Acceso usuarios
Over the past few decades, many Southeast Asian governments have promoted English language education (hereafter ELE) as a linguistic pathway for developing human capital and improving global economic competitiveness of their nations. However, Kirkpatrick (2017. Language education policy among the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2017.2) raises a valid concern that if the current language education policy of teaching only the national language plus English is retained in Southeast Asian polities, future multilinguals in the region will likely be transformed into bilinguals with proficiency in the national language and English. While instrumentalist discourses have shaped ELE policy in the region, the current status of English has also been facilitated, to a large extent, by a set of common ELE ‘fallacies’ [Phillipson (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press]. This paper seeks to firstly address the ideological fallacies of ELE that underlie the pursuit of English. We then call for a reorientation towards viewing multilingualism-as-resource(s), and propose a ‘Na/ver/in’ multilingual model for Southeast Asian primary education. This model seeks to promote the combined use of the (na)tional language, (ver)nacular language(s)/regional lingua franca and (in)ternational language for primary education. We further argue that the way forward is a more balanced, inclusive, socially equitable and ethical approach to language policy and planning, informing the Naverin model.
