Bilingualism and the National Interest*

Abstract

T HIS TITLE, of course, is inspired by the late William Riley Parker, who thought most clearly, whether in writing, in public address, or in private conversation, about second language problems. As a generalist and administrator in this area he had developed a comprehensive perspective which reflected his own humanistic approach to these problems. Just as the National Defense Education Act became the assumed expression of national interest in foreign languages, so Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended in 1967 expresses the illusion of a national interest in bilingualism through the establishment, in law, of Bilingual Education Programs. I draw this parallel and recall the memory of William Riley Parker to inspire brief reflection on the history of the National Defense Education Act and the constant warnings of Parker that law and federal subsidy alone do not lend stability to the solution of educational and hence social problems. I do this in the hope that we may not again find ourselves pursuing the identical cycle in bilingual education as well. I must confess that I have in the latter years become an ardent exponent of largely because, contrary to Descartes' dictum, it is not very commonly distributed among men and is actually rarely found among them today. I am, therefore, presenting my case as an analysis of common sense observations with common sense logic in order to try to understand at least to my own satisfaction what behavioral change bilingual education should produce. In January 1953 when I attended the Conference which was called to consider the McGrath recommendations for expanded foreign language study, especially in the elementary public schools, I discovered that there was much talk about bilingualism without any real definition or understanding of this term. Since then I have found continuing confusion of definition resulting largely from the social factors involved. To me the only valid definition of bilingualism is the behavioral of an individual in at least two interchangeable languages. It is necessary to stress total behavioral functioning in order to eliminate consideration of those who study a language but never integrate that language as an individual behavioral modification. This appears to be the profound distinction between my command of German and that of French. Though I can function very easily in the French milieu, I still feel foreign to it. On the other hand, though my proficiency in German may have declined, I feel that I am at ease in a German environment. Perhaps this leads us to the common assumption that children learn a second language more readily than adults. My own experience seems to indicate that in learning two languages simultaneously as a child, one absorbs the behavior pattern of any aspect of the language and not just the language itself. It is also evident that whenever bilingualism in the United States is considered one is concerned either with those who have first learned a second language concurrently with English, or with those reared in non-English language environments who have acquired proficiency in English as a second language. In either case, our concern then lies with those whose linguistic behavior is guided by social or environmental circumstances.