 2005). 2B. Reflection on Change in Language Policy Interview Excerpt Interviewer: What do you think about changing the institutions language policy? Respondent: I think that is a welcome idea since it would promote multilingualism in the institution although going about it may be a bit technical= Interviewer: =And what do you mean by technical? ((pause)) Respondent: What I mean is that (0.9) it may require some time before the whole institution latches on to the idea of a change in the language policy (0.2) because the institution mainly exists to teach English. People would always (hh) ↑fall back to English for communi-cation (·hhh) Interviewer: Speaking of multilingualism – how do you propose a change in ↑policy (0.2) introducing French, would promote such? Respondent: °Umm ((scratching the head)) having to speak two compulsory languages (0.4) not forgetting the ↑mother tongue crea : tes a - multilingual speech society. However, ↓ the cha : llenges exisṭ. Such as having the right strategy in implementation to engaging students in a new foreign language at an advanced age! Interviewer: Do you think it is a feasible idea? Respondent: ·hhh research has shown that (hh) drastic changes to language policy (0.4) encourages explora (h) tion of culture, ↑ especially in higher leaning institutions. So ((pause)) enfor : cing such can pave way for progress, albeit unpopular. Interviewer: ….[ X                                                                  What challenges - do you expecṭ (0.2) from such a change? Respondent: I think students would fall back to English ↑ naturally in informal settings wh (·hh) en speaking and (hhh) French would be delegated to cla : : sswork only because the principal language is English. Where French might make headway, ˃people would be required to change to English˂ when a ↓ less conver : sant person joins in the conversation. Interviewer: What about introducing French as a core unit (0.5) in the institution? Respondent: ……X Hmm ((pause)) ˃This may be a great way of encouraging multilingualism˂ (0.3) sin : ce everyone would be involved. However (·hh), the logistical problems of arriving at such are enormous ((sigh)) and the administration may not be willing to cover such costs. Interviewer: What about teaching it for free (0.9) in the institution? Respondent: ((clearing throat))This seems like a good way of te : sting the idea. It may work for those interested because ˃between social life, academics and attending free tuition˂ (0.5) most students would do tuition lasṭ. This is because Melbourne is a big city with many attractions, therefore, students take their time to see the world and explore. The concept of having a multilingual institution is that people can use a variety of languages in communication, but there are also factors to consider before implementing such an idea. Language choice is key to identifying the kind of language that should be used in the institution (Laakso et al., 2016). One context-specific factor in choosing a language is the relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor and a case in point is a student and a teacher. “It would be difficult for a first time French-speaking learner to carry out a conversation in French with a teacher in a social setting,” Setting up guidelines that allow for a multilingual French and English speaking people would be deterred by the context in which the language is being used (Hyland, 2005). The choice of language by the speaker would be determined mostly by either their original language or the language that they have been interacting with for a long period (Hyland K, 2005). Another circumstance that comes into play is the main objective of the student in the institution, and in this case, the main goal of students is to learn and master the use of the English language. Therefore, students will tend to speak English with their friends with a similar objective of improving their competencies in the language. This serves to show that another factor that determines the choice of language is the purpose or function of the language as used in conversation (Kubota, 2016). Another factor that determines the choice of language and that would make people avoid or rather minimally use French as the interaction language is the purpose or topic of interaction. Students at a party would be confident speaking in English because French would be more foreign to them and the difficulties presented would prove to too momentous to occasion it as a language of interaction. On the other hand, those that are discussing the renaissance period or French art would feel more comfortable discussing it in French (Thonus T 1999). There is another issue that comes up in the use of language, and that is linguistic etiquette. It is a universal taboo to use a language that might exclude one or more persons from a conversation. This is applicable even if the subject being discussed has no relevance to the person being excluded because it would mean isolating the individual in question (Gorter, 2006). An example is when a group of students is discussing issues concerning a party in French, and another student joins in who is not proficient in the language. This would mean that the group will have to continue that discourse in a language the new individual can understand, which may be English in our case. This would probably mean sidelining the new language for the one that is more common to the people. It would be a hindrance to communication in a certain way because it would mean learning a third or a fourth language as an adult and research has not been done extensively in this area (Hellinger & Ammon, 1996). Some students find it hard to communicate in the formal language and adding another one would lead to even more difficulties in the process of learning (Bamman et al., 2014). Introducing French as a core unit or a common unit in the institution can be applauded as a forward step in making the institution multilingual. Theoretically speaking, this would require a new syllabus and even the enrolment of new teachers for the language being introduced. Application of such would require the administration to come up with a new system, curriculum, teachers and even alter a few the qualifications required for entry. These are costs that the administration may not wish to incur hence it would be a bit problematic when introducing such a language as the alternative. Motivation of the learners is also a factor because as one identifies a language they wish to use in expressing ideas, motivation in the process is essential (Anchimbe, 2013). Investment in the process is required, and this is dependent on the attached value to gaining proficiency in the new dialect. The gains that can be realized by being proficient in the new language can determine the use of a new language. In this case, the new language gives the students a competitive advantage in the job market, and this would be an advantage to those who would learn and master the language (Kubota R, 2016). Regarding the issue of ethnicity, it is important that the students' preserve their cultural and ethnic identity and introducing another new language would introduce a sense of conflict of interest. This is because some international students would be required to decide between maintaining their cultural identity and choosing a new foreign language other than English. Introducing them to two new foreign languages would require a total mind shift for the entire institution. Utilitarian considerations also have to be taken in mind when also choosing the language. In this case, one with a background in French would more likely be at an advantage when speaking in it especially in arguments or discourses raised in the language because it would give them a valuable edge (Thonus, 1999). On the other hand, one who is not proficient in a language can see the advantage in using it to feign ignorance or keep short a dialogue they are not interested in. Students of languages other than their mother tongue would lean towards the use of the foreign language with the intention of mastering the vocabulary and improving their ability in the use of that language (Bamman et al., 2014). Some of the changes to the idea of introducing the new language in the new language policy of the institution include the proper strategy in the implementation of the new language policy. This is because it would be a required third or fourth language to most of the students and this can be a daunting task to individuals not majoring in languages in higher learning institutions (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998). This is however not a big risk compared to the great losses it would incur in failing to identify and promote a multilingual and diverse culture in the institution. The loss of indigenous cultures in Australia has led to the disappearance of various languages in the region leaving only English as the national language, even though the country and the city of Melbourne has a high population of foreigners. The institution, therefore, needs to introduce some changes to the language used via introducing French as the alternative language. There is an option of doing it tentatively or though radical means (Bamman et al., 2014). I suggest a two-front approach that uses both means in the accomplishment of the task. Since introducing a new curriculum would not sit well with the students, the tentative approach can be used in inducting them to the new system. This approach may include the gradual introduction of French as a means of communication through study guides and evening lessons apart from the current subjects being studied (Sankoff et al., 2008). Another idea that may be applied includes the use of French in posters and advertisements, posters and signs alongside English translations. This would go a protracted way in preparing the students mentally for the inevitable revolution in the linguistic culture of the school. The whiteboards in classes can also be utilized in aiding the learning of French enunciation and also teach on how to carry out conversations in the language. Such tentative approaches could be used in the institution to encourage the students to speak and learn a foreign language and hence enhance diversity (Kubota R, 2016). On the other hand, policy makers could change the language policy drastically for the new enrollment through introducing it into the curriculum. It was mentioned before that this might lead to the institution losing its sense of place among the best English teaching institutions, but this would be offset by the advantage it would gain in teaching more than one international language (Norrby & Hajek, 2011). In the initial enrolment, students with a background in French can be considered as this would allow them to interact freely with other students thereby passing on the acquired knowledge in the use of the language. French lecturers on campus and change of the language policy to recognize both English and French as the formal and informal languages for use in the institution staffing would help in creating the environment required for cultural diversity and multilingualism. Other than introducing French as a mandatory subject, the institution could also introduce days when the official language used is French in the whole institution (Kubota R, 2016). Introducing this measure would encourage the students to apply their learned knowledge in the day to day activities in the institution thus allowing them to be proficient in the acquired knowledge. This would promote a multilingual speech community with the ability to communicate in English, French and their mother tongues. Using the language in teaching some subjects should be the order of the day as this would give the students, even more, time to interact with the language. Making it mandatory requirements for graduation for the new students would encourage proficiency in the language (Lillis & McKinney, 2013). In conclusion, it is important to promote cultural and linguistic diversity in institutions (Wodak et al., 2011). Changing the language policy of an institution while maintaining their identity is a difficult but possible task in that with the proper strategy in place, it can be realized in very few years. The benefits of having a multicultural society far outweigh those of having a monolingual one (Garcia et al., 2013). As the changes occur, it is important to keep the signs in both languages and develop the new language such that it may receive full support from both the staff and students (Johnson, 2013). It is important to enroll some lecturers on the program to enable them to communicate effectively with the students. Moral support rendered by the faculty would encourage students to learn the new program faster so that they can apply the knowledge in either English or French and most people in Kaplan would be able to communicate using both languages without changing either context or meaning. Thus a change in language policy is paramount in the institution (Kubota R, 2016). References Abbassi, A. (1997). A sociolinguistic analysis of multilingualism in Morocco. Ann Arbor, Mich: UMI Dissertation Services. Bottom of Form Top of Form Anchimbe, E. A. (2013). Language Policy and Identity Construction: The dynamics of Cameroon's multilingualism. Bottom of Form Argamon,S.,Koppel,M.,Fine,J.,&Shimoni,A.R.(2003).Gender,genreandwritingstyleinformalwritt entexts.Text,23(3),321–346. Top of Form Auer, P., & Li, W. (2007). Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bottom of Form Bamman,D.,Eisenstein,J.,&Schnoebelen,T.(2014).Genderidentityandlexicalvariationinsocialmed ia.JournalofSociolinguistics,18(2),135–160. Top of Form Bell, A. (2013). The guidebook to sociolinguistics. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Bottom of Form Top of Form Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon, England [u.a.: Multilingual Matters. Top of Form De, F.-H. I. (2011). Towards multilingualism and the inclusion of cultural diversity. Kassel: Kassel Univ. Press. Bottom of Form Top of Form Edwards, J. (2012). Multilingualism: Understanding linguistic diversity. London: Continuum. Top of Form García, O., Zakharia, Z., & Otcu, B. (2013). Bilingual community education and multilingualism: Beyond heritage languages in a global city. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Top of Form Hellinger, M., & Ammon, U. (1996). Contrastive sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Hyland,K.(2005).Stanceandengagement:Amodelofinteractioninacademicdiscourse.Discourse&S ociety,7(2),173–192. Top of Form Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Bottom of Form Kubota,R.(2016).Themulti/pluralturn,postcolonialtheory,andneoliberalmulticulturalism:Complici tiesandimplications forAppliedLinguistics.AppliedLinguistics,37(4),474–494. Top of Form Laakso, J., Sarhimaa, A., Spiliopoulou, A. A., & Toivanen, R. (2016). Towards openly multilingual policies and practices: Assessing minority language maintenance across Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bottom of Form Lillis,T.&McKinney,C.(2013).Thesociolinguisticsofwritinginaglobalcontext:Objects,lenses,cons equences.JournalofSociolinguistics,17(4),415–43 Reynolds,K.(1998).Female speakerofJapaneseintransition.InJ.Coates(Ed),Languageandgender:A reader(pp.299–308).Oxford:Blackwell Thonus,T.(1999).Dominanceinacademicwritingtutorials:Gender,languageproficiency,andtheoffer ingofsuggestions.Discourse&Society,10(2),225–248. Top of Form Norrby, C., & Hajek, J. (2011). Uniformity and diversity in language policy: Global perspectives. Bottom of Form Top of Form Pavlenko, A. (2001). Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Top of Form P, C. T. D. P. M. M. R. V. (n.d.). Multilingualism for empowerment: Studies in language policy in south africa. Place of publication not identified: Van Schaik Publishers. Top of Form Sankoff, G., Meyerhoff, M., & Nagy, N. (2008). Social lives in language--sociolinguistics and multilingual speech communities: Celebrating the work of Gillian Sankoff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (2006). Contemporary perspectives on language policy and literacy instruction in early childhood education. Charlotte, N.C: Information Age Publishing. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell. Top of Form Wodak, R., Johnstone, B., & Kerswill, P. (2011). The Sage handbook of sociolinguistics. Los Angeles: SAGE. Read More