Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

(Linguistic and Cultural) Genocide in Education Signals Lack of Linguistic Human Rights – But Why No Discussion? The Fourth Annual Lectures on Language.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "(Linguistic and Cultural) Genocide in Education Signals Lack of Linguistic Human Rights – But Why No Discussion? The Fourth Annual Lectures on Language."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 (Linguistic and Cultural) Genocide in Education Signals Lack of Linguistic Human Rights – But Why No Discussion? The Fourth Annual Lectures on Language and Human Rights University of Essex, Nov. 2006: p/lhr/lhrlectures.htm p/lhr/lhrlectures.htm

3 Tove Skutnabb-Kangas University of Roskilde, Denmark, and Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland

4 List of contents 1. Which groups/peoples maintain their languages? 2. Most of the world’s languages are small. 3. What is happening today with the world’s languages? Are they being maintained? 4. Death or murder? Two paradigms. Killer languages. 5. Definitions of genocide in the UN Genocide Convention. 6. Examples of linguistic (and cultural) genocide.

5 List of contents 7. Discussion of criteria and evidence for genocide  Intention? Has the intention to destroy the group as a group through enforced assimilation been expressed openly? Free choice?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Has the knowledge about negative results existed?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Have research results been adhered to?  Intention to inflict negative conditions of life on the group - poverty? Economic rationality of enforced assimilation? 8. Why no discussion?

6 List of contents 1. Which groups/peoples maintain their languages? 2. Most of the world’s languages are small. 3. What is happening today with the world’s languages? Are they being maintained? 4. Death or murder? Two paradigms. Killer languages. 5. Definitions of genocide in the UN Genocide Convention. 6. Examples of linguistic (and cultural) genocide.

7

8

9 Numbers of monolingual Gaelic speakers and Gaelic/English bilinguals, Scotland, 1806 to 2001

10 Numbers and percentages of Swedish-speakers in Finland from 1610 to 1995 The absolute numbers today are the same as in 1880; the decrease is due to immigration and mixed marriages

11 How have they succeeded in getting the legal protection? They have (had) the power it takes to grant their languages the legal protection that ALL LANGUAGES SHOULD HAVE

12 How have they succeeded in getting the legal protection? Do any indigenous/ First Nation language speakers have a similar protection for their languages anywhere in the world? NO! They do not have the power it takes… … or do they???

13 Linguistic Human Rights (LHRs) are a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for maintenance of languages in modern societies.

14 Exceptions? Extremely isolated small groups/peoples, in areas difficult to approach (island societies, mountains as barriers?) with few resources of interest to multinational companies.

15 Some indigenous peoples’ languages have official status, with some rights: Linguistic numerical majority: Quechua Linguistic (large) numerical minority: Māori Linguistic (very small) numerical minority: Saami, in Norway (best rights, numerically largest Saami people), Finland (fairly good rights, numerically very small), Sweden (fewer rights, numerically twice as many as in Finland). Russia (almost no rights, very few people).

16 The three groups of languages mentioned as having linguistic rights in the Finnish Constitution (1999), in a descending order 1. Finnish and Swedish (national languages) 2. a. Saami (all three; North Saami, Skolt Saami and Anar Saami) 2. b. Romany 2. c. Finnish Sign language 3. ALL OTHER LANGUAGES All Canadian First Nations languages could be in group 2, with Saami (regional official status)

17 List of contents 1. Which groups/peoples maintain their languages? 2. Most of the world’s languages are small. 3. What is happening today with the world’s languages? Are they being maintained? 4. Death or murder? Two paradigms. Killer languages. 5. Definitions of genocide in the UN Genocide Convention. 6. Examples of linguistic (and cultural) genocide.

18 Most of the world’s languages are very small 1 There are 6-7,000 spoken languages, and maybe equally many Sign languages. (the Ethnologue, 15. Edition, lists 6,912 languages)

19 Most of the world’s languages are very small 2 The median number of speakers of a language in the world is % of the world’s spoken languages are endemic, they exist in one country only

20 Most of the world’s languages are very small 3 Over of the world’s almost spoken languages and 99% of the Sign languages have fewer than users. Over half of the world’s oral languages are spoken by fewer than 10,000 speakers

21 Languages and numbers 2: most (spoken) languages have few speakers… NUMBEROFLANGUAGESNUMBEROFLANGUAGES

22

23

24 Languages and numbers 3: The speakers of very few languages dominate NUMBEROFSPEAKERSNUMBEROFSPEAKERS

25 Distribution of languages, Ethnologue 15 ed Where?N of lang- uages % of all lang- uages Number of speakers in thousands % of all speakers Europa239 3,5%1,504,393 26,3% Americas SCN1,002 14,5% 47,559 0,8% Africa2,092 30,3% 675,887 11,8% Asia2,269 32,8%3,489,897 61,0% The Pacific1,310 19% 6,124 0,1% Total6, %5,723,861100%

26 List of contents 1. Which groups/peoples maintain their languages? 2. Most of the world’s languages are small. 3. What is happening today with the world’s languages? Are they being maintained? 4. Death or murder? Two paradigms. Killer languages. 5. Definitions of genocide in the UN Genocide Convention. 6. Examples of linguistic (and cultural) genocide.

27 What is happening today to the world’s languages? Are they being maintained? NO

28 Languages are today being killed faster than ever before in human history

29 3-600 languages left in 2100? Optimistic estimates 50% of today’s spoken languages may be extinct or seriously endangered in 2100 Pessimistic but realistic estimates 90-95% may be extinct or seriously endangered in 2100

30 Still more pessimistic estimates (Mart Rannut 2003) Only those languages will survive in which you can talk to your fridge and stove and coffee pot. These are the languages into which Microsoft programmes, Nokia mobile menus, etc, are being translated.

31 Most of the languages to disappear would be/ are indigenous languages. Most of the world’s indigenous languages would disappear.

32 List of contents 1. Which groups/peoples maintain their languages? 2. Most of the world’s languages are small. 3. What is happening today with the world’s languages? Are they being maintained? 4. Death or murder? Two paradigms. Killer languages. 5. Definitions of genocide in the UN Genocide Convention. 6. Examples of linguistic (and cultural) genocide.

33 In studying causes for the disappearance of languages we find two explanatory paradigms: language death and language murder.

34 When languages, the vast libraries of human intangible heritage, disappear, is it (natural) death or is it murder?  DEATH  Languages just disappear naturally…  Languages commit suicide; speakers are leaving them voluntarily for instrumental reasons and for their own good  MURDER  Arson: the libraries are set on fire!  Educational systems, mass media, etc participate in committing linguistic and cultural genocide Which paradigm corresponds to your situation? Is it death or is it murder?

35 The difference between seeing the disappear-ance of languages as death or as murder?  DEATH  If languages just disappear naturally, there is no agent. The only ones to blame are the speakers themselves. It is THEIR individual and collective responsibility … and they have profited by language shift.  MURDER  If languages have been murdered/ killed, we can analyse the structural and ideological agents responsible: the world’s economic, techno-military and political systems. Even when language shift has happened with speakers’ ”consent”, ideological factors behind this ”consent” can be analysed.

36 When speakers shift to another language, and their own language disappears, the incoming new language can function as a killer language. Has English functioned as a killer language in relation to your languages?

37 Definition of KILLER LANGUAGES 1 When ”big” languages are learned subtractively (at the cost of the mother tongues) rather than additively (in addition to mother tongues), they become KILLER LANGUAGES.

38 Definition of KILLER LANGUAGES 2  Being a killer language is NOT a CHARACTERISTIC of any language.  Languages may BECOME killer languages on the basis of how they FUNCTION in relation to other languages.

39 Definition of KILLER LANGUAGES 3  It is not languages that kill each other. The agency is with ”speakers”, meaning power relations between speakers that reflect ideologies, structures, processes and networks. These are working and being performed in ways that produce and result in unequal relations.

40 KILLER LANGUAGES 3 Killer languages pose serious threats towards the linguistic diversity of the world.

41 English is today the world’s most important killer language… … but most dominant languages function as killer languages vis-à-vis smaller languages. There is a nested hierarchy of languages, and glottophagy (”language cannibalism”).

42 Sign languages and killer languages 1 ALL oral languages can, through enforced oralism, function as killer languages, in relation to Sign languages Official/national oral languages may be especially important killer languages vis-a- vis Sign languages

43 Agents of linguistic genocide Educational systems and mass media are (the most) important direct agents in linguistic and cultural genocide. Behind them are the world’s economic, techno-military and political systems.

44 List of contents 1. Which groups/peoples maintain their languages? 2. Most of the world’s languages are small. 3. What is happening today with the world’s languages? Are they being maintained? 4. Death or murder? Two paradigms. Killer languages. 5. Definitions of genocide in the UN Genocide Convention. 6. Examples of linguistic (and cultural) genocide.

45 Genocide? Is the term not too strong? Many people use the term loosely. We must define it properly every time we use it!

46 UN International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (E793, 1948), final Draft, Article III, had definitions of linguistic and cultural genocide and saw them also as crimes against humanity. Article III was voted down by 16 states in the UN General Assembly, and is NOT part of the final Convention. But all states then members of the UN agreed about the definition. Therefore, we can still use this definition too

47 UN International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (E793, 1948). Final draft, Article III(1) defined linguistic genocide: 'Prohibiting the use of the language of the group in daily intercourse or in schools, or the printing and circulation of publications in the language of the group'. Article III was voted down in the UN General Assembly by 16 states in 1948 and is NOT part of the final Genocide Convention

48 United Nations International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (E793, 1948) has five definitions of genocide.

49 Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such [emphasis added]:

50 Article 2 (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [emphases added]:

51 Genocide is… Article II(e): 'forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'; and Article II(b): 'causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group'; (emphasis added).

52 List of contents 1. Which groups/peoples maintain their languages? 2. Most of the world’s languages are small. 3. What is happening today with the world’s languages? Are they being maintained? 4. Death or murder? Two paradigms. Killer languages. 5. Definitions of genocide in the UN Genocide Convention. 6. Examples of linguistic (and cultural) genocide.

53 Examples of linguistic genocide in education according to Articles 2(b) and 2(e) For more, read Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education – or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. See my home page for list of contents and details:

54 EUROPE, Pirjo Janulf 1998 Janulf shows in a longitudinal study that of those Finnish immigrant minority members in Sweden who had had Swedish-medium education, not one spoke any Finnish to their own children. Even if they themselves might not have forgotten their Finnish completely, their children were certainly forcibly transferred to the majority group, at least linguistically.

55 AFRICA 1, Edward Williams 1995 Zambia and Malawi, 1,500 students, grades 1-7 Large numbers of Zambian pupils (all education in English) ‘have very weak or zero reading competence in two languages’. The Malawi children (taught in local languages during the first 4 years, English as a subject) had slightly better test results in the English language than the Zambian students. In addition, they could read and write their own languages.

56 AFRICA 1, Edward Williams 1995 Zambia and Malawi, 1,500 students, grades 1-7 Conclusion: ‘there is a clear risk that the policy of using English as a vehicular language may contribute to stunting, rather than promoting, academic and cognitive growth’. This fits the UN genocide definition of “causing serious mental harm”

57 AFRICA 2, Zubeida Desai 2001 Xhosa-speaking grade 4 and grade 7 learners in South Africa were given a set of pictures which they had to put in the right order and then describe, in both Xhosa and English. In Desai's words, it showed ‘the rich vocabulary children have when they express themselves in Xhosa and the poor vocabulary they have when they express themselves in English’. Mental harm?

58 AFRICA 3, Kathleen Heugh 2000 Countrywide longitudinal statistical study of final exam results for “Black” students in South Africa: The percentage of “Black” students who passed their exams went down every time the number of years spent through the medium of the mother tongues decreased. Mental harm?

59 AUSTRALIA, Anne Lowell & Brian Devlin 1999 Article describing the 'Miscommunication between Aboriginal Students and their Non-Aboriginal Teachers in a Bilingual School‘, clearly demonstrated that 'even by late primary school, children often did not comprehend classroom instructions in English'. Communication breakdowns occurred frequently between children and their non-Aboriginal teachers', with the result that 'the extent of miscommunication severely inhibited the children's education when English was the language of instruction and interaction'. Conclusions and recommendations: the use of a language of instruction in which the children do not have sufficient competence is the greatest barrier to successful classroom learning for Aboriginal Children’. Serious mental harm?

60 CANADA 1, Katherine Zozula & Simon Ford 1985 Report ‘Keewatin Perspective on Bilingual Education’ tells about Canadian Inuit ‘students who are neither fluent nor literate in either language’ and presents statistics showing that the students ‘end up at only Grade 4 level of achievement after 9 years of schooling’. Serious mental harm?

61 CANADA 2, The Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996 Report The Report notes that ‘submersion strategies which neither respect the child's first language nor help them gain fluency in the second language may result in impaired fluency in both languages’. Serious mental harm?

62 CANADA 3, The Nunavut Language Policy Conference in March 1998 ‘in some individuals, neither language is firmly anchored’. Serious mental harm?

63 CANADA 4, Mick Mallon and Alexina Kublu, 1998 ‘a significant number of young people are not fully fluent in their languages’, and many students ‘remain apathetic, often with minimal skills in both languages.’ Serious mental harm?

64 CANADA 5, 1998 report, Kitikmeot struggles to prevent death of Inuktitut ‘teenagers cannot converse fluently with their grandparents’. Serious mental harm?

65 Deaf students Branson & Miller, Jokinen, Lane, etc Assimilationist submersion education where Deaf students are taught orally only and sign languages have no place in the curriculum, often causes mental harm, including serious prevention or delay of cognitive growth potential.

66 Deaf students Ladd 2003 Example: Deaf boys of normal intelligence are put in oral submersion education, with no Sign language. At the age of 12, they are sent to a Deaf school because the teachers cannot cope. They are at this stage described as “intellectual cabbages”. Serious mental harm?

67 Ad List of contents 7. Discussion of criteria and evidence for genocide: Issues NOT discussed here: - The history of linguistic genocide in drafting the Genocide Convention - How are most of the concepts in the Article 2 to be interpreted? Destroy? Serious physical harm? Mental Harm? Transfer of children? Forcible transfer? Degree and kind of force required? - Issues of permanency of outcomes, issues of education as the causal factor. For these, see Dunbar et al., forthcoming

68 List of contents 7. Discussion of criteria and evidence for genocide  Intention? Has the intention to destroy the group as a group through enforced assimilation been expressed openly? Free choice?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Has the knowledge about negative results existed?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Have research results been adhered to?  Intention to inflict negative conditions of life on the group - poverty? Economic rationality of enforced assimilation? 8. Why no discussion?

69 To qualify as genocide, an act has to be intentional. Have states had an intention to ' forcibly transfer children of the group to another group'; and 'cause serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group' ? YES, unfortunately THEY HAVE to members of the group'

70 How is the intention manifested? 1 There are countless examples from many parts of the world from the early and mid-1800s onwards and up to the mid-1900s and even longer where the intention to destroy an indigenous group as a group (a nation, a people) has been overtly expressed earlier. Some examples follow (for more, see Magga et al., 2005 and Dunbar et al., forthcoming).

71 How is the intention manifested? 2 “Tribal dissolution, to be pursued mainly through the corridors of residential schools, was the Department’s new goal”, John Milloy (1999: 18) states about the Canadian 1857 Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian tribes in the Province.

72 How is the intention manifested? 3 Norwegianisation was also the official goal for boarding schools in Norway: "The building of the boarding schools and the Norwegianisation of Finnmark are closely bound together. Norwegianisation was the goal. And the building of the boarding shools was the means. Both were part of Norwegian educational policy in Finnmark” (Lind Meløy 1980: 14; Lind Meløy was himself headmaster of one of the boarding schools). In the process of Norwegianisation it was the goal of many school administrators that the Saami languages should become extinct (e.g. Bernt Thomassen, Superintendent for schools ; quoted in Lind Meløy 1980: 98-99).

73 How is the intention manifested? 4 Hans Vogt, later Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oslo, wrote in 1902: ”Norwegianisation [through schools] has been victorious, a policy which means purely and simply an intentional extinction of the Saami and Finnish languages” (emphasis added; quoted in Lind Meløy 1980: 106). Similar policy statements abound from all over the world.

74 How is the intention manifested? 5 For obvious reasons, no state or educational authority can today be expected to express openly an intention to “destroy” a group or even to "seriously harm" it or to "transfer its members to another group". However, the intention can be inferred in other ways, by analysing those structural and ideological factors and those practices which cause the destruction, harm or transfer. We have done this in several ways, comparing with the older more overt ways.

75 Not force itself, but the capacity to present force as being in the service of right and peace ”Sovereignty has taken a new form, composed of a series of national and supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule. This new global form of sovereignty is what we call Empire.” (p. xii) ”Empire is formed not on the basis of force itself but on the basis of the capacity to present force as being in the service of right and peace.” (p. 15). Hardt, Michael & Negri, Antonio (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Empire is NOT anchored in a place (e.g. USA) but in organisms and networks. No conspiracy theories. But the US just happens to control many of the networks.

76 How is the intention manifested? 6 We claim that if state school authorities continue an educational policy which uses a dominant language as the main medium of education for indigenous and minority children, when the negative results of this policy have been known both through earlier concrete empirical feedback (as in Canada and the United States) and through solid theoretical and empirical research evidence (as they have, at least since the early 1950s; see, e.g. UNESCO 1953; see also our first Expert paper, Magga et al. 2004), this refusal to change the policies constitutes strong evidence for an “intention”.

77 How is the intention manifested? 7 In Canada, “for most of school system’s life, though the truth was known to it”, the Department of Indian Affairs, “after nearly a century of contrary evidence in its own files”, still “maintained the fiction of care” and “contended that the schools were ‘operated for the welfare and education of Indian children’”(Milloy 1999: xiii-xiv). These schools represented “a system of persistent neglect and debilitating abuse”, “violent in its intention to ‘kill the Indian’ in the child for the sake of Christian civilization” (ibid.: xiv; xv). They were finally closed down in 1986.

78 How is the intention manifested? 8 The Department and the churches were “fully aware of the fact" that the schools “unfitted many children, abused or not, for life in either Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal communities. The schools produced thousands of individuals incapable of leading healthy lives or contributing positively to their communities” (ibid.: xvii).

79 Being able freely to choose the language of instruction among existing alternatives which are qualitatively approximately at the same level is for schools one of the most important necessary factors for successful study through the medium of a foreign language and for becoming high-level bilingual through this type of education.

80 This necessary factor for successful study through the medium of a foreign language does NOT exist for most indigenous, minority or dominated group students in the world, neither at school nor at university level. It is often the most decisive factor in the educational failure of students, quantitatively especially in Africa and Asia.

81 Assimilation is not freely chosen if the choice is between one’s mother tongue and one’s future The United Nation’s 2004 Human Development Report links cultural liberty to language rights and human development (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/)http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/ and argues that there is “ no more powerful means of ‘encouraging’ individuals to assimilate to a dominant culture than having the economic, social and political returns stacked against their mother tongue. Such assimilation is not freely chosen if the choice is between one’s mother tongue and one’s future”. (p. 33).

82 Assimilation not freely chosen if the choice is between one’s mother tongue and one’s future The press release about the UN report exemplifies the role of language as an exclusionary tool: “Limitations on people’s ability to use their native language—and limited facility in speaking the dominant or official national language—can exclude people from education, political life and access to justice. Sub-Saharan Africa has more than 2,500 languages, but the ability of many people to use their language in education and in dealing with the state is particularly limited. In more than 30 countries in the region, the official language is different from the one most commonly used. Only 13 percent of the children who receive primary education do so in their native language.”

83 Assimilation is not “a free and rational choice” Abandonment of local community languages is always a result of ”powerful and destructive external pressures” rather than a ”free and rational choice”, argues the Irish linguist James McCloskey (2001: 26, 38; quoted in Glaser, in press).

84 Assimilation not freely chosen if there are no alternatives, and if the consequences are not known We can only speak about ”choice”, if - there are (qualitatively equal) alternatives, and - the students have enough research-based knowledge about the likely long-term consequences of the choices. This includes consequences such as possible dispossession of linguistic (and intellectual?) capital through subtractive learning, hierarchisation, and endangerment for other languages.

85 List of contents 7. Discussion of criteria and evidence for genocide  Intention? Has the intention to destroy the group as a group through enforced assimilation been expressed openly? Free choice?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Has the knowledge about negative results existed?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Have research results been adhered to?  Intention to inflict negative conditions of life on the group - poverty? Economic rationality of enforced assimilation? 8. Why no discussion?

86 Have the states known? 1 The negative results of subtractive teaching have been known by indigenous peoples and documented at least since the mid- 1700s (e.g. Handsome Lake). States and educational authorities (including churches) have had the knowledge at the latest since the end of the 1800s (e.g. Board of Indian Commissioners).

87 Board of Indian Commissioners 1880: 77 …first teaching the children to read and write in their own language enables them to master English with more ease when they take up that study… …a child beginning a four years’ course with the study of Dakota would be further advanced in English at the end of the term than one who had not been instructed in Dakota.

88 Board of Indian Commissioners 1880: 98 …it is true that by beginning in the Indian tongue and then putting the students into English studies our missionaries say that after three or four years their English is better than it would have been if they had begun entirely with English.

89 Have the states known? 2 ”Modern” research results about how indigenous and minority education should be organised have been available for at least 50 years, since the UNESCO expert group book ”The use of vernacular languages in education” (1953).

90 Have the states known? 3 If states, despite this, and despite very positive results from properly conducted additive teaching, have continued and continue to offer subtractive education, with no alternatives, knowing that the results are likely to be negative and thus to 'forcibly transfer children of the group to another group'; and 'cause serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group' this must be seen as intentional.

91 List of contents 7. Discussion of criteria and evidence for genocide  Intention? Has the intention to destroy the group as a group through enforced assimilation been expressed openly? Free choice?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Has the knowledge about negative results existed?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Have research results been adhered to?  Intention to inflict negative conditions of life on the group - poverty? Economic rationality of enforced assimilation? 8. Why no discussion?

92 (Teacher) question: Are research results being implemented in the education of indigenous and minority children? Do states act in a rational way?

93 Ramirez et al. study, 1991, 2,352 students GroupMedium of educationResults English only EnglishLow levels of English and school achievement; likely not to catch up Early-exit transi- tional Spanish 1-2 years; then all English Fairly low levels of English and school achievement; not likely to catch up Late-exit transi- tional Spanish 4-6 years; then all English Best results; likely to catch up with native speakers of English

94 Thomas & Collier, 210,000 students 1 the largest longitudinal study in the world on the education of minority students, with altogether over 210,000 students, including in-depth studies in both urban and rural settings in the USA, included full MTM programmes in a minority language, dual-medium or two-way bilingual programmes, where both a minority and majority language (mainly Spanish and English) were used as medium of instruction, transitional bilingual education programmes, ESL (English as a second language) programmes, and so-called mainstream (i.e. English-only submersion) programmes.

95 Thomas & Collier, 210,000 students 2 Across all the models, those students who reached the highest levels of both bilingualism and school achievement were the ones where the children's mother tongue was the main medium of education for the most extended period of time. This length of education in the L1 (language 1, first language), was the strongest predictor of both the children's competence and gains in L2, English, and of their school achievement.

96 Thomas & Collier, 210,000 students 3 Thomas & Collier state (2002: 7): “the strongest predictor of L2 student achievement is the amount of formal L1 schooling. The more L1 grade-level schooling, the higher L2 achievement.”

97 But might it not, in all these cases, be because of the students’ socio-economic and cultural conditions – not because of the subtractive teaching???

98 Ramirez and Thomas & Collier 1 The length of mother tongue medium education was in both Ramirez' and Thomas & Collier's studies more important than any other factor in predicting the educational success of bilingual students. It was also much more important than socio-economic status, something extremely vital in relation to poor and/or oppressed indigenous and minority students. (Remember that the education of most African students can also be analysed as minority education from a power relations point of view…)

99 Ramirez and Thomas & Collier 2 The worst results, were with students in regular submersion programmes where the students' mother tongues (L1s) were either not supported at all or where they only had some mother- tongue-as-a-subject instruction. They were in a subtractive learning situation.

100 There are hundreds of smaller studies showing similar conclusions, with many different types of groups and many languages, and from many countries. And the knowledge is not new…

101 CANADA, Arlene Stairs 1994 ‘in schools which support initial learning of Inuttitut, and whose Grade 3 and Grade 4 pupils are strong writers in Inuttitut, the results in written English are also the highest.’

102 USA, Alaska, Nancy Sharp, 1994 The Alaska Yu'piq teacher Nancy Sharp compares: when Yu'piq children are taught through the medium of English, they are treated by ‘White’ teachers as handicapped, and they do not achieve; when they are taught through the medium of Yu'piq, they are ‘excellent writers, smart happy students’.

103 Results in dominant language,after 9 years of Finnish mother- tongue medium teaching in a maintenance programme for an immigrant minority. Competence in Swedish; own evaluation and test results (working class Finns, middle class Swedes, 2 Stockholm suburbs; from Skutnabb-Kangas 1987 ).

104 The Finnish students’ Finnish The Finnish students’ Finnish was, after 9 years of Finnish-medium education in Sweden, at almost the same level as that of Finnish control groups in Finland… whereas Finnish children in Swedish-medium education show extremely poor results in Finnish, and often in Swedish too….

105 All these studies show both the positive results of additive mother tongue medium maintenance education, and the mostly negative results of subtractive dominant-language medium education.

106 Dominant-language-only submersion programmes “are widely attested as the least effective educationally for minority language students” (May & Hill 2003: 14, study commisioned by the Maori Section of the Aotearoa/New Zealand Ministry of Education).

107 “Dominant-language-only submersion programmes “are widely attested as the least effective educationally for minority language students” This is the model mostly used with children representing endangered language communities all over the world (provided that the children attend formal education in the first place)

108 Today research results are NOT being implemented. States do NOT act in a rational way.

109 There are very large gaps between theory and practice, research and implementation, and rhetoric and realities.

110 List of contents 7. Discussion of criteria and evidence for genocide  Intention? Has the intention to destroy the group as a group through enforced assimilation been expressed openly? Free choice?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Has the knowledge about negative results existed?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Have research results been adhered to?  Intention to inflict negative conditions of life on the group - poverty? Economic rationality of enforced assimilation? 8. Why no discussion?

111 Poverty is capability deprivation (Sen) Economics Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen conceptualises poverty as "capability deprivation" "Capability" refers to “the alternative combinations of functionings from which a person can choose … freedom - the range of options a person has in deciding what kind of life to lead. Poverty … lies not merely in the impoverished state in which the person actually lives, but also in the lack of real opportunity - given by social constraints as well as personal circumstances - to choose other types of living. Even the relevance of low incomes, meagre possessions, and other aspects of what are standardly seen as economic poverty relates ultimately to their role in curtailing capabilities (that is, their role in severely restricting the choices people have…). Poverty is, thus, ultimately a matter of 'capability deprivation'.” (Dreze & Sen 1996: 10-11, quoted from Misra & Mohanty 2000a: )

112 Poverty is not mainly economic “Poverty is no longer to be viewed simply in terms of generating economic growth; expansion of human capabilities can be viewed as a more basic objective of development" (Misra & Mohanty 2000a: 263). The loci of poverty, and of intervention, are in Amartya Sen's view, economic, social and psychological; this implies that measures have to be taken in each of these areas. "Psychological processes, such as cognition, motivation, values and other characteristics of the poor and the disadvantaged are to be viewed both as consequences as well as antecedent conditions which are ultimately related to human capabilities" (Misra & Mohanty 2000a: 264).

113 Education is the most crucial input The question, if we are interested in more equity in the world, in reducing the gaps, is, in Misra & Mohanty's view: "What is the most critical (and cost effective) input to change the conditions of poverty, or rather, to expand human capabilities?" There is "a general consensus among the economists, psychologists and other social scientists that education is perhaps the most crucial input" (ibid., 265). This is what leads me to the roles of the mother tongues/first languages, and of English (or other dominant languages), respectively, in education.

114 Subtractive teaching curtails children’s capabilities and perpetuates poverty If poverty is understood as "both a set of contextual conditions as well as certain processes which together give rise to typical performance of the poor and the disadvantaged" in school, and if of "all different aspects of such performance, cognitive and intellectual functions have been held in high priority as these happen to be closely associated with upward socio-economic mobility of the poor" (Misra & Mohanty 2000b: ), we have to look for the type of division of labour between languages in education that guarantees the best possible development of these "cognitive and intellectual functions" which enhance children's "human capabilities", rather than curtailing them and depriving children of the choices and freedom that are, according to Sen and others, associated with the necessary capabilities.

115 Political science conclusion on the economic argument on poverty eradication Do states try to achieve common aggregate welfare with sensible means, also economically? Do they try to eradicate poverty through their educational language policies? NO!

116 States follow emotional common sense and harm the children - and themselves To under-educate or mis-educate children, to prevent them from reaching the potential that they have, is economically enormously costly both for the individuals concerned and for the states Quite apart from moral and ethical human rights arguments (which are compelling), this wastage is what states should be concerned about if they want to follow any kind of economic rationality.

117 Linguicism LINGUICISM: 'ideologies, structures and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, regulate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language' (Skutnabb-Kangas 1988: 13). Most education systems worldwide reflect linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000).

118 List of contents 7. Discussion of criteria and evidence for genocide  Intention? Has the intention to destroy the group as a group through enforced assimilation been expressed openly? Free choice?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Has the knowledge about negative results existed?  Intention to transfer members of the group and harm them? Have research results been adhered to?  Intention to inflict negative conditions of life on the group - poverty? Economic rationality of enforced assimilation? 8. Why no discussion?

119 Indigenous and minority children and children from dominated groups are taught SUBTRACTIVELY.

120 Subtractive versus additive SUBTRACTIVE teaching: minority children are taught through the medium of a dominant language which replaces their mother tongue. They learn the dominant language at the cost of the mother tongue. ADDITIVE teaching: minority children are taught mainly through the medium of the mother tongue, with good teaching of the dominant language as a second language. It can make them HIGH LEVEL BILINGUAL OR MULTILINGUAL. They learn other languages in addition to their own language and learn them all well.

121 The subtractive dominant-language- only-medium submersion education has clearly caused serious mental harm to the indigenous, minority and/or dominated group students, and has attempted to forcibly transfer them to another group linguistically. This is linguistic genocide.

122 Most indigenous and minority education in the world participates in committing linguistic and cultural genocide, according to the genocide definitions in the UN Genocide Convention

123 Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen Too often, policies of national integration, of national cultural development, actually imply a policy of ethnocide, that is, the wilful destruction of cultural groups.

124 Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen The cultural development of peoples, whether minorities or majorities, must be considered within the framework of the right of peoples to self-determination, which by accepted international standards is the fundamental human right, in the absence of which all other human rights cannot really be enjoyed.

125 Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen Governments fear that if minority peoples hold the right to self-determination in the sense of a right to full political independence, then existing States might break up.

126 Guidelines for USA foreign policy from 1948 Bret-ton Woods, to World Bank & IMF to WTO. George Kennan, main USA BW negotiator in 1948 ’We have 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6,3% of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratisation’

127 N eo-imperialist ideas spreading again “The rest of the world is best served by the USA pursuing its own interests because American values are universal”. Condoleezza Rice, 2000 EU also follows a US agenda (Robert Phillipson, 2005).

128 Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen State interests thus are still more powerful at the present time than the human rights of peoples.

129 Tove Skutnabb-Kangas University of Roskilde, Denmark, and Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland


Download ppt "(Linguistic and Cultural) Genocide in Education Signals Lack of Linguistic Human Rights – But Why No Discussion? The Fourth Annual Lectures on Language."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google