Monolingualism
This was a timed prompt from the AP Lang and Comp prompt. Then we edited it. I did that part during a 20 minute advisory.
It's a common joke - that of the 40-year-old parent who “knew Spanish - or, new it back in college anyway.” They knew all these conjugations and stuff, but now they struggle to build a sentence even to mock themselves. Though they may never have reached the proficiency they profess to have, there's no doubt that their skills have rusted from disuse. The American push for foreign language is neither new nor particularly aggressive, but its presence makes high school foreign language classes a common experience. Why, then, are Americans (and Brits too, though to a lesser extent) criticized for monolingualism? Americans, despite the claims of the universality and usefulness of foreign language, have trouble using and applying it. The fact of the matter is that, while foreign language could be used to reach new heights and cultural understanding, global commerce and trade, logical thinking, and other areas, English (and American) predominance and control ensure that these heights are not reached and those who speak only English are not at a disadvantage.
The notion of a lingua franca is not new - after all, the Latin phrase refers to the French language. Latin was one originally because of its massive empire, and was so for centuries afterwards for its influence in the church, philosophy, and academia. French was used in diplomatic relations ever since the Treaty of Versaille in the sixteenth century, and became standard for philosophers’ writings during the Enlightenment. Both of these languages were so universal because of the power they wielded, for the language was tied to a people and a state. It's impossible to deny that this relationship with power holds for every language, and today English holds considerable power around the world. As David Thomas says in his argument for English as a lingua franca, “[English] is the language of science, commerce, global politics, aviation, popular music and, above all, the internet.” The rise of English’s power can be traced to the extreme influence of the British Empire, the modern influence of the United States since the 1920s parentheses, and the beginnings of The internet on American soil.
So English has all this power and Thomas argues that we ought simply to use it. Others argue, correctly, that as far as the educational system is concerned foreign languages still have use. Russell Berman cites a talk by Richard Haas, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, in which he claims that language is a way into a deeper cultural understanding of society. It’s a valid argument, and it’s the primary one used to argue for foreign language education in schools today. Language is the key into reaching the content, discourse, and literature that wasn’t deliberately meant to be spread to cultures around the world by translation. It is here that the core of a culture is found to be explored. But how does global society reward the deep understanding of other cultures? Global culture frowns on biculturalism just as much as it admires bilingualism. Your cultural identity is given by your origin origin, or, in other communities, your more recent one. In this way, power isn’t upgraded by understanding of another culture, you’re merely given the option to switch cultural identity. Other cultures are encouraged to learn English because of its usage as a lingua franca but also because of its cultural power. Speakers, it is believed, can use this cultural power for their own. America has extorted the power of English just as Mao Zedong tried to crush it down in China. Zedong feared its influence and global usage would, contrary to popular belief, allow colonists and invaders to extort him, rather than convince citizens of a way of life. Perhaps Zedong was wise in his restriction of English, but certainly not successful. Today there is hardly a square mile of land in which you cannot find an English speaker. There’s an obvious value in having your language a universal one. It is, after all, an issue of power. There’s the cost savings involved in not needing foreign language courses, but there’s also the power of defining what is “right” for the language - and always speaking with the “standard” accent. There’s also the ever-present but subtle reminded every time you speak of the homeland from which your words come.
Perhaps the days of foreign language as power are gone for those who speak English, but aren’t there less ostentatious reasons to learn a language? Russell argues that language acquisition itself has benefits, especially within education. It could assist in inter-language acquisition and logical reasoning. Ursula Oaks presents the same argument, claiming that these those students who learned a foreign language consistently show greater cognitive abilities to those who don't. “[Foreign language] makes the brain more flexible and incite it to discover new patterns,” she says. It seems reasonable. Just like mathematics, which are largely useless except for applications in the niche-est of occupations but nonetheless train learners in the arts of creating and following procedures, foreign language trains the art of finding and using patterns in the midst of chaos. Michael Edward questions, though, if Americans are really missing out on these effects. The census, he claims, has failed to provide a convincing statistic on the state of language acquisition and bilingualism in the United States. Perhaps we are learning our foreign languages and forgetting them for lack of use.
If, in fact, the cultural power of non-English languages is dwindling, this would make sense. Perhaps the push for foreign language is now shifting to the benefits of its acquisition rather than usage for exactly this reason, but this situation isn’t how it has to be. Today, the monolingual English speaker is one who was fully equipped to use their foreign language but never found a chance, never found an opportunity or a way to dig into another culture and learn a little more about what it means to be human. Perhaps as Americans - for the globe as a whole is waiting for us only - we need to change our discourse from a fear of cultural appropriation and an obsession with heritage, to one of loving and appreciating culture as a good in and of itself. Perhaps then we will be able to really understand the true meaning and value of using a foreign language.