heritage and community languages in the national language debate

5
Heritage and Community Languages in the National Language Debate Author(s): Terrence G. Wiley Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2 (Summer, 2007), pp. 252-255 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4626005 . Accessed: 25/06/2014 02:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 185.44.78.143 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:18:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Upload: terrence-g-wiley

Post on 31-Jan-2017

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Heritage and Community Languages in the National Language DebateAuthor(s): Terrence G. WileySource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2 (Summer, 2007), pp. 252-255Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4626005 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 02:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.143 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:18:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

252 The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007)

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language ac- quisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Breen, M. (2001). Postscript: New directions for re- search on learner contributions. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 172-182). London: Longman.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduc- tion. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learn- ing, teaching and testing (pp. 1-20). New York: Longman.

Byrnes, H. (2006). Perspectives. Modern Language Jour- nal, 90, 244-266.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Celce-Murcia, M., D6rnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically mo- tivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.

Hall, J. K. (1999). The communication standards. In J. Phillips & R. Terry (Eds.), Foreign language stan-

dards: Linking research, theories, and practices (pp. 15-56). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride &J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural the- ory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and sec- ond language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431-462.

Magnan, S. (2006). Enjeux et defis de l'enseignement du franCais langue etrangere en France et aux Etats- Unis. French Review, 80, 332-352.

Valdes, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? Modern Language Journal, 89, 410- 425.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Heritage and Community Languages in the National Language Debate TERRENCE G. WILEY, Division of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies, Arizona State University

Speakers of heritage and community languages (HLs-CLs) are growing in the general U.S. pop- ulation. Between 1980 and 2000, the number of speakers of languages other than English in the United States (LOTEs) has more than doubled, increasing from 23 million to 46.9 million (U.S. Census 2000). But mere change in the number of LOTE speakers does not by itself inform language policy. Despite increases in speakers of languages such as Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, and Arabic-to name just a few--most languages other than Spanish have scant repre- sentation as subjects for instruction (Draper & Hicks, 2002; Rhodes & Branaman, 1999). Based on the current national sentiments, the presence of LOTE speakers in the U.S. population, instead of constituting a demographic imperative for in- struction in these languages, represents a threat for some; whereas for others, their presence pro- vides only a resource for pragmatic or expedient policies. For still other people, the language data justify claims for civil rights protecting the indi- vidual's own HL-CL.

What are the policy implications oi. these data? For whom and for what purposes are HLs-CLs potential resources? Which LOTEs that are spo-

ken among the general population are taught and promoted? What are the implications of some languages being taught while others are not? What are the various policy stances that the government could take toward languages as resources?

Language policies are as contested as any other major social issue in the contemporary United States. Opponents of immigration, for example, contend that increased language diversity among immigrants threatens the hegemony of English, although the size of recent immigration as a per- centage of the total U.S. population is less today than at many other times in our history. Another common belief is that immigrants of today are not as eager to learn English as were the Eastern and Southern European immigrants of the previ- ous century. There is little empirical support for this view. Contemporary immigrants realize the economic and social necessity of learning English and, when given the opportunity, try to learn the language. In Arizona, the same politicians who attack contemporary immigrants for not learn- ing English fast enough frequently oppose leg- islation and court orders to increase funding for the acquisition of English. This apparent

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.143 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:18:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Perspectives 253

contradiction suggests that the real concern is not English, but the presence of the immigrants themselves.

Over the past century, the national debate over language policy has been intrinsically tied to the debate over immigration, albeit with a refurbished twist from the Cold War era on the importance of languages for national security. In times when many people in the United States feel threatened by non-English speaking countries, foreign lan- guages (e.g., Pashto, Arabic, and Persian) are valued as critical languages in a strategic sense. Similarly, as the Chinese economy surges ahead, learning Mandarin has become chic for monolin- gual English speakers in the United States. Mean- while, people not watching Univision and Telemun- do may be surprised to know that Spanish, the third largest world language, has a major mar- ket in the United States, which is the world's fifth largest Spanish-speaking nation (Garcia, 2005).

Advocates of English-only policies have di- chotomized the issue of U.S. language policy as a zero-sum game, as if there is a contest between English and other languages (Wiley, 2004). This monolingualist perspective fails to grasp the fact that languages can and do co-exist in a multilin- gual country and a multilingual world. English- only in the United States became a dominant prac- tice during World War I. Periods of war height- ened by xenophobia do not provide the best mo- ments for setting precedents for formulating lan- guage policies. Nevertheless, we still live in the shadow of World War I.

The late Senator Paul Simon (1988), lamenting the failure of the United States to promote foreign languages, remarked that, "There is more than one reason for the lack of emphasis on foreign lan- guages in the United States, but one word, Ameri- canization, explains the major part of it" (pp. 11- 12). The Americanization movement of the early 20th century occurred in tandem with the great- est period of immigration (as a percentage of total population) and World War I. It emerged when all things foreign were held suspect by local councils of defense. In a climate ofjingoist indoctrination, immigrants and their children learned that their ability to speak another language was "a matter of shame, not pride," and there was no appreci- ation for the fact that they had "a resource im- portant to them personally and important to the nation" (p. 12). The ideology of Americanization created "this unusual, deep-seated phenomenon: a historical cultural barrier to the learning of an- other language in a land of great ethnic diversity" (p. 12).

Without referring to the events behind the movement, people who cite the history of Amer- icanization seem to be the least likely to have read it. Some contemporary politicians fondly cite the xenophobic rhetoric of the early 20th-century Americanizers with reverence and offer it as a pre- scription for the 21st century (e.g., Hayworth & Eule, 2006). Thus, language policy debates of the early 21st century remain influenced by the same "general politicization of culture which the period of 1914-25 bequeathed to the rest of twentieth century America" (McClymer, 1982, p. 97).

The discourse of Americanization has several underlying premises: One language is necessary for national unity; therefore, multilingualism is divisive. Loyalty to the nation is demonstrated by speaking the national language. One cannot have divided loyalties, and, consequently, one must not speak more than one language because bilingual- ism reflects disloyalty. Last, English monolingual- ism is the coin of the realm, making it in the self- interest of immigrants, and even of indigenous language minorities, to shift to English (Kloss, 1971).

Apart from the occasional empirically based ar- guments about its pedagogical efficacy, the ran- corous debate over bilingual education of the past several decades has ended with the demise of Title VII (Crawford, 2002). The principal at- tacks on bilingual education reflected many of the premises of Americanization and Anglo confor- mity. The first major barrage was launched by Ep- stein (1977), who condemned what he saw as an implicit threat to Americanization posed by what he dubbed affirmative ethnicity--a not so veiled jab at affirmative action. Similarly, the recent Ron Unz-sponsored "English for the Children" initia- tives in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, easily garnered votes by appealing to the ideology of one country, one language (see Crawford, 2002; Donahue, 1995; Ricento, 2005; Wiley, 2004).

Bilingual education was underfunded in fed- eral legislation and largely prescribed as a remedy for English language deficits for a largely Spanish- speaking "underclass." Framed as a remedy for language deficits, bilingual education became an easy target as a failed, albeit never fully imple- mented, program (see Crawford, 2002). Mean- while, an amendment to make English the official language became a major issue of debate during the 104th Congress. Recently, a similar amend- ment was, again, added to the immigration reform bill but with less fanfare, which suggests again that immigration is really the more salient issue. When anti-immigrant voices are more timid, lan- guage diversity provides a convenient scapegoat

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.143 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:18:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

254 The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007)

(Donahue, 1995). The hegemony of American- ization and the English-only ideology preclude a discussion of other ways to consider the nation's language diversity and its linguistic position in a multilingual world.

Despite the dominance of the anti-immigrant sentiments that inspired the English-only move- ment, there are notable alternative perspectives on language diversity. These perspectives have tended to fall under the rubrics of civil rights or national resources (Ruiz, 1984). Although it is often argued that choice of language is-or should be- a fundamental human right, and various United Nations resolutions support the right to one's HL-CL, there is no mechanism to oblige nation- states to adhere to these international declara- tions (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2002). Spolsky (2004) has questioned whether the United States has a national language policy or merely civil rights. This is a useful way of framing the issue, given that major legal cases involving language have linked language to discrimination based on race and na- tional origin.

Spolsky (2004) noted that Executive Order #13166 may provide a basis for language rights. This executive order has expanded claims to lin- guistic accommodation based on race and na- tional origin. Its status as an executive order, however, gives claims to language rights a pre- carious status because executive orders can be rescinded. Although claims to linguistic accom- modation are important as protections from dis- crimination, they have less relevance for language promotion.

Ironically, the utilitarian arguments for promot- ing HLs-CLs on the basis of critical national needs are not new. The late Senator Simon made a well- reasoned, but mostly unheeded, appeal in the 1980s, largely based on pragmatic arguments that the United States needed to develop its capacity in foreign languages to be competitive in global trade. The failure of his appeal can be explained in part by the persistence of the dominant ideol- ogy discussed previously that relates language di- rectly to American identity (Simon, 1988, p. 11).

Other arguments against an English-only ap- proach appeal to notions of language as a re- source (Ruiz, 1984) and language for expediency. Ever since Sputnik was launched, utilitarian argu- ments have been advanced favoring the promo- tion of foreign language instruction in languages deemed important for national self-interest in trade, diplomacy, and national security. Contem- porary utilitarian arguments based on national self-interest often closely echo those advanced by Senator Simon (1988) several decades ago in

his book, The Tongue-Tied American. Simon ar- gued that the country was at a disadvantage in four areas: international trade, diplomacy, na- tional security, and intercultural understanding. Although he decried the failure to promote lan- guages among the general population, he did not place great emphasis on bilingual education, nor did he seem to anticipate the heritage language movement that began in the late 1990s, although it is likely that he would have endorsed it. The underlying theme in his analysis was enlightened national self-interest.

One pragmatic argument missing from Simon's list was language futures. Although English will continue to spread as a major global language, projections for the total number of speakers of various languages for the year 2050 indicate that Spanish, Hindi, Urdu, Russian, and Ara- bic will barely trail English, with Mandarin and its estimated 1.4 billion speakers outnumbering all other languages, including English (Ammon, 2003; Graddol, 1997; Grimes, 1996). By 2020, China's gross national product will have passed that of all countries except for the United States, and India's and Indonesia's economies will be on the threshold of surpassing those of most major European countries (National Intelligence Coun- cil, 2004). English, despite its status as a global language, will constitute an additional language, rather than a language that displaces regional and local languages. Thus, it is likely that trade and diplomacy will be increasingly conducted with those who speak Mandarin, Arabic, Farsi, Hindi- Urdu, Spanish, and a number of other languages.

Three decades after the late Senator Simon wrote the Tongue-Tied American (1988), the argu- ments for promoting foreign and heritage lan- guage education still hold true today. But will policymakers and the general public pay any more attention now than they did in the 1980s? To those who are primarily interested in national security, the focus on HL-CL communities is seen as a way to find resources to be used in the interests of the state (Brecht & Rivers, 2000; see Ricento, 2005, for a useful critique).

In light of the 104th congressional debate on language, one might speculate what would hap- pen if English were declared the official language of the United States. The official designation of English, by itself, could signify merely a symbolic act (Baron, 1990; Wiley, 1998). But what if the official designation of English translated into re- strictive measures limiting the use of LOTEs or an erosion of the civil rights of various ethnolin- guistic groups (Wiley, 1998)? I conclude that the passage of Official English legislation would do

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.143 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:18:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Perspectives 255

little to alter the reality of multilingualism in the United States, but could, if accompanied by more restrictive immigration policies, alter the focus of national language policy toward speaking "stan- dard" English in the face of perceived "lowered performance" in English.

Have we arrived there yet? The U.S. Senate appears to have accomplished what the 104th Congress could not by attaching two competing amendments: a Republican version calling for En- glish to be the official language of the United States and a Democratic version, largely symbolic, calling for English to be recognized as the com- mon language, which attempts to keep the door open for a language policy based on accommoda- tion. But policies based on accommodation pro- vide a weak basis for a national language policy.

Given the atrophied discourse over bilingual education, perhaps it is time to revisit Simon's thoughts on the foreign language crisis and re- cast them as the crisis of monolingualist ideology. If we value languages beyond their expediency for purposes of national security, given that the United States is the world's fifth largest Spanish- speaking nation and that nearly one person in five in the United States speaks a language other than English, by not teaching more of the languages spoken in this country in our schools, whether as HLs-CLs or as foreign languages, then we are squandering a national resource.

REFERENCES

Ammon, U. (2003). The international standing of the German language. In J. Maurais & M. A. Morris (Eds.), Languages in a globalizing world (pp. 231- 249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baron, D. (1990). The English-only question: An official language for Americans? New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- versity Press.

Brecht, R. D., & Rivers, W. P. (2000). Language and na- tional security in the 21st century: The role of Title VI/Fulbright-Hays in supporting national language capacity. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Crawford, J. (2002). Obituary: The Bilingual Educa- tion Act, 1968-2002. Policy Brief. Tempe: Lan-

guage Policy Research Unit, Educational Pol- icy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State Univer- sity. Retrieved May 11, 2005, from http://www. asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/article2.htm

Donahue, T. S. (1995). American language policy and compensatory opinion. InJ. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 112-141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Draper, J. B., & Hicks, J. H. (2002). Foreign language enrollments in public secondary schools. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.

Epstein, N. (1977). Language, ethnicity, and the schools: Policy alternatives for bilingual education. Washing- ton, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Garcia, 0. (2005). Positioning heritage languages in the United States. Modern Language Journal, 89, 601- 605.

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: The British Council.

Grimes, B. F. (1996). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (13th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International.

Hayworth, J. D., & Eule, J. J. (2006). Whatever it takes:

Illegal immigration, border security, and the war on terror. Washington, DC: Regnery.

Kloss, H. (1971). Language rights of immigrant groups. International Migration Review, 5, 250-268.

McClymer,J. F. (1982). The Americanization movement and the education of the foreign-born adult, 1914- 1925. In B. J. Weiss (Ed.), Education and the Euro-

pean immigrant: 1840-1940 (pp. 96-116). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

National Intelligence Council. (2004, December). Map- ping the globalfuture. Report of the National Intel- ligence Council's 2020 Project, NIC. NCI 2004-13. Pittsburgh, PA: Government Accounting Printing Office.

Rhodes, N. C., & Branaman, L. E. (1999). Foreign lan- guage instruction in the United States: A national sur- vey of elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the "language-as- resource" discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9, 348-368.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABEJournal, 8, 15-34.

Simon, P. (1988). The tongue-tied American: Confronting the foreign language crisis. New York: Continuum.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2002). Marvelous human rights rhetoric and grim realities: Language rights in ed- ucation. Journal of Language, Identity, and Educa- tion, 1, 179-205.

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Wiley, T. G. (1998). The imposition of World War I era English-only policies and the fate of German in North America. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and politics in the United States and Canada (pp. 211-241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiley, T. G. (2004). Language policy and English-only. In E. Finegan & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Language in the USA: Perspectives for the twenty-first century (pp. 319-338). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table DP-2. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.143 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:18:19 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions