I suspect allen totally missed your sarcasm, and concluded that you were advocating for a point of view that you were actually decrying.

All those only demonstrate that in principle multilingualism *can* be handled. The question is whether there is an inherent benefit in widespread multilingualism. Cultural warriors will argue either way, depending on where they come from. Others will argue “globalization” but that seems of limited appeal despite the hype. Single language seems important to bind together large societies. See, for example, Germany, France, China, or even the old Soviet Union or British Empire. Where it doesn’t exist, internal dissent seems uncomfortably present — look at India, Spain, or even the tiny Belgium.

I would simply say that we are blessed that we do have effectively a single language in the US, which even more blessedly (although not incidentally) is becoming a global language. Rather than agonize about it we should take advantage of it, as it ought to make everything from education to voting more straightforward. This should not imply that we should not encourage everyone to learn more languages, but I see it no different from encouraging everyone to learn more arts, music, and science — all are hallmarks of educated citizens, but no single one is particularly critical to the success of our society.

So can anyone please explain to me clearly what is the inherent advantage of working so hard to have a successful bi (or multi) lingual society rather than working a bit less hard to have a successful English speaking one?

I live in a large Southwestern-US city with a sizeable population of residents whose native language is Spanish. Frequently the local TV or newspaper will interview someone who has lived in this city for 10-20 years and who requires an interpreter to translate from Spanish because s/he doesn’t speak any English.

On the other hand, I work in a company of ~300 employees, many of whom hail from countries other than the US. Our offical company literature used to say our employees speak about 30 different languages, but I’m sure it’s far more than that now. A number of these employees are well-educated Mexicans with technical degrees from a prestigious university in Mexico. At the annual children’s holiday party, one of my younger coworkers picked up the giveaway book for her little sister, who lives with their parents in Mexico. Little sister was 6 at the time — and already reading English.

If children in Mexico can learn to read English, why is there a problem in the US?

Apropos, sort of, the Real Academia Española has just this week published the offical Spanish grammar that’s been in the works for years. Google “Nueva gramática de la lengua española”.

They didn’t learn all those languages to broaden their horizons but because of hard necessity.

It’s mostly the improbably wealthy – that would be most Americans by the standards of the last handful of decades – who could indulge the luxury of learning languages for no more reason then to broaden their cultural horizons. If that appeals to you then knock yourself out. If you think it’s a good idea in general then save your rationales for more a more receptive audience because I know that multilingualism extracts a cost that isn’t generally seen as worthwhile. That’s why where the necessity for multilingulism doesn’t exist the facility withers.

The monolingulism of most Americans, seen as deplorable by some, I see as that “level playing field” so beloved by devotees of a social justice they seek to impose by the judicious application of social injustice.