June 2006

The Grumpy Grammarian

Knowing my biases on certain issues, a friend once gave me a T-shirt that reads: "Welcome to America. Now Speak English." My wife cautions me against wearing it in public places, especially those frequented by many non-native speakers. She is afraid that I might be arrested (or, worse yet, subject to a violent attack) for publicly flaunting a politically correct opinion.

Apparently, those of us who feel that people who live in this country should be required to learn English are not only wrong; we should be silenced and even ostracized for holding such an opinion. Ironically, in America, where English is by far still the most commonly used language, the insistence that immigrants should learn English is un-American. A nation founded on a Constitution written in English, in which most of important business transactions and the affairs of government are conducted in English, not only refuses to name English as its "official" language but also reprimands those who think it should be so.

A case in point: When the US Senate recently debated once again a resolution to declare English the "official" language, all it was willing to do was affix an amendment to the immigration bill declaring English to be the "national" language. Even so, Henry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, declared such a resolution to be "racist." (See "In Plain English: Let's Make It Official" in Newsweek, June 12, 2006, p. 112.) Some Senators wanted to dilute the wording even further by declaring English the "common" language. (The debate, of course, was conducted in English.)

Does any of this matter? I think it does because, when a language is declared the "official" language, we strongly imply that full citizenship in a country is incumbent upon understanding the language of that country. That is as it should be.

To cite an example, in the state where I live we offer phone messages in both Spanish and English to tell people who are on jury duty whether or not to report. The instructions are very simple and should be understood by anyone with a minimal knowledge of English. Clearly, anyone who cannot understand that much English has no business serving on a jury for a trial conducted in English. Besides, since jurors must be citizens, they presumably have proven sufficient knowledge of English to understand these instructions without a translation. Why then does the judicial system feel obliged to offer a Spanish version? If there's any logic to the practice, shouldn't there also be versions in many other languages for the benefit of Italian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Polish-Americans, and so on?

Our failure to declare English the "official" language has had some negative consequences, most notably in movements toward bilingual education. Bilingualism is not the same as learning a second language (which is decidedly useful and beneficial). Rather, it replaces English as the language of education with the student's native language – a practice that reduces the student's chances of becoming fluent in English.

Significantly, when bilingualism was attempted in California, non-native-speaking parents were among its most severe critics. They argued that this approach lessened their children's likelihood to learn English – a skill they needed for higher education and high-paying jobs. Rather than helping them, it was a kind of reverse discrimination.

Polls and studies show that most non-native speakers residing in the United States expect and want to learn English. They recognize that it is the dominant language of the culture in which they are now living and that it is an integral part of that culture. Despite the availability of information and entertainment in a variety of languages, they realize that they need to know the language to become assimilated into the culture – even if the U.S. Senate refuses to make English the "official" language.

Let's cover one loose end here, too – the straw grasped by many opponents of making English the official language. Requiring people to learn the dominant language of the country in which they live does not mean that they must discard their ethnicity or forsake the cultural traditions of their country of origin. Many generations of immigrants have learned English while honoring and preserving the transplanted traditions of their homelands. Indeed, some of these customs and traditions have been so influential that they have become a part of the "American" way of life. Thus, it has been said that America is more a stew with many distinct flavors than a melting pot with only one. Yet the truth is that, linguistically, the ingredient that gives the stew coherence is the English language.

Though it probably won't happen as long as some kind of misguided "political correctness" controls the thinking of our leaders, we should make English the official language of the land.