This is a topic that often divides conservatives and liberals. Even my husband and I have had our share of arguments over this. Should English be made our country’s national language? If so, immigrants applying for citizenship would be required to prove their English proficiency.
Currently, our federal budget is being used to provide bilingual education and ballots among other services; this was not done until just last century. Our Founders did not have to consider issues of diversity, but we know today that being biligual (or multilingual) does not necessarily impede the learning of English. Other countries (Turkey, for example) actually outlaw their citizens speaking a minority language. We will never go that far, as the majority of Americans already know and speak English.
Still, our country is one of the very few that does not have an official language. Those highly in favor of making English our official language argue that English will bring together our citizens together as a nation. This despite the fact that at least 336 languages are used in our country.
The measure also emphasizes that we would consider English as our “national” language; this is not the same as an “official” language. “National” language simply means that the government recognizes English as the language of its majority. For those of you who use ASL on a daily basis, you may perhaps appreciate the significance of English’s role in our American society. I say this because Deaf Culture considers ASL as a reflection of its pride.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
37 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
ASL is not offical language as yet.
ASL is native language ; it is not ” not offical language ” quote.
336 languages are used in our country?? Sounds like a hyperbole.
There are over 6000 languages in the world. And this count doesn’t include sign languages or dialects (which are notoriously difficult to distinguish from languages). Now does it seem hyperbolic?
Not if you believe the hyperbolic hordes at the US Census Bureau.
Anyway, the bill proposed is sheer demagoguery. It’ll never pass, and was never meant to; it’s a sop to the far right at a time when the GOP is foundering.
Yep. I’d say that about covers it!
“If so, immigrants applying for citizenship would be required to prove their English proficiency.”
Sounds like a double standard especially when the present education systems in America (and Deaf America, if I may add) do not require English proficiency upon graduation.
But then again, it’d depend on how one measures English proficiency.
We apparently don’t require English proficiency to become a U.S. President either. Gotta love America!
:-)
Just read the article. Ugh. Two similar amendments approved? Let’s see how the House works it out. But if we really want to pull together the nation via a common, national language, we better back it up by boosting Federal assistance to English-language and bilingual schools.
I still can’t shake the feeling that naming English the national language is somehow anti-immigrant and, frankly, a waste of our representatives’ time. Sure, our immigrants should know some English, and they probably would, anyway, but language should not be used as a tool to deny people access to important services, regardless of citizenship status.
This bill does not merely make English the national language; it does indeed impact government services. “…the amendment would obliterate executive orders…that mandated multilingual services and communications in a variety of federal agencies…”
*plays the deaf card* This impacts ASL, too. Suppose this English-language bill was interpreted broadly enough as to allow government agencies to deny ASL interpreters for social worker appointments or court dates? Probably wouldn’t happen as ASL interpreting is, I think, protected as reasonable accommmodations for people with disabilities, but it’s a possibility.
Nice use of reducio ad absurdum there, Adam! =) I agree with you 100% — it’d probably affect ASL too, and a few lawsuits later it’d be set as a disability thing. There’s gotta be pointy haired ones in the Govt who’d deny interps for this reason.
I agree with having English as our nation’s language…but that doesn’t mean I want all other languages obliterated. People should be able to speak their native language in the home to preserve their culture - but at work, school, etc, English should be the language they must learn to speak — just as ASL is the native language, and Deaf children are taught English in school.
wanted to add to your comment regarding: This bill does not merely make English the national language; it does indeed impact government services. “…the amendment would obliterate executive orders…that mandated multilingual services and communications in a variety of federal agencies…”
- im quite concerned about this for several reasons (in addition to your important points).. 1.) it takes a long time to truly master a 2nd language and truly be able to communicate to your best capacity through the 2nd language. so even if someone were to learn english, it could still be to the benefit of all involved if they were allowed access to material in their first language. 2.) someone in another comment mentioned that those who want material translated should have to pay - in a great many instances, they actually dont currently get their material freely translated, like with employment rights and contracts in the private sector. whats more is if access is only allocated to those who can pay for it, that basically shafts the majority of immigrants who barely make a living wage, if that.
As far as this topic (English as official language) my two cents was forged at RIT in Intercultural Comm class. I saw this documentary video about a school that used bilingual education methods and I saw how much of an positive impact it had on the community and the students. I “bought it” and now fully support bi or trilingual education methods in elementary and middle schools. I’m more flexible about high schools as, by that point, it’s probably time to start focusing on certain languages (most likely English) and to leave it up to students to take whatever language classes they want.
Language is such a COOL thing and I’m always appalled at peoples’ efforts to minimize diversity and variety in language.
I wholeheartedly agree. Linguists have also observed that multilingual speakers are usually more… well I’d have to say smarter. I’m not multilingual! Just merely bilingual…
Great discussion about this topic at: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/
i remember that documentary! great stuff. although i think HS should require language courses in addition to english as well — that’s how my hs was and i think the students were better off for it.
This is an old issue, one that has arose in times and places aplenty. Whether it’s about one language out of a few (or many) or one variety out of different dialects of one language. Language is ever-evolving and adapting to meet the needs or wants of its speakers. How presumptous lawmakers are to try to regulate it (including deciding who should speak it and when). They never seem to realize it does not work. Additionally, which English are they referring to here? There are several varieties in America and the world over. How to determine which one is to be used? And what happens when it changes over time (including borrowing words from other foreign languages as languages are apt to do)?
I think English should be the national language, with fine print added: with due acknowledgement and respect of the existence of other languages. I do think it is a shame that Americans, on average, tend to be monolingual while Europeans and Africans tend to know more than two or even three languages.
Agreed. I don’t think that those in favor of English as our national language are necessarily the ones that want to shun diversity. That’s a common misconception I see everywhere.
Additionally, I understand that there is a wide variety of “English” standards, but the law can accommodate this as well.
I also would love to see foreign languages taught in elementary schools rather than high schools- after all, we all know that it’s much easier to learn while still young.
I’d like to remind everyone of something Rob wrote a few days ago: “Pluralism, as defined, is supposed to allow for the development of a common tradition while preserving the right of each group to maintain its cultural heritage. It implies mutual respect.”
As such, seems as if making English our national language (when it is already our de facto national language, even if it isn’t in the books yet) but not our official language would encourage a spirit of community without necessarily excommunicating (not the best word to use, I know) other languages.
And who says, as speakers/users of other languages gain recognition in larger numbers, that we can’t stamp other languages, like Spanish and ASL, with that good ol’ “Made in the USA” label too?
But yes, I agree with Rob and Adam about their concerns. How would we measure and enforce English proficiency (not just for immigrants, but for everyone), and what’s to prevent the interpretation of English as national language as reason not to provide ASL interpreters?
American Sign Language is language used by the D/deaf in North America. English is the British language and why are we saying we speak english and not American?
Are you kidding me?
Sure there’s British English and American English (I’m currently living in the UK right now). The colonisers were English, thus the English language, which changed and evolved over time. English usage here is different than English usage in America, you wouldn’t believe what meatballs are called in the UK.
I’m also deaf and I don’t use ASL, nor is it called ESL here (BSL), so it’s not classified as “my language.” However, I do believe that in order to be successful in the national community, deaf people should be proficient in English (or any other language depending on the country) besides ASL/BSL/SSL/whatever. I’m quite good at French, Spanish, Latin, and Italian reading and I’ve got the basics down with ASL/BSL.
Also if you want to be successful with an overseas community, the esperanto language is English. No one would understand an ASL user in Britain (the signs are very very different) but people would understand an American speaker in Britain since they share a common language. Tourism spots such as Rome, Prague, Istanbul, Paris, Barcelona, Lisbon, Mexico City, Montreal, are more likely to have people who speak English among other languages.
This will always be English. Why do people speak Spanish and not Mexican? Peruvian? Brazilian? Why French and not Quebecois? Why Russian and not Ubek, Belorussian? Why Arabic and not Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian?
People are, imo, going a bit too far that this “English as our official language” will impact ASL interpreters in the future. It’s a disability right’s issue on communication access rather than a language access issue.
Now, in Mexico, if you want Spanish documents be translated into English or any other languages, you have to pay for it. Not so here in the states for those who want documents in English be translated into Spanish….for free.
This is one of the price immigrants must be willing to take if they want to live and prosper in America. The price is to learn the English language because the majority of Americans speak and write in English. This is not being racist. It’s about preservation. But before you rant, you might want to rant about Mexico who have declared a long time ago that Spanish is their official/national language. Yet Mexico do not have bi-lingual programs even though many do speak English in Mexico. If you want to live and work in Mexico, you have to learn their Spanish language in order to do business and be a part of them. Yet you nod your head about Mexico but say “No” on declaring English as the official language in the United States? Well, let’s see if you can understand this Spanish word…hipócrita!
how about poor deaf people in other countries where they have no terps or access to education who want to come here… what this law really does is segment possible immigration by race and class.
Who do you think is “nodding their head” about mexico? Be careful of your “straw man” arguments. Making up some head-nodding person does not support your arguments :)
Personally, I think people should be qualified to do the job they apply for. If it’s construction worker, maybe language not so important? Or would you deny employment to the many Deaf people who haven’t had the benefit of a good education in English?
Then that poor, deaf person will have to learn English. However, this would be dealing with communication issue rather than a language issue and an exception to the rule could apply to those who are deaf and are trying to get into the United States. Still, it would be a small number of them trying to get into the United States compared to the rest of immigrants population.
However, English is Britain’s (UK) official language yet they are quite liberal with their immigration policy. And, they, too, require immigrants to prove their sufficient knowledge of the English language if they are applying for British citizenship.
No strawman here. I’m making a statement. If a person who read my comment and is nodding that Mexico is right to have their own declared official language but not so for the United States…then I’d call that person a “hypocrites”. No more, no less. And certainly not a strawman since I’m making a statement here.
If a job requires good or excellent use of the English language, why is that supposed to be a problem for those who do not have good grasp (or none at all) of the English language and are trying to get that same job? Still, the United States continues to accept more (legal) immigrants than any other country. And if they want to become a citizen, they must know the English language. We don’t provide a Spanish version of the U.S. citizenship test.
Why should we have to do what Mexico does? Mexico is a whole lot more homogenous than America. More so, its immigrants are coming from Central America. Those are, surprise-surprise, Spanish-speaking countries, too! So they’ve got a pretty homogenous language thing going on there.
Also, America is an immigrant country, built on the backs of people who were not born here. Just because Mexico has an official language doesn’t mean we should. I would rather for us to take the high road and promote bilingual education and further the English knowledge of immigrants, without turning them away or denying them access to services just because they don’t speak the majority language.
I do not think you can really compare the United States with Mexico either but the principles remain the same. Also, I believe we can still take the high road by offering free English classes everywhere. Just because we make English our national language does not necessarily mean that we withdraw our support for minorities.
Well, Canada’s official language is both English and French with English speaking Canadians at 59% and French speaking at 23% of Canada’s population. Compare that to the percentage of the population of 300 million that speak English in America. That would be 82 percent.
Actually, the “nation of immigrants” is a misleading catch phrase. Until 1965, American immigration laws explicitly protected America from diversity. Rather, it was the immigrants’ offsprings who became citizens of the United States that really helped build America. There’s a huge myth thinking that it was all immigrants who did all the building of America, if that’s what you’re alluding to. Not so. There were immigration quotas back then (even today) that limited the number of immigrants entering the United States. And, of course, they were used for cheap, dirty labor.
“cheap, dirty labor” IS what built America. Who do you think worked on those buildings in Manhattan? Built the railroads? Hauled freight at the docks? Planted the first farms? Dug in the coal mines?
Even today we still benefit from immigrant labor. We buy fruit cheap because of the pickers, we hire house staff at a low price using immigrants and so on..
Just because immigrants weren’t intially allowed to participate or vote (before 1965) doesn’t mean they didn’t have a hand in building this great country.
Uh, that would be cheap, illegal aliens. A study was conducted that if these illegal aliens were in fact legal, they’d be earning twice as much in wages with better living conditions.
Cheap labor I understand. But it wasn’t all immigrants work that built all of America. There are such things as skilled and educated workers.
There is NOTHING cheap about cheap labor when it comes to paying illegal immigrants to do the work. Taxpayers and legitimate consumers will still have to pay for their medical bills, scholarships, schooling cost, etc… You might see cheap tomatos but when it all comes down to it, you are still paying more overall.
As for immigrants, they are NOT allowed to vote at all (except in a very few places, recently so, on local affairs), until they become citizens of the United States. Much more so extended to *ILLEGAL* immigrants. Immigrants should become citizens and then vote. Otherwise you create the possibility of people voting who have no stake in society.
I never mentioned anything about voting but made a reference on the annual number of immigrants coming to America each year when prior to 1965 average number of immigrants entering legally was 180,000. After 1965 it shot up to over 500,000. Now, it’s a 1,000,000+ a year.
Adam,
Regarding your assumption that language is homogenous in Mexico, well, according to wikiepdia … there are 62 different languages spoken in Mexico; excluding non indigenous languages like English, German, Arabic, French, Chinese, Korean, etc spoken in Mexico.
quote
Spanish is the predominant language of Mexico. Nonetheless, the second article of the constitution defines the country as a “pluricultural” nation, and recognizes the right of the Indigenous peoples to “preserve and enrich their languages…” and promotes “bilingual and intercultural education” [1].
In 2003 the Conress aproved the “Law of Lingusitic Rights” that recognizes that Spanish and the Indigenous languages of México are “national languages” due to their historic origin and “have the same validity in their territory, location and context”. This law allows the Indigenous peoples to present and request official documents in their respective languages. The state commits to the preservation and promotion of the use of the national languages through the activities of the “Institute of Indigenous Languages” [2].
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Mexico
It’s neat to see Martha’s Vineyard Sign Language, now extinct, mentioned in Wikipedia’s “The Languages in the United States”.
“Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha’s Vineyard” written by Nora Ellen Groce is a very interesting book to read. The writer analyzed a community in Martha’s Vineyard taking place between 1694 and 1952. Deafness was viewed as just another physical trait in that community. Nice isn’t it!
The problem with English in the U.S. is that it is not officially recognized. Therefore, we cannot force immigrants to learn English. But, I agree with you that immigrants should have good command of the language which is used in a country where the immigrant wants to move in. Without knowing language, you wouldn’t be able to have good jobs, etc. But without knowing English immigrants still have jobs which are mostly low-level jobs which brought prosperity to America.
My opinion is that the federal government should work with each state to support immigrants learning English (or Spanish if it is used by majority) and encourage them to use their mother language as well. Since Spanish-spoken people is on the rise, we should give English and Spanish the same weight.
I understand that this county is diverse hence there is diversity in language as well. My issue is if ENGLISH is the official language of the country, then everyone living here must attempt to learn the language. It is most definitely hard to measure the proficiency of language skills. When one is trying to assimilate into the culture, they have to make the changes necessary to adapt to it, not vice versa. Education eradicates ignorance; so educating people is the key here. If everyone is well versed in the “NATIONAL” language, it makes life easier for them and everyone else around them.
Many people think that it’s requirement for each citizen to learn national language if it is offically recognized but it does not happen often. Coming from Germany I can tell you that not all people know German. Some computer professionals from U.S., for example, work for a German company without knowing German language since team members who the American work with know English. And there are many older people, from Turkey for example, don’t know English (their children do; but not always anyway). The German government and 16 states now discuss and develop a guideline for those who want to become a German citizen. The immigration test include language, culture and history test. Many of immigrants complain that this test is too hard. My comment: those people don’t complain if any test at a college or university is hard. If they are really care about being a German citizen, they should be able to study hard.
deaf people learning spanish english
can u provide more information ?
english is the only language that matters. someday the whole world will speak it.