Translation and Linguistic Diversity in the United StatesJosé Manuel González

University of Arizona, Department of Spanish and Portuguese (josemgonzalez@email.arizona.edu)

Today linguistic diversity is an important aspect of national and international

landscapes. According to Ethnologue, there are more than 7,000 living languages in the

world (Lewis et al., 2013). Due to migration and globalization, nations develop different

ways of handling linguistic diversity and change. A classic example in Translation Studies is

the European Union, where a successful translation policy facilitates communication

through multidirectional translation. Today, Europe is home to one of the biggest

translation markets in the world as well as to the academic field of Translation Studies. By

consequence, TS scholars have focused mainly on linguistic diversity and translation in

Europe rather than internationally and have excluded the knowledges offered by other

countries. In an attempt to contribute to the discussion on non-European approaches to

translation, the nation that will be addressed here is a Western giant with a reputation for

monolingualism and an underdeveloped translation market, a stark contrast to the EU.

In the present analysis, I propose that translators and linguistic minorities share a

low status in the United States. I will present a historical and sociolinguistic review of

American language planning to support this claim, arguing that American language

ideologies and language policies contradict the nations values of equality. In addition, I will

argue that the nation’s assimilationist practices lead to disadvantages such as a loss of

national security and business resources. The review is organized as follows: Section 1

deals with the beginnings of linguistic diversity and translation in the U.S. Section 2 deals

with the historical development of the English language hegemony, addressing its

underlying sociolinguistic mechanisms. Section 3 concerns modern developments and,

finally, section 4 deals with global implications.

1. The Beginnings of American Linguistic Diversity and Translation

A language constitutes an oral or written code shared by a group of people for

communication purposes. With more than 7,000 living languages worldwide, it is not hard

to imagine that many of these languages come to interact and change in numbers. Such

was the case of pre-Columbian United States, home to 65 native languages of the

Amerindian peoples (Gentzler, 2008: 10). Motivated by expansion and exploration, 16th and

17th century colonists introduced to America the Spanish, British, French, German and

Dutch languages and communicated with the natives via translation, a written transfer of

meaning across a language barrier, and interpretation, an oral transfer of meaning across a

language barrier.1 According to Edwin Gentzler, however, translation quickly became a

“one-way street”, a means by which colonists communicated their culture without allowing

the Amerindians to communicate theirs (Gentzler, 2008: 13). Susan Bassnett calls this

colonial translation, a political tool that serves an agenda of conquest and control

(Bassnett, 2002: 4). Michael Cronin, on the other hand, calls it translation for assimilation

(for sameness; homogeneousness) and distinguishes it from translation for

diversification (for difference; heterogeneousness) (Cronin, 1998: 148; Cronin, 2011:

170-171). The former preserves language groups equally through bidirectional translation

whereas the latter involves the subordination of one group in relation to another (Cronin,

1998: 148).

Although the United States is a multi-ethnic nation, it is important to note that

assimilation is at the root of its history. By way of example, Gentzler recounts the

suppressed history of the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam (modern-day Manhattan)

(Gentzler, 2008: 15). New Amsterdam celebrated the multiplicity of language and culture

and promoted the coexistence of diverse groups. However, like Amerindian cultures,

Dutch-American cultures were replaced. Their legacy lives on in obscure literature that has

been omitted from official history, unknown to most Americans and overshadowed by the

1 Like language, translation is a polysemic term. It can constitute the shaping of ideas into words or even

‘putting something in layman terms’. In other words, translation is a transfer of meaning across a perceived barrier. In the

context of colonial America, Gentzler provides the example of the interpreter Squanto as a mediator between the Pilgrims

at Plymouth and the Massasoit Indians (Gentzler, 2008: 12).

legacy of British culture. As Gentzler notes, a contrasting colony is Puritan New England, a

mono-ethnic colony that has been preserved in official history (Gentzler, 2008: 17). 2

As the dominant group, British-Americans favoured assimilation over

diversification for reasons of expansion and empire. George Washington believed that the

colonies were destined to be a future empire (Phillipson, 2009: 336). John Adams claimed

that American English “would be destined to become, like Latin, ‘the language of the world’,

furnishing ‘universal connection and correspondence with all nations’”, (Rafael, 2009: 6).

Put differently, to the British-American leaders, nascent America would one day be an

English-speaking empire of world status.

2. The Historical Development of the English Language Hegemony

All young nations must deal with issues of language variability and communication.

Whether it be through translation or through shared language, successful communication

is key for maintaining of political unity. As a historical example, during the 14th century,

Dante Alighieri wrote De Vulgari Elocuenta, a text in which Dante theorised that the

achievement of political unity depended on a common language. After developing his

theory, Dante popularized in the Divine Comedy a variety of Latin that became Italy’s

unifying language by gaining national prestige and facilitating national communication. In a

way, the Divine Comedy proved Dante’s political theory correct (LoBianco, 2010: 149).

Not unlike the 14th century writer, the 18th century Founding Fathers were faced

with issues of language planning for political unification. In sociolinguistics, language

planning is, “[the] official allocation of resources and [the] pursuit of solutions to language

problems…[as well as the] deliberate influence over the linguistic behaviour of others…”,

(LoBianco based on Fishman and Cooper, 2010: 156). In the case of the United States,

persuading the linguistically diverse groups of the land to speak the English language was

the Founding Father’s biggest challenge.

2 Here Gentzler describes one of the Dutch-American writers of America’s beginnings, Van der Donck, whose

writing constitutes a small part of America’s suppressed history (Gentzler, 2008: 17). He states: “Translation, though

seldom acknowledged, formed an integral part of the heritage of the United States from the earliest days of the

development of an 'American' voice", (Gentzler, 2008: 18). Similarly, Lawrence Venuti argues that America, although

monolingual, is culturally influenced by the incorporation of texts translated from other cultures, (Venuti, 2011).

First, it was necessary to consider the linguistic populations that had not yet been

assimilated. After independence, the American states were composed of five major

language groups: the English majority, the French in the South, the German in the Midwest,

and the speakers of various Amerindian and African languages that had previously been

subordinated by the colonists (Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 142). In this case, the linguistic

variation brought by the French and the Germans posed an obstacle to the unification of

America.

In addition, it was also necessary to choose a type of government to establish. Given

that many of the populations in question had escaped from an oppressive monarchy, a

similar government was out of the question. The American government needed to include

everyone equally, unite the nation and give people the sense that their opinion counted.

Like other European nations during the 18th century, the American government was

designed after the Ancient Greek democracy. In an article describing the semantic changes

of the term ‘democracy’ during the 17th and 18th centuries, Alexandra Lianeri notes the

transition from the original Greek definition of “government by all” to Western government

by the few for the many (Lianeri, 2002: 4). In this case, translation of an ancient cultural

concept into a modern culture served as a tool for cultural production,3 for it led to the

creation of the American republic. Furthermore, by placing power on a delimited group of

citizens, this new type of government provided English-speakers the means to assert their

own language under the notion of democracy (Lianeri, 2002: 11-12).

Having engineered the ideal governmental structure, the English-speaking leaders

presented the Constitution and provided a translation for 25% of the population (Gentzler,

2008: 11). Due to German and French contributions during the Revolution, it was decided

that the French and the German could develop their cultures and languages freely

(Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 142). Official language issues went unmentioned in the

constitution and to this day have not been addressed through amendments (González et al.,

2012; Hernández-Chávez, 1995; Wiley 2010). Nonetheless, democracy and multilingual

3 In Translation Studies, Susan Bassnett provides another example of translation as a tool for the creation of

culture, namely, the Ancient Roman translation of Classical Greek text for their own cultural and intellectual enrichment

(Bassnett, 2002: 48).

tolerance were precursors to monolingual America because, after assimilating the German

and the French, the American leaders changed their language planning strategies.

2.1 Language Policy and Translation Policy

According to linguistic anthropologist Rosina Lippi-Green and sociolinguist Debra

Suárez, groups that seek power and national unity often establish a monopoly on language

(Lippi-Green, 2004; Suárez, 2002; Phillipson in Tsuda, 2008). This monopoly, known as a

language hegemony, allows the group in power to decide who is to say what, to whom and

when (Foucault in Lippi-Green, 2004: 293). In other words, it grants one group the power

to establish the roles of speaker and listener. In the case of the English-speakers,

appropriating the legal system would allow them to “define and delineate social

institutions”, (Foucault in Lippi-Green, 2004: 294). It would enable the majority to plan

language carefully and lawfully, defining the limits of language use through language

policies (Hernández-Chávez, 1995; Phillipson, 1996; Wiley, 2010). According to Robert

Phillipson, language policies are “decisions on rights and access to languages and on the

roles and functions of particular languages and varieties in a given polity”, (Phillipson,

1996: 434). For our purposes, they are the legal decisions that govern language use.

Applied linguist Terrence G. Wiley provides five types of possible language policies

based on American historian Heinz Kloss (Wiley, 2010: 263-265).4 Similarly, Translation

Studies scholar Reine Meylaerts provides a model of translation policy in democratic

nations, stating that “there is no language policy without a translation policy”, (Meylaerts,

4 Wiley’s Language Policy Model: 1) Promotion language policy encourages the use of a language through law

and institutional use. 2) Accommodation language policy allows minority language use and access but doesn’t promote

minority languages. 3) Tolerance language policy: the government does not involve itself with the language in question.

4) Restriction language policy prohibits the use and teaching of a language. 5) Repression policy aims at exterminating

the minority language in question (Wiley, 2010: 263-265).

2011: 744).5 In order to make sense of both models here, we offer the following hybrid

model:

Language & Translation Policies:

1. Promotion Policy: Encourages language use and promotes institutional

multilingualism and multidirectional translation.

2. Accommodation Policy: Promotes institutional monolingualism and unidirectional

translation for assimilation purposes.

3. Tolerance Policy: A lack of language or translation policy and a lack of government

involvement in language issues.

4. Restriction Policy: Prohibits the use and teaching of a language and promotes

institutional monolingualism and non-translation.

5. Repression Policy: Aims at exterminating the minority language in question,

promoting institutional monolingualism and non-translation. (Meylaerts, 2011;

Wiley, 2010)

During the 19th century, America transitioned from tolerant language policies to

restrictive and non-translation policies (Meylearts, 2011; Wiley, 2010). These policies were

influential in establishing English as the sole language of the nation. They limited the use of

non-English languages at the institutional and cultural level and restricted all speaking to

that of English. In addition, they restricted the education of all American children to be

conducted only in English. For example, the Louisiana Constitution of 1868 established

English as the official language of instruction in the schools of Louisiana and its

accompanying Code of Practice abolished the educational use of French in Louisiana

(Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 142-3). These laws contributed to the transformation of

Lousianna from a French-speaking state to an English-speaking state and similar laws

5 Meylaert’s Translation Policy Model (prototypes): 1) Institutional multilingualism and obligatory

multidirectional translation, 2) Institutional monolingualism and non-translation, 3) Institutional monolingualism and

unidirectional translation into minority languages, 4) Institutional monolingualism at the local level combined with

institutional multilingualism at the superior/federal level (Meylaerts, 2011).

would be applied to other linguistic minorities (Hernández-Chávez, 1995, Kloss, 1977). It is

important to note that educational laws are crucial to the shaping of any country.

According to Lippi-Green, education is what ensures whether or not a language can be

passed down to future generations, it is what ensures the survival of a language because

“any system of education is a political way of maintaining or modifying the appropriation of

discourses, along with the knowledges and powers which they carry”, (Foucault in Lippi-

Green, 2004: 294). As a result, many of the language policies in the United States were

geared towards educational settings.

In terms of translation, the American non-translation policy forced linguistic

minorities to find a way to communicate on their own. As Gentzler notes, “With no

translation policy, there is no policy of mediation, negotiation, communication, or

inclusion” (Gentzler, 2008: 9). Non-translation is essentially an end to communication and

a deliberate building of a language barrier. As such, non-English language speakers were

left the overwhelming task of translating themselves into English or translating English to

themselves (Gentzler, 2008: 8).

2.2 The Language Ideology

Years of exposure to certain policies can re-shape popular opinion and perception of

certain concepts. For example, language policies can, over the years, change the masses’

opinions about the nature of language. The result is the language ideology, the sets of

values and beliefs that are attributed to language in a society (Lippi-Green, 2004; Martínez,

2006: 8-16).

In 19th and 20th century America, restrictive language policies moulded the national

notion of monolingualism. The nation began to associate the English of those in power

(eventually the white population) with values of correctness, success, nativity6 and power.

The dominant speaker’s variety of English was the ‘correct’ form of English and it came to

be popularized by the prescriptive efforts of figures such as lexicographer Noah Webster,

6 According to applied linguist Eduardo Hernández-Chávez, one of two recurring sentiments that would fuel

restrictive policy would be nativism, a notion that all white, English-speaking Americans are true natives. (Hernández-

Chávez, 1995: 148).

father of Webster’s dictionaries, and by its use at the institutional level (Rafael, 2009: 7-8).

In this case, the ideology that ascribes values of correctness to a particular language or

dialect is known as the Standard Language Ideology.

On the other hand, non-English languages and non-standard varieties (i.e. dialects

like Southern English or African American Vernacular English) are ascribed values of

inferiority, failure, danger,7 and sometimes even stupidity (Lippi-Green, 2004; Suárez,

2002). An example in the literature is the 20th use of boarding schools to assimilate Native

American children, or, as a government official put it, to “free them from the language and

habits of their untutored and often savage parents”, and their “moral and mental stupor”

(Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 145).

It is of importance to note that these values are socially construed and are lacking of

any empiric evidence needed for their support. We could quote, for example, Steven Pinker

in his famous book The Language Instinct and note that language and intelligence are

unrelated mental phenomena (Pinker, 1994: 45-53), or point out that linguists agree on the

inexistence of a perfect language and believe, rather, in the their equal value. Language

ideologies are often the reason that non-English speakers are ridiculed and discriminated

in America (Lippi-Green, 2004: 289). A common critique for the non-English speakers

amongst Americans is their alleged unwillingness to learn English. The Standard Language

Ideology somehow misinforms the public into believing that everyone should learn English.

However, linguists and scholars in language acquisition would point to the critical period

hypothesis and would highlight the difficulties of acquiring a second language during

adulthood. In addition, sociolinguistics studies report that the shift from a heritage

language to the English language occurs over the span of several generations (Martínez,

2006: 41-43). Based on these two findings, we could conclude that incoming adult

immigrants are unable to learn English quickly, which means that, for first generation non-

English speaking immigrants, assimilation without the use of translation or interpretation

may be humanly impossible.

7 The second sentiment that would fuel restrictive policy was xenophobia, the fear of all foreign and non-English

speaking peoples (Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 148).

Misinformation notwithstanding, these ideological values of inferiority and of

inadequacy are socially powerful. It is through them that the linguistic hegemony’s

establishment can be founded and maintained, as sociolinguist Wiley states:

Linguistic hegemony is achieved when dominant groups create a consensus

by convincing others to accept their language norms and usage as standard

or paradigmatic. Hegemony is ensured when they can convince those who

fail to meet those standards to view their failure as being the result of the

inadequacy of their own language. (Wiley in Suárez, 2002: 513-514)

Indeed, the Standard Language Ideology, along with the restrictive language policies that

birth it, have established the inadequacy of minority languages and have led its speakers to

see their own language as an obstacle to participating in American culture. As a result, they

choose to lose their heritage language and adopt the English language (Suárez, 2002: ).

As for translators and interpreters, they would eventually be tied to one of two ideologies

previously described by Cronin (Cronin, 1998: 148; Cronin, 2011: 170-171). Translation-

for-assimilation of unincorporated minorities would be used in cases where new

populations were encountered. Take, for example, Native American Sacajawea and her

interpretation duties during Lewis and Clark’s expedition to the west as an example of

translation for assimilation of new Amerindian communities (Gentzler, 2008: 22). In

addition, the 19th century annexations of the Southwest, namely Texas, California and New

Mexico, employed translation-for-assimilation in its first years but turned to non-

translation and restrictive policies once the new citizens were assimilated (Hernández-

Chávez, 1995: 146-8; Meylaerts, 2011; Wiley, 2010). As such, translators and interpreters

became a political tool for control important only for expansionist purposes. On the other

hand, translation-for-diversification was inexistent in order to guarantee the dominance of

the English language.

3. Modern Developments

Through careful language planning, the Anglophone majority achieved America’s

political unification and began its path to becoming a world power. During the 20th century,

certain events would reinforce the English-speakers dominance. For one, America became

a promising land of opportunity that attracted thousands of immigrants from around the

globe. On the other hand, a series of international wars would damage the American psyche

and produce in citizens a state of fear that would result in nativism (pride in the white

English-speaker) and xenophobia (fear of foreigners) which in turn would help maintain

the English language hegemony (Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 148).

3.1 Immigration

After the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s, an attempt was made to attain

language rights for linguistic minorities, which included immigrants from all over the

world, including Asia and Latin America. For the first time in American history,

accommodation language policies (policies that provide unidirectional translation for

accommodation purposes) would be passed (Meylearts, 2011; Wiley, 2010). The

foundation behind these policies was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which

prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and skin colour. However,

when it was originally passed, discrimination on the basis of language had gone

unmentioned.

Sociolinguists argue that language is a marker of social allegiance. Their studies

suggest that language contains a great deal of information about a person’s race, social

class, gender and other social factors. In other words, people talk like the groups to which

they relate. By consequence, discrimination on the basis of language is discrimination on

the basis of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, etc., all

factors protected under Title VI. As the logic goes, any violation of language should be a

violation of civil rights (Chen, 2000; Rosenbaum, 2004).

Eventually, a legal case reached this conclusion. In 1974, Lau v. Nichols established

that language is a factor protected from civil discrimination (Martínez, 2009; Rosenbaum,

2004). Motivated by the need to assimilate the growing number of immigrant minorities,

this accommodation language policy would be followed in the year 2000 by President

Clinton’s federal mandate, Executive Order 13166 (Clinton, 2000). EO13166 requires all

federally-funded agencies to provide translation and interpretation services for language

minorities, known as Limited English Proficiency (LEP) people (Clinton, 2000).8

However, applied linguist Roseann González Dueñas points out that these policies

constitute access rights (rights to access essential resources) rather than language rights

(rights that prevent the discrimination and extinction of languages) (González et al, 2012:

39). They are in essence, policies of unidirectional translation and immigrant assimilation

rather than policies of promotion and diversification (Cronin, 1998; Meylaerts, 2011;

Wiley, 2010). Additionally, many advocates note that the implementation of said policies is

inconsistent, whether it be for lack of clear guidelines or because of a lack of increased

budgets to cover language services (Rosenbaum, 2004). As a result, minorities are left

without access to essential facilities such as “health care, justice, education, employment,

housing, and voting”, (Commission of Civil Rights, 2004: 5).9

In certain cases, rather than employing professional language services, an untrained

bilingual may be assigned the duty of translating or interpreting (Martínez, 2009). There

are numerous arguments against the modern use of untrained bilinguals as translators and

interpreters. For one, LEP.gov states that “As valuable as bilingualism and ability to

conduct monolingual communication in a language other than English can be,

interpretation and translation require additional specific skills in addition to being fully

fluent in two or more languages”, (LEP.gov). Some of these include knowledge of culture,

pragmatics, terminology, genre, register, and ethical concerns. Additionally, there are

numerous studies in cognitive linguistics that show that the mental processes employed by

professional interpreters are of a different nature than the mental processes employed by

8 According to a federal interagency website, Limited English Proficiency (LEP) individuals are “Individuals who

do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand

English…” (LEP.gov).

9 In the healthcare setting, for example, a lack of language services can result not only in a violation of rights but

also in fatal consequences. In 1999, 13-year-old Gricelda Zamora died of appendicitis in Phoenix, Arizona because the

hospital in which she was attended did not offer an interpreter for the patient’s Spanish-speaking guardians (Martínez,

2007).

untrained bilinguals (Christoffels, 2005, Ibañez, 2010).10 Needless to say, employing an

untrained bilingual instead of a translator for language services is considered a great

disservice to the language minority and potentially harmful to protecting their access rights

(Chen, 2000; Martínez, 2009).

It’s evident that despite the existence of accommodation language policies and

despite the need to implement them, there are additional factors that inhibit the use of

translators and interpreters in certain public settings. For one, sociolinguist Dr. Glenn

Martínez attributes the lack of implementation to the long history of language

subordination and language ideologies in the country and thereby suggests the existence of

a popular resistance11 against translation-for-assimilation in America (Martínez, 2009).12

Years of neglect and a lack of interest in linguistic minorities have resulted in few resources

and education in issues concerning linguistic minorities and in translation and

interpretation services, even when assimilation is the purpose. As a result, many linguistic

minorities are left for themselves, unaware that they are legally entitled to language access

services.

3.2 Foreign Threats

In addition to an influx of immigrants, 20th America witnessed a series of wars that

seriously wounded the American psyche and negatively affected the linguistic minority and

translator’s status (Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 148-150). During World War I, German-

Americans were discriminated to the point that they began to deny their German ancestry

(Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 148-150). During World War II, the target became the Japanese-

10 Current research in cognitive linguistics has revealed that during translation tasks, professional interpreters’

brains activate the two languages in which they interpret. Bilinguals, on the other hand, only activate one language at a

time and have to alternate between them during translation tasks (Ibáñez, 2010).

11 One such resistance can be found in the 1980’s English-Only Movement and its efforts to take away some of

the access rights that had been granted to linguistic minorities (Chen, 2007; Hernández-Chávez, 1995).

12 Another ideology that Martínez notes is the Widespread Bilingualism Ideology. In areas where English-

Spanish bilingualism is common, interpretation and translation may be completely overlooked in healthcare settings

because it is erroneously expected that everyone in the region will understand both languages (Martínez, 2009).

Americans, the Russian-Americans during the Cold War, and the speakers of Middle

Eastern languages during the War on Terror (Hernández-Chávez, 1995: 148-150).

Due to nativism and xenophobia and the psychological damages caused by the wars,

immigrants and non-English languages have come to represent foreign threats to

Americans.13 By example, we could take note of the 2008 U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement raid on Agriprocessors Inc. According to Camayd-Freixas, a federal court

interpreter that communicated his experience of the raid to the media, the raid is an

example of the link that has been established between the immigrant and the foreign

enemy (Camayd-Freixas, 2008: 14). ICE is a branch of the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security. Its primary objective is to ensure that terrorism doesn’t reach the nation through

its borders. As Camayd-Freixas points out, the 400 illegal immigrants apprehended in the

raid were neither terrorists nor criminals (Camayd-Freixas, 2008: 2). They were merely

workers contributing to American economy. Yet the widespread fear of foreigners accounts

for the fact that ICE would take advantage of Agriprocessor’s Inc.’s workers, despite the

economic and psychological damages that the raid inflicted on the local economy (Camayd-

Freixas, 2008: 3).

In a similar fashion, translators and interpreters have been negatively affected by

the wars. In this case, translators are skilled at communicating both with the ally and with

foreign powers and enemies. This leads to the suspicion of treachery in certain contexts,

thus reviving the old Italian proverb traduttore, traidore (literally ‘translator, traitor’). For

example, in 2006, a court-appointed translator, Mohammed Yousri, was indicted for

translating a letter that was found to provide material in support of terrorism, despite his

impartial role as a translator (Apter, 2007: 70-72).14 In a land where monolingualism is the

norm, it is perhaps the mere ability to communicate with the exterior that marks the

translator or interpreter as a potential traitor and suspicious carrier of double allegiance.

13 Hernández-Chávez offers the example of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which prohibited foreign

language publications (Hernández-Chávez, 1995).

14 In 2006 a court-appointed Egyptian-American translator, Mohamed Yousri was indicted for translating a

letter under the direction of attorney Lynne Stewart, whom had been hired to represent Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in his

trial for the World Trade Center Bombing, a letter which was later found to provide material in support of terrorism

(Apter, 2007: 70-2).

A final example of the status of translation during the war on terror, one particular

case illustrates the lack of importance allocated to matters concerning non-English

languages, even when it comes to national security. It is the case of Sibel Edmonds, a

Turkish translator whom in 2002 was fired from the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI)

for ‘blowing the whistle’ on the translation unit’s “blocking of intelligence” (Edmonds,

2005). Edmonds stated:

Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and

disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack

may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in a

foreign language that will have to be translated. If an attack then occurs,

which could have been prevented by acting on information in such a

message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims

that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did

not know, because we do know. (Edmonds, 2005: 3).

Translation Studies scholar Emily Apter notes that this is an example of the low standards

expected of translation and interpretation in America (Apter, 2007: 70). Additionally, it is

ironic that national security catastrophes – less on par with the ICE Raid than with the

events of 9/11 – could be appropriately avoided to ensure American security if more

importance were placed on the translation and interpretation profession and the quality

and ethical standards by which its practitioners should abide. This example thus illustrates

that America’s monolingual ideologies conflict not only with American values but also with

the nation’s essential needs of security.

Nonetheless, it is also important to note that the American population seldom

reasons through these ironies and misconceptions. It is perhaps in the midst of fear and

confusion that America’s leaders are able to ensure the success of their empire, regardless

of the minority languages and translators whom they marginalize and exploit.

4. Global Implications

As a result of its world status, America is now involved in a world conflict between

promoting monolingualism and promoting the preservation a country’s natural linguistic

landscapes. Renowned expert on World English Robert Phillipson writes:

English has spread worldwide in conjunction with capitalism and the science

and technology associated with it…modernization was marketed as the key

to the future of economies and cultures that were seen in need of this and

‘development,’ along with the Western belief that states optimally operate in

a single national language (1996: 437).

The United States’ monolingual model, associated with a wealth that many other countries

would want to imitate, contrasts starkly against a backdrop of countries that resist

monolingualism in favour of linguistic diversity. For one, the European Union offers a

model of government that promotes minority languages and multidirectional translation

(Meylaerts, 2011). European countries like Spain develop non-prestigious and regional

dialects (Miguélez, 2000). Similarly, Switzerland has four official languages (Chen, 2000).

Translation Studies scholar Michael Cronin writes about the translation that is employed in

these countries. He writes: “Translation in this instance is not about making

communication possible but about establishing identity or enacting a form of resistance to

the claims of the hegemonic language” (Cronin, 2011: 171). This is the essential difference

between the monolingual countries and those that resist monolingualism; whereas the

former adopts translation for assimilation, the latter adopts translation for diversification

and thereby ensures the protection of its citizens’ linguistic rights. Such is the effort behind

what has been termed the ecology of language paradigm, a movement by which linguistic

civil rights can be ensured and heritage languages saved from the destructive effects of

monolingualism (LoBianco, 2010: 144; Phillipson, 1996: 441).15

Some translation studies scholars also take note of the special role of translation in

the global economy. In what Anthony Pym calls “the diversity paradox”, it is unusual that,

15 In a chapter on language planning, LoBianco explains the origins of the ecology of language paradigm and

provides a link to terralingua.org, a non-profit organization funded in 1996 for the preservation of the world’s linguistic

diversity (LoBianco, 2010: 144).

despite the unusual growth of the lingua franca, minority languages manage to survive

(Pym, 2006: 747). Along with Cronin, Pym believes that the answer lies in neo-classical

economy, in the fact that the global market production requires the use of the lingua franca

whereas distribution (or localization) requires the use of the minor language, hence what

he calls “diversity-through-trade” (Pym, 2006: 748). Regardless of said paradox, many

authors in the fields of Translation Studies and linguistics believe that activists, linguists,

translators and minorities alike should promote the protection of minority rights and the

use of bidirectional translation that the European Union embodies (Meylaerts, 2011;

Phillipson, 1996; Pym, 2006).

5. Concluding Remarks

Having reviewed the history of language planning in the U.S. and the role of the

linguistic minority and translation in the nation, we can conclude that linguistic minorities

have a low status in the United States. Contributing to its monolingual imperial purposes,

translators and interpreters are a political tool of translation for assimilation. We have also

provided strong arguments against this view of language and translation in America.

Firstly, a democratic nation founded on values of equality and participatory citizenship

should ensure to its fullest capacity that no minority is discriminated or excluded, even

linguistically. Additionally, many of the ideologies that ascribe negative values to languages

and translators are misguided. These ideologies, which are fuelled by policies, are the

reason America undervalues translation even in terms of national security. With such a

wide range of available languages, the United States could develop multilingual programs

and communities to capitalize on a language services community that contributes to

national security and, like the European Union, develops a new market for language

services, generating new jobs at a national level and new business relations at an

international level.

A turn in a new direction is not impossible. Today Americans are slowly becoming

more accepting of cultural diversity in the United States, embracing, for example, foreign

cultures and practices (take for example the popularity of foreign cuisine in America). In

addition, it is commonly accepted that bilingualism is a powerful economic tool, especially

among university students and practicing professionals. Furthermore, the U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics reports that the translation and interpretation professions have one of the

most positive outlooks in the country. Based on these positive attitudes towards

multilingualism and translation, a re-orientation of America’s stance on monolingualism

could lead to the establishment of a new multilingual society. In this new society,

promotion language policies and multidirectional translation policies could replace

restrictive and accommodation language policies. As a result, new ecological language

ideologies would emerge, which, after years of exposure, would ensure not only a new

source of economy and defence but also the establishment of every linguistic minority’s

language rights in the United States.

6. Bibliography

Apter, E. (2007) ‘Translation-9/11: Terrorism, immigration, and the world of global

language politics’, The Global South 1(2): 69-80.

Bassnett, S. (2002) Translation studies, London &New York: Routledge.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-

15 Edition, Interpreters and Translators,

on the Internet at

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/interpreters-and-

translators.htm (visited February 09, 2014).

Camayd-Freixas, E. (2008) ‘Interpreting after the largest ICE raid in US history: A personal

account’ New York Times.

Chen, E. M. (2000) ‘Statement on the civil liberties implications of official english legislation

before the united states senate committee on governmental affairs, december 6,

1995’, in R. D. González, & I. Melis (eds), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on

the official english movement: Volume two: History, theory, and policy, Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Company, 30-62

Chen, A., Youdelman, M. K., & Brooks, J. (2007) ‘The legal framework for language access in

healthcare settings: Title VI and beyond’, JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine,

22: 362-367

Christoffels, I. K., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005) ‘Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive

perspective’, in J. F. Kroll, & A. M. B. de Groot (eds) Handbook of bilingualism:

Psycholinguistic approaches, New York: Oxford University Press, 454−479.

Clinton, W. (2000) ‘Executive order 13166: Improving access to services for persons with

limited english proficiency’, Fed Regist, 65(159), 50121-50122.

Commission of Civil Rights: ‘Toward equal access: Eliminating language barriers from

federal programs’, (2004).

Corson, D. (2000) ‘Social justice, language policy, and english only’, in R. D. González, & I.

Melis (eds), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official english

movement: Volume two: History, theory, and policy, Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company, 95-120.

Crawford, J. (2000) ‘Proposition 227: A new phase of the English Only Movement’, in R. D.

González, & I. Melis (eds), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official

english movement: Volume two: History, theory, and policy, Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company, 28-61

Cronin, Michael (1998) ‘The cracked looking glass of servants: Translation and minority

languages in a global age’, The Translator 4(2): 145-162.

Cronin, Michael (2005) ‘Burning the house down: Translation in a global setting’, Language

and intercultural communication 5(2): 108-119.

Cronin, Michael (2011) ‘Minority’, In Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldana (eds) Routledge

Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 169-172.

Edmonds, S. House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, (2005).

‘Emerging threats: Overclassification and pseudo-classification’, Retrieved from

website: http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/sibel edmonds whistleblower

testimony.pdf

Gentzler, Edwin (2008) ‘Multiculturalism in the united states’, In Gentzler, Edwin

Translation and identity in the Americas: New directions in translation theory, 8-39.

González, R. D., Vasquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (2012) ‘Fundamentals of court interpretation:

Theory, policy, and practice’, 1st ed. Carolina Academic Press.

Hernández-Chávez, E. (1995). ‘Language policy in the united states: A history of cultural

genocide’, In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & R. Phillipson (eds) Linguistic human rights,

Berlin: Muton de Gruyter, 141-158.

Ibáñez, A., Macizo, P., Bajo M. (2010) ‘Language access and language selection in

professional translators’, Acta Psychologica 135: 257-266

Improving access for persons with limited english proficiency. Retrieved 02, 2013, from

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/13166.php

Jacobs, E. A., Leos, G. S., Rathouz, P. J., & Fu Jr., P. (2011) ‘Shared networks of interpreter

services, at relatively low cost, can help providers serve patients with limited

english skills’, Health Affairs 30(10): 1930-1938.

Kachru, B. (2006) ‘English: World Englishes’, In The Encyclopedia of Language and

Linguistics.

Kloss, H. (1977) The american bilingual tradition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of

the World, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version:

http://www.ethnologue.com.

Lianeri, Alexandra. (2002) ‘Translation and the establishment of liberal democracy in

nineteenth century England: Constructing the Political as an Interpretive Act’, In

Genztler, E. and Tymoczko, M. (eds) Translation and Power.

Limited english proficiency (LEP): A federal agency website. (2013). Retrieved 02, 2013,

from http://www.lep.gov

Lippi-Green, R. (2004) ‘Language ideology and language prejudice’, Language in the USA.

LoBianco, J. (2010) ‘Language policy and planning’, In Nancy Hornberger and Sandra Lee

McKay (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Education. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

143-176

Martínez, G. (2006), Mexican-americans and language: Del dicho al hecho, Tucson:

University of Arizona Press.

Martínez, G. (2009) ‘Language in healthcare policy and planning along the U.S.-Mexico

border’, In Manel Lacorte & Jennifer Leeman (eds) Español en los Estados Unidos y

Otros Contextos de Contacto, Madrid: Iberoamericana. 255-269.

Meylaerts, Reine (2011). ‘Translational justice in a multilingual world: An overview of

translational regimes’, Meta 56 (4):743-757.

Miguélez, C. (2000). ‘The "normalization" of minority languages in Spain’, in R. D. González,

& I. Melis (eds), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official english

movement: Volume two: History, theory, and policy, Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company, 346-368

MLA language map. (2013). Retrieved from http://arcgis.mla.org/mla/default.aspx

Pinker, S. (1995; 1994), The language instinct, New York: HarperPerennial.

Phillipson, R. (2009) ‘English in globalisation, a lingua franca or a lingua frankensteinia?’,

TESOL Quarterly, 43(2): 335-339.

Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996) ‘English only worldwide or language ecology?’,

TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3, Language Planning and Policy): 429-452.

Pym, Anthony. (2006) ‘Globalization and the politics of translation studies’, Meta

(Montréal) 51 (4): 744-757.

Rosenbaum, S. (2004). ‘Reducing discrimination affecting persons with limited English

proficiency; Federal civil rights guidelines under title vi of the 1964 civil rights act’,

Public Health Reports Association of Schools of Public Health: 93-96.

Ryan, Camille (2013) Language use in the United States: 2011: American Community Survey

Reports, United States Census Bureau.

Schmid, C. (2000), ‘The politics of English Only in the United Status: Historical, Social and

Legal Aspects’, in R. D. González, & I. Melis (eds), Language ideologies: Critical

perspectives on the official english movement: Volume One Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company, 62-86.

Suárez, D. (2002) ‘The paradox of linguistic hegemony and the maintenance of Spanish as a

heritage language in the United States’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 23(6): 512-530.

Title VI of the civil rights of 1964. Retrieved 02, 2013, from

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevi.php

Tsuda, Y. (2008) ‘English Hegemony and English Divide’, China Media Research.4(1): 47-55

Venuti, L. (1998) ‘Introduction (Translation and Minority)’, The Translator 4(2): 135-144.

Venuti, L. (2011) ‘American Tradition’, In Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldana (eds) Routledge

Encyclopedia of Translation Studies 305-16

Wiley, T. G. (2010) ‘Language policy in the USA’, In K. Potowski (ed) Language diversity in

the USA, 255-271.