|
The political argument: for
Pro-official supporters see in the
emergence of major immigrant groups, and the support for im-
migrant 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 sepa-
ratist movement in nearby Quebec, which came close to success
in 1995, and draw attention to the emergence of incendiary sepa-
ratist attitudes such as are expressed by the Chicano Movement of
Aztlan (MECha) or by the University of California student pub-
lication,
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 in-
creasingly 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 de-
bate 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.
r
The political argument: against
Anti-official supporters main-
tain that an official English bill is unnecessary – that the fears have
been wildly exaggerated, there is no risk of disunity, and no dan-
ger 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, with-
out any need for legislation. There is no more need to make En-
glish 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 chil-
dren 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 95per 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, violat-
ing 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 vio-
lently opposed to the ‘official English’ proposals, such as ‘elitist’,
‘racist’, ‘anti-immigrant’ and ‘anti-Hispanic’.
133
ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
r
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
