Introduction During the last centuries, many Greeks, as other ethnic groups, have traveled far away from their home to North America, in order to improve their lives. They found themselves in new environments across different cultures and values. During that period, they organized communities through church and other organizations and institutions in order to maintain their identity. Their language and culture loss or maintenance has since been under discussion and struggle (Frangos, 2005). According to McCarty (1998), the heritage language loss constitutes human impoverishment, because the language is a significant part of any community and a crucial indicator and construction of any individual’s cultural identity.
The purpose of this book is to examine the literature related to barriers and difficulties that Greek-American students face in order to acquire the Greek language and maintain the Greek culture in the US. These issues are related with the political, economical, cultural and social perspectives in regard to the educational system in the US. Throughout the book, I review the research in regard to Greeks and other minority ethnic groups in the US and the Greeks in other English speaking countries, such as Canada and Australia. I, also, present theories related to the minority language and culture maintenance and development. As an extension, I examine literature related to educational practices, school programs and motivation techniques that can potentially support Greek American students to develop and increase their interest in learning the Greek language and maintaining the Greek culture. The first part of this book reviews terms, such as second language acquisition, bilingual education, program models for minority languages, heritage language, identity, culture, minority status, language shift and language maintenance. My overall purpose is to describe the connections among the above issues with the political, social and cultural characteristics of the US and their influence on the heritage languages, specifically the Greek language.
Second Language Acquisition
Cummins (2001) explains that the language proficiency (first or second) is a complex issue and includes the conversational and the academic competence. The former is termed as interpersonal communicative skills and the latter is termed as cognitive academic language proficiency. Conversational language proficiency includes use of high frequency words and simple syntax. Academic language proficiency requires production and use of complex written and oral language. However, conversational discourses are not inferior to written forms according to linguistic criteria.
Some central principles of second language acquisition include the incorporation and use of the minority groups’ resources, histories, and experiences into the schooling program (Beykont, 2000). At the same time, Crawford (2004) explains that some theories, such as the Krashen’s comprehensible input (the importance of comprehensible messages in the second language), and affective filter hypothesis (some psychological and attitudinal factors which interrupt the process of second language acquisition) and Cummins’ interdependence principle (the transfer of underlying conceptual knowledge across languages) are crucial factors for second language acquisition.
According to the Krashen’s perspective, teachers should give opportunities for students to receive comprehensible input in written or oral modalities in heritage languages in order to facilitate the second language acquisition. The importance of comprehensible input is based on the language acquisition theory that students acquire the target language, in this case the heritage language, when they understand it (Cho, Shin, & Krashen, 2004). Cummins also states that a combination of the comprehensible input with the critical awareness of the target language and literacy among the students, the usage of the target language in authentic contexts and the development of symbolic analysis skills could facilitate the second language acquisition. Cummins (2004) explains that symbolic analysis skills include abstract higher-order thinking, critical inquiry, and collaboration.
In addition, according to Krashen (1985), comprehensible input is a foremost fundamental variable determining the extent to which the second language acquisition process is more or less successful. However, Crawford (2004) states that language of instruction often constitutes a less significant factor in language achievement than other factors such as “program design and resources, teacher qualifications, administrative leadership, school culture, parental and community influences, and socioeconomic status” (p. 159). In regard to the affective filter, some negative influences, such as anxiety, lack of self-confidence, and insufficient motivation may delay second language acquisition and decrease the effectiveness of comprehensible input.
At the same time, Cummins states that first and second language skills are interdependent (Soltero, 2004). Crawford (2004) explains that Cummins’s interdependence hypothesis that literacy and academic skills transfering to a second language connected with the hypothesis that reading achievement is strongly associated with mathematics achievement in two languages, such as English and Spanish. Nevertheless, according to Cummins (2001) transfer is more likely to happen from the minority to the majority language than the opposite, due to the superior exposure to literacy in the majority language outside of school and the social demands to learn the dominant language. In addition, Cummins explains that transfer of literacy, cross-linguistic transfer, and academic language knowledge can happen with the support of formal instruction in both languages. He also points out that spending less than 100% of the instructional time through the dominant language does not reduce students’ achievement in that language (Cummins, 2001).
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism in the US
Cummins (2001) explains that the term bilingual education is often connected with the use of two or more languages of instruction at some point in the student’s education. In other words, bilingual is defined in terms of the means used for the realization of the educational goals. Hornberger (2005) states that a biliteracy framework is constructive, since the heritage/community language education (HCLE) is connected with the development of both the dominant language and the heritage language, as community, indigenous, immigrant, ethnic, second or foreign language in any particular context. The biliteracy framework contains four elements: the content; context; media; and development of biliteracy.
It is recognizable that minority students, who are the students with low status, may succeed in school, if the school’s culture is not in conflict with that of the home. At the same time, the elimination of bilingual education does not seem to contribute to the minority students’ English language learning. In addition, Rothstein (1998) claims that the American “melting pot” has never been endangered by pluralist efforts to preserve heritage languages and cultures. For instance, bilingual instruction has never prevented the dominant assimilationist pressure from overpowering all immigrant students.
Schmidt (2002) states that assimilationists are those who oppose bilingual education, linguistic access to voting and other civil and political rights, and who favor making English the sole official language of the US and its state and local governments. According to assimilationists, language minority groups can attain greater equality only when they shift to the English language and are mainstreamed into US society. Assimilationists also argue that governmental support for bilingualism is divisive, and destructive to national unity. On the contrary, pluralists support bilingual education, oppose official English policies, and argue that views in regard to superior and inferior languages and cultures are harmful to society. The National Association for Multicultural Education (2003) defines that “multicultural education is built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity and human dignity; as a result it values cultural differences and affirms the pluralism that students, their communities and teachers reflect”.
Historically, bilingual education was common in Greek and Roman times as well as in the US prior to the First World War (Cummins, 2001). Although the US does not have an official language, American English is, almost exclusively, used in official pronouncements, such as legislation, regulations, federal court rulings, and so on (Languages in the United
States, 2006). In the US, there is a tension between English monolinguistic tendencies and a multilinguistic reality. Thus, while some national and state policies endeavor to make English the official language of the US, the US remains multilingual (Hantzopoulos, 2005).
Critics of bilingual education argue that English has been always the connective component of the American society and multilingualism sustains language conflict. In addition, supporters of “officialized” English claim that minority groups refuse to learn English, and minority leaders support bilingualism for selfish profits. However, recent demographic research identifies that in the US the language shift to English is steadily increasing. For instance, according to the 1990 census, 97% of U.S. inhabitants speak English “well” or “very well”. Only 0.8% of the population speaks no English at all, as compared with 3.6 percent in 1890 census. At the same time, language has seldom functioned as a symbolic and connective identifier in the US. In reality the English only campaigns constitute mechanisms of social control, discrimination against the minority groups, and hegemony maintenance of the dominant group. Historically, Congress, the government and other official institutions attempted to anglicize different groups, such as Pennsylvania Germans, Louisianans, Californions, and Puerto Ricans and establish the ideology of Anglo-Saxon superiority (Crawford, 2005). Kloss (1998) explains that during 1890s, the teaching of German, Bohemian (Czech), Spanish, Latin, French, and Greek at school was under discussion and arguments. On the contrary, Crawford (2004) states that in the 70s, language was considered more as a right and resource than a problem. According to Ngai (2002), bilingualism improves social relations in multiethnic communities, and contributes to national constancy, competitiveness, productivity and security.
Program Models for Minority Languages
Cummins (2001) distinguish five broad types of bilingual education. Four of these programs are intended mostly for minority group students and the fifth is intended for majority group students (students who belong to the dominant group). In the first type of bilingual education, indigenous languages, such as Native languages in the US, are used as mediums of instruction. The second type includes bilingual programs for national minority languages which in some cases have official language status in the country, such as Gaelic Irish in Ireland. The third type programs involve international minority languages of recent immigrants to a host country, such as Spanish-English in the US. The fourth type bilingual programs involve deaf children. The fifth type programs include bilingual education for majority or dominant group students, such as French immersion programs for English speakers in Canada.
Ovando and Collier (as cited in Ngaii, 2002) identify five models of bilingual education in the US: the bilingual immersion education, two-way bilingual education, developmental bilingual education, transitional bilingual education and English as a second language (ESL). Only developmental, immersion, and two-way bilingual education programs develop dual-language competency. Developmental bilingual programs are organized for language-minority children who have adequate first language competence. In addition, one type of immersion program is designed for language-minority students who speak little or none of home language. This bilingual program provides the opportunity for immersion in the lost community language at an early age. The goals of developmental and immersion bilingual education can be accomplished simultaneously. These programs can serve the maintenance or revitalization of heritage languages. However, the presence of bilingual programs for different heritage language student is hard due to the shortage of financial and human resources and teaching materials.