It takes more than a language to unify a nation

[Dave Wilton]

All the more reason to have localities decide what's most appropriate for
them. (And ballots, even for federal offices, are produced by county
governments.) The local government is in the best position to decide the
extent provision of government services in other languages which will best
serve the populace, balancing benefit to non-English speakers against cost.

A nationwide law prohibiting government services in languages other than
English is just as absurd as one requiring government services be provided
in X language. Chinese language services in San Francisco make sense; they
(probably) don't in Cheyenne or Des Moines.

There is all this talk about melting pots and unity, but where is the
evidence that linguistic diversity is actually causing widespread problems?
Every statistic I have seen supports the opposite conclusion. This country
is overwhelmingly English-speaking and, given time, all immigrants (or their
children) become English speakers and the native languages fade. The
"problem" is that English is killing other languages in the United States,
not vice versa. Why are we trying to "fix" a non-existent problem that
serves only politicians engaged in demagoguery?

(Although, for the record, I'm fully in favor of the National Endowment for
the Humanities promulgating binding regulations on non-English ballets. If
English was good enough for Giselle, it is good enough for me.)


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Cohen, Gerald Leonard
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:32 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: It takes more than a language to unify a nation

    Part of the problem is where to draw the line.  Why stop with just
Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and a few more?  Over a hundred different
foreign-languages are spoken in the US, with their communities varying in
size, of course.  Should the speakers of each of those languages be provided
with translations (+ perhaps translators) so they can better participate in
our democracy?  Should this provision be made at all levels of government
(local and state, as well as federal), and who will pay for this?

     And why not extend the service to other areas, such as education, as in
fact happened during the Carter administration? I remember reading at the
time about NYC high-school principals who were having enough trouble hiring
qualified teachers in say, Physics, and were now legally required to find
Physics teachers who could also speak such languages as Urdu.  Mercifully
the law was eventually changed.

     No system is perfect, but the vision of the U.S. as a melting pot
worked well for our grandparents and greatgrandparents, and it might not be
so bad for the present either.

Gerald Cohen

________________________________

From: American Dialect Society on behalf of Arnold M. Zwicky
Sent: Sat 2/24/2007 1:05 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: It takes more than a language to unify a nation

<snip>

we want our voters to be well informed about the choices they're
being asked to make.  supplying material in languages other than
english serves that end.  it's a public good.

arnold

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org