The language issue has reared its loquacious head again in recent stories about code-switching, prompted by the release of the last edition of the Language Education Policy Profile by the Council of Europe.
Even more recently (May 29), the government announced a major evaluation of local standards of English to be conducted by Cambridge English.
In my last contribution to this newspaper (January 19), in which I challenged the perceived fall in the level of English usage in Malta, I referred to the importance of establishing realistic school-based language policies across Malta and Gozo.
Their purpose would obviously be the development of a good standard of English among students, in particular in its spoken dimension, which I have always considered to be the ‘Cinderella’ of the four language skills in Malta. In fact, a well thought-out and pragmatic language policy can be a good weapon to use against code-switching and code-mixing.
Incidentally, the Times of Malta editorial of May 19 about this subject made no distinction between the two practices and it may be useful to do it here.
Students are at a loss about when and where they should speak either Maltese or English at school
Code-switching refers to the practice of switching deliberately from one language to another to satisfy the perceived need of the audience. Such ‘switching’ usually involves utterances that are longer than a single sentence. An example would be when, on a public occasion, a speaker may first address the audience in Maltese and then in English to cater for speakers of both languages present in the audience.
In a broader sense, code-switching refers also to the institutionalised norm of having school subject materials in English (such as, say, in geography) while the lesson may be largely delivered in Maltese.
Code-mixing, on the other hand, refers to the quasi-spontaneous way in which bilingual speakers speaking to their counterparts shift from one language to another even within a phrase or sentence, as, for example, in: “Iva biżżejjed għax I’m going crazy!’”
The reader may question my evident tone of bias against this practice, especially in light of the generally positive commentaries it has received in the press. The editorial indeed celebrates this practice, proclaiming: “Mixing English and Maltese is good”. But only in Malta, one hastens to add, to borrow a much-used and abused cliché. The reason is logical and obvious.
Code-mixing and switching is indeed a useful communicative tool but only when interacting with speakers of the same linguistic profile, in our case, bilingual Maltese. Most of us mix codes in a spontaneous way when it is most appropriate and convenient and always when interacting with fellow bilinguals.
In practice, our code-mixing will not work in England or Italy, Germany or the US. In fact, it has to be accepted that code-mixing and, to a lesser degree, code-switching, is bad for language learning.
Indeed, it can be a hindrance to language learning because the student who is schooled in the habit of code-mixing must learn to suppress the use of an additional language and express himself or herself entirely in one target language.
And old habits die hard, the saying goes.
Implementing a coherent and practical language policy in schools should help to raise the level of English in general and of spoken English in particular.
Its workings are perhaps too complex an issue to be delved into here.
In brief, the main benefit of a school-based language policy is the way it establishes clear boundaries, within the school premises, of when students and staff are expected to use either of the two languages. At present, it is fair to say (this may hopefully be disputed) that, except during the English and Maltese lessons, students are at a loss about when and where they should speak either language at school.
This situation does not help linguistic development because it dilutes linguistic discipline, foils good practice opportunities and encourages code-mixing.
George Camilleri is a former education officer for English.