A little while ago – forgive me for my delays – I read about a “National Language” bill or some such nonsense. The old link was there, it’s no longer active. But the article indicated that:

The measure, approved 63 to 34, directs the government to “preserve and enhance” the role of English, without altering current laws…It also sets requirements that immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship know the English language and U.S. history. The amendment would require more thorough testing to demonstrate English-language proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and elements of U.S. culture such as the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem

Now, I suppose I don’t have a big problem with this, mostly because I think any measure of this sort is largely superfluous – but at the very least, superfluous legislation is a waste of our money, and that’s to be admonished. But it did strike me, because the nature of language is metaphoric to the economy. Even when it is restricted, it is never wholly held back. And I’ve experienced this first-hand, in all my studies of the French language, and the several months of my life that I’ve spent living there or vacationing there.

Never shy of bureaucracy, the French have a panel of linguists that are dedicated to preserving and expanding the French language. When a new word is invented, this panel is charged with “inventing” a “French” word to use in lieu of the vernacular. Good examples are “computer,” which in proper french is “l’ordinateur” or “e-mail” which is properly “un couriel.” Spend some time among the French, though, and you’ll realize that these “french” words are nearly never used, favoring for simplicity’s sake the anglicized “le computer” or “un e-mail.” And this point is driven home by nationally syndicated columnist, Leonard Pitts, in last weeks Detroit Free Press, who opines on the futility of any legislation the aim of which is to make English the “national language” of the United States. He writes:

You cannot, in a free society, legislate language. Pass a law or don’t; either way, it would not stop Telemundo from broadcasting or El Nuevo Herald from publishing.

Language is organic. It evolves and spreads pretty much of its own accord. You can regulate that process to about the same degree you can regulate the ocean.

It’s an understandable misconception that common language equals unity, but it’s a misconception nonetheless. Regionalisms and dialects notwithstanding, blacks and whites have been speaking English at each other for 387 years. It has not noticeably unified them. The same holds true for North and South, gays and straights, blue states and red…

And as often happens, I couldn’t have said it better myself, so I’ll leave it at that.

Futility.