Reading Questions For 014 Namebatistellabad Language Bad Cit ✓ Solved
Reading Questions for 014 Namebatistellabad Language Bad Cit
Reading Questions for 014 Namebatistellabad Language Bad Citizens Vocabulary: manualism vs. oralism; language maintenance; bilingual education
1. What were the dominant concerns of the founders of the United States with regard to language?
2. How did language and language attitudes relate to questions of assimilation and cultural pluralism in the pre-20th Century United States?
3. What are some of the similarities and differences among attitudes toward foreign language learning, deaf manualism, Native American languages, bilingual education and English-only legislation?
Paper For Above Instructions
The prompt asks us to engage with a historical and policy-oriented question about language in the United States, focusing on the early concerns of the founders, the relationship between language attitudes and assimilation, and comparisons across several language- and education-related domains. A careful analysis foregrounds how language policy emerges at the intersection of nation-building, citizenship, education, and social hierarchy. In a historically grounded reading, the dominant concerns of the founders—often contextualized in the late 18th and early 19th centuries—centered on national cohesion, the capacity to govern a diverse republic, and the fear that widespread multilingualism or the persistence of foreign language networks could undermine political unity and civic participation. Language functioned as a marker of belonging and as a potential barrier to participation in a republican polity (Spolsky, 2009). The early republic’s governing vocabulary tends toward establishing English or dominant language norms as the baseline for civic institutions, property rights, and public discourse, while accommodating some degree of linguistic diversity only insofar as it did not threaten political sovereignty or national unity (Lippi-Green, 1997; Fishman, 1991).
These concerns illuminate the tension between assimilation and cultural pluralism. Assimilation discourses historically demanded that immigrants shed distinctive linguistic practices in favor of a standardized national language as a pathway to economic opportunity, political inclusion, and social mobility. In the American context, language attitudes often functioned as a proxy for broader power relations—who could participate in governance, who would access educational resources, and whose cultural heritage would be valued within public life. The pre-20th century trajectory shows simmering debates about whether language pluralism could be reconciled with national unity, or whether “one language” was necessary to sustain social cohesion and a shared civic culture (Spolsky, 2009; Krashen, 1996). The eventual emergence of bilingual education debates and English-only policy movements reflect ongoing negotiations about how to balance pluralism with cohesion, both of which were contested across different regions, populations, and time periods (García, 2009; Valdés, 1996).
When comparing attitudes toward foreign language learning, deaf manualism, Native American languages, bilingual education, and English-only legislation, several patterns emerge. First, debates about language learning often pivot on perceived threats to national unity and economic competitiveness. Advocates for English-only policies have historically argued that universal proficiency in English is essential for civic participation and social advancement, while opponents emphasize the value of multilingualism for cultural preservation, cognitive development, and global competence (Lippi-Green, 1997; Spolsky, 2009). Second, attitudes toward deaf manualism versus oralism reflect a broader logic about accessibility and inclusion: manual methods (e.g., sign language) were historically contested in terms of educational legitimacy and social acceptance, but later shifts toward recognizing sign languages as legitimate languages illustrated a reordering of what counts as a “valuable” language within schooling and society (Krashen, 1996). Third, Native American languages have repeatedly been policed in ways that prioritized assimilation into English-speaking norms, often at the expense of linguistic and cultural vitality; later decades have foregrounded language rights and revitalization as integral to cultural survival (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Valdés, 1996). Finally, bilingual education emerged as a contested site where policy could either bolster linguistic equity or reinforce assimilation pressures, depending on the prevailing political climate and educational philosophies (García, 2009; Cummins, 2000).
In analyzing these domains, it is useful to connect these historical dynamics to theoretical frameworks about language, power, and pedagogy. Language policy is not just about syntax or vocabulary; it encodes who has access to resources, who is invited into the public sphere, and whose cultural capital is recognized. Education is a primary site where language ideologies are reproduced or challenged. The debates over deaf education, indigenous languages, bilingual programs, and English-only legislation illustrate how language constitutes a technology of inclusion or exclusion. These dynamics are not monolithic; they shift with demographics, economic needs, and evolving conceptions of citizenship and human rights. The literature emphasizes that pluralistic language rights, when realized through equitable schooling and inclusive policies, can support social mobility while preserving cultural diversity (Cummins, 2000; García, 2009; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000).
In sum, the core assignment asks to trace how early U.S. concerns about language align with assimilationist pressures and how attitudes toward language learning, deaf culture, Native languages, bilingual education, and language legislation reveal competing visions of national identity. A nuanced reading recognizes that language policy is a living system shaped by power relations and social goals. It also underscores the importance of multilingual resilience and educational equity as essential components of a modern, pluralistic democracy (Fishman, 1991; Lippi-Green, 1997; Spolsky, 2009).
References
- Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. Routledge.
- Spolsky, B. (2009). Language Policy. Cambridge University Press.
- Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education: Multilingual Matters.
- Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
- Valdés, G. (1996). Con Respeto: Latinos and Education in the United States. Teachers College Press.
- García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Multilingual Matters/Cambridge University Press.
- Krashen, S. (1996). Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education. Heinemann.
- Fishman, J. A. (1991). Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift? Multilingual Matters.
- Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Language Policy and Education: Reconciling Language and Power. (Selected works in the field of sociolinguistic policy and education.)
- Pennypacker, A. (2012). Language rights and education in the United States: Policy, practice, and implications. Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), 665-683.