National Identity and Language Rights - Research Paper Example

In America, there is been, for a number of years, a movement afoot to make English the official language of the United s, or, alternatively, to make English the only language of the United States. This has been driven by a “standard language ideology,” which is defined as “a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogeneous spoken language which is imposed from above...which takes as its model the written language and which has as its goal the suppression of variation” (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, p. 524). In other words, the movement indicates a bias towards English as the superior language, and all other languages are not only inferior, but somehow divisive. According to these ideologies, at least the most extreme of these ideologies, English should be the only language that one uses in any public place – which would include polling places, all state and municipal buildings, etc. The official thinking goes that one language is necessary for the inherent unity of the country. However, the unofficial reason for these laws, according to many, is racist at its core – because language is not just an abstraction or way to communicate, but also is vital to ones culture and place in society, deeming ones language as inferior is akin to deeming ones culture as also inferior. Another issue is that these laws are probably unconstitutional, as they disenfranchise potential voters who do not know the language. As voting is a fundamental right for all citizens, forcing a citizen to vote without knowing what he is voting for, or forcing this citizen to stay home, is unconstitutional. These are just some of the reasons why English only or official English laws are unworkable. But still, legislatures and the people try to make them work, as evidenced by the different movements that have sprung up in this milieu. There are a variety of reasons for the movement to make English the official language. Citrin et al. (1990) identified some of these reasons in their study of the municipalities and states where English only or English as the Official language have been adopted. One of these reasons is historical in nature. English-only in public opinion began in earnest around the turn of the century, as people immigrating from Southern and Eastern Europe stirred xenophobic feelings among Americans, culminating in the “Americanization” movement that “insisted that national unity depended upon cultural homogeneity and a common language” (Auerbach, 1993, p. 10). This was heightened during the first world war, with a strong anti-German contingent that reinforced the nativist fears of foreigners (Citrin, 1990, p. 537). The tide began to turn in the 1960s, as groups began ethnic pride movements, beginning with blacks during the civil rights struggles, extending to immigrants, such as Hispanics, who insisted upon their language rights as a constitutional entitlement (Citrin et al., 1990, p. 537). This is because language is not just communicative, but cultural. It is a vital part of ones cultural identity (Brandes, 2009, p. 5). It is also a part of a larger theory that an individual needs to have freedom over how he or she will live his or her life, and culture is a vital part of this (Brandes, 2009, p. 10). This began the movement towards bi-lingualism, and shepherded in an era of court decisions and legislative initiatives that were sympathetic to the bilingual movement, including the 1967 Bilingual Education Act. This, in turn, led to the pendulum swinging backwards once again, in the form of a backlash and an organized drive for English only in the 1980s (Citrin et al., 1990, p. 537). Partially responsible for this drive for English only was the boom in the Hispanic population, and the attendant spread of the Spanish language (Brandes, 2009, p. 6). Another reason for these English-only movements is that there is an assumption that minorities should give up their language as a kind of payment to the American society (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, p. 520). Another reason is paternalistic in nature – that immigrants need to assimilate into the dominant society, or else they will lag, culturally and socially as a minority group and isolate themselves (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, p. 521). Therefore, learning the language is in their own benefit and allowing the minority population to keep their language is detrimental to their cultural and social ambitions. Senator Hayakawa, a Republican from California, was one of the first and strongest proponents for English as official language legislation. The reason put forth by Hayakawa and others was that it was necessary to designate an official language for the United States, because linguistic diversity allegedly threatened the unity and stability of the country. According to this thought, the United States, as a pluralistic society, needs a special glue to hold its constituents together, and this glue is linguistic hegemony (Citrin, 1990, p. 538). These thoughts have been underscored by the mass media, which tacitly promotes hegemonic ideas about acceptable accent and dialect; by the Civil Rights act, which, ironically, “leaves room for discrimination based on accent or dialect; by employers, who are legally able to fire workers for their strong accent, if the accent allegedly gets in the way of the employees job performance; and in the courtroom, where ones accent can be used against one as a means for legal discrimination (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, pp. 527-528). This thought led to the English only and official English measures in the municipalities and states. Ironically, states where this is less of a problem, in that the states are not ethnically diverse or boast large immigrant populations, are the states where these measures succeed, such as Nebraska, Illinois and Virginia (Citrin, 1990, pp. 539-540). Thus, for these states, the measures are largely symbolic – because these states do not have a large immigrant population, monolingualism is a foregone conclusion and these decisions tend to be uncontroversial. These are the states where the legislatures have passed these laws. In more ethnically diverse states and municipalities, the legislatures have tended not to pass these laws, but the people, by their own initiative, tend to pass English language amendments (Citrin, 1990, p. 540). This is especially true in populations where there is a high proportion of non-English speakers, and high rate of Hispanic and foreign-born population (Citrin, 1990, p. 541). This movement is not limited to legislatures, however. It is also tacitly enforced by English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms. These classrooms may forbid the students to use their native tongue while in the classrooms confines, enforcing this by using measures such as forcing students to pay a certain amount of money to the teacher whenever the student uses his or her native tongue (Auerbach, 1993, p. 10). Auerbach (1993) found that 30% of ESL instructors felt that students should never be allowed to use their native tongue in the ESL classroom, although 50% were more flexible on this, stating that it is sometimes appropriate to use ones native tongue, such as when a student is having a tough time with a concept and this concept needs to be explained by another student with the same native language as the first student (Auerbach, 1993, p. 14). There are, however, complications of English only or English as official language laws and initiatives. One of these is that the right to vote is an inherent right for all citizens. Unfortunately, many of them are being disenfranchised and deterred from enjoying this basic right because they have difficulty understanding ballots due to their lack of proficiency in the English language (Barbas, 2010, p. 190). English-only ballots therefore violate the citizens basic constitutional rights, and violates the tenet that a “state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one persons vote over that of another” (Barbas, 2010, p. 192). Barbas (2010) argues that this must be remedied, and Barbas idea for the remedy is that a citizen with limited English proficiency be allowed to bring a translator into the voting booth with him or her (Barbas, 2010, p. 192). Another complication is that these initiatives enshrine discrimination and ensures dominance of native speakers over those who are non-native speakers (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, p. 518). One commentator states that such laws create “fear, confusion and resentment” among the targeted minorities (Citrin et al., 1990, p. 544). Wiley & Lukes (1996) contend that English-only measures are akin to institutionalized racism, as linguicism has been used as a tool to deny non-native English speakers jobs, the right to immigrate and the right to vote (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, p. 518). English only ideology is, too many, nothing more than a way for the dominant society to lord its supposed “superiority” over the non-dominant society, by stating that the language of the non-dominant society is inferior (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, p. 514). And, because language is not just a means for communication, but also has social and cultural connotations, by extension, when ones language is deemed inferior, ones cultural and place in society is also deemed inferior. Related to this concern is that English only and English as official language movements constitute a violation of liberty and freedom. People have a number of interests in their own language, and forcing them to give up their language to adopt the adopted countrys tongue violates them (Brandes, 2009, p. 51). This was shown by the case of Meyer v. Nebraska, in which the Supreme Court overturned a lower-court decision that upheld a conviction under Nebraskas law that prohibited teaching any language other than English to any child who had not passed the eighth grade. The lower court upheld this conviction, but the Supreme Court, in overturning this decision, stated that this law was a violation of ones freedom and stated that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional because it “interfered with the plaintiffs right to engage in the occupation of teaching and with the right of parents to control the education of their children” (Brandes, 2009, p. 52). Therefore, the Supreme Court saw this law as a violation of the freedom that parents enjoy to educate their children. Other cases, similarly, see these laws as being a violation of freedom of expression. One such case is that of Yniguez v. Arizonans, which challenged an Arizona law that designated English as the official language and required that the State act only in English. The ninth circuit court of appeals sided with the Plaintiff in this case, who stated that this law was unconstitutional, stating that language is pure speech, not just expressive conduct, therefore a statute that puts limitations on language is potentially a violation of the First Amendment (Brandes, 2009, pp. 53-54). There are also reasons that ESL should not force students to use English only. One of these is that several studies have shown that allowing the students to use both their native language and English fosters success in English, and facilitated the transition to English (Auerbach, 1993, p. 15). Another is that bilingual instruction, as opposed to total immersion, is more successful in teaching minority students English, when their native language has less social status. This applies to both children and adults (Auerbach, 1993, pp. 15-16). Still another is that immersion classes tend to be confusing for the students, who feel lost and feel that these classes are a waste of time. Students learned concepts in English that the never learned before in Spanish, and learned words in English that they never learned in Spanish. These students were never “properly schooled” in their native language, yet were trying to grasp new concepts that were taught in a different language. This made the students feel that they could not learn in their ESL classes, and caused many to drop out (Auerbach, 1993, pp. 17-18). Conclusion Since ones language is not just the way that one communicates, but has cultural and sociological implications as well, there are many complications in designating a certain language as superior as another language. Besides the fact that such designations are racist and discriminatory, there are also complications involving fundamental rights, such as voting. These laws are also a potential violation of freedom of expression, therefore violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. For these reasons, the movements to make English the official language of the United States have largely failed. Sources Used Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-29. Barbas, T.M. (2010). We count too! Ending the disenfranchisement of limited English proficiency voters. Florida State University Law Review, 37, 189-214. Brandes, T. (2009). Rethinking equality: National identity and language rights in the United States. Texas Hispanic Journal of Law and Policy, 15(7), 1-75. Citrin, J., Reingold, B., Walters, E. & Green, D. (1990). The “Official English” movement and the symbolic politics of language in the United States. The Western Political Quarterly, 43(3), 535-558. Wiley, T.G. & Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511-530. Read More