Words To The Wise

I'm in the midst of reading two books right now (I can't pay attention to any single one for a long time – actually I'm reading five or six books, but only two are relevant to what I want to say), “Language Loyalties,” edited by James Crawford, and “Verbal Hygiene” by Deborah Cameron. The first “was conceived at the Conference on Language Rights and Public Policy … [of the] Stanford University Department of Linguistics and Californians United against Proposition 63.ⁱ As its title and sponsorship suggest, the conference brought together “[individuals who] … oppose Official English and seek alternatives.”

According to its editor, “My own bias, and the bias of those who have supported the project, should be stated clearly: Adopting English as the official language [of the United States] would be a backward step for this country. The English Only campaign offers at best a simplistic answer to our language problems, at worst a vehicle for xenophobia.”

The second book, “Verbal Hygiene,” “takes a serious look at popular attitudes towards language and examines the practices by which people attempt to regulate its use.” Professor Cameron, who taught at that time at The Programme [sic] in Literary Linguistics at Strathclyde University [Glasgow], is, according to Wikipedia, “a Scottish feminist linguist, who currently holds the Rupert Murdoch Professorship in Language and Communication at Oxford, ... [and much of her] academic research is focused on the relationship of language to gender and sexuality.” She criticizes “the Right” and “Conservatives” for an attempt to standardize English which, she maintains, “would not be ... condoned … by common-sense wisdom about the goals of standardization.”

I'm especially interested in the subject right now (I'm always interested in the English language, a language I love, but it's especially relevant at this time) because of the current brouhaha over immigration. An important premise of “Language Loyalties” is that one of the main driving forces for Official English or an English Only policy is the goal of limiting or ending citizenship for new immigrants, especially Hispanics. And according to the conference's participants, by requiring education in English and English literacy for citizenship, its supporters hope to discourage immigration.

Various contributors to the volume point out that America has always been a country of immigrants and their languages enrich English. Similarly Professor Cameron point out the benefits of the naturally changing nature of language and the contributions of various “foreign” influences. She points out that change is a normal and important feature of language, and those who try to standardize it, for whatever purpose, are making a mistake.

I wonder, though, if they miss the point. Immigrants of the past came with the understanding that they were joining what they viewed as a society preferable to the one they left, and they joined it fully, often leaving behind the vestiges of their previous lives, including their languages. They wanted to be part of that new society. That was certainly the goal of their children. Acceptance, integration, assimilation. It was what they sought. And what they knew of the language of their parents they did not transmit to their children. They were Americans, and their children would be moreso. Involvement in American culture was their aim, not simply the transfer of their previous lives, unchanged, into a new environment.

And that is the concern of many of those who support Official English.ⁱⁱ They fear that if new immigrants maintain their own languages and have no reason to learn what they view as the nation's language, all they will do is transfer all their past practices to a place where they can earn more and live more freely. There's no reason why they shouldn't keep their language, earn more, and live freely, but learning this nation's language and integrating, at least minimally, into American society, should be encouraged.

James Crawford writes: “The English Only campaign offers at best a simplistic answer to our language problems, at worst a vehicle for xenophobia.” According to the Oxford Dictionary (American English), xenophobia is an “[i]ntense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.” Demonization of those whom you oppose, an ad hominem argument, may be effective as a rhetorical tool, but it does not provide much in terms of enlightenment about the subject at issue. Similarly, the use of pejorative languageⁱⁱⁱ is intended to bias the reader or listener and distract from the merits of the argument. In this instance, the formal acceptance of English as our nation's language, by those already here and by those who choose to come, is as unifying and identifying a feature of who we are as our flag.^iv

Acceptance of English as our national language does not, in any way, mean standardization – that there is any wish to maintain it in its current form without ever altering it – without incorporating any changes from the language of our new citizens, or from anyone or anywhere else.^v Change cannot and should not be stopped. In fact, such change enriches language, and reflects what is happening in our society.

In addition, the transmission of a people's heritage should not be discouraged, and the teaching of children about their people's past should be welcomed.^vi But it should not cut them off from their future. America is a large country and we have chosen to be a single nation rather than a collection of states. Unless we abandon this philosophy, it makes sense to find ways to unify all our citizens. Language can be the unifying factor – because of what it already is, and because of what its diverse population can make of it. If we fear that the idea of a national language will be abused, or that it is a violation of freedom of speech, we should be on guard against such results and take appropriate legal steps to prevent that from happening. The potential for misuse should not prevent the acceptance of what is otherwise desired. It should promote our “eternal vigilance.” But we must not let that fear dissuade us from doing what we think right. Nearly three quarters of California's voters favored Proposition 63. While it is part of our national character that we protect the rights of minorities, we must also consider the wishes of the majority. After all, that's what democracy is all about. And the two are not mutually exclusive. The books I am reading are very informative in English, and they would be similarly so in any other language.

[I thought I'd add the following snippet from Thomas Hardy.  I'm not sure precisely how it fits in, but from my perspective it's on point.

         

          The Stranger within my gate,

                    He may be true or kind,

          But he does not talk my talk –

                    I cannot feel his mind.

          I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,

                    But not the soul behind.]

Next episode: “Thanks For The Memory” -- You remember. Bob Hope and Shirley Ross.

I        An amendment to the California Constitution which made English the official language of the state. It passed overwhelmingly.

ii       And I am among them.

iii      “simplistic” appears to be intended as a put-down. I don't deny that one of the proposed solutions is simple, but that doesn't make it “simplistic.” Sometimes a simple answer is the best answer.

iv      Some will object that a flag is itself an overly patriotic symbol whose use is outdated and counterproductive in a “diverse” and “multicultural” society like ours. I find it difficult to deal with such a mindset except to note that all nations, however diverse and multicultural they are, have flags and treat them with respect.

v       Such an idea does not sanction “language police,” nor does it in any way permit public or private institutions to fail to provide necessary aids to those for whom English is not their primary language.

vi      Just as there are parochial schools which, in addition to secular studies, teach about particular religious texts and practices, there can be schools that teach about national heritages and languages. This would give immigrant groups, and everyone else, the opportunity to instill the concepts of a culture and its history and language in their children. Support for such schools should be handled in the same way as currently existing parochial schools (although it may be wise to rethink this issue for all of them). And there should be no attempt to delegitimize languages which are not designated as our national tongue.