Double Post!

Ok, so I found an article that really kicked off some interesting ideas for me, but then I looked at my last post and found that people have been asking really interesting questions. And I can't just let interesting questions go unanswered, so I'm going to follow that guy's (sorry, I'm horrible with names!) idea and answer some questions for this post:

One interesting comment: "The study of foreign languages doesn't seem to be emphasized as much in the United States where English is so dominant." - I believe this is true. English is so important as the language of business and travel that everywhere I've gone, most of the people I've met have known at least some English. But history shows that dominant languages only have a lifespan of so long before they are corrupted or overtaken. I've got this cool little book about language history of the world, which says that the empire of Sumeria had basically the same language for 1000 years. So Americans may be setting themselves up for isolation if the language tastes of the world shift to, say, Arabic or Chinese, and English-only speakers are left out cold.

"Do you think that implementing more programs for children and young adults to learn other languages in places like Ohio will really contribute to make the state more successful and globally competitive? I understand the need for officials and government workers to be able to communicate in other languages, but how can the focus on preschoolers and other non-adults help this success?" - In an era of globalization, I really do believe that an emphasis on language from pre-school will have a serious impact on future success. Growing up in an international community, I learned certain things (phrases or facts) from and about people of different cultures, which helped me out in the future. For instance, I learned about Pakistan from people I had met who were from Islamabad. Then, one night, when I caught a late cab ride, the driver happened to be Pakistani, so I asked if he too was from the capital. This sparked off a long conversation about Islamabad, which I was able to participate in by virtue of having met people from there before. And, at the end of the night, he refused my tip just because we had been able to connect over that. I think language is an even stronger force to bring people together even in small situations like that. Obviously, being able to speak the same language is very important on the global level of transnational business deals, but it's even helpful on the small-scale level of going to a corner store and being able to communicate effectively. The barbers in my neighborhood were all hispanic, and I think that by saying what I wanted in Spanish, I probably saved myself the trouble of buying a new hat on some occasions. And these kind of interactions are what create customer loyalty and successful transactions. So that's why I think language education from an early age will make the state more successful, even on a microeconomic level.

"I wonder why Ohio, Oregon, and Texas were targeted for this initiative. What qualities about those states provide for a greater rate of success of this program? Is it that the infrastructures of the educational systems in these states are somehow more flexible and able to accommodate the financial and cultural requirements of instituting new language programs?" - That's a good question, and I don't think I can Google my way out of that one. I don't know why these three states were selected, because their ethnic/cultural/language makeups are radically different. For instance, in Oregon, the largest foreign group is Hispanics (275,314 in 2000), followed by Asians (101,350), Pacific Islanders (7,976), and French Canadians. The same census stated that 8.5% of the population was of foreign birth. Also, the census noted a large number of Native Americans (45,211), who also have their own respective languages (all this from http://www.city-data.com/states/Oregon-Ethnic-groups.html ). Compared with the statistics on Ohio from the last post, it's apparent that these two states have very different language makeups. So I'm not sure why these states specifically would be targeted. My guess is that there are two characteristics that made them more likely to have these new programs: 1) they don't have foreign populations big enough or pervasive enough to have spawned such programs already (even though I know Texas is basically hispanic in many places), and 2) they don't have foreign populations small enough to make these programs unnecessary.

"I am curious about your claim that "This clearly points to the idea that people think differently in different languages, if it is necessary to understand a foreign language simply to provide for security." Does the language and thought relation really fall out of this situation?" - I felt like that was a weak claim when I wrote it, but I included it because I have a visceral feeling that the language and thought relation is included in the idea that multilingualism benefits national security. My internal reasoning (this is the best I can explain it) is this: the foremost addressed need of any society is security. If learning foreign languages at the preschool level benefits national security, then the converse must also be true: not learning foreign languages is detrimental to national security. Because security is the foremost concern of societies, it is likely that people will consider security their highest priority. If language alone is a threat to this priority, there must be something beyond just language itself that poses this threat - it points to the idea that there are different patterns of thought underlying these languages which pose a threat to communication and thus to security.

"Also, some people argue that globalization is just an extension of imperialism. Do you think that the plan instituted in Ohio contradicts or reflects the theory of language imperialism?" - I don't agree with the comparison of globalization to imerialism. The reason for this is that globalization goes both ways; while imperialism consists in one society's domination of another, whereby the dominated society usually has no influence on the dominating one (India being a notable exception to the rule), globalization affects both societies. It's like me sticking my foot in water: when Nikola sticks his foot in water, Nikola gets wet, but the water also gets Nikola (sorry for the third person). I think the same applies here. The fact that English is the dominant language in the business world, but that emphasis is now being put on English speakers to learn foreign languages, clearly shows that other cultures and languages are having an effect on us just like we are on them.