Do you believe that a country should have a national
official language? Does it depend on the country? What might the implications
of such a government decision be? What are the practical effects in countries that already have such a policy in place? What would sticklers and snoots say about this possibility? Would they be more likely to support this decision for a national language or no?
I think having a national language would be very beneficial to many countries, especially those who have so many competing languages. Although it may cast out certain groups, I believe that in the long run it is easier to live in a country that is all on the same page linguistically. Ideas can be spread in a much more efficient way because language would no longer be a barrier. A country will become much more united if everyone used a national language. Even if people did not use the determined language all of the time in everyday life, it would still be beneficial in in a more national sense such as the governing of a country. In Robert Lane Green’s interview, he uses reiterates this idea that a stronger country is usually one who has a dominant language. For example he said that the fact that America, where English is the one dominant language, is stronger (economically, politically, etc) than an African country, that likely have several languages is not a coincidence because he believes that national success/unity stems from linguistic unity.
ReplyDeleteOf course there would be many unsettling implications of this transition, especially in America. Because America is valued for its diversity, freedom, and its “melting pot” mentality many would argue that the constricting of language is definitely taking away a person’s freedom of expression. People like Gloria Anzaldua would argue that, because identity is so closely tied to language, the constricting of it would in turn prevent people from having the ability to maintain a sense of identity.
I think snoots and sticklers would be greatly in favor of a governmental decision to create a national language. Because sticklers believe that varying language, dialects, etc are “ruining” language, they would be thrilled to hear that language will finally be controlled. I think snoots will also be supportive of this position because the national language put in place will most likely be the SWE language used by “elite” Americans such as snoots.
Good point about RLG; although, the United States that he is calling strong does not have an official language. Does this weaken the country or make it vulnerable in any way?
DeleteHow would an official language unite everyone linguistically? Would it mandate speaking that language? Make other languages illegal? Good use of other sources.
I think it is definetly necessary for a country to have one single official language. It not only makes things easier in politics, but it is important for the countries unity. Countries with two oficial languages have troubles concerning the nationality the people belong to. Canada is one example, the growing gap between english and french speakers. Or Belgium, they have a french, a german and a dutch zone. Three official languages. And its been years that they are having a conflivt about their language. the people want to split into three separate countries, according to these linguistic zones.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, I don't think that this can be "fixed" you can't force the people from the dutch zone to start communicating in french or german. And because the government is trying to hold the country together, people from the differnet zones already started hating each other. In my opinion it would be the best to split Belgium and create three new countries with their own government and a single language. A country can't work with innerpolitical conflicts like these. Having one common language strengthens the people's unity and give the government the chance to care better for the country.
One think has to be added though: I think it strengthens a country to be bilingual, which means thath every single person growing up there speaks two languages. I mentioned Bali in class I think. It gives a country a certain international advantage, even if one or both of the language are not that inportant in the world.
As Nicki said above, snoots and sticklers would probably be on my side. In a splitted country, snoots and stickler from both sides would have to watch their beloved language mix up with the other one. I know for example that quebec french has a huge amount of anglizism, but french french none. What could a Quebec stickler say to that?
Though there is a difference between linguistic and national identity (1st paragraph). One could proudly identify with a national culture without speaking that nation's most dominant language, no?
DeleteIs it practical to consider having one official language and still encourage the learning and practice of other languages? Does this run counter to the philosophy and the purpose of an official language?
I personally dont like the idea of a government controlled language. Of course no matter where you go, people are going to favor one language over another. I dont see English escaping America anytime soon as much as I dont think French will escape France. If a country can all speak a neutral language, thats awesome, and I believe that would be the best case scenario. As soon as government becomes involved, thats when things get touchy.
ReplyDeleteGovernment can't enforce a language. Its against our Constitution and even the most radical Stickler would agree that its morally wrong. I think when a certain country is targeted with a national language, that country is put in a tough place. A national language sounds to me as if a country is trying to promote a language based on tradition rather that current circumstance. When I think back on it, probably the only reason English is our national language, is because the majority came to this country from England. But what about other influences of French, Germen, or Spanish? People from those countries helped America become America just as much as the British settlers.
I think a national language is pointless. What does it do beside point out the obvious? I think any country can do without one, and maybe without it, discrimination and racism will decrease.
How do we define a neutral language? One that is in wide-spread use? Or one without bias, attitude, or connotation?
DeleteStrong position on the immorality of forcing people to speak one language and not another, yet many countries have an official language, or many. Is this not the same thing?
In your paper, develop this last question? What does it do - for better or worse - including and beyond the obvious?
A national or official language is hugely important for a country. It allows people to communicate with each other. In my opinion, nothing could get done in a country if you could not understand your neighbour. Also, elected officials have to speak for the people. It sort of defeats the objective if the people don't understand. It's like the Prime Minister giving a speech in English to the people of Venezuela; it just isn't going to accomplish anything. You could talk about the right to free speech, and that is all well and good. However, in terms of pure practicality everyone has to speak the same language.
ReplyDeleteSticklers, I believe, would relish the idea of an official language. They believe in the control of speech and that variations ruin it. A controlled language would discourage language changing by region as people would have to keep in touch with the official in order to understand anything that is going on. Sort of like when a foreigner moves to a new country; if you don't assimilate quickly you can find yourself very lost. It's the same general idea.
Does not having an official language prevent people from communicating with one another? Keep in mind that the United States has no official language...
DeleteWhat is the value or advantage of officially declaring an official language? If it is just a technicality, and doesn't really make a difference, then why is anyone against it?
I think it is necessary for a country to have a national official language due to the reason that language can make a country united. Just as the story"Tower of babel"told us, the power of people is strengthened when they have a unified language. On one hand,a unified language can make the communication between each other more easier.When people can understand each other easier, they will have a sense of intimacy so that their community and cultural bond will be enhanced.A sense of of community is very significant for a nation to develop.On the other hand, when people speak the same national language, they can be tied together by nationalism which can help unifying the whole country and overcome difficulties.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly some pros and cons of implementing a national official language. However,if the ultimate goal for a country is to benefit all its people, then having a national language is certainly a goo method. To have a national language does not mean eradicate all the other language or dialects that people speak in this country. To have a national language means that the people should manage to manipulate another language. As long as people can communicate with each other, then it is fine. A national language should be taught as a major course in school. It should be seen as a necessary to tool for people to get a higher position in the social ladders.
I do not think the decision of setting a national language will bother the sticklers and snoots because they are in favor in a environment that people all speak a correct and formal form of language. They do not want any dialect or slang to ruin the formal language.I do not think a government will be foolish enough to set a minor dialect as a national language. So I think overall they will be willing to accept this idea.
Are we sure that, ultimately, the scattering of languages and the resulting linguistic identity didn't strengthen the people rather than weaken them?
DeleteGood point about the intersection between language and education. What role would schools play in enforcing and maintaining an official language?
I think a national language is important because it's good for a country's identity, in the U.S. we don't have one which causes problems with the many different groups inside the country. I feel that if we had on or two national official languages it would be much easier for not only the government, but for the people. However, I don't think that should be left to the national government, but state governments, the national governed should it out one and then the states decide what other languages to make official in their state.
ReplyDeleteI feel that sticklers and snoots idea's on this subject would really depend on the specific person. Some may have a very strong sense of nationalism, some may not. It's all subjective.
As you develop your writing, think about how, specifically, it would be easier for the government and the people. What would that look like? What conflicts does the US experience now that would be alleviated by an official language?
DeleteOf course, it depends on the person, but given what we know about sticklers and snoots and what they care about, how would you expect them to respond?
I think that if a country had its own national language, not much would change. I think that if immigrants come to America, they would be so subjected to the language that they would just naturally pick it up after a while. I think that having your own language shows where you came from and your heritage. You are keeping the family legacy. And to just take that away from someone, is almost disheartening. I don't think it depends on the country at all, to have it illegal to talk in a certain fashion is just dumb. Of course in formal situations, like your present a project to a company, or on a job interview, you should speak the national language, but I don't find anything wrong with speaking your own national language.
ReplyDeleteI think some implications if this could be things like the Canadian example. Where a national document was printed in only one language where the country is known for speaking two languages. Many sticklers would say that for a nation to be whole, we need to have one solid language. Not immigrants from everywhere speaking what ever language they want.
I agree that, even with more research, it starts to seem like this declaration of an official language is just a technicality without any significant consequences. Why do you think, then, that so many people feel so strongly either in favor of it or against it?
DeleteAs far as I am concerned, a country should have a national official language, as it not only makes the country more united, but also boosts the further development in the education of the country. Admittedly, keeping multiple languages in the country preserves the various cultures and heritages of minorities and ethnic groups. However, it’s difficult for the government to control and monitor people with different languages. Obviously, one will behave closer to others who speak the same language, because there are no barriers to communicate. People who speak the same languages will have the feeling that they have the same belonging. Therefore, a unique national language in the country is able to show the unity of a country. Moreover, education is the most important thing that the country should consider in order to improve the following generations. Since they are the future of the country, they should be taught in one language to make sure that every child can understand each other and on the same page.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the United States and most European countries, all of which are developed countries, have their own national official language – English. Accordingly, national language can help the country to be regarded as a whole, linking individuals together and making the country stronger automatically. I think snoots will be very glad to see that the national official language existing， because they want everyone to say the correct form of language. However, sticklers, who want to preserve the traditional language, may be offended, as once there is a national language, people will be less likely to use their original languages, which sticklers think should be preserved.
Regarding education, should schools be teaching other languages as well as the proposed official language? What about offering services (like our ELL programs) for non-native speakers? This is one of the implications of declaring an official language.
DeleteThe primary purpose of setting up the national language is to unify a country. Since it is hard for people to communicate within a country by speaking different languages. It is also beneficial for a country's economy and foreign affairs. Indeed different countries have different situation. For the countries that have long unified history, things are much easier. There is no problem having to national language. As for the countries like america which is an immigrant country, or India which has history of being colonized by england, setting up national languages are pretty hard. But it is still neccary to do that.Even though by setting up national language, the government has to show the dominance of one or two languages in the country which is unfair for the citizens whose first languages are not the national languages. It could cause discrimination.
ReplyDeleteSticklers would be happy to see more national languages are setting up in countries, since it is a law for citizens to speak the most proper languages not only in daily lives but social situations and foreign affairs.
True, though you could certainly have several different languages spoken, and therefore still have linguistic barriers, in a country with an official language. Take the languages of Toronto, for example, in a country that has two official languages.
DeleteConsider, in light of last night's reading, why the opposition is so concerned with English being the official language of the US.
I believe that a country should not have an official language. simply because having an enforced language wont go over well. For example if a family has just immigrated to the US and knows no English and then has to specifically communicate in English and fill out in forms in English which they can't read. Then how will they get a house or health care or be able to go to a bank. I used the example of US because many people are voting for English to the the official language of the US right now. Bu this could happen in any country with an official language. Also, how many people already in the country would have to learn to read and write standard written English just to fill out census' or to communicate with town or city officials. Alot! declaring any language as an official language just spells chaos.
ReplyDelete