Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Vol. 32, No. 4, July 2011, 309
324

Botswana English: implications for English language teaching and

assessment
Modupe Alimi*

Department of English, University of Botswana, P/B 0022, Gaborone, Botswana

(Received 17 August 2010; final version received 20 March 2011)

Concerted efforts to characterise Botswana English (BE), though still referred to

as a variety in development, have validated its existence. However, the teaching
and assessment of English in the high schools do not seem to have responded to
the development of this variety. This paper discusses the viability of using
Standard British English as the model for teaching and assessing students
proficiency in high schools in Botswana. It examines the countrys education
focusing on language policy, the teaching methodology advocated in schools and
teachers preparedness and how these factors affect English language teaching
and assessment. It also highlights areas of contradiction in policy documents
regarding the teaching methodology and the model/variety taught and examined.
The paper then proposes the recognition of BE as an appropriate model/variety
for instruction in schools in Botswana, noting that this will not only eliminate the
contradictions in the current English language teaching and assessment syllabi,
but also reflect some of the ways by which English mirrors the linguistic ecology
of the country.
Keywords: Botswana; Botswana English; English language teaching; English
language assessment; language policy; language identity

Introduction
The pedagogical implications of the development of indigenised varieties, also
referred to severally as New Englishes, nativised or non-native1 varieties of English,
have dominated research work for some time. Kirkpatrick (2007a, 184) explains
that in many outer and expanding circle2 countries (Kachru 1985), English
language teaching is based on either exonormative native speaker or endonorma-
tive nativised models. He argues further that there are obvious reasons for the
choice of either of these models. The former, for example, is considered prestigious,
legitimate and standard, with readily available teaching materials. It also appeals to
policymakers particularly in the expanding circle countries as the best in terms of
meeting the criteria of international acceptability and intelligibility (184). The latter
is gaining currency in some outer circle countries, such as Nigeria, Malaysia and
India. Such countries have adopted either a local or locally emerging variety of
English (Hamp-Lyons and Davies 2008, 29).

*Email: ALIMIMM@mopipi.ub.bw
The original version of this paper was presented at the annual IATEFL conference held in the
University of Exeter, UK, April 2008.

ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2011.574700
http://www.informaworld.com
310 M. Alimi

However, neither of the two models, exonormative or endonormative, appro-

priately depicts the state of English as a medium of instruction in many African
countries. This is mainly because the education policy documents usually indicate the
Standard as the variety to be taught in schools (see Atoye 1987; Gimson 1980),
while classroom practice indicates the contrary, a situation that engenders some type
of contradiction. In Botswana, for example, portions of the Botswana Senior
Secondary Assessment Syllabus in English Language (1999, 8) allude to the specific
objective of learners as being able to use Standard English in official or formal
situations.
The apparent contradiction indicated above has implications for assessment,
particularly in public examinations. On the one hand, Standard British English
(StBrE) is specified as the model for test development and assessment. On the other,
the practice is that the indigenised varieties, which the teachers speak, are taught and
probably examined in many outer circle countries. Perhaps this is the reason why in
the UK and the USA, scholars have started interrogating seriously the model(s) of
English that should be valued and the standard that should be used in high stakes
examinations which are basically designed to assess ESL students proficiency in
English (Hamp-Lyons and Zhang 2001, 101). Similarly, in Europe, the development
of English as a lingua franca3 (ELF) is a response to the recognition that the way
English is taught and assessed in a region (in this case Europe) should reflect the
needs and aspirations of the increasing number of non-native speakers who use it to
communicate with other non-natives (Graddol 2006, 87). It is obvious, therefore, that
new thinking on what should be the focus of English language teaching in non-native
environments, which is radically different from the status quo, is emerging.
The objective of this paper is to discuss the practicality of using StBrE for
teaching and assessing students proficiency in high schools in Botswana. Specifically
the following questions are addressed: What variety of English is taught in senior
secondary schools (SSS) in Botswana? What variety of English is examined in the
Botswana General Certificate of Secondary Education (BGCSE)? What implications
do these have for the Language in Education Policy in Botswana? In order to
properly situate the answers to these questions, it is important to provide background
information on the linguistic landscape of Botswana.

Language ecology of Botswana

Botswana is a multilingual society and it is estimated that between 26 and 29
languages, including English and Afrikaans, are spoken in the country. As a former
British protectorate, and like many other African countries, Botswana has had a long
relationship with the English language, as the language of administration by the
colonial government. Prior to the arrival of English-speaking Europeans in the
middle of the nineteenth century, Setswana was both a mother tongue and lingua
franca in the area that came to be referred to as Bechuanaland. With the arrival of
groups of missionaries who established schools, English became a medium of
communication. When Bechuanaland became a British protectorate in 1885, the
linguistic ecology was altered, as English became the language of administration
while Setswana was used for oral communication, in traditional settings and in small
administrative sectors.
At independence in 1966, the country retained English as its official language
while Setswana became the national language. The estimates of those who speak
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 311

Setswana vary. Anderssen and Jansons (1997, 21) estimate is 70
90% of the
population while Batibo (2008, 17) indicates that 78.6% of the population speaks
Setswana. As the national language, Setswana is the language of instruction in
Standard 1 and the language of deliberations in Ntlo ya Dikgosi (the House of
Chiefs). It is also an alternative medium for debates in parliament and is the
language of the media for the coverage of specific programmes. English, on the other
hand, is the language of instruction from Standard 2 onwards, the language of
government, business and international diplomacy. It should be mentioned that the
arrogation of roles, official and national, to English and Setswana, respectively, has
attracted some criticisms. Many people are of the view that the functional domains
reserved for Setswana are merely symbolic since English regularly encroaches into
such domains. A good example is the opening of the first meeting of Ntlo ya Dikgosi
in 2007 where the Master of Ceremonies conducted the proceedings in English. Even
the Oath of Allegiance was administered in English, which caused one of the Dikgosi
to stumble at the expression So help me God rendered as So God me help. Also in the
courts, where virtually everyone speaks Setswana, including the judges, the lawyers,
the accused and defendants, many people believe that the national language should
not be subjugated to English.
The above points notwithstanding, British English has retained its status as the
norm providing variety in Botswana. With the emergence of nationhood and
national identity, the need for depending on an externally provided linguistic norm
gradually disappeared. As a result, English in Botswana began to change (Janson
and Tsonope 1991). Certain aspects of its pronunciation, syntax and lexicon altered
appreciably giving rise to a new variety. In the following section, some of the research
studies that have attempted to characterise Botswana English (BE) are presented.

Botswana English (BE)

Mesthrie (2010, 594) indicates that New Englishes or World Englishes are those
varieties that arose as second or foreign languages as English spread as a world
language. The earliest instance of this spread occurred when the British imported
predominantly African slaves to work in plantations in the American South and the
Caribbean which resulted in the demise of local American Indian languages and
the rise of new language varieties. Mesthrie (2010, 594) further argues that while the
lexical content of the creoles was English, the syntax was from a variety of sources.
The second instance of the spread of English occurred with the colonisation of many
African and Asian countries, with the resulting indigenisation of English to depict
local phenomena and local culture (595). Mesthries (2010) position, like many other
New Englishes scholars, is that these varieties are contact varieties. In the contact,
English is the superstrate while the local languages are substrate although the
contributions of the superstrate and the substrate remain controversial.
BE, which now has a sizeable body of literature, falls into the second group
highlighted above since Botswana was a British protectorate from 1885 until it
obtained independence in 1966. One of the earliest scholars to draw attention to
English in Botswana as an identifiable variety characterised by distinctive formal
features on multiple linguistic levels is Arthur (1994, 65). She notes that the process
of conversion or functional shift has produced certain expressions in BE, including to
foot it in place of Standard English to walk. Also, a person may ask to be lifted to the
next village rather than be given a lift in a vehicle. In addition, she observes that state
312 M. Alimi

verbs in BE are often found in the progressive aspect as in I am having a cold in place
of the standard usage I have a cold.
Merkestein (1998, 197) describes BE as a variety in development. His data
consist of three corpora of about 25,000 words each, representing three distinct
periods, 1958
1964, 1971
1977 and 1983
1989. The source of the data is
government circulars. Merkestein (1998) indicates that English in Botswana in the
colonial days was faceless, impersonal and formulaic. In the post-colonial
periods, however, the language had become less rigid, exhibiting more features of the
spoken form. While nominalisations were preferred in the colonial days to refer to
addresses in order to avoid directness, as in arrangements will be made, in the post-
colonial days, the choice of words in the circulars reflected accessibility and inter-
personality, as in I believe you are all aware. This implies that in the post-colonial
era, the influence of the norm providing variety, British English, had waned and was
being replaced by BE, the norm developing variety.
Bagwasi (2006), in her discussions of the linguistic innovations which occurred in
the language between 1884 and 2000, describes BE as a developing variety. Among
the linguistic innovations described in her study are borrowed items (bogadi: bride
price and pula: rain), newly created lexical items (omang: the name of the national
identity card derived from the expression who are you?) and Setswana proverbs
(There can never be two bulls in one kraal: You cannot have two rulers in one
community). While Bagwasi (2006) and Merkestein (1998) have attempted to
characterise BE from a diachronic perspective, Arthur is more inclined to the
synchronic.
The focus in Arua and Magochas (2000) study is on the attitudes of Batswana4
towards the emerging local variety which is beginning to diverge from StBrE. They
argue that BE can be identified both at the formal written and the informal spoken
levels. Among the syntactic features of the variety identified in the study are the use
of the pronominal phrase the other one . . . the other one, the inversion of the auxiliary
verb and subject in reported questions, the frequent use of dangling modifiers, the
use of two related but popular tag questions, isnt it?, is it?, and the frequent use of
the modal auxiliary must. This study is revealing because the responses of the
Batswana parents who participated in the study instantiate peoples awareness of and
positive attitude to BE. It also shows that the variety is considered internationally
acceptable by the subjects of the study and therefore appropriate as a variety to be
taught in schools. This is an indication that the community might be inclined to
endorse and perhaps promote the use of an endonormative variety as the standard in
schools.
Arua (2004) demonstrates that BE is syntactically closely related to other dialects
of English in Southern Africa, though it is lexically distinct. Among the syntactic
features discussed in this study are the exclamation sharp!, the indefinite pronoun
phrases the other one and the modal auxiliary can be able. Perhaps, its syntactic
similarity with other varieties in the southern region, an indication of cross-border
intelligibility, is one of the reasons why the subjects of the earlier study (Arua and
Magocha 2000) seemed positively disposed to it. Among the distinct lexical
characteristics of BE discussed in Aruas (2004) study are Setswana words borrowed
and/or translated into English, including titles or terms of address such as Rra (Sir),
Mma (Madame), Rre (Mr.). There are other items such as condomise, diarise and
brigade. While condomise and diarise are a product of the process of derivation,
brigade is a product of semantic extension.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 313

The lexical distinctiveness of BE is further reiterated by Alimi and Bagwasi

(2009), who report that the lexicon of BE consists of two broad categories. The first
category comprises items that have been either borrowed or semantically modified
from Setswana because there are no equivalents in English or because of the need to
depict cultural and traditional practices. Examples of such include kgosi (chief) and
the lands (farms where grains are grown). The second consists of items that have been
recently introduced in response to certain sociopolitical changes in the country, such
as Bulela Ditswe (a political slogan which means to open the kraal and let out the
cattle to graze) and Botho (one of the pillars of Vision 2016,5 which means to be
humane). Since their study also shows that some aspects of the discourse of BE
correlate significantly with those of Setswana and Batswana culture, Alimi and
Bagwasi (2009) provide some useful insights into the processes of deculturation and
acculturation of English in Botswana.
As for the role of BE in the English language classroom, Arua (2007) in his study,
Using two varieties in ESL classes, reports that teachers are uncertain regarding
the model of English to use in the classroom. While the teachers are hesitant to
recommend spoken BE in the classroom, they are opposed to it being used in formal
writing even though they themselves speak and write BE, a situation that Arua
(2007) believes might be connected with the uncertainty regarding its syntactic and
lexical features. However, Arthur (1994, 65, 67) is of the view that Batswana English
users, including teachers, still defer to standard British English because BE is
considered deviant and unacceptable. This apparent negative perception, according
to her, stems from the fact that historically, StBrE was imposed as the model to be
taught and aspired to in Botswana. Such a perception, she adds, was sustained by the
prescriptive influence of expatriate British teachers and teacher trainers.
While the studies reviewed above affirm the existence of BE, there are not many
scholarly works that have examined the extent to which its features are evident in
learners (in high schools and tertiary institutions) usage. The few available studies,
however, have attempted to explicate some patterns of learners usage, which are at
variance with StBrE, in terms of the structure of Setswana. Alimi (2007), for
example, shows that some of the syntactic differences in students usage of English
articles and modals are traceable to their L1. Her study demonstrates that the
expression can be able, is a product of the conflation of two verb forms, ka and
kgona, can and be able, respectively, which usually co-occur in Setswana. Notably,
Arua (2004), referred to earlier, regards this usage as a syntactic feature of BE. In
another study, Alimi (2008) shows some connection between learners usage of
English pronouns and the syntactic and morphological characteristics of Setswana
pronouns. The expression the other . . . the other, which Arua and Magocha (2000)
and Arua (2004) characterise as a syntactic feature of BE, is shown to bear some
resemblance with the Setswana morphology of the English words one, other and
another, all denoted by the same lexical item ngwe. Similarly, the use of agreement
markers in Setswana, which can be repeated, to replace full pronouns is closely
associated with the interposition of independent subject pronouns between subjects
and their verbs. While Bokamba (1982, 83) identifies this type of usage as a common
feature of the English of Bantu language speakers, Arua (2004) characterises a
related usage, described as the redundant use of personal, reflexive pronouns, as one
of the syntactic features of BE. These findings show how the users of English in
Botswana have adapted it to meet their needs. They also support the view that
314 M. Alimi

localisms have the potential to become part of the language resources of

communities (Norrish 1999).

Language in Education Policy in Botswana

According to Baugh (2004, 204), scholars, educators, politicians and pundits are
among those who have significantly influenced language education worldwide,
though ultimately language education policies are formulated based on political
considerations. This might explain the reason why Botswana, at independence,
retained English as its official language and adopted Setswana as its national
language. Prior to the inception of any language in education policy in the country,
the practice was to instruct primary school pupils in Setswana for the first two/three
years and thereafter change to English. In 1977, a decisive step was taken to
formulate a Language in Education Policy, Education for Kagisano (Education for
social harmony) which stipulates the use of English as the medium of instruction
from Standard 3 (Government of Botswana 1977). It was noted, however, that the
policy decision (to use English as the medium of instruction from Standard 3) was
discriminatory against Setswana, the national language. In 1992, another National
Commission on Education was constituted to address new challenges in the
educational system. Although The Report of the National Commission on Education
(1993) recommended that the use of English for instruction should be deferred till
Standard 5, The Revised National Policy on Education (1994) prescribed English as
the medium of instruction from Standard 2. This change, which resulted in the
submission of a minority report, was premised on the belief that introducing English
to the learners, who apparently were performing poorly in the language, much earlier
would improve their performance.
One of the recommendations of The Report of the National Commission on
Education in 1993 was the localisation of the Cambridge Examinations, which
awarded the Cambridge Overseas School Certificate (COSC), in order to ensure
increased local relevance. Specifically, the recommendation proposed a prepara-
tion, re-writing and adaptation of syllabuses, starting with subjects of more local
relevance and context (The Revised National Policy on Education 1994, 27). With the
localisation of the senior secondary examinations in 1998, a new teaching syllabus
was also developed. It should be mentioned that the localisation of the examinations
which was a response to the need to reflect more local relevance and context (27)
could also have been broadened to incorporate a specific statement on the variety of
English in which learners would be instructed.
Though neither of the two education policy documents referred to above indicate
the model/variety of English that should be taught and examined in schools, the
Botswana General Certificate of Secondary Education Teaching Syllabus, English
Language (1997, i) specifically indicates that while the subject aims at a high
proficiency in the use of Standard English, the teaching methodology acknowledges
that English is not the first language of the majority of the students. The Botswana
Senior Secondary Assessment Syllabus in English Language (1999, 8) also alludes to
Standard usage as the outcome expected of the students. These are indications that
StBrE is the preferred variety stipulated by the official documents for educational
purposes. As noted earlier, Arthur (1994, 65) actually suggests that the imposition of
StBrE as the model to be taught and to be aspired to in Botswana, which is
historical, emanates from the prescriptive influence of expatriate British teachers
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 315

and teacher trainers even though many of such teachers speak British regional
varieties of English.
Even if it is assumed that the issue of what model/variety to teach was not
contentious in the period immediately after independence given the fact that the
British influence was still pervasive in the country that was yet to develop its own
human resources, including teachers, the same is no longer applicable. As Townsend-
Coles (1985, 3, 7) notes, at independence, the country had only 40 Batswana degree
holders and only nine secondary schools with just two of them offering the full five-
year programme. Currently, the faculties of Humanities and Education at the
University of Botswana graduate a host of students annually. Many of these are
absorbed into the education sector as teachers in the 209 community junior secondary
schools (CJSS) and 27 SSS in the country. This achievement in the education sector
suggests that the country should be able to rely on the educated local teachers of
English to play a prominent role in crucial decisions relating to the ultimate success of
learners. As Baugh (2004, 204) rightly observes, to leave the linguistic destiny of non-
native learners in the hands of those who control the dominant language (in this case
native speakers of English) is to diminish the likelihood of their success.
The issue of the likelihood of students success in English language is pertinent
given the fact that only about 25% of students who write the BGCSE examinations in
English usually obtain either grade C (the minimum requirement for admission into
any course in the University of Botswana) or above, while the remaining 75% usually
obtain grade D. As reported in Alimi (2011a), the 2007 summary of the BGCSE
results released by the Botswana Examinations Council (Botswana Examinations
Council and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate 2007) showed
that in 2002, only 23.4% of the 17,137 candidates who took the BGCSE examination
in English obtained either grade C or above. In 2003 and 2004, those who obtained
either grade C or above constituted 25.9% and 28.1%, respectively. However, in 2005
and 2007, the percentage of those who obtained either grade C or above, 27.2% and
23.7%, respectively, declined. Thus on the average, barely 25% of high school
students qualify to be admitted into the University of Botswana to pursue any course
of study. These figures and the series of remarks about the very low proficiency in
English of high school graduates, in addition to the incongruous relationship
between what is taught and what is evaluated, are some of the reasons why the
Language in Education Policy should become specific on the variety of English to be
taught and examined in schools.

Teaching methodology and assessment practices

Many ESL or bilingual educators are of the view that language cannot be taught
but that its acquisition can only be facilitated (see Hargett 1998, for example). This
implies that the ultimate goal of language teaching should be communicative
competence and not discrete grammar, a view that is clearly articulated in the
Senior Secondary School English Syllabus in Botswana, which prescribes Commu-
nicative Language Teaching (CLT) as the method/approach for classroom instruc-
tion in English. The syllabus also indicates that the four language skills and
grammar are not to be taught in isolation. One of the major findings of a study on
the implementation of the CLT approach in Botswana SSS is that teachers are
reluctant to follow it because of the emphasis on grammatical accuracy in the
Assessment Syllabus and the BGCSE examinations (Bonang 2007). The study also
316 M. Alimi

shows that classroom observations confirm that classes were teacher-centred

because the approach seems to favour the kind of language precision and accuracy
that the Assessment Syllabus prescribes (Bonang 2007, 71). In addition, the
examination in English language as it is conceived currently only focuses on writing,
with the other skills being given little or no attention. Since there is an apparent
contradiction in terms of expectations in the two documents that guide teaching
and assessment, most teachers tend to focus on fluency and grammatical accuracy
by using the traditional approach as opposed to teaching for communicative
purposes.
Assessment practices in language are always aimed at determining learners
proficiency. Hargett (1998, 6) indicates that to be proficient in a second language
means to effectively communicate or understand thoughts or ideas through the
languages grammatical system and its vocabulary, using its sounds or written
symbols. The relevant question is whether learners in high schools in Botswana are
penalised even if they are sufficiently proficient to effectively communicate their
ideas or understand thoughts in English though their usage is characteristically BE.
This is an important issue given the fact that they are taught by local teachers (who
speak BE), and that their usage appropriately depicts or represents their socio-
cultural experience. Lowenberg (1993, 95), cited in Hamp-Lyons and Zhang (2001,
102), challenges the use of educated native speakers model as the standard for
measuring non-native learners proficiency. Lowenberg (1993, 101) asserts further
that:

in order to assess this proficiency accurately, examiners must be able to distinguish

deficiencies in the acquisition of English (errors) from varietal differences in the
students usage resulting from their having previously learned such nativised features.

The above is the contention of proponents of ELF who advocate that teaching
English to non-native speakers who predominantly use it to communicate amongst
themselves should focus on intelligibility and not native-like accuracy (Graddol
2006, 87). Canagarajah (1999) and Parakrama (1995) have also re-echoed Kachrus
(1992) position on the inappropriateness of legitimising native speaker standards.
According to Jenkins (2006, 165), these scholars favour resisting the hegemony of
native speaker standard and appropriating English for local use.
Having examined both the teaching and assessment syllabi for English in the
SSS, it is important to examine a sample of the marking guides for the English
language comprehension paper in BGCSE examinations. In the 1999 Marking
Scheme the assessment objectives are stated as follows: to test the candidates ability
to produce a piece of continuous prose in accurate Standard English and respond
relevantly to a task chosen from a number of alternatives. Candidates were also
expected to use a wide variety of vocabulary with precision, and write sentences of
various lengths and types, using a variety of sentence structures (Ministry of
Education, Botswana 1999, 1). It can be inferred from the above that even if there
was some ambiguity with respect to the variety or model of English to be taught and
examined in the Language in Education Policy of the country, the Teaching and
Assessment Syllabi are quite specific in requiring StBrE usage competence from the
students. In Botswana, we can infer that though the assessment syllabus prescribes
StBrE, in practice, assessment is actually guided by the variety that the teachers
speak and in which they instruct.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 317

Teacher awareness
It is generally believed in Botswana that English teachers in public schools are not as
competent as their counterparts in the private schools. Yet, the minimum qualifica-
tions to teach in the CJSS and the SSS are Diploma in Education and Bachelor of
Education, respectively. According to Kamwendo (2008), teachers in public schools
are perceived as not being competent because they codeswitch extensively between
English and Setswana both in and outside the classroom. Such a practice, he states, is
considered disadvantageous to the students not only because many of them have very
few opportunities outside the school environment to use English since they come
from homes where English is not the dominant language, but also because it is
viewed as a source of a miscellany of common errors that the teachers must
eradicate from the learners English (Arthur 1994, 65). Apart from the fact that this
assumption cannot be corroborated, especially because studies in language acquisi-
tion have shown that codeswitching is one of the important strategies that facilitate
L2 learning (see Cook 1999, 2001; Liebscher and Dailey-OCain 2004), it is also an
attempt to erode the confidence of the teachers and undermine their potential as
agents of curriculum change (Jenkins 2003, 15).
In terms of the variety/model in the English language classroom, Arua (2007, 6)
indicates that teachers use the Botswana variety of English, a variety which they
think is comparable to varieties used in other parts of the world. As noted earlier,
many of the teachers, however, are of the view that BE should not be used in formal
writing. This re-echoes the view presented in the Teaching and Assessment Syllabi. It
thus appears that the notion of Standard in the country is misunderstood and/or
confused. Actually, Arua (2007), in his findings on the variety of English taught in
high schools, reports that teachers lack sufficient awareness of the syntactic and
lexical characteristics of BE, which implies that the teachers are not well grounded in
StBrE that they are expected to teach and examine.
As for the reasons why non-native English teachers consider the non-native
varieties deviant, unacceptable and non-standard, Jenkins (2006, 167) identifies the
interlanguage (IL) theory propounded by Selinker (1972, 1992) as a major
contributing factor. IL posits that a second language speakers competence lies on
an interlanguage continuum at some point between their first language (L1) and their
second language (L2). Furthermore, the theory assumes that usages peculiar to
second language users, which differ from the native speakers, are errors resulting
predominantly from L1 interference and that it is the fossilisation of these errors that
produces the non-native varieties. This theory has been challenged by many world
Englishes scholars including Kachru (1996), Kachru and Nelson (1996) and Sridhar
(1994), because of its flaws which include the fact that it denies the historical and
cultural realities of the non-native environment. It also assumes that outer circle
users of English make a conscious effort to approximate inner circle norms and in
the process produce non standard forms (Jenkins 2006, 167). This paper contends
that the claims of IL cannot be supported by the facts of the history and principles of
language contact. As Anchimbe (2007, 152) rightly indicates, the New Englishes
though linked to the common core of the language through education, are not
attempting to approximate native norms, rather they are evolving in patterns
determined by the linguistic ecologies in which they find themselves and according to
the linguistic habits of their speakers. Thus, the development of the New Englishes is
not an aberration but rather a natural phenomenon.
318 M. Alimi

The origin of these varieties apart, the benefits that their users derive from them
are also important. As Mufwene (2002, 177) argues, languages have no independent
existence outside of the human beings who host them. A language or indeed a
language variety is viable as long its speakers consider it so, based on the benefits
derived from its use. If a language or a language variety is a viable means of
conducting the affairs of its speakers, then its legitimacy should not be decided by
factors outside of those users. Thus, notions of accuracy and correctness, especially
from the perspective of the native speakers, of the New Englishes are not only
unnecessary but irrelevant. If the New Englishes benefit their users culturally and
socioeconomically and they appropriately depict their experiences, then they should
become relevant as the norm criteria for instructional purposes in those environ-
ments. In essence, the New Englishes and indeed BE are quite adequate as the norm
for teaching and assessment.

Implications of the contradictions in policy documents

The foregoing discussion has shown that there are apparent contradictions in the
policy documents for teaching and assessment of English in high schools in
Botswana, and practice. Furthermore, there are indications that teachers are caught
in a dilemma because they neither speak the StBrE variety prescribed nor instruct in
it. In addition, they do not demonstrate confidence in the non-native variety, BE,
which they speak, nor recommend it as a variety worthy to be used in formal writing.
There are also research findings indicating that some of the prominent features of
usage in the writing of some Batswana students correlate with some of the syntactic
features of BE (see Alimi 2007, 2008; Arua and Magocha 2000, referred to earlier).
All of the above seem to show that BE is more prominent in the teaching and
assessment of English language in schools. Although in principle StBrE is the
prescribed variety that should be taught, in practice, the variety taught leans more to
the indigenised variety.
The scenario described above, though not peculiar to Botswana, underscores the
reluctance of education policymakers in Botswana and many African countries to
legitimise the indigenised varieties of English. One reason for the reluctance is the
attachment to the colonial legacy which inevitably makes policymakers in the
continent to continually defer to StBrE. Consequently, policymakers are cautious in
embracing current developments and in initiating appropriate policy changes even
though StBrE in reality is not only non-existent in these environments but also quite
irrelevant. This is the reason why Brutt-Griffler (2002, 183) asserts that the period of
dominance of mother-tongue context is of such recent vintage that it continues to
exert a strong ideological force particularly in influencing notions of how English
should be taught and who should do the teaching.
Another pertinent issue is the failure of policymakers to recognise the potential of
language varieties as a resource in the classroom. Barkhuizen and Gough (1996, 459)
refer to the debate on the growing emphasis on the acknowledgment of language
varieties as a resource in the educational process rather than on the exclusive focus
and dominance of one standard variety and the call for legitimising indigenised
varieties of English. Seidlhofers (2001, 135) comment on this same subject,
particularly the teaching of English as a foreign language, is thought-provoking:
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 319

The whole orientation of TEFL (teaching of English as a foreign language), then, seems
to have fundamentally shifted: from correctness to appropriateness, from parochial
domesticity and exclusive native speaker norms to global inclusiveness and egalitarian
licence to speak in ways that meet diverse local needs.

All of the above accentuate the need to view English language teaching in Botswana
from a new perspective, where the development of the local variety is a response to
the varying needs of its users amongst themselves rather than with the native
speakers. Its recognition as the variety to be taught and assessed would constitute a
pragmatic step that will eliminate the existing contradictions and open up a new
horizon, in terms of the benefits of language diversities in the classroom, to both the
teachers and students. It is also a move that will affirm the global nature of English
as a language of communication with other non-native speakers whose interactions
rarely involve native speakers (Wee 2002, 283).

Facilitating the use of BE as a medium of instruction

We now turn to the steps that need to be taken to facilitate the use of BE as a
medium of instruction in Botswana. The first crucial issue that must be attended to is
the standardisation of the variety. Speaking on Nigerian English, Bamgbose (1998, 4)
asserts that its codification is too obvious to be laboured. As indicated elsewhere,
(see Alimi 2011b), the scholarly research that has been undertaken so far on BE and
the documentation of some of its features should be considered the starting point in
the process of standardisation. However, the process will benefit from the more large-
scale institutional BE corpus research which is currently being undertaken by the
Department of English, University of Botswana. Another related issue that has been
debated is the question of the model that should be considered for codification and
subsequent adoption as the norm in many New Englishes environments, which is
also applicable to Botswana. Kirkpatrick (2007b, 29), with respect to Hong Kong
English, suggests a bilingual target or model based on the English of highly
proficient users who are L1 speakers of Cantonese because such a model will not
only be more attainable, but also be more locally relevant. Thus, in Botswana, it is
proposed that the English of an L1 speaker of Setswana, the national language, who
is also highly proficient in English be considered as the target or model for BE. This
recommendation is based on the fact that such a model will be more attainable and
more relevant, since Setswana is taught in all primary schools in Botswana and it is
spoken by the vast majority of Batswana.
It must also be noted that in terms of assessment, the communicative target of
most learners in Botswana is not native speakers but other non-native speakers. The
distribution of their use of English in this multilingual environment compares to that
of monolinguals who distinguish between high and low varieties (Sridhar and
Sridhar 1999, cited in Jenkins 2003, 85). In reality, English is only one of the
linguistic repertoires of the learners, many of whom are not aiming to integrate into a
native English environment. This is in addition to the fact that teachers in the
country speak and instruct using the indigenised variety. Therefore, determining
learners performance based on a native speakers norm is inappropriate (Jenkins
2003, 85). Furthermore, Jenkins (2006, 171) refers to Seidlhofers (2005) strong
support for the view that expanding and outer circle speakers have a right to develop
their own norms instead of depending on a so called educated native speaker norm.
For these reasons, it is pedagogically realistic in Botswana that learners performance
320 M. Alimi

is evaluated based on the non-native speaker norm in which they are instructed,
considering the fact that the presence of teachers of English who are native speakers
is an aberration rather than the norm in the country. In essence, the non-native norm
most widely used in the country by speakers of English including teachers is more
appropriate and more relevant for pedagogic purposes.
Some scholars contend that the use of localised varieties, rather than Interna-
tional English, for instructional purposes restricts learners ability to use English
appropriately in the global context. There are odds against this view. The first is that
the notion of International English implies the existence of a monolithic variety.
The second is that the view seems prejudiced in that it appears to be premised solely
on the acceptability and accuracy (again from the native speakers perspective), and
not the intelligibility of these varieties. The third is that the view does not seem to
take into account the fact that the bulk of the interactions of those who speak BE, for
example, is with other non-native speakers.
The issue of who owns the English language has also been a contentious one,
especially as it has implications for the dichotomy between native and non-native
speakers and the continued dependence of outer circle countries on the native
speaker standard. According to Widdowson (1994, 384), cited in Wee (2002, 285),
the very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have
custody over it, and its internationality is only to the extent that it is not the
possession of the native speakers. Hitherto, many educated Africans, including
teachers of English, have been unable to take ownership of the African varieties of
English primarily for lack of confidence. Consequently, they expect only native
speakers to provide directions and models (Wee 2002, 282). The recognition of BE
and the other non-native varieties in the continent will enhance their status and
enable their users to develop a more positive attitude to them. As the users take
ownership, the varieties will become established as the norm for teaching and testing
of English.

Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to examine whether or not it is expedient to base the
teaching and assessment of English in Botswana on StBrE prescribed by the teach-
ing and assessment syllabi for SSS. The discussion has highlighted the contradictions
between policy and practice and has shown that the facts on the ground suggest that
teaching and assessment are guided more by the indigenised variety of English. The
paper has demonstrated that though the teaching methodology prescribes CLT,
teachers rarely use the approach because it does not guarantee their students the
kind of correctness and accuracy examined in the BGCSE examinations in English
language. It has also shown that while some parents are in no way averse towards the
indigenised variety, the teachers who speak and use the variety do not accept it as
the norm for teaching and assessment. There are also indications that students
writing at the University of Botswana reflects some of the features of BE.
Furthermore, the paper has examined some of the reasons why policymakers in
Botswana seem to be favourably disposed to StBrE as the model variety though it
has ceased to be the norm providing variety.
Given all of the above, three recommendations are proposed. Firstly, it is
recommended that the Language in Education Policy in Botswana should recognise
the way English reflects the language ecology of the country. It is proposed that BE
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 321

as a variety in its own right should be recognised by language policymakers. This

single action would heighten the teachers awareness which would in turn enhance
their confidence in using BE for instructing their students and in drawing their
attention to some of the salient linguistic and pragmatic differences between native
and indigenised varieties. A good starting point is by incorporating some of the
lexical features of BE into vocabulary instruction in schools. Ultimately, the learners
would become more appreciative of language diversity as a resource in the language
classroom.
Secondly, the Department of English and other relevant departments in the
University of Botswana need to consciously promote awareness of BE by developing
and mounting courses in World Englishes. This would assist the graduates, many of
whom might become teachers in high schools, to sharpen their knowledge of the
cross-linguistic structures peculiar to the community. It would also enable the
students to appreciate the hybridity and permeability of English, which have enabled
it to adapt and adjust readily to new domains (Graddol 2000, 6). The BE corpus
research currently being done by the Department of English is a step in the right
direction. Findings from the research would further confirm the core linguistic
features of the variety and facilitate the process of standardisation. The findings
would also meaningfully inform the restructuring and reviewing of the English
language teaching and assessment syllabi in high schools.
Thirdly, the country will need to invest in locally produced teaching materials
which will reflect how English in Botswana depicts the cultural and socio-economic
realities of the country. Such a venture will also benefit from the large-scale corpus
study referred to above. Although Kirkpatrick (2007a) observes that many ESL
countries opt for materials from Britain and the USA because their governments do
not want to invest in locally produced materials, this stance may no longer be
tenable in view of the growth of English as a global language. If the English language
is no longer the preserve of the native speakers, then continued dependence on
materials from the UK and the USA will be construed as a new form of linguistic
imperialism (Phillipson 1992), which challenges and ultimately compromises
national identity.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments. I am responsible for
remaining imperfections in the paper.

Notes
1. The terms native and non-native speakers in this paper are used only as convenient terms
of denoting speakers of English in Kachrus inner circle on one hand, and speakers of
English in outer and expanding circles on the other.
2. This is Kachrus well-known three concentric circle model for the spread of English: inner,
expanding and outer circles. Nations considered to be the traditional home of English
belong to the inner circle while outer circle refers to former British colonies where English
has remained either a second or an official language. Expanding circle refers to countries
where English is taught as a foreign language.
3. A lingua franca is a common language which people from different language backgrounds
employ for communicating with one another.
4. Batswana is the name of the people of Botswana.
322 M. Alimi

5. Vision 2016 articulates the aspiration of the government and people of Botswana for a
nation that is strong and reliable economically, socially, politically, educationally and
morally.

References
Alimi, M.M. 2007. English articles and modals in the writing of some Batswana students.
Language, Culture and Curriculum (LCC) 20, no. 3: 209
22.
Alimi, M.M. 2008. English pronouns in the writing of some Batswana students. Marang:
Journal of Language and Literature 18: 85
101.
Alimi, M.M. 2011a. A pragmatic approach to workplace English in Botswana. In English for
work and the workplace: Approaches, curricula and materials, ed. Mark Krzanowski, 159

68. Reading: Garnet.
Alimi, M.M. 2011b. Incorporating lexical features of New Englishes into vocabulary
instruction. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research 7, no. 1: 115
80.
Alimi, M.M., and M.M. Bagwasi. 2009. Aspects of culture and meaning in Botswana English.
Journal of Asian and African Studies 44, no. 2: 199
214.
Anchimbe, E.R. 2007. On norms and prejudices: The notion of maturation in new Englishes.
Interlinguistica 17: 151
60.
Anderssen, L., and T. Janson. 1997. Languages in Botswana: Language ecology in Southern
Africa. Gaborone: Longman Botswana.
Arthur, J. 1994. English in Botswana primary classrooms: Functions and constraints. In
Teaching and researching language in African classrooms, ed. C.M. Rubagumya, 63
78.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Arua, A.E. 2004. Botswana English: Some syntactic and lexical features. English World Wide
25, no. 2: 255
72.
Arua, A.E. 2007. Using two varieties in ESL classes. Marang: Journal of Language and
Literature 17: 1
9.
Arua, A.E., and K. Magocha. 2000. Attitudes of parents to their childrens use of English in
Botswana. Language, Culture and Curriculum (LCC) 13, no. 3: 279
90.
Atoye, R. 1987. The case of RP as the appropriate model for teaching English pronunciation.
Ife Studies in English Language 1, nos. 1&2: 63
9.
Bagwasi, M.M. 2006. A developing model of Botswana English. In The study and use of
English in Africa, ed. A.E. Arua, M.M. Bagwasi, T. Sebina, and B. Seboni, 113
32.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Bamgbose, A. 1998. Torn between the norms and innovations in World Englishes. World
Englishes 17, no. 3: 1
14.
Barkhuizen, G.P., and D. Gough. 1996. Language curriculum development in South Africa:
What place for English? TESOL Quarterly 30, no. 3: 453
71.
Batibo, H.M. 2008. Anglicization or Tswanalization: Which way Botswana? In English
language and literature: Cross-cultural currents, ed. M.M. Bagwasi, M.M. Alimi, and
P. Ebewo, 15
6. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Baugh, J. 2004. Standard English and academic English (dialect) learners in the African
Diaspora. Journal of English Linguistics 32, no. 3: 97
209.
Bokamba, E.G. 1982. Africanisation of English. In The other tongue: English across cultures,
ed. B.B. Kachru, 77
88. New York: Pergamon Press.
Bonang, R.D. 2007. The implementation of the Communicative Language Teaching approach
in Botswana senior secondary schools. M.A. diss., Department of English, University of
Botswana.
Botswana Examinations Council and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
2007. Botswana General Certificate of Secondary Education, 2007 Examination Summary of
Results
0561 English Language. Gaborone: Botswana Examinations Council.
Brutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Canagarajah, S. 1999. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 323

Cook, V. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33,
no. 2: 185
209.
Cook, V. 2001. Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold.
Gimson, A.C. 1980. An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: ELBS & Edward
Arnold.
Government of Botswana. 1977. Education for Kagisano: Report of the National Commission
on Education. Gaborone: Government Printer.
Government of Botswana. 1993. The Report of the National Commission on Education.
Gaborone: Government Printer.
Government of Botswana. 1994. The Revised National Policy on Education. Gaborone:
Government Printer.
Graddol, D. 2000. The future of English. London: The British Council.
Graddol, D. 2006. English next: Why global English may mean the end of English as a Foreign
Language. London: The British Council.
Hamp-Lyons, L., and A. Davies. 2008. The Englishes of English tests: Bias revisited. World
Englishes 27, no. 1: 26
39.
Hamp-Lyons, L., and W.B. Zhang. 2001. World Englishes: Issues in and from academic
assessment. In Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes, ed. J. Flowerdew
and M. Peacock, 101
16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hargett, G.R. 1998. Assessment in ESL and bilingual education: A hot topic paper. NWRELs
Comprehensive Centre, Region X. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED425645.pdf
Janson, T., and J. Tsonope. 1991. Birth of a national language: The history of Setswana.
Gaborone: Heinemann.
Jenkins, J. 2003. World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua
franca. TESOL Quarterly 40, no. 1: 157
81.
Kachru, B.B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language
in the outer circle. In English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and
literatures, ed. R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson, 11
30. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kachru, B.B. 1992. Teaching World Englishes. In The other tongue. English across cultures, 2nd
ed, ed. B.B. Kachru, 355
65. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, B.B. 1996. The paradigms of marginality. World Englishes 15: 241
55.
Kachru, B.B., and C. Nelson. 1996. World Englishes. In Sociolinguistics and language teaching,
ed. S.L. McKay and N.H. Hornberger, 71
102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamwendo, G.H. 2008. English, globalisation and Botswanas Revised National Policy on
Education. In English language and literature: Cross-cultural currents, ed. M.M. Bagwasi,
M.M. Alimi, and P. Ebewo, 155
66. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2007a. World Englishes: Implications for international communication and
English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2007b. Teaching English across cultures: What do English language teachers
need to know to know how to teach English? English Australia (EA) 23, no. 2: 20
36.
Liebscher, G., and J. Dailey-OCain. 2004. Learner code switching in the content-based foreign
language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne des
Langues Vivantes 60, no. 4: 501
25.
Lowenberg, P.H. 1993. Issues of validity in tests of English as a world language: Whose
standards? World Englishes 12, no. 1: 95
106.
Merkestein, A. 1998. Deculturizing Englishes: The Botswana context. World Englishes 17:
171
85.
Mesthrie, R. 2010. New Englishes and the native speaker debate. Language Sciences 32: 594

601.
Ministry of Education. 1997. General certificate of secondary education teaching syllabus:
English. Gaborone: Curriculum Development Division, Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. 1999. Senior secondary assessment syllabus, English language.
Gaborone: Examinations, Research and Testing Division, Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education, Botswana. 1999. BGCSE marking scheme, English language. Gaborone:
Ministry of Education.
324 M. Alimi

Mufwene, S. 2002. Colonisation, globalisation, and the future of languages in the twenty-first
century. International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) 4, no. 2: 162
93.
Norrish, J. 1999. english or English? attitudes, local varieties and English language teaching.
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 3, no. 1. http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej09/a2.
html
Parakrama, A. 1995. De-hegemonising language standards. Learning from (post) colonial
Englishes about English. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Phillipson, R.H.L. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua
franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11: 133
58.
Seidlhofer, B. 2005. Standard future or half-baked quackery? In The globalisation of the
English language classroom, ed. C. Gnutzmann and F. Intermann, 159
73. Tabingen: Narr.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209
31.
Selinker, L. 1992. Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
Sridhar, S.N. 1994. A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly 28: 800
5.
Sridhar, S.N., and K.K. Sridhar. 1999. Indigenised Englishes as second languages: Towards a
functional theory of second language in multilingual contexts. In Second language
acquisition: Sociocultural and linguistic aspects of English in India, ed. R.K. Agnihotri
and A.L. Khanna, 41
63. London: Sage.
Townsend-Coles, E.K. 1985. Education in Botswana, 1966, 1986, 2006. Gaborone: Macmillan
Botswana.
Wee, L. 2002. When English is not a mother-tongue: Linguistic ownership and the Eurasian
community in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development 23, no. 4:
282
95.
Widdowson, H.G. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28: 377
89.
Copyright of Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.