Language as Power: A Linguistic Critique of U.S. ENGLISH

Abstract

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

The English-Only Movement in the US and the World in the Twenty-First Century

“…Considering that US immigrants learn English faster than immigrants learn English in other countries, these national and state English-only initiatives are often symbolic, but do seriously threaten to nullify language minorities' access to key US institutions (DiChiara 1997). As Thomas (1996) asserts, "legislating English as the offfijicial language of the US is not about 'preserving bonds' or 'providing opportunities'; it is about restricting language rights, limiting access to education, impeding socioeconomic mobility, and ultimately making assimilation into the American nationality for specifijic populations more difffijicult" (p. 137).…”

Full Volume 1: Working Papers in Literacy, Culture, and Language Education (WPLCLE)

“…Just as Peter McLaren argued, the conservative notion of nationalism would produce citizens "who are committed to entrepreneurship, who will fight to keep English the official language of the country[…] who will cherish and defend neocolonial imperatives of a new world order ruled by the United States" (Steinberg, 1992, p. 403). Taking it a step further, Thomas (1996), in his critical analysis of the agenda of US ENGLISH, concluded that "history indicates that restricting language rights can be divisive and can lead to segregationist tendencies in a society. At the same time, such legislation rarely results in a unified society speaking solely the mandated language(s)" (p. 129).…”

Iowa College Students' Attitudes Toward Official English Legislation: An Exploratory Study

“…They frequently cite other nations whose linguistic diversity has supposedly led to social turmoil or even civil war (see also Judd, 1987;Kloss, 1971;Thomas, 1996). They frequently cite other nations whose linguistic diversity has supposedly led to social turmoil or even civil war (see also Judd, 1987;Kloss, 1971;Thomas, 1996).…”