[lg policy] Australia: Lost in translation

Sun Jan 29 17:33:58 UTC 2012

Lost in translation
January 29, 2012

Opinion

AS SCHOOL returns for 2012, there are now more students learning Latin
than Chinese. Once we take out Chinese-born students and those who
speak Mandarin at home, there are just 300 students learning Mandarin
in year 12 in Australia, according to accounting body CPA Australia.
That is not how it was supposed to be. In 2008, Kevin Rudd said he
wanted 12 per cent of Australian students to be fluent in an Asian
language by 2020. An earlier program, launched in 1994, was supposed
to have 60 per cent of all students conversant in Chinese, Japanese,
Indonesian or Korean by 2006.

There has been a general decline in language education, but a
catastrophic decline in Asian languages. Korean is now virtually a
dead language in the Australian school system, Indonesian is likely to
disappear soon, and Japanese is sliding backwards. Chinese survives -
even thrives - but only because it is taught to Chinese students.
Never dissuaded, Julia Gillard commissioned a report in November into
the ''Asian century''. It is likely to recommend further investment in
languages. Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop believes she can
trump that and make Asian language studies mandatory for all
Australian students - no exceptions.

But the idea that government should prioritise Asian languages is an
unexamined faith. Champions of Asian languages cite cultural benefits
(increased understanding of our northern neighbours), economic
benefits (ability to deal with trading partners in their language) and
educational benefits (learning a second language helps with English
literacy).  None of these is particularly convincing. There's a reason
Asian languages aren't as successful as advocates would like. And it
isn't only because the government hasn't spent enough money. It's that
not enough students want to study them.

Australian students aren't being irrational. Language study responds
to demand, and the rest of the world is learning English. Ours is the
global language, the lingua franca.  Language standardisation has come
by necessity, not design. Put Japanese, American, German and Saudi
executives in a boardroom and the common tongue will be English - the
language of business and treaties and translation.
We all know this. So why does no one blink when policymakers imply
otherwise? One advocate of Asian language learning said on the ABC's
7.30 last week that expecting to rely on English in business
negotiations with an Asian counterpart is daft. Really?

If you think Australians negotiating with Chinese producers are at a
disadvantage if they don't know Chinese, then imagine how much of a
disadvantage Chinese producers have if they don't know English - the
first or second language for virtually all their international
customers.
Anyway, how many students today can we seriously expect to be business
negotiators in Asia - and using the exact language they learned as
school kids? Trade is central to our lives, sure, but few of us
personally negotiate trade deals.

That advocates use only extremely narrow cases where these languages
would be useful does not inspire confidence. English's dominance is
something to be celebrated, not regretted. The rest of the world is
playing catch-up. And the education curriculum is already stuffed
full. Choices have to be made. If governments want to give every
student an advantage in business, perhaps basic statistics and
accountancy would be more helpful.

When people need languages, they learn them. And the data shows most
of our students are not choosing Chinese. The language lobbyists may
need to revisit their assumptions.

But they won't, because their goal has less to do with the economic
and practical benefits of language education, and more to do with an
ideological vision of the future of Australia. It's about politics,
not learning.

For those who argue that Australia must become an Asian nation,
squeezing Asian languages into the curriculum is an easy way to turn
that vague idea into something concrete.

Without a languages policy, the Asian nation philosophy would be
revealed for the empty vessel that it is. A policy to ''deepen
engagement with Asia'' only makes sense in the context of
international diplomacy. The rest of us non-diplomats engage
personally and commercially with Asia whenever we want through
business, consumption and tourism. No need for a government white
paper to tell us to import Chinese goods or visit Angkor Wat. If we
want to appreciate Asia better, our expansive immigration program is
already far more effective at building cross-cultural understanding
than the memory of a few broken words of Mandarin learned at school.

Anyway, why should the education system be a plaything for the
geopolitical and cultural imaginations of our politicians? We
shouldn't pretend that shoehorning this complex, ideological vision of
Australian society in the 21st century into the secondary school
curriculum is going to make good education policy.

One final justification for Asian language learning is that it taxes
the mind and therefore promotes general literacy - it is a worthy
educational priority for its own sake. This may be true. But why Asian
languages? Why not Arabic, or Greek, or Russian, or Cherokee? And
what's wrong with Latin?

Foreign languages are also a remarkably indirect way to encourage
English literacy. Again, the school day is short, and languages are
hard. Chinese is uniquely hard - for instance, about four times as
hard as French.

Second languages should be a personal choice, not a tool for
geopolitical realignment. A recent book by Belgian philosopher
Philippe Van Parijs argues that English so dominates the globe that
non-English speakers should be compensated. English speakers have an
advantage; therefore the world needs a ''language tax''.

This is obviously absurd, but Parijs has a point: policymakers need to
understand the historically unprecedented dominance of English.
Perhaps, by resisting the 20-year push for them to choose Asian
languages above all others, Australian students already do.

Chris Berg is a research fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/lost-in-translation-20120128-1qn2o.html#ixzz1kryUVrVS

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/lost-in-translation-20120128-1qn2o.html

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list