The Politics of Language Learners: A Survey
Introduction
In Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1836/1999) essay, “On Language,” L1 is described thus: “[I]t is as if we were perceiving, in the native tongue, a portion of ourselves” (p. 59). Apologists for bilingual, or even monolingual L1 education, could therefore argue that to deny a student her native tongue is to be an accomplice in the partial dissipation of her soul. Though most would not pose the situation in so striking a manner, it could at least be widely agreed upon that one’s native language is a significant factor in the idea of personal identity. And what years are more important to the establishing of one’s identity than the formative years of primary and secondary education? Why, then, is there a core group of Americans who still oppose bilingual education (Newport, 1998; Rasmussen, 2008)? The answer can likewise be gleaned from Humboldt (1836/1999): “Language is, as it were, the outer appearance of the spirit of a people; the language is their spirit and the spirit their language” (p. 46). Just as language can shape individual identity, language is crucial to national identity. Historically, language has been used by nationalists to build up and unite, and by imperialists to divide and conquer. Language policy is inherently political.
Americans who oppose bilingual education do so because they feel their national identity to be threatened. Just as post-WWI Americans saw foreign languages as a potential enemy subversion of domestic culture (Boone, 2011), there are those today, in the post-9/11 world, who do not want foreigners (i.e., immigrants) and their language “taking over” the country. In light of this new wave of nationalism—or, depending on whom is asked, xenophobia—it would be apropos to examine how other nations are currently dealing with L1 and L2 in public education. If language is so important to the identity of individuals and nations, how can a government strike a balance between the needs of unification and the cultural integrity of non-majority ethnic (language) groups? In this paper it will be seen, first, how three countries, Mexico, England, and China, have each come to deal with the language conundrum. These findings will then be placed as a backdrop for the handling of L1 and L2 in the United States.
Mexico
Proponents of monolingualism in the United States can often be heard saying something like, “If someone went down to a school in Mexico and demanded to be taught in English, he would be kicked out of the school.” Such is not the case. English, in fact, has been in high demand as an L2 by students in Mexico, since for many English is the road to commercial success. When it comes to language policy in Mexican education, however, the issue is not with English; it is with the 62 indigenous languages and their speakers who wish to have their cultural heritage preserved and validated. With Mexico having the most Spanish speakers of any nation in the world, and with 90% of its citizens using Spanish as L1 (Terborg, 2006), it comes as no surprise that Spanish is the official language (American Institutes, 2002). Though the spread of Spanish was initiated, centuries ago, through the imperial prowess of Spain and the religious zeal of missionaries, it ended up serving, ironically, as one of the main factors that enabled the Mexican people to unite in their break from Spain in the 1917 Mexican Revolution. The still-binding 1917 Constitution stipulates that the country will “promote, through the teaching of the national language—Spanish—a common language for all Mexicans, without detriment to the protection and promotion of indigenous languages” (Terborg, 2006, p. 476). The young, independent Mexico saw the national language, Spanish, as key to its unity and sovereign power.
The language policy in education following the revolution was to use monolingual Spanish, except in cases where L1 was not Spanish; then bilingual education was allowed, but with the sole purpose of mainstreaming Spanish L2 students. That is, the bilingualism was only temporary. In a very few cases, such as in isolated villages, Spanish was not used at all (Terborg, 2006). This seemed to be the general mode of things until 1994, when a fascist action anthropology group, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), declared war against the nation of Mexico, demanding autonomy in their region (which happened to be a prime hotspot for narco-trafficking). While the EZLN soldiers were busy torturing leaders, overturning urban electricity towers, and bombing shopping centers (Cota Meza and Rush, 1995), the EZLN leaders were appealing to the governments and media for the liberation of their people and territory, where they could peacefully practice their culture[1] and indigenous languages (Terborg, 2006). I am reminded of the South’s appeal, during the American Civil War, for the oppressive U.S. government to just leave them alone to peacefully practice their agrarian way of life.
Though the Zapatista army was defeated, a deal was struck between the Mexican government and the EZLN in the 1996 San Andrés accord (Terborg, 2006), due to outside pressure (and funds) from groups such as Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and Amnesty International (Cota Meza and Rush, 1995). With all of the foreign power behind the EZLN, one wonders whose autonomy was really under threat: Mexico or the Zapatistas? The effect of the San Andrés accord on language policy was to bring the rights of indigenous people to the forefront of Mexican politics. The right of peoples to teach in their own language has been expanded, especially since the enactment of the General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People in 2003. Bilingual education has boomed, and is more widely accepted the more politically correct it becomes (Terborg, 2006). The extent to which bilingual education is or is not used is determined by, and according to the needs of, each state (American Institutes, 2002).
England
From a U.S. perspective, beginning with the events leading up to the 1776 Revolution, England has consistently provided examples of what not to do. When it comes to handling non-English-speaking L1 learners in public schools, the case is no different. Almost 10% of students in England are EAL (English as an addition language learners)—what we would call ELL. Two major pieces of legislation have determined how EAL students are to be treated in the education system. First, in 1944, the British finally caught on to the idea of universal education started by the United States, and passed the Education Act, which mandated free and compulsory education for all—in English. Second was the 1988 Education Reform Act, which, again, made English the national curriculum. Although it was already clear from the 1944 law that English would be the language of education, the idea needed to be reinforced and made more clear, due to the unexpected growth of the immigrant population beginning in the 60s, and because of confusing tendencies that may have arisen from such precedents as the U.S. case of Lau v. Nichols. The goal has always been to assimilate (Thompson, 2004), but this tendency has become increasingly unpopular, especially as more and more attention has been directed toward minority rights issues over the past several decades. When a nation, such as England, directly meddles in the affairs of other nations by using language as a divisive measure (as they are notorious for doing in Latin America) in order to protect royal assets such as drugs, diamonds, and precious metals, is it not fitting that the policy of promoting minority language rights, on foreign soil, comes back to bite them on their own soil? From this we, in the United States, can learn that trying to dictate language policy to other countries, for the benefit of our own country, will, sooner or later, negatively affect our own language policy.
China
The Chinese seem to be doing a lot of things right these days. They are effectively raising the standard of living for their citizens. They have gained self-sufficiency in their national food supply. They are leading the world in expanding infrastructure. With all they have going for them, it very well may be beneficial to study China’s handling of language policy in education. Since the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is officially communist, an interesting twist comes into play regarding the whole language debate: in the Marxist-Stalinist system, all of the various ethnicities which comprise a nation are assumed to be merging into one socialist nationality. Any affirmation of a non-dominant ethnicity, therefore, is merely a stepping stone to the eventual trans-ethnic nationality. Zhou (2002) divides the history of the PRC’s dealings with language in education into three categories. The first phase occurred during the 1949-57 period, when the Communist party (CP) was trying to win the hearts and minds of the masses away from the Nationalist party. This was the honeymoon phase of CP rule, and ethnic minorities were treated accordingly.[2] Their language and way of life were defended and validated. Each community could teach in its own language. In the second phase, 1958-77, there was a decided shift against the validity of minority languages in education. The CP began to associate local nationalism with the bourgeoisie, and, in the name of aiding the class struggle, the government stifled much of bilingual education in PRC, and pushed toward Mandarin Chinese as the language of unification. During the third phase, beginning in 1978, the policies of the second phase were practically reversed. PRC made a decided shift toward focusing on economic development, rather than class struggle, and, consequently, minority issues were once again divorced from class struggle. Since the 1980s it has been legal to have bilingual education. In 1984, for example, a law was passed allowing local governments to decide on L1 in schools, as long as Mandarin was still promoted as the national language (Zhou, 2002). As recently as 2010, however, there have been education reforms by the national government, parts of which are purported to suppress the teaching of certain languages, as in the case of making Chinese the only teaching language in the Qinghai (Tibet) province (Tibetan Review, 2011). Before making judgments on the new policy in the “Free Tibet” vein, however, it would be wise to approach the situation in terms of the historical role played by minority languages in subverting national sovereignty.
Suggestions
From the brief overview of the three chosen countries, it is clear no perfect solution exists for the language dilemma. A nation, on the one hand, must do all it can to unify its people for the purpose strength and sovereignty; but the individual, on the other hand, has the desire to keep her ethnic identity, of which language is a significant part. The main problem, of course, occurs when the intention of the nation conflicts with that of the individual, as happens when there are large indigenous populations or large influxes of immigrants. The best way seems to be a kind of middle road, as that adopted by China in the 1980s. With such a policy, the integrity of the individual’s desire to keep a non-dominant language is kept in balance with the national need for a unifying language. The United States could benefit from such an example, especially as the immigrant population continues to grow. Rather than banning bilingual education, as was done in California (Boone, 2011), the U.S. should use bilingual education for the dual purpose of validating one’s ethnic identity and promoting English as a common language. As a nation that prides itself in individual liberty, while at the same time requiring strength to guarantee that liberty, an as-needed bilingual education system would be the best approach.
References
American Institutes for Research for the Planning and Evaluation Service. (2002). Education
around the world: Mexico. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/
int_mexico.html
Boone, J. (2011, January 12). Secondary language development: Theories and foundations.
Powerpoint lecture presented in room N at Pepperdine University, Encino campus.
Cota Meza, C. and Rush, C. (1995, November 10). EZLN terrorists: A foreign invasion of
Mexico. Executive Intelligence Review, 22(45). Retrieved from http://www.larouche
pub.com/other/1995/2245_ezln.html
Humboldt, W. (1999). On language: On the diversity of human language construction and its
influence on the mental development of the human species. (P. Heath, Trans.) Cambridge
texts in the history of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. (Original work published 1836).
Newport, F. (1998, June 6). Americans support elimination of bilingual education. Gallup.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/4207/Americans-Support-Elimination-Bilingual-Education.aspx
Rasmussen. (2008, June 7). English-first still favored by most Americans. Retrieved from
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/
june_2008/english_first_still_favored_by_most_americans
Terborg, R., Landa, L. G., & Moore, P. (2006, November 1). The Language Situation in Mexico.
Current Issues in Language Planning, 7, 4, 415-518.
Thompson, L. (2004, January 1). Policy for Language Education in England: Does Less Mean
More?. Relc Journal: a Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 35, 1, 83-103.
Tibetan Review. (2011, January 14). Petition questions legality of Chinese-language policy for
Tibetans. Retrieved from http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?&id=8119 Zhou, M.
(March 08, 2002). The Politics of Bilingual Education in the People's Republic of
China since 1949. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 147-71.
Notes.
[1] Such practices include making snail-like formations by torch light and drinking blood from a cup (Cota Meza and Rush, 1995).
[2] Like in Mexico, there are a significant number of indigenous peoples with their own languages throughout China.
Introduction
In Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1836/1999) essay, “On Language,” L1 is described thus: “[I]t is as if we were perceiving, in the native tongue, a portion of ourselves” (p. 59). Apologists for bilingual, or even monolingual L1 education, could therefore argue that to deny a student her native tongue is to be an accomplice in the partial dissipation of her soul. Though most would not pose the situation in so striking a manner, it could at least be widely agreed upon that one’s native language is a significant factor in the idea of personal identity. And what years are more important to the establishing of one’s identity than the formative years of primary and secondary education? Why, then, is there a core group of Americans who still oppose bilingual education (Newport, 1998; Rasmussen, 2008)? The answer can likewise be gleaned from Humboldt (1836/1999): “Language is, as it were, the outer appearance of the spirit of a people; the language is their spirit and the spirit their language” (p. 46). Just as language can shape individual identity, language is crucial to national identity. Historically, language has been used by nationalists to build up and unite, and by imperialists to divide and conquer. Language policy is inherently political.
Americans who oppose bilingual education do so because they feel their national identity to be threatened. Just as post-WWI Americans saw foreign languages as a potential enemy subversion of domestic culture (Boone, 2011), there are those today, in the post-9/11 world, who do not want foreigners (i.e., immigrants) and their language “taking over” the country. In light of this new wave of nationalism—or, depending on whom is asked, xenophobia—it would be apropos to examine how other nations are currently dealing with L1 and L2 in public education. If language is so important to the identity of individuals and nations, how can a government strike a balance between the needs of unification and the cultural integrity of non-majority ethnic (language) groups? In this paper it will be seen, first, how three countries, Mexico, England, and China, have each come to deal with the language conundrum. These findings will then be placed as a backdrop for the handling of L1 and L2 in the United States.
Mexico
Proponents of monolingualism in the United States can often be heard saying something like, “If someone went down to a school in Mexico and demanded to be taught in English, he would be kicked out of the school.” Such is not the case. English, in fact, has been in high demand as an L2 by students in Mexico, since for many English is the road to commercial success. When it comes to language policy in Mexican education, however, the issue is not with English; it is with the 62 indigenous languages and their speakers who wish to have their cultural heritage preserved and validated. With Mexico having the most Spanish speakers of any nation in the world, and with 90% of its citizens using Spanish as L1 (Terborg, 2006), it comes as no surprise that Spanish is the official language (American Institutes, 2002). Though the spread of Spanish was initiated, centuries ago, through the imperial prowess of Spain and the religious zeal of missionaries, it ended up serving, ironically, as one of the main factors that enabled the Mexican people to unite in their break from Spain in the 1917 Mexican Revolution. The still-binding 1917 Constitution stipulates that the country will “promote, through the teaching of the national language—Spanish—a common language for all Mexicans, without detriment to the protection and promotion of indigenous languages” (Terborg, 2006, p. 476). The young, independent Mexico saw the national language, Spanish, as key to its unity and sovereign power.
The language policy in education following the revolution was to use monolingual Spanish, except in cases where L1 was not Spanish; then bilingual education was allowed, but with the sole purpose of mainstreaming Spanish L2 students. That is, the bilingualism was only temporary. In a very few cases, such as in isolated villages, Spanish was not used at all (Terborg, 2006). This seemed to be the general mode of things until 1994, when a fascist action anthropology group, the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), declared war against the nation of Mexico, demanding autonomy in their region (which happened to be a prime hotspot for narco-trafficking). While the EZLN soldiers were busy torturing leaders, overturning urban electricity towers, and bombing shopping centers (Cota Meza and Rush, 1995), the EZLN leaders were appealing to the governments and media for the liberation of their people and territory, where they could peacefully practice their culture[1] and indigenous languages (Terborg, 2006). I am reminded of the South’s appeal, during the American Civil War, for the oppressive U.S. government to just leave them alone to peacefully practice their agrarian way of life.
Though the Zapatista army was defeated, a deal was struck between the Mexican government and the EZLN in the 1996 San Andrés accord (Terborg, 2006), due to outside pressure (and funds) from groups such as Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and Amnesty International (Cota Meza and Rush, 1995). With all of the foreign power behind the EZLN, one wonders whose autonomy was really under threat: Mexico or the Zapatistas? The effect of the San Andrés accord on language policy was to bring the rights of indigenous people to the forefront of Mexican politics. The right of peoples to teach in their own language has been expanded, especially since the enactment of the General Law for the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People in 2003. Bilingual education has boomed, and is more widely accepted the more politically correct it becomes (Terborg, 2006). The extent to which bilingual education is or is not used is determined by, and according to the needs of, each state (American Institutes, 2002).
England
From a U.S. perspective, beginning with the events leading up to the 1776 Revolution, England has consistently provided examples of what not to do. When it comes to handling non-English-speaking L1 learners in public schools, the case is no different. Almost 10% of students in England are EAL (English as an addition language learners)—what we would call ELL. Two major pieces of legislation have determined how EAL students are to be treated in the education system. First, in 1944, the British finally caught on to the idea of universal education started by the United States, and passed the Education Act, which mandated free and compulsory education for all—in English. Second was the 1988 Education Reform Act, which, again, made English the national curriculum. Although it was already clear from the 1944 law that English would be the language of education, the idea needed to be reinforced and made more clear, due to the unexpected growth of the immigrant population beginning in the 60s, and because of confusing tendencies that may have arisen from such precedents as the U.S. case of Lau v. Nichols. The goal has always been to assimilate (Thompson, 2004), but this tendency has become increasingly unpopular, especially as more and more attention has been directed toward minority rights issues over the past several decades. When a nation, such as England, directly meddles in the affairs of other nations by using language as a divisive measure (as they are notorious for doing in Latin America) in order to protect royal assets such as drugs, diamonds, and precious metals, is it not fitting that the policy of promoting minority language rights, on foreign soil, comes back to bite them on their own soil? From this we, in the United States, can learn that trying to dictate language policy to other countries, for the benefit of our own country, will, sooner or later, negatively affect our own language policy.
China
The Chinese seem to be doing a lot of things right these days. They are effectively raising the standard of living for their citizens. They have gained self-sufficiency in their national food supply. They are leading the world in expanding infrastructure. With all they have going for them, it very well may be beneficial to study China’s handling of language policy in education. Since the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is officially communist, an interesting twist comes into play regarding the whole language debate: in the Marxist-Stalinist system, all of the various ethnicities which comprise a nation are assumed to be merging into one socialist nationality. Any affirmation of a non-dominant ethnicity, therefore, is merely a stepping stone to the eventual trans-ethnic nationality. Zhou (2002) divides the history of the PRC’s dealings with language in education into three categories. The first phase occurred during the 1949-57 period, when the Communist party (CP) was trying to win the hearts and minds of the masses away from the Nationalist party. This was the honeymoon phase of CP rule, and ethnic minorities were treated accordingly.[2] Their language and way of life were defended and validated. Each community could teach in its own language. In the second phase, 1958-77, there was a decided shift against the validity of minority languages in education. The CP began to associate local nationalism with the bourgeoisie, and, in the name of aiding the class struggle, the government stifled much of bilingual education in PRC, and pushed toward Mandarin Chinese as the language of unification. During the third phase, beginning in 1978, the policies of the second phase were practically reversed. PRC made a decided shift toward focusing on economic development, rather than class struggle, and, consequently, minority issues were once again divorced from class struggle. Since the 1980s it has been legal to have bilingual education. In 1984, for example, a law was passed allowing local governments to decide on L1 in schools, as long as Mandarin was still promoted as the national language (Zhou, 2002). As recently as 2010, however, there have been education reforms by the national government, parts of which are purported to suppress the teaching of certain languages, as in the case of making Chinese the only teaching language in the Qinghai (Tibet) province (Tibetan Review, 2011). Before making judgments on the new policy in the “Free Tibet” vein, however, it would be wise to approach the situation in terms of the historical role played by minority languages in subverting national sovereignty.
Suggestions
From the brief overview of the three chosen countries, it is clear no perfect solution exists for the language dilemma. A nation, on the one hand, must do all it can to unify its people for the purpose strength and sovereignty; but the individual, on the other hand, has the desire to keep her ethnic identity, of which language is a significant part. The main problem, of course, occurs when the intention of the nation conflicts with that of the individual, as happens when there are large indigenous populations or large influxes of immigrants. The best way seems to be a kind of middle road, as that adopted by China in the 1980s. With such a policy, the integrity of the individual’s desire to keep a non-dominant language is kept in balance with the national need for a unifying language. The United States could benefit from such an example, especially as the immigrant population continues to grow. Rather than banning bilingual education, as was done in California (Boone, 2011), the U.S. should use bilingual education for the dual purpose of validating one’s ethnic identity and promoting English as a common language. As a nation that prides itself in individual liberty, while at the same time requiring strength to guarantee that liberty, an as-needed bilingual education system would be the best approach.
References
American Institutes for Research for the Planning and Evaluation Service. (2002). Education
around the world: Mexico. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/
int_mexico.html
Boone, J. (2011, January 12). Secondary language development: Theories and foundations.
Powerpoint lecture presented in room N at Pepperdine University, Encino campus.
Cota Meza, C. and Rush, C. (1995, November 10). EZLN terrorists: A foreign invasion of
Mexico. Executive Intelligence Review, 22(45). Retrieved from http://www.larouche
pub.com/other/1995/2245_ezln.html
Humboldt, W. (1999). On language: On the diversity of human language construction and its
influence on the mental development of the human species. (P. Heath, Trans.) Cambridge
texts in the history of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. (Original work published 1836).
Newport, F. (1998, June 6). Americans support elimination of bilingual education. Gallup.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/4207/Americans-Support-Elimination-Bilingual-Education.aspx
Rasmussen. (2008, June 7). English-first still favored by most Americans. Retrieved from
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/
june_2008/english_first_still_favored_by_most_americans
Terborg, R., Landa, L. G., & Moore, P. (2006, November 1). The Language Situation in Mexico.
Current Issues in Language Planning, 7, 4, 415-518.
Thompson, L. (2004, January 1). Policy for Language Education in England: Does Less Mean
More?. Relc Journal: a Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 35, 1, 83-103.
Tibetan Review. (2011, January 14). Petition questions legality of Chinese-language policy for
Tibetans. Retrieved from http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?&id=8119 Zhou, M.
(March 08, 2002). The Politics of Bilingual Education in the People's Republic of
China since 1949. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 147-71.
Notes.
[1] Such practices include making snail-like formations by torch light and drinking blood from a cup (Cota Meza and Rush, 1995).
[2] Like in Mexico, there are a significant number of indigenous peoples with their own languages throughout China.
