Presentation to the UP Senate Committee on language policy at UP on the Helsinki conference on bi- and multilingual universities 11 November 2005

Vic Webb, CentRePoL and Department of Afrikaans, UP

DARE TO BE MULTILINGUAL!

1. Origin of the concern about bi- and multilingual universities (BMUs) in Europe

a) As Professor Urs Altermatt (rector of the University of Fribourg-Freiburg), pointed out in a keynote address at the conference, the development of BMUs can be seen as a manifestation of political history: at the time of the development of nation-states in Europe with their centralised control, the linguistic tendency was unilingual universities1; in and around the 1930’ and forties, there was a tendency towards autonomy in Western Europe (in Catalonia, Tyrol) and an insistence on the recognition of marginalised languages and their use as languages of science; and after 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the accelerating process of European integration, an awareness has been arising of the need for BMUs b) The Bologna Agreement between EU states in 2000 was directed at establishing mutual understanding, knowledge and respect between EU citizens, co-operation between EU states, and decisions about establishing a common structure for university education throughout the EU by 2010. The latter decision, in particular, was meant to facilitate a free flow of students between European universities, and to allow European graduates to work in any EU state. c) One of the meetings that followed on the Bologna Agreement was held in Bergen (19-20 May, 2005). During this meeting attention was given to constructing structural uniformity between European universities, establishing comparable standards of training, allowing student and staff mobility, providing joint degrees, and maintaining attractiveness and competitiveness in the tertiary sector. d) A consequence of the movement of students and staff between EU universities was that a process of internationalisation developed. Coupled with the participation of the US and Australia in the internationalisation process and with the dominance of English in Europe (16% in the EU use English as an L1, 31% as an L2 (together 47%); 69% EU citizens regard English as the most useful language to know; and 90% of all secondary school learners learn English), European universities are increasingly presenting courses (particularly masters programmes) in English, in addition to courses in the

1 Symbolised linguistically by the gradual loss of dialect distinctions in Europe in the direction of the new standard languages.

1 national languages. Consequently, European universities have become bilingual, and in the case of universities like Helsinki, multilingual.

2. The importance attached to bi- and multilingual universities in Europe

The seriousness with which multilingualism is regarded in Europe is demonstrated by the work done by the Council of Europe and the European Commission.

a) The Council of Europe  Aims, inter alia, at promoting plurilingualism and developing language as an instrument for mutual understanding, democratic citizenship and social cohesion;  Includes the following institutions: a language policy division (Strasbourg, France) and the European Centre for Modern Languages (Graz, Austria);  The Unit for Education and Training has developed an action plan regarding language policy in universities, stressing that learning in a (single) lingua franca is not enough; that each university must have a coherent language policy and take action to promote its national and regional languages; and that all students should be linguistically able to study in other EU countries in a foreign language, receiving recognition for credits obtained towards their degrees through these languages  Has established the following programmes regarding multilingualism: Lingua (which encourages and supports linguistic diversity, contributes towards the improved quality of language teaching, and promotes life-long learning opportunities); Socrates Comenius (which facilitates European co- operation on school education, promoting language learning for mobility and facilitating learning in a multi-cultural framework; supporting disadvantaged groups); and Socrates Erasmus (which manages trans- national co-operation between universities and the recognition of study programmes and qualifications) The CoE receives Euro 30 million per annum for its work b) The European Commission has developed an education and training policy that wants to make the EU “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge- based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” – European Council, March 2000. The linguistic dimensions of this aim are set out in 2(a) above.

3. European conferences on BMUs

At least five conferences have been held in Europe on the issue of BMUs since 2000:

a) The UNESCO/CEPES seminar, which listed the issues to be debated regarding bi- and multilingual universities (see reading pack) b) Fribourg/Freiburg, Switzerland, 2000 c) A conference on Integrating content and language in higher education in 2003, responding to the increasingly multilingual nature of HE in Europe d) The Helsinki conference in 2005 e) The “7th seminar in the series European Policy Seminars”, organised by the Academic Co-operation Association, which took place on the 29th of

2 September, 2005, in Belgium, on the topic: Between Babel and Anglo-Saxon Imperialism? English-Taught Programmes and Language Policy in European Higher Education.2

As regards the immediate future, the organisers of the Fribourg/Freiburg and Helsinki conferences have decided that future conferences will be held annually (2006 in Pretoria, SA; 2007 in Bozen/Bolzano in the Tirol, Italy; and 2008 in Barcelona, Spain). The organisers of the 2003 conference on Integrating content and language in higher education are also organising a second conference on the theme in Maastricht in 2006.

4. The Helsinki conference

a) At the Helsinki conference there were 306 participants from 45 countries; members from university managements (including rectors from 11 universities); the Council of Europe and the European Commission; sociolinguists, educationists, etc. b) The basic point of departure of the conference was that bi-/multilingualism was the norm world-wide,3 that more and more universities need to operate bi- or multilingually, and that such a development requires careful consideration and planning. c) The increasing bi-/multilingualism of universities has led to a number of problems, some of which are: (i) Students may be taught in a language they do not know well enough for academic purposes and may be seriously disadvantaged4 (ii) Teaching staff may not be adequately proficient in the languages in which they are expected to teach (iii) The inadequate language proficiency of staff and students may lead to a lowering of academic standards (“put content on a secondary level”), which places the qualifications awarded by the affected university and their international recognition at risk

2 In their e-mail on the seminar the organisers wrote: “English is holding a fairly uncontested position as the most widely used language in international higher education and academic publishing, as well as the media and trade. In line with this trend and in response to an increasingly international and competitive environment, a growing number of universities are now offering programmes taught in English, in countries where English is not the official language. This seems to be in contrast with EU policies promoting diversity and multilingualism, and it is perceived by many European stakeholders as a simple means for universities to generate more income. This seminar offers a forum for this debate. It explores and questions the present and future role of English in higher education in the context of European language policies. (It) will have a look at the practical implications of a higher education which is partly or fully imparted in English. Would higher education imparted in English limit one’s ability to express oneself and thus put content on a secondary level? Or are domestic students better off being taught in English, so as to be prepared for further study or work abroad? What are the best practices to be adopted by universities?” 3 This is not true of the UK. Although Britain is highly multilingual as far as the number of languages spoken in the country is concerned, the British (along with the Irish and the Portuguese) are generally monolingual. This is also reflected by the fact that only 14% of British secondary school learners study a foreign language today (as against 33% 10 years ago). 4 It needs to be remembered that (a) “knowledge of a language” refers to far more than a grammatical competence, and includes textual, pragmatic and sociolinguistic competencies, and (b) that there is a considerable distance between knowing a language for social interaction and knowing a language for academic purposes.

3 (iv)Language may become an instrument of division and discrimination (e.g. through students and staff being hierarchised according to their competence in the dominant language5) and thus become a focal point of conflict in universities, and (v) The national (and indigenous) languages of a country may become threatened if an international academic language becomes too dominant in national institutions d) The main themes addressed at the conference were: Language educational aspects of bi- and multilingualism Quality assurance of international and intercultural programmes Starting and maintaining good practice in bi- and multilingual programmes Language policies and minorities Multilingualism in practice: What challenges? e) Papers dealt with topics such as the following:  Language policies at bi-/multilingual universities  Models for bilingual education (parallel, dual medium)  The costs and benefits of multilingual programmes in higher education  Assessing the language proficiency of students and staff  Developing academic writing in second languages  First language support for students learning through a second language  Language support in content subjects  What languages should be taught and studied in a university?  The promotion or maintenance of minority languages as languages of science  The survival of minorities  Internationalisation, but not Anglicisation (the hegemony of English)  The role of the cultural factor in higher education (inter-cultural communication skills; identity) f) The principles regarding bi- and multilingual universities that the conference worked with:  strong support for the recognition and promotion of linguistic diversity/ multilingualism (interpreted as mother-tongue plus 2 more languages)  diversity/multilingualism as a central factor in educational development: since an inadequate proficiency in the language of learning can lead to educational underachievement, failure, poor pass-rates, repetition of academic programmes, and so forth (phenomena which can be amply illustrated from educational results in the case of French minorities in Canada and English Second Language learners in South Africa)  diversity/multilingualism as an economic asset6 and providing access to professional opportunities  diversity/multilingualism as an important component in the development of democracy and the construction of a society that treasures human rights  diversity/multilingualism as an international and national resource, facilitating inter-group communication, and thus mutual understanding, tolerance and co-operation, contributing to (national) integration, and

5 This is a common phenomenon in societies with a-symmetric power relations between languages: power is distributed along the lines of the linguistic hierarchies, thus inequitably. 6 In Canada, bilinguals (French and English) earn 15% more than monolinguals (only English).

4 regarded in Europe as a core value and as a feature which gives Europe its uniqueness g) Specific points of view expressed during the conference

 The increasingly important role of English and its increased use for learning and teaching throughout Europe (as a consequence of universities’ programmes of internationalisation; globalisation; and so forth), especially in the natural sciences and the economic sciences, were accepted, but the possible negative consequences of this situation were also emphasised: the use of English as a language of study can be very unfair, strongly advantaging native speakers of English and seriously disadvantaging all other students, teachers and researchers who use English as a second, third or foreign language. It is important to recognise the fact that English is not an “academic lingua franca” because it is not a language that can be used equally well by every student and every academic staff member.  It is, largely, true that one can’t do much to alter the dominance of English, but one can respond to it, determine what forces underlie the strong spread of English, and develop strategies with which to curb the negative consequences of this spread.  It is necessary to counter a number of myths: firstly the myth that you need to be trained in the language of your later professional world, and secondly the myth that skills development, competitiveness and excellence can only be achieved through a majority language (such as English in SA), and to remind decision-makers of the link between language and the reality of discrimination, exploitation, manipulation, poverty and disadvantage (which, in SA, is partly due to the hegemony of English).  It is essential for students to become bi-/multilingual (learn additional languages, especially in such a way that the life-long learning of languages is possible) and to develop skills for cross-cultural communication, particularly given the cultural and linguistic diversity of social, political and professional life (business transactions, worker migration) locally, regionally and internationally.  It is important to give public recognition to multilingualism so that the positive correlation of bi-/multilingualism with creativity, lateral thinking, innovativeness, cognitive flexibility, and adaptability is reinforced.  The increasing dominance of English necessitates the maintenance and promotion of national languages in domains and for functions that naturally belong to these languages. In addition to the reasons given above regarding linguistic diversity, there are also the following two considerations: . National languages have important roles to perform in national societies, giving meaningfulness and stature to their speakers. An illustration of this was given by the rector of Helsinki, Dr. Ilikka Niiniluoto, who pointed out that the recognition and promotion of Finnish contributed to the establishment of the Finnish state . People’s first languages are central to their social and psychological development. As Dr. Thomas Wilhelmsson, vice-rector of the University of Helsinki (and chair of all the plenary sessions) pointed

5 out, bi-/multilingualism is necessary as a way of understanding oneself and one’s place in the larger society, and Dr. Stacy Churchill, University of Toronto, asked how one can understand others if you aren’t sure of your own identity, haven’t been able to understand yourself, the meaning of your existence and your place in the larger world? Dr. Suzanne Romaine, University of Oxford, also argued that a knowledge of the own language is essential from the point of view of power, identity and nationhood. Therefore, though there is a need for a “lingua academica”, national languages must not be threatened.  In addition to the protection of the national languages, there was also general support for the development of indigenous languages (such as Saami in Finland and African languages in South Africa) and community languages such as Spanish in the US, as languages of tertiary use.  University training programmes must, obviously, respond to the needs of societies, and since modern societies are multilingual their linguistic needs are self-evidently also multilingual (and multicultural). Professionals (e.g. teachers, lawyers, health workers, and so forth), practice their professions in a multilingual market and therefore need to provide services through multilingual interaction. Universities thus need to ensure that such professionals are trained to communicate effectively with their multilingual clients.  Universities have important social responsibilities: they cannot restrict the distribution of knowledge and research findings to their colleagues in the global research community, but must also distribute their knowledge and research findings in their own communities. Universities must participate significantly in the intellectualisation of their societies, promoting a knowledge culture. Similarly, it is also important for universities to have access to local knowledge, points of view and perceptions. This is only effectively possible if universities and their researchers can communicate with the members of local communities in their first languages. (One should also remember that the tax-payer generally subsidises universities and thus has a right of access to scientific and intellectual knowledge.)  Language policy development and policy implementation can only occur effectively on the basis of validated information about communities’ language proficiency, patterns of language use, language preferences and attitudes, and so forth. Large-scale sociolinguistic research prior to policy development is therefore necessary.

5. The relevance of the Helsinki discussions for SA/UP

5.1 The dominance of English as a language of tertiary training must be accepted, especially in a country characterised by a language political situation such as South Africa. English is the international language of economic activity (and the labour market: proficiency in English is demanded by employers), the language of political liberation, of social mobility, of globalisation and of access to almost all

6 domains of information.7 This means, inter alia, that all learners/students need academic proficiency in English. Remark: It probably also means that all SA universities should use English as dominant/secondary MoI, which in practice means all HAUs should be at least bilingual universities.

5.2 Language policy practice cannot be allowed to develop on the basis of market forces, the principle of supply and demand. In practice that would mean that English would gradually become the only MoI, with Afrikaans being used less and less until it finally vanishes as language of science, and African languages will never develop into languages of science. Such a (future) situation is unacceptable, as argued in my Helsinki paper, and would eventually almost certainly lead to conflict. The management of language policy must, therefore, be supported by specific statutory measures. As Professor Thomas Wilhelmsson, Professor of Law and Vice-Rector of the University of Helsinki, pointed out, the University of Helsinki manages language policy practice (particularly the role of Swedish, which is a minority language in Finland) on the basis of legal safeguards: the law requires that there be 27 Swedish chairs, that there be a Swedish School of Social Sciences, in which Swedish is to be the only MoI, that at least one member of the rectorate be Swedish, that Swedish must be used in all academic and management meetings, and, that 6½% of all students must be Swedish

5.3 The language political situation in SA is not the same as in Europe

a) In Europe there is a positive culture of multilingualism: most Europeans (except the English) value a knowledge of more than one/two languages and acknowledge bi-/multilingual skills. Although the majority of South Africans are either bi-lingual or multilingual, multilingualism is not particularly valued in this country. Only a knowledge of English is valued and admired. A language policy of bi-/multilingualism must therefore be approached differently in SA than in Europe b) In Europe the national languages of EU states generally have a high degree of prestige, are intellectualised, have a strong, rich literature and are regularly used in high function formal contexts. In SA, languages other than English (LOTE), in particular African languages, are subordinated and marginalised. In addition, African languages are undeveloped as languages of academic use. The power relationship between English and LOTE is a-symmetric, and even Afrikaans, which was language politically previously on a par with English, cannot withstand the competition with English and has lost considerable ground in the linguistic market place c) A large percentage of SA learners/school-leavers do not have the required English language proficiency and are, additionally, cognitively not developed in a sufficient degree (as indicated by literacy and numeracy levels), with the

7 What one must also remember in this regard is, as Robert Phillipson, the Copenhagen School of Business, mentioned: poor, lesser educated communities, easily regard English as a passport out of poverty, and thus select English in every possible domain despite the longer term consequences of such a choice. (According to the SA institute of Race Relations (2001), 23.3% of the black population had no educational training in South Africa, 18.59% had completed some primary school and 6.9% has completed primary school training. 48.7% of this population thus had no training at secondary school level.)

7 necessary learning skills, to develop the required English language proficiency needed at university or the workplace

5.4 Language policy development at UP must respond to the needs of the society it serves (the professional, social, cultural and psychological needs) 8 and thus has to cover at least the following issues:

a) The medium of instruction, learning, academic expression and assessment b) The MoI model or models to be followed. (Will a parallel-medium approach at UP lead to a continued separation of linguistic/racial communities, and how can such an approach be reconciled with the goal of social cohesion?)9 c) The language proficiency required of students and staff, and the ways in which this proficiency can be assessed and developed d) What languages students are expected to learn (e.g.: Should all graduates be expected to obtain competence in an African language for specific (= professional) purposes?) e) The languages of research and publication: Should UP insist on research publications in Afrikaans and, in the short term, summaries in an African language? f) The languages of management (record-keeping) and administration (meetings, minutes; internal and external communication) g) The languages used in naming buildings, campus streets, letter heads h) Programmes for the development of African languages as languages of science i) Quality control: does the use of a LoL/T that students do not know well enough for academic purposes threaten the standard of training? j) Ways in which the University can contribute to the development of a knowledge society and the intellectualisation of disadvantaged communities

5.5 The need for a coherent policy, a specific plan of (policy) implementation and the sustained evaluation of the implementation process

a) Language policy development is not a linguistic process alone; it must be synchronised (made coherent) with policies in other domains of university management (mission of the University, financial policy, training policies [focus on student participation in class discussions/OBE, rather than the transfer of content; the educational role of computer technology, etc.] research policies, community service policy, management policy, marketing policy, a policy on “ownership” of the University, etc.) b) It is essential that a detailed plan of implementation be constructed, specifying what is to be done, by whom, how, when, etc.), and indicating how the implementation of such as plan is to be managed and evaluated

8 Such as the development of self-esteem, respect for difference, the ability to communicate effectively across social borders, social integration and cohesion, the management of conflict, and so forth. 9 Professor Stacey Churchill, Toronto, suggested that minority education could, theoretically, be provided in accordance with the following stages: courses, programmes, sub-departments, full programmes, separate institutions and autonomous institutions.

8 c) An infra-structure for language policy management is necessary, and the establishment of a language centre should be considered (as at the universities of Maastricht, Fribourg/Freiburg) d) Language policy related instruments need to be developed, as in the EU (such as: a framework of reference for languages, language education profiles, language profiles, and a guide for the development of language education policies)

Remark: The article by Purser discusses the factors that influence language policy development: promoting participation; promoting coherence; promoting a wider outlook for the university and its graduates; promoting bilingualism as an objective; and encouraging students to stay in the region.

5.5 The need to engage language planning experts

Language planning experts can contribute in at least three ways: a) Their understanding of the complicated ways in which language and society interact mutually, and how such interaction affects language management b) Their understanding of the nature of language planning as well as its limitations and challenges c) Their knowledge of the information required for effective language management (via sociolinguistic research) d) Their knowledge of target communities in language policy development and language policy implementation

The appreciation for this point in Europe is demonstrated by the way in which the Council of Europe organises its work, as described briefly in par. 2 (a), bullets two and three above.

5.6 Research tasks and challenges

a) Description of the sociolinguistic character of UP (language knowledge, students’ and staffs’ linguistic repertoires, patterns of language use [who uses what language for what purpose/topic and in what domains], language attitudes and language preferences b) Positive and negative features of parallel-medium education (case studies): Can LOTE be maintained or developed in institutions following a parallel- medium approach? c) Cost-estimation for bi- and multilingual education d) The use of machine translation (English to Northern Sotho, Setswana, isiZulu) for study guides, discussion groups, student/lecturer communication, etc. e) The value of classroom interpretation (as being trialled at the North-West University) f) Whether L1 support is essential for learners who use an L2 as MoI?

6. Language policy development at UP

There are two main language policy options to consider:

a) English only

9 b) Bi- and/or multilingual

See attached document in landscape format.

10