A prolific painter of portraits before and after the French Revolution ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

English-only laws have been in the news again, with a recent debate in the Senate over a requirement that Puerto Rico adopt English as its official language before being allowed to become a state (Gugliotta 1). In the United States, English-only laws currently exist in twenty-three states—having passed recently in Alaska and Missouri—but they suffered a setback in Arizona, where the United States Supreme Court upheld a decision that struck down an Arizona law that passed originally in 1988 (Denniston 1). Basically, English-only laws such as Arizona’s state that “this state and all political subdivisions of this state shall act in English and no other language” (Denniston 2). While everyone agrees that it is important for all Americans to speak English, there is disagreement as to whether state governments should adopt an official language policy. The debate over “English only” continues as groups such as U.S. English try to promote language laws in every state. Those who support an official language policy believe that without a policy, immigrants will not learn English. Those who oppose an official English policy believe that English-only laws alienate immigrants and that Americans who support these laws are having a xenophobic reaction to the flood of recent immigrants from more diverse cultures. In order to explain what this debate is about and what the major issues are on both sides, I will look primarily at four authors who have written about English-only laws. Two writers who support English only are the late Senator Samuel Hayakawa and Richard Rodriguez, author of Hunger of Memory. Two authors who oppose English only are James Fallows, Washington editor of Atlantic magazine, and James Crawford, author of Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of English Only. Those who support an English-only policy feel that it will encourage immigrants and non-English-speaking Americans to speak English. In his essay, “Bilingualism in America: English Should Be the Only Language,” Hayakawa uses the example of Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, who didn’t get along during World War II. Now they have begun to form Asianch07.qxd 12/2/04 11:59 AM Page 351 explaining: the writing process 351 Hayakawa and Rodriguez think an English-only policy will encourage immigrants to learn English; Fallows and Crawford think immigrants already have enough incentives to learn English. Final Draft English Only 1 2 3 PROFESSIONAL COPY—NOT FOR RESALE
ch07.qxd 12/2/04 11:59 AM Page 352 352 Chapter 7 explaining American groups (252). Hayakawa believes this is the result of having learned English. Hayakawa states, “A common tongue encourages trust while reducing racial hostility and bigotry” (252). Hayakawa, one of the original founders of U.S. English, believes that unless the United States implements an English-only policy, we will head the way of Quebec or India: India’s “ten official languages” have created a situation that is “a chaotic mess which has led to countless problems in the government’s efforts to manage the nation’s business” (253). According to Hayakawa, the problem in the United States is already apparent. He blames the 50 percent dropout rate among Hispanic students on the current bilingual policy (254). Writers such as Hayakawa forecast a Tower of Babel. They believe that unless we adopt an English-only policy, immigrants will not learn English and U.S. citizens will not be able to communicate with each other. Of course, Hayakawa’s analogy with Quebec and India may be difficult to support, because immigrants to the United States have always learned English, whereas in Quebec and India, people have always spoken different languages. As a champion of English-only legislation, Richard Rodriguez, like the late Senator Hayakawa, believes that without the government to push immigrants into learning English, they will not learn English. In “Aria: A Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood,” Rodriguez states, “What I needed to learn in school was that I had the right, and the obligation, to speak the public language. ...It would have pleased me to hear my teachers address me in Spanish....But I would have delayed—postponed for how long?—having to learn the language of public society” (270). Although Rodriguez was born in the United States, the son of migrant workers, he was not exposed to English until he entered school. Without his Catholic schoolteachers’ forcing him to learn English, Rodriguez believes that he would never have learned to speak the public language (271). Like people on both sides of the English-only issue, Rodriguez believes that to succeed in the United States, it is necessary to be proficient in English. Because Rodriguez was not motivated to speak English as a child, he feels that it is imperative for the government to push immigrants to learn English by making English the official language of the United States. In addition, the website for U.S. English agrees with Hayakawa and Rodriguez that without English-only legislation, immigrants will “fail to learn English and separate into linguistic enclaves. This division of the United States into separate language groups contributes to racial and eth- 4 5 PROFESSIONAL COPY—NOT FOR RESALE
Page 1 and 2: ch07.qxd 12/2/04 11:57 AM Page 302
Page 49: ch07.qxd 12/2/04 11:59 AM Page 350
Page 55 and 56: I knew my dieting had gotten out of

A prolific painter of portraits before and after the French Revolution ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?