Impact of the Language Policy of English Medium Elite Schools of Gujrat, Pakistan on the Language Practices of their Students
Abstract
Abstract Views: 289
In Pakistan, people can often speak three languages (Urdu, English, and a regional language). The de jure policy of the country encourages vernacular languages, but the de facto policy encourages the use of English and Urdu. No attention is paid towards the vernacular languages, especially Punjabi. Elite schools serve as instruments for the promotion of English. For this reason, Urdu and Punjabi languages are ignored by these schools. Consequently, the young generation is no more interested in speaking these languages. Keeping in view this situation,the current research investigates how the national language policy is being interpreted in elite schools regarding the use and non-use of language(s) in educational settings. It also pays attention towards the effect of school policy on the linguistic choices of stakeholders. For this purpose, data was collected from the branches of two elite schools (Beacon House and Lahore Grammar Schools) operating in Gujrat. The study adopted a mixed method (qualitative andquantitative) approach for data collection. For qualitative data collection an interview protocol was developed while the quantitative data was collected from (principals, teachers, students, and parents) through questionnaire. The responses to the questionnaire were analyzed descriptively through Statistical Package for Social Sciences, while a qualitative data analysis approach was applied for the analysis of the data collected from the interviews. The findings revealed that elite schools have their own policies. These schools have their own language policy and pay no heed to the government policy. This indicates that the language policy of elite schools plays a significant role in subtractive bilingualism. Due to the English only policy, the students are not interested in their mother andnational languages. Furthermore, theselanguages serve as identity markers for students; however, in practice they feel ashamed of speaking these languages.
Keywords: elite schools, language planning and policy, learner’s identity,school language
Downloads
References
147-156.
Bhabha, H.K. (1994). The Location of Culture, by; 285 pp. New York: Routledge.
Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Brenzinger, M. et al. (2003). Language vitality and endangerment UNESCO Ad Hoc
Expert Group.
Bryman, A. (2004) Social research methods. 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press,
New York, 592.
Cohen, S. P. (2002). The Nation and the State of Pakistan. The Washington Quarterly,
109-122.
Cook, V., (ed) (2002). Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters
Cronk, G. (1973). Symbolic interactionism: A ‘left-Meadian’ interpretation. Social
Theory and Practice, 2 (3): 313-333.
Creswell, J. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2013) Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., London
Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner D. & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in
cultural worlds. USA: Harvard University Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interview Views: An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Keats, D. M. (2000). Interviewing—A Practical Guide for Students and Professionals.
Buckingham Open University Press.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mansoor, S. (1993). Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan: A sociolinguistic study.
Lahore: Vanguard.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly
31 (3), 409-429.
Fishman, J. A. (1972). Domains and the relationship between micro-and macro
sociolinguistics. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 435-453). New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston.
Fishman, J. A. (1991). Revisiting Langugae Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. UK.
Guilherme, M. (2002). The Critical Dimension in Foreign Culture Education, in
Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
Government of Pakistan (2009) National education policy.
Haque, A.R. (1983). The Position and Status of English in Pakistan. World Englishes,
2 (1): 6-9.
Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M.Byram and M.
Fleming (eds). Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and
Educational Change. London, Longman.
Norton, B. and Toohey, K. (2001). Changing Perspectives in Good Language
Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (2) pp. 307-322
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in L2.
In V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, pp. 277-302.
Pavlenko, A. (2001). ‘In the world of the tradition, I was unimagined’. Negotiation of
identities in cross-cultural autobiographies. The International Journal of
Bilingualism. 5 (3) pp. 317-344.
Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of Memory. Boston, Godine.
Rahman, T. (1996). Language and politics in Pakistan. Oxford University Press.
Rahman, T. (1997). The medium of instruction controversy in Pakistan. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(2), 145‐154.
Rahman, T. (2002).Language, ideology and power. Language learning among the
Muslims of Pakistan and North India. Oxford University Press.
Rahman, T. (2006). Language and politics in Pakistan (4th ed). Karachi: Oxford
University Press.
Ricento, T. (2006). An introduction to language policy: theory and method. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Pub.
Stavans, I. (2002). On Borrowed Words. Penguin, New York.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New
York: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B., &Shohamy, E. (2000).Language practice, language ideology, and
language policy. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in Honour of Ronald Walton (pp. 1-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Spolsky, B. (2007). Towards a theory of language policy.Working Papers in
Educational Linguistics, 22(1), 1-14.
Spolsky, B. (2008). Investigating language education policy. In K. King and N.H.
Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol.10, pp. 27-39). New York: Springer.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Towards a Theory of Language Management. In Language
Management.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 1-9. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626470.001
Schiffman, H. (1996), Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge
Tollefson, J. W. (ed). (2002). Language policies in education: Critical issues. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zaidi, A. (2010). A Postcolonial sociolinguistics of Punjabi in Pakistan. Journal of
Postcolonial Cultures and Societies, 22-55.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
UER follows an open-access publishing policy and full text of all published articles is available free, immediately upon publication of an issue. The journal’s contents are published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license. Thus, the work submitted to the journal implies that it is original, unpublished work of the authors (neither published previously nor accepted/under consideration for publication elsewhere). On acceptance of a manuscript for publication, a corresponding author on the behalf of all co-authors of the manuscript will sign and submit a completed Copyright and Author Consent Form.
Copyright (c) The Authors
