Last week’s blog post focused on the English Only movement and its proponents who want to make English the nation’s official language. Their hard-line approach, which many feel attempts to negate the benefits of a multilingual society, is countered by the English Plus movement.

Those who support English Plus encourage second-language acquisition for immigrants and citizens alike. Rather than looking at those who are not native English speakers as somehow disabled linguistically, English Plus attempts to celebrate their native language ability while providing immigrants with the resources to become proficient in English.

Furthermore, English Plus encourages monolingual English speakers to acquire skills in a second language. While in certain parts of the country, American-born people are proud to have learned a second language, the country as a whole remains staunchly monolingual.

In fact, the world jokes about the prevailing attitude of Americans that forces others to learn English without reciprocation:

What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
Trilingual.
What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
Bilingual.
What do you call someone who speaks one language?
American.

English Plus proposes to counteract popular opinion of monolingual American citizens as well as support newcomers’ acquisition of English as a Second Language.

But what do they seek to do on the legislative front?

• Oppose any English Only policies at the state and federal levels.
• Expand opportunities for English language learning.
• Enable newcomers to participate in civic life even if they are not yet proficient in English.
• Encourage the retention of immigrants’ native languages for the benefit of both the individual and society.
• Retain and strengthen language assistance systems, especially in the public sector.

But what are the main barriers to our moving towards a society that respects people’s rights to retain and use their native language while supporting their desire to learn English? Two things: attitudes and funding. The English Only movement boasts 170,000 members, and there are plenty more people who feel threatened by languages other than English who aren’t official members. And as the U.S. economy flounders, funding for state and federally supported English classes is being cut.

To read more about English Plus, follow the links to two resources:

English Plus Movement (founding document)
English Plus vs. English Only

No one can deny that immigration is one of the hottest topics in the U.S. today, especially as we are poised to elect a new president.  Often those who seek to limit immigration and combat illegal immigration use language about “invasion” and stridently oppose the “press one for English, press two for Spanish” phenomenon as indicative of a trend in pandering to a population who many feel refuses to learn English.   While English currently isn’t the official language in the U.S., several states have passed legislation making it their official language.  Again and again, “English Only” pops up in political rhetoric at the city, state, and federal levels.  But what does “English Only” truly mean? U.S. English, one of the country’s oldest proponents of English Only or Official English actually paints a much more benign picture.  From their website, we find a brief description of what they propose: Declaring English the official language means that official government business at all levels must be conducted solely in English. This includes all public documents, records, legislation and regulations, as well as hearings, official ceremonies and public meetings.  To read more about the details of this movement, read their FAQ section.  ProEnglish (which maintains that Official English is very different from English only) posits that opponents continue to use the term English Only to capitalize on the fact that it’s a loaded term that implies Official English supporters are anti-immigrant xenophobes.  While ProEnglish purports to welcome the use of different languages in the public sphere, they also strongly state that immigrants cannot assimilate without learning English.  And that they, in fact, have no right to reside in the U.S. if they do not learn English.   On its face, encouraging immigrants to learn English certainly doesn’t seem like a negative thing.  But they propose to remove many of the public supports for first-generation immigrants, such as: court interpreters, translation of government documents and paperwork, bilingual education, and bilingual ballots.  Basically, this would take away any ability for immigrants to participate in civic life if they are in the beginning stages of learning English.   James Crawford, author of Hold Your Tongue offers a scathing critique of this movement to limit use of any language other than English.  The three excerpts from his book offer insight into how opponents understand this movement, whatever terminology they may use.