# National Languages



## Joelline

In response to the thread in this forum "Why we avoid some national news topics," I am opening this thread.

Yesterday, on May 19, the US Senate held 2 votes:  the first vote was on a bill that proposed making English the national language of the United States. Lawmakers who led the effort said that such a bill would promote national unity. The vote was 63-34 in favor of the bill.

But, then, critics argued that such a bill would prevent limited English speakers from getting language assistance required by an executive order signed by former President Clinton. The Senate then voted again proposing that English be the U.S.'s "common and unifying language."  This bill, too, passed by a vote of 58-39.

Note: neither bill could become law until the House of Representatives accepted it and the President signed it into law.

My questions, however, are not limited to the USA alone. 

What is your opinion about legislation declaring one language to the be the only national language of a country?  

Does your country have such legislation?  If so, why was such legislation necessary?  If not, why is such legislation unnecessary?

Does such legislation disadvantage those who do not speak the national language?  

What are the pros and cons on this issue?


----------



## GenJen54

Hi Joelline,

Here's a fairly recent thread that might be of interest.  Pack a snack, though. It's a bit long.


----------



## maxiogee

Ireland has two official languages, with Irish being the "first official language", but English really predominates in all matters.
Now and again a case hits the headlines where some native Irish speaker has a court case struck out because they weren't served their papers in Irish, or because they couldn't get a hearing in Irish.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Joelline said:
			
		

> In response to the thread in this forum "Why we avoid some national news topics," I am opening this thread.
> 
> Yesterday, on May 19, the US Senate held 2 votes:  the first vote was on a bill that proposed making English the national language of the United States. Lawmakers who led the effort said that such a bill would promote national unity. The vote was 63-34 in favor of the bill.
> 
> But, then, critics argued that such a bill would prevent limited English speakers from getting language assistance required by an executive order signed by former President Clinton. The Senate then voted again proposing that English be the U.S.'s "common and unifying language."  This bill, too, passed by a vote of 58-39.
> 
> Note: neither bill could become law until the House of Representatives accepted it and the President signed it into law.
> 
> My questions, however, are not limited to the USA alone.
> 
> What is your opinion about legislation declaring one language to the be the only national language of a country?
> 
> Does your country have such legislation?  If so, why was such legislation necessary?  If not, why is such legislation unnecessary?
> 
> Does such legislation disadvantage those who do not speak the national language?
> 
> What are the pros and cons on this issue?


I don't think there is anything wrong with it as long as people who do not speak English are not discriminated against. I guess it would be like declaring the Atlantic and the Pacific our national oceans. I don't see the need for declaring English the "official" language of the United States because government business is already conducted in English.

I don't see what "problem" this legislation solves. We seemed to be getting along quite well for two hundred years without a national language or an official one. The bald eagle was made the national bird of the United States in 1782. Okay, cool. Not particularly harmful but not particularly helpful either. It's symbolic, I think, and not much else.


----------



## Joelline

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Ireland has two official languages, with Irish being the "first official language", but English really predominates in all matters.
> Now and again a case hits the headlines where some native Irish speaker has a court case struck out because they weren't served their papers in Irish, or because they couldn't get a hearing in Irish.


 
Maxiogee:  What's been the resolution of such court cases? How sympathetic are the courts to this defense?


----------



## Joelline

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I don't think there is anything wrong with it as long as people who do not speak English are not discriminated against.


 
But, wouldn't this mean that the voting ballots in multiple languages, the "press 2 for Spanish" at government agencies would be gone (private industry could do what it wanted)? Is that discrimination?


----------



## maxiogee

Joelline said:
			
		

> Maxiogee:  What's been the resolution of such court cases? How sympathetic are the courts to this defense?



In minor cases they are thrown out.
But if it's something serious they redo the papers, or re-jig the arrangements.
A lot can depend on the disposition of the judge.
But the laws say that you have the right to be dealt with through Irish in any of your dealings with the state, so they can't do too much there.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Joelline said:
			
		

> But, wouldn't this mean that the voting ballots in multiple languages, the "press 2 for Spanish" at government agencies would be gone (private industry could do what it wanted)? Is that discrimination?


English as a *national *language or English as an *official *language? As a national language, it wouldn't mean anything would really change.


----------



## fenixpollo

While I understand that the wording "a common and unifying language" has no legal basis and is therefore hollow, I'm not clear that "a national language" has the same, watered-down effect.  Is there really a practical distinction between a "national language" and an "official language"?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> While I understand that the wording "a common and unifying language" has no legal basis and is therefore hollow, I'm not clear that "a national language" has the same, watered-down effect.  Is there really a practical distinction between a "national language" and an "official language"?



According to the NY Times:

Under the Inhofe proposal, the federal government is directed to "preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America." It does not go as far as proposals to designate English the nation's official language, which would require all government publications and business to be in English.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/washington/19immig.html


----------



## fenixpollo

Even though you may be right in your posts above, I feel that this is a step in the wrong direction.  First, it's a small step to "common and unifying", then another small step to "national" and another small step after that to "official".  At the risk of nauseating all of you with my opinion on this once again, I have to say that _the US does not need an official language_.  Frankly, I think it's a bad idea for any country (as a general principle) to have an official language -- it can only serve to divide, not unite.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Even though you may be right in your posts above, I feel that this is a step in the wrong direction.  First, it's a small step to "common and unifying", then another small step to "national" and another small step after that to "official".  At the risk of nauseating all of you with my opinion on this once again, I have to say that _the US does not need an official language_.  Frankly, I think it's a bad idea for any country (as a general principle) to have an official language -- it can only serve to divide, not unite.


I don't know if it's not good for any country but I do agree that the United States does not need an official language. This law just says, as I read it, that the federal government is going to start to "preserve and enhance the role of English." Does that mean more money for education? Sign me up! 

It also says that you unless there is a law that states otherwise, you cannot force the federal government to use a language that's not English. If this passes, I think that, just for the heck of it, I'm going to demand that I get my Social Security statements in Scots or Jamaican Patois and have them figure out whether those are English or not.

But here's the wording:

*S.AMDT.4064* 
Amends: S.2611 
Sponsor: Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] (submitted 5/17/2006) (proposed 5/17/2006) AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To amend title 4 United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the United States and to promote the patriotic integration of prospective US citizens. 




*S.AMDT.4073* 
Amends: S.2611 
Sponsor: Sen Salazar, Ken [CO] (submitted 5/18/2006) (proposed 5/18/2006) 
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To declare that English is the common and unifying language of the United States, and to preserve and enhance the role of the English language. 




I don't think English is really in need of being preserved or enhanced in the United States. I also find it very odd that the people who speak the languages that are in the least danger of being endangered are the ones who are always talking about "protecting" them.

I also find it revolting that people who call themselves "conservatives" would vote for this kind of bill. More federal government intrusion in our lives? More big government breathing down our throats? Isn't this something that should be decided locally? 

We don't need Washington to tell us what to do.


----------



## Joelline

Residente and Fenix,

I'm inclined to agree with both of you that, at the very least, "this is a step in the wrong direction."

I grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We used to be (and to a small extent, still are) a city of "ethnic neighborhoods."  It wasn't a "melting pot world"; it was a smorgesbord!  I can very well remember going to the part of town called "Little Italy" to get fresh pasta; I remember the Lawrenceville neighborhood where every shop sign was in Polish (and where you could get the best Polish kielbasa [polish sausage] in the world).  Then, we'd go to Squirrel Hill (where most of the residents spoke Yiddish) for bagels and lox. 

We spoke three languages in my own home.  The only time I ever remember my multi-linguistic world being a problem for me was one day, when I was in grade school, a teacher held up a picture of a mother in a kitchen with X in her hand.  The teacher asked what X was called.  I knew perfectly well it was a "spatula," but didn't raise my hand because I didn't know it that was an English word or not!

Somehow, in my technicolor, multi-linguistic world, people communicated, lots of business was done, and life was very rich, indeed.


----------



## emma42

It's got to be a step in the wrong direction, hasn't it?  I don't understand why the ruling classes would want it, though, because surely they want as many voters and consumers as possible?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

emma42 said:
			
		

> It's got to be a step in the wrong direction, hasn't it?  I don't understand why the ruling classes would want it, though, because surely they want as many voters and consumers as possible?



Well, the measure doesn't say very much. It says the federal government will "enhance and promote" English but that doesn't mean anything. It say English is the language of this country and that's like saying that from now on Americans will breathe by inhaling and exhaling.

People in Brooklyn, NY will get access to services in other languages if they cannot speak English because that's how we do. And any law that says the opposite will be very unpopular here  because we have many people who don't speak English. I speak English but I have relatives who don't and so do millions of people here so that kind of law won't pass. So this law doesn't affect us in any way and the ruling class here knows better.

The ruling class in Plattsburgh, NY couldn't care less even if they have very strong opinions about it. Very few people in that town don't speak English so it doesn't matter one way or the other. And the truth is, I don't see the point in offering services in Spanish or to a town where less than one percent of the population speaks Spanish. I'm sure the people there can figure something out on their own without Washington.

I think that's the whole point in a federal system. We are different communities and one law does not fit all. But that law has no teeth. It would be a step in the wrong direction, I think, if it was a step. But it's just the Senate being the Senate.


----------



## Joelline

Emma,

What you say is absolutely true and just plain common sense!  However, several informal polls that I've seen recently say that over 70% of Americans want English to be the one official national language!

I think it's fear of change combined with fear of the "outsider." When pollsters ask people why they favor an English-only nation, what I've noticed is that many come up with "urban myths" presented as fact:  "I had a friend who visited Miami Beach, and, when she got lost, NO ONE spoke English or could tell her how to get back to her hotel." or "There's something wrong when you drive up to your local MacDonalds and order a Big Mac, and NO ONE can understand you."  (The latter example is taken from an interview on TV where the speaker had a reaaaalllly heavy Western accent, and a chaw of chew-tobacco in his mouth!  I could barely understand him!).

On the other hand, I can tell you that I get annoyed when I call the toll-free number of a company in New York and the instructions are given first in Spanish and then in English!


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Joelline said:
			
		

> Emma,
> 
> What you say is absolutely true and just plain common sense!  However, several informal polls that I've seen recently say that over 70% of Americans want English to be the one official national language!
> 
> I think it's fear of change combined with fear of the "outsider." When pollsters ask people why they favor an English-only nation, what I've noticed is that many come up with "urban myths" presented as fact:  "I had a friend who visited Miami Beach, and, when she got lost, NO ONE spoke English or could tell her how to get back to her hotel." or "There's something wrong when you drive up to your local MacDonalds and order a Big Mac, and NO ONE can understand you."  (The latter example is taken from an interview on TV where the speaker had a reaaaalllly heavy Western accent, and a chaw of chew-tobacco in his mouth!  I could barely understand him!).
> 
> On the other hand, I can tell you that I get annoyed when I call the toll-free number of a company in New York and the instructions are given first in Spanish and then in English!


There is something about the content of these fora that brings out a part of me I never knew. I'm really not a free-market, invisible hand kind of person but I here goes what I really think.

That person who got lost in Miami wasn't forced to go there. It's no secret to me that Miami is very "Spanish" and people who go there should find out about the place they are going to. So my advice to her, go somewhere else where everybody speaks English, like Cancún.

If people stopped going to fast-food joints because they couldn't understand the people who work there, then they would do something about it. When I get bad service at a store, I simply never go back there again. If we all did that, we'd get better service. That's something that has so little with language and so much with provided good service for your customers.

When you call somewhere and you don't like something, like being told "para español oprima uno" before you are told "for English, press two" tell the first live person you talk to. If enough people complain, they will change it.

These are things we the people have a great deal of control of by using our purses and our mouths. 

Making English the official language or the national language won't get you good service or Miaminos to learn English (I'm not implying that they don't).  In New York City, you will not understand your cab driver. It's something we have grown to accept. I don't think a law that makes English the official language will make NYC cab drivers speak English and people who speak fluent English here usually have other types of jobs.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Here's a perspective from another country with two official languages.

Advantages:  


Everything sold in Canada must be labelled in both languages .... so you get to read the ingredients twice while you're waiting for the water to boil
You are entitled to governmental service in the language of your choice
There are numerous bursary programs for langugage immersion programs during the summer
We're involved in far more international groups, such as la francophonie
we have access to top-quality second-language education programs and materials
If you didn't understand everything the first time around, you get a second opportunity when the instructions are repeated in the second language


Disadvantages:


Everything sold in Canada must be labelled in both languages... so it can take forever to find those English instructions if you're in a hurry and don't understand a specialized terminology in French
expensive to maintain
not always enforced (ie, Quebec's language laws allowed to take precedence over national law)

Actually, there aren't many disadvantages.  I never realized how lucky I was to live in a country with 2 official languages until I travelled to countries with only one.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Well, here, where there is no official language (yet) things are labelled in many languages. Some products, like my sazón with cilantro and achiote, are labelled and in both Spanish and English (I guess there are some people who use that sazón who don't speak Spanish). My detergent happens to be bilingual English-French. I think NAFTA might have something to do with that. Or maybe it's because New York is not that fair away from Québec.

But instructions to electronic equipement comes in many languages and my ATM allows you to pick Italian, French, or Spanish as well as English.

But these are market driven. And I don't think that's half bad.


----------



## Bienvenidos

Just branching off Resident's comments:

Most of the products that I buy here in the US are usually in two languages, usually either English or Spanish or English and French. Electronics are always in all three languages. I suppose companies do this to skip costs for creating the product in every language individually, so they just bundle up the three major spoken languages on North America (Québec accounting for the French). I know I immediately read the Spanish. 

*Bien*


----------



## fenixpollo

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> When you call somewhere and you don't like something, like being told "para español oprima uno" before you are told "for English, press two" tell the first live person you talk to. If enough people complain, they will change it.


 joelline and residente, this is not cultural favoritism -- just simple psychology. The people who run the phone lines don't necessarily consider Spanish more important than English; they put the Spanish instructions first because they've found that if they don't, the Spanish-speaking callers tend to hang up.  The people who want the Spanish-speakers' business don't like it when that happens.


----------



## Bienvenidos

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> joelline and residente, this is not cultural favoritism -- just simple psychology. The people who run the phone lines don't necessarily consider Spanish more important than English; they put the Spanish instructions first because they've found that if they don't, the Spanish-speaking callers tend to hang up. The people who want the Spanish-speakers' business don't like it when that happens.


 
That sounds logical to me. 

*Bien*


----------



## Residente Calle 13

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> joelline and residente, this is not cultural favoritism -- just simple psychology. The people who run the phone lines don't necessarily consider Spanish more important than English; they put the Spanish instructions first because they've found that if they don't, the Spanish-speaking callers tend to hang up.  The people who want the Spanish-speakers' business don't like it when that happens.



Right. I know it's not. Business generally like to make money but the loudest squeek gets the oil. Obviously the instructions have to be in _one _language first so I see three scenarios:

a) So many English speakers get angry that having to choose between losing Spanish-speaking clients or English-speaking clients, they put the English instructions first.

b) Businesses inform their English-speaking costumers as to why the Spanish instructions are first and no so many of them get angry.

c) Things stay the way the are.

I think that in a market drive economy, that's how it goes. That "no hamburger, cheeseburger" dinner would have not stayed in business very long.


----------



## Joelline

Fenix,

I know it wasn't cultural favoritism, I just get annoyed in general with the effort to speak to a human being on those press 1, press 8, press 9, phone calls, so even a 10 second delay just annoys me more! 

By the way, Residente, I have complained vociferously every single time I've gotten one of those extra-long phone menus, but it's never done a lick of good!  I guess not enough people complain!  However, the poor customer service rep. I finally get to complain to always apologizes very nicely for the delay--except when I had to call the IRS, of course!


----------

