Language: it’s more than just a tool for verbal communication. It is also a marker of social and economic status, and when politically advantageous, language can be put to some sinister uses. This much is evident by the rise of the English-only movement in the United States.
The English-only movement has vast support from the American people. Before this view gains even more dominance, I would like to propose a reality check. Why is it so maddeningly inconvenient that we must, at times, “press one for English?” Is the additional twitch of our collective index finger really enough to get us this worked up? I would like to think that after we pause for a breather, Americans will realize that this and other linguistic transgressions are just part of life in a welcoming nation.
The concerns presented by the English-only movement are outwardly economical. Tax dollars, supporters say, should not be spent on bilingual education, bilingual ballots, or interpreter services. However, the struggle against non-English languages in the U.S. also has some undertones of misinformation and misunderstanding. One of the direst charges directed against today’s Latino immigrants is that they do not want to learn English. The push for an English-only United States follows directly from this position. It has been documented, though, that all over the country there is a demand for more English classes than we have yet supplied. According to a February 2007 New York Times article, the American immigrant community understands that a lack of English is a huge disadvantage in the workplace. As such, immigrants of all nationalities flock to English classes, facing months-long waiting lists and overcrowded classes. It is unjust and inefficient to deny people basic services in their first language if they unable to quickly learn English due to a scarcity of classroom space. Some English-only supporters may respond that immigrants should learn English before they come to the U.S. Let me remind subscribers to this view of the crushing poverty that draws them out of their native countries in the first place. In these cases, learning a foreign language falls secondary to daily subsistence.
Perhaps the American people can examine the language issue from another perspective. Rather than seeking to decrease the number languages understood in the United States, why not expand our linguistic knowledge? The benefits of multilingualism are uncontestable. According to linguist Dr. Suzanne Flynn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, children whose parents speak to them in more than one language are better at sorting cognitive input at an earlier age. They are also more able to concentrate on a given task and better equipped to ignore extraneous data. Logistically, of course, bilingual and multilingual people have more access to the world outside their own nation: they can travel more efficiently, read foreign-language news sources, and form relationships with folks from other parts of the globe.
The most effective sort of language learning is interactive. Children (and adults) who hope to learn Spanish or English must practice with Spanish or English speakers. English-speaking children cannot learn all their Spanish from Dora the Explorer, so why not allow them to be exposed to fluent Spanish-speakers as often as possible? The United States cannot foster this type of learning environment if we do not create a linguistically open-minded culture. Luxembourg is a wonderful example of a country that has embraced linguistic plurality. Their four national languages are taught in homes and in schools from an early age, and their children are more adequately prepared to be citizens of the world. Luxembourgers print most street signs and government literature in French; newspapers, in German; and oral language is most often conducted in Letzebuergesch. They have managed to avoid linguistic imperialism, and their children are able to communicate with people in most European and North American countries. They also have the highest per capita income in Europe. Would it hurt the United States to take a page out of their book?
So next time you’re tempted to limit Americans’ linguistic opportunities by going English-only – consider enrolling your child in a bilingual program, instead.
Sources
Flynn, Dr. Suzanne. “The Benefits of Bilingualism.”
“Luxembourg: A Linguistic Puzzle.” Last modified 23 September 2007.
http://www.luxembourg.co.uk/lingua.html
Santos, Fernanda. “Demand for English Lessons Outstrips Supply.” 27 February 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/education/27esl.html