Abstract
In this researched critical analysis essay, I oppose the myth that because English is the lingua franca of the United States, it is the only language that should be spoken in the workplace. I also discuss how that perpetuates a violation of one’s freedom of expression and the social consequences of this myth.
Workplace Language Discrimination: Why Other Languages Need to be Accepted
There are many popular opinions and myths people have in the English language, especially in the United States of America. Some people have wonder what should be the primary language. A common myth is that English is the only language one should use in the United States as it is the official language. More specifically, only English should be spoken in the workplace. The notion that only English should be spoken in the workplace as it is the lingua franca of the United States is flawed, halts freedom of expression and could yield multiple social consequences if overlooked, as no one should be discriminated based on the language they speak.
There are people who simply do not accept other languages and prefer English, perceiving it as the superior language. According to a New York Times article named Man Threatens Spanish-Speaking Workers: ‘My Next Call Will Be to ICE’ by Liz Robbins, this is seen in action where an English-speaking customer is seen complaining about the customers and staff in a restaurant. “‘Your staff is speaking Spanish to customers when they should be speaking English,’ he says. ‘It’s America.’ He adds: ‘I will be following up, and my guess is they’re not documented. So my next call is to ICE to have each one of them kicked out of my country’” (Robbins 1). This man obviously believes in the notion that English is the lingua franca of the United States as he said the workers should be speaking English since “it’s America,” and is expressing ideas of discrimination based on language.
Here, the freedom of expression for American citizens is at stake, especially for those who speak foreign languages, as this notion creates discrimination against them. It creates stereotypes that can prove to be harmful such as America being an English-speaking country, even though English is not the official language. In this case, Spanish-speaking individuals can be harmed simply for speaking their own language, which violates their freedom of expression. For instance, in a story written by Gloria Anzaldúa titled How to Tame a Wild Tongue, the author herself narrates her experience with language discrimination on a similar note to the aforementioned example in the restaurant stating, “I remember being caught speaking Spanish at recess – that was good for three licks on the knuckles with a sharp ruler. … ‘If you want to be American, speak ‘American.’ If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you belong'” (Anzaldúa 34). As one can see, a stereotype that speaking English is how one becomes “American” and that other languages such as Spanish are simply unwelcome and even punished. They reinforce stereotypes that harm the freedom of expression of the speakers such as Anzaldúa herself in which living in America means that she must speak English and she is limited to abandoning her native language. The notion that only English should be spoken in the workplace as it is the lingua franca of the United States can be seen as detrimental to the freedom of expression of the millions of people in the country that speak other languages.
If people overlook this notion and the harm it creates there are some serious social consequences that could result from this. Freedom of expression will be taken away from others and communication between people who speak the same language that is not English can also be inhibited. According to a scholarly article titled Do English-Only Rules Have a Place in the Workplace? by Amy R. Stein, “Sanchez overheard an employee whisper to a Spanish-speaking customer ahead of him, ‘I’m not allowed to speak to you in Spanish.’ Sanchez placed his order in Spanish and received the same response” (Stein 1, 2017). Not allowing people in the workplace to speak other languages such as Spanish limits their ability to communicate with each other and in this example, their freedom of speech is being restricted to just being able to speak English and people who might only speak Spanish will have a harder time communicating with others because of rules that prohibit the use of non-English languages. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge this notion and its effects because it also yields consequences that could affect relations between others as well. As stated by Stein, “[T]he consequences of the English-only rule with which we should be most concerned are social, not individual, in nature … interest courts routinely dismiss in rejecting challenges to English-only rules- but his or her interest in free association and social bonding, both with fellow workers and with the community beyond the workplace” (Stein 18). Social bonding between people who speak multiple languages is important because it creates relationships between individuals of other cultures that can expand people’s understanding of other cultures, other languages, and creates acceptance among others that seem unfamiliar. However, this is harmed by allowing only English in the workplace as they cannot speak with friends that know other languages and the chances to truly develop that cultural bond is mitigated.
In addition, another thing to consider is how flawed the ideology is behind the “English-only” mentality. Some people believe that if English is the lingua franca in the United States, then it is the primary language of the country and therefore must be used over the others. However, the United States has always been a land of diversity. From the various European races that came here to flee prosecution or trade, the Africans that once came as slaves and now come for work as a freed people, to the immigrants that are present in this country, and thus many people would agree that this land is diverse.
Take this political cartoon by Dave Granlund, for instance. Granlund titled the cartoon, “American handwriting…” (Granlund 1) and it shows multiple hands with different skin tones writing the word “English” in different languages. This shows that although people have an obligation to know English as it is the lingua franca, the common language, among citizens of the United States; people also speak different languages as well, such as the ones shown here. The United States has multiple languages spoken other than English. Therefore, the notion that only English should be spoken in the workplace because it is the lingua franca, and thus apparently the primary language, is completely flawed.
Given the flawed notion of the United States having English as a primary language, English-only policies in the workplace are unnecessary and will halt freedom of expression and yields many social consequences if overlooked. The freedom of expression in this context is the ability to speak another language. Building relationships with other cultures becomes much more difficult as well, since communicating with other languages is prohibited. With other languages being spoken in the United States constantly, there is no reason why people should only speak English. Overall, people must learn to accept other languages as part of their society.
Works Cited
Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands: The New Mestiza/ La Frontera. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt
Lute, 1987, pp. 21-45.
Granlund, Dave. “Multiple Hands Writing in Different Languages.” Dave Granlund: Editorial
Cartoons & Illustrations, 22 Feb. 2012, https://www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/2012/02/22/american-handwriting/.
Robbins, Liz. “Man Threatens Spanish-Speaking Workers: ‘My Next Call Will Be to ICE’.” The
New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2018,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/nyregion/man-threatens-spanish-language-
Stein, Amy R. “Do English-Only Rules Have a Place in the Workplace?” Legal Research Guides,
2017. Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law,
https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2209&context=faculty_scholarship.
Cover Letter
There were many meaningful insights I gained during this phase regarding language, rhetoric, and writing. For language, I learned that there are myths about language that can be disproven and, if ignored, can yield multiple social consequences. The lingua franca of a nation does not mean that it is the only language that should be spoken, just like I how to write about English sometimes being the only accepted language in the workplace and why this is wrong and needs to be disproven. For rhetoric, I learned how to persuade an audience by using evidence and addressing the potential social consequences of English-only workplace policies and with a serious, alarming tone, the message of that this is an urgent matter among our society becomes clear. For writing, I learned how to incorporate analysis and outside research, as well as how to address multiple points from one, as I mention social consequences such as loss of freedom of expression or limited communication with others of different cultures from one myth about the English language.
A term that impacted most of my learning and writing practices was “purpose,” as my purpose was not only to inform the reader of a myth of the English language, but it was mostly to persuade the reader into seeing why it is a myth that is detrimental to society’s perception of language and create multiple statements from one to highlight the influence the myth has.
This phase has helped me achieve the goal of learning how to locate research sources and find useful pieces that are relevant, recent, accurate, and precise. This is an important step in improving my writing as locating sources with a high level of scrutiny is crucial for written assignments.
