WaPo on LCT languages in the FBI

As if we didn't know.

I think it's fair to say there's ample evidence that our national language policy has failed to provide us the resources it should supply.

That's what I wrote for this post originally, but there's a lot to unpack in there. In no particular order:

1. What is a "national language policy"?
2. Do we really have one? Should we?
3. What are the objectives of such a policy?
4. What exactly have we gotten out of it?

Others have made the cogent point that whether it's explicit or not, all nations have a national language policy. I largely concur - policies can congeal from all types of action or inaction in a variety of domains (education, judicial, etc.) In the case of the US, I'd argue that the primary conduit of language policy is in the schools and is largely covert. Across the country, there are all types of programs and initiatives, bilingual and monolingual alike, under the radar.

So the question of whether we should have a NLP or not is moot; we have one either intentionally or accidentally. The real question is how we want it to evolve. We can choose to maintain the current system, which is largely distributed and decentralized, or we can try to articulate what the goals and methods are. The main problem with a decentralized approach is inconsistency; the main problem with a top-down approach is that it's impossible to get politicians to agree on anything.

So what's the current policy? I'd say "keep quiet until election years, then rail against foreigners". Notice that immigration is only an issue when people try to get elected, and then the rhetoric is on how immigrants fail to assimilate vis-a-vis English. Of course, it's not like nothing happens during the two years between elections, we just don't talk about it. But again, the focus is on transitioning from other languages to English - it's a rhetoric of carve-out, not add-on.

I would argue that what a policy should attempt to achieve is abundance of linguistic resources. That is, right now the focus is on uniformity: of first language, of language "loyalties", and of culture. However, if we'd be better off if we tried to cultivate strategically important languages, such that we could grow a pool of native Arabic (or Hindi, or Mandarin) speakers. Then we wouldn't be in such a bind when we needed translators or language specialists - we'd have Americans with similar competence ready to go.

But instead, we're so fixated on English and Only English that we forget why other languages are important. And it's not that English isn't an important, it's just not the only language. And when we need to communicate (or eavesdrop, as the case may be), our targets aren't always going to be nice enough to speak English to us. That's why it's so important to develop speakers of other languages - not because of multiculturalism, not because English "isn't good enough", but because they're the ones who will be able to connect America to the rest of the world when parts of the rest of the world doesn't want to talk to us.

India, English, and Education

I've recently found Google News to be a great source for ongoing language policy debates. This article struck me as concisely describing an important point regarding language education policy, namely that English = important on a global scale.

From the article:

[Federation of Unaided Schools] president K S Kumari told reporters here that it is unfair to deprive lakhs of children from studying the universal language [] English.

Clearly English is not a "universal" language. If it were, there'd be no debate about who gets to learn it. But what he means - which is rather different than what he says - is dead on. English is important, and it is a shibboleth of sorts to international business and politics. And being proficient in those areas is certainly a good predictor of future success and upward mobility.

Unfortunately, I can't quite comment on what Kumari is arguing for or against because I'm not exactly sure what happened to which schools, nor am I clear on what the current language policy is. My best guess (which is precisely that, a guess) is that there were two kinds of schools in Karnataka, one where predominantly poorer students went where they were taught only in their native Kannada and one where the more affluent students were taught in only English. If true, that would certainly be a case of the government unequally and unfairly treating their citizens by socioeconomic status.

But what seems to lurk behind Kumari's comments is a kind of anti-Kannada/local/heritage, pro-English/cosmopolitan/business undercurrent. Perhaps I've simply read too many screeds against multilingual language policies in education and am thus jaded, but I get the distinct feeling that Kumari is claiming Kannada is worth less than English in an absolute sense, rather than in some specific instance of language use.

But as for the actual point of English = important, it's crucial to realize that that equation only holds up in certain arena. I'm a native English speaker, but drop me off around one of the schools where only Kannada is taught and I can't even order a double-double (although there are probably other factors in play). The point is, excellence in Kannada is an important skill too, and it is unwise to wholly abandon its instruction. English is certainly vital to those who wish to enter a more international lifestyle, but for those who are happy in Karnataka, English-only education deprives them of the skills they need.

The solution, as always, is two-way bilingual education. The kids - rich and poor - deserve to be fluent and accomplished in their local tongue AND have the opportunities that English affords. Apparently, the administrators in this part of India think the same way that they do in the US where they believe that language is a zero-sum game.

Quoth a wise advisor of mine "well it's NOT".

English First, Critical Thinking Never

One of the problems with language policy issues is that there's only one side out there making any points, and usually it's the wrong one. Linguists, educators, and people otherwise "in the know" have yet to construct an apparatus for making their side known. And this site is supposed to paritally correct that.

But in the meantime, what are people saying about English (and language) in America? I'll let Jim Boulet of English First do the talking:

...Hispanics know that in America, we speak English — even if our elected officials are no longer so sure. - August 6, 2003 on The Corner

So you got that? We here in America speak English and you who don't are simply being rude. And if you happen to disagree about legislatively enforcing such a belief, well you must be confused and unsure about the role of English in the United States.

I read something like this somewhere (reference forthcoming when I find it) but it would seem that if your goal was to get as many people speaking English as possible, you could not improve upon the results of American lassez-faire language policy over the last 230 years.

Useful info on the USE site

There are a few pro-Official English organizations out there, but by far the most advanced is US English. They're the most powerful lobbying group for language policy, which is bad because, well, they're usually wrong. And while I will have plenty to say about them later, I wanted to point you to some of their research. It's a pretty good place to get raw data and statistics. And to be fair, they do occasionally give credence to the opposition (us, I guess).

I especially liked their report on "American Immigration", only because it underlines the fact that for many people, language policy is a subset of immigration policy. If you think about the last wave of language policy debates (official language, bilingual ballots, etc), it was only presented within the context of immigration reform. Unfortunately for our representatives, languages and the people that speak them need attention slightly more than every 20 years, when people get scared of illegal immigrants. I don't want to go to far and say a national language policy should be carved out in the meantime, as congress could only impede progress, but it's important to realize that when the courts say language is strongly identified with national origin, this is why.

Liberty and justice for all

This is a new blog dedicated to tracking language policy issues. Primarily, it will focus on events and policies in the US, but will occasionally stray to other parts of the world.

Our major issue is English as an official language. We'll try to analyze what that means, why some people say we need it, and what effects a reasonable person might expect it to have. Most (if not all) of us that run this blog are against it, so consider that your fair warning.

By and large, the contributors to American English are linguists - people who study the structure and use of language in an academic and (some might say) scientific way. We have created this blog as an outlet for personal opinions about language policy. But it is crucial to remember that we strive to separate our positive observations about how language works from our normative arguments for how policymakers should address it. We are acutely aware that our reputation as serious people relies on our ability to interpret data objectively and we blog accordingly. But we're real people with real opinions, and we're not afraid to tell you what they are based on the evidence.

Here's to cyberspace!