Endangered languages

[Celso Alvarez Cáccamo]

I didn't like the article a bit. I agree with what Richard says:

>It seemed to me that Michaels was implying that diversity
>would probably still occur, but that there will inevitably be language
>shift and change, and that it's silly to wring our hands over the
>problem (or waste resources, I assume), whether from a chauvinistic
>position of any particular language (in this case English), or from one
>that wishes to preserve or encourage any and all languages.

That's called linguistic ultraliberalism: Just Don't Intervene, as 
languages take care of themselves. Fallacious. Like the self-called 
"conservatives" of Human Events, Michaels is also talking about THE 
National Language ("our language"). And the perspective that Spanish would 
replace English in the USA as "our" language would imply that the 
Anglo-speaking majority and, particularly, the Anglo dominant minority, 
would have been replaced by new Spanish-speaking groups. That's what the 
self-called "conservatives" fear, not the language issue. But by pretending 
to counterargue, Michaels is actually demonstrating that he embraces the 
ultraliberal rationale. The type of Spanish Michaels is talking about in 
his hypothetical scenario is, after all, Spanish as THE national language 
of the USA, which is neither a real possibility nor the main issue for 
language minorities who claim their social space. So, Michaels is saying, 
'let them Latin American immigrants speak Spanish, and let us proclaim the 
potential equality of all languages; there's no problem in indulging in the 
possibility that English could dissapear, because if Euro-Americans do 
their job well economically, that's not going to happen'.

I haven't read the articles that Michaels refers to. I browsed Human Events 
but I couldn't find anything relevant. But, by what Michaels' article says, 
it seems that the so-called conservatives and Michaels coincide in no 
assigning any protection to any language: language shift and loss are 
"natural". A real conservative interventionist argument would be that 
English won't cease to be "our" language in the USA with the necessary, 
appropriate state and official protection for the national language. That's 
the English-Only conservative view. But, by foreseeing a future scenario 
where English might not be "our" language, those Human Events writers are 
actually reflecting the ultraliberalist socio-darwinist view of language. 
Michaels agrees with this model: what if, by continuous immigration, 
Spanish would end up being the USA national language? So, what's the 
difference between Human Events "conservatives" and Michaels? As good 
nationalists, the "conservatives" want to fence off the USA (the "Secure 
Fence" against tresspassers, modeled on the Israel wall) so that 
Spanish-speaking immigrants can't come to conquer the national market and 
replace English. Michaels, on the contrary, contemplates this possibility 
as a legitimate (though unlikely) one. In short, it is Michaels who 
believes in the 19th century free market utopia.

Cheers,
-celso

Celso Alvarez Cáccamo
lxalvarz at udc.es
http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac