论文总字数：38164字

摘 要

对于“唯英语”和双语教育持续的争论使语言政策成为美国政治讨论的热门话题。即使在20世纪，很多人意识到学习外语在经济、政治、社会方面的益处，美国大众依然支持,甚至发动了“唯英语”运动，强烈反对实施双语教育。出于国家安全的考虑，近年来美国政府支持国民学习外语。这似乎是个悖论，但却恰恰反映了美国根据实际情况调整其具体政策。中国语言教育是语言政策的一部分，当前，由于其忽视母语教育以及缺乏外语教育规划等弊端急需改革，以满足国家进一步发展的需求。本文分析20世纪以来美国语言政策，以期为中国语言教育带来一些启示。

关键词：语言政策；双语教育；语言教育

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Literature Review 3

2.1 Previous Studies 3

2.2 Language Policy 3

3. Language Policy of the United States after the 20^th Century 4

3.1 The Bilingual Education 5

3.2 Official English Campaign 7

3.3 Attentions to Foreign Language Education in the 21st Century 10

4. Implications for Language Education in China 11

4.1 Enhancing Chinese Education and Improving the Awareness of Mother Tongue 12

4.2 Implementing Bilingual Education Properly 13

4.3 Taking an Overall View in Formulating Foreign Language Education Policy 13

5. Conclusion 14

Works Cited 16

1. Introduction

The United States of America has long been a nation of immigrants. The American mosaic has gone through continuous changes because of the constant inflow of immigration through its history. Although a largely English-speaking country comprised of people from linguistically diverse backgrounds, the United States has never designated English in its Constitution as the country’s official language. In the first two decades of the twentieth century, the number of immigrants to the U.S. was higher than that of any other periods in its history. The recent dramatic change in demography caused serious worries among language policy makers and the general public as to the influence of the continuously growing linguistic diversity having on U.S. as a unified country.

Linguistic diversity has existed in the United States since the beginning of its history as a nation and it did not become a major theme until the beginning of the 20^th century. With the sharply increased immigrants from 1880 to 1920, the Americanization campaign arose and language restriction flourished in response to fears that the new comers are resisting assimilation into the American mainstream society and unwilling to learn English (Hsu, 2007: 220). The persistent battle over language such as the English-Only movement since the 1980s has brought language policy issues into controversy.

The ongoing English-Only movement, though still unable to achieve its ultimate objective of a constitutional amendment making English the official language of the USA, has successfully led to the adoption of English-Only or official English measures by 23 states during the past two decades (Hsu, 2007: 220). What’s more, several states in recent years have passed ballot initiatives that impose English-Only instruction and substantially restrict bilingual education, including California (Preposition 227), Arizona (Preposition 203) and Massachusetts (Question 2). At the federal level, the No Child Left Behind Act has been passed, which emphasizes the quick acquisition of English and the rapid transition to English.

Bilingual education in the U.S. is generally regarded as remedial programs for linguistic minorities who are limited English proficient. Opponents against bilingual education argue that the master of English is equated with political loyalty to the United States and what is meant to be an “American”. However, proponents of bilingual education argue that immigrants’ maintenance of their original languages and culture is a basic human right and a symbol of democracy.

Pragmatism is an important factor underlying American language policy, which is fully reflected in the attentions to foreign language education in recent years. In the last decades, American government paid special attention to language policy and has associated it with national security. A study on American language policy can help us to have deep inspection of American national policy and the essence of American culture. At the same time, we can use American language policy for reference in the formulation of China’s language education policy.

China’s language education is being criticized by more and more people and it is one of the main areas for reforming in the process of education reform. At present, the ignorance of mother tongue education in school is becoming more and more serious and the time for the teaching of Chinese has been dramatically reduced because of the attention given to other subjects, especially to English. What’s more, the teaching of Chinese generally ends up with the high school education and most college students spend little time improving their Chinese. The result is that many young people in China worship western culture and English, and they are just satisfied with a smattering of knowledge about Chinese and Chinese culture. The condition of Chinese students’ lack of knowledge about Chinese and Chinese culture may be fully reflected in some Chinese-English translations. For example, in a test for certificate of interpreter held in Shanghai, many students just translated “华佗再见” as “Goodbye, Huatuo” and “富贵不能淫” as “One cannot conduct a licentious life after getting rich”. Thus, it is urgent to improve current language education in China for the further development of our country and students themselves.

This paper critically examines American language policy after the 20^th century by taking a few symbolic events as subject, i.e. the bilingual education, English-Only movement and foreign language education policy. The paper is divided into five sections. The first section introduces the topic for study, the content and aim of this paper. The second section gives a literature review on this topic. The third section provides an overview of vicissitudes of language policy in the U.S. history after the 20^th century. The fourth section examines the implication of American language policy for China’s language education. Finally, the paper concludes with an overall illustration of the topic.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Previous Studies

It is not more than five decades ago that the systematic research on language policy entered linguistic field when it became a subject in sociolinguistic study. Language policy refers to “the official and institutional practices related to language and language instruction” (McKay, 2001: 27). This reveals that any study on language policy is concerned with both society and linguistic concern, and the latter is related to language education.

In China, books and papers on language policy of the United States are abundant in recent years. Among those scholars who have shown great interest in language policy, Professor Cai Yongliang is the most influential and prolific one on American language policy.

In his two books, Language Education and Language Policy of the United States of America and Language, Education and Assimilation, he collects plenty of first-hand materials, investigates the real source of American language policy and explains its development in detail in different periods and finally comes to the essence of the language policy of the United States. What’s more, in one of his articles, On Language Policy of the United States, he presents the language policy of the United States in different periods and concludes that the language policy of the United States is primarily maintaining English’s central status and repelling the use of other languages, which is decided by its Anglo-Saxon culture. Besides, other scholars also pay much attention to language policy. Researchers like Yao Mingfa, Zhou Wa, Teng Dachun, etc., are also taking great efforts to study American language policy and bilingual education.

2.2 Language Policy

Language policy usually reveals the efforts of changing the status of one or more languages on the part of the government, embodies and shapes “attitudes toward language” (McKay, 2001: 27). According to Crawford, language policy includes government regulations about the educational, social and political functions of language. Moreover, he regards language as a right, i.e. the right to learn, use and maintain languages. The United States, in a strict sense, has never issued an official language policy applicable to the whole nation. However, some regulations on language at state level, normally responding to the instant demand from political and social pressure, will stand out to deal with different needs from politics in different periods. Thus, it’s not astonishing to find that there are many inadequacies and contradictions in American language policy. Just as Professor Cai Yongliang points out in his article, On Language Policy of the United States，the real power of American language policy does not lie in its overt laws of the Congress but in some state regulations, and to a large extent, in its deeply-rooted Anglo linguistic culture (Cai Yongliang, 2002:194). In this thesis the author will talk about chiefly American language policy after the 20^th century.

3. Language Policy of the United States after the 20^th Century

The 20^th century for the United States was the age to carry on the past and open a way for future. The United States came into the stage of fast development and showed a great ambition and vigor. After the two world wars, the U.S. became the super nation in the world, dominating economy, foreign affairs, military, politics, and even science and technology. Relying on edge in those fields, the status and influence of English was improved greatly and English became an international lingua franca. However, dramatical changes did not occur to American language policy. The core of American language policy was still to maintain the unity of language, as was indicated in the controversy over bilingual education and English-Only movement. Although facing the challenges caused by globalization, which has become a vital factor for solving many problems related to other countries, American position to maintain the status of English has never changed.

3.1 The Bilingual Education

It cannot be denied that around the world the bilingual education has long been a prevailing phenomenon. Bilingual education in the United States, however, is often treated with little regard and even disfavor. A recent survey made by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language has shown that 52.7% of Europeans speak both their native language and another language fluently, whereas in the U.S. the percentage drops to only 9.3% (Hsu, 2007: 221). In the United States, bilingual education is commonly regarded as remedial programs for those minorities, who are often poor and disadvantaged (Ruiz, 1984: 17).

The bilingual education was the main characteristic of American language policy in the 20^th century. The formulation and abrogation of American bilingual education policy were associated with the attitude of the federal government and the whole society towards immigrants. The bilingual education roughly went through 3 periods, i.e. the period of limitation (1900-1950), the period of vigorous development (1958-1980), and the period of rejection (1981-2002) (Zhou Yuzhong, 2011:87).

In the first 20 years of the 20^th century, about 3 million immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and Asia came to the United States for a new life. Most of them did so in order to get away from war and political prosecution. There were obvious differences in race, economic condition, education, culture and religion between those immigrants and the immigrants in the last generation (Yao Mingfa, 2005:56). Many of the newly immigrated people were poor and had received little education. People from American mainstream thought that it would be hard for those new immigrants to be assimilated because of their distinct features. In the eyes of most American, the new immigrants would bring a burden to American society, increase crime and reduce job opportunities for them. There is no doubt that exclusionism influenced education policy and its limitation on bilingual education was especially obvious. Many states enacted laws that teaching in other languages than English is illegal and English is the instruction language for students from grade one to grade eight.

The two world wars in the 20^th century intensified restriction on language. During that time, narrow nationalism, combined with the intense hatred of German, influenced education policy, especially bilingual education policy of minorities. Owing to the animosity against German, some states prohibited the use of German in class and public place. Many books in German were destroyed and the practice of German-English education was suspended. Up to 1923, 3/4 states issued laws that English is the only instruction language in all primary schools, public or private. After the turn of the century, the number of immigrants increased dramatically and public schools were filled with children of immigrants. American society worried that they would bring many social, economic and political problems, because of their ignorance of American mainstream language-English. So the melting pot philosophy and assimilation enjoyed popularity gradually.

From 1958 to 1980, this period is the phase of development for bilingual education. Government published a series of bills in favor of bilingual education. The issue of the Bilingual Education Act, or Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, witnessed the beginning of lawful bilingual education, which, together with those amendments about bilingual education, brought bilingual education to its prime time (Zhou Wa, 2005:82).

During the period of 1960s-1980s, the multicultural thoughts and civil rights movement awoke the public to civil rights, and asked for a more opening attitude towards linguistic diversity. At that time, there were 40 schools practicing bilingual education in the U.S. and about 200-300 thousand students received bilingual education. Until 1980, more than 200 projects had received about 300 million dollars from Bilingual Education Act (Zhou Wa, 2005:84). According to Bilingual Education Act, schools were required to use minority students’ native languages in class at the first few years, and then use those languages less and less and, at the same time, increase the use of English, and finally become English-Only. Bilingual education acted as a means of transportation ferrying those non-English students to English.

After 1980s, the practice of bilingual education declined gradually. With the issue of No Child Left Behind in 2002, the Bilingual Education Act, which guaranteed the lawful status of bilingual education, was abolished and bilingual education came to an end. It was the result of many intricate factors such as the unsatisfying outcome of bilingual education policy itself, and social and political influence.

The controversy over the advantages and disadvantages of the bilingual education has existed in the United States for a long time. Proponents argued that the maintenance of original language is helpful for developing awareness of identity. However, opponents thought it is harmful and would keep immigrants away from the mainstream society and make them lose the confidence of mastering English. In the 34 years of existence of the bilingual education, it, in fact, was attacked continuously. Part of the reason was regarded as the protection for work and territory because opponents thought that only minority communities can introduce and manage bilingual education project (Liu Yanfen amp; Zhou Yuzhong, 2007：17). The political decision about bilingual education tended to confine bilingual education to disadvantaged students and schools. However, it was not enough to make up the government’s years of ignorance of poverty and crime by developing bilingual education. At the same time, in the eyes of many Americans, teaching any foreign language in elementary and secondary school would reduce the time for teaching English and influence the status of English.

3.2 Official English Campaign

The English-Only idea has been existed in the U.S. since its independence and showed itself differently in different time. From 1789 to 1890, many states in U.S. tried to prevent the prevailing German from spreading massively and to enhance the status of English by legislation. In American Westward Movement in the 18^th and 19^th century, the U.S. focused its attention on restricting the use of the languages of American Indian and immigrants. In the whole process of Westward Movement, American government procured vast land from Spanish, Mexico and Russia. Although people living in those regions spoke languages other than English, the language used in school there was English. English official campaign is divided into two phases, English-Only movement and anti-bilingual education. The former aims to make English American official language, and the latter to abolish The Bilingual Education Act passed in 1968 (Cai Yongliang amp; He Shaobin, 2010:215).

3.2.1 The English-Only Movement

In 1981, Samuel Ichiyé Hayakawa, a Japanese American Senator from California, brought forth The English Language Amendment with the intention to make English the official language, which marked the beginning of the English-Only movement. He came up with that with 3 reasons. Firstly, a common language can unify a society and a nation without a common language will disunite eventually. Secondly, learning English is the necessary course for every immigrant. Thirdly, an immigrant can participate in democratic activities only when they can comprehend English. The proposal was not passed but it brought about massive influence. Three years later, Senator Walter Huddleston drafted a similar proposal which gained the attention of the Senate and was put on the agenda for consideration.

Later, together with John Tanton, Samuel set up an institution called U.S. English to continue the campaign, which brought the English-Only movement to its climax. The object of U.S. English was to exclude other languages, to use English only and to make English the official language of the United States by legislation. U.S. English gained much support and many famous people joined the organization, including the former president Richard Nixon, Nobel Prize winner Saul Bellow, film star Arnold Schwarzenegger and so on. With their join, the organization’s influence was much increased. From 1981 to 1995, the congress received 14 proposals to make English the official language of the United States. Although none of them has come to congressional vote, the campaign gained remarkable support on the state level. The persistent English-Only movement, still unable to achieve its final goal of a constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the USA, has successfully led to the adoption of English-Only or official English measures by 23 states during the past two decades. Moreover, in recent years, several states have passed ballot initiatives that impose English-Only instruction and substantially restrict bilingual education, including California (Preposition 227), Arizona (Preposition 203) and Massachusetts (Question 2). Although several state congresses refused to consent to bills making English the official language of their states, the suggestion met with general applause (Huntington, 2010: 120).

3.2.2 Anti-bilingual Education

There were two phases for anti-bilingual education. The first was the Americanization campaign in the early 20^th century, the second the pass of Preposition 227, Preposition 203 and The English Acquisition Act, which ended Bilingual Education Act (Cai Yongliang amp; He Shaobin, 2010:238).

Americanization campaign was a social movement that aimed at promoting the integration of new immigrants and the aboriginal inhabitants into American mainstream society. One of the activities was the advocacy of English-Only education and the opposition of the education of other languages. The objective of Americanization was to drive minorities to give up their own languages and culture. American mainstream language is English, mainstream culture, according to melting pot theory, Anglo-Saxon culture. The essence of Americanization is the consolidation of the status of American mainstream culture by English-Only education. At that time, besides ordinary American, officers from American high levels also called for English-Only education. Former American president Theodore Roosevelt once said in public: “America has one flag, one language”. Some states also started to object languages of minorities. Up to 1920s, 34 states made English as the main instruction language by legislation. From 1900s to the early 21st century, there were several symbolic occasions in the process of anti-bilingual education, i.e. the pass of Preposition 227, Preposition 203 and The English Acquisition Act. The former two bills indicated that bilingual education was illegal in California and Arizona.

In the 20^th century, the appearance of bilingual education and English official movement was primarily the result of the existence of many languages, the influence of civil rights movement in 1960s, the challenge of multiculturalism, English-centrism and the convergence of Anglo-Saxon culture (Zhou Yuzhong, 2011:109).

The subject of American bilingual education was principally those students who emigrated from other countries and had limited ability in English. Because of their limited proficiency in English, many of them would drop out. People in education sphere wanted to help them by bilingual education. However, opinions on bilingual education vary greatly. Some experts think that the aim of bilingual education is to help those students having limited ability in English and to solve problems related to them in education. Others think languages of minorities should be protected and developed as resources in bilingual education, whereas politicians think that it is predominant to help minority students’ transfer to English and Anglo-Saxon culture from the language and culture of their motherland. Therefore, bilingual education, in fact, is a transitional education policy or an Anglo-Saxon policy to a large extent. It means that immigrants use English as their second language, then as first language, and finally their only language. The ultimate objective of bilingual education is to help minority students finally transfer to American mainstream language-English, not to cultivate talents who master two languages and two cultures. In a word, the ultimate purpose of American language policy is still to “maintain the central status of English and to repel the use of other languages in order to guarantee the unity of American culture” (Cai Yongliang, 2007:59).

3.3 Attentions to Foreign Language Education in the 21st Century

After the arrival of the 21st century, especially the 9.11 incident，American foreign language education faced big challenges and has been associated with national security. After the 9.11 incident, the U.S. government realized the close relationship between the foreign language education and national security, and has issued a series of national policies to improve the national foreign language level in recent years (Dong Hailin amp; Wang Xiaoling, 2010:170). Officers, from Department of Education, the State Department, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency and institutions concerned with education at state level, cooperated and sped up the pace of reform, from foreign language strategy planning to foreign language teaching class reform, with the anticipation to change the condition of foreign language education, and to improve foreign language education policy in order to face the challenges brought by globalization.

In 2004, at the National Language Conference held in University of Maryland, linguists, business leaders, scholars and officers from education department at federal and state level, probed into national language needs and put forward some solutions to solve the language shortage in foreign affairs, national security, economy and education. Shortly after the conference, in 2005, Department of Defense published Language Reform Route Chart, which strategically schemed and arranged the operation to improve foreign language ability of officers and soldiers of Department of Defense in the future.

In January 2005, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) held a national policy summit, called America Action Plan, which gave priority for development to foreign language education and international education. The main achievement made in this summit was the establishment of Chinese flagship program, a coherent learning plan from elementary school to university. Then following this model an Arabic learning plan was set up.

In May 2006, University Presidents Summit on International Education was held in State Department building. Participants were not just only those 100 university presidents from 50 states, but also the president of the United States, ministers of Department of Education, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, and the chairman of foreign affair committee of the Senate. At this conference, National Security Language Initiative was initiated, in which it is encouraged to learn those key languages needed by the states, i.e. Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Hindi, Japanese, Persian and Turkish. Then the federal government of the States officially promulgated the “National Security Language Action Plan”, supporting and funding the foreign language education from kindergarten to university, vigorously promoting the improvement of the foreign language teachers, and the developing and training of teachers having a high proficiency in those key languages. By 2007, the key languages selected have extended to Urdu, Tajik, and Punjabi and so on (Jia Aiwu, 2007:14).

4. Implications for Language Education in China

In the globalization age, the formulation of a country’s language education policy is gradually influenced and decided by more and more factors. Now, it is widely accepted that we must make more efforts to create our own education system instead of solely borrowing experience from others and we have to take the unique situation in China into consideration. However, there is no doubt that we can get useful reference from American language policy. It has brought about many benefits to the U.S. through its history. For example, the limitation on the use of other languages unified the country to some degree. At the same time, after the examination of American language policy, it is not difficult to notice that it is not fixed but changes from time to time owing to social and political influences. In the past ten years, the U.S. government has made every effort to improve the education of foreign languages from a national strategic perspective. These are good practices for reference for language education in China.

4.1 Enhancing Chinese Education and Improving the Awareness of Mother Tongue

English education has been accorded much importance in China in the last quarter. It is becoming more and more popular in China. At the same time, the ignorance of mother tongue is also becoming more and more serious. In university, students are busy in taking English exams while few spend time improving their Chinese. There is a saying in Internet, “College English Test band six, however, elementary Chinese”, which reflects the fact that Chinese pay too much attention to English and even ignore our mother tongue. Chinese, our mother tongue, conveys thousands of years of civilization and culture of China, and age-old traditions. However, nowadays, many Chinese, especially some students, treat Chinese with little attention, thinking that we can acquire Chinese without learning it. Therefore, the question of how to continue and develop Chinese learning worries more and more people.

Mother tongue education is the foundation of each country’s language education policy. Only on the condition that the mother tongue education is guaranteed can minority language education policy and foreign language policy be fully developed and implemented. Otherwise, it is just to put the cart before the horse. In the U.S., the work to develop and save minority languages and other foreign languages is operated after English education is ensured. Mother tongue education is the basis for national security and it is meaningless to develop foreign language education and minority language education without national security.

The mutual understanding among nations plays a vital role in national security. Therefore, it is necessary to enhance the Chinese education in foreign language education in China. Foreign language learners have the access to learn and appreciate the splendid culture of other countries. However, more importantly, they must cherish and spread the Chinese language and Chinese culture to the world (Dong Hailin amp; Wang Xiaoling, 2010:171). China needs to maintain its distinct language and culture and to avoid the danger of being assimilated. Chinese education is the most foundational means to maintain the Chinese language and Chinese culture.

4.2 Implementing Bilingual Education Properly

In China, bilingual education usually refers to the use of English as media to teach non-linguistic subjects such as math, history, physics, etc. At present, we use English as instruction language with the intention to improve students’ English proficiency, to help them master both English and Chinese, not to force them to give up their mother tongue or first language. So we not only allow students to use Chinese, but also encourage them to improve their Chinese continuously proficiency.

There are some differences in goal and nature between bilingual education in China and in the United States. Firstly, American practice of bilingual education is not only to cultivate bilingual talents and to achieve a common language, but mostly to assimilate minorities and to maintain mainstream culture and a harmonious society. However, in China implementing bilingual education is to meet the needs of our country and students themselves for further development. Secondly, in the USA, there are additional bilingual education and substitutive bilingual education. The former is practiced in American Indian regions, the latter in school having lots of immigrated students, in which students finally master English and seldom use their mother tongue in order to be integrated into American society quickly. However, in China, students’ linguistic competence is improved by bilingual education.

4.3 Taking an Overall View in Formulating Foreign Language Education Policy

The United States, facing the challenges of globalization, is actively changing the foreign language education policy and turning its attention to those languages favorable for American further development. Owing to the needs of anti-terrorism and economic competition, in foreign language education and research, the U.S. has turned away from European languages to Asian ones, which is indicated in the key language plan (Liu Meilan, 2012:15). Similarly, the scarcity of languages in foreign language education would be unfavorable for Chinese economic development, political and cultural security.

What’s more, in minority regions, foreign language education will be of significance. China’s major minority groups such as Tibetan, Uygur, Mongolian, etc. primarily live in border areas. They have more opportunity to communicate directly with neighboring countries and regions, in many areas such as trade, culture, education as well as their daily life. It would be helpful in communication between China and those countries, if they could speak the language of their neighboring countries (Dong Hailin amp; Wang Xiaoling, 2010:171). At present, terrorism has increasingly become a thorny problem worldwide. For people living in the border regions, the master of a foreign language is of strategic significance.

5. Conclusion

Language education policy, an important part of national language policy, has increasingly become a significant part of national development plan. Language education is also the basis of the whole education system. At present, China’s research on language policy and language planning lacks the awareness of globalization and international perspective. China’s language strategy research, especially foreign language strategy research, falls far behind the current condition. This situation would lead to our country’s disadvantaged position in globalization competition.

After the arrival of the 21st century, worldwide cultural and ethnic conflict forces us to rethink the integration of nations and language education policy. China and the United States, different in the past and the current situation, are in the same world and are facing the challenge of creating a better environment for each country’s further development. In the formulation and implementation of American historically continuous language policy, especially the formulation of foreign language education policy, the United States has taken into consideration national security, persistent prosperity of the United States and national stability. In fact, many countries’ language policies have involved the consideration in the overall situation, including politics, economy, military, culture and foreign affairs. The formulation of China’s language education policy should meet our country’s needs for development and, at the same time, adapt to current situations. The United States, where the pragmatism counts a lot, is a good example in this aspect. Only on the condition that we actively learn lessons from other countries and promptly adjust China’s specific policy according to situation, can we catch up with the world trend and realize the China Dream.

Works Cited

[1] Crawford, James. “Bilingual Education: Language, Learning, and Politics.” Education Week: 1987(4):19-50.

[2] Dong Hailin., and Wang Xiaoling. “A Comparative Study on the Foreign Language Education Policies of China and Other Countries.” Canadian Social Science: 2010(6): 168-72.

[3] Hsu, Wenhsien. “A Critical Examination of Language Policy and Language Planning in the United States.” Journal of National Taiwan university: 2007(17): 219-47.

[4] McKay, S.L., and N.H. Hornberger. Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.

[5] Ruiz, Richard. “Orientation in Language Planning.” National Association for Bilingual Educational Journal: 1984(8)：15-34.

[6] 蔡永良，何绍斌. 《美利坚文明》. 上海：上海三联书店，2010.

[7] 蔡永良.《美国的语言教育与语言政策》. 上海：上海三联书店，2007.

[8] 蔡永良. 《论美国的语言政策》. 江苏社会科学， 2002（5）：194-202.

[9] 亨廷顿·塞缪尔. 《谁是美国人——美国国民特性面临的挑战》. 北京：新华出版社，2010.

[10] 贾爱武. 《以国家安全为取向的美国外语教育政策》. 比较教育研究， 2007（4）：13-18.

[11] 刘美兰. 《新世纪美国外语教育改革动向及其对中国的启示》. 教学月刊•中学版（教学管理），2012（10）：12-16.

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：38164字