May I have a Word? Need
In a recent speech, Barack Obama advocated Americans learning foreign languages. He said:
"Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language. ... We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they're 5, or 6, or 7 than when they're 46, like me."I didn't give this comment a second thought. Never would I have thought that this notion would be controversial. But I didn't count on the depth of the the anti-immigrant feelings in this country.
Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, presented the opposition argument most rationally, saying "if you want to learn Spanish, or any other language, that's great -- but for reasons of political, cultural and social cohesion, we don't want to create a society in which learning a second language is a necessity."
So, where's the controversy? Apparently, Dreher and readers like "Peterk" are hung up on the word "need", as in "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." Some are twisting that into an implication that Obama will send language police into our schools and homes to force our children to speak Spanish. Absurd.
Peterk demonstrates some misconceptions about language. He objects to another reader saying Spanish is the third most popular language in the world. Peterk says that "popular" is a subjective determination. Note to Peterk: popular means prevailing among the people generally. Ironic, don't you think, that the defender of English has to be told a meaning of a common word?
He claims that "English has thrived over the centuries because it has been able to assimilate foreign words into its vocabulary. Other languages have to create words English just adopts them." Note to Peterk: All languages are able to assimilate foreign words. Peterk later admits as much by asserting that "German, French, Spanish and many other languages are struggling to survive as English words infiltrate." Note to Peterk: German, French, and especially Spanish are in no danger of dying out, whether they have a native word for, say, Internet, or not.
He claims that English the language of commerce. He got that one right, but for the wrong reason. He claims "In many international contracts the controlling language is English due to its accuracy and general acceptance." English is the common language because of the worldwide military, economic and cultural dominance of England and America for the last 300 years. The notion that English is somehow more "accurate" than other languages is silly and is belied by the eternal debates on blogs about the meaning of some comment or other. Obama's comment that Americans "need" to learn foreign languages is a case in point.
All Aboard the Obama Press Bus
William McKenzie notes the lavish coverage the media has planned for Barack Obama's upcoming trip to Iraq. He compares this with the lesser coverage John McCain received on his foreign trips this year. McKenzie asks, "Shouldn't the two be treated equally?"
McCain himself has built up the newsworthiness of Obama's trip by hammering on the point for weeks. McCain hs no one to blame but himself this time.
Reader "Peterk" suggests that the increased press coverage Obama's trip to Iraq is getting is part of a pattern. He points to a Fox News statistic -- Obama has received 114 minutes of network coverage June to present while McCain has received only 48. This is an age-old debate, whether the press ought to give equal time to all candidates or focus on candidates with a greater chance of winning. Intrade odds currently give Obama about a two-thirds chance of winning. McCain, one-third. I find it possibly significant that the network coverage statistics Peterk provided are consistent with Intrade's assessment of the election at this point. Peterk doesn't say how many minutes the networks have devoted to covering other candidates Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, but I'd wager that those numbers are in line with Intrade's odds, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment