One of my previous commentaries outlined why the movement to make English the official language of New Hampshire was misguided. My friend pointed out that I hadn"t really addressed one of the main issues: why shouldn"t it be the state language? That set me to thinking: what does it really mean to make a language "official"? Does anyone really know?
One test of an idea"s coherence is to imagine what will happen when people act the idea out. If English were the state"s official language, what would be some of the consequences? Perhaps a better way of stating this is, What would be permitted and not permitted? Would there be laws, for instance, banning signs in any language other than English? (Would St. Mary"s Bank have to take down its French nameplate?) Would ethnic organizations be allowed, such as the French-Canadian association in Manchester? If they were, could they conduct their business in French? How would the teaching of foreign languages in school be affected? Foreign language publications? These questions can be multiplied almost infinitely.
The issue of permission also raises issues about monitoring. France has an Academy which aims to keep French pure. Would we have one, too, the APE (Academy for the Preservation of English), with possibly a "Language Police" having the power to give people "poetic licenses"? What, then, would be the penalties for not using English? In short, in what ways would people"s constitutional rights be abridged by making English the official language? (For instance, would it be right to disenfranchise thousands of Hispanic voters who are also American citizens because ballots and voting instructions would not be printed in Spanish?)
But perhaps the question most difficult to answer is, Which English are we talking about? People who propose that English be made official presume that English can also be made standard. But people are not united on what constitutes a "standard" English. An amazing mix of Englishes abound in our country, and what emanates from Washington and New York is only one, and usually the blandest, of many dialects. And language changes constantly; the "standard" English of today won't necessarily be the "standard" English tomorrow. Proponents of an official English have no clear idea of what language they want to enshrine.
The real question here should be what makes for literacy, not what makes for Americanness; action should be for education, not for the nativist conceit of an official language. What we need is more compassionate concern for the quality of life of all people in this country, not more lines which separate and deny; fewer references to bootstraps and more to collective successes.
The Burden Of The Rich
Spring