Achilles' Heel - Linguistic Security

[Jean Boutcher]

Emphasis in bold blue and red in the article enclosed herein is mine.
Regards, Jean Boutcher

Source: Op-Ed in NY Times, Saturday, 27 October 2001
America Doesn't Know What the World Is Saying
By DENNIS BARON
URBANA, Ill. -- America has a problem of linguistic security: We don't
understand the languages of our attackers. Just a week after the Sept. 11
terror attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was offering $38 an
hour for translators of Arabic or of Pashto, the language of about 35
percent of the people of Afghanistan, including the Taliban. Many in
Afghanistan, where bilingualism is widespread, understand both.
But bilingualism is not widespread in the F.B.I. or in the Central
Intelligence Agency. Admittedly, there are only 25 million speakers of
Pashto around the world, and there may be few opportunities to learn it.
But Arabic is the fifth-most widely spoken language in the world; our
government should not need to place help-wanted ads for Arabic speakers.
The weakness is not new. The F.B.I. acknowledges that before the World
Trade Center bombing in 1993 it had tapes, notebooks and phone taps that
might have provided warning signs - but it hadn't been able to decipher
them because they were in Arabic.
There are perhaps a million people in this country of Arab descent, but
many don't speak Arabic. Bilingualism, considered normal not only in
Afghanistan but in most parts of the world, is not valued in American
culture and has sometimes been actively discouraged in schools and
workplaces. Of those who do maintain their Arabic, many who apply for
jobs with the security agencies are likely to be rejected as potential
security risks. To translate Arabic or Pashto for the F.B.I., you must be
an American citizen who has spent three of the last five years in this
country and you must renounce dual citizenship.
What about training our native speakers of English to speak Arabic?
Overall, foreign language study is in decline in the United States. In
1998, only 6 percent of students enrolled in American colleges were
taking foreign languages. Enrollment in Arabic was on the rise even
before Sept. 11, but the numbers are still small: in 1998, only 5,505
American college students were taking Arabic.
Even if many more students enroll in Arabic, they could graduate without
the ability to understand the kinds of communications our security
agencies want to monitor. The Arabic taught in classrooms is formal
Arabic, the shared language used in newspapers and books. But many
varieties of colloquial Arabic are spoken around the world, and even many
Arabic speakers have to learn modern standard Arabic in school as a
second language.
The first step in addressing our language deficiencies is a national
recognition that they exist. For now, federal security agencies should
realize that in recruiting native speakers of strategic languages they
may have to rely more on background checks and less on rigid rules about
citizenship and residence. In the long run, much more needs to be done.
Colleges that have dropped the once common foreign language requirement
should consider reinstating it. Many more should offer Arabic, and those
that already do so should concentrate more of their resources on building
up their Arabic programs. Within those programs, we must emphasize not
just literature or schoolbook language, but the living, spoken forms as
well.
The federal government might give financial help to colleges trying to
improve their programs in Arabic and other strategically important
languages. Congress could offer subsidies to students at accredited
four-year colleges who choose to study these languages.
If we really want to understand the words of our enemies - not to mention
those of our friends - we need to put more emphasis on learning languages
and show more respect for the bilingual people in our schools and
communities.
Dennis Baron is a professor of English and linguistics at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
<http://www.nytimes.com/subscribe/help/copyright.html> | Privacy
Information <http://www.nytimes.com/info/help/privacy.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20011028/eabc898e/attachment.htm>