The future of global English
The need for intelligibility and the need for identity often pull
people – and countries – in opposing directions. The former motivates the learning of an international language, with English the
first choice in most cases; the latter motivates the promotion of
ethnic language and culture. Conflict is the common consequence
when either position is promoted insensitively. There are ways of
avoiding such conflict, of course, notably in the promotion of
bilingual or multilingual policies, which enable people both ‘to
have their cake and eat it’. But bilingual policies are expensive to
resource, in both time and money, and they require a climate of
cooperation which for historical reasons often does not exist.
Any decision to reject English has important consequences
for the identity of a nation, and it can cause emotional ripples
(both sympathetic and antagonistic) around the English-speaking
world; but there have been very few such rejections of English to
date, and the populations in the countries which have done so are
sufficiently small that even in total there has been no noticeable
impact on the status of the English language as a whole. There is,
however, one country where, on grounds of population-size
alone, a major change in the sociolinguistic situation could turn
ripples into waves. That is the USA.
Contrasting attitudes: the US situation
Given that the USA has come to be the dominant element in
so many of the domains identified in earlier chapters, the future
status of English must be bound up to some extent with the future of that country. So much of the power which has fuelled the
growth of the English language during the twentieth century has
stemmed from America. We have already noted that the country contains nearly four times as many mother-tongue speakers of
English as any other nation. It has been more involved with international developments in twentieth-century technology than
any other nation. It is in control of the new industrial (that is,
electronic) revolution. And it exercises a greater influence on the
way English is developing worldwide than does any other regional
variety – often, of course, to the discomfiture of people in the UK,
Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, who regularly
127
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
express worries in their national presses about the onslaught of
‘Americanisms’.
As we have seen in chapter 1, there is the closest of links between language and power. If anything were to disestablish the
military or economic power of the USA, there would be inevitable
consequences for the global status of the language. The millions
of people learning English in order to have access to this power
would begin to look elsewhere, and (assuming the new political
magnet used a language other than English) they would quickly
acquire new language loyalties. It is unlikely that a corresponding
loss of power in any other country would have such a serious effect. Even if, for example, the entire English-speaking population
of Canada decided to switch to French, or the entire Englishspeaking population of South Africa opted to speak Afrikaans, the
implications for English as a world language would be minor. As
can be seen from the listing in chapter 2, relatively small numbers
of people would be involved.
No one has suggested that the power of the USA is seriously
at risk from external forces, as we begin the new millennium;
the International Institute for Strategic Studies (in The military
balance 1996–7 ) reports that the USA still has by far the most
powerful conventional armed forces in the world and is the largest
arms producer. But during the 1990s increasing attention came
to be focused on a domestic debate in which, according to one set
of arguments, there are internal forces threatening the country’s
future unity. As we have seen in chapter 2 (p. 36), some analysts
consider the English language to have been an important
factor in maintaining mutual intelligibility and American unity
in the face of the immigration explosion which more than tripled
the US population after 1900. For those who take this view, the
contemporary movement among some immigrant populations
to maintain their original cultural identity through safeguarding
their mother tongues is – given the large numbers involved –
a matter of some consequence. What has emerged is a conflict
between the demands of intelligibility and identity (of the kind
outlined in chapter 1), and one outcome has been the ‘official
English’ movement. Although the various arguments are in many
ways unique to the USA, given the large numbers of people and
128
The future of global English
languages involved, and relating as they do to the rights of individuals as enshrined in the US Constitution, they need to be
carefully noted by people in other countries, for ethnic minority
and immigrant populations – and thus the competing pressures of
identity preservation vs. assimilation – are everywhere. Although
there is no official-language movement in Britain, for example, it
is not impossible to imagine an analogous situation developing
there, as well as in Australia, where immigration trends in recent
years have been especially dramatic, and where in the 1990s the
country’s attitude towards Asian immigrants emerged again as a
political issue. A summary of the main issues is therefore of some
relevance, in a book dealing with the future of global English.5
Why, in a country where over 95 per cent of the population
speak English, should there be a movement to make English official? People do not start making a case for a language to be
made official until they feel they need to; and the circumstances
in which they need to are usually very clear. As already mentioned
(p. 84), the typical scenario is one where a language has come to
be threatened by the emergence of a more dominant language.
It may take a long time for people who speak the threatened language to respond: in the case of Welsh, the reversal of several
hundred years of English domination has begun to show real results only recently, starting with the Welsh Language Act of 1967.
Similar movements can be seen in Ireland, Hawaii, New Zealand,
and Quebec. Inevitably, in such cases, there is a secondary reaction, with English-users finding themselves – often for the first
time – on the defensive (in relation to such matters as job applications, where bilingualism may be advantageous), and insisting
that the status of English be guaranteed. But in a country where
the language is already so dominant, and its position for so long
taken for granted, why should the question of its official status
arise at all?
Before going into the reasons, it should be mentioned that
the positions for and against ‘official English’ have been argued
5
For the sociolinguistic situation in contemporary USA, see Herriman and
Burnaby (1996: chapter 6). For the US-English position, see . For a critique of the English-Only position, see Nunberg
(1999).
129
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
with varying amounts of moderation and extremism, and that several views are possible on each side. On the pro-official side, no
fewer than three bills came before the House of Representatives in
January–February 1995, all sponsored by Republicans (but with
varying amounts of inter-party support), expressing different attitudes and recommendations about the use and status of other
languages. The most moderate of these (HR 123, sponsored by
Representative Bill Emerson), outlined below, saw itself partly
as a means of empowering immigrants by giving them greater
opportunities to acquire English. Considerably more radical was
HR 739, sponsored by Representative Toby Roth, which allowed
for fewer exceptions in the official use of other languages, and repealed the 1965 Act providing for bilingual education and bilingual ballots. More restrictive still was HR 1005, sponsored by
Representative Pete King, which allowed for even fewer exceptions in the use of other languages. The latter two proposals
made little political progress; but HR 123 received the support
of US English, the country’s leading organization campaigning
for official English, and it was this bill which eventually went to
a vote, in August 1996, being passed by the House of Representatives (under the name of the Bill Emerson English Language
Empowerment Act) by 259 to 169. However, pressure of time in
a presidential election year did not allow the bill to reach the
Senate, and it remains to be seen how the issue will fare in future
Congresses.
This summary of the main clauses of the Emerson bill is based
on the bill as presented to the House on 4 January 1995. It does
not include any amendments introduced at the committee stage
in July 1996 or thereafter.
(1) the United States is comprised of individuals and groups from diverse
ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds;
(2) the United States has benefited and continues to benefit from this
rich diversity;
(3) throughout the history of the Nation, the common thread binding
those of differing backgrounds has been a common language;
(4) in order to preserve unity in diversity, and to prevent division
along linguistic lines, the United States should maintain a language
common to all people;
130
The future of global English
(5) English has historically been the common language and the language of opportunity in the United States;
(6) the purpose of this Act is to help immigrants better assimilate and
take full advantage of economic and occupational opportunities in
the United States;
(7) by learning the English language, immigrants will be empowered
with the language skills and literacy necessary to become responsible citizens and productive workers in the United States;
(8) the use of a single common language in the conduct of the Government’s official business will promote efficiency and fairness to
all people;
(9) English should be recognized in law as the language of official
business of the Government; and
(10) any monetary savings derived from the enactment of this Act should
be used for the teaching of the non-English speaking immigrants
the English language.
In a series of further clauses, it was made clear that ‘official business’ meant ‘those governmental actions, documents, or policies
which are enforceable with the full weight and authority of the
Government’ – this would include all public records, legislation,
regulations, hearings, official ceremonies, and public meetings.
The bill allowed the use of languages other than English in such
cases as public health and safety services, the teaching of foreign
languages, policies necessary for international relations and trade,
and actions that protect the rights of people involved in judicial proceedings. Private businesses were not affected. The bill
also stated that it was not its purpose ‘to discriminate against
or restrict the rights of any individual’ or ‘to discourage or prevent the use of languages other than English in any nonofficial
capacity’.
There are also several positions on the anti-official side, though
here it is not so easy to make generalizations. To begin with,
there are many cultural perspectives, as we would expect from a
population which includes, on the one hand, a major Hispanic
group of over 28 millions (according to the 2000 census) and,
on the other, a range of ethnic groups some of whose members
number only a few thousand. Over 18 million claimed to speak
a language other than English or Spanish in the home, in that
131
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
census, with over 300 languages involved. Also, there is no single
authoritative source of statement to refer to, but many organizations, each of which has its own political agenda. The observations
below, accordingly, will not necessarily be endorsed by everyone
who opposes official English legislation. They are paraphrases
of views expressed in various policy statements, alternative proposals, and press articles or letters. But the points can be used in
aggregate to spell out the case for opposition.
A wide range of arguments is used by each side in support of
its case.
! The political argument: for Pro-official supporters see in the
emergence of major immigrant groups, and the support for immigrant language programmes, the seeds of separatism, and the
eventual dissolution of the unity which is reflected in the very
name of the United States and its motto (E pluribus unum, ‘One
out of many’). They look fearfully at the language-inspired separatist movement in nearby Quebec, which came close to success
in 1995, and draw attention to the emergence of incendiary separatist attitudes such as are expressed by the Chicano Movement of
Aztlan (MECha) or by the University of California student publication, Voz Fronteriza (‘Voice of the frontier’), where writers
envisage large tracts of the US south-west as one day returning
to Hispanic (Mexicano) control. The term ‘official Spanish’ is increasingly encountered, in this connection. The fact that there
is a linguistic dimension to the conflicts which destroyed former
Yugoslavia is also sometimes cited as an example of the dangers
lurking beneath the surface of a multilingual community: Speaker
of the House Newt Gingrich, for example, participating in the debate on the Emerson bill, was one influential voice which referred
to the perils of US ‘Balkanization’.
From this point of view, English is viewed, according to one
pro-official columnist in 1995, as a social adhesive – as a linguistic
glue which guarantees political unity. According to another, the
language has been the basis of social stability in the USA, and
any threat to this stabilizing influence would lead to the growth
of ‘countries within a country’ – linguistic ghettos which would
132
The future of global English
discourage contact between groups and slow down the process of
socialization. Attention is drawn to the size of the possible rift,
especially in relation to the use of Spanish, with the US Census
Bureau predicting more Hispanics than African-Americans in the
USA by the year 2010, and a Hispanic population of over 80
million by 2050.
! The political argument: against Anti-official supporters maintain that an official English bill is unnecessary – that the fears have
been wildly exaggerated, there is no risk of disunity, and no danger of Babel. They argue that most immigrants are assimilating
nicely – certainly by the second generation – and that the natural
course of events will eventually produce a new social balance, without any need for legislation. There is no more need to make English official now, it is suggested, than there was at the time of the
Revolution, when Dutch and German were for a while spoken by
substantial numbers. The natural urge that people have to succeed
will provide the required motivation for the learning of English.
A common observation, they point out, is that first-generation
immigrant parents actually find it harder to persuade their children to learn their language of origin than to learn English.
It is felt that English could not possibly be in danger, in any case,
when over 95 per cent of the population speak it ‘well’ or ‘very
well’. It is the other languages which are actually in danger.
Many accordingly hold the view that the official English bill
is an unwarranted federal intrusion into self-expression, violating cultural pluralism, and – insofar as it is perceived as a policy
intended to limit and control minorities – increasing the chances
that communities would divide along ethnic lines. Even if English
were made official, the argument continues, the use of a common
language does not guarantee ethnic harmony. A community can
be torn apart on racial, religious, political, or other grounds, even
when both sides are united by a single language (see p. 16). There
are evidently bigger issues in the world than linguistic ones, and
this is reflected in some of the descriptors used by those most violently opposed to the ‘official English’ proposals, such as ‘elitist’,
‘racist’, ‘anti-immigrant’ and ‘anti-Hispanic’.
133
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
! The socio-economic argument: for Pro-official supporters maintain that, at a time when there is considerable competition for
limited funds, an expensive multilingual support policy is undesirable. It is not as if there is just a single alternative language which
is in need of protection (as in the case of Canada): there are well
over 300 languages to be taken into account. They point out that
no country could afford a language policy which tried to give official protection to so many languages. The Canadian situation,
dealing with just two languages, cost that country nearly $7,000
million dollars in the decade from 1980 to 1990. The USA, with
ten times the population, and many more languages, would have
to find some multiple of that total each year, depending on how
many languages were selected for support.
The problem of selection is thought to be particularly serious.
Pro-official supporters draw attention to the difficulty of saying
that a language can receive official recognition only after it reaches
a certain point of growth. If 5 million were chosen as the cut-off
point, for example, it would be inevitable that people who spoke
languages which were just a little short of that figure would claim
that the division was unfair. Some commentators therefore argue
that no principled selection is possible, and that the country is in an
all-or-none situation. If ‘all’: any foreign-language groups with a
tiny number of speakers would be able to claim official support –
but the country would soon go bankrupt, if it adopted such a
policy. The only alternative, this line of argument concludes, is
to support ‘none’ – other than the language of the vast majority,
English.
It is also argued that the provision of alternative language services (such as the option of taking a driving test in a range of different languages) is highly wasteful of resources, because they are
so little used. One of the main themes of the leading pro-English
organization in the USA, US English, is to draw attention to cases
of this kind. For example, it cites the fact that in 1994 the Internal
Revenue Service distributed half a million forms and instruction
booklets in Spanish, but only 718 were returned. It expresses
concern about the cost of a language policy in which, for instance, in 2002 California was offering licence exams to drivers in
thirty-three different languages. It concludes that a better return
134
The future of global English
for money would come from spending it elsewhere: in improving
the English-language abilities of immigrants to the USA. There is
an important issue of empowerment here: pro-official supporters
argue that educational programmes in the immigrant’s mother
tongue are no real help, because they eliminate the incentive for
immigrants to learn English, and this keeps them in low-paid jobs.
Official status, it is asserted, would help to safeguard English as
the language of opportunity. There would also be enormous savings in efficiency, both at national and local levels, it is suggested,
if everyone had the competence and confidence to rely on English
as their medium of communication in official contexts. This would
also ensure that everyone would understand road signs, safety regulations at work, medicinal instructions, environmental hazard
warnings, and the like. If it is possible for someone to have such a
poor knowledge of English that they have to take a driving exam
in another language, the argument concludes, it is improbable
that they will be able to cope with the English-language demands
placed upon them by the multiplicity of road-side instructions.
! The socio-economic argument: against Anti-official supporters doubt whether government time and money would really be
saved, given the cost and complexity of introducing the new law.
In particular, they question whether the legislation could possibly be enforced, and point to the difficulties of giving a precise
definition to the notion of ‘official’, in relation to language, and
of making a clear and consistent distinction between ‘public’ and
‘private’ discourse. For example, would a march in support of
some minority issue be a public or private event, and would it be
permitted to carry banners in languages other than English? The
fear is that the public domain will gradually erode the private one,
ultimately threatening freedom of speech. Especially in a country
where there is a great readiness to use the courts to solve disputes,
the new law would, it is felt, cause greater complications than it
would solve, and would probably be more expensive to implement
and maintain. It might actually end up being honoured more in
the breach than in the observance, with the legislation proving
inadequate to cope with the realities of a highly complex and
dynamic social situation. An important complication is that any
135
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
new layer of federal control would also have to be implemented
alongside the individual laws enacted by several states (twentyseven by 2002), which already display a great deal of variation.
The ‘all-or-nothing’ view of language support is also hotly contested, using the following line of reasoning. There may indeed
be no principled way of drawing a line between one group of languages and another, but it does not follow from this that nothing
should be done to help those who speak the more widely used
languages, where relatively large numbers of people would benefit from receiving a modicum of support in their mother tongue.
The fields of health and safety, such as those cited above, provide a good example of areas where much more could be done
than is available at present. Some commentators have drawn attention to the different situation in other countries which have
high immigrant populations. In Germany, for example, pharmaceutical companies have to provide instruction labels in five
Gastarbeiter (immigrant ‘guest-worker’) languages: Turkish,
Italian, Spanish, Serbo-Croatian, and Greek. They are not required to carry such labels in the several other languages currently
found in Germany, such as Russian and Polish. In this view, to introduce a policy banning all such labels on the grounds that some
languages cannot be represented is felt to be absurd. It is thought
to be common sense to provide safety instructions on medicine
bottles in as many languages as is practicable, to minimize the risk
to as many people as possible. It is not feasible to help everyone
who has difficulty with English, but it is not acceptable to conclude from this that the government should therefore help none of
them.
Even though the moderate official-English position maintains
that it has no intention of harming ethnic identity or the natural
growth of languages other than English, anti-official supporters
claim that the withdrawal of resources and the fresh focus on
English is bound to harm the provision of services in these languages, even in areas which are supposed to be protected, such
as health care and law enforcement. It is also thought likely that
interest in foreign-language learning will further diminish, and
this is felt to be an unfortunate development at a time when the
climate in international business competitiveness and political
136
The future of global English
diplomacy is one where foreign-language ability is increasingly
seen as advantageous (see p. 18).
! Educational issues Several other kinds of argument are used in
the debate – in particular, to do with educational theory and practice. For example, the pro-official position is concerned that many
students in bilingual education programmes are being taught by
teachers whose own level of English is of a low quality, thus inculcating an inadequate command of the language, and a ‘ghetto
dialect’ that will mark the speakers as socially inferior. They point
to the shortage of adequately trained teachers, and to the many
problems in assigning students to the right kind of programme for
the right length of time, and claim that bilingual programmes are
not as efficient as English-immersion programmes in fostering the
transition to mainstream English classes. Anti-official supporters
stress the value of bilingualism as part of a child’s learning experience, observing that immigrant children are more likely to do
well in learning a second language if their own language is valued by the society in which they find themselves. They stress the
potential for success of bilingual education programmes, arguing
that the best predictor of achievement in English for immigrant
children by age eighteen is the amount of time spent in bilingual
classrooms. If there are inadequacies in the educational system,
it is suggested, these are due to the failure of government to
provide enough financial support for learning resources, educational facilities, and teacher training, and to the fact that bilingual
programmes are available to only about 25 per cent of students
with limited English proficiency. The ‘official English’ bill, it is
pointed out, does virtually nothing to enable fluency in English
to be universally achieved – other than simply stating that it must
be. To evaluate the arguments on both sides would require a
detailed consideration of such matters as teaching methods, research procedures, and assessment goals, and is too complex an
area to be given summary treatment in the present book.6 But it is
6
The relationship between bilingualism and education is well addressed in
Baker and Prys Jones (1998); see especially pp. 290–1 in relation to official
English movements.
137
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
important to appreciate that a great deal of time has been, and
continues to be, devoted to this issue.
Many of those who support the pro-official position feel that
the pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. From
a position where transitional programmes were being devised to
get children into the English-speaking mainstream as quickly as
possible, they now see a position where these programmes are
being used to preserve cultural identity and to reduce integration. From a position where immigrants were expected to learn
English, they note cases of non-immigrants in schools now having
to learn the immigrant language. From a position where English
was the language an immigrant needed for a job, they now note
cases where a monolingual English person would have to learn an
immigrant language in order to be eligible for a job. They fear a
society in which people will be appointed first for linguistic reasons, and only secondly for their other abilities and experience.
These fears are by no means unique to the USA, of course. They
surface wherever a bilingual policy is in operation. But they are
expressed with special strength in the USA, partly because of the
large numbers involved, and partly because the democratic tradition is so strongly supportive of the rights of the individual.
Many anti-official supporters, unconvinced by the pro-official
arguments, find that there is no alternative but to conclude that
the ‘official English’ position is one of (consciously or unconsciously held) elitism or discrimination. Minority languages are
not being protected, in their view, but restricted. An ‘official
English’ law, according to an alternative proposal which was formulated (the ‘English Plus Resolution’, introduced in the House
in July 1995 by Representative Jose Serrano), would be ‘an unwarranted Federal regulation of self-expression’ and would ‘abrogate
constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal protection of the laws’. It would also ‘contradict the spirit of the 1923
Supreme Court case Meyer v. Nebraska, wherein the Court declared that “The protection of the Constitution extends to all; to
those who speak other languages as well as to those born with
English on the tongue”.’ To disregard this tradition of thinking,
it was argued, could make a difficult social situation still more
difficult. The Serrano bill claimed that official English legislation
138
The future of global English
would ‘violate traditions of cultural pluralism’ and ‘divide communities along ethnic lines’. By contrast, multilingualism could
bring benefits to a community, helping to promote empathy between different ethnic groups. The leading linguistics organization of the USA, the Linguistic Society of America, in 1995 issued
a statement on language rights whose final paragraph summarized
the tenor of this approach:7
Notwithstanding the multilingual history of the United States, the role
of English as our common language has never seriously been questioned. Research has shown that newcomers to America continue to learn
English at rates comparable to previous generations of immigrants. All
levels of government should adequately fund programs to teach English
to any resident who desires to learn it. Nonetheless, promoting our common language need not, and should not, come at the cost of violating
the rights of linguistic minorities.
The ‘English Plus Resolution’ began by recognizing English
as ‘the primary language of the United States’ alongside the importance of other languages spoken by US residents, and asserted
that ‘these linguistic resources should be conserved and developed’. It repeatedly stressed the value of multilingualism to the
US community: this would ‘enhance American competitiveness in
global markets’, ‘improve United States diplomatic efforts by fostering enhanced communication and greater understanding between nations’, and ‘promote greater cross-cultural understanding between different racial and ethnic groups’. It recommended
that the US government should pursue policies that:
(1) encourage all residents of this country to become fully proficient in
English by expanding educational opportunities;
(2) conserve and develop the Nation’s linguistic resources by encouraging all residents of this country to learn or maintain skills in a
language other than English;
(3) assist native Americans, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and
other peoples indigenous to the United States, in their efforts to
prevent the extinction of their languages and cultures;
7
Linguistic Society of America (1996).
139
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
(4) continue to provide services in languages other than English as
needed to facilitate access to essential functions of government, promote public health and safety, ensure due process, promote equal
educational opportunity, and protect fundamental rights, and
(5) recognize the importance of multilingualism to vital American interests and individual rights, and oppose ‘English-only’ measures and
similar language restrictionist measures.
However, the Serrano bill made no further progress in 1996, with
political attention eventually focusing exclusively on the Emerson
proposal (p. 130).
By the end of 1996, the future direction of the ‘official English’
debate was still unsettled. The language arguments had become
increasingly polarized, and forced into line with the party politics of an election year; and the emotional level of the debate
had escalated. There seems to be something about the intimate
relationship between language, thought, individuality, and social
identity which generates strong emotions. And in a climate where
supporters of official English (no matter how moderate) came
to be routinely labelled ‘racist’, and immigrants wishing to use
their own language (no matter how cultured) were castigated by
such names as ‘welfare hogs’, it was difficult to see the grounds
for compromise. The argument has continued unabated into the
new millennium. The number of states enacting official English
legislation increased from twenty-two in 1995 to twenty-seven
in 2002, and a further round of legislation began in May 2001,
when an English Language Unity Act was introduced in the
House of Representatives (HR 1984). Opposition from the
academic linguistic community continues to be intense.
New Englishes
Salman Rushdie comments, in an essay called ‘Commonwealth
literature does not exist’,8 that ‘the English language ceased to be
the sole possession of the English some time ago’. Indeed, when
even the largest English-speaking nation, the USA, turns out to
8
Rushdie (1991).
140
INGUSH
F O U N D A T I O N ,
ISSUE BRIEFING
INC.
E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One
Why English as a common language Is critical to America's
unity
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in
good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be
treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to
discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or
origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an
American and nothing but an American..."
Theodore Roosevelt,
1907
Introduction
All U.S. coins since 1873. The seal of the President of the United States. The seals of
the Vice President of the United States, of the United States Congress, of the United
States House of Representatives, of the United States Senate and of the United States
Supreme Court. All of these uniquely American symbols contain the phrase E Pluribus
Unum: out of many, one.
This motto of the United States of America has come to represent what our nation is all
about. We are a melting pot, the place where people of all backgrounds, colors and
cultures come together. But without a common language unifying us, £ Pluribus Unum
cannot exist. Alexis de Tocqueville, the preeminent observer of American civic culture,
wrote, "The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can unite
mankind."
Support for making English the official language of the United States government is
broad and bipartisan. Recent polling data shows 84 percent of Americans are
supportive of English as the official language of the United States, 80 percent of U.S.
voters believe immigrants who move to America should adopt American culture, and 81
percent support a U.S. company's right to require employees to speak English on the
job . So why, with strong and consistent support of English as our official language, are
some still opposed to the concept?
1
In the following pages, this issue briefing will examine the most common arguments
promoted by opponents of Official English. We will use clear and easy to understand
research, charts and arguments to make the logical case supporting English as our
nation's binding language.
Part I: Out of many, one: Will one official language make it harder for immigrants to
succeed?
Part II: Out of many, one: Will one official language prevent active citizenship?
Part III: Out of many, one: Will one official language put immigrants' children at a
disadvantage?
Part IV: Out of many, one: Will one official language put immigrants' health at risk?
Out of many, one: Will one language
make it harder for immigrants to
succeed?
In 2007, the native born population earned, on average, $65,021, compared to the
average $50,867 earned by the foreign-born population . And while 99 million nativeborn people have graduated high school or attended some college, only 12 million
foreign-born people can say the same 11
2
Non-English speakers face
additional challenges as they fall
behind the rest of the population
when it comes to educational
attainment and income. Yet those
opposed to Official English claim that
by naming English as the language
of our government, immigrants will
lose access to necessary
government services, access to job
opportunities and a host of other
falsities.
Income o f Native vs. Foreign-born P o p u l a t i o n s , 2007
$75,000 and over
$50,000 to $74,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$25,000 to $34,999
•LII
$15,000 to $24,999
Under $15,000
0
5
-f10
15
20
25
30
N1111• I>«i of h o u s e h o l d s (in
millions)
• Income of Foreign-born
Population (in millions)
The Official English movement
B
Income of Native Population (in
advocates that providing constant
millions)
native language translations to
receive government services places immigrants at a disadvantage. While we support
the right of immigrants to maintain their native language and heritage, it is clear that
without the government providing translation services, immigrants are pressured to
learn English in order to gain access to these government resources. This, in turn,
allows them not only to receive the services they desire, but also puts them at an
advantage when applying for a job.
Each year, $65 billion in wages are lost due to poor English language skills . Take this
real world example: in October of 2011, the Hispanic unemployment rate in the
Providence area was more than twice the unemployment rate of the entire state of
Rhode Island. This discrepancy has been attributed to a move away from what was
once a manufacturing base, leaving people who once held those manufacturing jobs
now struggling to find new work that does not require them to speak English .
10
3
And while opponents claim that Official English will discriminate against immigrants, in
2002, two professors from New Mexico published a study in the academic journal
"Applied Economics," in which they presented findings demonstrating that immigrants
who reside in states that have passed Official English make more of an effort to learn
English than those who reside in states without English as the official language.
Immigrants who have learned more English are more likely to be employed, more likely
to be employed in higher-skilled jobs and more likely to earn more money. These
immigrants are also more likely to be involved in their communities or participate in
education or training programs . The bottom line is that more literate immigrants are
more involved citizens.
4
Out of many, one: Will one language
prevent active citizenship?
The United States is a land of opportunity. Since its founding, our government has
operated through a democratic process, following the goals and ideals presented in the
Declaration of Independence—a Declaration proclaiming the unalienable rights of all:
among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In 2010, our nation's immigrant population reached 40 million—the highest number in
United States history . Over the past decade, nearly 14 million new immigrants settled
here, showing that even as our country has faced rampant unemployment, job loss and
a growing national debt, it is still a land of promise and a place where foreigners and
natural born citizens alike can aspire to reach the American dream.
5
Despite this desire among many foreigners to experience life in America, there are
increasing numbers of United States residents who have not, by choice or by
circumstance, learned our nation's de-facto language: English. In fact, the number of
Americans who speak English "not at all" jumped from 1.22 million in 1980 to 3.37
million in 2000, to 4.49 million in 2007 .
6
"91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agree
that learning English is essential to succeed in the
U.S ."
7
Unfortunately, what has been hailed as the melting pot already appears to be on its way
to becoming a salad bowl. Rather than cultures blending together into one, pockets of
people sharing the same background or foreign language are popping up across the
country, giving citizens no room to grow, no room to learn, no room to share their
unique history.
All too often, critics of Official English claim that designating English as the official
language of the United States will cause a collapse of all other cultures and languages
within the country. Opponents of Official English often argue that providing documents
such as driver's license manuals, election ballots and government forms in English
(rather than foreign languages) will isolate foreign-language speakers and prevent them
from participating in American society.
In reality, English is the single most important factor in an immigrant becoming an
American. Since 1906, some capacity to speak English has been a formal legal
requirement for naturalization. By printing ballots, driver's license manuals and other
materials only in selected languages, we are isolating smaller populations of foreign
language speakers, who will still be left out of the election process. In addition, the cost
of these materials adds up for already cash-strapped localities. An Election Supervisor
in Highlands County, Florida estimated that providing bilingual ballots could cost just his
one county $32,000 to $50,000 per election®. And the California Department of Motor
Vehicles reported that the annual cost to provide language services is $2.2 million . To
provide these same translation services nationwide would cost nearly $8.5 million each
year . Many state and local governments do not have room in their budgets to spend
money translating documents, many of which will never get used, into foreign
languages.
9
6
"79 percent of Americans believe immigrants should be
required to learn English before they are granted
citizenship ."
10
Rather than pandering to foreign language speakers in their native language and
delaying their assimilation, we should use government processes (such as elections
and driver's license exams) to encourage immigrants to learn the English language,
showing them that only when they fully grasp the English language will they fully be able
to participate in society as U.S. citizens.
Out of many, one: Will one language
put immigrants' children at a
disadvantage?
One of the most common inaccuracies spread by opponents of Official English is that
establishing English as our national language will eliminate the ability to read, write and
speak other languages. To the contrary, the Official English movement strongly
encourages the learning of foreign languages. In our increasingly global economy,
bilingualism can net an employee an average of 58 cents more per hour than a
monolingual employee , and teaching a foreign language while a child is school-aged
sets them up for the biggest advantage later in life.
11
The Official English movement does stress that English should be the primary language
of America—and citizens are encouraged to learn additional languages on top of that.
Nowhere does this become more important than when examining our nation's school
systems.
From 1995-2005, there was a 57 percent jump in the number of limited English
proficient students nationwide . And between 1980 and 2009, the number of children
ages 5-17 who spoke a language other than English at home jumped from 4.7 million to
11.2 million, establishing that 21 percent of that school-aged population speaks a
language other than English at home .
12
13
For a parent who speaks another language at home, due to language barriers, he or
she is likely to be less involved in the child's education and is more likely to rely on the
child to act as a translator in day to day situations. For the child, not only do many
school districts not have the resources needed to meet the needs of limited English
proficient (LEP) students, but LEP students are more likely to drop out of school than
ever to become proficient in English . Not to mention LEP students have much lower
high school graduation rates
Growth in Number of Limited English Proficient Students
70 00%
nationally than other students.
14
The solution is clear: learn
English. Anti-Official English
advocates often claim that most
50.00%
immigrants recognize the
benefit of learning English upon
2 40.00%
arriving
in the United States,
0
and that Official English would
only serve to make them legally
30.00%
bound to do something they
already agree to. Statistics,
20.00%
however, indicate otherwise.
The 2000 Census showed that
astonishingly, only one-fourth of
10.00%
elementary-aged English
language learners are foreign
0.00%
born—with three out of five born
1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 20051996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2006
in the U.S. to immigrant
School Year
parents, and one out of five
being third-generation immigrants. If immigrants chose to learn English on their own, the
three-fourths of our nation's elementary English language learners who were born to
immigrant parents would be raised with knowledge of English as well.
60.00%
• Growth in Number of Limited Engush Proficient
Students
"96 percent of Latinos say it is very important to teach
English to the children of immigrant families /'
15
Official English serves many advantages when it comes to improving the educational
success of immigrants and their children, and understanding these benefits is crucial to
ensuring the bright future of our coming generations.
Out of many, one: Will one language
put immigrants' health at risk?
Opponents of Official English argue that making English our nation's official language
will remove translation services and will thus leave foreign language speakers at risk
when dealing with urgent medical issues. In reality, a closer look needs to be taken at
the issue of language barriers in the health care field.
As previously discussed, when an immigrant is not proficient in English, he or she is
less likely to have a high paying job—or a job that offers benefits like insurance
coverage. A 2003 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured
found that language proficiency has a strong impact on health insurance coverage,
access to healthcare and the quality of that care. It asserts that limited English
proficiency is tied to lack of insurance and problems communicating with health care
providers.
"Latinos who have... limited English proficiency are
much more likely to be uninsured less likely to use
health care services^ and more likely to experience
problems communicating with their health care
providers ."
y
16
On top of the risk to health, limited English proficiency in healthcare is expensive:
healthcare providers spend up to $267 million for interpretation services, about $4 per
LEP emergency room, inpatient, outpatient or dentist visit . So not only does limited
English proficiency put immigrants at risk of mistakes in diagnosis or treatment,
misunderstanding medical instructions and other serious complications, but it also
places an added financial burden on the federal agencies required to pay these bills.
17
Learning English would not only place immigrants on stronger footing when it comes to
taking control of their own health, but it would also save government agencies millions
of dollars that could be used to make further advances in healthcare and medicine. It is
worth noting that Official English legislation generally includes exemptions in the event
of health and medical emergencies. This means that even if a county, state or the
country declares English their official language, if someone has a health or medical
emergency, personnel are still able to interact in the at-risk person's native language.
The bottom line is that Official English promotes English learning, which can lead to
better medical care—but it also does no harm to non-English speakers, as it does not
prevent the government from using other languages when necessary in health
situations.
Conclusion
Each nation around the globe showcases its own unique customs, traditions and
history. In America, the melding of these is what allows us to become one. In order for
America to remain the melting pot it has so proudly become, there must be a way for
each individual to share his or her own history. We must have a common uniting
factor—otherwise America becomes a nation divided into countless distinct cultural
groups, each operating independently of one another, each living in a bubble of
customs, traditions and lifestyles familiar to its home country.
Immigrants come to America for many reasons, but above all, most come here to
prosper. They come here in hopes of pursuing the American dream and creating a
better life for themselves and their future generations. A USA Today poll found that 76%
of immigrants want to become naturalized citizens to gain the right to vote; 70% thanks
to the legal rights and protections that come along with citizenship; and 65% of
immigrants wanted to become naturalized because of the commitment and pride in
being an American . Rather than focusing on our differences and what divides us, we
must focus on the one thing that has the power to unite all Americans: a common
language, English.
18
"We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him
up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well
prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the
same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the
level of our common American citizenship."
Theodore Roosevelt,
1916
Sources
Rasmussen Reports poll, conducted May 8-9, 2009.
Census Bureau Current Population Survey, as of March 2008
The Providence Journal. "Providence-Warwick-Fall River area has nation's highest Hispanic jobless
rate," by Kate Bramson. October 12, 2011,
"A Human Capital Concern: The Literacy Proficiency of U.S. Immigrants," by Andrew Sun, Irwin Kirsch &
Kentaro Yamamoto. Educational Testing Service Policy Information Report, March 2004.
U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2010.
U.S. Census, 2000 & American Community Survey "Language Use in the United States: 2007," issued
April 2010.
Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 2002.
"Bilingual ballots not required," by Robert Boyer. Highlands Today, October 15, 2011.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress, "Assessment of the Total Benefits and
Costs of Implementing Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited
English Proficiency," March 14, 2002.
Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 adults, June 17-18, 2005. Margin of error +/- 3%.
California Department of Personnel Administration, Pay Differentials, Revised April 1, 2011.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and
Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA). "The Growing Numbers of Limited
English Proficient Students," 2006.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2011. The Condition of
Education 2011.
The Lexington Institute. "The Value of English Proficiency to the United States Economy" by Don
Soifer. April 2009.
Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet, "Hispanic Attitudes Toward Learning English," June 7, 2006.
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. "How Race/Ethnicity, Immigration Status and
Language Affect Health Insurance Coverage, Access to Care and Quality of Care Among the Low-income
Population," by Leighton Ku & Timothy Waidmann, August 2003.
National Conference of State Legislatures Children's Policy Initiative. "Language Access: Helping NonEnglish Speakers Navigate Health and Human Services," by Ann Morse. January 2003.
USA Today, poll by Cristina Abello and Adrienne Lewis, December 6, 2004.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
C o p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 2 b y t h e U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . No p o r t i o n of t h i s w o r k m a y b e
r e p r o d u c e d w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of t h e U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . A l l c i t a t i o n s to t h i s w o r k m u s t
c r e d i t the U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n , Inc. T h i s U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n I s s u e Briefing is p u b l i s h e d by the
U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n a s p a r t of its m i s s i o n to d i s c u s s , d e v e l o p , a n d d i s s e m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d to
l a n g u a g e p o l i c y in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . N o t h i n g w r i t t e n h e r e i n i s to b e c o n s t r u e d a s n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t i n g t h e
v i e w s of t h e U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n , its B o a r d of D i r e c t o r s , o r its o f f i c e r s , o r a s a n a t t e m p t to a i d o r h i n d e r
t h e p a s s a g e of a n y bill b e f o r e C o n g r e s s o r s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s .
Spanish at School Translates to Suspension
By T.R. Reid
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 9, 2005
KANSAS CITY, Kan., Dec. 8 -- Most of the time, 16-year-old Zach Rubio converses in
clear, unaccented American teen-speak, a form of English in which the three most
common words are "like," "whatever" and "totally." But Zach is also fluent in his dad's
native language, Spanish -- and that's what got him suspended from school.
"It was, like, totally not in the classroom," the high school junior said, recalling the
infraction. "We were in the, like, hall or whatever, on restroom break. This kid I know,
he's like, 'Me prestas un dolar?' ['Will you lend me a dollar?'] Well, he asked in Spanish;
it just seemed natural to answer that way. So I'm like, 'No problema.' "
But that conversation turned out to be a big problem for the staff at the Endeavor
Alternative School, a small public high school in an ethnically mixed blue-collar
neighborhood. A teacher who overheard the two boys sent Zach to the office, where
Principal Jennifer Watts ordered him to call his father and leave the school.
Watts, whom students describe as a disciplinarian, said she can't discuss the case. But in a
written "discipline referral" explaining her decision to suspend Zach for 1 1/2 days, she
noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at
school."
Since then, the suspension of Zach Rubio has become the talk of the town in both English
and Spanish newspapers and radio shows. The school district has officially rescinded his
punishment and said that speaking a foreign language is not grounds for suspension.
Meanwhile, the Rubio family has retained a lawyer, who says a civil rights lawsuit may
be in the offing.
The tension here surrounding that brief exchange in a high school hall reflects a broader
national debate over the language Americans should speak amid a wave of Hispanic
immigration.
The National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, says that 20 percent of the
U.S. school-age population is Latino. For half of those Latino students, the native
language is Spanish.
Conflicts are bursting out nationwide over bilingual education, "English-only" laws,
Spanish-language publications and advertising, and other linguistic collisions. Language
concerns have been a key aspect of the growing political movement to reduce
immigration.
"There's a lot of backlash against the increasing Hispanic population," said D.C. school
board member Victor A. Reinoso. "We've seen some of it in the D.C. schools. You see it
in some cities, where people complain that their tax money shouldn't be used to print
public notices in Spanish. And there have been cases where schools want to ban foreign
languages."
Some advocates of an English-only policy in U.S. schools say that it is particularly
important for students from immigrant families to use the nation's dominant language.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) made that point this summer when he vetoed
a bill authorizing various academic subjects to be tested in Spanish in the state's public
schools. "As an immigrant," the Austrian-born governor said, "I know the importance of
mastering English as quickly and as comprehensively as possible."
Hispanic groups generally agree with that, but they emphasize the value of a multilingual
citizenry. "A fully bilingual young man like Zach Rubio should be considered an asset to
the community," said Janet Murguia, national president of La Raza.
The influx of immigrants has reached every corner of the country -- even here in Kansas
City, which is about as far as a U.S. town can be from a border. Along Southwest
Boulevard, a main street through some of the older neighborhoods, there are blocks
where almost every shop and restaurant has signs written in Spanish.
"Most people, they don't care where you're from," said Zach's father, Lorenzo Rubio, a
native of Veracruz, Mexico, who has lived in Kansas City for a quarter-century. "But
sometimes, when they hear my accent, I get this, sort of, 'Why don't you go back home?'
Rubio, a U.S. citizen, credits U.S. immigration law for his decision to fight his son's
suspension.
"You can't just walk in and become a citizen," he said. "They make you take this
government test. I studied for that test, and I learned that in America, they can't punish
you unless you violate a written policy."
Rubio said he remembered that lesson on Nov. 28, when he received a call from
Endeavor Alternative saying his son had been suspended.
"So I went to the principal and said, 'My son, he's not suspended for fighting, right? He's
not suspended for disrespecting anyone. He's suspended for speaking Spanish in the hall?'
So I asked her to show me the written policy about that. But they didn't have one.”
Rubio then called the superintendent of the Turner Unified School District, which
operates the school. The district immediately rescinded Zach's suspension, local media
reported. The superintendent did not respond to several requests to comment for this
article.
Since then, the issue of speaking Spanish in the hall has not been raised at the school,
Zach said. "I know it would be, like, disruptive if I answered in Spanish in the classroom.
I totally don't do that. But outside of class now, the teachers are like, 'Whatever.' "
For Zach's father, and for the Hispanic organizations that have expressed concern, the
suspension is not a closed case. "Obviously they've violated his civil rights," said Chuck
Chionuma, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., who is representing the Rubio family. "We're
studying what form of legal redress will correct the situation."
Said Rubio: "I'm mainly doing this for other Mexican families, where the legal status is
kind of shaky and they are afraid to speak up. Punished for speaking Spanish? Somebody
has to stand up and say: This is wrong."
Purchase answer to see full
attachment