Balancing the debate on mother tongue
Tue, May 11, 2010
The Sunday Times
By Janadas Devan, Review Editor
Many foreigners would have been baffled by the passion Singaporeans have displayed debating the place of the mother tongue languages in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).
Such intensity over an examination for 12-year-olds? Such furore over whether the mother tongues should have the same weight as mathematics or English for entry to secondary schools? Can the future of Chinese, Malay or Indian culture here really turn on the PSLE?
People are passionate about this issue because language equals identity. We use mathematics; we not only use but also are the languages we speak. Nobody is likely to feel justified knowing eight multiplied by eight is 64; we are justified by the culture that shapes our world-view and the language that gives us access to that culture.
The equation of language and identity, moreover, tends to be sharper in multilingual societies than in monolingual ones. A Chinese in Beijing, for example, wouldn't spend any time wondering if he is Chinese; he simply is. By contrast, questions of identity can become fraught for Chinese in Singapore precisely because one can choose between languages in multilingual societies - and with that, there is the possibility of particular identities atrophying.
Thus the fear among some Chinese Singaporeans that if the standard of Chinese language teaching were to decline, Chinese Singaporeans may cease being Chinese. Questions like what weight the mother tongues should have in the PSLE are thus treated as existential, not pedagogical, questions. There is no alternative but to treat such issues with sensitivity, tact and care.
Commentators have offered various proposals that might satisfy both sides on this particular question. The Prime Minister is due to speak to the press on the matter soon, after which it will be clearer how the Ministry of Education intends to proceed. If the weighting of the mother tongue languages in the PSLE is indeed to be changed, it will have to be done in such a way as not to de-emphasise the centrality of the mother tongues. But however the system is reformed, I would urge educators, community leaders and parents to bear in mind two things:
One: It is beyond doubt 'that it is much more difficult to learn a second language in adulthood than a first language in childhood', as Professor Steven Pinker of Harvard University notes in The Language Instinct.
The 'acquisition of a normal language,' he writes, 'is guaranteed for children up to the age of six, is steadily compromised from then until shortly after puberty, and is rare thereafter'.
A cognitive scientist and linguist, Prof Pinker cites a number of examples to substantiate this assessment. One is a test of Korean- and Chinese-born students and faculty at the University of Illinois who were given a list of 276 English sentences, half of them containing grammatical errors such as 'The farmer bought two pig', and asked to spot the errors.
Those who had immigrated to the US between the ages of three and seven performed as well as the US-born. Those who had arrived between eight and 15 did progressively worse the later they arrived. And those who had arrived between 17 and 39, no matter how gifted they were in other respects, did the worst.
Another more dramatic example is that of the so-called 'wolf children' - children found abandoned in the woods or imprisoned from young in homes by abusive parents. One such child, 'Genie', discovered in Los Angeles in 1970 at the age of 131/2, learnt to utter pidgin-like sentences like 'Mike paint', but remained 'permanently incapable of mastering the full grammar of the language', Prof Pinker reports.
By contrast, another child, Isabelle, rescued at the age of 61/2, acquired about 2,000 words within 18 months and was able to produce complex grammatical sentences like 'Why does the paste come out if one upsets the jar?'
No doubt, some exceptionally talented people can master a second language as adults. But even then, the mastery is not total, as the examples of Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov show.
Conrad, whose first language was Polish, became one of the great masters of the English novel. But he spoke an English that was so heavily accented that his English friends had difficulty understanding him. And Nabokov, whose first language was Russian, was so nervous about his spoken English, he refused to lecture off the cuff or to be interviewed. 'I think like a genius,' he wrote rather immodestly, 'I write (English) like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child.'
Six in 10 Chinese and Indian Singaporean Primary One pupils now come from English-speaking homes. (By contrast, only 3.5 in 10 Malay pupils do so.) If these children have not been sufficiently exposed to their mother tongue - more like 'Grandmother Tongue', truth be told - before the age of seven, they are going to be disadvantaged.
If Singapore is to remain committed to bilingualism, as it must, we should make a concerted effort to encourage parents to expose their children to their mother tongues before they begin their primary education. One way would be to expand mother tongue exposure in pre-schools - but please, without introducing a KLE, or Kindergarten Leaving Examination, and turning what should be a delightful experience into a chore.
The second point I wish to make is this: The languages we are asking our children to learn - English and Mandarin, Malay or Tamil - are not natural fits. They do not belong to the same language families. It is far easier to learn English and French (or even Latin) - all Indo-European languages - than English and Mandarin. For this reason, despite decades of trying, the Japanese, who do not speak an Indo-European language, have still not mastered English, whereas the Scandinavians, who do, have.
Whatever the shortcomings of bilingual education here, the fact is what has been achieved in Singapore, despite the odds, is closer to Scandinavia than Japan. There are many reasons for this but one reason is that language policy here has been rational and pragmatic despite the strong emotions. We are more likely to remain a bilingual nation if we treat the difficulties of bilingualism as pedagogical, not existential, problems.
janadas@sph.com.sg
Tue, May 11, 2010
The Sunday Times
By Janadas Devan, Review Editor
Many foreigners would have been baffled by the passion Singaporeans have displayed debating the place of the mother tongue languages in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).
Such intensity over an examination for 12-year-olds? Such furore over whether the mother tongues should have the same weight as mathematics or English for entry to secondary schools? Can the future of Chinese, Malay or Indian culture here really turn on the PSLE?
People are passionate about this issue because language equals identity. We use mathematics; we not only use but also are the languages we speak. Nobody is likely to feel justified knowing eight multiplied by eight is 64; we are justified by the culture that shapes our world-view and the language that gives us access to that culture.
The equation of language and identity, moreover, tends to be sharper in multilingual societies than in monolingual ones. A Chinese in Beijing, for example, wouldn't spend any time wondering if he is Chinese; he simply is. By contrast, questions of identity can become fraught for Chinese in Singapore precisely because one can choose between languages in multilingual societies - and with that, there is the possibility of particular identities atrophying.
Thus the fear among some Chinese Singaporeans that if the standard of Chinese language teaching were to decline, Chinese Singaporeans may cease being Chinese. Questions like what weight the mother tongues should have in the PSLE are thus treated as existential, not pedagogical, questions. There is no alternative but to treat such issues with sensitivity, tact and care.
Commentators have offered various proposals that might satisfy both sides on this particular question. The Prime Minister is due to speak to the press on the matter soon, after which it will be clearer how the Ministry of Education intends to proceed. If the weighting of the mother tongue languages in the PSLE is indeed to be changed, it will have to be done in such a way as not to de-emphasise the centrality of the mother tongues. But however the system is reformed, I would urge educators, community leaders and parents to bear in mind two things:
One: It is beyond doubt 'that it is much more difficult to learn a second language in adulthood than a first language in childhood', as Professor Steven Pinker of Harvard University notes in The Language Instinct.
The 'acquisition of a normal language,' he writes, 'is guaranteed for children up to the age of six, is steadily compromised from then until shortly after puberty, and is rare thereafter'.
A cognitive scientist and linguist, Prof Pinker cites a number of examples to substantiate this assessment. One is a test of Korean- and Chinese-born students and faculty at the University of Illinois who were given a list of 276 English sentences, half of them containing grammatical errors such as 'The farmer bought two pig', and asked to spot the errors.
Those who had immigrated to the US between the ages of three and seven performed as well as the US-born. Those who had arrived between eight and 15 did progressively worse the later they arrived. And those who had arrived between 17 and 39, no matter how gifted they were in other respects, did the worst.
Another more dramatic example is that of the so-called 'wolf children' - children found abandoned in the woods or imprisoned from young in homes by abusive parents. One such child, 'Genie', discovered in Los Angeles in 1970 at the age of 131/2, learnt to utter pidgin-like sentences like 'Mike paint', but remained 'permanently incapable of mastering the full grammar of the language', Prof Pinker reports.
By contrast, another child, Isabelle, rescued at the age of 61/2, acquired about 2,000 words within 18 months and was able to produce complex grammatical sentences like 'Why does the paste come out if one upsets the jar?'
No doubt, some exceptionally talented people can master a second language as adults. But even then, the mastery is not total, as the examples of Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov show.
Conrad, whose first language was Polish, became one of the great masters of the English novel. But he spoke an English that was so heavily accented that his English friends had difficulty understanding him. And Nabokov, whose first language was Russian, was so nervous about his spoken English, he refused to lecture off the cuff or to be interviewed. 'I think like a genius,' he wrote rather immodestly, 'I write (English) like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child.'
Six in 10 Chinese and Indian Singaporean Primary One pupils now come from English-speaking homes. (By contrast, only 3.5 in 10 Malay pupils do so.) If these children have not been sufficiently exposed to their mother tongue - more like 'Grandmother Tongue', truth be told - before the age of seven, they are going to be disadvantaged.
If Singapore is to remain committed to bilingualism, as it must, we should make a concerted effort to encourage parents to expose their children to their mother tongues before they begin their primary education. One way would be to expand mother tongue exposure in pre-schools - but please, without introducing a KLE, or Kindergarten Leaving Examination, and turning what should be a delightful experience into a chore.
The second point I wish to make is this: The languages we are asking our children to learn - English and Mandarin, Malay or Tamil - are not natural fits. They do not belong to the same language families. It is far easier to learn English and French (or even Latin) - all Indo-European languages - than English and Mandarin. For this reason, despite decades of trying, the Japanese, who do not speak an Indo-European language, have still not mastered English, whereas the Scandinavians, who do, have.
Whatever the shortcomings of bilingual education here, the fact is what has been achieved in Singapore, despite the odds, is closer to Scandinavia than Japan. There are many reasons for this but one reason is that language policy here has been rational and pragmatic despite the strong emotions. We are more likely to remain a bilingual nation if we treat the difficulties of bilingualism as pedagogical, not existential, problems.
janadas@sph.com.sg
0 comments:
Post a Comment