Political Controversy of Language - Essay Example

Crawford Argues That Language Is Politically Controversial. Why Is Language So Controversial? Language is causing and hascaused controversy been that has seen its politicization in heated debates in the U.S. This is draw from the fact that English has operational as a national language although it has not been officially declared creating a pervasive sense that for anyone to be an American, they must be able to speak English. The realization that the U.S does not possess am official language policies has generated the need to establish one. A number of organizations emerged to defend English from minority language attacks through making it a subject to official language laws (Crawford 12). Politicians have long been involved in this practice. A good example would be Mitt Romney, a man widely criticized for supporting a policy that calls for English only while simultaneously running commercials in Spanish dialect. This paper will provide insights on the controversies that surround political influence in languages. It explains why these controversies are still relevant. Afar from symbolism, promotion of any language in favor of others can be termed as fundamentally political. This American example forms a strong point of reference to such political language controversies. It would be to some extent right to say that the U.S is probably the home to countless bilingual speaking persons than any other nation on the globe. Culture diversity and linguistics has been extensive for more than two centuries owed to the fact that immigrants settled here from all walks and carried along their language, values and culture. However, regardless of the multiplicity of languages here, there are no limitations to the importance accorded to the common language. There has been a dominant, the colonizers’, language that has advanced to a variety referred to as a Standard American English’s emergence that incorporates native words and conjures its unique spelling and accent (Crawford 145). Those we call the founding fathers made it deliberate to leave designation in the United States of English as an official language mostly probably because it might not have occurred to them given that decision making was actively avoided in an attempt to accord respect to the national diversities. However, this idea has always been considered hostile to interdependence and interests of respective states brooding a tolerant attitude to be favorable. It was not until the 1980s that the anti-minority politics demanded its protection whilst restricting other languages. Political arenas had not taken up the language issues from the perception of predominance of the common language. As Crawford noted, after the English-only guise, the fervor was not for it to be contrary to the prominence of emerging languages. Simple rights threatened the firm hegemony of the U.S common language that had previously cut across centuries of diffused multilingualism and immigration. The government went to the extent of funding projects that were seen to discourage the acquisition of English language; bilingual driving licenses, bilingual schooling or bilingual forms. These resentments and anxieties fueled movements declaring English as the official language that saw its success from well funded lobbying that established the requirement to promote the guise to an extent that this movement received national recognition. Since 1983 to late 90s the United States English has been greatly successful in the promotion of the English only ideology within the state legislatures, Congress, and ballot campaigns. More American states have enacted official English laws between 1981 and 2009 under the influence of U.S English (Crawford 256). Presently, native-born, new arrivals, or most Americans, have recognized capability of communicating in English language is crucial to participate in the American society. However not all the Americans have a mark and level introduced to avail bilingual and multilingual education aimed to provide equal chances to all citizens despite their language backgrounds. However, it is at times taken that these multilingual legislation are directed to counter the melting pot’s ideal tradition that has a goal to assimilate into the majority culture and movements to ensure a full swing of English becomes the official language in the U.S The advocates of English-only have hidden agendas from the real interest appealing for patriotism in an attempt to fully acquire public consent. Nothing is at stake for the English hegemony, at lea tot anywhere in the world. On the contrary, the minor languages are fading. The reduced number of immigrants ensure an extensive the dispersion, more education and urbanization in the host language and consequently, the greater their interactions with their hosting society. Therefore, it becomes challenging for the immigrants to maintain intimate behavior networks and language. A check to the linguistic history in America depicts Anglicization as the common trend filled with statistics and polls designed by unpersuasive and flawed amendment proponents (Crawford 14). The supporters are unaware of the obvious fact of language use from its importance to a nation. Immigrants are assimilated, and they absorb the directed language along the way. The U.S does not fit into any predictable pattern, and although it has extremes of social injustices and controversial aspects, the matter has gathered support from republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals. Polls indicate that over 60 to 90 percent of the respondents backed the legislation of an official language. It has broken the record of an issue widely embraced although it has been unsuccessful in the Senate. Many states have approved the English-only laws although it has not been nationally implemented. Supporters elude that making it a common language would be an effective way to solve conflicts between the diverse races, religious and ethnic groups, unifying bond or an economic advancement tool. Immigrants are thought to probably avoid an official language that would not enable motivation to integration. Amendments would therefore encourage them to do so. Dating from the 80s, minority speakers have been on the rise but the issues that the U.S have managed to live on without an official dialect for over two decades show that the alarmism is ill-founded (Goodman 74). . Emphasis on these numbers develops anxiety away from the main matter of language, issues of super-power slippage, Reagan’s era economic polarization, decline and rootless-ness in the community and challenges in dealing with foreign and domestic crises. As the truths to these assumptions persist, the organization ought not to encourage using English-only while repressing other languages’ rights of speech and expression. A pluralistic society does not accept this because it ends up in social conflicting. As it has been put, present attacking of bilingual education, catalyzed by desires to establish as hegemony, lead to weakening of multicultural curriculum and education diversity are unacceptable in a rather globalized economy. The American identity can be said to have been founded historically on some certain assumptions that regardless of an individual’s native language or origin, virtually anyone can become an American simply by committing to the set principles of individual achievements, democracy, equality and liberty. The benefit of diversities in language is not recognized after denying the involved bilingual rights to express oneself in a desired or own language. It can be argued that nativism depict, apprehension, regret and insecurity that preceding orders are perceived as ever changing. Although not all those involved in this political controversy of this language are racist, the sentiments of nationalism have achieved much in expanding the movement nationally. Crawford was of the suggestion that attitudes bent to racism power the English-only initiative given that a language is a badge to ethnicity. From this line, the government had its strategy laid to exploit all the resentments directed to the minority languages perceived to justify securing of English forms, legally. There has been no need to protect English and neither should there be a reason. In conclusions if there were to be consideration of the political controversies in this language going extinct in the United States, it would be realized that English is very firm and instead what is at risk is the minority languages (Goodman, 144). Works Cited Crawford, James. At war with diversity US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon [England: Multilingual Matters, 2000. Print. Goodman, Sharon. Language, literacy, and education: a reader. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books in association with Open University, 2003. Print. Read More