4/10 Readings

            In the article “Language Ideologies and Politics…” authors Farr and Song discuss the ideology of monolingualism in many countries such as the United States. A long-lasting bias towards Standard English has created an environment of hostility and ignorance towards speakers of other languages. An interesting point the authors make, though, is that “In the US, what is considered Standard varies regionally, and what distinguishes any particular language as ‘Standard’ is actually the absence of stigmatized linguistic forms, not the presence of particular forms” (653). While I don’t completely agree with the first part of this statement – there is, in fact, a standard Standard, that national television newscasters speak, for example – I really like the point they make with the rest of their statement. When I think of what constitutes “Standard English” I do, indeed, think of the lack of grammar errors that would be found in non-Standard English. I can’t actually think of a way of describing Standard English that doesn’t include a “lack or absence of” something.

            Later, Farr and Song describe the acquisition of Standard English in the US as a sort of cultural capital: “… the abstract notion of Standard English becomes objectified as something people can possess or lack: it is an asset that can be acquired … those who do not acquire this commodity are viewed as choosing not to” (653). This reminded me of the cartoon we saw in class last week that illustrates the frustration of individuals who want the cultural capital of knowing Standard English, but are facing a number of obstacles in doing so.

            The article also discusses the effects of language policy on education. An interesting point made in this section was the assertion by Cangarajah in 2005 that “Some scholars have noted the danger of over-emphasizing the hegemonic power of language policy, which underestimates the agency of local educators in interpreting and applying such policy” (655). The authors go on, however, to illustrate the frustrations of teachers who favor multilingual education but are prevented from meeting their students’ needs because of the power of policies such as NCLB and state standards. It seems from these examples that the power of policy can not be exaggerated. A teacher may very well create a community of multilingualism in his or her classroom, but that lasts for only one year for those students, and the teacher may fail to meet the expectations of his or her administrator or state in the process. It is a tough situation for culturally-aware teachers to be in.

            The Language Planning and Policy chapter in McKay and Bokhorst-Heng discusses similar issues. One interesting discussion included in this chapter is that focusing on the lack of an official language policy in the United States. There have always been groups pushing for the designation of English as the official language of the US; in fact, many individual states have declared English as their official language, and groups like US English have been working very hard to sway public opinion enough to secure this declaration at the national level.

            Some scholars, it appears, argue that this lack of official policy has actually made language bias worse in our country. For example, Shannon (1999) concluded that the absence of a policy has caused US society to shift to an ideology of monolingualism and has established “English as a symbol of national identity, pride, unity …” (100). This leads me to wonder: in what way does having a multi-lingual policy prevent such bias? For example, as reviewed in last week’s readings, South Africa has numerous official languages, but there is still a heavy bias towards English, and even Afrikaans, although there are many other native languages that have been designated. It would seem that taking a multi-lingual approach doesn’t solve the problem. And what kind of policy would be effective for the US in correcting this fierce pro-English ideology? Even declaring some kind of multi-lingual policy in the US would exclude the languages of many of our citizens.