Critical Response

Le Thanh Tin – L6.2 A – RMIT University English is regarded as an official language and being spoken widely within USA. However, some people worry that English maybe lose its position in US and other languages, including native languages probably damage English as well. This essay is a response to a recent debate between US English with their brochure “In support of our common language…” and Olive Peterson with her article “No to the English Language Amendment” on passing English amendment. This essay will critically respond to two of each author’s arguments.

US English cites Bilingual and multilingual ballots, voting materials and bilingual education that are used to support non English speakers , particularly minority languages, are so expensive because the government funds for that is possibly more than only one language.

In contrast to US English, Peterson takes a more positive view on the fund that the government uses to support non English speaker on Election Day. Although she accepts that printing ballots and other voting material in many minority and bilingual education languages are expensive, she sees the benefits of this purpose are more than its high cost. He argues that every citizen in US has the right to access education and vote in election and that presents the democratic values of US.

Although both US English and Peterson have presented strong argument to support their points, Peterson’s arguments are more convincing. US English is still right to assert that it

costs so highly to translate into minority languages. However, that is not wasteful and that is the way to preserve the democracy of US. If everyone has ability to get education and vote in election, US will probably improve its society and create an objective in election. Peterson is correct in her belief that if the government creates more opportunities for all citizens to be able to participate political works, there will be no unfairness in voting any more.

US English argues that “English is under attack” and should be defend as a sole official language of US. They highlights that the government should foster similarities like English rather than many languages that separate them.

However, Peterson disagrees strongly to with the argument of US English. She cites that English is not being damaged and no need any protection because English is spoken by more than 90% of Americans and almost every field in US is carried out in English. She also argues that “language differences have never been the cause of serious conflict”. For example, Civil War was not the conflict between English speakers and non English speakers, by contrast, it is the conflict between Americans who spoke English.

US English may be least convincing because they do not show any surveys or statistics to support their arguments that English is being damaged and language differences lead to conflicts between people in US. Peterson is closer to the truth that language assimilation will seriously lead to the discrimination against minorities.

In conclusion, US English and Peterson have contrasting views on passing English language amendment. US English assert that English should be the sole official language of US in order to defend the position of English in US and reduce the money that the government uses to support non English speaker. Peterson, on the other hand, insists that the funds is used to support the non English speakers, are not wasteful and also bring more benefits to US’s society such as reducing corruption. She also cites that language assimilation may be lead to serious consequences like discrimination against minorities.