Modern Mauritian culture is assuming a very distinct shape with the emphasis on such diversity and complexity in the spoken linguistic channel. Literacy has become a medium for demarcation of schooling level, social status and professionalisation of social practices instead of a communicative tool. French language has gained such an entrenched incomprehensible supremacy in Mauritius.

Sociologists might argue that French language has escalated because we looked up to those who spoke French when we were still struggling with Bhojpuri and Creole. Traditionally, there has been a ?higher status? perceived within the French-speaking community. Thus, there is a dynamic subconscious desire within all Mauritians that, to progress up the social and professional ladder, one has to be fluent in French. It is ?cool? to speak French even to those who cannot understand it.

It is really funny, when guests (professionals) on TV programmes are asked questions in Creole, they reply in French. They are either unwilling or incapable of showing their diversity in linguistic mastery because they feel they might ?go down? the social scale. Ever witnessed a meeting (on TV) of elderly citizens in villages where the speaker chooses to speak French when the audience understands Creole or Bhojpuri? This is the real context of our social and linguistic practices.

The aspiration of every family is to motivate its children to ignore the sociolinguistic convention of Bhojpuri and Creole and to frame all social practices in French. Modernism has already established the pillar of social discourse in French and oriental languages will continue to take a backseat in daily exchanges.

Travelling on buses, I have not yet heard a conversation in Hindi or Urdu within student groups. Indeed, there are many exchanges in Chinese among the younger Chinese community in public places. Such is the wave of modernism sweeping Mauritius and oriental languages have to battle against this strong current.

Literacy and orality are practised to bring meaning to social practices. Young Mauritians have a clear perception influenced by parents, teachers, academics and professional institutions that French gives that meaning closely followed by English. Literacy practice is based on our modern cultural ways of framing communication in French.

The concept of literacy and orality practices are pitched at a higher level of abstraction and refer to both behaviour and social and cultural conceptualisation that give meaning to the uses of reading and writing. So, where do the oriental languages fit in our ?real? social contexts? When and where are oriental languages integral to the nature of our interactions and our social interpretative processes? Then, why are we studying and fighting for oriental languages in our education system?

Social engineering

What ideological preconceptions underpin the propagation of oriental languages in Mauritius? There is plenty of evidence that it is not social interaction, neither cultural nor professional. It appears to be more of either a ?religious framework? or a ?remembering my roots? ideology that is powering the revalorisation of oriental languages.

Literacy in oriental languages is not just a technical skill but rather an ideological practice, concerned with power relations and implanted in specific cultural meanings and practices. It is admitted that versatility in linguistic abilities is always admired but it is of limited use if it is confined only to religious practices or reminiscent therapy. The result of such confinement is visible in conversation with Indians/Pakistanis who use one third Hindi/Urdu and two thirds English in a conversation. Are we aspiring to such mixing of languages in our children?s conversation, one third Hindi/Urdu, and two thirds French with a dash of English?

Here is something to think about because that is the outcome of dismantling the strong asset of bilingualism of Mauritians. This kind of consequence is not only the result of mixing languages but is often disguised into the political and economic interests of those teaching it. Education can be a subversive act. Is there a hidden strategy to have a dominant literacy programme in oriental languages?

If there is, we should take note of what Freire, the most influential radical literacy campaigner, said ?people without Western type literacy are unable to ?read the world?. The critical question surfaces again: What is the ulterior motive of oriental languages in Mauritius? Educate or engineer?

Mr Tengur is now asking for increased classroom time for oriental languages just as much as English and French. Is this a homeostatic approach to educational planning? He has a vested interest but how about the interest of the children? Is he interested in a broad-based education for holistic development of the child or is it the subject that he represents?

Hold on Mr Tengur! What are your evolutionary and functional arguments for creeping up on the timetable? Demands like this ring warning bells. How do specific oriental languages claim authority against competing subjects? Do you feel marginalised? If so, is this a request with a long-term view on social engineering? Is this a deliberate, conscious and analytic effort to expand the relationship between language and social change? Social anthropologists may have a more sceptical view. The argument must surely be that we teach children languages to increase awareness of the social and ideological nature of our society instead of competing for hours against other subjects.

Mobility

There is no doubt that our oriental roots have a rich history worth learning and using. Many people from the Asian continent do study Science and Arts subjects in their native language. For example, we have many Bangladeshis who have chosen to study subjects in Bangla. Similarly, people from Thailand have chosen Thai languages as medium for studying other subjects. Some of these people with professional qualifications are in the UK, USA and European countries and the difficulty they encounter to speak English and earn a living is incredible. They are surprisingly very limited because of their confinement in oriental languages. Their social and occupational mobility are severely handicapped and almost debilitating.

Mauritius must take note of this severe problem. Mauritian children are versatile and intelligent and the greatest asset is our ability to articulate competently in English and French. We do not want to dissipate this strength by diluting it with several oriental languages. This problem is already visible in Mauritius. Just take a closer look at those who have focused on French and neglected English or vice versa. Their ability to articulate is less than satisfactory.

Choice must be a democratic right of parents and children. It must be well explained and understood by parents and children alike. Many want to have the ability to move to other countries. Mauritius has been a good exporter of talented people. Therefore, those who opt for strengthening their English and French must be allowed to do so and not compelled to study oriental languages. On the other hand, those wishing to focus on oriental languages should have the opportunity but they must do it with eyes wide open.

Oriental languages are by no means a disadvantage as long as they are studied with a defined and understood purpose. Are we advocating oriental languages for surface message or inner meaning? Is it a consciousness raising or a well-calculated occupational and/or political agenda? Can oriental languages inculcate the critical self-awareness, openness, rationality, analytical, reflective and abstract conceptualisation that English and French do? Is there any comparative empirical research-based data to support the proliferation of oriental languages? These cognitive functions are critical factors in the holistic development of our children to face our modern, contemporary society.

We must remember that language is not just a technical process but it involves a way of thinking, a development of mentality, social conventions, an ideology, a whole cultural outlook and a sense of identity. The cumulative effect of pushing a language up the curriculum can be radical and substantial. It moulds children and the nature of our future society. A good example is the role of the London Missionary Societies which have participated in literacy and language development programmes around the world but have advanced Christianity through that process. Ever wondered why the language of choice in Parliament has been enshrined in English?

Pedagogy

Teaching and learning is saturated with ideological implications and social construction of selves. How should oriental languages be taught in a country where the dominant and the language of the office are French? How can educational approaches be homogenised in an increasingly heterogeneous society? A reframing of educational, social and linguistic theory is critical. Our cultural relations, perhaps a key reason for learning oriental languages, must be made more specific.

There are various models of pedagogical processes. For example, the autonomous model advocates language learning as a form of discipline, learning precise phonemic distinctions. This model is limited because it creates an impression that knowledge is a set of facts to be deposited in the learner.

The most enlightening pedagogical model is where oriental languages and their practice are seen as sites of ideological and social challenge. Paolo Freire advocates that this model starts with consciousness-raising enabling a heterogeneous class (or society) to explore and analyse the sources and reasons for learning oriental languages. Lessons should start with key concepts in the local context and urge students to discover what these concepts mean in linguistic choice. This is a more reflective model of relating language to the type of society one is living in rather than learning a language per se.

Thus, language learning is not just a theoretical exercise but a socially applied enterprise. This process is known as ?meaning making? in language education. In practical terms, this type of learning is about mastering language not only for historical or religious reasons but for real use in day to day living and political socialisation. This is where oriental languages should reside.

Pedagogy is not only the process of learning but it involves teachers as well. The success of oriental languages in an applied form depends on who is teaching them. Every language is learnt in a particular way and the modes of learning, the social relationships of student to teacher are modes of socialisation and acculturation. The student is learning cultural models of identity and personhood; not just how to decode a script or write in oriental languages. Teachers with strong political, cultural, ideological and revolutionary fervour can hijack the Freireian approach.

Another strong bias is depicted by Thomas Hardy in this statement: ?It is hard for a woman to define her feelings in language, which is chiefly made by men to express theirs?. Thus, language can be so specific that it may handicap a particular group unless it is taught with a homogeneous strategy.

Pedagogues of the 21st century believe languages are best taught in socially situated situations and not confined to classrooms. When will students revise and criticise their school learning if not during their experience of it? Can our pedagogues develop a methodologically, empirically and theoretically sensitive ?critical language awareness? and ?critical social practice? syllabus?

Here is a challenge and a critical framework for oriental language teachers, the MIE and the MGI to construct a ?socially situated? curriculum for the sake of a better homogeneous Mauritius.

Field Leader, Professional Development

E-mail: [email protected]