Let's talk about the language of Privilege in the United States (Opinion)

Not the US.

Including the US. There needs to be a common language so things can get done. We have chosen English as that language.

All languages should be respected.

English is the language we have chosen for official business.

Americans can and should speak different languages that they want to learn.

The problem comes when a man whose household language is Chinese and a man whose household language is German want to do business. This is why we need a common language. We chose in our country to use English.

That is acceptable for those that choose to use that language but students should be allowed to learn any language they want to learn and not be forced to learn the foreign language of English and the government shouldn't mandate greater importance towards any specific language over others in regards to government functions.

We need a common language for society to function.

There is no justification to choose the foreign language of English over any other language.

We need a language. We chose English.

That is the problem as it leads to unjustified privilege towards one language.

A privileged language is necessary for a society to function.

Am I going to get in trouble in suggesting that mathematics is the universal language? I pretty sure it is used throughout the known universe....

I don't know Chinese, but differential equations look the same there as they do in America.

There is no justification to choose the foreign language of English over any other language.

Actually, I believe there is quite a bit of justification. What language was the constitution written in? That single document is what our society is based upon.

There is a difference between a predominant language and an "official" language. It is true that American English has become the predominant national language, but to declare that it is the only one that shall be recognized is narrow and an attempt to "hold back the tide" of lingual evolution.

There are those who fear that American Spanish, because of population demographics, will become the new national language, as if one day all of the English speakers will wake up and find they have to learn a whole new tongue. This is a silly fear. More likely, American English will incorporate more American Spanish words and syntax and over a number of generations, become a new varietal. I think this is good; it keeps things fresh and widens our horizons.

Expecting a nation such as ours to work with many different languages is wishful thinking. Human nature is such that it will always be "us" vs "them". Language differences just make it worse. If the nature of man were altruistic then perhaps, but since it is obviously not, it won't work. And we aren't talking about the evolution of language. We are talking about different established languages. Evolution of language would be the difference between the english we speak here in America as opposed to what they speak in England. Our language is evolving away from theirs.

There has to be an official language, or the law becomes unenforceable. Is every police officer supposed to speak 322 languages so he can deliver Miranda to anyone? Should land deeds be in 322 different languages so everyone can read them? How can public records be maintained or used when there is no agreed language to use? Is everyone in the country supposed to learn 322 languages so we can read road signs in different neighborhoods? Or maybe we just need half the population to be professional translators to keep people able to communicate.

Your opinion is irrelevant and unsupported, the FACT is that no nation has ever functioned without a recognized official (or at least primary) language. Those such as Canada and Belgium that use two or three official languages barely manage, with considerable difficulty and expense, and even then they have constant problems with the different language groups wanting to split into different independent countries (Belgium almost split in two as recently as last year, along language lines). This idea may be an interesting topic for a paper in your Minority Studies class, but it bears no relation to reality.

Polka I find your article very intriguing on many levels.

As has been pointed out, in order to communicate there needs to be a common language. In order for us to even communicate over the internet as we are doing now, there has to be a common language for the computers involved to understand in order to send and receive the data that comprises the messages.

I don't remember why English was chosen but it is the international language of aviation and we were taught that mitigating the chances of miscommunications is the reason why the number nine is referred to as "niner" when communicating over the radio in order to lessen the chance of it being mistaken for the German word "nein" meaning no.

In that respect, there is some priviledge associated with English not just nationally, but internationally.

Drakkonis

Expecting a nation such as ours to work with many different languages is wishful thinking.

Sad but not surprised

There has to be an official language, or the law becomes unenforceable. Is every police officer supposed to speak 322 languages so he can deliver Miranda to anyone?

These arguments seem to be grasping at straws to make excuses for being insular; the fact of the matter is that, world-wide, languages are converging, dialects and minor languages are dying out except when kept alive by cultural preservation efforts. It is tremendously unlikely that in any European-originated societies there are, or will be, more than two or three languages reflecting dominant cultures. In my perspective, any nation that can't deal with bilinguality is exceedingly lazy and views itself as arrogantly privileged.

Societies can function without a common language. It only needs to respect the linguistic differences of its citizens.

Every nation I have been to with different dialects is immersed in tribalism...

How many people here think English is not a foreign language and all other languages are somehow "foreign"?

That would be me. The US government was founded on and in english, not spanish, german, italian, or any other.

It is called privilege and it is wrong.

There's nothing wrong with having a privileged language.

English is as foreign as any other language.

No it is not. We have made it our native language.

But I was not and now I only know one of the most simplistic languages to ever exist.

There is nothing simplistic about English.

The government shouldn't assume that anyone in the US speaks English as it is a foreign language.

Not any more........

interesting article polka.....I havent thought about this one....will have to get back to you on it after I try to wrap my mind around it.

by the way...great article regardless...clipped to supervine.

supervine is for those articles written by viners other than yourself that are.....like you said...super.

That is acceptable for those that choose to use that language but students should be allowed to learn any language they want to learn and not be forced to learn the foreign language of English and the government shouldn't mandate greater importance towards any specific language over others in regards to government functions

Out of curiosity, would it be considered racist to deny someone a job as a construction laborer if they couldn't speak the language used by the rest of the company? If employers can't communicate job instructions without the company having to hire an interpreter, how would any work get done unless there was a common language on which to fall?

I know popular society calls other languages "foreign" but that is an incredibly popular misconception.

I disagree. French is about as foreign a language as foreign languages can get...come to think of it, the French are about as foreign as foreigners can get, too. /S

That is wrong. If they did that then they did not represent all the People. Americans spoke different languages before the US government was established.

How is it wrong? They may have spoken different languages, but the country itself was created in one language.

Look up the constitution. It's in english. It's the basis for our government. It's also the basis for our rule of law.

It is no more native to the US then Italian or Russian or any other language.

Had we chosen Russian as our language that would be our native language. However we did not.

It is very simplistic. It is comprised of 26 simple characters with a simple no-nonsense system of words. It doesn't have a complex system like German or Russian or millions of characters like Japanese. I understand English very well and I know that there is nothing complex about it.

Foreigners consider English to be one of the most difficult languages on the planet.

Foreigners consider English to be one of the most difficult languages on the planet.

The difficulty of any second language is relative, and dependent on many factors. To categorically claim that "foreigners consider English to be one of the most difficult languages on the planet" is demonstrably false.

There is nothing simplistic about English.

Oh sure there is. Typologically speaking, I can list a number of grammatical features, sounds and linguistic properties that are relatively more difficult than English (again, depending on the background from which the learner comes).

Maybe we should have invented our own language and called it the American language. A completely different language. We would have accomplished that task; we had brilliant minds that established our governments. Great philosophers and inventors. If J.R.R. Tolkien (one man) could have created his own language then the US could have created one. That would have been a "native" language as it would have been invented on US soil.

Perhaps, or we could have taken one of the native americans languages. But we didn't, we used english...

You can't choose to have a "native" language.

You can by making a language part of your culture.

I don't know what to say about that. There is nothing complex about it.

To you it's not, because English is your native language. To someone who didn't grow up speaking it, English is usually considered very difficult to learn.

Americans do not possess a collective culture.

We do. Every nation has a culture.

So why does the US government work to advocate the expansion and privilege of English at the expense of equal opportunity for its citizens to learn what they want?

I am originally from Canada. This country is officially bilingual and encourages multi-culturalism. This policy is quite different from the USA.

After living in both countries, I prefer America's approach. Canada has become the Tower of Babel. Without a common language, there is confusion with street signs, laws, common culture, the constitution, etc, etc. There are considerable costs for translators and publishing official documents in a multitude of foreign languages. It is chaotic.

A common language is really important and is unifying. America got this one right.

Polka14

Your idealism from youth is quite apparent. You are a good person.

Canada is a unique country. However, their "officialized" multi-culturalism is backfiring. What made it a great country was their order, respect for laws and contributions from foreign culture. However, implementing an official multi-cultural policy has begun to erode Canada's core values, has been very costly and is not efficient.

The USA is multi-cultural. English should remain the official language and should be mandated. If you ever live in Canada, you would understand what I'm talking about.

Did you know that the official language for all commercial pilots is English? This is not because English people want to dominate with their culture. It's purpose is for safety so that your plane doesn't crash because the pilot misunderstood the tower's instructions.

I'm a good person but not as young. I'll be 25 in less then two weeks. Yes, very unfortunate.

What is unfortunate, is that you're almost 25 and still are utterly unable to make simple logical conclusions. I.e. safety of the airplane is not reason enough to have all pilots and dispatchers to speak the same language? right, I assume that is why ALL pilots world-wide that fly internationally are required to speak and understand English. Same with the computer programmers, same with with a whole slew of other professions. Only because some underdeveloped 25 year old can't tells us how we should interact in this country.

So please tell me, how EXACTLY, you, in your infinite wisdom, envision this "language equality" actually implemented?

I don't know Canada so I can't say if they have a multicultural society or not.

Not true. The reason you do not know is by choice. There are plenty of internet resources available to investigate Canada and other countries that promote multi-cultuarlism or bi-lingualism. If you are going to present a case for equality of other languages you need to do your homework. Otherwise, your argument is incomplete.

My article doesn't focus on the foreign nation of Canada and any problems it may have with multiculturalism and/or language differences.

That's why your article is flawed. Worse, you are not conceding to many valid points that are being made against your point of view.

I'm going to move on. Nothing to be learned here. Sorry.

It would simply be a nation where government doesn't involve itself with preserving the language of privilege and doesn't impose the foreign language of English on anyone.

That wasn't my question, and FYI without the language there will be no nation, but that is beside the point. The question was (and remains) how do you see accomplishing this. Which steps do you propose to take, and how to avoid the inevitable disasters that will follow steps that you propose. Also who will pay for all of this, and out of what money?

Private businesses/professions and citizens can do whatever they want including conducting their business purely in English. But the government should not.

Private business do so, in every aspect, except the filing the tax return. As for the government - please indulge us in your wisdom and specify how the government should discharge its duties to the citizenry without a commonly accepted and universally understood language? How exactly do you laws and ordinance proposed, debated, proscribed, documented and applied uniformly? What languages should we choose to implement first? Why? What about the other language, which I believe total somehwere between 2000 and 3000 on the planet?

Polka

There needs to commonality in education and business

And why not Portuguese do you have something against the Portugueseor the Brazilians in the country? :-o) Actually I mean to change that to Latina and forgot sorry about that.

There simply has to be a common language and it happens to be English and to change that would be quite an undertaking.

I personally do not care if individuals want to speak Spanish, Russian, French or whatever so long as they do not expect me to respond or understand. I will find a way to get what I need done and wish them the best in doing the same.

Language of privilege is a reach IMHO....English is one custom that has survived pretty much from the beginning and I guess I would ask you for some specific reason that we should change our common language of education, societal intercourse and business to another language

I think we have much bugger issues facing us that require attention and action than changing to common and accepted language of the country from English to something else but that is just my opinion

Thanks for the feedback

Please quit referring to English as a "foreign language" to the USA, it makes you sound silly. There is no such thing as a native language if English is not the native language of most people in the USA. I was born to two English-speaking parents, rarely if ever exposed to any other language in early childhood, and performed all of my education and work in English (except for a few classes specifically intended to be "foreign languages" and a few Latin and French carryovers in legalese). This has been the experience of most people in the USA for most of its history. You may not like that or think that it is a good thing, but to deny that it is a fact is simply ridiculous.

To have a "foreign" language, there must be such a thing as a "native" language, or the term becomes meaningless. I am curious what you would call a "native" language. Do you have to be born in the exact spot where a language was invented? The same town? the same country? The same continent? What about countries whose borders have changed, or languages that cover more than one country, or only part of a country? What about languages (like English and most or all others) that have blended with others or incorporated parts of others? Are the Flemish Belgians speaking a "foreign" language? If so, does that mean French is the "native" language of Belgium? The only way you could consider English "foreign" to the USA would be to construct such a restrictive definition that no language would ever be "native" to anyone and thus your whole point becomes meaningless.

Your goal, obviously, is a deconstructionist anti-colonialist anti-Eurocentist kind of hazy internationalism post-marxism thingy. The theory needs a lot more work before it is ready for publication. It has way too many holes and fallacies. Like I said, it probably got you a round of applause in your communist discussion group or your multicultural studies essay class, but that's an extremely forgiving audience that desperately wants to agree with you that anything white or European or USA-ish is wrong and unnatural and evil. There may even be some merit hidden away in the corners of your theory, but you need to clean up the more obvious errors before it will be possible to determine if there is anything worth salvaging from it. Good luck.

I would suggest at least the same country.

Since the country was formed with english speakers here, that would seem to imply that english is native to this country.

Spanish is still the native language of those countries.

But the languages of Spanish and English are native to certain countries in North and South America.

So the only true native languages are the designed ones and the american indian ones, since those are the only ones that we can prove were created in a given place?

We are really arguing semantics here with the whole issue of terminology. With respect to the broader implications this article has, this is a lesser issue, but I think you are confusing the component words "native" and "language" with a fixed phrase that has a fixed meaning in linguistic jargon: "native language": "[a] first language (also native language, mother tongue, arterial language, or L1) is the language(s) a person has learned from birth."

Even then I can still use your definition of "native" ("being the place or environment in which a person was born")... I was born into an English-speaking environment; I thus learned English; English is therefore my native language.

Granted, at the end of the day it's still arguing semantics (rarely fruitful), and there is the line of thinking (which I think Polka is adopting) that English was brought to the Americas by its colonizers (the English), and Spanish was brought to the Americas by its colonizers (the Castilians), so on those readings the languages themselves are foreign to the soils of the Americas. Yet English and Spanish are still "native languages" to the speakers for whom they are their first language(s), irrespective of where the speakers are born.

There are no American natives, or anywhere else except Africa. Since we all came from Africa, does that mean every language except the grunts and snorts of our common proto-human ancestor are "foreign" languages? Or maybe we should try to geographically identify the exact spot where our most ancient common ancestor lived, and then find a language that was invented on that spot? In practical terms, you are native where you are born. The term has different meanings in different contexts. You can't quote a biology book to find a socially constructed meaning. Also, you say "all the true native languages are pushed into obscurity" in the USA. What makes you think any of those languages were native. We know the early Americans came from Africa, through Asia, and finally to America. Are you sure they didn't invent their languages before they got to America and then import these "foreign" languages when they invaded the new world? You see what silly debates your premise requires? Give it up. Seriously. This dog is not gonna hunt, not without some serious revisions, at the very least. You could start with not calling English a "foreign" language to people who have never spoken anything else.

I would suggest at least the same country.

What about countries whose borders have changed?

What about them? The new boundaries would define where the language is native to.

Okay, so when England extended its borders to the American continent, then English became the native language of America. Glad we finally agree. Thanks for playing.

Again, as much as we agree, this is where we disagree.

I believe that it makes all languages equally foreign and that includes English so any privilege given to it is unjustified.

That logically follows only to the extent that the only requirement for "justified privilege" is being a native language. English is "privileged" because of the history, development and global power the U.S. attained. That's not a matter of justifiability. It's just how history happened.

Polka

Perhaps people should not be allowed to talk out loud

They type what they want to communicate into a smart phone like device and it determines the language preferences of those in the crowd and broadcasts the message on the appropriate language to the devices of all individuals present simultaneously.

The solution sounds inane correct?

Well no more than the problem presented that too many people have already spent way too much time on

In a time of real people having real problems, this is not one of them IMHO

English may have significant history but that shouldn't limit the freedom of new citizens to speak the language that they want.

Amen. Couldn't agree with you more.

Likewise, English speakers have the freedom to speak the language they want without being forced to accommodate non-English speakers, except in the judicial system.

Freedom applies to all, not just some, and not conditionally or selectively. Persons have the freedom to choose what suits them, their goals and ambitions better: remaining non-English-speaking or learning the predominant language of the country in which they live.

Remember, the Constitution is a negative-rights-based document. It does not say what the government must do; rather, it says what the government may not do--except with the people's consent and as long as that consent doesn't infringe upon the natural rights of others.

English is a more American language because we have made it a more American language.

Would Spanish be considered to be more American if it became dominant in this century?

Had we decided to write all our official documents in Spanish, teach it in the schools, and had it become the language spoken by the most individuals, then Spanish would be the American language.

I would like to see Americans cease mocking people that don't know English

Well that would certainly be very nice and well-mannered, Polka, and I would certainly agree, but that is NOT a matter for government. Not in this country anyway.

The First Amendment protects all manner of rude behavior, including mockery of others' language, as long as it doesn't infringe upon one's civil rights. Being offended or having one's feelings hurt is NOT protected under the Constitution.

And that's a big problem I have with our new crop of under-educated immigrants who are here without our permission and without our prior screening. They have no idea what's considered constitutional and what's not constitutional in the USA, and what's the proper domain of government and the courts and what's not the proper domain. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And then people like me that don't know Spanish can be treated badly because of it?

You would have learned Spanish in school.

Americans should choose to end the practice of supporting lingual privilege...

I don't know how you would define "lingual privilege." You have to be very specific. And what would that particular statute be? Be specific.

...including mocking others that don't speak English...

No. That's unconstitutional. The government has no right whatsoever to enforce etiquette, including statutes to restrict "mockery." That is anathema to what the USA is all about. What you're talking about is civil, courteous, well-mannered behavior, which is OUTSIDE the domain of government enforcement.

Again, if immigrants of our choosing and our screening were here, instead of those without our choosing, screening and requirements, we wouldn't be having this discussion of basic American Civics 101. But since that's not the case, and we're absolutely responsible for that, then we have to deal with what we've got and what's our responsibility, but that is NOT relinquishing constitutional rights and provisions because some in our midst are ignorant of those rights, through no fault of their own, but, ultimately, OURS (via our complacency and complicity in our illegal immigration problem, which, I suspect, is what this thread is really about, at its root, and not necessarily just "language").

any unjustified support of lingual dominance in a nation.

There is no such support in this country, therefore, any statute prohibiting it would be obviously moot.

There is no such support in this country, therefore, any statute prohibiting it would be obviously moot.

She thinks that all of us being able to speak the same language, so we have at least a slimmer of hope of understanding each other, is not justification enough. She likes the ancient Babylon model, that BTW, if I recall the Bible, did not work really well for them.

The government continues to demand that immigrants speak English...

In terms of enforcement or requirement, absolutely not true. I know for a fact it's not true. I live in southern California. :)

The fact that some individuals and groups and politicians TRY to make it an enforced requirement is quite different from reality.

I think what this is all about is your being simply "offended." It has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, requirements, the law, the Constitution or anything else. You obviously simply don't like the fact that a lot of folks here in the USA use the English language as just one "weapon" to try to exploit to try to alienate immigrants. Right?

Isn't that what this whole article and thread is about? The fact that you don't like certain folks exercising their First Amendment rights, while at the same time proclaiming your First Amendment rights?

Get real. The law and the Constitution are on your side!

The government continues to demand that immigrants speak English. That is privilege.

Nope, that is the law of the land. Kind of like this traffic thing? By your logic we should not all be driving on the same side of the road, and obey the signs? Why? You do not have to do so, and you do not have to apply for citizenship (which is about the only time you truly have to speak some English). FYI I know two elderly women who didn't really speak English, but both passed the citizenship test - one was something like 66 years old, and other was like 85 years old. If they could do - than so can the mexican construction workers and various clening crews. I mean after all why in the world would I hire help that does not understand what I want from them?

Citizen support of language privilege can't be eliminated because we have the freedom of speech but I personally denounce it.

I support your decision to do personally whatever it is you think you're doing. But in the mean time I expect people that I talk to, work with, watch on TV, etc... to speak English.

Polka

As long as people do not expect me to speak another language I really have no problem with them not speaking English

If I am unable to interact with people n English (or Russian nemnogo, German ein bischen or Spainish un poco) then they and I can simply move on and try someone else for what we require.

If someone wants my assistance or support in any significant way they will need to speak English to communicate with me, but if not there is no need in my mind that anyone speak English.

I do support business owners that conduct their business in English with full understanding that thy may lose some business from non-English speakers.

If I am unable to interact with people n English (or Russian nemnogo, German ein bischen or Spainish un poco) then they and I can simply move on and try someone else for what we require.

Good luck at the hospital. I wish you well with all my heart.

Polka

I seem to remember a thread about a restaurant that dealt with its customer only in English

Polka

Do you feel even the slightest bit of self righteousness or arrogance in presuming to know why other people do what they do or do you possess some special skill that allows you to know what people are thinking?

I (and many people around the country I expect) do not care whether people speak English or not, but I should not be expected to make extra efforts to interact with them because they do not speak English.

I speak several languages and when I travel I make every effort to speak the language of the country that I am in, even if it is by holding a phrase book and sounding like an idiot. When someone makes a significant effort to speak the accepted language of an area it has been my experience that others will make significant efforts to assist them.

polka

You have the right to call anyone anything that you wish

I guess some might call those that choose to live here and cannot communicate in the commercial and social settings they are in as foolish and they would have that right as well

And as I said people are free to speak or not speak English and to speak whatever language they wish whenever they wish and I am not obliged to learn to understand their language any more than they are obliged to learn to speak mine.

I don't know which thread you guys are discussing, so I can't comment on the specifics, but I'm curious, Polka. You have stated that you do not feel motivated enough to ever learn a new language, and that you only speak English. How would you then interact with customers/co-workers/other people in general who do not speak English when the occasion arises? You don't seem to be willing to even back up your own assertions.

Polka

If they should not expect you to understand them, why then should they expect you to serve them or provide customer service to someone you cannot understand and that cannot understand you?

Would they then be justified in calling you a bigot because you won't interact with them? I'm just not seeing how your argument stands up.

polka

Well ok then you are a paragon of virtue

Polka

And humble as well, the hits just keep on coming

I approve of your noble position, Polka. On a related note, my family and I speak a language that is only known to members of my immediate family. It has been passed down for thousands of years, back to the time we founded our own nation and decided to create a native language. Since you do not speak it, you would not have heard the name of our nation or our language, but that is no reason to behave like a fascist and deny us equal rights to our native language. I have searched all the land deeds at the local tax office, and since none of them are in my language, which is called Tihsllub, by the way, I assume nobody owns any property around here. I will be moving into your house tomorrow morning, please be gone by then. I posted public notices in my language (my language is written by crushing pieces of bubble gum on the ground in globular shapes, btw) and it's not my fault you are too narrow-minded to learn my language and read them. Also, my son is starting school next year, and I insist he be taught in his native language. Since the only person on earth qualified to teach classes in Tihsllub is my wife, you will of course be hiring her. I am sorry to inform you that she is very expensive, $25 million per year. What other choice is there, though? We wouldn't want to be granting privileges to some weird "foreign" language and denying me my rights to my native tongue. Seems perfectly reasonable to me...

/sarcasm off

S B N S

Tihsllub

I think it is time for a petition drive to get Tihsllub recognized as a primary language to be taught to all school children

From what I've seen of most public schools' curricula lately, I'd say they are teaching plenty of Tihsllub already.

And how do you propose we implement that equality? It's difficult for a lot of schools to find teachers fluent in both English and Spanish for bi-lingual education. What happens when a kid wants to learn math, science and history at a high school level in Swahili? What you are proposing is logistically impossible. The reality is that English is the dominant language. The U.S. government recognizes that reality and takes advantage of it.

Maybe teaching language should be the responsibility of the parents/guardians and not the government??

With respect to anyone's first language, it pretty much is. Well, not limited to the parent(s)/guardian(s), but basically society at large. Any exposure to any language is a possible "acquiring moment." And if a child is exposed to a sufficient amount of "acquiring moments," they will have acquired a language. And this usually begins much before they begin school.

Yes but that can be done through exposure to family and others that speak the same language. That is why we have large communities of non-English speaking people in this nation.

I agree. No one is stopping anyone from pursuing the continuation of their home language at home or within their own speech community.

So you would agree that immigrants that know only Polish or Spanish or Korean or any other language should not be forced to learn English when entering for the purposes of becoming a citizen?

NO!

No one should be forced to learn English, but if they wish to function in society, they need to. The point of becoming a citizen is to integrate as a functioning member into society, so yes, it makes sense to require those who wish to become naturalized citizens to learn English. It doesn't violate any rights.

Let me help...they can choose not to learn English....I just hope they understand that the choice to not learn English limits their education and productivity and eventually their income....

This falls under the heading of "life is not fair' or "life is tough"

How is it even government's responsibility to ensure that immigrants can function with English speakers?

We have chosen English as the language of this country.

Who did?

The people that created the country did.

Who did?

The people of the United States did.

So I have to learn this foreign language by default because it has the privilege associated with the majority.

The English language is not foreign to the US.

I would say it would be their loss without learning English

NO...because I come from a family of legal immigrants and we all had to learn English to acquire our naturalization papers and so should anyone else. In my personal view it is ridiculous for schools and businesses to be required to have interpreters or bi-lingual people, unless those businesses are doing business with another country and it is necessary for that communication, but that would be a choice a business would make and should not be forced on them. As an immigrant from Germany...my mother wanted me to learn German... and I did as a young child. (note: I was 7 when I became a naturalized citizen with my mother). So when I go to Germany...I speak German... when we have had family and friends visit from Germany...they speak English! Wow...what a concept...speak the language that is predominately spoken!

but that would be a choice a business would make and should not be forced on them.

It is their choice. If they want the business, then they'll hire people that can speak the language. It's all a cost-benefit analysis. If you're in Albuquerque, then hiring someone that speaks Spanish probably makes good financial sense: many of your customers will speak Spanish, and it isn't hard to find an employee that speaks it. Now, hiring someone that speaks Gaelic probably isn't going to be of any additional value to you.

Based on your deconstructionist egalitarian-fantasy-world rhetoric, I assume you would probably be opposed to the idea of a country controlling the immigration of foreigners into the nation in any way, so this argument is probably wasted, but here goes nothing:

When a person becomes a citizen or legal resident of this country, they acquire certain benefits from that status. In exchange for granting them those benefits, which they had no right to before, the government expects that they will be of benefit to the nation and its people in return. Since most of the commerce in the USA is conducted in English, it would be difficult for a person with no knowlege of the language to be a productive member of that society. Rather than adapt the entire society to each and every individual's linguistic convenience, the government expects and requires that foreign nationals requesting the benefits of legal residence here repay that gift by learning English, so that they may more easily contribute to our national prosperity and earn the benefits they have been given.

Because English isn't the language of the US

Saying it over and over will not make it true.

It's great that you think government should not be concerned with communication, but it is. Every power enumerated in the constitution requires that the government be able to communicate with the people it serves. To do that a common language is required, and english is the one they picked.

English is the language of England and it is a foreign language from the continent of Europe.

It is also the language that this country was founded in. Your foreign versus native argument has gone the way of the dodo. The one thing you just seem to ignore over and over is that the constitution is in english.

Well, saying that it's categorically "not needed" is, I think, a stretch. As I mentioned, those three or four cases from the NYT are certainly not the norm.

I prefer thinking of it in the following way: under some circumstances is it possible for some people to "get by" in the U.S. without advanced knowledge of English? Yes. Is it advisable? Probably not.

For example, while it is the law (I believe) to provide interpreters in legal proceedings and medical issues for speakers who do not know English, there are always practical limitations. If it is going to take some time to find an interpreter who speaks the second language if it happens to be an infrequently spoken language, a trial might be delayed or, worse, someone might be badly injured or die from injuries if the doctors cannot communicate with the patient.

they can invest in language translation technology.

Nowhere near adequate, and it won't be for some time, if it ever is at all. My students learn this the hard way no matter how many times I warn them.

In spite of the technological advances, nothing will ever be able to capture some nuances and subtleties of natural language other than another human. If you adopt a Chomskian view of linguistics - and I do - this fact is easily explained: grammar is not based on any type of algorithm or computer "program": its a biological component stored in the mind, some of whose intricacies and inner workings still escape explanations by the world's best linguists.

I guess I don't really understand what exactly you are advocating at this point. I'm all for bilingual schools if the parents choose to enroll their children. There is a very successful bilingual program in the next town over from mine. But re-reading your article, it seems like you are trying to manufacture diglossia, and I am as much against that as I am forcing non-English speakers to learn English.

Thank you for that summary. Again, we mostly agree, but...

an unjustified privilege

This is where we mostly disagree. It's not unjustified per se; it's just how history shook out for this country. I also wanted to make a small comment on your interpretation of "foreign." While, yes, English is technically a "foreign" language with respect to the Americas, most people use "foreign" relative to themselves. I know Spanish... it is my "foreign language" because it was not my first language.

As all Americans are independent, I would like the People to give more respect towards non-English speakers in our nation. They are no less American because they don't speak some European language.

This I wholly (and strongly) agree with.

Many would only like to speak the language of their country of origin or maybe their own choice of language.

And I think they should. No one is telling them not to speak whatever language they want to speak in the house (except for maybe what the parents perceive to be societal pressure not to speak their own language; that is where I think society in general needs to change). For children, this is the best possible solution: they acquire their home language at home, and English (and possibly Spanish, depending on the society) from society.

I don't know but it isn't government's concern.

I certainly disagree with English-only movements. But to say that language, and by consequence communication, is not government's concern, that's just not practical. Laws, signs, documents, etc., all need to be written in something. The best way to propogate this information is by convention. Convention, by definition, requires some kind of shared knowledge. And since, by historical chance, the vast majority of the populace in this country knows English, I am okay with encoding these types of things in English. But that's not to say that I don't think, given a situation where a translation/interpreter is necessary, that is shouldn't be provided. I think that it should.



Well, the USA is my "country of origin" so what IS my native language if not English? Nobody I know is fluent in any other language (except a few Cajun friends that speak their own sort-of-French). I suppose I should be trying to find out what Indian tribe lived where I live now and speak their language? Would that be my "native" language? Or maybe the people that they took the land from, or the people that THEY took it from? How many conquests back is proper to find my "native" language? I suspect you would be happy with any result other than English, since that satisfies your USA=BAD agenda. If you want to come up with rationalizations for your anti-American feelings that's fine, but don't expect them to escape scrutiny just because your buddies in the communists-on-campus club think you're a genius.

Of course it's the government's concern. Do you expect every document and street sign to be printed in 322 languages? Is every TV announcement to be repeated in 322 languages? The government has to be able to communicate with its own people, and there has to be a common language for communication to occur. For historical reasons, English happens to be the common language of the USA. The "forcing" of English on people today is simply a matter of practicality. Is it easier for a few immigrants to learn English, or for every government employee to learn 322 languages? Common sense shows this argument is a non-starter.

But that's not to say that I don't think, given a situation where a translation/interpreter is necessary, that is shouldn't be provided. I think that it should.

Too many negatives at the end there. Sorry about that. Take 2:

But that does not mean that I think that interpreters/translators shouldn't be provided when necessary; I think that they should.

Sad but not surprised

Are you talking to me? Aside from a few incorrect assumptions about communism and anti-American feelings, I agreed with your basic premise: English is my native language, and Spanish is my foreign language.

If that was meant for Polka, then please ignore.

My main point is that the foreign language of English benefits from what I consider to be an unjustified privilege

Gets better...the main language of international flight is English....want to change that too?

I consider it to be based on nationality. English comes from England and not the US so therefore it is foreign.

The colonists were speaking English before they were independent.

You do not have one.

We do have one. We made English ours.

It wouldn't be easy but that isn't the point I am making. I believe that all languages are inherently equal.

We have chosen English.

I'll reply to my corresponding comments, and leave Sad's comments for Sad.

I consider it to be based on nationality. English comes from England and not the US so therefore it is foreign.

I guess that's fine if that's how you personally look at it, but that's not the common assumption. A "native language," even in linguistic literature, is defined as one's first language: it's personal, not national. My first language was English, thus English is my native language. Therefore, by definition, any non-native (non-first) language is foreign: in my case, Spanish (and, to much lesser extents, Italian and Portuguese).

But to be fair, English does not come from England, either. It is Germanic in origin with large Greek, Latin and French lexical influence; it's derived from Anglo-Saxon, the language of a Germanic tribe from mainland Europe (modern-day Germany and Denmark) that settled England. Prior to that, the Celts had emigrated from mainland Europe to the British Isles. To be fair, if that's the definition you are using, the only "native language" for Indo-European languages would be those who are still somewhere near the Caucuses (the hypothesized point of emigration of the Indo-European settlers).

The US can certainly support the learning of other languages.

It does. I'm a Spanish teacher. My high school also offered German and Japanese.

Well, the USA is my "country of origin" so what IS my native language if not English?

English is the primary language of most of the natives, but English itself was created elsewhere.

Syntactic Tree, your assumption was correct. My #6.7 was in response to Polka's #6.5, you just got in there quicker than me :)

In your comments since then, Polka, you have pretty well demonstrated my point (with some expert assistance from Syntactic Tree). To suggest that a person born in the USA has no native language, and then to say such determinations are based on nationality, is an oxymoron. The USA is a nation, therfore it is my nationality, and its language in English. Therefore, by your own definition, English is the native language for me and other native-born American citizens (at the very least for those of us from English-speaking families). Your argument is not even internally consistent.

As Syntactic Tree points out, no language ever comes from just one place, they move with people and with political changes and with literature. They blend and change and divide and evolve out of all recognition through the ages. English itself is derived from at least 4 major parent languages, and many other lesser contributors. Most other languages have similarly ambiguous pasts. It's not as simple as "Spaniards speak Spanish, Turks speak Turkish, English speak English" as you seem to think.

As I said before, the only way you can say that English is not the native language of most English-speaking people in the USA is if you give a definition to "native" that makes it meaningless, and therefore your assertion that English is a "foreign" language becomes equally meaningless. If you just want to blow off some anti-American steam, there are plenty of forums that welcome such rants. On the Vine, however, you are likely to encounter people who expect your arguments to hold water before they accept them. Sorry, thus far yours does not.

[Polka] English is mostly inspired from French influences

French had an effect, yes, but at its core - grammatically and phonologically - English is Germanic.

[Sad] Syntactic Tree, your assumption was correct. My #6.7 was in response to Polka's #6.5, you just got in there quicker than me :)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. But I'll still reiterate, for the record, I'm not a communist. =)

Born in a nation with a native language. A native language is a language that was created in that nation. It is not based on language dominance.

So a nation has to exist first. And then the language has to be created in that nation. Could you give an example of one, because I am not sure that any of those actually exist.

Pacific Apple

But there must be one common language for the purpose of commerce.

The powers that be at the birth of our country spoke English and wrote in English. That is why English is the common language.

English as a primary language evolved this way for practical reasons, as you note. This is why almost all international air traffic control is conducted in English. It is not because it was proclaimed as an official language.

But there must be one common language for the purpose of commerce.

There are many languages used in commerce....and those companies that can successfully communicate in more of them will be more competitive than those that cannot.

I agree with you Uthaclena, we do not have or need a proclamation for an official language in this country.

I'm Ringo, you are right. To be competitive it is desirable to speak many languages. I am one of those grownups that needs to be immersed in a new language to learn it. Others can learn many and I envy them.

At Early Head Start we have children that speak on language at home and English at school. Children are amazing. In the first 3 to 4 years, that can pick up many languages and know what is being said and can answer.

I understand your issue of children coming in schools at age 6 and have learned only one language that is not English. That is why pre-schools and Head Start type programs are so important.

I don't know?? ESOL programs are increasing nationally. In fact, this is the "hottest" area for teacher jobs right now. All of our kids in ESOL went to preschool. Maybe its the tremedous increase in "expected grade level" vocabuary.

but those that are coming now don't have to be bothered.

Not true at all. Second generation immigrants are usually wholly bilingual, while third generation immigrants are, sadly, usually monolingual in English. This has been the same trend for years, duplicated by most, if not all, immigrant groups.

why is only the U.S. diverse?

It's not.

If Germany 100% German, England 100% British? France, Spain, Portugal? Turkey, Crete?

Given your ellipses, I am assuming you extend the "if X is 100% X" to all of your examples. I don't know much about the rest, but I know plenty about Spain.

So, is Spain 100% "Spanish"? Not in any way, shape or form. I'll list only a few other ethnic/cultural/linguistic groups: Leonese, Asturian, Galician, Basque, Catalan, Valencian. Have they [Spaniards (by that I assume you mean Castilians)] given up their language to accomodate others? No to the first (giving up their language), a resounding YES to the second (accommodating others). Their constitution, in fact, guarantees co-official languages in the regions where they are spoken. Signs, documents... all in multiple languages.

But the biggest insult I see to this...past immigrates who have come to this country, and learned the language of this country

At no point in history has the US ever been even remotely monolingual as a country.

It isn't about equality when people in this nation need to learn a specific European language to be given fair treatment in this nation.

Actually, it is about equality, because the alternative would also be unequal: It would require an undue burden on government (that is, we the people) to accommodate them.

As I said earlier, coming to this county, being here, living here and working here is not a civil right. If it were, then what you're suggesting would be true. But it's not.

Asking permission to come here and being granted permission to come here are conditional on certain things; therefore, it's not unreasonable for conditions to be placed on one's entry here. All of that has to do with the "consent of the governed." You're approaching the issue, Polka, as if the immigrant is the one calling the shots and who somehow has inherent civil, human rights to be here before he/she is even here, and that the "consent of the governed" is irrelevant. Wrong. Consent is absolutely central to this issue, and that consent may include or not include accommodations for the immigrant. Depends on consent. Consent is the province of the American people, not the immigrant. The only area in which language is central to a non-English speaker's constitutional rights is in the area of due process. Everything else? Nothing is required on the part of the American people/government.

I used those terms including the word "privilege" to address the point that English is given unreasonably greater status then other equal languages simply because a majority speaks it at this time.

You're talking only about your own personal perception of the English language, as in "privileged." In so doing, you're placing a moral value judgment and a class designation on English, based on your own experience, which I don't discount, but which has nothing to do with how and why English is the predominant language of this country. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of prejudice against minorities or immigrants. It's simply exploited as such by some persons and groups. No doubt about it.

If Spanish is someday the majority language then will we force immigrants to learn Spanish?

I would hope not. Would you? Is there some revenge hope here?

Being the predominant language of a country, such as Spanish, is quite different from being the predominant language of the world's commercial and academic world, such as English. Regardless, whether one chooses to speak Spanish, for whatever the reason may be, should remain a choice.

Of course the language of privilege is a social concern too. So many don't even consider English to be a foreign language and often insult those that choose to not learn it as if English is somehow more "American" then any other language. It isn't.

In literal terms, you're absolutely correct. English is not the official language of this country, so it's literally no more "American" than any other. But to ignore the fact that it is recognized, albeit unofficially, as the language of the USA is rather disingenuous, to say the least.

Again, it's pretty obvious that this issue has some personal import to you. You made a statement somewhere on this thread about your having been "taught" English, as opposed to having grown up "learning"--naturally--English (as a toddler/child does naturally). If English is not your first language, then whatever inferences you draw from "native" English speakers are your own, and, therefore, I certainly don't discount or ignore the social/cultural/racial implications that may or may not have contributed to those inferences of yours.

It is a right for foreigners to enter this nation if they want.

Absolutely not! And that false assumption probably contributes to more misunderstanding and false claims of rights abuses than anything else. The immigrant has no right to enter this nation without asking for permission first and waiting for permission to be granted and then abiding by the conditions of that permission. Period.

English is not an American language.

For all practical purposes, Polka (there are no "official" purposes), it most certainly is.

Attempting to limit the ability of others to live in this nation because they don't speak the dominant language is wrong in my opinion.

True. As I said earlier, our constiuttion is a "negative-rights-based" document. It specifies only what government may not do to infringe upon one's rights--such as the right to learn English or the right NOT To learn English. It does not dictate what the government and the people MUST do to accommodate anybody's language, without the people's express consent. And, so far, that consent, obviously, is not what you would like for it to be. I get that. Sorry. Immigrants don't call the shots about the requirements and accommodations. And the Constitution specifies only negative rights, NOT affirmative ones, which are the ones you're advocating.

So every road sign should be written in the top 50 most popular languages, in incredibly small illegible letters?

All currency should have all text on it translated into dozens of languages?

All classes in school should be simul-translated into dozens of languages?

All police officers should be linguists knowing at least 5 languages?

The places where people deal with their government the most often are the most difficult places to support multiple languages.

So every road sign should be written in the top 50 most popular languages, in incredibly small illegible letters?

All currency should have all text on it translated into dozens of languages?

All classes in school should be simul-translated into dozens of languages?

All police officers should be linguists knowing at least 5 languages?

The places where people deal with their government the most often are the most difficult places to support multiple languages.

I must warn you Brian - everything you say sounds gibberish to her. You're making way too much sense, and doing it in English. Although, I could be wrong here, it could all sound greek.

I always believe that it is a right [to immigrate to the USA] because the government has no legitimate reason to deny entry to anyone...

According to Gallup, approximately 145 million adults worldwide would immigrate to the USA if they had the chance. That figure would increase the country's population by a whopping 47%. You don't think that's not reason enough not to allow anybody who wants to come, to come? Simple question. Your response?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148142/International-Migration-Desires-Show-Signs-Cooling.aspx

To force immigrants to know English does promote lingual privilege.

It possibly would. But since there is no "force" involved, your point is moot.

the only conditions [to immigrating here] should involve the willingness of the immigrants to follow US law and to renounce any foreign citizenship unless duel citizenship may apply in this country.

That would suggest that it's all about the immigrant, and not about what's good for this country and the citizens already here. That mindset is not doing would-be immigrants and immigrants already here any good. It's false and it's presumptuous.

This is not the turn of the 20th century. At this point in time in the 21st century, we need well-educated, skilled and professional immigrants with money and, yes, English language skills. The purpose of immigration is to serve the economic/workplace needs of the US, not to extend an open door to anybody and everybody who wants to come here, and especially if they ignorantly believe that the government exists to accommodate their needs. We already have an asylum and refugee program for those who would like to come here to escape persecution in their homelands. Coming here for economic opportunity is something else entirely and should carry with it an entirely different set of rules. And it does.

The People don't need to accommodate any language but the government must do so or due process and equality under the law is limited for all citizens.

When it comes to doing business with the government, a non-English-speaking person is free to bring a translator with him/her to the DMV or the water & power department or wherever he needs to conduct business. Certified translators are provided in the court system, as they should be, and are.

The irony of ironies is that your article is about "privilege" and looking down one's nose and mocking those who choose not to speak English, yet you yourself have had some pretty disrespectful things to say about the majority of the country who choose to speak only English. You are indeed talking about "privilege": your desire for those who don't speak English to enjoy "privilege" and accommodation at the expense of the majority of taxpayers. Again, it's not a civil right to come here, and it's not a civil obligation of the government and the taxpayers to operate as if it were.

If overpopulation was a good reason then we should deny entry to all immigrants without exception.

I agree. We should, right now, in my opinion, except for those needed to fill certain key jobs and those who qualify for asylum or refugee status. But millions of under-educated, unskilled, non-English-speaking immigrants year after year after year? No. Our country is fully populated, if not over-populated in terms of resources.

Immigrants that want to become citizens must know English. That is wrong.

It's a reasonable expectation for a requirement. That sort of requirement is up to the will of the people via their elected representatives. Again, it would behoove new immigrants and would-be immigrants to understand such things--that we the people call the shots about immigration requirements, not the would-be immigrant.

However, the English requirement is not stringent nor is it enforced. There are thousands upon thousands of full-fledged American citizens here in southern Californai who don't speak a word of English--because they don't want to and they don't have to. Their choice. No problem, except for whatever it is that's really bothering you about that.

If they want to enter the nation and become citizens then we should allow them to enter this nation.

All 145 million of them who want to come and would if they had the chance? Why should we, and how would we accommodate them? I take it you don't see a sudden spike in population of 47% to be a problem. Please explain.

Polka, any response to the road sign or other issues?

You didn't answer either question.

You're talking about "freedom"? You would virtually "enslave" everybody else already here in order to try support millions of illiterate, unskilled indiivduals, not to mention make that virtually impossible due to the environmental destruction that would occur due to a 47% spike in population. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Here's a question for you: Why the United States? Why have you bought what would seem to be, to you anyway, the "myth" that the USA is the gold standard for freedom and livability when at the same time you decry the "privilege" that's inherent in it and that makes people want to come here in the first place.

You're digging a pretty big hole with all these contradictions.

I suspect you know full well that the USA is the gold standard for freedom. And, the hope for prosperity and "privilege" is precisely what motivates most folks to come here. It sounds as if you resent that status and "privilege" that the USA has, and you want to destroy it, instead of making it available to those who can keep it going--by bringing in enough immigrants to overwhelm and destroy all the "privilege" that you despise. Good plan.

Good points. I don't disagree, except for the argument that the way to give some people more freedom is to reduce that of others. That is inherently unconstitutional.

The majority of people in this country happen to be Christian. Should I, as a non-Christian, require any action on the part of Christians toward me, other than to simply not infringe upon my right to be a non-Christian? After all, it's my choice as to whether I remain a non-Christian or join the ranks of Christianity.

Using your logic about the "privilege" of English, what should these "privileged" Christians do FOR me to lessen their privilege and increase mine?

I think you're confusing the verifiable fact of "majority" (an objective matter) with "privilege" (a subjective matter). You, on your own, are inferring "privilege." And I can understand that. It is, in a way.

After all, English is the language of science, technology and commerce throughout the world. Many people from many other countries want their children to learn English for that very reason. The reason English became the predominant language is due in large part to the USA's ascendancy in the world in business, research, technology and higher education.

The concept of "privilege" that you keep describing connotes deliberate attempts to exclude others or hurt their feelings. There is no such effort underway. Nobody is being prohibited in this country from learning English if they want to. It's their choice, not a governmental concern. The US government has no constitutional obligation whatsoever to make accommodations at the expense of others.

And it has no obligation whatsoever to mount any kind of PR campaign to reduce the perception of English "privilege" and assuage some people's sensitive feelings. The US Constitution is not into PR or group therapy. Local governments are certainly free to make all kinds of language accommodations as California and various municipalities here have done. Again, that's a choice of the people, not a constitutional mandate.

"I do not argue for limiting freedom."

and

"I only argue that government should end language privilege."

A contradiction. Once again.

What you're calling "privilege" is nothing more than "majority." And, the majority does not have the right to subjugate the rights of the minority, or vice versa. We have prohibitions against tyranny in this country.

The only way you're going to rid the country--and the world--of English predominance--what you call "privilege"--is to rid the country--and the world--of the human beings who speak it, teach in it and do business in it, or curb their freedom to do so. IOW, tyranny. Those who speak English as a second language outnumber native English speakers by about 2 to 1. That's where you should be directing your complaints, not at the USA and its native speakers—meaning those who were born into an English-only environment.

And I would like to someday see a non-English speaking President.

He/she certainly has the right to run. He/she would never win, not only because he couldn't communicate with the majority of his own people, but wouldn't be able to communicate as leader of the free world, whose leaders speak, yes, you guessed it, English, on the world stage.

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with English. If English were not the predominant language, then some other language would be. So, this is a needless concern. You want no particular language to be more predominant than any other for some reason that seems to be inexplicably mixed up with feelings of "inequality" and insult.

What you're dreaming about and hoping for is literally impossible in a world that is becoming smaller in terms of global community and involvement in all kinds of endeavors.

I do not argue for limiting freedom

But do you understand how much freedom a person is missing out on by being unable to communicate with the world at large? Being unable to speak English is a significant limitation on a person's freedom, and there is no way to change that fact. It does not matter what government does, there is no law that could be passed that would free the non English speaking population from the social imprisonment their inability to communicate freely places them in.

Those who speak English have unparalleled freedom of speech. They can express their thoughts and views directly to an audience of approximately 1.5 billion people. Why would anyone imply that there is some sort of liberty to be gained in not having access to that freedom?

The people who do the most harm to the non English speaking community are those who pat them on the head and tell them that their plight is just unfair, that expectations are just too high for them, that they shouldn't have to make anything of themselves. I have to ask, what motivates such bad judgement? Why keep the non English speaking community in the shackles of such limited freedom of expression?

I don't know how government can prevent language privilege but it should be done

If you don't know how to solve the road sign problem then you really have no suggestions, just a complaint.

Learning a sign language still doesn't allow you to communicate with that many people. There are utterly different sign languages all over the world.

I knew someone would make that point, and that I would have to admit it's a good one. ;-)

But I still think more of us should learn to, and it's on my bucket list, close to the top.

There are other languages, but the dominant form of sign language is ASL, American Sign Language. See a trend?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sign_Language

Besides North America, ASL is also used, sometimes alongside indigenous sign languages, in the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, theDominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Chad, Gabon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Mauritania, Kenya, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Barbados, Bolivia, China, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica. Like other sign languages, its grammar and syntax are distinct from any spoken language, including English

...

although the United Kingdom and the United States share English as a common language, British Sign Language (BSL) is quite unlike ASL, and the two languages are not mutually intelligible. ASL is instead related to French Sign Language.

Ironically won't let you talk to the brits, but to a pretty world wide audience otherwise.

Yes, it is used by some people in many countries....kind of like French is used by some people in almost every country on Earth.

From a 'how many people would I be able to talk with' vantage, the number of people using ASL comes in millions, while there are many other languages that have tens or hundreds of millions.

Now, as something taught from childhood along with spoken language, it would be great. There are plenty of situations that prevent useful spoken communication. If everyone knew both, then we could all switch back and forth as the situation dictated.