Book Review

[Harold F. Schiffman]

Forwarded from LINGUIST List 15.1717
Fri Jun 4 2004

Reviewed by Brianna Rauschuber <bri_gayle at yahoo.com>


AUTHOR: Dicker, Susan J.
TITLE: Languages in America
SUBTITLE: A Pluralist View
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2003

OVERVIEW

The primary purposes of this book are (a) to debunk the arguments that
language restrictionists in the U.S. use to support English-only; and (b)
to show the advantages of linguistic pluralism.  The book is especially
intended for the non-linguist, although it may serve as an introduction to
language politics and policy in the U.S. for students of linguistics as
well. The author, a professor of English at Hostos Community College at
the City University of New York, became interested in language policy as a
result of growing up in a multilingual home.  The book makes a case for
linguistic pluralism in the U.S. by drawing upon linguistic, sociological,
and historical evidence.

SUMMARY

Chapter 1 discusses how language shapes personal and cultural identity.
The author discusses the term 'mother tongue' and describes the pain that
many immigrants feel upon loosing their native language. She submits that
while immigrants must learn the majority language required for
participation in public life, they can at the same time develop their
skills in their mother tongue in order to maintain their own distinct
personal and cultural identity.  A significant portion of Chapter 1 is
devoted to the topic of cultural stereotypes formed along language group
lines.  The author observes that prejudice against the speakers of Spanish
and African American Vernacular English (AAVE) leads to stigmatization of
the languages themselves.  As Dicker points out, language varieties are
stigmatized due to prejudices against its speakers; speakers in turn are
judged by the character of their speech.  Chapter 1 also includes a
discussion of the Oakland School Board decision of December 1996 to
recognize AAVE and use it to teach standard English.

Chapter 2 distinguishes among different paradigms for immigrant
adaptation, including acculturation, assimilation, the melting pot, and
cultural pluralism, which Dicker clearly favors.  The author shows that
the popular notion of a melting pot, a kind of immigrant adaptation in
which all immigrants are assimilated and transformed into a new people,
probably never existed in the U.S.  Dicker presents a brief linguistic
history of the U.S. to support her claim.  She discusses the lasting
linguistic influence of the three major colonial powers in North America:
England, France, and Spain.  She also provides a comprehensive account of
immigration from 1820 to 1924. Among the many groups of people who
immigrated to the U.S. during this century were large numbers of Irish,
Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Italians, Greeks, Polish, Jews, Chinese,
Japanese, and Canadians. Dicker notes that many different factors affected
the extent to which each of these groups maintained its native language
and culture. Internal factors affecting language maintenance included the
size of the immigrant group, the length and pattern of its migration, and
its relations with the homeland.  External factors affecting language
maintenance included pressures from the larger society to assimilate, such
as racism and religious prejudice, government policies on immigration and
minority language use, public education, and the press.

Chapter 3 presents and then debunks eight widespread myths about first-
and second-language learning.  Myth 1 is that children acquire their first
language quickly and effortlessly.  Relying on support from McLaughlin
1978 and Holzman 1997, the author explains that first-language acquisition
is ''a time-consuming and demanding task that children work at throughout
their formative years'' (p. 86). Children gradually move from the babbling
stage to produce two-word utterances around the age of eighteen months,
and then more complex utterances by age three; a child's first-language
skills are still developing when he enters school around age five or six.
Myth 2 is that younger learners are better at acquiring a second language
than older learners.  Lenneberg's (1967) critical period hypothesis is
questioned on the basis of evidence from Singleton 1989, Genesee 1981,
Ervin-Tripp 1974, and several others.  Myth 3 is that second languages are
best learned in the same way as first languages; myth 4 is that people who
fail to master a second language are not trying hard enough to learn it;
myth 5 is that it is necessary for someone learning a second language to
use it as soon as possible and as much as possible.

The sixth myth about language acquisition discussed in Chapter 3 is that
children acquiring two languages at once confuse the two and learn neither
language well.  While Dicker allows that most bilingual children go
through a phase in which they mix the two languages, she maintains that
skillful bilingualism develops ''when children have ample opportunity to
use each language in clearly-defined situations'' (p. 107).  Myth 7 is
that children who come into the American education system with little to
no literacy in their native language should be placed immediately in
all-English instruction.  The findings of Cummins (1979) on the
relationship between native-language literacy and second-language literacy
are discussed at length.  Dicker suggests that Cummins's developmental
interdependence hypothesis (ibid., 233) explains why many minority
children who are placed in submersion programs without the opportunity to
develop literacy in their first language perform so poorly in school.
Dicker also describes the difference between immersion and submersion
bilingual education programs, as well as the difference between additive
and subtractive bilingualism.  Myth 8 is that bilingual programs should be
transitory, with the first language being phased out as soon as possible.
By debunking these eight common myths about language acquisition, Dicker
hopes to convince the reader that language learning is more complex than
is commonly assumed, and to provide the reader with information about
bilingualism that he may not already know.

Chapter 4 examines the place of language in the schools as an object of
study and as a means of instruction.  The primary claim of this chapter is
that ''society supports different educational goals for different kinds of
students'' (p. 115).  (Additive) bilingualism is highly valued for
English-dominant students, whereas minority-language students are expected
to abandon their native language in favor of English.  Evidence from
Skutnabb-Kangas 1990, Kjolseth 1973, and Fishman 1966 supports Dicker's
analysis.  Dicker offers the two-way immersion model for bilingual
education as a means of ensuring that both majority- and minority-language
students obtain high levels of bilingualism.

Chapter 5 deals with the modern Official-English movement in the U.S.
history, factors that have led to a resurgence in the
language-restrictionist movement, description of the US English
organization.  Dicker first presents a brief history of general attitudes
toward the use of languages other than English in the U.S. She observes
that the nation had largely a tolerant attitude toward other languages
from 1770 to 1880, with the government translating literature into French
during the War for Independence and the Articles of Confederation into
German after the war.  Dicker characterizes language attitudes in the U.S.
from the 1880s to the 1950s as primarily restrictionist, with the notable
exception of the Supreme Court case Meyer v. Nebraska in 1923
(pp.165-166).  Following Garcia (1992), Dicker characterizes the period
from 1958 to 1980 as a period of foreign language promotion, and the
period from 1980 to the early 1990s as a period of tolerance toward
minority languages.  The recent resurgence in language-restrictionist
attitudes is attributed to growing nativist sentiment, racial prejudice,
the declining economic status of large numbers of Americans, and political
turmoil abroad (p. 169).

In addition, Chapter 5 contains a scathing analysis of the origin and
underlying ideology of US English, a national organization that lobbies
for official-English legislation at the state and federal levels.  Dicker
explains that US English was founded on and largely still operates on
anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic principles, despite the organization's
stated goal of helping immigrants acquire English (pp.  186-192).  The
last part of Chapter 5 is devoted to current language-restrictionist
legislation.

Chapter 6 describes the opposition to language restrictionism in the U.S.
Dicker shows that state laws in Hawaii, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas
provide for some official use of languages other than English (pp.
217-224), and that Puerto Rico has so far successfully resisted the
official-English movement.  A discussion of organized activities against
official English in the U.S. follows, along with a detailed description of
the 1990 court case Yniguez v. Mofford, which successfully challenged an
official English law in Arizona.  The chapter details two other court
cases that challenged English-only rules in the workplace (Gutierrez v.
Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District, County of Los Angeles;
and Garcia v. Spun Steak Company, San Francisco).  The chapter concludes
with a brief discussion of the connections among state official-English
legislation, workplace English-only rules, and wage discrimination against
minority-language speakers.

Chapter 7 describes how other countries, such as Canada and Switzerland,
France, and India, deal with language diversity.  Dicker wishes to show
that linguistic pluralism does not itself lead to civil unrest; instead
repression of minority languages leads to friction. Chapter 8 serves as a
conclusion to the book, describing how multilingualism may be fostered
among both children and adults, and outlining the advantages that
linguistic diversity could offer to Americans.

In the epilogue to the book, Dicker explicitly states the underlying
premise behind the book: ''language is power'' (p. 322).  She notes that
language policy is never solely about language, and that the language
policies of a nation often reveal how those in power value and treat
ethnic minorities (p. 321).

The book also includes acknowledgments (p. vii), an introduction
(pp. viii-xvi), a full list of references (pp. 323-347), and an index
(pp. 348-363).

DISCUSSION

Languages in America is an admirable effort to treat the general lack
of linguistics literature available to non-linguists.  It is essential
that scholarship on bilingual education and language policy be made
available to non-linguists, as they are most often the ones who make
government policy on language and education, and as there has recently
been a reappearance of efforts to restrict minority-language use in
large ethnic and religious communities in the U.S.  However, as with
any other work, the book has some weaknesses in addition to its
strengths.

In the introduction, Dicker draws an interesting analogy between the
loss of linguistic diversity and the loss of biodiversity, but does
not discuss the parallels between the two phenomena anywhere else in
the book.  Perhaps a chapter on the burgeoning area of ecolinguistics
(e.g. Fill & Muhlhausler 2001) would have strengthened her argument
for linguistic pluralism.

In a section titled 'Language and Making Connections' in Chapter 1, the
author attempts to distinguish 'style' and 'register'.  Register, she
writes, ''refers to the type of language used in a particular context...by
the people functioning in that context,'' while style ''is defined as a
situational variation of language'' (p. 12). However, there seems to be
little difference between 'the type of language used in a particular
context' and 'a situational variation of language'.  Indeed, the
distinction between style and register is still up for debate in the
literature: In any case, the distinction between 'style' and 'register'
that the author wishes to make is unclear.  Since neither of the two terms
figures prominently into subsequent sections of the book, it would
probably have been better not to raise an issue that will be, at best,
confusing to the non-linguist.

Finally, Dicker might have included more information on language contact
phenomena in the U.S.  The public has as much need for a scientific
perspective on Spanish-English code-switching in the U.S., for example, as
it does for the language issues addressed in the book.

Despite these minor drawbacks, the book is a well-written synthesis of
previous work on multilingualism and language policy in the U.S., and
is highly recommended to the author's intended audience,
viz. non-linguists interested in learning about the arguments for
linguistic pluralism.

REFERENCES

Cummins, J. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational
development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research
49.222-51.

Ervin-Tripp, S.M. 1974. Is second language learning like the first?
TESOL Quarterly 8(2).111-127.

Fill, A. and P. Muhlhausler (eds.) 2001. The ecolinguistics reader:
language, ecology and environment. New York: Continuum.

Fishman, J.A. 1966. Planned reinforcement of language maintenance in
the United States: suggestions for the conservation of a neglected
national resource. In J.A.  Fishman (ed.) Language loyalty in the
United States: the maintenance and perpetuation of non-English mother
tongues by American ethnic and religious groups, 369-91. The Hague:
Mouton.

Genesee, F. 1981. A comparison of early and late second language
learning. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 13(2).115-28.

Holzman, M. 1997. The language of children: evolution and development
of secondary consciousness and language. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Kjolseth, R. 1973. Bilingual education programs in the United States:
for assimilation or pluralism? In P.R.  Turner (ed.) Bilingualism in
the Southwest, 3-27.  Tucson: University of Arizona.

Lenneberg, E.H. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York:
Wiley.

McLaughlin, B. 1978. Second-language acquisition in
childhood. Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum.

Singleton, D. 1989. Language acquisition: the age factor. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 1990. Language, literacy, and minorities. London:
The Minority Rights Group.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Brianna Grohman Rauschuber completed an M.A. in linguistics at the
University of Texas at Arlington in May 2004.  She plans to begin work
on a Ph.D. in linguistics at the University of Texas at Austin in Fall
2004.  Her research interests include socio-historical linguistics,
contact linguistics, bilingualism, and code-switching.

Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-2713.html