Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost.nifl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA10529; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:28:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:28:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <s4685da1.062@NMAIL.EPCC.EDU> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Andres Muro <AndresM@NMAIL.EPCC.EDU> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:1497] Re: English Only Discussion -Reply X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Status: RO Content-Length: 6022 Lines: 118 Deanna: There is no evidence that I know of that shows that teaching English only is more efficient. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the opposite. With involuntary minorities, the attempt to force the language and culture of the dominant group only leads to resistance towards that dominant group. Among blacks, for example, those who have adopted the values of the dominant culture are often said to be "acting whitie". In Nicaragua, where the dominant language is Spanish, the language of a group of natives happens to be English. These natives are resisting the imposition of Spanish, since their values and culture have been encoded in English for many generations. There are multiple examples of resistance towards a dominant language by the marginalized culture everywhere in the world. I could list more examples but it would take too much space. Regarding, the separation of language from culture, it cannot be done. Language is the expression of culture and all cultural values are encoded and carried in the language. Therefore, when you teach language, in essence you are teaching culture. Both cultural assimilation and language assimilation are intimately tied together. Regarding the need of a common language for national unity, again, there is no scientific evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. When a dominant culture attempts to impose a cultural system against a subordinate culture, the subordinate culture simply resists. On the other hand, there are countries where there is no official language and where several languages are taught, which are very unified. Switzerland is just one example. In Switzerland, four languages are taught and everything is written in four languages. This is a cool discussion, Andres >>> deanna hines <dhines@spc.cc.tx.us> 11/11/97 07:50am >>> Andres Muro wrote: > > The English Only movement is a movement of scapegoatism, designed to > promote fear among uneducated voters. The rhetoric of the movement is > similar to Hitler's "My Struggle". This movement, or variations of it, > become popular with politicians who want to get votes based on a > "reduction in spending" agenda. The argument is that we spent too much > money on immigrants who are lazy, do not want to assimilate and refuse > to learn English. If we vote for these politicians, they will reduce our > taxes by not paying for bilingual education and other programs designed > to aid immigrants and blah, blah, blah. > > The English Only movement is not based on any well researched > pedagogical approach, nor it is based on sound cultural studies. It is, as I > said before, a movement designed to promote xenophobia. California's > Pete Wilson, has been one of the masters at effectvely promoting > xenophobia among voters. > > Regarding the pedagogical value of multilingual education vs. total > immersion programs, the merits of these approaches depend on context > and ideology. Street argues that literacy practices are rooted in ideology; > and acquisition of literacies are often mediated by power struggles. > Therefore, the effect of an immersion program, vs. a multilingual program > can have different sociocultural and psychological effects, and may be > received differently depending on the particular context. > > Populations who are resisting assimilation and acculturation efforts from > a dominant culture will respond differently to pedagogical approaches > from those populations who are not. Overall, Lambert argues that an > "additive" pedagogical approach (one that adds to the existing cultural > experience) is favorable to a "subtractive" approach (one that favors > one cultural experience while trying to subtract another one). For > oppressed immigrants with poor self esteem, a subtractive approach can > be culturally devastating. This type of approach often can lead to > passive resistance. > > In the anthology "Literacy as Praxis" Ogbu makes an analysis of > minorities' status and the school experience. Ogbu identifies voluntary > vs. involuntary minorities. Voluntary minorities are those who came to > the US voluntarily seeking economic well-being. Minorities who acquired > such status by slavery, conquest or colonization are involuntary > minorities. Involuntary minorities may see an immersion approach as a > cultural threat while voluntary minorities may not perceive this. > > Good discussion, > > Andres No one is suggesting doing away with language as a structured class... No one is suggesting that immigrants learn and practice English in their private lives... No one is promoting xenophobic attitude... No one is promoting fear in English-challenged (notice I didn't say uneducated) citizens... Simply put, English Only programs in public schools can only help to streamline and make more efficient, the job of American teachers who must conform to Government (whether local or national) guidelines for teaching subject matter within a given time period...Teachers who must, not only teach the material, but translate on a one-to-one basis, can not possibly do their jobs in a timely and effective way...Intensive English programs taught early can only help the new citizen in job search and society placement when their mandatory education requirements are satisfied...Gentlement and ladies, please...you're discussing cultural assimilation...not language assimilation...they are two very different areas...their are thousands of cultural societies in the United States, all different, all unique to customs brought from their ancestral beginnings...it would be impossible to unify them: NO ONE IS TRYING TO DO THIS...but society and the government of the United States operates on the assumption of a knowledge of English in ALL these cultures...what we DON'T need, is dissidents bringing political negativity into a genuine desire to help American citizens become unified against opposition, and this DOES require a basic unification of information resource through a common language.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:09:41 EDT