official english

[Dennis Baron]

my two cents:

 The English Language Unity Act of 2001

by Dennis Baron<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Legislation to make English the official language of the United States is
before the House of Representatives once again. Just about every year since
1981, lawmakers have introduced an English language amendment to the
Constitution or a bill in Congress to make English official. All of these
have failed because making English official has always been associated with
prejudice against people who don't speak English, whether they are
immigrants or natives, and because the vast majority of non-English speaking
Americans wind up speaking English after all, a situation which renders
language legislation unnecessary. This year's official language installment
is called the "English Unity Act of 2001." Its clear anti-immigrant bias
suggests that it too deserves to fail.

The English Unity Act, designated H.R. 1984 (can the Orwellian overtones of
that number be accidental?), seeks to "reaffirm English as the official
language of the United States." But what does not exist cannot be
reaffirmed: English has never been America's official language. Though there
was some debate over a national language in the 18th century, and Noah
Webster urged Congress to name a "federal" language, the founders never
established English as official. It's not that they favored multiculturalism
or multilingualism. Most likely they felt that English was already so strong
it needed no defense.

H.R. 1984 mandates that the official functions of the government of the
United States be conducted in English, something that is already the case
and has been since the country's founding. The bill also requires that
naturalization ceremonies be held in English, a common provision of the
various "language of government" acts put forward in recent years. But the
English Unity Act asks as well that "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." Current
law requires new citizens to be able to "read or write simple words or
phrases" in English. In significantly raising the literacy threshold for
naturalization, H.R. 1984 aims at exclusion, not unity. Few of those who are
already citizens, whether native-born or naturalized, would be able to pass
a literacy test based, for example, on Title 8, the complex section of the
U.S. Code which deals with naturalization. The stiff reading requirements of
H.R. 1984 call to mind the literacy tests that were used in the past to bar
immigrants from citizenship, and to prevent African Americans from voting.

Despite the fears of the authors of the English Unity Act of 2001, English
is not endangered in the United States. One of the first things
nonanglophones do upon coming to this country is try to learn English.
According to the 1990 Census, 97% of the people in this country claim to
speak English well (language figures for the 2000 Census have not yet been
released). Even if some of those responding to the Census question don't
speak English particularly well, their answers clearly show they know that
speaking English well is desirable.

It is not English, but the minority languages of the U.S. that are in danger
of disappearing. The children of nonanglophones are learning English in
record time, and all the attempts by ethnic communities to preserve their
languages in this country have failed dramatically. Without any federal
intervention, the U.S. has achieved a state of monolingualism that nations
intent on designating official languages can envy. But monolingualism means
that American employers cannot find enough workers with competence in the
other languages we need to compete in the global economy.

Even if English doesn't need protection, sponsors of H.R. 1984 want to
ratify English as a unifying principle in the United States. According to
the Unity Act, a common language is the glue that holds our otherwise
fragmented society together. We can eat our ethnic foods and celebrate our
various holidays, but we can tolerate such cultural diversity only if a
common English keeps us from going our separate ways. Unfortunately, there
are numerous examples around the world where language has not been able to
counteract the divisive powers of politics and religion: the two Koreas, the
two Irelands, the former Soviet bloc. Closer to home, though apparently
forgotten by the sponsors of the English Unity Act, the American Civil War
demonstrates that a common language was not sufficient to keep the Union
united.

Supporters of official English often point to such countries as India,
Belgium, and Canada, where linguistic diversity is associated with political
unrest, even violence. But it is restrictive language legislation that
contributes to the unrest in these countries. Enacting official English in
the United States will similarly backfire. The English Unity Act will divide
rather than unite us. Instead of drawing nonanglophones to the mainstream,
it will label them as unwelcome and discourage them from pursuing their goal
to assimilate, economically, politically, and socially, and to learn
English.



_________________
Dennis Baron, Head                                debaron at uiuc.edu
Department of English       http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baron
<http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baron>
University of Illinois                                         217-333-2390
608 S. Wright St.                                     fax: 217-333-4321
Urbana, IL 61801


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/attachments/20010604/6f2af70e/attachment.htm>