Not to mention the fact that many parts of the US where there is a significant Spanish-speaking population were Spanish speaking before they were English speaking. Maybe I’m particularly sensitive to it living in a country where the imposition of English nearly wiped out the native language, and obviously that isn’t going to happen with Spanish, but the principle of forcing a people to speak your language just because you’ve taken over their land is just as distasteful regardless of the effect it has on that language’s survival.
If Puerto Rico becomes a state must its government stop using Spanish as well? Serious question for the English-only types.
That said, I don’t think it’s discriminatory for a government not to provide services in other languages. I think it’s a good idea for it to do so where there is significant demand for those services, but with limited exceptions (mainly in the legal system) I don’t think it has any obligation to do so.
And I will ask again if people who think you need to know English to drive safely in America have ever been to Europe, and whether you think all the countries there need to post road signs in 5+ different languages to accommodate the millions of people who drive across borders every day.
I don’t think what happened hundreds of years ago is really relevant to this discussion.
I don’t really have a problem with someone coming here and not learning english. If they don’t want to be able to talk to the folks down at the bank, or a prospective employer, that’s up to them. I don’t have that much of a problem with someone demanding that we accomodate them.
I have a big problem with us acquiescing to such a demand. I think our official postion should be to blow them a big 'ole wet rasberry. PPPPTTTHHHHHHHPPPPPP I think we have been accomodating enough.
Question for the Canucks about New Brunswick. Its policy of official bilingualism doesn’t seem to be working too badly*, or am I wrong about that? I just don’t recall ever hearing about great conflicts over it (and having once written a research paper about Québec’s language policy, it is a subject I would be interested enough in to remember if I did hear about such conflicts). Are the NBers just silently seething with resentment, or is the policy actually working for them?
[sub]*Apart from the inherent ridiculousness of road signs that read “Fin de construction ends”, of course.[/sub]
So, it’s distasteful for English to dominate over Spanish in the Southwest U.S. Spanish is just the legacy of the Evil Oppressors[sup]TM[/sup] that subjugated the aboriginal peoples from Tierra del Fuego north to TX, NM, CO, AZ, and CA in the US. What is the statute of limitations on Cultural Oppression[sup]TM[/sup]?
Part of the statehood legislation would probably be a mandate to expand the use of English, in order to provide a better environment for intra-US trade, and for a more harmonized legal system with the US (with the added benefit that Louisiana wouldn’t have the only bastard legal system based on Civil Code rather than Common Law). I doubt they would be forced to “stop using Spanish.” PR would probably be officially bilingual.
There are some things that are a little more unsafe. As an example, take a “No Right Turn on Red” sign. Not obeying it could lead to an unsafe situation. You will also have a lot of trouble navigating. Posting road signs in multiple languages would help, but the expense is probably not worth it.
I’d like to respond to a few points about the Canadian experience.
First of all, and probably most relevant to the OP, is that Ms. Sandoval wouldn’t have a legal right to sit her driver’s exam in Spanish here, either; nor would someone who wanted it in German, Bantu, and so on. Canada isn’t as accomodating to immigrants as some of the posts seem to assume.
Our official language policy is based on the langugages of the people who are here. English and French are the native languages of the vast majority of Canadians, and therefore both are recognized. In the territories, for similar reasons, the languages of the First Nations are also starting to be recognized. (As an aside, I note that this is a recent development, a change from the southern assimilationist policies that have previously been followed.)
So overall, our language policy, like that of the US, assumes that immigrants have to speak the language of the country. It’s just that we have two official languages, not one. hansel said:
Three points here: first, not all governments, at all levels, are bilingual. The federal government and the Province of New Brunswick are the only two that are officially bilingual, under the Constitution, meaning that they have to provide all services in both languages, upon demand. Other provinces, like Quebec and Manitoba, have more limited biligualism requirments under the Constitution, but provide biligual services as a matter of statutory requirements. Other provinces, like Ontario, have varying degrees of bilingual services, based on statutory requirements that the province has enacted, rather than as a constitutional requirement. So, a francophone from Québec who moves to another province, other than New Brunswick, may not be able to get a driver’s test (or other provincial services) in French; it would depend on that province’s policy.
Second point: I would say that the reason that the péquistes didn’t talk about bilingualism isn’t that they think it’s working; it’s because it’s irrelevant to them. They don’t care that the rest of Canada has a bilingualism policy; they just want to establish their own francophone state, so what happens in the rest of Canada isn’t relevant for them.
Third, I’m not sure I agree with the suggestion that the number of francophones outside Quebec is increasing; I’ve seen statistics that suggest the opposite. TXLonghorn said:
The first point is incorrect, as noted above. Only matters that fall under federal jurisdiction are required to be bilingual throughout the country. So street signs and so on, under provincial jurisdiction, are in either English or French, depending on the province you’re in.
If TX is referring to bilingual packaging laws (the famous French on the box of cornflakes), that is required by federal law over interprovincial trade. But, it makes sense - Canada is a relatively small market, and it’s best to package your products in both languages, so you can ship them anywhere in the country. Requiring them in English only for some parts of the country, and French only for other parts, would increase your costs overall. I’ve never heard of the manufacturers grumbling about the cost.
I just don’t understand TX’s second point - why can’t codes and statutes be translated? why would they “lose meaning” if translated into Spanish? I hadn’t realised that Engineering is so language-specific. And, in fact, I disagree with his suggestion that law can only be practiced in one language. At the federal level in Canada, all laws and all decisions of the federal courts and administrative tribunals are available in both languages. I’ve been involved in hearings where one of the lawyers can only speak French, and the other can only speak English - but they make their cases in their respective languages. Their submissions are translated simultaneously, and they have no trouble replying. I’ve argued cases in both English and French, depending on the situation. featherlou said:
Granted that there is linguistic tension, but I’m curious how you conclude that means that bilingualism is not working. The basic point is that Canada is still united, and that Quebecers have twice turned down the sovereignty option. If the federal government had remained a pretty-much English only operation, I have my doubts that we’d still be together.
On the second point, de jure vs de facto, the federal bilingualism policy has never been intended to make every Canadian bilingual. Rather, its purpose is to ensure that every Canadian has the right to address their government in their choice of official language, and receive services from their government in that language. It’s an obligation on the government to serve the people, not an obligation on the people to learn two languages.
On the third point, I have never seen any study that suggests that bilingualism doubles the cost of every federal government program. Let’s take the example of the road you mentioned: if the feds build a road (which, by the way, they rarely do, since the highways are a matter of provincial jurisdiction), the main costs are the engineering, the materials, and the labour. The bilingual signage is a relatively minor cost. Do you have any statistics to back up your assertion that bilingualism doubles the cost of all federal projects and programs?
With respect to the inability of monolingual workers to get jobs with the federal government, there are two points I would make.
First, not all jobs have a bilingualism requirment. It depends on the nature of the job and the location in the country. There are some areas of the country where the demographics mean that there is little to no demand for services in both languages, and so monolingual people can do the job.
Second, where do you get the idea that anyone has a right to a job with the federal government? Public servants are hired to serve the public, and have to meet the job qualifications. If the feds are hiring an engineer, you have to have the engineering ticket. If they’re looking for a statistician, you’d better have the necessary stats degree. And if they’re looking for someone who can provide services to citizens, in the official language of the citizen’s choice, you have to be able to speak either language. It’s like any other job requirement - get the training you need for the job. (Bear in mind that this requirement works for both anglos and francos - a unilingual anglophone wouldn’t get hired for a federal job in Baie Comeau, and a unilingual francophone wouldn’t get hired for a job in Saskatoon.)
ruadh, I don’t have much experience with New Brunswick, but one point to bear in mind is that the population demographics are much different there: the francophones make up a much larger percentage of the N.B. population (30-40% ??) than do the anglophones in Quebec (15% ??). I don’t think, for example, that an “English only” political party could form a government in New Brunswick, while a sovereigntist party obviously can get elected in Quebec. I think, speaking purely as an interested outsider, that the demographics force the different language groups in N.B. to work together more than is the case in Quebec.
Why do you have to use a language at all? The Europeans and our federal government increasingly use pictograms and numbers, with standard international conventions and abbreviations from the metric system. On roads on federal property here (national parks, military bases, etc.) the signage is designed to be understood without using either English or French. Those signage conventions are widely used by the provinces as well, to increase comprehension by all drivers, regardless of the language they speak - English, French, or other.
After all, a sign that says “Ottawa - 150 km” is pretty clear, regardless of your language.
To respond to the example TX gives, our “no right turn on red” sign is a pictograph of a red traffic light and a right turn signal in the red circle and slash, which by international convention means “no”.
It’s been about 15 years since I’ve been to the Great White North, but I do recall seeing a lot of French in Manitoba (however, it could have been a federal highway, hence bilingual signs).
This is fine. But I buy imported food products here in the US that have a US style label (style mandated by the US Dept. of Agriculture), but are in Spanish, or French. Since the products are consumed mostly by immigrants, they use the language of the majority of the market. Some things have bilingual labels, if there is room on the label.
Yeah, English, French and Spanish all share a lot of vocabulary. In my field of engineering, I work with a lot of building codes and product standards. There is a lot of subtle meanings, and cases of mandatory vs. permissive language. As a barrister, I’m sure you can appreciate the importance of language in law. The codes can be translated, and I’m sure they have been translated into Spanish, or French, etc.
The engineering itself isn’t language specific. I can design systems that will work anywhere in the world. The language problem will arise when I try to explain the operation and maintenance of the system to the client, or to prove the safety and effectiveness of the system to a building official.
Hmm, maybe I should have stated the point clearly rather than asking rhetorical questions. Let me try that again.
Millions of people drive across borders in Europe every day. Many of them cannot speak the language of the country they are driving through. Yet the countries of Europe have not found it necessary to post multilingual road signs. There is not a significant number of accidents caused by drivers’ not being able to read the road signs (I’ve never heard of one, in fact). Conclusion: the idea that it is unsafe to allow people who don’t speak the language of a country to drive in that country is not borne out by real life evidence.
As for Puerto Rico, what is the difference between it and, say, New Mexico? If it’s OK for PR to keep Spanish as an official language why shouldn’t any other state with a large Spanish speaking population?
No problem, if the people (through the legislature) of the State of New Mexico agree. In the case in the OP, the people of Alabama (through the legislature), mandated that all official business be conducted in English.
[/quote]
As for Puerto Rico, what is the difference between it and, say, New Mexico? If it’s OK for PR to keep Spanish as an official language why shouldn’t any other state with a large Spanish speaking population?{/quote}
I may have missed something, but I don’t recall seeing anyone say that a state shouldn’t be permitted to provide services in other languages. I’ve only seen people say that it shouldn’t be required, and that there is no legal right to services in another language.
TX, where you in Winnipeg, by any chance? There is a substantial francophone population in St. Boniface, near Winnipeg, so naturally there will be a greater amount of French signage there. Also, if you flew in, the airport will have been under federal jurisdiction, so the signage will be bilingual.
I’m not sure I understand your reference to products packaged for the immigrant market in Texas. Bilingual marketing of products in Canada is not aimed at the immigrant market, but at the population generally.
[/quote]
I just don’t understand TX’s second point - why can’t codes and statutes be translated? why would they “lose meaning” if translated into Spanish? I hadn’t realised that Engineering is so language-specific. And, in fact, I disagree with his suggestion that law can only be practiced in one language. At the federal level in Canada, all laws and all decisions of the federal courts and administrative tribunals are available in both languages. I’ve been involved in hearings where one of the lawyers can only speak French, and the other can only speak English - but they make their cases in their respective languages. Their submissions are translated simultaneously, and they have no trouble replying. I’ve argued cases in both English and French, depending on the situation.
[/quote]
I suspect, that in Canada, law (or engineering,etc) is taught in both languages (perhaps not to the same people or in the same school).That’s not the case in the US - because although we don’t have an official language by law, we do in practice. The loss in translation would be because the translator may not fully understand technical terms in English and even if he/she does may not be able to accurately translate them - it’s not always word for word. I expect the translators you refer to have some special training in the translation of legal terms, and wouldn’t be able to start translating a technical conversation between a French-speaking doctor and an English-speaking one without additional training.
I can’t for the life of me see what that has to do with my question, which was simply aimed at people who think states shouldn’t provide those services - whether by law or by choice. Having said that though there are certainly plenty of people who would like to legislate English as the only language of federal and state government business. Look up US-English sometime.
TXLonghorn:
I guess in that case you aren’t my target audience either Would anyone who thinks the states should only conduct their official business in English like to comment on Puerto Rico?
Boy, you guys don’t have much faith in professional translators! With a properly trained translator, you don’t “lose” something in translation - at least, not in technical stuff - you may well in literature, where the phrasing is itself part of the medium.
I’ve been involved in projects where the end-result was published in English and French - sometimes both versions are developed side-by-side, other times you completed the text entirely in one language and then had it translated. When I’ve worked in the latter type of project, we don’t try to draft it with an eye to translation; we do the best job we can in the language we’re working in, and then rely on the professional translator to render it into the other language. Yes, there are technical terms and so on, but that just means you get a translator who also has some training in that area (in my job, a translator who specialises in legal documents).
I have faith in properly trained translators- I just don’t have faith that there are many of them in the US, considering that it’s not an officially bilingual country.I expect it wouldn’t be easy in Canada to find someone who had the proper training to translate legal documents French-German or English-Chinese
Apparently I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking whether Puerto Rico should be permitted to have two official languages if it becomes a state. There is a difference with Puerto Rico, though- I don’t think any state has a majority of people who speak the same non-English language.
I know there are plenty of people who want to legislate English only ( to the point of not permitting government employees to voluntarily translate)- I just haven’t seen them on this thread.
Sure, the availability of good translators depends on the demographics of the population. But my response would be, doesn’t Texas, to take one example, have a pretty substantial hispanic population? If Texas wanted to have bilingual statutes, codes, professional standards, there’s a large body of people available who can be trained.
I guess I’m just saying that translation problems aren’t much of a reason to say you can only have one official language. You may well have other, valid reasons, but I don’t think much of the translation issue as a reason not to do it. A good translator can provide a biingual text with the same meaning in both languages.
jti, like I conceded before (but not very well, apparantly): translating English to French or Spanish(or any other Romance language) is pretty darn easy. English is a bastard language, based on Germanic grammar but having a lot of Romance influence. I hope you will concede that trying to ACCURATELY translate just about anything as nuanced as law into MOST languages is going to produce a lot of errors (that could cause problems).
The case in the OP (I will keep trying to turn the debate back there) is trying to assert that not offering a license exam in any language other than English is discrimination based on national origin. If this assertion is upheld, the precedent could force any local gov’t to offer ALL services in just about ANY language spoken ANYWHERE in the world (not just driver’s exam in Spanish which is the native language of a lot of immigrants to the US). I assert that this is a dangerous precedent. It will cost a lot of money, and could cause a lot of unintended problems.
As to the discrimination arguement itself, since there are many immigrants who learn English with few or any difficulties, I can’t agree with the assertion that “English Only” equals “No (fill-in-the-national-origin) Need Apply.”
BTW, yes it was Winnipeg that I visited, but by road, not air. On (hazy) reflection, it was mostly federal roads and installations (the Army base) that had bilingual signs. The other item (product labelling), aren’t bilingual labels required, rather than a market-based decision?
Would anyone who thinks the states should only conduct their official business in English like to comment on Puerto Rico?