LANGUAGE LEARNING AS A LOAD: FACT OR FICTION
Assuming many languages a load, one solution is to study only one language at the primary level. What are the implications of such a step? The one language could either be the mother tongue, the state language, or English.
If it is only the mother tongue, then the children are deprived from being introduced to the state language, or English, both of which are likely to be the medium of instruction at different stages.
If it is a state language other than Hindi, then, without an academic strategy to build upon and switch over form the mother tongue, the child is considerably handicapped. He is introduced to English and Hindi only at the post-primary stage.
If it is English, then, the child's introduction to reading and writing of his own mother tongue id deferred by four to six years. Hindi medium in the non-Hindi areas also has the same effect.
If it is decided that only two languages will be taught, then, thee could be one of two situations. Either the learners are bilingual in both the languages, or, they know only one language and learn the other. One of the languages could be minority child, or mother tongue and Hindi, or, English, for a child who speaks the dominant state language. In the first case, the child is deprived from being introduced to either Hindi or English for six years including the pre-primary stage and is confronted with both at the post-primary stage. In the second case, if it is state language and English, then, Hindi comes at a much later stage, too late to be of use to help him in the competition for jobs outside his home state. If it is the state language and Hindi, then, English would come too late to be meaningful in pursuing higher education.
Planning in education in a multilingual country is different from planning in education in a predominantly monolingual country. Multilingualism adds to the richness of experience, provides flexibility and plasticity in approaching differences, and joins peoples, places and cultures.
Learning more languages could be considered load or burden only if the teaching is inadequate, outmoded and purposeless. In that case education itself is a load. A bundle of sandalwood carried by a donkey is load. But the same bundle carried by a human being who enjoys the fragrance is not a load. Learning a language always has an instrumental motivation. While learning language, one either learns subjects or peoples and their cultures. Languages, then, would not be mere vehicles of ancient and medieval literature, but of cognition, connation, concept formation and disputation.
Assuming that learning more languages is a load, one could ask for whom more languages are a load? There are four concerned parties: the student, the teacher, the system and the parent. As far as the student is concerned, as long as some learning takes place, education cannot be considered a load. If in a teaching situation no learning takes place, then, the fault lies in method, materials, medium and manner of communication, etc., and may be considered a burden. But this is true of any subject: Mathematics, English, Social studies and General Science.
A student learns a language as a subject as well as a medium. Ideally as a subject, the child is supposed to study the structure and function of a language, in addition to learning aspects of literature and culture for the expression of which language becomes a major vehicle. Since language is the principal medium of cognition as well as culture transmission, it acts as a major instrument of socialization. When the home language and school language of a child are the same, socialization becomes smooth. But in a multi-culture world, without time and space barrier for knowledge and with multiple locus of discovery and innovation, one language can never be adequate for a child wishing to participate in the 20th century life. More languages provide greater access to wider knowledge and experience. When learning more languages becomes synonymous with the expanding of horizon of knowledge, then, it can hardly be construed as a burden.
As a result of the pseudo-debate on a non-problem like language load, many more important and serious questions relating to the learner have not received due attention. One such problem is the high rate of failure in the mother tongue itself. In many states 30 to 40 per cent failure in the school final examination is in the mother tongue itself. A related issue is the cumulative verbal retardation and development of semi-lingualism in the country. When even in non-verbal ability and in perceptive activity, comparable students show evidence or verbal development retardation, then there is something to be worried about it. But this had seldom been discussed. The problems of development of a cognitive style, understanding of verbal relations, retention of concepts, comprehending and participating in expressive activities under conditions of a medium, which is different from the home language, are not properly understood, and all resultant deficiencies are ascribed to one fictitious cause under the label of language load.
As far as the teacher is concerned, he/she generally teaches one language. There can be and there are two-language teachers as much as there are two-subject teachers. In the primary stage, in many schools a teacher is expected to teach all the subjects. It is true that new discoveries about the structure and function of language suggest newer approaches to the teaching of languages. But so is the case in Mathematics and Physics, Economics and History. The teacher must constantly renew and update himself/herself in respect to content and method in all subjects including language.
In our country, the goals of language learning are illdefined. Even whatever objective has been listed in the syllabus is seldom adequately reflected in the prescribed textbook. The teacher training curriculum hardly trains the teachers for attaining the objectives in the syllabus of the classes they are supposed to teach. Thus, there is awide gap between the teacher competence and the curricular demand. In one area of Bombay, out of 79 mother tongue teachers, where graduates are trained as the would-be teachers; indicate a different level of problems. A quick survey in Madras shows that among the students who came to study M.A. with language major and those who came with only compulsory language in B.A., the latter invariably do better. This is true of all languages including English. To what extent, the 'otherwise-rejected' coming to language major classes, and the unimaginative, restrictive and irrelevant language syllabus are responsible for this state of affairs has hardly been examined. When there is such great confusion and colossal ignorance about the process of instruction, there is no wonder that floklore is created and made current regarding 'language load'.
By system is meant here the interrelation between curriculum, the text and reference books, the time allocation, the teacher competence and such other things in the educational set up, which is engaged in teaching-learning. Here also, the interplay of various social compulsions and priorities gives relative emphasis to subjects. For example, at one time humanistic studies were considered a mark of refinement, whereas, at the present time, science and technology are considered more important. In the changed perspective, a parent may consider more of social sciences and humanistic studies a load on the child.
It is often said that the parents know what is good for the child. Do the parents really know? This question has greater relevance in a stratified pluralistic society with a thin upper crust of the educated, and where privileges accrued through education are incompatible with the socio-economic and political structure envisaged. Do the parents know of the theories about the acquisition of language by the child? Do they know how language relates to learning? Even learning/sophistication, do they even know what is meant by good, fair, satisfactory entries in the child's marks card with reference to his/her language proficiency?
The individual parents, in their anxiety for their children to participate in the spoil-sharing arrangements of the elitist education, come in conflict with its social purpose. They are blinded to the inequality perpetuated by the existing system and the damage done to the children in the process. Even the educationists, who are products of this system, instead of rectifying the system to ensure just and creative education for all, plead for strengthening the existing system and rehabilitating the products with all their inherent weakness. If this is not halted and a same policy of language use in education is not evolved, the whole education will be a burden on the community.