Public debate about English-only invariably includes reference to bilingual education; furthermore, both are recognized to be language-policy issues. Yet there has been no systematic treatment of English-only placing it within a language-planning framework that also includes bilingual education. This article attempts to do so, examining English-only in the context of corpus and status language-planning types; restrictive and expansive goals; aims, implementation, and evaluation processes; and language-as-problem, language-as-right, and language-as-resource orientations. It argues that a complete consideration of this language-policy issue needs to include both bilingual-education legislation and the widespread concern for English usage; that English-only goals need to be contrasted with other language-planning goals; and that both the underlying orientations and the future implementation of English-only policies properly belong in the arena of debate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
“We Don't Need Laws to Put English First,”USA Today, 13 Feb. 1987.
2.
idem , “Spanish Language Planning in the United States,” in Spanish Language Use and Public Life in the United States, ed. L. Elias-Olivareset al. (Berlin: Mouton, 1985), pp. 146-149.
3.
3. The Modern Language Association and the Linguistic Society of America passed their resolutions-with identical wordings-opposing English-only measures, “on the grounds that they are based on misconceptions about the role of a common language in establishing political unity, and that they are inconsistent with basic American ideals of linguistic tolerance,” on 29 Dec. 1986 in New York. The National Council of Teachers of English passed a resolution protesting English-only initiatives at its 1986 Annual Convention in San Antonio. The National Association for Bilingual Education passed a resolution, opposing in general “any legislation-federal, state, or local-which restricts the civil rights, civil liberties, or life opportunities of language-minority Americans” and specifically opposing English-only constitutional amendments, on 2 Apr. 1987 in Denver. The membership of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages resolved to “oppose all measures declaring English the official language of the United States of America or of any legally constituted part thereof” on 24 Apr. 1987 in Miami.
4.
4. Speakers at the preconference session, “English as the Official Language? Language Policy in the United States,” Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 12 Mar. 1987, were Braj B. Kachru, professor of linguistics, University of Illinois, moderator; Matthew G. Martinez, U.S. congressman from California; Geoffrey Nunberg, professor of language and communication, Stanford University; Gerda Bikales, then executive director of U.S. English; and Steven D. Symms, U.S. senator from Idaho.
5.
David F. Marshall , “The Question of an Official Language: Language Rights and the English Language Amendment,”International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 60:7-75 (1986).
6.
6. For my perspective on the three models, see Nancy H. Hornberger and Cheri Micheau, “Teaching Reading Bilingually” (Paper presented at the Ninth Conference on Spanish in the United States, Miami, FL, Oct. 1988).
7.
7. The ELA was first introduced by Senator Hayakawa as S.J. Res. 72 on 27 Apr. 1981 during the 97th Congress. It has since been consistently introduced in both houses of Congress at the beginning of each two-year congressional session, as follows. During the 98th Congress, it was introduced by Representative Shumway (R-CA) in the House on 2 Mar. 1983 as H.J. Res. 169 and by Senator Huddleston (D-KY) in the Senate on 21 Sept. 1983 as S.J. Res. 167. During the 99th Congress, it was introduced in the House by Shumway again, on 24 Jan. 1985 as H.J. Res. 96, and by Senator Symms (R-ID) on 22 Jan. 1985 as S.J. Res. 20. In the 100th Congress, Representative Smith (R-NE) introduced it on 6 Jan. 1987 as H.J. Res. 60 and Symms introduced it again in the Senate, also on 6 Jan. 1987, as S.J. Res. 13. The wordings of the three House resolutions are identical, as are the wordings of the three Senate resolutions. For more information on these resolutions and for their exact wordings, see Judd, “English Language Amendment,” pp. 114-17; Marshall, “Question of an Official Language,” pp. 23-38. The amendment received its first hearing on 11 May 1988 in the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. EPIC Events (newsletter of the English Plus Information Clearinghouse), 1(2):5 (May-June 1988).
8.
ibid., 2(2-3):5 (May-Aug. 1989).
9.
9. Donahue, “U.S. English,” p. 99.
10.
10. “English-Only Laws: How Broad?”Christian Science Monitor, 29 Nov. 1988.
11.
Donahue , “U.S. English,” p. 100.
12.
12. Both John Tanton and Linda Chavez resigned from U.S. English on 17 Oct. 1988 in the wake of controversy over a memo with racist overtones written by Tanton. “2 Quit Group for English as Official U.S. Language,”Philadelphia Inquirer, 19 Oct. 1988. Kathryn Bricker succeeded Chavez as executive director.
13.
13. J. Horn, “Dear Fellow American” letter, English First, n.d.
14.
14. Memo from Dr. Maria Lombardo to Federation of Cultural and Language Communities' representatives and Advisory Board members, 5 June 1985.
15.
15. The English Proficiency Act, introduced in the 100th Congress as S. 629 and H. 579, by Senator Jeff Bingaman and Congressman Matthew Martinez, respectively, seeks to “establish literacy programs for individuals of limited English proficiency.” It has been sent to committee in both houses of Congress. See Commerce Clearing House Congressional Index, no. 38, vol. 1. As of Dec. 1987, it was approved by the Senate. Personal communication, James Crawford, 11 Dec. 1987. Renamed the English Literacy Grants Program, it was signed into law by the president on 28 Apr. 1988 as part of H.R. 5, the Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments. EPIC Events, 1(2):1 (May-June, 1988). The cultural-rights amendment, which would recognize “the right of the people to preserve, foster, and promote their respective historic linguistic and cultural origins,” was introduced in Apr. 1987 as H. 232 and S. 114 by Congressman Jimmy Hayes and Senator John Breaux, respectively.
16.
16. Joshua A. Fishman, “The Sociology of Bilingual Education” (Lectures at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, Summer 1980).
17.
17. Joan Rubin, “Evaluation and Language Planning,” in Advances in the Sociology of Language, ed. J. A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton, 1972), 2:477.
18.
18. Francis X. Karam, “Toward a Definition of Language Planning,” in Advances in Language Planning, ed. J. A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), p. 104.
19.
19. Brian Weinstein, The Civic Tongue: Political Consequences of Language Choices (New York: Longman, 1983), p. 37.
20.
20. Heinz Kloss, Research Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report, pub. b-18 (Quebec: Laval University, International Center for Research on Bilingualism, 1969).
21.
idem , “Language Planning Orientations and Bilingual Education in Peru,”Language Problems and Language Planning, 12(1):14-29 (Spring 1988).
22.
22. Amadou Diop, “Language Planning in Senegal: A Critical Evaluation” (Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 1987), pp. 2, 5.
23.
23. Gabriel DeCicco and Joel M. Maring, “Diglossia, Regionalism, and National Language Policy: A Comparison of Spain and the Philippines,” in Bilingualism: Social Issues and Policy Implications, ed. A. Miracle (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983), p. 48.
24.
24. Steven R. Applewhite, “The Legal Dialect of Bilingual Education,” in Bilingual Education and Public Policy in the United States, ed. R. V. Padilla (Ypsilanti: Eastern Michigan University, Bilingual Bicultural Programs, 1979), p. 14.
25.
25. William Tikunoff and José A. Vázquez-Faría, “Successful Instruction for Bilingual Schooling,”Peabody Journal of Education, 1982, p. 236.
26.
26. As cited in Sau-ling C. Wong, “Educational Rights of Language Minorities,” in Language Diversity: Problem or Resource? A Social and Educational Perspective on Language Minorities in the United States, ed. S. L. McKay and S. C. Wong (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 372.
27.
On Meyer v. Nebraska, see Marshall, “Question of an Official Language,” p. 15.
28.
Kloss , The American Bilingual Tradition (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1977), pp. 21-22.
29.
29. Marshall, “Question of an Official Language,” pp. 14-20, 22.
30.
Wong , “Educational Rights,” pp. 375-377, 382.
31.
31. S. K. Sonntag and J. Pool, “Linguistic Denial and Linguistic Self-Denial: American Ideologies of Language,”Language Problems and Language Planning, 11(1):60 (1987).
32.
32. Richard Ruiz, “Criticisms of English Language Behavior in the United States,”Journal of Intensive English Studies, 1(1):65-67 (1987).
33.
33. Ibid., pp. 68, 71-74.
34.
34. Nancy H. Hornberger and Richard Ruiz, “Quechua Language Planning in Peru,” in Language Planning and International Education, ed. J. Cobarrubias (forthcoming).
35.
35. William G. Milán, “Contemporary Models of Standardized New World Spanish: Origin, Development, and Use,” in Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives, ed. J. Cobarrubias and J. A. Fishman (Berlin: Mouton, 1983), pp. 122-124.
36.
idem , “Language Planning Goals: A Classification,”ibid., 8(3):294-327 (1984).
37.
Charles Ferguson , “Language Development,” in Language Problems of Developing Nations, ed. J. Fishmanet al. (New York: John Wiley, 1968), pp. 27-35.
38.
38. John Trumbull, quoted in Shirley B. Heath, “A National Language Academy? Debate in the New Nation,”International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 11:32, 35 (1976).
39.
Rubin , “Evaluation and Language Planning,” pp. 476-510.
40.
Judd , “English Language Amendment,” pp. 120-121.
41.
comments by Gerda Bikales at “English as the Official Language.”
42.
42. Judd, “English Language Amendment,” pp. 125-127.
43.
43. Marshall, “Question of an Official Language,” pp. 40-59.
44.
44. Herbert Teitelbaum and Richard J. Hiller, “The Legal Perspective,” in Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives, vol. 3, Law (Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1977), p. 5.
45.
“English Yes, Xenophobia No,”New York Times, 10 Nov. 1986.
46.
46. Geoffrey Nunberg pointed this out at “English as the Official Language.”
47.
47. Judd, “English Language Amendment,” pp. 128, 133-135. Note, too, that the controversy that led to the resignation of Tanton and Chavez from U.S. English revolved around the tone of anti-Hispanic racism in Tanton's memo.
48.
Gerda Bikales , “Comment: The Other Side,” in International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 60:77-85 (1986).
49.
49. Richard Ruiz, “Orientations in Language Planning,”NABE Journal, 8(2):15-34 (1984).
50.
50. Sonntag and Pool, “Linguistic Denial,” pp. 47-55.
51.
51. L. F. Brosnahan, “Some Historical Cases of Language Imposition,” in Varieties of Present Day English, ed. R. Bailey and J. Robinson (New York: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 40-55.
52.
52. Marshall, “Question of an Official Language,” p. 58.
53.
as cited in Marshall, “Question of an Official Language,” pp. 62-63.
