What are the Pros and Cons of a bilingual society?

[Kontiki]

Bilingualism in and of itself is not bad, but IMO it doesn't make too much sense unless the demographics are right. For example, Canada today really needn't be bilingual given that there is a great degree of concentration and a small and ever-shrinking percentage (>25%) that speak French as a first language. Over at least 75% of our landmass, having dual-language signs, government employees, etc. are pretty useless.

Still, I don't think that we should abandon bilingualism simply because A) it is deeply rooted in our country, B) it doesn't do any real harm and C) it's always good to learn another language, and this way we have a built in excuse.

[Tuberski]

That reminds me of the movie Canadian Bacon. Where the Americans go into Canada with signs that say Canada sucks and such.

They get pulled over because they didn't write the slogans in French as well.

Funniest part of the movie.

ACK!

[Agathon]

Pro: I get tired of hearing women in passion yelling "Agathon, YES YES" so I don't mind if they say "OUI OUI" instead.

Con: I don't speak French and communicating by hand signals is both socially obvious and embarrassing.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't really think of any pros to a bilingual society. The only reason to have one is if demographics force it upon you...

That's the old "Melting Pot" theory, which seems to be a bit outdated by now.

It isn't outdated at all.

[Asher]

It's a total, complete, and annoying waste of money.

Rather than having lots of detailed nutrient/diet details on Canadian food products, we've got dual-labels -- one in English, one in French.

And in Alberta, less than 5% of Albertans speak French natively (about 3 times that speak some Chinese dialect natively, but that doesn't matter in Canada).

It's ridiculous.

[Spiffor]

I thought the US was now going along the "American Salad" lines, i.e a territory where distinct communities live together and interact, but do not melt.
At least, that'w what I understood from the acknowledgment of the existence of separate communities, hate crimes etc.

[Frogman]

Teaching language in school is ok but it really doesn't accomplish that much. People in the US don't learn other languages because its just so rare that we get to use a second language often enough to be fluent. The only exception is kids who are born into bilingual homes, especially homes where english is the second language. Still, it doesn't take that many generations before the old language gets lost. My great grandmother only spoke italian and she lived in NY for 75 years (lived to 108) Her great grandkids don't speak but a couple words of Italian.

My mom is irish, gaelic was her first language, now you go to Ireland and you can't find a gaelic speaking area.

English is the language of the internet as evidenced by this board. The whole world is required to learn english as a second language and it has become the universal language.

Of course the world would be a much less interesting place if we all spoke the same language and the loss of culture would be tragic but we are losing languages everyday. The trend is for fewer not more living languages. With the influx of primarily spanish speaking immigrants into the US, spanish will be strong, but the trend will be for it to diminish if new immigrants stop coming in.

Montreal is interesting, the French are fighting hard to maintain control. Some of the laws about what language appears on signs and the size of the typeface is humerous until you realize that without constant effort, Montreal would soon become a primarily english speaking city.

Learning a second language is great, but you better be sure one of the languages you know is english. I would be curious to see the shape of language in 500 years. My bet is that many languages will be gone.

[Drake Tungsten]

I thought the US was now going along the "American Salad" lines, i.e a territory where distinct communities live together and interact, but do not melt.

I don't think that the US conciously chose to abandon the "melting pot", but massive levels of immigration have made it hard to maintain. The "salad bowl" is definitely developing, but it's hard to think of it as a good thing...

[alva]

The trend is for fewer not more living languages.

If it's one thing history has shown, it is that trends come and go.
-

New languages are still created too, in 500 years (to take your example) english and american and australian could turn into something completely different.

[Frogman]

Alva, I doubt it. Geography means nothing now. Unless we get nuked back to the stone age, the world is too closely tied for languages to develop in isolation. TV, the internet, movies, ease of travel will do more to blend the languages than fracture them.

What new language gets created? None. The list of dead and dieing languages on the other hand is quite long.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I thought the US was now going along the "American Salad" lines, i.e a territory where distinct communities live together and interact, but do not melt.

I don't think that the US conciously chose to abandon the "melting pot", but massive levels of immigration have made it hard to maintain. The "salad bowl" is definitely developing, but it's hard to think of it as a good thing...

What massive levels of immigration? The immigration rate was much higher in the early 20th century.

[Drake Tungsten]

What massive levels of immigration? The immigration rate was much higher in the early 20th century.

Levels are higher today than they have ever been.

http://www.fairus.org/html/04129611.htm

[Kontiki]

The numbers are higher, but the rates are lower. According to your link, in 2001 there were about 1 million immigrant, or about 1/280th of the population. The rates were much higher in the early 20th century. Look at the years 1901-1914 - almost the same in pure numbers as 1989 - present, but with a much lower overall population.

[KrazyHorse]

That's in absolute numbers. The population of the US was much lower before, therefore the immigration rate was higher.

Absolute numbers have very little significance.

Is it more important to the people affected when 50 new people move into a town of 100 or when 5000 move into a metropolis of 10 million?

[Drake Tungsten]

That's in absolute numbers. The population of the US was much lower before, therefore the immigration rate was higher.

What's your point? You said that today's immigrations levels aren't "massive". I gave you a link showing that in absolute terms they are the highest in history. Even if you go by immigrants as a percentage of population, they are still huge. You are wrong...