Bilingulism and/or multilingualism is always a plus in someone's 
personal and professional life. I know this from personal experience. 
But there are people who come here as first generation immigrants and 
refuse to learn English. They live and work in gettos, and this makes 
possible for them to live for 30 or 40 years in the United States 
with less than a survival English. I met many such people in New York 
city, and I was outraged at their resistance to English and their 
defiant attitude towards the country which offered them shelter and 
privileges.


On Wed, 24 May 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...

>I'm glad to see Cal Poly has figured out how to get Johanna back 
into =
>ATEG!
>
>Johanna's excellent letter to her local paper illustrates an 
important =
>dynamic in debates of this sort.  I'll infer Hanson's remarks from 
what =
>she says in response to them, in the absence of Hanson's column.
>
>Hanson represents an intelligent, articulate, and passionate 
advocate of =
>a position who can draw on common sense wisdom.  That last phrase, =
>"common sense wisdom", is a key, because what we call common sense, 
as =
>if it were fundamental, universal truth that should be evident to =
>anyone, is in fact a cultural construct, and it's the cultural =
>constructs of national language policy, or of free trade, or of =
>education funding, that constitute the common sense we draw on.  
When =
>someone with some information and a penchant for critical thinking 
takes =
>on arguments based on CSW, that CSW is quickly shown to be riddled 
with =
>fallacies.
>
>The problem is that CSW can be transmitted in sound bites.  
Informed, =
>careful argument can't.
>
>Language, especially for monolinguals, defines us more intimately 
than =
>just about anything else in our lives.  We feel passionate about =
>language.  We tend to be suspicious of people speaking other 
languages =
>because they are different in ways we can't fathom.  And so debate 
on =
>national language policy gets rancorous and divisive, not because it 
=
>pits CSW against informed, rational argument, but because we care so 
=
>much about our language and what it signifies to and about us.
>
>Kimberley Hunt tapped into these deep feelings in her multi-ethnic 
high =
>school classroom, and, in part because of the diversity of language =
>backgrounds, her students were able to argue both passionately and =
>rationally about language policy.  That setting, unfortunately, is 
the =
>exception, but her students, having lived with bilingualism, also 
had =
>constructed an alternative CSW.  The people in the small town I live 
in =
>are overwhelmingly monolingual and can't imagine being different 
from =
>that.  Their primary models for bilingual people are the Mexican 
migrant =
>workers who work at Red Gold, the local tomato processor, and 
Japanese =
>professionals who run a local Japanese-owned auto parts factory, two 
=
>groups who are, to the locals, clearly other.
>
>As ill-founded as the monolingual CSW may be on language policy, we 
have =
>to acknowledge that it is what many people know.  They are 
passionate =
>about it and if we disagree with them we owe them the courtesy of 
taking =
>them seriously and seriously exploring the issues with them.  I have 
=
>found that when this is done with respect, a quality often lacking 
in =
>American political discourse, people often find themselves less 
bound to =
>those passionate positions than they thought they were and more open 
to =
>positions they thought they opposed.  But we don't resolve the 
policy =
>differences.  At best we get people to see other views as also 
rational, =
>sincere, and based on another sort of CSW.
>
>Herb
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Johanna Rubba [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:52 PM
>To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar; Stahlke, Herbert 
F.W.
>Cc: Johanna Rubba
>Subject: Re: English for Immigrants
>
>Herb,
>
>I got my lists crossed, and I still don't know whether my ATEG 
messages=20
>are getting through. I am just now catching up on this discussion, 
as I=20
>was away over the weekend. If this does not appear on the list, 
would=20
>you post it for me? Thanks!
>
>It is especially pertinent now in view of the legislation passed by 
the=20
>Senate declaring English the "national language" of the USA. I have 
yet=20
>to read the text of that law.
>----
>
>I have researched the issue of English-only considerably, having=20
>written a major grad-school paper about the Official-English 
amendment=20
>passed by CA voters in 1986. I have followed developments 
informally=20
>ever since, in part to inform my students and in part out of my 
own=20
>interest.
>
>I have been reading a book lately about language regulation 
(called=20
>"Verbal Hygiene", by Deborah Cameron -- an excellent book). An apt=20
>passage says "verbal hygiene debates [i.e., language controversies] 
are=20
>never only about language".  In fact, she claims, they are usually=20
>about something much bigger. As one poster pointed out, the=20
>English-only debate has more to do with cultural supremacy than=20
>language. Native American languages are indigenous (unless we want 
to=20
>quibble about how Native Americans got here), and both Spanish and=20
>French have deep roots -- preceding English settlement; German was=20
>extraordinarily common in parts of the US until the 1st World War --
=20
>there were German schools and public media. Of course, the Amish 
and=20
>Mennonites still speak German today (I was able to converse in 
German=20
>with my brother's ex-wife, who was raised in a Mennonite family 
and=20
>spoke only German until she went to school). English as a "common=20
>language" is a myth perpetrated with the aim of imposing cultural=20
>supremacy by the dominant group. It is pertinent to note that, when 
the=20
>writers of the Constitution considered language, they declined to 
make=20
>any federal policy out of respect for freedom of speech, fear of=20
>divisiveness, and excessive federal power.
>
>Every time we have had a wave of immigration, there have been 
language=20
>concerns. Ben Franklin complained (tongue-in-cheek?) about German=20
>taking over. In the early 20th century, there were concerns about 
the=20
>flood of languages coming in with Eastern- and Southern-European, 
as=20
>well as Asian, immigrants. Now it's Spanish. Jingoism rears its 
ugly=20
>head when the majority feels the threat of being overwhelmed by=20
>foreigners. (Native American languages, of course, were 
deliberately=20
>extinguished by the boarding school system. In parts of the US up 
until=20
>very recently (if it is not still going on), children were beaten 
or=20
>punished if they spoke a Native language.
>
>The general public (and the government, for that matter) seem to 
be=20
>unaware of a whole area of governing known as language policy. The 
USA=20
>sets language policy on an ad-hoc basis, allowing the general 
public=20
>(via referenda) and the government (pushing political agendas) to=20
>create policies uninformed by linguistic expertise (of which there 
is a=20
>huge body on this issue). Each state does its own thing;  there 
are=20
>periodic proposal to amend the US Constitution to make English the 
only=20
>official language, but these have never gotten out of committee 
(but=20
>watch this one!) This is not the case in other countries. Canada 
has=20
>been obliged to face language policy because it tries to respect 
human=20
>rights and correct past wrongs. Australia and South Africa's=20
>constitutions are quite recent, and both have formulated language=20
>policy on the basis of both advice from linguists and true respect 
for=20
>democratic principles and the right to self-determination. Both 
declare=20
>English an official language, but  encourage and support use and=20
>learning of other languages. South Africa has 8 other official=20
>languages. This doesn't cause a bureaucratic nightmare, because 
the=20
>languages are regionally managed, and one goal of the education 
system=20
>is to assure that all children learn English and/or Afrikaans in=20
>addition to their native languages (many, many South Africans grow 
up=20
>multilingual in several indigenous languages, so learning a 
language=20
>isn't a big hairy deal as it is here). I have a handout that gives=20
>relevant text from both constitutions; it makes great class-
discussion=20
>material when you compare it with the many laws passed by the US 
states=20
>and the federal proposals. I can send these handouts to anyone who=20
>wants one. You can learn all about these at this excellent website:
>
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/
>
>Below my signature in this message is a copy of a letter I wrote 
in=20
>November to our local paper. It was in response to an editorial by=20
>Victor Davis Hanson, a right-winger commentator (he is a professor 
at=20
>Stanford, specialty Imperial Roman military.) Hanson grew up in 
CA's=20
>central valley, on a farm with a lot of Hispanic workers. His views 
on=20
>treatment of immigrants are quite interesting and much more 
liberal=20
>than most conservatives, but his ideas about language are Stone-Age.
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>Linguistics Minor Advisor
>English Department
>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Tel.: 805.756.2184
>Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>"Once again, Victor Davis Hanson (Commentary, 11/20/05) 
pontificates=20
>beyond his area of expertise, declaring English "our common bond" 
and=20
>claiming bilingual education "eroded first-generation immigrants'=20
>facility in English." He also makes the typical right-wing appeal 
to=20
>the non-existent 'good old days', "the inclusivity that once 
worked"=20
>prior to the 1960's. Those were the days when blacks were restricted 
to=20
>inferior schools, neighborhoods, and jobs; Jews were not welcome 
at=20
>posh country clubs; and more than half the population, viz., 
women,=20
>were acceptable in the work force as long as they did not aspire 
to=20
>men's jobs and accepted sexual comments and advances from their 
bosses.=20
>Very inclusive.=A0
>
>All of these people spoke English. Blacks and whites shared English 
in=20
>the South for hundreds of years, but the bondage of slavery seems 
to=20
>have trumped the "bond" of a common language. Speaking English did 
not=20
>help Irish immigrants in the nineteenth century, who suffered 
serious=20
>discrimination, in large measure because they were Catholic. Oh, 
and=20
>the sovereign against whom American colonists revolted in the 
1770's=20
>spoke ... English. Language certainly can be a common bond, but that 
=
>bond=20
>is easily overridden by divisive forces such as racism, sexism, 
and=20
>religious intolerance.
>
>Hanson refers to Quebec, perhaps with the strife between French 
and=20
>English speakers in mind. Language-based strife generally arises 
when=20
>those in power suppress a language. The English imposed restrictions 
on=20
>French in Quebec long before the Quebecois turned the tables; strife 
in=20
>Sri Lanka, eastern Turkey, and apartheid South Africa resulted 
partly=20
>or mainly from language oppression (remember the Soweto massacre, 
in=20
>which white South Africans shot and killed children who were 
marching=20
>for the right to be schooled in a language they understood).
>
>Immigrants come to America because they share values like economic=20
>opportunity, freedom of speech and religion, and a superior 
education=20
>for their children (sadly, only some reap these benefits). The 
great=20
>majority of immigrants want to learn English, and want their 
children=20
>to learn English. Historically, the languages of immigrant groups 
cease=20
>to be used by those groups by the third generation born on 
American=20
>soil; the current wave is following suit.
>
>Where bilingual education has failed, it has failed mainly because=20
>affluent Americans do not want to use their tax dollars to support 
a=20
>high-quality education for the poor. Bilingual education comes in 
many=20
>forms, and there are forms that work: resource-intensive programs 
that=20
>give children five to seven years to master English while 
cultivating=20
>academic proficiency in their native language. Tell me who has 
better=20
>potential for "economic security" in today's global economy - a=20
>monolingual person, or someone literate and fluent in two or more=20
>languages? Isn't there a certain irony in the fact that we encourage 
or=20
>require middle-class children to study a second language in high 
school=20
>or college, but do our best to discourage bilingualism in 
immigrant=20
>children?
>
>I recommend that Mr. Hanson consult the large body of scholarly=20
>research - by language experts - on bilingual education and 
language=20
>policy. An excellent resource is James Crawford's substantial 
website,=20
>including the page "Ten Common Fallacies About Bilingual 
Education"=20
>(http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/crawford01.html) and the 
site "The=20
>Effectiveness of Bilingual Education", hosted by the Center for 
Applied=20
>Linguistics at http://www.cal.org/ericcll/faqs/rgos/bi.html. He 
will=20
>then have standing to express an opinion on these issues."
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web 
interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/