Language in the SDGs is very much like the photographer in the room: it is omnipresent and captures all we do, yet it remains invisible itself. In all the goals and targets, there is no mention of how language plays a role in... [ view full abstract ]
Language in the SDGs is very much like the photographer in the room: it is omnipresent and captures all we do, yet it remains invisible itself. In all the goals and targets, there is no mention of how language plays a role in facilitating other outcomes, such as transparency of government (16.6) or implementation of curriculum to stabilize and sustain the environment (13.3). No target asks the question “is the information provided in language(s) that citizens can understand?”
In particular, this lack of mention of language while promoting other goals creates a paradox of sorts between goal 4 and targets 4.4, 8.5, and 8.9. Goal 4 is clear in requiring inclusive and equitable education, while targets 4.4, 8.5, and 8.9 all suggest a more vocational outlook on education which demands access to decent work and sustainable tourism as a form of employment.
Thus, the situation is this: we must be equitable and work towards inclusion, valuing diversity and indigenous cultures, but we also must focus on those skills which lead to employment and decent work, specifically focusing on tourism in certain cases. What, then, are we to do when our native language is not considered economically valuable?
This paper analyzes this question with specific focus on current policies regarding language of instruction, mother tongue proficiency and support, and language assessment. It examines how the contradiction mentioned above has played a large role in creating conflict and uneven outcomes in education and employment in the United States and the Republic of Korea, two countries which have been notable in their attempts to pursue a wide variety of language and culture policies aimed both at inclusion and at employment.
