In recent years several attempts have been made within Congress to make English the official language of the United States federal government. Many Congressmen have argued that it will promote 'unity in diversity,' it will help bring together Americans across linguistic lines. It has also been said that it would prevent discrimination and repression against minority language speakers and also promote cooperation among individuals of different backgrounds across the country. These are several ideals which I, and I'm sure many of you, associate with Hayakawa's work. Despite that, it still came as a bit of a surprise to me to find that Hayakawa himself was the first to propose an "English Language Amendment" to the Constitution which would declare English our nation's official language. The amendment was defeated when he attempted to implement it, and has been rejected time and time again since then. Similar measures have had success on the state level with over half of the states having declared English as their official language.
I agree with many of the arguments supporting this measure, as for example there are on a local level people who cannot speak English and they often encounter a great deal of difficulty in their day-to-day life. Anyone who lives in this country and cannot speak English will have difficulty getting a job, getting an education, or even doing something as trivial as asking someone in the street for directions. It is a clear detriment for them to be unable to communicate with such a large portion of our populace. I think that the government should indeed support education programs which assist immigrants and other individuals learn to understand, speak, and read English.
On the other hand, at this time I feel that a piece of legislation declaring English our national language would be discriminatory in and of itself. All proceedings involving the government would need to be carried out in English. It would be a major step against the principles of equality and universal acceptance around which our country is founded. Speakers of minority languages would not be able to participate in our government, nor would they be able to participate in legal processes. All of these proceedings would need to be in English. Is it fair that a new resident of this country who cannot speak English yet should not be able to vote, not be able file an income tax return, or even be able to respond to charges brought against them? What happens when an individual who cannot speak English is brought into a courtroom where it is the only language accepted, how could they defend themselves? It seems ridiculous that our government would consider enacting legislation that is so potentially harmful to so many of it citizens.
Some may argue that making English our official language would give them a greater incentive to learn the language. That if we accommodate other languages they would have no reason to learn English. That simply seems ridiculous to me, of course they will try to learn English. They are at such a disadvantage every day if they don't, why wouldn't they? The only reason I can think of is that they do not have the time or the means by which to educate themselves. That is why I believe the government should provide them with a means by which to learn English and possibly a different incentive. However, making English the only language accepted by our government would be such a drastic move it would do more harm than good to America's minority groups. Making English our national language needlessly limits the liberty of all those who cannot speak it. Agree? Disagree?
(Connor Tweardy)
11 comments:
Making English the "official" language is only a symbolic gesture and has little real world meaning.
Even if we made English the "official" language, very little would change. English already is the most common language spoken and already is used in government and law offices. The government already offers educational programs to aid those who are not proficient in English. It is not as if making English official will suddenly motivate huge numbers of non-English speakers to learn English because non-English speakers are already motivated to learn English.
To summarize, in today's society, English is the de facto official language. Most Americans already know it, and those who do not wish to learn it. The government already provides support for educational programs to teach others English.
Then why is there such an uproar over this issue, if English already pretty much is "official"? Some Americans feel that designating English as the official language is a symbol of national unity that strengthens us. However, we already know from Hayakawa's work that a symbol of national unity is different than the actual thing. Declaring English to be official may or may not strengthen national unity, as many would be offended by this act. As Connor said, many might feel that America would be showing a less-than-100% acceptance of minorities if it designated English has official.
Besides, there is only so much that this democratic government can do to teach others a new language, even if that language is mandated by law. It is better to let the laws of natural semantics, not Congress, dictate what the "official language" should be. America has done just fine for the past hundreds of years without an "official" language. There is no pressing need to institute one now.
(Eric Wei)
I feel that an act of making English the "official" language is a fruitless venture. Whether it is "official" or not would not change how or where it is spoken. English is already spoken in the courts and government, and the issues of not being able to speak it are alleviated by translators. The people who have English as a second language will speak their first language if possible either way, and either way would still have an incentive to learn English in order to operate at their highest capacity in our society.
This is basically agreeing with what Eric has said, summarily, "What's the point?" A national language might be more useful in countries in places such as Europe, where multiple cultures different kinds of government and societies are all in close proximity. The non-English speakers in the U.S. are a small minority, and this makes having an official language a non-issue. In a country in central Europe for example, you could have English, German, and numerous other languages all being spoken by equally large segments of society, and a national language would make sense for expediency.
Steve Szumski
I agree that there is no need to institute a national language. As Eric said, very little would change if English was made the "official" language of the United States. Most Americans can at the very least understand simple English. I agree with Connor that declaring English the national language of the US would be discriminatory towards immigrants/minorities in and of itself.
(Janet Lee)
I have to agree with all of the comments posted so far.
In many languages, people end up creating their own subsections of that language anyway, making short cuts, even new words to convey what they mean. I just think that there's not much a point in making a language official.
The discussion on this topic reminds me a little bit of the idea of adding a word to a language arbitrarily-- it probably won't catch on, and therefore won't make much a difference in the language. Adding an amendment to the Constitution making English the official language probably won't make much of a difference, as many of you have already mentioned, because those not motivated to learn English will probably not be much more motivated, and those motivated to learn English will already be in the process. I think the difference would be "punishment", in a way, of those who don't choose to learn English, and an expectation (as opposed to a "reward") for everyone else. Would the goal of making a national language be to punish?
On the other hand, a national language would be beneficial because it would possibly become a symbol of national unity. Yes, it's only a symbol, but, again, many people don't have the knowledge of Hayakawa's book that we do and would not think in terms of separating the symbol from that which is being symbolized. But (I know I'm contradicting myself), it might make minorities bitter and the US could possibly lose part of its historical identity as the "melting pot."
(Emily T.)
On a more practical note, here's a quick question/scenario. The DMV has both a written and an oral knowledge test (you must take both). The written exam is available in Albanian, Arabic, Bosnian, Cambodian, Chinese, English, Farsi, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Korean, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Somalian, Spanish, Turkish and Vietnamese.(http://ct.gov/dmv/cwp/view.asp?a=805&q=318042) The oral exam is only given in English.
So, if most of you have agreed that English should not be the national language, should we expand government forms/proceedings to further accommodate non-English speakers?
English may be the official recognized language, but one must still make the conscious choice to learn it. Yes, proficiency in it allows for an easier life, and this is probably why somewhere around 95% of Americans can speak English.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the movement behind instating English as a national language is both symbolic and economic. Just as Grace mentioned briefly, the U.S. government must translate many forms, documents, and speeches etc. into various different languages in order to accommodate minority groups.
I'm very on the fence about this subject. English as a Second Language courses drain school budgets dry. Enrichment programs, extracirricular activities, and sports teams suffer in order to provide minority students the opportunity to learn English. Some prison systems require inmates to take ESL until they have the competence of an 8th grade student. Hospitals must provide translators for non-English speaking patients from the moment they are touched by staff until they are discharged. The government, local to federal, and healthcare providers are spending large sums of money on teaching and assisting non-English speakers. Imagine how much the government would be spending if they had to teach ALL non-English speakers English.
If English is the national language of the United States, should pity be given those who can't speak it? If everyone has the same expectations to meet and has access to the resources necessary to meet them, it shouldn't matter what a person's first language is. Translators, bilingual texts, and things of that nature would not be necessary.
I think it all comes down to what will cost more: translation or education?
(Megan West)
Although I do agree that making English the official language of the United States is somewhat unnecessary, I can't help but contemplate the flip side of the coin, just for experimental purposes.
Because English is NOT the nation's official language, don't people have the right to abuse the current system? Take this excerpt, for example:
"After the marijuana was discovered, Officer Danner testified that Defendant appeared to have difficulty understanding English. As a result of Defendant's changed demeanor, Dana Mitchell, a Spanish- speaking officer, was called to the scene to assist. Upon arriving at Defendant's home, Officer Mitchell indicated that based on a previous encounter with Defendant, he believed Defendant could speak English and did not need an interpreter. 1 Nevertheless, prompted by the other officers, Mitchell read Defendant his Miranda rights in Spanish." (U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
[Found at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=976264]
Another thing about translation is this: No two languages can convey identical thoughts when spoken or written. In fact, this proves to be an impossible feat, even in English, because according to Hayakawa, no two contexts are ever completely the same. How can the jury in a court be sure that a translator is truly conveying the correct points to the defendent and vice versa? A translator for the translator seems rather excessive.
Even at beauty pageants, translators generally do a lousy job of restating the contestant's answer as eloquently as it had been in the native tongue.
How do you all feel about this?
(Sam Maliha)
One thing I must disagree with in your essay is the idea that those who can not speak English are at a severe disadvantage. I would argue that you think this to be true because we live in New Jersey which has a large English speaking population. But, if you were to travel south to Texas, you would find that in some areas there are more people who speak Spanish than English. Spanish is everywhere! You'll notice more and more that things are written in both Spanish and English. You can't go on a plane these days without the safety instructions being mandated in both languages. The truth is, although learning Enlish is certaintly helpful, it is not necessary for Spanish speaking Americans.
And why is that? It's because we cater to their needs. We MAKE IT POSSIBLE to get by without knowing English. The truth is it's unfair. Your parents, grandparents, etc. who immigrated to America HAD to learn Enlish. Even today, those who come from other countries that do not speak Spanish have to learn the English language. I believe that America is, in many respects, too accomadating and too understanding. We may not need to make English the "official" language, but we definately need to enforce English more strongly.
(Kevin Trainer)
Post a Comment