Joseph Lo Bianco

A Cerebration of Language Diversity, Language Policy, and Politics in Education

D the more vitriolic moments of the 1980s “culture wars” in the United States, the “culture warrior” E. D. Hirsch made a clarion call in defense of universal study of the masterworks of the English literary canon. In this work, he conceded space to the canonical literature of prestige foreign languages but drew a very firm line against linguistic pluralism, which he contrasted to all the virtuous promise of standards as follows: “Linguistic pluralism enormously increases cultural fragmentation, civil antagonism, illiteracy, and economic-technological ineffectualness” (Hirsch, 1988, p. 91). In similar vein, Bernstein (1994) saw language questions as a direct and immediate proxy for a political project aiming to destabilize U.S. civil and political unity and a deliberate and purposive act of subversion expressive of the connection between language education policy and the wider social compact. Treating the idea that Cherokee might be taught in public schools to incredulous ridicule, Bernstein saw its teaching as an “act of rebellion against white, Anglo-cultural domination” with a “multicultural animus against European culture and its derivatives” (p. 245). This critique of relativist multicultural lobbying conflates language education questions with nonlanguage educational sociopolitical claims just as surely as Hirsch’s (1988) claim that subaltern and marginal peoples can attain educational equality only through access to core cultural content, selected from the canonical achievements over time. Whether it is the more limited scope of assessable academic standards (Hirsch) or the wider scope of stability of the entire American polity (Bernstein), the 1980s and 1990s were a period during which technical/scientific and pedagogical evidence in favor of multilingualism would not be permitted to determine the communicative code selected as medium and object of instruction of small children in elementary schools. Today, although there is no shortage of opponents lining up against

Invented languages and new worlds

THE LIFE of a language involves relationships between linguistic elements and extra-linguistic contexts. The linguistic elements are varied and multiple, involving both written and spoken symbols and grammars, while the extra-linguistic contexts are the innumerable societies, cultures, and sub-cultures of humankind, including its worlds of reality, imagination, and ideology. This article discusses invented languages, partly in order to explore the motivations and schemes of their inventors and partly to compare languages created for international use (often called international auxiliary languages or IALs) with English, which itself functions as an IAL but is very much an uninvented language.

Protecting English in an Anglophone Age

The official English movement in the United States is unique in the world in that the discourse of protection is directed towards English, because of multilingualism, and not against English, in defense of minority languages. This chapter discusses the exceptional character of the official English movement, devoting particular attention to the 104th Congress (1995–1996) when, under the first Republican Party (GOP) majority for 40 years, the status of English in the United States achieved its much hoped for floor action resulting in a successful vote on 1 August 1996. The Bill Emerson Language Empowerment Act (1996) subsequently lapsed, but the official English movement remains, powerful and determined, pursuing energetically its controversial aim of inscribing English into the nation’s legal register. That official English is a movement in the United States, with its global economic dominance and cultural influence, invites curiosity as to its aims, origins, politics, and ideologies. The chapter discusses bilingual education as a key site of struggle in language policy in the US. The chapter concludes with a critique of language policy and planning theory in relation to official English.

Language Planning and Student Experiences: Intention, Rhetoric and Implementation

Introduction: Aims, Limitations and Questions Chapter 1: Remaking a Nation through Language Policy Chapter 2: Australias Italian and Japanese Chapter 3: The Research Approach and the Schools Chapter 4: Student Subjectivity Chapter 5: Pushing Policy to be Real

Return of the Good Times? Japanese Teaching Today

This paper reviews the state of Japanese language teaching today, discussing ‘things to celebrate’ to ‘things to lament and think about’. The former include the ‘normalisation’ of Japanese language teaching, its strength at all levels (particularly in numerical terms) and the achievement of a home-grown Australian capacity in Japanese studies. The latter centre on the high rates of attrition in Japanese, the dissatisfaction of learners which leads to this, and the corrosive effects of failure, not only on the learners themselves, but on the communitys future expectations. It surveys six phases in the history of Japanese language teaching, and previews the results of a major research project on the views of students of Japanese in primary and secondary schools, discussing the implications of these views and experiences for the directions in which we must move in future.This paper reviews the state of Japanese language teaching today, discussing ‘things to celebrate’ to ‘things to lament and think about’. The former include the ‘normalisation’ of Japanese language teaching, its strength at all levels (particularly in numerical terms) and the achievement of a home-grown Australian capacity in Japanese studies. The latter centre on the high rates of attrition in Japanese, the dissatisfaction of learners which leads to this, and the corrosive effects of failure, not only on the learners themselves, but on the communitys future expectations. It surveys six phases in the history of Japanese language teaching, and previews the results of a major research project on the views of students of Japanese in primary and secondary schools, discussing the implications of these views and experiences for the directions in which we must move in future.

Uncle Sam and Mr Unz

IN THE United States today, two developments ‐ concern for national security and the concerns of private citizens ‐ have catapulted languages onto the national policy agenda. The first requires more Americans to learn foreign languages while the second seeks to ban bilingual education. ‘Uncle Sam wants you to learn a foreign language!’ The stern look under the high hat with its row of stars, wispy white beard and hair, and the index finger pointing right at you: this is the American call to duty. But this time, on page 135 of the Major League Baseball Official Program (Fall Classic, Oct 02), Uncle Sam didn’t want Americans to join the military. The text the image said why: ‘The events of September 11th have brought national attention to America’s lack of language readiness as a threat to our well being’, then referred fans to , a campaign organised by the National Foreign Language Center, whose website asks visitors to: ‘Get Involved. Support your country. Learn another language’. But matters are not as simple as that.

Multiculturalism and the National Policy on Languages.

This article addresses the impact of the National Policy on Languages on multicultural programs into the 1990s. To do this it will be necessary to trace, albeit very briefly, a few key themes and phases in the Australian conception of multiculturalism as it applies to education, highlighting in particular the role of language issues in each phase. In doing this I hope to persuade the reader that, although multiculturalism and multilingualism are not synonymous, language issues have always been a salient feature of multicultural education policies and practices. Finally, I will describe the NPL in this context and make some comments about the relationship between this and other aspects of multicultural policy.

Learning from Difference: Comparative Accounts of Multicultural Education

It is fi tting that this volume, Learning from Difference , is characterized itself by great internal diversity. The nine national case studies that comprise the bulk of the content are as diverse as could be imagined, drawn from all parts of the world: Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas and Australasia. Altogether, these studies discuss diverse and complex national histories of the construction of differences and multicultural education in national educational systems. These histories refl ect longstanding and contemporary immigration as well as responses to the demands and needs of Indigenous populations and take place in post-colonial and noncolonial settings. Confi gurations of identity fusing race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and class are highlighted to pinpoint the myriad ways often elaborate and combative identities negotiate social space and institutional life in the container of the increasingly porous nation state.

Asia and Anglosphere: Public Symbolism and Language Policy in Australia

This paper uses some instances of foreign language use by politicians, including their refusal to do so when invited, in order to open a line of questioning about the cultural messages involved in public displays of foreign language competence, especially Asian languages in the Anglosphere. The intention is to explore the role of influence and attitudes on the ecology of languages education, specifically in the Australian setting, as it accommodates culturally in an effort to integrate into institutions and structures of the Asia Pacific region. Tensions, contradictions and ambiguities arise in this process of disordering and re-ordering of world alliances, and have led to Australia being branded a ‘torn country’, unable to reconcile its historic national culture as a secure member of Anglosphere with its regional identity in Asia. Public use of foreign languages can be seen as a kind of barometer taking the pulse of aspects of a community’s attitudes to foreign language competence.

Learning from Difference

It is clear that notions of ‘unity’ and ‘diversity’ characterize a growing number of national settings where the concept ‘multicultural’ has been recruited to inform and even to shape public education and education policy. The nine national case studies included in this work all demonstrate however, the immense differences concealed by the terminology and that what abstractions like unity and diversity precisely mean are highly contingent on the perceived history of group relations in difference settings and how questions of difference relate to the material and symbolic patters in individual states. Yet, we are able to imagine and construct a conversation about comparative practices in which substantial new learning is available to us. The terms therefore, can function, for all their limitations, to stimulate the beginnings of conversations about conceptualizations and responses to difference in education practices. For example, the very concept of ‘learning from difference’ which is the title of our volume, as much as the specific content, can provide portable lessons and critical dimensions of not only approaching difference, but of responses to real world scenarios to benefit educational outcomes for larger numbers of learners in each case study.