English As The Unifying Factor Among The Different Immigrants - Essay Example

The ability of the English language to bind together people of different cultures and languages is unparalleled. The popularity and worldliness of the English language can be attributed to its habit of borrowing words with gay abandon from almost all languages it has come into contact with, and also to its generosity of lending some of its own to them. If there is one language that can serve as a common platform to all the different ethnic communities settled in the US and if there is one language that can be declared as the official language of the world's greatest democracy, it is undoubtedly English. English acts as a binding force and has been doing so for quite some time, apart from the United States, in countries like India and Australia too. India is a land of diverse cultures and myriad languages and in spite of the fact, has remained remarkably united. Some of its credit goes to the English language which was unanimously elected as the official language of the country. As for Australia, it is like America one huge melting pot of culturally and linguistically diverse people. English is the only unifying factor among the different immigrants of Australia. The Australian government has recently made it very clear that the acquisition of English is mandatory to people applying for its citizenship. Krauthammer C clearly points out in his article that "One of the major reasons for America's great success as the world's first "universal nation," for its astonishing and unmatched capacity for assimilating immigrants, has been that an automatic part of acculturation was the acquisition of English." Even though we may dismiss the intrinsic-power hypothesis that English possesses certain linguistic characteristics, which would make it the most preferred language on Earth as a racial claim, it nevertheless has to be considered. The simplicity of inflections in English and the flexibility of functions, which has grown over the last five centuries as a result of the loss of inflections, have greatly contributed to its dominance and popularity. One other inherent nature of English is the openness of its vocabulary which implies the free admission of words from other languages and the ready creation of compounds and derivatives. America therefore, is endowed with a unifying language which is indeed a blessing, as Krauthammer C points out But it has also blessed us, because of the accident of our origins, with a linguistic unity that brings a critically needed cohesion to a nation as diverse, multiracial and multiethnic as America." Though English spread all over the world because of exploitation and colonization, more than a billion people around the world today speak English. It is well on its way to becoming the world's language. Its cohesive powers to unite people from different countries, cultures and languages cannot be disputed. If America intends to successfully assimilate its diverse immigrants it cannot but expect the English language to give it a helping hand. Krauthammer C could not put it in a stronger way "English is the U.S.'s national and common language. But that may change over time unless we change our assimilation norms. Making English the official language is the first step toward establishing those norms." English has borrowed words and phrases from almost three-fourths of the world's languages and has both the genius and flexibility to make them its own. Every known language therefore, has something in common with English. What other world language has the same bonding and binding powers and also the right to be elected the "official" language of the US 1 Euphemisms are words used to underplay the ugly. They are one of the ways through which we get a secret glance into a particular society's hypocrisy. If we observe them carefully in relation to the circumstances that give birth to them, it will be clear that euphemisms are actually tools used to mask uncomfortable truths to abate the society's torments of conscience. They whitewash harsh truths and act as havens that guard us from our own inner voice. Therefore, getting rid of the very habit of coining euphemisms would actually force language users to face realities and also, in turn take responsibility for them. It has been recognized by language experts all over the world that one of the four main reasons why people use euphemisms is hypocrisy; the other three being avoidance, prudery and deception. The Time article "THE EUPHEMISM: TELLING IT LIKE IT ISN'T" explains one such example of hypocrisy "A girl may tolerate herself more readily if she thinks of herself as a "swinger" rather than as promiscuous." The modern society considers "swingers" as harmless but would never dream of letting "promiscuous" women get away with it. This kind of hypocrisy is only rivaled by the Victorians who were alarmed by any kind of sexual cravings yet had a number of euphemisms for prostitute like nymph of the pavement, nemmer, tail, judy and a poule-de-luxe, which actually shows that though the Victorians reveled in prostitution, managed to maintain a faade of prudery. Euphemisms, as is evident in warfare and political vocabulary enable an imaginary distance from any truth that might trouble our conscience. The author of the article "THE EUPHEMISM: TELLING IT LIKE IT ISN'T" rightly says, "On a larger scale, though, the persistent growth of euphemism in a language represents a danger to thought and action, since its fundamental intent is to deceive." If military terms like "incontinent ordinance"," friendly fire"," soft targets"," permanent pre-hostility" do not deceive the public by concealing dangerous facts, then what is deception These euphemisms have a desensitizing effect on the speakers and listeners, thereby making the job of governments easier, to wage wars. So much for the purpose euphemisms serve. On a lighter note, the person who says that he is "between jobs" makes the fact that he is unemployed more bearable to his own ears, though the listener and himself are actually in a state of "willing suspension of disbelief". Can we really do away with the practice of coining euphemisms I should say it is nothing but wishful thinking. Getting rid of euphemisms would actually mean getting rid of hypocritical, cowardly act of running away from reality. As a society do we have the courage and conviction to confront facts that make us squirm If we do, then we would also be forced to take certain conscientious efforts to support our convictions. But as long as humanity remains, euphemisms will continue in the name of civilization. The author of the article smartly sums it up as "But the inclination to speak of certain things in uncertain terms is a reminder that there will always be areas of life that humanity considers too private, or too close to feelings of guilt, to speak about directly." While we all know that euphemisms are away of deceiving ourselves to pacify our pangs of conscience, it needs extraordinary minds and hearts to get rid of them and the falsity they represent. Are we there as yet 2 What constitutes good English Is written English supposed to be "purer" than the spoken one Is there anything like "pure" or "good" English at all If there is any such variety, who is to set its standard of purity The question posed by John Leo in his article "The Office of Assertion" "So how should we write and restore the integrity of good English " gives rise to countless such inquiry. English has been and will always be an evolving language and does not belong to any one nation (not any more) or race of people. English thrives and prospers in a state of anarchy and any attempt to assign watch dogs at its doorway to admonish the various different attempts at its usage, would only impoverish it. Therefore any one trying to repress its "happy air of casualness" would only meet with failure. John Leo begins his article whining about an apparent new coinage of an enterprising mind by saying "At my local recycling center, the first bin is labeled "commingled containers." Whoever dreamed up this term could have taken the easy way out and just written "cans and bottles." He seems to forget that English would not have such a copious vocabulary today with its interesting nuances, if people down the ages had been indolent, as he advocates, fitting meanings into existing words. How does he fail to see that "commingled containers" is so much more interesting than the boring "cans and bottles", which does nothing at all to one's enquiring imagination There are somewhere around 600,000 entries in the second edition of the Oxford English dictionary (1989) which actually add to the richness of English. If English had been rigid enough to shield itself from new coinages or borrowings, we would not, sadly, have even one tenth of the present day vocabulary. Certain languages like Sanskrit and French have consciously and also conscientiously, warded off any incursions into them in an attempt to safeguard their "purity". But where do they stand today, in comparison to the ever -flourishing English Sanskrit is not even a living language anymore and French does not come anywhere near English in the scale of popularity. Without giving any thought to the reasons behind this popularity, John Leo identifies linguistic inventions as tortures to the language when he says, "Many prominent people, particularly academics, have invented new ways to torture the English language." He refuses to acknowledge the fact that each one is entitled to his own use of the language, guided only by his skill and imagination. He also fails to see that writing is as much "a personal and private enterprise" as it is "an attempt to change consciousness and change the world". However, he comes out of his cloak of prudery and makes an accurate observation, "Candor, clarity and sincerity are important keys. All of us are weary of writers who dance around their subjects, protecting friends, bending facts to push a cause." The pride and gay abandon of the English language are just not the qualities of the language alone, but of its eager users as well. Therefore, laying rigid rules and judging English as "good" and "bad" would only tamper with the very spirit of the most generous of languages on earth. 3 Works Cited Krauthammer C. "In Plain English: Let's Make It Official". Time. Jun. 04, 2006 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1200741,00.html "The Euphemism: Telling It Like It Isn't". Time. Sep. 19, 1969 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901450,00.html Leo J. The Office of Assertion. City Journal. 21 May 2007 http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-05-21jl.html Read More