Education and Empowerment: How Comprehensive, Relatable Bilingual and Bicultural Education Can Revitalize the Navajo Language

Language is linked to culture and history in deeply significant ways. Language can reveal cultural ethics and values, social norms, and historical patterns, among many others. As quoted in Ngai (2006), George et all., (2000); Skutnabb-Kangas (1999) found that “death of languages results in the irretrievable loss of unique intellectual wealth for humankind.” Thus, the effects and implications of the loss of any language are significant and troubling. Language loss represents a huge loss for the international society and history as a whole. Therefore, language revitalization, which is the efforts to reverse language decline, should be of interest to all.

The United States is home to many of the world’s languages that are at risk of extinction. Of the 200 known indigenous Native American languages, only 57 are spoken by more than a few elders (Krauss 1998). While many Native American languages are facing the increasing possibility of dying out with each generation, some are making marked efforts to stop this process. Navajo is an example of a language that has experienced much loss, due to the forced influence of English throughout the years. Nevertheless, there have been continuous efforts over the past generation to revitalize the Navajo language and to make it sustainable and vibrant for generations to come. Varying theories exist about the best method for Navajo language revitalization, but some have proven less effective than others. The key to effective Navajo language revitalization lies in prioritizing language education as a means of assuring cultural-linguistic survival and obtaining cognitive and social benefits. Furthermore, language educational reform efforts must be led and supported by local community involvement and elevate the Navajo culture and language to be considered important and prideful.
The Navajo Community and the Risk of Navajo Language Loss

According to the 2000 US Census, there are an estimated 225,000 Navajo people living within the United States. An estimated 180,000 of these people live on the Navajo Nation, which spans over 25,000 square miles in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico (Lee & McLaughlin, 2001 and The 21^st Navajo Nation Council). Among other challenges due to poverty and high levels of unemployment, the Navajo community is also facing the continuous loss of the Navajo language (Spolsky 2002). Each generation, less and less people are learning the Navajo language due to cultural norms, expectations, and shame. This linguistic loss is directly connected with the loss of Navajo cultural pride and history.

The decline of the Navajo language has been caused by a multitude of factors that have billed English as the only desirable, beneficial language. An overarching term that can describe the root of the problem is linguistic imperialism, which encompasses the Western modernization of schools and the push for English to be adopted by all (Phillipson 1990, 1992 cited by Spolsky 2002). Currently, the Navajo Nation has little authority over the school systems, which are controlled by the Federal Bureau of Indian Affiars (BIA), a group that advocates strongly for English only schools. A couple generations ago, the BIA formed a national goal to integrate and unify all the Native American tribes through the widespread use of English, rather than native tribal languages. The first boarding school for Navajos was opened in Fort Defiance in 1882, where harsh and trauma-inducing punishments were dealt to those who failed to use English. The message that English is superior has spread, with English gaining exposure through roads and outside interaction and being associated with economic and social success. Therefore, due to the stigma and trauma associated with the Navajo language from these boarding schools, and the opportunity and success associated with the English language, many now see the Navajo language and culture as undesirable and shameful.

While schools have started to teach Navajo again in varying degrees of intensity, youth are not getting practice with the language outside of school, either. Navajo is largely a language of adults, and it is becoming increasingly rare for parents and grandparents to pass down the language to the youth due to shifting emphasis on English and previous experience with cultural shame. In order for language learning and revitalization to be successful, there must be a push from both the school system and the familial community to educate the youth.

Despite this lack of Navajo education and exposure due to historical, political, economic, and social factors, the hope for reversing the Navajo language decline lies in education of the youth. The Navajo community is significantly young, with a median age of 18 to 24 years old (Lee & McLaughlin 2001). In 2001, an estimate of 60,000 children were enrolled in school, with an additional 4,000 children enrolled in Head Start programs (Lee & McLaughlin 2001). Because of this significantly young demographic, there is a unique opportunity to reverse the language decline through investment in reforming Navajo youth’s educational experience by including bilingual and bicultural education.

Prioritizing Navajo Linguistic and Cultural Education and Pride

The community’s and educational system’s ability and decision to collectively prioritize Navajo youth language education in relevant ways that create a sense of pride and community is the key to successful Navajo revitalization. First, leaders and community members must view language preservation as necessary to tribal, community, and cultural perseverance. Spolsky (2002) states that language and education must be framed in the “full social, cultural, religious, and political context.” The education that is created must be multifaceted and complex, taking into account the multiple socio-historical processes that have created the current decline of and shame about the Navajo language.

Once consensus has been reached within the Navajo community about the best, most effective form of language education, it is absolutely essential that there is a belief shift from the rest of the United States to prioritize the preservation of the Navajo language. This shift is necessary due to the funding and regulations that outside groups control. Through advocacy and collaborative efforts, Navajo leaders can influence and convince outside officials that changes in Navajo education must be made, and that their support with funding is necessary to do so. Once all people in leadership positions are convinced that comprehensive, relevant language and cultural education is vital to the survival of the Navajo language, these changes can begin. Unfortunately, it is likely that creating a political and economic environment where all these changes can be executed will be perhaps the most challenging part of the process. Nevertheless, a collective vision amongst Navajo leaders about a language revitalization plan is a fundamental starting point.

The Benefits of Bilingualism

First, community members must understand the benefits that bilingualism carries in both cognitive and social realms. Cognitively, bilingualism allows people to be more creative and flexible in their thinking, as bilinguals have two or more words for any given object or idea. Furthermore, since bilingualism requires the need to attend to which language to speak in a particular situation, bilingual people are more cognizant about contextual cues and the needs of the listener. Studies, such as Bialystok and Majumder (1998), have shown that the advantage bilingual people have in cognitive control of attention abilities is transferrable to non-linguistic tasks. In this study, three linguistic groups of third graders participated in nonverbal problem solving tasks. An English speaking monolingual group was compared with a French English balanced bilingual group and a Bengali English partially bilingual group. All participants were similar on a number of measures except for their language background. The study found that the balanced bilingual French-English speakers performed much better on the control of attention, non-linguistic tasks than either of the other groups. To date, there has not been similar significant research done similarly of bilingual Navajo and English speakers. Nevertheless, the implications of this study are significant in illustrating an advantage that balanced bilingual people hold over monolingual people.

In addition to the cognitive benefits, bilingual people also carry a set of social and economic advantages. For example, bilingual people are able to relate to and learn from a much wider section of the population, as they can communicate clearly and fluently in two (or more) languages. Through bilingual reading and communication, people can gain knowledge and exposure to various cultures and values. This leads to a unique, deep understanding of different communities. Lastly, being bilingual also has a very practical benefit in employment. Bilingual individuals are more attractive job candidates for many careers that involve bicultural communication and exchange. Thus, bilingualism leads to immense benefits, which cross into realms of cognition, employment, and culture.

Various arguments have been made about the drawbacks to bilingual education. Some claim that bilingual education compromises a student’s English attainment, and thus, compromises a student’s ability to succeed to his or her fullest potential in an increasingly English dominated society. This issue entered into politics in 1998 when the California public sided against bilingual education. When Prop 227, “English Language in Public Schools,” passed with 61% approval, bilingual educational programs were cut from California public schools (1998 California Primary Election). Analysis shows that the passage of this bill was largely due to the idea that English only programs are better for a student’s intellectual development. However, Rock Point Community School provides a prime counterexample to this claim, revealing that bilingual educational programs can be effective in leading to student’s success in English.

Rock Point Community School: An Example of an Effective Navajo-English School

At the heart of the Navajo Reservation, Rock Point Community School was formed in 1967. In their paper, Vorih and Roiser (1978) extensively detail why Rock Point was successful in creating a bilingual Navajo-English school for youth. Over ninety percent of the children who enter Rock Point only spoke Navajo, or considered Navajo their dominant language. In 1970, students at Rock Point received 70 to 25 percent less English education instruction, depending on the grade level, than other students in English only programs. Nevertheless, Rock Point students performed better on standardized English reading tests than other students who were enrolled in the English only reservation programs. For example, Rock Point sixth graders had a mean English achievement score that was two times higher than their peers. Furthermore, scores in 1975 showed Rock Point students doing even better on standardized tests than the first studies in 1970, when its students were already performing better than their peers. These results indicate that Rock Point’s program facilitated much faster moving growth in English achievement, in addition to the maintenance of the Navajo language, than other Navajo reservation schools. Rock Point therefore serves as a counterexample to the common idea that bilingual education harms English development.

Due to these impressive scores, an investigation of Rock Point’s teaching methods is necessary in order to develop a plan for language education. From kindergarten to second grade, there are two teachers: one who teaches the students entirely in Navajo, and one who teaches the students entirely in English. In the kindergarten, 70% of the education is in Navajo, the majority of the student’s native language. From first to second grades, the time is equally split between English and Navajo. From the third to sixth grade, 75% of the instruction takes place in English. During these grades, the English language teacher has complete responsibility in the classroom, with students leaving in smaller groups to take Navajo specialty classes (on a variety of subjects such as literature and science) throughout the school day (Vorih and Roiser 1978).

It is important to recognize that the conditions in the late 1970s are much different from the conditions today. In the late 1970s, many more children were raised speaking Navajo, only to lose these skills by going to school. Now, however, most children are being raised speaking mainly English. Nevertheless, bilingual education would still be beneficial to educate the youth in Navajo. Since Rock Point proved successful in teaching the primarily Navajo speaking students English, the reverse should also hold true. Therefore, the Rock Point model would need to be modified to fit current times. These modifications might lead to a schooling with more emphasis on Navajo, as the students come in with less background knowledge and experience with Navajo.

Going Beyond Language Classes

It is clear that bilingualism has strong benefits and that Rock Point is a compelling example of the power of bilingual education. However, access to Navajo language classes by itself is not enough to ensure language revitalization. Because of the close ties between language, culture, and history, bilingual education must be coupled with family involvement, a feeling of cultural and linguistic pride, and a historical understanding of the significance and uniqueness of the Navajo people.

Isiah Plummer, a Stanford freshman who grew up on the Navajo Nation speaking both English and Navajo, articulates a specific connection between the Navajo language and culture: “The majority of our practices have songs and prayers in Navajo. Plus, all the older generations mainly speak Navajo. To really practice and understand your culture and history, you really just have to know Navajo” (I. Plummer, personal communication, June 5, 2010). Navajo is the basis of cultural and awareness and understanding, as it is the means to learn from older generations with life experience and insight into the struggles and triumphant culture. Furthermore, Navajo is necessary if one wants to participate in Navajo ceremonies and practices, which reveal much about cultural values and traditions. By pairing language classes with history classes, tradition-based experience, and family communication, students will understand the greater impact of learning and speaking Navajo. They will then have more motivation to take language learning seriously.

In commenting on this linguistic cultural connection, Darwin Yellowhair, a Stanford sophomore, who also grew up on the Navajo Nation, spoke about one of the biggest challenges that the community must overcome to revitalize the language. “We have to educate the younger generation about the importance of the Navajo language. The language is not respected because it’s not seen as important, especially on the Navajo Nation where 99% of the population is Navajo. They take it for granted until they leave the reservation…Then, they see the significance and the pride of being Native American. They learn about lost cultures. They learn how they can potentially become that lost culture,” said Yellowhair (D. Yellowhair, personal communication, June 5, 2010). Yellowhair’s comments indicate the need to teach Navajo youth early on (in elementary or middle school) about the implications of the language decline, and how dedication to their education has the immense potential to help revitalize the language. Thus, in addition to language classes, students must be taught, both inside and outside of school, that Navajo is a language worth knowing and an identity worth being proud about.

Community Wide Suggestions for Change

Ngai (2006) conducted grassroots research in order to collect community ideas about the best ways to reform the linguistic educational system. Through interviews with 89 participants from all backgrounds- Indian and non-Indian, professions ranging from politicians to educators- he found the suggestion for building a common language curriculum to be the most widely agreed upon and the most pressing. People overwhelmingly support a unifying, reservation wide language curriculum that makes meaningful connections between language, multiculturalism, Native American history studies, and identity. People are also interested in developing a specific week-by-week, day-by-day plan that incorporates the possibility for teacher flexibility. With a standard curriculum implemented across the reservation, people of all backgrounds and locations would have access to the reformed language and cultural education. In addition to language, history, stories, worldviews and values, and traditions, the comprehensive curriculum should also include lectures and activities relating to real Navajo practices and traditions. McLaughlin (1989) found that a genuine, traditional Navajo presence within the classroom—ranging from native speaking teachers to guest performances in Navajo song and dance—increased pride and motivation of the students present. This increases their interest in learning the language itself.

It is vital that the creation of this curriculum be grounded in the whole community’s input, as the curriculum’s results will ultimately depend on how well it is executed, which is likely tied to how much the educators believe in it. Furthermore, success will depend on how open the students are to learning the curriculum, which is tied to how relevant and interesting the educational materials are. Thus, the curriculum must be developed collectively and allow young people to understand language education as both necessary and compelling.

Language as Pride and Empowerment

The implications of reviving the Navajo language are extremely significant and reach much farther than simply the obtainment of more Navajo language speakers. Research and observational studies have shown that language education and literacy is linked to empowerment and self-confidence. For example, Vorih and Roiser (1978) reported that Rock Point students’ were rated as much more self-assured than their Navajo peers based on extensive observational accounts. People qualitatively rated them with descriptive words such as “active” and “involved.” In contrast, the common description of Navajo children consisted of words such as “listless, quiet, passive, and dumb” (Vorih and Roiser 1978). The students educated in the bi-cultural, bilingual Rock Point program were seen to be much more engaged and in possession of a much more positive self image. The implications of this attitude and belief shift are huge, as youth who have a positive sense of self and a strong motivation are much more likely to become involved with and achieve in their community or a particular passion. Through these changes, which are linked to bilingual and bicultural education, many opportunities for fulfillment and achievement will become available. These studies and conclusions reveal how integral language is to not only our communication and historical understanding, but also to our self-identity and self-image.

Furthermore, language is linked to empowerment through writing and connecting with older generations. Vorih and Roiser’s observations are echoed by McLaughlin (1989), who spent 400 hours observing and interviewing Native American, primarily Navajo, families. Many of the subjects for his study and interviews were connected to Rock Point and all resided in Mesa Valley, an isolated area on the Navajo reservation home to around 1600 people. McLaughlin (1989) emphasizes the need to teach written Navajo. He claims that it is not enough to simply verbally express a language; rather, full empowerment requires the ability to write. His research found that native literacy helps students understand who they are in their search for their identity. Moreover, it provides a window into learning about their traditional culture and community. He found an overwhelming interest within the Navajo community for Navajo language education: ¾ of the respondents believed that teaching Navajo is worthwhile. Furthermore, Yellowhair shared that “Navajo is empowering if you know the language because you can speak with the oldest generation of your family. They can give you pieces of wisdom that you can’t find anywhere else. That’s empowering” (D. Yellowhair, personal communication, June 5 2010). Overall, speaking and writing Navajo is empowering because it contributes to a better sense of self and education from elders.

Conclusions: Best Methods and the Link Between Language, Culture, and Self-Identity-

Due to the many factors needed for success, language revitalization requires going beyond the commonly suggested bilingual educational program. In addition to well thought out, widely accessed language programs, community members (especially youth) must also be taught that the Navajo language is important and prideful to know. As Yellowhair said, “We should be proud of who we are. There are so many cultural aspects of our lives that we should really embrace because it’s really unique to the rest of the world” (D. Yellowhair, personal communication, June 5 2010). This is really the state of mind that all education should be working towards. Once pride in an identity and language is established, the learning and the application will be much more natural. Due to the multilayered effects of language knowledge, it only makes sense that the revitalization goals be accomplished through the functioning of a complex educational system, incorporating many different aspects of life and society.

Language ability can lead to self-awareness, pride, and full empowerment. Thus, educating Navajo students in the Navajo language has the potential to inspire them to actively engage in other areas of their education and their community. Language education and revitalization preserves history and culture, while also motivating youth to take action in a multiplicity of ways. Comprehensive, well-rounded Navajo-English education that is reinforced through community practices and involvement must be implemented. By doing so, the Navajo language, and the many histories, cultures, and forces of empowerment that it embodies, will be saved and passed down for generations to come.

References

1998 California Election Voter Information Guide / Ballot Pamphlet. English Language in Public Schools Initiative Statute. Retrieved June 5, 2010 from http://primary98.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/227.htm.

Bialystok, E. and Majumder, S. (1998). The Relationship Between Bilingualism and the Development of Cognitive Processes in Problem Solving. Applied Psycholinguistics 19: 69-85. Retrieved June 2, 2010 from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=2752328&jid=APS&volumeId=19&issueId=01&aid=2752320.

Krauss, M. (1998) The condition of Native North American languages: The need for realistic assessment and action. International Journal of the Sociology of Languages 132, 9 – 21. Retrieved on June 3, 2010 from http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/ijsl.1998.132.9.

Lee, T., and McLaughlin, D., (2001). Reversing Navajo Lagnuage Shift, Revisited. In Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Joshua A. Fishman, ed. 23-43. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

McLaughlin, D. (1989). The Sociolinguistics of Navajo Literacy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 20(4): 275-290. Retrieved May 25, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195739.

Ngai, P.B. (2006). Grassroots Suggestions for Linking Native-Language Learning, Native American Studies, and Mainstream Education in Reservation Schools with Mixed Indian and White Student Populations. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 19, 220-236. Retrieved May 10 from from http://csaweb111v.csa.com/ids70/view_record.php?id=2&recnum=0&log=from_res&SID=kdvse172ibqjidccqv2ssn05c7&mark_id=search%3A2%3A0%2C0%2C1.

Spolsky, B (2002). Prospects for the Survival of the Navajo

Language: A Reconsideration. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 33{2):139-162. Retrieved May 23 from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120132106/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.

The Official Website of the 21^st Navajo Nation Council. (2009). The 21^st Navajo Nation: The Navajo Nation Profile. Retrieved May 30, 2010 from http://www.navajonationcouncil.org/NNprofile.htm.

Vorih, L., and Rosier, P. (1978). Rock Point Community School: An Example of a Navajo-English Bilingual Elementary School Program. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages 12(3). Retrieved May 25, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586053.

Polari, a vibrant language born out of prejudice

For this week's blog post, I read an article entitled "Polari, a vibrant language born out of prejudice" which was published in the San Francisco Guardian on May 24, 2010. The article's author, Paul Baker, discusses Polari, a language largely associated with gay British males of the 20th century. This language was born from the need to communicate among gay males (and to a lesser extent, other members of the LGBT community) in a time when homosexuality and the gay culture and community was not accepted as part of mainstream society.

Polari is an example of a language that came when there was a need, and left when there was no longer a need. In a way, Polari is an anti-language, a term coined by Michael Halliday in 1978 to describe how oppressed and stigmatized communities develop language in order to communicate, speak openly and comfortably with one another (without fearing harassment and discrimination), and to "reconstruct reality according to their own values." Thus, Polari was widely used in the gay British subculture from roughly 1900-1970, when homosexuality was deeply separated from mainstream society. In 1970, homosexuality was decriminalized, and the use of this created language, Polari, became less necessary. Eventually, as gay men became more integrated and accepted into regular society, Polari became a dead language.

The reason for the development and usage of the Polari language- a secret way to communicate internally- is reflected in the lack of print and tape recordings of Polari from the time it was used. Because of its presence in subcultures and the community and language's efforts to truly remain underground, Polari was simply passed on by word of mouth, which led to the creation of many versions of the language. It is only now that scholars have gone back to analyze the different components of the language and to determine its roots and its functions.

Due to the interactions between many different communities and individuals that were on the outside of society (that all fell within the gay male subculture in Europe), the Polari language has incorporated some Parlyaree, the Italian-derived language used by various people such as entertainers and beggars, Cockney rhyming slang, backslang (pronouncing a word as if it is spelt backwards), Yiddish, Lingua Franca (words from sailors slang), American air force slang and the vernacular of drug users. This diverse combination of both languages and slang have led to the development of this unique language and reflects the many connections between various sectors of society in the early 20th century.

In order to supplement this article, I also read a book written by the article's author, Paul Baker, titled "Polari: the lost language of gay men." This book contained a chapter called "Polari as a language system" and provided a closer, more in depth view on the scientific, linguistic aspects of the language. The language, while it incorporates vocabulary and linguistic characteristics from many other language and slang systems, is fundamentally a language rooted in English with many key words replaced by Polari equivalents. There is currently debate about how much Polari classifies as a unique language- the answer to which I am still wondering about (and would assume that more work/research must be done to establish that). Like other subculture lexicons, Polari also includes two sets of vocabulary: core and fringe vocabulary. Core vocabularies are known to most everyone (with Polari's case, words like bona, vada, and eek), while fringe vocabulary are much larger but are only known by select, very skilled language speakers. In a very mini experiment, Paul Baker tested seven Polari speakers' knowledge of the Polari vocabulary. Of the seven, each speaker could identify between 35 and 78 words, with 20 words considered "core vocabulary" because they were known by every interviewee.

Overall, I found this article and book fascinating as they discussed the role of the development of a language in a very new context for me. Rather than being tied solely to national origins, family history, or generational differences (like texting), Polari is tied to the need of a specific community- the British gay male community- to communicate and express themselves freely in a time when their identity was being attacked, or the very least, looked down upon, by mainstream society. The use of language (more specifically, a new language that reflects the intersections and interactions between many communities) as a tool for coping with societal injustice/oppression and building community was very compelling and inspiring to learn about.

Sources:

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/24/polari-language-origins

Book: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yxHz97AvesUC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=polari+language&ots=-QxnuEFAsi&sig=OGCPzx7mX5igrxfEM-5BdrTV9ak#v=onepage&q&f=false

Language (English) and Freedom

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events-english-language.html

One commentary that I read for this class was titled "The English Language of Freedom" that was published in Forbes on May 20, 2010. This commentary caught my attention because I found it incredibly problematic and thought-provoking at the same time. The central assertion of this article was that English, as a language, directly leads to increased democracy, freedom, and innovation. The author claims that countries that prevent or simply do not embrace the spread or strong presence of English are dooming themselves for a future of decreased success. For example, the author states that Muslim countries failed to understand Western principles, which then led to a lack of interest in learning English and the failure of democracy. He also asserts that it is problematic that few Chinese people speak English, as this means they do not have "any conception of the liberal tradition that the language enshrines."

I find the author's assertion both that English is tied to freedom and that countries that hold different languages are unable to reach the same level of enlightenment and innovation to be extremely problematic and offensive. In the article, the author writes, "In the meantime we must make a much more concerted and determined effort to repeat the Macaulay initiative, pushing to have English spoken and read in large portions of the world, especially in western Asia, Africa and Latin America." He openly pushes for an increase in the English language throughout the world, as he believes it directly facilitates and creates economic and political freedom and success.

Like our discussion about Turkey and the diversity of languages there, I believe this is where the issue of unity and perceived superiority comes in conflict with diversity and difference. In this case, I strongly believe that there are benefits and insights that come from all different languages and all different histories. I believe it would be a significant mistake to strive for English as main, dominant language throughout the world, as this would inevitably lead to language death, and in the process, cultural and historical death, as well. I feel as though the author was culturally insensitive and vastly misinformed in his argument for the complete superiority of English to all other languages.

Moreover, his belief that English is the only language that can be tied to democracy and freedom seems completely flawed on multiple accounts. First (and very obviously/technically), the foundations of democracy were in grounded in Greek society. Furthermore, I believe there are many more forms of freedom than just democracy. The author is clearly coming from a very euro-centric/American-centric point of view, as countless conflicts have been waged in the name of freedom all over the world, from people speaking many languages. Furthermore, many wars for and times of "freedom" within the United States have resulted in absolutely no freedom for certain members of society (African Americans, Native Americans), which illustrates how this author's conception of freedom is grounded in racist ideas of what freedom entails and who deserves freedom, or else is able to completely overlook these jarring examples. Moreover, there are many other factors, such as economic systems and government implementation and action within a political system, that can affect how much freedom actually exists. Therefore, to simply state that English is the primary, best language of freedom is incorrect and problematic.

Because of this class, I have come to appreciate how much of an influence language has on a society, on our thought processes, on our perceptions of the world, etc. Nevertheless, I highly doubt language has as much of an impact as this author believes- or, that only the English language is so closely tied with values while other languages are inherently not. I highly doubt that one language can be more of a facilitator of freedom than another. Perhaps one language is connected more to actions in history related to freedom (of course, this again depends on the perspective that one is coming from), but it somehow seems overly simplistic and biased to state that English facilitates freedom and innovation more than other languages.

Because I was unable to find research literature of past studies regarding language and innovation/freedom, I pose this question: Is it possible for a language, in itself, to be tied to increased innovation, creativity, and freedom? Is it possible that because language is so intrinsically tied to culture and cultural advancements that some languages happen to facilitate more creation than others? Or is this simply a biased, oversimplified, or blatantly incorrect statement?

Broken Syntax in Cyberspace: The Future of Language?

For this blog entry, I decided to read articles pertaining to texting language and other forms of abbreviated language. One article, titled "Text language a plus for communication provided some information about the common thoughts (that are really just misconceptions) surrounding how texting abbreviations and newer language related to technology reflects a denigration of the English language and possibly the human brain. One view from neuroscience/psychology/cognitive science that I found somewhat compelling was the argument that new media, such as texting, is affecting our brains negatively and creating shorter attention spans within humans. Some have argued that it is reflecting and perpetuating laziness within the English language (which is also seen with other languages, as well) and is creating a less intelligent, well-spoken generation.

I thought this discussion of abbreviations and technological lingo related to a previous class conversation we had about the preservation of language. When we talk about preserving a culture through language- and rediscovering/reliving/reinventing a lost culture or community through the study of their language- these quirks (abbreviations, new terms, etc) in language come to mind as extremely significant. I think there is much more that can be illustrated about a given society, community, or even a generation, through an examination of these so-called improper, non-mainstream uses of language.

Despite the accused negative effects of technology on language, the article quickly asserts that technology has a beneficial- or at least neutral- effect. There is no evidence that shows that spelling and grammar errors stem from the increase in technological communication usage. Furthermore, technological communication can break down barriers between readers and writers, and change our conceptions of language for the better. Abbreviations seem to reflect a younger generation's identity (PAW= parents are watching) and also show people's overwhelming desire and temptation to take short cuts, which manifests itself in creation of new words, phrases, and acronyms. Technological communication has also proven to be an asset to the education world, as educators are finding more ways to connect and interact with students online (through email, Twitter, etc). From my personal experience, I definitely think that email has profoundly influenced (more specifically, strengthened) my relationship with my professors, as it provides a more constant, open possibility for communication. For example, it can simply lead to an increase in communication contact between students and instructors, or it can serve to "break the ice," and lead to a student actually attending office hours or approaching a professor after class. At the same time, I do see the possible downsides to email if it indeed prevents more face to face communication from occurring, or possibly allowing and encouraging more unnecessary exchanges to take place. Email is so present in Stanford's culture that I cannot imagine an education without it as the primary means for communication. Also, I bet technology provides very teachable, illuminative moments through analyzing various online communities, postings, etc., in classes such as communication, psychology, and sociology. One could possibly learn a lot from examining online culture and communities, and comparing these findings to how these cultures and communities play out offline.

Overall, reading this article provided a very balanced report on the plusses and minuses of the new wave of technological communication. It ultimately led me to support technological communication as a means to increase language communication, proficiency, and creativity, as well as a means for education. At the same time, it also reinforced my hesitations for fully supporting the so-called technological revolution we are in. Nevertheless, I would say that the opportunities presented by technology and language-- something the article didn't mention, for example, was the increased accessibility of cheap to free resources online, such as language learning programs--are extremely significant.

Sources:

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/tech-language-a-plus-for-communication-20100517-v860.html

"Chinglish"- Chinese and English

For this class, one of the articles that I read was called "Shanghai Is Trying to Untable the Mangled English of Chinglish." This article detailed the specific struggles of learning English for native Chinese speakers and the efforts the government has taken to eradicate the challenges that Chinese native language speakers have faced. This article caught my attention because I have been looking to learn more about how various (specific) communities deal with learning a new language and the challenges they face. This builds upon the knowledge I have gained about language acquisition in general.

The part of this article that stood out for me the most was the amount of government resources and effort that is being put into communicating "correct" English in public sectors of society. The article cited how embarrassing it often is for native Chinese speakers to make mistakes when speaking English- speaking "Chinglish," the artle asserts. To combat the common mistakes that native Chinese speakers make when communicating in English, the government (mainly powered through 600 volunteers), have replaced 10,000 public signs that had previously contained incorrect English (based in "Chinglish"- such as "urine district") with the correct words. This intense effort, government officials assert, is steadily leading to a reality where Chinese maladaptations of the English language will not be significant.

I find it fascinating that the government (as well as other organizations, and perhaps more importantly, individual people) are so willing to put such an incredible amount of resources (time, people power, money, energy) into helping to ensure that English is better pronounced. While the article focuses heavily on the motivation coming from embarrassment from having incorrect English in interactions and in public settings (like street signs, etc), I have to assume that there is more at play. I believe that the bigger issue is reputation: speaking a language such as English incorrectly with errors that are jarring to native speakers leads to a comical, incompetent reputation. I believe that some people are worried that widespread incorrect English usage may lead to a "lower standing" of native Chinese language speakers in other people's minds. For example, people (or governments or organizations) might begin to consider Chinese language speakers as less competent, or less serious, leading their ideas/innovations/etc. to be considered with less vigor and interest, perhaps, as their counterparts. It seems that this can already be observed, as the article quotes various individuals around the world expressing their disappointment that this effort to change Chinese speakers' English, as this in turn takes away a common joke or "giggle."

At the same time, as one German radio show host eloquently put, “If you standardize all these signs, you not only take away the little giggle you get while strolling in the park but you lose a window into the Chinese mind." Indeed, by changing the natural, common errors that Chinese speakers make when speaking English, the government is in turn taking away data about links between Chinese and English languages, and what occurs commonly when a Chinese speaker articulates his or her thoughts in English. Maybe it is possible that this will take away from potential studies about language acquisition for Chinese speakers, for example, and what these common errors might reveal about brain functioning or human learning. Nevertheless, it seems that the more pressing issue for this community of Chinese language speakers is the humiliation and lack of respect they receive from others due to their errors in communicating in English, which is completely understandable.

To look further into the psychological and scientific work that has been done on dual Chinese and English language speakers, I read parts of the journal article titled "Cross-language transfer of insight into the structure of compound words." This study found "evidence for cross language transfer between two typologically distant languages of insight [Chinese and English] into the structure of compound words" (325). In other words, people (most of the participants were youth) are able to transfer meaning/function between these two very different languages. The ability to transfer from Chinese to English was seen in all levels of ability, while the transfer from English to Chinese was only found for high level proficient speakers. This transfer occurs on a phonological, meaning, and functional level for compounds. In relation to the article above, this study shows that language learning, and the transfer between languages- translation and dual understanding- is very possible, even with people who have low proficiency for Chinese to English language speakers. Thus, the ability and knowledge is there. Somehow along the way, however, it seems especially common for Chinese speakers to make certain mistakes when speaking English. I would be interested in knowing if there have been any studies that specify the common mistakes that are made, as well as some possible (or probable) explanations as to why these mistakes occur. Also, I wonder whether or not changing public signs will ultimately lead to less personal language mistakes (perhaps due to a different, and now correct, common input), or whether this will simply create a different public image for the country (and for Chinese speakers), while the actual language mistakes will still be common in day to day life.

Sources

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/world/asia/03chinglish.html?pagewanted=2

http://caslon.stanford.edu:3210/sfxlcl3?sid=CSA:psycinfo-set-c&pid=%3CAN%3E2010%2D03314%2D004%3C%2FAN%3E%26%3CPB%3EGermany%3A%20Springer%3C%2FPB%3E%26%3CPY%3E2010%3C%2FPY%3E%26%3CAU%3EZhang%2C%20Jie%20%281%29%3B%20Anderson%2C%20Richard%20C%2E%20%281%29%3B%20Li%2C%20Hong%20%282%29%3B%20Dong%2C%20Qiong%20%282%29%3B%20Wu%2C%20Xinchun%20%282%29%3B%20Zhang%2C%20Yan%20%282%29%3C%2FAU%3E&id=doi%3A10%2E1007%2Fs11145%2D009%2D9205%2D7&issn=0922%2D4777&volume=23&issue=3%2D4&spage=311&epage=336&date=2010%2D03&genre=article&aulast=Zhang&aufirst=Jie&title=Reading%20and%20Writing&atitle=Cross%2Dlanguage%20transfer%20of%20insight%20into%20the%20structure%20of%20compound%20words%2E

Time to Change the Language Paradigm A Tool for Promoting Social Progress

I read a fascinating editorial piece entitled "Time to Change the Language Paradigm A Tool for Promoting Social Progress." This article asserted that people's use of the word "minority" is very problematic and is perpetuating the power gap between various communities in society. The author points out something that most know, but probably rarely think about: the word minority, itself, is based off of the concept of being "less than." The author argues that simply due to our overuse of the word "minority" to describe a huge amount of people in various communities, we, as a collective society, are keeping white men in power while disempowering all other communities. This article struck a chord with me because it related to the societal implications of word choice and word frequency in relation to identity, which is something that I am personally very interested in.

The article contained a notable contradiction. While on the one hand, the author advocated for specificity as the ideal form of language and communication (for example, breaking down communities and simply referring to the one you are talking about- African Americans, versus "minorities), later in the article, the author argues "language must be inclusive. The language of inclusion is the language of a true democracy." By both arguing for language being both specific and inclusive, the author reveals a contradiction in her logic. This in turn reveals the complexity that is contained within the discussion of the proper, most socially conscious forms of language. On the one hand, it seems necessary to use specific words that accurately represent the community one is discussing in order to prevent over-generalizing and/or robbing individuals or specific communities of their own uniqueness. On the other hand, becoming too specific and insular with language choices can be damaging, and the argument for inclusive language (for example, using “people of color” to speak to certain relevant issues) is compelling because it can speak to a common cause or struggle, indicating more collaboration and coalition building rather than singling out a single community.

Despite the apparent contradiction in her argument, the author’s commentary on the power of language is very compelling and raised some very important and interesting ideas. I think we should all be very cognizant of the words that we use, as their implications can be much larger than we might expect. Moreover, I believe that we should all think about our own stance on the most appropriate language choices (aside from what is socially acceptable, politically correct, etc.,- but rather, what we deem to be the most appropriate) to use. For me, I believe this will come on a case-by-case basis, and that context is extremely important. For example, I feel as though it would be appropriate to use the term “people of color” when discussing racism as a pervasive society reality. However, I think it is more appropriate to use more specific terms (such as black people, African Americans, Latinos, Cubans, etc) when discussing specific communities’ histories or instances of being the target of racism. Language is too complicated to make a general statement like “language must always be inclusive’ or “language is best when it is specific.” Rather, one must consider the most appropriate word or words to use in a given situation based on context, history, and desired intent. Moreover, our conscious decisions about what language to use can themselves change society. The article advocates for social change through language change. Because of the prominent role that language plays in all of our lives (and in shaping our lives), being conscious and purposeful about what language we do and do not use may have significant effects on how society functions and evolves.

Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-to-Change-the-Languag-by-Skywalker-Payne-100507-522.html

Accented Teachers May Be Better for English Language Learners

This week, I read an article entitled "Accented teachers may be better for English language learners: study" which was published in the Washington Post and based off a 2010 Israeli study that showed how English learners may be more able to learn the language (and other disciplines) from teachers who have the same accents as them. This finding goes against the fundamental logic that Arizona officials used in banning teachers who have heavy accents.

The study's design consisted of sixty participants: 20 native Hebrew speakers, 20 people from the former Soviet Union, and 20 Israeli Arabs who started learning Hebrew at age 7. The experimenters put together audio recordings of Hebrew phrases with the last word pronounced with either a Hebrew, Arabic, Russian, or English accent. Each participant was timed and asked to identify the Hebrew word. The results showed that Hebrew speakers showed no difference depending on the accent, but Russian and Arabic speakers could more quickly identify the word when it was pronounced in their own accent. The study's basic explanation for the findings was that when learning from a person with the same accent, a student does not have to spend extra time trying to understand English in an unfamiliar accent.

This study has broad implications for all of educational theory and practice. Overall, the findings suggest that students will be more able to effectively learn from teachers who share the same accents as them. In a nation that is becoming more increasingly diverse, attracting immigrants from all over the world, this study can be seen as a strong advocate for diversity in teachers. Relating the study to current politics, this study therefore suggests that in a state like Arizona, ESL students from various Spanish speaking countries may be better off learning from a teacher who has a familiar accent. This is exactly the type of teacher that Arizona has banned from its education system.

This study and its connections with very current politics reveals how closely intertwined language and psychology is with current events and major political/educational decisions. While one study is certainly not enough to make its claims "true" (very little can be considered "true" in psychological/scientific research in general), its findings do provide a certain amount of experimental evidence that Arizona's new ban on teachers with accents is fundamentally flawed from an educational effectiveness standpoint (not to mention problematic from other social standpoints). If teachers are indeed more effective for students if they share a common accent, then teachers from Spanish speaking countries should be sought after--not banned--to teach in schools that have large Spanish speaking populations. I am now wondering whether or not this new data will soon influence Arizona's educational legislation, as I believe it should, or whether Arizonan officials will ignore these findings and continue to justify their measures using flawed logic.

As follow-up experiments, I would be interested to see if these findings are also seen in different language speaking groups- for example, those who speak Spanish or Mandarin. Is the magnitude of the difference between recognizing a word pronounced in your own accent or another accent similar across all language speaking communities- why or why not? Additionally, the article mentioned an important follow up study that would help to determine how much effort is involved in both processing unfamiliar accents and processing new material. As evidenced by all the potential follow-up studies and the connections to current day politics, I believe this study was very significant, intriguing, and politically relevant.

Article:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/learning/accented-teachers-may-be-bette.html

Original Study description from Israeli news source:

http://www.israel21c.org/201003077751/culture/putting-the-accent-on-language-perception