[This
material
may be used
for educational or academic purposes if cited or referred to as:
Peter
Tiersma,
Language
Rights, Bilingualism, and Official English,
http://www.languageandlaw.org/LANGRTS.HTM]
My chapter
on Language Rights in the US is available online at SSRN.
What is
Bilingualism?
The term
bilingual (or multilingual) can be used in various ways. In
reference
to an individual, it generally means someone who speaks two languages
(or
more, in the case of a multilingual person). When used in
reference
to groups of people or countries, it may describe a situation where
people
speaking different languages live in the same political or social
unit.
Obviously, this situation exists around the world. Examples of
officially
bilingual countries are Canada and Belgium. Multilingual contries
include
Singapore, South Africa, and Switzerland.
As a result, we can say that a person is bilingual (speaks
two languages) or is multilingual (speaks multiple languages, also
called
polygolt). Or we can say that a country is bilingual or
multilingual.
There have been a number of studies on bilingual people by
various
linguists and other social scientists. I will focus here on some
of
the legal issues presented by bilingualism.
Bilingualism Around the World
We often tend to think that it is a very natural
situation
for one country to have one language. Germany is full of German
speakers,
French is the language of France, and so forth. Yet even
established
western European nations have a fair degree of linguistic
diversity.
Consider Sweden, one of the Scandinavian countries. The native
language
of most Swedes is, indeed, Swedish. But traditionally they speak
Swedish
in various dialects. Furthermore, a river separates Sweden from
its
neighbor, Finland. Rivers make good borders. Yet they are
not
absolute linguistic barriers; in this case, there is a substantial
Finnish-speaking
community on the Swedish side. Moreover, the north of the country
is
the home of the Lapps, or Sámi, whose language is related to
Finnish.
And, of course, Sweden has its share of recent immigrants.
Like Sweden, almost all western European nations are linguistically diverse not just because of recent immigration; most contain indigenous minorities as well. Great Britain and Ireland, for instance, have remnants of Celtic languages which were once spoken throughout the British isles: Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Gaelic, as well as Cornish and Manx, which are severely threatened or have died out in relatively recent times. Germany has a Sorbian (or Wendish) speaking minority in the east, and Frisian speakers in the north (Frisian is closely related to English). The Netherlands, whose official language is Dutch, also has around half a million Frisian speakers. Both Germany and the Netherlands have substantial immigrant communities, who speak eastern and southern European, as well as north African, languages.
The official language of France is French, of course,
but another Romance language--Occitan, which includes Provençal,
the
language of the troubadours--is still fairly widely spoken today.
Although
France once had a relatively repressive attitude towards anything that
was
not French, it has more recently given official regional status to
several
languages, including Breton (a Celtic language that is still spoken by
around
half a million people) Basque, Catalan, and Corsican. In
addition,
there are over a million speakers of a type of German in
Alsace-Lorraine,
as well as a small number of Dutch or Flemish speakers on the border
with
Belgium. Many Gypsies still speak Romany. Later immigrants
to
France brought along their own languages, including Arabic, Portuguese,
and
Turkish.
Italy is another country that has far more linguistic
diversity than many people imagine. In addition to recent
immigrants,
it has no less than thirteen historical minorities: Albanian, Catalan,
Franco-Provençal,
French, Friulian, German (Tirolian), Greek, Ladino, Occitanian, Romany
(Gypsy),
Sardinian, Croat, and Slovenian.
In all the above countries, there is a single national
language that is widely spoken and which has been used for most
official
purposes. That may explain why there has been relatively little
linguistic
strife in these countries. Speakers of the majority language were
plentiful
and powerful enough to easily overwhelm--or suppress--minority
linguistic
groups.
Some European countries have experienced a fair amount
of linguistic strife. A well known case is Belgium, where roughly
40%
of the population natively speaks French (the Walloons) and about 60%
speaks
Dutch or Flemish (the Flemings). Historically, French speakers
dominated
their Flemish countrymen, leading to resentment by the Flemings.
Spain is another European country that has experienced
some linguistic strife. Early on, the Spanish realized the
importance
of language. When Antonio de Nebrija presented his grammar of the
Castilian
language to Queen Isabella, who wondered what its purpose was, the
bishop
of Avila wryly observed that "language is the perfect instrument of
empire."
The Spanish not only promoted their language in their empire in the New
World,
but at home also. The policy in favor of Castilian Spanish was
reinvigorated
by Francisco Franco (dictator of Spain from 1939-75), who tried to
banish
minority languages such as Catalan (a Romance language spoken in the
area
around Barcelona) and Basque (spoken near the French border; it is
unrelated
to any known language). The Franco policy has been characterized
as
"most drastic and oppressive attempt at unity in Spain."
Unfortunately,
what it achieved was not unity but a fervent and sometimes deadly
Basque
separatist movement. Now that Spain has become a democracy, the
Catalans
and Basques have gained substantial linguistic freedom. Article 3
of
the 1978 Spanish constitution still declares that Castilian (Spanish)
is
the official language of state and that all Spaniards ought to be able
to
speak it. But it further provides that the country's other idioms
are
official in their respective autonomous communities. In fact, the
constitutuion
specifically recognizes that "the richness of the linguistic modalities
of
Spain is a cultural patrimony which will be the object of special
respect
and protection."
The Russian empire likewise tried to use language to unify the diverse peoples within its territory. Its policy was expressed in the maxim: "One emperor, one religion, one language." When the Bolsheviks first took power, they adopted a more progressive approach. They realized that the minorities in the USSR resented the pro-Russian policy, so their constitution guaranteed minorities the right to use their own languages in government and education. The country was divided into 17 union republics, each of which could use its language for its internal affairs. Inside each union republic were autonomous republics; they also were allowed to use their own language within the republic.
Yet before long the Soviet government, like the tsarists
before them, began to worry about the large number of linguistic
minorities
within its borders. While officially adhering to multilingualism,
the
Soviets in fact implemented a new policy that promoted the Russian
language
among the many linguistic minorities in the Soviet Union, with the
ultimate
aim of gradually making Russian the language of a new Soviet
nationality.
They also encouraged many Russians to migrate to non-Russian republics
in
order to speed up the process. As recent events have amply
demonstrated,
those coercive policies created at best a forced sense of unity.
The breakup of the Soviet Union gave new freedom to many
linguistic minorities, such as speakers of Estonian, Latvian,
Lithuanian,
Georgian, Uzbek, Turkmen, and so forth, all of whom were able to
establish
independent countries with their native languages as medium of
government,
education, and culture. This was, of course, a positive
development.
The problem that arose, however, was that virtually all of these
countries
had linguistic minorities of their own. When it came to
establishing
their governments, many of these newly independent nations adopted
policies
remarkably similar to the tsarist or Bolshevik "russification" that
they
hated so much when they formed part of the USSR.
Georgia, for instance, is a country of over five million
people. The official languages are Georgian (spoken by around 65%
of
the population) and--ironically--Russian (spoken by around 9%).
Ten
other languages are spoken, including Abkhaz, Armenian, and
Ossetic.
Some of these groups are now in the process of trying to gain their own
autonomy,
but the process has not always been peaceful.
The movement of Russian speakers into other regions of
the USSR to promote russification has come to haunt the newly
independent
Baltic republics. Each country made its indigenous
language--Estonian,
Lithuanian, and Latvian--official. Yet because of the Soviet
russification
policy, around 40% of the population of Estonia in 1990 was Russian, as
well
as 28% of Lithuania, and 50% of Latvia. As one Latvian leader
rhetorically
asked: "how will we be able to live in an independent Latvia where 50%
of
the population are Russians? We would be subject to a permanent
biological
war, and if their birthrate is higher, then we would be threatened with
extinction."
The Baltic states thus have made knowledge of their official languages
a
requirement for citizenship and promoted them in education and
elsewhere.
This, in turn, has led to charges from Russians living in those
countries
that now their language is being discriminated against!
One might conclude from the survey so far that bilingualism
almost always seems to involve one group dominating another and
suppressing
its language, leading to resentment and resistance by the
minority.
All too often that has been the case, although conditions have improved
in
recent decades. One country that serves as an outstanding
illustration
that bilingualism need not lead to strife is Switzerland. Most of
the
population (around 65%) speaks German, which in many other places might
have
been sufficient reason to make that language official. Instead,
the
Swiss developed a federal model in which each of the cantons uses its
own
language. For federal purposes, all four languages--German,
French,
Italian, and Rhaetian or Romansh--are official.
In much of Asia and Africa, the situation has been compounded--or
perhaps simplified--by colonialism. In the typical situation,
European
powers came to occupy areas that contained various indigenous
languages.
They made Dutch, English, French, or Portuguese the language of
government
and higher education. Thus, when a country like India became
independent
after World War II, many of its leaders had been educated in English
and
were used to government in that language. Moreover, English was
the
common language of the elite of virtually all Indian ethnic
groups.
Thus, it was almost a practical necessity to make English an official
language.
At the same time, there was strong sentiment for making one of India's
indigenous
languages official. The problem was, which one? India has
over
350 different languages! Many westerners have never heard of most
of
them--including Bengali, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, and
Telugu--despite
the fact that each of these languages has tens of millions of speakers,
many
more than familiar European tongues like Danish, Dutch, Norwegian,
Portuguese,
or Swedish.
What Indian leaders decided to do was make Hindi, spoken by roughly half the population, the second national language. Making Hindi a national language might seem logical enough, but it was and remains controversial. In the south of the country, over 150 million people speak Dravidian languages (such as Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, and Malayalam). Dravidian languages are unrelated to Hindi, which belongs to the Indo-Aryan family. If Hindi were the only national language, Dravidian speakers would have to struggle to learn Hindi in order to have access to government jobs and other benefits. Native Hindi speakers (or those who speak closely related Indo-Aryan languages) would have a clear advantage. With respect to English, however, all Indians are at a roughly equal disadvantage; it is equally "foreign" to speakers of all of India's languages. Consequently, despite nationalist sentiment to have all government business conducted in an indigenous Indian tongue (Hindi), English has remained one of India's two national languages, and is often used for legal purposes.
India, despite its many languages, has had very little linguistic bickering during its history as an independent nation. Most unrest in that country appears to be religious in nature. Language seems to have played more of a role in Sri Lanka, an island nation on India's southern tip. Approximately three quarters of the population speaks Sinhalese, an Indo-Aryan language. Most of the rest are Tamils, who speak a Dravidian language. Although there have been tensions between the two groups for some time, ethnic relations worsened substantially in 1956 when the island enacted a "Sinhalese Only" law requiring all government officials to be able to speak Sinhalese (without requiring Sinhalese to learn the language of the Tamils). Consequently, many Tamils lost their government jobs. No doubt many other factors have played a role, but linguistic suppression of this sort commonly backfires, as linguering hostilities on Sri Lanka vividly illustrate.
Another island nation in Asia reveals that a more progressive attitude can produce profoundly different results. Singapore is often called the Switzerland of Asia for its cleanliness and efficiency. Yet it resembles Switzerland in another sense: it has four official languages (Chinese, English, Malay, and Tamil). For a country of around three million people to promote four official languages is surely not the most economical approach, but it has definitely encouraged great stability.
Most of the Asian countries discussed so far were European
colonies for a period of time, but this was not univerally true.
Besides
Japan, China is an obvious illustration. Mandarin Chinese is its
official
language. Many other Chinese "dialects" are widely spoken, but
because
they are all written with the same characters, the choice of Mandarin
as
official does not seem to have been especially controversial.
China
also has many minority languages, some of which are official regional
languages
(such as Mongolian, Tibetan, and Uighur).
Various African nations, which typically have a great
deal of multilingualism, were subjected to colonialism and have had to
make
choices like those confronted by India. An example is Ivory
Coast,
whose roughly 13 million citizens speak approximately 70 languages,
including
Akar, Bete, and Senufo. Yet French, the parole of their former
colonial
masters, is the official language. Likewise, Nigeria's
official
language is English, reflecting its history as a British colony.
Hausa,
Ibo, and Yoruba are official regional languages. Others have
official
status within a locality, such as Edo, Efik, Fulfulde, Idoma, and
Kanuri.
Overall, around 400 languages are used in the country, although some
have
very few speakers.
Maintaining former colonial languages is one
solution
to the problem of inter-ethnic communication and the need for an
official
language. Another is the use of a trade language or lingua
franca.
Swahili is perhaps the best known illustration. It is a Bantu
language
with much Arabic influence that has some four million native
speakers.
Yet around 30 million people in East Africa--not native speakers--use
Swahili
to communicate with speakers of other languages. Swahili has
official
status in Tanzania and Kenya.
The New World also experienced widespread colonialism,
but with some important differences from Asia and Africa. One
distinction
is that many more Europeans emigrated to North and South America,
creating
a substantial base of speakers of languages such as English, French,
Spanish,
and Portuguese. Moreover, the widespread immigration often
overwhelmed
indigenous people, killed many of them outright, or decimated the local
population
by introducing previously unknown European diseases. The
consequence
has been that unlike Africa and Asia, where indigenous languages are
still
spoken by almost everyone, most new world countries are dominated by
speakers
of European languages. The only New World country in which an
indigenous
tongue is the majority language is Paraguay. The language is
Guaraní,
which is official along with Spanish. Incidentally, if
Greenland
is considered part of the New World, then Greenlandic Eskimo is another
indigenous
language with official status (along with Danish).
Beyond these exceptions, European languages are spoken
by the vast majority of the population in North and South America, and
are
official in all nations in the hemisphere. Still, there is a fair
amount
of bilingualism, created by both indigenous and immigrant
languages.
Countries in the middle and lower part of South America (especially
Argentina
and Brazil) have had relatively high levels of immigration, including
Germans,
Italians, and Japanese, among others. Brazil (whose official
language
is Portuguese) also has speakers of around 170 indigenous languages,
such
as Baniwa, Kaingáng, Ticuna, and Yanomámi. Most,
unfortunately,
are threatened by continuing encroachment by settlers on the homelands
of
their speakers. In the Andes region, native languages have
fared
somewhat better. In Bolivia and Peru, there are still large
numbers
of speakers of Quechua and Aymara. Nonetheless, Spanish is
the
official language in both countries. Even though in Bolivia only
some
35% of the population commonly speaks Spanish, it was only in 1999 that
a
new criminal code finally required interpreters in the major indigenous
languages.
Most Central American nations likewise have varying mixes
of indigenous and immigrant languages. Most notable, perhaps, is
Guatemala,
whose official language is Spanish. Nonetheless, around half the
population
speaks one of several indigenous languages; most of them are
Mayan.
The conflict in that country during the past decade or two owes its
origins
largely to suppression of Mayan culture and language by the
Spanish-speaking
elite.
The
Linguistic
Situation
in Canada
Proceeding to North America, the linguistic
situation
in Canada has garnered much attention in recent decades. As is so
often
the case, the Canadan circumstances can only be understood against the
background
of history. Although both French and English have official
status,
the French language--and by extension, its speakers--was long
considered
inferior. At least in the past, French speakers (sometimes called
Francophones)
were "considerably lower on the socio-economic scale.
Furthermore,
the federal administration functioned almost entirely in
English.
Francophone Quebeckers thus felt that they were legally and
economically
inferior to English speakers, even within their own
province.
Not surprisingly, this led to much resentment. As one commentator
has
remarked: "Separatist tendencies grow in Quebec in direct proportion to
the
perception that French-speaking Quebeckers are getting a raw deal from
Anglophone
Ottawa." Perhaps more ominous were demographic
pressures.
The Francophone Quebec birthrate started to decline in the 1960s, while
the
number of immigrants (who mostly preferred English over French) grew.
Despite the inferior position of French at one time, Canada's
Charter of Rights and Freedoms now makes both French and English the
official
languages of Canada and declares them to be of equal status. It
provides
that either language may be used to debate in Parliament, in court
proceedings,
or in communications with the government. Statutes and records of
Parliament
are to be published in both languages, and each is equally
authoritative.
Furthermore, if citizens are members of an English- or French-speaking
minority
within a province, they have a right to have their children educated in
that
language.
Even though Canada is now firmly committed to
official
bilingualism, the French speakers of Quebec, numbering around 6 million
and
not increasing very quickly, continue to view themselves as a
vulnerable
minority surrounded by an ocean of English speakers. Perhaps as a
consequence,
the government of Quebec has enacted the Charter of the French
Language.
This charter largely negates Canadian bilingualism within the province
of
Quebec. It states in the preamble that the French language is the
instrument
by which the people have articulated their identity, and that the
people
of the province wish to see the quality and influence of the French
language
assured. Therefore, Her Majesty (yes, the Queen of England,
moonlighting as the Queen of Canada), with
the
advice and consent of the Assemblée Nationale du Québec,
enacts
that French is the official language of Quebec. It is the
language
of the legislature, of the courts, and of all statutes. Provision
is
made for translation into English, but only the French version is
official.
French is the sole language to be used within the government.
Only
French may appear on traffic signs. Professional corporations
must
be designated by their French names alone. Employers may conduct
written
communications with employees only in French. Associations of
employees
must use French in communicating with members. Toys and games may
not
be offered to the public unless there is a French version
available.
Signs, posters, and advertising must be in the official language.
Instruction
in primary and secondary schools shall be in French, unless the child's
parents
were educated in English in Quebec.
Quebec's language law also creates various bodies to implement and enforce it. An Office de la Langue Française is charged with ensuring that French becomes the language of communication, work, commerce, and business in civil administration and business firms. The Commission de Toponymie is to formulate and standardize geographical names in French. Perhaps most controversially, a Commission de Surveillance is to investigate noncompliance with the act. Fines will be imposed on violators. In essence, Quebec has forcefully rejected Canada's policy of official bilingualism, replacing it with official monolingualism within the province.
Many Anglophone Canadians are unhappy with Quebec's rejection of bilingualism within the province. Residents of English-speaking provinces are annoyed that they are required to provide services in French to any French-speaker, while Quebec refuses to reciprocate to English-speakers within their jurisdiction. For the time being, the situation appears to be at a stalemate. Voters in Quebec recently rejected independence by an extremely narrow margin: 49.4% favored severing the province from Canada. What will happen in the future is anybody's guess.
Recently, Canada has started to give greater rights to speakers of its
indigenous language. Malcolm Greig has pointed out to me that on
June 5, 2007, Bill 6, the proposed Official Languages Act and Bill 7,
the proposed Inuit Language Protection Act received first reading in
the Legislative Assembly. On June 6, 2007, both bills received second
reading and were referred to this committee for scrutiny. They're
currently having public hearings (with translation into Inuktitut,
Inuinnaqtun, French, and English). http://www.gov.nu.ca/english/ and
http://www.assembly.nu.ca/english/index.html
Greig also observes that Nunavut used to be part of
the Northwest Territories. The Official Languages Act recognizes eleven
Official Languages in the Northwest Territories, and provides that the
public has certain rights with respect to using those languages: See
http://www.gov.nt.ca/langcom/english/general-information/what-is-official-lang-act.html
Language Policy in the United States
America is often called a nation of
immigrants.
The very earliest immigrants, of course, were the Native Americans or
Indians.
Many of them seem to have wandered over a land bridge that once
connected
Alaska to Siberia and then made their way down the hemisphere, although
some
people are now proposing alternative theories. Unfortunately, native
American
languages have changed so much over the millennia that it may be
impossible
to prove a linguistic link to Siberia (or anywhere else, for that
matter).
Most Native Americans and their languages seem to derive
from waves of migration across the Bering Strait, which took place
perhaps
15,000 or 20,000 years ago (some recent archaelogical evidence suggests
that
the date may be earlier, however). How many languages came over
the
Bering Strait is a matter of some controversy. The
anthropological
linguist Joseph Greenberg has posited that all of the hundreds of North
and
South American languages can ultimately be traced to three original
languages:
Amerind, Na-Dene, and Eskimo-Aleut. His hypothesis suggests that
there
were three major waves of migration, in the above order.
Other
linguists are much more cautious. They would probably agree that
Na-Dene
and Eskimo-Aleut represent two original families. But instead of
one
large Amerind grouping, these linguists posit dozens of different
language
families whose relationship to one another remains to be proven (if,
indeed,
it ever can be).
In any event, when the Europeans arrived in what is now the United States, they encountered tremendous linguistic diversity. Some of the language families include Algonquian (such as Blackfoot, Cheyene, Cree, Menomini, and Ojibwa); Iroquoian (Cherokee and Mohawk, among others); Siouan (including Sioux and Winnebago); Uto-Aztecan (Hopi and some other Pueblo languages; Shoshone, Paiute); and Yuman (Mojave, Diegueño). As mentioned, possible later arrivals were the Na-Dene, roughly synonymous with Athabaskan; this family includes some Alaskan languages, as well as Apache and Navajo. The most recent arrivals spoke languages classified as Eskimo-Aleut (consisting of several related languages spoken in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Siberia).
When the Europeans arrived, they had little understanding of the tremendous linguistic diversity in the Americas. Some apparently felt that the Native Americans did not have language at all, or believed that their speech was not comparable to European languages. Columbus, for instance, wrote in his journal that he planned to capture six Indians and bring them back to Spain "that they may learn to speak." The Spanish, as mentioned previously, viewed language as a way to establish an empire, in which Spanish was to be the common language and Catholicism the common religion. To a large extent, they succeeded.
The process was similar in what is now the United States.
Most colonists, unless they were traders or missionaries to the
Indians,
saw little reason to learn the native languages that they
encountered.
Not surprisingly, the languages spoken in the more settled parts of the
original
thirteen colonies did not long survive the onslaught of European
immigrants.
The situation with European languages in the original
thirteen colonies was also more diverse than is popularly
thought.
At the time of the Revolutionary War, many Germans lived in
Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia and New York. There were a substantial number
of
Dutch speakers in New York and Delaware. In the midwestern
territories
east of the Mississippi, most European inhabitants were
French.
Interestingly, none of the original thirteen states
found
it necessary to declare English its official language. This was
true
even in Pennsylvania, despite the famous fears of Benjamin
Franklin.
The Philadelphia publisher was afraid that the many Germans in the
state
were not assimilating linguistically: "Few of their children in the
Country
learn English; they import many books from Germany; and of the six
printing
houses in the Province, two are entirely German." He
suggested
that the Germans in Pennsylvania "will soon so out number us, that . .
.
we . . . will not . . . be able to preserve our language, and even our
Government
will become precarious." In a few years, Franklin mused, it
might
become necessary to use interpreters in the state Assembly, "to tell
one
half of our Legislators what the other half say."
Not only did Pennsylvania fail to declare English its
official language, but during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
century
the state published statutes and other official documents in
German.
Pennsylvania, along with some other states, even allowed the
establishment
of German-language public schools during this period.
Despite
the "Muhlenberg legend," however, German never came close to becoming
the
national language of the United States or of any individual state.
The founders of the United States likewise seem to have
felt no need to make English the official language of the federal
government.
As in some of the states, early federal leaders were willing to use
languages
other than English for official purposes. For example, the
Continental
Congress had many of its proclamations translated and printed in
German.
It also authorized a German translation of the Articles of
Confederation.
Of course, authorizing an occasional publication in German
or French does not mean that Pennsylvania or the federal government
were
implicitly endorsing bilingualism. The founding fathers most
likely
considered it self-evident that English would be the language of
government.
At the same time, most of them (besides Franklin) seem not to have felt
threatened
by the presence of other languages.
In contrast, the policy towards Native American languages
developed into specific efforts to encourage Indians to give up their
languages
and cultures. Treaties made in the beginning of the nineteenth
century,
such as that with the Chippewa, Menominie, and Winnebago,
provided
for the establishment of schools for Indian children. The schools
were
obviously intended "to encourage industry, thrift, and morality, and by
every
possible means to promote their advancement in
civilization."
Apparently, many of the Indians were not particularly attracted by this
prospect.
Later treaties made attendance at these schools compulsory.
The
reason for these measures was explained by Indian Commissioner Price in
1881:
one of two things must eventually take place, to wit, either civilization or extermination of the Indian. . . . If the Indians are to be civilized and become a happy and prosperous people, which is certainly the object and intention of our government, they must learn our language and adopt our modes of life. . . . The few must yield to the many.
Beginning
with the Yankton Sioux in 1858, subsequent treaties explicitly required
that
children at these schools be taught to read in English. On
this
website is a copy of the Ft. Laramie
treaty
with the Sioux, which has a similar provision. The federal policy
of
civilizing the Indian went a step further when, in 1887, it was
forbidden
to teach the Indian youth "in his own barbarous dialect." The
order,
which applied to missionary as well as federally-funded schools, was
propounded
because "if any Indian vernacular is allowed to be taught by the
missionaries
in schools on Indian reservations, it will prejudice the youthful pupil
as
well as his untutored and uncivilized or semi-civilized parent against
the
English language." Teaching English to native children was the
first
step towards teaching them the "mischief and folly of continuing in
their
barbarous practices."
Perhaps the most notorious implementation of this policy
was the establishment of boarding schools. Beginning with the
first
such school in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in 1879, the boarding school was
a
mainstay of federal policy for the ensuing fifty or so
years.
In these schools, where pupils were often hundreds of miles from their
parents,
the use of the native language was avoided, and students could be and
often
were punished for using their own language at play.
The 1930's witnessed a change in American Indian policy,
championed by Commissioner John Collier (1933-1945). Collier
urged
that the Indians be encouraged to retain much of their culture and he
reduced
the emphasis on assimilation. The use of native languages to
promote
learning in schools was encouraged. Among the Navajo, for
example,
there was an experiment to teach Navajo as a written language in order
to
facilitate the acquisition of English. And the Native
American
Language Act, passed by Congress in 1990, recognized that "the status
of
the cultures and languages of Native Americans is unique and the United
States
has the responsibility to act together with Native Americans to ensure
the
survival of these unique cultures and languages."
Unfortunately, the reversal in policy came to late for many of the tribes. Large numbers of indigenous American languages have become extinct, or are very near to dying out. California, for instance, was home to dozens of different native languages at one time. Today, many survive, but none are being acquired as a first language by children. Revival efforts are underway, but it will be a difficult battle.
World War
I
and Meyer v.
Nebraska
As mentioned, the American policy towards
European
languages other than English was in some ways more benign than its
treatment
of native American languages. For the most part, it took the
approach
that they would probably die out naturally rather than needing to
exterminate
them. But that attitude changed beginning around 1880. This
was
a time of great immigration to the United States, and of corresponding
anti-immigrant
sentiments.
World War I added fuel to the fire. The anti-German
hysteria of the time even extended to other nationalities. The
Dutch
in the Midwest, for example, had churches burned and felt obligated to
switch
religious services to English--even though the Netherlands was neutral
in
war. On the federal level, the government enacted the Trading
with
the Enemy Act after the United States entered the war in 1917.
The
law made it illegal to print or circulate a news item, editorial, or
other
printed matter in any foreign language if the topic was the government
of
the United States or any nation engaged in the war. An exception
was
created if the publication, including a true and complete translation
in
English, was filed with the local postmaster. Many school
districts
banned the teaching of German. Some people went so far as to try
to
abolish the German word sauerkraut, replacing it with liberty
cabbage.
Oregon prohibited any foreign language publications, unless accompanied
by
a literal English translation. And the governor of Iowa issued a
proclamation
in 1918 against the use of any foreign language in the schools, in
public,
or on the telephone! Over 18,000 people were charged under this
and
similar laws by 1921.
Even in wartime, the constitutionality of this type of law seems highly questionable. In fact, it was right around this time that the major case on language rights, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 401 (1923), reached the United States Supreme Court. In 1919 Nebraska had passed a law forbidding the teaching of any subject in a language other than English. Furthermore, children could be taught to speak, read, or write languages besides English only after they had passed the eighth grade. A teacher at a parochial school was convicted of violating the act after he taught a ten-year-old boy to read in German. The Nebraska courts affirmed the conviction.
The state defended the law on the ground that it
was necessary to promote civic development and American ideals.
In
the words of Nebraska's Supreme Court:
The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The Legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting foreigners, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical to our own safety. To allow the children of foreigners, who had emigrated here, to be taught from early childhood the language of the country of their parents was to rear them with that language as their mother tongue. It was to educate them so that they must always think in that language, and, as a consequence, naturally inculcate in them the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country. The statute, therefore, was intended not only to require that the education of all children be conducted in the English language, but that, until they had grown into that language and until it had become a part of them, they should not in the schools be taught any other language. The obvious purpose of this statute was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state. ...
The hours which a child is able to devote to study in the confinement of school are limited. It must have ample time for exercise or play. Its daily capacity for learning is comparatively small. A selection of subjects for its education, therefore, from among the many that might be taught, is obviously necessary. The Legislature no doubt had in mind the practical operation of the law. The law affects few citizens, except those of foreign lineage. Other citizens, in their selection of studies, except perhaps in rare instances, have never deemed it of importance to teach their children foreign languages before such children have reached the eighth grade. In the legislative mind, the salutary effect of the statute no doubt outweighed the restriction upon the citizens generally, which, it appears, was a restriction of no real consequence.
Thus, according to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the goals of the law were quite significant and easily outweighed what it regarded as the rather minor restrictions on the few citizens who might want their children to learn foreign languages. Many of these justifications seem highly dubious, even outrageous today. Most notably, linguists would point out that the fundamental assumption that it is harmful for children to learn another language before the eight grade is absolutely ridiculous. This is by far the best time to learn one!
Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court viewed things
differently. It held that a state can do much to regulate the
lives
of its citizens, but it must respect certain fundamental rights of the
individual.
Using the constitutional jurisprudence of the time, the Court
emphasized
the teacher's right to carry out his occupation, as well as the rights
of
the child and its parents to see him educated. More importantly
for
our purposes, these rights were to be enjoyed by everyone: "The
protection
of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages
as
well as to those born with English on the tongue."
The Court was sympathetic to Nebraska's desire to "foster
a homogeneous people with American ideals prepared readily to
understand
current discussions of civic matters." But at least in this
case,
the end did not justify the means. "Perhaps it would be highly
advantageous
if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot
be
coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution--a desirable
end
cannot be promoted by prohibited means."
In some ways Meyer is more about the right to carry out one's chosen occupation and to educate one's children than it is about language per se. And its emphasis on the liberty interest of the due process clause, something referred to as substantive due process, is seldom used anymore. A modern court would probably have used the free speech clause of the First Amendment, or perhaps equal protection, to decide the case. But as we will see, the issues raised in Meyer continue to resonate today.
Another language case, Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, arose a few years later in the Philippines, which at the time was under American rule. The Philippine legislature passed a law known as the Chinese Bookkeeping Act. The law required that all account books be kept only in English, Spanish, or any "local dialect." Presumably, local dialect referred to indigenous languages such as Tagalog or Cebuano. As the name of the act implies, the law was aimed at Chinese merchants, and who typically kept their books in Chinese. The stated reason for the law was to allow authorities--who could not read Chinese--to determine that these merchants paid their fair share of taxes.
The Supreme Court observed that the Philippines was in
a "polyglot situation" that presented many difficulties for
government.
There were 43 native dialects or languages. A number of people
spoke
Spanish, and younger people increasingly knew English. In
addition,
Chinese merchants had operated in the islands for centuries; they
accounted
for a large part of the trade in the Philippines. Very few of
them
spoke English, Spanish, or a native language; according to the Court,
most
communicated with the local population by means of signs or a
patois.
Consequently, the act would impose a substantial hardship on them, and
the
need to hire translators or bookkeepers might drive some of them out of
business.
The Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional, for reasons
similar to the rationale of Meyer. It held that the law
deprived
the Chinese businessmen of their liberty and property without due
process
of law and denied them the equal protection of the laws. As in Meyer,
the Court's focus was not so much the right to use Chinese in one's
business,
but the right of the businessmen to engage in a lawful
occupation.
Nonetheless, the case reinforced the principle that discrimination
based
upon language should not be tolerated.
During the 1920s and 1930s, immigration was scaled back considerably, so language issues receded in the national consciousness. By now, the children of earlier immigrants were, no doubt, mainly speaking English. Moveover, with the collapse of the stock market and the Great Depression, the nation had other things to worry about.
On Hawaii, in contrast, high levels of immigration from
Asian countries like China, Japan, and the Philippines continued during
this
period. The territorial Supreme Court, in 1904, had already
invalidated
a requirement that horse and carriage operators to be conversant in
English.
During this period Hawaii also extensively regulated private foreign
language
schools (mostly Japanese), which many children attended after going to
regular
English-language schools. The law imposed fees, set standards for
teachers
(they had to be able to read and write English and "be possessed of the
ideals
of democracy"), and allowed the schools to operate no more than a
limited
time per day. Taken as a whole, these regulations threatened the
viability
of the schools, and in 1927 the United States Supreme Court decided in Farrington
v. Tokushige that this regulation was unconstitutional.
In the decades after World War I there was far less immigration
to the U.S. than there had been before the war. Consequently, the
notion
that we need to Americanize immigrants largely faded away. The
immigrants
from that period had largely been Americanized.
During the 1980s and 1990s there has been another large
wave of immigration to the United States. As we will see in the
next
section, this has--quite predictably--led to renewed controversy
regarding
language rights and the role of English as our national language.
The modern Official English Movement
The rebirth of the Official English
Movement (the
term favored by proponents) or the English-Only Movement (favored by
the
opposition) occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. Its main
spokesman
was Senator S.I. Hayakawa from California. He introduced the
English
Language Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1981.
Besides
holding some hearings, however, Congress took no action on the proposed
amendment.
The momentum of the movement then shifted to the states, where it has been quite a bit more successful. To date, 24 states have made English their official language. These state statutes vary quite a bit, however. Many of them do little or nothing more than declare that English is the official language of the state. Some of these laws have some teeth to them, however, and have been challenged in court.
Arizona's
Constitutional
Provisions and Legal Challenges to It
Probably the most restrictive English-only or
Official
English provision is Article XXXVIII ("Article 28") of the Arizona
constitution,
narrowly adopted by the state's voters in 1987. Not only does
Article
28 declare English to be the official language of the state, but it
expressly
provides that it is "the language of the ballot, the public schools and
all
government functions and actions." It applies not only to the
legislative,
executive, and judicial functions of the State, but also to "all
political
subdivisions, departments, agencies, organizations, and
instrumentalities
of this State, including local governments and municipalities."
In
fact, its scope reaches "all government officials and employees during
the
performance of government business." Perhaps the most significant
aspect
of the Arizona law is its mandate that "[t]his State and all political
subdivisions
of this State shall act in English and in no other language."
This
language is followed by a limited set of exceptions: to assist students
who
are not proficient in the English language, if necessary to comply with
federal
law; to comply with other federal laws; to teach a student a foreign
language;
to protect public health or safety; and to protect the rights of
criminal
defendants or victims of crime.
One of the most important implications of Article 28 is
that it would prohibit communications between any state official or
employee
and the public in a language other than English, at least with regard
to
any government business. A Navajo-speaking state worker would not
be
able to explain how to fill out a form to an elderly man who speaks
only
Navajo. Apparently, a state senator or the mayor of a largely
Latino
town could not address her constitutents in Spanish.
Article 28 would have an especially heavy impact on Arizona's
native languages, all of which are to some degree threatened after
being
slated for extinction by former policies of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
Arizona is especially rich in the number and diversity of indigenous
languages
still spoken there, including Apache, Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai,
Navajo,
O'odham (Papago) and Yaqui; Navajo has the largest number of speakers
of
any indigenous language in the United States.
Only days after voters passed Article 28, a woman named
Maria-Kelley Yniguez challenged it in federal court. Yniguez
worked
for the Arizona Department of Administration, where she handled
malpractice
claims against the state. Fluent in both English and Spanish, she
had
previously communicated with Anglophones in English; she addressed
Spanish-speakers
in their own language. Yniguez asserted that by preventing her
from
speaking Spanish to clients, Article 28 violated the First and
Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
The district (trial) court held the law unconstitutional.
On appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the lower court's
decision
was affirmed, first by an ordinary three-judge panel, and then in what
is
called an in bank procedure.
At this point, the case went to the United States Supreme
Court. The Linguistic Society of America submitted an amicus brief in the matter, written by me
(i.e., Peter
Tiersma), that many of the justifications claimed in support of the
Arizona
constitutional provision did not hold water.
From the beginning, however, the Supreme Court appeared more interested in procedural issues than in the substance of Article 28. The Court's ultimate decision, issued in 1997, reflected these concerns. The Court unanimously vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and ordered that the case be dismissed. It did so for two reasons. First, the Court decided that the case was moot because Yniguez no longer worked for the state of Arizona. Another reason for dismissing the case was that the scope of Article 28 was not entirely clear, according to the Court. The exact scope of Article 28 was a critical issue that would have to be decided before the Supreme Court could rule on its constitutionality. The Supreme Court basically told the parties that it was not the business of federal courts to determine the meaning of Arizona law. (Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997)).
Even though the Yniguez case had now been dismissed, the
meaning and constitutionality of Article 28 remained to be
decided.
And it now appeared that those issues could only be decided in the
first
instance by Arizona state courts. Fortuitously,
at
about this same time there was a lawsuit winding its way through the
Arizona
state courts, entitled Ruiz v. Hull.
In it, four elected officials, five state employees, and one school
teacher
challenged Article 28 in state court. They were all bilingual in
Spanish
and sometimes spoke it in their government jobs; they claimed that
after
the passage of Article 28, they feared prosecution if they continued
doing
so. The plaintiffs asked the Arizona state courts to declare the
law
invalid because it violated their free speech and equal protection
rights.
The case eventually reached the Arizona Supreme Court (Ruiz v.
Hull,
957 P.2d 984 (Ariz. 1998).
The
first question the court had to decide was the scope of
Article 28. The court concluded that Article 28 "explicitly and
broadly
prohibits government employees from using non-English languages even
when
communicating with persons who have limited or no English
skills."
As a consequence, a public school teacher who happens to speak Spanish
cannot
discuss a child's progress with her parents in that language, even if
the
parents speak no English. It would also be illegal for elected
officials
and citizens to have a town hall discussion in any language but
English.
According to the Court, to deprive limited- and non-English speakers of
access
to information from government employees undermined one of the
fundamental
values of the First Amendment: the right of the people to participate
in
the political process and interact with their government and elected
representatives.
The Court also held that Article 28 was a violation of the Equal
Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ruiz is
clearly the most important modern case on language rights in the United
States,
unless and until the United States Supreme Court decides to review the
merits
of the official English question. It clearly establishes that a
restrictive
law like that of Arizona, which broadly prohibits government and its
employees
from using languages besides English, is unconstitutional. On the
other
hand, the many laws that simply declare English to be the official
language
of a state are almost certainly valid. What would change the
situation,
incidentally, is if the English Language Amendment were to be adopted
on
the federal level. Because such an amendment would be part of the
Constitution
itself, it would probably override the First Amendment with regard to
languages
other than English. It is unlikely to be adopted anytime soon,
however.
Another Challenge: Alaskans for a Common
Language v. Kritz, ___ P.3d ___ (2007)
ACL sponsored a ballot initiative in 1998 that made English the official language of Alaska. It was approved by the voters and codified as AS 44.12.300-.390.
The constitutionality of the law was challenged by public officials and state residents who are bilingual in English and Yup’ik, other native languages, or Spanish. The lead plaintiff is a member of the city council for the City of Manokotak who has limited proficiency in English and performs his job exclusively in Yup’ik.
The trial court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the act and later, on the merits, held that it violated the free speech provisions of the Alaska constitution and declared the entire act void.
ACL appealed the trial court’s decision to the Alaska Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court first had to determine the scope of the act. It
focused primarily on the first sentence of section 320:
The court
held that the first sentence of this section is not limited to official
or formal governmental actions, but requires that all government
officials and employees in all levels of government use only English,
even in relatively informal situations. So interpreted, the court
held that the act has an adverse impact on the free speech rights of
not only private citizens, but also elected government officials and
government employees who wish to communicate with members of the public
in a language other than English.
The court therefore applied the “strict scrutiny” test to the act. It concluded that the government has a compelling interest in the goal of promoting the use of English, but that the act was not narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. The court pointed out that, for example, funding English acquisition courses would probably be a more effective way to promote the use of English.
Although normally such an analysis might require the invalidation of
the entire legislation, the court noted that the Alaska act has a
severability clause:
Because the constitutional problems were caused by the first sentence
of section 320, the court severed it from the remainder of the act,
declared it unconstitutional, and allowed the second sentence of
section 320 (requiring English for official public documents and
records, although such documents and records could also be published in
other languages) to remain in force. As to the other sections of
the act, the court made no specific ruling but suggested that they
should be strictly interpreted in light of its decision in this
case.
It might seem that the court “split the baby,” to use a violent and
only partially apt metaphor. The court was obviously reluctant to
strike down a popular initiative measure in its entirely. So it
invalidated just one sentence. In fact, however, the bottom line
is that the Alaska act is now mainly declaratory or symbolic, and
therefore poses relatively little direct danger to speakers of
languages other than English.
[In the
interest of full disclosure, I--that it so say, Peter Tiersma--filed an
amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Linguistic Society of America in
this case, urging that the law be struck down as unconstitutional.]
Bilingual
Services
When should a government provide bilingual
services to
those who do not speak the predominant or official language?
Until
the last century, governments offered very few services to their
peoples,
so the issue may not have seemed all that urgent. With the
widespread
availability today of public education, welfare programs, and similar
services,
the question has become more pressing. The problem has also
become
more difficult with the increase in immigration throughout the
world.
With contiguous bilingualism, as in Switzerland, it was relatively easy
to
establish French-speaking schools in French-speaking cantons. Yet
in
today's large modern cities, where children in a single school district
may
speak dozens or sometimes hundreds of different languages, the
challenges
can be immense.
Welfare
Services.
In the United States, courts have generally been reluctant
to require the government to provide welfare services in languages
other
than English. Perhaps the best-known American case is Guerrero
v.
Carlson, 512 P.2d 833 (Cal. 1973). The plaintiffs were
on
Aid to Families with Dependent Children when they received a mailed
notice
that their benefits were about to terminate or be cut off. It
also
explained that they had a limited time to appeal. Although
welfare
workers knew that the plaintiffs spoke Spanish, they nonetheless sent
the
notice only in English. As a result, the plaintiffs claimed they
lost
their chance to appeal the termination of benefits.
The California Supreme Court noted that in spite of the
early Spanish culture in California, "the United States is an English
speaking
country." It quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who
dissented
in Meyer v. Nebraska, for the proposition that "all citizens of
the
United States should speak a common tongue." More to the
point,
the Court commented that when people receive an official notice of this
type
but do not understand it, they should ask bilingual relatives or a
legal
aid office for a translation. Finally, the Court wondered aloud
where
the process would stop if it held that these welfare documents should
have
been translated into Spanish. Would it mean that all state forms
would
have to be published in Spanish? Moreover, California has
speakers
of many different languages. The Court specifically mentioned
Chinese,
Japanese, Russian, Greek, Filipino, and Samoan. It left out
dozens
and probably hundreds of other languages spoken in California (230, at
last
count), some with very few speakers.
For all of the above reasons, the Court decided that the state was not required to provide these welfare forms in any language besides English. Most other American courts to consider the matter have come to the same conclusion.
Interpretation
in Court.
What if a non-English speaker has a run-in with the law. Does he have a right to have legal proceedings against him translated into a language that he can understand? Courts have long used interpreters, of course. But in the past, those interpreters were often used only to translate foreign-language testimony of witnesses into English, so that the judge, lawyers, and court reporter would understand it.
This scheme was challenged in United States ex rel.
Negron v. State of New York, 434 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1970).
Negron, a native of Puerto Rico, was convicted of murdering one of his
housemates.
Negron spoke little or no English, and his lawyer spoke no
Spanish.
The prosecution hired an interpreter, who translated the Spanish of
witnesses
into English. During breaks in the trial, the interpreter would
sometimes
summarize the proceedings in Spanish for Negron, but at other times she
went
home and remained on call.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit observed that
much of the trial must have been a "babble of voices" for Negron.
Most
of the witnesses spoke untranslated English. Especially important
was
one witness who testified that Negron had admitted to him that he
killed
the victim because the victim called him a cabrón (cuckold).
The Second Circuit continued by noting that the Sixth Amendment gives
an
accused the right to confront the witnesses against him, which
necessarily
requires that the accused understand their testimony. Moreover,
basic
principles of fairness dictate that a criminal defendant be able to
assist
his attorney in his own defense. This again requires that the
defendant
understand the proceedings, something that haphazard summaries would
not
allow. The court concluded that a non-English speaking
criminal
defendant has a constitutional right to the assistance of a translator
throughout
the proceedings. If he cannot afford one, the state must pay for
it.
Incidentally, the same rule applies to deaf defendants.
The quality of interpretation is also important.
Languages usually have different dialects, for instance, and these
differences
need to be recognized. In one case, someone asked a Cuban man for
a
loan; he replied in Spanish: Hombre, ni tengo diez kilos. The
prosecution
used this statement as the basis for a drug charge. In fact, it
appears
that in the defendant's Cuban Spanish, kilos often refers to money ("I
do
not have ten cents"). Fortunately, his conviction was later
overturned.
Another issue, pointed out by Susan Berk-Seligson, is
that interpreters do not simply melt into the background. They
can
influence the impact of testimony in various ways. For instance,
an
interpreter may take a defendant's nonstandard, slang-ridden Spanish,
and
translate it into quite correct, formal English. For better or
worse,
this might create a different image of the defendant than is really the
case.
Or an interpreter might translate a foreign language term as glasses or
goggles,
because it could mean either. To jurors, however, it might seem
that
the witness is uncertain, leading them to unjustifiably downgrade the
value
of the testimony.
To sum up, the right of a criminal defendant to
have all of the trial interpreted is quite clear. But there is
still
some uncertainly regarding when a non-English speaker in other judicial
proceedings
will receive the services of an interpreter, as well as what type of
interpretation
should be provided.
Bilingual
Education.
The debate of over language rights has become even more
heated with regard to bilingual education. For quite some time,
American
educators did relatively little to address the specific needs of
children
who spoke little or no English. Most immigrants simply found
themselves
in English-speaking classes and were expected to "sink or swim."
This situation changed in the mid 1970s. A group
of Chinese schoolchildren sued the San Francisco school district in Lau
v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). There were at
the
time around 3000 children of Chinese ancestry who did not speak
English.
A majority of them did not receive any supplemental help in learning
English.
The students argued to the United States Supreme Court that the
district's
failure to address their linguistic needs violated the Equal Protection
Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Court began its analysis by noting that treating all
children alike did not necessarily produce educational equality.
"There
is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same
facilities,
textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand
English
are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education."
Despite
the references to equality, however, the Court did not decide whether
the
district's policies violated Equal Protection. Rather, it held
that
the Civil Rights Act required a school district receiving federal funds
to
take affirmative steps to rectify the "language deficiency" of
non-English
speaking children.
What sorts of affirmative steps must a school district take? Clearly, "sink or swim" is ruled out. But beyond that, the Supreme Court left the field open to any educationally sound approach. Courts have declared that Lau does not require that all children receive bilingual education. Consequently, in the years since Lau various methods have been taken to teach English to what are called LEP (limited English proficient) and NEP (non-English proficient) children. These include:
Immersion/submersion: Both immersion and
submersion involve placing children into an English-speaking
environment
(typically, a classroom). The basic idea is that the more a child
is
exposed to English, the faster the child will learn it. The
problem,
as linguist Stephen Krashen has pointed out, is that language learning
happens
only with comprehensible input. No one seriously believes
that
the best way to learn Mongolian is to go there and simply listen to
Mongolians
speaking, because you hear nothing but a babble of voices. This
approach
is sometimes called submersion, or the old "sink or swim" method.
Immersing
oneself in a language is much more effective when it is accompanied
with
teaching. You would learn Mongolian far more quickly if you spent
each
morning with a language teacher who could explain things to you in
English,
and then practiced with real Mongolians (who deliberately spoke simply
and
slowly) in the afternoon. In an American educational context,
this
approach (sometimes called structured immersion) involves teaching LEP
or
NEP children in English, but with bilingual teachers who often stop to
explain
or translate something. Thus, children are surrounded by English,
but
should understand what is happening in class. Unlike the old
"sink
or swim" approach, the teacher is in the water with them, showing them
how
to swim. A drawback is that this approach requires bilingual
teachers
(often in short supply) and requires separate classes for LEP or NEP
students
speaking each language.
ESL: English as a Second Language
(ESL) is
another way to deal with LEP or NEP children. Here, students are
taught
in ordinary classes, along with English speakers. They receive
ESL
instruction after school, or are taken out of their classes for a
while.
This is similar to structured immersion, except that the children's
ordinary
teacher does not explain things in their language (and is probably not
bilingual).
It may be the easiest option for the school, because all it has to do
is
hire one or two ESL instructors; the rest of the curriculum is
unaffected.
On the other hand, the LEP and NEP children may start to fall behind in
their
coursework because they may not understand their teachers very well.
Bilingual Education: The basic idea
behind
bilingual education is that children should be taught for the first few
years
in their own language. In this way, they should not get behind in
substance,
which is a potential problem with alternative approaches. Also,
they
should learn the basics of literacy in a language they can understand;
once
literate in their own language, that knowledge should be transferred
fairly
readily to English. At the same time that the children are
learning
substantive material in languages like Spanish and Vietnamese, they
receive
instruction in the English language. Ideally, their English
should
advance quickly enough that they can be "mainstreamed" into an
English-speaking
class after about three years.
During the 1980s, bilingual education programs were widely
implemented throughout the United States. But it quickly became
controversial.
One of the goals of U.S. English (the main organization supporting
"English
Only") was to eliminate it, although that effort has never fully
succeeded.
Because it is home to so many recent immigrants,
California is the state with the largest number of LEP and NEP
students:
roughly 1.4 million, or around a quarter of all public school
students.
Moreover, the numbers have burgeoned in recent years, leaving school
officials
largely unprepared. In 1982 the Los Angeles Unified School
District
had around 121,000 LEP students. By 1994, just over ten years
later,
the number had more than doubled to almost 300,000, or about half of
its
total enrollment. The district did its best to implement
enough
bilingual classes for all of these students, but often had to rely on
teachers
who were not fully qualified (typically, a class would be taught by an
English-speaking
teacher and a bilingual aid, who translated into Spanish or some other
language).
And teaching materials were often in short supply.
Meanwhile, the opposition continued. California
had once been renowned for its educational system. Now, test
results
in the state were greatly below national averages in almost all areas;
sometimes
California students ranked virtually at the bottom. In reality,
some
of the state's students (often first generation immigrants or their
children)
performed remarkably well. At the other extreme, schools in the
inner
city--often attended by children of Central American immigrants--tended
to
have quite low test results. Rather than blaming poverty, crowded
living
conditions, or gang activity, many Californians were convinced that the
culprit
was bilingual education. In actuality, only around 30% of the LEP
students
were taught the core curriculum in their primary language; the other
70%
received all their instruction in English.
Interestingly, this was not just the sentiment of the
white middle class. In 1996, Latino parents whose offspring
attended
Ninth Street School, near downtown Los Angeles, had their children
boycott
classes because the school refused to provide English-only
instruction.
According to Jovita Ruiz, a Mexican immigrant whose 7-year-old daughter
attends
the school: "We want our children to be taught in English . . . that's
why
we came to the United States . . . If not, better to keep her in my
country.
There she can learn in Spanish." Although many other Latino
parents
continue to support bilingual education, the boycott revealed
increasing
frustration that children were not acquiring English quickly
enough.
These feelings were confirmed by studies showing that only around 5% of
children
in the state's bilingual education programs were moved into
English-language
classes each year.
In a move that seems typically Californian, the most recent
word comes not from the state legislature, or from the federal
government,
or from the educational establishment, but rather from a Silicon Valley
businessman
who had come to the conclusion that bilingual education was largely
responsible
for low test scores in the state. He bankrolled the process of
placing
an initative on the ballot, which passed by a 61% majority of the
electorate
in 1998. The new law states that school districts may not educate
children
bilingually unless their parents specifically request a waiver, which a
majority
of parents have not done. Bilingual education is
still
common in many other states. Whether they will follow the example
of
California--which is often a trendsetter--remains to be seen.
Perhaps
California is in a unusual situation. Especially its Spanish
speakers
often live in areas where virtually everyone speaks Spanish, where
newspapers,
radio, and television are also in that language, and where schools
consist
almost entirely of Spanish-speaking students. It is no wonder
that
children growing up in this situation are somewhat slower to acquire
English
than children who live in more mixed neighborhoods, where English is
spoken
on the street. Demographic factors--the educational level and
income
of the parents, for instance--are also quite important. It
is
not especially surprising that middle-class Anglophone children learned
French
quite well in an immersion program in Quebec that began during the
1960s.
That does not mean that immersion is the solution for all
children.
How well children learn English may depend much more on their home
background,
their neighborhood, and the quality of their schools and teachers than
the
specific teaching methodology.
One factor that is almost never taken into account in the United States, however, is how well these programs maintain the child's native language. No matter which program educators choose, their stated aim is invariably to convert the child into a speaker of English, with little thought given to what happens to the child's native language. In fact, it seems likely that much of the popular opposition to bilingual education has come from a fear that it will encourage such maintenance. It is highly ironic that in a country where people have so little success in learning foreign languages, we should should be so unconcerned about this loss. Children who grow up in a Chinese-speaking household, and then learn English in school, often have to take Chinese classes in high school or college to reacquire the language. This is a terrible waste. As Education Secretary Richard Riley recently emphasized, every American student should speak at least two languages. Children who grow up bilingually can easily meet that goal. Moreover, they can be critical in promoting foreign trade with their countries of origin, an ever more important part of the economy.
Presumably, educational experts and linguists are carefully
studying the education of LEP and NEP children throughout the
country.
One can only hope that future decisions about how to educate such
children
are made on the basis of solid research, rather than emotionalism or
politics.
A Human Right to Language?
The development of linguistic rights in the
United States--and
many other countries--has obviously been a somewhat tortuous one.
Fortunately,
there seems to be an emerging consensus among the world's nations that
minority
languages must be respected.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not specifically
protect language rights, but it does declare that "everyone is entitled
to
all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction
of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, [or] language ..."
Other international agreements are more specific. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that someone charged with a crime has the right:
Even more specific is the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Persons Belonging To National or Ethnic, Religious and
Linguistic
Minorities. It requires states to protect the existence of
linguistic
and other minorities within their territory. Members of
such
minorities have the right to:
Rights for minority languages are especially critical with regard to indigenous people. If French or German or Spanish dies out in the United States, those languages and their related cultures will still flourish in their native lands. But if Hopi or Navajo or Sioux dies out in this country, the language will be lost forever, as will much of the culture embedded in it. Indigenous languages are facing extinction in unprecedented numbers, especially with the pervasive influence of the mass media. At the beginning of the 19th Century, there were 300,000 speakers of about 100 native languages in California. Today, half have disappeared, and the rest are severely threatened. Not a single California Indian language is transmitted to children in the usual way in the household. Nationally, the situation is somewhat better, especially in the southwest. There are around 175 indigenous languages still spoken in the United States. Unfortunately, only about 20 are still being learned as a first language by children. The situation is depressingly similar in many other countries.
Fortunately, there are efforts to maintain and even revive
endangered languages. Recognizing linguistic rights is an
important
part of that effort. If we do not act quickly, the world will
soon
be culturally and linguistically a far less interesting place.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Links
to language rights sites,
English-only groups, etc.
Select
Bibliography (in legal citation format):
Charlotte
Hoffmann,
An Introduction to Bilingualism (1991).
David
Crystal, An
Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Language and Languages (1992).
James
Crawford,
Language
Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy
(1992).
Language
Policy
and National
Unity (William R. Beer & James E. Jacob eds., 1985).
James
Crawford,
Hold Your
Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of "English Only" 238 (1992).
Langue et
Droit
[Language
and Law] (P. Pupier & J. Woehrling eds., 1989).
Ayo Bamgbose,
Language and
the Nation: The Language Question in Sub-Saharan Africa (1991).
Linguistic
Human
Rights:
Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination (Tove Skutnabb-Kangas & Robert
Phillipson
eds. 1994).
Perspectives
on
Official
English: The Campaign for English as the Official Language of the USA
(Karen
L. Adams & Daniel T. Brink eds., 1990).
Dennis Baron,
The
English-Only
Question: An Official Language for Americans? (1990).
Nancy Faires
Conklin &
Margaret A. Lourie, A Host of Tongues: Language Communities in the
United
States (1983)
Heinz Kloss,
The
American
Bilingual Tradition (1977).
Language in
the
USA (Charles
A. Ferguson & Shirley Brice Heath eds. 1981).
Language
Loyalty
in the United
States: The Maintenance and Perpetuation of Non-English Mother Tongues
by
American Ethnic and Religious Groups (Joshua A. Fishman et al.
eds.,
1966).
William G.
Ross,
Forging
New Freedoms: Nativism, Education, and the Constitution,
1917-1927
(1994).
Susan
Berk-Seligson, The
Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process
(1990).
James Crawford, Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory & Practice (3d ed. 1995).
Keith Baker
&
Adriana
de Kanter, Bilingual Education (1983).
M. Krauss,
The
World's Languages
in Crisis, 68 Language 1 (1992).
[source:
\future projects\linglaw\ch12]
updated Nov. 5, 2007