|
<
www.us-
english.org
>
. 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 sev-
eral 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 at-
titudes 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 re-
pealed the 1965Act providing for bilingual education and bilin-
gual ballots. More restrictive still was HR 1005, sponsored by
Representative Pete King, which allowed for even fewer excep-
tions 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 Represen-
tatives (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 lan-
guage 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 responsi-
ble citizens and productive workers in the United States;
(8) the use of a single common language in the conduct of the Gov-
ernment’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 busi-
ness’ 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 judi-
cial 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 pre-
vent 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 organiza-
tions, 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 pro-
posals, 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.
r
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
