Bill makes a point that Robert King made in his 1997 Atlantic Monthly article "Should English be the Law?" (Vol.279,Iss.4;p.55-62).  He concludes that legislating English to be the official language of the US is a solution in search of a problem.  This is one of the readings that I used in the class project I described below.  I also used James Crawford's Language loyalties: a source book on the official English controversy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.  Crawford includes articles, essays, etc. from both sides of the debate.

Herb
 
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: December 14, 2009 3:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "We speak English ...

I've assigned class activities similar to the ones Herb describes, and
with much the same result. The economic argument rarely comes up unaided
-- which is a shame, since it's the kind of thing that deals with
something measurable, and is easily pursuable without jingoism creeping
in. I usually cheat and raise the issue myself if we're 80% through the
time for the discussion and no one else has (although I try to restrict
myself to just saying "what about government publishing?"). The tricky
parts have to do with publication categories -- some material may cut
down costs elsewhere (e.g., medical notices which decrease later
emergency medical costs), and publications like census materials and
election notices affect representation and voting rates (making them
political footballs).

What repeatedly surprises me in the class discussions, though, is the
extent to which my college students start off assuming that passing a
law making English official will *cause* people to learn English faster,
as if laws are magic, or learners just don't want to put much effort
into learning a language that's not official. As far as I'm aware, no
one (outside of the fringes of the fringe) is suggesting any kind of
draconian enforcement regime if English is declared official, and absent
that, it's almost purely a symbolic gesture. Of all the factors
affecting language learning, having someone with a title announce that
the language has officially been deemed more important than ever is,
perhaps, the least significant (unless you really don't like the person
making the announcement, in which case your learning rate is almost
guaranteed to slow down).

Bill Spruiell


-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "We speak English ...

I don't question that there are costs involved in accommodating other
languages, but I think it's a cost worth bearing, that it pays for
itself in keeping access to services more open and in increasing general
civility.  However, I've rarely seen the economic case made as  you have
made it.  The case has generally been more nationalist.  Every semester
for fifteen years I had my undergrad Language and Society students
conduct an in-class debate for which they formed teams and researched
the issues in some depth.  The economic side of it rarely came up as a
major argument, and when it did it was easily countered.  Students who
were assigned the con side of the argument for making English the
official language were able to argue that there were greater costs
incurred by not providing multilingual services.  The students were, by
the way, assigned a side, and at the beginning of the project few of
them were even aware that the issue existed.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Erin Karl
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: December 13, 2009 10:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "We speak English ...

For many the support of English-only is money-driven.  The US and state
governments spend millions every year printing signs, pamphlets, and
other published material in lanuages other than English.  They also
spend money to have other-language phone support, "para espanol, marque
numero dos," etc.  I am a HUGE fan of the free market and have no
problem with Americans having the freedom to speak or write whatever
language they personally choose, but I would like to save the enormous
amount of money spent every year on other-language pubs, recordings, and
staff.  Although many make conservatives' feelings on English-only out
to be racist/anti-immigration/etc., the vast majority support these
measures simply as a way to reign in spending.

Erin

________________________________
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 10:44:17 PM
Subject: Re: "We speak English ...

The overwhelming success of English in this country and the eagerness of
immigrants to learn English are evidence of the power of the free
market.  We became and have remained an English-speaking nation because
of competition in the marketplace of language since colonial days, and
the debate over English has frequently been intense, even acrimonious.
Ben Franklin wrote a well-known attack on increasing German immigration
into Pennsylvania and their continuing use of their language rather than
English.  In the late 20th c. there were predictions of a shift from
English to Spanish; the President's Commission on Language under the
Carter Administration estimated that by 2020 the US would be a majority
Spanish-speaking nation.  The success of English has required no
legislation; it simply reflects the free market at work.

I've made this case with a number of friends of mine who favor
legislation to make English the official language and to restrict the
use of other languages in civic and governmental matters.  They are
largely conservative in their politics and so strongly favor free market
solutions--except in the case of language, where it has obviously worked
well but where they want government intervention nonetheless.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/