English as the National Language

The United States is one of the most diverse nations in the world. In particular, it is one of the most linguistically diverse. With so many languages, one must wonder if it is necessary for the United States to have an official language. In the words of language advocate James Crawford, “The United States has gotten by without an official tongue for two hundred years, why does it need one now?” (Crawford 9). In the United States, a growing movement known as English-only is calling for an English language amendment to the United States Constitution (Crawford 9). Is it critical though for the United States to have an official language? This paper will explore arguments for and against having English as an official language. It will trace the origins of the English-only movement throughout American history. It will also examine the sociopolitical and cultural factors that are at play in these arguments. This paper argues that it is not necessary to impose English as an official language in the United States and that doing so would establish English as a superior language, leaving room for discrimination against speakers of other languages.

In order to understand the current debate over standard English as the official language, one must examine the history behind the debate. For one, the United States has always been home to speakers of different languages. America’s famous early leaders, like Thomas Jefferson, were able to read and speak in different languages and, as Crawford points out, prided themselves on their language abilities (11). The framers of the Constitution neither promoted or discriminated against any particular language. As Citrin, a professor of political science mentions, it was not until the nineteenth century when an influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe arrived in the United States that the English language became a national issue (Citrin 536). The new arrivals as Citrin explains, “stirred up chauvinistic and xenophobic feelings” (536). Those who had settled in America felt threatened by the newcomers and rallied against them by uniting under a piece of common ground that they shared—the English language.

As the United States grew from a new nation into a stronger state, English was considered a buffer between the colonists and other American inhabitants. Over the many generations of the U.S.’s growth, English has pushed out other languages, such as Spanish (in the South). Thomas Ricento, Canadian professor of language, suggests that in “the United States, English achieved its unchallenged status as the national language through custom; from the earliest days of the republic, speaking English was understood to be a sine qua non for membership in the polity known as the United States” (Ricento 85). Ricento also shows how English achieved primacy in Canada, asserting itself over French. According to him, though the “francophone community in Quebec was able to withstand absorption into the dominant Anglo culture ... the dream expressed by Pierre Elliot Trudeau of individual French/English bilingualism (the personality principle) for all Canadians is dead” (85). Canada is an example of what can happen in the United States, but it does not have the diversity America does. While a potential bilingualism collapsed in Canada as English took over, a much more diverse pluralism is threatened in the United States.

Of course, some see language diversity as an alien and potentially divisive force. There are two ways of regarding shared linguistic space: the first is to believe that social norms should be decided by consensus, the second is to think that dominant groups ought to have the power to determine these norms. TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other languages) quarterly, an academic journal examining the relationship of native English speakers to speakers of foreign languages, studies languages as “codes of communication”. Language is far more than just a set of words, letters, and idiomatic expressions; “linguists have been asserting the equality of all languages and varieties as codes of communication that allow their speakers to attribute meaning, represent logical thought, and communicate within a community of speakers” (Wiley and Lukes 514) for decades. Wiley goes on to explain “language is more than just a code because it also involve social behavior. As social behavior, language becomes subject to normative expectations for behavior” (514). In other words, language only sets the groundwork for other forms of communication. Non-verbal expression arises from a code of communication, and along with this form of expression arises a set of cultural expectations. Language sets the stage for what reactions are deemed appropriate, and what reactions are not.

With this in mind, the two sides of the debate seem to become clearer. One side, arguing for English-only mandates, wishes to protect the perceived sanctity of American customs through the preservation of English exclusivity. The other side, arguing against declaring English the only official language, intends to promote cultural diversity. This side sees the United States as more of a melting pot than anything else. It believes that American culture is established not by many years of fixed tradition, but by diverse languages and cultures converging to form a greater unity. In this view, the standard for acceptance of English speakers is broad and more forgiving.

Imposing an English-only condition would make it more difficult for non-native speakers of English to develop in the United States. There is a certain respect for alternative languages and cultures in America, but this respect would disappear if English were to federally be deemed the official language. Wiley and Lukes provide in-depth analysis with regard to the consequences of allowing English to establish itself as a superior language. Wiley writes that “Once standards for expected linguistic behavior have been imposed, privileged varieties of language become a kind of social capital” (Wiley 515). Individuals benefit if and when this social capital is available to them, and suffer when it is not. English provides “access to education, good grades, competitive test scores, employment, public office, and economic advantages for those who have mastered the standard language” (515). The equivalence of diverse languages and cultures dissolves with the assertion of an official language, leading Wiley to conclude that “the linguistic notion of the equality of codes does not carry over into power relationships of a hierarchical society” (515). The establishment of a hierarchical society would such power relationships would be but one consequence of declaring English the national language.

The hopes of maintaining a culturally diverse United States is only an idealistic barrier standing in the way of an English-only America. That said, there are practical and even political obstacles as well. Deborah J. Schildkraut of Oberlin College compares states that have adopted English-only legislation with those that have not. Schildkraut puts forth five hypotheses as to why English has become the official language in some states and not others, beginning with the hypothesis that how partisan a State government is will affect whether English is accepted as the only language (Schildkraut 446). The second hypothesis is similar to the first, namely that more ideologically conservative state governments will be more likely to declare English the official language (447). The third hypothesis suggests that states are more likely to pass English-only legislation under the stress of economic hardship. Thus, “states with higher unemployment rates will be more likely to adopt official-English laws” (447). The fourth indicates that the legacy of anti-minority legislation in the South means that Southern states are more likely to adopt English as the official language (447), and the final hypothesis contends that states with greater numbers of foreign-born residents are less likely to adopt it (448). Therefore, the United States is likely to pass English-only legislation only if other languages and cultures are perceived as a threat. Fear seems to be the greatest motivator for accepting the exclusivity of English-only as the national language, while the acceptance of linguistic diversity and many codes of communication are the reasons to step back from an English-only America.

English has always, to some degree, been a condition for acceptance in America. Whether this condition should be enforced, and how strongly, is the question this paper explores. Through a return to the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and an analysis of the costs and benefits of a culturally-diverse America, it would seem that the interests of the United States of America would not be best served by adopting English as the nation’s official language. Advocating the equality of various codes of communications rather than imposing a dominant one affirms those of foreign descent in the United States, and invites multilateral cooperation abroad. That way, as long as people in America can communicate in English, regardless of how well, they will be free to pursue the American dream.

Works Cited

Baron, Dennis E. The English-only question: An official language for Americans?. Yale University Press, 1992.

Citrin, Jack, et al. "The ‘Official English’ movement and the symbolic politics of language in the United States." Western Political Quarterly 43.3 (1990): 535-559.

Crawford, James. "Language Freedom and Restriction: A Historical Approach to the Official Language Controversy." Effective Language Education Practices and Native Language Survival: Proceedings. Choctaw, OK: NALI, 1990. 9-22. Print.

Lippi-Green, Rosina. English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Psychology Press, 1997.

McCarty, Teresa L. "Dangerous difference: A critical-historical analysis of language education policies in the United States." Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda (2004): 71-93.

Ricento, Thomas. "National language policy in the United States." Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities (1998): 85-112.

Schildkraut, Deborah J. "Official-English and the states: Influences on declaring English the official language in the United States." Political Research Quarterly 54.2 (2001): 445-457.

Schmid, Carol L. The Politics of Language: Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press, Order Department, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513, 2001.

Tatalovich, Raymond. Nativism reborn?: the official English language movement and the American states. University Press of Kentucky, 1995.

Wiley, Terrence G., and Marguerite Lukes. "English‐only and standard English ideologies in the US." Tesol Quarterly 30.3 (1996): 511-535.

Annotated Bibliography

For my research project, I have chosen to research English as the national language. The following sources in my annotated bibliography explore the issue in more depth. I chose this topic because it can be approached from a variety of angles.

Baron, Dennis E. The English-only question: An official language for Americans?. Yale University Press, 1992.

Baron is a professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois. His research interests include language policy, legislation, and reform. Baron’s book answers the question of whether or not the United States should declare English as its official language. Baron answers this question by giving a detailed, comprehensive history of language policy in the United States. Baron argues that there should not be a national language because doing so would result in discrimination against other languages. Other languages in the United States may be viewed as “inferior,” which would lead to discrimination against the people who speak those languages. I chose to use this work as a source because it was quoted in nearly all of the other sources I am using in my bibliography. I also agree with Baron and want to incorporate his argument about discrimination into my paper.

Citrin, Jack, et al. "The ‘Official English’ movement and the symbolic politics of language in the United States." Western Political Quarterly 43.3 (1990): 535-559.

Citrin is a professor of political science at UC Berekely. Citrin’s article stands apart because it discusses the symbolic power of language. In particular, he describes how language is used symbolically within the politics of the United States. He explains how language is used symbolically by tracing its history in American culture. He also describes how politicians manipulate these symbols to fulfill their own agendas. I chose this article because I agree that language is used as a political symbol. I also want to use the specific examples that Citrin uses in his article and offer my own opinion about how they are symbolic.

Crawford, James. "Language Freedom and Restriction: A Historical Approach to the Official Language Controversy." Effective Language Education Practices and Native Language Survival: Proceedings. Choctaw, OK: NALI, 1990. 9-22. Print.

Crawford is a language policy advocate and has written dozens of articles and books on language policy, diversity, and education in the United States. In the article, Crawford discusses the politics of the English Only movement in the United States. Supporters of the English Only movement believe that English should be the nationally recognized language of the United States. I chose this article because Crawford explains both the pros and cons of having English as the national language. Though he is clearly against the English-only movement, I believe that he still manages to offer an overview of that movement. I would like to do the same in my paper. Unlike Crawford though, I want my paper to be more neutral and instead, offer an overview of both sides that are for and against having English as a national language.

Lippi-Green, Rosina. English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Psychology Press, 1997.

Lippi-Green is a sociolinguist who explores how language is perceived in the United States. Lippi-Green examines how language affects all levels of society. Specifically, she discusses how stereotypes are created based on the ways different people speak. Though Lippi-Green discusses how foreign languages are perceived in the United States, she also discusses how different English accents are viewed. I chose to use Lippi-Green’s work because I believe that it is important to understand how different speakers are viewed in the United States when it comes to establishing a national language. I agree with Lippi-Green and believe that people in the United States are stereotyped based on the way that they speak. I also agree with Lippi-Green’s idea that English speakers are viewed differently by other English speakers if they have an accent.

McCarty, Teresa L. "Dangerous difference: A critical-historical analysis of language education policies in the United States." Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda (2004): 71-93.

McCarty is a professor of educational policy at the University of Arizona. McCarty proposes that, in order to understand the United State’s language policy, that we should turn our attention to how it is used in our schools. McCarty argues that schools are the testing ground for the law. It is in schools that politicians legitimate certain language policies. McCarty argues that, if one wants to understand the reasons behind the English-only movement, that must understand how language policy affects American schools. I chose McCarty’s book as a source for my bibliography because I wanted to understand the official English language debate from a ground-up perspective. I agree with McCarty that language policies are reflected in our nation’s schools. In my paper, I am going to discuss how schools are used as a testing ground for national language policies.

Ricento, Thomas. "National language policy in the United States." Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities (1998): 85-112.

Ricento is a professor of English as a Second Language at the University of Calgary. His research interests include language policy. In the paper, Ricento outlines the history of national language policy in the United States. He also discusses the United State’s language policy in relation to other countries, like Canada. I chose Ricento’s article because it gives a very thorough historical background on language policy in the United States. I want to use the information in Ricento’s article to give my reader a historical background on my issue. In my paper, I am also interested in explaining how the history of the United State’s language policy compares to the history of other countries’ language policies, like that of Canada.

Schildkraut, Deborah J. "Official-English and the states: Influences on declaring English the official language in the United States." Political Research Quarterly 54.2 (2001): 445-457.

Schildkraut is a professor of American politics at Tufts University. Schildrkraut looks at the issue of English as an official language at the level of the states. In her study, Schildkraut considers particular traits of each state, including the total population of people born outside of the United States. Schildkraut’s study is intriguing because her analysis reveals that each state is unique. Different groups of language speakers reside in different states. People’s attitudes towards these different language groups are reflected in each state’s own official language policy. I included this source in my bibliography because I believe it is important to examine attitudes in a particular state. I also want to explore how the language policies of particular states affect the United State’s language policy at a national level.

Schmid, Carol L. The Politics of Language: Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press, Order Department, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513, 2001.

Schmid is a sociologist. The Politics of Language: Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective is her most recent and widely received publication to date. Schmid explains that the United States has historically been a home to people who speak more than one language. In her work, Schmid challenges the idea that the United States has always been united under one language. She explains how, historically speaking, the United States was able to function politically as a multi-lingual country. I chose Schmid’s work because it discusses the sociopolitical factors that shape peoples’ attitudes towards language. I also chose her work because, in my paper, I argue that the United States has never been a monolingual country.

Tatalovich, Raymond. Nativism reborn?: the official English language movement and the American states. University Press of Kentucky, 1995.

Tatalovich is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Though his research interests are mostly focused on the American government, he has written a number of articles exploring language and culture in the United States. Tatalovich’s work is like Schildkraut’s article in that it explores language policy on a state by state basis. Tatalovich differs from other scholars I have researched in that he does not believe that language policy is influenced by racism. Instead, he looks at other factors, like immigration figures and state population surveys. I chose to use Tatalovich’s work in my bibliography because he addresses the individual factors of each state in greater detail than Schildkraut. I also chose to use this source because it offers a different perspective on what factors influence language policy in the United States. I want my paper to consider a variety of different factors and not focus specifically on race.

Wiley, Terrence G., and Marguerite Lukes. "English‐only and standard English ideologies in the US." Tesol Quarterly 30.3 (1996): 511-535.

Wiley is a linguist and President of the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, DC. His article is published in TESOL Quarterly, a prominent journal that publishes research on applied linguistics (the study of how languages are taught). Wiley in his article explores the particular history of the English-only movement. He also explains what “English ideologies” are and how they affect attitudes towards English as a national language. He describes English ideologies as peoples’ ideas towards how English should be spoken and by whom it should be spoken. Finally, he describes how English ideologies have shaped language policy in the United States. I agree with Wiley and plan to explain in my paper how English ideologies affect American’s ideas towards having a monolingual country.