language as power: a linguistic critique of u.s. english

Language as Power: A Linguistic Critique of U.S. ENGLISH LEE THOMAS University @Nevada, Reno /098 Reno, NV 89557 Email: thomas@unxedu

Legislating restrictive language laws is not a new phenomenon; however, in the U.S., our history of such macrolevel language planning has been limited and relatively uninformed by language policy and planning research concerning the role that language legislation plays in any society. The current agenda of an organization called U.S. ENGLISH, promoting the legislation of English as the official language of the US., deserves the attention of all language teaching professionals as not only a thought-provoking example of hegemonic language planning, but one which, if approved, will affect our professional lives as well as the balance of power in the country. History indicates that restricting language rights can be divisive and can lead to segregationist tendencies in a society. At the same time, such legislation rarely results in a unified society speaking solely the mandated language (s). This article presents a critical documentary analysis of the complex issues at stake in the debate on the role of language legislation in the US.

The mission of U.S. ENGLISH is to preserve our common bond by making English the official language of government in the United States and by promoting opportunities for people living here to learn English ( U S ENGLISH, 1995a).

CURRENTLY, A NUMBER OF POLITICALLY active organizations are concerned about the status of the English language in the US.' The documents of one organization, U.S. ENGLISH, provide the basis for an analysis of the types of claims asserted by such groups. US. ENGLISH is advocating state and federal level legislation to declare constitutionally English as the official language of states and ultimately the country. Already, 18 states have passed such legislation.* In addition, Robert A. Simms of U.S. ENGLISH claims that its ". . . federal Official Language of Government Act, H.R. 123 has 179 co-sponsors which is more than seventy-five percent of the Representatives needed to en- sure passage" (Simms, 1995). Presidential con- tender Bob Dole has added his support to this legislation.

The assertions and conclusions of US. ENG-

The Modern Language Journal, 80, ii (1996)

"1996 The Modern Lanewwe Iournal 0026-7902/96/129-140 $1.50/0

LISH and state affiliate groups deserve the serious attention of language scholars. These propositions require careful consideration in light of what is known and documented in the language planning and policy literature as well as other cognate areas. This body of research creates a framework within which the U.S. ENGLISH agenda can most usefully be inter- preted from the perspective of the linguist.

I will present for investigation individual claims from U.S. ENGLISH documents and communications, as well as information ema- nating from one state level organization, Arizo- nans for Official English. This state organization was successful in its campaign to change the Arizona state constitution with an amendment similar to H.R. 123. It was subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as a result of arguments presented in Ynigua u. Arizonans for Official English (1994). The findings and viewpoints expressed in this particular case are representative of the thought of differing parties on the concept of Official English.

In this article, I will review relevant linguistic research that relates to the major issues of the debate, allowing a perspective from which a critical assessment of this movement may be developed.

130

THE LEGAL STATUS OF ENGLISH IN THE U.S.: A BRIEF HISTORY

Like many Americans, perhaps you were shocked to learn that English is not the official language of the United States.

Similarly, you probably were not aware that there are pm!aticians and lobbyrrts back in Washington, D.C. who want to keep things that way (Mujica, Chair- man of the Board, U.S. ENGLISH, 1995).

An official language may be defined as “a language which is legally prescribed as the language of governmental operations of a given nation” (Ferguson & Heath, 1981, p. 531). When the Constitution of the U.S. was drawn up, the issue of an official language was not neglected; it was the considered decision of the founders of this nation to take a tolerant stand on language. The founders identified the prescrip- tion of an official language with the monarchical approach to government such as they observed in Europe, specifically in France and Spain. It was not in the interest of a democracy to function in this manner (Heath, 1992).

The Continental Congress agreed that communications would be made in any languages that would help in the dissemination of information and lead to the legitimization of the emerging political system. Documents were is- sued in French and German in addition to English. The emphasis on the sharing of information and education for all people was by far a greater priority than mandating language use. Heath (1992) cites the words of Benjamin Rush, a member of the Continental Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence, in his summation of the views of many of his con; temporaries concerning a society with restrictive language and educational policies.

Wherever learning is confined to msociety, or to a feul men, the government of that country will always be an uristomq, whether the prevailing party be composed of rich or poor. It is by diffusing learning that we shall destroy aristocratic juntos of all parties, and establish a true commonwealth (pp. 24- 25).

Rush and his colleagues recognized that restricting language rights limits access to information, education, and to the political and economic advantages a society may offer.

Heath’s (1992) conclusion of the majority opinion at that time reflects the concern for national unity.

Recognizing that forces which cause one to change his language or add to it must be internally moti- vated, leaders reasoned that linguistic minorities

The M o d a Language J w d 80 (1996)

would not become separate and distinct peoples within the nation so long as no legal force pro- scribed the use of their languages (p. 20).

Essentially, the founders of the nation made the decision to align national unity with educational and socioeconomic access rather than to appeal to the one nation, one language princi- ple of building national unity such as U.S. ENGLISH appears to do. Moreover, they saw limiting language use as promoting separatism.

English has become the “national language” of the U.S. in that people residing in the U.S. recognize it as the common language in use in the country. Such recognition of a “national language” suggests tolerance for multilingualism, but not affirmative rights of minorities to receive services in other languages. This status, however, does not restrict governmental en- tities from the use of other languages in promoting the efficiency of their operations.

LANGUAGE AND NATIONAL UNITY

Clearly, a common language will unite America, not divide her (Mujica, US. ENGLISH, 1995).

Sociolinguists and history affirm that language both unites and divides. Fishman’s (1972) concepts of “nationality” and “nation” provide a fundamental frame within which unity may be explored. For the sake of our investigation let us consider the following aspects of Fishman’s (1972) constructs. Nationalities are “. . . sociocultural units that have developed beyond primarily local self-concepts, concerns, and inte- grative bonds” (p. 3). A “nationality” is not necessarily equal to an “ethnic group”; that is, members of a particular ethnic group may identify themselves with different “nationalities,” groups that share a common history, religion, or other cultural characteristics. Or members of various ethnic groups may identify with one nationality. Nationalities do not require autono- mous territory.

A “nation” Fishman defines as “. . . any political-territorial unit which is largely or increasingly under the control of a particular nationality’’ (Fishman, 1972, p. 5). He associates “nation” with the pragmatic aspects of governing such as administration and education.

So, in using this model, it appears that the unification of the U.S. must encompass two aspects, a smooth running government (nation) and people who identify themselves with the primary nationality, American. In such terms, then, nation-building is inextricably bound with nationality-building. If members of different so-

LRe Thomas

ciocultural groups increasingly feel that they are simultaneously members of the dominant nationality group (American) and members of additional identifiable sociocultural groups (e.g., Catholics, Chicanos, women), the result is a growing sense of unification, or, as Fishman’s model suggests, an increasing movement toward the multiethnic nation. Interestingly, his concept of unity building is strongly consistent with that of the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

What role does language play in this? Clearly, the nation running, or administrative, aspects require strong communication among members of the government as well as in governmental interactions with the members of the nation. At first glance, it appears reasonable to require all interactions to be in a common language to facilitate the smooth operation of the administration of a nation. And for the vast majority of the population in the U.S. such a proposed re- quirement would never be noticed. Yet, in requiring all interactions to be in English, a sig- nificant number of the members of the nation would not be able to give or receive communications that are vital to the operation of government in a democracy. Educational opportunities and information exchange would be diminished for non-English speakers. Some members of the nation would be, blocked from participating in governmental decisions that affect their lives, resulting in “democracy for some,” not all.

Disenfranchisement from “nation” activities cannot lead to nationality-building in the sense of an “American” nationality; in theory, it must lead to contrastive identification. Members of the nation who are restricted from participa- tion may seek identification with other dislo- cated members. Language in this case becomes a disunifying factor: one language for the nation which excludes members who do not control the selected language. Then if the numbers warrant, another unifying language may evolve for use by the disenfranchised members to pur- sue separate nationality-building activities. Thus, tolerant language policies unite and promote nationality-building through inclusiveness in nationism, and restrictive language policies divide.

Historically, the vast majority of immigrants to the U.S. have become monolingual English speakers within two to three generations after arrival here, without language legislation (Fish- man, 1992). It appears that a steady move on the part of immigrants has been toward nationality- and nation-building. Yet, the call for unity

131

through language legislation by U.S. ENGLISH leads one to believe that there is a threatening language problem, or conflict, at hand.

It can be observed that what is often described as “language conflict” is, in fact, a conflict in the allocation of resources and general accessibility to socioeconomic well-being in a society. When social mobility of an identifiable group is blocked and opportunity equal with other groups is denied over a substantial period of time, history shows us that political conflict will occur. This conflict is not over multilingualism, but socioeconomic mobility. What we also clearly see is that when language rights become involved, usually as a simplistic target for iden- tifying dominant and subordinate groups, the nation will be prone to open violence and segregationist tendencies. Thus, the restriction of language rights is a far greater threat to the stability and unity of a nation and of the major nationality than a policy of linguistic tolerance (Fishman, 1986; Inglehart & Woodward, 1967; Tollefson, 1991). Let us explore how this doc- trine may or may not work in practice.

Today, U.S. ENGLISH literature uses a monolingual societal perspective to appeal to the fear that multilingualism is disunifying, as in Can- ada and the Balkan states. Additionally, members of the nation who are not monolingual English speakers may be seen as “unAmerican” and disloyal to the nation (U.S. ENGLISH, 1995b). The suggestion is then made that immigrants, wishing to remain separate, are not mo- tivated to learn English, and this is a threat to the nation (U.S. ENGLISH, 1995b). Canada and the former Yugoslavia as well as other countries provide examples of the type of language conflict that U.S. ENGLISH consistently misin- terprets (U.S. ENGLISH, 1995~).

The Cunudian Example

Canada was formed as a binational state, the result of political compromise between the Catholic francophones and the Protest an- glophones. Language rights of both English and French speakers were constitutionally protected. When conflict over resources has oc- curred, such as the revolt of the Western MCtis in 1885, or when the francophone population has experienced a sense of marginalization or lack of equal economic opportunities such as in the 1960s and 19709, language policy has been blamed as a disunifying factor. The present separatist movement in Quebec is no different. Language has served the purpose of scapegoat

132

in lieu of the examination of the complex social dynamics that have led to the political and economic conflict.

In these cases, when French language rights were restricted or threatened, national crisis ensued. Canadian Joseph Magnet (1990), in re- viewing the history of Canada’s linguistic policy, concludes:

The Canadian experience is clear: Restricting language rights results in widespread, uncontrollable social and political conflict. . . . Separatism and political pathology grow in proportion as Canadian governments fail to deal with linguistic minorities generously and intelligently. It is the refusal to re- spect linguistic differences which leads to political difficulties in Canada, not the other way around (pp. 55-56).

The facts of the Canadian experience represent a counterexample to the U.S. ENGLISH argument. Restricting language rights creates di- visiveness, not unity.

The Modenz Language Journal 80 (1996)

tion of Slovenia’s guarantee of Slovenian language rights (Tollefson, 1991).

Since 1988, the Serbs have consistently com- promised and restricted language rights in their attempt to gain control of the political and economic future of the region. Essentially, restricting language rights, among other gross hegemonic moves, has led to various nationality groups being stripped of their ability to participate in the governing of their own regions.

What can we learn from this situation? Tollef- son concludes:

. . . [an] implication of the Yugoslav experience is that hegemonic policies may not bring the stability which dominant groups desire. Indeed, the effort by one language group to seek hegemony may con- tain within it the seeds of a cycle of resistance and repression. Hegemonic policies make compromise increasingly difficult and polarization increasingly extreme. The resulting struggle is not ‘ethnic conflict’ grounded in linguistic or cultural differences, but rather a conflict over power and policy resulting from the effort of one group to establish hegemony over others (Tollefson, 1991, pp. 197-198).

Again, we must interpret the U.S. ENGLISH ref- erence to the former Yugoslavia as a counterexample to its position. Once more, the restriction of language rights, which is what the organization seeks for the U.S., contributes to disunification and political breakdown, not the opposite as it is depicted in the campaign suggesting official English will create national unity.

The dynamics in the two examples that I have explored are not unique in multilingual societies; they are the norm. In the period of the great nation-states of Europe, the Austro- Hungarian Empire was significantly affected by linguistic hegemony and ensuing separatism. The “Magyarization” of Hungary during the nineteenth century led to the disenfranchisement of roughly 48% of the population who were members of other nationalities and language groups: Slovaks, Croatians, and Roma- nians. In reaction to the Magyar language policy and other hegemonic moves, the Croatian population began to develop a strong group identity. Similarly, in Bohemia, an 1897 decree declaring Czech the language of law and the courts led to conflict with German speakers who lived in the region and opposed learning Czech. Throughout the empire, separatist movements grew and ultimately led to the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (In- glehart & Woodward, 1967).

Linguistic differences in the above cases did

The Yugoslavian Example

The former Yugoslavia is also used as an example by U.S. ENGLISH. The history of the former Yugoslavia is complex; for the past 30 years, the different nationality groups comprising the various states were afforded strongly protected linguistic rights for the five major languages spoken in Yugoslavia. Prior to the Velvet Revolu- tion, a decentralized system of government sup- ported the autonomy of the states and their ability to provide linguistic rights for their populations. For years, the states have experienced unequal economic development as in the Cana- dian example. This disproportionate access to resources as well as to the political future plays a major role in the current crisis in the region, including the Bosnian conflict (Tollefson, 1991).

Very simply summarized, what we are witness- ing today is a conflict in which the Serbs, one of six nationality groups, are attempting to gain political dominance over the states that com- prised the former Yugoslavia and form a cen- tralized federation. They have shifted the rhetoric of aggression from a focus on economic and political issues to a politics of nationalism. Lan- guage rights have played a key role in signifying the Serbian intent since their initial denial of the language rights of Slovenians in a court case in 1988. In this military trial in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, Serb military officials conducted a trial in Serbo-Croatian in direct viola-

Lee Thomas

not singularly cause the disintegration of the nation-state. As Masaryk noted in 1907, “The national question is not only the language question. It is at the same time an economic and social question . . .” (cited in Inglehart & Wood- ward, p. 36). In Fishman’s 1986 study of 62 multilingual countries, he concluded that “. . . tolerance and generosity towards linguistic minorities promotes good majority-minority relations and leads to a stable polity; attacking a minority’s ability to use its own language results in social pathology, uncontrollable political conflict, and widespread difficulties” (cited in Magnet, 1990, p. 56).

133

ony. Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico was ac- quired by the U.S. during the Spanish-Ameri- can War, and since 1952 it has been affiliated with the U.S. as a “free associated state” (estado libre asociado). Language policies have varied somewhat over the past almost 100 years as different approaches were taken to force the population to become English speaking. For example, language policies in the schools were designed to produce English-speaking students who were loyal to the U.S., and initially, all instruction was in English, provided primarily by teachers from the U.S. By 1925, the schools pro- duced an 80% dropout rate of students who failed in both English and Spanish (Zentella, 1981). Yet, English as the medium of instruction continued to dominate until 1948 when a period of growing political unrest took hold.

Amidst increasing resistance to English and U.S. domination, the teaching of Spanish be- came law in 1952. Since that time, the relation- ship of English and Spanish in the schools and the society has reflected the ambivalence often seen in colonial settings. English is seen as the prestige language associated with power, and those who can afford the often private education with high quality English instruction benefit as their linguistic ability affords them further access to the economically and politically elite stratum of society. Those who cannot afford such an education tend to gain limited proficiency in English and limited economic mobility. Resentment of the colonial language re- mains a factor that contributes to ambiguity in language policies. Puerto Rico continues to be in this dilemma today with recent statistics showing that only slightly over 50% of the population speak English (level of proficiency not available) (Zentella, 1981).

Consider the history of the English language in Britain. In this case, there was no directed official move to control language use; however, subsequent to the Norman invasion of 1066, French and Latin were the languages of the court, the upper classes, law, and administration. Indeed, there were many years in which no documents whatsoever were recorded in the English language. Yet, after 300 years, English reemerged and increased rapidly in vitality to become a major world language (Baugh & Ca- ble, 1993).

Finally, what about efforts of governments to revitalize a language? Even with extensive support and encouragement by the government of Ireland to foster the growth of the Irish language, it appears that the last generation of

COERCION AND LINGUISTIC OUTCOMES

The objectives of U.S. ENGLISH are to promote: . . . English proficiency as a national priority. . . (U.S. ENGLISH, 1995a).

Beyond the above discussion of restriction of language rights and the disunifying political impact of such efforts, we must ask: Is the coerc- ing of populations through government action to speak a particular language effective? The answer from a historical perspective is a re- sounding NO. In his 1990 testimony before the California legislature on proposition 63, Nun- berg eloquently summarized what linguists have learned about the process of language shift. He noted that people learn a language when it has economic and social advantages to them; people do not learn a language because they are forced to, nor do they cease using a language when mandated to do so. He cited the following examples which are well known in the language literature.

Franco banned the use of Catalan in Spain for 40 years. When he died, there were more speakers of Catalan than before he enacted the ban. The Polish language was not acknowledged for 200 years, and after World War I, an entire nation emerged speaking Polish. Hitler wished to wipe out Sorbian, a Slavic language spoken in Eastern Germany, and mandated various measures to make the population German speaking. At the end of World War 11, the number of Sorbian speakers had increased; however, when the Communists encouraged the use of Sorbian, the use of Sorbian fell off dramatically. The Sorbian speakers recognized the benefits of speaking German, but they had resented being coerced to speak it (Nunberg, 1990).

Closer to home, we have an example of forc- ing language use in a region through hegem-

134

Irish speakers may be the present one. The number of Irish speakers has dwindled dras- tically. In 1851 Irish was spoken fluently by prac- tically all of the Irish population; today no more than 2% to 3% make that claim (Hudson- Edwards, 1990; see also Fishman, 1991, for a review of similar cases).

The above examples lead to my conclusion that language use cannot be controlled by governments. Case after case points out that people choose to speak languages when there is a benefit to them for doing so; they simply cannot be forced to adopt a language for other reasons. Acquisition of a language is indeed often necessary to socioeconomic success in nations. The examples cited here, however, suggest that people tend to dig in their heels when they are forced to learn a language, especially when a language they already speak is diminished in its ability to be used to accomplish necessary com- municative acts. Language identity then may become a lightening rod in the group’s cultural and social identity when group members feel alienated from the nationality to which they wish to belong. Language loyalty then begins to play an increased political and emotional role in the situation.

The Mcnfmn Language Journal 80 (19%)

monolingualism in the U.S. be explained? “Bi- lingualism in the United States is seen as a tran- sitional stage into fully assimilated English monolingualism. Historically, it has been associated with low-income, low-status persons who are educationally at risk” (Hakuta, 1986, p. 7). Thus, it is not surprising that the rapidity in the loss of language diversity in the U.S. outranked 35 other nations in Liebeson, Dalt, and John- son’s 1975 study (cited in Hakuta, 1986) with the major percentage shift to monolingualism occurring in one generation. With the exception of self-isolating groups such as the Old Order Amish and the Yiddish-speaking Hasi- dim, ethnolinguistic minorities in the U.S. have been shown to lose their mother tongue by the second or third generation in this country (Veltman, 1983).

Fishman (1992) citing Heath’s (1985) work, argues that the Hispanic population of today presents no exception to this trend. He main- tains that Hispanics in some communities may require at most one additional generation in becoming primarily monolingual English speakers because a continual influx of monolingual Spanish speakers into the community extends the economic value of Spanish.

U.S. ENGLISH suggests an additional threat to the English language:

. . . citizens . . . filad a hwsuit in Arizona to ahlish the state Constitutional Amendment that has government workers, politicians and bureaucrats conduct- ing government business in English (Mujica, U.S. ENGLISH, 1995).

The Official English amendment Article XXVIII of the Arizona constitution (see Appen- dix) passed in 1988 by a 1% margin, claiming 51.5% affirmative votes (Ynigua v. Ariumans for Official English, 1994). This amendment represents one of the most restrictively worded state amendments to date. The intent is not merely a symbolic recognition of official English parallel to that of designating an official state bird; it is a prohibitory measure specifying that “all government officials and employees during the performance of government business . . . shall act in English and no other languages” (Article XXVIII, 1(3)(a) (iv), 3(1)(a)).

Several important facts and interpretations from Ynigua v. Arizonans for rncial Engkh, a case that challenged the constitutionality of Ari- zona’s official English amendment, demonstrate that English rights were in no way jeopar- dized as Mujica implies; it is other language rights that were at risk.

IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THREATENED?

Here’s how you can act-and prevent America from becoming some incomprehensible Tower of Babel . . . (Mujica, U.S. ENGLISH, 1995).

It is estimated that the number of people who “use” English in the world today, either as their first or as an additional language, is 1.5 billion. English is spoken on a regular basis in over 60 countries (Crystal, 1985). English is the primary vehicle for the storing and transmitting of information in the world today. Seventy-five percent of the world’s mail is in English and 80% of computer data is in English (Baron, 1990). Eighty-five percent of all information stored or abstracted worldwide is in English (Grabe & Kaplan, 1986).

In the US., 97-98% of the population speaks English. Ninety percent of children 5 to 17 years old speak on4 English and 89% of those over 18 speak only English. Between 1940 and 1960, census figures showed a 16% decrease in the number of speakers of other languages. Spanish speakers today represent no greater percentage of the population than did German speakers prior to World War I (Fishman, 1991).

How can this consistent trend toward English

Lee Thomas

Yniguez held that Article XXVIII prevented her from speaking Spanish with Spanish- speaking claimants whom she served in her state job. Presiding Judge Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as follows:

. . . Arizonans for Official English next contends, incorrectly, that Yniguez seeks an affirmative right to have government operations conducted in foreign tongues. . . . In the case before us, there is no claim of an affirmative right to compel the state to provide multilingual information, but instead only a claim of negative right: that the state cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, gag employees currently providing members of the public with information and thereby effectively preclude large numbers of persons from receiving information that they have previously received. . . . For while the state may not be under any obligation to prmnde multilingual services and information, it is an en- tirely different matter when it deliberately sets out to prohibit the languages customarily employed by public employees. . . . there is no contention that ‘harried taxpayers’ will be ‘saddled’ with additional costs, or that the state will be subjected to a ‘pat- ently unreasonable burden.’ All the state must do to comply with the Constitution in this case is to re- frain from terminating normal and cost-free services for reasons that are invidious, discriminatory, or, at the very least, wholly insufficient (Ynigua v.

Relevant to Fishman’s (1972) pragmatic needs supporting “ nationism,” the judge also ruled the following:

Article XXVIII obstructs the free flow of information and adversely affects the rights of many private persons by requiring the incomprehensible to re- place the intelligible. . . . Specifically, the facts of this case unequivocally establish that Yniguez’s use of Spanish in the course of her official duties con- tributed to the efficient and effective administration of the state (p. 1237).

Responding to the claim by Arizonans for Of- ficial English that its organization encourages state interests such as “. . . protecting democracy by encouraging ‘unity and political stability’; encouraging a common language; and protecting public confidence” (p. 1239), Reinhardt wrote:

. . . the state cannot achieve unity by prescribing orthodoxy. . . the provision at issue here ‘promotes’ English only by means of proscribing other languages and is, thus wholly coercive. Moreover, the goals of protecting democracy and encouraging unity and stability are at most indirectly related to the repressive means selected to achieve them. Next, the measure inhibits rather than advances the state’s interest in the efficient and effective performance of its duties. Finally, the direct effect of

A r L m r a ~ f i O#i& E w h , 1994, pp. 1232-1233).

135

the provision is not only to restrict the rights of all state and local government servants in Arizona, but also to severely impair the free speech interests of a portion of the populace they serve. . . . Article XXVIII must be held unconstitutional (p. 1241).

I have argued that statistics on English language use sufficiently demonstrate that English is not a threatened language in the U.S. In addition, the evidence presented in Ynigua u. A h - nans for Official Englash fails to demonstrate that the legal status of English is in jeopardy in Arizona.

THE U.S. ENGLISH AGENDA

The mission of U.S. ENGLISH is to preserve our common bond by making English the official language of government in the United States and by promoting opportunities for people living here to learn English (US. ENGLISH, 1995a).

Having explored the linguistic merits of the official English arguments and having found them uncompelling, I question what the socio- political ramifications of these arguments may be. Is there a hidden agenda here?

In his book, Language Loyalties: A Source Book MZ

the OffiicialEnglzsh Controversy (1992), James Craw- ford compiles a vast array of primary documents and opinions relevant to the Official English movement. He then argues that the motivation of the movement revolves around immigration reform. Following is a summary of the information that he presents (pp. 171-77).

U.S. ENGLISH was a project of US., Inc. during its start-up phase from 1983 until 1988. Like- wise, FAIR, the Federation for American Immi- gration Reform, was a project of U.S., Inc. Both projects were founded by John Tanton, an opthamologist from Michigan. Nunberg (1989) has noted that U.S. ENGLISH has attracted five times as many members as FAIR, suggesting that many people will support English-only measures while feeling uneasy about openly supporting immigration restriction.

U.S., Inc., a tax exempt organization, has made donations to the Center for Immigration Studies, Californians for Population Stabiliza- tion, and Americans for Border Control in addition to its support of U.S. ENGLISH and FAIR. Another major contributor to U.S. ENGLISH has been Mellon heiress, Cordelia Scaife May. She also has donated to the Immigration Re- form Law Institute, the Population-Environment Balance, the Immigration Political Action Com- mittee, and the English Language Political Ac- tion Committee, as well as financed the distri-

136

bution of a book, The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail. This book, in which the author describes Third World immigrants destroying Western civilization, was denounced as “racist, xenophobic, and paranoid” by Linda Chavez, who resigned as U.S. ENGLISH president along with board member Walter Cronkite when “anti-Hispanic’’ comments from Tanton were discovered in an internal memorandum.

During the past years, money raised by U.S. ENGLISH has funded English language legislative initiatives in several states, among them, Arizona, Colorado, and Florida. However, the organization does not appear to be generous in its political support or funding of programs that support the teaching of English. For example, it declined to support federal legislation which resulted in the English Literacy Grants Program approved by Congress in 1988. Follow- ing intense criticism, the organization contrib- uted less than 1% of its expenditures toward literacy grants.

Finally, a fact that apparently led to the resig- nation of Norman Cousins from the Board of U.S. ENGLISH in 1986: Statistics showed 40,000 people on waiting lists for English language instruction in Los Angeles. The information in Crawford’s source book (1992) demonstrates that U.S. ENGLISH is not serious about its stated mission of “. . . promoting opportunities for people living here to learn English” (US. ENGLISH, 1995a). Moreover, it suggests that the political agenda of the organization may be linked with immigration control. While the re- lationship of restrictive language legislation and immigration trends is not explicitly explored, Crawford’s portrayal of US. ENGLISH suggests that its campaign rhetoric may be more about creating anti-immigrant sentiment than about English language use.

The Modern Language Journal 80 (1996)

to the use of English and the hegemonic principles behind the promotion of English throughout the world by the U.K. and the U.S. Rather than accepting the limited concept of language as simply a “tool” separate from human experience, he builds on the philosophical argument that language is constitutive of reality (see also Cicourel, 1985; Foucault, 1972,1979). Language, he argues, is an imperialistic device, a part of cultural imperialism which shapes the thinking and values of the society: “. . . the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages” (p. 47). English, as the language of “modern” ideas and technology, reflects a set of values and beliefs that de- values other languages and results in what he terms “linguicism.” He notes “. . . the monolingual approach legitimates the ignoring of local languages and the cultural universe that these languages mediate” (p. 254).

The global dynamics of English in contact with other languages, which Phillipson (1992) critiques, are replicated in our country in the Official English movement as well as in educational policies. In many schools, it appears that foreign language education is still a low priority. Indeed, there remain many places where foreign language study is available primarily to the elite university-bound students. Too many Eng- lish as a Second Language and bilingual programs largely ignore maintenance of the first language, demonstrating a pervasive intolerance for languages other than English. English monolingualism becomes both the individual goal of immigrants as well as the societal expectation. Those who fail to gain adequate proficiency in the language not only fail in English, but they are also denied access to content education, which in turn excludes them from all but menial labor possibilities in our society.

The responsibility for this educational and economic failure is attributed-via the “deficit hypothesis” (Labov, 1969)-to the characteristics or lack of motivation of the individual student or to deficient family values. The “deficit hypothesis” does not hold society or the social structures that maintain an unequal balance of power accountable for the educational failure of students.

The institutional practice of placing responsibility for outcomes solely on individuals has become relatively standard in US. thinking. It represents what Fairclough (1989) describes as an unconsciously accepted delineation of

IDEOLOGICAL AND GLOBAL CONSIDERATIONS

Linguistic work is beginning to address problems of equity in U.S. education and society based on language proficiency, expanding the theoretical perspective in two ways. First, we are beginning to view the use of English within a global rather than simply a national context. Secondly, serious work concerning the ideological aspects of language and power in the educational system and in society at large is appear- ing throughout an increasingly broad spectrum of linguistic research.

Phillipson (1992) drew widespread attention

Lee Thomas

power relations: “Institutional practices which people draw upon without thinking often em- body assumptions which directly or indirectly legitimize existing power relations” (p. 33). Tollefson (1991) argues that language policies play a critical role in regulating which people will have access to the languages and information needed to be socially and economically mobile in today’s world. This in turn creates a kind of rationing which legitimates and main- tains an unequal division of power and resources in the society. Thus, language has become a mechanism of ideological control and a major factor in the exercise of power in post- colonial strategy. It is within this framework that the efforts of organizations such as U.S. ENG- LISH can best be understood.

Fishman (1994) adds a needed caveat to this ideological view by providing balance to neo- Marxist and poststructuralist criticism. While he accepts these views relative to language planning as valid and important, he makes the very necessary point that the pursuit of policies promoting one’s self-interest appears to be a part of human nature. So, such social criticism may perhaps raise a problem that is difficult to rem- edy in society: Are not all language groups, majority and minority, seeking power to promote their own self-interest? This dilemma deserves consideration in the Official English debate as we strive more consciously in language planning theory and practice to work toward the establishment of a more egalitarian society. It must also become evident that immigration control through language restriction is not only insidious, but probably quite ineffective.

137

instruction. I hope that this reauthorization can rise above this tired issue, so that we can turn our attention to more substantive problems-how to provide language minority students with an equal opportunity to learn challenging content and high level skills (p. 74).

Recent work in language pedagogy is beginning to incorporate an ideological awareness that addresses some of the above concerns (Auerbach, 1994; Faltis, 1993; Faltis & Hudel- son, 1994). The American monolingual orienta- tion in second language acquisition research is being questioned for its efficacy and realism in dealing with how most humans function in multilingual situations and societies (Kachru, 1994; Sridher, 1994). Given the fact that monolingual countries and monolingual people are the exception in the world, such impetus in our research agenda is promising.

Language policy and planning are always political. We need to accept this fact. Moreover, we need to develop clear ideological underpin- nings for any proposed language legislation in order to evaluate its consistency with the demo- cratic principles of the U.S.

OUR PROFESSIONAL IMPERATIVE

The research agenda in linguistics suggests that we have been constrained by a microlevel of inquiry. Our investigation of learner internal variables affecting individual motivation is not producing solutions to our society’s educational dilemmas. The very urgent debate over educating all of America’s children is being avoided in part as we continue an emotionally loaded debate of language teaching meth- odologies and their effectiveness in teaching one subject, English. Hakuta (1994) articulated the growing frustration of linguists and educa- tors alike before the lOlst Congress in his testimony concerning the reauthorization of Title VII:

. . . we have been trapped in the past in an endless and often fruitless debate over the best language of

CONCLUSION

Proponents of Official English have developed the wrong solution to the wrong problem. Legislating English as the official language of the U.S. is not about “preserving bonds” or “providing opportunities”; it is about restricting language rights, limiting access to education, impeding socioeconomic mobility, and ultimately making assimilation into the American nationality for specific populations more difficult. Language legislation in this instance is about linguistic intolerance and perhaps frustration with immigration policies and demo- graphic trends in the U.S.

As the examples in this article demonstrate, mandating the use of a particular language rarely results in increased numbers of speakers of that language. Such political pressure is more often responsible for a growth in loyalty to the subordinated language (s). Tension mounts and separatist rhetoric and ensuing policies dis- solve national unity, which was centered around many more principles than simply language.

The U.S. was founded as a democracy. Lan- guage restriction was not seen as promoting democracy, but as a monarchical tool to ration education, information, and social mobility. Given the freedom of choice in the U.S., the people have consistently chosen English as the

138

common language of the nation, and the language has never been threatened, through immigration or otherwise. In fact, evidence shows that English enjoys great vitality in the U.S. as well as throughout the world. The confounding of immigration issues with language on the part of U.S. ENGLISH and other organizations is un- fortunate and worthy of our skepticism, if not our outright opposition.

Th.e Modern Language Journal 80 (1996)

Crystal, D. (1985). How many millions? The statistics of English today. Englrh T e , 1, 7-11.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and pauer: London: Longman.

Faltis, C. (1993). juinfwteting: Adapting teaching shntLgips for the multilingual classroom. New York: Mac- millan.

Faltis, C., & Hudelson, S. (1994). Learning English as an additional language in K-12 schools. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 457-468.

Ferguson, C., & Heath, S. (Eds.). (1981). Lunguage in the USA. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fishman, J. (1972) Language and nat ia in: Two integ- rative essays. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Fishman, J. (1986). Bilingualism and separatism. An- nals of the American Association of Political and socinl

Fishman, J. (1991). Reoersng hnguagz shijk The themtical and practical foundations of assistance to t h d kznpuga. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. (1992). The displaced anxieties of Anglo- Americans. In Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties (pp. 165-170). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fishman, J. (1994). Critiques of language planning: A minority languages perspective. J o u m l of Muln- lingual and Muuicultural Dtxdupmmt, 15,91-99.

Foucault, M. (1972). The a n h h g y ofknowledg~. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1979). LXsciplane and punish. Harmonds- worth, England: Penguin.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1986). Science, technology, language, and information: Implications for language and language-in-education planning. International Journal ofthe Sociology of^^, 59

Hakuta, K. (1986). MimofLanguag?. New York: Basic Books.

Hakuta, K. (1994). Hearing before the subcommittee on ele- mentaq sewndq, and vocational edzccatwn. 103rd Congress, 1st session, held 1993, published 1994, (pp. 72-74). (Serial No. 103-52). Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Heath, S. (1985). Language Policies: Patterns of retention and maintenance. In W. Connor (Ed.), Mexican-Am’cans in comparative perspective. Wash- ington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Heath, S. (1992). Why no official tongue? In J. Craw- ford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A soum book on the o f i Englrh cunhaueny (pp. 20-31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hudson-Edwards, A. (1990). Language policy and linguistic tolerance in Ireland. In K. Adams & D. Brink (Eds.), Perspectives on official English (pp. 63-81). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Inglehart, R., & Woodward, M. (1967). Language con- flicts and political community. Comparative Studies in Society and History 10, 1, 27-45.

Kachru, Y. (1994). Sources of bias in SLA research.

Labov, W. (1969). The logic of nonstandard English.

S&TXZ, 487, 169-180.

47-71.

TESOL @KZ&Y, 28,795-800.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who gave many helpful comments and reactions to earlier versions of this paper.

NOTES

In addition to U.S. ENGLISH, other organizations such as English First, English Language Advocates, and numerous state level groups are involved in efforts to legislate language use.

* Alabama, Ala. Const. amend. 509 (1990); Ar- kansas, Ark. Code Ann. I 1-4-117 (1987); Arizona, A.R.S. Const. Art. 28, I 1-4 (1988); California, Cal. Const. art. I11 I 6 (1986); Colorado, Colo. Const. Art. I1 f SOa (1989); Florida, Fla. Const. Art. I1 f 9 (1988); Georgia, Ga. L. 1986, p. 529; Hawaii, Haw. Const. Art XV I 4 [English and Hawaiian declared official languages] (1978); Illinois, Ill, Code 5 I 460/20 (1991); Indiana, Ind. Code Ann I1-2-10-1 (1984); Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. f 2.013 (1984); Mississippi, Miss. Code Ann. I 3-3-31 (1987); Nebraska, Neb. Const. Art. 1 I 27 (1920); North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. f 145-12 (1987); North Dakota, N.D. Cent. Code I 54- 02-13 (1987); South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. I 1-1- 696 (1987); Tennessee, Tenn. Code Ann. I 4-1-404 (1984); and Virginia, VA. Code Ann. I 22.1-212.1. (1981)

REFERENCES

Auerbach, E. (1994). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27,9-32.

Baugh, A., & Cable, T. (1993). A history ofthe Engl*rh language (4th Ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- tice Hall.

Baron, D. (1990). The Englrh ody question. New Haven, C T Yale University Press.

Cicourel, A. (1985). Text and discourse. AnnllolReviRu

Crawford, J. (Ed.). (1992). Language loyalties; A soum- book on theoffidEnglish contrmeq. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.

~fAnth@~bgy, 14,159-185.

Lee Thomas

Gemgetowz Univmity Monograph SOiRF on Language and Linguistics. (pp. 1-39). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Magnet, J. (1990). Canadian perspectives on official English. In K. Adams & D. Brink (Eds.), P+c- tives on official English (pp. 53-61). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mujica, M. (n.d.; received by author 1995) Do you know Armando Ruiz? US. ENGLISH [form letter] (Available from U.S. ENGLISH, 818 Con- necticut Ave NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006).

Nunberg, G. (1989). Linguists and the official language movement. Language, 65, 579-587.

Nunberg, G. (1990). Testimony before the state legislature on California Proposition 63 (1986). In K. Adams & D. Brink (Eds.), PmpecEIves on o f f i E n g - I& (pp. 121-124). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic impe7ialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Raspail, J. (1975). The camp of the saints. New York: Scr ibner.

Simms, R. U.S. ENGLISH. (1995). [form letter]. Sridher, S. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories.

Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning l a w , planning i+- ity. New York: Longman.

U.S. ENGLISH. (n.d.; received by author 1995a). To- wards a united America. [ Brochure]. (Avail- able from U.S. ENGLISH, 818 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006).

U.S. ENGLISH. (n.d.; received by author 199513). Facts and issues: About US. ENGLISH. [Fact- sheet]. Washington, DC.

U.S. ENGLISH (n.d.; received by author 1995~). Facts and issues: What is official English? [Fact- sheet]. Washington, DC.

Veltman, C. (1983). Language shj? in the United Stntes. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English., 42 Federal Register 3rd Series, pp. 1217-1244 (9th Cir. 1994).

Zentella, A. (1981). Language variety among Puerto Ricans. In C. Ferguson & S. Heath (Eds.), Lun- g q p in the USA (pp. 218-238). New York: Cam- bridge University Press.

TESOL @ b y , 28,800-805.

139

(3) (a) This Article applied to:

(i) the legislative, executive and ju- dicial branches of government,

(ii) all political subdivisions, depart- ments, agencies, organizations, and instrumentalities of this State, including local governments and municipalities, all statutes, ordinances, rules, or- ders, programs and policies, all government officials and employees during the performance of government business.

(iii)

(iv)

(b) As used in this Article, the phrase “This State and all political subdivisions of this State” shall include every entity, person, action or item described in this Section, as appropriate to the circumstances.

2. Requiring This State to Preserve, Protect and En- hance English.

Section 2. This State and all political subdivisions of this State shall take all reasonable steps to preserve, protect and enhance the role of the English language as the official language of the state of Arizona.

3. Prohibiting This State from Using or Requiring the Use of Language Other Than English; Excep- tions.

Section 3. (1) Except as provided in Subsection (2):

(a) This State and all political subdivisions of this State shall act in English and no other language.

No entity to which this Article applies shall make or enforce a law, order, decree or policy which requires the use of a language other than English.

(b)

(2) This State and all political subdivisions of this State may act in a language other than English under any of the following circumstances:

(a) to assist students who are not proficient in the English language, to the extent necessary to comply with federal law, by giving educational instruction in a language other than English to provide as rapid as possible a transition to English.

to comply with other federal laws.

to teach a student a foreign language as a part of a required or voluntary educational curriculum.

to protect public health or safety.

(b)

(c)

(d)

APPENDIX Article XXVIII. English as the Official Language

1. English as the Official Language: Applicability.

Section 1. (1) The English language is the official language

of the State of Arizona. (2)As the official language of this State, the

English language is the language of the ballot, the public schools and all government func- tions and actions.

14 0

(e) to protect the rights of criminal defend- ants or victims of crime.

4. Enforcement; Standing.

Section 4. A person who resides in or does business in this

The Modern Language Journal 80 (1996)

State shall have standing to bring suit to enforce this Article in a court of record of the State. The Legislature may enact reasonable limitations on the time and manner of bring- ing suit under this subsection.

RESOLUTION

Presented at the Annual Business Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS, A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION of over 1000 members whose research interests and practice focus on all aspects of language learning, teaching, and use, is deeply concerned about the nature of recent public policy debates and completed and pending legislative decisions pertaining to the role and status of languages in the United States. It urges thoughtful and encompassing consideration of these matters in light of (1) the significance languages hold in the United States, a country with rich indigenous languages and a country of immigrants with many languages and cultures; (2) the special challenges and opportunities of multilingualism; and (3) the unquestioned obligation to protect basic linguistic rights and to enhance their being exercised by all residents of this country.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED at the General Business Meeting, convened on this 25 day of March, 1996, that the American Association for Applied Linguistics supports the following position statement:

THAT All citizens and residents of the United States have the right to retain and use their languages in public and in private and to follow their cultural practices within the laws of the United States without interference on the part of any governmental agency, regulation, or statute.

THAT The government and the people of the United States have a special obligation to affirm and support the retention, enhancement, and use of indigenous, heritage, and immigrant languages by those members of its society who wish to maintain and express their heritage in this fashion in diverse public and private settings.

THAT Affirmation of the many benefits of multilingualism includes and requires the commitment by all official agencies to provide full access for all members of linguistic minorities to the public life of U.S. society which is generally conducted in English. Since learning a language is a complex task that can be accomplished only over the span of many years, long-term legislative and financial commitments to addressing residents’ diverse needs in acquiring English must be made. Only then will all residents be able to participate fully in the public life of the country, an unquestioned goal of all advocates of a multilingual U.S. society.

Acceptance of this resolution is confirmed by signature of the President of the organization.