PREMIUM SEARCH Search by job title, geography and build a list of executive contacts
It's an old axiom that Americans are lousy at learning foreign languages. But the price of that weakness has never been so evident as it is in the wake of September 11.
According to Neil Herman, the former chief of the FBI's domestic anti-terrorism effort, Osama bin Laden's henchmen succeeded in the attacks partly because American law enforcers couldn't figure out what he and his terrorist pals were saying. As quoted in the new book, The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and the CIA Failed to Stop It, Herman (who retired from the FBI before September 11) recounts how the G-men at one point wanted to tap the phones of several Taliban officials in New York City.
The FBI couldn't do it on its own -- no translators -- so it tried to borrow some from the Pentagon, which has its own language school. Security clearances couldn't be arranged in time, so the FBI turned to the CIA. But the CIA didn't have any Middle Eastern language translators either. Small wonder incoming FBI Chief Robert Mueller put out an urgent public call last year for fluent speakers of Arabic, Farsi, and Pashto.
THE UGLY AMERICAN. It would be easy to slam federal law enforcers for dropping the ball, but the real problem runs much deeper. Over the last dozen years, English has swept the world as the lingua franca of business, as the U.S. has become increasingly dominant, both militarily and politically. Meanwhile, Americans have become even more culturally arrogant than they were in the past -- which is saying something.
With the exception of the 17.3 million U.S. citizens over age 5 whose first language is Spanish (three-quarters of whom also speak English well), the FBI's attitude pretty much mirrors the prevailing sentiment among Americans generally: "Why should I learn a foreign language? Foreigners all speak English anyway."
It's about time we put an end to that damaging bromide. Americans also need to start countering the "English first" political movement that started gaining momentum six years ago, when Newt Gingrich suggested making English the nation's official language (whatever that means). Since then, more than half the states have passed such measures, and California and Arizona have passed referendums doing away with bilingual schooling.
LOST IN TRANSLATION. In my view, it doesn't matter whether foreign languages are taught in bilingual classes or separately -- whatever works. What's important is that foreign-language instruction be valued, and that there be more of it. To the extent that these measures denigrate multilingualism, they're dangerous. That's the last thing America needs right now.
U.S. businesses learned the dangers of such myopic thinking a long time ago. It's no surprise, for instance, that AT&T's initial efforts at expanding in Europe in the early '80s didn't work out. The executives in charge not only didn't speak a foreign language but some of them didn't even have passports since they'd never been outside the country.
And the bloopers American companies committed in foreign markets are legendary. Kentucky Fried Chicken's first translation of its "Finger Lickin' Good" slogan into Chinese turned out to mean "eat your fingers off," according to Illinois-based Pacolet International Translation. And Ford had to pry the nameplates off the subcompact Pintos it introduced in Brazil when it discovered "pinto" was local slang for "small male genitals."
BIG IMPROVEMENTS. The U.S. companies came to understand from these gaffes something that law-enforcement agencies are just now facing. Learning a language isn't just about memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules, it's about coming to a deep cultural understanding as well. Corporate America has come a long way since the bad old days of the '60s, '70s, and early '80s, when Yankee arrogance overseas was palpable.
These days, no multinational would dream of introducing an important product in a major foreign market without doing its homework first. Today, most employees in foreign markets are natives who understand the nuances of the local language and culture.
The U.S., however, is probably still paying a price for its lack of linguistic sophistication. In congressional testimony last year (before the terrorist attacks), lobbyists for increased funding of foreign-language instruction cited Commerce Dept. statistics showing that 97% of U.S. export growth in the '90s came from small to midsize businesses. But the statistics also showed that only 10% of such companies were exporting their products. The most frequent reason cited by the others for not exporting was a lack of the background knowledge and language skills required to understand foreign markets.
LOCAL ADVANTAGE. The second weakness of the they-all-speak-English-anyway theory is also well-known to American business. While it's true that more people of all nationalities speak English fluently, people who speak two or more languages have the advantage. In business negotiations, a group of Swedes, say, will speak Swedish among themselves -- and negotiators on the other side will be at a disadvantage if they only speak English.
Plus, while many overseas companies have formally adopted English as their official language, that's not necessarily the local language of business. At Airbus, the big plane manufacturer that's a consortium of French, English, Spanish, and German companies, the local language is spoken on shop floors. And at executive meetings, if a majority speaks Spanish, French, or German, the meeting is held in that language. You can just imagine how monolingual American execs would fare under such a system.
This is meant in no way to equate foreign business people with terrorists. But Mohamed Atta, like the other September 11 hijackers, was able to blend in when living in Hamburg and while taking flying lessons in Florida because he was fluent in German and English, as well as being well-versed in American customs. Yet he and his fellow conspirators communicated among themselves in Arabic, not English or German. And that was enough to stymie the FBI.
TEACH THE CHILDREN. Terrorism, obviously, isn't a reason for Americans to all run out and study a foreign language. But the difficulties law enforcers are experiencing underscore the broader issue. One solution might be to start requiring foreign-language instruction in elementary school, as is common in nations like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark. In the U.S., it usually starts at age 14, which is dopey because young children can learn languages far more easily than teenagers and adults can.
Whatever specific measures the U.S. takes, the important thing is to promote a reverence for the learning of foreign languages. It shouldn't be seen as a threat to English speakers. Quite the opposite: It should be a doorway to the true benefits of globalization.
Peterson is a contributing editor at BusinessWeek Online. Follow his weekly Moveable Feast column, only on BusinessWeek Online Edited by Douglas Harbrecht
Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.
Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed.
Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video.
To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here.
Copyright 2002, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
