Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Division of English Language and Literature

English in the Era of Globalization

Fall 2007

Week 10 - Answers

Kecskes and Papp (2000) Chapter 6

1. What is language distance?

There are two, possibly three, types of language distance depending on how much credence you give to Kellerman`s hypotheses of perceived linguistic distance.

Linguistic/Typological distance

Linguistic or typological distance refers to the actual structural differences between two languages. For the most part this has been mostly studied at the level of syntax simply because syntax has been the dominant area in linguistics for the last 50 years. It is also the area of linguistics which is easiest to study because it is quite concrete compared to other areas such as semantics or phonology. When looking typologically at different languages we can describe them basically according to way in which grammaticality is encoded. Some languages like English or what are called configurational languages. In these configure a languages grammaticality is encoded in the word order. Such languages are said to have grammatical word order. In such languages, like English, even though we may be able to change the order of the sentences we have to do so under highly constrained conditions. Other languages have what is called pragmatic word order. These languages are not configurational in that the different elements in a sentence can come in any possible word order. This is possible because in these pragmatic word order languages the different elements are morphologically marked for their functions. Thus, the sentence `the farmer plows` can be rendered in Latin either as:

Agricola arat or Arat agricola with no meaning difference.

It should be noted that there is a direct correlation between how much inflectional-type morphology a language might have and whether that language is going to be configurational or freer in its word order. Thus, languages like English which has little inflectional morphology and Chinese which has no inflectional morphology are going to have to be configurational languages. There are also languages called agglutinating or polysynthetic languages which form utterances on the basis of derivational-like morphological operations and these generally have to be in a certain order. On the other hand, languages like Finnish, Russian, and Latin which all have a large amount of inflectional morphology are more pragmatic based in how they use word order.

Perceived Linguistic/Typological distance

It is important not to under estimate how people`s perceptions of language are important. Reality is really just how we perceive it and if we are truly convinced of something as being real it`s just as real regardless of how true it may actually be. All learners of a language, even those with just a passive or passing knowledge of that language, have strong beliefs/perceptions of how that language works and how different it might be from their own language(s). Everyone goes into language learning with some idea of how hard they think the process might be or with certain feelings about the process many of which are not at all tied to the language itself, but to the speakers of the language. These preconceived and often faulty notions have a huge effect on the learning process. They affect not only how much a learner might try with the language but will also affect the different strategies they will use in trying to learn the language. We know from our discussions in this class that different learning strategies or situations will actually lead to different types of organization in the brain (remember coordinate versus compound types of organization). So this perception is extremely important.

Social distance

Aside from just the actual structural forms of the language learners also think about the social distance between their own language or languages and the new language which they are trying to learn. Looking at this, we cannot easily separate a language from its actual speakers. The impression the actual speakers of a language make on the learners is essential in determining how much energy and what type of energy a learner might invest in the learning process. So, it is about motivation. Some people learn languages because they are more similar and familiar while others are enticed by the exotic. Aside form the question of motivation there is the reality of cultural differences. Languages with a more similar cultural base will be easier to learn because there will be more similar concepts which may be easier to eventually co-join in a CUCB. Languages which a much more dissimilar cultural base will have more dissimilar concepts which may not be able to be co-joined in a CUCB. But remember the development of a CUCB is a long and arduous process which requires intensive exposure to the target language (TL). More cultural differences may make this process that much harder, but as with everything else this will depend on the learner`s mindset and interests as well as other variables we have already discussed.

2. What are some of the different aspects of language distance?

Here we just want to reiterate some of the things mentioned above with a somewhat deeper look at some of the linguistic differences of different languages. We can basically say there are three and one of these was discussed at some length above.

Configurational nature of the language = Morphological systems = Word order

Here, again, we are looking at whether a language has grammatical word order or pragmatic word order. As we saw in class with the Turkish examples agglutinating languages like Turkish are more often than not non-configurational because they have a complex system of morphemes which mark words for their specific functions. The functions, then are not marked by the word`s place in the structure as we find in configurational languages like Korean, Chinese, Japanese, or English.

Lexical differences

Differences between the word store two languages might have, regardless of the underlying concepts from which they are derived, have a huge affect on the learning outcomes. Obviously, languages that share a large number of word forms (cognates), such as English and French, Korean and Japanese, will be easier to learn (at least initially) than languages which do not share such forms. Please remember though that the form of the word is only one small part of its entire scope of information which needs to be known in order to use the word well.

Metaphorical distance

This is similar to what was discussed above in relation to concepts and cultural differences, but focuses more on Lakoff`s (1987) idea of idealized cultural models (ICMs). The basic idea behind ICMs is that cultures take certain metaphorical structures (anger = heat, for example) and build not only language but thought structures out of these. Native speakers of English, for example, use hundreds of expressions related to this one ICM on a regular basis. These ICMs reflect the way people think and they vary from language to language, culture to culture. It is also true that ICMs will be more similar in languages which rely on a more similar cultural base. So metaphorical distance really underlies (in a hidden way) so much of what must be learned in a new language.

3. How might language distance affect language learning in multilinguals?

In a very general sense, languages that are perceived as being more similar whether linguistically or socially (and better yet both) will be more easily learned than languages that are not seen as being so close, but there are grammatical variables as well. It is, generally speaking, easier to move from a more marked (GWO) to a less marked (PWO) grammatical system. Then of course there is also the metaphorical structure of the two languages and the learner`s level in being able to use these new metaphorical structures is very much reliant on their overall proficiency in the L2. In the previous week we talked about transfer and how transfer was strongly affected by perceived similarities between languages. People who believe that the languages they are learning are more similar will transfer skills much more readily than people who believe that the two languages are more different. If your think about the English learning situation in Korea we know that the schooling is all based on spotting differences. Hence, no facilitated transfer and no happiness.

Sonntag (2003) Chapter 2

4. There is an interesting paradox arising in the US that as English becomes more entrenched as a global lingua franca more people are becoming worried about its status at home (in the US) the result being the creation of laws ensuring its use. Why has this paradox arisen?

It may be interesting to note, but globalization itself has been the cause of the country which represents the face of globalization to shrink back. Certain groups in the US, apparently close to the majority, feel threatened by global competition and a waning of American power in the very globalization that the US has helped to create. They fear that in the face of a strong trend toward globalization, where American culture and language are now being globally adopted, the United States as an immigrant nation will no longer be different from other places in the world. That the world is becoming more like the US in some ways can be seen as being both positive and negative for the US. At the heart of the issue is the American (and even the British) identity and loyalty to that identity.

As a result of the dual forces of globalization and immigration, the United States is no longer unique and as a result people might lose faith in the nation itself. How can Americans identify and differentiate themselves from the rest of the world when everyone is similar to them? These people (alarmists) are scared for the very survival of the US and are thus willing to sacrifice diversity for the greater good (especially when they are not the diverse segment of society. But of course this has always been the case in the US both in relation to democracy and the linguistic legislation. Sonntag is careful to point this out in her discussion of the US constitution and how diversity at the local level needed to be sacrificed so that a more powerful federal government could be formed so that the country to be more powerful on the world arena. The situation is no different now.

5. What are the main arguments for and against the Official English movement?

There is a huge difference in how proponents and oppositionists of official English view language. The former see language as a neutral tool which grants one access to the wealth of the country while the latter see language as an important part of ones identity regardless of how long they have been in the US. This is really where all the debate begins and ends. The supporters of the English-only movement, both at home and abroad, but especially at home, see English as a benign positive tool which grants access to the riches of the world. From their point of view, not to know English when you can is a kind of self-deprecation because you are limiting yourself. They argue that in the US English must be used in the public sector, for the reasons outlined in the question above (as a means of pushing people to learn the language well), but people are free to use whatever language they like in the private sector. This of course ignores many of the findings about language. Language isn`t like a suit of clothes. You can`t just change from one to the other with no effects on the body. Learning one new language affects all the other languages in the system. The efficiency of the human brain is based on constant competition. If one language is more valued, the public language, then the private language will suffer in this competition. This is pretty much a given. Likewise if literacy is not reached in one language (the private language) then the chances of it dying or certainly at least incurring atrophy are high. So, languages are not benign or neutral tools which can be used with no side effects. These are things that the opponents of Official English realize. The opponents also point out that while people have a right to their language and this means schooling in their language, it is also true that by helping children develop literacy in their L1 they will better learn and use the L2 later. So, from a purely linguistic point of view the best route to English in the US is not through English only but through bilingual programs. This is what the opponents are fighting for aside from the very basic human rights issue of access to systems in one`s own language and feel respected.

6. How have bilingual programs been used as a weapon both for and against the English only movement in the US?

Bilingual programs and their use and disuse are affected by the prevailing political thought of the time rather than just their educational efficacy. Memory is a strange thing. It is highly selective, extremely flexible, and rarely factual. Many people believe that bilingual programs are unnecessary, if not downright harmful, because their own ancestors did not need them or have them. They managed to learn English just fine. What they don`t remember is the struggle of their ancestors, the generations it took for them to learn English. It was not easier. Bilingual programs have been identified as an extremely efficient means of integrating children into a dominant or other culture. The United States, not at all surprisingly, is following the western European ideal of monolingualism. In this view, multilingualism drags a society down. Diversity is tolerated but only for a short time. In essence it is expected that people integrate. Bilingual programs have been seen as anti-assimilation because they serve to strengthen the learners L1. This is a misunderstanding because they do strengthen a learner`s L1 but only in order to make it easier for them to learn the L2. Logic or science has nothing to do with the argument. It is pure fear and prejudice.