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]]
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
are getting through. I am just now catching up on this discussion, as I
was away over the weekend. If this does not appear on the list, would
you post it for me? Thanks!
It is especially pertinent now in view of the legislation passed by the
Senate declaring English the "national language" of the USA. I have yet
to read the text of that law.
----
I have researched the issue of English-only considerably, having
written a major grad-school paper about the Official-English amendment
passed by CA voters in 1986. I have followed developments informally
ever since, in part to inform my students and in part out of my own
interest.
I have been reading a book lately about language regulation (called
"Verbal Hygiene", by Deborah Cameron -- an excellent book). An apt
passage says "verbal hygiene debates [i.e., language controversies] are
never only about language". In fact, she claims, they are usually
about something much bigger. As one poster pointed out, the
English-only debate has more to do with cultural supremacy than
language. Native American languages are indigenous (unless we want to
quibble about how Native Americans got here), and both Spanish and
French have deep roots -- preceding English settlement; German was
extraordinarily common in parts of the US until the 1st World War --
there were German schools and public media. Of course, the Amish and
Mennonites still speak German today (I was able to converse in German
with my brother's ex-wife, who was raised in a Mennonite family and
spoke only German until she went to school). English as a "common
language" is a myth perpetrated with the aim of imposing cultural
supremacy by the dominant group. It is pertinent to note that, when the
writers of the Constitution considered language, they declined to make
any federal policy out of respect for freedom of speech, fear of
divisiveness, and excessive federal power.
Every time we have had a wave of immigration, there have been language
concerns. Ben Franklin complained (tongue-in-cheek?) about German
taking over. In the early 20th century, there were concerns about the
flood of languages coming in with Eastern- and Southern-European, as
well as Asian, immigrants. Now it's Spanish. Jingoism rears its ugly
head when the majority feels the threat of being overwhelmed by
foreigners. (Native American languages, of course, were deliberately
extinguished by the boarding school system. In parts of the US up until
very recently (if it is not still going on), children were beaten or
punished if they spoke a Native language.
The general public (and the government, for that matter) seem to be
unaware of a whole area of governing known as language policy. The USA
sets language policy on an ad-hoc basis, allowing the general public
(via referenda) and the government (pushing political agendas) to
create policies uninformed by linguistic expertise (of which there is a
huge body on this issue). Each state does its own thing; there are
periodic proposal to amend the US Constitution to make English the only
official language, but these have never gotten out of committee (but
watch this one!) This is not the case in other countries. Canada has
been obliged to face language policy because it tries to respect human
rights and correct past wrongs. Australia and South Africa's
constitutions are quite recent, and both have formulated language
policy on the basis of both advice from linguists and true respect for
democratic principles and the right to self-determination. Both declare
English an official language, but encourage and support use and
learning of other languages. South Africa has 8 other official
languages. This doesn't cause a bureaucratic nightmare, because the
languages are regionally managed, and one goal of the education system
is to assure that all children learn English and/or Afrikaans in
addition to their native languages (many, many South Africans grow up
multilingual in several indigenous languages, so learning a language
isn't a big hairy deal as it is here). I have a handout that gives
relevant text from both constitutions; it makes great class-discussion
material when you compare it with the many laws passed by the US states
and the federal proposals. I can send these handouts to anyone who
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
November to our local paper. It was in response to an editorial by
Victor Davis Hanson, a right-winger commentator (he is a professor at
Stanford, specialty Imperial Roman military.) Hanson grew up in CA's
central valley, on a farm with a lot of Hispanic workers. His views on
treatment of immigrants are quite interesting and much more liberal
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
beyond his area of expertise, declaring English "our common bond" and
claiming bilingual education "eroded first-generation immigrants'
facility in English." He also makes the typical right-wing appeal to
the non-existent 'good old days', "the inclusivity that once worked"
prior to the 1960's. Those were the days when blacks were restricted to
inferior schools, neighborhoods, and jobs; Jews were not welcome at
posh country clubs; and more than half the population, viz., women,
were acceptable in the work force as long as they did not aspire to
men's jobs and accepted sexual comments and advances from their bosses.
Very inclusive.
All of these people spoke English. Blacks and whites shared English in
the South for hundreds of years, but the bondage of slavery seems to
have trumped the "bond" of a common language. Speaking English did not
help Irish immigrants in the nineteenth century, who suffered serious
discrimination, in large measure because they were Catholic. Oh, and
the sovereign against whom American colonists revolted in the 1770's
spoke ... English. Language certainly can be a common bond, but that bond
is easily overridden by divisive forces such as racism, sexism, and
religious intolerance.
Hanson refers to Quebec, perhaps with the strife between French and
English speakers in mind. Language-based strife generally arises when
those in power suppress a language. The English imposed restrictions on
French in Quebec long before the Quebecois turned the tables; strife in
Sri Lanka, eastern Turkey, and apartheid South Africa resulted partly
or mainly from language oppression (remember the Soweto massacre, in
which white South Africans shot and killed children who were marching
for the right to be schooled in a language they understood).
Immigrants come to America because they share values like economic
opportunity, freedom of speech and religion, and a superior education
for their children (sadly, only some reap these benefits). The great
majority of immigrants want to learn English, and want their children
to learn English. Historically, the languages of immigrant groups cease
to be used by those groups by the third generation born on American
soil; the current wave is following suit.
Where bilingual education has failed, it has failed mainly because
affluent Americans do not want to use their tax dollars to support a
high-quality education for the poor. Bilingual education comes in many
forms, and there are forms that work: resource-intensive programs that
give children five to seven years to master English while cultivating
academic proficiency in their native language. Tell me who has better
potential for "economic security" in today's global economy - a
monolingual person, or someone literate and fluent in two or more
languages? Isn't there a certain irony in the fact that we encourage or
require middle-class children to study a second language in high school
or college, but do our best to discourage bilingualism in immigrant
children?
I recommend that Mr. Hanson consult the large body of scholarly
research - by language experts - on bilingual education and language
policy. An excellent resource is James Crawford's substantial website,
including the page "Ten Common Fallacies About Bilingual Education"
(http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/crawford01.html) and the site "The
Effectiveness of Bilingual Education", hosted by the Center for Applied
Linguistics at http://www.cal.org/ericcll/faqs/rgos/bi.html. He will
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/
|
