Anthropology News • September 2007
LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
D I A L O G U E to
and Laura R Graham argues that the language-focused questions on the US Census are problematic and do not provide sound data as basis to make important policy
decisions about the allocation of resources. They would ask the Census Bureau to rephrase its questions about language and to include a question about proficiency in
languages other than English in order to affirm the nation’s linguistic diversity. —Laura Graham, Chair, CfHR Task Group on Language and Social Justice
Problematic Language Assessment
in the US Census
ANA CELIA ZENTELLA
UC SAN DIEGO
BONNIE URCIUOLI
HAMILTON C
LAURA R GRAHAM
U IOWA
E
very ten years the US
government undertakes
a census. Although
many people assume
that the purpose of the decennial
census is to obtain a total count of
the US population, the instrument
is designed to assess numerous
social dimensions of US society.
English-speaking ability and use
of other languages are categories
that the census now attempts to
ascertain through three questions
about language: Do you speak a lan-
guage other than English at home? If
so, which language? How well do you
speak English: Very well, well, not
well, or not at all?
These language-focused ques-
tions provide information that
policymakers and legislators use
to determine resource allocations
for education, voting and access
to social services and public goods.
The questions about language on
the US Census are problematic in
phrasing and provide misleading
information that leads to the rein-
forcement of social inequalities in
contemporary US society.
Questioning the Correctness
Ideology
The language questions on the US
Census are based on how most
Americans conceptualize language.
Many think of language as a set of
words and grammatical rules that
individuals control, and as a sys-
tem whose primary function is ac-
curate reference. The idea that in-
dividual control can be measured
in terms of correctness and that
10
As anthropologists, we know the importance of language to transmit abstract information across generations and to ac-
cumulate knowledge over time. Language can also be used as a powerful vehicle for social discrimination and as a means
enforce hegemonic projects. This is the first in a series of three In Focus essays, coordinated by the Committee for Hu-
man Rights Task Group on Language and Social Justice, that bring attention to some of the ways that language is cur-
rently conceptualized and used in the US to hinder social justice. The first essay by Ana Celia Zentella, Bonnie Urciuoli
insufficient correctness means loss
of meaning are prominent within
this ideology.
The US Census questions reflect
this correctness ideology. They also
reflect the assumption that lan-
guage can “naturally” be measured
in discrete levels of correctness—
very well, well, not well, not at
all—and that individuals under-
stand these levels. Such assump-
tions ignore the fact that all lan-
guage use is interactive. What is
considered correct in some con-
texts is irrelevant in others and
effective language is as much a
function of social relations as of
“correct” form.
C O M M E N TA RY
None of these basic anthropolog-
ical principles of language as inter-
active and contextual are reflected
in census questionnaires. Given
the assumptions underlying its
notions of language, the data the
census provides are likely to be of
limited use. The census data may,
in fact, reinforce social inequali-
ties due to the close correlation
between assessment of language,
assessment of class and assessment
of other characteristics seen as for-
eign and often very naturalized
in terms of “race.” This is because
prevailing notions of “correctness”
correlate with elite forms and the
language used by members of the
dominant social class.
The Importance of Context
According to the US Census of
2000, approximately 18% of the
nation speaks a language other
than English at home. This repre-
sents an increase of 5% since 1990.
The increasing numbers of speak-
ers of other languages in the US
is of concern to many public ser-
vants, especially educators, health
and legal system workers, and so-
cial service personnel. Many mem-
bers of the general public are wor-
ried that the role of English as the
lingua franca is being threatened,
as reflected in the popularity of
the English Only movement and
the growing number of states that
have adopted English Only legisla-
tion (29 to date).
In this climate, the public
announcements of the US Census
Bureau concerning the language
data it collects can serve to quiet
widespread fears or fan the flames
of intolerance. Unfortunately, the
Census Bureau uses the levels of
English proficiency reported in
answer to its question, How well
do you speak English: Very well, well,
not well, or not at all? as the basis for
classifying speakers of languages
other than English in ways that
reflect misconceived notions about
language, and implying that speak-
ers of languages other than English
are unable and/or unwilling to
participate in our society.
Moreover, the four classifications
“very well,” “well,” “not well” and
“not at all” are arbitrary. What
do these categories mean to indi-
viduals attempting to answer the
census questions? What is the dif-
ference between “well” and “not
well”? Might there be an interme-
diate term, such as “reasonably
well”? This is particularly impor-
tant because the census cut-off for
deciding who is “linguistically iso-
lated” is made at “very well.” Why
not “well”? Or “reasonably well” if
that category existed?
As anthropologists should know,
there is no mechanism available
by which people who are asked to
self-report can consistently inter-
pret categories as they are given on
the census. People with the same
language capacities often interpret
and report their own capacities
DIALOGUE
quite differently. How people see
and judge their own English lan-
guage capacities depends on a vari-
ety of factors, including what they
use the language for, how likely
they feel they may be judged, by
whom, according to what stan-
dards of correctness, spoken or
written, and so on.
Gender, age, years of educa-
tion and degree of literacy all
play important roles in a person’s
self-assessment. Some people are
unnecessarily modest in judging
their own language abilities. Some
believe that having an accent, or
not being able to recall which
English verb tenses are indicated by
vowel change rather than an “-ed”
suffix, or not being able to recall
an English word more quickly than
one in their native language mean
their speech fits in the category
“not well,” for instance.
The US Census classifications
mistakenly presuppose that acts
of communication take place in a
vacuum. Language capacities are
not simply properties of individu-
als. People’s capacity to interact
linguistically is a function of sev-
eral synergetic social factors, such
as what they are talking about,
how, why, where, how well they
know each other, what they can
take for granted about each other’s
understanding and so on. In short,
the sliding scale of “very well” to
“not at all” presupposes commu-
nication as the act of an individual
rather than a social production. In
case there is any doubt, individu-
als need only recall that there are
powerful and high-status people
who only interact effectively with
others like them.
“Isolation” and “Diversity”
Finally, the US Census Bureau’s use
of “linguistic isolation,” a category
that it adopted in 1990, is especial-
ly problematic. Individuals and
families are classified as “linguisti-
cally isolated” if their household,
“is one in which no member 14
years old and over: 1) speaks only
DIALOGUE
English; or 2) speaks a non-Eng-
lish language and speaks English
’very well.’” News media regularly
report the percentage of “linguis-
tically isolated” individuals and
households without explaining
the assumptions that underlie this
misleading label.
The majority of speakers of lan-
guages other than English speak
English “well” and many children
under the age of 14 in immi-
grant families speak only English.
Almost all families are in contact
with English speakers and are not
“linguistically isolated.” By inac-
curately suggesting that there are
large numbers of “linguistically
isolated” households and individ-
uals, the Census Bureau implies
that the nation is plagued by lan-
Online Voice Tools Can Help Us Teach and Learn
About Language Attitudes
And Be Attentive to Prescriptivism in Academic Written English
DEBBIE COLE
U TEXAS PAN AMERICAN
T
he authors of “Why
Anthropologists Should
Oppose English-Only
Legislation in the US”
pointed out in the January AN that
English-Only legislation “hides the
fact that attitudes about language
fundamentally stem from attitudes
about groups.” Online technology
that enables students and teachers
to record and hear diverse voices
can help us expose and understand
the racism and elitism inherent in
current language debates.
Linking Attitudes and Accents
In the summer of 2006, I taught
a web-enhanced graduate course,
Attitude and Accent. An idea for
an assignment for the course grew
out of my research on perform-
ances of contemporary Indone-
sian poetry in Central Java where
poets and performers purposefully
read poetry in many Indonesian
accents to enable the breakdown
of prejudice and the celebration of
diversity.
As part of this assignment I had
my students visit George Mason
University’s online Speech Accent
Archive, which provides audio
recordings of hundreds of native
speakers of 205 different languages
all reading the same 69-word text
guage problems and that immi-
grants are not participating in
society. This misinformation fans
hostility against immigrant popu-
lations, especially working class
Latino immigrants. Furthermore,
it is worth pointing out the dual
standard regarding this catego-
rization, since the 82% of the
US population that speaks only
English at home is not classified as
“linguistically isolated.”
Lamentably, the census also
ignores the diverse linguistic
strengths of the nation. The lan-
guage portion of the census contains
no questions related to proficiency
in languages other than English. In
an effort to address its misrepresen-
tations and omissions, the National
Council of Teachers of English and
in English, along with a phonetic
transcription of each. Students
were asked to choose a speaker,
listen to the recording, and then
record themselves reproducing
that speaker’s accent by reading
the phonetic transcription aloud.
Not only did students actively
learn the International Phonetic
Alphabet through this exercise, but
their awareness of the immense
diversity of English accents was
raised. To temporarily experience
another accent first hand through
the science of descriptive phonet-
ics, students had to put aside their
attitudes and judgments about
“correct grammar.”
Students who started the course
complaining vehemently about the
failure of bilingual students in the
US to learn “good English” moved
quickly and thoughtfully into care-
ful dialogue about issues of ine-
quality that perpetuate perceptions
of “bad English.” The assignment
also enabled us to actively consider
the question, “Which version of
English are proponents of English-
Only advocating?”
Shedding Light on
Prescriptive Powers
As writers, many of our students are
already aware that the English they
use daily is not the most powerful
version of the language. They are
less aware, however, of what they
September 2007 • Anthropology News
the American Association of Applied
Linguistics have passed resolutions
urging the Census Bureau to change
its language questions.
To signal anthropologists’
awareness of ways that the lan-
guage questions on the US Census
may undermine social equalities,
the AAA Committee for Human
Right’s Language and Social
Justice Task group is working to
propose a AAA resolution asking
the Census Bureau to include a
question about proficiency in
languages other than English, to
stop classifying those who speak
English less than “very well,” and
to end its use of the “linguistically
isolated” classification because the
term is inaccurate, discriminatory
and promotes an ideology of lin-
need to do to match teacher expec-
tations for written English.
Nowhere in my professional
activities is the paradox between
my advocacy of linguistic equality
and my participation in linguistic
prescriptivism more apparent than
when I am grading student writing.
Students invariably ask me, “Since
you’re teaching descriptive gram-
mar, will you be lenient when grad-
ing our papers?” I am left with the
familiar paradox, “How do I respect
difference yet maintain standards?”
NET@WORKING
One way I have begun to answer
this question is by using an online
voice email tool to record myself
reading undergraduate student
essays aloud. Students receive a
link to my recording in an email
and can listen to the message as
streaming audio. (Students can
also choose to download the mes-
sage as an mp3 or wav file.)
Essays are assigned with a detailed
rubric, which I refer to while I read,
with a few points given for “meet-
ing standards for academic written
English.” When students listen to
their voice email, they hear me “fix
grammar errors” aloud, by empha-
sizing tense or agreement markers,
for example, with my voice. Most
students have never heard someone
guistic superiority that
foments linguistic intol-
erance and conflict.
Ana Celia Zentella (PhD, University
of Pennsylvania), an anthropolitical
linguist, is nationally recognized for her
studies of US Latino varieties of Spanish
and English, bilingualism, “Spanglish,”
language socialization and language
policy. Bonnie Urciuoli is a professor
of anthropology at Hamilton College,
and has done work on Spanish-English
bilingualism, on discourses of race,
class and language, and, currently, on
the institutional production of diversity
discourses in liberal arts education.
Laura R Graham, associate professor
of anthropology, University of Iowa, is
a member and former chair of CfHR.
She chairs the CfHR Task Group on
Language and Social Justice.
else read their work. They report
that the voice email is the most
detailed and valuable feedback they
have ever received on their writing.
The voice email and rubric
together offer a degree of trans-
parency in the process of judging
student written English. Instead of
writing comments like “ungram-
matical” or “use correct English,” I
can quickly model the target gram-
mar, sometimes offering multiple
possibilities for revising a phrase (a
task I find insurmountable when
providing written feedback).
Because points assigned for gram-
mar are minimal, I can provide need-
ed feedback to students struggling
with academic written English with-
out allowing grammar differences to
affect my judgments about meeting
content and critical thinking criteria.
This process enables me to hold all
students accountable for acquiring the
same writing skills, without weighing
the chances for success heavily in
favor of those students whose cul-
tural backgrounds have favored access
to the grammars of English-speaking
and writing elites.
Debbie Cole teaches courses in formal
and anthropological linguistics in the
English department at the University of
Texas Pan American. Her research in
Indonesia and the Rio Grande Valley
focuses on attitudes surrounding the pro-
duction and perception of diverse accents.
11