The problem of "English"
Jun. 8th, 2006 04:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurI confess to rather mixed feelings about the current row over making English the "official language" of the US. On the one hand, the pro-officialness side does have some valid points to make, about the way that Spanish in the US today is qualitatively different from most previous languages imported into the country. (In that the Latin population is so large that it resists the traditional American assimilation mechanisms.) OTOH, I do find a subtle culture-of-fear racist undertone to the whole thing, and despise that on principle -- on the memetic level, this is a proxy argument for the nastier side of the immigration debate. And overall, I think the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot -- yet another distraction from more important issues.
All that said, though, my biggest problem is this: how the heck do you define "English" enforceably? Good law should be crystal-clear and well-defined, so you can unambiguously say "This is legal, but that is not." But English is anything but well-defined: it's the loveable mutt of world languages. I mean, the winning word of the National Spelling Bee was "ursprache", for heaven's sake. From grammar to vocabulary, English is the slipperiest of languages, melding and mixing with everything it comes in contact with.
Okay, yes -- there are sentences that are clearly English, and others that are clearly Spanish. But Spanglish is a very real phenomenon, so this isn't an academic question. Is that English? How much Spanish is too much to consider it no longer English? Where are the boundaries of the English language?
The classic example of a language that enshrined itself is French. Once upon a time, it was the world's language -- there's a reason for the term lingua franca. And it got so full of itself that it went and declared that it was "official". That inevitably led to a large, messy and sclerotic bureaucracy to regulate the language, defining what was "French" and what wasn't. And guess what? It wound up losing out to the vastly more fluid competitor, English. Yes, national power has a lot to do with that, but so does English's adaptability, and the way it is constantly (and rapidly) evolving to keep up with the times, and with the cultures it encounters.
Hence, I find myself opposed to the idea of formally making English the official language of the country -- not so much because the idea is fundamentally daft, but because it invites a problem of definition that we're better off leaving alone...
All that said, though, my biggest problem is this: how the heck do you define "English" enforceably? Good law should be crystal-clear and well-defined, so you can unambiguously say "This is legal, but that is not." But English is anything but well-defined: it's the loveable mutt of world languages. I mean, the winning word of the National Spelling Bee was "ursprache", for heaven's sake. From grammar to vocabulary, English is the slipperiest of languages, melding and mixing with everything it comes in contact with.
Okay, yes -- there are sentences that are clearly English, and others that are clearly Spanish. But Spanglish is a very real phenomenon, so this isn't an academic question. Is that English? How much Spanish is too much to consider it no longer English? Where are the boundaries of the English language?
The classic example of a language that enshrined itself is French. Once upon a time, it was the world's language -- there's a reason for the term lingua franca. And it got so full of itself that it went and declared that it was "official". That inevitably led to a large, messy and sclerotic bureaucracy to regulate the language, defining what was "French" and what wasn't. And guess what? It wound up losing out to the vastly more fluid competitor, English. Yes, national power has a lot to do with that, but so does English's adaptability, and the way it is constantly (and rapidly) evolving to keep up with the times, and with the cultures it encounters.
Hence, I find myself opposed to the idea of formally making English the official language of the country -- not so much because the idea is fundamentally daft, but because it invites a problem of definition that we're better off leaving alone...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 08:38 pm (UTC)it really depends wht you sue the officialness for. if you say "english must be taughtin shcools, classes must be in english, and road signs must be in english - then really i don't think a minutia-filled definition is required...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 12:00 am (UTC)An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-08 08:38 pm (UTC)English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow
words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways
to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
--James D. Nicoll
Re: An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-08 10:11 pm (UTC)Re: An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-08 10:40 pm (UTC)-- Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, letter to U.S. ENGLISH, Apr. 10, 1987
Re: An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-09 12:07 am (UTC)Re: An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-09 12:42 am (UTC)More than 90 percent (177) of the world’s nations have enacted an official language. English is the most common official language on Earth.
Declaring English the official language means that official government business at all levels must be conducted solely in English. This includes all public documents, records, legislation and regulations, as well as hearings, official ceremonies and public meetings.
Official English legislation contains common-sense exceptions permitting the use of languages other than English for such things as public health and safety services, judicial proceedings (although actual trials would be conducted in English), foreign language instruction and the promotion of tourism.
Official English promotes unity, and empowers immigrants by encouraging them to learn English, the language of opportunity in this country.
Official English legislation only applies to government functions. Language policies in private business are not affected, and private citizens are still free to use any language they wish in their daily lives.
A study published by the U.S. Department of Labor found that immigrants learned English more quickly when there was less native language support around them. A "linguistic welfare" system that accommodates immigrants in their native languages lowers the incentive to learn English and restricts them to low-skilled, low-paying jobs. Official English legislation encourages immigrants to learn English so they can truly enjoy the economic opportunities available to them in this country.
-------
Its simply common sense. It will save tax payers quite a lot of cash too (printing things in multiple languages, etc.) Just check Canada out and see how much they spend doing that.
Re: An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-09 01:22 am (UTC)Most of the world's languages are *much* better-defined than ours is. The story of English is the story of linguistic evolution run amok. That's the nature of the language -- from its inception, it has *always* been a mish-mash of multiple languages. That's not a casual point: English is very unusual in the degree to which it absorbs other languages. That's its power.
To put it another way: what does this law *mean*? Quite concretely: what can you do with it? Who can you sue? For what? What actions are beyond the pale? What is the definition of "English enough"? How many foreign words can you use before it is no longer "English"? Until and unless you can answer that question, it's a bad law by definition -- good law is mainly a matter of precision and clarity. And the only way to make this a good law is to harm the language by over-defining it.
The question isn't whether it is a good idea to encourage more usage of English -- I freely grant that point. The question is whether law is the right tool to use for that job -- which it isn't. Cultural problems need to be addressed culturally, not with the blunt instrument of law.
Violence is the last resort of the politically incompetent. Law is the next-to-last resort...
Re: An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-09 01:52 am (UTC)You agree to encourage more usage of English... so you must have a common sense understanding of what English is to be able to state an opinion like that. You didn't need to define English in that context.
Thankfully, your position on the matter is in the *severe* minority throughout the country.
Re: An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-09 03:51 am (UTC)Certainly. But that doesn't hold up in court -- and a major point of this law is to provide a legal cover for lawsuits. Law and "common sense" sit poorly with each other, especially when edge cases come up. And there are going to be a *lot* of edge cases showing up in court, given the way that Spanish and English have flowed together in the immigrant community, and the open-ended nature of the declaration.
Custom and law are not the same thing. There are plenty of things (*especially* common sense) that work well on the level of custom but poorly as laws. This is likely to be one of those.
Thankfully, your position on the matter is in the *severe* minority throughout the country.
Likely true. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though -- the populace (like, sadly, much of Congress) is pretty bad at designing law. Which is why the law works as poorly as it does in this country, and why we find ourselves trapped in a lawsuit-focused culture, with so much defined implicitly by the courts...
Re: An excellent quotation, from a friend of mine, wrt the English language....
Date: 2006-06-09 04:31 am (UTC)I simply can't bring myself to be as negative as you on this topic. I really see no downside, nor have I seen any evidence of downside in regards to only English applying to government functions (again, it only applies to government functions).
It takes a village, not a neighborhood...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:38 pm (UTC)Personally with english as the main language, that will help end the idea that many foreigners have of coming in and NOT having to assimilate at all to the point you can have two to three generations who dont speak English.
Let me say first I feel Americans SHOULD learn languages as a requirement, but following that..having a child who is fluent in Spanish I will be elitist and say you come to live here you learn the language. You dont get your citizenship if you arent fluent.
All official business should have to be in English.
All classes in English. No more ASL... Its been proven very ineffective for schoolkids.
To go on ANY form of Government help you need to learn ENglish in a set amount of time...
I should be able to go to my POSTAL job and be able to communicate to the employees even simple words. There are so many NON English speaking people who work for the Post Office now its not funny.
There are plenty of bilingual people so it is not unreasonable to expect people to learn the language.
No more catering to six bazzillion dialects and languages for govenment stuff. of any kind. they want to be an American they learn English. Just as if I went to live in Germany I should expect myself to learn German. OR China. I would expect myself to learn Chinese.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 12:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 11:05 pm (UTC)Which dialect?
I think I'm glad I don't live near you.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 12:42 am (UTC)The point is that for OFFICIAL business and in the workplace and for general living English should be IN THIS COUNTRY the main language. I should be able to go into a large scale business with many working employees and have them understand instructions fo saety and wellbein without having to try and find interpretors for ten or more different languages.. This is more then just an aesthetic issue. It is a major issue in dealing with people in general in your own country and not in a specilaty store in Little China of fill in your blank city.
Most other countries have official languages used for business and that people need to know... And yet use local dialects for personal use... some of these are Italy, palua, Russia, Spain and the Phillipines...
Albania, France and Lithuania are a few that have one official language...
And there are many that also have two or more offiical languages, although usually one is the defacto official language used for official business (for example while New Zealand lists Sign Language as an official language, it is not used as a first run business tool that people are expected to learn..)
As far as china... even they use official languages... Mandarin is considered the official language and Simple Chinese is the written form.
Mandarin is also the official fo Singapore and taiwan... although they use Traditional Chinese for the written.
It can be done as an official thing and yet still leave flavor. there is nothing wrong is expecting someone who lives here to learn English
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 12:04 am (UTC)That's the point: while this is a fine *idea*, it's a miserably bad *law*. Ideas can be squishy and imprecise; laws can't. You can *try* to write a vague law, but that just means that the precise details will be written by the courts and by further laws. And in general, the end results aren't nearly as nice as what you'd originally envisioned...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 12:44 am (UTC)Other countries havent seemed to have that problem. You want to define it by words in certain dictionaries okay...
But it is not a bad law...works quite well in many other countries...
Most other languages dont have the detailed non changing forms like you desire (except perhaps French)... all languages develop.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 01:30 am (UTC)(Not to mention the fact that we're the most litigious society in the history of the planet. In most countries, this sort of law is an empty statement of cultural unity. Here, it's an open invitation for scads of lawsuits. I *do* expect those lawsuits to happen, and I expect their results to be ugly. The Law of Unintended Consequences is especially strong in this country.)
And let's be clear: I don't *desire* detailed non-changing forms. I'm saying that this is a bad, ill-defined law unless you *have* such detailed forms. The correct response to that isn't to over-define the language -- it's to scrap the bad law...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 01:35 am (UTC)I dont see it as such as you are seeing it...
I see it as a very good thing myself.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 01:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 01:48 am (UTC)And mandating it into law is the ONLY way it can be enforced. It is the only way to give these people the idea they just cant come in and sit on the doles all their lives and never assimilate in any way.
I should e able to go into my workplace and give simple instructions to employees and not have to worry about rnning and finding someone who speaks arabic or tagalog.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 09:58 pm (UTC)This great country is a melting pot, it should *not* ever become a salad bowl.
- Eric
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 10:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 10:35 pm (UTC)--Colin
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 11:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 12:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-08 11:14 pm (UTC)However, I don't think we should give the impression that you can survive and thrive in this country without knowing it. If you want to be second class citizens, by all means refrain from learning english.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 12:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 01:45 am (UTC)I really don't think that had anything to do with official fluidity. The Academie Francaise has been completely ineffective at preventing people who speak the language from borrowing where they may. By it's nature, is a reactive body - it has to go around saying "That's not French!" after people have already started using a thing as French. Which is rather closing the barn door after the horses are already out..
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 02:18 am (UTC)I'm not a racist, and I certainly don't care what people do privately. But I don't think we should be spending public money on providing translations into every language that a sufficiently-large voting block demands. The only exception is cases where there really is no alternative, such as providing support for ASL for deaf children in public schools. There's nothing you can do about being deaf; there is something you can do about your lack of proficiency in a language.
I think it would be better to specify legislation in the negative -- no entity shall be required to support etc -- rather than the positive "English is the official language".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 02:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 03:04 am (UTC)Acquiring a foreign language is both a gift and an asset. As it deals with only government entities, publications and documents, the enactment of official English would not affect the teaching of foreign languages. U.S. ENGLISH wholeheartedly encourages the teaching of foreign languages at every level of education. Proficiency in multiple languages opens more doors and raises incomes even higher than proficiency in a single language alone.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 03:07 am (UTC)Sure. That's why I want "no compulsion", as opposed to a positive statement. A school can choose to do whatever it likes above the mandated minimum -- languages, arts, sports, ancient Mayan history, whatever. It can then use this as a selling point to attract students, if it likes.
If a state legislature makes a law that schools in that state will offer bilingual instruction, is that OK?
I don't think the federal government ought to be able to compel the states, so yes. (I would then hope for a "no compulsion" clause in my state's body of law, but that's none of the feds' business.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 01:13 pm (UTC)Hmm -- good point. As usual, the nominally conservative government has shown a thorough disregard for the principle of States' Rights...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 03:23 am (UTC)In Re English as Lingua Officianalis
Date: 2006-06-09 02:26 am (UTC)Re: In Re English as Lingua Officianalis
Date: 2006-06-09 03:31 am (UTC)I suspect that, when you weed through the various exceptions that will necessarily be created, it's going to be *painfully* obvious that this has nothing to do with promoting English, and everything to do with suppressing Spanish. (Which is pretty clearly true, and indeed the main point, but they're trying terribly hard not to *say* it because it gets a tad politically incorrect...)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 03:28 am (UTC)Sounds like we should be worrying about the state of the nuclear weapon arsenal in Iran and North Korea, or the lack of infrastructure in Kabul, or the massive escalation in IED attacks on US troops in the past week, or national health care, or...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 03:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-09 11:24 pm (UTC)The cases that worry me most, though, are educational. By drawing the lines quite this black-and-white, they could well hinder attempts to bridge the cultural gap. If you can't do *anything* in Spanish (or Spanglish), it becomes significantly harder to teach people English. (Or American culture, for that matter.) Assimilation isn't a sudden process, and this could easily prove a real barrier to that, if it gets abused by the extremists. (And I think it should be clear that I *expect* this law to be abused, since the only reason it was brought up at all was to appease said extremists.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-11 12:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 02:02 am (UTC)http://talvinamarich.livejournal.com/1010.html