Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-17T21:38:00.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

English as a facilitator of social mobility in India

The instrumentality vs. identity debate in language policy research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2020

Extract

In the introduction to the book he co-edited, Social Justice through Multilingual Education, Mohanty (2009: 3) mentions how, while conducting research in a remote underdeveloped area of the Indian state of Orissa, he came across a schoolboy who asked him about the purpose of his research. The schoolboy told him that indigenous tribal people in ‘this part of the world’ were the subject of too much research, but ‘nothing has changed, nothing will’ (ibid.). Mohanty (ibid.) notes that the encounter had a lasting impact on his thinking and academic work. This is reflected in the ideas underpinning the above-named book that focuses on the question of designing education in a manner that brings social justice to learners. One of its central points concerns the role of English in the Indian education system. It focuses especially on the debate of whether an English-medium education for speakers of minority languages further endangers their language. There are two seemingly intransigent approaches to the role of English in the Indian education system that shape the instrumentality vs. identity debate in language policy research. The instrumentality approach promotes English as a means of socioeconomic mobility for disadvantaged communities (Vaish, 2005; Weber, 2014). The identity approach argues that English-medium instruction leads to cultural alienation of schoolchildren and proposes mother-tongue-based multilingual education as the alternative (Skutnabb–Kangas et al., 2009; Mohanty, 2010). In this paper, I take a closer look at this debate by examining its four key aspects, namely the ‘decolonising’ role of English, language hierarchies, the linguistic double divide, and the problem of defining the term mother tongue. On the basis of this investigation, I describe the challenges this debate poses for policymakers, and explain why the instrumentality approach is a better way of addressing these challenges.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Azam, M. et al. 2011. The Returns to English-Language Skills in India. Department of Economics Working Papers: Univ. of Connecticut, Working Paper 2012-29.Google Scholar
Barooah, V. K. et al. 2015: Caste, Discrimination, and Exclusion in Modern India. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, T. & Bakshi, S. K. 2016. ‘English language premium: Evidence from a policy experiment in India.’ Economics of Education Review, 50, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, M. K. 1997. Hind Swaraj and Other Writings (Perel, Anthony J., ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khubchandani, L. 2003. ‘Defining mother tongue education in plurilingual contexts.’ Language Policy, 2(3), 239–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanty, A. K. 2009. ‘Multilingual education: A bridge too far?’ In Skutnabb-Kangas, T. et al. (eds.), Social Justice through Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanty, A. K. 2010. ‘Languages, inequality and marginalization: Implications of the double divide in Indian multilingualism.’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 205, 131–54.Google Scholar
Munshi, K. & Rosenzweig, M. 2006. ‘Traditional Institutions Meet the Modern World: Caste, Gender, and Schooling Choice in a Globalizing Economy.’ The American Economic Review, 96(4), 1225–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, India. 2001. ‘Census 2001. Abstract of speakers’ strength of languages and mother tongues.’ Online at <http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.htm> (Accessed April 2, 2020).+(Accessed+April+2,+2020).>Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Said, E. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Sharma, A. 2015. ‘Language conflicts, dominance and linguistic minorities in India.’ In Schrammel–Leber, B. & Korb, Christina (eds.), Dominated Languages in the 21st Century: Papers from the International Conference on Minority Languages XIV. Graz: Karl Franzens University, pp. 3853.Google Scholar
Skutnabb–Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Marwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Skutnabb–Kangas, T., Phillipson, R., Mohanty, A. K. & Panda, M. 2009. ‘Multilingual education concepts, goals, needs and expense: English for all or achieving justice’. In Skutnabb–Kangas, T. et al. (eds.), Social Justice through Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 320–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaish, V. 2005. ‘A Peripherist View of English as a Language of Decolonization in Post-colonial India.’ Language Policy, 4(2), 187206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J.-J. 2014. Flexible Multilingual Education: Putting Children's Needs First. Bristol; Buffalo; Toronto: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar