Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

In the strictest sense of the word it's not English that we speak in the United States but “American” . . .

Yes, I suppose, in the STRICTEST sense of the word, which in other words means when one wants to split technical linguistic hairs. When a professor prefaces a statement with “I'm not surprised by how little Americans know about such and such,” it might be better to forego the lecture.

The professor is missing some obvious points, and I am surprised, because a Professor of English should know better. Regardless of where one stands on the “English Only Movement,” Americans still very often refer to their nation's primary language as English, though they sometimes refer to it as American or American English when distinctions need to be made. And the American habit of calling their language English does not indicate ignorance about it being a “melange of tongues.” I would say that in general we Americans love to adopt new and foreign words, phrases, and constructs.

Adopting English as the official language of the US, or to “institutionalize” it as the professor prefers to put it, would not, and could not, “fossilize its growth.” Even the most draconian version of the English Only Movement seeks the following: to require government documents, publications, and services to be in English only, to require public schools to teach in English only, and to require American businesses to be able to conduct business in English for English-speaking customers. Again, where one stands on these issues is not the point. But it really is impossible to fossilize a living language, and if a government attempted to do so there would surely be more important things to worry about than the deleterious effects on language!

The professor goes on to say that “the primacy of the English language in the United States is of relatively recent origin.” The professor should get a clue from his own statements: perhaps the reason that we Americans commonly refer to our language as English is because of its primacy. But the professor is missing yet another point. What difference does it make when English primacy took place, as long as it did take place? Since the professor makes this point, are we to assume that if English primacy had taken place further back in time that his views on the English Only Movement would somehow be different?

The professor says this: “English-Only proponents are adept at ad-hominem arguments: when your own position is shaky, attack the character of the opponent.” And yet, from the outset the professor attacks millions of Americans by saying how little they know about their language, and that they call it English out of ignorance. Not only that, he accuses proponents of the English Only Movement of being an “Aryan manifestation” and “racist in intent.” That may be true for some English-Only proponents, especially the extremists on the fringes, but it is certainly not true for all of them. I personally know some public school teachers who have given much thought to the pros and cons of teaching basic and remedial subjects to immigrant students in their native languages. It is a complex, challenging issue.

My Ph.D. in English and Linguistics did not come from a Crackerjack Box. Or is my Hispanic surname getting in the way?

Dear Professor, at first I felt excited and even honored that the author of this article would respond to my comments. It was certainly unexpected; I am a mere layman and a fan of Grant and Martha's program. But why are you playing the racist card with a comment about your Hispanic surname? I am a suspected racist just because I criticized some points in your article? I criticized Alberto Gonzales on many points, too. Does that also make me a suspected racist? Also, why the comment about a PhD coming from a Crackerjack Box? Did I say something disrespectful about your credentials? I said that a Professor of English should know better than to “technically” criticize Americans for referring to their language as English or for thinking of English as our linguistic foundation.

If we're going to have a civil discussion, let's stick to the points. First, I indicated in my comments that I was leaving aside the controversial issues surrounding the English Only Movement. You have no idea where I stand on that, but suffice it to say that you and I probably have few differences. I am not an English Only Proponent. The extent of my involvement in the issue has been discussions with teachers regarding the most effective ways to teach and integrate immigrant children in public schools. I support whatever is best for the kids.

I'm sorry that you experienced racism and that your speaking Spanish was used as a pretext for racism and abuse. For whatever it's worth I and many other middle class Caucasian Americans experienced corporal punishment in school, too, some of it pretty frightening, humiliating, and painful. One of the worst teachers in this regard, my fifth grade teacher, went on to become the school's principal. Thankfully he is long since retired. My wife's experiences at an American-Chinese public school in San Francisco were even worse, and about ten years ago she wrote a very moving story about the abuses there. Professor, you mention twice that you are a Marine who knows what an attack is. I appreciate that, but I'd like to think that even non-Marines can recognize an attack. And if you know what an attack is, you should be able to distinguish between personal attacks and criticisms of points.

I refer to the language we speak in the United States as “English.”

Yes, but in your article you say that technically it is American, not English, that we speak in the US. And you say this right after you point out how little Americans know about their language and how unfortunate it is that many Americans believe that English is our linguistic foundation. English is the lingustic foundation of American language. After all, Americans can understand Brits and Brits can understand Americans quite easily (not to mention Canadians and Australians). On a language map we say that English is spoken in various countries, just as we say French, in all its varieties, is spoken in different countries. Your observation that we speak American rather than English (if English is defined as the language of England) is not “at odds” with anyone. Most Americans, even those who know “unfortunately little” about their language, would agree, if asked in the right context, that technically we speak American. But my point to you is that in this case it doesn't matter. Americans refer to their language as English not because of lack of knowledge, or racism, but just because of common practice. If from this point forward I were to tell people that I speak American, I might get the occasional funny look, but no one would argue with me.

It is impossible to fossilize a language. That was my point.

No, that was my point. You said: “To institutionalize “English” as the official language of the country (or of any state) is to fossilize its growth, to fence it inside boundaries that would stifle its linguistic evolution.” I noticed that you put “English” in quotes, to remind us again that it is not really English we speak here. You go on to say: “As much as one might seek that institutionalization, in the end that effort will prove futile.” Professor, that qualified statement is not the same as making the point that it is impossible to fossilize a language. Your statement implies that if a language could be institutionalized, then it would fossilize. Your point is that the effort to institutionalize would fail. Moreover, your statement implies that institutionalizing a language is the same as adopting an official language. I'm not sure if you meant to do this, but I think it is possible for a country to have an official language without institutionalizing it. Of course we'd all have to agree on what is meant by institutionalize.

The French have recently tried to maintain the purity of French–to no avail.

The French have been trying to maintain the “purity” of French since the founding of the French Academy in the 17th century. I wouldn't say that it's been to no avail, because they do have some influence, even if their recommendations carry no legal power.

The latest Census projection is that by the year 2040 one out of three Americans will be Hispanic. Shouldn't we be preparing for that demographic change instead of arguing like the 3 blind men with the elephant?

I'm not sure what your assumptions are. What are “we” arguing about? If the vast majority of those Hispanic Americans will speak English (or American), then what sort of preparations are necessary? Are you suggesting that in light of the projected demographics most Americans should learn both American and Spanish, just as most Swiss learn both French and German? And if Americans do learn Spanish along with English, which dialect of Spanish? Or do you foresee that by 2040 there will be a fairly uniform Spanish-American dialect?

And by the way, in the story of the blind men and the elephant, all of the men were “right” in their own way. One of the lessons of that story is that, if we are wise, we have to take into account different perspectives and look at different sides, negotiate, and compromise, which realistically sometimes involves a willingness to put up with arguing. Married people know all about that!

But the stunning election of Barack Obama attests to the fact that Americans are not ignorant.

The election of Obama does not attest to the fact that Americans are not ignorant, any more than the two-time election of Bush attests to the fact that Americans are ignorant. Ignorance is not a quality that quickly comes and goes in a large population. Ignorance has become sort of a dirty word, mixed up with the word “stupid,” though really all it means is a lack of knowledge, information, or learning. Many people prefer to use euphemisms. You say that Americans are not ignorant and then repeat your statement about how little Americans know their language, which is essentially pointing out ignorance about language. That's okay. I am not surprised, either, at how little many Americans know their language, just like I am not surprised at how little many Americans know trigonometry. But going back to the point, none of that has anything to do with why Americans - even Professors of English - commonly refer to their language as English.

I continue to be amused at how wrong critics make me out to be in order for them to be right.

Wrong about what? About relatively small, technical points like whether we should call our language English or American? Or about your views on the English Only Movement? My taking exception to some of your points does not make me one of your critics. We'd have to wrangle over much more substantial stuff before I could deserve that title. And why is it that as a line of defense some people like to say that they are “amused” by their critics? That is an off-hand way of dismissing critics, insinuating that their criticisms are only worthy of amusement, not serious consideration. You decide which of your “critics” is worthy of consideration and response. You might consider ignoring the rest, no matter how amusing they are. Life is too short.

If the English Only Movement is one of your concerns, can you share with us any impending legislation, especially if it is on the state or federal level, that we should worry about? It's an unfortunate fact of life that there will always be politicians who try to pass all sorts of bad legislation, and even worse, involve us in counterproductive wars. It seems that the election of Obama doesn't attest to the fact that everything has been fixed. 🙂

Since my wife is from Boston, I'm learning that foreign language! 🙂

I'm conversational in French and I can get by in Spanish (in restaurants and hotels, that is). Do you think it's possible for Esperanto to catch on in a serious way? Has a poll ever been done to ask people which language, besides their own mother tongue, they would want to be the common global language? If we did have such a common language, would it inevitably make all other languages obsolete, and is that good or bad?

And Brian, if you read this, can you tell me the trick to getting my picture on my profile? I've tried loading a jpg picture and it doesn't seem to work.