America Needs English as the Official Language - Essay Example

America Needs English as the Official Language, Not Bilingualism In a general sense, bilingualism refers to the natural ability to easily speak in two languages. This means the use of two languages regularly in daily communications. Focusing on America, bilingualism would refer to the ability to speak in English and another language. This aims at accommodating non-native English speakers who form a critical component of the population, Mujica estimating them to constitute 8% of the population, 5 million of who were born in America (150). As such, providing communication in English and another language they understand would foster effective communication in the country. This would make it easier for them to vote and understand communication from the government, court proceedings and educational institutions. However, adopting bilingualism in America has elicited heated debate over the years with no consensus reached. Considering the arguments for and against bilingualism, America stands to gain more by promoting English as the only official language as opposed to bilingualism which comes with detrimental socioeconomic costs. Arguments for English Only First, adopting English as the only official language would foster national unity. America is a country of incredible diversity, being “a nation of immigrants” (Hayakawa 575). Its people do not have a common race, ethnicity, native language or religion which is the reason that commonly binds people in other nations. Thus, a common language would be the only unifying force. Even so, skeptics argue that adopting a common language amounts to irresponsible citizenship. Experience, on the other hand, indicates otherwise. Take the example of the school bus story given by Marin where students fell into disharmony because of the difference in their language of communication (79). A similar case applies during World War II between the Japanese and the Chinese who had to be differentiated through a badge (Hayakawa 575). In the latter case, the rising of English-speaking generations from the two races saw them socialize more, appreciate the commonalities they shared, even forming the Asian-American societies together. Such is the unification effect that sharing a common language has. Using English only would promote academic success. Opponents argue that teaching children in their native languages foster their understanding. Limiting them to English would lock them out from learning opportunities. Take the case of Maxine Hong Kingston who could not stand before a stage of American school, instead going silent. Had it been a Chinese platform, she would have been more confident. In the Chinese setting, there was "reading together and reciting together, not alone with one voice", and "the girls were not mute,” an indication that learning takes place better in an environment that promotes native language (Kingston 104). Such persons are deterred from academic achievement in America by the virtue of just not speaking English. It would be more academically beneficial had such students been allowed to receive education in their native languages. Of course this is valid. However, as argued by Hayakawa, the problem does not lie in introducing a child to education in the native language but rather in the continued teaching such a child in the native language (577). The scholar cites the example of high school children in the Newhall School District who were for a long time taught in their native language facing challenges competing with their English-speaking counterparts. A majority of such students drop out of school as a result. In fact, other schools have faced legal action for not adequately preparing their students academically because of failure to teach English fast enough. Therefore, the findings on the almost unanimous support for the need to learn English so as to succeed in the modern world as indicated by data collected from various countries documented by Mujica holds (151). “English is the global language and… is the language of business, higher education, diplomacy, aviation, the Internet, science, popular music, entertainment, and international travel” (Mujica 152). As such, understanding the environment today and thus excel academically would call for adoption of English as the unifying language. Furthermore, making English the official language would make it clear to newcomers the importance of English, thus preserving the common language traditional policy. With the assimilation process currently utilized by America not producing the required results, the declaration of English as the official language would provide the incentive for learning it (Hayakawa 580). This would cause publications, actions, programs, orders, proceedings and policies to be made in English. Opponents would be quick to argue against such a move noting that it would alienate non-natives from the society. It would propagate Americanism and oppress other cultures as was the case in the school bus story given by Marin where American students could not stand Spanish songs in their country (81). However, it should be appreciated that such a declaration would only apply to the government. There would be “commonsense exceptions in the areas of public health and safety, national security, tourism, and commerce” (Mujica 154). People could speak in whatever language they find comfort in but English would be used for official purposes. Such a move should be coupled with increasing English classes for the non-English speakers so as to realize a greater good. Associated costs could be partially borne by the savings from stopping multilingualism. Arguments against Bilingualism It is costly to adopt bilingualism. In support of this argument, Hayakawa refers to bilingualism as “a costly and confusing bureaucratic nightmare” (576). Perhaps, Canada would appreciate this argument more as bilingualism costs it about $400 million every year, and increasing with the increasing expansion of the related services. If America, a country with its ten times greater population than Canada, chooses to adopt bilingualism, the cost incurred would be unimaginable, Mujica estimating it at $4 billion annually (152). In fact, studies to determine the effect of bilingualism on education oppose such a plan over English immersion programs, citing financial burden even in good economic times. There would be costs incurred for translators in courts and schools, multiple document translation at the local level and multilingual voting ballots. With a majority of people, say all, speaking in English, there would be no costs related to having ballots in different languages. This has however been criticized as a move towards locking out the minority from practicing their right to vote. Such an argument does not hold as it faults the Federal Law requiring voters with challenges to be assisted accordingly. The Congress should devise appropriate solutions to the minority with challenges in understanding the English ballot without passing on the burden of producing ballots in diverse languages to the government. Finally, it has been noted that bilingualism would promote the ability of America to deal with other countries. Consider the case of Kingston who could not stand on American stage because she could not speak English as a student (103). Had America promoted Chinese language, she would have probably excelled. Another example is that of Christine Marin. After securing the much needed job to earn her some money which she would use to pay for her college education, she could not sell effectively because of language barrier. Her inability to speak in Spanish, her native language, left her “frustrated and embarrassed” with her customer noting how she “struggled with the language” (Marin 80). She found the solution in bilingualism which she appreciated as being well paying, monetarily speaking. However, flipping the other side of this argument discredits bilingualism completely. As Hayakawa observes, India, which has 10 official languages, is in fact in “a chaotic mess” (576). Despite the opportunity to use diverse languages, English is still used widely in trade out of necessity. Therefore, bilingualism could worsen the woes of America and should therefore be avoided at all costs. Conclusion America has been noted to be incredibly diverse with numerous immigrants. In recognition of this group of people in America, bilingualism has been postulated as an effective approach by the government as it would promote effective communication and show respect for diversity. However, such a move proves to be costly economically and socially and could even fail to achieve the intended objective as observed in some multilingual countries. Instead, America stands to benefit from national unity, enhanced academic achievement and fostering the importance of English to newcomers by adopting English as the only official language. As such, English should be made the only official language in America and any move towards bilingualism quashed. Works Cited Hayakawa, S. I. “Bilingualism in America: English Should be the Only Language.” USA Today Magazine, 118.2530 (1989): 575 – 580. Kingston, M. H. The Language of Silence. In The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts. New York: Random House, 1976. 102 – 108. Marin, C. Spanish Lessons. 79 – 84. Mujica, Mauro E. “Why the U.S. Needs an Official Language.” World & I, 18.2 (2003): 150 – 154. Read More