Syllabus/Code: 9239/02

Nguy 1

Juliane Leigh Nguy

Candidate #: 1192

Syllabus/Code: 9239/02

24/5/17

Does the Education of Students in a Foreign Language Positively Impact the Financial State of An Industrialized Country?

“Being bilingual … [benefits] the individual; … the nation and ultimately, the economy,” (Callahan) states Rebecca Callahan. In the United States, according to the Census Bureau, out of 296,603,003 people surveyed, only 62,431,447 people spoke a language other than English in 2015 (Characteristics of People by Language Spoken at Home). In the European Union, 51% of secondary students were learning two or more foreign languages in 2014 (Foreign Language Learning Statistics).For the purposes of this paper, a “foreign language” may be defined as “any language used in a country other than one's own; a language that is studied mostly for cultural insight.” (Foreign Language). The conversation takes place in countries such as: China, England, the United States, Japan, Singapore, and more. On one side of the argument, Zhiwei Xiong and Cheng Shao state that “Economic benefits of bilingualism … seem to be obscure in the measure of income but appear opaque in the individuals’ promotion requirement.” (Xiong and Shao). On the other side of the argument, Bryan Caplan states that “two full years of instruction have almost zero effect implies that massive spending increases would be required to noticeably raise foreign language fluency” (Caplan). This argument brings up the question, “does the education of students in a foreign language positively impact the financial state of an industrialized country?”

The perspectives of foreign language education include the economic perspective, the social perspective, and the political perspective. The education of a foreign language may positively impact cultural diversity, allowing many people to learn about other country’s cultures while helping enforce their own cultural identity. Though others say that it is a waste of time and that it will only “wash out” the cultural identity of the people trying to learn another language. Another perspective is the political perspective and diplomacy. One idea is that political ties will relax if two countries do not have to struggle to understand each other or have misunderstandings as often. The other side argues that it will cause more misunderstandings as colloquialisms and idioms may only be easily understood if a native speaker of the language, causing misinterpretations. In the economic perspective, one side of the argument is that the cost of hiring foreign language teachers is expensive, including the fact that most countries with mandatory foreign language education do not use the foreign language on a regular basis, leading to the failure of the language implanting in society. The other side of the argument believes that foreign language education helps a person gain a higher income in their career helping propel the country’s economic standing in the long term.

Rebecca Callahan is an assistant professor of curriculum at UT Austin with a Ph.D. Education in Language and Second Language Acquisition from UC Davis making her credible. The publisher is the University of Texas’s Texas Perspectives, a service for opinion columns making it credible. The article was published on February 9, 2015 making it up to date. Callahan’s claim is that “As a nation, we now need to recognize bilingualism’s economic benefit if we expect to remain a global leader into the next century.” (Callahan). This quote is a call to action, something Callahan uses often which influences the reader to act, strengthening her argument. Callahan also refers to multiple perspectives in her article stating, “There are certainly significant social, psychological and cognitive benefits to being bilingual” (Callahan) which strengthens her argument, but she does not go into details, weakening her argument. The structure of Callahan’s article is based around deductive reasoning, such as in “they will lose their native languages” and “knowing two or more languages puts you at an advantage,” (Callahan)which is a significant strength. Through the article, Callahan does not use
|much logical appeal, which is a weakness, and focuses more on emotional appeal, which can be a weakness, but can also motivate the reader such as in “Good for the individual, good for society” and “biliterate adults who are able to contribute to and participate in a stronger American economic base” (Callahan). There are some attempts at logical appeal using statistics such as “more than 20 percent of the U.S. population and 35 percent of Texans speak a non-English language,” (Callahan) but they are rounded statistics and have no citation, weakening her argument.

Zhiwei Xiong’s and Cheng Shao’s educations are unknown but Xiong is from the School of Intercultural Studies at Jiangxi Normal University, and Shao is from the Department of Business and Trade at Jiangxi Blue Sky University giving them limited credibility. The publisher is the International Education Studies, an international peer-reviewed journal, making it credible. The paper was published in November of 2009 making it out of date which limits credibility. The claim of the paper is that “Our country needs the bilingual education especially after China entering WTO.” (Cheng and Shao). Despite the formal context of the paper, the paper has informalities such as the use of the first-person plural pronouns of “we” and “our.” (Cheng and Shao). One strength is that Shao and Xiong refer to multiple perspectives in the paper, including the economic and social perspectives, to a significant extent. In the paper, Shao and Xiong not only have a global view because they are from China, they also refer to other countries such as America and Singapore stating “Currently, disputes are still hot and bilingual education is facing a grim challenge in America,” and “Unlike America, Singapore is quite successful in bilingual education.” (Cheng and Shao) which is a considerable strength. The paper also uses both inductive and deductive reasoning as its structure, giving it strength and weakness, and is shown in “A proper understanding of the economic aspects of bilingual education is to relate the second language with the economic activities” and “This may pose a threat to the preservation of national language and culture.” (Cheng and Shao). Much of the paper uses emotional appeal as well, weakening the argument such as in, “immigrants were argued to give up mother tongue because they must learn English,” (Cheng and Shao) creating an appeal to pity.

On the opposite side of the argument is Bryan Caplan, Professor of Economics at George Mason with a Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton, making him credible. The publisher is the Library of Economics and Liberty which is owned by Liberty Fund, Inc. a libertarian non-profit foundation, which gives it credibility, yet introduces bias which can weaken the argument. The claim is “All romance aside, requiring Americans to learn foreign languages makes about as much sense as requiring them to hear operas.” (Caplan). Caplan uses inductive reasoning through his argument and opinion, which weakens his argument such as in “Think about all the Canadian adults who don't speak French after a decade of required study.” (Caplan). The informal tone of the opinion is a weakness to the argument as well, Caplan uses the first-person and contractions such as “I say” and “That's why” (Caplan). Along with the first-person view, the use of loaded language such as “dwarf the benefits” adds to the bias, weakening the argument further. Though, Caplan uses logical appeal in the opinion, stating “25.7% of respondents” (Caplan), which are unrounded statistics, and organizes the opinion into the list, which strengthens the argument. The statistics are also cited with a credible source, the Census and the General Social Survey. Caplan also refers to multiple perspectives, not just the economic perspective which strengthens the argument stating, “Americans start in an unusually abundant and diverse economic, social, and cultural pool, so we have little reason to stray.”(Caplan).

In accordance with Caplan is Stephen J. Dubner, he earned an MFA in Writing from Columbia University and is an economic journalist. This gives him limited credibility. The publisher is Freakonomics, a company started by Dubner and economist Steven Levitt to report on economic problems and misconceptions making the publisher credible. The podcast was published on March 6th, 2014 making it up to date. The claim Dubner states is that “Okay, so the financial returns to learning a foreign language are not so large. Which leads some economists to think that it’s mostly a waste of time.”(Dubner). In the claim, Dubner uses anonymous authority, stating “some economists” which weakens the argument. Dubner uses both expert testimony and testimony from fourth graders that are learning a second language in school. This creates both a strength and a weakness as expert testimony from economists such as Albert Saiz brings an expert’s view to use logical appeal to sway the audience. The testimony from the fourth graders is an emotional appeal which can help sway audiences as well, but is a weakness to the argument as well. Dubner also has a semi-informal register that is a weakness, created by rhetorical devices such as “it stretches your brain”(Dubner) and contractions such as “we’ll” (Dubner). The metaphors and similes may also be a strength though, as it may help a layman understand the topic. Dubner also uses deductive reasoning as his structure, adding strength to his argument such as in “like all education, it stretches your brain on any number of dimensions. But let’s try to quantify it a bit more than that.” (Dubner). A weakness in Dubner’s claim, though, comes from his single perspective view. Dubner does not discuss the other perspectives in his podcast episode, but does refer to other countries in “the findings in the United States do contrast with what other people following the same methodology found in Turkey, in Russia and in Israel” (Dubner).

Overall, Xiong and Shao’s study supporting the issue was the strongest. It had the widest global view of the four, coming from China and referencing other countries unlike Callahan, it cited many reliable studies, unlike Caplan and Dubner, and looks at multiple perspectives in depth. The second strongest source was Dubner’s podcast in opposition. Dubner used expert testimony from economists to add logical appeal unlike Xiong, Shao, and Callahan. Dubner also uses deductive reasoning, looks at other countries such as Turkey and Russia, but Dubner does not discuss other perspectives like Callahan, Xiong, Shao, and Caplan do. The third strongest source was Caplan’s opinion article. Caplan discusses multiple perspectives and uses logical appeal to sway readers towards his claim, but Caplan also uses inductive reasoning and loaded language that weakens the claim substantially. The weakest argument was Callahan’s opinion on bilingual education. Callahan use deductive reasoning like Dubner, Xiong, and Shao, and uses a call to action unlike the other authors, which is a strength. Yet, Callahan also does not have a global view, has bias, and focuses on emotional appeal.

While researching this topic, I learned and realized that foreign language education can be expensive to both the person learning it and the economy funding the education. I learned from Caplan in Dubner’s podcast that high schoolers may spend up to a twelfth of their high school education learning another language that they will most likely forget before they graduate. Before I started researching this topic, I was a strong believer in learning another language, and I still am afterwards, but I am skeptical of spending a large amount of money doing it. The most influential source for me was Dubner’s podcast as he talked with three different economists to show each of their different views on the topic in a simple, attention-grabbing way that helped me understand the topic the most. Some difficulties I had were in finding sources from other countries and to differentiate the American “bilingual education” system with the foreign language education system. Some solutions I have to the issue are to teach less years of mandatory foreign language education to lower costs, advertise rarer languages in mandatory education, encourage home languages in younger children and students, and to encourage mandatory language education at younger ages where children can pick up a language faster. If I were to do this topic again I would ask “does language complacency in ENL countries reduce the exposure to other cultures from non-English speaking countries?”

Works Cited

Callahan, Rebecca. "Students Should Retain Their Bilingual Heritage For Its Economic Value."Texas Perspectives. The University of Texas at Austin, 9 Feb. 2015. Web. 9 May 2017.

Caplan, Bryan. "The Numbers Speak: Foreign Language Requirements Are a Waste of Time and Money | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty."EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty. Library of Economics and Liberty, 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 8 May 2017.

"Characteristics of People by Language Spoken at Home” American FactFinder - Results. United States Census Bureau, 05 Oct. 2010. Web. 9 May 2017.

Dubner, Stephen J. "Is Learning a Foreign Language Really Worth It?" Review. Audio blog post.Freakonomics. Freakonomics, 05 Mar. 2014. Web. 7 May 2017.

"Foreign Language"."Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 20 May 2017.

"Foreign Language Learning Statistics."Foreign Language Learning Statistics - Statistics Explained. Eurostats, n.d. Web. 20 May 2017.

Xiong, Zhiwei, and Cheng Shao. "On the Economic Approach to Bilingual Education in China."International Education Studies. International Education Studies, Nov. 2009. Web. 8 May 2017.

(2000 Words)