by
DR. TARIQ RAHMAN
National Institute of Pakistan Studies
Quaid-i-Azam University
Islamabad
Pakistan
American Language Practices, American Identity and Power
Introduction
The United States of America is
better known as a free country which allows people to choose their lifestyles
better than any other country. If people do assimilate, it is argued, they do
so out of their own free will---hence the metaphor of the ‘melting pot’ which
is widely used for the U.S. However, the ‘melting pot’ survives only in the
public imagination. Perceptive scholars have questioned it as did Glazer and
Moynihan in their pioneering study of the ethnic groups of New York city
entitled Beyond the Melting Pot
(1963). Nowadays ethnicity is no longer seen as a throwback to the past but as
a modern construction, as the consciousness of a certain distinctive identity,
shaped by instrumentalist forces and manipulating symbols with various kinds of
appeals including what is called ‘primordialist’ sentiment (Hutchinson and Smith 1996) but what I have described
as extra-rational motivation (Rahman 1996: 19-20).
Those who uphold the classical
‘melting pot’ model would deny any linkage between power and American identity
or the role played by English in shaping that identity. Those who are prepared
to move beyond the simplistic benevolent model of America as the ultimate
‘free’ society, will appreciate that certain linguistic practices may create
social and pragmatic pressure of the sort which may have the force of state
policy upon individual citizens. That, indeed, is the argument presented in
this paper.
Objective
To be precise, this paper argues that the linguistic
practices of powerful groups and individuals in the U.S.A have made English the
dominant language and the linguistic norm in the U.S.A. English is seen by the
white, Anglo-Saxon majority as a part of the American identity. In addition to
these informal sources of power, there are people who want to make English
legally powerful too. All this means that, without there being a declared
monolingual language policy, the USA operates in practice like a monolingual
state.
Review of Literature
The seminal work on the American
language policies is that of Heinz Kloss (1977). Kloss analyzed only formal
language policies and not practices. His final verdict was that there was a
tradition of tolerance for all languages in the U.S. However, being a German,
he did notice that during World War I the German language was looked at with
suspicion and hostility. He also noticed the ‘unofficial moral pressure upon
members of the minority groups’ to conform to the ‘American’ image of speaking
English (1977: 285). Criticizing Kloss’s approach, Terrence G.Wiley, a
contemporary scholar of language policies, points out that Kloss ‘failed to
explore the ideological context in which “unofficial moral pressure” achieved
the same---or possibly even more thoroughgoing---results than formal coercive
policies would have’ (Wiley 2000: 69). Kloss also missed out the Native
Americans---or Red Indians as they were called---though if there is any
community whose languages were brought under pressure, and by the sate itself,
it was this community.
After Kloss there have been several
books on the English-only issue (i.e multilingualism versus monolingualism) but
none on a definitive history of U.S. language policies on the lines of Kloss.
There is, however, Applebee’s history of the teaching of English in the U.S but
it has a narrow focus---only English. There is no attempt to connect the
teaching of English with issues of identity, power and politics (Applebee
1974). In general, however, scholars writing on the language issues focus on the
English-only issue (Baron 1990; Crawford 1992). Moreover, Weinstein has
discussed the political aspects of the changes in spellings Noah Webster made
in his dictionary (Weinstein 1982). His thesis is that Webster wanted to
differentiate American English from British English so that the former would
symbolize the American identity. Apart from that, and generally along with the
English-only debate, the debate between the ideologies of monolinguism and
multiculturalism rages in the U.S. with or without focus on language.
English Versus the Other
Languages in the Nineteenth Century
As the English-speaking immigrants
came early and in greater numbers to North America, English got established
quite early as the language of white intercourse in the New World. The
Nationalization Act of 1970 limited citizenship to whites only and the racist
ideology of the day became the legal norm. This automatically implied the
subjugation and alienation of the ‘Red Indians’ who were now dubbed the
‘domestic dependent nations’ in a state of pupilage (Cherokee Nation
versus-Georgia 1831). The Indians were now domesticated, or pacified, through
schooling as a result of the Civilization Fund Act of 1819. As Weinberg tells
us, the Cherokee were forced to learn English and generally failed to do so
(Weinberg 1995: 184). Students speaking different languages were put together
so that they had to communicate in English (Crawford 1995: 27). In this way the
native languages of the aboriginal American people were eradicated till the
policy was reversed in the 1930s.
As for the Africans who were brought
to America as slaves, we have imaginative reconstructions---as in Alex Hailey’s
Roots---about the way the captives
speaking different languages were kept apart from each other. Then, in the
cotton plantations of the South, the Africans learned to speak a nonstandard
variety of English which appears to be illogical and inadequate to most white
observers. However, in a well known article Labov argues that the verbal
ineptness shown by the Black child is ‘the result of regular sociolinguistic
factors operating upon adult and child in this asymmetrical situation’ (Labov
1969: 186). The sub-culture of the Blacks is that of perceived lack of power
and criminality. Hence avoidance, alienation and mistrust of the white world
makes them evasive and taciturn. English, for them, is a white product while
their own Black English provides solidarity. However, Black English is held in
such contempt as to bar the Black child, at the very beginning of life, from
white society.
The other immigrant languages were
tolerated, as I have remarked, in the U.S.A. French, for instance, was
tolerated in Lousiana till 1921 when English became the sole language of
schooling (Baron 1990: 87). However, Chinese and Japanese were regarded with
suspicion and, in private settings, some ridicule as well. As evidence for this
is mainly anecdotal I shall not go into this except to remark that even now
Chinese children are ashamed of their parents speaking Chinese with each other.
They want to be ‘normal’---i.e speak English like everybody else.
English in the Twentieth
Century
The twentieth century was only in
its second decade when World War I started. When America eventually entered the
War, anti-German feelings in the U.S. came to the fore. Even earlier, in 1751,
Benjamin Franklin had protested against German and prescribed English education
for the children of German immigrants into Pennsylvania (in Wiley 2000: 81).
But now those who favoured only-English, called Nativists, really demonized
German Americans. Official English policies were passed in 34 states by 1922.
The aim was generally to restrict the use of German but even other European
languages came to appear as ‘un-American’ (Baron 1990: 65-83). Thus, according
to Wiley, German instruction in high schools was reduced from 324,000 students
to fewer than 14,000 between 1915 to 1922 (Wiley 1998).
After the War assimilation has
actually increased though, of course, more by the power of market forces than
legislation. After all, to get a good job in the U.S one needs English skills.
This makes foreigners learn English with great determination and effort.
Moreover, the ubiquitous media, especially the computer and the T.V, are great
teachers of English. Above all, as
globalization increases English becomes more and more widely used all over the
world and, therefore, its usefulness and power increases. In the U.S, at least
where Asian immigrants are concerned, there is a pull factor which can partly
be attributed to snobbery. Asians tend to look down upon their own ancestral
cultural values and are impressed by American ones. This makes their children
disown their mother tongues and claim ignorance of them. They speak English and
imitate American accents. In short, the idea that the American identity is
linked with American English, exerts such behavioral pressure that those who
want to assimilate in American culture or even those who want to appear
‘normal’ start wearing American English as a badge of (American)
identification.
The English Only Movement
U.S English was founded
by Senator S.I. Hayakawa in January 1983 with 300 members. In 1987 it had
340,000 members. Its major aim is to establish English as an official language
of the USA. In California Proposition 63 (23 Jan 1986) wanted English declared
as the official language of California. It was opposed by the Mexican American
Legal Defence and Education Fund and American Civil Liberties Union etc.
However, on 04 November 1986 the proposition won by 73 percent votes. In
Florida Amendment 11 was passed in November 1988. This declared English as the
official language of Florida.
Both these states have many speakers
of English which led to criticism by supporters of multiculturalism (such as
Macedo 1994: Chapter 4). Macedo and others argue that the official dominance of
English would marginalize other languages and take away the rights of their
speakers. The supporters of English-Only point out that only 17 percent
Americans speak languages other than English. They say that English empowers
children by improving their chances of finding good jobs. Thus, they point out,
their aim is to empower immigrants and help them achieve higher standards of
living by becoming ‘American’ as soon as possible. The teaching of English has
been seen as part of this process since 1918 when ‘the schools considered the
contamination of English by foreigners’ (Baron 1990: 155).
These arguments appear plausible but
there is no denying the fact that this proposed assimilation is at the cost of one’s
cultural and linguistic identity. It does entail alienation from one’s parents
and ancestors and one’s country of origin. Moreover, it is ultimately based on
the complacency which comes from power---from the assured and unassailable
assumption of all forms of superiority. It is this aspect of the role of
English in the U.S which is objected to by the supporters of multiculturalism,
diversity and human rights---they feel that all cultures must be respected
equally and given a chance to flourish. Knowing how power operates through
shaping the desires of the less powerful communities, it seems that immigrants
themselves will neglect their own languages and cultures while enthusiastically
aspiring to become ‘Americanized’ by acquiring American English. In short,
English is part of the American identity in the U.S.A and this makes it
dominant even when no specific state policies exist to make it so.
References
Applebee, Arthur N. 1974. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English: A History Urbana,
Illinois: National Council of Teachers.
Baron, Dennis. 1990. The English-Only Questions An Official Language for America? New
Haven and London; Yale University Press.
Cherokee Nation V. Georgia. 1831. Documents of United States Indian Policy
2nd ed. Prucha, F.P (ed) Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska
Press.
Crawford, J. 1992. Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of “English Only”
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
________ 1995. ‘Endangered Native American
Languages: What is to be done, and why? Bilingual
Research Journal 19: 17-38.
Glazer, Nathan and Moynihan, p. 1963 Beyond the Melting Pot Cambridge Mass:
Harvard University Press and MIT Press.
Hutchison, John and Smith, Anthony D (eds). 1996. Ethnicity Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kloss, Heinz. 1977. The American Bilingual Tradition Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Labov, W. 1969. ‘The Logic of Nonstandard English’, Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics Vol. 22: In
Giglioli, Pier Paolo (ed). 1972. Language
and Social Context: Selected Readings Hormondsworth: Penguin Books. pp.
179-215.
Macedo, Donaldo. 1994. Literacies of Power: What Americans are Not Allowed to Know
Colorado: Westview Press.
Rahman, Tariq. 1996. Language and Politics in Pakistan Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, M. 1999. A Chance to Learn: A History of Race and Education in the United States
Long Beach; CA: California State University Press.
Weinstein, Brian. 1982. ‘Noah Webster and the
Diffusion of Linguistic Innovations for Political Purposes’, Language Problems and Language Planning 4:
1: 55-77.
Wiley, Terrence G. 1998. ‘The Imposition of World
War I Era English-only Policies and the fate of Germans in North America’. In Language and Politics in the United States
and Canada: Myths and Realities Ricento, T and Burnby, B (eds). Mahwah,
N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
_______2000. ‘Continuity and Change in the Function
of Language Ideologies in the United States. In Ideology, Politics and Language Policies, Focus on English Reicento, T
(ed. Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. pp. 67-85.