BY DEBORAH CAFIERO
During the COVID-19 crisis, the pace of cuts to foreign language departments and programs, already brisk before the pandemic, has accelerated. The devaluation of language study is necessary, so the argument goes, to reduce costs and trim programs that elicit minimal student interest. Besides, English is becoming the lingua franca of the world. Translation apps are improving every month; travelers can now order food and find museums using their phones. Why go to the expense, or ask students to invest time and effort into learning foreign languages?
I considered this question for a recent “teach-in” at the University of Vermont. In collaboration with my colleague Dr. Maria Alessandra Woolson, I concluded that learning another language is necessary, and valuable, and beautiful because it transforms the individual. The ability to speak multiple languages brings an expanded sense of identity and a greater feeling of interconnectedness with the world.
Anyone who has studied a foreign language knows that peculiar frustration which comes from the inability to express ideas, or to crack a joke, or use an idiomatic expression. Many people find it uniquely uncomfortable to study a foreign language because so much of our identity is wrapped up in our language. Our social identity is wrapped up in language as well. Language constitutes a rapid, largely unconscious means by which individuals sort each other into social categories and order their own relationships with other people.
For this reason, when students enter a classroom and speak only the foreign language being studied, they must engage in a learning process initially bereft of their identities and the principal means for social organization. The language-learning situation creates a unique vulnerability: learners cannot express who they are, to themselves or to others.
Thrown into this radical exposure, learners must collect bits and pieces of language to begin to express their identities and form a new social community. Students need to start working together to use pieces of language, as they learn them, to construct identities for themselves so that they can communicate to and with their peers. This process takes time, trust, the right tools, and strong motivation. It requires a certain willingness to embrace the unknown. The student needs to give up complete control of meaning, of words and, ultimately, of identity in a co-construction of meaning. As students in a foreign language class work to create meaning in a language they are learning together, they engage in a co-construction of their second-language identities, which grows into an expanded sense of who they are.
As students grow into new identities in a foreign language class, the domain of their expanding basis for communication is the material of other cultures and ethnicities. In effect, as linguist Claire Kramsch from UC Berkeley writes, “language is in itself a metaphor for cultural reality,” and a second language becomes the substrate for an expanded cultural reality. Students who are learning new ways to communicate while they learn about different people in the world develop a greater receptiveness to the identities of others. An openness towards an expanded personal identity grows into a greater understanding of the worldviews of different cultures and societies; in other words, it becomes transcultural competence.
As students reach advanced levels in language and culture study, their identities as language learners become embedded in who they are. They start to feel a sense of bilingual identity. They increasingly identify with the communities that speak their second language, and they become more interested in the perspectives of multiple linguistic communities. They can synthesize multicultural information and perspectives with growing sophistication, incorporating themselves into ever-expanding communities. As students of cultural plurality, they develop empathy. They learn to listen and accept their vulnerability in a complex world. This is not only a means towards global citizenship. It is the essence of learning to work collaboratively and effectively in communities, across disciplines, and with others in the professional world.
A university that can offer this to its students provides profound benefit, not just to the individual students who embrace this opportunity, but to the broader community and country. A university that cannot offer this to its students, or that shrinks the choice to just a couple of languages, is shortchanging its students of the opportunity to develop fully as citizens who will embrace cultural differences and contribute to society.
Guest blogger Deborah Cafiero is senior lecturer in the Department of Romance Languages and Cultures at the University of Vermont.
“when students enter a classroom and speak only the foreign language being studied,”??? How many universities actual require anyone who is not a foreign language major or minor to gain this level of competency versus just requiring a course or two that focuses on that early part where students are simply memorizing words and grammar rules?
The author makes a great argument for study abroad programs, particularly those held in countries where English is not dominant. It can be eye opening to not be able to negotiate the simple tasks of life easily and can increase empathy for folks visiting the USA who may not speak English well. That said, this is not accomplished in most introductory foreign language classrooms which is where that “liberal studies” foreign language box is being checked by most students. Students avoid foreign languages NOT because “so much of our identity is wrapped up in our language”. It is because they are taking a course that is difficult and boring (no one likes the rote memorization that is necessary to build vocabulary) with little to no potential benefit since they have no chance of being able to even basically communicate in the language chosen unless they study abroad in a country who speaks the language or take so many courses in the language that the rest of their schedule loses all other places to explore. I still look back on my three semesters of college German as the most useless part of my college education. I can not even reliably count to 10 in German anymore let alone anything else…. I wont even get into issues that the 10% or so of students with dyslexia or other language disorders experience….
I am sorry that your experiences in foreign language classrooms consisted mainly of rote memorization of vocabulary and grammar rules. It is a common misconception that this is the main objective and material of a contemporary foreign language classroom. In the university department where I teach, it is departmental policy to conduct classes in the target language from the earliest levels of instruction, and ACTFL (the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages) recommends 90% of foreign language classroom communication be conducted in the target language. With proper instructor training this can be accomplished at every level, at least in the Romance languages which my department teaches. Intercultural competence is also recognized as a coequal partner in the learning objectives of a language course.
Well, it is true that my language classes were decades ago so I can perhaps give you that things have improved. That said, I have not seen much change at least at the high school level for my kids in recent years. As they are engineers, they have been able to avoid college level language courses, and are vehemently against taking any such course for credit based on their prior experience in these courses even though both are planning study abroad . My academic advisees (STEM majors) who have to take a language because their degree is based in the liberal arts college dont seem any more excited. However, I must admit to some skepticism about “speaking in the language” being possible at “every level” even the earliest ones. Sounds like a reason to further hate these classes. It seems to me that it would not be any different from hating an advanced math class if you are not facile with algebra or trig, or being asked to dance a waltz when you can’t keep time….
This is a great post; congratulations. As an undergrad at UTexas Austin, we had a “core” language requirement of two years in a second language, but as Texas also had an accelerated track, I completed a “major” in Russian in those 2 years, including my senior year at Yale which back in the early 80s had a “foreign language institute” as part of the College (I later lived and worked in Russia). Now that institute largely teaches ESL to foreign students to prep them for English-based majors in the college. In the case of Russian, many universities received funding from govt. for their programs (along with other “critical” languages like Farsi). It is indeed counterproductive to under-fund foreign language today. It is among the most critical skills even at a “practical” business level. Moreover, American second-language skill is almost non-existent. Foreign language should be a financial priority, for a number of powerful reasons. It is also in and of itself, very enjoyable, and highly challenging intellectually. And you are right about developing a “new” or second identity through another language; it truly is expansive. Along with broader, more reliable state support for our public universities, foreign language should be equally a part of “STEM.” Call it “STEMS” with S as a “second” language. Indeed, those second languages actually enhance and reinforce “STEM” (and of course the larger Humanities itself): Much of the world’s great scientific, arts, mathematical and engineering discoveries and projects, are important to understand in their native language contexts. Regards, ’96 UChicago; ’84, UTexas Austin
General Information Note:
The United States Coast Guard currently and probably for some years to come has a pressing need for speakers of Russian, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
I think some students benefit from foreign languages, but I hate this field. I wasted many years trying to learn foreign languages, and I always failed. It was a complete waste of time, and foreign languages were easily the worst classes I was ever required to take. So I oppose efforts to require foreign language study. I think it’s most beneficial when students want to take these classes, and ideally when taught in an intensive manner combined with study abroad. While I appreciate the desire to have many languages offered, the argument in this post suggests that any foreign language provides this alleged benefit. That suggests it might be better for less wealthy colleges to specialize in a few languages that they can offer in depth rather than trying to teach everything badly. And, yes, we should question the value of foreign languages in an era of English dominance and easy translation. Are these alleged intellectual benefits backed up by any serious data, and are they any different from the benefits of other classes?
Both you and the other respondent are on the one hand overlooking that 3rd and 4th year foreign language is indeed conducted in that language in class, in order to activate passive grammatical, syntactical and vocabulary structure from the first two years especially. And on the other hand, languages like Russian or German or Arabic require solid work in their complicated rule structure up front, and moreover, you are also learning how to read the language (Cyrillic, or Arabic script, for example) and how to write it, and how to translate it. Many fine scholars are expert translators but may speak poorly, which is a separate acquisition. As for German, I don’t know how you can study philosophy without a basic working knowledge. Otherwise, one could replace your critical remarks on German, with Algebra or chemistry: it isn’t for everyone, but for those so motivated, you can become proficient in even a 2-year college sequence–but you have to work hard at it, and practice every day, like all skill-based learning (say like learning the piano, or writing computer code, or learning nuclear engineering principles, or modern dance or shooting free throws in basketball). The point you are making I think is whether it should be required: I don’t know. Perhaps nothing in any discipline should be, except desire.
I am NOT arguing against folks majoring in a language if they are interested in it, and it fits their long term career goals. I am also not really arguing against requiring folks enrolled in liberal arts colleges to take a year or two of foreign language. If a student does not want a traditional liberal arts degree that often includes a foreign language, an argument can be made that they should just not attend that program. Students should be deciding where to apply based on the course/major offerings. However, the original article is not about whether foreign language instruction should exist or whether folks should be banned from majoring in it. It is about the decision of the University of Vermont to curtail their foreign language offerings, essentially saying to students interested in learning a particular set of more boutique languages should select a different university for their education since they do not have a critical mass of students who attend the University of Vermont who are interested in majoring in certain subjects to make offering these courses worthwhile to offer.
This is the sort of decision that universities need to make all of the time. Not every college/university offers engineering degrees, a decision that allows those that do to enroll a critical mass of students to offer robust programs. Even different schools offer different subsets of engineering, there is not enough market for automotive or mining engineers for every school to offer these degrees. Students interested in these areas pick their university accordingly. There is no difference here. If you want to become a scholar of Latvian, dont attend a school who does not have Latvian classes….. If you are desperate to learn Italian, perhaps future students will not attend U. Vermont, and instead go somewhere with a robust Italian program. Such decisions can hopefully free up instructional resources to support other majors that could be very under resourced causing their classes to burst at the seams.
I work at a university who has been reluctant to make such hard choices which leaves students in some less popular majors (including some languages) with 6:1 or so student teacher ratios while other majors (thinking computer science, biology and psychology at my place; have seen other schools where the enrollment pressure is criminal justice) with student teacher ratios more like 50:1 or higher. Why should a student in a popular major be effectively subsidizing the education of students in less popular majors? All students pay the same tuition with VERY unequal access to professors….
Yes, those are fair points. But it is not the larger implication from the essay, which includes a general trend of de-emphasis on language training, even at very large and wealthy R1 universities. Moreover, the very fact that such curriculum liberty, student and faculty debate and institutional contention over language training (second language), let alone first language competence standards (i.e. English, which in the US is utterly abysmal in many cases among our own students) is even allowed, is telling. In many parts of Europe and Asia, even in Russia, there are no questions: you will be professionally proficient in a second language, and in the “third” language, mathematics. No questions; no choice. And what is the result? Foreign students are kicking our own student’s in the a-ss academically, and in PhD studies it is remarkable that they come here from all over the world (say remote India) and purse graduate school in English. How many US students could go to Bangladesh or Mumbai; to Moscow, Bologna, Barcelona, Hannover, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, or Beijing, and take on such studies in their languages? Most US students can barely function in Spanish, as tourists in Cabo on Spring break.
I see your point, to a point. American undergrads do have the major advantage that English is the international language of science and commerce while the other countries you mention essentially have the issue that their native language is not generally used in international communication.
I must laugh though that you brought up the “third language” issue though. A huge reason that the USA needs to import so many foreign born workers in tech is that so few Americans are even basically competent in math any more advanced than what is taught in the sixth grade, and many American’s are even uncomfortable with that. This means that the few American’s who are math fluent are in great demand and can write their own ticket (As my daughter who is being paid $20/hour as an intern in an engineering firm as a 19 year old college sophomore can attest).
Honestly, I am MUCH more concerned about US culture setting up the conditions that make “not having a math brain”a point of pride to many, instead of equating being innumerate with being illiterate which is the actual situation than anything having to do with foreign language competency. There is also no real mention of whether the US job market rewards those fluent in languages other than Spanish (or even that honestly in regard to pay). I have a close relative with a MA in French who has only been able to get employment as an administrative assistant with her degree in the 20 years since she graduated. No one seems to have a need for a fluent French speaker in the American Southwest….
Thank you for bringing up another issue that I did not consider before in regard to resources… I would agree that that having a plethora of different languages does not make sense financially for a small college as it would be cost prohibitive to offer advanced courses with small enrollments since each of these classes will have few takers. Another consideration is the student’s time. Is it really going to be helpful for students to take courses in languages that they have a small chance of ever needing to be competent in? If students are taking languages, they will most likely find “dominant” languages more worth their time long term. For instance, arguments are stronger for Spanish compared to other Romance languages simply because so many Spanish speakers live in the USA while Mandarin or Arabic can make sense due to the shear volume of native speakers who do not speak English. Now, some students will want study is languages with fewer native speakers for a host of reasons, but that could be a criteria for such students to chose a college, not a signal for a need to offer these languages at every college….
Thank you, Professor Cafiero, for a thoughtful statement on the value of foreign language study at the college level. It is indeed the bedrock of liberal arts programs; indeed it is at the core of humanism itself.
Several of the responses to your statement, however, are very troubling. Surely higher education has a responsibility to help students engage with the world, and not just with English-speakers. That means having some understanding of other cultures beyond those of English speakers. Given recent examples of very hostile encounters between monolingual Americans and bilingual Americans who have the “gall” to speak the language of Mexico in public places, I think it is imperative that our college students spend some time learning other languages, and studying other cultures.
There are many other benefits to learning another language: it increases one’s understanding of the native language and lexicon; it has positive cognitive benefits, develops memory, improves problem-solving skills, to name a few. But most importantly it creates understanding and global awareness.
Today, foreign language skills are vital in diplomacy, business, law, health care, engineering, to name a few. Nations don’t negotiate via Google on the phone! It requires teams of skilled interpreters and translators. Health care providers who collectively can speak a range of different languages can better serve our U.S. population with its changing demographics and contribute to world health issues.
Language study is also of the utmost importance for national security. Let’s remember that classicists and other linguistically skilled individuals contributed much during the Second World War when breaking enemy codes was so urgent.
As for boutique language courses, well no one is advocating that the University of Vermont needs to teach Akkadian or Sumerian. But in this day and age, we need to continue teaching languages, not necessarily all at the advanced level; collectively, this nation needs to educate a citizenry and a workforce that is better equipped to deal with global issues and concerns.
And by the way, teaching languages is significantly cheaper than teaching engineering, chemistry, or physics, so cutting languages will not save much money, but will cost the institution in revenue. And for the record, I’m less worried about students in a popular major subsidizing a less popular major than I am about academics subsidizing athletic programs that, with few exceptions, lose huge sums of money each and every year. I’m less worried about the cost of hiring typically lower-paid humanities faculty than I am about the huge salaries of administrations who migrate from university to university promoting the same foolish agenda that didn’t work at the last place.
Higher education has more and more been charged with serving industry needs and increasing international trade and markets. How can the U.S. do that without a workforce that can function in different languages?
Notice I said “function.” One does not need to be fluent at a superior level to benefit from foreign language study. The ability to ask and answer basic questions, to narrate and describe, are abilities that even intermediate language students can attain.
Finally, just because John Wilson failed at studying foreign languages is no reason for other students to not study foreign languages. Otherwise, we had better stop teaching math, because lots of students fail those courses!