This chapter explores the sociopolitical nature of lan- guage in evaluation and illustrates the rule evaluators can play as the translator and interpreter in assessing the out- comes of social programs.

Language in Defining Social Problems and in Evaluating Social Programs Anna Marie Madison

In evaluation, language serves the instrumental function of communicating the value or worth of social programs. The language used in evaluating social programs encompasses the language of social policy, which is inter- preted inro the technical language of evaluation, which is then translated into language to meet the informational needs of multiple audiences. Thus, evaluation is a social process of intergroup communication, a political process through which conflicts in multiple meanings are resolved, and a technical process. In this chapter the concept of at-risk youth is used to illustrate the evaluator’s role as an interpreter and translator of the language used in defining social problems and in developing and evaluating social programs.

Applied Linguistics

The field of applied linguistls provides a conceptual framework for under- standing the instrumental functions of language in society. Unlike theoret- ical linguistics, which concentrates on theories about how language is constructed, applied linguistics concentraws on understanding the social application of language (Edwards, 1985; St. Clair and Giles, 1980). The goal of applied linguistics is to contribute to the solution of problems arising in the use of language in human societies (Bugarski, 1989). During the last thirty years a considerable body of work has been conducted in the field of applied linguistics. This work addresses the relationship between language and society (Edwards, 1985; Halliday, 1978; Lele and Singh, 1989; Tomic and Shy, 1989)) the sociocultural context of language (Bonvillain, 1993;

N t w DIKtC4 IONS FOR EVALUATION, no. 86, Sunmnier 2000 0 Jossey -Bass Publisbcrs 17

LANGUAGE IN DEFINING SOCIAL PROBLEMS 27

grantee. This exercise made the agencies aware of the need to establish realistic outcomes. Changes in the language led to changes in the empha- sis of the program. One, the concept shifted from at-risk youth to healthy youth development. Ityo, the shift in language provided an opportunity for the grantee agencies to begin to identify attributes of healthy develop- ment and to identify ways to promote healthy development. There is no doubt the political institutions will continue to use the language of at-risk. However, in this one state, its interpretation at the grantor and grantee lev- els will switch to the more positive language of promoting healthy youth development.

References

Baizerman, M., and Cornpton, D. “From Respondent and Informant to Consultant and Participant: The Evolu1i.on of a State Agency Policy Evaluation.” In A. M. Madison (ed.) ~ Minority Issues in Program Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 53. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.

Bonvillain, N. Language, Culture, and Communication: The Meaning of Messages. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993.

Bugarski, R. “Applied Linguistics as Linguistics Applied.” In 0. M. Tomic and R. W. Shuy (eds.), 7h.e Rela.tion.sh.ip ./ Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. San Francisco: Jnssey-Bass, 1989.

Carncgic Corporation. “A Matter o f Time: Risk and Opportunities in Nonschool Hours.” A Report of the Task Force on Youth Development and Community Programs. Carnegie Corporation: New York, 1992.

Carnegie Corporation. “Great Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century.” Concluding Report of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. Carnegie Cor- poration: New York, 1995.

Dryfoos, J. G. Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1990.

Edwards, J. Language, Society, and Identity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Feldman, S. S., and Elliott, G. R. (eds.). At the Threshold: The Dvvelopi.ng Adolescent. Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, I990. Gumperz, J. J. (ed.). Language and Social Identity. New York: Cambridge University

Press; 1982. Gumperz, J. J., and Gumperz, J. C. “Language and the ‘Communication of Social Iden-

tity.”’ InJ. J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity. New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1982.

Guy, G. “Language and Social Class.” In F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), Language: The Socio- Cultural Context. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Halliday, M.A.K. (ed.). Language us Social Semiolic. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press, 1978.

Halliday, M.A.K., and Hasan, R. Z.u.nguu.ge, Context, and Text: Aspects ofLunguage im u 5ocinl-Semiotic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Jessor, R. “Successful Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-Risk Settings.” American Psychologist, 1993, 48 (2), 117-126.

Lele, J. K., and Singh, R. Language and Society. New York: E. J. Brill, 1989. Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.). Language: The Socio-Cultural Context. New York: Cambridge Uni-

Pennycook, A. The Cu.ltura.1. Poli.ti.cs of English as an International Language. New York: versity Press, 1988.

Tangman Press, 1994.

28 HOW AND WHY LANGUAGE MATTERS IN EVALUATION

Schorr, L. B., and Schorr, D. Within Our Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvuntage. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Leviton, 1. C. Foundations ofProgram Evuluation: The- orics and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991.

Shapiro, M. J. Language and Politicdl Understanding: The Politics cif Discursive Practices. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981.

St. Clair, K. N. “‘The Contexts of Language.” In R. N. St. Clair and H. GiIes (eds.), The Social and Psychological Contexts of language. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, 1980.

St. Clair, R. N., and Giles, H. (eds.). The Social and Psychological Contexts ofLanguuge. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980.

Stufflebeam, D. “Empowerment Evaluation, Objectivist Evaluation, and Evaluation Stan- dards: Where the Future of Evaluation Should Go and Where It Should Not Go.” Eval- uation Practice, 1994, 15 (3), 321-338.

Tornic, 0. M., and Shuy, R. W. (eds.). The Relationship of Theoretical and Applied Lin- guistics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.

Werner, E., and Smith, R. Overcoming the Odds: High Risk Childrenfrorn Birth to Adult- hood. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1992.

ANNA MARIE MADISON is associate professor in the College of Public und Com- munity Service, Graduate Program in Human Services a t the University of Massachusetts, Boston. She is currently the evaluator of youth development in the arts and in sustainable ugrimltuuc programs in the Commonwealth of Mass- achusetts and of an HIVIAIDS prevention community planning effort in Boston.