scholarly journals Epistemicide, decifit language ideology, and (de)coloniality in language education policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (267-268) ◽  
pp. 219-233
Author(s):  
Prem Phyak

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to analyze how research approaches and methods in language education policy could serve to erase local multilingualism and its associated epistemologies while reproducing inequalities of languages. This paper builds on “epistemicide” (Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. New York: Routledge) to critique how the knowledge constructed on the basis of the evidence collected by using research questions in binary/conflictual terms misrepresents the real experiences and voices of multilingual participants, particularly those from language-minoritized communities. This paper argues that advancing research and building educational practices upon the lived experiences of the people, particularly Indigenous and ethnic minorities, could help us resist the destruction of languages, epistemologies, and linguistic/epistemic self-determination of communities. I use the case of Nepal not only because I am familiar with its historical, sociopolitical, and cultural contexts (so I can provide an insider’s reflective perspective), but also because Nepal’s case offers new insights into understanding language ideological issues in the discourses of language education policies from the vantage point of “peripheral multilingualism” (Pietikäinen, Sari & Helen Kelly-Holmes. 2013. Multilingualism and the periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Author(s):  
Jürgen Jaspers

Language education policies are pivotal in nation-states’ negotiation of a globalizing economy and a diversifying population. But certainly in urban, non-elite schools, where pupils’ linguistic diversity is pronounced, the fixation on language separation and multi-monolingualism produces salient sites of linguistic friction. Much scholarly work has successfully problematized this friction, producing an avalanche of criticism and ample calls for changes in schools’ approach to pupils’ primary linguistic skills and mixed language use. This chapter argues that while such calls are pedagogically exciting and justified on principle, a significant number of them reproduce some of the main assumptions behind the policies that they denounce, or invite problems of their own. Consequently, many calls for change may underestimate the difficulties of policy implementation, exaggerate their own effects, and overstate their critical character. This necessitates a reconsideration of the received relation between sociolinguistics and language education policy, and a revision of reform initiatives.


2021 ◽  
Vol X (2) ◽  
pp. 49-53
Author(s):  
Aicha Rahal ◽  

Globalization has brought about a phenomenal spread of English. This spread has led to the emergence of the newborn varieties which has created serious challenges to language teaching pedagogy and language education policy. Bangbose (2003) has clearly pointed to this issue, stating “as researchers in world Englishes, we cannot consider our job done if we turn a blind eye to the problems of educational failure or unfavorable language policy outcomes” (as cited in the Council of Europe, 2007, p. 31). It seems that there is a mismatch between the advances that happened in the field of applied linguistics and language education policy. This paper focuses on language education policy in the context of global English because it is considered one of the influential factors in the gap between English lingua franca reality and English as a native language. First, it gives a brief overview of the recent situation with regard to English and shows the recent reality of multilingual English and its multifarious aspect (Rahal, 2018 & 2019). It also discusses the conceptual gap in language education policy. It points to the conceptual gap between the sociolinguistic reality of English and the language education policy that is still oriented towards English as a native language. Then, the paper points to the need for a language policy that includes linguistic diversity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document