Barely three weeks ago, we discussed the issue of language as medium of instruction in the Nigerian schools. The position of the Federal Government is that in view of mass failure the examining authorities have been recording the use of indigenous languages in our schools should be scrapped.

Said Dr. Tunji Alausa, the Minister of Education: “We have seen a mass failure rate in WAEC, NECO and JAMB in certain geo-political zones of the country, and those are the ones that adopted the mother tongue in an over-subscribed manner. This is about evidence-based governance. English now stands as the medium of instruction from pre-primary, primary, junior secondary, senior secondary and tertiary education.”

The scrapping was the outcome of a meeting of the National Council on Education, the council’s 69th that took place in Akure earlier last month from the 3rd to 7th of November. Dr. Alausa said pupils taught in native languages struggled with basic English comprehension, hence the higher failure rates. He said using the mother tongue in Nigeria for the past 15 years has literally destroyed education in certain regions. “We have to talk about evidence, not emotions.” The minister, aware that the government decision would strike an alarm in stakeholders’ hearts, said if they hold a different position, they should come forward with verifiable data.

Convincing as the argument of Dr. Alausa may sound, even though still controversial, more soothing were measures announced by the Minister of State for Education, Professor Suwaiba Ahmed, to address the learning challenges. She had said a training package for teachers that focuses on literacy and numeracy and the approach to classroom learning was being designed. It specifically targets teachers of pre-Primary to Primary One to Three. In her words: “We are training them on the best methods to teach literacy and numeracy and the approach to classroom learning.”

It is strange, indeed, that a foreign language that English is would be preferred to an indigenous language. From where are the teachers of English teachers coming to cover the whole country? As I did state in my earlier comment, it is to be hoped that in the planned training sight will not be lost on the essence of returning to the use of indigenous languages ultimately. They should be preferred. John Keats in his epic poem, Ode to A Nightingale, (1819) has demonstrated to mankind that the solution to life’s problems is not escapism. You don’t run away from a problem in order to solve it!

The Yoruba have a variant version of it in their wise sayings: Akande, nwon so ‘pe oro yi oro e ni, o so’pe o nlo si oko. Oo baa lo s’odo, t’o ba de, waa ba!Translated roughly, it means “You are told this problem is your affair, you say you are headed for the farm. If you like, why not also to the river? Whenever you return, you will meet your problem to solve.”

I did state three weeks ago that a child’s first contact with the world is through its mother and as it grows and develops its faculties, it communicates in the language of its mother. The homes where this is not the pattern must be few, indeed. Perhaps it may have to do with a medical condition that necessitates taking the baby away from her. The mother tongue is thus the language in the home. The first three years in the primary school when the local language ought to be the medium of instruction is the period of transition. It makes eminent sense that there is no sudden leap from language being spoken at home to a foreign language being spoken in school. It is unnatural. A child will be more at home if it first has grounding in its mother tongue and it moves step by step into the next stages of development. That is the Law of Gradualism, the Law of Nature. It does not permit of leaps.

However, it is not the rightness or wrongness of the scrapping of the National Language Policy I wish to interrogate today, but that whatever language the authorities may elect, indigenous or foreign, itspurity, mastery and proper usage are crucial. This must be factored into the training planned for the teachers. It must return everyone, the teachers and the taught, to the basics.

It should be recalled that many years back, there was an awakening to stall yielding to pressure by the modern man, the feminist movement in particular, who were fighting to tear down barriers separating man and woman and, in the process, tarnish the purity of the English language.

According to the U.S. edition of the International Express, a weekly sister newspaper of the British Daily Express, the Open University in America drew up what it called “politically correct”guidelines banning what was referred to as racist and sexist language. The word “man” became a taboo. Words such as MANhour and FireMAN fell in the category of sexist words that were taboos. Out also went MANmade and SportsMANship—indeed including the Best MAN for the job. GentleMAN’s Agreement was replaced with Agreement Based on Trust.

It was so ridiculous that the British Member of Parliament and chairman of Conservative Backbench Education Committee at the time, Jim Pawsey did not find it funny at all. “Blackmail” and “Blackening” were considered colour specific and, therefore, racist. Mr. Pawsey said: “Political correctness is one of the less acceptable imports into the UK from America. I am disappointed that an institution like the Open University has chosen to tell lecturers what words cannot be used. These are phrases that have passed into the currency of language. It is quite dreadful that an organisation of such repute is seeking to pander to the second-hand ideas of trendy Yanks.”

The British Government swiftly rose to the challenge. Under plans by the National Curriculum Council, English classes were to return to basic, traditional lessons in grammar, punctuation and spelling. The New Guidelines banished what it called “modern” methods. Teachers were expected to encourage pupils as young as six to speak standard English and not local dialect. Out went the “remains of trendy teaching methods from 1960s and 70s. In were “the correct use of capital letters and full stops by the age of seven, commas by 11, apostrophes and speech marks by 13, and colons and semi-colons by 16.” The National Curriculum Council also wanted 16-year-olds to be taught the error of split infinitives such as ‘to boldly go’.

I want to believe that the purity of the English language brought to the world’s attention reported by the International Express in its issue of 11-17 February, 1993 will interest Dr. Tunji Alausa and Professor Suwaiba Ahmed. Since they are drawing out the Nigerian children from infancy to be taught in English language, the teachers should return us to pre-1970s standards before rigour was taken out of the study of English language in secondary schools, the era of Mr. Crondje when failure in English was failure in all subjects, the periods students familiarised themselves with “subject and predicate”, “clause analysis”, “transitive verbs”, “restricted and unrestricted parenthesis.” It was when students were able to identify a “nominative absolute” and those of literature could do literary evaluation of a work.

These days, even in respectable quarters it is not unusual, indeed not uncommon to hear “Mr. President will be the Chief Guest of Honour. He will be in town tomorrow.” If I remember my conjugation well, “Mr. President” is a ‘Vocative Case’ not a ‘Nominative Case.’ It should be “The President will be the Chief Guest of Honour…” Where it is preceded by Mr it becomes Vocative: Mr. “President, Sir”; “Mr. Governor, Sir;” “Mr. Speaker, Sir.” It is only lawyers who have the licence to use the word “informations” liberally. For the ordinary man, it is pieces of information; pieces of evidence, not evidences. Countable (C) and Uncountable (U)Nouns.

Why the concern over the declining standard of the use of English language? It may be asked. What is wrong with the new words being manufactured to tear down the gender barriers? There is a lot wrong with introducing distortions into a language. Language is the mode of expression of a people. In the wisdom of the Creator, everyone speaks the language appropriate for him and his development. Words a people press out from within them and string together form sentences which they cloak in sound waves—the spoken words. Distortion to any language obviously diminishes its perfection. The language retrogresses, and in the process narrows the range of vision, dimming its lustre and the clarity of the people who use it. They are dragged down.

The point being made will be better appreciated if we draw from a higher perception of the word with which any language is formed. Word, as we are permitted to know today, is a gift to us human beings, a faint reflection of the sacred, creative Word which is Life itself and out which Creation arose following the Great Word of the Most High, the All Highest: “Let there be Light.” The Word, being the Radiation of Divine Will, formed itself into the Living Cross, the Radiating, Living Form of Truth. It was from the Cross, Its Radiations that Creation issued. Thus, the Cross is the Truth, the Law. We owe our existence to the Word, to the Cross. Everything swings in the Word, in the Cross, in the Law.

Thus, our words are formed under the pressure of the Law. These words ought to be invested with nothing other than their natural purity and approached in awe, reverence so that they can formingly also bring beauty, quickening, upliftment, nobility to us and our environment. Forms arise from the meaning of words even if a different meaning from what was uttered was intended. We have the liberating enlightenment in the words of In the Light of Truth, the Grail Message, by Abd-ru-shin thus:

“It has been clearly proclaimed to mankind:
“In the beginning was the Word! And the Word was with God! And the Word was God!”
“Herein lies all knowledge for you, if you would only draw it. But you skim over it and do not heed it. Plainly it tells you: “The Word came out of God! It was and is a part out of Him.

“A faint reflection of the power of the Living Word of God, which contains all that is outside of God, a faint reflection of this also lies in the human word!”

From the foregoing, we can see that language is much more important than the levity with which various peoples have tended to treat it. The words, the language moulds a people. We now know that we can tell the nature of a people from the way they speak. A ponderous language forms a ponderous people. A man of polish cares about his language, and he speaks sparingly.

The early educationists admonished their pupils to use language correctly, to write and speak it well. They encouraged their students to watch their diction. Queen’s English was the standard. The picture one gets reflecting on Queen’s English is that of grace, majesty, polish and propriety. It is not the same picture that pidgin English flashes before our gaze. A slang or Broken English must produce a distorted, broken people, considering the power of language. A soothing word brings peace, solemnity and harmony. An idle, careless talk cause harm and strains relationships. Good writing gladdens the heart of the reader. And most of us enjoyed listening to good speakers: Professor Ayo Banjo; Dr. Stanley Macebuh; Professor Alfred Opubor, Chief Bola Ige, Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu—to mention but a few in public glare. We should not shrink from protecting whatever standard language we choose to speak and keep it pure.

According to UNESCO 2016: Studies indicate that instruction in a student’s native language improves understanding, analytical skills, and over all academic achievement.
It enriches the learning experience but also promotes environmental
stewardship and cultural resilience.