Upscaling and downscaling: Negotiating scale in the English‐only movement

Abstract

Recent work on scale has emphasized upscaling, or the ways people try to make their discourse seem more universal and authoritative. To explore how people engage in other kinds of scale jumping, I examine how scaling practices vary among policymakers and activists in the US English‐only movement. This ethnographic, discourse analytic study focuses on people who shape language policy in four counties in the state of Maryland as well as the organizations U.S. English and ProEnglish. Drawing on interviews, observations, and texts, I argue that upscaling and downscaling can both play a key role in successfully developing linguistic authority, legitimizing English‐only ideologies, and enacting new English‐only policies. At the same time, when people mix different scaling practices in interaction, the combination may occasionally come across as more dissonant to their interlocutors. Ultimately, the US English‐only movement's penchant for scale jumping has led to more restrictive local language policies but also to more opportunities for questioning and resisting those policies.

Enfocando la interculturalidad

“…Teniendo en cuenta la ausencia de una lengua oficial en EE. UU., estas medidas surgen estratégicamente para empoderar el inglés y retrasar la relevancia y el impacte del español, lengua de la minoría cultural más numerosa de la región (E4; E5; Flowers, 2020). Se perpetúa, así, la hegemonía del inglés como lengua franca, adoptándose un discurso de la lengua materna como problema.…”

Multiaddressivity and Collective Addressivity in Vlog‐based Interactions between Diasporic and Nonmigrant Portuguese

“…Indeed, addressivity involves scale making. As discussed at greater length elsewhere (Blommaert 2010; Flowers 2020; Koven 2016), participants often use deictics as a resource to shift from more specific to more generic forms in ways that produce scale jumps. That is, shifts from a first or second person singular deictic to a plural form may invoke the relevance of higher‐order scales, such as when a participant says “I” and is corrected to “we,” to evoke institutional authority (Blommaert 2010).…”