{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03201675643327349, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008677438659485339, 'mean_word_length': 4.793760831889082, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Martin Ridge (ed.), The new bilingualism: An American dilemma. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press and New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, Rutgers State University, 1981. Pp. 272.

MARTIN RIDGE (ed.), The new bilingualism: An American dilemma. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press and New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, Rutgers State University, 1981. Pp. 272. This book is based on the proceedings of a 1980 conference sponsored by the Center for Study of the American Experience at the University of Southern California. The organization of the book is sometimes difficult to follow. The preface contains some interesting personal comments by Ridge, followed by a list of participants in the conference. (Several individuals at the conference who were quoted in the book for some reason are not listed here.) The body of the book is divided into four parts. Part I, Preliminaries, is made up of three sections. Ridge's contribution is not preliminary at all but a critique of the conference after the fact. An essay by Doyce B. Nunis, Jr. is labeled "The Conference Paper". Stephen T. Wagner's historical paper is not identified as having special status at the conference itself, but it does merit inclusion in Part I. On the other hand, Nathan Glazer's keynote speech is relegated to Part II, with papers on bilingualism in Canada and Mexico. Part III contains selections from panel discussions, and Part IV is still another overall view by Ridge. An appendix contains copies of bilingual ballots from San Francisco. Perhaps the various parts fitted together more clearly at the meeting. In "Bilingualism and Biculturalism: A Time for Assessment," Nunis poses a question which appears to be the theme of the conference: "Should the United States become, in law and practice, a country in which two or more languages share official status and are used widely in public life, business, education, and government? Or should the primacy of English be maintained" (23)? It is restated by Ridge in briefer form and is emblazoned in full length on the cover of the book. Thereafter, the idea that another language might share official status with English in the United States is rarely mentioned, much less seriously examined. Perhaps Nunis was merely seeking a provocative question to stimulate discussion, but the other conferees seem to be quite aware of the homogenized mentality prevalent in this country. (The Reverend Frank Ponce calls it "cultural arrogance," [221].) If there were any hopes in 1980 about the government's attitude toward other languages, recent legislation declaring English to be the official language of the United States should dispel all doubts. According to Ridge, "What Nunis had in mind when he wrote his paper was the remarkable extent to which both the private and public sector make it possible for millions of Americans to live without using the English language" (18). This is a far cry from making another language official. In any case, both Nunis and Ridge convey the mistaken impression that most speakers of minority languages here are trying to displace English, whereas in fact they wish to use English while maintaining the ethnic mother tongue. Let us not forget the meaning of the word bilingualism. It is interesting how many project their own monolingual