US Language policy

8/13/2019 US Language policy

1/296

Sndor Czegldi

Language Policy, Language Politics, andLanguage Ideology in the United States


2/296

Perspectives in English, American and Postcolonial Studies

2.

Series editors:

Brdos Jenand Forintos va

Published by the Pannonian University Press


3/296

Sndor Czegldi

Language Policy, Language Politics,and

Language Ideology in the United States

Pannonian University Press

Veszprm, 2008


4/296

Published with the support of Pro Renovanda Cultura Hungarie Foundation.

2008 Pannonian University Press2008 Sndor CzegldiAll rights reserved.

Cover illustration: Petra Weber

Cover design: Tungli dm

ISBN 978 963 9696 60 0

HU ISSN 2060-4009

Published by Pannonian University Press(Pannon Egyetemi Kiad)1, Wartha V. Str., P.O. Box 158, Veszprm H-8200HungaryPhone/Fax: +36-88-624233

E-mail: [email protected]: http://kiado.uni-pannon.hu

Chief Publisher: Egyhzy Tiborn dr.Executive Publisher: Md Rudolf

Technical Number: PE 59/2008


5/296

Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms....................................................................................11

Bill Status Indicators..................................................................................................13

Introduction ................................................................................................................15

Chapter One: Language Policy and/or Planning in the U.S. Federal System.......19

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................. 191.1.1 Language Planning, Language Policy, Language Management: Interchangeability,

Inclusion, or Evolution? .................................................................................................. 201.1.2 Crawford and Spolsky: Goal-oriented Taxonomy v. Universalistic Theory................... 251.1.3 Phases and Topics of Language Policy/Planning Research ............................................. 281.2.1 Delimiting Language Ideology 1: Defining the Term, Gauging Its Scope .................. 311.2.2 Delimiting Language Ideology 2: Identifying the Components ................................... 351.2.2.1 Tendentious Interpretation of Historical Facts and Past Assimilation Patterns............. 361.2.2.2 Unfounded Beliefs Concerning (Second) Language Acquisition in General, and

the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education in Particular ................................................. 401.2.2.3 American Values, the English Language, and American Identity ................................ 501.3 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 57

Chapter Two: Changing Attitudes toward Language Diversity from Colonial

Times to the Present ...................................................................................................59

2.0 Introduction................................................................................................................. 592.1 Historical Approaches to Linguistic Diversity in a Broad Outline: Promotion,

Tolerance, Restriction, and Repression...................................................................... 602.1.1 Coming to Terms with Linguistic Diversity from the Colonial Period to WWI .............. 612.1.2.1 The Language Policy Legacy of the Great War I: The Fate of German.................... 662.1.2.2 The Language Policy Legacy of the Great War II: Other Minority Languages ........ 68

2.1.3 Critical Issues Shaping Public Attitudes toward Foreign and/orMinority Languages since World War II: National Security; Civil Rights;the Transition v. Maintenance Debate; and the Officialization of English .................. 69

2.1.3.1 Language, Education, and National Defense ................................................................ 702.1.3.2.1 Civil and/or Linguistic Rights 1: Individual Guarantees............................................ 752.1.3.2.2 Civil and/or Linguistic Rights 2: Collective Rights ................................................... 812.1.3.3 Transition v. Maintenance............................................................................................. 892.1.3.4 The Officialization of English: State- and Federal-level Tendencies............................ 982.1.3.4.1 State-level Developments........................................................................................... 992.1.3.4.2 Federal-level Legislative Proposals ......................................................................... 107

2.1.3.4.2.1 English-only Challenged?.................................................................................. 1172.2 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 120


6/296

Chapter Three: Language Policy and the 107thCongress (2001-2002) ...............123

3.0 Introduction............................................................................................................... 123

3.1 The Corpus of Analysis ............................................................................................ 1243.2 A Descriptive Framework for Language-related Legislative Proposals ................. 1253.2.1 Nahirs Scheme Modified .............................................................................................. 1273.2.2 Ruzs Orientations Extended ........................................................................................ 1303.2.3 Public Policy Types ....................................................................................................... 1313.3 Language-related Legislative Activities of the 107thCongress............................... 1323.3.1 A General Overview of All Language-related Legislative Proposals of

the 107thCongress ......................................................................................................... 1323.3.2 Forms of Congressional Action ..................................................................................... 134

3.3.2.1 Bills............................................................................................................................. 1343.3.2.2 Joint Resolutions......................................................................................................... 1343.3.2.3 Concurrent Resolutions............................................................................................... 1343.3.2.4 Simple Resolutions ..................................................................................................... 1343.3.2.5 Summary and Findings on Forms of Congressional Action .................................... 1353.3.3 Attrition of Language-related Legislative Proposals in Both Houses of

the 107thCongress ......................................................................................................... 1363.3.3.1 Manifestations of Language Policy Goals and Orientations in

Legislative Proposals Introduced in Either House...................................................... 1363.3.3.2 Manifestations of Language Policy Goals and Orientations in

Legislative Proposals Passed by Either House ........................................................... 1373.3.3.3 Manifestations of Language Policy Goals and Orientations inLegislative Proposals Passed by Both Houses of the 107thCongress ......................... 140

3.3.3.4 Summary and Findings on Attrition of Language-related Proposals....................... 1423.3.4 A Detailed Overview of Language Policy Goals in the ENR Proposals .................... 1423.3.4.1 The Flagship ENR Language Spread Proposal of the 107thCongress:

the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and Its Antecedent Proposals.................... 1433.3.4.1.1 Proposals Introduced to amend the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act of 1965 .......................................................................... 1433.3.4.1.2 Proposals Introduced to leave no child behind ..................................................... 146

3.3.4.1.3 Proposals Introduced to close the achievement gap with accountability,flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind ............................................. 147

3.3.4.2 The Most Frequently Endorsed LP Goal among the Enrolled Proposals ofthe 107thCongress: Interlingual Communication.................................................... 159

3.3.4.3 Manifestations of Native Language Maintenance as an LP Goal among theEnrolled Proposals...................................................................................................... 160

3.3.4.4 An Instance of Corpus Planning at Federal Level:Auxiliary-Code Standardization.............................................................................. 161

3.3.4.5 Language-as-Right or Access Guarantees among the Enrolled Proposals........... 1613.3.4.6 National Literacy Development Efforts among the Enrolled Proposals.................. 162

3.3.4.7 National Security and Language Proficiency .......................................................... 1633.3.4.8 Language as a Foreign Policy Instrument................................................................ 164


7/296

3.3.4.9 Summary and Findings on Language Policy Goals in the Enrolled Proposals ofthe 107th Congress....................................................................................................... 166

3.3.5 Select Aspects of LP Goals Appearing in the Pre-enrollment Language-related

Legislative Proposal Versions of the 107th

Congress .................................................... 1673.3.5.1 Revival..................................................................................................................... 1673.3.5.2 Language Spread ..................................................................................................... 1683.3.5.3 Stylistic Simplification ............................................................................................ 1703.3.5.4 Interlingual Communication.................................................................................... 1733.3.5.5 Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 1763.3.5.6 Auxiliary-Code Standardization.............................................................................. 1793.3.5.7 Officialization.......................................................................................................... 1793.3.5.8 Proscription ............................................................................................................. 1823.3.5.9 Access...................................................................................................................... 1833.3.5.9.1 Access to Minority Culture................................................................................... 1863.3.5.9.2 Access to Health Care........................................................................................... 1863.3.5.9.3 Access to Education.............................................................................................. 1873.3.5.9.4 Economic Access.................................................................................................. 1883.3.5.9.5 Legal Access......................................................................................................... 1883.3.5.9.6 Political Access .................................................................................................... 1903.3.5.9.7 Summary and Findings on 107thCongress Access Proposals............................... 1903.3.5.10 Literacy Development ........................................................................................... 1913.3.5.11 The National Security Factor................................................................................. 1913.3.5.12 Language as a Foreign Policy Instrument.............................................................. 192

3.3.5.13 Summary and Findings on Select Aspects of Language Policy GoalsAppearing in the Pre-enrollment Language-related Legislative ProposalVersions of the 107thCongress................................................................................. 194

3.4 The Immediate Effects of September 11 on American Linguistic Culture ......... 1963.5 House and Senate Differences with Respect to Assimilationism v. Pluralism 2003.6 Chapter Summary and Conclusion........................................................................... 206

Chapter Four: Language Policy and the 108thCongress (2003-2004) .................209

4.0 Introduction............................................................................................................... 209

4.1 Language-related Legislative Activities of the 108th

Congress............................... 2094.1.1 A General Overview of All Language-related Legislative Proposals ofthe 108thCongress ......................................................................................................... 210

4.1.2 Forms of Congressional Action ..................................................................................... 2114.1.2.1 Bills............................................................................................................................. 2114.1.2.2 Joint Resolutions......................................................................................................... 2124.1.2.3 Concurrent Resolutions............................................................................................... 2124.1.2.4 Simple Resolutions ..................................................................................................... 2134.1.2.5 Summary and Findings on Forms of Congressional Action .................................... 2134.1.3 Attrition of Language-related Legislative Proposals in Both Houses of

the 108thCongress ......................................................................................................... 214


8/296

4.1.3.1 Manifestations of Language Policy Goals and Orientations inLegislative Proposals Introduced in Either House...................................................... 214

4.1.3.2 Manifestations of Language Policy Goals and Orientations in

Legislative Proposals Passed by Either House ........................................................... 2154.1.3.3 Manifestations of Language Policy Goals and Orientations inLegislative Proposals Passed by Both Houses of the 108thCongress ......................... 218

4.1.3.4 Summary and Findings on Attrition of Language-related Proposals....................... 2204.1.4 Manifestations of Language Policy Goals among the Enrolled Proposals of

the 108thCongress ......................................................................................................... 2204.1.4.1 Language Spread ..................................................................................................... 2204.1.4.2 Stylistic Simplification ............................................................................................ 2204.1.4.3 Interlingual Communication.................................................................................... 2224.1.4.4 Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 224

4.1.4.5 Auxiliary-Code Standardization.............................................................................. 2254.1.4.6 Access...................................................................................................................... 2264.1.4.7 The National Security Element in the Enrolled Language-related

Proposals of the 108thCongress.................................................................................. 2274.1.4.8 Foreign Policy ......................................................................................................... 2274.1.4.9 Summary and Findings on Language Policy Goals in the

Enrolled Proposals of the 108thCongress ................................................................... 2284.1.5 Select Aspects of Language Policy Goals Appearing in All Language-related

Legislative Proposal Versions of the 108thCongress .................................................... 2294.1.5.1 Revival..................................................................................................................... 2294.1.5.2 Language Spread ..................................................................................................... 2294.1.5.3 Terminology Unification......................................................................................... 2314.1.5.4 Stylistic Simplification ............................................................................................ 2314.1.5.5 Interlingual Communication.................................................................................... 2324.1.5.6 Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 2344.1.5.7 Auxiliary-Code Standardization.............................................................................. 2364.1.5.8 Officialization.......................................................................................................... 2364.1.5.9 Proscription ............................................................................................................. 2384.1.5.10 Access.................................................................................................................... 239

4.1.5.10.1 Access to Minority Culture................................................................................. 2414.1.5.10.2 Access to Media ................................................................................................. 2424.1.5.10.3 Access to Health Care......................................................................................... 2424.1.5.10.4 Access to Education............................................................................................ 2434.1.5.10.5 Economic Access................................................................................................ 2444.1.5.10.6 Legal Access....................................................................................................... 2454.1.5.10.7 Political Access .................................................................................................. 2464.1.5.10.8 Summary and Findings on 108thCongress Access Proposals............................. 2474.1.5.11 Literacy Development ........................................................................................... 2484.1.5.12 National Security ................................................................................................... 2484.1.5.13 Foreign Policy ....................................................................................................... 249


9/296

4.1.5.14 Summary and Findings on Select Aspects of Language Policy Goals Appearingin the Pre-Enrollment Legislative Proposal Versions of the 108thCongress .............. 251

4.2 Longer-term Effects of September 11 on American Linguistic Culture ............. 253

4.3 House and Senate Differences with Respect to Assimilationism v. Pluralism 2534.7 Chapter Summary and Conclusion........................................................................... 260

Conclusions ...............................................................................................................263

5.0 The Initial Hypotheses.............................................................................................. 2635.1 Fine-tuning Language Policy and Language Ideology..................................... 2635.2 Language Policy Conflicts: The Surface Manifestations of Language Ideology ... 2645.3 Language Policy and the 107thCongress ................................................................. 265

5.4 Language Policy and the 108th

Congress ................................................................. 2665.5 American Language Ideology as Reflected in the Language-relatedActivities of the 107th-108thCongresses .................................................................. 267

5.6 The Chances of a National Language Policy ....................................................... 268

References .................................................................................................................271

http://digit.kk.unipannon.hu:1801/webclient/DeliveryManager?application=DIGITOOL3 owner=resourcediscovery custom_att_2=simple_viewer pid=5480

Appendix


10/296


11/296

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAVE: African American Vernacular EnglishACLU: American Civil Liberties UnionAIR: American Institutes for ResearchALM: audio-lingual methodAMAO: annual measurable achievement objectiveAPA: American Protective AssociationASPIRA: [a national organization devoted to the education of Latino youth] (from aspirar)ASTP: Army Specialized Training ProgramAYP: adequate yearly progressBEA: Bilingual Education Act

BIA: Bureau of Indian AffairsBICS: basic interpersonal communicative skillsCALP: cognitive/academic language proficiencyCRA: Civil Rights ActCUP: common underlying proficiencyDLE: dual language educationDLI: Defense Language InstituteDLIFLC: Defense Language Institute Foreign Language CenterDOJ: Department of JusticeEEOA: Equal Educational Opportunities ActELL: English language learnerEO: Executive OrderESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education ActESL: English as a second languageFBI: Federal Bureau of InvestigationFL: foreign languageFLAP: Foreign Language Assistance ProgramFLASTA: foreign language status allocationHEA: Higher Education ActHEW: [Department of] Health, Education and WelfareHHS: [Department of] Health and Human Services

HL: heritage languageHLASTA: heritage language status allocationHSA: historical-structural approachICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsK-12: kindergarten to twelfth gradeLEA: local educational agencyLEP: limited English proficientLESA: limited English-speaking abilityLHRs: linguistic human rightsLP: language policyLPP: language policy and planningLULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens


12/296

MALDEF: Mexican American Legal Defense and Education FundMECEA: Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange ActNABE: National Association for Bilingual Education

NAFTA: North American Free Trade AssociationNALA: Native American Languages ActNCLB: No Child Left Behind ActNDEA: National Defense Education ActNEL: non-English language [proficient]NSSTEA: National Security Science and Technology Education ActOAS: Organization of American StatesOCR: Office for Civil RightsOUSD: Oakland Unified School DistrictPOW: prisoner of warRESTA: redundant status allocationRFE/RL: Radio Free Europe/Radio LibertyRTL: Ready-to-Learn Television ProgramSAIP: special alternative instructional programSALAD: Spanish American League Against DiscriminationSDAIE: specially designed academic instruction in EnglishSEA: state educational agencySEI: structured/sheltered English immersionTANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy FamiliesTBE: transitional bilingual educationTWI: two-way (bilingual) immersion

UDLR: Universal Declaration of Linguistic RightsVRA: Voting Rights ActWASP: white Anglo-Saxon ProtestantWIC: [Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for] Women, Infants, and ChildrenWTC: World Trade CenterYMCA: Young Mens Christian Association


13/296

Bill Status Indicators

ATS: Agreed to by SenateCPH: Considered and Passed by HouseCPS: Considered and Passed by SenateEAH: Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by HouseEAS: Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by SenateEH: Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by HouseENR: Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and SenateES: Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by SenateIH: Introduced in HouseIS: Introduced in Senate

PCS: Placed on Calendar in SenatePP: Public PrintRDS: Received in Senate from HouseRFH: Referred to House Committee after being Received from SenateRFS: Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from HouseRH: Reported in HouseRS: Reported in Senate


14/296


15/296

Introduction 15

Language, sooner or later, proves to be a thorn in the flesh of all who govern.

Crystal (1987, 364)

language policy can be a window into the soul of the nation.Schildkraut (2005, 9)

Introduction

It is impossible for a state to be neutral toward language. Governments necessarily makechoices about which language or languages they will communicate in. The idea oflinguistic disestablishment (Kymlicka and Patten 2003, 32) is an illusion, since evena hypothetical null policy (Wiley 2002, 49) with respect to minority languagesinevitably favors the majority (usually official) language and its speakers (Fishman2001, 454). Linguistic non-intervention an alleged laissez-fairelanguage policy bythe state will result in linguistic Social Darwinism (Kontra 2004), which is clearlydetrimental to minority interests. As Heath (1976) pointed out three decades ago, theabsence of explicit policy is in itself an act of language policy (qtd. in Paulston 2003,475).

Still, as far as the U.S. governments record is concerned, the standard policy wasto have no policyon language (Crawford 2000, 1; italics in the original) at least

not explicitly defined and national in scope (ibid.). States and localities were generallymore active in this arena, all the more since the federal Constitution does not list eitherlanguage or education issues among the enumerated powers that are explicitlyreserved for the national (also defined as central or federal) government.

Nevertheless, as early as 1794, language policy problems reached the Congressionalfloor, and almost immediately gave rise to apocryphal accounts of language wars

between German and English in the House of Representatives (Kloss 1977, 28-29;Baron 1990; Czegldi 2001).

Besides the controversy surrounding the officialization of English, other areas havealso come into the focus of federal legislative attention: e.g. the education of limitedEnglish proficient (LEP) children, where even the deficiency-oriented designation(LEP v. ELL English language learner) has triggered politicized reactions; and alsothe extension of civil rights for minorities, with significant language rights ramifications.

Although developments in the latter area have largely been concentrated in judicialactivities (e.g. the Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decision in 1974), the role of theFederal Legislature is also far from being negligible: the passage of the EqualEducational Opportunities Act made Laupart of the U.S. Code, and previously, theCivil Rights Act of 1964 had given the Supreme Court a legal basis for outlawing thesink-or-swim method.


16/296

Language Policy, Language Politics, and Language Ideology in the United States16

However, these and other decisions have never coalesced into a consciouslyplanned, national-level language policy, rather, they have remained to this day ad hocresponses to immediate needs or political pressures, described by Crawford as separate

and uncoordinated language policies (2004, 55).The U.S. has faced several challenges threatening her core culture in recent years

(Huntington 2005, 46-47) each of which has had language policy implications as well:

(1)The dissolution of the Soviet Union;

(2)The ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity;

(3)The third great wave of immigration, which, since the mid-1960s, has broughtmainly Hispanics and Asians to the U.S.;

(4)The fact that the majority of immigrants for the first time in American history speak the same non-English language.

Apart from the potentially disuniting factors listed by Huntington, there were atleast two additional events of momentous significance that partially transformed, andsignaled the transformation of federal language policy goals, respectively. TheSeptember 11 terrorist attack of 2001 against the mainland exposed the vulnerability ofthe country to outside threats, similarly to the Sputnik shock of 1957. The year 2001also witnessed the sixth reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary EducationAct (ESEA) of 1965, this time, however, with a clear assimilationist bias, which openlydisfavors the application of truly bilingual methodologies in K-12 LEP education.

To this date, few analysts have focused on the Federal Legislature in order todescribe in depth, explain in detail, or predict with certainty the full range of overt(explicit) and covert (implicit) language policy trends in the United States. Thisapparent lack of attention seems to be unjustified, since the Naturalization Act of 1906

proves that even in explicit forms of language legislation, the involvement of theFederal Congress is at least a century old.

Hardly anybody has assessed entire congressional sessions from the languagepolicy/planning perspective: virtually the only counterexample is Judd (1989; 1998;2000; 2001), whose conference presentations have regularly tried to fill that hiatus.

This study is based on the acceptance of Turis observation that major language

legislation in the area of language policy is evidence, within certain political contexts,of contracts, conflicts and inequalities among languages used within the same territory(Turi 1995, 111); and on the premise that major developments in language attitudesand language ideologies (Heath 1977; Tollefson 1991; Galindo 1997; McGroarty1997; Ricento 1998; Wiley 1999; Crawford 2000; Macas 2000; Wiley 2000;McGroarty 2002; Ovando 2003; Crawford 2004) are discernible through the analysisof federal legislative processes that of policies in the making (Lo Bianco 1999, 61).The assumption rests on the fact that the House of Representatives (with memberselected for two-year terms) is very much attuned to the immediate legislative needs oflocal interest groups, thus even transient attitude swings appear in their legislative

proposals; Senators, on the other hand (elected for six years and serving much larger


17/296

Introduction 17

constituencies) are more inclined to seek long-term compromise solutions. We expectthis division to appear in language-related policymaking deliberations as well,highlighting the sources of change and continuity in the linguistic culture

(Schiffman 1996) of the country.The overarching goal of this work is to prove through the legislative analysis of all

language-related bills in the 107th-108thCongresses that undocumented manifestationsof language policies are clearly present on the federal legislative agenda well beyondthe traditionally recognized triad of (1) educational policy for language minoritychildren; (2) ensuring access to civil and political rights and government services;(3) the battle over declaring English the sole official language of the United States(Schmidt 2000, 11). In order to be able to point out the manifold aspects and realizationsof language policies, we propose a possible descriptive framework or accounting

scheme (Cooper 1989, 47), as a template to be imposed on the analyzed data.In Chapter One, we present a brief overview of the evolution of the terms languagepolicy and language planning, with special regard to the peculiarities of the U.S.federal system; then follows an attempt to describe the nature of American languageideology through the various interpretations, presumed components, and changingnature of the term.

Chapter Twoprovides a historical outline of the changing attitudes toward languagediversity in the United States, especially highlighting the relevant legislative branchactivities, arguing for the extension of Schmidts classification (2000, 4) of potentiallanguage policy conflict areas.

Chapter Three introduces the accounting scheme to be used for the analysis oflanguage-related bills. The classification of language planning/policy goals is based onthe modification of Nahirs language planning categories (1984/2003) and Ruzs(1984) orientations in language planning a framework to be employed in order todescribe and evaluate all forms of language-related legislative action among the policy-making activities of the 107thCongress. Besides a general categorization of all quasi-language policy bill versions, specific areas of focus include:

(1)The assessment of the impact of 9/11 on language attitudes and policies;

(2)The attitude of legislators with respect to the competing values of assimilation

(national unity) v. pluralism (ethnic equality) (Schmidt 2000, 99-180);(3)The identification of likely differences between House and Senate attitudes;

(4)The identification of likely differences on the basis of party affiliation.

Special attention is paid to the factors that influence the intergenerationaltransmission of heritage languages (as defined by Baker 2003, 209).


18/296


Chapter Four examines the language-related legislative activities of the 108thCongress through nearly the same perspective, and comparisons are made, parallelsare drawn, and differences are highlighted between the two Congresses on the basis of

their language policy record.Finally, the Conclusion summarizes the major findings of the present work and

predictions are made concerning the direction and magnitude of probable futuredevelopments. We also try to establish whether the trends described in Chapters Threeand Four are consistent with previous observations made about the linguistic cultureof the country, and whether they indicate the emergence of a possible nationallanguage policy (Heath 1978, 53-54; Ricento 1998, 85) for the United States.


19/296

Chapter One: Language Policy and/or Planning in the U.S. Federal System 19

Chapter One: Language Policy and/or Planning in the U.S.

Federal System

1.0 Introduction

Although sociolinguistics as an academic field of study is relatively new it has beenrecognized as a distinct branch of linguistics since about the 1960s , today many ofits (former) subfields can claim to be fields in their own right, including pragmatics,language and gender studies, pidgin and creole studies, language planning and policystudies, and education of linguistic minorities (Paulston and Tucker 2003, 1).

Even this recent categorization of the newly emerging subfields illustrates theperennial question as to which term describes the discipline (language planning andpolicy studies) more aptly and correctly. This terminological ambiguity has beeninseparable from the development of the field since the late 1950s. As a (perhapstemporary) solution, scholars sometimes tend to use both terms in the form of language

policy and planning (LPP) instead of trying to disentangle the occasionally insignificantdifferences. For the sake of brevity, and considering the general (legislative) focus ofour analysis, we prefer to use language policy in the following chapters, yet neitherin the narrow sense, equating the term with status planning (Kiss 1995, 244), nor in a

broader sense, as a synonym of language planning (ibid.). Instead, we find Spolskyslanguage policy definition (2001; 2003; 2005) particularly useful, since it recognizeslanguage ideology as a key language policy component; and Crawfords description(2004), which pays due attention to government activities in language managementactivities in the U.S. context (for a fuller description, see 1.1.2).

The first section of the present chapter attempts to trace the origin and evolvinginterpretations of term up to the present day, with special regard to defining its scopewithin the American federal system. Next, the focus of attention shifts to languageideology increasingly viewed as an integral part1 of language policy itself and

being of central importance for the present study as well.

1Sndor (n.d.) basically equates language ideology with language policy when she writes that languagepolicy is the ideology which underlies and determines language planning decisions.


20/296


1.1.1 Language Planning, Language Policy, Language Management:

Interchangeability, Inclusion, or Evolution?

Probably the earliest written references to a crucial language policy decision although,obviously, not categorized as such is the Biblical account of the foiled Babel2project(Ndor 2002, 13). The first recorded use of the term language planning is generallyattributed to Uriel Weinreich at Columbia University in 1957 (Cooper 1989, 29), yet itwas not until 1959 that Einar Haugen introduced it to the scientific literature, definingit as the activity of preparing a normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary forthe guidance of writers and speakers in a non-homogenous speech community (ibid.).Haugens still popular systematization of the field as developed and expanded infurther studies (e.g. Haugen 1964/2003) distinguishes between the following activities,

or aspects of language development as crucial features in taking the step fromdialect to language:selection of norm, codificationof the selected form, elaborationof function, and acceptanceby the community (421).

Striving to achieve terminological clarity and simplicity, Kloss (1969) attempted toestablish a binary classification of language planning. His schema of corpus planningand status planning is focused on the internal and external aspects of language planning.The former addresses norm selection and codification, and therefore tends moretypically to be undertaken by language experts. Corpus planning goals are subdividedinto 3 major areas by the second edition of The International Encyclopedia of

Linguistics(2003, 409):

(i) Giving the language a terminology for scientific and technical purposes;(ii) Resolving normative/structural questions of correctness, efficiency, and stylistic

levels;

2The word Babel has been repeatedly used in reference to the U.S. sociolinguistic situation: either toemphasize the dangers of linguistic fragmentation through the perceived unwillingness and/or inability ofcertain immigrant groups to learn the English language and adopt American values; or, conversely, toillustrate the remarkable assimilative powers of the melting pot. The former analogy can be illustratedby Thomas Bailey Aldrichs openly xenophobic and white supremacist poem, Unguarded Gates (1895),

in which he warned against welcoming immigrants whose Accents of menace [are] alien to our air,Voices that once the Tower of Babel knew! (Aldrich, Thomas B.).Arguing from a diametrically opposing stance as regards immigrant acculturation, Einar Haugen

observed that Americas profusion of tongues has made her a modern Babel, but a Babel in reverse(Crawford 2001). Debabelization as a conscious goal and process appeared in Charles Kay Ogdenswritings, who envisioned BASIC English in the 1930s as a world language to promote internationalunderstanding by facilitating language spread, even if in a culture-deprived and simplified form (Frank2004a, 82).

Another Biblical example of language having been used for politico-military purposes is the storyof the mispronunciation of Shibboleth by the Ephraimites that led to the massacre of forty-two thousandof them by the Gileadites at the passages of the Jordan (King James Version of the Bible, Judges 12:5-6).A shibboleth of similar kind was allegedly used by the U.S. military during World War II to identify

suspected Japanese spies (or simply POWs claiming to be Chinese), who were made to pronouncelollapalooza with /l/ instead of /r/ to prove their innocence (Shibboleth).


21/296


(iii) Supporting an ideological cause by eliminating sexist, racist, or militaristicelements in the language.

According to this division, several language-related federal legislative proposals maybe classified as corpus planning activities, as categorized in Chapters Three and Four.Status planning, on the other hand, is concerned with the standing of one language

in relation to others (ibid.), with the aim of:

(i) Developing a marker of national identity (nationism);

(ii) Spreading the language, nationally or internationally;

(iii) Giving rights to minority groups (pluralism).

Another binary classification of language planning activities is offered by Neustupn(qtd. in Ruz 1984, 29), who distinguishes between the policy approach to language

planning (prevalent in developing societies), and the cultivation approach (predominantin modern nations, focusing on e.g. correctness, efficiency, style).

Paulston views cultivation from a different angle. She contrasts languagecultivation with language policy, where the former category includes matters oflanguage with language specialists acting as decision makers , and the latter dealswith matters of society and nation with government officials, agencies, ministries

playing the key role in the process (1992, 156-158). Generalizing from Heaths 1972study of language policy in Mexico, Paulston concludes that language decisions are

primarily made on political and economic grounds and reflect the values of those in

power. Linguistic issues alone are usually of minor concern. This observation isreinforced by Karam, and by Cooper himself, who also considers political, economic,scientific, social, cultural, and/or religious issues as the primary motivation for language

planning (Cooper 1989, 35). Consequently, the decision-making and implementationare usually carried out by politicians, which even questions the role of linguistics as alegitimate field concerning the analysis of these activities (Sndor n.d.). Nevertheless,Cooper is reluctant to use either the term language policy or language politics,which could provide a more appropriate descriptive label for the state of affairsdescribed above. Crawford (2000: 10) focuses on the conflict-oriented nature oflanguage policy, arguing that in general symbolic struggles over cultural, religious,

ethnic, or national identity lie in the background, and at the heart of language conflictsthere exists the ubiquitous struggle for social and economic supremacy.

LPP definitions tended to be problem-oriented until quite recently. Fishmansoft-quoted version (1974) was no exception, either: organized pursuit of solutionsto language problems, typically at the national level (qtd. in Cooper 1989, 30). Cooperanalyzed 12 contemporary definitions of language planning (including Fishmans), outof which six were focused on problem-solving, none mentioned rights, and only one(Das Gupta 1973) spoke about developing the language resources of a community(1989, 30-31).

Coopers own definition eliminates the perceived shortcomings of earlier descriptions(1989, 45): language planning refers to deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of


22/296


others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of theirlanguage codes. This definition has several advantages. First and foremost, thecharacteristic problem-oriented attitude of earlier versions is successfully bypassed,

planning is not restricted to authoritative agencies, and influencing behavior does notsuggest any kind of normative prescriptivism. Acquisition-planning or language-in-education planning (The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2003, 412) has

become an integral part of language planning/policy definitions ever since.A few definitions had previously attempted to underscore the role of the educational

system, although primarily in non-Anglophone settings. In order to neutralize thedifference between langue and parole, Guespin and Marcellesi proposed the termglottopolitics as a solution in 19863.

Glottopolitics denotes all the methods that a society employs to practice its activities

directed towards language (i.e. langage), whether conscious or unconscious (instinctive);it denotes the language (i.e. langue) when society makes laws regarding the statusand relationship of the majority [in the original definition: French] language withrespect to minority languages language is equated with langue); also denotes thespoken language (i.e. parole), when society suppresses the use of a spoken form;denotes the discourse (i.e. discours), when schools designate the production ofvarious text types as examination materials (Labrie 1999, 21-22; Daoust and Maurais1999, 116).

Unfortunately, term glottopolitics has not entered the vocabulary of U.S. languagepolicy experts, despite the fact that several observations made in the definition were to

resurface in the American context as well: e.g. the implicit recognition that languagepolicy activities are not restricted to official bodies; language policy is not always anovert or explicit behavior (Schiffman 1996, 2), it is rooted in ideology (unconscious,instinctive); and finally, the reference to schools foreshadows the appearance ofacquisition planning or language-in-education planning as a distinct category.

The adoption of glottopolitics could reconcile the inherent tension between theconnotations of policy and politics (besides resolving the planning v. policy

perplexity), and would not unduly alienate those who feel aversion to social engineeringor centralized planning of any type a fairly common behavior in the United States,

especially in Republican circles. The obvious advantages notwithstanding, glottopoliticssuffers from a serious flaw: the word is not mellifluous enough. Politics of languageor language politics might seem to be more viable alternatives in the English-speaking parts of the world. Nevertheless, the exclusive adoption of either would tiltthe definition in favor of status planning, thus reducing its potential applicability in casesinvolving mostly corpus planning. In the future, however, the scope of language

politics could be broadened (at least in international usage) to include corpus planningactivities as well, an early indication of which could be the home page of the Goethe

3An earlier use of the term, attributed to Hall in 1951, is documented by Cooper (1989, 29).


23/296


Institute, where language politics projects include the German spelling reform aswell (Goethe-Institut).

The language policy and/or language planning terminological dilemma seems

to have divided experts on both sides of the Atlantic: neither the 1st edition of theCambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Crystal 1987) nor the 2nd edition of the

International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2003) with a predominantly Americaneditorial board contains a separate headword for language policy; the term isrelegated to the language planning entry. Furthermore, the latter encyclopedia seemsto have gone full circle and returned to the spirit of the 1950s by declaring thatL[anguage] P[lanning] generally denotes a deliberate response to language problems systematic, future-oriented, and based on a theoretical framework (2003, 409). It isan almost exact reiteration of Cloonan and Strines definition of the language planning

approach (qtd. in Schiffman 1996, 3), the criteria of which are: deliberate, rational,prospective (i.e. future-oriented) and institutional. According to the same authors, agreat deal of policy formulation in the U.S. tends to be decentralized, lacks formalfact-finding, is reactive and ad hoc(ibid.). Chapters Three and Four of the present workfind very few counterexamples that would disprove Cloonan and Strines observationsmade 15 years ago.

Within the literature, the term language planning has been used in various (onemight say: rather inconsistent) ways. Some authors use the term in conjunction orinterchangeably with language policy, such as language policy and planning (e.g.Paulston and Tucker 2003, 1) and language policy or planning (Weinstein 1990, 5).

Some see language planning as antecedent to language policy: Language planning (orlinguistic engineering) involves the creation and implementation of an official

policy about how the languages and linguistic varieties of a country are to be used(Crystal 1987, 364). Bugarski (1992) regards language planning as the implementationof language policies: a set of concrete measures taken within language policy to acton linguistic communication in a community (qtd. in Schiffman 1996, 3). Paulstonhesitantly subordinates language policies to language planning: Language policiesare probably best considered as a subset of language planning, an important field ofsociolinguistics that emerged in the 1960s, triggered by real-world problems (2003,

475).This view is the diametrical opposite of the one proposed by Calvet (1986), whoholds that language policy includes language planning, which is the practicalimplementation of policy (qtd. in Labrie 1999, 20). He also adds that any group (oreven individual) may have language policy of their own, but only a state can reach theimplementation phase, which is the stage of language planning (ibid.). This is animportant observation, since a great many definitions direct the focus of LPP oninstitutionalized attempts, governmental or academic activities, practically excluding

powerful individuals from the process, contrary to their undeniable influence (e.g.Yehuda, Aasen, tur) on the policy/planning process (Cooper 1989, 31).


24/296


Overall, the general tendency in LPP literature appears to be a shift in favor of theterm language policy4. McGroarty defines language policy as the combination ofofficial decisions (i.e. language planning, as delimited by Cooper51989, 45) and

prevailing public practices related to language education and use (1997: 67). Thelanguage practices though unofficial(italics added) and occasionally inadvertent are related to language learning and use (ibid.). McGroarty sees the stronglyindividualistic and pragmatic public ideologies related to language as determiningfactors shaping public practices, consequently, language policy as well. Another factorthat complicates the characterization of language policy in the U.S. is the system ofmultiple levels of governance, as a result of which the central (federal, or national)government has constitutionally played a limited role in many crucial areas whichhave actual language-policy implications e.g. education (ibid.). However, trying to

analyze language policies in every single state plus territories and outlying areas would be a task of Klossian magnitude. As yet no other analyst has tried to emulateHeinz Kloss encyclopedic opus on The American Bilingual Tradition (1977). In1989 Marshall, et al. set out a cultural paradigm to provide a framework forunderstanding state (educational) politics. Obviously, educational policy and language

policy are inseparable activities, especially in a school system that has experiencedexponential growth in the K-12 LEP population since the mid-1960s (for the latestfigures see State Elementary and Secondary LEP Enrollment Growth). Conversely,any language policy is in effect a cultural policy which calls for changes in thequality of life and cultural developments of specific groups (Heath 1978, 63).

Marshall, et al.s analysis was based on the examination of existing laws, policy-makers beliefs and cultural value choices (between quality, efficiency, equityand choice). The discussion directed attention to the importance of including aspectsof political culture in educational policy analyses, similarly to the heighteningawareness of the role of language ideologies or linguistic culture in LPP researchsince the 1990s (see 1.1.3).

In sum, there seems to have been a terminological shift from language planningthrough LPP towards language policy as a superordinate concept, nevertheless, as aconsequence, the scope of the latter term has also been broadened considerably.

Examining the developments of the field from a predominantly European perspective,Szpe notes that the emerging field of language policy may now comprise languageplanning and the field of language rights (1999, 10) in addition to the issues ofminority language use, the problems of literacy, and their legislative connotations(G. Molnr 1998, 84-85). In all of these respects, the American concerns have been

4This observation is corroborated by an exact phrase match Google search in August 2005, which returnedapproximately 289,000 matches for language policy, and only 71,900 for language planning. A similarHungarian language search resulted in 849 hits for nyelvpolitika (language policy), and returned 360 matchesfor nyelvtervezs and 357 for nyelvi tervezs, respectively (both in the sense of language planning).5There is a slight inconsistency in McGroartys definition, however, since Cooper (1989) purposefullydid not limit language planning merely to the activities of authoritative agencies.


25/296


strikingly similar. Heath argues that besides bilingual education, language policymust include literacy, the reform of public documents legalese [the] extension ofexpertise in foreign languages, and provision of rights for maintenance of minority

languages (1978, 64). The definition lists many important LP activities or goals thathave relevance even today.

In the next section we select two very recent conceptions of LP for closer scrutiny.Crawfords interpretation (2004, 56) focuses on the main areas of LP and the advisablegoals of LP activities as perceived from the U.S. perspective. Spolsky (2005), on theother hand, discusses LP in a broader sense: he proposes a tripartite division oflanguage policy and identifies the components of a possible LP theory.

1.1.2 Crawford and Spolsky:

Goal-oriented Taxonomy v. Universalistic Theory

James Crawford (2004, 56) restricts his interpretation of language policy (henceforth:LP) to official government policies (although he recognizes the role of languageideologies elsewhere, e.g. in 2004, 62):

1. What government does officially through legislation, court decisions, executiveaction, or other means to (a) determine how languages are used in public context (b)cultivate language skills needed to meet national priorities, or (c) establish the rights ofindividuals or groups to learn, use, and maintain languages.

2. Government regulation of its own language use, including steps to facilitate clearcommunication, train and recruit personnel, guarantee due process, foster politicalparticipation, and provide access to public services, education, proceedings, anddocuments.

Huebner criticizes this approach on several grounds (1999, 3-4):

(1)For the implied monolithic notion of government (disregarding state and municipallevels of governance);

(2)For the exclusion of private enterprises, the media, publishing houses, professionaland religious organizations, foundations, supranational alliances from language

policy formation and enforcement;(3)For not making distinction between overt and covert language policies; and finally,

(4)For disregarding the sociocultural, historical contexts and ignoring the role ofcultural generalizations about attitudes and orientations toward language whichunderlie language policy and language practice decisions.

Whereas some of the criticism leveled at the definition is justifiable (e.g. themonolithic notion of government), and further points could be added (e.g. the narrowdefinition of language policy, equating it with status planning), in our opinion, theawareness-raising observations in the definition by far outnumber the perceived

shortcomings (especially from legal or constitutional perspectives):


26/296


(1)The (not implied but stated) role of all the three branches of government in the(language) policymaking process;

(2)The recognition that meeting national priorities has generally featured prominentlyin shaping language policy priorities especially when they were tied to thedefense issue (e.g. the NDEA in 1958). Meeting national priorities also impliesthat these priorities are certain to shift over time, consequently, this factor isresponsible for change, rather than continuity in language policy;

(3)The reference to the notion of language rights, which is considered to be one of thefour principal factors by Spolsky as fundamental in shaping the language policy ofa nation (2005) although in the United States group rights are generally neitherrecognized nor protected;

(4)Highlighting the transition v. maintenance debate in LEP-education, which has

been the key issue in determining the intergenerational transmission of heritagelanguages;

(5)The identification of fighting legalese, bureaucratese, etc. as legitimate LPgoals (although the requirement of clear communication is ambiguous: should itentail the use of non-English languages as well besides urging federal agencies tocommunicate in plain English with the citizens?)

(6)The due process guarantee (besides the Equal Protection clause of the FourteenthAmendment to the Constitution) is the constitutional linchpin (Del Valle 2003, 23)on which language minorities have traditionally sought to have their rights realized

(e.g. in the historicMeyer v. State of Nebraskacase in 1923, described in a slightlyexaggerated fashion by Kloss (1977, 73) as a Magna Charta for the privatenationality school);

(7)Fostering political participation is necessary to strengthen the civic republicantradition, an important conception of American identity (Schildkraut 2005, 6);

(8)Providing access to public services for language minorities is practicallysynonymous with the realization of language rights (Leibowitz 1982). Grantingaccess to education has been an arena where both the legislature (e.g. through the

passage of the Bilingual Education Act in 1968) and the courts have assumed a

prominent role (e.g. by handing down theLau v. NicholsSupreme Court decisionin 1974, and later Castaeda v. Pickard (5thCir 1981).

In summary, Crawford provides a valuable framework through which almost allaspects of official (explicit, formalized, codified, or manifest) language policies in theUnited States can be categorized, compared and contrasted. What the definition lacksis general applicability outside the United States, considerations of language ideologies,and theoretical underpinnings.

For Bernard Spolsky, language policy in the most general sense means the studyof regularities in choices among varieties of language (2005). Yet, if broken down

into three components, the language policy of a speech community consists of itslanguage practices, its language beliefs or ideology, and any specific efforts to


27/296


modify or influence that practice by any kind of language intervention, planning ormanagement (Spolsky 2003, 5). The most salient aspect of this tripartite division isthe last component, language management (2005) a near-synonym of language

engineering, treatment (or that of policy in Crawfords definition). The languagemanager might be a legislative assembly, a national legislature, a state or localgovernmental body, a special interest group, a law court, an administrator, an institution,a business or even a family member. Language policies exist even where they arenot explicit. Language management may apply to an individual linguistic micro-unit(a sound, a spelling, or the form of a letter) or to a collection of units (pronunciation ora lexicon or a script) or to a specified, named macro-variety (a language or a dialect)(ibid.). On the contrary, Crawfords definition refers only to macro-varieties, thereforecorpus planning is a priori excluded from recognized LP activities, which is not a

valid stance even in the U.S. context, as the legislative analysis in Chapters Three andFour will show.The three-level understanding of LP is not entirely a novel idea, however. Labrie

had earlier conceptualized language policy at three levels, ranging from a specific togeneric interpretation of the term (1999, 19). In the most specific interpretation it is

possible to speak about a language policy, which refers to concrete measures ofconstitutional, governmental, legislative, administrative, or judicial nature. Atintermediate level, language policy is interpreted as human activity directed atlanguages. Language politics (the proposed name for the discipline by Labrie)should explain this human activity. In the most generic sense, language policy is

equated with language ideology, which is closely related to power relations andclass interests. In order to understand language politics/language policy more deeply,

background ideologies also need careful examination (ibid.).Spolsky goes further than setting up a three-level division. He also puts forward a

theory of language policy, encompassing four main fundamental notions (2005). Thefirst is the identification of the three components of language policy (see above). Thesecond fundamental notion is that language policy is concerned not just with namedvarieties of language, but with all the individual elements at all levels that make uplanguage: pronunciation, spelling, lexical choice, grammar, or style, and bad language,

racist language, obscene language, or correct language. The third fundamental notionis that language policy operates within a speech community, of whatever size. Theimplicit corollary to this is that no government can be neutral to language: benignneglect is not a real language policy option. The fourth basic notion is that language

policy functions in a complex ecological relationship among a wide range of linguisticand non-linguistic elements, variables, and factors (ibid.).

Spolsky also identifies four principal factors determining the language policy of anation: the sociolinguistic situation, the national ideology, the existence of English asa world language, and notions of language rights. For the United States, the third factorhas had the effect of discouraging foreign language learning, and the fourth, language

rights, has emerged as a major factor affecting language policies (ibid).


28/296


In summary, both Crawford (2004, 56) and Spolsky (2005) offer interpretiveframeworks that help elucidate the language policy aspects of the activities of anyspeech community elements of which we will use to analyze the language-related

policies of the federal Congress between 2001 and 2004 in Chapters Three and Four.Crawfords narrow and taxonomic interpretation of language policy tailored tomatch the constitutional realities of the U.S. (federal) government assists the analysisof national-level language policies by highlighting the potential flashpoints, which arefrequently out of sync with state-level activities. Nevertheless, the developments ofthe latter are bound to make their influence felt at federal level: convergence can beexpected to appear earlier in the House of Representatives, whose membership issubject to elections in every two years.

Spolsky provides a considerably broader definition of language policy and that of

potential language managers. Both scholars acknowledge the increasing role that thegrowing sensitivity to language rights has played in language policy formulation sincethe 1970s. Spolsky in line with major LPP research trends (see the next sections) accords a fundamental role to language ideologies in determining language policies.

1.1.3 Phases and Topics of Language Policy/Planning Research

Language planning and policy research since it embraces the core disciplines oflinguistics, political science, sociology, and history is especially susceptible to macrosociopolitical forces, such as state formation (nation-building), wars (hot and cold),

migration (legal and illegal), and more recently, globalization (Americanization).Ricento identifies two additional factors which were instrumental in shaping the LPPresearch field apart from the macro sociopolitical development since World War II(2000, 9): epistemological (the paradigm shift from structuralism to postmodernism),and strategic factors (the ends for which research is conducted). The interplay betweenthese forces resulted in three distinct phases of LPP scholarship since the early 1960sto the present day (Ricento 2000a, 10), and roughly three broad areas of research haveemerged (Macas 2000, 54). The main research directions include the nature of languageloyalties (e.g. Fishman, et al. 1966; Veltman 1983), the development of language

policy traditions (e.g. Kloss 1977; Crawford 1992a, 1992b; Leibowitz 1982), and thehegemonic status of English as a national language (e.g. Heath and Mandabach 1998;Tatalovich 1995; Crawford 2000).

During the first phase of LPP work (until the early 1970s) linguists mostly focusedon the development of indigenous languages. Status planning mainly involved theselection of a national language for purposes of modernization and nation-building.Nationism (organized efforts towards political autonomy), modernization, efficiency,and democratization were the seemingly ideologically neutral ideals to be achieved bylanguage planning activities. LPP scholars generally thought that they could contributeto the development of newly emerging states by helping governments import or


29/296


strengthen the presence of a western language or in the modernization of one that wasindigenous. (e.g. Fishman, et al. 1968).

Huebner points out that during this early period of LPP research, the Ford

Foundation played an important role in directing the attention towards the languageproblems in emerging nations by supporting important conferences in the 1950s and1960s (Huebner and Davis 1999, 7). In 1955, at the University of Michigan theFoundation sponsored an interdisciplinary meeting which eventually led to theformation of the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) in 1959, which was to functionas a clearinghouse and an informal coordinating body for the solution of practicallanguage issues, i.e. the promotion of improved ESL teaching abroad and supportingforeign language teaching within the United States partly to alleviate the perceivedeffects of the 1957 Sputnik shock (Phillipson 1992, 161).

The first period of LPP research (shaped by the forces of decolonization and theideas of structuralism and pragmatism) was transformed around the early 1970s by thechallenges posed by neocolonialist domination and the appearance of criticalsociolinguistics. Attention shifted from languages as entities to the status and relationsof speech communities, and there appeared a growing awareness of the negativeeffects of planning theory and models (Ricento 2000b, 15-16). Tollefson calls this

phase (roughly the 1980s) a period of quiescence or reflection, when many of thefundamental assumptions of the field were questioned (2002, ix).

The third phase of LPP research is still in its formative stage. The macrosociopolitical scene has been characterized by massive population migrations, the

emergence of ethnic identities, the after-effects of the breakup of the Soviet Union, theenlargement of the EU, and the globalization of capitalism. In the United States,

perhaps the single most formative event at the beginning of the Third Millennium wasthe September 11 terrorist attack and the ensuing sense of vulnerability and instability,effecting considerable reexamination of the nature of American identity (Huntington2005) consequently, that of language policy goals as well.

Generally, for the last decade the areas in LPP that has particularly been concentratedon are language loss, linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992), linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas 1986, Phillipson 1992), and the promotion of linguistic human rights as

universal principles

6

. The role of ideology in language policy has received particularattention by e.g. Schiffman (1996), Galindo (1997), Ricento (1998), Wiley (1999;2000), McGroarty (1997; 2002), Macas (2000), Ovando (2003), Crawford (2000;2004), Spolsky (2003, 2005).

This new wave of research focuses considerably on the role of language policies inestablishing and maintaining socioeconomic inequality, employing critical and

postmodern theories of research during the investigations. Tollefson, according towhom language policy is one mechanism available to the state for maintaining its

6During the 1990s, strikingly similar parallels emerged between the ideological arguments mustered by

the proponents of English-only and the supporters of Slovak-only in Central Europe. For a comparativeanalysis see Kontra (1998).


30/296


power and that of groups which control state policy (1991, 10-11), advocates theadoption of the historical-structural approach (HSA)to examine the historical basisof policies and to make explicit the mechanisms by which policy decisions serve

particular political and economic interests. Major antecedents to HSA are Leibowitzsworks (1980, 1982), in which he mainly focuses on the role of language policies asinstruments of social control. Crawford (2000, 10) recognizes yet another aspect oflanguage (English-only) conflicts: occasionally they function as proxies for intergroupcompetition between various minority groups.

Lo Bianco (1999, 39) warns against concentrating solely on declared, or explicit,laws and policy in LPP analysis. He recommends that LPP scholars should probe thesubtler realm of convention, beliefs and attitude, culture and tradition Lo Bianco(1999, 39-40). One way of achieving this is by focusing on analyzing the political

discourse (e.g. opinions, policy debate, argumentation, justifications) surroundinglanguage policies in the making, instead of giving descriptive accounting of policiesthat have been made. Following Gees recommendation (1996), Lo Bianco uses theterm Discourse as the subject of analysis with a capital D to refer to ways of

being in the world, ways of displaying membership of particular groups or categoriesor ideological communities; i.e., positions from which people speak 7 (Lo Bianco(1999, 57).

In extending Lo Biancos recommendations, we argue that the examination oflanguage-related bill versions in various stages of the policymaking process offers awindow of opportunity to analyze the realm of the implied, the domain of subjectivity,

affording a brief glimpse into an area where nondominant interests also surface for afew transient moments, even if they fail to clear the hurdles of the legislative process

before being presented to the President for signature. An analysis of this type wouldeliminate the fallacy of concentrating solely on explicit policies that have been made,and would allow access to policies in the making, to options discussed, weighed,approved or dismissed. The findings are to be interpreted against categories such asassimilationism v. pluralism (Schmidt 2000, 4-5); or, in other terms, against thediffusion of English v. ecology of languages paradigms (Phillipson 1999, 28-29).

The synthesis of elements of critical theory with an ecology of languages approach

has led to the formulation of a new paradigm approximately a decade ago (Ricento2000b, 20). The year when the term ecology of language appeared first is uncertain:according to Kiss (1995, 253), it was introduced by Haugen in 1971.

The ecology metaphor and the underlying language endangerment theme(Hornberger 2004, 6) had been developed into a paradigm by the mid-1990s to counterthe worldwide diffusion of English in the guise of technical modernization. Theessence of it is captured by Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas in a 1996 article (qtd. inRicento 2000b, 20): building on linguistic diversity worldwide, promoting

7In a similar vein, Corson (2001, 16) defines discourse as the full range of meaning-filled events andpractices that we encounter in life.


31/296


multilingualism and foreign language learning, and granting linguistic human rights tospeakers of all languages.

Overall, the directions and phases in LPP research are reminiscent of Ruzs (1984)

framework of orientations in language planning, ranging from regarding minoritylanguages as problem, through the granting of (certain) language rights, to viewingthem as an important resource. Yet, neither the seemingly consecutive succession ofLPP research paradigms, nor the similar attitude shift in the orientations entails thatthe future orientation of research, let alone public attitudes, will unequivocally treatlinguistic diversity as an asset.

1.2.1 Delimiting Language Ideology 1:

Defining the Term, Gauging Its Scope

Tollefson defines ideology as a normally unconscious assumption that comes to beseen as common sense (1991, 11). Common-sense assumptions contribute to themaintenance of existing power differentials, frequently with the assistance of language

policy, which is, therefore, an ideologically charged activity.According to Bourdieus interpretation (1991), language and (symbolic) power are

inseparable by nature: overt physical force as a means of social control is usuallytransmuted into a symbolic form with language being instrumental in the process and thereby endowed with a kind of misrecognized legitimacy that it would nototherwise have (Thompson 1991, 23). In a similar vein, Tollefson (1991, 16) looks upon

language policy as one mechanism by which dominant groups establish hegemony defined as the successful reproduction of ideology in language use. Eagleton (1991, 5)offers the same perspective by asserting that ideology is related to legitimating the

power of a dominant social group.The field of politics in which agents seek to form and transform their vision of

the world is inseparable from the theme of language and symbolic power. It is thefield where words are actions and the symbolic character of power is at stake(Thompson 1991, 26). This arena is naturally imbued with ideology: the system ofideas that function to create views of reality that appear as the most rational view; a

view that is based on common sense notions of how the social world ought to beGalindo (1997, 105). Obviously, policymakers are not immune either from beinginfluenced by ideological bias: Boulding (1959, qtd. in Ruz 1984, 29) noticed thatpeople whose decisions determine policies and actions of nations do not respond tothe objective facts of the situation but to their image of the situation anobservation that influenced Ruz (1984) in formulating his own theory on language

planning ideological frameworks called orientations.The term language ideology was probably introduced for the first time by Heath

in 1977 as the self-evident ideas and objectives a group holds concerning the roles oflanguage in the social experiences of members as they contribute to the expression of

that group (qtd. in Galindo 1997, 107). The group can be a speech community,


32/296


regardless of its size, since language policy operates even within families, consequently,in Spolskys interpretation (2005), language ideology must also be present in smallcommunities by definition. Spolsky views language ideology as a set of beliefs about

appropriate language practices; these beliefs both derive from and influence practices(Spolsky 2005).

Macas defines language ideologies as collective perceptions that may or maynot be factually correct (2000, 52). The use of plural indicates that there is hardly asingle, unified, well-defined ideology that may be presented as the most appropriatedescription of the resultant force of various American language attitudes. Crawfordalso uses the term in the form of language ideologies (just as he occasionally preferslanguage policies) to describe the belief systems shaped by everyday practices,rooted in social reality, growing directly out of the lived experience of various identity

groups (2004, 62). These belief systems represent more or less coherent opinions aboutlanguage (sometimes described as folk linguistics), and are acquired from friends,relatives, media, community leaders, advocacy organizations, etc. They are popularizednot merely by repetition, but by societys dominant institutions as well (ibid.).

Ovando (2003, 1) questions the usefulness of the phrase language ideology,arguing that changing political, social and economic forces have shaped the nationsresponses to language diversity, and not any kind of consistent ideology. If there issuch thing as language ideology, then it has definitely shifted according to changinghistorical events. Cobarrubias (1983, 63-66) suggested four typical ideologies that may

justify decision-making when initiating language planning in a particular community:

linguistic assimilation, linguistic pluralism, vernacularization, and internationalism.While these types of motivations are claimed to be the ones most frequently occurring,the list cannot be considered exhaustive: e.g. Daoust argues that purism should also

be added to the roll (Sndor n.d.).Nevertheless, Macas believes that some consistency is clearly present in patterns

of American language attitudes, e.g. the dominance of English-only ideology, which isrooted in the history of the country, and considerably influences public perceptionsabout non-English languages, language minorities, and immigrants in general (2000,53). Similarly, Wiley identifies the possible unifying element in American language

ideology in the motive of strong assimilation-orientation, and interprets recent effortsat language restrictionism from the perspective of prior nativist ideology in order tofind considerable consistency in language policy developments over time (2000, 84).This view is shared by Baron (2004), who regards linguistic nativism as a long-standing and regrettable American tradition. Perhaps the most succinct description isoffered by Cutshall (2004/2005), who observes a chronic case of xenoglossophobiacharacterizing U.S. history. Despite the various labels attached, what appears to beevident is the ubiquitous presence of linguicism as a determining characteristic ofAmerican language ideologies, defined by Skutnabb-Kangas as the ideologiesstructures, and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an

unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) betweengroups which are defined on the basis of language (qtd. in Phillipson 1992, 47).


33/296


Although he does not use the term language ideology, Ricento (1998, 89-90)identifies several deep values that reflect attitudes of and beliefs about language andcultural (including national) identity. Deep values represent an accretion of national

experiences, influenced by certain intellectual traditions, which together createunderlying, usually unstated or hegemonic frameworks within which policies evolveand are evaluated (ibid.), and were largely formed through the unique set of historicalcircumstances of nation-building, from the colonial era to the 1920s.

Schiffman (1996, 5) prefers to use the term linguistic culture instead of languageideology. The essence, however, is practically the same: the set of behaviors,assumptions, cultural forms, prejudices, folk belief systems, attitudes, stereotypes, waysof thinking about language, and religio-historical circumstances associated with a

particular language. For Schiffman, language policy is grounded in linguistic culture,

which had largely been formed in the 19

th

century (shaped by the legacy of the Englishlinguistic culture8) and underwent profound changes through the 1910s and 1920s.However, the seeds of monolingualism have been inherent in U.S. linguistic culture,as noticeable in the covert language policy of the country (1996, 212).

Nonetheless, if a national culture wishes to be non-isolationist and open to the world,it should be based on multilingualism and multiculturalism Knipf and Komlsi (2001,696). Still, the isolationist trait runs deep in American culture. As a foreign policy

principle, it has been virtually enshrined since Washingtons Farewell Address (1796),which is also an eloquent expression of American uniqueness and exceptionalism9.

In a 1996 presentation, Ruz argued that American language ideology is based on

the promotion of transethnification, instrumentalism, and nationism (qtd. inHornberger 1998, 447). Therefore, minority language maintenance programs are rarelysupported by the state. In the U.S., languages other than English are acceptable only aslong as they are mediated through individuals and not communities. Communitylanguages are expected to be restricted to the private sector, and if there is to be publicsubsidy to support them, their use should be for the common public good, and not tosignal competing allegiances (ibid.). What may pass as contributing to the commongood is a matter of considerable fluidity, however. If language policy conflicts arereduced to a struggle between two diametrically opposing ideologies (Schmidt 2000,

5) termed as pluralism (favoring justice, equity, and the rectification of pastwrongs) and assimilationism then the notion of common good is usuallyappropriated by the representatives of the latter camp. Assimilationists believe that theEnglish language is one of the few ties that hold the nation of immigrants together,and recently enacted pluralistic language policies threaten to unleash ethnic separatism.According to this line of reasoning, the paramount issue is the socialization ofimmigrants and the containment of the centrifugal forces of change: the massive influx

8Heath and Mandabach (1998) proved that the historical and philosophical heritage of England (laissez-faire attitude combined with general intolerance of linguistic diversity) had a profound influence U.S.

language policies.9For a more detailed discussion of cultural beliefs, see 1.2.2.3.


34/296


of (primarily Hispanic) immigrants and the ideas and politics of cultural pluralism,regarded as elements of the deconstructionist movement (Huntington 2005, 224)challenging the very foundations of American identity and national unity.

Yet, despite the fact that throughout U.S. history there has always been anexpectation of linguistic assimilation into English (Wiley 1999, 84), Lo Bianco arguesthat fragment cultures which split off from a European parent face the constantchallenge of self-definition: recontextualization in the new setting usually involveslapsing into immobility and conservatism by carrying further the traces of the antecedentlinguistic culture on the one hand, and, on the other, adding distinctively definingAmerican ideas forged in the fragment culture via the process of nationalindividuation (1999, 45-46). One feature that might add a touch of originality anduniqueness to American linguistic culture is the recent favorable treatment of indigenous

languages. However, these accommodations typically occur when these languages areconsidered to be endangered (quaint, nonthreatening varieties), with their traditionaldomains being continually invaded by English (1999, 53). Foreign languages areusually promoted in the name of geo-political, strategic or economic interests, yetthere is generally hostile reaction to extending such policy recognition to immigrantminority languages, especially to those whose speakers might have a however distantterritorial claim10to certain regions within the state.

10Obviously, the position of the Spanish language in the United States is an extremely delicate matter in

this respect. Macas (1999, 63) maintains that indigenous groups are those who occupied an area that isnow the United States prior to the national expansion into that area, and those groups who have ahistorical/cultural tie to the Americas prior to the European colonization. Zolberg and Long althoughthey do not accord Spanish the indigenous language status acknowledge that it has some historicalstanding in the United States (1999, 24). Huntington (2004) also recognizes historical presence (besidescontiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, and persistence) as one of the six factors that makecontemporary Mexican (Latin American) immigration unprecedented in U.S. history (and threateningwith cultural bifurcation or even a domestic clash of civilizations). Several historical facts attest tothe unique situation of Spanish in the United States. The first permanent European settlement in what isnow the United States, St. Augustine in North East Florida, was founded by the Spanish in 1565, forty-two years before Jamestown was established in Virginia, and fifty-five years earlier than the Mayflowerbrought the Pilgrim Fathers to Cape Cod. Much of Florida was to remain under Spanish control with

the exception of a 20-year period between 1763-83 until the signing of the Adams-Ons Treaty (1819)when Spain relinquished the territory to the United States. However, in the same agreement the U.S. gaveup her claim to Texas and to the entire Southwestern region. Nevertheless, Texas was conquered andeventually annexed in 1845, and in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) the U.S. took possession ofthe present-day territory of California, Nevada, and Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico,and Wyoming. An argument can be made that the territories were wrenched in the wake of armed atrocitiesnot from Spain, whose colonial rule ended in the early 1820s, but from the newly independent Mexico,which state of affairs effectively nullified the 1819 treaty. Yet, some language rights proponents arguethat the U.S. has defaulted at least on the provisions of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), whichimplicitly recognizes the right to Spanish language maintenance ev

US Language policy

Documents

Transcript of US Language policy