Print

Print


[log in to unmask] kirjoitti:
li [Risto Kupsala] mi tulis la

  
Knowledge of a major language can be learned in school as a 
subject. It 
doesn't have to be the medium of education since 
kindergarten. In fact, 
education in your native language generally leads to better learning 
results than education in a foreign language.
    

Without the immerision at a young age, a child isn't likely to gain
enough fluency in another language.

That's rubbish and you should know that.

  At a young age the child will
become more proficient in that language, and then there should be no
issue with teaching in it.  
  

But what about the native language that is being marginalized? How will a language develop literature and other cultural artifacts if it's spoken only at home and streets?

Therefore 
elevating local 
languages would not isolate Cameroon or handicap its citizens. French 
and English would hardly be excluded from curriculum at any 
situation. 
On the contrary, giving privileged status to the foreign languages is 
destructive to the local languages, because their usage is 
excluded from 
school, work and the media.
    

In the case of Cameroon, English and French are being taught in place of
local languages.  The problem is that these children are being taught
two languages at once and confusing them thus resulting in Franglais.
  

Frananglais. But is it a problem?


  
Jacques mentioned Mexico.  Imagine how bollixed-up Mexico 
      
would be today if it had 
    
decided to reject the evil European language, Spanish, in 
      
favor of Nahuatl and the dozens of 
    
other languages originally spoken there.
  
      
I don't think that wider usage of Nahuatl and others would have hurt 
Mexico. Switzerland and South Africa seem to be doing fine with many 
official languages and even Nigeria, the most multilingual country in 
Africa, is doing much better than nearly monolingual Somalia.
    

Switzerland and S. Africa get along because there are lots of polyglots
in their populations.
  

What a theory! And how exactly does that work?

Nigeria's "doing well" (if you call it doing well)  most likely has to
do with reasons having nothing to so with language, but the question is:
how much better would they be with a unifying language?
  

I didn't say that Nigeria is doing well, I said it's doing better than Somalia. A unifying language would not guarantee anything in Nigeria, just like it doesn't guarantee anything in Somalia and Iraq, to name just two examples.