(English) Language Policy and Planning in South America: An Overview
By Marvin Mansueto
(English) Language Policy and Planning in South America:
An Overview
By Marvin Mansueto
Language plays a critical role in the society to much the debate among policy-makers and planners (Hornberger, 1990, 1994).
As proposed by Ruiz, (2010; 1984), developing language policy and planning (LPP) should be informed by language orientation, referring to whether language is viewed either as a problem, right, or resource.
When language is viewed as a problem, minority languages are linked with social problems and a social fragment that divides the society. Alternatively, language can also be approached as a basic human right further pertaining to the use and preservation of the mother tongue or other minority languages as an inherent parcel of a person’s cultural entitlement.
In this highly regarded article, Ruíz (1984) counter-proposed another perspective which assumes that language is a ‘resource to be managed, developed, and conserved’ (p. 28). This approach favours cultural and linguistic diversity (Ruiz, 2010). In this sense, language is seen as a personal and national resource that possesses intrinsic and extrinsic value (Ricento, 2005; Ruiz, 2010). Language orientations are rather not exclusive and may even complement each other according to a societal context (Ruiz, 2010; 1984). To Hult and Hornberger (2016), language orientations allow us to uncover the values emerging from a ‘messy policy debate and negotiation’ and as a framework in ‘fostering sustainable societal multilingualism’ (pp. 42–43)[i].
In this brief essay, I seek to describe an overview of LPP in South America, focusing on English as the leading de jure or de facto second or foreign language in the region. I aim to analyse how this is framed in those countries as being influenced by popular literature that contributes to this discourse. I espoused the conceptualisation of Hornberger (1994), arguing that LPP never occurs in a vacuum but only suggesting the focus on one language and the isolation of others ( p. 84).
Within such expansive regional focus, indeed a seemingly daunting task, I present this comprehensive topic by collating the preponderant scholarship, especially among South American scholars.
The value of this article lies in the endeavour to provide a holistic account in concise writing while encompassing all efforts of countries and territories in the region, which is not evident in the existing literature. Most of the present writings do not take the region as a compact research setting, sometimes only embedded to a more extensive scope (e.g., Latin America) or narrowed down to smaller ones like an analysis of a few specified countries.
South America is considered the fourth largest continent known for its rich natural resources and ecological diversity. The region is also distinguished for its high potential in human resource capital, being the home of at least 430 million people spreading across 14 countries and territories (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2019). Its long lineage of cultural and historical traditions is popularly characterized by the relationship between Iberian and American Indian heritage, in addition to the flux of migration from the Pacific and other European nations (Hamel et al., 2016; Hornberger, 1994). Its colonial ties are manifested mainly with the adoption of dominant languages like Spanish, which is spoken by at least 214 million, closely followed by Portuguese speakers with 211 million (Simons et al., 2020). Quechua speakers, an indigenous language family mostly spoken around the Andean area, also constitute a sizable number though still very far behind with only 7 million speakers. English is the fourth most spoken language, with almost the exact figures with the latter (Simons et al., 2020).
Remarkably, though English did not achieve much recognition in terms of status planning, like its officialization as a national language, it is receiving widespread attention in terms of the acquisition planning or its designation as a foreign language to be taught in schools[ii]. To mention, only the state of Guyana and the territory of Falkland Islands (Islas Maldivas) designate it as its official language.
Countries in South America formulate their LPP differently though it can also be described as gravitating towards legally or factually recognizing English as a second language (L2). Venezuela is among the first countries to adopt L2 English acquisition by making it compulsory in secondary and tertiary education as early as 1950. It was part of the government's development policy, as one of the leading oil export countries at that time, to facilitate its negotiations with global trade partners (Gamero, 2017). Argentina, on the other hand, introduced English for secondary curriculum beginning 1960s but restricted only to a limited population because secondary school was not then compulsory. It was in 2006 that the National Law on Education (Law No. 26.206) prescribed the obligatory teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) in primary and secondary school (Porto, 2014). English LPP of other South American countries ranges in a spectrum of being non-explicit to overly ambitious and highly progressive (Banfi, 2017; Hamel et al., 2016).
In Brazil, FL is mandatory for secondary school, yet there is no explicit regulation as to the specific language. Furthermore, the law is also silent on regulating elite bilingual education (EBE) (Liberali & Megale, 2016), which led to the commodification of English education among private academies and institutes. Consequently, some scholars termed it a ‘booming business’ fueled by the media portrayal of English as being essential to a successful life (Rajagopalan, 2005, 2015).
There is a similar case in Paraguay, where learning English and Portuguese is perceived to potentially provide more advantageous financial and social capital (Lang, 2014). Hence, FL and EFL learning have mainly been offered in private schools, thus furthering the notion that learning them will elevate one’s social class (Lang, 2014). Ecuador's government shares this belief whereby they require EFL beginning primary level, stating that it will:
“[provide] equal opportunities in terms of access in education… to overcome poverty” (Constante, 2016).
Bilingualism with English and the national language had also taken strides in some countries. One pioneering effort is by the Colombian government who initiated the National Programme on Bilingualism 2004-2019, requiring EFL from preschool to high school following the CEFR levels (Gómez-Sará, 2017). Another unique component of this program is the use of international evaluations and certification while also requiring the students in higher education to take the obligatory official state exams with a component in English (Gómez-Sará, 2017). Perhaps this is the same model followed by Peru in making EFL mandatory for all levels of education, including primary, secondary, and up to the tertiary level (Saavedra & Gutierrez, 2020). In 2014, Peruvian President Ollanta Humala set a goal to achieve national bilingualism by 2021, stating that all children are expected to speak the three official languages (Spanish, Quechua, and Aymara) and one foreign language with a focus on English (International Consultants for Education and Fairs, 2016). Such pronouncement had been largely in response to a clamour for equitable education, as seen in the number of Peruvians who seek to attain English fluency by attending language training in highly commercialised institutes (International Consultants for Education and Fairs, 2016).
A somewhat more progressive approach is advanced in Bolivia, Chile, and Uruguay. In an effort to recognise the linguistic diversity in the country, the new Bolivian constitution, ratified in 2009, expressly states its commitment to an intracultural, intercultural and pluricultural development, thereby adopting ‘plurilingualism’ to the core of its LPP. Today, the Bolivian state recognized 37 official languages as national languages and English as a foreign language (Protheroe, 2017). Another progressive advocacy is evident in Chile with the launching of “English Opens Door Program” in 2003. Aside from requiring EFL beginning primary school, it also includes heavy educational financing of up to $10 Million annually to support professional development programs of Chilean teachers to receive intensive English training abroad and continuous exchange of faculty and students to English-speaking countries (Ahonen, 2018). Finally, an overstated LPP is currently in place in Uruguay, which some researchers regard as highly ‘ambitious’ named Ceibal en Ingles launched in 2011 (Banfi, 2017; de Melo et al., 2013). This program puts technology central in English language teaching by requiring students to take online English language lessons, coinciding with another program of providing at least one laptop for each student (Rivior & Lamschtein, 2012).
Finally, for dependent territories like French Guiana and the Falkland Islands, the official language adheres with that of the sovereign state they belong with, which is France and the United Kingdom, respectively. In these dependencies, they follow the LPP of the latter as they maintain close ties in terms of their state and administrative affairs.
Meanwhile, it is a different case for a newly founded democracy like Suriname, which only became an independent country in 1975 but was mired by political destabilization during its early years. It wasn’t until 1987 that the new constitution was ratified. LPP remains to be a contesting ground among ethnic groups making it difficult to flexibly advance one language over another or promote it as part of the national LPP. In consideration, Dutch, which is viewed as ethnically neutral, was chosen, though an English creole (Sranan Tongo) is widely spoken (Hoefte & Veenendaal, 2019).
By the close of the twentieth century, the growth of English as a global language had been phenomenal, along with intense debates on whether its adoption leads to the demise of the minority languages (Crystal, 2003). Hence, governments have to cleverly justify the adoption of foreign language teaching, specifically English, while also considering the political and financial concerns involved (Matear, 2008). In this case, governments take decisive efforts to frame the appropriate language orientation whereby adopting an English LPP is anchored on the broader educational and national public policy. Evidently, South American governments counter-weigh the benefits of English LPP in multi-lateral dimensions as being a problem, right, or resource.
At its core, acquiring English proficiency is portrayed as a cultural capital and a harbinger to one’s access to knowledge and information, health, education, employability, and improved socio-economic status (Byram, 2001; Hamel et al., 2016; Matear, 2008; Porto, 2014).
The ‘deficiency’ of English communication skills among South American learners had been highlighted by different government administrations as a delimitation in their future career plans in a globalised world (Cronquist & Fiszbein, 2017). The lack of English proficiency is considered a problem in the human resource capital development which paved for widening social inequalities as it translates to access to training and education in English skills. Therefore, governments playing their redemptive role in the plight of the people must guarantee equal access to such demands, thus portraying that the non-access to English training is a ‘right’ withheld (Matear, 2008; Schiefelbein & Schiefelbein, 2002).
As Banfi (2017) described, foreign language education in South America is a relatively new phenomenon in the education policy of the region. According to her, it was before attributed to the stratification of the education system, which resulted in the differentiation of access according to one’s income bracket. Hence, schools attract the socio-economic elites by providing foreign language components and consequently labelling themselves as bilingual or international schools (Banfi & Day, 2005; Hamel et al., 2016).
It was, however, post-1990s that languages receive much acclaim in the educational agenda, even gaining social and political visibilities as amplified by politicians (Banfi, 2017). Hamel et al. (2016) explained that this paradigmatic shift was perpetrated by the economic globalisation that ‘forced’ Latin American countries to open up into the world market. The neoliberal internationalisation of the global economy compelled governments to a set of ‘universal values, on globally unified and controlled paths of communication and categorisations of the world which are all framed by language’ which in this case is English due to its associations with the ‘discourse structures and cultural models of the dominant world power’ (p. 2).
Therefore, examining the development of LPP in South America needs to be scrutinised from an interdisciplinary or even perhaps towards a transdisciplinary point of view.
Special regard should be paid attention to how these countries are shaped by the multi-directional disturbances in their political, economic, and social institutions beginning the dawn of their histories, towards the era of colonisation and the momentous declarations of independence, the period of political turmoil under the military regimes and dictatorships - and until today in a bondage of new colonialism within the neoliberal international order.
Marvin Mansueto currently works as an English Teacher at an International School in Chile. Prior to working in Chile, he also worked in Colombia, Brunei Darussalam, Saudi Arabia and The Philippines.
He finished his Master's Degree in ELT at Universidad de La Sabana, Colombia and currently pursuing his PhD Degree. His research interests include Reading Comprehension, Teaching and Learning and English Language Acquisition.
Notes
[i] See Hult and Hornberger (2016, p. 33) for pre-dispositions of language orientations
[ii] See Hornberger (1994) for extensive definition of status and acquisition planning.
References
Ahonen, K. (2018). Language Education Policy in Chile. In F. V. Tochon (Ed.), Language Education Policy Studies. University of Wisconsin—Madison.
Banfi, C. (2017). English language teaching expansion in South America: Challenges and Opportunities. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein, G. D. Maggioli, & L. C. de Oliveira (Eds.), English Language Teaching in South America: Policy, Preparation, and Practices. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/0.21832/9781783097982-004
Banfi, C., & Day, R. (2005). The Evolution of Bilingual Schools in Argentina. In Bilingual Education in South America (pp. 65–78). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598203-006
Byram, M. (2001). Language teaching as political action. In M. Bax & J. Zwart (Eds.), Reflections on language and language learning: In honour of Arthur van Essen (pp. 91–104). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Constante, S. (2016, September 20). Wanted in Ecuador: English-language teachers. El Pais. https://english.elpais.com
Cronquist, K., & Fiszbein, A. (2017). English Language Learning in Latin America. https://www.thedialogue.org/
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
de Melo, G., Machado, A., Miranda, A., & Viera, M. (2013). Impacto del Plan Ceibal en el aprendizaje: Evidencia de la mayor experiencia OLPC (Serie Documentos de Trabajo DT 12/2013). http://www.iecon.ccee.edu
Gamero, M. (2017, July 31). Status of the English Language in Venezuela: Current curricular implementation. The Warwick ELT. https://thewarwickeltezine.wordpress.com
Gómez-Sará, M. M. (2017). Review and Analysis of the Colombian Foreign Language Bilingualism Policies and Plans. HOW, 24(1), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.24.1.343
Hamel, R. E., Álvarez López, E., & Carvalhal, T. P. (2016). Language policy and planning: challenges for Latin American universities. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(3–4), 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1201208
Hoefte, R., & Veenendaal, W. (2019). The Challenges of Nation-Building and Nation Branding in Multi-Ethnic Suriname. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 25(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537113.2019.1602371
Hornberger, N. H. (1990). Bilingual Education and English-Only: A Language-Planning Framework. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508(1), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716290508001002
Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education, 8(1–2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789409541380
Hult, F. M., & Hornberger, N. H. (2016). Revisiting Orientations in Language Planning: Problem, Right, and Resource as an Analytical Heuristic. The Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingüe, 33(3), 30–49. https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/476.
International Consultants for Education and Fairs. (2016). Peru commits to bilingualism with a new focus on English. ICEF Monitor. https://monitor.icef.com/2016/01/peru-commits-to-bilingualism-with-a-new-focus-on-english/
Lang, N. (2014). Nuestro guaraní? Language Ideologies, Identity, and Guaraní Instruction in Asunción, Paraguay [University of California - San Diego]. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9k50224n
Liberali, F. C., & Megale, A. (2016). Elite bilingual education in Brazil: an applied linguist’s perspective. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 18(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v18n2.10022
Matear, A. (2008). English language learning and education policy in Chile: can English really open doors for all? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790802036679
Porto, M. (2014). The Role and Status of English in Spanish-Speaking Argentina and Its Education System. SAGE Open, 4(1), 215824401351405. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013514059
Protheroe, M. (2017, July 19). Decolonizing language education. Bolivian Express Magazine. https://bolivianexpress.org/blog/posts/decolonising-language-education
Rajagopalan, K. (2005). he language issue in Brazil: when local knowledge clashes with expert knowledge. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice (pp. 99–122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rajagopalan, K. (2015). On the Challenge of Teaching English in Latin America with Special Emphasis on Brazil. In Resistance to the Known (pp. 121–143). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137345196_6
Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the “language-as-resource” discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 348–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00296.x
Rivior, A. L., & Lamschtein, S. (2012). Cinco años del Plan Ceibal: algo más que una computadora para cada niño. https://digital.fundacionceibal.edu.uy/jspui/handle/123456789/138
Ruiz, R. (2010). Reorienting language-as-resource. In J. E. Petrovic (Ed.), International perspectives on bilingual education: Policy, practice, and controversy (pp. 155–172). Information Age Pubs.
Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in Language Planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464
Saavedra, J., & Gutierrez, M. (2020). Peru: A Wholesale Reform Fueled by an Obsession with Learning and Equity. In Audacious Education Purposes (pp. 153–180). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3_6
Schiefelbein, E., & Schiefelbein, P. (2002). Paradoxes of Chilean education reform. In C. Abel & C. M. Lewis (Eds.), Exclusion and engagement: Social policy in Latin America (pp. 285–302). Institute of Latin American Studies/University of London.
Simons, G., Eberhard, D., & Fennig, C. (2020). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. (23rd ed.). SIL International. http://ethnologue.com/
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P. D. (2019). World Population Prospects 2019. Online Edition. https://population.un.org/wpp/