**[PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL INNOVATION REFORM]{.underline}**

**PRESERVING A NATIONAL RESOURCE:**

**Retaining Second Language Proficiency and Improving**

**the U.S. Innovation System**

Dr. Ronald E. Stoltz

Sandia National Laboratories

P.O. Box 969

Livermore, California 94551-0969

(925)-294-2162

\(925\) 294-3697 fax

<restolt@sandia.gov>

revised

October 15, 1999

[Introduction]{.underline}

Improvements in the U.S. national innovation can come from many
quarters, but the most helpful may come from first asking how the
international innovation system impacts the United States. Many
statistics have been collected to highlight the global nature of trade
in ideas, products and services: the percentage of national economies
derived from international trade; the number of foreign patents files in
host countries (especially between the U.S., Europe, and Japan); cross
border siting of research laboratories; and the number of foreign
graduate students in many developed and developing countries.

While the internationalization of innovation is apparent, a strong trend
has emerged that will increasingly work to the disadvantage of the
United States. While ideas, inventions and market opportunities are
generated in a wide variety of languages, the majority of Americans are
proficient in English only. But not all Americans: in 1997, 28.5 million
persons in the U.S. were foreign born \[1\]. Moreover, a 1993 estimate
places the number of students ages 5-17 who spoke a language other than
English at home (the Language Minority) at 6.3 million \[2\]. This
portion of our population reflects a pipeline of potential contributors
to the U.S. innovation effort which already have foreign language
abilities at some level.

This white paper treats foreign language proficiency among the U.S.
population as a resource to be utilized in the national innovation
system. The summary proceeds in three parts: a description of the
language resource, an overview of the globalization of innovation and,
lastly, recommendations to exploit this resource.

[Foreign Language Proficiency]{.underline}

Census Bureau studies indicate that in 1997 almost 10% of the U.S.
population were foreign born. While many of these Americans came from
English speaking countries or have been in the U.S. for long enough that
their sole language is now English, it does point out a potential
segment who have familiarity and knowledge of foreign languages and
cultures. Of course, many native born Americans speak English plus
second and third languages by virtue of their family, schooling, or
employment experiences.

Linked to the policy suggestions of this white paper is a more important
and relevant statistic: the size of the school age population in the
Language Minority (LM). The estimate given above, of 6.3 million in
1993, is certainly higher today. Research on the growth rates in the
population of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students, which scales
with the LM population, ranges from 3% to 10% per year.

This aggregate number hides the richness of the language resource. While
three quarters of the Language Minority students speak Spanish, other
languages important to evolving global markets and innovation centers
include Cantonese, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Mandarin, and Hindi \[3\]
(see table 1).

[Globalization of Innovation]{.underline}

Two statistics, which exemplify the broadening of the world\'s
innovation system, are the number of cross border patent filings and the
international investment in R&D. While the U.S. is a major focus for
both patent applications and research, new players are emerging and net
flows are changing.

Statistics from the U.S. Patent office for 1998 indicate that foreign
patents accounted for 44.4% of all those issued. While Japan remains the
major source of for foreign inventors, data for the period 1997-1998
showed that South Korea, Taiwan and the Netherlands significantly
expanded their patent filings \[4\] (see table 2).

Paralleling foreign patent filings in the U.S., many other countries
have a large portion of their patent activity in the hands of
nonresidents. Among the larger proportions of nonresident patent
applications are 85% in Italy, 80% in France and 75% in Australia \[5\].

Investment by industries in R&D has also become significantly more
global. Since 1985, U.S. R&D performed overseas has increased annually.
Moreover, from 1985 to 1995, the increase in overseas research efforts
by U.S. firms (10.1%) far exceeded the increase in domestic R&D at 3.4%.
At the same time, aggregate R&D funding by foreign companies in the U.S.
now exceeds U.S. investment abroad. Net inflows for 1994 were \$12.7
billion while outflows totaled \$11.5 billion \[6\]. The conclusion to
be drawn is that while the U.S. remains the leader in R&D, the U.S. does
significant harvesting of research and innovation ideas in other
countries. Also, since the majority of staff in foreign R&D facilities
in the U.S. are Americans, there is great opportunity to gather
information and feed that information back into the U.S. innovation
system. Having proficiency in the relevant foreign language would
accelerate this feedback.

[Encouraging and exploiting second language proficiency]{.underline}

Many groups and organizations have recognized the need and the national
resource in foreign language ability. Two such organizations, the
National Foreign Language Center [www.nflc.org](http://www.nflc.org/)
and the Center for Applied Linguistics
[www.cal.org](http://www.cal.org/) are at the forefront in articulating
the need. At the federal level the most active agencies are the DoD and
other organizations where intelligence data and translation services are
needed. Similarly, library services across the U.S. government have
highlighted the need for two-way language capabilities.

Relatively little emphasis has been placed, however, on linking foreign
language ability directly with innovation. Further narrowing the focus,
the embedded resource in the school age population with foreign language
abilities has not been explicitly linked with science and technology and
potential invention and innovation. The following suggestions target the
K-12, university and graduate communities. They are not a comprehensive
set of suggestions, but intended to stimulate further discussion and
exploration.

*K-12: validating second language abilities through the science
curriculum.* In the rush to move non-English speaking students to full
English proficiency the tendency is to ignore or \"over write\" heritage
language ability. A possible federal role is in the development of
curricular materials where a side-by-side approach is take. Specific
point examples would be Science or Inventor Fairs where students are
encouraged to describe their project or invention in both English and
other languages. With older students, exploration of the history of
inventions made in other countries would serve to validate both language
and cultural pride among these students. For those students who come
from regions of the world without a strong legacy of technology or
innovation, a linguistic-based program could be utilized. Many languages
have had to devise creative means for describing modern inventions. A
program entitled \"How do you say it in ....?\", would link language,
invention and culture in a way that could lead to greater innovative
insight by the student.

*University: deepening the understanding of global science and
technology.* At the university level, students could continue their
emphasis of historical contribution in their second language country
(both native and learned languages) by analyzing scientific source
documents in their original text. Federal grants that combine science,
engineering and foreign language department programs would serve to
support this linkage.

*Graduate and postgraduate: global innovation.* At this level, students
with multi-language proficiency can make direct contributions to U.S.
innovation through their research and publishing. Specifically, the NSF
and other agencies funding graduate research should offer fellowships
where foreign language reviews, publication and presentations are
explicitly required. Such fellowships, if sufficiently advertised and
promoted, would send a strong message through the educational ladder
that combining science, technology and foreign languages is important.

[Summary observations]{.underline}

The OSTP call for issue papers highlights the international nature of
innovation and need for policies that address the health of the U.S.
system both short and long term. Among the potential areas listed is the
\"Ability of Federal policy to address the globalization of
innovation\". This paper highlights a national resource, second language
ability among the school age population, and offers suggestions for
explicitly supporting and utilizing this resource.

[REFERENCES]{.underline}

\[1\] Diane Schmidley and Herman L. Alvarado, [Current Population
Reports, P20-507]{.underline}, U.S. Census Bureau, March, 1998.

\[2\] Paul J. Hostock and Bonnie J. Bucaro, [A Review and Analysis of
Estimates of the LEP Student Population]{.underline}, Development
Associates, 1993, p. 13.
<http://ww.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/siac/leppop.htm>

\[3\] *ibid*., Table 4, p. 24.

\[4\] Patent Trends Calendar Year 1998, [Patent Trends Pages,
1998.]{.underline}
<http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/pat_tr98.htm>

\[5\] reported in [The Global Pulse of Science]{.underline}, New York
Academy of Sciences, 1997, p.4.
<http://www.nyas.org/globalpulse/globalpulse.html>

\[6\] Science and Engineering Indicators-1998, National Science
Foundation, 1998, p. 4-50.

(tables: see next page)

[TABLES]{.underline}

**Table 1. Number of LEP Students in the Twenty Most Common**

**Language Groups-1993**

  -------------- ----------- ---------- -- -------------- ---------- -----------
  Language       No. of LEP  \% of LEP     Language       No. of LEP \% of LEP
  Groups         Students    Students      Groups         Students   Students

  Spanish        1,682,560   72.9%         Creole         20,850     0.9%
                                           (French)                  

  Vietnamese     90,922      3.9           Arabic         20,318     0.9

  Hmong          42,305      1.8           Portuguese     15,298     0.7

  Cantonese      38,693      1.7           Japanese       13,914     0.6

  Cambodian      37,742      1.6           Armenian       11,916     0.5

  Korean         36,568      1.6           Chinese        11,540     0.5

  Laotian        29,838      1.3           Mandarin       11,020     0.5

  Navajo         28,913      1.3           Farsi          8,563      0.4

  Tagalog        24,516      1.1           Hindi          7,905      0.3

  Russian        21,903      0.9           Polish         6,747      0.3
  -------------- ----------- ---------- -- -------------- ---------- -----------

**Table 2. Patents Issued by the U.S. Patent Office, 1997-98**

  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------------------
  Country                 1997 - \#        1997 to 1998 Change in \# of
                          Patents          Patents

  Japan                   24,191           +32.8%

  Germany                 7,292            +31.4%

  France                  3,202            +24.6%

  Taiwan                  2,597            +46.5%

  United Kingdom          2,904            +28.3%

  Canada                  2,817            +25.6%

  South Korea             1,965            +71.1%

  Italy                   1,417            +28.4%

  Netherlands             895              +54.4%

  Switzerland             1,179            +16.5%

  Sweden                  970              +38.8%

                                           

  United States           69,922           +29.7%

  Total                   124,146          +31.5%
  ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------------------