English spoken here?

[Harold Schiffman]

English spoken here?
admin @ August 19, 2008 - 12:15 pm


>>From Mary Sanchez (KC Star):

The debate about language inside the United States is obviously a
manifestation of public dissatisfaction with immigration policy,
especially the persistence of illegal immigration. It's a simple fact
that we're all better off when non-native speakers can get the basic
information they need when on the bus, in a courtroom, on an emergency
hotline or in countless other everyday situations. Yet for some
ultra-patriots, to deny them that information is a handy way to punish
immigrants, legal or illegal….

….If we have a language problem in this country, it is that most
Americans show little interest in learning one other than English.
Trying to express oneself in an unfamiliar language is humbling.

I agree with the central premises: 1) language has become a (rather
unfortunate) proxy for the public furor over immigration policies; and
2) the world-wide spread of English should help to put to rest ideas
that "para Español, oprima el numbero dos" -type aides for immigrants
will act as a permanently disincentive to hinder English-learning. I
give Ms. Sanchez credit for not trying to tar all supporters of
English-only edicts and immigration reform with this brush. It is
certain, as she notes, that there are some supporters in both camps
for whom these are real fears. However, it bears pointing out (again!)
that there are many other reasons why these positions have such
wide-spread public support.

It bears pointing out that immigrants are acquiring English at roughly
the same rate as has always been the norm throughout the history of
the republic. The major difference here is the constant influx and
wide-dispersal of immigrants from the same source, and hence the
perception that they are not learning. Literally, most, as they learn,
are moving up and being replaced by those who just arrived. Also, the
three generation rule is still in effect. Most people who talk
reverently about their great-grandpappies who came from country X
would be shocked to find out just how abysmal their ancestors' English
actually was. The simple truth is that adult immigrants usually don't
reach native-like fluency. There are people like Schwarzenegger and
Kissinger who, but for thick accents, speak quite well, but they are
the exceptions. Most first generation immigrants still (gasp!) speak
their own language at home, and while they learn enough English to get
by, their actual grasp of English can vary considerably. There are
certainly cases of people who, for one reason or another, don't ever
really learn any English (I've got a neighbor who has been here in the
U.S. for 15+ years and speaks little to no English — he claims that,
at this point, it's just "too embarrassing" to even try), but this has
always been the case. Most immigrants well grasp that any sort of
permanent residence in the U.S. will be greatly facilitated by
learning English, and they often go to extraordinary measures to
learn. In most areas bilingual services are too spread out and few to
really impact language learning. From a free-market perspective, if a
company wants to expand its customer base beyond English speakers, why
should we really care?

Still, as noted above, there are other, more reality-grounded concerns
about these issues. I, personally, couldn't care less what private
industry does. The explosion of Spanish TV and radio??? Love it! Most
adamant opponents of such are surprised to realize that 19th century
NYC was awash in Italian-language publications and that some areas of
the eastern seaboard and the mid-west used to have as much or more
German-language newspapers, churches, and schools than English. Where
one has to draw the line, however, is in government. When the
government starts privileging one immigrant group over others by
offering copious services in their language while being incapable or
unwilling to provide it in others, you are headed for problems.
Additionally, offering citizen services, such as ballots in languages
other than English is counter-sensible if we're serious about English
ability being a pre-requisite to citizenship. Mind you, it is
plausible to construct a scenario wherein a natural born U.S. citizen,
raised and educated elsewhere, arrives to vote with zero English
ability. Not to sound overly-callous, but is such a person even who
you would ideally like to be casting a ballot? There are plenty of
uninformed Americans voting, mind you, but should we really be
constructing our laws to encourage those least informed on the issues
to be deciding everyone's future? Finally, there is the nagging fear
of linguistic and cultural separatism inherent to any sort of
quasi-governmental acceptance of an outside language. Language is one
of the primary means by which people define themselves and their
affiliation. As someone born in Canada, I've always kept abreast of
events there, and it's honestly tragic just how much animosity exists
between groups on separate sides of a linguistic gulf. The unifying
role of the English language, while likely just an accident of
history, has truly defined the U.S. as the multi-ethnic, multi-racial
nation that it is. Just about any multi-lingual nation you look at
will have a history defined by strife between those people. Color me a
little hesitant to see that happen in the U.S.

Still, on the flip side, the historical trend towards English-learning
over generations of U.S. experience has made us strangely reticent to
study other languages, which is likely to (economically) bite us on
our collective rear ends in the coming decades. We need to realize
that the popularity of English abroad is not a license to remain
exclusively monolingual. While I would, for the reasons above, be
strongly opposed to granting any sort of official status on any
language other than English (and I have a strong preference for
keeping the status quo of not favoring any language at all), there is
a big difference between official, state-sponsored bilingualism, and a
strong push for national foreign language education. U.S. citizens
should be taking up the economic call for foreign language mastery,
but we shouldn't have everyone studying the same language. One of our
key strengths has always been the diversity available among us. It
would be great if, for instance, college entrance required foreign
language proficiency (thereby requiring a radical restructuring of
K-12 education to make such available en masse), but it would be most
effective if children (and parents) had a wide range of language
options available..

http://www.foreignlanguageblog.com/?p=585

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************