CUESTIONES RELACIONADAS A LOS REGISTROS DE LA LENGUA

Language is an important medium through which information is retrieved, processed, interpreted and evaluated. It is a means through which thoughts are shared and through which one demonstrates membership to a linguistic group (Jarvis 2006: 58). Language plays an important role in the process of knowledge construction. That is why it is often given a central position “in the teaching and learning process” (Van Rensburg and Lamberti (2009: 69). The centrality of language in learning contexts implies that the success of a student in learning mainly depends not only on his/her understanding of the subject matter, but also on his/her ability to reflect on the learning experiences by means

81

of language with fellow students. In this regard, Goldstien (2003: 126) contends that “learning to negotiate across linguistic differences … is a life skill that all students living in multilingual communities need to develop”. The mutual respect and understanding that would emanate from such action would establish sustainable inter-group cohesion which is one of the ultimate goals of education in a multicultural society. Inter-language interaction that advances social cohesion could also become a cross-border learning strategy. However, inter-language interaction among different language groups would depend on the role of a particular language in the inter-group communication processes which, in turn, would also influence identity formation.

In a multilingual social context, student inter-language communication can be influenced by different factors. Where multilingualism is not seen as an advantage, where each language group tries to stick to its own language domain, each group may remain aloof to the cultures and languages of counterparts. In a context where the medium of instruction is a foreign language in which the majority of students lack adequate proficiency, students may be linguistically challenged during intercommunication situations. Linguistic differences could tighten in-group connection and become a blockade to interaction with out-group students. As Schmid (2007: 166) notes, “language binds groups together and it is a powerful instrument for promoting internal cohesion and providing an ethnic or national identity” which would ultimately augment mistrust and suspicion amongst different linguistic groups.

In multicultural educational contexts where students are expected to interact with students who speak other languages to satisfy their academic and social needs, they may be forced to confine themselves to within group interaction due to a linguistic barrier. In a multilingual social context, sticking to one’s own language might be attributed to discriminatory values attached to other languages. According to Mitchell and Edwards (2010: 47), “language like numerous other aspects of human communities is constantly in flux, malleable, negotiated, and ultimately highly contested in the society”. A dominant group is likely to impose discriminatory linguistic practices on speakers of other languages which could parallel the power relations in the community. When a dominant language is

82

given a special status, the “languages other than the dominant one are treated as problematic and seen as hindering … education. Perspectives and contributions of other cultural groups are [then often] not taught” (Mda 2000: 225). In a multilingual higher education context, the language of the dominant group often becomes the lingua franca for the university community and may endow the dominant group with a linguistic advantage in learning and a sense of supremacy. It is argued that “the dominant group becomes the point of reference against which other groups are judged” (Goodman 2011: 12). Thus, the groups whose languages are marginalised are likely to deny and resist the use of the dominant language, and may remain defiant to learn or use the language. As a result, when students from different language groups come together, they may refrain from interaction. This might instil not only a sense of dissociation but also that of suspicion and mistrust among student groups and could promote unhealthy and discriminatory relationships. The latter would force each group to shelter itself within its own linguistic identity. In this regard Onsman (2010: 174) adds that:

All people within a university position themselves somewhere in the “public space” of a university and within that environment linguistic capacity can be the difference between social and cultural inclusion and exclusion, between alienation and integration.

A linguistic based social alignment may impose linguistic based social and academic grouping among students. Since language is a means for establishing common understanding of realities, students who learn in a linguistically discriminating environment might encounter both academic and social challenges. Onsman (2010: 172) and Neuliep (2006: 173) argue that people who speak the same language usually have a similar way of seeing the world which would help them to establish close bonds and develop a stable interactive atmosphere. This would also mean that linguistic homogeneity might presume a lack of varied perspectives which could be acquired by means of other languages. This could be counterproductive for educational development of students. Boroditsky (2003) (in Thagard 2005: 211) emphasises that “people with

83

different languages vary with respect to their ways of thinking about space, time, objects, colour, shapes, events, and other minds that are based on emotional attitudes”.

Linguistic differences are often coupled with ethnic identity and this would further stiffen within group cohesion. McCown et al. (1999: 102) stress that “language, as an important form of communication, is the primary medium through which ethnicity is shared”. Schmid (2001: 9) quoting Fishman (1989) explains that

language is a powerful instrument for promoting internal cohesion and providing an ethnic or national identity. It contributes to values, identity, and a sense of people-hood. A common vernacular also establishes effective boundaries between “in groups” and “out groups“. Furthermore, language is an important variable in power relations between dominant and subordinate groups.

The intertwinement of ethnic and linguistic identities would further lessen inter-group interaction opportunities between multicultural students and institutional personnel. As a result of the linguistic barrier, the disadvantaged linguistic group may not get adequate institutional support which is defined as “the extent to which a language group has gained formal and informal representation in the institutions of a community” (Burhis, El Geledi, Sachdev 2007: 17). Thus, unless constructive mechanisms through which students could cross identity boundaries are set, the confinement of students into a with-in group environment might augment mistrust and suspicion and could jeopardise educational processes.

Differences in perception and barriers of communication could be minimised if students develop positive and sustainable social interaction despite their linguistic differences. It has been found that linguistically diverse students could develop a positive rapport, close relationships, strong emotional attachments and a sense of belonging through ongoing engagements (Hendrick 2004: 2; Wright & Lander 2003: 237). Hendrick (2004: 3) further emphasises that “… neither close bonds without ongoing interaction nor ongoing

84

interactions without close bonds should be as satisfying as having both together”. The close ties and interaction would help students to develop a better understanding and may pave the way for further engagement and learning the language of each other, thereby advancing reciprocal interactive relations. The leverage of the reciprocal relationship would enhance the social and academic connection of students. Schmid (2007: 99) contends that “knowledge of more than one language provides a resource in terms of expanding intellectual horizons, as well as facilitating communication across cultures”.

Different models have been developed to alleviate the linguistic problems of higher education students in a multicultural society. Van Rensburg and Lamberti (2009: 67-89) highlight the theoretical underpinnings of language as medium of instruction at higher education by using experiences from South Africa. They propose a multi-literacy model, which, according to them, takes into account the communication skills and knowledge and experiences students arrive with at an institution. Van Rensburg and Lamberti think that making the effort to interact with the available linguistic proficiency would give students the chance to take responsibility for their learning. The authors emphasise that in the context where students come from diverse linguistic backgrounds and the medium of instruction is different from their mother tongue, students’ mother tongues could be used at the initial stage of the course programmes. Van Rensburg and Lamberti’s recommendation may require polyglot lecturers who could provide academic support using students’ first languages. However, their suggestion does not provide an alternative on how the model could be used in contexts where the use of own language is stereotyped by others and where different language groups might not have positive attitudes towards each other. Moreover, the study does not provide an alternative on how students could avoid linguistic stereotyping and strive to work collaboratively with the linguistic resources they have.

In an educational environment of a multilingual society, knowledge of the medium of instruction could determine the academic success of students. In this regard Van Rensburg and Lamberti (2004: 69) argue that language is a means of interaction through which knowledge is constructed. Sefa Dei and Asgharzadeh (2005: 233) also contend

85

that language through which learning is processed and knowledge is constructed could play a pivotal role in the “psychological, spiritual, mental, and cognitive” development of students. It is obvious that at educational institutions students are provided with both academic and social services through a language or languages used as a medium/s of communication (see Schmid 2001: 96). In a multilingual society where students come from different linguistic backgrounds, an inability to interact in the language of communication used at an educational institution does not only mean a lack of access to services and learning resources, but also a lack of access to knowledge and skills as part of the education process.

In the Ethiopian higher institutions the medium of communication is assumed to be English which has the status of a foreign language in the country. Other non-academic services are often provided through Amharic, the office language of the Federal Government. It has been observed that most students lack English proficiency at the expected standard. In this regard Hailom 2009: 9) contends that in the Ethiopian educational environments students do not find themselves at a “reasonable level of proficiency” in English in academic as well as other communication areas. Thus, students who lack adequate proficiency in English and Amharic seem to be linguistically challenged in the Ethiopian higher education context.