The Role Of Language In Creating Or Challenging Borders

The significance of language in daily lives is prominent as it is central to the construction of social identity and therefore to the development of a political, ethical and social self (Gutierrez and Larson 1994; Gibson 2004).

The importance of language in identity formation is argued by Carter and Aulette (2009, p. 214): [language is] a fundamental part of our character, an expression, and a mirror of what and who we are The strength of this quote is that it portrays how language creates self-identity which in collective builds communities, which between each borders can arise.

Despite the ancestral history that all global languages derive from Latin, due to cultural imperialism, the remaining 7000 languages have produced different social identities (De Blij 2010, p. 35). This therefore also creates borders between different communities. This essay will go on to analyse through two key examples, how different languages create barriers in the everyday lives of individuals.

Firstly, by using the example of American/ Spanish tensions and bilingual education in the US as argued by Anzaldua (1989), this essay will assess how overall languages create borders between different groups of people. It will critically evaluatethe extent to which minority language users are excluded (bordered) from both the rights of high-level education and therefore to future prosperity, as well as social prospects (Flores and Yudice 1990; Watt 2014).

Secondly, this essay will critique the use of sign language in creating borders such as; between deaf sign language users and regular hearing users and between deaf sign languages themselves (Quinto-Pozos 2004). The essay will further assess if, as argued by Valentine and Skelton (2007) sign language plays a significant role in creating social borders such as to education and political participation.

Therefore, this essay aims to use the Spanish/ American language conflict in the American teaching system and the segregation of deaf citizens to analyse the role of language in creating borders. Initially, as argued by Anzaldua (1989) the difference in languages creates a significant role in creating borders between communities. A vital example of this can be seen between the Mexican immigrants in America and is summarised by Anzaldua (1989, p. 75): If you want to be American, speak ‘American’. If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you belong

Critically analysing this quote begins to show the power dominance maintained by those who speak the displayed majority language of English. English is seen as the superior language over Spanish due to cultural imperialism caused by British colonisation (Dicker 2003). Therefore, this quote shows how language can reflect social distance and class as those with the most power speak the most respected language, hence creating borders between classes (Carter and Aulette 2009). Another example of this can be seen in Cape Verde where Portuguese is the language of higher status used for business compared to the local Creole language- again creating social borders between language users (Carter and Aulette 2009).

Critically analysing this quote also shows the segregation between different language communities as it implies that Spanish is not welcome within America. This indicates that as language is part of identity as argued by Gibson (2004), it contributes to the exclusion (bordering) of the Spanish.

However, this quote also infers despite bordering between languages, within each community is a sense of belonging created by the common factor of a shared language like Chicano Spanish at the Mexican border. Although not approved by any society their language unites them (Anzaldua 1989; Carter and Aulette 2009). This quote, therefore, has many strengths as represents how languages create and challenge borders between different communities.

A key example of language creating common borders is seen within the American education system and its struggles with bilingual education. The scale of the issue is shown how between 2004-5 5.12 million bilingual students aged between pre-school and grade 12 enrolled in bilingual education. They originated from within the US and from large scale immigration from Mexico (Bale 2010).

Up until the Chicano Movement of 1960 in which there was a radical shift in favour for the education of bilingual students, they were prevented from progressing in their education due to American lessons being taught English (Flores and Yudice 1990). Lessons were taught in English due to ‘Hispanophobia’ as phrased by Zentella (1997). This which term summarised Americans fears that Mexicans were taking away resources and hindering American students’ education (Gibson 2004). It also portrays the fear explained by Dicker (2003) that if taught in Spanish the minority language would gain more power and could overthrow Americans. Therefore, these attitudes between different language speakers create huge social borders due to extreme social exclusion of bilinguals within the education system due to forced incorporation (Flores and Yudice 1990; Gutierrez and Larson 1994).

The implication of all lessons in English not only caused social exclusion of bilinguals solely due to their native language but affected their prospects as argued by Bale (2010) : The urban institute report found that only 53 percent of teachers in 'high ELL schools' [schools with a bilingual population of 25 percent or above] were fully certified, compared to 76 percent in other schools

This quotes main strength is that it shows the American education system knowingly provided schools with more bilingual students less qualified staff which are likely to offer lower quality teaching. This is likely to cause bilingual students to do less well in academic tests which are taken in English so are inaccessible to them (Olsen 2000). This furthermore represents how languages can border people from prospects as English is seen as vital to obtaining a successful job (Baba and Dahl‐Jørgensen 2013).

After the Chicano civil right Movement, many steps were taken to try to break down the borders created between the different languages. Two contrasting opinions are seen between Lenin (1959) who argued for complete equality for all languages. He proposed that children should have the right to be educated in their native languages but within integrated schools, with the intention that they’ll pick up a second language. This contradicts with the Austrian Marxist solution to national oppression which suggested placing children into separate schools for different native languages. Critically analysing this shows how different theorists have different perceptions on how to rectify the tensions. I believe that Lenin’s (1959) approach is more inclusive and would have the most potential to break down social borders.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

The exclusion and hence the extent language plays in creating borders can be seen by how legal acts were passed to rectify the unjust education system. The Chicano Civil Right Movement lead to the passing of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 which stated that students should have the right to be taught in their native language. It, therefore, forbade the degradation of Mexican/ American students initially caused by the language differences (Wiese and Garcia 1998; Bale 2010; Ovando and Combs 2018). In addition to this, the No Child Left Behind act was passed in 2001 to ensure all students were tested regularly with the aim to increase academic performance. However, as the tests are taken in English, this still hinders and excludes learning Bilinguals (Abedi 2004; Ovando and Combs 2018).

Also, despite this aim towards progress, Ovando and Combs (2018) state that Congress was warned that promoting minority languages could have led to separatism within the US, and therefore they voted in 1978 that native languages should only be used to obtain competence in the English language. Thus, prejudice against native languages is still shown despite the passing of both acts. This indicates that languages are still causing borders within communities and to resources such as education.

Another example where language plays a significant role in creating borders is surrounding sign language. As argued by Valentine and Skelton (1997, p. 121) despite British sign language (BSL) being the 4th most commonly used language in the country there are many borders within the everyday lives of BSL users because they “regard themselves as a linguistic and cultural minority” because of their language (Valentine and Skelton 1997, p.123). BSL users report that their language plays a significant role in bordering them from gaining the same level of education as hearing pupils when placed in a mainstream school which therefore borders their prospects (Valentine and Skelton 1997; Jarvis 2002).

Despite as argued by Jarvis (2002, p. 47) that: An aim of inclusive education is to allow the deaf child to access the full curriculum and to have the same opportunities of attaining as high a standard as any other child

Organisations such as the British Deaf Association are firmly against the inclusion of deaf students in mainstream schools as despite the quote above, they do not believe that deaf students receive sufficient extra support such as visual aids. They, therefore, think that in mainstream schools deaf students are bordered from the same level of education as hearing pupils (British Deaf Association 1996; Jarvis 2002).

In addition, the difference in languages plays a significant role in creating social borders between deaf sign language users themselves and with hearing citizens. Continuing with bordering within education, Lloyd (1999) argues that children prefer to communicate with those with the same hearing status. This is because they are more likely to understand each other and not feel excluded. Analysing this infers that there is social segregation between the hearing and deaf caused by their different languages.

The strength of this argument is further shown how Deaf communities are set up to provide their own sense of belonging (Valentine and Skelton 2007). Having a common factor of their language has caused academics such as Dolnick (1993) to have described deaf people as a ‘new ethnic group’. Although implying the sense of inclusion within themselves being defined as ‘new ethnic group’ implies complete segregation and bordering created by their language.

Moreover, sign language creates significant borders for deaf people to the extent that it causes questions if they are citizens at all. Hall and Williamson (1999) argue that although deaf citizens have ‘legal citizenship', they do not have ‘lived citizenship'. This is because they don’t feel they can take part in social acts like hearing citizens can such as political participation as they cannot understand policies shown on TV. I believe there are strengths to this argument as it demonstrates the vast extent of social segregation and exclusivity created by language and therefore exemplifies how language creates borders between groups of individuals (Jarvis 2002; Sparrow 2005).

In addition, even the differences between signing languages show how languages play a significant role in creating borders such as between American sign language (ASL) and Lenguaje de signos Mexicano (LSM) in Texas border areas.

As argued by Quinto-Pozos (2002) despite being mutually intelligible, the different languages are hard to understand if educated in just one. This is exemplified by how Mexican immigrants who request interpreters to help them learn about citizenship potentials find that they are hardly understood. Therefore are yet again excluded/ bordered from society and the right to a future in the US. This is a strong point as if they cannot understand how to gain citizenship; they will be even more socially excluded/bordered. Quinto- Pozons (2002) argues that this could be intentional by US officials to prevent US cultural dilution and to maintain power. However, I believe that this argument is weak as he also argues that Community agencies in Texas Valley are educating Mexican deaf about their citizenship status which aims to challenge therefore the borders created with the aim to accept LSM users into US communities.

In summary, the role of language plays a significant role in creating social borders, especially in respect to education and to a sense of belonging both between sign language communities themselves and between the hearing and the visual language users.

In summary, critically analysing the role of language in creating or challenging borders is very complicated as seen within the two examples of the American bilingual education system and the difficulties surrounding Sign Language. Overall themes show that language plays a highly significant role in creating borders between two different communities who speak separate languages. The extent that legal acts had to be passed shows just how unjust bilinguals were treated within the US education system (Ovando 2003).

Moreover, sign language plays a significant role in creating borders between the deaf and hearing communities. The fact that deaf citizens feel so segregated that they question their citizenship shows the huge role language plays in shaping social borders (Hall and Williamson 1999).

This essay has shown the significant role that language has in creating borders for minority communities. It has aimed to show how languages form significant borders between minority and majority languages and also between minority language speakers and resources such as education and the chance of professional jobs in the future. As summarised by De Blij (2010, p. 31):language is the essence of culture, and culture is the epoxy of society Therefore, despite the borders that can be created because of it, the role of language is essential to creating a common culture and a sense of community.

References

1. Abedi, J. 2004. The No Child Left Behind Act and English Language Learners: Assessment and Accountability Issues, Educational Researcher 33(1), pp. 4- 14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033001004.
2. Anzaldua, G. 1989. Borderlands/ La Frontera. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books
3. Baba, M.L. and Dahl‐Jørgensen, C. 2013. Language Policy in Practice: Re‐bordering the Nation. International Migration, 51(2), pp. 60-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12048
4. Bale, J. 2010. The Fight For Bilingual Education. International Socialist Review, 69. https://isreview.org/issue/69/fight-bilingual-education
5. British Deaf Association. 1996. The Right to be Equal London: BDA
6. Carter, K. and Aulette, J. 2009. Creole in Cape Verde: language, identity, and power. Ethnography 10(2), pp. 213-236. doi: 10.1177/1466138108099590.
7. De Blij, H. 2010. The power of place: Geography, destiny, and globalization's rough landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Dicker, S.J. 2003. Languages in America: A pluralist view. 2nd ed. Great Britain: Multilingual Matters
9. Dolnick, E. 1993. Deafness as culture. The Atlantic Monthly September, pp. 37-53.
10. Flores, J. and Yudice, G. 1990. Living borders/buscando América: Languages of latino self-formation. Social Text, (24), pp.57-84. doi: 10.2307/827827
11. Gibson, K. 2004. English only court cases involving the US workplace: They myths of language use and the homogenization of bilingual workers' identities. The University of Hawai'I Second Langauge Studies Paper 22 (2).
12. Gutierrez, K. and Larson, J. 1994. Language borders: Recitation as hegemonic discourse. International Journal of Educational Reform 3(1), pp. 22-36.
13. Hall, T. and Williamson, H. 1999. Citizenship and community. Leicester: Youth Work Press
14. Jarvis, J. 2002. Exclusion by inclusion? Issues for deaf pupils and their mainstream
15. teachers. Education 3-13, 30(2), pp.47-51. doi: 10.1080/03004270285200231
16. Lenin, V.I. 1959. Questions of National Policy and Proletarian Internationalism. Foreign Language publishing house
17. Lloyd, J. 1999. Interaction between hearing-impaired children and their normally hearing peers. Deafness and Education International 1(1), pp. 25-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/dei.40
18. Olsen, L. 2000. Learning English and Learning America: Immigrants in the Center of a Storm. Theory Into Practice 39(4), pp. 196-202. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip3904_2
19. Ovando, C. J. 2003. Bilingual Education in the United States: Historical Development and Current Issues. Bilingual Research Journal 27(1), pp. 1-24. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2003.10162589
20. Ovando, C.J. and Combs, M.C. 2018. Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
21. Quinto-Pozos, D.G. 2004. Contact between Mexican Sign Language (LSM) and American Sign Language (ASL) in two Texas border areas. Sign Language & Linguistics 7(2), pp. 215-219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.7.2.13qui
22. Sparrow, R. 2005. Defending deaf culture: The case of cochlear implants. Journal of Political Philosophy 13(2), pp. 135-152. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00217.x
23. Valentine, G, and Skelton, T. 2007. The right to be heard: citizenship and language. Political geography. 26(2), pp.121-140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.09.003
24. Watt, D. 2014. Language, borders, and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
25. Wiese, A & Garcia, E.E. 1998. The Bilingual Education Act: Language Minority Students and Equal Educational Opportunity, Bilingual Research Journal 22(1), pp. 1- 18. doi: 10.1080/15235882.1998.10668670
26. Zentella, A.C. 1997. The Hispanophobia of the Official English movement in the US. International journal of the sociology of language 127(1), pp. 71-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1997.127.71