Language is central to life and to learning. It is through language that ideas are clarified and communicated. It is through language that people across the world are able to make others aware of their deepest feelings and convictions and it is in and through language that the histories, cultures and values of peoples are preserved and expressed.
Bearing this in mind, it would not be wrong to assume that the role which language plays in education could affect not only learners' academic performance but also their sense of identity and self-worth. Decisions about which languages to offer as language subjects as well as decisions about which language/s to use as languages of learning and instruction should, therefore, not be taken lightly.
In South Africa, as is the case elsewhere in the world, such decisions have traditionally been based on the premise that there are basically two kinds of language learners - those for whom the target language is their mother tongue and those for whom it is not. On the basis of this distinction, curricula for language learning and teaching have, until now, been developed in terms of the 'assumed' needs of first, second and foreign language speakers.
It was assumed, moreover, that language learners were able to acquire a higher level of proficiency in their mother tongues than they would be able to achieve in any other language. This notwithstanding the fact that many learners use a language other than their mother tongues for learning purposes. In addition to this, those languages which were actively promoted as languages of learning came to be associated with access and empowerment and were, subsequently, accorded a higher status than those which were not utilised for academic learning purposes. The latter were relegated to being used for everyday social conversation only.
In the old South African dispensation, two languages were given the status of languages of learning, namely English and Afrikaans. Because English was also promoted as the language of liberation and Afrikaans was perceived as the language of the oppressor, the former was the favourite of the majority of people when it came to deciding which language to use for academic learning purposes. However, as the findings of Dr Carol MacDonald's Threshold Project (MacDonald, 1991) indicated, choosing any language other than one's mother tongue is not without difficulties, especially if this other language is taught at a lower level than that required for academic purposes.
One of the findings of the project, which looked at the learning experiences of young African children when they were in Standard 3, the year when their language of learning changed abruptly from an African language to English, was that the children's listening, speaking, reading and writing skills were poorly developed in both their mother tongue and in English (MacDonald, 1991:4). The reason for this, according to the researchers, was that the syllabus for English-as-a-subject (i.e. the English Second Language Syllabus) from Sub B to Standard 2 did not provide a strong enough foundation for learners to use English as the language of learning for all ten subjects from the first day of Standard 3 (MacDonald, 1991:5). The report on the project recommended that a new syllabus, 'which takes into account the children's need for English as the medium of instruction' (MacDonald, 1991:6) was one of the ways in which this problem could possibly be addressed.
The question is, 'What should such a syllabus look like?' Should it be a first language syllabus, a syllabus which teaches English for specific purposes or an updated second language syllabus? Before one can answer this question, one needs to look more closely at distinct trends during the past 30 years or more regarding language syllabus development or, alternatively, the development of language curricula, courses and programmes.
The first move away from the divide between mother tongue and non-mother tongue learners of a language was the acknowledgement that language performs not one but a number of different functions. Some of those functions, identified by Michael Halliday ( 1973) in his discussion of the purposive nature of communication, describes the use of language to manipulate the environment, to control events, to represent reality, to ensure social maintenance, to express feelings, emotions, etc., to create imaginary systems or ideas and, lastly, to acquire knowledge.
The second indication of new thinking on language curricula was the acceptance that there were as many reasons for people deciding to learn a particular language as there were people. This is evident from the profusion of language courses for specific purposes which appeared in the early seventies. At that stage, language curricula, like all other curricula, were put under pressure to become not only more relevant but also more accountable. Airy-fairy notions of the 'educative' and 'formative' value of learning languages were no longer acceptable. Learners wanted to know how the learning of a particular language would benefit them, of what use it would be to them in particular areas. The most well-known of these language curricula were probably those which were developed for Academic, Conversational and Vocational Purposes. For the first time the real, rather than the assumed, needs of language learners were taken into account.
On the whole this was a move in the right direction but, since most of the courses/curricula were still developed in terms of English only, the implication was still that not all languages could perform all the functions mentioned previously. It was only with the appearance of second and foreign language curricula which had as their aim the development of learners' 'communicative competence' that this situation showed signs of beginning to change.
According to Brown (1987:24) the term, 'competence, refers to the underlying knowledge of a system, event or fact. It is the non-observable, idealised ability to do something, to perform something.' Because it is non-observable, its existence has to be inferred from a person's performances i. e. from those actions which are overtly observable and which represent concrete manifestations of competence. With reference to language, competence would, therefore, refer to 'the underlying knowledge of the system of a language- its rules of grammar, its vocabulary, all the pieces of a language and how those pieces fit together. Performance would be the actual production (speaking, writing) or the comprehension (listening, reading) of linguistic events.' (Brown, 1987: 24/5).
The concept of 'competence' also features strongly in current education and training initiatives aimed at establishing a national qualifications framework for education and training in South Africa. Crucial to the success of such a framework is the assumption that all curricula (or syllabi) should be outcomes-based, i.e. that competence should be the yardstick against which learner achievement should be measured. This means that all curricula/syllabi, including language curricula/syllabi, should specify, inter alia, what learners should be able to do with the knowledge and understanding gained through the study of a particular subject or field. The outcomes specified in such curricula would have to indicate not only different levels of complexity but also the tasks and criteria which will be used to assess learners' competence.
It is interesting to note that the move towards communicative competence as a goal in language learning and teaching was initiated by linguists who were interested in second-language acquisition. Bearing in mind the definition of competence given earlier, one could assume that new notions about the language ability and proficiency of non-mother tongue language learners were emerging, notions which included the possibility that non-mother tongue speakers might just be able to attain mother-tongue proficiency in languages other than their own.
It is the notion of non-mother tongue speakers attaining mother tongue proficiency, more than any other notion about second and foreign language learners, which should direct any discussion on generic language syllabi which, I contend, is the next logical and inevitable stage in language curriculum development.
Underpinning the discussions of generic language curricula are a number of very important assumptions. The first, and most important, of these is the assumption that all languages have the same potential for development. That some languages are currently under-developed is not due to an inherent lack of development potential but the fact that their speakers may either not have seen the need for their development or have not had the opportunity to do so. The varied developmental levels of the languages in our own country is a case in point.
The second assumption is that language development takes place on a continuum and that, although this development does not necessarily take a linear course, distinct stages of development can be identified to measure learners' progress. New-born babies, for example, do not at first understand what is being said around them; neither can they speak, read or write. By listening to those around them, they begin to understand; by imitating the sounds around them, they can learn to speak and eventually, during a process of formal instruction, they can, in most cases, learn to read and write. The fact that many language learners reach this competence in one or two languages only is not the fault of the language itself but of several external factors - they do not see the need to do so, they do not have the opportunity to do so or they are not motivated to do so, to mention but a few.
Bearing these assumptions in mind, a generic language curriculum (or syllabus) could, therefore, be defined as a language syllabus which describes the whole of the language development continuum in terms of learning outcomes rather than in terms of content regarded as appropriate for first, second or foreign language learners. Measured against this definition of 'generic',
all language subjects, whether they be taken by first, second, third or foreign language speakers should, therefore, have the same overall aim - communicative competence;
all language subjects should foster the development of learners' listening, speaking, reading, writing and viewing skills;
these skills should be developed by exposing learners to the use of the language in authentic communicative situations, i.e. in speech, the media, literature, etc.
assessment procedures and performance tasks for determining learner achievement will have to be pre- determined and used as performance and assessment criteria.
Learners could then decide for themselves which of the language learning outcomes they regard as relevant to their particular needs, thereby accepting more responsibility for their personal language development process. A learner might, for example, decide that basic communicative skills (BICS) is good enough for him/her in one language, cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in another and communicative competence in another.
Language development of this kind could best be facilitated if all language syllabi were to be developed within the context of a common framework for languages which should, at least, describe the stages of language development in terms of clearly formulated language learning outcomes and provide guidelines for determining learners' language proficiency in a language with a view to enabling learners to commence the 'formal' learning of a target language at the appropriate place on the learning continuum.
The concept of curriculum frameworks is basic to current initiatives in the area of curriculum development. Proposals contained in a document entitled Lifelong Learning and Development Framework for General and Further Education and Training in South Africa (September 1996) indicate a move away from the traditional division of learning matter into separate subjects. Instead, it proposes a division into broad Areas of Learning, one of which is Communication, Literacy and Language Studies. Regarding process, the document suggests that broad learning outcomes should be formulated for each area of learning before specific learning outcomes are formulated for individual units, syllabi or programmes of learning. The implication is clear. All languages must be treated equally or, put differently, all language learners must be empowered optimally in the language or languages of their choice.
Against this background, a framework for language learning could, for example, specify that learners who demonstrate no understanding of the language should at first not be expected to 'produce' language utterances but should be exposed to as many authentic communication situations as possible in the target language. It could also, for example, specify that, in order to be awarded an NQF Level 4 credit in the target language, learners should demonstrate that the ability to use listening strategies which enable them to evaluate critically texts with complex levels of meaning
respond critically and confidently to a wide variety of speakers, audiences and texts
write convincingly and expressively on a wide variety of topics and for more than one purpose.
You might well say that this all sounds very well and that it could probably work in a country where people do not speak as many languages as we do in our country. In a country like South Africa, you might say, where we have eleven official languages, as well as a number of other widely spoken languages, such a venture would be impossible!
I would like to contend that it is exactly because we have so many languages that we should attempt to do this. Constitutionally we are bound to promote and develop at least all of the official languages; to support the teaching and learning of all other languages required by learners or used by communities in South Africa; to counter disadvantages resulting from different kinds of mismatches between home languages and languages of learning and teaching; to actively develop previously disadvantaged languages and to promote multilingualism. How can we possibly do this if language learners are not given the opportunity of becoming communicatively competent in as many of these languages as they choose to.
In a final attempt to convince those who still doubt the feasibility of such curricula, those who still, in the heart of their hearts believe that no foreign language learner could ever achieve mother-tongue competence, I would like to conclude with a short extract from a renowned English author, one of my favourites, I might add. This author was not, in fact, English-speaking. He was born in the Ukraine as Jozef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski, and spoke Polish. The fact that he was not a mother tongue speaker of English did not, however, prevent him from mastering the most difficult of the language skills, that of poetic writing. We know him as Joseph Conrad, and I quote a short extract from The Lagoon:
'The narrow creek was like a ditch: tortuous, fabulously deep; filled with gloom under the thin strip of pure and shining blue of the heaven. Immense trees soared up, invisible behind the festooned draperies of creepers. Here and there, near the glistening blackness of the water, a twisted root of some tall tree showed amongst the tracery of small ferns, black and dull, writhing and motionless, like an arrested snake. The short words of the paddlers reverberated loudly between the thick and sombre walls of vegetation. Darkness oozed out from between the trees, through the tangled maze of creepers, from behind the great fantastic and unstirring leaves; the darkness, mysterious and invincible; the darkness scented and poisonous of impenetrable forests.'
If this does not prove my point, what will?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, D., 1987: Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Halliday, M. 1973: Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold
MacDonald, C.A.,1991: Crossing the threshold into Standard Sin black education, Human Sciences Research Council.
Halliday, M., 1973: Ministerial Task Team, 1996: Lifelong Learning through a National Qualifications Framework.
National Curriculum Development Committee, 1996: Lifelong Learning and Development Framework for General and Further Education and Training in South Africa.
Back to Top