So, what's the big deal about bilingualism?

Great Debates
221

As a result of mass immigration to the UK in recent years many official forms have had to be printed in as many as five different languages as do official information posters ,health and safety notices in the work place and very often translators have to be appointed for (mostly E.U.citizens from Eastern Europe)people newly arrived in Britain claiming welfare and for court cases and police interviews (its a common tactic used to hinder legal investigations even if the migrant speaks fluent English).

Some road signs in certain areas are multi lingual for road safety reasons and special bi lingual teachers are becoming necessary in certain regions of the U.K. so that newly arrived immigrant children can receive some sort of an education as a proportion of themm speak absolutely no English whatsoever.

All of this costs taxpayers money lots of money,(And businesses )something that the newly arrived have not contributed a single penny to and are unlikely to do so in the future.
If you cant even claim welfare wiyhout a linguist how on earth do you expect to earn a living?

On a practical level we get people turning up for work with little or no English ,who cant understand the Health and Safety induction ,who in an emergency cannot respond to shouted warnings and who only vaguely understand their work instructions putting MY life at risk.

I welcome those from abroad who come here to work,have made a serious attempt to learn English and are working to improve it now they’re here and to at least try to intergrate culturally.
In fact Ive met some bloody good people working over here.

But those people who bleat about their human rights being impugned because they cant even be bothered to learn the language of the host nation and think that we should pander to them for some reason have the option of leaving as soon as they like .

I dont recall anyone actually inviting them here in the first place .
This isnt about race ,its about parasites where ever they come from and we have more then enough of the homegrown varity thank you.

222

Wow. Just wow. I certainly hope you never encounter any problems while you’re in another land.

Your assertions are, shall we say, boggling. What job is it, by the way, where someone is employed without qualification at all thus putting your life at risk?

223

[QUOTE=Monty]
Wow. Just wow. . What job is it, by the way, where someone is employed without qualification at all thus putting your life at risk?
[/QUOTE]

How about the job of dishwasher?
A commercial kitchen is a dangerous place–lots of searingly hot oven pans, and huge pots filled with boiling water.
I have seen a man who needed serious hospitalization after an accident when scalding water spilled over him. And the one worker who saw it about to happen and tried to save him, screamed a warning in Spanish– to an American-born chef who didn’t understand the warning.

Bilingualism is great at home–but not in the workplace.

224

[QUOTE=chappachula]
How about the job of dishwasher?
A commercial kitchen is a dangerous place–lots of searingly hot oven pans, and huge pots filled with boiling water.
I have seen a man who needed serious hospitalization after an accident when scalding water spilled over him. And the one worker who saw it about to happen and tried to save him, screamed a warning in Spanish– to an American-born chef who didn’t understand the warning.

Bilingualism is great at home–but not in the workplace.
[/QUOTE]

So speaking any language except English at a workplace should illegal?

225

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Yep. Here:

And before that, here, in response to your initial query:
[/quote]
Fair enough.

The problem remains, though. You’re claiming to have used the list to provide support for the first point that have an official language is normal. The problem with that is that you referred to it as being hardly “drastic and draconian”. Having a totally symbolic language is as far from drastic and draconian as it’s likely to be. Simply having an symbolic official language isn’t drastic, since it would make no major change. And it’s not draconian, since it would put people under no new constraints. So yes, you’re right in that. Problem is, i’m pretty sure no one in this thread has claimed you’re wrong on that. And in fact the problems people are having with your position are with the practical points, not just as a symbolic gesture.

So, like I said. I find it hard to believe you’d defend point 1 when no-one’s attacking you on point 1 - especially when (if you were referring to 1) you use words to make it seem as though it is a contentious issue, when it is 2 that people are having problems with.

As you stated when called on it. Not at the time. It’s not as though you said “Here’s a list of countries with an official language - doesn’t that prove having a purely symbolic language isn’t bad”? Assuming you’d put that in I would have had no quarrel (well, other than to say that people aren’t saying it is bad, and that it’s entirely beside the point, and so on).

No no, not at all. Quite the opposite. Were you treating them both the same, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to use that list to support both points. However, you’re claiming you used it only to support the first (the one that has gone unchallenged and unbothered in this thread), while I suspect you were trying to use it to support the second. I’m more inclined to see you as directly being misleading rather than mistaken or thoughtless in using it; I suppose that’s technically a good thing, depending on which side you prefer.

Well, yeah, you can. Since you’re in here defending your view, attempting to persuade people, and so on. As you say - people throw questions at you, you respond. It’s only now, when someone has suggested wrongdoing on your part, that you profess uncaring.

Fair enough. Could you give me an explanation as to why you defended point 1 when it wasn’t even in play, and after several pages of you and others debating point 2? Could you explain why you referred to point 1 as being hardly “drastic and draconian” - seeming to me to be an attempt at rebuttal of views expressed, when such views weren’t aired but similar views on point 2 were?

226

Well, we do agree on this. I feel most arguments in support of an official language or some other similar proposal really boil down to a sentiment like this. And are usually expressed about as well.

227

Revenant,

I did tell you that I’d be happy to clarify a particular point, so I will do that then move on.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
The problem remains, though. You’re claiming to have used the list to provide support for the first point that have an official language is normal. The problem with that is that you referred to it as being hardly “drastic and draconian”. Having a totally symbolic language is as far from drastic and draconian as it’s likely to be. Simply having an symbolic official language isn’t drastic, since it would make no major change. And it’s not draconian, since it would put people under no new constraints. So yes, you’re right in that. Problem is, i’m pretty sure no one in this thread has claimed you’re wrong on that. And in fact the problems people are having with your position are with the practical points, not just as a symbolic gesture.
[/QUOTE]

You are correct in that the specific measures I advocated could qualify as being much more drastic and draconian than merely making a more symbolic gesture of English as our sole official language. But people seemed completely opposed to the idea even before I offered the specific (in response to tomndebb). No, no one characterized the more symbolic option as drastic and draconian, nor did they describe the the specifics I added as such. I chose those words as it appeared to me that people were radically opposed to the first step, even if they were more radically opposed to the second.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
So, like I said. I find it hard to believe you’d defend point 1 when no-one’s attacking you on point 1
[/QUOTE]

Maybe I misread the general opinion concerning the mere notion of making English the sole official language, but I don’t thiink I did. Understanding that the *major *problem was with the specifics I offered, I thought it a good tactic to isolate the real problem area. To do so, I tried to remove the objection to deeming English the sole official language by showing that that doing so, in and of itself, would be commonplace—certainly not drastic or draconian.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
As you stated when called on it. Not at the time. It’s not as though you said “Here’s a list of countries with an official language - doesn’t that prove having a purely symbolic language isn’t bad”? Assuming you’d put that in I would have had no quarrel (well, other than to say that people aren’t saying it is bad, and that it’s entirely beside the point, and so on)
[/QUOTE]

It is obviously a two-tiered argument, so when I provided the list—which is 100% mum on any specifics whatsoever—I assumed that it would be taken as a defense of the part of the argument it actually applied to. It seemed so obvious to me I didn’t give it that much thought. It still does. That said, you got hung up on it, so in hindsight maybe I should have been more explicit.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Well, yeah, you can. Since you’re in here defending your view, attempting to persuade people, and so on. As you say - people throw questions at you, you respond. It’s only now, when someone has suggested wrongdoing on your part, that you profess uncaring.
[/QUOTE]

Now this leads me to believe that you’ve got a little bug up your ass apart from the confusion you (perhaps rightly) claim. First, if I was uncaring I wouldn’t have responded to you at all. I have great interest in communicating my thoughts clearly, and welcome the opportunity to improve on my attempt when confusion is pointed out. What I can’t get too worked up over is when after I explain, and explain again, something that might have been confusing, someone chooses to ignore the explanation and insist bad faith on my part. I think you know that I am used to beiing in a tiny minority around here. It doesn’t bother me to be so, so I have little desire or reason to try to sugarcoat things or employ other tactics to temper my ideas in an attempt to either win people over or ingratiate myself. You claimed I didn’t explain myself. I showed you I did, more than once. You may still feel those explanations lacking, so I explain things in more detail here. There is a point where I must simply accept that we will not agree. That’s fine. But when that point of contention is not debate-based, but tactic-based, or character-based, and you appear to be intent on applying the worst motivations, unfairly, from where I sit, I simply lose interest in whatever opinion you might hold of me.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Fair enough. Could you give me an explanation as to why you defended point 1 when it wasn’t even in play, and after several pages of you and others debating point 2? Could you explain why you referred to point 1 as being hardly “drastic and draconian” - seeming to me to be an attempt at rebuttal of views expressed, when such views weren’t aired but similar views on point 2 were?
[/QUOTE]

I think I just explained this as best I can. I’ll just add that I disagree that Point 1 was given a pass. There seemed to me to be almost complete opposition to it even before I offered the idea that government business should be conducted in English and English only. I though the opposition to even Poiint1 so strident and unmoving that people viewed the notion as quite extreme, hence my attempt to defend IT through the list of countries. This is more fully explained above.

I hope that suffices. Either way, onward.

228

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You are correct in that the specific measures I advocated could qualify as being much more drastic and draconian than merely making a more symbolic gesture of English as our sole official language. But people seemed completely opposed to the idea even before I offered the specific (in response to tomndebb). No, no one characterized the more symbolic option as drastic and draconian, nor did they describe the the specifics I added as such. I chose those words as it appeared to me that people were radically opposed to the first step, even if they were more radically opposed to the second.
[/quote]
Is it the kind of opposition you could provide cites for, or is it a general feeling you got from people’s replies? I don’t see what you’re seeing; all I see is disagreement over the practical concerns.

But I did take that into account; I suggested that you might have in fact been trying to use the list purely to argue point 1. I just don’t see there being any argument over point 1, or any disagreement to it.

But i’m not intent in applying the worst motivations. Look back at my posts; certainly i’ve suggested you could be being misleading, because that’s personally the view I hold. But i’ve also suggested that you might have been mistaken, or that you didn’t consider that it could be taken to mean something else, or that it was just a bad debating tactic to push up one point that wasn’t being debated. These options don’t assume bad faith on your part; I addressed them and pointed them out as what I would consider reasonable options.

Likewise, i’m not ignoring your explanations. If I were, I wouldn’t have responded to them, or I would have done so and just responded entirely off the point. I didn’t think you had explained yourself; you responded that you had, quoted those times, and I accepted them; not a case of ignoring, but honestly not seeing, and once you had pointed them out I read and took them in. I am listening to and taking in your explanations. I just don’t see them as being that likely, given the context of your original listing post.

I do have a bug up my ass, though. Not about you, however, or for people who want a practiced official language. Just about people who claim they don’t care what people think of them, when clearly they do. As you agree in your second line. If you wanted to say “I don’t care about people who insist i’m acting on bad faith and ignore my explanations” - you should have been more specific.

Then I guess i’d ask you again; could you cite up some examples of this? I’m not seeing what you’re seeing; whether that’s because i’m mistaken or you are, some cites from you that show where you’re getting that could really help to convince me.

229

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’ll just add that I disagree that Point 1 was given a pass. There seemed to me to be almost complete opposition to it even before I offered the idea that government business should be conducted in English and English only.
[/QUOTE]

You’re right about that, at least. I’m opposed to making English the official language of the US even in purely symbolic terms, as I think it sends entirely the wrong message, and will have a chilling effect on the desire of immigrants to assimilate fully into our culture. Obviously, it’s nowhere near as bad an idea as a law that actually does something, but it’s still a pretty bad idea in general. No matter how many other countries have adopted it.

230

[QUOTE=Monty]
Wow. Just wow. I certainly hope you never encounter any problems while you’re in another land.

Your assertions are, shall we say, boggling. What job is it, by the way, where someone is employed without qualification at all thus putting your life at risk?
[/QUOTE]

Civil Engineering.
There is a registered qualification scheme that has been subverted by the examining body opening up offices in Eastern Europe (to make more money,the organisation is government appointed but commercially operated) testing the locals in their own languages which totally subverts the entire basis of the excercise in the first place.

Trading and cloning of CSCS cards is rife amongst E.Europeans and any attempts at investigation of abuses are met by a sudden en masse lack of comprehension even by those who are normally fluent English speakers .

And of course the officials tread very carefully for fear of accusations of racism .
The difficulties are added to by corrupt employers (many of whom are British) aiding and abetting criminal practices .
Because of the strength of the Pound Sterlings international exchange rate ,foreign nationals are prepared to work for (by British standards anyway) incredibly low wages because when they send the money home its a tidy sum.
Very pleasing for some employers.

As to problems in foreign lands I have spent some quite extensive periods in many ,many countries in the world including those where English is not the first language or sometimes not even the second.
I always endeavour to get a working knowledge of the local language sometimes more successfully then others.

I have been in some very,very unpleasant situations but have never expected ,let alone demanded the host nation to provide me with an interpreter at their expense .
Neither have I ever even attempted or felt entitled to claim welfare,charity whatever though I have on occassions had to sleep rough and survive on a starvation diet for a couple of weeks.

Hope this has helped to unboggle you.

231

[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
So speaking any language except English at a workplace should illegal?
[/QUOTE]

If the conversation is work related then for health and safety reasons ,yes.

232

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Civil Engineering.
[/quote]

You must be joking.

One would think the entire purpose of a Civil Engineering examination is to test a candidate’s knowledge of Civil Engineering. Here’s an interesting query for you: do you drive in European countries other than the UK and Ireland? Did you obtain a local driver license and was the test completely in the local country’s language? If not, how then are you not a danger on the road?

How is your working knowledge of medical or legal terminology in any of those languages?

Interesting. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if the host country law actually specifies that you are to be provided with an interpreter at no cost. Korea–not exactly a country known for its acceptance of foreigners–requires a court-appointed and court-paid interpreter for foreign defendants.

Couple of weeks? Right. You’ve managed to boggle me more.

233

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
If the conversation is work related then for health and safety reasons ,yes.
[/QUOTE]

And this doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution how? And since when are all work related conversations related to health and safety?

234

[QUOTE=chappachula]
How about the job of dishwasher?
A commercial kitchen is a dangerous place–lots of searingly hot oven pans, and huge pots filled with boiling water.
I have seen a man who needed serious hospitalization after an accident when scalding water spilled over him. And the one worker who saw it about to happen and tried to save him, screamed a warning in Spanish– to an American-born chef who didn’t understand the warning.

Bilingualism is great at home–but not in the workplace.
[/QUOTE]

Well, gee, this is hardly anything workplace specific, and mandating that people speak only English in the workplace doesn’t really do anything to address this sort of situation. A child could be in the road, somehow oblivious and about to get run over, a Spanish speaker could shout to warn him, but, splat, the kid didn’t understand the warning and now he’s dead. Damn, guess we better demand that people speak only English in any context where someone could, somehow, get hurt by something in some way. Sure, it’s a bit of infringement on our rights, but the trade-off is worth it: just think of the safety we’ll gain!

235

Basically, the problem in your situation wasn’t that the guy dared to speak Spanish in a work context. It was that he wasn’t properly prepared in his job to ensure safety*; in some cases, proper safety procedure will involve having a certain fluency of communication with one’s colleagues, perhaps facilitated by having all communications about some particular matters taking place in a standard language like English. But these are fairly uncommon edge cases; it’s ludicrous to actually demand that no work conversation take place in any other languages at all. If the guy wants to talk to his manager in Spanish now and then about what’s on the menu for tonight, that’s perfectly acceptable; nobody else has any right to demand otherwise.
*: Well, not even that; it’s not like it was the guy’s fault, it seems to have just been an accident that could have happened with or without him, but which he happened, by sheer coincidence, to be around. It hardly seems fair to give the Spanish speaker much blame.

236

Because it’s happening in the United Kingdom.

237

[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
I think part of the reason for this cultural reaction is that some recent immigrants are quite visible about their desire not to assimilate (flying other flags, etc.)

According to my memory, this was not common a generation ago.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah. There aren’t St. Patrick’s Day parades or Oktoberfests anymore.

238

[QUOTE=chappachula]
How about the job of dishwasher?
A commercial kitchen is a dangerous place–lots of searingly hot oven pans, and huge pots filled with boiling water.
I have seen a man who needed serious hospitalization after an accident when scalding water spilled over him. And the one worker who saw it about to happen and tried to save him, screamed a warning in Spanish– to an American-born chef who didn’t understand the warning.

Bilingualism is great at home–but not in the workplace.
[/QUOTE]
And an English only law would affect this how ? Startled like that, it’s not surprising he spoke in his native tongue, which he’d do law or no law. About the only way an English only law could affect that is by making things worse, if it was oppressive enough to inflame ethnic hatred, and increase the likelyhood that he simply wouldn’t care enough to issue a warning at all. I can’t see it having any positive effect whatsoever.

239

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And an English only law would affect this how ? Startled like that, it’s not surprising he spoke in his native tongue, which he’d do law or no law.
[/QUOTE]

Hell, I’ve been in situations like that and shouted a warning in English to English-speaking people and still had the accident happen. The thing about shouted warnings is they have to be short AND meaningful. That’s hard.

240

I’m surprised you of all people missed the real point. An English only law would definitely have affected that situation - because it would have meant that nobody would have given a Mexican a job where he worked around “real Americans”.