The English-Only Movement: A Communication Analysis of...

The English-Only Movement

3

The English-Only Movement ACommunication Analysis of ChangingPerceptions of Language Vitality

By Valerie Barker Howard Giles Kimberly Noels Julie Duck Michael Hecht andRicharde Cleacutement

This paper reexamines the potential impact of the English-only movement onlinguistic minorities and Anglosrsquo perceptions of their own and minority groupsrsquolanguage vitality Of particular interest is the Hispanic populationmdashthe fastestgrowing minority in the US Communication scholars have paid only scant atten-tion to the English-only movement and how it affects the social and communica-tion climate for Latinos However literature reviews prepared for the AmericanPsychological Association and for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Lan-guages (in 1991 and 1995 respectively) concluded that English-only initiativeshave negative consequences for limited-English proficiency groups Revisiting thisstill-growing issue in the light of more recent studies across disciplines and mediareports we examine how Anglo support for English-only policies limits the usepromotion and salience of minority languages like Spanish in institutional set-tings and in the linguistic landscape and suggest directions for future research

Communication scholars have paid scant attention to the English-only Movement(see however Giles Williams Mackie amp Rosselli 1995) Instead this issue hastypically been a focus of theoretical and research interest for a variety of othersocial scientific domains such as the sociology of language political scienceeducation linguistics and social psychology For example in a review of psychol-ogy and education research about English-only initiatives undertaken on behalfof the American Psychological Association (APA) Padilla Lindholm Chen DuranHakuta Lambert and Tucker (1991) found no favorable evidence to support their

Valerie Barker is a graduate student in the Department of Communication at the University of Califor-nia Santa Barbara where Howard Giles is a professor and assistant dean of undergraduate affairsKimberly Noels is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at the University ofSaskatchewan Julie Duck is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology University of QueenslandMichael L Hecht is head and professor of speech communication at Pennsylvania State University andRicharde Cleacutement is a professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Ottawa This paper isa revised version of the report presented by the ICA Task Force on the English-Only Movement to theBoard of Directors at ICArsquos annual conference June 1 2000 in Acapulco The authors thank CindyGallois for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper

Copyright copy 2001 International Communication Association

Journal of Communication March 2001

4

implementation They argued that research on the impact of English-only initia-tives showed that they result in negative consequences for psychological develop-ment intergroup relations academic achievement and health service delivery tolimited-proficiency English populations in the US

Consequently the authors advised that it would be unethical for the APA tosupport English-only initiatives Dicker Jackson Ricento and Romstedt (1995)articulated the (sociolinguistic) response of Teachers of English to Speakers ofOther Languages (TESOL) also labeling this a ldquodestructive social movementrdquo(p 3) Moreover media reports about English-only issues for example English-only SAT tests English-only driving tests repeal of language rules in govern-ment and personal discrimination based on English proficiency (Cooper 1999Sack 1999 Westphal 2000) continue to make the English-only issue salientIndeed at least 20 daily newspapers including the Christian Science Monitor LosAngeles Times New York Times USA Today and Washington Post hold an edito-rial policy opposed to official English (Trulin 2000) Despite this and the argu-ments against the English-only movement provided by Padilla Dicker and theirrespective colleagues English-only policies and related initiatives have contin-ued to proliferate over the past decade

Our paper relates explicitly to the English-only movement and language issuesin the US and to a lesser degree in Canada Australia and New Zealand How-ever many of the concerns discussed here with regard to language purism haverelevance to similar international contexts such as language conflicts betweenSpanish and Catalan speakers in Spain and Dutch Flemish and French languageissues in Holland and Belgium (Jernudd 1989) More recently Germany has takenissue with the language requirements of European Union meetings (English Frenchand host country languages) threatening not to participate (ldquoGermany Languagedisputerdquo 1999) Therefore the English-only movement in the US is just oneexample of the tendency for insecure language majorities to support moves to limitthe use promotion and salience of minority languages in institutional settings

Unfortunately though communication scholars have yet to make a definitivestand on the English-only controversy either by setting a research agenda relatedto English-only initiatives or by making policy recommendations This is surpris-ing indeed considering that the English-only phenomenon is an inherently com-municative issue Language and communication convey messages key to personaland social identity Miller (2000) comments that ldquowhat seems inescapable is theunderstanding that our identities are shaped by and through our use of languageAnd so the question of which language is in use is an important one in the identitystakesrdquo (p 74)

The way that social identity is communicated and constructed through every-day practices within social institutions (eg workplace and school) through themass media and in the linguistic landscape of a community influences how lin-guistic groups view themselves each other and their respective socioeconomicvitality This in turn affects the ways in which language groups behave towardeach other As a communicative strategy the English-only movement is undoubt-edly the response of the dominant English-speaking majority to what is perceivedas the increasing vitality of Spanish-speaking groups


5

Official English and English-only legislation have pragmatically and symboli-cally elevated English to a high status position while relegating other languageslike Spanishmdashand their speakersmdashto lower status positions As our discussionwill show these language groups present a threat neither to the English languagenor to the dominant position of the Anglo majority In fact as Ricento (1995)noted ldquothe unchallenged dominance of English is so unquestioned that most Ameri-cans when asked assume that English is already the official languagerdquo (p 10)

By contrast we believe recent moves to abolish bilingual education and limitaffirmative action will continue to erode educational achievement and self-esteemamong Hispanic groups The existing economic position of most Latinos is poor(Walsh 2000) and the prospect of its improvement minimal in the short termAdditionally the salience of Spanish in some mass media outlets and in the lin-guistic landscape of areas heavily populated by Hispanics masks the inevitablelanguage shift to English occurring among Hispanic groups over the first threegenerations of immigrants (Rodriguez 1999) What is lost in all this is the recogni-tion of the right of all citizens to speak their heritage language and preserve theirculture It is apparent that the demographic shifts now taking place in the USand a perceived rise in Hispanic social political and economic status continue tofuel fears among some Anglo Americans

Demographic Shifts and English-Only InitiativesCurrent census data predict profound demographic shifts in the ethnic topogra-phy of the US population over the next 100 years According to census data thetop six languages other than English in the US are Spanish French GermanItalian Chinese and Tagalog with Spanish speakers outnumbering all other mi-nority languages by at least 250 (Bruno 1993) By the middle of the 21st cen-tury language minorities will probably comprise more than half of the total USpopulation The Hispanic population will triple the African American populationwill double and the Asian Pacific populations will quadruple In contrast thenon-Hispanic White population will increase only 5 (Bourhis amp Marshall 1999)

Although over three quarters of all Hispanic peoples live in just four statesmdashCalifornia Texas New York and Floridamdashwith few exceptions most states haveconsidered legislating official English at one time or another (Fishman 1988)Presently 23 states declare English as the official language (Joubert 1997) Thisincludes California the state with the highest Hispanic population in the US(approximately 10 millionmdash327 of Californiarsquos population [Verdin 2000]) andthe most linguistically diverse state in the US with more than 200 languages inevidence (Ferrell amp Hotz 2000) As a case study of English-only initiatives Califor-nia may provide some insight in terms of future trends in other states with highHispanic populations Indeed California exhibits a history of state initiatives af-fecting language minorities with regard to government services and education In1986 Proposition 63 introduced official English Proposition 187 (1994) attemptedto stop public benefits for illegal immigrants Proposition 209 (1997) ended affir-mative action and most recently Proposition 227 (1998) banned bilingual educa-tion in elementary schools

At the federal level many official English bills have been introduced in Con-


6

gress in recent years In the 105th Congress alone five such bills were listedmdashallauthored by Republicans (Cantu 1998) In 1996 one bill passed through theHouse of Representatives but was not taken up in the Senate (Dicker 1998) Atthis writing there are four official English bills pending in the 106th CongressAlthough as yet English-only legislation at the federal level continues to fail suchbills and legislation relating to bilingual education have been repeatedly intro-duced and avidly encouraged by highly vocal English-only advocates (eg En-glish First and US English) These and other legislative initiatives appear to em-body a pattern of concern among largely White middle-class voters about theirposition relative to other ethnic groups particularly Latinos

Although scholars working in education (Hakuta 1999) and social psychology(Wright amp Taylor 1995 Wright Taylor amp Ruggiero 1996) continue to underscorethe pernicious nature of an English-only agenda (particularly in the area of bilin-gual education) little communication-based empirical research addresses the im-pact of English-only issues and how they affect the communicative and societalclimate of Hispanic groups This represents a major oversight Therefore usingvitality theory (eg Giles amp Johnson 1981 1987 Harwood Giles amp Bourhis1994) we discuss the meaning and impact of the English-only movement as acommunicative phenomenon and suggest how research in this important areamay proceed

Vitality Theory Background and ConceptsThe concept of ethnolinguistic vitality was introduced by Giles Bourhis and Tay-lor (1977) and provided the means to investigate sociostructural factors affectingthe strength of language groups within diverse group settings The level of aningrouprsquos vitality contributes to the extent to which it behaves as a distinct collec-tive A language group with high vitality is more likely to survive and flourish as acollective entity in an intergroup context By contrast groups with low vitality arelikely to disappear as discrete linguistic entities in intergroup settings (HarwoodGiles amp Bourhis 1994) Language becomes a focal point for dissent when domi-nant groups feel a sense of insecurity because they fear what they perceive asincreased language vitality of other ethnic and social groups Language vitality canbe assessed both objectively and subjectively

Objective assessments of vitality Conflicts about language shift take place in thecontext of distinct historical and sociocultural structures Structural factors includ-ing the demographic salience status and institutional control of language groupsprovide potential indicators of objective linguistic vitality Demographic salienceis literally the number of members comprising a language group and their distri-bution or concentration throughout a community or nation Also of interest arebirthrate and immigration patterns of language groups vis-agrave-vis the dominant groupor groups Institutional control refers to the grouprsquos presence and support in po-litical media educational institutions and linguistic landscape It is characterizedby the salience of group members in positions of power such that one group isrepresented disproportionately relative to another and therefore able to wieldmore power (Sachdev amp Bourhis 1991) Those groups who possess institutionalsupport and control will also exhibit high levels of linguistic social and economic


7

status Indeed the superior status of a particular language group relative to an-other may be epitomized by legislation intended to promote or preserve its lan-guagemdashas in English-only laws (Cobarubias amp Fishman 1983)

Subjective perceptions of group vitality Subjective vitality is defined as lan-guage group membersrsquo assessments of their own and other language groupsrsquovitality with regard to their relative sociostructural positionsmdashdemographic sa-lience institutional power and status Giles et al (1977) argued that languagegroups provide social identities that contribute to the self-concept therefore groupmembers strive for favorable social identities relative to others Social identity isdefined as ldquothat part of an individualrsquos self-concept which derives from knowl-edge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value andemotional significance attached to that membershiprdquo (Tajfel 1981 p 255) Socialidentity can emanate from a variety of groups including race or language groupFor example a study of perceptions of linguistic vitality among Mexican Ameri-cans (Gao Schmidt amp Gudykunst 1994) showed that respondents perceived En-glish and Anglos as more vital than Spanish and Mexican Americans Findingsindicated that perceived vitality among Mexican Americans was primarily pre-dicted by level of ethnic identitymdashrespondents who identified strongly with theirethnic group perceived their group as exhibiting higher linguistic vitality

When members of language groups sense that their vitality is low or whenanother language group threatens it group members may feel their social identityto be negatively valued and act to change their situation or that of other groups

Strategies for change The types of strategies used to gain or maintain positivesocial identity depend on the perceived nature of the power and status of othersocial groups (Tajfel amp Turner 1986) Sociostructural features (demography insti-tutional control and status) influence a grouprsquos perceptions of linguistic vitalitymdashhow well it acts and flourishes as a distinct collective Because language is boundup with social identity subjective perceptions of language vitality influence whetherpeople promote maintain or lose their distinctive language or culture

When members of a language minority become cognitively aware of alterna-tives to negatively valued social identities they may employ three types of strate-gies for change The first is assimilation whereby minority group members at-tempt to distance themselves from their group and associate with the dominantgroup by adopting their cultural practices including language For example aPeruvian immigrant who laments his 12-year-old sisterrsquos rejection of their heritagelanguage comments ldquoShe only speaks Spanish to our aunt she canrsquot read or write(in Spanish) To tell the truth shersquos ashamed of it Shersquod be the black sheep ofher friends if she spoke Spanish around themrdquo (quoted by Lynch 2000 p D3)

The second strategy for change is social creativity Members of language groupswho perceive themselves as possessing moderate vitality may seek to improvetheir perception of self by using their linguistic divergence to establish and main-tain cultural identity Sociolinguistic studies have identified a variety of diverselinguistic dialects among people of Mexican descent that reflect their heteroge-neous cultural identities (Penalosa 1980) Often these dialects such as Spanglishserve to counteract the dominant language and create a counterhegemonic ver-nacular speech (Padilla 1997) This type of vernacular speech affirms the cultural


8

community and cultural identification often building strength for the third strat-egy in the form of social competition or political change (Delgado 1998)

Subordinate language groups may attempt to raise themselves to a position ofequality or domination by seeking the redistribution of scarce resources such aspolitical power wealth and status As we discuss in more detail later some His-panic groups are already beginning to use such strategies particularly in the po-litical arena

When minority language groups appear to assert themselves the dominantgroup may choose either to facilitate or to control and minimize change Percep-tions of subjective vitality are driven by the everyday experiences of members oflinguistic groups who compare their own group with others Therefore Anglosliving in a community where the Hispanic population is in the majority may easilyoverestimate the overall Hispanic population throughout the US (Johnson 2000)Consequently a mismatch may arise between the objective vitality of a languagegroup and subjective perceptions of the vitality of that same group (Harwood etal 1994) Sometimes perceptions of subjective vitality (rather than objective vital-ity) drive group membersrsquo communication practices Put simply if Anglos believethat Spanish is likely to overwhelm English (even if objective evidence suggeststhat it is not likely) they may take steps to limit the promotion and use of SpanishThere are several linguistic contexts in which subjective perceptions of groupvitality are cultivatedmdashin schools the workplace via the media and as discussedabove in the neighborhood One other way that language is salient in a commu-nity and in daily interpersonal experience is in the ldquolinguistic landscaperdquo that isthe visual evidence of language

Landry and Bourhis (1997) developed the innovative concept of the linguisticlandscape as part of peoplersquos interpersonal network of linguistic contacts Thelanguage of public signs and symbols billboards street names mail advertisinggovernment information and notifications form the aggregate linguistic landscapeof any given area Linguistic landscape can serve as information about the linguis-tic characteristics of the region more importantly it may also symbolize the strengthor weakness of competing linguistic groups with regard to language vitality There-fore for dominant language groups the provision of signs materials or advertis-ing in languages other than their own may fuel discrimination For example inCalifornia (Monterey Park) Asian language books were removed from the library(Padilla 1991) and laws have been proposed banning or limiting commercialbusiness signs in languages other than English (Salazar 1989) In 1984 the authorof an early English language amendment Senator Walter Huddleston (D-KY)registered his disapproval of the amount of non-English federal forms and publi-cations saying ldquoThe non-English materials which I have received are in a stackthat is about three feet high and we are adding to it almost dailyrdquo (quoted inTatalovich 1995 p12) This represents one type of response from members ofdominant language groups based on subjective perceptions of one indicator ofminority group vitality The broader conceptual relationships described by vitalitytheory are summarized in Figure 1 and readers might find it useful to refer to thisand its inherent relationships as the paper unfolds


9

Language and Perceptions of Intergroup VitalityWe have argued that perceptions of subjective linguistic vitality of both dominantand minority language group members are related to levels of social identitySocial identity influences and is also influenced by language salience in the dailyinterpersonal experiences of linguistic contextsmdashschool workplace media por-trayals neighborhood and linguistic landscape These in turn affect and areaffected by varied behavioral responses from both the dominant language groupand minority groups Members of the dominant language group may choose ei-ther to promote bilingualism or to limit the maintenance use and salience ofminority languages Minority group members on the other hand might respondby assimilating enacting social creativity practices or by engaging in social com-petition Finally these responses are related to macro-sociocultural forces incor-porating measures to maintain the status quo or to promote change in socioeco-nomic power immigration policies and in the political educational and mediainstitutions for example Thus the cycle begins again maintenance of the statusquo or the promotion of change at the macrosocietal level may foster changedperceptions of intergroup linguistic vitality and so forth

The English-only movement is one such macrolevel response emanating fromchanging perceptions of vitality The apparent salience of minority languages along-side subjective perceptions of growing language-group vitality stimulate concernsamong some Englos about the status of English To what extent are these con-cerns based on changes in the objective vitality of Spanish-speaking groups

Figure 1 Language and Perceptions of Intergroup Vitality


10

Objective Linguistic Vitality Among Hispanic GroupsLevels of objective vitality of language groups are related to the presence or ab-sence of three sociocultural factors changing demographics socioeconomic sta-tus and institutional support

Demographic salience In terms of demographic proportions although Anglosstill represent the linguistic majority they are already a minority in parts of Califor-nia (eg Dana Point) Texas (eg El Paso) and Florida (eg Miami) and will loseoverall majority status over time A higher birthrate among Latinos is a key com-ponent in this change For example from 1990 to 1996 more than 44 of babiesborn in California were Latino compared to 38 Anglo Additionally a continuedinflux of Spanish-speaking immigrants from Mexico and other Central and SouthAmerican countries bolster the increasing Hispanic population (California ResearchBureau 1999)

Socioeconomic status Although there is some variance in economic vitalityamong Hispanic peoples generally speaking they tend to do less well than AnglosNationally Hispanics are overrepresented as unskilled workers (29 of Hispanicmen and 14 of women compared to 18 of non-Hispanic White men and 6 ofwomen US Bureau of the Census 1996) Hispanic unemployment rates consis-tently surpass national averages (Johnson 2000) Additionally census data for1996 show over half of all Hispanic family incomes to be below $25000 annuallycompared to approximately 20 for all non-Hispanic White family incomes Withregard to poverty Puerto Ricans fare the worst of all Latinos with a family povertyrate of 36 On the other hand Cuban Americans fare the best economically withan annual income below $25000 of 38 compared to 53 for Mexican Ameri-cans and 55 for Puerto Ricans (and 22 for non-Hispanic Whites) By contrast30 of Cuban Americans command annual incomes of more than $50000 (com-pared to Mexican Americans at 17 and Puerto Ricans at 21) However 44 ofnon-Hispanic Whites earn incomes above $50000 (Johnson 2000) The FederalReserversquos most recent survey of household finances showed that Whites African-Americans and Asians all gained during 1995ndash1998 However the median Latinohousehold net worth fell by 24 (Walsh 2000)

An assessment of the economic well-being of Latino people in California spe-cifically Los Angeles Orange San Bernardino Riverside and Ventura counties(Waldinger amp Bozorgmehr 1996) shows that although they make up 40 of theworkforce Hispanics are at the very bottom of the earnings ladder The authorsargue that although many Mexican Americans are taking steps to adapt they donot reap economic benefits as a result Moreover Latino income levels are ex-pected to continue to trail behind those of Whites into the 21st century (CaliforniaResearch Bureau 1999)

Hispanic Institutional Support and ControlPolitics The Hispanic population potentially represents a considerable voting bloc(56 of registered voters nationwide and 14 in California [Verdin 2000]) About150000 Latinos will reach voting age every year for the next decade in California(Wagner 1996) and media reports provide some evidence that they are likely tovote (Branigan 1998 Del Olmo 1998 Verdin 2000) Apparently politicians are


11

courting the Hispanic vote (Thurman 1999) and Hispanic politicians appear moresalient (Bryce 1996 Verdin 2000) For example in recent years the CaliforniaState Assembly has seen two Latino speakers (Rodriguez 1998) and CaliforniaHispanics hold 762 elective offices statewide and 6 of the statersquos 52 congressionalmembers are Hispanic (Verdin 2000) Regarding these political developmentsCalifornia Representative Loretta Sanchez observed ldquoI think that this will alsohappen in New York in Chicago in Texas and in Florida California is maybe just10 years aheadrdquo (Verdin 2000)

However with regard to mobilizing for social change Latinos are unlike otherlanguage groups (cf Olsak 1998) Latinos exhibit low levels of involvement inpolitical organizations with only a few underresourced advocacy groups (Santoro1999) In an effort to counter this lack of involvement at a local level the citycouncil of El Cenizo Texas recently introduced an ordinance that all city businesswould be conducted in Spanish with English translations (Kolker 1999) The townwas incorporated only 10 years ago and therefore its population is almost en-tirely Spanish speaking The mayor of the city hopes that this move will increaseboth civic participation and understanding of the political process

That said the horror of the Washington-based English advocacy group USEnglish concerning this particular incident would not seem to be well founded ingeneral Hispanic voters have not exercised their voting rights in a significantfashion (Seib 1996) If and when they do it may make a difference A study of theLatino struggle against English-only laws (Santoro 1999) suggests that Latino vot-ing blocs and state legislators have helped limit legislative passage of English-onlyinitiatives Attempts to introduce English-only legislation in Texas have consis-tently failed because of the politically well-organized Hispanic population in thatarea (Santoro 1999) Anglo politicians looking for votes may be reluctant todeclare their support for English-only initiatives in constituencies with significantHispanic populations This suggests that Latino politicians operating within therealms of institutional politics can influence government action relating to En-glish-only legislation Because of the popularity of these initiatives with manyAnglos however Latino influence occurs only in contexts where advocates of anEnglish-only policy are not able to circumvent legislative channels by referenda(as in California)

Media With regard to interpersonal networks of linguistic contacts and theirpotential influence on subjective perceptions of vitality the relative preponder-ance of Spanish-language television channels radio stations and newspapers pro-vides opportunities for daily contact with the language for both dominant andsubordinate groups Kim (1995) argues that new immigrants can use these formsof mass media to support their sense of identity as well as to gain informationabout the host society during the initial phases of adaptation Harwood (19971999) also suggests that media viewing choices may be driven by social iden-tity motivations Group members seek out media content in which they areboth overrepresented and favorably portrayed in order to maintain a positivesocial identity This is not surprising in light of research (Maass 1999 Santa Ana1999) that shows how minority groups or outgroups can be subtly denigrated inthe media by the use of certain types of discourse and framing (for a summary of


12

media representations in relation to vitality see Abrams amp Eveland 2000)Relatedly Yaeger-Dror (1988) studied Israeli immigrants from Arabic-speaking

countries and found that their linguistic vitality improved markedly over timeOriginally their form of Hebrew suffered low objective language vitality com-pared to the dominant form because it was spoken by a group of lower social andeconomic class Due to a higher birthrate the immigrant group grew in numbersand gradually improved their social status Initially those who associated freelywith the host culture tended to favor the host form of speech However despitesome convergence to the host language language maintenance among the immi-grants was evidenced by the increasing prevalence of their speech form in themedia particularly in pop songs and to a lesser extent in television interviews

Hispanic media offer institutional support for the Spanish-language minorityproviding an important counterpoint to dominant media outlets in English Span-ish-language TV enjoys considerable financial success (Laboy 1997) and English-language stations are beginning to simulcast sports and other shows in Spanish(Brodesser 1997) Chevron recently began airing their commercials with the car-toon car speaking Spanish with English subtitles (Johnson 1999) There is alsoevidence of a crossover to the mainstream of Spanish-language pop artists (egRicky Martin see Harrison amp Craughwell 1999)

However despite the increased presence of Spanish media it appears thatthese media are well used only by newer Spanish-speaking immigrants Second-and third-generation Hispanic immigrants have either already lost their first lan-guage or speak it only in their home when conversing with older relatives (Lynch2000) Kim (1995) suggests that as newer immigrants learn the majority languageand progress toward adaptation the host media may take over part of that func-tion therefore their media use may more closely mirror that of the general popu-lation reflecting age and socioeconomic class This reliance on heritage languagein the early stages of adaptation may also occur with regard to Spanish in thelinguistic landscape

Spanish in the linguistic landscape In a study suggestive of the potential im-portance of linguistic landscape with regard to perceptions of language vitalityLandry and Bourhis (1997) reanalyzed data obtained from grades 11 and 12Franophone students in 50 schools across 11 provinces in Canada The 2010students came from regions where Francophones represented between 1 and99 of the population Results showed that the linguistic landscape (public signsshop signs advertising billboards street names place names) was associatedwith subjective linguistic vitality among Francophone students The authors alsosuggest that linguistic landscape may be related to language use possibly provid-ing an impetus to the use of their heritage language They conclude that ldquoHighvitality dominant groups have a vested interest in maintaining their own grouplanguage on public signs especially in ethnolinguistically heterogeneous sectorsof their national or regional territoryrdquo (p 46)

In relation to the linguistic landscape in the US in spite of the prevalence ofofficial-English statutes government and public utility information often appearsin Spanish (and other languages) Signs and billboards in Spanish are not unusualparticularly in areas heavily populated by Hispanic people Business (eg ATM


13

services) and shopping can be conducted in Spanish No research has yet as-sessed the influence of the linguistic landscape with regard to objective and sub-jective perceptions of English- and Spanish-language vitality and support for En-glish-only or official-English measures However as discussed above proponentsof English-only measures have vigorously objected to the use of other languagesin government documents Also Proposition 227 (limiting bilingual education)forbids the use of Spanish-language visual aids in California elementary schools

Some academics argue that Spanish in the linguistic landscape will die out overtime anyway as immigrants learn English and become naturalized (Rodriguez1999) Spanish on signs and in shops is expected to remain prevalent only in areasheavily populated by relatively new Hispanic immigrants

EducationLanguage policy in the educational domain has been one of the most contentiousareas of policy debate It is argued that the language of the school is important forseveral reasons Scholars note that the school environment is an important arenafor contact between linguistic groups and hence language shift The language ofeducation also is suggested to have important implications for social (eg iden-tity self-esteem and psychological adjustment) and cognitive (eg academicachievement) reasons One way in which language is learned maintained andaccorded objective status is through its use in educational institutions Addition-ally interpersonal networks of daily contact with Spanish speakers in educationalinstitutions influence subjective perceptions of Spanish language vitality For ex-ample until very recently bilingual education programs were the norm inCaliforniarsquos K through 12 grade schools In geographic areas where Hispanic groupsrepresent a majority Spanish was spoken commonly inside and outside of theclassroom (as well as at home) potentially providing a linguistic ambiance favor-ing this minority language (cf Rodriguez Diaz Duran amp Espinosa1995 Hayes-Bautista amp Rodriguez 1995)

Social outcomes In a general sense language is not just a tool for communica-tion or a system of symbols it is a component of culture in which social identity isembedded (Cantoni 1998) Judd (1987) illustrates this when he comments thatlanguage ldquois a symbolic system laden with emotional attachments that can arousethe deepest passionsrdquo (p 113) For many Hispanics Spanish is considered a deeplymeaningful part of their social and personal identity (Johnson 2000) ldquoEthnicidentity is twin skin to linguistic identitymdashI am my languagerdquo (Anzalduacutea quotedin Johnson 2000 p 177) Furthermore the connection between heritage lan-guage instruction and self-esteem is widely argued and debated (eg Alexanderamp Baker 1992) As part of a longitudinal program of research one study(Wright amp Taylor 1995) comparing Inuit White and mixed-heritage childrenfound that children educated in their heritage language showed an increasein self-esteem after 1 year Inuit and mixed-heritage children educated in asecond language did not

Still in Canada Cleacutement and colleagues (Cleacutement amp Noels 1992 Noels amp Cleacutement1996) conducted a series of studies on the effects of increased confidence with asecond language on identity variations and psychological adjustment in the con-


14

text of a bilingual (French-English) university Patterns observed for thesenonlinguistic outcomes suggest a preponderant influence of ethnolinguistic vital-ity Canadian Anglophones the majority group in this case show that self-confi-dence increases with increased contact with Francophones Furthermore identi-fication with Francophones and psychological adjustment increase with greaterlinguistic confidence without erosion of the identification to the first languagegroup The same pattern is observed for Francophones in this case the minoritygroup except that the process also involves a lessening of the identification totheir own group In a further study Cleacutement Michaud and Noels (1998) showedthat a lack of support from their own group was related to depression amongminority Francophones whereas a lack of support from the majority group en-tailed relatively high levels of stress

This suggests that the recent move to limit bilingual education in Californiaand elsewhere is potentially damaging to the self-esteem and social identity ofHispanic language groups and the vitality of the Spanish language (Macedo 1991Padilla 1991) As early as 1966 a National Education Association study of teach-ing Spanish to Spanish speakers concluded that unilingual English classes contrib-uted to an ldquoinferiority complexrdquo among Mexican American children Additionallythe authors argued that ldquothe harm done the Mexican American child linguisticallyis paralleled by the harm done to him as a personrdquo (p 134) This helped lead tothe Bilingual Education Act (1968) which provided grants to support programsfor Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students Subsequently various state legisla-tures introduced bilingual education in a variety of forms Approximately 75 ofall LEP students are Spanish speakers (Hakuta 1999)

Cognitive outcomes For supporters of bilingual education the ideal approachis that of language maintenance (Bourhis amp Marshall 1999) whereby studentsreceive significant amounts of instruction in their first language while developingacademic proficiency in English and their first language This contrasts markedlywith the English immersion approach favored by opponents of bilingual educa-tion and recent advocates of English-only Opponents of language maintenanceargue that exposing children to their first language in the educational environ-ment limits their exposure to English delays the acquisition of English and hin-ders academic achievement They also argue that bilingual education is ineffectiveand a waste of resources and that it devalues and displaces English as the languageof the US (Hakuta 1999) Research evidence does not support these criticisms

A National Research Council (1997) review of programs intended for languageminority children found favorable effects with regard to bilingual education (seeGenesee amp Gandara 2000) Children in bilingual programs show increased aca-demic achievement dual-language proficiency and cognitive flexibility (Franquiz1998 Greene 1998 Padilla et al 1991 Rodriguez et al 1995 Willig 1987)Research relating to other ethnic groups and bilingual education supports thesefindings Winsler and his colleagues (1999) found that bilingual education doesnot seem to diminish childrenrsquos proficiency in the first language Relative to chil-dren who remain at home Mexican American children who attended bilingualpreschool for 1 year did not evidence Spanish-language loss but showed significantand greater increases in English-language proficiency Additionally research on Asian


15

American children suggests that bilingualism may be particularly important for aca-demic achievement if parents are not proficient in English (Mouw amp Xie 1999)

With regard to the charge that first language maintenance hinders cognitive andacademic development Wright Taylor and Ruggiero (1996) conducted a study toassess intellectual potential among Inuit children in Canada Groups of Inuit chil-dren instructed in their heritage language were compared with Inuit White andmixed-heritage children instructed in English or French over a 2-year period Lan-guage of instruction and teacherrsquos ethnicity did not affect scoresmdashthe Inuit chil-dren scored consistently better or as well as comparable White children living inthe same geographical (but less isolated) area of Canada

The most recent study in this program of research involving Inuit children(Wright Taylor amp Macarthur 2000) examined the impact of early heritage- andsecond-language education on heritage- and second-language development amongInuit White and mixed-heritage (Inuit-White) children Children in an arctic com-munity were tested in English French and Inuttitut at the beginning and end ofeach of the first 3 school years Compared with Inuit in heritage language andmixed-heritage children in a second language Inuit in second-language classes(English or French) showed poorer heritage-language skills and poorer second-language acquisition By contrast Inuit children in Inuttitut classes showed heri-tage-language skills equal to or better than mixed-heritage children and Whiteseducated in their heritage languages Therefore the findings support the argu-ment that early instruction exclusively in a dominant language can lead to subtrac-tive bilingualism among minority-language children and that heritage-languageeducation may reduce this culturally debilitating process

The above discussion of potential social and cognitive effects of language choicein the classroom shows the precarious position of a minority group Whereas theacquisition of a dominant group language may foster positive psychological out-comes in terms of overall adaptation (see also Noels Pon amp Cleacutement 1996 for aChinese example) side effects include the loss of the heritage identity possiblypaired with feelings of depression When considering the effects of linguistic andeducational policies the moderating factor seems to be relative vitality

Buttressing this argument Hakuta (1999) argues that the single most importantobstruction to the success of bilingual education among Spanish-language groupsis poverty Approximately one third of Hispanic families live in poverty withHispanic family poverty rates more than three times higher than non-HispanicWhites (Johnson 2000) One reason for low income is less education amongMexican Americansmdashin 1995 47 of Mexican Americans of 25 years of age com-pleted high school compared to 86 of non-Hispanic Whites (Johnson 2000)Clearly bilingual education within a context sheltering the first language at leastinitially (Cleacutement 1986) may provide one way of changing the educational andeconomic profile of the Hispanic population

The shift to English Research also shows that concerns about the English lan-guage becoming displaced are generally unjustified Language minorities (includ-ing Hispanics) shift to English within a generation or two and there is no opposi-tion among Spanish speakers to learning English indeed there is a growing (unmet)demand for English-as-second-language classes (Amastae 1990 Brandt 1990


16

Dicker 1998 Fishman 1988 Howe 1990 Padilla et al 1991 Veltman 1983Waldinger amp Bozorgmehr 1996) A recent study conducted by the National Immi-grant Forum (Rodriguez 1999) found that ldquo957 of third generation Latino chil-dren spoke English lsquowellrsquo lsquovery wellrsquo or exclusively The idea of non-Englishspeaking clusters remaining over generations is simply untruerdquo (p 3)

In a study of Cuban families in Miami Lambert and Taylor (1996) found thatworking class mothers encourage their children to learn English in order to suc-ceed (using a subtractive form of bilingualism) whereas middle-class mothersencourage both English and Spanish competence (as a form of additivemainte-nance bilingualism) Immigrants are well aware that their ability to speak Englishdetermines whether or not they can participate fully in American society Evenchildren in the eighth and ninth grade are cognizant of the need to speak Englishin American society For example Dicker (1995) reports a study of 5000 eighth-and ninth-grade immigrants from a variety of countries the majority of whomprefer to speak English over their native language An additional study (RuggieroTaylor amp Lambert 1996) highlights the role of discrimination in the process ofculture maintenance The results suggest that Hispanic Americans are less likely tomaintain their heritage culture (including language) the more they experiencepersonal discrimination The authors argue that the findings fly in the face of theidea that changing cultural practices is a matter of choice rather than a matter ofintimidation on behalf of host groups

English-only proponents often associate Hispanic groupsrsquo wish to maintain theirlanguage with rejection of the English language and American cultural valuesHowever a study (Taylor Lambert amp Wallace 1996) investigating the precisemeaning that ethnic groups in Miami (Cuban Nicaraguan and Haitian women)attach to their culture and language and the views of majority groups (White andAfrican American women) revealed an unanticipated level of consensus All agreedthat it is appropriate for heritage cultures and languages to be maintained in thehome Also there was agreement that heritage language should be maintained incontexts outside the home where the language group is in the majority Addition-ally although the Spanish speakers wished to maintain their own distinctive cul-ture and language they also believed (with Whites and African Americans) that inthe public domain the English language should predominate

In sum Based on indicators of objective language group vitality (demographysocioeconomic status and institutional control) overall Spanish-language groupsdo not present a significant challenge to the dominance of English-language groupsAlthough the Hispanic population is growing significantly and their presence isfelt in the mass media and linguistic landscape of some communities their politi-cal and socioeconomic power is still very limited In terms of achievements ineducation Hispanic groups are lagging significantly behind non-Hispanic Whites

In contrast the preponderance of English-only initiatives suggests that someAnglosrsquos subjective perceptions of Spanish-language groupsrsquo vitality are fuelinguncertainty about their own linguistic vitality and economic and political statusThese concerns about language demographic or sociostructural changes over-lap thus proponents of English-only policies such as US English and English


17

First for example are closely associated with anti-immigration organizations (Acunaamp Rodriquez 1998 Padilla et al 1991 Stefancic amp Delgado 1996 Zentella 1997)

Proponents of English-only and related initiatives offer distinct arguments fortheir perspective that are not always reflected in the research about who supportsthe English-only movement and why These arguments and research relating tosupport for English-only policies are discussed next

English-Only ArgumentsArguments for English-only typically focus on the supposed need to have onelanguage in order to provide national unity (Judd 1987) To achieve this nationalunity this argument reasons immigrants must have the responsibility of learningEnglish upon arrival to this country just as they have had to in the past Having allcitizens speak the same language provides the country with stabilitymdasheconomi-cally socially and politically Continuing this line of thought the proponents ofEnglish-only initiatives believe that immigrants who do not learn English will facediscrimination and segregation By declaring English the official language theimmigrants will be forced to learn the language and therefore be able to partici-pate in the English-speaking ldquomainstreamrdquo It seems that supporters of this argu-ment are not aware of the thousands of immigrants (at times estimates of 40000in Los Angeles County alone) waiting for placement in an English instruction class(Dicker 1995)

In line with the national unity and antidiscrimination arguments proponents ofEnglish-only often advance the ldquomelting potrdquo theory of immigration and Americansociety that is assimilation into the ldquowiderrdquo American society understood to bethe White English-speaking facet of US society Historically the argument positsthe US achieved its greatness by its ability to assimilate large numbers of immi-grants from a variety of countries and cultures By allowing immigrants to notlearn English the dissimilarities between immigrants and mainstream America areenhanced instead of melted together This leads to another argument of the En-glish-only movement fear of ethnic confrontations and cultural separation

Politicians have noted at various times that cultural dissimilarities enhanced bylanguage differences may lead to ethnic confrontations or the ldquoBalkanizationrdquoand ldquolinguistic separationrdquo of the United States (Judd 1987 p 119) The politi-cians who invoke this argument often cite examples from other countries thatexperienced polarization of language groups and demands for self-government(eg Canada Belgium) The only way to subvert these problems they claim is todeclare English the official language However we have seen that ethnic groupswho are English speakers may still separate themselves or ldquobe separatedrdquo fromsociety due to ethnic discrimination and racism Clearly supporters of this argu-ment do not realize the loss of culture experienced by immigrants who haveassimilated or the desire of many new immigrants to maintain their culture aswell as integrate themselves (including their home culture) into their lives inthe United States As Dicker (1995) points out bilingualism is unifying notalienating it allows individuals to be a part of two speech communities in-stead of only one


18

Research on Support for English-Only InitiativesEmpirical research about support for English offers only somewhat equivocal find-ings However two main contrasting explanations for support for English-only orofficial English have emerged The first identifies support for English-only as afeature of support for American identity and patriotism (cf Citrin 1990 CitrinHass Muste amp Reingold 1994 Citrin Reingold Walters amp Green 1990) Thesecond explanation for support for English-only is that it is embedded in insecu-rity 1988 Howe 1990 Padilla et al 1991 Zentella 1990)

Citrin Reingold Walters and Green (1990) employed survey data to demon-strate that the way in which an issue is framed is a key determinant in the successof English-only initiatives The researchers found that an important reason for thepopularity of ldquoofficial Englishrdquo is a desire ldquoto reaffirm an attachment to a tradi-tional image of Americanism that now seems vulnerablerdquo (p 536) Following thisline of reasoning Frendreis and Tatalovich (1997) examined the extent of andbasis for mass support for official English By analyzing data from the 1992 Na-tional Election Study (NES) they found that support for the official national lan-guage is broad (645) In addition they highlight the results of a California pollshowing that four times as many respondents (739) favored as opposed theEnglish-only proposal The analysis revealed a positive correlation between (a)being older less educated and White with supporting official English (b) beingWhite and disliking illegal immigrants and (c) disliking illegal immigrants andsupport for official English Frendreis and Tatalovich concluded that official En-glish concerns relate to symbolism about cultural identity and national identity

The ldquonew racismrdquo Huddy and Sears (1995) examined the attitudes toward bi-lingual education of 347 Anglo parents living in heavily Latino areas who hadchildren in a bilingual-education program and who believed that learning Spanishis of little use to their child Two explanations of Anglosrsquos opposition to bilingualeducation were compared racial prejudice and protection of interests The re-searchers assessed perception of educational group conflict linguistic threat eco-nomic threat and racial prejudice

Results showed that opposition to bilingual education originated with bothprejudice and the perception of threat Moreover the researchers discovered anoverlap between these two concepts that they found difficult to disentangle Angloopposition to bilingual education was associated with living in a heavily Latinoarea perceiving educational conflict between Latinos and Anglos in terms of com-petition for resources and negative feelings toward Latinos Interestingly Angloswho lived in Latino areas and could not speak Spanish were as strongly opposedto bilingual-education programs as those who lived in these areas and spokeSpanish The authors speculated that fears about the spread of Spanish might havefueled some of the opposition to bilingual education programs The results ob-tained by Cleacutement and Kruidenier (1985) in the Canadian context support thishypothesis They found that whereas positive attitudes toward the target languagegroup promoted intergroup contact second-language confidence and motivationto learn their language fear of assimilation acted as an equally strong deterrent

Huddy and Sears (1995) argue that insecurity about social identity and English-language vitality among Anglos may be regarded as a ldquonew racismrdquo that material-


19

izes as resentment about minority-language use competition for resources andaffirmative action This ldquonew racismrdquo is implicit rather than overt Overt statementsof racism are rare although they do occur For example in 1993 W A Craven (R-CA) disputed the right to public education of children of undocumented immi-grants saying ldquoIt seems rather strange that we go out of our way to take care ofthe rights of these individuals who are perhaps on the lower scale of our human-ityrdquo (quoted in Santa Ana 1999 p 220) Such statements generally lead to a publicbacklash as was the case when the then-chairman of US English John Tantonreferring to the Hispanic birthrate wrote ldquoPerhaps this the first instance in whichthose with their pants up are going to get caught with their pants downrdquo (quotedin Zentella 1997 p 74) US English Executive Director Linda Chavez and boardmember Walter Cronkite felt it necessary to resign Thus it may be that the lessovert forms of the so-called new racism are more likely to be tolerated andtherefore are more detrimental (Johnson 2000)

In line with the concept of new racism (Huddy amp Sears 1995) Hecht (1998)identifies four central metaphors for prejudice as fear of difference as dislike ofdifference as competition with difference for scarce resources and prejudice ashierarchy Symbolic concerns about national identity among Whites appear tocommunicate prejudice based on fear of difference and concerns about status Aprofile of English-only supporters revealed by a 1986 nationwide poll by the NewYork TimesColumbia Broadcasting System (cited in Fishman 1988) documentedage education and income The findings partially mirrored the Frendreis andTatalovich study in identifying older Whites in high income brackets as supportingEnglish-only policies with little or no support from Hispanics and other minori-ties However the greatest support came from Whites at the lowest income levelIn striving for a favorable social identity (Giles et al 1977) this group may seekthe largest measure of differentiation from language minorities

Prejudice can be expressed indirectly in terms of arguments about the impor-tance of learning English official English affirmative action or bilingual educa-tion (Asante 1998 Hecht 1998 van Dijk 1987) Through this indirect processcomes ldquodeniabilityrdquo (Hecht 1998)mdashan opportunity to communicate fears aboutanother grouprsquos relative power and status while justifying it on other grounds

Zentella (1997) examined support for official-English legislation bilingual edu-cation bilingual ballots bilingual emergency telephone operators bilingual ad-vertisements and unilingual foreign-language advertisements among six ethniccategories Anglos stood alone in support for official English and showing in-creased support over time between 1988 (72) and 1994 (78) However theresults concerning the elimination of bilingual services revealed that the six ethnicgroups (Puerto Ricans Other Latinos African Caribbeans African Americans AngloAmericans and Others) were not so far apart in all language-policy matters Forexample regardless of their position on official-English legislation all groupsfavored bilingual emergency telephone operators

Interestingly in regard to the linguistic landscape language of advertisementsnot bilingual education or bilingual ballots stimulated the greatest disparity inopinions All sample members made a clear distinction between their stand onofficial English (for and against) and their stand on public use of languages other


20

than English to provide assistance This gives some credence to the view that theframing of an issue impacts its support and that there may be a disparity betweenthe views of those who author English-only initiatives and those who supportthem at the ballot box

In a study of influences on attitudes towards the English-only movement Gilesand colleagues (1995) conducted an experiment to assess the effect of accentedspeakers delivering messages about English-only on attitudes for or against theissue Results showed that Anglo-accented speakers were persuasive when theypropounded an antindashEnglish-only stance whereas Hispanic-accented speakers werepersuasive when they were prondashEnglish-only Anglosrsquos feelings of happiness andnational identity were facilitated when ethnically similar-sounding speakers ar-gued against English exclusivity This has interesting implications for research intohow proponents of English-only initiatives might manipulate messages to gainmaximum support Zentella (1990) highlighted the way in which authors of theEnglish-only initiatives manipulate the wording of amendments to win by disasso-ciating the amendment from its repercussions

English Language Vitality Outside the USOn an international level English is ldquothe language of globalizationrdquo the linguafranca the language of technology academic research and the information age(Efron 2000 Ferrell amp Hotz 2000 Preisler 2000) Far from decreasing in useEnglish predominates or is highly visible in a variety of domains In Denmark forexample ldquowords and messages in English abound everywhere most conspicu-ously on shop signs posters menus etc Advertisements especially are oftenpartially or completely in English in supermarkets on the sides of buses in news-papers and magazinesrdquo (Preisler 2000) Moreover Ferrell and Hotz (2000) reportthat according to best estimates English is the first language of 427 million peopleand the second language of 350 million In Japan a recent report to the govern-ment urged that English be taught in public schools as early as preschool TokyoUniversity Professor Takashi Inoguchi argues that without a good grasp of En-glish Japanese people ldquowill be unable to quickly digest the latest technologicaladvances around the world and also swiftly and effectively transmit news of theirown advances They will in short fall further behind in every wayrdquo (Efron 2000p A12) Thus English is gaining ground in countries where the heritage languageis not English

Vitality and Language Policy in Other English-Speaking CountriesIn the US the English-only movement as we have argued has arisen with theperceived increase in vitality of Hispanic communities resulting in a sense ofthreat among members of the Anglo majority It is useful to compare this contextto that of other English-speaking countries Here we examine three othermulticultural English-dominant countries Canada Australia and New Zealand

Canada Many English-only advocates in the US mention Canada as an ex-ample of a nation being ldquotorn apartrdquo because of language policies that supportmultiple languages (eg Hayakawa 1992 Murray 1991 US English 1992) Al-though Aboriginal and other minority language communities are gaining increas-


21

ing recognition with regard to language issues this discussion focuses on Canadarsquostwo official languages French and English According to the 1996 Canadian cen-sus (Statistics Canada 1999 see also Churchill 1998) approximately 59 of thealmost 29 million people who make up the Canadian population have English as amother tongue 23 have French and 04 have both official languages as mothertongues Of the remaining 16 who have a nonofficial language mother tongue themost common languages are German Ukrainian Polish and Chinese Despite thelarge proportion of people with a nonofficial language background most Cana-dians can speak English (66) French (14) or both official languages (17)

In several respects Canada is similar to the US It is a former British colony thatis now an immigrant nation and thus has many languages represented in itspopulation Drawing further parallels between the linguistic situation of Canadaand that of the US however must be done cautiously for a number of reasonsFirst the Canadian historical circumstances are very different than the American inthat two language groups the French and the English played important roles inestablishing European settlements in the territory now known as Canada In theTreaty of Paris in 1763 France ceded New France to Great Britain Since that timealthough there are notable exceptions such as the expulsion of the Acadians andthe treatment of the Metis and French in Manitoba the British have generallyrecognized the ldquoFrench factrdquo of the North American territory

An overview of English-French relations (based on Bourhis 1994a) illustratesthis point For instance the Quebec Act of 1771 guaranteed the maintenance ofFrench civil laws and customs as well as freedom of worship and education inQuebec In 1867 the British North America Act implicitly recognized French andEnglish as official languages of the federal and Quebec legislatures The 1938Federal Civil Service Act required civil servants to be competent in the language(French or English) of the majority of persons to whom they provide services The1960 Bill of Rights guaranteed access to a French or English interpreter in a courtThe most explicit recognition of the French language status followed from the1963ndash1970 Canadian Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism whichresulted in the 1969 Official Languages Act This Act made French and English theofficial languages of the federal government and guaranteed federal governmentservices in French and English where the concentration of speakers exceeded10 of the regional population

A new Official Languages Act in 1988 broadened the scope of the original Actparticularly with regard to ensuring equitable participation of Anglophones andFrancophones in the federal government (Fortier 1994) In 1982 the Canadianconstitution was patriated from Britain in the process Quebecrsquos right to vetoconstitutional amendments was dropped and so Quebec refused to sign the agree-ment (Bourhis 1994b) Since that time a series of summits has attempted to bringabout an agreement among the provinces starting with the Meech Lake Accord(1987) which included an amendment to the Constitution Act such that Quebecis recognized as a distinct society within Canada This brief history shows thatlanguage issues (particularly English-French but also Aboriginal and other minor-ity languages [cf Cummins 1998 Drapeau 1998]) have defined Canada since pr-Confederation It might even be argued that in the current process of negotiating


22

policy and practice regarding language rights (cf MacMillan 1998) Canada is stilldeveloping its linguistic identity In some senses then it is misleading to say thecountry is ldquotearing itself apartrdquo when these issues have been a part of Canadiansociety since its inception

As much as linguistic concerns have centered in Canadian history it is alsoimportant to recognize that divisions between the French and English are likely asmuch due to social and economic inequalities as language differences (Nunberg1992) Historically French Canadians lived in insular rural communities wherethey were dominated by the Catholic church and had little interaction with En-glish speakers (Lemco 1992) The church encouraged French Canadians to retainan agrarian lifestyle and to avoid commerce Anglophones thus came to dominatethe economic political and social scene In the 1960s the Quebecois began toassert their rights as the numerical majority group During the 1950s ldquotraditionalrdquopatterns began to change and the ldquoQuiet Revolutionrdquo of the 1960s restructuredpolitical economic and social systems (Hamers amp Hummel 1994) In part thisrevolution was a process of ldquomodernizationrdquo involving a move away from anagrarian way of life the extensive influence of the church and poor politicalleadership (Hamers amp Hummel 1994) It also involved rejection of English-domi-nated society and a resurgence of pride in the French language Thus the separat-ist movement in Quebec would not seem to be premised solely on language issuesbut rather a reaction to broader economic social and political disadvantage

The current linguistic climate in Quebec (see Bourhis in press) follows fromthese earlier events as the Quebecois have worked to maintain their culture andparticularly their linguistic vitality in an otherwise English-dominant continentConsiderable legislation has been enacted to protect and promote the Frenchlanguage within the province (see Barbaud 1998 Bourhis 1994b Hamers ampHummel 1994) For instance in 1974 Bill 22 made French the official language ofQuebec and prescribed its use in public administration business professions andeducation In 1977 the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101) made French theonly official language of the legislature and courts Access to English-languageeducation was restricted to children of a parent who had received most of his orher primary education in English in Quebec (this was broadened in 1984 to Canada)Larger companies were required to ensure that all English documents had a clearlyvisible French equivalent and French had to be used on all public signs andposters This situation has lead to a backlash from Anglophones and allophoneswho found this legislation to be coercive (Hamers amp Hummel 1994) ManyAnglophones left Quebec between 1976 and 1981 and some of those who re-mained began political action to reduce the predominance of French and promotebilingualism Outside of Quebec some cities and municipalities declared them-selves unilingual English in reaction to Quebecrsquos restrictive policies More recentlegislation such as Bill 86 modified the earlier bills to include the right to adver-tise with bilingual signs as long as French predominates

Quebec is not alone in such discriminatory language policies many other prov-inces in Canada at one point or another have promoted its majority official lan-guage (ie English) restricted access to services in its minority official language(ie French) or both For instance although the 1987 Manitoba Act declared


23

French and English as official languages of the Manitoba legislature and guaran-teed access to education to both French Catholic and English Protestant schoolsthe 1890 Manitoba Official Languages Act then banned French from the Manitobalegislature and in 1916 the teaching of French was banned in all public schoolsIn Ontario a 1912 regulation banned the teaching of French from all publicschools French Catholic private schools hospitals and parishes In 1931Saskatchewan declared English as the language of instruction in schools Magnet(1990) suggests that it is these efforts to undermine minority language communi-ties that have lead to political instability in Canada not the fact of linguisticplurality per se He states

The Canadian experience thus teaches that the existence of two languagesdoes not create the problem of separatism or at least lead to social tensionsSeparatism and political pathology grow in proportion as Canadian govern-ments fail to deal with linguistic minorities generously and intelligently It isthe refusal to respect linguistic differences which leads to political difficultiesin Canada not the other way around (p 56)

In sum then the history of language policy in Canada has recognized thelinguistic duality of the two founding European nations and this history is consid-erably different from that of the US The current state of the relations between theEnglish and the French may involve language but certainly broader concernscontribute substantially to the tensions between groups Canadian provinces havea history of undermining the minority official language and it is plausible that thisattitude is more responsible for current difficulties than the fact of linguistic pluralism

Although Canada is still faced with coming up with a happy resolution for all ofits linguistic interests the linguistic situation is not uniformly negative When dis-cussing Canadarsquos language situation English-only advocates seldom point to thoseprovinces and territories that are bi- or multilingual For instance New Brunswickis an officially bilingual province in which two thirds of the population are En-glish speaking and the remainder are French speaking (Leavitt 1998) Many of thesame concerns expressed elsewhere exist here whereby Anglophones fear thatthey will place themselves at a disadvantage if they give too many rights to theminority Francophone group and Francophones are resentful of the Anglophonesrsquoshesitancy to make these privileges available (Steele 1990) That said the degreeof political unrest underlying the separatist movement in Quebec (where arguablya monolingual official language policy is promoted) is not as extreme in thisbilingual context Other areas of Canada are officially multilingual For instancethe Northwest Territories and the newly formed Nunavut Territory are both offi-cially multilingual including French English and six Aboriginal languagesmdashChipewyan Dogrib Slavey Gwichrsquoin Inuktitut and Cree Further the Yukonrecognizes English French and the Yukon Aboriginal languages without desig-nating an official language Again the political tensions evident in Quebec are notas prevalent in these territories suggesting that factors other than official bi- ormultilingualism contribute to strife between groups

Australia It has been suggested that Australia is the most multicultural country


24

in the world while remaining essentially unilingual in English the language of thedominant majority (Clyne 1982 Gallois amp Pittam 1996) Despite the fact thatAustralia is an increasingly immigrant nation (something like 40 are first- orsecond-generation Australians) non-English-speaking immigrant groups rapidlybecome English speaking usually in one generation and no group other than theEnglish-speaking majority can be described as having high objective vitality (PittamGallois amp Willemyns 1991) In 1996 85 of the population spoke only English athome the other 15 comprised speakers of more than 160 different languages(Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999 p 11) This linguistic diversity ensures thatno language other than English dominates in Australia Even the most commonlyspoken languages other than EnglishmdashItalian Greek Cantonese Arabic and Viet-namesemdashare spoken by only small minorities all less than 23 of the Australianpopulation and the diverse range of indigenous languages are spoken by a mere3 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999) Despite the dominance of English asthe national language government policy recognizes that Australia is both amulticultural and multilingual nation Indeed the National Policy on Languages(Lo Bianco 1987) stressed the complementary nature of English and Australiarsquosother languages In recognition of the importance of linguistic diversity the Na-tional Policy on Languages recommended strategies to be implemented in areassuch as English and ESL teaching languages other than English (LOTE) and Ab-original education (see Clyne 1997 1998)

Yet the current reality of multilingualism in Australia is debated Clyne (1998) isrelatively optimistic He argues that there is no English-only legislation in Australianor any English-only movement that is gaining support for the undermining oflanguages other than English He reasons that although every so often racistviews do emerge in society and attract a following these are relatively short-livedbecause of the opposition of ethnic groups and the open-minded mainstream andtheir mouthpieces (the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and newspapers suchas The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald) Nonetheless Clyne also acknowl-edges that the good intentions of the National Policy on Languages have beenundermined somewhat by the more recent Australian Language and Literacy Policy(Dawkins 1991) This policy stressed short-term economic goals and labor marketneeds for languages other than English at the expense of socially motivated pro-grams aimed at second-language acquisition and maintenance Furthermore therewas a strong emphasis placed on user-pays in ESL programs an emphasis onEnglish literacy and a marginalization of Aboriginal-language maintenance pro-grams Clyne (1998) identifies three major political factors that have underminedthe good intentions of the National Policy on Languages (a) the general espousalof economic rationalism (b) an educational explosion in a basically utilitarian andanti-intellectual society and (c) the problems of defining advantage and disadvan-tage in a self-described classless society

In a similar vein Bodi (1994) noted that the strategic policy change of directiontoward ldquoAsia literacyrdquo for the mainstream has resulted in diminishing support forsome smaller mostly European languages and programs in favor of ldquopriorityrdquolanguages such as Japanese Bahasa and Mandarin Gibbons (1997) also argued thatdespite the good intentions of the National Policy on Languages LOTES are not


25

given enough attention in educational contexts and the problems of bilingual (ornon-English-speaking) migrants at school are not sufficiently recognized

Others are even more circumspect For instance May (1998) argued that withina culture of multiculturalism there remains a tension between dominant and mi-nority groups In Australiarsquos case the ongoing ascendancy of the White Anglo-Celtic majority and the current political climate (the politics of discontent) meanthat multiculturalism and multilingual public policy are anything but assured Mayargued that the present national government has reverted to an assimilationiststance and that there has been a concomitant rise in and popularization of racistrhetoric against Aborigines and Asian migrants This tendency is exemplified bythe well-publicized rise of the minority political party of Pauline Hanson Maybelieved that this is not just a passing fad although Hansonrsquos party has recentlyexperienced a dramatic fall in popularity from its zenith in 1998

Likewise Ager (1998) identified Hansonism as a backlash against elite policythat allowed the migrant community to get more than its fair share of resources Alarge-scale national survey conducted by AGBMcNair on behalf of the Office ofMulticultural Affairs (see Stefanik 1990) found broad consensus on the impor-tance of English for successful participation in Australian life and a less generousattitude toward adults who do not speak English There was overwhelming sup-port for the proposition that all Australians should be allowed to enjoy their owncultural heritage and the opportunity to learn a second language in addition toEnglish was favored very solidly across all population groups However patternswere far less unanimous when it came to ethno-specific services (run by and foran ethnic community) For instance the general communityrsquos support for lan-guage services weakened dramatically when they considered the provision ofldquospecialrdquo services as an alternative to expanding generally available English-lan-guage services

Anecdotal evidence also supports the notion that although Anglo Australiansare generally reasonably tolerant of LOTES a continuing minority is feeling threat-ened For instance Mackay (1993) related the sentiments of one Australian in-cluding views on the linguistic landscape

I do think they [Asians] should all be made to learn to speak English and Idonrsquot think they should be allowed to put up signs on shops in a foreignlanguage This is our bloody country after all and you canrsquot read the signs onhalf the shops round some parts of Melbourne (p 168)

Much of the research in Australia on ethnolinguistic vitality has been conductedwith immigrant groups (eg Hogg DrsquoAgata amp Abrams 1989 Hogg amp Rigoli1996 McNamara 1987) To varying degrees these studies have noted that lowstatus is accorded to all migrant languages in Australia (Mackiewicz amp Kee 1986)and that majority group attitudes on this point are rapidly internalized by themigrants themselves (eg Callan amp Gallois 1982 Giles Rosenthal amp Young 1985)Equity and mobility for those with a less preferred language background are to beachieved more via English competence than through the maintenance of the mothertongue However studies that have systematically addressed perceptions of


26

ethnolinguistic vitality among the Anglo-Celtic majority have reported that thehigher the potential for contact and the lower the education level the more exag-gerated the perceived vitality of minority languages relative to English Pittam etal (1991) concluded that the reality of daily life for Anglo Australian residents insuburbs with high concentrations of Vietnamese coupled with stereotypic preju-dices about Asians lead to exaggerated perceptions of the relative vitality of Viet-namese both now and in the future

New Zealand Like Australia New Zealand has for some time been a multilin-gual and multicultural community as a result of immigration from non-English-speaking countries including those of Europe the Pacific Islands and variousparts of Southeast Asia (Kaplan 1994) About four fifths of New Zealanders are ofEuropean origin predominantly from the British Isles The indigenous Maori popu-lation makes up the next largest group of the population about 145 in 1996followed by Pacific Island people who comprised 56 of the population in the1996 census (New Zealand Official Yearbook 1997) Although English is the firstlanguage of the great majority of New Zealanders a range of languages includingMaori Samoan Chinese Gujarati Greek and Italian is spoken by reasonablenumbers of New Zealanders (Holmes 1997)

What distinguishes the New Zealand scene is the well-developed legislationand policy about the indigenous Maori language which has provided the basis forstrategic planning aimed at nurturing Maori (Holmes 1997) Ironically Maori isthe only official language of New Zealand It is widely represented in publicsignage Maori terms are regularly used in English-based publications and Maorimay be used in courts Nevertheless there is still debate as to whether Maorishould be represented in New Zealand postage currency passports and otherofficial contexts (Kaplan 1994) In some respects Maori shows high vitality andofficial recognition and there is an increasing number of second-language speak-ers of Maori at the expense of immigrant languages Even so there is evidencethat Maori functions largely as a ritual language and continues to be marginalized(Nicholson amp Garland 1991)

Despite the acceptance of Maori as an official language Kaplan (1994 p 157)argues that language issues have largely gone unnoticed across most strata ofNew Zealand society and the government shows profound disinterest ldquoManypeople seem unaware of the need for any language other than English manyothers seem unaware of the probable real linguistic diversity of the New Zealandpopulationrdquo As in Australia immigrants to New Zealand complete language shiftfrom their heritage tongue to the majority language of the society within a fewgenerations (Roberts 1991) However a persistent minority (up to one fifth ofthe population) displays hostility to languages other than English and to issues ofimmigration and race more generally

Informal conversations with individuals outside the academic sector (eg ho-tel staff taxi drivers airlinesrsquo personnel employees in various retail outletsand even some teachers) right across several major cities suggest that somepercentage of adult Anglo New Zealanders hold rather negative feelings aboutMaori people about Asian immigrants about Japanese and about PacificIslanders (Kaplan 1994 p 157)


27

Moreover Nicholson and Garland (1991) provide further evidence of minorityresistance to the revitalization of the Maori language

Overall Australia and New Zealand like Canada appear to have less lively andactive English-only movements than the US at the present time Indeed thesituation in New Zealand and Canada is very similar English is very dominantbut there is a significant minority of speakers of one other language withrelatively high vitality (Maori in New Zealand and French in Canada) In eachof these three contexts national governments of all political persuasions haveexplicitly acknowledged the bi- or multicultural nature of the country and theimportance of maintaining diverse ethnolinguistic heritages Nevertheless thefactors that predict advocacy of English-only in the US appear to work in asimilar way

Epilogue

Generalized concern about the status of English represents a deeper fear aboutthe vitality and status of the dominant Anglo majority Currently available evi-dence suggests that insecurity about status among Anglos is unfounded Moreresearch is required to understand how this seeming mismatch between the ob-jective vitality of non-English-speaking groups and Anglosrsquos subjective percep-tions of the vitality of those groups relates to moves affecting language minoritieslimiting their access to education information and cultural tradition

However there are some competing influences at work For example in 1993the greater Miami area in Florida (where Hispanics are in the majority) repealedofficial English in county government and the Arizona Supreme Court let stand adecision that the English-only rule illegally required state business to be con-ducted in English The court said that the provision violated the First Amendmentright to free speech by depriving non-English-speaking residents of access togovernment information and the ability to communicate with state agencies (ldquoHighCourt Rejects Appealrdquo 1999) Additionally the California state auditor recentlylaunched an investigation of publicly funded agencies to determine if they arecomplying with the state law requiring them to provide interpreters and standard-ized forms in languages other than English (Kondo 1999)

The US business community continues to exhibit a somewhat ambivalent atti-tude to language diversity in the workplace ranging between applying pressureson language minorities to assimilate and implementing policies of adaptation tolanguage diversity (Dicker 1998) In a study exploring cultural differences inemployee perceptions of social support received from sources in a multiculturalorganization social support received from Anglo-American coworkers was foundto be significantly related to Hispanicsrsquos emotional acculturation (Amason Allenamp Holmes 1999) Praise and help with personal problems emerged as the types ofsupport most closely related to emotional acculturation However at the site ofthis study support for minorities and cultural sensitivity to their language usewere really only cursory at an organizational level In that regard the followingquote from this study is telling


28

While observing in one of the plantrsquos break rooms we noticed a large posterprominently displayed in several locations It showed a culturally diverse groupof employees sitting around a table Beneath the picture the caption read ldquoweare a culturally diverse workplacerdquo and encouraged employees to value diver-sity It was in English only and there were no translations (p 310)

The federal governmentrsquos Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)offers guidelines that deal with English-only rules in which it recognizes that ldquotheprimary language of an individual is often an essential national origin character-isticrdquo (p 294 quoted in Dicker 1998) Employers are urged to apply English-onlyrules only where they can show an absolute necessity (eg safety) HoweverEnglish-only advocates lobby for the right of employers to apply English-only inthe workplace and this practice shows consistent backing from the courts (Dicker1998)

There is a disjuncture between state and federal policy on English-only issuesBilingual education in California is virtually outlawed However Article 3 of theUniversal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (of which the United States is a signa-tory) states that (a) all individuals should have the right to the use their ownlanguage both in private and public (b) the right to maintain and develop theirown culture to have their own language and culture taught (c) the right ofaccess to cultural services (d) the right to an equitable presence of their lan-guage and culture in the communications media and (e) the right to receiveequitable attention in their own language from government bodies and in socio-economic relations (Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights 1999)

Bourhis and Marshall (1999) argue

As a local perhaps statewide movement ldquoEnglish-onlyrdquo may still have somepolitical life but as a national issue its fate is sealed for neither the Demo-cratic nor Republican party would wish to alienate its Spanish-speaking ad-herents by advocating such national legislation (p 251)

This remains to be seen For despite such conflicting social forces there appearsto be no letup in the salience of the English-only issue closely related initiativesand increasing ambivalence surrounding their implications We see no substan-tial change for the better since 1991 when Padilla and colleagues concluded thatpast and existing research evidence uncovered the substantially negative effectsof the English-only movement

This finding has long-term implications not just in the US but also in interna-tional contexts where language purism reigns For example the world is experi-encing rapid social and economic globalization yet in several countries individu-als speak only one language With this in mind how are unilingual English-speaking professionals perceived by their often multilingual economic partnersFurther how does unilingualism affect their negotiations and relationships Doestheir unilingualism influence their perceptions of ldquoothersrdquo The evidence fromthe US and other countries suggests that it does but there is still importantresearch to be done


29

Communication scholars have much to do in this context for as we knowlanguage and social identity are intertwined Through the use of language ste-reotypes are maintained and communicated in interpersonal networks of linguis-tic contact through education in the media and in the linguistic landscape Whenthe perceptions of dominant language groups are based on inappropriate stereo-types associated with minority language groups discrimination is often the outcome

Two contexts of particular concern in this respect are the workplace and theschool Attitudes toward language use and promotion and how these are com-municated in these contexts are crucial for the social identity and esteem oflanguage groups Additionally the backdrop of linguistic landscape within ev-eryday institutional environs may serve to bolster social dominance of one lin-guistic group over another

Clearly there is an important need to examine the rationale and outcome ofpolicies encouraging English-only at work at school and in the linguistic land-scape of a community Communication scholars have a significant role to playboth in terms of voicing concerns about such policies and in conducting relevantresearch about the effects of English-only on both minority- and majority-groupmembersrsquo perceptions of their own and othersrsquo language vitalities To develop agreater understanding of the implications of the English-only movement variedbackgrounds and methodological allegiances can and should be brought tobear We suggest that there is research through which communication scholarscan increase knowledge in this important area

bull Empirical work to test the relationship among support for English-onlysubjective perceptions of vitality and measures of linguistic contact ininstitutional settings (eg education the workplace and media) as wellas other links inherent in Figure 1 above

bull Investigation of perceptions of the prevalence of languages other thanEnglish in the linguistic landscape and how this relates to short- andlong-term language use and subjective vitality

bull The impact of government language policy (at the national or state level)on vitality of languages other than English and support for English-only

bull Content analyses of representations of English-only and related issues inthe media to garner more evidence about how such media messages areframed and discussed

bull Experimental research using media stimuli to determine ways in whichthe media influences groupsrsquo perceptions of subjective vitality

bull Ethnographic research in organizational and institutional settings to re-veal the ways that people from differing language groups communicateabout and function in English-only environments

bull Qualitative and quantitative research describing the effects of English-only environments on social identity construction and adaptation ad-justment and well-being

As a new millennium begins it is time for communication scholars to add theirvoices and research acumen to those in the fields of education and psychology


30

who have long recognized the negative implications of language purism (Jernuddamp Shapiro 1989) The accumulating evidence suggests that ldquoofficial Englishrdquo maynot be a well-founded policy Certainly a concerted effort in the conduct ofempirically rigorous research is required particularly given that political ideolo-gies are heavily invested in the research findings It is even possible that suchresearch might point out limitations to multilingualism Regardless such researchis essential for better policies and programs for language groups in the US andelsewhere

References

Abrams J R amp Eveland W P (2000 November) The role of mass media in intergroup relationsPaper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association Seattle WA

Acuna R F amp Rodriquez G (1998 June 29) Who killed bilingual education (Pro and con argumentsconcerning what led to the end of bilingual education in California) Nation 266(23) 2ndash4

Ager D (1998) Backlash A response to Michael Clyne In S Wright amp H Kelly-Holmes (Eds) Man-aging language diversity (pp 72ndash76) Artarmon Australia Multilingual Matters

Alexander S amp Baker K (1992) Some ethical issues in applied social psychology The case ofbilingual education and self-esteem Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22 1741ndash1757

Amason P Allen M W amp Holmes S A (1999) Social support and acculturative stress in the multiculturalworkplace Journal of Applied Communication Research 27 310ndash334

Amastae J (1990) Official English and the learning of English In K L Adams amp D T Brink (Eds)Perspectives on official English The campaign for English as the official language of the USA (pp199ndash208) New York Mouton de Gruyter

Asante M K (1998) Identifying racist language linguistic acts and signs In M L Hecht (Ed) Com-municating prejudice (pp 87ndash98) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999) Australian social trends Languages spoken in Australia CanberraAustralian Bureau of Statistics

Barbaud P (1998) French in Quebec In J Edwards (Ed) Language in Canada (pp 177ndash201)Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

Bodi M (1994) The changing role of minority languages in Australia The European and the Asia-Pacific nexus Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 15 219ndash227

Bourhis R Y (1994a) Introduction and overview of language events in Canada International Journalof the Sociology of Language 105106 5ndash36

Bourhis R Y (1994b) Ethnic and language attitudes in Quebec In J W Berry amp J A Laponce (Eds)Ethnicity and culture in Canada The research landscape (pp 322ndash360) Toronto Canada Univer-sity of Toronto Press

Bourhis R Y (in press) Reversing language shift in Quebec In J A Fishman (Ed) Can threatenedlanguages be saved Clevedon UK Multilingual Matters

Bourhis R Y amp Marshall D E (1999) The United States and Canada In J A Fishman (Ed) Hand-book of language and ethnic identity (pp 244ndash264) New York Oxford University Press

Brandt E A (1990) The official English movement and the role of first languages In K L Adams amp DT Brink (Eds) Perspectives on official English The campaign for English as the official language ofthe USA (pp 209ndash214) New York Mouton de Gruyter


31

Branigan W (1998 November 9) Latino voters gaining political clout Now 5 percent of electorateHispanics help clinch key races win more offices Los Angeles Times p A8

Brodesser C (1997 April 21) Fox O amp O offers Spanish on sports Others may follow Mediaweek7 6ndash7

Bruno R (1993) Languages spoken in the home and ability to speak English for United States regionsand states 1990 ([CPH-L-133]Microfiche ASI 1993 2328-92) Washington DC US Department ofCommerce News CB93-78

Bryce R (1996 April 18) Hispanic politicians ride to fore of Texas races Christian ScienceMonitor p 3

California Research Bureau (1999) Report on California Diversity Sacramento California State Library

Callan V J amp Gallois C (1982) Language attitudes of Italo-Australian and Greek-Australian bilingualsInternational Journal of Psychology 17 345ndash58

Cantoni G (1998) The role of cultural factors in the maintenance of indigenous languages Intercul-tural Communication Studies 8 1ndash11

Cantu T (1998) No se habla espano English-only politics discriminate against Spanish-speakingemployees Hispanic 11 48ndash51

Churchill S (1998) New Canadian perspectives Official languages in Canada Changing the lan-guage landscape URL wwwpchgccaofflangoffperspectivesenglishlanguagesindexhtml

Citrin J (1990 Spring) Language politics and American identity Public Interest 96ndash109

Citrin J Haas E B Muste C amp Reingold B (1994) Is American nationalism changing Implicationsfor foreign policy International Studies Quarterly 38 1ndash31

Citrin J Reingold B Walters E amp Green D P (1990) The ldquoofficial Englishrdquo movement and thesymbolic politics of language in the United States Western Political Quarterly 43 535ndash559

Cleacutement R (1986) Second language proficiency and acculturation An investigation of the effects oflanguage status and individual characteristics Journal of Language and Social Psychology 5 271ndash290

Cleacutement R amp Kruidenier B G (1985) Aptitude attitude and motivation in second language proficiencyA test of Cleacutementrsquos model Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4 21ndash37

Cleacutement R Michaud C amp Noels K A (1998) Effets acculturatifs du support social en situation decontact intergroupe [Acculturative effects of social support in an intergroup contact situation] RevueQueacutebeacutecoise de Psychologie 19 189ndash210

Cleacutement R amp Noels K A (1992) Towards a situated approach to ethnolinguistic identity The effectsof status on individuals and groups Journal of Language and Social Psychology 11 203ndash232

Clyne M (1982) Multilingual Australia Melbourne Australia River Seine

Clyne M (1997) Language policy in AustraliamdashAchievements disappointments prospects Journal ofIntercultural Studies 18 63ndash71

Clyne M (1998) Managing language diversity and second language programmes in Australia In SWright amp H Kelly-Holmes (Eds) Managing language diversity (pp 4ndash29) Artarmon AustraliaMultilingual Matters

Cobarubias J amp Fishman J A (Eds) (1983) Progress in language planning Berlin Germany Moutonde Gruyter

Cooper R T (1999 September 16) Inquiry into English-only tests ordered (by the Presidentrsquos AdvisoryCommission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans) Los Angeles Times p A3


32

Cummins J (1998) The teaching of international languages In J Edwards (Ed) Language in Canada(pp 293ndash304) Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

Dawkins J (1991) Australiarsquos language The Australian language and literacy policy CanberraAustralian Government Publishing Service

Delgado F (1998) Chicano ideology revisited Rap music and the (re)articulation of ChicanismoWestern Journal of Communication 62 95ndash113

Del Olmo F (1998 June 7) ldquoGiantrdquo is awake and is a force (Latino voters in California) Los AngelesTimes p M5

Dicker S J (1995) Ten Official English arguments and counter-arguments In S J Dicker R MJackson T Ricento amp K Romstedt (Eds) Official English No TESOLrsquos recommendations for counteringthe official English-only movement in the US (pp 27ndash36) Alexandria VA TESOL

Dicker S J (1998) Adaptation and assimilation US business responses to linguistic diversity in theworkplace Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19 282ndash302

Dicker S J Jackson R M Ricento T amp Romstedt K (Eds) (1995) Official English No TESOLrsquosrecommendations for countering the official English-only movement in the US Alexandria VA TESOL

Drapeau L (1998) Aboriginal languages Current status In J Edwards (Ed) Language in Canada(pp 144ndash159) Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

Efron S (2000 March 1) Japan panel seeks English dialogue Los Angeles Times p A12

Ferrell D amp Hotz R L (2000 January 23) Ethnic pockets amid a vast fabric of English Los AngelesTimes pp A1 A16ndash18

Fishman J A (1988) English only Its ghosts myths and dangers International Journal of the Sociologyof Language 74 125ndash140

Fortier D (1994) Official languages policies in Canada A quiet revolution International Journal ofthe Sociology of Language 105106 69ndash97

Franquiz M I (1998) The effects of bilingual education on academic achievement languagedevelopment and self-esteem of Hispanic children Dissertation Abstracts International 593A p 0698

Frendreis J amp Tatalovich R (1997) Who supports English-only language laws Evidence from the1992 national election study Social Science Quarterly 78 354ndash368

Gallois C amp Pittam J (1996) Communication attitudes and accommodation in Australia A culturallydiverse English-dominant context International Journal of Psycholinguistics 12 193ndash212

Gao G Schmidt K L amp Gudykunst W B (1994) Strength of ethnic identity and perceptionsof ethnolinguistic vitality among Mexican Americans Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences16 332ndash341

Genesee F amp Gandara P (2000) Bilingual education programs A cross-national perspective Journalof Social Issues 55 665ndash685

Germany Language dispute (1999 July 22) New York Times p A6

Gibbons J (1997 May) Operationalizing cognitive academic language proficiency in bilingualismresearch Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Language and Social PsychologyOttawa Canada

Giles H Bourhis R Y amp Taylor D M (1977) Towards a theory of language in ethnic grouprelations In H Giles (Ed) Language ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp 307ndash348) LondonAcademic Press


33

Giles H amp Johnson P (1981) The role of language in ethnic group relations In J C Turner amp HGiles (Eds) Intergroup behavior (pp 199ndash243) Oxford UK Blackwell

Giles H amp Johnson P (1987) Ethnolinguistic identity theory A social psychological approach tolanguage maintenance International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68 69ndash99

Giles H Rosenthal D amp Young L (1985) Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality The Anglo-Australianand Greek-Australian setting Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6 253ndash269

Giles H Williams A Mackie D M amp Rosselli F (1995) Reactions to Anglo- and Hispanic-Ameri-can-accented speakers Affect identity persuasion and the English-only movement Language ampCommunication 15 107ndash120

Greene J P (1998) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education Austin TX ThomasRivera Policy Institute

Hakuta K (1999) The debate on bilingual education Developmental and Behavioral Pediat-rics 20 36ndash37

Hamers J F amp Hummel K M (1994) The Francophones of Quebec Language policies and languageuse International Journal of the Sociology of Language 105106 127ndash152

Harrison E amp Craughwell K (1999 May 20) Albumrsquos debut at No1 signals boom in Latino music LosAngeles Times pp A1 A21

Harwood J (1997) Viewing age Lifespan identity and television viewing choices Journal of Broad-casting and Electronic Media 41 203ndash213

Harwood J (1999) Age identification social identity gratifications and television viewing Journal ofBroadcasting and Electronic Media 43 123ndash136

Harwood J Giles H amp Bourhis R Y (1994) The genesis of vitality theory Historical patterns anddiscoursal dimensions International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108 167ndash206

Hayakawa S I (1992) The case for official English In J Crawford (Ed) Language loyalties A sourcebook on the official English controversy (pp 94ndash100) Chicago University of Chicago Press

Hayes-Bautista D E amp Rodriguez G (1995 February 13) In South Central se habla Espanol Latinizationof LA Nation 250 202ndash203

Hecht M L (1998) Introduction In M L Hecht (Ed) Communicating prejudice (pp 3ndash23) Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage

High court rejects appeal on Arizonarsquos English-only law (1999 January 12) Santa Barbara NewsPress p A3

Hogg M A DrsquoAgata P amp Abrams D (1989) Ethnolinguistic betrayal and speaker evaluations amongItalian Australians Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs 115 153ndash181

Hogg M A amp Rigoli N (1996) Effects of ethnolinguistic vitality ethnic identification and linguisticcontacts on minority language use Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15 76ndash89

Holmes J (1997) Keeping tabs on language shift in New Zealand Some methodological consider-ations Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18 17ndash39

Howe M (1990 January 7) Immigrants swell language classes New York Times pp 20 26Huddy Lamp Sears D O (1990) Qualified public support for bilingual education Some policy implicationsAnnals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 508 119ndash134

Huddy L amp Sears D O (1995) Opposition to bilingual education Prejudice or the defense ofrealistic interests Social Psychology Quarterly 58 133ndash143


34

Jernudd B H (1989) The texture of language purism An introduction In G H Jernudd amp M JShapiro (Eds) The politics of language purism (pp 1-20) The Hague Netherlands Mouton deGruyter

Jernudd B H amp Shapiro M J (Eds) (1989) The politics of language purism The Hague Nether-lands Mouton de Gruyter

Johnson F L (2000) Speaking culturally Language diversity in the United States ThousandOaks CA Sage

Johnson G (1999 May 21) A Chevron car speaks Spanish on English TV Ad to launch Monday willhave English subtitles analysts say therersquos a growing recognition by marketers of the need to gobeyond Spanish-language media Los Angeles Times p C1

Joubert C E (1997) The relation between statesrsquo adoption of English as their official language todemographic and social pathology variables Psychological Reports 80 1324ndash1326

Judd E L (1987) The English language amendment A case study on language and politics TESOLQuarterly 21 113ndash135

Kaplan R B (1994) Language policy and planning in New Zealand Annual Review of Applied Lin-guistics 14 156ndash176

Kim Y Y (1995) Cross-cultural adaptation An integrative theory In R L Wiseman (Ed) Intercul-tural communication theory (pp 170ndash193) Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Kolker C (1999 August 13) Town speaks the language of its people Los Angeles Times pp A1 17

Kondo A (1999 June 22) Many patients suffer language gap Los Angeles Times pp A3 22

Laboy J (1997 May 7) Spanish TV booms luring top talent Wall Street Journal p CA1

Lambert W E amp Taylor D M (1996) Language in the lives of ethnic minorities Cuban Americanfamilies in Miami Applied Linguistics 17 477ndash500

Landry R amp Bourhis R Y (1997) Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality An empiricalstudy Journal of Language amp Social Psychology16 23ndash49

Leavitt R M (1998) Language in New Brunswick In J Edwards (Ed) Language in Canada (pp 373ndash384) Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

Lemco J (1992) Quebecrsquos ldquodistinctive characterrdquo and the question of minority rights In J Crawford(Ed) Language loyalties A source book on the Official English controversy (pp 423ndash433) ChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press

Lo Bianco J (1987) National policy on languages Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service

Lynch S (2000 January 2) Saying adios to Spanish The signs may say otherwise but Spanish isslowly vanishing from the United States Santa Barbara News Press pp D1 D3

MacMillan C M (1998) The practice of language rights in Canada Toronto Canada Toronto Univer-sity Press

Maass A (1999) Linguistic intergroup bias Stereotype perception through language Advances inExperimental Social Psychology 31 79ndash121

Macedo D (1991) English only The tongue-tying of America Journal of Education 173 9ndash20

Mackay H (1993) Reinventing Australia The mind and mood of Australia in the 90s MelbourneAustralia Angus amp Robertson

Mackiewicz G amp Kee P K (1986) Intergroup attitudes and behavior in Adelaide Paper presented atNational Research Conference on Ethnicity and Multiculturalism University of Melbourne AustraliaMay 14ndash16


35

Magnet J E (1990) Canadian perspectives on official English In K L Adams amp D T Brink (Eds)Perspectives on official English The campaign for English as the official language of the United States(pp 53ndash62) Berlin Germany Mouton de Gruyter

May S (1998) Just how safe is Australiarsquos multilingual language policy A response to Michael ClyneIn S Wright amp H Kelly-Holmes (Eds) Managing language diversity (pp 54ndash57) Artarmon Austra-lia Multilingual Matters

McNamara T F (1987) Language and social identity Israelis abroad Journal of Language and SocialPsychology 6 215ndash228

Miller J M (2000) Language use identity and social interaction Migrant students in Australia Re-search on Language and Social Interaction 33 69ndash100

Mouw T amp Xie Y (1999) Bilingualism and the academic achievement of first- and second-generationAsian Americans Accommodation with or without assimilation American Sociological Review 64232ndash252

Murray J E (1991) On the English-only controversy Comment on Padilla et al American Psycholo-gist 46 1090ndash1091

National Education Association (1966) The invisible minority Report of the NEA-Tucson survey on theteaching of Spanish to the Spanish-speaking Washington DC Dept of Rural Education NationalEducation Association

National Research Council (1997) Improving schooling for language minority children A researchagenda Washington DC National Academy Press

New Zealand Official Yearbook (1997) Auckland Statistics New Zealand

Nicholson R amp Garland R (1991) New Zealandersrsquo attitudes to the revitalization of the Maori lan-guage Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 12 393ndash410

Noels K A amp Cleacutement R (1996) Communicating across cultures Social determinants and acculturativeconsequences Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 28 214ndash228

Noels K A Pon G amp Cleacutement R (1996) Language identity and adjustment The role of linguisticself-confidence in the adjustment process Journal of Language and Social Psychology15 246ndash264

Nunberg G (1992) The official English movement Reimagining America In J Crawford (Ed) Lan-guage loyalties A source book on the official English controversy (pp 479ndash494) Chicago Universityof Chicago Press

Olsak S (1998) Ethnic protest in core and periphery states Ethnic and Racial Studies 21 187ndash218

Padilla A M (1991) English only vs bilingual education Ensuring a language-competent societyJournal of Education 173 38ndash51

Padilla A M (1997) The struggle of Latino Latina university students In search of a liberating educa-tion New York Routledge

Padilla A M Lindholm K J Chen A Duran R Hakuta K Lambert W amp Tucker R G (1991)The English-only movement Myths reality and implications for psychology American Psychologist46 120ndash130

Penalosa F (1980) Chicano sociolinguistics A brief introduction Rowley MA Newbury House

Pittam J Gallois C amp Willemyns M (1991) Perceived change in ethnolinguistic vitality by dominantand minority subgroups Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 12 449ndash457

Preisler B (2000 January) English from above and from below Language change and cultural iden-tity in Denmark Paper presented at the symposium on ldquothe role of English in Switzerlandrdquo Univer-sity of Berne Switzerland


36

Ricento T (1995) A brief history of language restrictionism in the United States In S J Dicker R MJackson T Ricento amp K Romstedt (Eds) Official English No TESOLrsquos recommendations for coun-tering the official English-only movement in the US (pp 7ndash17) Alexandria VA TESOL

Roberts M (1991) The New Zealand Chinese community of Wellington Aspects of language mainte-nance and shift In J Holmes amp R Harlow (Eds) Threads in the tapestry of language (pp 31ndash70)Auckland Linguistic Society of New Zealand

Rodriguez G (1998 March 29) The new leaders (Antonio Villaraigosa California Assembly speaker)California Journal pp 10ndash13

Rodriguez G (1999) From newcomers to new Americans The successful integration of immigrantsinto American society Washington DC National Immigration Forum

Rodriguez J L Diaz R M Duran D amp Espinosa L (1995) The impact of bilingual preschooleducation on the language development of Spanish-speaking children Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly 4 475ndash490

Ruggiero K M Taylor D M amp Lambert W E (1996) A model of heritage culture maintenance Therole of discrimination International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20 47ndash67

Sachdev I amp Bourhis R Y (1991) Power and status differentials in minority and majority grouprelations European Journal of Social Psychology 21 1ndash24

Sack K (1999 June 4) Donrsquot speak English No tax break Alabama official declares New York Timespp A19 24

Salazar S (1989 March 6) Controversy over using foreign language business signs spreads throughvalley Pasadena Star News pp A1 A4

Santa Ana O (1999) ldquoLike an animal I was treatedrdquo Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourseDiscourse amp Society 10 191ndash224

Santoro W A (1999) Conventional politics takes center stage The Latino struggle against English-only laws Social Forces 77 887ndash907

Seib G F (1996 July 30) Despite rapid growth Hispanic vote may play only a limited role in fallPresidential contest Wall Street Journal p A16

Statistics Canada (1999) Profiles of census divisions and subdivisions (Catalogue Nos 95-182-XPBthrough 95-214-XPB) Ottawa Canada Statistics Canada

Steele C (1990) Can bilingualism work Fredericton Canada New Ireland Press

Stefancic J amp Delgado R (1996) No Mercy How conservative think tanks and foundations changedAmericarsquos social agenda Philadelphia Temple University Press

Stefanik H (1990) Australia A language graveyard no more Vox 4 33ndash38

Tajfel H (1981) Human groups and social categories Studies in social psychology Cambridge UKCambridge University Press

Tajfel H amp Turner J C (1986) The social identity of intergroup behavior In S Worchel amp W GAustin (Eds) Psychology of intergroup relations (pp 7ndash24) Chicago Nelson

Tatalovich R (1995) Nativism reborn The official English language movement and the Americanstates Lexington KY University Press of Kentucky

Taylor D M Lambert W E amp Wallace E (1996) The meaning of multiculturalism in a culturallydiverse urban American area Journal of Social Psychology 136 727ndash741

Thurman J N (1999 August 23) Can Bush broaden base of Republican party The growing numbersof Hispanics make them a key swing constituency Christian Science Monitor p 2


37

Trulin F (2000 April 2) The Pressrsquo position on the issue of English only Latino Link httpwwwlatinolinkcom

Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (1999) httpwwwtrocesmercatordudl-gbhtm

US Bureau of the Census (1996) Selected economic characteristics of all persons and Hispanic per-sons by type of origin March 1996 [Online] Available httpwwwcensusgov

US English (1992) In defense of our common language In J Crawford (Ed) Language loyaltiesA source book on the official English controversy (pp 143ndash147) Chicago University of Chicago Press

van Dijk T A (1987) Communicating racism Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk Newbury ParkCA Sage

Veltman C (1983) Language shift in the United States Berlin Germany Mouton de Gruyter

Verdin T (2000 March 14) Hispanic politiciansrsquo influence grows Santa Barbara News Press p A5

Wagner M G (1996 December 10) Painting a new political landscape in brown and white LosAngeles Times p B2

Waldinger R amp Bozorgmehr M (Eds) (1996) Ethnic Los Angeles New York Russell SageFoundation

Walsh M W (2000 March 25) Latinorsquos net worth shrinking despite boom times Los AngelesTimes p A16

Westphal S P (2000 March 25) Language-based denial of insurance triggers suit Los Angeles Timespp B1 B5

Willig A C (1987) Examining bilingual education research through meta-analysis and narrative re-view A response to Baker Review of Educational Research 57 363ndash376

Winsler A Diaz R M Espinosa L amp Rodriguez J L (1999) When learning a second language doesnot mean losing the first Bilingual language development in low-income Spanish-speaking childrenattending bilingual preschool Child Development 70 349ndash362

Wright S C amp Taylor D M (1995) Identity and the language of the classroom Investigating theimpact of heritage versus second language instruction on personal and collective self-esteem Jour-nal of Educational Psychology 87 241ndash252

Wright S C Taylor D M amp Macarthur J (2000) Subtractive bilingualism and the survival of the Inuitlanguage Heritage versus second-language education Journal of Educational Psychology 92 63ndash84

Wright S C Taylor D M amp Ruggiero K M (1996) Examining the potential for academic achieve-ment among Inuit children Comparisons on the Raven coloured progressive matrices Journal ofCross-cultural Psychology 27 733ndash753

Yaeger-Dror M (1988) The influence of changing group vitality on convergence toward a dominantlinguistic norm An Israeli example Language and Communication 8 285ndash303

Zentella A C (1990) Who supports official English and why The influence of social variables andquestionnaire methodology In K L Adams amp D T Brink (Eds) Perspectives on official English Thecampaign for English as the official language of the USA (pp 161ndash180) New York Mouton de Gruyter

Zentella A C (1997) The hispanophobia of the official English movement in the US InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Language 127 71ndash86


4

implementation They argued that research on the impact of English-only initia-tives showed that they result in negative consequences for psychological develop-ment intergroup relations academic achievement and health service delivery tolimited-proficiency English populations in the US

Consequently the authors advised that it would be unethical for the APA tosupport English-only initiatives Dicker Jackson Ricento and Romstedt (1995)articulated the (sociolinguistic) response of Teachers of English to Speakers ofOther Languages (TESOL) also labeling this a ldquodestructive social movementrdquo(p 3) Moreover media reports about English-only issues for example English-only SAT tests English-only driving tests repeal of language rules in govern-ment and personal discrimination based on English proficiency (Cooper 1999Sack 1999 Westphal 2000) continue to make the English-only issue salientIndeed at least 20 daily newspapers including the Christian Science Monitor LosAngeles Times New York Times USA Today and Washington Post hold an edito-rial policy opposed to official English (Trulin 2000) Despite this and the argu-ments against the English-only movement provided by Padilla Dicker and theirrespective colleagues English-only policies and related initiatives have contin-ued to proliferate over the past decade

Our paper relates explicitly to the English-only movement and language issuesin the US and to a lesser degree in Canada Australia and New Zealand How-ever many of the concerns discussed here with regard to language purism haverelevance to similar international contexts such as language conflicts betweenSpanish and Catalan speakers in Spain and Dutch Flemish and French languageissues in Holland and Belgium (Jernudd 1989) More recently Germany has takenissue with the language requirements of European Union meetings (English Frenchand host country languages) threatening not to participate (ldquoGermany Languagedisputerdquo 1999) Therefore the English-only movement in the US is just oneexample of the tendency for insecure language majorities to support moves to limitthe use promotion and salience of minority languages in institutional settings

Unfortunately though communication scholars have yet to make a definitivestand on the English-only controversy either by setting a research agenda relatedto English-only initiatives or by making policy recommendations This is surpris-ing indeed considering that the English-only phenomenon is an inherently com-municative issue Language and communication convey messages key to personaland social identity Miller (2000) comments that ldquowhat seems inescapable is theunderstanding that our identities are shaped by and through our use of languageAnd so the question of which language is in use is an important one in the identitystakesrdquo (p 74)

The way that social identity is communicated and constructed through every-day practices within social institutions (eg workplace and school) through themass media and in the linguistic landscape of a community influences how lin-guistic groups view themselves each other and their respective socioeconomicvitality This in turn affects the ways in which language groups behave towardeach other As a communicative strategy the English-only movement is undoubt-edly the response of the dominant English-speaking majority to what is perceivedas the increasing vitality of Spanish-speaking groups


5







6






7








8






9





10







11






12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















5







6






7








8






9





10







11






12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















6






7








8






9





10







11






12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















7








8






9





10







11






12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















8






9





10







11






12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















9





10







11






12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















10







11






12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















11






12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















12








13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















13







14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















14






15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















15








16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















16







17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















17







18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















18







19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















19







20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















20







21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















21






22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















22






23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















23







24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















24





25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















25








26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















26







27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















27



Epilogue





28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















28









29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















29













30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















30


References

















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















31























32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















32






















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















33






















34
























35






















36























37





















34
























35






















36























37





















35






















36























37





















36























37





















37




















Date post:	24-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

The English-Only Movement: A Communication Analysis of...

Documents