Anda di halaman 1dari 21

Running head: DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT

The Discourse of Stance and Argument Regarding Bilingual Education in the U.S.
Krista M. Boddy
Colorado State University

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT

Abstract
Stance and argument are popular topics of study in the field of discourse analysis. Specifically,
the issue of bilingual education in the U.S. is an on-going heated debate that ends up in the news
frequently. The following paper aims to analyze the discourse of stance and argument of
proponents and antagonists on the two sides of the bilingual education debate. Using recent
periodical editorials, this paper reviews the arguments for and against bilingual education in the
U.S. Researching this topic is relevant to the field of ESL, as instructors should critically explore
the evidence of studies regarding bilingual education, particularly with regard to stance and
argument.
Keywords: stance, argument, discourse analysis, bilingual education

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT

The Discourse of Stance and Argument Regarding Bilingual Education in the U.S.

Bilingual education has been a hot political topic for many decades in the United States,
and is a debate that doesnt seem to have an end. There is a considerable amount of interest as
well as multiple opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of bilingual education.
Numerous experienced educators have strong opinions about bilingualism in schools in the
recent rapidly growing population of non-English speaking students across the United States. I
will compare two recent (this year) editorial articles, one for and one against bilingual education,
analyzing the authors stance and arguments. This issue directly affects the vocation of ESL
teaching and the need for teachers who are bilingual and/or who know how to teach second
language learners. In this study of opposing stances regarding bilingual education in America, I
hope to gain insight from the current discourse among educators and citizens alike so that I may
incorporate this knowledge into my teaching philosophy.
I will begin my discussion, with a summary of definitions relative to argument and
stance. Rybacki and Rybacki (1996) define argumentation as a form of instrumental
communication relying on reasoning and proof to influence belief or behavior through the use of
spoken or written messages (p. 2). By this definition, the authors relate one can understand
argumentations purpose, targets, methods, and relationship to persuasion (p.2). They further
explain, Argumentation is a set of concepts or ideas used to understand how we reason and how
we convey that reasoning to others for the purpose of influencing them (p. 2).
Another facet of argumentation that the authors highlight is, Argumentation is always
characterized by controversy either the controversy of opposing views or the controversy of
what is the most correct answer. As arguers, we want our views to prevail, so argumentation is
3

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


always directed to some entity, the audience (Rybacki & Rybacki, 1996, p. 4). They define
audience as one or more people who have the power or ability to assure the future influence of a
belief or pattern of behavior the arguer seeks (p. 4). They explain that arguers use persuasion to
move an audience to accept or identify with a particular point of view. Whereas persuasion
functions on both the emotional and rational levels in communication, argumentation emphasizes
the use of proof and reasoning to appeal to human rationalism (p. 4).
Argumentation is also rule-governed communication behavior, comprising of
grammatical rules and rules based on a particular context (e.g., public speaking, family
discourse). These rules are learned through formal instruction or informally modeling behavior
observed by those around us (Rybacki & Rybacki, 1996, p. 4).
The authors claim that argumentation has limitations in that it is practiced by fallible
human beings whose motives may not always be above reproach (p. 8-9). They state that an
unsound argument can appear to be valid through skillful oral and written presentation, and
can therefore be abused (p. 9). Some have used arguments to advance the cause of good or evil.
In being a social act, communication has moral significance for audiences. The authors explain,
Because we live in a society that holds freedom of thought and speech as a cardinal value,
ethical communication protects the rights of free speech while at the same time respecting the
rights of audiences (p. 10). They highlight four ethical obligations for those engaging in
argumentation: responsible research in the search of truth, the responsibility to commit ones
effort to the common good, rationality, and to observe the rules of free speech in a democratic
society (Rybacki & Rybacki, 1996, p. 10).
Gray and Biber (2012) define stance as the ways in which speakers and writers encode
opinions and assessments in the language they produce (p. 15). They explain evidentiality as
4

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


epistemic stance and define affect as attitudinal stance (p. 17). Dancygier (2012)
differentiates epistemic stance (I think) from assertive stance (I know), where know carries a
stronger stance than think (p. 75-79). An additional type of stance she discusses is emotional
stance (I wish/I hope), which closely relates to Gray and Bibers attitudinal stance. Hyland
(2012) defines stance as involving the writers expression of personal attitudes and assessments
of the status of knowledge in a text (p. 134). Dancygier (2012) explains, The concept of stance
is clearly related to subjectivity, in that stance expressions are talked about as representations of
the speakers specific evaluation of assertability, built into specific expressions (p.74). These
definitions are helpful in differentiating the term stance from argumentation.
For some helpful background information regarding bilingual education, I next
summarize a recent article from the Denver Post about English language learners (ELLs) in the
Denver Public Schools (DPS). Denver Post writer, Robles (2014), states in her article that 35%
of the Denver school district comprises of ELLs. Recent annual tests reveal that one in three
ELLs in DPS have failed to make progress in their English skills over the past two years. She
notes that the 2012-2013 graduation rate for ELLs in this district was 53.1% as opposed to 61.3%
for the native English-speaking students. According to Robles (2014), teaching methods and
philosophies among educators is constantly changing with regard to ELLs. Two current models
include teaching students core-content in their native language to then transition into English
(bilingual approach), and the other involves teaching students core-content in English only.
Denver attorney, Lorenzo Trujillo, who works in high-profile education court battles, claims, It
is imperative that this large, burgeoning population in the Denver Public Schools be effectively
taught, but to effectively teach them, it becomes a question of methodology. Theres a conflict of
values in terms of what the system as a whole believes is necessary (Robles, 2014). Current
5

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


school guidelines control how much time teachers are to instruct students in their first language
as well as in English. The amount of time varies by grade level and depends on new student
proficiency. Robles (2014) states that Charter schools in DPS that serve 15 or more ELLs must
offer English language development course blocks, certify all teachers to teach ELLs, and allow
parents to choose instruction options (native language versus English).
Originally, back in 1980, the Congress of Hispanic Educators sued the DPS in violating
students rights with regard to primarily Spanish-speaking immigrant students. Today, there are
172 languages spoken by DPS students, of which 40% are Spanish-speaking. One current
problem with so many languages represented in the DPS is finding translators for less common
languages (e.g., Burmese, Nepali). Interestingly, Erin Martin, a school and family liaison who
works with African refugees, informs that families she speaks to are split between wanting
instruction in their native language and wanting to be integrated into English-only classes
(Robles, 2014). Maria Christin Gomez, mother of three children in DPS, relates that she prefers
the districts current focus on bilingual education because she wants her children to learn
English but without giving up Spanish (Robles, 2014). In the past, many parents withdrew
their kids from English-learner services, instead placing them in regular classes without language
support. Educators believe some parents follow old attitudes that learning English should be
placed above being bilingual. However, the number of opt-outs has dropped from 34% in 200708 to 10% in 2013-14.
Data from Colorado schools since 2010 reveals that students learning English without
language services perform better on standardized tests than native-English speaking students. In
DPS, a larger percentage of former ELLs participated in Advanced Placement or gifted and
talented classrooms compared to native-English speaking students. Officials monitoring the
6

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


DPSs treatment of ELLs express that the district is allowing students more time to become
proficient in English. CU professor, Kathy Escamilla, affirms academic research supports a 5-7
year process in acquiring a second language. She also believes that bilingual programs are more
effective. Yet school board member, Rita Montero, believes students should be allowed to move
into English-only classes sooner (i.e., three years at the most) (Robles, 2014).
Next, I will analyze some of the stances and arguments in this news article. Initially,
Denver Post writer, Robles (2014) insinuates there is a vast disagreement within the educational
system of what method is best for ELLs. Robles uses the two current models, the bilingual
approach and the English-only approach, as evidence of the confusion within the Denver Public
Schools policy. Denver attorney, Lorenzo Trujillo, points out the conflict of values within the
system as a whole, placing the blame on the larger educational system. Robles notes evidence
of this massive variability in current school guidelines with regard to controlling how much
instruction time teachers are allowed to use in a students first language and English.
The following is additional background information regarding U.S. policies related to
bilingualism and bilingual education. Professor, Dana Ferris (2014), comments in her recent
published article, that the U.S. founding fathers chose not to include a national language in the
U.S. Constitution, in spite of English being the unofficial language of commerce and national
unity (p. 75). She relays that U.S. colleges and universities in the late 19th century failed to
promote the study of other languages. Ferris (2014) describes how English was considered the
devils tongue by suspicious Chinese people in the early contacts between England and China,
but is now considered a commonly accepted language in China (p. 77). Ferris (2014) notes how
U.S. language policy has modernized in the past 40 years. Three language documents have been
adopted recently which enabled students who are speakers of other languages to be accepted into
7

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


the U.S. university system, and maintains that minority languages have the right to be used in
classrooms (p. 78). During the 1980s, policies prompted by President Ronald Reagans rhetoric
about a common national language created English Only laws at state and federal levels. In
response to this legislation, the Conference on College Composition and Communication
(CCCC) developed National Language Policy that supported students competency in English
and promoted foreign language instruction. In 2006, the U.S. Department of State underwent an
initiative to promote financial investments in the teaching of critical-need languages (e.g.,
Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Farsi), in response to the 2001 terrorist attacks. This initiative was
criticized for supporting multilingualism by Americans outside of U.S. borders but not within
them (p. 79). Ferris (2014) expresses that many authors she researched believe that teaching
second language learners to produce Standard English in writing is an inappropriate, futile, or
damaging thing to do to (p. 80). Hence, there is a conflict amongst authors and educators as to
whether teaching Standard English is beneficial or destructive.
Stance 1: Against bilingual education
Now, I will analyze an editorial article from an author and educational consultant who
takes the stance against bilingual education. In her article, Rosalie Porter (2014) discusses the
advances that the past two decades of English language instruction has had in California. She
refers to a question on the future November 2016 California election ballot which allows parents
the option to enroll their kids in bilingual education. Porter (2014) defines bilingual education as
the practice of teaching non-English speaking children in their native language while they are
learning English. The author argues that years of research highlights the failure of bilingual
education in spite of good intentions. She affirms that the 1998 referendum English for the
Children has promoted English education and academic success for second language learners
8

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


who make up almost half of the students enrolled in California public schools. Porter (2014)
asserts that before this referendum was passed, ELLs were segregated by language and ethnicity
most of the school day, separated from English speakers for three to six years. She argues that
state reports reveal no improvement in these students skills. She further notes that Mexican
American parents in LA protested such policies, demanding that their kids be taught English
more rapidly. Porter (2014) is strongly against the proposed 2016 bilingual bill as in her opinion
it undermines the English immersion programs that have been so effective for ELLs. She
maintains that the top priorities for these students is the mastery of fluency and literacy in
English, and that the skills of speaking, reading and writing in English open the door rapidly
in one or two years to learning school subjects taught in English. She claims the dismissal of
bilingual education programs in California, Arizona and Massachusetts has brought positive
results in those school districts. Porter (2014) cites two empirical studies that underscore her
message. The first was a 2008 study published by the Lexington Institute that reported that
California children who knew very little English at the start of Kindergarten, but who excelled in
English proficiency later in elementary school, were some of the best performing students in
public high schools. The second study, completed by the Arizona Department of Education in
2006, reported 60-78% of students who had identified as ELLs in the Nogales Unified School
District had passed all three state tests in reading, writing and math two years later.
Now for an analysis on Porters (2014) stance and arguments against bilingual education.
The authors audience is online readers of the San Francisco Chronicle news. She uses many
arguments to persuade the readers into agreeing with her stance that bilingual education is not
good for ELLs. Her first tactic is to make bilingual education into a segregation issue in her
quote that previously, ELLs were segregated by language and ethnicity most of the school day,
9

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


separated from English speakers for three to six years. This now becomes a civil rights issue
according to Porter. Her next argument is there is no evidence that students excelled in bilingual
classes. This may have to do with little data being available from California public schools prior
to 1998, when bilingual schools were no longer supported by the state. She next affirms that
Mexican-American parents were protesting LA schools for not using English enough in the
classrooms. A further argument proposed by Porter (2014) is that bilingual education undermines
the English immersion programs that have been effective. She finally cites two empirical studies:
California (2008) and Arizona (2006) to influence her audience in the move to support Englishonly education in the state of California. In most of her arguments, Porter (2014) uses proof and
rationalism to persuade her audience. Her argument would have been stronger if she had more
evidence of failures of bilingual education in other states or the past.
Stance 2: Proponent of bilingual education
On the opposing side of the bilingual education argument, is an editorial that was posted
on CNN.com by a sociolinguist at Florida International University. Phillip M. Carter (2014) first
relates a short history of bilingual education programs since the 1990s. He then reacts to the
1998 California referendum mentioned in Porters (2014) editorial which effectively banned
bilingual education in that state. He asserts:
They were convinced that Californias language diversity especially its Spanish
was a problem to be eradicated, rather than a resource to be developed. In the 16
years since the measure was approved, California has largely squandered one of
its most valuable economic and cultural resources. Millions of Spanish-speaking
immigrant students lost the opportunity to learn or retain valuable literacy skills in
Spanish while they acquired English. And, millions of California-born Latinos
10

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


who enrolled in school with the gift of native bilingualism would later leave
school unable to read and write in Spanish. When bilingual education mostly
disappeared from California in 1998, so did millions of opportunities, economic
and otherwise (Carter, 2014).
The author highlights the significance of the Latino population of California, as it is
expected to surpass that of whites, becoming the single largest ethnic group in the state.
Carter (2014) next discusses the history of restrictive language policies in the U.S. He
recounts the establishment of English-only boarding schools under U.S. federal government
policy in the mid-19th century. The purpose of these schools were meant to acculturate Native
American children by enforcing English language learning over native languages like Cherokee,
Ojibwe and Navajo. Carter (2014) then narrates the anti-German hysteria of the early 20th
century, which led to the closing of German language schools. He claims that German-speaking
communities in the U.S. never recovered from this loss and that many such communities no
longer exist. The author further relates that until the mid-20th century, schools in parts of Texas
segregated Mexican-American students from whites, routinely shaming, punishing, and expelling
them for speaking Spanish at school (Carter, 2014). Even recently, the principal of a public
school in Hempstead, Texas announced over the schools intercom that Spanish would be banned
at school, effective immediately. Half of the schools student population consists of Latinos.
Some students reported that teachers told them they would be punished for speaking Spanish on
school property.
Carter (2014) expresses that one reason for restrictive language policies toward Spanish
in U.S. schools relates to the fact that Spanish and Spanish speakers in the U.S. remain deeply

11

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


misunderstood among the general public. He lists the following myths about Spanish and refers
to data that supports each as false:
Myth No. 1: Latinos in the U.S. do not want to/cannot/will not learn English.
Social science data show that Latinos learn English at a rate as fast as or faster
than that of prior immigrant groups. In over a decade of studying language in U.S.
Latino communities, I have yet to meet a single young person who has not
desperately wanted to know English, nor have I found a single reference to such a
phenomenon in the work of my fellow linguists.
Myth No. 2: Speaking Spanish at school detracts from learning English. This
belief is premised on a false dichotomy that pits knowing Spanish against learning
English. Fortunately, for non-language-impaired children, knowing one language
is not a roadblock in the acquisition of another. In fact, some evidence suggests
that policies restricting the use of the home language actually have negative
effects on the acquisition of literacy skills in English.
Myth No. 3: Children will simply learn Spanish in the home. People tend to think
language can be acquired just by receiving enough inputs to crack the code
that hearing mom and dad speaking Spanish is enough. But language is much
more than the sum of its rules. Language is also the identity you make in it the
experiences, the relationships, and the memories that come from using the
language across many contexts. In many U.S. Latino communities, receptive
bilingualism a pattern in which parents speak to children in Spanish, who
respond in English is common. While comprehension is an important language

12

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


skill, speech production and literacy skills are equally necessary for jobs in the
growing bilingual labor market.
Myth No. 4: Spanish is taking over U.S. schools. While it is true that the overall
number of Spanish speakers in the U.S. is expected to increase, this is due to new
immigration. U.S. language history shows that immigrant languages are mostly or
completely lost by the third generation. Research shows that Spanish is being lost
across generations at roughly the same rate as previous immigrant languages such
as Italian and Dutch (Carter, 2014).
The authors concluding argument is that with 45 million speakers, Spanish in the
United States is an economic and cultural resource to be cherished and carefully cultivated, not
dismantled one generation after the next (Carter, 2014). He restates it is time to dismiss Englishonly policies, and replace them with linguistically informed education policy that supports the
acquisition and maintenance of both languages for all students who want to develop bilingual
fluency. We need not force our students to choose one language or the other they can have
both (Carter, 2014).
In analyzing this editorial, Carter (2014) first uses strong language in his emotional
stance on the topic of bilingual education. His audience is online CNN.com readers. He attacks
Californian voters by claiming they believed language diversity especially its Spanish was a
problem to be eradicated. This stance invokes racism as a factor in the elimination of bilingual
education. Carter (2014) next tries to rationalize with his audience that California is losing
economically by not allowing students to utilize their Spanish literacy skills, which are lost in the
learning of English literacy. He then underscores the reality that the Latino population of
California is expected to surpass that of whites in the coming decade. This is a true trend that has
13

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


rational clout. Next, Carter (2014) discusses the history of restrictive language policies in the
U.S., including policies against the Native Americans and Germans. He then mentions some
recent news regarding a Texas principal who banned Spanish at school, with some students
reporting threats of punishment for speaking Spanish on school property. This fact is meant to
incite emotional anger and outrage against such linguistically racist, and backwards policies.
Carters (2014) next tactic is to correct four myths that perpetuate misunderstandings of
Spanish speaking individuals. Unfortunately his argument is lacking in that there is no actual
cited data to prove his points in correcting the myths. He finally uses a rational argument that
people should not have to choose one language over another in that they can have both.
Stance 2: Proponent of bilingual education
Linguist, Stephen Krashen, presented Lets tell the public the truth about bilingual
education at a conference in February 2004. Krashen (2004) responds to the fact that three states
which have recently eliminated bilingual education contain 43% of ELLs in the U.S. According
to Krashen (2004), this should never have happened. He relates that the case for bilingual
education is convincing, but has never reached the public. He believes the solution to this issue is
better public relations and better programs.
Krashen (2004) maintains that there are two independent goals of bilingual education:
success in academic English, and the maintenance and development of heritage languages, which
includes an appreciation of heritage culture. He asserts that research reveals positive results of
bilingual education. This includes bilingual students in these programs typically do as well as
students in all-English programs on English reading tests, often performing better.

14

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


Krashen (2004) next explains two pillars of bilingual education, which are consistent
with many psycholinguistic research findings. The first pillar is background knowledge, which
relates to a students high level of education in their first language. This knowledge aids them
with English listening and reading comprehension. The second pillar is literacy transfers,
which entail the development of literacy in the first language as being useful in literacy of a
second language.
Further, Krashen (2004) informs us that before the anti-bilingual initiatives around 1998,
the public was not against bilingual education. One of many polls that were reported in the Los
Angeles Times (April 13, 1998) showed that one out of three people polled preferred Englishonly, while two out of three people approved of zero constraints of first language use or of shortterm use of first language use. Krashen (2004) claims the Dallas Morning News conducted a
similar poll with nearly the same results.
Krashen (2004) next examines the reasons why three states voted to eliminate bilingual
education. He first makes the point that some oppose bilingual education out of xenophobic, antiimmigration attitudes, but this did not prove to be a significant influence in the three states
elections. Instead, Krashen (2004) proposes ignorance as the problem, rather than racism. He
notes a vast contradiction in the poll mentioned in the LA Times. Some of the people who
approved of first language use in school also supported anti-bilingual education initiatives. The
data from the poll revealed that 63% of the people who supported the English-only referendum
in California did so because they believed in the importance of English. Only 9% of those
supporting the referendum said they felt bilingual education was ineffective. 6% said they
preferred immersion.

15

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


Krashen (2004) notes evidence from a study done by Parrish, Linquanti, Merickel, Quick,
Laird and Esra (2002), which revealed that there was no improvement in English reading for
ELLs between grades 2-5 in both bilingual and English-only schools in California after the 1998
English-only referendum.
An additional hindrance in the promotion of bilingual education, is how campaigners for
it consistently confuse the two goals of bilingual education. Krashen (2004) remarks that
advocates in their promotion of bilingualism sometimes insisted that everyone in the U.S. should
be bilingual. This had a negative effect on the public in that it made people feel forced into
learning a second language.
Krashen (2004) remarks that most people do not know what bilingual education entails.
He states that is it based on reasonable principles, including the fact that English is a major goal
of bilingual education. He further explains that the profession of teaching has made little effort in
informing the public of its benefits. Possible communication he recommends includes: utilizing
the media (e.g., letters to the editor, magazine articles, internet articles), being prepared with
clear and concise responses to frequently asked questions from the public, responding to all
attacks on bilingual education, and repeating core arguments, such as the benefits of bilingual
education in helping children acquire English. Krashen (2004) next calls upon academic
researchers to focus their energies on the study of the benefits of bilingual education and provide
empirical evidence to prove its value. In the following quote he questions:
Each attack is a research opportunity, an opportunity to see if in fact the bilingual
education approach has been deficient, and to extend our knowledge. Is it true that
bilingual education causes dropouts? Is it true that children languish in bilingual

16

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


programs for years? Is it true that current immersion programs are getting better
results than bilingual education? (Krashen, 2004).
Krashen concludes that current bilingual programs must be improved, so that there is no
doubt about their success. He believes the absolute achievement of students who are in bilingual
programs should be higher. He recommends greater accessibility to printed materials, as
children who read more, read better. He notes that research shows children from low-income
backgrounds have less access to books (i.e., inferior public libraries, few bookstores, few books
at home). His three-step plan comprises: early reading in the first language, recreational reading
in both languages as soon as students can read independently, and continued reading in the first
language. Unfortunately, Krashen (2004) observes a recent drop in library funding, especially in
low-income communities. In California, which has the lowest reading scores, library funding is
bleak, with only 3% of the national average being spent on school libraries.
The following is an examination of Krashens (2004) arguments for bilingual education.
His audience included proponents of bilingual education as it was at a National Association for
Bilingual Education (NABE) conference in Albuquerque, NM. Krashen (2004) first proposes a
rational argument that bilingual education has two main goals: success in academic English, and
the maintenance and development of heritage languages, including an appreciation of heritage
culture. Here Krashen (2004) targets his audience, which most likely come from Spanish heritage
cultures. He next argues there is psycholinguistic proof that background knowledge and
literacy knowledge in ones first language will transfer to comprehension and literacy in the
second language. This is a useful argument that many in his audience would have experienced
first-hand. Krashens (2004) next tactic is to humanize the public by claiming that the majority
of people are for bilingual education by using data from 1998 LA polls.
17

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


Another argument Krashen (2004) maintains is that ignorance, not racism is the problem.
He uses the conflicting poll data to prove his point: some of the people who approved of first
language use in school also supported anti-bilingual education initiatives. The contradictory data
is not useful in proving that the public is not racist. There is no connection the poll makes to
racism. Krashen (2004) notes an empirical study done by Parrish et al. (2002) which showed no
improvement in English reading for ELLs between grades 2-5 in both bilingual and English-only
schools in California after the 1998 English-only referendum. Interestingly, Krashen (2004)
empathizes with the public (instead of his audience) in remarking that advocates in their
promotion of bilingualism sometimes insist that everyone in the U.S. should be bilingual. He
underlines the negative effect this has on the public in making people feel forced into learning a
second language. It is true that such encounters have the effect of distancing and ostracizing the
public, dividing them from the bilingual cause. He further claims that the profession has made
little effort in informing the public of the benefits of bilingual education. Here he takes a stance
against the profession for not doing enough. Krashen (2004) next addresses academic researchers
to focus their studies on the benefits of bilingual education and provide empirical evidence. He
shows a defensive and uniting stance in stating that Each attack is a research opportunity to
prove the value of bilingual education. He ends with the logical and rational argument that lowincome children need greater access to libraries and books in both languages, as reading leads to
better literacy.
In summary, stance and argumentation can be useful tools in persuading or influencing an
audience. Stance varies from argumentation is that it entails an expression of personal opinions,
attitudes and assessments, whereas argumentation relies on reasoning and proof to persuade an
audience to accept a certain point of view. Persuasion functions on both emotional and rational
18

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


dimensions of discourse. Disagreements related to bilingual education have incited emotions of
anger and outrage, due to how individuals conduct their arguments via news commentary
sections and online newspapers. Obviously sound evidence versus emotional persuasion makes
an argument stronger. Langlotz and Locher (2012) note, While not all newspapers may attract
highly emotionalized or even offensive comments by their readers, occasionally editorials offer
rational arguments based upon evidence, proof and reason (p. 1591).
Chilton (2004) brings up some interesting questions in relation to bilingual education.
Should a minority language be protected when parents who speak it want their children to learn
the majority language? Do individuals have the right not to have a language imposed upon them
which they do not wish to speak? (p. 13-14). This may be asked for the student learning English
in a Denver Public School bilingual classroom whose first language is something other than
Spanish. The answers to these questions require more research and debate.

19

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


References
Carter, P. M. (2014, March 4). Why this bilingual education ban should have repealed long ago.
CNN.com. 2014 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/opinion/carter-bilingual-education/
Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing political discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dancygier, B. (2012). Negation, stance verbs, and intersubjectivity. In B. Dancygier & E.
Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. (pp. 69-93). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2014). Review: English Only and multilingualism in composition studies: policy,
philosophy, and practice. College English, 77(1), 73-83.
Gray, B. & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda
(Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres. (pp. 15-33). Hampshire, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In K.
Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres. (pp.
134-150). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Krashen, S. (2004, February 7). Lets tell the public the truth about bilingual education. [PDF
document]. Presented at the NABE Conference, Keynote Plenary Address, Albuquerque,
NM. Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/tell_the_truth.pdf.
Langlotz, A. & Locher, M.A. (2012). Ways of communicating emotional stance in online
disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 44. 1591-1606. doi:
10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.002
20

DISCOURSE OF STANCE AND ARGUMENT


Parrish, T.B., Linquanti, R., Merickel, A., Quick, H.E., Laird, J. & Esra, P. (2002). Effects of the
implementation of Proposition 227 in the education of English learners, K-12: Year 2
repost. (American Institutes for Research and WestEd Report). Palo Alto, CA: American
Institutes for Research.
Porter, R. P. (2014, September 17). Bill to end ban on bilingual education hurts immigrant kids.
SFGate. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Bill-to-endban-on-bilingual-education-hurts-5762573.php
Robles, Y. (2014, October 26). Three decades after order, Denver schools still struggle to teach
English. The Denver Post. Retrieved from
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26800382/3-decades-after-order-denver-schoolsstill-struggle?obref=obin
Rybacki, K.C. & Rybacki, D. J. (1996) Advocacy and opposition: An introduction to
argumentation (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

21