REFLECTIONS ON BILINGUALISM/MULTILINGUALISM AND LINGUISTIC INTOLERANCE: THE

CASE STUDY OF MAPUTO INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

António Marcos Nhaguilunguane1
António Simeão Chinguenhane2

Brief introduction
The Saussurian approach conceives of language as a unity in itself, therefore the norm for
all other manifestations of language, because it is a principle of classification, on the basis of
which it is possible to establish a certain order in the faculty of language. This approach
leads to an understanding of language as a system for producing symbols and concepts
associated with forms, which also leads to it being considered a social product, used
collectively, and therefore having conventions, i.e. used and preserved through collective
agreements between speakers.
In this context, it is worth mentioning that this essay is a brief reflection on language,
from the perspective of bilingualism/multilingualism and linguistic intolerance in the school
context and its implications for the development of inclusion, the consideration of
bilingualism criteria and the definition of language policies for the Maputo International
School (MIS). This paper arises as a result of the discussion around the demanding and
exclusive use of English at MIS, both inside and outside the classroom, under the argument
that it is the language of instruction imposed by Cambridge.
Furthermore, the text is based on Saussure's approach to language, which emphasises
the importance of linguistic elements that are understood in relation to each other within a
system, rather than in isolation. Additionally, linguistic functionalism provides theoretical
support for this essay, as it focuses on the function of language and the relationship
between language and communication, advocating that linguistic and grammatical
structures are shaped by the communicative needs of speakers in specific situations.

1. Strategies, Approaches and Methods for L2 and LE Teaching

1
Master Degree in Teaching Portuguese as a Second Language
Researcher for the DiPoMo Project (Mozambican Portuguese Dictionary)
Portuguese teacher at the Maputo International School
[email protected]

2
Postgraduate in Pedagogical Supervision and Graduate in Portuguese Language Teaching.
Portuguese teacher at the Maputo International School.
[email protected]
 Bearing in mind the linguistic panorama of MIS, it seems essential to reflect on strategies,
approaches and methods for teaching languages, especially L2 and FL. To this end, the
strategies and methods presented by Richards & Rodgers (1986) and Leffa (1998) are used
as a theoretical basis.
Firstly, according to Rubin (1975, p.43), strategies are the techniques or devices that can
be used to ensure learning and the acquisition of knowledge. Approach, on the other hand,
stands out for being a broader term that encompasses theoretical assumptions about
language and learning, and they vary as these assumptions vary. Method has a narrower
scope and can be contained within an approach, not dealing with the theoretical
assumptions of language learning, but with the rules for applying these assumptions (Leffa,
1998).
As for strategies, it should be noted that they tend to vary depending on the competence
being developed or the domain of verbal interaction being worked on. For example, when
working with verbal interaction domains in the L2 context, strategies such as: role play,
debate, song, picture reading, oral exposition, retelling, brainstorming, mime, audiovisual
materials (pictures and videos) can be used.
Regarding methods and approaches, the first method Richards & Rodgers (1986, p. 3)
present to us is called The Grammar-Translation Method, which is a way of approaching a
first language through a detailed analysis of its grammatical rules, followed by the
application of this knowledge to the task of translating sentences and texts to and from the
target language. It considers language learning to be little more than memorising rules and
facts in order to understand and manipulate the morphology and syntax of the target
language.
In reaction, the direct method advocates language teaching without the need for
translation. The basic principle of the direct method is that the L2 is learnt through the L2;
the mother tongue should never be used in the classroom. The transmission of meaning
takes place through gestures and pictures, without ever resorting to translation. Students
must learn to think in the language (Leffa, 1998).
This was followed by the reading method which, in the first instance, was dedicated to
analysing the findings of the grammar translation method and the direct method. Its main
objective was to develop reading skills, seeking to create as many conditions as possible for
this, both inside and outside the classroom. As the development of vocabulary was
considered essential, an attempt was made to expand it as quickly as possible, although
there was a concern to teach how to produce and recognise the sounds of the language, the
emphasis on pronunciation was minimal, which is why written exercises predominated in
this method, especially quizzes based on texts. In this method, grammar was restricted to
what was necessary for reading comprehension, emphasising morpho-phonological aspects
and the most common syntactic constructions (Leffa, 1998).
Richards & Rodgers (1986) say that after the emergence of the above method, the
audiolingual method arose as a result of the growing attention paid to foreign language
teaching in the United States at the end of the 1950s. The need for a radical change and a
rethink of foreign language teaching methodology (most of which was still linked to the
reading method) was prompted by the scientific revolution in 1957. In this context, this
method was based on the following premises:
 Language is speech, not writing. This re-established the emphasis on oral language.
Hence, teaching reading was not teaching language, since writing was a very poor
picture of speech. Therefore, according to this premise, students should first listen
and speak, then read and write.
 Language is a set of habits. This premise was supported by Skinner's behaviourism.
Thus, it was considered that the basic structures of language should be practised
until they became automatic, which was achieved through repetition exercises.
Learning only took place when the student had achieved super-learning, i.e. when
they had automatised the response.
 Teaching the language and not about the language. The premise was that language
was learnt through practice, not by explaining or expounding rules. Therefore,
language is what native speakers say, not what someone thinks they should say.
 Languages are different. This premise was one of the maxims of audiolingualism, as
it advocated contrastive analysis. By comparing the phonological, lexical, syntactic
and cultural systems between two languages, it was possible to predict students'
errors.
Along with the development of the audio-lingual method, other approaches and
methods for teaching a foreign language also emerged. In this sense, the Natural Approach
stands out, which tries to apply Stephen Krashen's theory (1985), known as the Monitor
Model or the Input Model, in the classroom. It aims to develop language acquisition
(unconscious use of grammar rules) rather than learning (conscious use). The basic premise
is that the student should receive linguistic input that is almost or completely
comprehensible, in order to broaden their understanding of the language. Speech should
come naturally, without pressure from the teacher.
Also noteworthy was the Communicative Approach, which considered that language
should be analysed not as a set of sentences, but as a set of communicative events.
Therefore, the main concern of this approach was the use of appropriate language, suited to
the situation in which the speech takes place and the role played by the participants. The
emphasis of learning is not on linguistic form, but on communication. Linguistic forms will
only be taught when necessary to develop communicative competence and may be of more
or less importance than other aspects of the communicative event. The development of
strategic competence - knowing how to use language to communicate - can be just as
important, if not more important, than grammatical competence.
Within the Mozambican context, as far as language teaching is concerned, according to
MINEDH, the Direct Method is recommended (characterised by the use of the target
language as a means of instruction and communication in the classroom; learners should
learn and think in the target language; this method obliges the learner to devote more time
to the vocabulary of the target language, which will enable them to build the skill of
organised communication), the Functional Method (characterised by valuing what is done
through language (communicating) rather than the form of language, with the main focus
being on the use of appropriate language, appropriate to the situation in which the speech
act takes place and the role played by the participants) and the Communicative Approach
(emphasises the use of language, places the student at the centre of learning and conceives
of activities as authentic tasks in the use of that language).

It is therefore crucial to conclude that language teaching is based on theories and

approaches. By inference, then, it seems reasonable to say that the definition of a language
approach and policy must always consider "theories" and, according to their progress and
contribution in language teaching, it is important to rethink imposing attitudes towards the
use of one language over another in a school context, because, according to Krashen (1985),
acquisition and speech are natural processes, and the school and educational context are
responsible for creating the conditions for practice and automatisation, that is, creating
input through repetition exercises.

This is an essential argument because it encourages the teacher's work towards creating
the conditions for effective and structured learning, through systematically applied activities
and exercises, enabling the student to acquire communicative competence in as natural an
environment as possible. Forcing them to use a certain linguistic code suggests a failure (or
even lack of knowledge) of the theories, methods and approaches application, and also
means disregarding the theories surrounding the definition, characterisation and
classification of bilingualism and multilingualism in a context such as MIS, where cultures
and, above all, languages coexist. Educational stimuli are important, but they shouldn't just
be based on impulses and their respective reinforcement. It is crucial that the behaviourist
scheme of language teaching, S-R-R (Stimulus, Response and Reinforcement), occurs fully
and naturally.

2. Bilingualism against Linguistic Intolerance

There seems to be no consensus within the academic community when it comes to
defining the concept of bilingualism. Despite the lack of unanimity, there are theorists who
instigate reflection based on analysing the dimensions of the concept in question. One
author of reference in this approach is Li Wei, mentioned by Souza (2009), who organised a
canonical work, entitled The Bilingualism Reader, in the field of bilingualism studies and in
which there are sufficiently clear arguments about the subject of discussion. Wei's work
categorises three important dimensions for studying bilingualism, which are::
1) Sociolinguistics, referring to studies on language choice, diglossia and Bilingualism,
social interaction and Code-switching;
2) Linguistics, referring to studies on the grammar of Code-switching and the
acquisition of language by bilingual children;
3) Psycholinguistics, referring to studies on the bilingual brain and speech processing by
bilinguals.
As such, in the scope of definitional advances, the term bilingual, although often based
on a restrictive conceptualisation and, in others, a broad one, can, according to Haugen
cited by Souza (2008), refer to a person who "can produce meaningful complete sentences
in another language(s)." This broad approach opens up the possibility of including not only
proficient/native speakers, but also second language learners in the early stages of learning.
In this instance, taking into account the definition presented above, it seems acceptable to
consider the existence of conditions for classifying students as bilingual speakers in MIS,
given that, according to their linguistic profile, the vast majority of them have English as
their second language (L2) and other languages as their first (L1), and the meaning-making
process is carried out in both.
However, to achieve a more precise classification, it is essential to have defined criteria
for bilingualism, as this concept is, according to Butler & Hakuta (2004, p. 114), "a complex
psychological and socio-cultural linguistic behaviour with multidimensional aspects". It
should be noted that, for us, due to the complexity of the concept and its implications, the
existence of bilingualism criteria makes sense, especially as they can also guide a school's
decisions in defining more inclusive language policies and supported sociolinguistic
procedures. Accordingly, in the sections below, we present them according to Bulter &
Hakuta (op.cit).

2.1. Proficiency
Proficiency makes it possible to classify the types of bilingual speakers as either balanced
(with similar proficiency in both languages) or dominant (greater proficiency in one
language than the other).

2.2. Age of Second Language Acquisition

The age of second language acquisition is also one of the criteria to be considered, as it
allows speakers to be classified as either early bilinguals (second language acquisition in
childhood) or late bilinguals (second language acquisition in adolescence or adulthood).
Accordingly, early bilinguals can be simultaneous (when both languages are acquired at the
same time) or sequential (the acquisition of the second language begins when the
acquisition of the first language is already complete).

2.3. Organisation of linguistic codes

The organisation of linguistic codes, from a Cognitive-Linguistic approach, encompasses
the way in which a speaker organises their two (or more) linguistic codes. This is the
criterion used to classify other types of bilingualism, specifically compound (in which two
signifiers corresponding to units of linguistic codes, such as "school" and "school", relate to
the same meaning), coordinated (which consists of the separate organisation of two
linguistic codes into two units of meaning) and subordinate (the linguistic codes of the
second language are interpreted by means of the first). It should be noted that this
classification is problematic because the distinctions are not easy to operationalise and
because it is also difficult to evaluate them.

2.4. Language status

Regarding the criterion of language status, it is possible to define Elite Bilingualism
(which refers to speakers of a dominant language in a society and a second language that
gives them additional prestige) and Popular Bilingualism (referring to minority language
groups whose language of origin does not have a high status in the society in which they
live, so they have to learn another language whose status is high).

2.5. Mother tongue maintenance

Maintaining the mother tongue is one of the criteria by which bilingualism can be
differentiated as additive3 (where the second language is acquired without losing
proficiency in the first) and subtractive (where the second language is acquired at the
expense of the first, i.e. by acquiring a second language, proficiency in the first is lost).

2.6. Bilingual Individuals' Cultural Identity

The criterion of cultural identity opens up space for defining biculturalism, which is often
associated with bilingualism. From this point of view, the following types of bilinguality are
categorised: monocultural-L1 (occurs when the individual is bilingual, but their cultural
identity is linked only to the group of their mother tongue), acculturated-L2 (which occurs in
cases where bilingualism is linked to renouncing the cultural identity of the group of their
mother tongue and adopting the cultural identity of the group of their second language) and
deculturated (in cases where the person gives up their own cultural identity, but at the
same time does not identify with the cultural group of their second language) 4.
3
According to Butler and Hakuta (2004, p. 108) "to be an additive bilingual, the two languages learnt by the
bilingual must be valued in the society in which they live."
4
This classification is based on the concept of acculturation.
 As mentioned, these criteria are substantial contributions to the definition of a language
policy for MIS, which is why it is crucial to reflect on them so that the decisions that are
made about languages do not affect legal, structural and historical issues associated with
the educational institution that MIS is and the country. The bilingualism that is so prevalent
in this school should be the only substantive argument against linguistic intolerance, a
concept so disapproved of by linguists and which has cost Mozambique the loss of part of its
linguistic and cultural identity and the purism of national languages. Imposing the use of one
language over another would deny the evolution of contemporary theories and approaches
to language teaching and repeat the error of intolerance that the world is trying to distance
and redress through bilingual education (with very positive effects in American, Canadian
and South African education).

3. Discussion
During a seminar on education-related issues, MIS teachers unanimously suggested that
students be compelled to use English during and outside of lessons. Analysing this dilemma
within the scope of Mozambican law, the aforementioned position seems quite legitimate
according to Ministerial Diploma 157/98 of 26 August, which defines the organic statute of
MIS (see point two of article two [curriculum] in the first chapter). However, this legislative
document, in the article mentioned, only states that "the language of instruction at MIS is
English", not referring to the language of communication between students and teachers
outside of class, which seems to us to be a favourable approach to a context in which the
British curricula are applied in a multilingual country and in a school with bilingual speakers,
with the languages therefore having different statuses, such as Portuguese, which is the
official and mother tongue for most of the students at MIS. The law also makes it clear that
students are free to use the language with which they most identify ("language is, after all,
also a manifestation of cultural identity"). The legal document mentioned above is
unequivocal proof that our National Education System (SNE) distances itself from linguistic
intolerance, especially when it mentions the principle of inclusion:
“Inclusão - é considerado inclusivo o sistema educacional quando: (...) Reconhece e respeita
diferenças nos indivíduos: idade, sexo, etnia, língua, deficiência/inabilidade, classe social,
estado de saúde” (SNE Law, 2018, p. 25).
 This means that all languages spoken by MIS students, albeit with different statuses,
should be included in our SNE, because the principle of inclusion does not exempt the
principle of tolerance. Moreover, another argument that justified the unanimous decision is
the fact that British curricula recommend the compulsory use of English in all
communicative contexts, due to the fact that MIS represents itself as an extension of
Cambridge in Mozambique, which seems to go against Law no. 18/2018 of 28 December on
SNE, in article 4 (pedagogical principles), point j, which advocates an education, in a
Mozambique, with tendencies to value Mozambican languages 5, ultimately, although MIS is
an institution with international status, it is still subordinate to local laws, which is why it is
supervised by the Ministério da Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano (MINEDH) (see
article 5, point 1 of Ministerial Diploma no. 157/98 of 26 August). Therefore, the supervision
of the MINEDH is aimed at verifying compliance with the law by the management and other
staff of the MIS through inspections, enquiries and enquiries (translated from the SNE, Law
no. 18/2018 of 28, article 5, point 2).
A further argument that seems to invalidate the idea that English should be used for
communication outside the classroom (considering that MIS is supposed to be Cambridge's
representation in Mozambique) is the recommendation that Cambridge Assesment
International Education makes regarding the implementation of its school curricula:
Nevertheless, at Cambridge, we recognise that the most important work in designing and
implementing a school’s curriculum is done by its leaders and teachers. It is you who ensure
that any programme is adapted to your context, culture and ethos, and is tailored to your
students’ needs. This flexibility is a fundamental principle of a Cambridge education. We do
not believe that a common prescription is suitable for all countries and contexts.
(Cambridge Assessment International Education, 2018, p. 3).

It seems that leaders and teachers are recognised as the ones who ensure that the
curriculum is adapted to the particularities of the institution's context, culture and values, as
well as to the specific needs of the students. Flexibility is emphasised as a fundamental
principle of Cambridge education, rejecting the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach for all
countries and educational contexts. Once again, a normative document advocates a
considered approach, and there is a congruent attitude of distancing oneself from the

5
According to SNE (2018), the Mozambican education should “valorizar as línguas, cultura e história
moçambicanas com o objectivo de preservar e desenvolver o património cultural da nação”
concept of linguistic intolerance that seems to be defended by MIS teachers from the
perspective of an arbitrary imposition of a language considered to be the "status-quo" of
the institution. If this arbitrariness is indeed accepted, it will lead to a phenomenon that
could exclude languages that don't have the status outlined by MIS, which could create a
linguistic hierarchy that tends to go against national legislation and the fundamental
principles of the Cambridge curricula.

ADD MORE ARGUMENTS ON THE SUBJECT FROM THE CAMBRIDGE PERSPECTIVE HERE

From the standpoint of language theories and approaches, we reiterate the idea that
language acquisition and learning should be natural processes, so there is no need for
communication to be imposed by the school unit. In fact, it is crucial that language is learnt
in a communicational context, but it is really essential that school managers and language
teachers consider theories when making decisions related to teaching/acquisition and not
base their discourse on subjective perceptions and pseudo-argumentation that looks at
what is supposedly recommended by Cambridge.
To be clear, learning, acquisition and speech are processes that occur naturally (see the
innatist theory), therefore it is the task of teachers and schools to create activities and
exercises to ensure constant practice and automatisation. In addition to this argument,
there is the perception of linguistic functionalism, as the theoretical underpinning of this
reflection, which refers to the importance of language in the construction of meanings and
the expression of social functions. This leads us to believe that if a student, in a multilingual
context, decides to speak one language rather than another, he or she would be in the
process of constructing meaning in the language that best conveys the corresponding
meaning. As educators, it is not our job to limit the communicative and meaning-making
function, but to encourage a balanced approach to language mastery and use.

By imposing the use of one language in a multilingual context, we would also be

disregarding sociolinguistic aspects and concepts such as Code-Switching (Gross, 2006), a
linguistic term that is so widely discussed and recommended as a strategy for constructing
meaning in multicultural and multilingual contexts. Code-switching is a linguistic
phenomenon in which a speaker switches from one language or linguistic variety to another
during a conversation. This phenomenon can occur in bilingual or multilingual situations,
where speakers are proficient in more than one language, and is a phenomenon that tends
to occur naturally.

This essay is not intended as a criticism of language-related decisions, but rather as a

point of reflection on the need for these decisions to consider linguistic-scientific theories,
approaches and procedures that can weigh up the different scenarios presented. The
imposition of the English language as a demantary outside the classroom seems to go
against some of the criteria of bilingualism, especially that of the maintenance of the
mother tongue, since the bilingualism of MIS students is not expected to be subtractive, i.e.
that it leads them to lose proficiency in their L1, but rather it is ideal for the L2 to be added
to the linguistic acquis that also includes the L1, thus creating an additive bilingualism. It
should be noted that it is desirable and recommended that bilingualism results from the
perfect addition of an L2/LE without damaging the L1.
Furthermore, the bilingual individual's cultural identity criterion must also be considered,
because in the multilingual context of MIS, there are students whose linguistic and cultural
identity is related to their mother tongue, to the cultural group of their L2, or even when
they don't identify with either the L1 or L2 cultural group. For discussions on similar issues
involving languages and language policies, it is essential that decisions are thoughtful,
flexible and inclined towards inclusion/tolerance/diversity, so as not to run the risk of
creating movements that go against theoretical, scientific, linguistic and legal progress.

Conclusions
The argument language of instruction recommended by Cambridge cannot be the only
justification for the imposition of a language standard, but it does need to be one of several
substantial criteria for a language policy that is properly conceived on the basis of language
learning theories and the principle of inclusion/tolerance that Mozambican law determines,
especially in a multilingual context such as MIS. It is also important to consider the principle
of flexibility advocated by Cambridge in the implementation of curricula. The
implementation of a curriculum, as we have seen, must take into account the context in
which it is applied because, although it is foreign, it must unequivocally be subordinate to
the legal material that regulates the modus vivendi and modus operandi of Mozambican
institutions, as well as taking great account of language acquisition/learning theories.
In this respect, it is suggested that MIS's educational practices be rethought and that a
language policy be created that is based on Mozambican legal material, clear principles and
criteria that are scientifically and linguistically conventionalised by the academic community.
If this is the case, it is important for the school to be prepared for the consequences of its
language policy choices, if it really wants English to be in demand, which can contradict
national law and the basic principles of multilingualism/bilingualism advocated by
Cambridge.

References
Butler, Y. G.; Hakuta, K. (2004). Bilingualism and Second language Acquisition. In Bhatia,
T.K.; Ritchie, W.C. The Handbook of Bilingualism. United Kingdom: Blackwell
Publishing.
Cambridge Assessment International Education (2021). Implementing the Curriculum with
Cambridge. A guide for school leaders. Cambridge: CAIE.
Gross, S. (2006). Code switching. In Brown, K (ed). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics.
2a ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Leffa, V., J. (1998). Metodologia do ensino de línguas. In Bohn, H., I. & Vandresen, P. (Eds).
Tópicos em lingüística aplicada: O ensino de línguas estrangeiras (pp. 211-236).
Florianópolis: UFSC
Richards, J., C., & Rodgers, T., S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching (1a
ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ― Good Language Learner Can Teach Us. In TESOL Quarterly (pp.
41 - 51).
Saussure, F. (2002) Curso de lingüística geral. Trad. de Antônio Chelini, José Paulo Paes e
Izidoro Blikstein. 24a ed. São Paulo: Pensamento-Cultrix.
Viotti, E. C. (2008). Introdução aos Estudos Linguísticos. Florianópolis: USP.

Legislative documents
Boletim da República. Diploma Ministerial n.° 157/98 de 26 de Agosto
Sistema Nacional de Educação. Lei n.o 18/2018 de 28 de Dezembro do SNE