Should Programming Languages Hang On English?
An argument and personal research agenda for culturally sustaining programming
Ryan Enser enser@buffalo.edu
Background
Most popular computer programming languages are derived
from the natural language of English, which creates a barrier
to learning computer programming languages for 90% of the
world.
• English is spoken natively by only about 400,000,000 people,
less than 10% of the global population (Lingoda, 2021; TIOBE
Software BV, 2021).
• Linguists have determined that no natural language is superior
to any other for communicative purposes, including computer
programming (Dixon, 2016; Flores & Rosa, 2015).
Exclusion
Historical and Sociolinguistic factors explain English’s
exclusive role as the source language for nearly all
programming languages.
Historically, software engineering began and continues to be
conducted in English-speaking parts of the world.
• North America only contains about 6.5% of the global
population, but commands 40% of the global information
technology market (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2021).
Sociolinguistically, the English language could be used by
software engineers to empower English speakers and
disenfranchise others, like it is used in education.
• Nelson Flores has written extensively on raciolinguistic
ideologies that exclude minoritized Americans from educational
opportunities based on racial and linguistic variation (Flores,
2020; Flores & Rosa, 2015).
• Within schools, efforts to decenter the dominant English variety
in the United States have been met with fierce resistance from
educators, as well (Metz, 2017).
Comparison of English speakers
and all other language speakers
Culturally Sustaining Programming
To empower native language programmers to develop their
own programming languages, culturally sustaining
pedagogies, an approach from the field of education
principally developed by Django Paris (2017) and rooted in
Gloria Ladson-Billings work (1995), could be adapted for
software engineering as culturally sustaining programming.
• The concept flows from the intersection of software
development and cultural pluralism where the plurality of
cultures and languages of programmers is an asset.
• Native language software engineers can develop programming
languages from their own native languages and educate the
next generation of native language software engineers with
Kafai and Proctors’ (2021) computational literacies model.
Representation of United States
disproportionate share of the information
technology market
Affordances
Culturally sustaining programming affords many benefits for
languages and cultures traditionally excluded from
programming.
• The field of computer programming would be open to many
more aspirants who are ready to participate given the
opportunity (Scott et al., 2015).
• Native language programmers could develop new native
language software engineering industries to benefit their
linguistic group.
• Native language derived programming languages would
become linguistic and cultural assets of the linguistic group.
• For example, an Arabic-derived programming
language would surely strengthen the linguistic and
cultural identity of Arab speakers.
Research Questions
To develop the concept of culturally sustaining programming,
many research questions need to be asked including:
1. What kinds of support do non-English speakers need for
developing programming languages in their native languages?
2. What educational infrastructure is already in place to facilitate
native language programming language development?
3. How can theoretical models of power, agency, and
computational literacies be used to support native language
language programming development?
Link to full text:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GL6ivEq_tR1erJXZzKOswk
qqqBlbj6rGkjo00iaO3Ug/edit?usp=sharing
Department of Learning and Instruction
Graduate School of Education
ed.buffalo.edu
References
1. Dixon, R.M. (2016). Are some languages better than others?
Oxford University Press.
2. Flores, N. (2020). From academic language to language
architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in research and
practice. Theory into practice, 59(1), 22-31.
3. Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing Appropriateness:
Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education.
Harvard educational review, 85(2), 149-171.
4. Kafai, Y. B., & Proctor, C. (2021). A Revaluation of Computational
Thinking in K–12 Education: Moving Toward Computational
Literacies. Educational researcher, 0013189X211057904.
5. Lingoda. (2021). What are the main English speaking countries?
Retrieved November 29, 2021 from
https://www.lingoda.com/en/content/english-speaking-countries/
6. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant
pedagogy. American educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
7. Metz, M. (2017). Addressing English teachers’ concerns about
decentering Standard English. English Teaching: Practice & Critique,
16, 00-00.
8. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies:
Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers
College Press.
9. Ruby, I., & David, S. (2016). Natural-Language Neutrality in
Programming Languages: Bridging the Knowledge Divide in
Software Engineering. In P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou, Learning and
Collaboration Technologies Cham.
10. Scott, K. A., Sheridan, K. M., & Clark, K. (2015). Culturally
responsive computing: A theory revisited. Learning, Media and
Technology, 40(4), 412-436.
11. TIOBE Software BV. (2021). TIOBE index for November 2021.
Retrieved November 29, 2021 from https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-
index/
12. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2021). Select USA: Software
and Information Technology Spotlight.