Immigration and the Politics of Language

There has been a recent rumor that Tagalog will no longer be translated into English because of an assumption that most Filipinos speak in English. I was asked for an opinion and I responded that Tagalog is just one of the so many languages we have in the Philippnes. Kapampangan, Chabacano, Ilokano, Karay-a, Hiligaynon, Ilonggo, Bisaya, Cebuano, Batangueno, Bulakeno, to name a few. In fact, every time I get called to work as an interpreter, most of the Filipinos who needed the service did not even speak Tagalog as their main language. Concurrently, there are pockets of sentiments that would want to impose English as the only means of official communication. And for this, the unspoken conflict.
Although language is meant to link the thoughts and sentiments of people, the reality of a multi-lingual world or the lack of a common universal tongue makes our expressions fall short from its specific and intended meaning. Our message does not only get lost in translation. It also meanders in a maze of transliteration. From a unique phonetic symbol with a specific meaning, the sound transmitted from a word is trapped in different accents, diction, and tones that the receiver of this word possibly perceives a totally different sense.
For this reason, we can understand the anxiety of certain legislators in their politics to insist that “English” be the sole means of American interaction. Yet on the other hand, natives born with a non-English tongue also have some right to cry foul. Freedom of speech is only free when we can speak the way we want to speak. And as long as there are others who understand and are willing to respond in the same way we communicate (either with sound or through body movements), that is language.
When the declaration of independence was ratified, English tacitly assumed an official role. At that point, it seemed that the exercise of democracy was not completely applied. And it also seemed that independence was not totally won. The United States of America, the new Republic, did not have her own language. She adopted the language of mother England, her former colonizer. Although there were other languages spoken at that time, there seems to be no existence of a historical record translating the first government documents into other languages other than English. Right then and there, we know that there were people kept on the margins of their own history. Unknown to many, it could have been the beginning of the early traces of discrimination. It could have been the first undisclosed conflict. And through generations, it indeed became a source of conflict. The non-English speaking people who co-existed with the English born founding fathers gradually became aware that the “freedom of speech” required a freedom of language. And so, the resistance to the assumed legislation of the “English Only” laws quietly started. Either it was intentionally silenced or the lack of numbers failed to voice it out.
On the other side of the fence, the defense of bilingual everything is not only cumbersome but also costly. A 10-page manual will now be a 20-page book. A 20-minute speech is suddenly a 40-minute homily. And an ordinary dialogue between two people will now require a third person who is normally the interpreter. School districts will have the handicap of lacking multi-lingual teachers. Billboards will have to occupy more space to accommodate a second or a third language to convey its message.
Although the sons of England shaped United States of America when they sought independence because of foreign birth, we know that there were other people in the United States who did not have a trace of Old England in their blood. Either the founding fathers included them in their constitution or they were never made Americans from day one. If the former was true, and if English was not their language, then they were wronged. But if the latter is true, and if English was still not their language, then they are not legally obliged to observe it as the only language.
Perhaps, the imposition of English or any other single language whatsoever is not the determinate solution to this uniquely American conflict. The forceful imposition of any language seems to run contrary against the “freedom of speech”. The key word is imposition. Language and its expression are germane to any group or groups of people that cannot be subjected to the laws of the dominant few. It cannot be imposed. As such, a government that forces any language to each and every citizen is will normally be perceived as tyrannical. In the United States, it will run against the grains of democracy.
So maybe the solution is not on the imposition, but on the recognition that other languages could co-exist with English as part and parcel of an American official tongue. Maybe the attempt to understand people beyond the phonetic symbols of a word is a better alternative than obliging others to adapt to an official sound. Perhaps the spirit of comprehending others above what they say would be much better than shutting off our ears because we hear foreign words.
Going back to my original premise, is Filipino Tagalog or is Tagalog the only Filipino language? If those who speak Cebuano, Hiligaynon, and Ilocano are from the Philippines, will it not follow that what they speak is also Filipino?
Aling Iska does not want to answer the phone. She feels uncomfortable responding to any statistical interviews, solicitations or what not. She understands English but does not have the confidence to speak it. Without being informed of other means, she keeps mum and isolated from the rest of the world.
Aling Iska is a paradigm of many other immigrants. Like her, they descended from the same immigrants who lived in the era of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Woodrow Wilson and others. Their only flaw is that not all of them were “born with English imprinted in their tongues”. Currently, they are being pressured not to use their own in places enforced by law. The dominant minority brewed this weird legislative concoction. And the struggle continues.
The politics of language succeeds on par with the maturity of the majority. Learning another language is not easy and the politics attached to it is not either. As a true public servant is liked not because of the language he uses, but because of a heart that understands, America will be greater when it does not succumb to the singular tongue of the few but when it opens itself to learn more about other tongues spoken right at home.
The translation and interpretaion of Tagalog should not be eliminated with a false assumption that most Filipinos speak English. There are those who don’t. As long as there is a need to establish a mutual understanding, even if that need is more minor than a minority, an interpreter is a necessity. Translation is a must. It is a basic tenet of justice. And oftentimes, it is a common principle of common sense.
Robert D. King, a professor from University of Texas said: “We have known race riots, draft riots, labor violence, secession, antiwar protest, and a whiskey rebellion, but one kind of trouble we’ve never had: a language riot. Language riot? It sounds like a joke. The very idea of language as a political force – as something that might threaten to split a country wide apart – is alien to our way of thinking and to our cultural traditions.” I hope it never comes to this.