The Language Of Communication /official Language

Political Philosophy
1

In a legal system based on Objectivist principles, would there be an official language that all people have a duty to learn? If there would be no duty to learn a particular language, would there nevertheless be an obligation on the citizen, when communicating with the government, to accommodate the government?

Suppose a husband and wife are planning to have children in the future. They decide that they will shelter their future children from harmful influences by not teaching the language of the society around them to their children. Instead, the husband and wife both learn some alternative language. For example, if they live in an English-speaking country, then they might both learn a language such as Danish or Arabic or they might both learn an artificial language such as Esperanto, or they might invent their own artificial language and learn that new language.

When the children reach adulthood and become independent citizens, they may need to communicate with their government. For example, one of them may become involved in a lawsuit and need to communicate with a court.

If the government is based on the principles of Objectivism, then who will be required to accommodate whom? Will the government get its own translator or will the citizen need to find a way to understand the government’s language and be required to provide a translation into the language that the government wants to use?

2

If the government is based on the principles of Objectivism, then who will be required to accommodate whom?

I’m not speaking as to the principles of Objectivism. That said, to me the logical answer would be there is no duty to know a language, and that in court proceedings the duty to provide a translator ought fall on the person or entity that initiates the proceedings. If the defendant loses, I don’t see any major problems with making him pay for the translator, but I’m open to discussion on that particular point.

They might invent their own language? Huh? What evidence do you have to suggest that as a possibility? I’m not talking about a family that has a few of its own words or phrases. You said “language.” Who, living in a society that has a government, which means there is already a language in place, invents an entire language? Nevermind computer codes and such. You were talking about language for everyday human communication.

3

In a legal system based on Objectivist principles, would there be an official language that all people have a duty to learn?

No.

4

In a legal system based on Objectivist principles, would there be an official language that all people have a duty to learn? If there would be no duty to learn a particular language, would there nevertheless be an obligation on the citizen, when communicating with the government, to accommodate the government?

…

Will the government get its own translator or will the citizen need to find a way to understand the government’s language and be required to provide a translation into the language that the government wants to use?

You could have picked a more plausible example – immigrants who stay in their community and do not make much effort to learn English.

A citizen has no duty to learn English. But neither is the government required to bend over backwards to communicate with people who fail to learn English. If a person is unable to assist in his defense due to linguistic deficiency, then the same principle would apply as if he were mentally deficient or insane (under a rational system, this would not work in his favor).

Although the citizen has no duty to learn English, it is clearly in his interest to do so as quickly as possible.

…  there is no duty to know a language, and that in court proceedings the duty to provide a translator ought fall on the person or entity that initiates the proceedings.

Right and wrong.

5

If a person is unable to assist in his defense due to linguistic deficiency, then the same principle would apply as if he were mentally deficient or insane (under a rational system, this would not work in his favor).

What?

6

In a criminal case, the court-supplied translators needed would be paid for by the loser of the trial.

In a civil case, the language will be specified by the original language of the contract between the two parties in dispute – if not by specific clause, then by the language the contract is written in. The government will not enforce contracts is has not specifically agreed to enforce, so it will probably have rules about what language(s) contracts may be written in, depending on what languages are available in its enforcement courts.

7

It would make sense to have an official language that all government notices and correspondence is filed in, however.

8

In a criminal case, the court-supplied translators needed would be paid for by the loser of the trial.

In a civil case, the language will be specified by the original language of the contract between the two parties in dispute – if not by specific clause, then by the language the contract is written in.  The government will not enforce contracts is has not specifically agreed to enforce, so it will probably have rules about what language(s) contracts may be written in, depending on what languages are available in its enforcement courts.

In both kinds of cases, there are two potential needs for a translator. One is so that the parties can comprehend the procedings, and the other is to render testimony comprehensible to the decision makers. The simplest case is the contract case: if the contract is written in English, no translation is needed because both parties understand English, and the trial is in English. On the other hand, if the contract is in Somali or Hmong, then the governmental courts should, as a matter of policy, decline to handle any such contract (to the best of my knowledge, that is the case in the US). In short, governments in the US should never enforce a contract except one written in English. Adjudication must instead be provided by an agreed-upon binding arbitrator, who will be selected because of their competence to adjudicate in that language (enforcement would then be in English, via a bilingual contract where the two versions are stipulated to be equivalent, and the enforcement is of the arbitration contract).

As for the question of translators in a criminal case, there aren’t any linguistic issues of statutory interpretation (unlike a Somali contract case). I’m somewhat sympathetic to assigning the cost of the trial to the guilty party, but I don’t see any reason to distinguish court translations from forensic costs or indeed the cost of paying the salaries of bailiffs, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and recorders. The reason for making the prosecution pay the whole cost of the trial is that is would (hopefully) reduce the number of improper prosecutions – only actually guilty people would be prosecuted, since there is a highly significant cost to false prosecution.

Why did I bring up the distinction “participant comprehending the trial” vs. “adjudicator comprehending the evidence”? Because it is mandatory under any legal system that the adjudicator fully comprehend the evidence, so it is essential that testimony given in Somali be translated – accurately – into English, so that the judge and jury can understand what the witness is saying. It is polite but not as important that the defendant have testimony given in English translated into Somali, f they only speak Somali. But all that is required is that his attorney be able to communicate the nature of any important testimony given at the trial to him. Thus the only obligatory translation is non-English into English, not Somali or Danish, and only for the sake of the court.

9

They might invent their own language?  Huh?  What evidence do you have to suggest that as a possibility? 

Do I need evidence? If I say “maybe A or B or C” and you establish beyond all doubt that C is impossible, then you will have simply shown that “maybe A or B or C” is equivalent to “maybe A or B.”

I’m not talking about a family that has a few of its own words or phrases.  You said “language.”  […]  Nevermind computer codes and such.  You were talking about language for everyday human communication.

Yes, we are talking about language for everyday human communication.

Who, living in a society that has a government, which means there is already a language in place, invents an entire language?

The inability to say who does a certain thing does not constitute proof that no one does that thing.

10

The inability to say who does a certain thing does not constitute proof that no one does that thing.

You should become more familiar with Objectivist epistemology, or even non-Objectivist epistemology. The burden of proof lies on you. With no evidence for A, B or C, you cannot say “maybe A, B or C”. When you provide sufficient evidence for A, B and C, then we can address your evidence for “maybe A, B or C”. Unsupported arbitrary claims are not admissible in a valid argument. Hence a claim about someone doing something will not even be considered in a valid argument, if there is no evidence that it is the case.

11

wrong.

Why is it wrong?

I said that because of (1) the burden of proof, and (2) that I don’t think there is a duty to know a language.

In a criminal case, the state initiates the proceedings, and the defendant is presumed innocent. Making him provide his own translator seems tantamount to imposing a duty to know a language. Once he is proven guilty, I don’t have a problem with making him pay for the translator.

In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in most instances. And, again, I think making the defendant provide his own translator seems to impose a duty to know a language. Once the defendant is found liable, I don’t have a problem with making him pay for the translator.

If the plaintiff doesn’t know a language, however, I think he should pay for the translator, because I don’t think it’s right to impose that cost on the defendant before he is found liable. Again, it’s a burden of proof thing.

If you’re just going to respond with “wrong” again, I request that you not respond at all. If you’re going to offer arguments, I’m happy to hear them.

12

With no evidence for A, B or C, you cannot say “maybe A, B or C”.

Given some conceivable action, how could one find evidence that maybe, in the future, some people will perform that action?

The burden of proof lies on you.

What must I prove if I am merely asking questions about situations that might arise?

13

What must I prove if I am merely asking questions about situations that might arise?

That they might arise. Pigs can’t fly, so the situation cannot arise that pigs will fly; if you want to advance the position that pigs might fly, you’ve got a lot of science to overcome.

14

Given some conceivable action, how could one find evidence that maybe, in the future, some people will perform that action?

I think seeing whether it’s happened in the past is a good start. Then you look at the conditions under which it happened, etc., and the present conditions, and analyze.

Say, for example, one school administrator says to another: “We need to protect our students and staff from people coming in and being violent with guns and such.” “Why?” “Because schools have had such things happen in the past, and we’re concerned about our safety, so we should see what happened before and consider how we might feasibly prevent it.”

See if you can apply this to your claim that a couple planning to have children who want to shelter their children from harmful influences might go about that by inventing a new language. Keep in mind that you put this in the context of a legal system based on Objectivist principles, and that therefore, as would be true of any legal system, a language would exist already.

15

Consider the phrase “may or may not contain” in a list of ingredients on a food product. What does that mean to you? Is the manufacturer making a claim that requires proof?

16

Is the manufacturer making a claim that requires proof?

No, because the claim isn’t being made to prove that it’s true–it’s being made to put the consumer on notice. Those words have legally operative significance.

The truth consideration comes into play when the manufacturer is deciding whether to put the statement on the product at all. Would you, as a manufacturer, take time to consider whether you should put a “may contain nuts” warning on a sack of tomatoes?

Why consider warnings at all? Because certain things might be harmful to certain people. How can that be said? Because doctors and others know that people have reactions to certain things that are potentially dangerous. It’s not arbitrary, as a manufacturer, to ask whether you should put a warning on something. It would be ridiculous, however, to consider every possible warning for every product on an “it’s possible” theory.

17

What is all the fuss about?

“Dr. Esperanto” was the pseudonym of the inventor of Esperanto. If the person who was using the name “Dr. Esperanto” could invent a language, then what’s wrong with considering the possibility that maybe two people working together might create a language in the future?

The consideration of cases does not carry with it the claim that each case is an actual possibility. Given sentences p, q, and r, we can enumerate eight cases: (p and q and r) or (p and q and not r) or … Depending on the sentences, some of those cases may not arise as actual possibilities. So, after we enumerate the cases, we can cross out the ones that aren’t actual possibilities. Is there some reason that we should not enumerate the cases?

18

If the person who was using the name “Dr. Esperanto” could invent a language, then what’s wrong with considering the possibility that maybe two people working together might create a language in the future?

There isn’t any dispute over whether one or more people could sit down and write up a “grammar” of a fake language. That is an pathological condition already known to exist. This is different in important ways from the imaginary case you proposed, such that your case can’t happen. (There are other features of that case which suggest that the parents are egregiously violating the rights of the child, which we can leave aside for the moment).

The consideration of cases does not carry with it the claim that each case is an actual possibility. Given sentences p, q, and r, we can enumerate eight cases: (p and q and r) or (p and q and not r) or …  Depending on the sentences, some of those cases may not arise as actual possibilities.  So, after we enumerate the cases, we can cross out the ones that aren’t actual possibilities.  Is there some reason that we should not enumerate the cases?

Yes, if the atoms are not provably real and independent. You cannot meaningfully answer such a question about pure abstractions, because it depends on the content of p, q and r whether it is sane to consider the combinatorics of these elements. But if, for example, you know that p exists and so do q and r, and that “p&r” exists, as does “q|r”, then you do have a weak reason to think that “p|r” exists. If you know that “p|r” is a contradiction then of course is cannot possibly exist, so you don’t need to consider it. It is perfectly reasonably to write it down as a bookkeeping matter, to check off the things that you know are contradictory, versus the things where you just plain have no information.

19

What is all the fuss about?

A response like “What is all the fuss about?” for starters.

20

If a person is unable to assist in his defense due to linguistic deficiency, then the same principle would apply as if he were mentally deficient or insane (under a rational system, this would not work in his favor).

What?

It would be immoral (altruistic) to give a criminal defendant preferential treatment because he is ignorant, incompetent, or irrational. So in these cases, the defense attorney should have a choice of either proceeding without the defendant’s help or asking for a delay until the defendant is able to help (provided the delay is not too long). During such a delay, the defendant would treated as if he were guilty, i.e. incarcerated (with credit for time served).

Making [a criminal defendant] provide his own translator seems tantamount to imposing a duty to know a language. Once he is proven guilty, I don’t have a problem with making him pay for the translator.

It is not tantamount to a duty because one is not penalized merely for not knowing a language nor for failing to try to learn it.

But to require the State to provide translation is unreasonable when the State did not create the linguistic deficiency. And the degree of difficulty could increase without any foreseeable limit, if the native language of the defendant is sufficiently obscure.

Requiring payment after the fact is not likely to be sufficient, since many defendants will not be able to pay.

“Dr. Esperanto” was the pseudonym of the inventor of Esperanto.

The identity of the person who created Esperanto is not a secret. He was Dr. Ludovic Lazarus Zamenhof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._L._Zamenhof