Name: VAN ANH - Class: L7-10F

Essay title: Critical response to 2 articles “English is Africa’s Future” by Tok

DiReck and “Keeping Our Linguistic Culture” by Lynn Qua Frank (version 1)

Language is often the barrier between different ethnic groups, particularly in Africa
where there are more than 4000 languages spoken, with the result that whether a common
language is needed. Recently, English has been considered to be used as the primary
language in African education system. The purpose of this essay is to response critically
to a debate between Tok DiReck, “English is Africa’s Future” (The One Language
Campaign), and Lynn Qua Frank, “Keeping Our Linguistic Culture” (Issues In
Language), both written in 2007, about English as the first language in this continent.

DiReck suggests that “English should be used as the medium of instruction in African
schools”. He states that the whole continent is seeking for a way to unity while a variety
of tribes, languages and cultures exist. Therefore, he believes that English can bring
nations together. He uses South Africa as an example to support his argument where
English is the most commonly spoken language in official and commercial public life.
Besides, he claims that many academic resources are now in English so people who can
not understand it are unable to access to those sources.

In contrast, Frank says that “English as second language has a place, but never as a
primary language”. She claims that adopting English in African education can throw
them all back to colonialism. She draw an image of the death of native languages and
loss of cultural diversity as the consequence. Ethnicity should be respected and African
countries should, initially, unite themselves, as the writer suggests. Japan and Germany
are two examples she uses to illustrate her counter argument against DiReck’s ideas.
These powerful nations have been successful in economics, as well as in technology, with
English as their second language.
Although both authors present strong supporting arguments for their views, Frank’s are
more convincing. DiReck seems to focus more in participating into globalisation and fails
to consider the current reality of Africa where other serious social issues need more
urgent solutions. For instance, Africa has the world’s lowest literacy rate (less than 60%).
Moreover, the lack of a common language in this continent is not the only cause to
economic stagnation and poverty, but colonialism, poor education facility, corruption,
diseases and aridity are. Frank, on the other hand, is persuasive in asserting that there will
be a loss in languages and cultural diversity if English is the official language in Africa.
However, the term “colonialism” in her article is an exaggeration. Literally, colonialism
includes slavery, wars and cheap labour exploitation. It can easily be proved that learning
English will not lead to any of these problems.

The two writers give opposite opinions on the idea of learning English in African
schools. Whereas DiReck suggests that English should be taught as the first language,
Frank believes that English can only be the second language in African. DiReck says that
“the biggest advantage to making English the language of instruction is it would be
cheaper and faster than teaching English as a second language”. He worries that the
budget for this is limited so this is, by far, the best way to achieve a long term “increase
of English proficiency”. In contrast, Frank insists that “money and time could be saved
by switching to this policy”. She states that it will take time for people to adapt at first but
effectiveness will soon be brought, and nations should initially achieve cohesion within
their own languages and cultures.

Again, in this argument, Frank presents more convincing ideas while Direck fails to
explain the benefits of teaching English as the primary language in African schools. The
government have to pay a large amount of money to recruit many native and re-train
teachers. Moreover, it is definitely not fast because it is difficult for most people to adopt
a new language. Books, teaching materials, are somehow unaffordable for poor countries
in Africa and translation takes a long time to complete, impossibly, into more than 4000
languages.

The article “English is Africa’s Future” was published in “The One Language Campaign”
which is a non-governmental organisation; its aim is ‘to promote the use of English
throughout Africa to stimulate growth in all sectors of society’. Therefore, DiReck, as the
present chairman of this organisation, is probably biased towards English being the first
language in African education. On the other hand, Frank is an expert in anthropology and
cultural studies, and her references are reliable due to academic sources. This may add to
her credibility. However, she is exaggerated over the use of the term “colonialism” to
emphasize the consequence of speaking English as the primary language in Africa.

In conclusion, DiReck and Frank have different perceptions on the use of English as a
non-African language in the entire continent. DiReck insists that policy for teaching
English as the instruction language at schools should be enforced. Frank, on the other
hand, believes that this policy may lead to language death and loss of cultural diversity. It
would be more effective and economically beneficial for African countries, in order to
obtain important places in the global marketplace, to make English the compulsory
second language in education. More foreign aid must be provided and used properly to
support these nations’ development.

871 words