When two become four
« previous post | next post »
nascardaughter makes an interesting point in the comments section of my Dare to be bilingual post. Taking her lead, I'll divide what were (in my mind) previously two questions into four:
- Why would making English official be bad?
- Why would making English official be good?
- Why is having no official language good?
- Why is having no official language bad?
Question 1 is what Timothy M asked of me and other Language Loggers, and Question 2 is what I asked readers to ponder in my Language devaluation post. Question 3 is what nascardaughter asks us all to consider, and Question 4 rounds out the logical possibilities.
I had assumed, somewhat simplistically, that answers to Question 1 would subsume answers to Question 3, and that answers to Question 2 would subsume answers to Question 4. But aside from the fact that the set of conceivable options for an official language includes more than just "English" and "none", I agree with nascardaughter that teasing apart the questions in this way might be a really good way to encourage communication between proponents of either side:
I can imagine several ways that people opposed to national English could appeal to positive American ideals, but instead the arguments always seem to come from a sort of defensive crouch in which proponents' claims are negated — understandable enough, but I wonder if it would be more productive to shift the argument onto different ground.
Here's what I take nascardaughter to mean. Strict answers to Question 1 ("Why would making English official be bad?") might be viewed by proponents of official English as simply antagonistic or defensive counters to strict answers to Question 2 ("Why would making English official be good?"). Strict answers to Question 3 ("Why is having no official language good?"), on the other hand, are more productive: rather than taking an antagonistic/defensive negative stand on the issue of official English, they would (presumably) clarify what is positive about the fact that the United States does not have an official language — which a proponent of official English might be more likely to take into consideration as an opposing argument.
In case that's hard to swallow, try turning the tables. Imagine that English already is the official language of the US, and that you're a proponent of the idea that there should be no official language. If you spent your time coming up with answers to Question 3 ("Why is having no official language good?"), wouldn't you be more inclined to listen to proponents of official English who provide you with answers to Question 2 (Now: "Why is having English as the official language good?") than those who provide you with answers to Question 4 ("Why is having no official language bad?")? I think I would, but maybe that's just me.
Whenever I find the time I keep talking about to collect, synthesize, and catalogue arguments for either side of this debate, I'll see if I can also fit them into each of the four boxes defined by these questions. I'm sure it won't be so simple, though — there are undoubtedly some arguments for which the judgment will be dependent on one's perspective (for example, if you are a proponent of official English, something that I think is an answer to Question 3 ("Why is having no official language good?") might sound to you more like an answer to Question 1 ("Why would making English official be bad?"). (Hmm, I can see another questionnaire assignment for my undergrads forming here. I'll have to think about it some more during some of that time I keep talking about…)
My personal #1 tongue-in-cheek answer to Question 3 ("Why is having no official language good?") would be this: look at what it's done for English! English overwhelmingly dominates the linguistic scene in the US (with all of its supposed practical advantages and its equally significant disadvantages), and in fact already did so long before the relatively recent moves (more or less beginning in the 1980s) by groups like U.S. English, English First, ProEnglish, and so on to make English official in the majority of US states (with their sights set on the nation, of course). In short, English is already, for all practical purposes, the language of the nation (not to mention much of the world in many ways), and it's going to take a heck of a lot more than a growing population of (mostly Spanish-speaking) immigrants — a population that has been shown in study after study to lose their heritage language and adopt English within three generations, as Jon Weinberg helpfully pointed out — to change that. If we make English official, there's no telling how its currently exalted position would be affected.
Before I leave this topic for another little while, I have something more for readers to contemplate. In my view, the move to make English official in the US is effectively a political move to disenfranchise minority or otherwise already disempowered groups along culturally-defined lines. Using language for this purpose is particularly insidious. Consider one of the reasons that Geoff Nunberg offers for why the founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), John Tanton, probably co-founded U.S. English in 1983:
Tanton has been able to attract five times as many members for his U.S. English movement as for FAIR; apparently many people will support English-only measures who would be squeamish about directly supporting immigration restriction. ("Linguists and the Official Language Movement", Language 65 (1989), p. 582.)
Geoff also notes the memo scandal that led to Tanton's resignation from U.S. English — but he just went on to become the founding chairman of ProEnglish. (I wrote about some of the activities and positions of this organization on Language Log Classic back in September 2004.)
Z. D. Smith said,
July 16, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
In a matter of some not-too-tangential interest, The Mendele Review—the literary arm of the long-running Yiddish listserv, Mendele—has just posted its most recent issue, which contains an awfully interesting article about the attitudes and policies towards Yiddish in the young Israeli state, and their effects on the language and its culture.
http://yiddish.haifa.ac.il/tmr/tmr12/tmr12013.htm
bulbul said,
July 16, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but there is one question I have yet to see a compelling answer to: what would it mean to make English official?
If you look at English First and their National Language Act (H.R. 769), all it does is
a) declare English official by adding a provision to Title 4 of the US Code
b) declare that all government activities must be performed in English
c) declare that noone has the right to have the government act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in a language other than English
d) repeal Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Language Minority Assistance).
Keeping in mind that this is a federal law, a) is meaningless, b) is vague (the term "government activities" is not defined here, nor in the US Code itself), so only c) and d) would have some effect.
U.S. English's English Language Unity Act (H.R. 997) is a little more specific in that in demands that "official functions" of the government shall be conducted in English and defines an "official function" as "any function that (i) binds the Government, (ii) is required by law, or (iii) is otherwise subject to scrutiny by either the press or the public." Note that is says "shall be conducted in English" and not "in English only". So how does that change the current situation? I mean, repealing language minority assistance (H.R. 769), that's pretty straightforward, but what about the rest? To what extent does the federal government act, communicate, perform, provide services and materials and performs official functions in a language other than English? Are there, say, IRS forms in languages other than English? I couldn't find any on their website, all they seem to have in e.g. Spanish are guides and stuff like that.
Which brings me to this point: people who complain about use of languages other than English rarely do so referring to official documents. You get to hear a lot of crap about "press 1 for English", but that is usually directed at private enterprises like USPS, credit card companies, banks and the like. How would that change with official English? Is the 'English-only' crowd which consists of the same people as the 'free-market' crowd advocating regulation of private enterprise?
mgh said,
July 16, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Re: Questions 3 & 4, Is there an English-only group that advocates the establishment of an official pronunciation, to facilitate communication among Americans from different regions (eg, the deep South and Long Island) and to protect the language from further "corruption"?
[Would anyone like to start one? Ironic advocacy groups have a way of getting in the news (see, e.g., Billionaires for Bush).]
Gigi said,
July 16, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
I'm all for making English official. I do not appreciate people speaking in Mandarin at the workplace in meetings etc. (Yes this happens in high tech!)
Its the workplace, stick to the official language. Do what you want when you are socializing.
Marinus said,
July 16, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
That *is* a very interesting article, Mr Smith.
john riemann soong said,
July 16, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
"I do not appreciate people speaking in Mandarin at the workplace in meetings etc."
But they're not speaking to you. Why should you infringe on their freedom of speech, when your rights are not affected?
Nathan said,
July 16, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
@mgh: I won't accept any official English pronunciation that is non-rhotic, or that lacks the cot-caught merger. That just ain't American.
Yes, I'm kidding.
mgh said,
July 16, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
bulbul, IANAL but I believe there are a number of situations where the federal government is required to provide translations, eg non-English-speaking jurors on federal juries (interesting aside, these interpreters seem to be lumped in the system with interpreters for the hearing impaired). Although you're correct that it would not apply at the state level, such a law would certainly influence state-level legislation and there's no reason to ignore these effects.
While looking into what translation services are required to be provided by police departments, I came across this interesting exchange on a forum for law enforcement offices:
[…]
linda seebach said,
July 16, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
When I was growing up (1950s) in Nassau County, on Long Island, it was mostly people who lived in Nassau or Suffolk counties who would say they lived on Long Island, while people who lived in Brooklyn or Queens said that, instead. And there was a big difference in accent between the two NYC boroughs and the rest of the Island, so much so that when kids with a Brooklyn accent moved into our neighborhood, they suffered endless ridicule until they converted.
My brother still lives in Nassau County, and I think he sounds more NYC now than when we were kids, but it's more Manhattan than the outer boroughs.
Mr Punch said,
July 17, 2008 @ 8:48 am
A not unimportant aspect of the "English as the official language" issue is the status of Puerto Rico. I have to assume that if English became the official language of the US, Puerto Rican statehood would be off the table (on both sides); and I'd guess that in PR, the shift from a three-way to a two-way choice on status could bring a revolution in public opinion.
Eyebrows McGee said,
July 17, 2008 @ 10:12 am
This
"declare that all government activities must be performed in English"
and this
"declare that noone has the right to have the government act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in a language other than English"
would cost mega taxpayer dollars and be potentially unconstitutional. You can't abridge someone's right to a fair trial, for example, simply because they don't speak English. (Nor their right to vote.) Many areas will have small claims cases (which in many states are very informal) done by a bilingual judge at least part of the time, so that cases between Spanish speakers (most typically) can be carried out in Spanish in a fraction of the time (which is a significant cost savings — judicial time is expensive!) and without the cost of providing a translator. (Similarly, documents can be translated once, instead of, if all documents must be in English only, providing a translator every single time for every single document — whether that cost falls on individuals or on the government, and some of the time it WILL fall on the government, because people will require access to government services they are entitled to, but be unable to afford their own translator, it is a significant cost.)
In a somewhat analogous situation, where I grew up there were a large number of Korean families working over here (typically for banks; sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently) where the father spoke English (and worked outside the home), the children spoke English, but the mother, who was an at-home parent, spoke little or no English. But the mothers were typically the parent responsible for the child's education, attending parent-teacher conferences, coping when the kid was in trouble, etc.
It was very common, therefore, to have an informal network of Korean translators — a local pastor from a Korean church, other parents with good English — to assist when a mother with poor English needed to interact with the school (and the child's translation was either inappropriate or might be unreliable). When FERPA came in, however, this was no longer allowed, and the school had to hire actual translators at significant cost. This is a wealthy suburb; while the percentage of immigrants has stayed fairly constant, the mix of immigrants in the schools has increased significantly since then, and translation services for several languages are now required, adding up to a significant expense to the school and therefore to the taxpayers. (The school teaches entirely in English, and the vast majority of students are native English speakers, but there is a significant minority of parents for whom English is a second language in which they have very limited skill.)
It also strikes me that very few "English-only" folks have ever tried to learn a second language as adults. It's HARD. Some of these people with very limited English are working their butts off to learn it, but their English is as good as my Spanish (which is to say after five years of public school instruction, I know what Dora the Explorer is talking about maybe half the time when she goes all bilingual on me).
John Baker said,
July 17, 2008 @ 11:46 am
I looked at H.R. 769 and H.R. 997, as cited by bulbul. I can't really imagine why anyone would suppose either of these to be a good thing.
Neither would achieve what their proponents apparently seek, which is to remove languages other than English from the public sphere. For example, the bills would not restrict private use of foreign languages, so banks and other financial institutions could and would still use non-English languages. Banks don't, after all, do this because of some government edict; they do it because they want to make more money, and they believe this will let them serve a larger number of customers.
The restrictions that would apply are pernicious and in several cases ludicrous. Consider this example from H.R. 997: "All citizens should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution."
Ah, yes, all of us should be able generally to understand U.S. laws. So I'm sure that nobody will have any difficulty with this simple example, which uses only ordinary English words, from section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (since amended): "Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, none of the following persons is an investment company within the meaning of this subchapter: (1) Any issuer whose outstanding securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned by not more than one hundred persons and which is not making and does not presently propose to make a public offering of its securities. For purposes of this paragraph: (A) Beneficial ownership by a company shall be deemed to be beneficial ownership by one person, except that, if the company owns 10 per centum or more the outstanding voting securities of the issuer, the beneficial ownership shall be deemed to be that of the holders of such company's securities (other than short-term paper) unless, as of the date of the most recent acquisition by such company of securities of that issuer, the value of all securities owned by such company of all issuers which are or would, but for the exception set forth in this subparagraph, be excluded from the definition of investment company solely by this paragraph, does not exceed 10 per centum of the value of the company's total assets."
The passage is reasonably unambiguous; it has since been amended and is no longer as simple and concise. Fortunately, it apparently is only newly naturalized citizens who would have to demonstrate their understanding of such passages.
bulbul said,
July 17, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
mgh,
thanks. I was thinking of something like the federal jury examples you cited when trying to answer question no. 1. And IANAL either, but how long do you would it take for the ACLU to attack such provisions – and their equivalents in state laws – as unconstitutional? I can imagine a number of ways this would violate the VIth amendment and I think Eyebrows would agree.
these interpreters seem to be lumped in the system with interpreters for the hearing impaired
Yep, that's how it works in Europe, too.
Timothy M said,
July 18, 2008 @ 2:24 am
I just watched Tuesday's episode of the Colbert Report (http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=174855)
In the interview, Colbert asks "Why do I have to press 1 to speak English, sir? …That time I'm wasting – I could spend that time with my kids."
He either reads Language Log, or they're just in touch with what people are complaining about in America.
Catanea said,
July 18, 2008 @ 4:14 am
"Personally I think it's kind of cool that the US doesn't have national official language(s)."
Coolness is a good reason. The ARROGANCE of not needing to specify.
The implied magnanimity.
The United States of America has no official language.
One of the few reasons I can still feel proud to be an American.
nascardaughter said,
July 18, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Thanks for the list of interesting questions to think about this weekend…
I figure people are more likely to unite in protection of things that they perceive as valuable, things that they like (Social Security, for example), not so much things that are largely invisible to them, or that they regard with indifference or disdain.
Linguists could do a lot to make not having official language(s) more visible, and more valuable, to Americans, I suspect. Of course that's probably not the way to go for those critics of official English who don't actually value not having any official language.
In that case, I guess the next logical question would be what those critics would prefer instead. Multiple official languages, maybe…
bulbul said,
July 19, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
I guess the next logical question would be what those critics would prefer instead.
How about 'no change'? If it ain't broke, why fix it? Of course, English-only proponents claim that something is seriously wrong, only they offer no proof and their solutions offer no real remedy.
Peter Howard said,
July 21, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
It's a video/song by a mate of mine about language tolerance:
Nothin' Wrong
It's just possible you might find it worth spending 2'21" of your life on. (Eric says he likes it, and suggested I post the link.)