Language planning and language-in-education policy

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Language Problems and Language Planning 34:1 © 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

Language planning and language-in-education policy in Iran A. Majid Hayati and Amir Mashhadi Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

This paper explores the effects of different political ideologies on language, using as examples three historical stages and three political periods in the history of Iran, and the differing policies adopted in these eras concerning language and language education. Over the years, political ideologies have served as a barrier as well as a contributor to language use (whether first or foreign) and to language teaching. The paper then turns to explore local language policies and the status of the Persian language in the modern era, focusing particularly on foreign language teaching policies after the Islamic revolution and their implications for teaching and learning activities and practices in Iran’s educational system. Finally, using several Iranian political periods as an example, this study demonstrates how globalization has influenced the teaching of foreign languages, especially English. Keywords: language planning, language policy, politics of language, Persian language, language in education, globalization

As an effective creator and conveyor of identity, language has frequently been manipulated by ideologists and politicians, who find it an appealing area for intervention to reform society in ways that suit their ideals. Political circles and those in positions of authority in every society employ policies and practices to change those aspects of language and language use that can work against their ultimate goals and to protect those aspects that are congruent with their intentions. Generally speaking, after the emergence of the nation state in the nineteenth century, the use of language as a means of distinguishing one nation from another resulted in a close association between language and politics (Shohamy 2006: 26). Shohamy (2006: 49) describes language policy as “a set of principles regarding language behavior.” Those in power often develop such principles to regulate the use of first languages and foreign languages in a given country. Thus, language policy sets goals and defines procedures to be followed in order to achieve these goals. Language Problems & Language Planning 34:1 (2010), 24–42. doi 10.1075/lplp.34.1.02hay issn 0272–2690 / e-issn 1569–9889 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

Language planning and policy in Iran

Developments in disciplines as diverse as sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, political science, and especially sociolinguistics, paved the way for the formalization of language planning and policy as a separate academic field in the 1960s (Eastman 1983; Fishman 1971; Hornberger 1998, cited in Diallo 2005). The creation of this field brought many language-related problems in the educational sphere to the focused attention of various scholars (Ager 2001, Kaplan & Baldauf 1997, Seelye & Wasilewsky 1996, Wardhaugh 1987). Language planning and policy paradigms may vary considerably from one country to another; language planners and policy makers must be aware of social, historical, economic, cultural and political differences in each particular setting, and then tailor the policies and solutions to the basic needs and rights of the people for whom the policies are designed. Luke, McHoul, and Mey (1990: 34) claim that: in order to gain legitimacy, or mass loyalty, acceptance and actual use, a language must indeed have apparent value and use within the cultural traditions and social practices…; it must serve a political structure, and it must be congruent with the demands of the economic system or subsection in question.

In the same vein, Omar (1998: 62) maintains that: a language needs to have a good image in order to be able to stand proud as a national and official language. The image is a necessary ingredient in the building of the confidence of its users, and it is this confidence that will take the language to greater heights.

Therefore, establishing a comprehensive model of language planning and policy entails a careful analysis of the needs of language speakers and a thorough investigation of factors involved in the decision-making process about the language. For example, in a multilingual or multidialectal context, the language rights of ethnic groups should be taken fully into account. Otherwise, as Wardhaugh (1987: 5) puts it, “there may be resistance to adopting a new language because the new identity is unwelcome.” Indeed, the imposition of language(s) of wider communication in multilingual or multidialectal nations has widened the gap between the needs and preferences of ethnic groups (including their attachment to their own local languages and cultures) on the one hand and the countries’ official priorities at the national and global level (such as efforts to forge a national identity) on the other. In such multilingual or multidialectal contexts, failure to acknowledge local concerns has resulted in sociolinguistic dislocation and psychological damage, including instances of low self-esteem and frustration, crises of identity, problems associated with language shift and maintenance, and language attrition (Eggington & Wren 1997; Hale 1992; Mukherjee 1980; Agnihotri 1979, 1987). In many ways, language serves as the premier indicator of membership in a community through which ethnic identity might be recognized.

© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

25

26 A. Majid Hayati and Amir Mashhadi

Given these considerations, it is clear that policy makers and language planners should try to avoid racial and linguistic biases in their decisions, aiming for respect for all languages used in the country, while countering any particularistic ethnic chauvinism or separatism. In education, for example, they should attempt to address any individual ethnic minority’s rights to equal access to knowledge and other educational services in their own languages, with the aim of preventing the socio-economic inequality associated with language resources distribution. Though this process is extremely difficult and necessitates careful analysis of all factors involved, doing so is the very essence of language planning. In proposing steps to be taken by state bodies and decision makers, Howlett and Ramesh (1996) outline one such approach: a four-stage model for language planning and policy, in which all stages are discrete but interrelated. Stages in this paradigm consist of agenda-setting, formulation and decision-making, evaluation, and implementation.

Language and ethnicity in Iran If language and ethnicity are social constructs distinguishing one group of people from another, language can be viewed as a medium through which ethnic identity can be addressed. To achieve high status in a multilingual or multidialectal context, therefore, an ethnic group may strive to maintain its particular ethnic traits, especially its language, as the premier indicator of its identity in the social, political and economic context in which it operates. Language can also be exploited by a country’s leaders to give a certain ethnic minority a high or low status relative to others, through the application of particular political, social, and economic strategies. For instance, when group affiliation and language loyalty among speakers of any ethnic minority is seen to threaten the linguistic and national solidarity of a country, the central government can check that potential threat by marginalizing or assimilating that minority’s language or cultural traditions, thus defusing its potential power. As a multilingual and multidialectal country, Iran has, over the years, passed through radically different eras and major political changes, resulting in a variety of policies regarding both the Persian language and the other foreign, second, or local languages. A brief look at Iranian history reveals clearly how the views and practices of those in political power have determined the course of language policy and practice. The modern era in Iran’s history, especially in recent years, has witnessed the emergence of another feature of language policy and planning: globalization. Globalization has overshadowed the role played by political thought in determining language policy.



The diversity of Iranian ethnic minorities, along with their distinctive local languages, has obliged Iran’s policy-making bodies to give some measure of recognition to local languages as an indispensable part of the country’s language planning and policy-making. However, this has required reaching a compromise not only between (a) ethnic language needs and preferences, and (b) national solidarity and maintaining the status of Persian as the country’s lingua franca, but also (c) global needs and preferences. The result has been competing policies and actions in different eras, aligned with varying domestic and international concerns. The languages and dialects spoken in Iran cover three language families: IndoEuropean, Afro-Asiatic and Altaic. The official language is Persian. These languages and dialects have been treated differently in different historical eras, with some accorded a high status at a particular time and others given a lower status or sometimes marginalized. The majority of the population speaks one of the languages of the Indo-European family. Persian is spoken by more than half the population and is considered the predominant language of mass media, official administration, state affairs, science and literature. Other variants of Persian, including Kurdish, Lori, and Baluchi, are also spoken in the country in different geographical areas, and these regional dialects are highly associated with ethnic distinctiveness in the national community. As for the Afro-Asiatic family, Arabic is spoken by a small percentage of the population. Most of Iran’s Arabs live in Khuzestan Province and along coastal areas of the Persian Gulf. There are different colloquial varieties of Arabic, sometimes with striking differences from formal Arabic. Although there are structural and linguistic differences between Persian and Arabic, the Arab conquest of the country in the seventh century and the introduction of Islam paved the way for the integration of Arabic language elements into Persian, and Arabic established its status in the linguistic system of Iran as a foreign or sometimes second language. Persian borrowed words and expressions from Arabic, though this integration was treated differently in different eras. For example, under the Pahlavis (1925–1979), efforts were made to purge Arabic elements from the Persian language, but these efforts achieved no practical success. On the contrary, after the Islamic revolution, Arabic attracted special attention from policymakers, and was taught and propagated as the main foreign language in the country, with the hope of abetting religious traditions. Turkic languages represent the Altaic languages in Iran. They are spoken by a large number of people in the northwestern part of the country. Turkic speakers make up as much as twenty-five percent of Iran’s total population (Britannica 2008). In addition to Azerbaijani, other varieties of Turkic languages include Turkmen, spoken by a small percentage of the population in Golestan Province, in the northeastern part of the country. Although Turkic languages spoken in Iran have


27

28

A. Majid Hayati and Amir Mashhadi

some structural similarities to the Turkic spoken in Turkey, they are noticeably different in accent (Wikipedia 2008).

Language policy and planning during three periods in Iran Iran’s history can be divided into three major stages with respect to its languages (both first and foreign) and to the language policies adopted by successive dynasties and governments. These three periods, pre-Islamic, Islamic and modern, may be viewed as a reflection of three great historical events: the emergence of the Persian Empire, the Arab conquest and the advent of the modern era.

The Pre-Islamic era Multilingualism was a salient feature of ancient Persia, especially during the Achaemenian dynasty (550 BC — 331 BC), whose empire covered large parts of western Asia and whose subjects were drawn from many racial groups and ethnic minorities. But the Old Persian language (Pahlavi) was the official language of the Empire. Pahlavi remained the means of communication and cultural transmission during the twelve centuries of the Persian Empire (550 BC — 641 AD) despite radical changes in the political scene. With the invasion of Iran by Alexander the Great and the decline of the Achaemenian dynasty, the established policy of promoting the Persian language was disrupted and halted. After the Macedonians were driven out of the country and the Ashkany dynasty (250 BC — 226 AD) was established, the old policy of supporting Persian was resumed and reached its culmination during the Sassanid dynasty. During the reign of Anoushirvan, the most famous king of the Sassanid dynasty (531–579 AD), Gondi Shapoor University was established. Several subjects were taught there, including medicine, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics and political science (Hekmat 1971: 387; 1972); and medical books from India were also translated into Persian (Dorrany 1997: 47).

The Islamic era With the introduction of Islam to Persia (later called Iran) in the seventh century (650 AD), as a result of Arab conquest, the country witnessed a profound change in all aspects of people’s lives. The newly introduced religion necessitated the incorporation of the Arabic language and Islamic thought and ideology into society, as Arabic was regarded as the predominant language of the world and God’s language in the Holy Quran and other Islamic texts. In due course, Arabic, as the language of Islam, gained prominence and replaced Old Persian. It became the official



language of the court and government correspondence, and also the language of knowledge throughout the Persian territory, though Old Persian remained as the vernacular (Anooshe 2006: 514). Eventually, Old Persian adopted the Arabic script and assimilated a large quantity of Arabic vocabulary and expressions. The dissemination of the Arabic language in society provided Persian writers with the opportunity to use Arabic words freely in their writings. In fact, while translating Islamic texts, they often did not try to translate Arabic words for which no obvious equivalent existed in Persian, preferring to use original Arabic words instead. Using the Holy Quran and other Islamic texts paved the way for further integration of Arabic words into the Persian language. Accordingly, a new form of Persian was born which made extensive use of Arabic and which was more congruent with the new policies of political circles and the people of Persia (or Iran). Generally speaking, the language policy that accompanied this new form of Persian emphasized instruction of Arabic as the foreign — and to some extent the second — language of the Iranian people. The introduction of Islam in Persia was followed by ten centuries in which Arabic was taught in all traditional schools. This policy persisted until the Qajar dynasty (1779–1925), when Iran built significant relationships with particular European courts and with the West in general.

The modern era The exposure of Iranian society to Western cultures and languages in the nineteenth century led to a growing awareness among intellectual circles of the increasing gap between Iran and the Western powers regarding scientific and economic development. Some political figures in the high echelons of the Qajar dynasty felt an urgent need to bridge the perceived gap. The first attempt was made by Abas Mirza, the crown prince of Fath Ali shah, one of the Qajar kings (1794–1831), who sent several students to Europe to acquire scientific skills (Sediq 1971: 135). The second attempt that came to fruition was made by Mirza Taqi Khan (Amir Kabir), who established the first modern educational institution in Iran, Dar-al Fonoon (The House of Techniques) in 1851. Since foreign languages were the medium of training and instruction, one of the fields developed there was the teaching of foreign languages (Safavi 2004: 21). In fact, communication between foreign staff and teachers and their Iranian students, and the proper learning of materials written in foreign languages, was the overriding purpose of foreign language instruction in the House of Techniques. Since most instructors were from France, French was the language of instruction in all programs and was the first foreign language taught in its own right (Sediq 1971: 176). Because Mirza Taqi Khan opposed the influence of Russia and Britain in Iran, he employed instructors from other countries such as France, Austria, Spain and


29

30


Italy; however, after his assassination in 1852, British and Russian instructors began to find their way into the House of Techniques. At the same time, with the emergence of the United States as a great economic power, the relationship between Iran and America became more pronounced. During the Qajar dynasty many foreign schools were established by foreign institutes and missionaries. These institutes and their teachers played an important role in the increase in foreign language knowledge in Iran (Sediq 1971: 180). During the Pahlavi dynasty (1926–1979), a more friendly relationship between Iran and America emerged. In fact, the positive attitudes of policy makers toward the cultural values of Englishspeaking countries had already paved the way for the establishment of the IranAmerica Society in 1925 with the aim of teaching English to Iranians. The Society set up branches in major cities such as Tehran and Shiraz, with instructors mostly from the United States and Britain. Since then, English has become the dominant foreign language taught in Iran. In 1934 English was introduced into the educational system. Under the Pahlavi dynasty, English consolidated its status as the only foreign language that was taught on a national level, and thereby marginalized all the other foreign languages, driving them into secondary importance. The tradition of sending students to Western countries persisted; only now they went principally to English-speaking countries (Sediq 1971: 187). Newly established universities addressed the shortage of competent instructors by hiring American and British experts. This practice resulted in the further promotion of English. While most universities still used Persian, some universities, like the Teacher Training College of Tehran and Shiraz University, used English as the language of instruction. At Shiraz University, students had to pass a two-month intensive English course before starting their academic education in the respective majors. Private schools run by foreign institutions used languages other than Persian (generally the students’ native language) as the medium of instruction, in order to expose students directly to the foreign languages and thus ensure their efficient learning of them. These schools contributed greatly to the process of language teaching through the use of native teachers and staff. In an attempt to modernize the Iranian military, virtually all high-ranking military officers were also dispatched to the United States to get special training and to attend ESL classes, as English was identified as the language of modernization (Tollefson 1991). As Tollefson (1991: 88) maintains, the strong ties of the Shah’s modernization program to Western models and to English made it inevitable that the Islamic revolution would have “linguistic consequences” among other things. The Islamic revolution in 1979 brought a wave of change to all aspects of people’s lives, and the educational system was no exception. In an attempt to revolutionize the previous ideals and aims of the educational system, the new Islamic government closed all universities and higher education institutions in April 1980



to implement a cultural revolution. After ensuring national solidarity and autonomy, the Islamic government moved to reform previous policies and also to revitalize those Islamic ideas and traditions neglected in various ways by former regimes. Dissemination of Western culture and values, especially those from the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties, was inconsistent with the accepted thought and ideology of the Islamic revolution. After the universities were closed, a high-ranking council of Islamic intellectuals was formed to design a new educational system based on Islamic-Iranian culture and beliefs. In 1982, after the new curriculum was in place, the universities opened up again. Persian, as the official language of the country, became the medium of instruction in universities and the whole educational system. However, Arabic as the language of Islam was also an important part of the curriculum. The aim of teaching Arabic was to help students to understand Islamic texts and learn the correct pronunciation of Arabic words used in the Holy Quran. Therefore, Arabic was taught after elementary level in junior and senior schools. Although English did not receive the same status it had enjoyed during the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties, it was still taught in schools, despite its cultural and ideological associations. English was viewed as a purely scientific and international language, the use of which had become an indispensable part of developing the educational system to address recurrent waves of globalization and modernization. Accordingly, Persian consolidated its status as the predominant medium of instruction, but English continued to be taught as a foreign language in both private and public schools.

Local-language policies in the modern era During the Qajar dynasty (1779–1925), state policy towards local languages and ethnic minorities was straightforward. The policy makers of the country were alert to the dangers of separatist movements by different ethnic minorities in the country, which could in turn lead to the officialization of their ethnic languages. Thus, the government exercised coercive and preventive measures to minimize potential threats from any ethnic group in the country. To integrate the minorities, Mohammad Ali Foroughi, Iran’s representative at the League of Nations, advised his government to avoid the use of force and the suppression of ethnic minorities. Instead he recommended that propagation of Persian language, literature and culture would be a better policy to reduce the dangers posed by language minorities: “Neither Turkish nor Kurdish is a literary language and our minorities do not have literary and cultural capability and they will be easily absorbed in Persian language, literature and culture” (Hasanpour 1991: 4). In 1906, in accordance with the first constitution of Iran, Persian was recognized as the only official and predominant language of the country for state cor-


31

32


respondence, official administration and communication with the people. Later on, in the period of Reza Khan (founder of the Pahlavi dynasty), all official offices and state institutions were instructed to use Persian as the only official language for their administrative tasks and daily communications. This constitutional initiative was seen as a nationalistic approach by the central government to assure national solidarity and consolidation in what was a multilingual country. Recognition of Persian as the dominant language and its propagation nationwide among ethnic minorities soon became a mandate which implicitly suppressed the use of any other languages. For instance, in 1923, in order to propagate Persian language use, the Central Office of Education of Azerbaijan Province issued a mandate to education offices in cities in the region, such as Mahabad (a city inhabited mostly by Kurdish-speaking people), declaring that the use of Persian language in schools as well as other state-aided sections was required (Hasanpour 1991: 3). In a similar vein, to avoid consolidation of the republican movement among the Turks and the propagation of the Turkish language, Turkish books and manuscripts were piled in front of the city’s municipal building in Tabriz (one of the main Turkic cities in Iran) and set on fire by state officials (Hasanpour 1991: 3). Largely influenced by nationalistic tendencies, Reza Khan continued the cultural and linguistic assimilation policy of non-Persian ethnic minorities with the hope of promoting the Persian language and revitalizing the cultural tradition of Old Persia. This “Persianization” policy, to use Hasanpour’s term (1991), was enacted in varying ways through the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah (the last Pahlavi monarch). As we have noted, after the Islamic revolution in 1979 the country witnessed a profound change in socio-political as well as ideological aspects of people’s lives. As with any newly established government, decision-makers strove to maintain national solidarity and identity in spite of separatist tendencies among ethnic groups. Islamic government policy toward ethnic minorities aimed to assure national consolidation and solidarity while recognizing racial, cultural and linguistic differences among ethnic groups. The use of ethnic languages was permitted in mass media as well as in education, and the teaching of ethnic literature in schools was also permitted, together with Persian language instruction. Many journals also were published in ethnic languages, focusing on ethnic traditions, cultures and literatures. Today there is hardly a province across the country without at least one provincial television channel broadcasting programs in local languages and fostering ethnic traditions and cultures. Despite relaxation of the state’s policy toward local languages, Persian remains the de facto predominant language of the country. But use of other local languages is not officially discouraged.



Status of Persian in the modern era The emergence of a new Iranian nationalism during the modern era and the introduction into Iranian society of modern products from the industrialized world, along with its wave of new words and expressions, brought the Persian language into a period of crisis. The arrival of modern industrial products entailed using words and expressions non-existent in the Persian language. At the same time, some Iranian intellectuals affiliated with the new wave of Iranian nationalism were eager to sweep out all Arabic words and expressions from the Persian language. These were the same words and expressions that in the past had been viewed by many as an indispensable part of modern Persian. Their aim as radical nationalists was to replace all Arabic words with new derivatives that they had developed from Persian roots and obsolete words (Samiee 1996: 137). On the other hand, intellectuals and some political figures felt an urgent need to find or devise equivalents for those foreign words (mostly from European languages) that were coming into Persian. Attempts made by these circles, and the occasional approval they received from political figures in high echelons of political power, resulted in developments that made this era a unique period in language policy in Iran. Beginning in the Qajar dynasty, these activities and cultural trends reached their culmination in 1939 during the Pahlavi era, when the Academy of Persian Language and Literature was established. Despite the fact that the Academy has been dismantled and reestablished several times, it has undergone little change in terms of its activities and goals. One of the main reasons for the establishment of the Academy was to prevent words devised by radical nationalist groups — who aimed at sweeping out all Arabic words and expressions from the Persian language — from entering Persian by setting a standard for Persian orthography and word formation (Sadeqi 1993: 120). The Academy’s official goals were (Samiee 1996: 142): – protection of the Persian language against the intrusion of words and expression from other languages; – increasing the linguistic capability of the Persian language to meet the scientific and new cultural needs of the country; – studying and investigating all versions and branches of Persian in order to get a better understanding of the linguistic capabilities of the Persian language; – finding and coining Persian equivalents for foreign words that were making their way into Persian. The establishment of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature marked the beginning of an era in which the government overtly set up institutions and issued orders to control and direct the use of language by the general public and the mass media. For instance, in 1941, two years after the establishment of the Academy,


33

34


the Prime Minister issued an order which required all state offices and ministries to use the newly coined words in their official correspondence (Bayat 1991). The practices of the Academy during its short history show that, regarding first language policy, there has been an agreement among literary circles to raise the status of the Persian language at different periods and in spite of ideological differences. In fact, the Academy’s activities have been aimed mainly at promoting Persian as the predominant language of the country. In sum, protection of the Persian language from infestation by foreign words, providing a consistent orthography for Persian to be used by the public media, enhancement of the linguistic capacity of the Persian language, and modernizing the language and increasing its scientific capacities, can all be counted as major elements of the first-language policy that continue to be pursued.

Foreign language teaching policy after the Islamic Revolution Despite the cultural changes created by the Islamic Revolution — changes that revolutionized higher educational institutions and universities — the structure of foreign language teaching in public schools and private institutions has remained much the same as it was during the previous regime. Given the status of English as a global language, English has remained the main foreign language offered in the educational system. Even now, English is still taught for seven years in junior and senior high schools with roughly the same methodology and practices that it had under the previous educational system. Iranian educational policy for English mostly centers on grammar and reading — elements incommensurate with the ever-increasing demands of society. Language practices are often based on language usage rather than language use. As a result, students are not proficient in the contexts required for using English as a global language.

Teaching English at private institutions With the increasing attention given to English as the medium of scientific communication, it seems that the country’s public sector is currently not able to fulfill the needs of language learners adequately. To rectify these insufficiencies, the private sector, as a secondary body in the educational system of the country, has shouldered the responsibility of helping the public sector meet the country’s demand. We have already noted that the Iran-America Society was the first private language institute where English was taught as the only subject matter. After the Islamic revolution, the title Iran-America Society was changed to Iran Language Institute (ILI), as its objectives and curriculum were redefined according to the ideological



orientation of the newly established government. After several years, in response to the undeniable necessity of learning English, many private institutions were established across the country for this purpose, given that the public schools could not meet the rising demand. A variety of English courses are now available at private institutions to learners of various ages through different curricula. Thus the limited capability of public schools is partly balanced by schools where students can learn English more efficiently.

Teaching English in public schools English is introduced only in junior high school and for three years it is taught at a very basic level. In high school, it is studied for two to three hours a week for three years as one of the main courses of study. The proclaimed purpose of this course is to enable students to read simple English texts and improve their reading comprehension through passages built around newly introduced vocabulary items. After high school, students enter pre-university programs for one year. At this level, students are taught English for four hours a week on a credit-semester system. Pre-university English textbooks mainly rely on the reading method. Students are provided with English texts, often selected from internet sources, to make them familiar with authentic materials and to increase their reading comprehension.

Teaching English at universities As the language of scientific communication, English is a key subject in the university curriculum. English teaching at the university level can be divided into two parts. The first part, called general English, is presented to students of all majors. The second is more focused on English for specific purposes, such as English for engineering, English for medical science, or English for the social sciences, providing students with the opportunity to learn concepts and terms that are related to their specific fields. Moreover, English is studied at the university level in its own right, as a separate field, with three branches: Translation, Literature, and Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). In line with more progressive views about learning and teaching languages, Linguistics has been added to these majors, especially at the postgraduate level.

Setbacks and barriers to teaching English Inconsistencies between proclaimed goals and the practical plans designed to realize them, lack of efficient teachers and essential equipment in public and private


35

36


schools, implicit promotion of teacher-dependent learning, and especially the limited time assigned to language teaching in public schools could all be counted among the main causes of unsatisfactory language teaching in Iran’s educational system. The officially announced purpose (training efficient readers of English texts) is not fully met by the textbooks provided to public school students. Failure of teachers to put predetermined goals into practice is another problem that is particularly evident in the public schools, while teachers’ mispronunciation and low proficiency are among problems prevalent throughout the educational system. Lack of essential equipment is common in public schools, where classes are crowded and students sit in rows and receive language input from their teachers. Audio-visual equipment, in short supply and of poor quality, is inadequate to meet either the needs or the numbers. Lack of innovation in the way students work with language and a failure to take advantage of student self-discovery and self-dependence are unavoidable results of an Iranian language teaching policy that entrusts the primary role in class to the teacher, as opposed to modern student-centered models of language t eaching.

Globalization and the spread of English As we have noted, with the emergence of the United States as the dominant economic and political power after World War II, English solidified its role as the premier international language. Its growing global use as a language of science, technology, politics, sports, air traffic, trade and commerce paved the way for English to achieve a near global dominance. Often, English as a language of wider communication “competes” with local languages, as Fishman, Ferguson and Das Gupta (1968, cited in Spolsky 2004: 77) put it in the proceedings of the 1966 Airlie Conference on the language problems of developing nations. As might be expected, less advanced communities are more likely to be susceptible to the growing threats of endangerment, attrition or marginalization of their local languages and cultures. Iran, as a developing nation, is no exception to the globalization process. However, Iran’s policy on English as an international language stops short of nation-wide dissemination of the language. Although Iran’s educational principles are not congruent with those of English-speaking countries, demands imposed by irresistible pressures of globalization, along with the status of English as the world lingua franca, have resulted in increased attention to English in recent years. Publication of a number of weeklies and some scientific journals, newspapers and even TV broadcasting channels in English are just some instances of this growing attention. The participation of Iranian academic figures in international conferences and the need to attract investment from foreign companies, along



with the increasing need felt by the private sector to have a share in international trade, have caused Iranian policy makers to make accommodations to provide a better environment for English teaching. The noticeable increase in the number of private institutions teaching English (along with the public schools) can be seen as an attempt to respond to these needs. Despite Iran’s growing presence in the global economy and the increased attention paid to English as an international language, there is still an increasing awareness among the country’s policy makers that the rapidly changing global trends pose a major threat to Iran’s national and socio-cultural identity. In fact, the coming of English as a medium of globalization is often perceived as closely linked to the imposition of a kind of political, economic, cultural and linguistic imperialism. Accordingly, one of the major Iranian preoccupations in the teaching of English in the era of globalization is to be fully aware of the “cultural and linguistic transmutation” that globalization brings about. The global spread of English and the motives for its expansion have been treated differently in many other parts of the world. In Japan, Imura (2003, as cited in Fujimoto-Adamson 2006) describes the interconnected relationship between “macro” social events and “micro” foreign language education policy. Imura maintains that “macro” events — among them political and economic developments — influence the instruction of English as a foreign language in Japan. In Singapore, the spread of English over the other official languages of Singaporeans (Mandarin, Malay and Tamil) was also justified through a “careful consideration” of global and local developments (Chew 1999: 40). According to Chew, the spread of English over other Singapore languages is justified on practical grounds: Early dominance of English came about not so much as a result of linguistic imperialism, but through a conscious decision on the part of learners and populace, after careful consideration of world trends and local conditions. The implementation of a national education system with English as the medium of instruction came about through a “bottom up” rather than “top-down” process and was attained relatively easily — without strong controversy or bloodshed (Chew 1999: 40).

However, other experts, among them Phillipson (1992, 2003) and Skutnabb-Kangas (2000), regard the spread of English worldwide with a less optimistic perspective, attributing the widespread use of English to European preferences, particularly those of the United Kingdom, and to US colonial attitudes, resulting in what Phillipson (1992, cited in Block 2004: 76) has termed “linguistic imperialism” or what Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (2001, 1999, cited in Block 2004: 27) have termed “linguicide” and the “Englishization” of the world’s local languages. In the same vein, some researchers, associating the combination of colonization and the


37

38


globalization process with language endangerment, characterize European languages as “killer languages” which “replace” or “murder” the world’s local languages to the benefit of the world’s powerful and dominant colonizers (Crystal 2000; Nettle & Romaine 2000, cited in Mufwene 2002: 164). Thus, Saudi Arabia, as an Islamic country, is apprehensive about the penetration of Western cultures and beliefs into Islamic society through the use of English as a medium that promotes globalization. Al Abed and Smadi (1996: 309) maintain that there is a sense of fear among the Saudis that the use of English entails Westernisation, detachment from Saudi values, and corruption of their religious commitment. In this view, English might be seen as a medium through which (neo-)colonial and imperialistic attitudes, together with the linguistic and sociocultural aspects of English-speaking countries, are transferred at the expense of local languages and cultures. Taken together, these varying linguistic approaches to globalization only serve to underline how important it is to have a better understanding of the socio-economic as well as political considerations affecting languages and people. To ensure balanced exchanges between societies and cultures in the globalization era, we need to find some common ground while respecting all identities together with their distinctive linguistic-cultural features.

Conclusion The Persian language, like any other language, has been affected by plans and practices devised and exercised by politicians and influential social groups within the country. Metaphorically, we can consider the Persian language as a mirror that reflects the changes in the political framework of Iranian society over time. Iran’s policy regarding the Persian language as the official language of the country has been driven by a desire to assure national unity, homogeneity and identity in the multilingual regions under stable political control. But politics has not been the only determining factor in Iranian language planning. Exigencies stemming from modern developments across the world and the unavoidable wave of globalization in recent years have had their own effects on second/foreign language planning. The necessity of finding and coining equivalents for foreign words and increasing the scientific capacities of the Persian language are instances of the new demands imposed on language planning and policy. Not only the Persian language but also the teaching and use of English as the main foreign language taught in Iran have been influenced by globalization. Thus, language policy in Iran is no longer determined solely by the political orientation of the country, but also by external factors such as globalization and scientific advances. In the current cultural, social



and political conditions, the need to communicate with other parts of the world in order to receive and exchange information is the main driving force behind Iran’s favorable policy towards the teaching and learning of other languages.

References Ager, D. 2001. Motivation in Language Planning and Language Policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Agnihotri, R K. 1979. Processes of Assimilation: A Sociolinguistic Study of Sikh Children in Leeds. Ph.D. dissertation, University of York. Agnihotri, R K. 1987. Crisis of Identity: A Sociolinguistic Study of Sikh Children in Leeds. Delhi: Bahri Publications. Al Abed, F. & O. Smadi. 1996. Spread of English and Westernization in Saudi Arabia. World Englishes 15/3:307–317. Anooshe, H. 2006. Tarikh-e Iran kambridge (translated from The Cambridge History of Iran, ed. J. A. Boyle, 1968). Tehran: Amir-Kabir. Bayat, K. 1991. Farhangestan-e aval va doshvarihaye vaz’ va tarvije vajhay-e no (First Persian Academy and its difficulties in word coinage and dissemination). Nashr- e Danesh 12: 349. Block, D. 2004a. Globalization and language teaching. ELT Journal 58/1:75–77. Block, D. 2004b. Globalization, transnational communication and the Internet. International Journal on Multicultural Societies 6/1:22–37. Chew, P. G-L. 1999. Linguistic imperialism, globalism, and the English language. D. Graddol & U. Meinhof, eds. English in a Changing World. Guildford: AILA. Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. Diallo, I. 2005. Language Planning, Language-in-Education Policy and Attitudes toward Languages in Senegal. Brisbane: Griffith University, School of Languages and Linguistics. Dorrany, K. 1997. Tarikhe amoozesh o parvaresh-e Iran ghabl va ba’d az Islam (History of education in Iran: Before and after Islam). Tehran: Samt. Eastman, C. M. 1983. Language Planning: An Introduction. San Francisco: Chandler & Sharp. Eggington, W. & H. Wren, eds. 1997. Language Policy: Dominant English, Pluralist Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008. Iran, at http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-230042 (23 July 2008). Fishman, J.A. 1971. The impact of nationalism on language planning: Some comparisons between early 20th century Europe and subsequent developments in South and South East Asia. Rubin & Jernudd 1971: 3–20. Fishman, J.A., C. A. Ferguson, & J. Das Gupta. Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York: Wiley. Fujimoto-Adamson, N. 2006. Globalization and history of English education in Japan. Asian EFL Journal 8/3:Article 13. Hale, K. 1992. On endangered languages and the safeguard of diversity. Language 68:1–42. Hasanpour. A. 1991. State policy on the Kurdish language: The politics of status planning. Kurdish Times [New York], 4/1–2, Summer/Fall:42–85.


39

40 A. Majid Hayati and Amir Mashhadi Hekmat, A. 1971. Amoozesh va parvaresh dar Iran-e bastan (Education in Ancient Iran). Tehran: Institute of Research and Scientific and Educational Planning. Hekmat, A. R. 1972. Education en Iran ancien. Teheran: Institut de Recherche et de Planification pour la Science et l’Education. Hornberger, N. 1998. Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in Society 27:439–458. Howlett, M. & M. Ramesh. 1996. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford U. P. Imura M. 2003. Nihon no eigo kyoiku 200-nen (English education in Japan for the past 200 years). Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten. Kaplan, R. B. & R. B. Baldauf Jr. 1997. Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kelman, H.C. 1971. Language as an aid and barrier to involvement in the national system. Rubin & Jernudd 1971: 21–51. Luke, A., A. W. McHoul & J. L. Mey. 1990. On the limits of language planning: Class, state and power. R. B. Baldauf, Jr. & A. Luke, eds. Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 25–44. Mufwene, S. S. 2002. Colonisation, globalisation, and the future of languages in the twenty-first century. International Journal on Multicultural Societies 4/2:162–193. Mukherjee, A. 1980. Language Maintenance and Language Shift among Punjabis and Bengalis in Delhi: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delhi. Nettle, D. & S. Romaine. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford U. P. Omar, A. H. 1998. Language planning and image building: The case of Malay in Malaysia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 130:49–65. Paulston, R. G. 1976. Ethnic revival and educational conflict in Swedish Lapland. Education Review 20:179–192. Phillipson, R. & T. Skutnabb-Kangas. 1999. Englishisation: one dimension of globalization. D. Graddol & U. Meinhof, eds. English in a Changing World. Guildford: AILA. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford U. P. Phillipson, R. 2003. English-only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge. Rubin, J. 1984. Bilingual education and language planning. C. Kennedy, ed. Language Planning and Language Education. London: George Allen & Unwin. 4–16. Rubin, J. & B. H. Jernudd, ed. 1971. Can Language Be Planned? Honolulu: U. P. of Hawaii. Ruiz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal 8/2:15–34. Sadeqi, R. 1993. Tajrobe haye zaban-e Farsi dar elm (Persian language experiences in science). Paper presented at Conference on Persian Language and Scientific Language. Tehran: University Publication Center. Safavi, A. 2004. Tarikh-e amoozesh va parvaresh-e Iran az Iran-e bastan to 1380 hejri shamsi (The history of education in Iran from ancient Iran to 2001). Tehran: Roshd Publication. Samiee, A. 1996. Naameye Farhangestan (Letter of Persian Academy). Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and Literature. Schiffman, H. F. 1996. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge. Sediq, I. 1971. Tarikh-e farhang-e Iran (History of education in Iran). Tehran: Teacher College Press. Seelye, H. N. & J. H. Wasilewski. 1996. Between Cultures: Developing Self-Identity in a World of Diversity. Lincolnwood: NTC Press.



Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education — or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah & London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and R. Phillipson. 2001. Linguicide. R. Mesthrie, ed. Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. Tollefson, James W. 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community. London: Longman. Wardhaugh, V. 1987. Language in Competition: Dominance, Diversity and Decline. Oxford: Blackwell. Wikipedia. 2008. Languages of Iran, at http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/languages_of_Iran (23 July 2008).

‫ﭼﮑﻴﺩﻪ‬

‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ رﻳﺰي و ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﻮزش زﺑﺎن در اﻳﺮان‬ ‫هﺪف از اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوهﺶ ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﺗﺎﺛﻴﺮ اﻳﺪﺋﻮﻟﻮژي هﺎﯼ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮن ﺳﻴﺎﺳﯽ ﺑﺮ روﻧﺪ ﺁﻣﻮزش و ﮔﺴﺘﺮش زﺑﺎن‬ ‫ دورﻩ ﯼ اﺳﻼﻣﯽ و‬،‫ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺳﻪ دورﻩ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ اﻳﺮان ﮐﻪ ﻋﺒﺎرﺗﻨﺪ از دورﻩ ﯼ ﻣﺎﻗﺒﻞ اﺳﻼم‬.‫اﺳﺖ‬ .‫ ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ‬،‫ ﺑﻪ هﻤﺮاﻩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ هﺎﯼ زﺑﺎﻧﯽ اﺗﺨﺎذ ﺷﺪﻩ در اﻳﻦ دوران‬،‫دورﻩ ﯼ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‬ ‫ ﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ و ﺑﺮﺧﯽ دﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ ﺁﻣﻮزش و ﻳﺎ‬،‫ﺑﻌﻀﯽ از اﻳﻦ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ هﺎ در ﺑﺮهﻪ اﻳﯽ از زﻣﺎن‬ ‫ ﻋﻼوﻩ ﺑﺮ‬.‫ زﺑﺎن هﺎﯼ ﻣﺤﻠﯽ و ﻳﺎ زﺑﺎن هﺎﯼ ﺧﺎرﺟﯽ در اﻳﺮان ﺑﻮدﻩ اﻧﺪ‬،‫ اﻋﻢ از زﺑﺎن اول‬،‫ﮔﺴﺘﺮش زﺑﺎن‬ ‫ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﺁﻣﻮزش و ﮔﺴﺘﺮش زﺑﺎن‬،‫ ﺑﺎ در ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﯽ ﺷﺪن در دورﻩ ﯼ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‬،‫اﻳﻦ‬ .‫اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان اﺻﻠﯽ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﯽ در اﻳﺮان ﻧﻴﺰ ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ اﺳﺖ‬

Resumo Lingvo-planado kaj la politiko de lingvo-en-edukado en Irano La artikolo esploras la lingvajn konsekvencojn de diversaj politikaj ideologioj, uzante kiel ekzemplojn tri historiajn etapojn kaj tri politikajn periodojn en la historio de Irano, kaj la diversajn politikojn aplikatajn en tiuj epokoj koncerne lingvon kaj lingvan edukadon. Tra la jaroj, politikaj ideologioj rolis kaj kiel barilo kaj kiel kontribuanto al lingvouzo (unua aŭ fremda) kaj lingvoinstruado. La artikolo poste turnas sian atenton al lokaj lingvaj politikoj kaj la statuso de la persa lingvo en la moderna tempo, kun aparta fokuso je politikoj de fremdlingva instruado post la islama revolucio kaj iliaj implicoj en la instruadaj kaj lernadaj agadoj kaj praktikoj de la eduka sistemo de Irano. Fine, utiligante kelkajn iranajn politikajn periodojn kiel ekzemplojn, la studo montras kiel tutmondiĝo influas la instruadon de fremdaj lingvoj, precipe la angla.


41

42


Authors’ address Department of English, College of Literature and Humanities Shahid Chamran University Ahvaz, Iran [email protected] [email protected]

About the authors A. Majid Hayati holds a doctoral degree in linguistics from the University of Newcastle, Australia. He teaches TEFL, language testing and linguistics at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz and has published articles in numerous journals around the world. In 2005 he published the second edition of his book Contrastive Analysis: Theory and Practice. His recent book, A Review of Language Teaching, was published in 2007. Amir Mashhadi is a teacher of English and holds an MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) from Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz. His special fields of interest are conversation, discourse analysis and testing.
