next »

[11294480]

"bilingualism promotes the integration of immigrants and ethnic minorities, enables effective citizen participation, and strengthens our democracy and our nation."  Christina Rodriguez, assistant professor at NYU school of Law (from  glance at the current issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas: The benefits of bilingualism)

Although I understand the concept Ms. Rodriguez is putting forward, I have to disagree.  Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture.  Language reflects the ideals and mores of a society and prevents the paranoia that can result when persons are unable to communicate with one another.  It also is a tool to promote tolerance by giving a common understanding even though the heritage may be quite diverse. 

There is also the issue of what other language(s) should be considered.  In my neighborhood alone we have 7 nationalities.  Which of those neighbors should we exclude by not recognizing their native tongue?  and are we saying to those whose language we recognize that they do not have the mental acuity to master English so we must provide an alternative for them?

A country has an obligation to promote peaceful means for its people to talk with one another.  Having an understanding, in America, that that language will be English is a positive for our society, not a negative. 

[merce]

America goes from tippy top o' Canada to Patagonia.

You mean the U.S. I think.

[joey_fan]

I would have to read the whole piece before I made comments, as I'd like to know in what particular contexts Rodriguez finds bilingualism useful. Is bilingualism useful across the board in all regions of the U.S. and in all contexts? (courtroom proceedings? Congressional debates? voting booth instructions?)

I'd also like how the article defines "bilingualism." Does this mean texts in more than one language, and if so only two, or others as well?

I think it's sensible to have a common language for certain venues, but a multilingual context for others. It's all very difficult because language has the capacity to include as well as exclude. Requiring multilingual/bilingual proficiency can be just as exclusionary as it is inclusive, depending on the context.

"bilingualism promotes the integration of immigrants and ethnic minorities, enables effective citizen participation, and strengthens our democracy and our nation."  Christina Rodriguez, assistant professor at NYU school of Law (from  glance at the current issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas: The benefits of bilingualism)

Although I understand the concept Ms. Rodriguez is putting forward, I have to disagree.  Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture.  Language reflects the ideals and mores of a society and prevents the paranoia that can result when persons are unable to communicate with one another.  It also is a tool to promote tolerance by giving a common understanding even though the heritage may be quite diverse. 

There is also the issue of what other language(s) should be considered.  In my neighborhood alone we have 7 nationalities.  Which of those neighbors should we exclude by not recognizing their native tongue?  and are we saying to those whose language we recognize that they do not have the mental acuity to master English so we must provide an alternative for them?

A country has an obligation to promote peaceful means for its people to talk with one another.  Having an understanding, in America, that that language will be English is a positive for our society, not a negative. 

[pamplemoose]

"Although I understand the concept Ms. Rodriguez is putting forward, I have to disagree.  Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture. "


Yes.  Being one of the world's most stubbornly monolingual cultures is a core part of our identity.  If we made an effort to become more multilingual and more international, why, it would be like we weren't even American anymore!

Through luck and chance I've been in about 10 countries in the last 20 months and with the exception of Japan, in every single one of them, people were fluent in at least two, if not three or four, languages widely spoken in their country.  I agree it is crucial to have a lingua franca, and in America, that's English.  What I don't understand and find no rational justification for is so many Americans' reluctance to accommodate or to learn the country's second most widely-spoken language: Spanish.  More anglophone Americans should speak Spanish (an incredibly easy language to learn) as a second language if there are so many Spanish-speaking Americans learning English as theirs.  And it probably would be good for democracy. 

[normative_]

Pamplemoose has it absolutely right. One key language everyone understands, plus others.

I generally find people who can think in more than one language to be more sophisticated and capable of thinking through things than their unilingual counterparts. That may help in the basket of democratic skills, though there's no guarantee, and no necessary link between multilingualism and democracy per se. And there isn't any link between unilingual status and being 'simple'. It's simply an observation after having lived in ethnically and religiously divided area with strong political animosities. Those who spoke or at least understood both were the least likely to polarise and fragment and most likely to try to find common ground. That's also a democratic skill worth mentioning.

Pamplemoose, a very warm welcome, and I love the moniker!

[florimell]

In my corner of the US, Spanish is often gone quickly.  The children of immigrants learn English and drop Spanish once they start school.

[pamplemoose]

pamplemousse was taken :-)

[dr_stones]

"Although I understand the concept Ms. Rodriguez is putting forward, I have to disagree.  Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture. "


Yes.  Being one of the world's most stubbornly monolingual cultures is a core part of our identity.  If we made an effort to become more multilingual and more international, why, it would be like we weren't even American anymore!

Through luck and chance I've been in about 10 countries in the last 20 months and with the exception of Japan, in every single one of them, people were fluent in at least two, if not three or four, languages widely spoken in their country.  I agree it is crucial to have a lingua franca, and in America, that's English.  What I don't understand and find no rational justification for is so many Americans' reluctance to accommodate or to learn the country's second most widely-spoken language: Spanish.  More anglophone Americans should speak Spanish (an incredibly easy language to learn) as a second language if there are so many Spanish-speaking Americans learning English as theirs.  And it probably would be good for democracy. 

The English speakers don't have to speak Spanish if they control the money and the power.  So why shoudl they if they wish to stay in a linguistic enclave?

The French win the award for most stubbornly monolinguistic culture.

[daurousseau]

Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture.  Language reflects the ideals and mores of a society

Does anyone think these statements have any particular meaning?

Is the meaning any truer than, say, "Having houses is integral to having an American culture. Check-out lines reflect the ideals and mores of a society?"

[dr_stones]

Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture.  Language reflects the ideals and mores of a society

Does anyone think these statements have any particular meaning?

Is the meaning any truer than, say, "Having houses is integral to having an American culture. Check-out lines reflect the ideals and mores of a society?"

I actually believe that this statement does have meaning, great meaning.

English is a beautiful, flexible, nuanced language.  It is the language of enterprise and the language of the intellectual tradition that created the United States, the common law, and the libertarian tradition. 

I am sure you folks won't like that, but thankfully the inherent right to free speech arrived with the Scottish enlightenment just in time for the framing of this Republic.

:)

[historian]

Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture.  Language reflects the ideals and mores of a society

Does anyone think these statements have any particular meaning?

Is the meaning any truer than, say, "Having houses is integral to having an American culture. Check-out lines reflect the ideals and mores of a society?"

I actually believe that this statement does have meaning, great meaning.

English is a beautiful, flexible, nuanced language.  It is the language of enterprise and the language of the intellectual tradition that created the United States, the common law, and the libertarian tradition. 

I am sure you folks won't like that, but thankfully the inherent right to free speech arrived with the Scottish enlightenment just in time for the framing of this Republic.

:)

Yeah! And free speech allows me to express those ideals in Spanish! And, since French identity is more allied to commonality in language than race or other factors (historically) the French are indeed "the most stubbornly monolinguistic."
But, the circulation of ideas that contributed to the Scottish Enlightenment philosophy originated in a number of continental countries in other languages (French, for instance).

A common language is important for a number of reasons in a unified nation (commerce being among these) but similar ideals, mores, and concepts can be expressed in more than one language.  This is like the Bushian claim that only Christians can be moral or ethical (and his exact statement on this escapes me at the moment) because atheists, for instance, simply don't have the same grounding for their beliefs and that there is only one appropriate grounding for ethical conduct.

The more languages you acquire, the more flexible your mind.

[captain_obvious]

Although I understand the concept Ms. Rodriguez is putting forward, I have to disagree.  Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture.  Language reflects the ideals and mores of a society and prevents the paranoia that can result when persons are unable to communicate with one another.  It also is a tool to promote tolerance by giving a common understanding even though the heritage may be quite diverse. 

So the Swiss.... a bunch of paranoid people with no culture or national identity who can't communicate with each other and are horribly intolerant?  Interesting.

[dr_stones]

Having a core common language is integral to having an American culture.  Language reflects the ideals and mores of a society

Does anyone think these statements have any particular meaning?

Is the meaning any truer than, say, "Having houses is integral to having an American culture. Check-out lines reflect the ideals and mores of a society?"

I actually believe that this statement does have meaning, great meaning.

English is a beautiful, flexible, nuanced language.  It is the language of enterprise and the language of the intellectual tradition that created the United States, the common law, and the libertarian tradition. 

I am sure you folks won't like that, but thankfully the inherent right to free speech arrived with the Scottish enlightenment just in time for the framing of this Republic.

:)

Yeah! And free speech allows me to express those ideals in Spanish! And, since French identity is more allied to commonality in language than race or other factors (historically) the French are indeed "the most stubbornly monolinguistic."
But, the circulation of ideas that contributed to the Scottish Enlightenment philosophy originated in a number of continental countries in other languages (French, for instance).

A common language is important for a number of reasons in a unified nation (commerce being among these) but similar ideals, mores, and concepts can be expressed in more than one language.  This is like the Bushian claim that only Christians can be moral or ethical (and his exact statement on this escapes me at the moment) because atheists, for instance, simply don't have the same grounding for their beliefs and that there is only one appropriate grounding for ethical conduct.

The more languages you acquire, the more flexible your mind.

All fine by me.  But don't tell me I have to provide services to you in all these languages.  There's a language of business in this nation, and if you want to survive, you'd better learn to communicate.

Y'know, like what we expect of US English speakers working abroad ...

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Both of the 'pro' positions - the 'pro bilingualism' and 'pro national language' arguments - always seem very badly argued to me; the arguments have little content, and the flavor of a tirade.  On the other hand, the 'anti' arguments on both sides tend to point to more specific negative consequences, and are rather more compelling. - DvF

[petedondriac]

Yo no hablo ingles!