|
|
Post by Monkey on Feb 21, 2012 0:14:00 GMT -5
English as the Official Language: A Needless Debate
In a country where over three hundred languages are spoken (U.S. English), the desire for one unifying tongue is easy to understand. With that goal in mind, proponents have been working for decades to declare English the official language of The United States of America. Groups such as U.S. English and ProEnglish argue that having one official language will serve to protect the English language, simplify the functioning of the government, and better bring together natural born citizens and those not yet naturalized by assimilating immigrants more effectively. Anecdotal evidence, statistical data, and the likely ramifications of such a law suggest otherwise. Those considerations, compounded with our rich, 235 year-long history without an official language, support the notion that legislation to declare English as our official language is unnecessary and would have serious negative consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anne on Feb 21, 2012 0:16:19 GMT -5
I like that we're both writing about the english language in some way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkey on Feb 21, 2012 18:38:24 GMT -5
FiNaL VeRsIoN! You certainly don't have to read it, I realize now that it's not very well put together, but it's done and I'm posting it anyway.
In a country where over three hundred languages are spoken (U.S. English), the desire for one unifying tongue is easy to understand. With that goal in mind, proponents have been working for decades to declare English the official language of The United States of America. Groups such as U.S. English and ProEnglish argue that having one official language will serve to protect the English language, simplify the functioning of the government, and bring native-born citizens and those not yet naturalized together by benefiting immigrants and more effectively assimilating them. Anecdotal evidence, statistical data, and the likely ramifications of such a law, however, suggest otherwise. Those considerations, compounded with the United States’ rich, 235 year-long history without an official language, support the notion that legislation to declare English as the official language is unnecessary and would ultimately carry with it serious negative consequences.
It is important to understand what is meant when groups like ProEnglish or U.S. English talk about making English the Official Language. The ProEnglish website states, “Having English as our official language simply means that for the government to act officially, it must communicate in English. It means the language of record is the English language, and that no one has a right to demand government services in any other language.” This is supported by the definition an official language provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which defines it as “a language that has legal status in a particular legally constituted political entity such as a State or part of a State, and that serves as a language of administration.” Examples of countries with official languages include France and Turkey, where French and Turkish are the respective national tongues (Languages Across Europe). Official languages are set for a variety of reasons ranging from protecting an indigenous language, as in the case of the Maori language in New Zealand (Maori Language Act 1987), to practicality, like at the United Nations where working with all the languages spoken by its members would be a major impediment . Many other countries around the globe have declared official languages, making the U.S. stand out as part of the small minority—just eight percent of countries—without official languages (ProEnglish).
The issue was first raised at the time of the country’s founding. Figures as prominent as Benjamin Franklin were deeply concerned about the possibility that the growing German population and the proliferation of its culture and language was a threat to American ideals (Ricento 5). Despite such views, no official language was put in place at the birth of the nation. In his paper, Language Freedom and Restriction, James Crawford found that while the secretive nature of the Constitutional deliberations prevents one from knowing exactly what was discussed, the consensus among America’s founders was very likely the sentiment that dictating language and speech was undemocratic, and so the new government would go on to make many accommodations for non-English-speakers (5).
The necessity and desirability of such accommodations began being questioned more recently in the 1980s. Ricento points out that in addition to the budding official language movement, this was also a decade marked by high immigration to the U.S. Many of the new faces in the country were of Asian and Latin American decent, contrasting with the prevailing idea of traditional America in the Reagan era, and the sounds of this changing social landscape—Spanish, Korean, and Chinese, in particular—gave the English language a new symbolic status in line with what were thought by many to be quintessential American values (Ricento 1-2).
The first to introduce legislation to declare English the official language of the United States was Republican Senator from California S. I. Hayakawa in 1981 (Crawford 3), who was himself the son of emigrants from Japan (U.S. English). The Senator held a Ph.D. in English and American literature and taught English at several universities across the U.S. before being elected to the Senate in 1976 (U.S. English). During his term, Hayakawa introduced the English Language Amendment (ELA) calling for an amendment to the Constitution to proclaim English as the official language and ensuring government could not be required to use any other language (Bill Summary & Status). In support of the ELA, Senator Hayakawa said, “Language is a unifying instrument which binds people together. When people speak one language they become as one, they become a society” (U.S. English). Though the bill never made it out of the Committee on Judiciary, Senator Hayakawa continued to pursue the issue in his later ventures. After leaving government, Hayakawa joined with John Tanton to found U.S. English (Ricento). The organization describes itself as a “citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States,” and has supported efforts since 1983 to make English the official language through lobbying and garnering public support (U.S. English).
The work by U.S. English and other similar organizations made waves in the mid-1990s when official language legislation was reintroduced and brought into the limelight. H.R. 123 and H.R. 345 both called for English as the country’s official language, justifying the bills with such claims as they will “help immigrants better assimilate and take full advantage of economic and occupational opportunities in the United States” and they will be “empowered with the language skills and literacy necessary to become responsible citizens and productive workers in the United States” (Powers 1). A third bill, H.R. 739, the “Declaration of Official Language Act” was presented to congress in 1995. This bill also proclaims English the preferred language, which, according to Faith Powers in her essay English as Official Language: An Act of Unification or Segregation?, would have required English to be used in business and personal communications among citizens (2). Powers goes on to explain that the bill would have required the promotion of the English language, required its use for all governmental communications, raised English proficiency requirements for naturalization, and repealed legislation on bilingual education and bilingual voting ballots (2-3). None of these bills were passed, but similar items continued to be introduced and worked on in subsequent years. The last relatively high-profile effort to pass legislation declaring English as the official language was in 2006 and 2007 when many such pieces of legislation were introduced.
Today, in the 112th Congress, at least five bills related to English language requirements are pending (ProEnglish). In the Senate, Senator Inhofe’s English Language Unity Act of 2011 mirrors a bill of the same name in the House of Representatives, and both bills would declare English as the official language and change naturalization requirements (Federal Legislation). Additional bills in the House would repeal multilingual ballot legislation, overturn an executive order requiring the government and federal contractors to provide multilingual services, and look into the costs to the government of providing multilingual services (ProEnglish).
The issue of English as the official language has also been recently raised in other political realms. ProEnglish reports that all four current candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul, support making English the nation’s official language. During a debate in Jacksonville, Florida, former Speaker of the House Gingrich stated, “I think English should be the official language of government,” and defended earlier controversial statements in which he seemed to call the Spanish language "the language of the ghetto" by clarifying his position as, “no one should be trapped in a linguistics situation where they can't go out and get a job and they can't go out and work” (Republican Debate Transcript, Jacksonville). Clearly Mr. Gingrich shares the position held by many proponents of declaring English as the official language that it would be beneficial to immigrants.
U.S. English writes that “the passage of English as the official language will help to expand opportunities for immigrants to learn and speak English, the single greatest empowering tool that immigrants must have to succeed.” However, the basis for this major argument is that not having an official language is a hindrance to immigrants being able to successfully live in America. Ricento writes that “the entire US English approach is based on a totally false premise, i.e., that immigrants are resisting learning English” (11). It would be counterintuitive to come to a country like the United States, where English is the clearly predominant language, and not want, not hope, or not try to learn the language. There are certainly those who cannot learn English, of course. Immigrants beyond the ideal age for picking up a second language are going to have a great deal of difficulty becoming fluent, but this does not imply any resistance to learning the language of their new society. As Faith Powers observed, “it only seems natural that immigrants would want to learn to speak English and even feel pressure to do so, as it is the predominant language of the United States and is seen as a means to increase one’s social, economic, and political opportunities” (2).
In an interview during the 2006 official language debate, National Public Radio’s Weekend Edition interviewed Ms. Traci Hong, Director of Immigration Programs at the Asian-American Justice Center and an immigrant from South Korea. Hong came to the U.S. at the age of ten without speaking a word of English. When asked about the official language and strengthening efforts to encourage learning English, Hong responded, “You know, and that particular part of the debate really incensed me, because it is so contrary to every experience that I've ever had both as an immigrant myself but also as an immigration lawyer, an advocate who deals with the immigrant population” (Inskeep). In a particularly poignant quote, she tells host Steve Inskeep, “Immigrants most of all know exactly how important English is, not only to survive but to succeed in this country. And unless and until you've had a fear in the pit of your stomach, and all you're trying to do is to go into the local McDonalds and order a burger, you have no idea how important English is.” Such personal testimony leaves the belief of groups like ProEnglish that immigrant groups need more pressure to learn English looking quite implausible, particularly when statistics can be found on their own websites stating that “91% of foreign-born Latino immigrants agree that learning English is essential to succeed in the U.S.”
If an official language is not needed to encourage immigrants to acquire language skills, could it still be a benefit for the country to not have so many multilingual obligations? U.S. English insists that “it is not the responsibility of the government to provide services in the 322 different languages spoken in the United States,” and ProEnglish argues an official language would “avoid the costs, burdens, and conflicts that arise in nations like Canada or international organizations like the European Union that attempt to conduct business in more than one official language.” Indeed, it was stated earlier that it was practical for the United Nations to limit their languages and it seems plausible that the same would hold for the United States. Printing official documents and conducting business solely in a single language would almost certainly save time and money, but the other costs of such legislation would far outweigh the benefits. “Historically, where such restrictions have been implemented, they have effectively disenfranchised large numbers of immigrants from access to government services, voting, and equal educational opportunities” (Ricento 3-4). To insist the government operate only in English would effectively render the country less democratic and would be a major step back for immigrants and citizens alike who have limited English skills. American citizens who, for whatever reason, cannot speak or read English would no longer be able to make smart, informed decisions in the voting booth. Linguistic minorities denied access to ballots in their language will be less motivated to vote and less able to participate in the democratic process (Powers 3). The bilingual education programs that would have been defunded or entirely dissolved under many past attempts at official language legislation serve to more efficiently integrate immigrants into American society (Powers 3). No amount of bureaucratic simplification could make up for the devastating impact English as the official language would have on the ability of non-English speakers to be meaningful participants in U.S. society.
If the United States, however, allows non-English speakers to circumvent the linguistic core of the nation like this, is that not a direct threat to English’s historic and future predominance? The website of ProEnglish lists recognition of the historical prevalence of English and recognition of the people’s desire to preserve English as their common language among their ten reasons to make English the official language, advancing the idea that English is in need of protection in the United States. Section three of the English Language Unity Act of 2011 alters chapter six of the United States Code to read “Representatives of the Federal Government shall have an affirmative obligation to preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language of the Federal Government” (H.R.997.IH Bill Text). U.S. English goes so far as to ask, “Without a common language, how long would we remain the "United" States?”
The most obvious answer seems to be at least 235 years. Given the country’s long history with no official language, the fact that no language has ever even approached the widespread usage and supremacy of the English language, and its current status in the U.S. and worldwide, concerns about the language being threatened or in need of protection or promotion seem grossly misplaced. The 2007 American Community Survey found that the vast majority—eighty percent—of the U.S. population aged five and over spoke only English in the home. The remaining twenty percent of people fell into one of four language categories, each of which had a majority—ranging from fifty to seventy percent depending on the category—of respondents able to speak English “very well” (American Community Survey Data on Language Use). English has become a cross-cultural, global language, the language of the internet, of business, dominant around the world in an unprecedented manner (Mydans). Back home, it is easy to see that “the unchallenged dominance of English is so unquestioned, that most Americans, when asked, assume that English is already the official language” (Ricento 7). English’s proliferation throughout America, over time, and across the globe leaves little room for the idea that it is in need of protection.
English is, after all, the language Abraham Lincoln and Emily Dickinson, the Declaration of Independence and Huckleberry Finn. If it needs preservation beyond their hallowed words, if it needs protection from other languages now, despite having never been alone in the U.S., it is doubtful that declaring it the official language will change much. Non-English speaking immigrants are already under enormous pressure by American society to fit in and speak the language, a simplified bureaucracy must not come at the expense of American democratic ideals, and it is more conceivable to imagine English becoming the dominant global language than being seriously threatened at home. The fact that the framers of the Constitution did not deem English the official language does not necessarily imply never intended it to be, but the advocates at ProEnglish summed up the situation at the time well when they wrote, “The Founding Fathers did not enact English as the official language because they didn’t need to. All 55 delegates to the Convention spoke English and an overwhelming majority of the American population did as well. They just took it for granted that English was the official language and saw no need for legislation.” What they and other proponents of English as the official language fail to recognize is that not much has changed. English has always been the de facto official language of the United States and any attempt to move toward de jure is at best needless and at worst malicious.
|
|
