Journal Article Title: “I Will Never Forget That”: Lasting Effects of Language Discrimination on Language Discrimination on Language-Minority Children in Colombia and on the U.S.-Mexico Border
Authors: Luz A. Murillo and Patrick H. Smith
Luz A. Murillo is Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas Pan American. Patrick H. Smith is Associate Professor, Department of Teacher Education, University of Texas at El Paso.
Abstract:
This article focuses on the adverse and long term effects of linguicism on school-age students. Linguicism is recognized by language specialists, language planners and applied linguists as discrimination rooted in prejudice toward linguistic differences. Since language is carefully assessed through language use and other skills as syntax, pronunciation, usage and handwriting, schools then become a site of discrimination among students who learn second languages. This issue arises in connection to other bases for prejudice such as ethnicity, gender and gender preferences, and ability. The interrelation of language and these aspects widens the continual linguicism in schools. The authors consolidated information that sprang from several oral and written interviews and other published materials related to bilingual and monolingual education. Interviews were conducted among several subjects who were exposed to these educational settings. Parents, teachers, family members, and individuals from minority groups were asked about their perceptions and experiences in schools where prejudice for language was deeply evident.
Ill consequences of language discrimination were illustrated in three educational settings namely: Tucson, Arizona; Simunurwa, Colombia and Rio Grande in southern Texas. Laws and policies mandating compulsory English immersion in schools provide grounds for school practices that often embrace verbal and physical forms of punishment. Punishments include canings, being hit with a ruler, being deprived of privileges, exposing students to lower quality of instruction and being deprived of other opportunities for academic advancements. Verbal punishments include publicly criticizing the students’ use of their native and second language. These experiences result in the students’ gradual loss of family connections, loss of familiarity and comfort in using the native language, insecurities in using their second language, and limited opportunities in advanced bilingual instruction. These effects could be best exemplified through results of students’ English language reading scores, and youth language vitality and dropout rates. Authors perceive these findings necessary in strengthening curricular and teacher preparation programs. Lack of knowledge in these data, and ignorance of concepts involving linguistics and language instruction among parents, teachers and school administrators may inadvertently result in making poor decisions in language instruction.
The authors recommended that teacher education programs introduce basic information on bilingual education in order to put a stop to existing myths about language, which further exacerbate language discrimination in schools. Authors of this article noted the importance of the native language in the second language acquisition of students; in doing so, respect will henceforth be given to students’ native and second language.
Review:
Language discrimination seems pretty simple to explain at first, but it’s actually harder than it sounds. Since people use language as an instrument to communicate, the ways by which it is used is more often than not subjected to various forms of criticisms by those who standardize the language, or by those who think their language is superior to others’. Before reading the entire content of this article, I asked myself, “How does language discrimination differ from racial discrimination if the former also coincides with other bases for prejudice, such as race, class, gender and ability?”
This article provides an idea on the difference between these two forms of discrimination. Racial discrimination takes place in a particular region where there is bias in treatment of individuals because of race, appearance and class in society. When these individuals, on the other hand, are not fairly treated because they do not use the “standard” language as their main language, there is language discrimination. This article highlights the dire effects that language prejudice can bring to young second language learners.
Notwithstanding the prominence of laws and policies in strengthening the use of English as a medium of instruction in schools, it is necessary to recognize other laws and policies that admonish the modes of punishment enforced to the learners. Students’ self- expression, confidence in their abilities and potentials, and educational privileges are hampered by austere implications of the schools’ linguistic practices.
While reading the article, it occurred to me that the authors’ claims and examples of effects were primarily drawn from the collected statements of the students, parents, teachers, and other individuals who are directly involved in this mode of instruction, and not on other evidences such as the students’ performance ratings, actual figures of drop-out rates and scores of reading and language proficiency tests. These are also necessary in showing that harmful consequences of language discrimination do not just affect the affective or emotional facets of learners; it also influences cognitive understanding and proficiency levels of the learners in the usage of the secondary language.
Despite the lack of empirical data to show the effects of linguicism, the given examples, statements and findings in three different contexts have been useful in identifying several facets of the issue. One of the statements that made a mark in the article was in regards to development of policies that may not be well-decided upon. “Without an understanding of the big ideas about language, future and current teachers may make decisions, which unwittingly, do much harm to children and their opportunities to learn.”
Learners’ presumptions on English may also affect their progress in learning the language. In the article, one myth discusses the dominance of one language over the other. Another myth discloses that varieties of English are less acceptable over “standard” English. These preconceived notions should indeed be put to a halt by keeping students, not to mention the teachers, abreast with knowledge of the trends in language instruction which are supported by linguistic studies, findings and researches. These days, more sophisticated methods in error correction are recommended to improve language instruction without humiliating and traumatizing students when they speak and write.
Language discrimination is not just limited to regions where there are learners who use Spanish as their native language. Second language learners in general may also go through this predicament. Filipinos experience language discrimination because of their pronunciation, word choices, grammar and accent. Students’ dialects and regional accents are often criticized even by their colleagues, and their teachers who also use English as a second language. “English Only Policy” is imposed in private and public institutions to enrich the use of English in written and oral forms of communication, but this does not bring direct and large-scale changes in the reading and linguistic proficiencies of the students. Moreover, it even delays communicative processes as students often have to think longer before they start responding.
The behavior of students is also affected because some of them are scared of committing errors in their speech and some of them tend to code-switch in order to clearly express themselves. Code-switching, even in the article, is cited as an invalid response in monolingual instruction. In my experience as a teacher to first and second year students in a public school, students tend to be more at ease in using both Filipino and English during discourses. This touches the issue of using bilingual education at a certain degree, since it contradicts the concept of monolingual instruction.
Bilingual instruction defies an existing perception on considering the primary language a hindrance to the development of knowledge of the second language. This could be shown in two ways. First, knowledge can easily be acquired if teachers could give a solid subject matter in learning a language. This knowledge enables the learners to easily comprehend their reading texts. Second, it is easier to apply learning in reading through a language the student understands; once a student is capable of reading in one language, this knowledge transfers rapidly to any other language he learns to read (Stephen Krashen, 2001). Saying that the use of primary language keeps learners from learning another language is rather inaccurate.
Adverse effects of language discrimination in schools may also contribute greatly to the linguistic abilities of students when they find jobs. As a former teacher to Korean students here in the Philippines, I became exposed to various opinions of college students whenever they apply in companies. Some of my students told me that they had to go to other countries where English is spoken as the native or second language in order to be ahead of the other applicants who are not capable of using English as a medium of communication. However, if students are initially discriminated in schools because of the verbal abilities, those who are already capable of using the language are the ones who are more likely to succeed because they have more chances of being exposed to advanced instruction than those who cannot use English well.
Parents and relatives also play a vital role in exposing children to their native and second language. Basic knowledge of English could start even at their own homes. Usage and practice of the second language do not have to impinge on connections between and among family members and the learner. With the basic knowledge on the use of a second language and awareness on its misconceptions, parents may be able to encourage their children to learn both the primary and secondary language without having to compromise any of the two.
Teachers have crucial roles to play in developing students’ linguistic foundations. Therefore, be it a primary or secondary language, it should never be an option to employ methods which may degrade, demoralize and hurt students physically and emotionally.
References:
Krashen, S. (2001). Rethinking Schools Online. Rethinking Schools . Retrieved August 12, 2011, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/
