Talk:Languages in the United States

I can see on the primary language bar that Portuguese and Portuguese Creole are counted as the same language, but French and French Creole are not. Why is that? kcar1986 00:34, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the deal about Portugese/Portugese Creole, but the "French Creole" listed is Haitian Creole, which is really a separate language in its own right.

recent-immigrant lang

We could use something on recent-immigrant languages, especially current usages (much Korean, Cantonese, and Russian, for example, in NY); I should probably add a bit about Yiddish, among other things. Amish and Native American languages, probably belong in separate articles. Vicki Rosenzweig

About the official language in the USA

I don't quite understand that the English is not an official language in the USA. What this really means? I do believe that almost all official documents and such are written in English. Can someone explain this a little bit more? I can't imagine if I'll do much with swahili or with some more exotic language in public. And I get almost a petty nausea when I saw for example John Wayne speaking German in almost all German and Austrian TV's. And after all you can speak swahili in my homeland too, if you want. And it is quite a fun. Many African students are still studying in Ljubljana and they learn some Slovene. The most famous of them is Ignacio Bintchende aka Janez Belina (http://www.secom.si/belina.html) (English John Whiteness). He also had some (let us say) neo-nazi incidents. After all do I live in a free country far away from mother Africa, where a word nigger can be heard many times - even in public politics? :-) Best regard. -- XJamRastafire 18:03 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

It simply means that the United States does not have an officially decreed language that must be used. English is certainly the most common, but millions of Americans live their lives speaking other languages.

In general, you are supposed to speak English to be naturalized as a citizen, but even that isn't a rigid standard. Here is a summary of the requirements:

A person must also demonstrate an ability to speak, read, and write ordinary English and have a general understanding of U.S. government and history. Long-time older permanent residents are exempt from the English requirement if they are 50 years or older and have been living in the U.S. for at least 20 years, or if they are 55 years or older and have been living in the U.S. for at least 15 years. These immigrants must still demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and government, but they may do so in their native language.

Native-born Americans are not required to speak English in most places, although it is certainly handy!

Some US states have an official languages. In New Mexico both English and Spanish are official languages, although New Mexicans say the state does not always live up to its ideals in this regard. Ortolan88

Yes Ortolan88 now I got a picture. The most important thing is, as I understand, that a language is not decreed. Nice law. I know how hard it is for two different nations (or even more ones) to live together. I can here for example recall Austrian politician Jörg Haider, who will do anything even nowadays that two peaceful nations won't live together in a small region. I can imagine similar problems all over the world. So in this case States can be beautifull example of living together. Thank you very much for the explanation. -- XJamRastafire 18:45 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Does Congress have a procedural rule on the language which must be spoken in debates? If not then how is the official record kept?
Do the federal courts have a law on one language for the officials of the court. If not how is justice seen to be done? Philip Baird Shearer 21:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin advocated German? This is the same Benjamin Franklin who complained about the Pennsylvania Germans because they were germanizing their neighbours instead of anglicising themeselves? -stoltz. (although it could be true...Franklin may have suggested the use of German, I don't know?)

"Benjamin Franklin advocated the use of German as the official language of the United States, marking a break from the language spoken by Great Britain, against which the newly-formed United States had recently rebelled."

I moved this to talk because it is inaccurate. Here [1] (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_026.html) is a Straight Dope column to this effect. It wasn't Ben Franklin, and they weren't going to make it the only official language - they were just going to translate govdocs into German.Montréalais

language spoken in immigrant communities

I removed the section on language spoken in immigrant communities but are not considered indigineous because that clause doesn't make any sense. Chinese isn't any less indigenous to North America than English.

linguistic homogeneity

I removed this sentence: " Any other large nation in history had this linguistic homogeneity," because it just doesn't ring true. Think of China, the history of the North and South American continents, pre-'Discovery' Australia, the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire, the English empire, and on and on. Atorpen 04:15 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. Would it even be going too far to say, "No other large nation in history has had this level of linguistic homogeneity"? -- Oliver P. 04:20 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

China? From Chinese language: 'The notion of a "Chinese Language" may seem at first to be a fiction. The term "Chinese" is employed for the classical written language known as "wen2 yan2 (?? "literary language")" which was used by Confucius, as well as the modern standard known as "bai2 hua4 (?? "vernacular")". It includes many different spoken variations which may be mutually unintelligible. The spoken language of Beijing is for example very different from Cantonese, the conversational language of Hong Kong'.

North and South American are continents, nor countries. Also, some small countries in Latin America as Bolivia have three official languages (and so much not officials).

In the same, the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire and the English empire were all empires, no countries. All of them were multietnic and multilingual.

The pre-'Discovery' Australia? From Australia: some of the surviving Aboriginal communities maintain their native languageS

Well, in [Australian Aborigine]], somebody wrote It should be noted that there were many different Aboriginal groups, with their own languages, cultures and beliefs which overlapped to a greater or lesser extent, and evolved over time.

And Brasil?

The English empire *was* North America. it only became multiethnic later when it became the British Empire. -- Derek Ross ??

Many different ethnic groups were present in N. America before the British crossed the Pacific. Please dont forget about them :) Cheers! - Ish ishwar 22:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ASL

Why isn't American Sign Language listed in the commonly used languages at home list? From what I've read, it's the third or fourth most spoken language in the United States, so I would guess they speak it at home too. ;-) --Chuck SMITH

Grimes (2000) reports that ASL is signed by 100,000-500,000 Americans (out of a 2 million population of deaf persons), and Hawai'i Pidgin Sign Language by about 6,000 (almost extinct). Martha's Vineyard Sign Language is extinct (formerly signed in Massachusetts).

Many deaf people learn ASL in school, and their parents don't necessarily get very good at it. Sibs tend to, though. Otherwise they may use home sign. But many are brought up with an 'oral' education, and don't get exposed to ASL until adulthood. The majority of native signers are the children of Deaf parents, most of whom are hearing. Perhaps the lower end of the speaker estimates is closer to the number of home signers, with the higher end being daily users? So while the numbers for ASL would go up if you consider daily rather than home use, the numbers of other languages might go down. kwami 18:38, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

British ancestors

I removed the statement that 80% of Americans have no British ancestors. In the last census, 33% reported British background and since most respondents only listed one ethnicity, a primary one, than a far higher number have some British ancestors. Possibly even 80%? ;) Rmhermen 14:15, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

The 33% figure you cite is only accurate for *white* Americans. Key distinction there. The percentage of all Americans, in the 2000 census, who listed "American" ancestry along with those who listed British, English, Scottish, Scotch-Irish or Welsh ancestry, is about 22%. See British Americans.

33%? Hah, remember, 'British' is not an ethnic group. People of English origin are the highest in this collective ethnonym, accounting for 8.7% of the population. 80% is an absurd percentage as well. What makes us so sure that those who reported 'American' all derive from British forefathers? I'm taking a good guess that the majority of those who answered 'American', located in the midwest and other densely populated central intersections are of Scandinavian or German origin. Eric 05:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can't remember the ref, but there are maps showing county-by-county ethnicities, colored according to plurality (largest minority) ancestry of those who declared an ancestry. The impression you get from such a map is that the vast majority of the country is either English or German in origin. That is, those two colors are spread over the entire country, with many small-town areas being almost exclusively so, whereas other ethnicities tend to be geographically concentrated. But of course you can easily be the plurality of a county at only 10% of the population. kwami 18:45, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Parliament myth

I removed this bit:

In the late 19th century a voting took place in the Parliament, regarding the selection of the country's official language. English was the winning language, with Greek language having received just one vote less.

since it appears to me to be apocryphal - the popular urban legend.

I heard it about German, rather than Greek, losing by one vote. This has at least a little more basis in fact, but the situation as stated is incorrect according to Snopes ([2] (http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.htm), [3] (http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/onevote.htm)).

If somebody can substantiate this "fact" (for starters, give an exact year), feel free to put it back. Until then, out with this junk. -- pne 10:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello Parliament we do not have one in the US.

I fail to see why people take this so seriously. As far as I know, this urban legend stemmed from the fact that the US legislature had issued orders after the American revolution to have their documents translated into German. Eric 05:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

Some African-American activists insist that Ebonics, also known as African-American Vernacular English, the dialect of English spoken in many African-American sections of American urban areas, is not simply a dialect, but an entirely different language, and are urging that their language be accepted as an equal to American English.

I want to see some actual evidence for this -- which African-American advocates, for example, and when? I know linguists have been arguing that it's a valid dialect, and not just "bad English" forever, but -- well, what does it even mean, "accepted as an equal to American English." And if it is a dialect, then it already is American English by definition -- it's just not Standard American English. I'm not sure the above isn't just a kneejerk to some media claptrap.--Peccavimus 08:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's a great deal of debate about Ebonics in the Black community. I don't know of anyone who claims it's a distinct language from English in the linguistic sense. Rather, they're using 'language' in the generic sense, because the word 'dialect' is pejorative in lay usage.

(Not many people speak of the 'standard dialect', rather they speak of 'dialects' vs. 'proper English'. There's also a long tradition of assuming that if you speak a 'dialect', it's because you're mentally incapable of expressing yourself 'properly'. Because of this, calling AAVE a 'dialect', especially if you're White, can cause offense.)

The problem Ebonics is trying to address is that if you don't recognize that kids come to school without a command of standard English, and address that fact, they will be disadvantaged later on. And if you simply tell them they have bad grammar and their families don't know how to speak properly, the educational results tend to not be very good either. Those in the Ebonics movement advocate the recognition of AAVE as a valid variety of English alongside the standard dialect. What this means in practice is that you give the kids' education a bi-lectal approach: "This is how we say X at home, or when writing in your journal, but this is how you need to say it when you're writing formally." You have school materials in both. Not parallel text books, of course: most material will continue to be in standard. But some material should be in AAVE too, such as story books and poetry, to show kids that their language (meaning the way they speak) is given validity by the school. There is some evidence that such an education makes it easier for kids to code switch, able to do well in a job interview without being ostracized from their peers for being snooty. That is, well educated without suffering an identity crisis. (No parent wants their child to grow up without a command of standard, but neither do they want them to be alienated.)

Explaining all this in the popular media can be problematic, especially when the word 'dialect' is out of bounds (not only for causing offense to Black people, but because most White people won't understand what it means). That's why it's often called a "language". However, if you ask people if they mean that AAVE's a separate language the way Gulla is, they'll say of course not, it's just a variety that needs to be recognized for the good of our kids. kwami 20:27, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

my commentary

Hi. I have a few comments that I hope everyone will consider.

I find this article to rather ethnocentric regarding its marginalization of the languages indigeneous to N. America. These languages are only mentioned very briefly at the end of the list of languages. This is unfortunate, especially considering the past and continued marginalization of these speakers.

These languages, I feel, should be discussed first in the article, if only as a kind gesture. These languages have been spoken in the territory of the US longer than any European language has been spoken in Europe, expecting Basque. The linguistic diversity in just California alone is far, far greater than the diversity in Europe. This is something to marvel at. The US language situation is unique because of their existence.

There is a sad history involved as well, which may make authors reluctant write about: the systematic efforts to eradicate these languages.

I guess the current organization & content of this page has been influenced by the more economically powerful language speakers.

I was just thinking that an article titled "Languages in the United States" would be more about the languages in the United States both time immemorial and newly-arrived. Peace - Ish ishwar 07:59, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

English only

I added the word "only" to the box on the upper-right corner because that is what the 82.105% statistic from the census actually refers to. In other words, 82% of Americans *only speak English* at home. That is different from the percentage of people who speak English at home. (THAT percentage is a good 10-15% higher.)

native langs: first or last?

hi. I suggest that the indigenous languages of the US be listed before the languages that came later rather than listing the more prevalent and/or economically powerful languages first. This will do 2 things (1) be chronological time-wise and (2) list these lesser known languages more prominently. I feel that (2) is important considering that they are endangered, not known by many general readers, and are still marginalized in many different ways in wikipedia &elsewhere.

I suppose that many others have an opinion about this. Please voice them. Thank you. — ishwar (SPEAK) 21:27, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

You are merely a propagandist. Indian languages have no status at all in the USA and are significant only so long as the Indian reservations have any influence. Those are sovereign nations and NOT what we call American. I am no more a Sioux than they are Americans. You are treading on thin ice and should be grateful that they are even listed here. Keep these languages where they BELONG, which is on their reservations or minute communities. I myself have listed German before Spanish, because of the timeline of American assimilation over these peoples. In no way, were Indian tribes a part of the US before Louisiana. See what I mean?

posted by ScapegoatVandal (talk • contribs), 00:05, 29 May 2005 (sig added by — mark ✎)

Ignore the unsigned troll above... and, while I have no especially strong opinion on this, I find the chronological argument to be fairly compelling. - Mustafaa 01:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ishwar and Mustafaa. — mark ✎ 01:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the chronological argument too, pre-colonial langauses should follow directly after the section on the official language--nixie 02:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with the proposal, to list the languages indigenous to the region/country before, or at least more prominently than currently featured. Reasons include: the reader might commonly come across this page in search of them; a chronologically-based ordering is usual in the absence of some other schema (eg alphabetically); there is a ranking side-list by number of speakers anyway; historical listing is more informative and if done could assist a future addition to the page describing the interactions and spread of the differing languages over time; as they are comparatively little-known, but feature significantly in conducted linguistic research their prominence needs to be more than just an addendum. --cjllw | TALK 08:19, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Yes, I think official and national languages (read "English" in this case) should come first, indigenous languages second, and immigrant languages and local developments such as creoles third. Also, within the indigenous languages, I think Hawaiian should go last. It's mentioned as an official language, so it's not like it'll get lost, and it's both rather recent historically (as a Usonian possession, I mean, not as a language) and rather marginal geographically ("marginal" in the literal sense of "at the margins"). It seems wrong to place it before Iroquois or Algonquian. Speaking of which, are we going to recognize Samoan? Chamoro? American Samoans are citizens in all but name, and the Marianas (incl. Guam) are clear Usonian possessions and will probably soon be upgraded to commonwealths. Maybe the division could be Continental languages and Pacific languages or something along those lines? kwami 07:29, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be in agreement, and no one's commented in the past week, I've made the change. Ishwar, was this what you had in mind? I broke things up a bit: if we have a separate entry for every single colonial language, I figured we should have separate entries for at least the more populous native languages. (I also tried to research the numbers a little better, using the resources listed at the bottom of the article.) Also, I listed official languages of the territories and commonwealths, and created a new category for languages that developed here. Not saying this is how it should be, it's just what made sense to me, since no one else had gone for it. kwami 21:44, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

yes, i think that this an improvement — more informative. so, yes, it is basically what i had in mind. one of these days i will need to locate the most recent article by Michael Krauss (or some other linguist) to report further on the endangerment issue. peace – ishwar (speak) 05:16, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I hate the way this looks so retarded. I warned you the first time. It is too PC. ScapegoatVandal 02:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, hey guys, I'm kind of new, so I won't take any sides, but I want to voice my opinion. The preservation of Native American languages is vital, I agree, but they are far too numerous and varied. I don't know anyone who would bother taking the time to list all of them. I think a simple solution would be to just link to the Ethnologue entry for the USA. Eric 05:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese language census

Says the 2000 census was printed in "Chinese". Anyone know if that's Mandarin or Cantonese? (And no, the written languages are not the same.) kwami 05:53, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Cantonese. Of the 1.65 million reported daily speakers of "Chinese", 1.3 million of them actually converse in Cantonese, specifically. The rest are made up of people who prelect in Han(Mandarin) Chinese, Hakka Chinese, Min Nan Chinese, Yue Chinese, Hokkien Chinese, etc. They constitute a much smaller composite. Eric 06:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I knew that most Chinese Americans were Cantonese, but it didn't follow that the census would be written in Cantonese. (BTW, Mandarin is not the same as Han.) kwami 08:57, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Got word back from someone in the census bureau that they've "been told" that the forms were in Mandarin. (Traditional characters.) Unless someone has specific info to the contrary? Meanwhile I've made the change. kwami 18:31, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Dutch-Americans

I have written the 'Dutch-American' section, taking the historical notes from the article "Dutch colonization of the Americas", while writing the rest myself. Contributions welcome. Eric 07:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Swedish-Americans

As with naturalized Dutch-Americans, I have also written the Swedish-American sub-article. Additions are encouraged. Eric 07:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

German-Americans

There were some incorrect statistical information which I replaced with confirmed and accurate demographic facts. Eric 07:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

American spelling?

Is there any strict unwritten constitutional rule that we must adhere to American lexicon and spelling? Someone frequently keeps morphing my British spellings with American ones. Eric 07:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Usually if an article is started with one orthography, that is kept through all edits. Also, if an article's specifically UK- or US-related, people tend to feel it should be in that orthography. Though, personally, I think the humor articles should be "British humor" and "American humour". kwami 09:02, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I feel inclined towards British spelling most of the time. In reference to your corcern about the spelling of 'humor', isn't the British spelling 'humour', in actuality? Eric 10:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the beauty of it ... Cbdorsett 15:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to adhere to the American style of semantics and spelling in subsequent edits. :) Eric 15:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

re humour-humor: yes, that's funny.

re my personal note: i dont have any problems with mixed language variety styles in any writing. seeing both British & American spelling in the same article is fun for me. (standardized languages... oh well) peace – ishwar (speak) 05:27, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Me either. For some words I don't know which is which; I just set my spellchecker to accept both. But if our goal is to make Wikipedia respectable, each article should probably follow some standard. kwami 05:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Languages_in_the_United_States"