What LPP can teach us about BN30

I recently attended a conference here in Taipei where many discussions were over the Bilingual Nation 2030 (BN30) policy of Taiwan. Prior to attending the conference, I happened to have re-read books about Language Policy and Planning (LPP). This was helpful for coming up with some personal observations about the policy. Here are the three takeaways from the conference, informed by findings in LPP studies.  

Number one: Two languages can never coexist stably in the same domain in the same society. Therefore, trying to teach content knowledge in two languages at the same time may end up to be a futile effort unless done very skillfully. The only way for multiple languages to coexist in one society is for those languages to be used in different domains. Within the context of elementary and secondary education in Taiwan, it seems that the main vehicle for conveying content knowledge will be Mandarin; while English will be used for classroom interactions. 

Number two: It is very difficult to make people change their linguistic behavior, unless using very coercive means. Actually, Taiwan already is a very rare example of success. Under the high-handed one-party rule by the KMT, Mandarin successfully supplanted Hokkien (a.k.a Taiwanese), Japanese, and other indigenous languages in Taiwan because there was a large-scale stigmatization campaign of the latter by the government. As the democratization advanced, millions of dollars and massive effort went into revitalizing Hokkien, Hakka and aboriginal languages, but the attrition of those languages has been unstoppable. On the other hand, people tend to voluntarily shift towards the language with higher prestige that promises economic gain and ability to communicate with the larger society. This is why many Hakkas abandoned their language in favor of Hokkien, and later, Mandarin. What the KMT government succeeded in doing was artificially creating a situation where Mandarin became the prestige language. So, if English proves to be a language with real prestige and utility, people will jump at it without any coercion. (This may especially be the case, after hearing in the conference of a finding that very small percentage of Taiwanese people were worried that adopting English would threaten their cultural identity.)

Number three: Immersion approach may work best in changing the linguistic behavior of the next generation. In direct contradiction to the mainstream voice in the profession which claims using the learner's L1 to scaffold their L2 learning is the most efficient method, L2-only immersion programs are known to produce good results, where children acquired high proficiency in L2 while maintaining L1. However, it must be noted that many of these immersion success stories originate from locations where children get a lot of exposure to both languages outside classroom. It also presupposes that there is a sufficient number of teachers highly proficient in L2. 

Based on the above points, here are some observations about the prospects of BN30. If the goal of the policy is to shift the medium of instruction (MoI) from Mandarin to English, the chance of success does not seem very high under the current approach. (Indeed, the policy statement of the Taiwanese government states that one of the main goals of the policy is to increase the number of students who are capable to attending English as a medium of instruction (EMI) courses in universities.) It  may succeed, though, in replacing Mandarin with English as the language of classroom interaction between teachers and students, while the medium for imparting content knowledge remains Mandarin. This will create a situation hitherto non-existent in Taiwan, namely, English being used as a language for domestic communication, albeit in limited domains. It may have an indirect effect of creating a generation more predisposed to learning English further, so as to enter EMI programs in higher education. In any case, it is essential for the government to clarify the goals of BN30 in more concrete terms, and adopt measures that are more finely tuned to accomplish them. 

Singapore influence? Fluent Mandarin speakers in southern peninsular Malaysia

The language life of young Chinese Malaysians in southern Malaysia has been influenced by the language policy of neighboring Singapore. This could be one of the examples of an interesting situation where the language policy of one country is affecting the populace in another.

Mandarin has different functions among Chinese-educated Malaysians in different parts of the country. I learned this from a conversation with one of my former students from Malaysia. I realized that I had been overgeneralizing. Here, I'm talking about those Chinese Malaysians who come from "Independent" Chinese Schools, in which that the sole medium of instruction is Mandarin. The situation in Malaysia is complex. So I'm excluding those who were educated in "National Form" Chinese schools, in which the medium of instruction is Malay or English at least for some subjects.

In southern peninsular Malaysia, namely Johor and Malacca, Mandarin has become the dominant language for almost all domains of life for younger people. This might be due to the influence of Singapore media, especially TV. Malacca is about the furthest point Singapore terrestrial TV signals can reach. In Singapore, the Chinese "dialects" are banned from public square since of the "Speak Mandarin Campaign". Therefore, all Singaporean Chinese TV programs are either produced in Mandarin or dubbed in it. In Singapore, as in Taiwan, Hong Kong films dubbed in Mandarin. (Which, I think, really sucks, in my opinion... It's quite daft to see "Fatt Gor" speaking in flunet Bejing-accent Mandarin!) Although Malaysian TV stations carry some programs in Cantonese, people in southern Malaysia generally prefer Singaporean TV stations. Because of this, students and graduates of independent Chinese schools in Johor are very fluent in Mandarin, and have an accent akin to standard Taiwanese Mandarin. If you walk into one of those schools now, you will hear students chit-chatting and gossiping in fluent Mandarin.

The situation is a little different in the rest of peninsular Malaysia. The Chinese communities in several important cities, such as Kuala Lumpur (KL) and Ipoh, are predominantly Cantonese-speaking. TV and radio stations are largely in KL, so this explains why Cantonese is so prevalent in Malaysia, even though Hokkien is the biggest Chinese ethnic group there. The Chinese-educated residents in those areas use Cantonese to converse with each other for daily purposes. Even though the medium of instruction is Mandarin, at least nominally, it is used only for formal situations, such as public ceremonies, speech contests, etc. Thus, people there feel more comfortable in Cantonese, while feeling insecure about their strongly-accented Mandarin. So Mandarin is restricted to formal domains. (By the way, I'm very interested in Cantonese being an identity marker for Chinese Malaysians residing in Taiwan. This is another story...)

The situation is similar in other cities in northern peninsular Malaysia, except that the dominant "dialect" may be Hokkien or Hakka. I once visited a city in the extreme north, where an Islamic political party has held power for a long time. I tried to socialize with students of a so-called Mandarin-medium school. Not only they spoke almost no Malay at all, they didn't even speak Mandarin well. So how do they communicate with each other? Hokkien, when at school or in town; and their own home "dialect", such as Cantonese or Teochew, when at home.

Sorry for sidetracking, but this suddenly reminded me of another interesting episode (for me). In that city in northern peninsular Malaysia, Chinese people watched Thai TV all the time. I asked them why. They said Thai pop music sounded better than Malaysian, especially Malay music, and that Thai TV programs were more entertainment-oriented than Muslim Malaysia. But do they understand the Thai language? Nope. I found out the answer when I visited the Thai side of the boarder. Thai people there spoke Hokkien! This was because there are many Malaysian Chinese tourists who visit there from Penang, a Hokkien-speaking city! This is another example of the language situation of one country influencing another, by the way.

Mandarin, not Hokkien: The first vehicle of pan-Taiwan identity

Mandarin has, for the first time, united various ethnic groups in Taiwan and strengthened Taiwan identity. Ironically, this is precisely what the government’s promotion of the language  was meant to prevent.

A parallel situation can be found in Burma, where Burmese became the language that united various anti-government forces even though it was the language that the Burmese authority was promoting in order to assert its Burmese identity and to marginalize other ethnic groups. (Kirkpatrick, 2010)

Until the end of the Qing dynasty rule, various ethnic groups of Taiwan did not have any common language, although Hokkien functioned as a Lingua Franca in a limited sense. When members of different ethnic groups had to contact with each other, they used Hokkien, as it was the language of the predominant ethnic group. Many people, perhaps most people, did not need to come in contact with other ethnic groups, so they were monolingual in whatever their ethnic language was. As for smaller communities of Hakka or Austronesian people surrounded by the sea of Hokkiens, they quickly assimilated and became Hokkien-speaking. So much so that many descendants of such people, both Hakka and Pepo-aboroginal, now consider themselves as ethnic Hokkien. The reverse almost never occurred. I mean, for example, few Hokkien people living among Hakkas assimilated to Hakka culturally and linguistically.

Under the Japanese rule, the colonial authority progressively promoted the use of Japanese, first as a medium of instruction (MoI), and then even as a home language. Consequently, Japanese became the island-wide lingua franca, especially among the well-educated and elites. As the contacts among the common mass increased, Hokkien also increased its importance as the lingua franca. Needless to say, Mandarin had not yet been promoted during this period, so only some sojourners originating from northern China and very few others knew the language.

So this was the situation the KMT government found itself in, when it took over the island in 1945 and then moved the provisional capital of the nation to Taipei in 1949. It faced resistance from Japanese/Hokkien-speaking local elites, so it was important for them to spread the use of Mandarin as soon as possible. The rest is the story you are all familiar with: The high-handed measures to promote Mandarin and eradicate “dialects” with such potential penalties as “dog-tags” and fines.

Hokkien remained the language of anti-KMT resistance and pro-Taiwan-independence nationalism until the end of 80's or probably even early 90's. When I first arrived in Taiwan in the early 90's, things were pretty straightforward: Hokkien-speaking taxi driver was pro-DPP betal nut chewer; and Mandarin-speaking professor in a suit and tie was a Waishengren and therefore pro-KMT/NP/PFP. It was also extremely common to spot older people anywhere in town who spoke better Japanese than me!

But things have changed a bit since then. Twenty years on, the chairperson of the DPP is a Hakka woman who doesn’t even speak Hokkien fluently. The younger generation has an ever stronger Taiwan identity and anti-Chinese sentiments, while at the same time being largely monolingual in Mandarin. (Even their parents probably only have limited proficiency in Hokkien.) It is no longer possible to distinguish a Waishengren from Benshengren solely from the way they speak Mandarin, unlike when I first came to Taiwan two decades ago. Indeed, some even don’t know which ethnic group they belong to themselves, other than the nationalistic sentiment that they are Taiwanese. (Matsuo, 2006) Mandarin has become the language of the heart as well as the mind of the Taiwanese people.

Ironically, Mandarin has become the language that united the various ethnic groups of Taiwan and thus a vehicle of ever-growing Taiwan identity.

I just read in a Kirkpatrick’s book that this is actually nothing uncommon. In Burma as in many countries, ethnic minorities have found solidarity and united force against the chauvinistic authority in the language of the authority itself. Come to think of it, would the anti-Spanish independence movement in the Philippines have been possible, without its leaders from different regions being able to communicate with other in Spanish? Perhaps the same applies to many, many post-colonial societies. And in the countries that have already become monolingualized, it is commonsense that the rulers and the opposition debate with each other in the same national language, which is the only choice for most people in that country.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Matsuo, S. (2006). 台湾における言語意識と言語選択の実態. Taipei: 群學.

Is "English only" really unhelpful for Taiwan's learners?

A mass of evidence supports that using learners' first language is helpful for their learning of a second language. That's why a bilingual local teacher is much superior than a monolingual foreign one. Education experts in Hong Kong are now advising teachers to use Cantonese effectively in English classes. In the past, only English was to be used. A bit of common sense is enough to understand why it is much more efficient to use students' first language when teaching some abstract concepts or tongue positions in pronunciation, etc. Why, then, is it that monolingual foreign teachers are still so valued in Taiwan?

Aside from strong parental support for white teachers, hence the need for white faces on prospectuses, I think "supposedly" monolingual teachers are valued precisely because they are considered "English-only" teachers. I say "supposedly" because I know most of the foreign teachers are multilingual and can speak Mandarin very well, but Taiwanese people "presuppose" that only English is to be used upon seeing a white face. Learners will feel obliged to speak English, which they won't in the case of a local teacher. They feel awkward to be speaking in English to a teacher whom they know they can communicate much more efficiently with in Mandarin. Thus, they accomplish the goal of practicing spoken English better with "monolingual" white teachers than with bilingual local teachers.

On the other hand, some Taiwanese people seem to presuppose that people with East Asian faces necessarily speak Mandarin, and therefore it is awkward to be speaking English to them. I'm Japanese and I'm in a classroom where the medium of instruction is supposed to be English. So it should be natural that they should be talking to me in English. But when I try to talk to them in English, they tend to insist on using Mandarin in response. It's sometimes REALLY hard to get them to say any English word, even just "yes". They would insist on saying "對" instead! What a contrast with a Caucasian colleague of mine, who speaks better Mandarin than I do! I often overhear students doing their very best to answer him in English, even though the question was just asked in Mandarin?

Is it just me? Is it because I don't look at all like a non-Mandarin-speaker? Would they try to speak to me in English if I looked more stereotypical Japanese, with an anime hairdo and really tight clothing? (Thank you, Lauren, for your advice!) What about ethnically Chinese teachers who grew up overseas? Since their surnames sound Chinese, wouldn't people expect them to speak Mandarin all the more?

Is it always better for children to be taught in their "mother tongue"?

Under normal circumstances, yes. But it seems to me that the medium of instruction is not always the sole problem. There are other factors like school infrastructure, teaching materials and teacher training.

English-medium (or French, for that matter) is often blamed for poor achievements in many countries. But there are countries where the medium of instruction from Elementary 1 is not necessarily the L1 of the students, and yet have very high academic achievements. Singapore and Taiwan are good examples. Enough support existed for lower-achieving students in those countries, compared to their poorer counterparts.

Of course, the ideal is that everybody gets to study in their own language. But in societies where there are many languages, it is not easy to prepare teaching materials in all of them. As those countries often happen to be poorer ones, a lot of money that goes into developing materials in many smaller languages may actually reduce the money that can go to improving school facilities and teacher salaries.

In the meantime, students who come from richer families will always do better, regardless of what language they are taught in. They have the means to avail themselves of better support. So even if a country changes the medium into a local language, they might be disappointed to find that the economically privileged kids still do better all the same.