Language devaluation
« previous post | next post »
Not long after posting my "Pushing buttons" post, I turned on NPR to listen to some of All Things Considered. There happened to be a somewhat relevant story on ("N.C. Sees Push To Register Young Latino Voters") — relevant because, as some commenters on my post pointed out (and as I also noted late last year), "It is not language per se, but its power to function as a 'proxy' for wider social issues which fans the flames of public disputes over language." (Sally Johnson, "Who's misunderstanding whom? Sociolinguistics, public debate and the media", Journal of Sociolinguistics 5.4 (2001), p. 599).
Here's the most relevant bit of the ATC story:
Dale Folwell was among several Republican state legislators up for re-election who spoke at a small rally in June, declaring illegal immigration a "major crisis."
"I can tell you that there are two things that civilizations never survive," Folwell says in a campaign ad. "That's a devaluation of their currency or a devaluation of their language. And these are two things that Americans are facing."
Putting aside the debatable presumption that English is the language of American civilization, I'm struggling to see how the use of other languages "devalues" English in any way. What exactly does Folwell mean by "language devaluation", anyway? Interestingly, the current top Google hit for {"language devaluation"} is a 1975 Time Magazine article ("CAN'T ANYONE HERE SPEAK ENGLISH?"), which is all about how English is being corrupted by its own speakers (in the classic but "turgid, self-righteous and philosophically hopeless" Orwellian sense — there's even an Orwell quote toward the end of the article) and makes no particular mention of immigration, languages other than English, and so forth. Thirty-three years later, we appear to be less worried about how language is twisted by our leaders to push people into conformity with certain political ideals (some progressives even think we should follow the lead of conservatives in doing more such "framing") and more concerned with … well, I'm not quite sure what.
This brings me to one comment on my earlier post in particular, by Timothy M:
Since I started reading Language Log, I've seen a number of contributors speaking negatively of people who think English should be made the official language of the US, or who think that signs should only have English writing on them, etc. But has anyone ever given the argument why this is bad? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't see why it would be so bad to, say, make English America's official language.
A fair point by a thoughtful reader. (And it brings to mind this LL Classic post.) I do wonder about the scope of "anyone" in the question, though: I don't think anyone on Language Log has offered any explicit arguments (note: not "the argument" — there should be more than one!), but of course relevant arguments have been made elsewhere (and as soon as I have time to collect some of the better ones, I'll post 'em — any help in this venture would be greatly appreciated, and rewarded with a free subscription to Language Log). But in the meantime, I leave Timothy M and other thoughtful readers with the following question: why would it be so good to, say, make English America's official language? Especially since this represents a change from the status quo, the burden of argumentation is more on the advocates for making English official than it is on the opponents (it seems to me).
Ryan Rosso said,
July 7, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
For:
http://www.us-english.org/
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/make-english-official/67616/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200741,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwqhL1Hsg7E
http://www.proenglish.org/issues/offeng/10reasons.htm
Against:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Jwcrawford/question.htm
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/tesol/official/
An article explaining the history of this phenomenon:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/anatomy.htm
Take this survey:
http://www.makeenglishofficial.us/
And in an odd twist, why we should ban English:
http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/officialamerican/banenglish/
In sum, I didn't find any arguments that were very convincing supporting the idea. Most of the reasons pro-English supporters cite, I think, are accomplished just as easily right now without the change. As you mentioned, since this is an attempt to change the status quo, I would expect a concrete logic as to why English-only would be so positive for this country. Anyways, I tried to find what I could.
Rubrick said,
July 8, 2008 @ 12:24 am
Leaving aside Folwell's bizarre point about language devaluation, I'd venture that most modern civilizations have survived a devaluation of their currency at some point. Germany seems pretty civilized to me, even if they still lack drinking fountains.
q said,
July 8, 2008 @ 12:53 am
Making English the official language subsidizes its use over other languages. Subsidies are justifiable if they promote an activity that has positive externalities. Language is affected by network effects, so the more people you have speaking a particular language, the more useful that language becomes; there's your positive externality. This argument works for any particular language, but English is the most sensible choice.
Of course, there could be negative consequences which may outweigh the marginal benefit from making English the official language. I mean "marginal" in the economic sense, but do note that the incentive to learn English is already pretty high.
JS Bangs said,
July 8, 2008 @ 12:58 am
Let me offer a provocative suggestion: making English the official language of the USA as a symbolic gesture, wouldn't do anyone any harm. English is the majority language, the language of government, commerce, and almost all education. Some purely symbolic piece of legislation recognizing this fact would do no harm, and might mollify some people. So let me come out and say that I'm for recognizing English as the official language.
What I'm definitely not for is eliminating ESL teaching, non-English government forms, and boycotting companies that make me press 1 for English.
Timothy M said,
July 8, 2008 @ 1:18 am
Hello again!
When I wrote "anyone" in my comment, I guess I was thinking about Language Log contributors specifically. If, as Eric Bakovic says, relevant arguments have been made elsewhere, I must admit that I have not searched them out. To be honest, this is not an issue I've ever studied, and so I do not know the arguments, nor do I have an opinion one way or the other. I don't even know what declaring an official language actually changes within a country – whether it affects policy or people's lives, or if it's just a note on a piece of paper.
But when I read a number of people saying that making English an official language of America would be a bad idea, I wondered what their reasons were. In actuality, the burden of argument fails on anyone who makes any claim whatsoever, be it a positive or a negative. If people are convinced that we should not make English an official language, there must be reasons.
dr pepper said,
July 8, 2008 @ 1:27 am
If English could survive the approximately 400 years when it was only spoken by peasants and the descendents of a shattered and displaced aristocracy, while anyone who counted spoke French and anyone with a thought to communicate wrote Latin, how in bloody hell could anything threaten it now?
Clarissa Ryan said,
July 8, 2008 @ 1:35 am
Here is the policy statement of TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, the main ESL/EFL-teaching professional organization):
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/bin.asp?CID=32&DID=4162&DOC=FILE.PDF
This paper briefly addresses the myths surrounding the notion of English-only/English as the official language.
Oskar said,
July 8, 2008 @ 2:19 am
The point is that making English the official language in the US would have no practical benefits what-so-ever, and would be entirely symbolic. The vast majority of people speak it as their first language, all schools teach it, every politician uses it, every courtroom uses it, every university, and on and on and on. It would be ludicrous to suggest that it in some way needs "protecting". This is the language of Shakespeare for Christ's sake!
That means the only function it would serve would be a symbolic one. And what does this symbolic act say? It says to people that they should forget their heritage, that their language is inherently inferior (and, by extension, they are inherently inferior for speaking it) and that the US is not a country that tolerates multi-culturalism, despite being a country that whose foundations lie in just those principles.
This is legislative intolerance, pure and simple. It's a law that is so bad, that it's gone past the point of being just a terrible idea and become simply evil.
I'm sorry for the harsh words, but no fair-minded person can possibly support this.
Austin said,
July 8, 2008 @ 3:04 am
I think it is a trivial issue to get worked up over in that legislating an official language will do very little to change the daily life of anyone.. particularly those who advocate such a thing. Going out on a limb, I tend to think that people supporting the idea are more likely to live in very homogeneous environments. They get blindsided by a foreign language every once in a while and they don't know how to react. Such people probably do not have the experience of living overseas in a non-English speaking country.
As an American living in Korea, I'll share an interesting tidbit from my daily life.
(for the purposes of this post, 'foreigner' refers largely to westerners who are English teachers. Most foreign English teachers do NOT speak Korean. Migrant workers are in a slightly different situation. As a general rule, they speak Korean reasonably well. I suspect that most of the non-English speakers in America are migrant workers)
Koreans, unlike Americans assume that foreigners cannot speak the local language. I'd be willing to bet that in the US most Americans would approach some who (sic) looked foreign in English (unless they were looking for some fun language practice) Koreans, for the most part, do the same. I mean (if they speak English) they will almost always approach me in English. There is very little EXPECTATION for foreigners to take a stab at and be fluent in Korean.
However, there is a tremendous APPRECIATION for being able to speak even a modicum of Korean. Almost all foreigners can say the basics "Hello, Thank you, Please give me a beer, Take me to ______". Any foreigner with that limited vocabulary will tell you they have been praised with "Oh WOW! You speak Korean so well!"
This gets old really quick. After living in Korea for 2 years, and working hard on my Korean, I am way beyond "Please give me a beer." While it's endearing that Korean will complement such meager efforts (on the part of probably 90%) of foreigners I really don't think I should get complimented for saying "Thank you"
Now, in America, we don't ever express this appreciation. There in an (implicit) expectation that you will speak English, and if you don't then you just may incur the FRUSTRATION of your audience.
mark (the ideophone) said,
July 8, 2008 @ 4:23 am
Mr. Dale Folwell would do well to try and integrate the wider world in his brilliant synthesis of the threats of civilization. Then he would see that heaps of civilizations get along perfectly well with a certain amount of multilingualism (which is what I take his 'devaluation of language' to mean in the original context of his quote, a rant about illegal Latino immigrants).
michael farris said,
July 8, 2008 @ 4:36 am
Isn't one problem of making English official that it would then have to be defined? (if it isn't defined, then a local government that wanted to print materials in Spanish could just call it English (for Hispanics) and who's to say otherwise?
Then, any English or specifically American English?
Would non-American spellings be allowed?
What about pronunciation and variable prosodic features?
What about variable lexicon (not to mention morphology and syntax)?
Michael said,
July 8, 2008 @ 5:31 am
For those of you how read German, you may be interested in the parallel discussion about getting a paragraph about German as official language (Statssprache) into the constitution, funnily because of the "growing influence of English". Poor English seems to be pretty endangered in its own country (according to some contributors to the American debate…)
http://www.iaas.uni-bremen.de/sprachblog/2007/03/23/alle-sprachgewalt-geht-vom-volke-aus/
http://www.iaas.uni-bremen.de/sprachblog/2007/03/26/amtssprache-deutsch/
http://www.iaas.uni-bremen.de/sprachblog/2008/07/03/deutsch-ins-grundgesetz/
James Wimberley said,
July 8, 2008 @ 6:17 am
In any practical sense English already is the official language of the United States: It's the language of the Constitution, of the laws, courts, Congress, and of public administration. A lot of stuff gets translated, and it should be more, but the English text of a document is SFIK always the authoritative one. The only purpose of a statutory declaration of even-more-officialness would be insult to minorities and immigrants.
Another thought: shouldn't ASL be declared the official Sign language at the same time, to protect deaf Americans from the threat of Mexican and British Sign Languages?
JJM said,
July 8, 2008 @ 8:50 am
"'I can tell you that there are two things that civilizations never survive,' Folwell says in a campaign ad. 'That's a devaluation of their currency or a devaluation of their language. And these are two things that Americans are facing.'"
Hmm…
Rome survived for some 1200 years or so with countless currency devaluations (and on for another thousand in its Byzantine form).
And Latin is still hanging in there quite nicely for a language that is supposed to be a "dead" one.
Jon Weinberg said,
July 8, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Proposals to make English our official language are generally accompanied by, or made with an eye to facilitating, proposals with more concrete effects: e.g., that government offices should not make forms or assistance available in languages other than English. The notion is that where English is our gosh-durned-official language, it's unnecessary and inappropriate for a DMV to have a Spanish-language driver's license application. Some say that this approach would encourage immigrants and folks here on temporary visas to learn English. Thing is, though, immigrants *already* have huge incentives to learn English, and studies show that English-language acquisition today, among immigrant first, second and third generations, is as strong as it ever was (in particular, as strong as it was in the early-twentieth-century wave when my grandparents entered the country). And the English-only approach would cut out of society anyone who happened not (yet) to have learned English (do you really want non-English speaking immigrants to drive *without* licenses, because they couldn't hack the English-language application forms?)
Lee said,
July 8, 2008 @ 9:15 am
When I have discussed this with those wanting English to be the official language of the United States, part of what they wanted from it being the official language was to have all government publications and signage printed only in English. All official business of all governments would be conducted solely in English. Some of the people I discussed this with thought that making English the official lanuage would mean not having translaters in court and not allowing police to talk to members of the public in languages other than English. They felt this was proper and right. They also thought it would free local municipalities to outlaw other languages in public.
I think that at least in some places within the United States, measures as described above, the elimination of government forms and publications in languages other than English etc. would be adopted. Many would be found unconstitutional, and a great deal of money would be wasted in litigation. Also, I can't help but think that keeping the peace would be all the more difficult if peace officers are supposed to stick to English.
I think even if such measures were not adopted, that English as the official language would itself be a clear message to all those in the Unites States that those who do not speak English are not welcome here and as such would further divide them from mainstream culture and discourage community participation.
ed said,
July 8, 2008 @ 10:12 am
What is funny, for me anyway, is that the current immigration policy requires immigrants to learn English to be citizens, but if you are born a citizen there is no requirement. So you can grow up in the US and never learn English. Perhaps we should harmonize the requirements for citizenship.
S Onosson said,
July 8, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Just a few things to mull over:
Native languages (I'm thinking especially in Alaska and Hawaii, but also elsewhere)
Spanish in Puerto Rico
French (Louisiana, and also in the northeast, I believe?)
"Pennsylvania Dutch"
What would the status of these (and probably others) be in an "English only" United States? I bring these cases up specifically because they have a linguistic history that predates English in their specific regions, AFAIK.
I'm Canadian, so I'm honestly interested in the thoughts of those who are for making English official. Both English and French have been official in Canada for most of my lifetime, and I can't say it has really had any negative effects for me. As a native English speaker, the widespread availability of French in the media is really beneficial, if you take the time to pay attention to it at all. I would think the same would be true of the growth of Spanish in many parts of the U.S. – if you are interested in learning, you have a fantastic opportunity presented to you free of charge.
Clarissa Ryan said,
July 8, 2008 @ 11:44 am
I heard that the direct link doesn't work. Sorry. I hate it when organizations do that! You should be able to get to it from this page:
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=32&DID=37
and search for English-only. If that still doesn't work, go to http://www.tesol.org/ and mouse over the News tab, then click on Position Statements.
Sorry about that!
JJM said,
July 8, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
S Onosson:
I'm Canadian too.
There's a historical difference here between ourselves and the US: we needed to recognize and accommodate the languages of the two founding communities from the very get-go. By contrast, this was never an issue for America at the time of independence; English was the language spoken, accepted and used across the Thirteen Colonies. There was no other widespread, population group of any significant size using a "competing" language at the national level.
I don't actually have much heartache with the idea of English becoming the official language of the US: there are some legal, financial and administrative efficiencies and advantages to that. Citizens should accept that, in their dealings with the government, and in its dealings with them, English will be used (this is no different from most other countries, including Canada).
What I would not like to see is the use of official language status to inhibit the freedom of people and communities to conduct their personal and business affairs amongst themselves in their own language (as unfortunately has so often become the case in Québec).
Admiral Lord Nelson said,
July 8, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
I don't like the idea of making English the official language. This is not a problem, it is just a fake 'issue' designed to appeal to the basest instincts of conservative people to get the vote out for Republicans.
Phil Duncan said,
July 8, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
On the fourth of July I went to Liberty State Park to watch the fireworks over the Statue of Liberty. English may have been the minority language in the crowd, but in that place and on that date the crowd comprised a single culture. Excuse the sentimentality, but the event had a poignancy to me that I will not soon forget. The idea that one's inability to speak the dominant language of the U.S. should be made an even greater barrier to interacting with our government repulses me. Diversity is a fundamental American ideal. Say what you will about our reactionary tendencies and our Puritanism, but I've never seen such racism and xenophobia as when I've traveled in Europe. Even after this disastrous presidency, I can still be proud of that as an American.
How could language diversity destroy our civilization, when it reflects an ideal upon which our civilization has been built? English will not be destroyed from without. It is up to its speakers to maintain it as a vital language.
Joe said,
July 8, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
It's interesting how this thought works. I have a friend who is considerably older than me and very adamantly thinks that anyone in America should speak English.
However, whenever he's overseas, he also thinks *they* should be expected to speak English, because they should expect and accommodate tourists. After all, travelers can't possibly be expected to know the language of every country they visit.
This is why I feel that it would be a good thing if America had two or more official languages, with Spanish being perhaps the most reasonable second choice.
Michael Straight said,
July 8, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
I think the desire to make English an "official" language, while partly fueled by a deplorable xenophobia, also has its roots in a couple more legitimate frustrations people are experiencing in their daily lives:
1. Many people in this country lived in areas where they could talk fluently with anyone they encountered in their daily lives. Now they are increasingly running into people who don't speak much English or speak with an accent they have trouble understanding. It's pretty disconcerting to no longer be able to take it for granted that you can communicate with anyone you're likely to meet. The fact that this kind of babel is common in most other countries might make it hard to sympathize, but doesn't make it any easier for Americans.
2. I think people are also disconcerted when businesses and governments start posting signs and publishing documents in other languages because they're used to being able to read anything they come in contact with. To suddenly be surrounded by signs that they can't read and don't understand is unsettling. It might feel like you're suddenly losing literacy. (And yes of course, it's mostly translations of things that are there in English as well, but of course a translation is never exactly the same, so there's something that you don't understand.)
3. And a related experience – if you grew up in a situation where when you were in public all you heard was English, but now, more and more when you go out you also hear people speaking in a language you don't understand, that's probably alienating. Again, this is common in most countries, and it's much harder for the immigrant struggling to learn English – as almost all of them do – but that doesn't really take away the frustration and alienation some Americans are feeling.
Now making English the "official language" would probably only really address #2 above, but I the people clamoring for it probably haven't thought it through that well. But I don't think it's all just xenophobia. I think a lot of it is just people yearning to live in a society where they can fully understand the people and the signs and other communication around them.
misterb said,
July 8, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
@JJM,
Of course, the Eastern Roman Empire survived for ~1000 years after the "official" language changed from Latin to Greek. Perhaps, one would have to use a word other than "devalue" for "replace".
In all honesty, until we know what "official" means (and there are experts in words somewhere around here), it's hard to make an argument for or against the act of making something official. If making English the official language of the US means that we put a wreath on Shakespeare's grave once a year, I'm in favor of it.
Bill Walderman said,
July 8, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Dale Folwell that we should be concerned about language devaluation. To that end, I think we should make a language that is really under threat the official language of the US. My vote is for Hopi, because then we would cease to be obsessed with deadlines and schedules–we wouldn't be able to even think about time.
Nathan said,
July 8, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
@Michael Straight: I think you have given a great explanation for what many monolingual Americans are feeling. I'm sure, though, that there is a significant Recency Illusion here. US passports, "no smoking" signs, menus, toy assembly instructions, and the like have certainly included multiple languages my entire lifetime.
But it's the proposed solution that I find so bewildering. I've always found exposure to other languages fascinating, not threatening. When I feel ignorant of something significant, I'm motivated to try to learn it. If monolingual Americans are truly "yearning to…fully understand", then they should be willing to put forth some effort.
john riemann soong said,
July 8, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
I have one automatic reflex reaction towards any "official language" policy — ugh, just ugh. My negative reaction stems from experiences with language hegemony as a Singaporean. Cultures are destroyed when official languages are set, not when they are not set. "Official languge"-setting is associated with prescriptivism, and for good reason.
Your show uses too much local creole! *fine*
You used Chinese dialects on television, rather than official Mandarin! *axe*
Of course we also have the Quebec language police, fining your business if your English labelling is more visible than your French one.
An official language has never been implemented in the US, but we can see its effects where the law implemented one all but in name — look only at the array of extinct Native American languages (e.g. in Alaska), because their use was outlawed in school and in the workplace.
Mabon said,
July 8, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
To the extent that the enactment of "Official English" laws would dampen down the opportunity to learn and be in contact with, free of charge, another language, I think it would be a great loss for us as a society to do so.
I might respect it more is if this clamor for English-only came from people who themselves were fluent in a number of languages (or even just two), and who themselves knew what kind of effort it takes to learn another language. But it seems to me that the clamor has generally arisen from people who themselves are "English-Only", and emanates mainly out of some primal Fear of the Foreign and anxiety over Loss of the Familiar, as mentioned by Michael Straight above.
Certainly people would readily realize, if they thought it through, that the ability to speak English is such a golden key to opportunity in this country (the US), and that nobody "wants" to be unable to speak English here. The proliferation of advertisements for products to help one learn English that I have seen on Spanish-language television, for one example, attest to this. My understanding is that ESL classes are very difficult to get into due to the demand outstripping the availability of teachers.
I wonder how much the flames of this movement to get English enshrined have been flamed by talk radio's quasi-bigots.
Jon Weinberg said,
July 8, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Amen to Nathan's invocation of the Recency Illusion. Those who objected a couple of years ago to the publication of a Spanish-language Star-Spangled Banner weren't thinking about the 1943 Yiddish-language version noted here, or for that matter the other versions here.
Benjamin Zimmer said,
July 8, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Much more on the history of anthem translations here.
JJM said,
July 9, 2008 @ 11:30 am
While we’re talking anthems, Canada (as you would expect) has both English and French lyrics for the national anthem “O Canada.”
But – the French lyrics came first before the tune even became our anthem and the English words are not a translation but rather an entirely separate set of lyrics.
A quick perusal of the two shows that the meaning and tone of each version is quite remarkably different:
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
The original French words clearly display the Catholic, French Canadian sentiments of the writer:
Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
ajay said,
July 9, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
For the benefit of non-French speakers, here is a quick translation – you can see that the meanings of the French and English versions are quite different.
Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
— O Canada! Land of our garlic,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
— Your front is pregnant with fluorescent glory!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
— The porter will carry your sword for a ton of brass,
Il sait porter la croix!
— This one has a breakfast roll!
Ton histoire est une épopée
— Your historian is a puppet
Des plus brillants exploits.
— Of brilliant exploits.
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
— And your value, once trampled,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
— Protects our rights and our hallways.
Kevin R said,
July 9, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
This is not much of an argument, unless you are planning on requiring the DMV to have 200+ different applications. Not all immigrants speak Spanish, either.
Michael Roberts said,
July 9, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
I know Puerto Rico was mentioned above, but it bears mentioning again. We've got four million United States citizens here, most of whom (outside San Juan metro) don't speak English. Nor should they; the Spanish colony here comfortably predates any of England's Johnny-come-lately burgs.
Puerto Ricans have had full citizenship for nearly a century; that means that Puerto Ricans have more history of US citizenship than many of the English monolinguals bleating for protection from scary foreigners.
Not one of the proposals for English-only national language status has been worked out to sufficient detail to account for these several million non-anglophonic US citizens. That's because it's all smoke and mirrors. That's not to say it has no danger of passing — we all know Washington loves a good boondoggle — but no serious person can really be considering it. What could possibly be the actual benefit? None.
By the way, here in Puerto Rico you usually press "9" for English. And yeah, occasionally you meet the moron who has a problem with that.
I also find it truly odd that the same people who demand federal protection for the English language are invariably also those who talk a lot about state's rights. (That means they want their state to do whatever they want, and the feds to make all the others also do whatever they want. That's because they're morons.)
Bill Muir said,
July 10, 2008 @ 7:43 am
I gotta tell you, I'm not a big fan of this ism. I agree. For those who want any official language, it's your job to convince everyone else. Hasn't even approximately been done yet, because usually it appears the same sentence as some sort of racial tirade. I'm not generalizing, I don't know what "most people" think, but I am summarizing several anecdotes.
blahedo said,
July 10, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
As has been hinted above, a lot depends on what "official language" means. If "make English the official language" means something relatively vacuous like "ensure all government documents and services are available in English", then I still think it's sort of silly but mostly harmless. Perhaps it would prevent town councils in majority non-Anglo areas from legislating in another language, or at least require them to translate the legislation; I don't really envision that happening anyway, but if it did, I can see that that would pose difficulties. In any case, the mere officialness of English is not a problem. (As posted in the previous thread, some individual states, including Illinois, already have English as the official language. Doesn't stop a lot of governmental and non-governmental services from being offered in Spanish, Polish, assorted varieties of Chinese, and various other languages, depending on where in the state you are.)
The problem is, among the crowd that is pushing "official English", this is never all that is being demanded. Explicitly or by implication, they always seem to push some sort of proscription of other languages: ballots can't be printed in other languages, signs can't list offerings in other languages, and in some cases even the hyper-extreme: people can't speak in other languages. Aside from being grossly impractical and in many versions outright un-Constitutional, it's mean-spirited and usually racist as well.
JJM said,
July 11, 2008 @ 10:13 am
"The problem is, among the crowd that is pushing 'official English', this is never all that is being demanded. Explicitly or by implication, they always seem to push some sort of proscription of other languages…"
Sadly, I'd agree. It's one thing to establish an official language (or a set of official languages) for government administrative, legal and fiscal purposes in dealing with the public at large. It's quite another when it means (as an example) the local Turkish community isn't free to speak Turkish amongst itself.
Nancy C said,
October 15, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
With regard to the above post:
ajay said,
July 9, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
For the benefit of non-French speakers, here is a quick translation – you can see that the meanings of the French and English versions are quite different.
Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
– O Canada! Land of our garlic,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
– Your front is pregnant with fluorescent glory!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
– The porter will carry your sword for a ton of brass,
Il sait porter la croix!
– This one has a breakfast roll!
Ton histoire est une épopée
– Your historian is a puppet
Des plus brillants exploits.
– Of brilliant exploits.
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
– And your value, once trampled,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
– Protects our rights and our hallways.
This translation of Oh Canada needs to be revised . . . a lot!
I would like to offer another translation:
O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Your brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
For your arm knows how to wield the sword,
It also knows how to carry the cross.
Your history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.
Your valour steeped/imbedded in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.