anth 4 reader 11

anth 4 reader 11 - 11 Multilingual Nations Note the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–19. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 18
Background image of page 19
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 11 Multilingual Nations Note the contentious language in the following dialogue between two bilingual Canadians, one (the man) a native speaker of English and the other (the reception— isr) a native French speaker: 1mm: Could you tell me where the French test is? RECEPTIONIST Pardon? (“Pardon?”) (IN FRENCH}: MAN: Could you tell me where the French tesr is? RECEPTIONIST: En francais? (“In French?“) MAN: I have the right to be addressed in English by the government of Quebec according to Bill 101. RECEPTIONIST Qu’esr—ce qu‘il dit? (‘ \Whars he saying? ) (TO a THIRD PERSON): Both speakers are bilingual in English and French, so they can well understand each other. Either speaker could have chosen to use. the language preferred by the inter— locutor. Because the man spoke first, in English, the receptionist could have re- sponded in English. Failing that, the man could have next repeated his que‘srion in French after the receptionist’s French response. But neither speaker was Willing to accommodate the other. Insread, they borh insisted on continuing to use their own native language. Such an interaction is symbolic of linguisttc and, as we shall see later in the chapter, sOcial, economic, and political conflicts in Canada. It is com— monly played out elsewhere in the world as well where different ethnic-groups com- pete for economic and political control in their communities and nations. ‘ All modern nations are multilingua} in the sense that some sectors of their population speak more than one language. Presumably even in earlier, smali—scale 00") MLJLIII.IJ\Kil..M..\lAJ IONS 295 societies, at least some members were bilingual or multilingual. Because trade. travel. and intermarriage between neighboring or distant peoples have always 0c- curred, the convenience andtor need to speak the language of another group has been an obvious social fact. In this chapter we begin by examining relations of languages in two multi— lingual countries. India and Canada. We then describe and analyse linguistic diver-- sity. public policies, and attitudes concerning languages in the United States. ln multilingual communities, each language has a particular status, one (or some) having greater presrige than others. Many Facrors contribute to linguistic ranking, including the social status of native speakers and economic, political, and social contexts of contact. In some cases relatively benign attitudes are maintained, but elsewhere, conflict among members ofdifierent linguistic groups disrupts soci— etal cohesion. We now turn to a discussion of these issues in the context of India and Canada. INDIA Linguistic Diversity Linguisric diversity in India is enormous. Hundreds of diFFerent languages are spo- ken, distributed among four distinct language Families: Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, and Tibeto-Burman. These families are represented among Indian speakers as follows: Indo—Aryan, 74 percent; Dravidian, 24 percent; Austro—Asiatic, 1.5 percent; and TibetO-Burman, 0.70 percent (Census of India 1981). The map on page 295 illustrates areas of concentration of the language families. Prior to India’s independence in 1947, English was the country's governmen- tal language. Its prominence originated from Great Britain’s economic and political control from the eighteenth century until independence. English was the language of the colonizers and became a second language of indigenous elite classes. After in- dependence, as part of a rejection of India’s colonial era, die governing Congress Party gave “official” Status to Hindi, an Indo-Aryan language presently spoken by more than 260 million people. The government also hoped that establishing one Official language would help to integrate the hundreds of ethnic groups living in India. India’s constitution of 1948 recognized linguisrie diversity by granting “na- tional” status to the Following 15 languages (Census oflndia 1980; note that a cen- sus was not taken in the state of Assam; therefore the figure for speakers ofASSamese is far from complete; Census of India 1981). In the early 1950s, the Indian government began to reorganize its internal polities and confronted the serious problem oflinguisric and ethnic diversity within its borders. A principle of linguistic homogeneity was used to establish States. In all but 2 of India's 18 states, a majority of residents speak a common language. How~ ever, “homogeneity” is a misleading terrn, implying complete or near complete sim- ilarity. Such a situation does not exist in any Indian srate. Rather, although states 29.3 \1'. '1 Ill INHI Al \.-\I am ,\'1r Hilrh'l' of {onll’l' "- In signage -' in utility»; .- Pm rm. lg: i "unilllt ‘. [l “7 {LUl (8.95. Lir'nulx (ll i‘lfil ' I. Bengali Til—5!] 7.7"} i.[i11j&lf1ll1 iii ‘3 KHZ -l. Hindi .3134. 53 39.94 '3. Kannada 36.89 4.06 (i. Kashmiri 3. l 7 11.48 ?. Malayalam 25.95 3.92 8. Marathi 49.62 3.5(1 9. Oriya 3.2.88 5.46 10. Punjabi 18.39 ILHI l I. Sanskrit 0.00.11 12. Sindhi 1.95 0.29 l.’>. Tamil 4433 6.76 14. Telugu 54.23 8.20 15. Urdu 35.32 5.34 may have a majority of speakers of a single language, percentages vary from just over 50 percent (Assamese in Assam) upwards to 95 percent (Malayalam in Kerala). And despite goals of linguistic uniformity, some states have no numerically dominant language (e.g., Himachal Pradesh) (Apte 1976:155). Conflicts over boundaries between srates have continued. As late as 1966, the former state of Punjab was subdivided into Hindi—speaking Harayana and Punjab- spealting Punjab. Some regional border disputes are Still ongoing, for example, be— tween Kannada-speaking Mysore and Marathi—speaking Maharashtra. A number of areas in dispute between two States have become “union territories” and are admin- istered by the central government. For example, Goa declined to become merged with the neighboring state of Maharashtra. Both the States of Punjab and Harayana have claimed the city of Chandigarh, but the city has so far remained independent (ibid.: 147) . These conflicts indicate the complexity of ethnic and linguistic divisions in india and the difficulties in reaching compromise. In addition to Hindi (the Country's “official” language) and 14 other “na— tional” languages, each state can choose its own “regional” language. A State can adopt Hindi as its regional language or it may select another code from among those spoken in its territory for use in local government affairs and in education. India’s constitution further guarantees rights of all citizens to communicate in their own language and allows them to interact with any government agency in a code of their choice (ibid.:l44). OF the 18 states, 6 have selected Hindi as their sole regional language (Bihar, llatyana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajastan, Uttar Pradcsh); 1 state (Gujarat) has chosen Hindi and an indigenous code (Gujarati); English is the re- gional language of 3 states (Kerala, Mysore, Nagaland); English and Oriya are the languages of the state of Orissa; in the remaining 7 states, indigenous regional lan- .\l[,'l.'l [LINGIJAL NATION-h Ill% 0 Kashmiri :1:— miles Newari Andaman and Lacoadive . -, "Imbar Islands Mlnitzojlr '-' and Amindivi lslands Boundaries of major languages '3 Intro-Aryan group E Dravidian group Burman Tribal languages FIGURE I11.l. Linguistic Divisions in India. Communication and Language Policy in India, (Apte 1976:1153, from Baldev New York: Praeger Publishers) News National guages have been designated (Andra P d h: Tl - . Kashmir: Urdu; Mahuashtra: Marathifa es e ugu, Assam. Assamese; lammu, _ _ _ Punjab: Punjabi; West 13 . - 10 union territories, 5 have English as their regional language; 53 Hindi; I has English and French- d l l ' gional code (ibid.:161—163)- an on y has 310ml language (Bengali) as its re 29S 19‘) .‘.1t i 111 l.\l.,l _-'\i \-\| it}_\‘ Not only are there problems in state boundaries and selection of regional lau— gudgt-s. there are also cuntrm'ersies in choosing writing systems for local and no rional languages. Eleven different scripts are in use in India. Minority languages that historically have nor been associated with a written form have particular problems adopting scripts. To illustrate possible complexities, consider the situation of San— thali. a language spoken in four states (Assam. Bihar, (_)rissa, \Vest Bengal). Each of the four states uses a different script for its Own regional code. Therefore, ifSanthali is written in the. script ofirs state. four versions would coexist. The central Commis- sion of linguistic Minorities has tried to solve the problem by suggesting adoption ofeirher Devangari, the script in which Hindi is written, or the Roman alphabet, but the States involved have been unable to reach agreement (Dua 1985:3562). English remains an optional language in several societal domains throughout most of India. It is the mother tongue ofonly 200,000 people in India but is known to some degree by approximately 25 million. Despite the Congress Party's desire to esrablish Hindi as the sole official language, either Hindi or English is used in the Indian Parliament and in communication between states and with the central gov— crnrnent. In addition, English is sometimes used as a medium of insrruction in schools, particularly in universities. In fact, knowledge of English has become a marker of advanced education and elite social status. Finally, courts funcrion primarily in English, especially at higher levels ofadiudication. In town courts, pro- ceedings are often conducted in local languages, although official records are main— tained in English. In High Courts and the Supreme Court, lawyers and judges employ English even though it may not be understood by other participants (Kid- der 1976:238—239). Use of English creates a language barrier or “blackout” (ibid.:247) that helps maintain the privileged position oflawyers and orher profes- sionals. By translating proceedings for their poorly educated clients, lawyers may fil— ter information in a way that secures their advantages and the disadvantages oftheir clients. Although speakers of Hindi constitute the largesr single linguisric group (ap- proximately 40 percent of the population), and Hindi is strongly endorsed by the central government, several sectors of the Indian populace oppose its use as the of- ficial language and insread advocate English. Members of elite classes, roosr of whom are proficient in English, prefer English because its use enhances their pres- tige and control over governmental, technological, and educational institutions. Opposition to Hindi is also voiced by people in South lndiawhere Hindi is sparsely represented or absent altogether. These people resent economic and political con— trol by Hindi-speaking regions and, therefore, resist Hindi linguistic dominance (Apte 1976:148). Rivalry among the numerous and diverse ethnic and linguistic groups in In- dia has blocked the smoorh adoption of Hindi. Governmental and educational insriturions have had little effect on encouraging employment of Hindi. In fact, ac- cording to S. N. Sridhar (1988b:312—313), the spread of Hindi throughout India is attriburable more to its use in the popular cinema and television than to official policies. hlL'L'l ll_l.\£(J CAL .‘in'IUN: 297 Standardization 'Iihe ascendancy ofl lindi is complicated by the factor oflinguistic standardization. Standard Hindi differs from colloquial speech in pronunciation and vocabulary, borrowing many words from Sanskrit, India’s ancient literary and ceremonial lan— guage. Hindi’s social prestige is strengthened by its incorporation of Sanskrit vo- cabulary, "showing that an Indian language can be independent ofEnglish and other international languagesn (Southworth 1985:2323). But this process of Sanskritiza— tion also separates standard Hindi from the speech of ordinary people. Mosr Indi— ans in all regions speak colloquial or vernacular sryles of their languages, so even na- tive speakers of Hindi have problems understanding standardized, literary Hindi. Similar processes of standardization have affecred regional languages in each state, resulting in problems for native speakers and Other state residents. For in— stance, a survey of speakers of Malayalam, the majority language of Kerala, a state having the highesr literacy rate in India, revealed only slight ability of respondents to understand standardized Malayalam (Southworth 1985). Franklin Southwurth prepared two levels of written text, adminisrering one to adults with an average of eight years’ education and a simpler version to adults with 4.4 years of schooling. On a comptehensibility scale from 0.0 to 5.0, the first group averaged 1.5 and the second, 2.0. Although the sample was small, results clearly showed that speakers had difficulty understanding Standardized forrns oftheir native tongue (ibid.:234). Only well-educated elites are functionally fluent in standardized literary forms of lan- guage and, therefore, are able to maintain their status over an uneducated or poorly educated populace through the medium of linguistic code. Many Indian languages are in the process of “modernization,” that is, adapt- ingot expanding their vocabularies to include new items or activities. This linguis- tic process is accelerated by socioeconomic trends toward increased urbanization, induStrializatioo, and access to education. It is furthered as well by the use of bor- rowed and coined words in mass media (Daswani 1989:85). Modernization in- cludes borrowing words from Other languages, especially from Hindi, Sanskrit, English, or another of the major Indian languages (Sridhar 19883:?)56). Borrowed words are often integrated into compounds with native words to label modern on- titles. For example, the following expressions are used in Kannada, a Dravidjan lan- guage of South India (ibid.:357): aspirin mane: “aspirin tablet” cancer raga: “cancer” (literally: cancer disease) Another common process involves compounding two (or more) native words to form a new construction: vimm mailman: “symposium” (literally: thought confrontatiOn) Finally, meanings of existing words are sometimes reinterpreted to apply to in- novations: originating: “radio” (literally: voice from the sky) 298 \EL l_'1'lLi’\'('.1i.—\l NAlll1N\ linguisnc procedures such as these expand a languages contextual usefulness. However. they can also result in developtnent olmsryle strata" libid.:3‘:9l, which Seg' merits a linguistic community into unequal groups based on degrees of Familiarity with a more technical or educated variety. in some cases, modernization of local languages has led to rapid linguistic changes affecting not only incorporation or creation of new words for technologi— cal innovations but also replacement of indigenous words by others derived from a language with higher societal status. For instance, Tripuri. a local language spoken in West Bengal, has adopted many Bengali words, including labels for colors and numbers as well as grammatical indicators such as “who, which, until” (Dua 19852363). If this process gains momentum, it could potentially erode the distinc— tiveness ofsorne local languages under pressure from competing regional or national codes. Linguistic Minorities All Indian states contain linguistic minorities, people who speak neither Hindi nor the official state language. Some of these minorities constitute large sectors, num— bering in the millions, whereas others are members of small, isolated, mOstly rural tribal enclaves. languages having large numbers of speakers are more likely to re— ceive public recognition and be used as mediums of instruction and mass commu— nication than are those spoken by only a few. Each state government determines which of its languages can be used in edud cation. A State’s regional language and! or Hindi are always options. Many people throughout India oppose instruction in Hindi because native speakers oinndi have an advantage in schooling because they already command the official code, whereas speakers of other languages (who constitute the majority of Indians) must learn a second language. In response, the national government proposed a “three—language formula” in 1961 requiring students to develop literacy and fluency in three Ian- guages: their regional language, Hindi (or, in Hindi—speaking regions, anorher In— dian language), and English (or another modern European language) (Sridhar 1988b:31 1). This solution still burdens speakers of minority tribal languages whose native code is rarely recognized for use as a regional or instrucrional language. The government’s proposal was rejeCted by many states. Because the Indian constitution assigns control over education to states rather than to the central government, most states have developed their own insrructional policies. Minority languages receive support for schooling in some states, but in oth- ers they do not. In states where minority languages are used in school, they typically are employed only in early grades. Students are later required to learn the regional language or Hindi {Dua 19851364). Lack ofnational guidelines results in seemingly inconsistent decisions. For example, Garo is used in education in the state ofAs- sam, although its speakers (approximately 10,000) constitute less than 1 percent of the population; but it is not a medium of instrucrion in Meghalaya, where it is spo- ken by 32.48 percent of residents (ibid.:361). |\'ll.5l.|'ll,lN(iUr’\_l.NA'llUNh 299 Practical problems undoubtedly exist in supporting minority languages be cause educational uses necessitate economic investments in teacher training and preparation of texts and Other insrructional materials. However, pedagogical decj- sions are often based on societal attitudes toward speakers ofeach language. Refusal to acknowledge minority or tribal languages is tantamount to asserting economic ancl/or political control over their speakers. But minority linguistic communities are not united on issues oflanguage choice because class or caste differences affect people's goals. Elites may choose not to advocate their own native language for state recognition and instead favor Hindi or English because these have national and in« ternarional Stature. Inasmuch as elites are likely to be well educated, their fluencyr in Hindi and! or English enables them to participate in national culture while at the same time separates them from others in their linguistic community who are sub- ordinate. Mass communication also promotes marginalization of minority linguistic communities. Print and broadcasr media are tarer available in local languages. Even when available, most sectors ofminority groups do not support these media because topical coverage is generally limited to local events. In most cases, newspapers printed in minority languages have circulations of under 3,000 (Dua 1985:3613}: Thus, because minority media have only narrow appeal, they cannot adequately 15- gttimate or strengthen local identities. However, despite obstacles, hundreds of minority languages continue to be spoken in India. Even languages spoken by very few people can maintain their vigor In a review of minority languages in the state of Kerala, V. I. Subramoniam identi; fied the following circumstances favoring continued use of local codes in a small community: (1) little or no job contacts with speakers of dominant languages (2) low levels of formal education; (3) tendency for marriages to take place between people of the same community; and (4) lack of migration to other areas either for work or schooling (197723—26). For example, a group known as Kudumbis num- bering only 800, speak Konkani in an overwhelmingly Malayalamvspeakin’g area Kudurnbis live in a small suburb of a major city. Economic pursuits are limited: Women are engaged in selling rice; men work as day laborers. The community isolated from prolonged contacts with other groups and thus is able to maintain its distincrive ethnic and linguistic identity. Most adults speak only Konltani, althou h some yo unget people have been educated in Malayalam and are able to use it wigth varying proficiency. Konltani remains the language of Kudumbis’ homes. Older people of borh genders, most women, and all preschool children are monolin ual Konkani speakers [ibid.:21_22). g Although such communities exist by the thousands throughout India the people pay a price for their isolation because they have few educational andleco— nomic opportunities that could porentially lead to improved standards of living Finally, nationalist philosophies often relegate minority languages and their speakers to peripheral status. Expansion of standardized codes through mass corn- muntcation, education, and government encourages uniformity not only of language but also of “ideology and culture" (Dua 1985:3 70). The government ad- 300 an Illl [NIH a: N.\'i llJN\ roe-ates linguistic uniformity as a necessary adiuncr to centralization and coordina r'mn ni' ceonomit tlevelopiiieni and modernization. Minority languages and their speakers thus become stigmatized as obstacles to societal integration and advance. CANADA Language in Canada The linguistic situation in Canada, although apparently simpler than in India, is re- plete with long-Standing ethnic tensions that finally erupted into political conflicts. Canada was colonized by French and British traders and settlers beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. French settlement was concentrated around ports along the St. Lawrence River from Montreal eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. British control expanded westward, eventually reaching the Pacific coast. In 1762, France’s colony of Quebec was ceded to the British after France’s defeat in the Seven Years' War. Rural French farmers were geographically, economically, and linguisti— cally separated from urban English workers, business owners, and politicians in Quebec. Members of French upper classes, though, entered professions such as medicine, law, and the clergy. After Canadian independence from Great Britain in 1867, these francophone elites controlled provincial government as anglophone Quebeeers turned their interesrs to federal politics (Heller 1985:76). {Note that an— glophone refers to a monolingual English speaker or a bilingual with English dom- inance; francophone refers to a speaker who is monolingual in French or a French- dominarit bilingual.) The fairly stable separation of French and English speakers in Quebec began to change after World War H. A growing French middle class was absorbed first by the expanding provincial bureaucracy. In the 19605, this group entered private busi— ness sectors previously mo nopolized by anglophones. According to Monica Heller, as French prominence increased, francophone politicians championed the cause of Quebec nationalism in part to strengthen their control over the political apparatus. They wanted to keep Quebec’s anglophones out of provincial politics and to block inroads by the immigrant populace, most of whom ally themselves with angle— phones and adopt English rather than French as their second language (ibid.:77). Many of Quebec’s francophone residents coritiriued to resent the fact that the province’s economy was controlled by anglophones, often by corporations located in English—speaking provinces. As a result, calls for Quebec’s independence from Canada increased throughout the 19605 and led to urgent responses by federal au— th0rities, including passage of the Official Languages Act in 1969. As stated in the acts Declaration of Status of Languages, “the English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada, and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and-privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Gavernment of Canada” (quoted in Grosjean 1982:1647). MUIITILINGUAI. NATIU-‘JS‘ 301 This policy means that C ' ' ' ' must be provided in two languiiEfodStfialiliiiigllfiicoulltry m the game that services It does not specifically advocate individual biliiiguglifninflilal)‘ {cadan cm benefit- speljik two languages. In accordance with the law all govéi'tnliii l:hatdpcople Should _ a on t - pigs ilghacflaLDgfijgg and speakfirs of either have rights to 111:6rfc:u\$flll:ls :rlit Oice. n t c ' i I i _ ll978), this approach accomplishes two Fifi: Fliank Vii-Ilsa arid john dc vrics tion to French and its speakers, it biuiits the ap cal :fgfamlnglsymbdm' recogni- llSecond, by attracting francophones into federal epmploymzililfoiipoiFeri: nanonafisn‘li ure tr; wefikecrli Quebccfseparatisrti (ibid.:765). , an economlc I n t e omain 0 education, the federal ' provinces set up bilingual education programs ingdhifiizilsliiifielfgzlilllgs fillgds to help Elfifi‘population speaks the minority language (English in Quebec; Frerich £322?th 0f 15 goal has not been uniformly or adequately trier, however (Grosjean 1982-1;r6)‘ I I Federal attempts at reconciliation did not succeed. Most of Canada rem ' )i d indifferent or hostile to Quebec‘s grievances. In Quebec, francophones re‘ adan fielal bilingualism and instead established French monolingualisrn in theICCte' 0 — In 1977, Quebec’s government enacred the Chartre de la Langue FrancaiEenZ‘CEce' ter of the French Language), known as Bill 101, which recognizes French as th al- official language of Quebec. Official documents are published in Frenche only French is the language of education for the francophone majority and for i on . grants speaking other languages. Anglophones may send their children to Enrgll'mli- speaking schools if the parents had been educated in English in Quebec (ihid 41158)- ' In addition, French has become the routine language of public and rivat" - ployment. n11 job seekers musr speak French, as must current employeeswho: ml- for promonons (Heller 1985277). These provisions for language use in educalil‘li)y and at workplaces at firsr applied to Native Canadian communities as well but Iii n ..\_I tive Canadians succeeded in esrablishing their rights to use either their n t' l a. _ guagelor English or French as they see fit. a we and . his historical review provides a bac round for exami ' ' ' ' _- situational usage, and attitudes toward 513:5{81'5 of French £dn§d§fi;:$esl linguistic proficiencies remained stable throughout most of this centuiy Since dis 19705, some significant changes have occurred in proportions of those 5 eaki c only French and in rates of bilingualism. The following table compares fi ufiis fr mg the 1971 census as reported by Vallee and de Vries (1978:776) and theg omf 1991 (Statistics Canada 1995, Cat. No. 93—318:8): census 0 Proportions of Speakers of Official Languages 197} I991 English only 67.1% 66 6% French only 18.0 154 Both English and French 13.4 163 Neither 1.5 1-6 502 '~1LJ.i!Li:\i.L_.'+I i\"\lltl:\“ Although the proportion til—Quiadians who speak only English has remained relatively constant. fewer Canadians speak only French. it is. therefore. French speakers who have primarily contributed to the increase in bilingualism. Another reflection of English prominence in Canada is the Fact that most people who speali a nonofficial language and only one of the official languages choose English rather than French. Figures from the 1986 census indicate that 2.] percent of Canadians speak English and a language other than French, whereas only 0.1 percent speak French and a language other than English (Canada limi- Basil: 19902.25). Rates ofFrenchi’English bilingualism are highest in Quebec and neighboring New Brunswick (34.3 and 28.6 percent, respectively). In other provinces, bilinguals account for much smaller proportions of the population: Ontario is highest with 11.1 percent. the Prairie provinces average 6.0 percent, and Newfoundland is low— est with 2.9 percent (Statistics Canada 1995, Cat. No. 93—318t8). These figures in- dicate some slight increases in bilingualism throughout Canada since 1971. Across Canada, percentages of francophone bilinguals significantly outnum— ber anglophone bilinguals. Based on 1971 figures, approximately one—third of na— tive speakers of French also speak English, whereas only 7.6 percent of anglophones speak French. in Quebec's neighboring provinces, rates of francophone bilingual— ism are highest: 53.2 percent of francophones in New Brunswick and 80.7 percent in Ontario speak English. These figures contrast dramatically with the incidence of anglophone bilingualism, merely 5.1 percent and 5.5 percent in New Brunswick and Ontario, respectively. The only province where anglophone bilinguals out— number francophone bilinguals is in Quebec (59.1 to 24.6 percent) (vallee and de Vries 1978:781—782). In sum, then, it is the high incidence of angiophone bilin- gualism in Quebec (59.1 percent) that pulls up the national average to as small a figure as 16 percent. in Canada there is concern over the strong separation of French and English communities. Surveys of personal values, political opinions, and voring patterns indicate a consisrent difference between these populations (Meisel 1978). And when respondents were asked to assess diverse ethnic groups, English Canadians gave lowest ratings to French Canadians, preferring members of othernon-English ethni—cities. French Canadians, though, rated English Canadians higher than other non-French groups (ibid.:687). Although language is not the only cause of these at— titudes, it can be used as a signal of and catalysr for arousing prejudicial Stereotypes. The attitudes of the Quebecois about language and linguistic groups were heightened following passage of Bill 101 (Charter of the French Language) in 1977. Surveys conducred in Quebec revealed that both anglophones and francophones recognized the existence of two ethnic! linguistic blocks whose opinions and inter- ests diverged sharply. Members of both groups thought that francophones favored Bill 101 and that anglophones opposed it, and both thought that anglophones felt threatened by the legislation (Taylor and Dube—Simard 1985). In addition, although Quebec’s anglophones claimed that the bill’s provisions were unjust, they reported that they had not received unfair treatment. Donald Taylor and Lise Dube—Simard - suggesred that media accounts of fears and problems of a few individuals may have MUL'I'ILINGLT-Al. NATIONS 305 contributed to the widely held perception of injusnce even though that perception is not validated by personal experience (ihid.:165). The media in Canada [as elsewhere) play a key role in either strengthening na~ tional consensus or in expressing divergent perspecrives. Analyses ofthe French and English press uncovered significant differences in their orientations. For example, an examination ofpress coverage ofa critical incident in 1970 revealed that French and English newspapers focused on markedly different aSpects of the episode (Siegel 1983). The crisis began when a Quebec separatist group in Montreal kidnapped the British trade commissioner and the Quebec minisret oflabour, the latter ofwhom was subsequently killed. French media stressed themes of negotiation and comprow misc while discussing the co mplexitics of Canadian federalism and grievances of the French community. English media, in contrasr, stressed efforts to apprehend the kidnappers and free their hostages. Whereas the French press gave prominence to government officials attempting to resolve the crisis, the English press highlighted police activities (ibid.:212—213). In sum, the media transmitted divergent views of events, helping to construct socially derived and socially maintained portrayals of reality. As these different constructions become widely disseminated and accepted, they contribute to societal divisions and hosrilities. Situational Use In the current context ofpolitical strife concerning rights oflinguistic minorities in Canada and rights of the linguistic majority in Quebec, situational language choice assumes symbolic and personal meanings. In Montreal, a predominantly French— speaking city but with the largesr percentage of anglophones in Quebec, selection of code between bilingual speakers may reflect underlying attitudes about each lan— guage. By choosing one language over anorher, speakers assert their identity and show their sensitivity to the linguistic rights of others. For instance, in the dialogue quoted at the beginning of this chapter, a receptionist in a government agency and an anglophone who wanted to take an official French test made symbolic Statements with their choice of code in a clearly confrontational encounter. Recalling the in— - teraction, one can assume that the anglophone applicant had some ability to speak French because he planned to take (presumably with hopes to pass) a test in French, yet he demanded his right to use his native language. The francophone bilingual re- ceptionist countered his challenge by pretending not to understand English. A decidedly nonconfrontational interaction is illusrrated in the following tele« :_ phone conversation between a hospital clerk and patient. Both speakers attempted o accommodate to each other. The clerk answered the telephone in English, no— iced the patient’s French response, and preceeded to match her language to the code f the patient’s prior turn. However, this strategy did not lead to an entirely trou- le-free interaction because the patient was uncomfortable nOt knowing the clerk‘s ethnic identity (Heller 1985:80—81): LERK: Central Booking, may I help you? ATIENT: Oui, allo? (“Yes, hello?”) 304 :\1L'1'I'|l.lNltl Al NA'l'lUNK t 'Apporntments Desk. l1];l_\'l help tool“)- tilJ-‘iui: Bureau de l'ClIClE'e-VUUH, est cc que je pros vuus alder? (The patient begins to try to make an appointment) l‘.-\i MN 1; (French) crank: {French} PAIIL'N 1': (English) tgrruk: (English) PATIEN'I‘: (French) LLLERK: (French) ,, y u _ PATIENT: Etes—vous francaise ( Are you French or . . a on anglaise? English? ) . . . . _ , CLERK: N’importe j’su1s ni l’une (“It doesn’t mattel, lm . I n ni l’autre. neither one nor the other. ) I (I n PATIENT: Mais . . . ( But . . . ) cu;sz Ca ne fair rien. (“It doesn't matter”) PATIENT: (French) (The conversation continues in French.) In conversations between friends and colleagues who are aware of'each orher‘s linguistic abilities, various adjusrments can be made. Some speakers repetitively translate previous Statements in order to include all interlocutors in multiparty d1s- cussions. In the following excerpt, three coworkers are conversing, two franco- phone bilinguals (Albert and Claude) and an anglophone (Bob) With slight French proficiency (ibid.:85): ALBERT: . . .il nous reste plus de temps apres (“We’ll have more time ca pour discuter les problemes after that for discussing majeurs t’sais les choses qui major problems you know vrairnent you understand that Bob? the things that really . . . ”) I say if we lose less time in going over the routine we have more time to discuss the important uh . . . A final example illustrates another option, that each speaker uses the native language of her or his preference in an exchange of autonomous turns (tbid.:88): (“Are we going to have soup todayi”) HELENE: Va't—on manger de la soupc aujourcl’hui? IAN: I’m going to, I don’t know if anyone wants to join me. MUlTll thiiliAl NATIONS 305 HELEN l1”: je veux bien. quesr—cc (bore, 1 do, what will qu’tm mange? we have?”} IAN: Oh. I‘ll take care of it. Attitudes Toward Languages and Speakers Although overt behavior reflects speakers‘ adjustments to interlocutors, c0vett atti— tudcs also significantly affecr borh personal interactions and community-wide rela- tions. Canadians’ reaction to French and English speakers and their behavior in interlinguistic encounters have been studied using several techniques. Results of re— search in the 19508 and 19605 will be discussed first, followed by comparison with later studies. The first experiments employed the marchedwgm'se technique (Lambert et al. 1960) in which subjects listen to tape—recorded speech in two versions of the same content, both spoken by the same fluent bilingual person. In one version, the bilingual speaks French and in the other, English. Subjects are asked to rate speak— ers (thinking they are different pe0ple) according to various dimensions of person- ality, intelligence, competence, and sociability. Studies by Wallace Lambert er al. in the 19505 and 19605 revealed consistent patterns. In their experiments, using male guises and male and female judges, an— glophone subjects, as expected, rated guises more favorably when they spoke En- glish rather than French. But, surprisingly, francophone subjects expressed similar preferences for English speakers EXCQPt on ratings for kindness and religiousness. On other measures (intelligence, leadership, self—confidence, dependability, attrac- tiveness, ambition, sense of humor), francophone subjects preferred English speak- ers. Moreover, francophones gave significantly higher ratings to English speakers than did anglophones for qualities of leadership, intelligence, and self—confidence (ibid.:47l. The various dialecrs of French spoken by the four bilingual guises in Lambert et al.’s experiments had an effect on subjects’ assessment. Two spoke standard Cana- dian French, one a rural, heavily accented Canadian French, and the fourth Parisian French. All subjects rated the Parisian French guise mosr favorably and the rural Canadian guise most negatively (ibid.:50). These results indicated that hath angio— phones and francophones hold strong negative stereotypes of French Canadians. A subsequent study used male and female guises in order to assess the variable of speaker’s gender on hearer’s attitudes. Among anglophone subjects, both men and , women attributed more negative characteristics to Frenchvspeaking male guises but more positive traits to French-speaking females. Among francophone judges, men consistently rated English speakers (male and female) more positively than French speakers. Francophone women, though, preferred Frencl'kspcaking men on certain measures, rating them as more competentand sociable (Lambert 196795—37). Matched—guise experiments with children as speakers and judges revealed the age at which socially derived stereotyping begins. One study involved 10-year-old subjects, half of whom were monolingual French speakers and half were bilingual francophones. They were told that the purpose of the experiment was to see how JI06 NFC-l l'll INN, i“.l..\'.‘.l lU:\.\. until people can evaluate personalities of speakers solely on rhe‘basis of their yoice. Speaker guises were all 10—year-old bilingual girls. The results of this Study indicated a split herWeen reacrions of monolingual and bilingual subjects. Monolinguals rated french—speaking guises much more favorably on all personality traits, demonstrat— irig strongly negative attitudes toward English speakers. In contrast, bilinguals did not show any significant preference for either speaker (Anisfeld and Lambert 1964:“)1—‘32l. They exhibited no prejudice toward other groupsland no strong prefd erence for their own group. By around age 12, however, negative attitudes on the part of francophone bilinguals toward French speakers were found in further re— search. Social class of respondents influenced these ratings: Middle- and upper—class children had stronger biased reactions than did children from working—class fami- lies {Lambert 196798199}. I ‘ _ Employing a different research strategy, a series ofexperirnents applied speech accommodation theory to Canadian linguistic performance and its evaluation. Speech accommodation them}! basically suggests that when speakers havejpositive attitudes toward interlocutors, they accommodate or converge to the latter 5 speech styles. In contrast, they maintain their own style, and posSIbly even exaggerate it, if they have negative opinions about co—partic1pants (Giles, Taylor, and Bourhis L .)73IFI‘179E()ESIIS of speech accommodation theory with Canadian bilingual subjects, anglophone bilinguals listened to the recorded speech ofa francophone bilingual man giving directions from a map of Montreal. Subjects were informed that the speaker knew his hearers would be English-dominant and that he was free to speak whatever language he wished. Each subject heard one recording, although four dif— ferent versions were distributed among them. The verSions were spoken in French, mixed French and English, fluent English, and nonfluenr, hesitant, heavdy accented English. After listening to a tape, anglophone subjects were asked to make record‘ ings oftheir own descriptions ofa city route, intended to be played later to the fran- eaker the had heard. copho‘flfidlsltudy Rive:le that subjecrs who had heard the French version responded in English, whereas those hearing nonfluent English replied in French or apologized for their lack of French proficiency {ibid.:187}. According IO‘GLlfts et 31., when the speaker on tape used French he was seen as no nacoommodating to his anglophone hearers; subjects responded by refusing to accommodate to him. When he spoke English with difficulty, subjects thought he was making a great effort to accommo- date to them and they reciprocated his effort by trying to reply in French (ibid.). Another possible factor explaining this behavior, though,‘ is that subjects hearing nonfluent English might have assumed the speaker had difficulty comprehending English and so they tried to reply in French simply to be understood. A subSequent study of francophone bilingual subjects hearing a taped message from an anglophone speaking in French added a further manipulation to the same basic procedure. This time, one gto up of subjects was informed that the anglo phone bilingual speaking French had been permitted to speak whatever language he wished, whereas another group knew that he had been told to speak in French. Sub— ., 'ji MULTIIJNGUAL NATIONS 307 iects evaluated speakers more positively when they assumed they were hearing a vol— untai'y French taping (voluntarily.I accommodating to them) than when they heard a speaker who had been instructed to speak French (Simard, Taylor, and Giles l‘J761382—583}. All the various reactions to speech exhibited in these experiments can be unv derstood in the sociopolitical context oflanguage in Canada in the 19605 and early 19705. Attitudes toward language are not in their origin linguistic but, rather, so— cial. People attribute qualities to speakers of particular languages as a reflex of their opinions about members of given linguistic or ethnic communities. In some cases, prejudice against outgroups is uniform, for example, anglophone negative stereo— typing of francophones. But members of stigmatized groups may themselves adopt self—denigrating bias, although in these cases, attitudes frequently are mixed, ap— proving ofingroup people on certain measures. Studies by Lambert et a]. and Giles et 31. were conducted prior to the 1977 passage of Bill 101 that established French as the only official language of Quebec and that promotes French usage in education and business as well as in govern— ment. Surveys and experiments conducred since 1977 are important indicators of both change and stability in Canadian attitudes toward language and language users. Richard Bourhis {1985} reported three types of studies designed to investi- gate different aspecrs of linguistic and social interconnections. First, Bourhis ad- minisrered a quesrionnaire to francophone undergraduates at the University of Montreal and to anglophones at McGill University (also in Montreal). Respon- dents were asked a number of questions concerning their linguisric behavior in situations of interlinguistic contact. They were specifically queried about which language they used in conversing as customers to “outgtoup” clerks in stores and restaurants (an outgroup clerk is an English speaker to a francophone, a French speaker to an anglophone). Although both. groups reported initiating conversations in their native lan— guage in such settings, adhering to the traditional norm that “the client is always right,” anglophones claimed that they were more likely to change to French with francophone clerks utoday” than they had been “in the past” (i.e., prior to Bill 101}. These respondents also noted that francophone clerks were less likely to switch to English than had been characteristic of past encounters. In contrast to anglo phone respondents, francophones did not report a changed pattern in their choice of kin guage in these interlinguisric contacts; they still maintained French or changed to English at the same rates as in the pasr. In a finding with similar implications, anglophone respondents said that franco- phone clerks were less likely today to accommodate to an English-speaking client than in the past, whereas francophones reported that anglophone clerks were cur» rently more likely to converge to Frenchwspeakets than in previous years (ibid.:132). This survey documents a change in expecrations, attitudes, and experiences of young people in Montreal since discussion of language issues has become public and governmental intervention has created a legal and social climate encouraging the use of French. 508 ,\l'. Liili'wd Eu. ‘\.-\'ill].\n i lower-ct. overtly expressed sentiments are not always consistently reflected 11] actual behavior. Bourhis reported I\\’H related experiments asking subjects (aged lb and IV" years) to evaluate speakers on tape recordings of three—part dialogues in which two male actors pot traycd clerks and costumers. In both tests. dialogues had the same format ofturns: sa|espersoni'customer!salesperson. In the first study, the following language choices were employed: (1} F-l‘i—li (2} li—E—E. l3) F-F—l“, and (4] li—F—li, Both anglophonc and francophone respondents rated ingroup speakers more positively than outgroup speakers (ibid.:186). This is an important finding because it demonstrates a significant change from earlier studies (cg, Lambert 196?) in which francophoncs had negative biases against speakers of French. In addition, francophone subjects were positively impressed by anglophone customers who con— verged [0 the French—speaking clerk. Finally, all subjects reacted negatively to the francophone clerk when he failed to switch to English in response to an anglophone customer and thus violated norms of politeness to customers. In the second study, the same procedure was followed in dialogues beginning with an English—speaking Clerk: (1) E—F—E, (2) E—F—F, (3) E—E—E, and (4) E—E—E Here, all subjects reacted favorably to the anglophonc clerk when he switched to French in his response (ibid.:188—189). Positive responses were greater toward the anglophone clerk converging to French (study 2) than for a francophone converg— ing to English (Study 1). Perhaps such reactions imply that some degree of hier— archical relations continues between English and French. That is, a speaker of a higher—status language (English) is especially rewarded for switching to a lower— status language (French). A further series of studies by Bourhis was aimed at eliciting actual language use by interlocutors in natural settings. in this research, a perfect bilingual asked directions of pedesrrians in Montreal. In encounters conducted in I977 (shortly after passage of Bill 101), 95 percent offrancophone pedestrians converged to Eng— lish when the experimenter spoke English, whereas only 60 percent ofanglophones converged to French when the experimenter spoke French (note that a response was counted as convergence if it contained even as little as one word of the “foreign” lan- guage) (ibid.:l93). This study was followed in 1979 by an identical procedure to test whether changes in behavior had occurred. Experiments were conducted with middle—aged subjecrs chosen at random in downtown Montreal and with young university sru- dents at McGill and the University ofMontreal. Among older subjeccs, 100 percent of franoophones switched to English when queried in English, and 70 percent of anglophones switched to French in response to a question in French. In contrast, young Francophone university students converged to English at a rate of 33 per— cent, matched by 84 percent of anglophone students who converged to French (ibid.:196-—I97). A number of important conclusions can be drawn from studies by Bourhis and his colleagues. Overt attitudinal responses by francophones have changed markedly from earlier studies by Lambert and others. By the late 19705, franco— phones were at least consciously demonStrating positive reaCtions to their own 3-‘lLilJ1'El.Ii\-'LIL.AL Nil JLJNH 509 group as shown by students. claims to maintain their own language in interlinguis tic contacts. In addition. anglophone students claimed a current greater tendency than in the past to converge to French. I Covert attitudes. as revealed by the “dialogue” experiments, show some shift from earlier reactions but also demonstrate that English continues to have some prestige. In addition, the fact that older anglophoncs resist converging to French and that older franco-phones are willing to converge to English. as elicited in the “asking directions" studies, similarly indicates inequalities between the two linguis- tic cotnmunities. However. future trends may be indicated by the Eat that younger respondents, both Francophone and anglophone, were equally willing to converge to the outgroup language (at rates of 83 and 84 percent). Although this lasr point may auger well for possibilities oflinguistic tolerance on a nonconscious level re— cent political developments in Quebec indicate sharpening differentiation ambn various linguisticlethnic groups. g A hisroric referendum on the question ofsovercignty for the province onue- bee was held on October 30, 1995. Since the 19605, a separatist movement had grown in Quebec, organized since the 19705 as a political party (Patti Quebecois) whose goal was independence for Quebec. Along with demands for political and economic ascendency of francophones in Quebec, the Parti Quebeeois spearheaded the campaign for passage of Bill 101, making French the only official language ol the province. In recent years, as francophone political and economic control was consolidated, cultural and linguiscic issues that were always present took center stage, at least in rhetorical efforts to gain public favor for independence. Several ref- erenda on the question were easily defeated in earlier years, but in 1995 proponents of sovereignty came within one percentage point of achieving their goal, in part by tallying people around the issue of their cultural and linguistic disrincriveneSS—a disnnctiveness that is readily apparent and elicits emotional as well as intellectual reactions. The final vote (50.5 percent against separation, 49.5 percent in favor) indi- cates a divided province, but the specific figures for diverse linguisric groups are even more revealing; 60 percent of francophones voted for independence, while only 10 percent ofanglophones and a mere 5 percent of “allophones” (native speakers of nei— ther French nor English) did so. Indigenous peoples, called the First Nations in Canada, were especially opposed to Quebec independence. In fact, a week before the provincial vote, the Crees and Inuits held a referendum in their communities in which the Native groups vored nearly unanimously mat if Quebec has the right to separate from Canada, they have the right to remain. Regional diversity among fian- cophones also surfaced. Pro-sovereignty voting was lower in the city of Montreal and in areas of Quebec that border other provinces (Ontario to the west New Brunswick to the east) or the United States than elsewhere. , Leaders of the separatist movement vowed to renew their efforts and seek an- other referendum in a few years. The issue of linguistic and political distinCtions if: Canada, begun more than 400 years ago, will obviously not be resolved imme- diarely. 330 \l'u'l'l'll l‘{(L['-\l \\|'lt).\‘\ 'I'Hb‘ UNITED STATES Language in the United States 'l‘he linited States is a multilingual nation inhabited by millions of people who speak more than one language. Although English is the country’s dominant lan— guage, it is not the first language of many native—born citizens. And, of course. numerous immigrants continue to use their original language in must social inter— actions. No federal legislation specifically grants official status to English, but a “complex web of customs, insritutions and programs has long fostered well—nigh exclusive reliance upon English in public life” (Fishman 1981517). This was not always the case. From the late eighteenth through the midnineteenth centuries, p0- lirical leaders and prominent citizens contended that all Americans should be en— couraged to learn English but not be hindered from maintaining whatever orher languages they spoke. These leaders understood that different languages express different thoughts and cultural orientations, and thus they believed that linguistic diversity strengthened the development and exchange ofideas (Heath 19771272). In this period, some states promoted languages other than English by publishing laws in additional codes, for example, German in Pennsylvania and French in Louisiana. Furthermore, some laws affecting Native Arnericans were printed in in- digenous languages in the nineteenth century (ibidrz273). Change in attitudes toward multilingualism came in the latter halfofthe nine- teenth century. Policies promoting or protecting Other languages were repealed. Ed- ucators and public figures Stressed the necessity for all to learn “correct,” standard English. Many States enacted laws requiring sole use ofEnglish in schools and man— dated fines for teachers who spoke other languages in the classroom. Children were often punished for speaking non-English morher tongues. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, ruled in 1923 that minority communities have a constitutional right to speak their own languages in private, but not public, schools if they so wish (Grosjean 1982:69e70). Because most people attend public schools, they are sub- ject to public restrictions on the use of their native language. Standardization of code was increasingly stressed. “Textbooks emphasized the co-occurrence of (good talk' with good behavior, a moral character, and an indusrrious nature. . . . The way of dealing with ‘strangets' and their differences was to educate them to use ‘good Amer- ican speech’ and motivate them to conform in the Americanizing process” (Heath 1977:2754). This trend was Strengthened in the twentieth century, especially during World War 1 and World War II when speakers of some foreign languages were sus- pected as traitors. Despite social pressures and the prominent image of English as the code of U.S. residents, the reality of linguistic diversity continues. According to statistics collected by the US. Bureau of the Census in the census of 1990 (CPH-Ir133), 31.8 million people (14 percent of the total population aged 5 and over) reported non—English mother tongues. This figure represents an increase since 1980, when 23.1 million residents (11 percent ofthe population) were native speakers ofa lan— n-iLJLTiLINGUAJ. NATIONS 31 l guage other than English. The census re otred that 380 Ian ua ' homes in the United States, including 150 Native Americariglattggliidigit-ESEe SPOken m Oliall non—English languages, Spanish was spoken at home by the largesr num- ber of people, having 1?.3 million speakers. or somewhat more than halfofall peo— ple claiming a non~English morher tongue. This figure, too, represents an increase from 1980 when there were 1 LI million Spanish—speaking residents. In addition to Spanish, the most frequently spoken non-English languages were French (1 7 million speakers), German ( l .5 million), Italian (1.3 million), and Chinese (1.2 mil— lion). Taken as a group, Asian and Pacific Island languages had 4.5 million speak- ers; and Native American languages were spoken by some 332.000 people. The ability of speakers of no n-English mother tongues to speak English var- ied considerably. Approximately 56.1 percent reported that they spoke English very well, 23 percent answered that they spoke English well, 15.2 percent said they did not speak English well, and 5.8 percent did not speak English at all. Although Spanish dominates as a non-English home language in the nation some regional variation exisrs. Among speakers of non-English languages, French is the most frequently spoken language in Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. German is most used in Montana, Minnesota, and North and éouth Dakota. Portuguese is firsr in Rhode Island. The Native American language called Yupik dominates in Alaska, and Japanese is most commonly spoken in Hawaii States varied in their numbers and proportions of speakers of non-English lan— guages. The four states having at least 2 million such residents were California (8 6 million), New York (3.9 million),Texas (3.9 million), and Florida (2 million). How- ever, New Mexico had the highest proportion of speakers of non-English lan u cs (36 percent), followed by California (32 percent). Areas with the smallest raEioasgof people with non-English mother tongues are in the South (except Louisiana and Florida), the Central and Mountain states, and the Northwest. The map in Figure 1 1.2 presents percentages of speakers of minority lan 'ua es based 1976 f It also highlights prominent languages in each state. 3 g on lgures. Bilingual Education Recognizing the reality of multilingualism in the United States. public policies shifted in the direction of protecting the rights of linguiscic minorities. Firsr Ste 5 were taken in the domain of education. In 1963, the Coral Way School in Dag: County, Florida, established a federally funded bilingual education program for Spanish—speaking immigrants from Cuba. The next year, Toras’s Webb County schools began operating bilingual classes for Spanish speakers. Congress encouraged such programs by passing the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, or Title VII of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Acr. This act provides federal fundin for bilingual education in public schools. Congress periodically updates the actg mosr recently in 1979~ 1980, to give additional funding for increased services Uri: der the law, federal monies are given to state education departments and local school distorts to provide bilingual educatiori programs for students of limited English- jlj ,1. |.i|i'-.ii'i H "\ \Jlli-'\'- J’ / r'u.|n ‘, l I {W I HI 35s '7) it; I1 | 5--.___ f I | I wnwn "_ ___ ME“ NY fl NH15% I I l.( K - E_—‘ - '35-‘4- lr‘n4 F ME\ I c4115; ‘ MT 3“ Hots "“ ‘1'." F“ l “ - a 0R ?Q'-\§XllDZ". U I G“ i .‘ a . - m —-—— ' Misfit i raw-V” i SG Mam-4, so 9 I . - ' F.i.Po.s°.i+_c -_ i . an,“ Jan I, “WW? GINL - RIQ‘j‘i’o l - i s E’s-St ' v NJ 19% S.|.F.P0 s.o.I,P ‘i DE 7% LS ' MD 7% G.I.V,K LANGUAGES A APACHE H HAWAIIAN P POLISH Ar ARABIC HC HAITIAN CREOLE Po PORTUGUESE ‘ C CHINESE | ITALIAN 8 SPANISH Ch CHEROKEE In INUPIAT SI SLOVAK CZ CZECH J JAPAN ESE SW SWEDISH Cr CROW K KOREAN T TEWA F FRENCH L LAKOTA V VIETNAMESE Fi FILIPINO M MOHAWK Y YIDDISH G GERMAN N NORWEGIAN Yu YUPIK Gr GREEK Na NAVAJO FIGURE [1.2. Distribution of Minority Languages. (Grosjean 1932:47, based on 1976 Survey of Income and Education, National Cemerfiar Education Statistic: Bulletin 78, 13-5) speaking ability. The current statement of eligibility specifically includes Native Americans and others who may be native speakers of English but “who co me from environments where a language other than English has had a significant impact on their level of English language proficiency” (quoted in Leap 19862601). _ Federal legislation did not spell out charact'erisrics of programs or length of time students should remain in bilingual classes. It encouraged States and local dis— tricts to develop curricula and train teachers. Seventy—six programs were funded dur- .\'IL.-l.lJ[.ih~'t,L-A1 NAIIUEMN 513 mg the l'lrsl year of applicability. nearly all for Spanish—speaking students. Massa- chusetts was the first state to implement mandatory bilingual education with as- sage of its Transitional Bilingual Education Act in 19?], providing that sclijool districts With at least '20 children ofone language group who have limited En lisli profiCiency must institute bilingual programs (Grosjean 1982:72). g l Bilingual education in the United States is usually based on a "transitional" model, Oriented toward assimilation offoreign-spealting communities. its goal is‘to encourage speakers shift to English, eliminating reliance on their native langua es lior example, the Massachusetts law specifies that a child remain in a bilingual gal; gram-for a maximum of three years. During the first year, the native languape is used in 95 percent of classtime, reduced to 50 percent in the second year andgfi to 10 percent in the third {ibid.:73). In contrast to transitional programs, some coun- tries such as india adopt “maintenance” models that encourage acquisition of flu- ency and literacy skills in both native and second languages. Therefore although the Bilingual Education Act is a progressive Step in recognizing difficulties for chil- dren in classrooms dominated by what for them is a foreign language it does not actually promote multilingualism. According to Joshua Fishman, “the idler was pri- marily an acr for the Anglification ofnon—English speakers and nor an acr for bilin- gualism. . . . Thus, it is basically an act against bilingualism” (1981:517—518) In 1974, the US. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in-the Lari vs. Nichols case that resulted from an action brought by members of the Chi- nese community in San Francisco who alleged that school systems without bilin- gual programs effectively deny non-English-spealting students an equal education The Court agreed that such systems violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Although remedies were not specified by the Court, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare subsequently issued guidelines for corrective actions, including bilin: gual instruCtion and teaching English as a second language. Generally, school dis- tricts with at least 20 children of the same language group must insritute bilingual programs (Grosjean 1982:73v—74). Through federal funding, more than 1,000 bilingual projects are in operation They are concentrated in California (287}, New York (115), and Texas (96) bui nearly all States and U.S. trust territories participate. Although most bilinguafpro- grams are geared for speakers of Spanish (80 percent), other languages include French. Greek, Yiddish, Haitian Creole, Armenian, japanese, Vietnamese Chinese Ilocano (of the Philippines), and several Native American languages such its Navajoa Apache, Algonquin, Ojibwa, and Oneida (US. Department of Education 1990), These programs enable many children with limited English proficiency to benefit from schooling. However, they do not reach the majority of children who need them. Grosjean reports that 3.6 million children are eligible but that less than 40 percent receive bilingual education (ibid.:78}. Reasons for the discrepancy be— tween needs and services include lack of adequate funding, low priority given to these programs by some states and local districts, and the possibility that nuinbets of eligible children in any one school do not reach the required threshold of 20. Debates continue among professionals and the public about the effectiveness .5l4 Hillard-xi I~..\'iiu:‘.~ ofhilingual education. l.)L'[1"..ll.LUI':1 claim that it is unnecessary. that children will learn by being "immerse-cf in .1 second language (English). andr'ot that it is harmful to their educational advancement. In contrast. supporters cite advantages to a minority child’s self—esteem by recognizing the worthiness of her or his language and culture. They also point to numerous studies that demonstrate enhanced learning not only of English but also of other academic subjects by students in bilingual programs. Research by Beverly McConnell (1985) among children of migrant Mexican workers in two parallel bilingual programs showed that bilingual schooling aids learning abilities. One school was located in southern Texas and the other in Wash— ington State. Borh programs. beginning in preschool and extending through third grade. include teaching math and oral and written Spanish and English. Although these programs are identical, the communities served are vastly different. in Texas, most extrafamilial contacts (cg, in stores, churches, and through the media) are conducted in Spanish, whereas in Washington, English dominates. McConnell compared achievement scores over a seven—year period ofsome 700 children in the two bilingual programs with similar groups of Spanish—spcalti ng children in Wash- ington who were in monolingual English classes and found significant differences in performance in all subjects. At earliest ages. the Washington bilingual group acquired English vocabulary more rapidly than did the Texas group, but this dis- tinction disappeared by age 7. A major finding was that children in either of the bilingual programs learned English vocabulary at a much faster rate than did the children educated monolingually in English. McConnell explained: Wen Spanish—speaking children enter a traditional classroom where the teacher does not understand Spanish. the children often become silent, and are not expected to re— Spuml by a teacher unable to communicate with them. Without practice they do nor learn either Spanish or English very fasr. With a bilingual teacher, communication is never lost—what is said in Spanish is understood and responded to, and the teacher is able to help the child rephrase the question or comment into English so that there is more language practice in both languages and more aetive learning. The result is significantly greater learning ofEnglish by children in the bilingual program than for children from traditional, English immersion classrooms. (19851205) Children in Texas made greater improvements in their Spanish linguistic skills than did those in Washington, undorrbtedly because their use of Spanish was rein— forced in their homes and communities. These children demonstrated greater com— petence in math as well. McConnell suggested that for the Washington children, “the process of language shift [away from their Spanish mother tongue to English] is somewhat detrimental to the learning of math” (ibid.:210). Another study compared cognitive functioning of sixth-grade monolingual children in Pennsylvania with SpanishlEnglish bilingual Students in Texas (Kessler and Quinn 1985). The latter had been in bilingual programs through third grade and were fluent and literate in both Spanish and English. Carolyn Kesslct and Mary Quinn devised an experiment to test children’s ability to formulate their own sci- entific hypotheses after viewing films dealing with science problems. Both the ani'I'ttiNtuJAl.NATIONs 315 monolingual and bilingual children were divided into two groups, an experimental and a control. Those in experimental groups were taught to distinguish between types of scientific hyporheses, for example, differences between explanations such as "Magic did it" and "I could test my idea by putting several little bottles with dif- H ferent amounts ofwater in them in a tub and then see which ones would sink." Chil— dren in control groups were not. given overt instruction of this sort. All students ' were told to devise hypotheses to explain the science problems they had seen on ' - film. Although borh experimental groups formed much more complex hyporheses ’ than did the controls, bilingual children far surpassed monolinguals. Based on a standardized rating system, the mean for the monolingual experimental group was -- 53.3, but for bilinguals it was 176.0 (ibid.:289—290). ‘ I i ‘ Kessler and Quinn relate bilingual children’s achievement to superior cogni— ‘; rive functioning. They contend, along with other researchers, that “bilingual chil- :_ dfen have a cognitive flexibility and a more diversified set of mental abilities than I: monolinguals” (ibid.:283). Consistent with the notion that intellectual develop- ' ment is triggered by exposure to “discrepant events,” “bilingualism presents an ad— ‘ ditional element of conflicr within the linguistic environment since the child must adapt to two languages. In learning to manipulate language strucrures, the child may develop a general cognitive skill useful in Other domains.” Finally, “it mav be I that certain relevant aspects of the problem situations may be brought to thelbila 3 ingual child’s attention by the availability of two different linguistic perspectives” ' (ibid.:285—286). This conclusion is compatible with Sapirian-Whorfian insights about relationships between language systems and thought processes. Monolinguals speak and, therefore, think primarily within frameworks provided by a single lan« __ guage, whereas bilinguals inherently have at their ready disposal a wider range of al— ' _ ternative linguistic and cognitive options. A small number of schools in the United States are dedicated to achievin “two-way" bilingualism. teaching English to children from non-English—dominané homes and teaching Spanish to English-speaking children. The Oyster Bilingual School in Washington, D.C., has the oldest such program. The school’s population represents more than 25 countries and is racially and ethnically diverse: 58 percent Hispanic, 26 percent white, 12 percent African American, and 4 percent Asian : (Freeman 1996:5523). Although the two—way language program is successful in teaching children both English and Spanish, the ways in which children employ the languages differ. They are more likely to switch from Spanish to English than from English to Spanish. Furthermore, the fluency of Spanish-dominant students in En~ ' glish is better than that of English-dominant students in Spanish. These facts indi— cate an English orientation that underlies the school culture, obviously reflecting ocretal values and norms. '- Recent Trends in law Lilaws prorecting the rights of linguistic minorities affect several societal areas in ad- __ druon to education. In 1975, Congress pawed voting rights amendments contain— 3H) \11‘] I'll 1\£ .1.'.-\l .'\'r\'l ll.le ing provisions that mandate distribution or information for registenng and voting in languages oi‘minorit)‘ ethnicities ifthese people make up at least 73 percent ofthe voting age population In a district (Rubin 1985144}. In 1078, Congress passed the Court II‘IICI‘PI'CEET‘H IKCT TU pI'UVIdt' Cllllrl IIIECI‘PTETCI’S in CJSCS W'hCTC dCIF-Cl'lclilntfi. plaintills. and for witnesses “speak only or primarily a language orher than English” iquon'ti in Rubin 1985:1561. Deaf people Who use American Sign Language are also protected by this act, guaranteeing them the services ofan interpreter in court proceedings in which they are a witness, defendant, or party to a dispute (Cilzflauder Enrydnpedin 1987:1112}. The act sets guidelines for determining and certifying the qualifications ofbilingual interpreters. Numerous federal and State agencies have also insrituted policies to help non— English speakers and people with limited English proficiency avail themselves of public services. For example, the New York City Department ofSocial Services hires bilingual workers to aid clients who apply for welfare benefits. In the health field, the California Department ofI-Iealth Services recommends dissemination of bilin— gual material concerning hospital procedures. And the US. Department ofLabor regulates provision of bilingual services to people seeking unemployment compen— sation (ibid.:146, 138). Although these laws and administrative regulations safeguard rights of citizens and residents who lack fiill English proficiency, efforts began in the 19805 to reverse these prorections. In 1981, a constitutional amendment was introduced to make English the nation’s official language, but it has not been enacred despite repeated re-inttoductions in b0th the House and Senate (Baron 1990). Working in the leg- islative forum, in 1996 the House of Representatives passed the Language in Gov- ernment Act (HR—123) that would mandate the use of English by “all employees and officials ofthe Government ofthe United States while performing official busi— ness" (quoted in I-Iornbetgcr 1998:446— 447). The legislation has not become law, however, because of its repeated failure to be enacred by the Senate. In the words of one senator, Paul Simon oflllinois, it is a “not very subtle symbolic attack” on His panic and Asian Americans (ibid.:447). Using local strategies, numerous states, ei~ ther through legislatures or voter referenda, have passed laws that esrablish English as the official language of the state and do nor allow use of public monies to pre- pare, print, or disrribute information, forms, or brochures in languages other than English. Such regulations are in force in 17 states, mostly in the South and West. Many of these are states with relatively small immigrant populations (Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska), but others have high pr0p0ttions of foreign-born residents (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Florida) (US English 1990). Laws supporting English as an official language are pending in another nine states, most in the Northeast; and they have been proposed and rejected in eight states (Baron 1990:201). In California, vorers approved a ballot initiative in 1998, called Proposition 227. that aims to reverse bilingual education policies. Under the plan, f‘nearly all” bilingual classes must be conducted in English rather than in the children’s native language, usually Spanish. However, since the law does not define what “nearly all” means, school distriCts have interpreted the plan in diverse ways. Some districts use . ls-IUlIi'lLlNLiUAl. NA'I'IONS 31" r g torn-ilula 0? 20 peicem ?parrislti80 percent English. Others use a 30—70 percent o‘rmu a, not some rave c asses taught 40 ercent in S anish and 60 ‘ = - ' ' - glish (New York Times 1998}. In any case, {Jilly about 30ppercent offoreitigii—{Iiijtlr liiahii— speaking children are actually enrolled in bilingual programs because of the sEardi‘tv ofqualifred teachers. - i i I _ The diversity ofpolicies and attitudes concerning language and multilin ual— ism indicates the complexity of these issues. Unfortunately, the facts oflan ua use in the lJnited States are often obscured or even ignored in the debate. Whilge 1% er— ccnt of Americans either speak a language other than English or live in a houselijold where one is spoken, more than 97 percent ofall US. residents speak English And about 90 percent of Americans are monolingual speakers of English (Eaton 1990:1?7). Despite the rhetoric that arouses totally unfounded fears of the shrinkage of English use, in fact fewer U.S. residents do not s than at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The shift to greater English dom— inance currently than in the past can be accounted for by gains in educational achievement and by the decline in die prOportion of immigrants to the total popu- lation. That is, while the proportion of forei -b ' ‘ ‘ gn orn res1dents was 14 1920, it was only 7 percent in 1990 (ibid.:189). PEI-cam m future peak English today Native American Languages Many speakers of non—English languages come from communities that have resided in th15 nation for decades or centuries. In the case of Native Americans cestors have lived here for millennia. Analysis of 1971 census data indie 250,000 American Natives speak an indigenous language as their mother ton ue Approximately half of these people live on reservations and the others live in golf: reservation towns and cities (Leap 1981:126—127). Native American speakers of indigenous languages represent numerous linguistic families. Some langu es are currently spoken by only a small number of people, whereas others are wellg re re- scnted: Navajo has more than 100,000 speakers. According to federal statistics pthe followmg linguistic families have at least 10,000 speakers: Algonkian 48 000‘ Athabaskan (non—Navajo), 17,000; Iroquoian, 17,500; Muskogean 16 5’00- ,Ul: ’ Aztecan, 30,000; and Siouan, 28,000 (Leap 1981:126; Young 1978:1620 , 0- Figures available from the 1990 US. Census are nor exactly corn ' cause of differences in the questions asked. However, that they speak a Native language at home (note that others may be speakers of indigenous languages but do not use the language _ “at home”). By far the most fr — quently spoken language is Navajo (148,530 people reporting it as their home la:— guage). Other languages with more than 10,000 speakers include Dakotaflakhota Yupik, Apache, Cherokee, and Pima and Papago. Those with benveen 5,000 and 10,000 speakers are Choctaw and Chickasaw Keres Zuni Musko ei’C k ' .. , ’ ’ ’ H and Ojibwa (Broadwell 1995146447). In addition, some 17,00llgcrespdftfientsfi: ported their home language as “Indian” or “American Indian.” And ’ 10,000 people stated that they were monolingual speakers of an indigeflgfisnlg?uei;i: their an- ares that parable be— some 332,000 people reported 318 «.11 ll!L.J\I,-i'.-\l \-\'I'1n1\”~ The linguiStit needs ofNative American children are addressed by several fed— eral laws, including the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, amended specifically for Native Americans in 1972 as the Indian Education Act. This law provides funds for programs serving Native American communities (Spolsky 191759). Extension or the Bilingual Education Aer in I9?9— 1980 also benefits Native Americans even if they do not speak their tribal language. \"htious reservations have developed educational programs designed to meet their specific needs. Some groups accept a transitional model advocated by the fed— eral government. Among the Northern Cheyenne, Choctaw. Ute. and Zuni, bilin- gual programs seek to teach students English in early grades and switch exclusively to English in third grade. Other Native American peoples employ a maintenance model of bilingual education, stressing acquisition of skills in English while simul— taneously developing literacy and fluency in their indigenous language. For exam- ple, the Navajo, Yupilt, and Cree continue instrucrion in their native language in elementary school (ihid.:65). In addition, Navajo is spoken in community colleges on the reservation. For groups whose native language is no longer spoken as a first language, linguiStic programs aim at revival, usually in conjuncrion with instruc— tion in other aspecrs of traditional culture. In an important statement of policy, in 1990, the U.S. Congress recognized the importance oflanguages to the continuation of disrinetive Native American cul— tural identity. The Native American Languages Aer (PL 101—477) states: 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 sur— vival of these unique cultures and languages. The traditional languages of Native Americans are an integral part of their cultures and identities and form the basic medium for the transmission, and thus survival, of Native American cultures, litera— totes, histories, religions, political institutions, and values. In addition to generally encouraging use of Native American languages, the act specifically endorses use of these codes as “mediums of instruction in order to en- courage and support Native American language Survival, educational opportunities, increase student successs and performance, increase Student awareness and knowlr edge of their culture and history and increase student and community pride.” Efforts to ptorecr and promore the use of Native American languages are es- pecially critical, given the fact that many of these languages have few speakers at this time. The paucity of speakers has resulted from many factors, not the leasr of which was the federal g0vernment’s policies, lasting from the nineteenth until the middle of the twentieth century, that banned the use of Native American languages in schools and dormitories for Native American children. Officials targeted the main— tenance of indigenous languages as impediments to the “assimilation” of Indians into American society. The government, in collusion with missionaries and secular teachers, e5tablished boarding schools for Native American children in order to sep— arate children from their families and break their emorional and cultural ties with MUL'l'ILINLiLiAl. NATIONS) 319 their communities. In the Words oflohn Atkins, Indian commissioner in 188? "The instruction oi‘lndians in the vernacular is not only of no use to them, but is, detrimental to the cause of their education and civilization, and no school will be permitted on the reservations in which the English language is nor exclusivel ' taught” (Commissioner of Indian Affairs 1887zxxii}. - y Strong social and political pressures have been exerted for centuries to com- pel Native Americans to abandon their traditional cultures. In addition to forcin children to speak English, American authorities had two important goals Theg wanted Indians to abandon traditional religious beliefs and ptaCtices and COD-Var]: 1:: Christianity. And governments wanted to indoctrinate Native American children into sharing American values and finally acquiesce to American authority and con— trol. As a result of decades of such pressures, many Native American languages were forgotten. And many of those still spoken today have uncertain futures even though the direct assault on them has ended. Of course, some remain strong especiall Navajo (in the SouthweSt), Inuit-lnupiat (in Arctic Canada and Alasde Cree (iii subarcric Canada), and Lakhora (in the Great Plains), among others. In the context of the history of U5. (and Canadian) policy toward Native American languages, the recent statement by Congress is mosr welcome, although its practical effect is yet to be seen. Creole Languages in the United States Three unique languages developed in the United States in the past several hundred years._These are Gullah (spoken mosrly on the Sea Islands off the coast of South Carolina), Louisiana Creole, and Hawaiian Creole. A5 are all Creoles, these langua es are amalgams of sounds, grammatical forms, and vocabularies from several lingugis- tic sources. Creoles arise in contacr situations where speakers of different langu es interact and need to develop a mutually intelligible code. Gullah and Louisiana Ci- ole are derived from various African languages and English or French, Hawaiian Creole is a complex mixture of English, Native Hawaiian, Asian and Pacific languages. respectively. and several Gullah. Gullah is spoken by possibly as many as 300,000 people on the Sea Islands and along the mainland Atlantic coast from southern ' northern Florida. Most speakers of Gullah are deacendants of Alli-iiihwgvahglslgiaf: guages contributed to this creole. Figure 11.3 depicts the relevant area. Gullah changed significantly in the twentieth century because of increasin contact with speakers of standard English and southern regional dialects. As Eng: glish elements have been incorporated into Gullah, many creole features have be- come attenuated. Although no “pure” Gullah speakers remain, the language retains many disnnct forms and rules, differing considerably from Standard English. The followmg sample of Gullah is taken from the speech of a 9—year—old girl (Nichols 1981:74; text is written in standard En lish ortho ra h , ' h ad ' ' of distinctive Gullah traits): g g P y w“ dad underllnmg .520 L. 1 iii. :'-.i xi .‘:.'-.3 I\ c, t if ‘29 Wilmington ) 63 ‘8 .3913; ‘ Charleston \ GEORGIA Altarn Savannah‘ 35:? v? . FIGURE 11.3. Coastal South Carolina and Georgia. (Nichols 1931:72) When Christmas comel had gone to my Ann; house. Then my aunt it}: have to beat my little sister ’cause she had, she had broke a glass, with the cocoa in E. And then we had gone up to E other cousin house name . And then we had see-then we—then that night we had gone up to Jerome. Then when we ctr—me from there, the dog had come and bit_e my little sister and my little sister my, “Oswrw, Ooooo.” And then g say, “Unnn.” And then she—and then after that—Monday, weal had gone to my §u_r1t house fuh see my baby sister. And then we had gone and png. And then l had ride her bicycle. And me bicycle had broke. And say, “Oh, M, see what you done d9; broke that bi— CVClC." K I fly, “I ain’t do um; you do um ’cause you want me firh tore you.” Arlbili'lLiNuLM. NAlltJNb 5'2] Characteristic grammatical features OiIGullah include the following {unless other. wise specified, examples are From ibidfi'él --?‘3 l? Third—person subject pronouns are tint distinguished for gender. The original Gullah form for all third—person singular subjects was er, iii. Among some speakers there is a tendency now to include aspiration. lhil. but its occurrence is unstable. Some speakers employ the standard feminine pronoun lsiz‘ (“she”), using it contrastively with {if or fhii’ for masculine and neuter subjecrs. This pattern. too, is currently unstable (Jones-jackson 1984:3155]. In the sample above, for example, the girl uses both size and seas pronouns For female sub— jects. The third— person possessive pronoun as I i/ is used for all three genders (mas— culine, Feminine, neuter). Again, variation is found, with use 0H1! or fgi; for feminine possessors, and occasional adoption ofstandard “her.” Examples are “he took .96 mother long with um” (his); “but I ain’t see the” (her). Also note in the quoted story: “And then I had ride {arr bicycle. And she- bicycle had broke." The third—person objective casc pronoun is um him! for all three genders: “but i ain’t see she fuh tell em nothing” (her); “I ain’t know fuh get em oil?” (it), Current variation includes {sil for Feminines: “but I ain’t see the” (her); “she took the time for get here" Hones-Jackson 19845358). Nouns are not inflected for possession; e.g., in the girl’s story: “I had gone to my aunt house.” Similarly, plural objecrs are not marked for number: “there was this big snake with two horn.” Simple pasr tense is usually nor marked: “Then my aunt say have to beat my little sister.” Several verbal aspects are overtly marked: a. Habitual: “This summer, when my daddy be working, they always have lot of peaches.” b. Progressive, marked by dark: “Gregg do}: hide.” c. Perfecrive, marked by done: “I done know.” Clauses with infinitive verbs are introduced by fish, as in: “I come fit}: get my coat” or in the narrator’s “you do urn ’cause you Want me fiui tote you.” Embedded sentences are introduced by 56, as in the following excerpt quoted by Dreyfitss (1978:66) From Lorenzo Turner’s transcription of Gullah (1949:211): Eden di (film de In nyu yak s e n wad se de E gain gIt nntnf “Then the children in New York sent word grit they weren’t going to get any— thing.” Gullah’s disrinctive grammatical features are similar to those of several West African languages. For instance, juSt as Gullah does no: mark gender differences, neither do Yoruba, lgbo, and Efik Genes-Jackson 1978:4215). Unlike English, West I African languages contain highly developed aspectual systems, a characteristic also .522 ".lLl :‘llL‘xkllil .\.~\|liJ‘\\ round in (.iullali. Finally. the particle S_L‘ occurs with identical functions in Cullali and some \‘ir’est African languages such as 'l'wi (Dreyl‘uss l‘JT'Bfl'ifil. (On a compar- ative note, recall that 5:; appears in Jamaican English or parois spoken by people of lamaican descent in Great Britain; see Chapter 6) Gullali's inventory of sounds is similar to that or'English. but it contains some distinctive elements: l. Cull-ab replaces English interdental fricarives (EH and 302’ with corresponding alveolar Stops ft! and fdr’. respectively (Jones-lackson l9?8:427— 428). I»; Gullah contains bilabial Fricarives fill and iBr’. Voiceless {43! appears in place oi" English labiodental riff, whereas voiced r’Br’ replaces English labiodental I w’ and bilabials Xbil and fwi. Bilabial fricatives do not occur in standard En- glish, although they are common sounds in West African languages (ibid.:427). 3. Vowels iii, ref, for”, and (iii are monothongs in Gullah, whereas they are dipthongs in English, that is, 1in, fey}, fowl, and luwr’ (Dreyfuss 1978:66). Finally, although Gullah vocabulary is primarily derived From English, Turner reported some 250 words in Gullah that originated from 20 Wesr African languages (Turner 1949; Dreyfuss 1978:65). The following examples were recorded in Jones— )ackson’s study of Gullah in the 19705 (1978:425—426). Guild}; English Source Language gulu pig gula “pig, hog” (Kongo) guba peanut rLguba “peanut” (Kimbunda) gornbo okra r“okra” (Tshiluba) jiga small flea iiga “insecr” (Wolof) nansi spider anansi “spider” (Twi) rot to carry rota “to pick up” (Kikongo) cikabod a see-saw cika “to lift" (Mandingo) hudu bad luck hi’iiduiba “to arouse resentment" (Hausa) Louisiana Creole. Louisiana Creole is derived from French and from African languages spoken by slaves brought to the area principally From Wesr Africa. Cre— ole coexisrs today with two varieties of French, a rarely spoken dialect descended from the speech of" colonial settlers and a widely used Acadian, or “Cajun,” dialect originating with eighteenth-century émigrés from Nova Scotia. Regional and stan— dard English are now spoken in Louisiana as well. The number of creole speakers is unknown, but esrirnates of 80,000 have been suggesred (Dreyfiiss 1978:67). Most speakers of creole are African American, although many whites also speak the lan— guage. Speakers of creole are often bilingual in Cajun French or multilingual speak- ers of Cajun, standard French, andl'or English. expecred in a situation of such Constant contact, changes in all these varieties have taken place. Distinctive traits of Louisiana Creole include the Following (examples com- piled from Dreyfuss 1978:68—70 and Nichols 1981:79w80): \1 L' [,I'Il .INUUAI NATE )N R 32,: 3 , . .. ' l\t‘pldLe111C11[ or standard French rounded iront vowels bv unrounded vowels Henri} circle 5': funicr i’liiriic’i’ -" i i'firne'i' "to smoke" o seul {still —> c fselr’ “alone; onlv" o pem’poJr fro! -+ fpef “a little“ I Eu Use offerninine definite article [a for all nouns, including nouns that are mas culine in Standard French. Definite articles either Follow 0r precede their nouns in creole, whereas Tile}! always precede in standard French- Caren Kr French Form-la la femme “the woman" la-kord la corde “the string” ti—koso—la le petit cochori “the little pig" 3. G d ' ‘ ' i i i - ' 11:1; (3215 not distinguished For third person subJeCts, both marked by the pro- z’r' vini pu—mote aho—la she! he managed to climb up there 4. Standard third-person plural pronouns z‘lr/elr'er (“they” masculineir feminine) are replaced by ye. Ycalso occurs following nouns to mark plurality- Creole: lsa ft: trwa lapE-ye ki muri. m-ale sane ye} ' French orthography: ca fair troit lapin-ye qui mouri. Moi aller c “That makes three rabbits who are dead. I'll go look for term.” hemherye S. Tense is not marked on verbs. Particles indicating aspects precede verbs: mofim' I finish, I finished, I will finish mo re-fim' I have finished (completive) m-ape— m‘ I am finishing (progressive) m-ape—il’upe I am running (progressive) mo rope cup: I was running (progressive) mole-leap: I will run 6. Embedded sentences are introduced by 58 (note the similarity to Gullah} Creole: fbuki re krwa re t”: not lapel ‘ French orthography: Bouki te croire so on autre la in “Bouki believed that it was another rabbit. ” p - Due to multilingualism and dialecr mixing in Louisiana, creole has had an im— pact on local varieties oFEnglish. The followin construct ' ' ' from Louisiana Creole (Marshall 1982:314—315): 10mm EnghSh are derived 1. Omission of tense markers: He come and see yo u. (pasr) She expect in September. (present) 3h!!! ‘.‘.'.1l'.!l?\‘.l..’ii \'-\'I'|H\~ _ Omission of noun plurals: H1XE}"[WU stitch in other word i. In interrogative sentences. the auxiliary "do" [or Wild") is not included. How she write (lat? \Vhat he used to do? 4i. Shifts in meaning {translations of creole construcrions'): I made $100 worth of damage. {from creole-Wrenchfirireho make. do") What he used to do For a life? She remarried back. Hawaiian Creole. Hawaiian Creole is one of many languages spoken in Hawaii. The complex linguistic situation in that state is a result of contact among indigenous Hawaiians, American colonizcts, and Asian, Pacific, and European im- migrant workers. American coloniaation of the Hawaiian islands began in the late eighteenth century and intensified in the nineteenth. The Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown in 1893 and the territory was annexed by the United States in 1898. During this era, American plantation owners and traders brought in workers from many countries. principally China, Japan, the Philippines, and Portugal. In this multilingual context, a Hawaiian pidgin language developed For use among Work- ers, merchants, and residents of diverse linguistic backgrounds (Sato 1985:255— 258). Pidgins are similar to creoles in their origin, arising in contact situations among speakers of varied languages. They diflfer in that pidgins have simplified grammatical structures and a limited vocabulary, containing primarily those words necessary to Carry on restricted conversations between people who interact in spe— cific contexts, as in work or trade. Pidgins are not first languages of any speaker but are acquired For use with limited funcrions. Pidgins sometimes eventually develop into creoles, that is, full languages, through expansion of grammatical el— ements and vocabulary. They then can be learned as firsr languages by children, possibly beginning with offspring ofinterethnic marriages. Such a potential situa— tion arose in Hawaii and probably accounts for the origin of Hawaiian Creole (ibid.:261). Creole is currently spokeu by nearly half of the 800,000 residents of the state. Most speakers are bi- or multilingual, speaking variants along a creole—standard con— tinuum (Nichols 1981:32). Distinctive traits of Hawaiian Creole include the following (examples com- piled from Nichols 1981:85a86; Drcyfiiss 1978:72): 1. Absence of definite articles. Indefinite article is expressed as wan: I go see wan movies. (I went to see a movie.) 2. Past tense is either not marked or signaled by war: preceding a verb: My cousin go. (pasr) I were go climb up when I was wan baby. {I climbed up when I was a baby.) M Llll'l'iiJN‘i iLiAI NATIONS 32‘: j. Neutralization" or elimination or'Past tit contexts (Day l‘)?3:307 -- 308): a. In sentences containing multiple past-tense verbs, only the firsr verb is marked; subsequent verbs are not marked: So he went down there and o b. In sentences containing adv marked for tense: In those days, when I get only one two baby I go with Pa a all over. (In those days, when I had only one or two babies, I wenfwith Pa :1 all over.) P -[Ct‘l$t‘ HIREkCI‘S OCCUI‘S in FWO svntac— pen the door and trying to drag the guyr out. erbs referring to past times, verbs are not Future tense is signaled by gen preceding a verb: Igor! see wan movie. 5. ProgressiVe or habitual aspeCt is marked by Us tray playing basketball over there. 6. Negation is marked by: a. no or not in nonpast tenses; I narjoking. b. neverin past tense: He never go. (He didn’t go.) 7. Clauses with infinitive verbs are introduced by fir.- Ask himfi'r iron my shirt. tray preceding a verb: The following passage illustrates man F f -- ~. y eatures o H W (J _ ken by a 45—year—old man who resided on o a ran reole It was s (Sato 1985:2612): 7 P0- ne of the most remote islands in the chain fluk nau, a bin go si Toni abaut go spansa da kidz, ae, da b skitbawl tiin, da wan ai ste koch Fo——ai tel, :3. Toni, hauz abaut, a, spansa da kidz, boi, yu no tofu awl iz awl I’uhi kidz, yu no—aen awl as gaiz awl y unyen membaz, ae? a tel am yu—yu gaiz kasn spansa ada gait—iii no si wai yu gaiz no kaSn spansa da kidzr" look-now, I-been-go-see—Tony—about-go—sponsor-the—kids, eh, the—basketball-team the-one-I-stay-coach—fiir—I-tell, hey, Tony, how’s-about, uh, sponsor—the-kids boil you-know-after-all—it’s-all-Puhi-kids-you—know—and-all-us—guys-all-union-mem: bers, eh? I-teli—him~you——you—gu — ys—can sponsor-other- u —I- - — - guys—no-can-sponsor—the—kids g ys no sea-Why you “Look now, I went to see Tony about [their] sponsoring the kids, eh, the basketball team that I’m coaching. I said, ‘Hey, Tony, how about sponsoring the kids, boy? You knot;F aFter all they’reball Pull-ii [name of a town] kids, you know—and all oFus [par- ents are union mem ers, e ?' I told him, ‘You— ou u I don’t see why you can‘t sponsor the kids.” Y g YE can sponsor Other guys‘ All three American creoles share certain s complexmes are minimal because of an absen gender on pronouns, and tense on verbs. Asp developed. tructural similarities. Morphological cc of markers for plurality on nouns, ectual distinctions, however, are well 326 \ll'l'lllIVIJ .\l.N.\llL_lf\f~. In all three speech communities. speakers of ereoles are rarely. it ever, nio— nolingual. l'hc} employ various dialects andlor languages on :I continuum from heavily creoli'ced to regional standards. Speakers of creoles tend to be among the poorest. least educated sectors of their communities, usually living In rural or iso— lated regions. Because ofa combination of their class. limited education. and. 01"— ten, race. and influenced by dominant societal attitudes favoring standard English. these speakers are generally stigmatized. Their language is denigrated as ungrarn- Inatical or incorrect. Needs olcreole-speaking children in schools are ignored; they are expected to learn Standard English with no special instruction in bilingual pro— grams. Negative Stereotypes no doubt contribute to the erosion ofsome distincrive characteristics Of the creolcs, yet they remain fully Functional languages spoken by substantial numbers of people. SUMMARY In all societies, some people speak more than one language. Multilingualism results from universal experiences of meeting and living with people of diverse linguisric and ethnic backgrounds. In modern nations, conflicts based on economic anchor political conditions often surface as conflicts over languages spoken by different groups. The language one speaks is an important aspect ofindividual identity and can be used to galvanize and Focus group consciousness. We have examined aspects of these issues in India, Canada, and the United States, each having its own specific problems and outcomes. In India, linguistic diversity reflecrs a complex history of uniting many dis- tinct cultural groups into a modern political entity. In Canada, two large ethnic di- visions compete for economic and political status. Finally, multilingualism in the United States Stems From past and present immigration. Immigrants have continu- ally interacted with previously esrablished communities, whether native or them- selves descendants of prior immigrants. GOvernment policies in the United States have undergone historical changes regarding support or nonSuppon of minority language rights. These policies, and public opinion, are Still in flux and will undoubtedly continue to arouse controversy. But the facr remains that millions of people in the United States are speakers of Ian- guages other than English. Native-born and immigrant, monolingual and multi- lingual, all add to society’s complexity and diversity. REFERENCES ANISFELIJ, ELIZABETH, AND WALLACE LAM- APTE, MAHADEV. 1976. Multilingualism in BERT. I964. Evaluational reactions of India and its socio-political implications: bilingual and monolingual children to An overview. In Language andPalt'ricr, ed. spoken languages. journal offibmmal W O’Barr and J. O'Barr. The Hague: and Social Winning 69:39—97. Mouton, pp. 141—164. I FREEMAN, REBECCA. 1996. Dual-language KIDDER, ROBERT. 1976. Langu MEL! lLlNLiLIAL NATIONS 52? BARON. l)l-..Nt\l's. IWIJ. Hie English-Um} Question: Au Ofiit'rrts’ Lmrguagefbr Amer- r't'am? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. much more than language." I'L'bUl. Quarter-{143015 S?~— 582. {Mikado Unitmn'ry Encyclopedia of Deaf People and Deofizcis. 1987. New York. Bouanrs. RICHARD. 1985. The Charter or McGtaw-Hill. vol. I. the French language and cross—cultural communication in Montreal. In Conflict and Language I’LGnr'ng in. Quebec, ed. R. Ilourhis. Avon. England: Clevedon, pp. 174—204. BROADWEIL, GEORGE. 1995. 1990 census figures For speakers of American Indian language. Language in Society 61:145— Universirypress 149. ' ‘ HEATH, Sammy. 1977. La d '— Camzdo l’éar Boat. I990. Ottawa: Statistics tics in the United Stanlgulihgcfi‘figuliliih Canada. I and Anthropology ed. M. Saville-Troike. Census or INDIA. 1980, 1981. Georgetown University Round Table on COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 1887. Languages and Lingllls‘lcs- Washington- Ammg Repay; Washington, DC DC: Georgetown University Press. pp. DASWANI, C. I. 1989. Aspects of modern~ 267-296 ization in Indian languages. In Language HELLER: MONICA. I985. Ethnic relations Adaptation, ed. F. Coulmas. New York: and language “55 in Montreal In Lan— Cambridge University Press. pp. 79-89. We?" flffnrqmi’z‘gz, ed. N. Wolfion and]. DAY. RICHARD. 1973. Tense neutralization Man” The Hague: Monro“, PP: 75‘ in the Hawaiian post—creole gradatum. In 90' New Way: ofAnabzt'ag létrrlrztx'an in En— HORNBERGER, NANCY. 1998. Language pol- glisb, ed. C. Bailey and R. Shuy. Wash— iCY: language education. language rights: ington. DC: Georgetown University Indigenous! immigrant. and interna- Press’ Pp. 306_312_ tional perspectives. Language in Society DREYFUSS, GAIL. 1978. Pidgin and creole 27:439—458' languages in the United States. In A Plu- JONES-JACKSON. PATRICIA. 1978. Gullah: mam: Nation, ed. M. Laurie and N. 0!! the question of Afro—American lan- Conklin. Rowley, MA: Newbury, pp. guage. Aflfbmpflbgital Linguim'c; 20: 51-77, 422—429. DUA, Hans. 1985. Sociolinguistie inequal— JONES-JACKSON, PATRICIA. 1984. On dotte- ity and language problems of linguistic olimtifln and language deadi in Gullah. minorities in India. In Language affn- Langmgc in Society 13:351—362. equaling ed. N. Wolfson and j. Manes. KESSLER, CAROLYN, AND MARY QUINN The Hague: Mouton, PP- 355‘—372- 1985. Positive effects of bilingualism on FISHMAN, JOSHUA. I981. language policy: science problem-solving acrivities. In Past, present and Future. In Language in Perspectives on Bilingtwiitm and Bilin the 0514, ed. C. Ferguson and 3. Heath. Education ed. J. Alatis and J. Staci? Neilsr York: Cambridge University Press, WaShingtDn. DC: Georgetown Univer- pp. 516—526. sity Press. 283—296. GILES. HOWARD. DONALD TAYLOR, AND RICHARD Bouams. 1973. Towards a the— ory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society 2:177— 192. GROSJEAN, FRANCOIS. I982. [Jfi with Two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard and liti— planning at Oyster Bilingual School: “It’s gation in South India. In Language and JEN \it_ I I ll i'\l :l "11 .'\.-'\11\ I:\\ .rrbr’lr'rt I. kid. \\\. Ll Bdll MIL! U bill. lllk Hague: \‘IULHUII.}1P.2351—19]. l..-\MUER'1'. WAI t.Aci-:. 1962?. A social ps‘v‘ Ll’iullrgy Iii-{lillllglldilhilL frmmm’ rilfguuirri’ [Sines 25:9 1 — 109. !. AMRLRT. WA] mus. R. ('_‘. HODCSON, R. (_' (.iARD-NER, AND 5. FILLENIMUM. 19611. Evaluation-.11 reacnons to spoken lilII' git-ages. journal of flr’nmrtnnl and Racial Hyr'lrolagy (ilk/14 — 51 . [.1-1A1=.\1<’1LLIAM. 1981 . American Indian lan- guages. In Language in the USA. ed. C. Ferguson and 5. Heath. New York: Cam- bridge UniVersity Press, pp. 116—144. LEAP, W’ILLLWL. 1986. American Indian English and its implications for bilingual education. in Dialer: and Language Vari— anon, ed. H. Allen and M. Linn. New York: Academic Press, pp. 591—603. MARSHALL, MARGARET. 1982. Bilingualism in southern I..ouisiana: A sociolinguistic analysis. Anthropological Linguistics 24: 308—324. MCCONNELL, BEvERLv. 1985. Bilingual ed— ucation and language shiFt. In Spanish Language Use and Paola Life in the US. ed. 1.. EliaSIOlivares et a}. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 201—215. MEISEI-, JOHN. 1978. Values, language and politics in Canada. In Advance: in the Sinai]; of Societal .Malrilingwtlnm. ed. J. Fishman. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 665— 717. New lime Times, 1998. California bilingual teaching lives on after vote to kill it (Don Terry). October 3:A1,7. NICHOLS, PATRJCLA. 1981. Creoles of the USA. In Language in the USA. ed. C. Fer— guson and 3. Heath. New York: Cam- bridge Utliversity Press, pp. 71 --91. Room, JOAN. 1985. Spanish language plan— ning in the US. In Spanfin Language Ute and Paola Lr'fein {be US, ed. L. Elias-Oli— vares er al. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 133-452. SATO, CHARLENR. 1985. Linguistic inequal- ii} In Ilauan. llic post—creole ililcmn'ta. In I .ang‘mrgt‘ n! '1' neqnnléqi cd. N. \Vflll‘son and _1. Mains. The Hagui-g: Mouton. pp. 355—372. SJEGEL. ARTHUR. 1983. Politio'ana' rlieMe— dr'a in Canada. Toronto: McGraw—I-‘Iill Rycrson. .‘iiMARn. 1-1515. DONALD 'l'AvLoR, ANn HOWARD GILES. 1976. Attribution pro— cesses and interpersonal accommodation in a bilingual setting. Language anaI Speed? 19:374 —387. SOUTHWOR‘IH, FRANKLIN. 1985.1'he social context of language standardi‘aition in India. In Language aflneqaaligi, ed. N. Wolfson and J. Manes. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 225—239. SPOLSKY, BERNARD. 1977. American Indian bilingual education. International jam:— nal of the Sociology of Language 16:57— 72. SRJDHAR, S. N. 1988a. Language modern- ization: Structural and sociolinguistic as- pects. In Conference on the Barqae Lan— guage. Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 351—368. SRIDHAR, S. N. 1988b. Language variation, attitudes and rivalry: Spread of Hindi in India. In Language Spread, ed. 1’. Lauren- berg. Georgetown University Round Table in Languages and Linguistics 1987. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. pp. 300—319. STATIercs CANADA. 1995. Cat. No. 93— 318. Ottawa. SUBRAMDNLW, V. 1. 1977. A note on the preservation of the mother tongue in Kerala. In Indian Bilingualism, ed. P. G. 'Sharma and S. Kumar. Agra, India: Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, pp. 21—33. TAYLOR; DONALD, AND LISE DUBE-SIMARD. 1985. Language planning and intergroup relations: Anglophone and francophone attitudes toward the Charter of the French Language. In Conflict and Lan- guage Planning in Qaer’see, ed. R. Bourhis. Avon, England: Clevedon, pp. 148—173. I'tr1ux: LR, LORENZO. 1911‘). A fnominm in tin: (full/4n Dialer: (iliit'ago: University or Chicago I‘ress. {7.8. BUREAU or- Tui? Census. 1993. [an guage Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English fin United State: Region: and .S'rarer: I990 {CPI-14.4551. \X’ash- ington, DC. US. CONGRESS. 1990. Native American Languages Acr. 1‘1. 101-477. 1.1.8. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 1990. Office of Bilingual EducatiOn. Printom. Washington, DC. .‘.iL..L_':'[L1.\LJ L.Al. NA] 11.15.28 32‘) US E.NL.L151£. 19911. Filefacts. Washington. DC. VALLEE. FRANK. ANDJOHN DE VRIEs. 1978. Trends in bilingualism in Canada. In Aa’ Mani—er in the Study of Societal Multilin- gualism. ed. j. Fishman. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 761-792. Younc, ROBERT. 19338. English as a second language For Navajos. In A Pluralism? Nation, ed. M. Loune and N. Con— klin. Rowley, MA: Newbury, pp. 162— 172. ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 19

anth 4 reader 11 - 11 Multilingual Nations Note the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 19. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online