Talking and testing : discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency

368 Pages·1998·1.591 MB·English

by  Richard Young, Agnes Weiyun He

TALKING AND TESTING
STUDIES IN BILINGUALISM (SiBil)
EDITORS
Kees de Bot Thom Huebner
University of Nijmegen San José State University
EDITORIAL BOARD
Michael Clyne (Monash University)
Kathryn Davis (University of Hawaii at Manoa)
Charles Ferguson (Stanford University)
Joshua Fishman (Yeshiva University)
François Grosjean (Université de Neuchâtel)
Wolfgang Klein (Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik)
Georges Lüdi (University of Basel)
Christina Bratt Paulston (University of Pittsburgh)
Suzanne Romaine (Merton College, Oxford)
Merrill Swain (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education)
Richard Tucker (Carnegie Mellon University)

Volume 14
Richard Young and Agnes Weiyun He (eds)
Talking and Testing
Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency
TALKING AND TESTING
DISCOURSE APPROACHES TO
THE ASSESSMENT
OF ORAL PROFICIENCY
RICHARD YOUNG
University of Wisconsin-Madison
AGNES WEIYUN HE
SUNY Stony Brook

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of Ameri-
8 can National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Talking and testing : discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency / [edited by]
Richard Young, Agnes Weiyun He.
p. cm. -- (Studies in Bilingualism, ISSN 0928-1533 ; v. 14)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Language and languages--Ability testing. 2. Conversation--Ability testing. 3. Oral com-

munication--Ability testing.
P53.4.T35 1998
418’.0076--dc21 98-24277
ISBN 90 272 4120 1 (Eur.) / 1 55619 548 6 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)
ISBN 90 272 4133 3 (Eur.) / 1 58811 092 3 (US) (Pb; alk. paper) CIP
© 2001 - John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 36224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam • The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA
Table of Contents
SociopoliticalPerspectivesonLanguagePolicy,Politics,andPrograms 1
ThomHuebner
ComparativeHistoricalAnalysisofU.S.LanguagePolicyandLanguage
Planning:ExtendingtheFoundations1 17
TerrenceG.Wiley
TheLanguageofPolicy:WhatSortofPolicyMakingistheO(cid:244)cialization
ofEnglishintheUnitedStates? 39
JosephLoBianco
TheSociopoliticalDynamicsofIndigenousLanguageMaintenanceand
Loss:AFrameworkforLanguagePolicyandPlanning 67
KathrynA.Davis
Culture,Discourse,andIndigenousEpistemology:TranscendingCurrent
ModelsinLanguagePlanningandPolicy 99
KarenA.Watson-GegeoandDavidW.Gegeo
LookingatFederalEducationLegislationFromaLanguagePolicy/
PlanningPerspective 117
DonnaChristian
PublicPerceptionsofO(cid:244)cialEnglish/EnglishOnly:FramingtheDebate
inArizona 131
MaryCarolCombs
LanguagePolicy/PlanningandU.S.Colonialism:ThePuertoRicanThorn
inEnglish-Only’sSide 155
AnaCeliaZentella
USLanguagePlanningandPoliciesforSocialDialectSpeakers 173
MarcylienaMorgan
ThePoliticsofSignLanguage:LanguagePlanningforDeafAmericans 193
MichaelStrong
viii contents
LanguageVarietiesandLanguagePolicy:TheAppreciationofPidgin 205
LaianaWong
(Mis)EducatingMexicanAmericansThroughLanguage 223
LiliaI.BartoloméandDonaldoMacedo
LanguageandEquality:IdeologicalandStructuralConstraintsin
ForeignLanguageEducationintheU.S. 243
LourdesOrtega
TheRoleofLanguageandCultureinTeachingReading:Language
PolicyandPlanningforDiversePopulations 267
AngelaEuniceRickford
ForeignLanguagePolicyandPlanninginHigherEducation:TheCase
oftheStateofFlorida 297
AnaRoca
HawaiianLanguageRegenesis:PlanningforIntergenerationalUse
ofHawaiianBeyondtheSchool 313
SamNo‘eauWarner
FromDevelopingOne’sVoicetoMakingOneselfHeard:A(cid:243)ecting
LanguagePolicyfromtheBottomUp 333
KlaudiaM.Rivera
TheRoleofSocialNetworksandtheStrengthofWeakTiesinChanging
LanguagePolicy:GenderNeutralizationinAmericanEnglish 347
PatriciaC.Nichols
Sociopolitical Perspectives on Language Policy,
Politics, and Programs
THOM HUEBNER
SanJoséStateUniversity
The last decade of the millennium has seen numerous, sometimes cacophonous,
dialoguesinlegislaturesandthemedia,inkitchensandco(cid:243)eeshopsacrosstheU.S.
on language policy, politics, and programs. Among the more volatile topics, the
needforano(cid:244)ciallanguageisdebatedatboththenationalandstatelevelsonideo-
logical and emotional, as well as utilitarian, grounds (Adams and Brink 1990;
Crawford1992b).Withthejuryhungwithrespecttoitspedagogicale(cid:244)cacy,bilin-
gualeducationisattackedonthebasesofcivilrights(i.e.,segregation)andethnic
divisivenessconcerns(Fishman1981;Crawford1992a).Atthesametime,civiland
humanrightsissuesunderpinmanyoftheargumentsforindigenousandimmigrant
languagemaintenance,andforprogramsforhearingimpairedpopulations.
Fromapurelylinguisticpointofview,thesedebateshavehadtheire(cid:243)ectonthe
commonlanguageofthecountry.Inrecentyears,growingoppositiontobilingual
educationnotjustfromEnglish-speakingmonolingualpopulations,butevenfrom
withinthecommunitiesbilingualprogramsareintendedtoserve,coincideswitha
semantic shift which finds the term ‘‘bilingual’’ often used, even in educational
circles,interchangeab lywiththeterm‘‘non-Englishproficient.’’Inpublicando(cid:244)-
cialdiscourse,attentiontogenderbiasinAmericanEnglishhasresultedinshifts
towardmoregenderneutralusages,whileinsomequartersitisdismissedasmere
‘‘political correctness.’’ The term ‘‘Ebonics’’ has become a part of the national
lexicon,althoughitsa(cid:243)ectivemeaningseemstovarywidelyacrossraceandclass,
and‘‘dialect’’hascometomean‘‘somethinglessthanalanguage.’’
Butmoreimportantly,thesedebatesandthelanguageusedtoarguethemreflect
attitudes,beliefs,andideologiesaboutthenatureoflanguageanditsroleinsociety.
Despitestatementsfromscholarsoflanguagetothee(cid:243)ectthatU.S.societyviews
English as ‘‘an instrumentality ... not an object of love, a(cid:243)ection, devotion,
emotion’’ (Fishman 1981: 516), the arguments used to engender support for the
2 thom huebner
movement for English as the o(cid:244)cial language are hardly innocent of appealing
tomonolingual English speakers’ emotional ties to the language. The resistance
tobilingualeducationisgroundedatleastinpartinwhatpeopleholdtobetrue,
even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, about the cognitive and
social consequences of bilingualism. These attitudes and beliefs buttress more
general ideologies encompassing notions of race, ethnicity, nationhood, culture,
community,gender,andself.
ThepapersinthisvolumeexaminekeyaspectsoftheU.S.experiencewithlan-
guageandlanguagepolicyasweapproachthetwenty-firstcentury.Bylimitingthe
areaofinvestigationtotheU.S.experience,thevariouschaptersrepresentaselec-
tionofaspectsofthevastarrayofwhatconstituteslanguagepolicyandplanningin
acomplexsociety.Eachreflectsanincreasingrecognitiononthepartoflanguage
researchersoftheimportanceofthecultural,social,andpoliticalcontextsinwhich
languagepoliciesareformedandlanguageplansareimplemented.Traditionally,
thishasnotbeenthecase.
1.–LanguagePolicyinthe U.S.
Of course, language policy has a(cid:243)ected language use in the U.S. since colonial
times,involvingthetreatmentofindigenouslanguagesandthelanguagesofslaves,
aswellasthelanguagesofimmigrantgroups.IntheNineteenthCentury,theper-
ceivedthreatfromthehugeinfluxofGermanswasatopicoflanguagepolicyde-
bate. And toward the end of that century, U.S. imperialist policies expanded the
domainofU.S.languagepolicybeyondthecontinentalboundaries.Thishistoryand
theriseoflegendssurroundingithavebeenwelldocumented1anditisbeyondthe
scope of this chapter to review that history. Rather, this section reviews what is
encompassedbytheterm‘‘languagepolicy’’asitappliestotheU.S.situation.
Onhiswebsite(www.JWCrawford.com),journalistandlanguagepolicyanalyst
JamesCrawfordlists twodefinitionsoflanguagepolicy:
1. Whatthegovernmentdoeso(cid:244)cially—throughlegislation,courtdecisions,exec-
utiveaction,orothermeans—to(a)determinehowlanguagesareusedinpublic
contexts, (b) cultivate language skills needed to meet national priorities, or
(c)establishtherightsofindividualsorgroupsofindividualstolearn,use,and
maintainlanguages,
—1–Kloss(1977)remainsthemostcomprehensivehistoryoflanguagepolicyintheU.S.;butalsosee
Leibowitz(1969,1971),Heath(1977,1978,1981,1992),Crawford(1992a),Schi(cid:243)man(1995,Chapters
8&9).
policy, politics, and programs 3
2. Government regulation of its own language use, including steps to facilitate
clearcommunication,trainandrecruitpersonnel,guaranteedueprocess,foster
politicalparticipation, andprovide access topublic services,proceedings and
documents.
He points out that while the U.S. has no consciously planned, unified, national
languagepolicy,itdoeshavelanguagepolicies,whichareoftenadhocresponses
toimmediateneedsorpoliticalpressures.
One potential problem with this definition is the implied monolithic notion of
‘‘government.’’Giventhefederalistnatureofgovernmentandthelegislativeand
judicialprocessesintheU.S.,itisnotsurprisingthatgovernmentlanguagepolicies
areofteninconsistentwithoneanotherorinterpreteddi(cid:243)erentlyatdi(cid:243)erentlevels
ofgovernment.
Inthefieldofeducation,forexample,federaldepartmentsandagenciessuchas
the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) distribute funds to state agencies and
ultimatelytolocaleducationandotheragenciestoimplementthegoalsofthepro-
grams, subject to Congressional funding and Presidential approval. But federal
fundsrepresentonlyapercentageofthemoneyallocatedtopubliceducation.Oper-
atingbudgetsforindividualschoolsaredependenttoalargepartonthetaxbases
oflocalschooldistricts,creatinggreatinequitiesfromschooltoschoolanddistrict
todistrict.
State Departments of Education (State Education Agencies or SEAs in the
parlanceoftheFederalbureaucracy)seteducationalstandards,aswellasdistribute
bothfederalandstatefundstolocalschooldistricts,sometimesbasedonaformula,
sometimescompetitivelytodistrictsforprogramsthatpromisetorealizeSEA-or
DOE-definedgoals.Withintheconstraintsoffederalandstatelaw,theguidelines
ofthespecificpieceoflegislation,andstateeducationalframeworks,localschool
districts(‘‘localeducationagencies’’orLEAs)setpolicyandoverseeeducational
practicethroughlocallyelectedschoolboards.School boards inthiscountryare
predominantlywhite,middleclass,andconservative.2

Inadditiontolocalboardsofeducation,teachers’unions,communityandgrass-
rootsgroupsandprofessionalorganizationsallworktoshapegovernmentlanguage
policy.Theresultisthatlanguagepolicygoalsasreflectedinfederallanguagelegis-
lationarenotnecessarilyconsistentwithcommunityorlocallanguageeducation
goals.Forexample,TitleVIIfunds,designatedatthefederallevelfortransitional
—2–Applebome(1997)reportsthatofthe95,000membersoflocalschoolboardsacrossthecountry,
95%arewhiteand65%tendtoselfidentifyasconservative,asopposedtoliberal(28%).Sixtypercent
aremen;40%arebetween41and50yearsold;morethan40%reportedincomesbetween$40,000and
$80,000peryear.
4 thom huebner
bilingualeducation,wereresponsibleinMicronesiaforproducingandimplement-
ingcontentareamaterialsinthevernacular,animplicitrecognitionofthefailureof
an English-Only curriculum in the Trust Territories. In American Samoa, these
samefundswereusedtodevelopaSamoanlanguageartscurriculum,thefirstsince
theestablishmentofthepublicschoolsystemaroundtheturnofthecentury,andin
Hawai‘i,forthefirstuseofHawaiianasamediumofinstructioninHawai‘isince
1896(Huebner1985).MorerecentexamplescanbeseenintheattempttouseTitle
VIIfundsforseconddialectspeakersinOakland,California(seethechaptersinthis
volume by Morgan and Rickford) and the current use of Title VII funds for the
implementation of English-Only policies in Orange County California and other
schooldistrictsacrossthecountry.
While Crawford’s definition restricts language policy to government bodies,
languagepolicyformationandenforcementismoreubiquitousthanthat.Private
enterprises from small businesses and multinational corporations, the media,
publishing houses, professional and religious organizations, foundations, and
supranationalalliancesandconfederationshavelanguagepolicies.These,too,can
determinepatternsoflanguageuseinpubliccontexts.Forexample,theshiftinthe
lastgenerationtowardgender-neutralformsofEnglishintheU.S.isoftencitedas
anexampleoflanguageplanningsuccess(eg.,Cooper1989;Ruiz1994).Yetthis
relativerapidchangeinlanguageusewasnottheresultofgovernmentlanguage
policy,butratheroflanguagepoliciesofprofessionalorganizations,themedia,and
publishinghouses(seeNicholsthisvolume).
Thedistinctionhasbeenmadebetweenovertlanguagepolicies(languagepolicies
whichareexplicit,formalized,and/orcodified)andcovertlanguagepolicies,which
‘‘make no mention of any language in any legal document, administrative code,
etc.’’ (Schi(cid:243)man 1995: 30), but which nonetheless impact patterns of language
acquisitionanduse,aswellaslanguageattitudes.Covertpolicies,Schi(cid:243)manpoints
out,maybeinferredfromotherpolicies,constitutionalprovisions,‘thespiritofthe
law,’orjustthefactthatthelegalcodeiscomposedinacertainlanguageandnot
another,etc.’’(ibid.)A nunderstandingofU.S.languagepoliciesformation,their
interactionwithoneanother,andtheira(cid:243)ectonpatternsoflanguageacquisitionand
use,requiresarecognitionofcovertlanguagepoliciesaswellasovertones.
Finally,bothovertandcovertlanguagepoliciesapplywithinsociocultural,histor-
icalcontextswhicharenotpartoftheexplicitpolicy,butwhichdefinetheformand
contentofpolicy.Culturalgeneralizationsaboutattitudesandorientationstoward
languageareapartofawidersetofpractices,values,andbeliefs,whichunderlie
languagepolicyandlanguagepracticedecisions.Forexample,Klosstakesahistori-
calperspectivetodescribeU.S.languagepolicystancetowardminoritylanguage
rightsas‘‘tolerance-oriented’’(seediscussioninWileythisvolume).Thishesees
asgroundedinConstitutionalguarantees,whichinturnarisefroma‘‘worldview