What are the Pros and Cons of a bilingual society?

mactbone · March 26, 2003, 21:10

I'm asking this because in my mind it seems that this will be the case in the U.S. if the current trends continue. I'm not going to say it's a bad thing that many advertisements and products now are in Spanish as well as English, it's their job to make money and if people only speak Spanish then you have to reach them. At the same time I think that it could hurt the integration of Spanish speaking people into mainstream American culture. While that may not be a bad thing per se it probably won't help Spanish speaking people get jobs in this country*. I also wonder if it's a feasible option to have Spanish speaking public education in certain areas.

*What I'm saying is that most companies don't want to hire someone who can't speak the same language as them, meaning that eventually enough business owners may be speaking Spanish and hire Spanish speaking people, but until that happens the corporate culture is in English.

KrazyHorse · March 26, 2003, 21:15

I've worked in a bilingual environment (duh)

As long as there's a fair degree of bilingualism in the society everything works...

Tuberski · March 26, 2003, 21:17

There are more and more job openings, where being bi lingual is preferred.

ACK!

mactbone · March 26, 2003, 21:37

Yes, I can see that it's possible to work but is it more expensive for schools? Are there people that only speak one of the languages? Does the government have a hard time filling positions with qualified bilingual applicants? Does this make it easier or harder for trade and business in general?

Tuberski · March 26, 2003, 21:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
Yes, I can see that it's possible to work but is it more expensive for schools? Are there people that only speak one of the languages? Does the government have a hard time filling positions with qualified bilingual applicants? Does this make it easier or harder for trade and business in general?

I don't see how it would be much more expensive for schools, they all teach English. However requiring at least one semester of spanish wouldn't hurt.

ACK!

KrazyHorse · March 26, 2003, 21:44

More expensive? Why?

Kids don't learn very much in elementary school anyway. Teaching them a second language with some time that would have been thrown away on some other crap anyway is a pretty good use of their time in my books.

There are a great deal of "unilinguals" in Quebec...but they're not on the island of Montreal. There used to be a significant number of English unilinguals on the island (and some French ones) but ever since the linguistic ghettoisation has started to disappear the kids have started becoming proficient in both, of course.

There's a great wealth of bilingualism in Quebec as compared to the rest of Canada...well, minus New Brunswick. That's why a lot of the federal civil service posts (many of which require bilingualism) are filled by Quebecers.

Bilingualism doesn't hurt, in general. As long as it's normal for people to speak both languages then things work. If there are two linguistic groups living side by side who refuse to learn each other's language then there can be problems.

KrazyHorse · March 26, 2003, 21:47

Quote:

However requiring at least one semester of spanish wouldn't hurt.

One semester?

Eek. One semester won't teach you anything. In addition to having an hour of French class every day from the age of 5 to the age of 18, grades 4,5,6,7 and 8 were spent in French immersion (basically every class except English taught in French).

And I'm still not as bilingual as I could be.

Urban Ranger · March 26, 2003, 21:55

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
At the same time I think that it could hurt the integration of Spanish speaking people into mainstream American culture.

That's the old "Melting Pot" theory, which seems to be a bit outdated by now. A modern society is now thought to be more akin to a mosaic, which each group of people retaining their own cultural identity.

Tuberski · March 26, 2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

Quote:

However requiring at least one semester of spanish wouldn't hurt.

One semester?

Eek. One semester won't teach you anything. In addition to having an hour of French class every day from the age of 5 to the age of 18, grades 4,5,6,7 and 8 were spent in French immersion (basically every class except English taught in French).

And I'm still not as bilingual as I could be.

True, but those who like the class will continue it, those who don't, won't learn anything even if forced to continue it.

ACK!

mindseye · March 26, 2003, 22:01

In this era of globalization, the enormous benefits of multiliguism overwhelmingly outweigh the relatively minor costs. Being unilingual will increasingly become a serious disadvantage in many areas.

Quote:

I also wonder if it's a feasible option to have Spanish speaking public education in certain areas.

Even better if the public school system required second language study [default language: Spanish] for grades 1 - 12. The next generation will thank us for our foresight.

Spiffor · March 26, 2003, 22:15

Isn't it mandatory to learn a foreign language at school, in the US ?

mactbone · March 26, 2003, 22:31

Yep, well at least I needed three years of it to have an Academic Honors Dimploma (which basically gives you automatic admission to all the State Schools). The options at our school, which as I understand it are about average, were German, Spanish and French. In the first couple of my years in High School, Spanish enrollment was #1, then French and German after a pretty wide margin. By the end of High School, German was close to overtaking French, mainly because of a decline in French enrollment and a lack of a smiliar decline in German. Our school also had an ESL (English as a Second Language) class.

I would think it would be more expensive because we would be importing teachers from other countries (if we're talking pure Spanish speakers) and if we use bilingual teachers, they would expect and deserve a higher salary.

I also assume it would cost more to bilingualize the government - did funding significantly change in Canada when that Quebec-bilingual thing happened?

MRT144 · March 26, 2003, 22:40

con: white ignorant conservative americans wont know what to do and will get violent

Tuberski · March 26, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
con: white ignorant conservative americans wont know what to do and will get violent

Not all white men are ignorant conservatives, nor are all conservative ignorant.

Look at Dubya, he sounds more fluent in Spanish than he does in English.

ACK!

alva · March 26, 2003, 22:54

This board would be very boring if people wouldn't learn others lingo's

american: I'm pro war !!!
English: Me too !!
American: Good!!!
English: Yeah...

j/k

Kontiki · March 26, 2003, 23:23

Bilingualism in and of itself is not bad, but IMO it doesn't make too much sense unless the demographics are right. For example, Canada today really needn't be bilingual given that there is a great degree of concentration and a small and ever-shrinking percentage (>25%) that speak French as a first language. Over at least 75% of our landmass, having dual-language signs, government employees, etc. are pretty useless.

Still, I don't think that we should abandon bilingualism simply because A) it is deeply rooted in our country, B) it doesn't do any real harm and C) it's always good to learn another language, and this way we have a built in excuse.

Tuberski · March 26, 2003, 23:30

That reminds me of the movie Canadian Bacon. Where the Americans go into Canada with signs that say Canada sucks and such.

They get pulled over because they didn't write the slogans in French as well.

Funniest part of the movie.

ACK!

Agathon · March 26, 2003, 23:41

Pro: I get tired of hearing women in passion yelling "Agathon, YES YES" so I don't mind if they say "OUI OUI" instead.

Con: I don't speak French and communicating by hand signals is both socially obvious and embarrassing.

Drake Tungsten · March 26, 2003, 23:50

I can't really think of any pros to a bilingual society. The only reason to have one is if demographics force it upon you...

Quote:

That's the old "Melting Pot" theory, which seems to be a bit outdated by now.

It isn't outdated at all.

Asher · March 26, 2003, 23:56

It's a total, complete, and annoying waste of money.

Rather than having lots of detailed nutrient/diet details on Canadian food products, we've got dual-labels -- one in English, one in French.

And in Alberta, less than 5% of Albertans speak French natively (about 3 times that speak some Chinese dialect natively, but that doesn't matter in Canada).

It's ridiculous.

Spiffor · March 26, 2003, 23:57

I thought the US was now going along the "American Salad" lines, i.e a territory where distinct communities live together and interact, but do not melt.
At least, that'w what I understood from the acknowledgment of the existence of separate communities, hate crimes etc.

Frogman · March 26, 2003, 23:58

Teaching language in school is ok but it really doesn't accomplish that much. People in the US don't learn other languages because its just so rare that we get to use a second language often enough to be fluent. The only exception is kids who are born into bilingual homes, especially homes where english is the second language. Still, it doesn't take that many generations before the old language gets lost. My great grandmother only spoke italian and she lived in NY for 75 years (lived to 108) Her great grandkids don't speak but a couple words of Italian.

My mom is irish, gaelic was her first language, now you go to Ireland and you can't find a gaelic speaking area.

English is the language of the internet as evidenced by this board. The whole world is required to learn english as a second language and it has become the universal language.

Of course the world would be a much less interesting place if we all spoke the same language and the loss of culture would be tragic but we are losing languages everyday. The trend is for fewer not more living languages. With the influx of primarily spanish speaking immigrants into the US, spanish will be strong, but the trend will be for it to diminish if new immigrants stop coming in.

Montreal is interesting, the French are fighting hard to maintain control. Some of the laws about what language appears on signs and the size of the typeface is humerous until you realize that without constant effort, Montreal would soon become a primarily english speaking city.

Learning a second language is great, but you better be sure one of the languages you know is english. I would be curious to see the shape of language in 500 years. My bet is that many languages will be gone.

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 00:07

Quote:

I thought the US was now going along the "American Salad" lines, i.e a territory where distinct communities live together and interact, but do not melt.

I don't think that the US conciously chose to abandon the "melting pot", but massive levels of immigration have made it hard to maintain. The "salad bowl" is definitely developing, but it's hard to think of it as a good thing...

alva · March 27, 2003, 00:11

Quote:

The trend is for fewer not more living languages.

If it's one thing history has shown, it is that trends come and go.
-

New languages are still created too, in 500 years (to take your example) english and american and australian could turn into something completely different.

Frogman · March 27, 2003, 00:19

Alva, I doubt it. Geography means nothing now. Unless we get nuked back to the stone age, the world is too closely tied for languages to develop in isolation. TV, the internet, movies, ease of travel will do more to blend the languages than fracture them.

What new language gets created? None. The list of dead and dieing languages on the other hand is quite long.

KrazyHorse · March 27, 2003, 00:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

I thought the US was now going along the "American Salad" lines, i.e a territory where distinct communities live together and interact, but do not melt.

I don't think that the US conciously chose to abandon the "melting pot", but massive levels of immigration have made it hard to maintain. The "salad bowl" is definitely developing, but it's hard to think of it as a good thing...

What massive levels of immigration? The immigration rate was much higher in the early 20th century.

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

What massive levels of immigration? The immigration rate was much higher in the early 20th century.

Levels are higher today than they have ever been.

http://www.fairus.org/html/04129611.htm

Kontiki · March 27, 2003, 00:31

The numbers are higher, but the rates are lower. According to your link, in 2001 there were about 1 million immigrant, or about 1/280th of the population. The rates were much higher in the early 20th century. Look at the years 1901-1914 - almost the same in pure numbers as 1989 - present, but with a much lower overall population.

KrazyHorse · March 27, 2003, 00:32

That's in absolute numbers. The population of the US was much lower before, therefore the immigration rate was higher.

Absolute numbers have very little significance.

Is it more important to the people affected when 50 new people move into a town of 100 or when 5000 move into a metropolis of 10 million?

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

That's in absolute numbers. The population of the US was much lower before, therefore the immigration rate was higher.

What's your point? You said that today's immigrations levels aren't "massive". I gave you a link showing that in absolute terms they are the highest in history. Even if you go by immigrants as a percentage of population, they are still huge. You are wrong...