ON 1 MARCH 2025, president Donald Trump made English the official language of the United States by an executive order. This is a significant step in the history of the country from linguistic as well as sociopolitical perspectives. However, the decision has much less to do with the English language itself and more to do with other languages, their speakers, and institutions.
In this sense, the new policy is symbolic, which is also an ideological exercise. It is language politics in the costume of language policy.
In language policy and planning terms, giving the new status to English is called status planning. Such planning presents a societal perspective that is external to the language. The executive order is an example of de jure policy as opposed to de facto policy. English was an official language of the US in practice; now it is going to be so in a legal sense too. Previously, the status of English was implicit and unwritten; now it is written and explicit.
A comparable example can be found in the language policy of the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. English was practically the only working language of this intergovernmental organisation since its founding in 1967. This status of English was written nowhere. However, it changed in 2008 when the ASEAN Charter was adopted, making English the official language of the regional organisation. Thus, the de facto policy was changed into a de jure policy.
The ASEAN language policy has had flow-on effects on member countries. Although language questions are left with the organisation鈥檚 individual member states, there is an implicit pressure on them to revamp their English language capacity. Bangladesh will come under this English policy regime if its wish to join ASEAN becomes a reality.
Returning to Trump鈥檚 context, language posed a critical question for the founding fathers of America. English was not exactly a default choice for the new nation at independence. This is because they thought that it was the language of (British) monarchy, which wouldn鈥檛 be suitable for a liberal democracy that America was turned into.
Therefore, there were suggestions for adopting languages other than English, such as Hebrew, Greek, or French. Some controversial accounts say that German was given close consideration. Ultimately, however, they made a more practical decision in favour of English.
The choice of English was not compromising democratic ideals. The spirit of democracy was infused by Americanising British English 鈥� or reinventing it as an American language. This language engineering turned English into a tool for democracy from a medium of monarchy. Noah Webster鈥檚 (1758-1843) first dictionary of American English addressed this political imperative with his dictionary-making or corpus planning innovation.
A dictionary is needed for standardising language, which is essential for communication. This lexicon is not just a collection of words; more importantly, it is a legitimate record of the societal consensus about the meanings of the words. Words don鈥檛 have their meanings written on their skin; meanings are attributed to them externally following social agreement. Most words in a language have multiple meanings. These meanings are never static, as words may lose old meanings and embrace new ones. Dictionaries help to meet all these key functions of language and communication.
However, a dictionary is also a marker of identity. For example, American or Australian identity will be unthinkable without an American or Australian English dictionary, respectively. A scholar by the name of John Edwards argues that matters of identity 鈥� rather than communicative utility 鈥� are at the centre of language policymaking.
Although English didn鈥檛 have the official status, it was practically the only official language for the US all the while. President Franklin Roosevelt is noted to have said the following about the US: 鈥榃e have room for but one flag, the American flag鈥e have room for but one language 听听 here, and that is the English language鈥� and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that 听听 is a loyalty to the American people鈥�. 听听听听听听听听听
This is a cardinal expression of the nationalist ideology, which aligns one language, one people, and one land. The American flag is a symbol of this ideology, of which English is a central pillar.
The nationalist ideology has been maintained by language practices in politics and mainstream media. It鈥檚 rare to hear a language other than English coming out of the mouths of American politicians. In fact, they may not speak another language in public even if they have the proficiency to do so. This is because speaking a foreign language publicly might be seen as a betrayal of nationalism and the purity of the imagined language ecology.
The renowned Australian language educator Joseph Lo Bianco reported an interesting incident in one of his 2014 publications. In 2013, Massachusetts senator John Kerry replaced senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. At his first press conference in Washington DC, he was invited to add 鈥榓 little French鈥� to his reply in English to a reporter鈥檚 question. Kerry refused to do so, even if he could speak French. Lo Bianco observed that politicians鈥� 鈥榩ublic display of 鈥榝oreign鈥� language competence can occasionally imply identities of entirely the wrong kind.鈥� In other words, it might have been considered un-American to speak a foreign language by Kerry at the press conference.
But we may wonder what difference Trump鈥檚 executive order can make to the already dominant English in American society. The answer is: maybe not much.
However, when one language is made official, it sends clear messages to other languages, their speakers, and relevant institutions. Spanish and other languages, including the indigenous ones, could be devalued in the new linguistic regime. Public services, including education in other languages and their providers, are likely to be affected. Most probably, immigration will be regulated by using English proficiency as a gatekeeping tool.
Therefore, the order is more about social and political issues such as reducing costs and preventing 鈥榠llegal鈥� immigration. It also speaks to Trump鈥檚 America First, which may imply English First. It is a reminder that American identity is defined by English, not by other languages.
Making English official may also be a way of doing something about the global spread of Chinese, at least ideologically. The US has been waging war against China on many fronts. Language can be considered one, as the rise of China is leading the global spread of Chinese. Unlike the initial spread of English, Chinese does not have an imperial infrastructure for its spread. Nonetheless, it is spreading in developing as well as developed countries, including the English-speaking ones. The global planting of Confucius Institutes (renamed Centre for Language Education and Cooperation) is considered an institutional strategy for spreading the Chinese language. There have been many criticisms of these institutes and their activities in different parts of the world, including in the US. A government that champions revitalising America is likely to do something about foreign languages in general and Chinese in particular. Falling back on English may be an ideological rationale for dealing with language and non-language questions.
Declaring English the US鈥檚 official language is an ideological act. It鈥檚 unlikely to make a big difference to the use of English in America. However, its new status will probably have implications for other issues at home and abroad.
听
Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. He researches language, education, and society in the developing world.听
