English to unify or to discriminate?

On America's new "official" language & what one-language, one-nation means

Jason Leung, Unsplash.

“You’re raising the volume of your voice but not the logic in your argument,”

Zelensky, the president of the Ukraine, said to Trump during the planned ambush last week (a.k.a. their dumpster-fire meeting at the Oval Office). English is Zelensky’s third language. I was going to write that it is also not his dominant one however, even if English was Zelensky’s dominant language¹, because of the influence of Ukrainian and Russian on the way he sounds when he speaks English (a.k.a. his accent) people would still be judging, discriminating and mocking his English. Zelensky was, and would be regardless of how “good” his English is, held to a different standard. (Think also why some accents are criticised and mocked, while others are complimented.)

Shortly after the meeting, or was it before as I can’t keep track of these shocking events anymore, the American president signed an executive order declaring English as the official language of the U.S.A. In media and social media, people began trying to decipher what this meant, some not even aware that until that moment, the U.S.A. has never had an “official language”. The short answer: it is complex, but at the root of all of it is racism, xenophobia, white supremacy and the suffering of the people who are the most vulnerable and who require assistance with English. People commented online that this was a symbolic gesture, but it is much more than that. Or, rather it is a symbolic gesture symbolising how power and wealth behave in the context of language.

A brief history for context: On a federal level, the U.S. has never declared an official language. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, immigration led to debates over linguistic assimilation as many schools and communities operated in languages other than English. In the late 20th century, an “English-Only Movement” gained momentum and some states passed laws declaring English their official language but this did not happen at the federal level. Since then, more states have declared English as their official language, but other states have also recognised multiple languages as either “official” or ones with “special recognition”. (Think: Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico.)

When languages are declared “official” , it is predominantly a way to protect minoritized languages, especially if there is a threat to their existence and continuity by one majority language. But even when there is no official language, most countries operate on a “territorial principle” and this is how notions like, “This is America, speak English” have been alive and well long before the new president signed the executive order. Or, how ideas around pro-immigration but only hand-in-hand with assimilation in the guise of unifying communities, are perpetuated.

In her 2016 book, Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice, Ingrid Piller writes:

“The belief that English is the one and only language of the USA constitutes a central aspect of the national identity as an immigrant nation: the belief is that English constitutes an important cohesive device for the melting pot nation and that using English and English only is essential for social cohesion.”

In Mother Tongue Tied, published last year when the U.S. did not have an “official language”, I write about Piller’s “territorial principle”, fittingly citing the U.S. as an example:

The most poignant example I come across often is that of the U.S., which does not have an official language, and yet the belief that English is the language of America is part of a national identity, especially in response to immigration. The belief of one nation, one language is linked to the oppression and discrimination against immigrant languages, where any language other than the one considered ‘the nation’s language’ (‘official’ even when it in fact is not ‘official’) is seen, at best, as a problem and often as a threat.

‘A standard language ideology which proposes that an idealized nation-state has one perfect, homogenous language, becomes the means by which discourse is seized, and provides rationalization for limiting access to discourse,’ writes Rosina Lippi-Green. Nationalism, or the one nation, one language ideology, is echoed in heritage language maintenance, where being from there means you should use the language from there, not unlike the idea of, ‘Here, we speak English.’ This connection between a nation and a heritage language may create allegiances, inspire language learning or maintenance, and strengthen ties, but it may also enforce borders and othering.

And this is what an executive order declaring English as the official language of the U.S.A. truly signifies: “the means by which discourse is seized, and provides rationalisation for limiting access to discourse.” In other words, government bodies are no longer required to provide translations of official documents in any other language, other institutions like schools will no longer be required to provide interpreters or translators, and those that need the language assistance and vital information most will suffer.

Declaring English as the “official” language, or any one language² as more important than another, especially a minoritised language or languages, something happening in many other parts of the world, is essentially raising the volume of one’s voice but not the logic in the argument. It doesn’t matter to the people who already believed and enforced a territorial principle, but it will matter to the most vulnerable institutions, organisations and people. But that is the point when decisions are made to symbolise wealth and power.

Late last year, the New Yorker published an article about how the government in India wants more than a billion people to use Hindi, titled “Should a Country Speak a Single Language?” It begins with noting that in the many different Indian languages, hundreds of them, there are various words for “language”, some considered to be “grander” than others, as if competing for the best way to describe a language will prove your language is more important than another one. The introductory paragraph ends with one of my favourite lines:

The language of language infects how we think about language.

Beyond words, it is worth thinking about how we consider the language(s) we use. Do we think one is “grander” than another? Just last week, I heard from a man who told me his wife never spoke Polish to their children because she thought it was a “useless” language³ in the UK.

But there is another line in that article I think is a fitting way to end this newsletter, because of course it matters that the American president declared English an “official language” as it will have real-life consequences for people in the U.S. But it is also important to remember, for all of us, not only multilinguals, and especially with a language like English that is influenced by so many other languages:

No language lives alone in a person.

Thank you for reading.

1. For some people, languages acquired later in life can become their dominant language. For example, English is not my first language, it is my second but it is my dominant language, the one I feel the most comfortable using.

2. I wanted to add here that if a language is declared “official” in addition to another language, this is a way to protect that language. For example, when Welsh was declared an “official” language in Wales alongside English. But the opposite is true if it is a, “one language to rule them all” mentality and order.

3. Considering Polish is the second most spoken language after English and Welsh in the UK, it is even more surprising that someone would think this. However, so many other factors were likely at play for this woman when she made this decision. Good news, the father also told me the boy now attends a Saturday school Polish programme in London.