Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Language, Language Planning, and U.S. Public Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Demographic and Socioeconomic Basis of Ethnolinguistics

  • 503 Accesses

Abstract

Some linguists hold to the view that language evolves essentially through natural processes with little group intervention, but this is hardly true and public intervention plays a major role in this process. The development of a language is really an interplay between the natural creative acts of the users and the more deliberate interventions of society and its more public spokespersons. Society intervenes in the formation of a language both when the government passes laws relating to language use and programs and when a public institution, a government agency, or a public figure codifies the vocabulary, spelling, and pronunciation of the language in dictionaries, or selects and employs common school texts in its school system. This is public policy and planning at work on the language. Public policy and planning with respect to language form and use refers then to government sponsorship and support of the use of a language in a specific form, as expressed in law, statements by government officials, or government financial support. A language is official when a specific law or government edict so designates it and it is used exclusively, along with any other official language, as the language of the government and its publications, and the public is not required to recognize any other language (s).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The ill-fated 2000 Census Language Barrier Removal Act (HR 929) would have required the Census Bureau to make available questionnaires in 33 languages (other than English) and Braille. The Congressional Census Subcommittee approved the bill on March 11, 1999 and the full committee approved the measure on March 17 by a vote of 23–21. It failed to pass the Congress, however. If the bill had been enacted, it would have required the Census Bureau to renegotiate all decennial-related contracts for the 2000 census, modify data-processing equipment, and revise most written materials.

  2. 2.

    Originally the impetus for the program was the high dropout rate of Hispanic students. Then, most of the non-English speakers in the schools were Hispanic, and the Hispanic dropout rate was higher than the corresponding rate for Blacks, which was well above that for non-Hispanic whites.

  3. 3.

    A related question is whether Ebonics users require a separate questionnaire in the decennial census and national sample surveys, and separate ballots for national and local elections, given to selected other ethnolinguistic minorities.

References and Suggested Readings

Public Influences on Language Development

  • Algeo, J., & Butcher, C. A. (2014). The origins and development of the English language (7th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, A. A. (2007). Vacillating education and language policies in Puerto Rico. In K. Schuster & D. Witkosky (Eds.), Language of the land (pp. 3–24). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baynham, M. (2011). Migration. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 413–428). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Broadcasting Company (BBC). (2013, March 5). Azerbaijan may ban Russian names. News.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Broadcasting Company (BBC). (2016, March 23). China plans restrictions on ‘foreign’ place names. News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crystal, D. (Ed.). (2003). Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillard, J. L. (1992). A history of American English. New York: Longman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerer, S. (2008). The history of the English language (Second Edition. Part II ed.). Chantilly: The Teaching Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pei, M. (1962). The story of English: A modern approach. Chapter 8, English and the language of the state, p. 89 ff. Premier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, B. (1988). Orientations in language planning. In S. L. McKay & S.-L. Wong (Eds.), Language diversity: Problem or resource? Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F., & New York Times. (2008, July 23). Mayor orders New York City to expand language help. New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. Census Bureau/McGovern. P.D. (2004). A quality assessment of data collected in the American Community Survey for households with low English proficiency.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). The 2010 census language program assessment report. 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series. No 204.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau, Griffin, D., & Broadwater, J. (2005). American Community Survey non-interview rates due to language barriers. Paper presented at the meetings of the Census Advisory Committee on the African-American Population, the American Indian and Alaska Native Population, the Asian Population, and the Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander Populations on April 25–27, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winchester, S. (1998). The professor and the madman: A tale of murder, insanity, and the making of the Oxford English dictionary. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia. (2014). “Oxford English Dictionary.” Article accessed on internet on June 25, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

Language and Immigration Policies and Linguistic Diversity

  • Bean, F. D., & Stevens, G. (2003). Rose series in sociology. America’s newcomers and the dynamics of diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. (1999). Heaven’s door: Immigration policy and the American economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouvier, L. (1991). Peaceful invasions: Immigration and changing America. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J., Leppänen, S., Pahta, P., & Räisänen, T. (Eds.). (2012). Dangerous multilingualism: Northern perspectives on order, purity, and normality, Language and globalization series. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dávila, A. (Ed.). (2014). On Latin@s and the immigration debate. American Anthropologist, 116(1), 146–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R./Wall Street Journal. (1996, April). Despite his heritage, prominent economist backs immigration cut. The Wall Street Journal, 26, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duquêne, A., & Pavlenko, A. (Organizers.) (2013, March 16–19). The dark side of linguistic diversity? Session at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Dallas, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foner, N., & Simon, P. (Eds.). (2015). Fear. Anxiety, and national identity: Immigration and belonging in North America and Western Europe. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (2004). Who are we: The challenges to America’s national identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papademetriou, D. G. (2013, March–April). The fundamentals of immigration reform. The American Prospect, 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papademetriou, D. G. (2016, March 30–April 2). Europe must take control of the migration crisis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennycook, A. (2013, March 16–19). The ethical challenge of diversity. Paper presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Dallas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin-Amrami, G. (2008). From Russianness to Israeliness through the landscape of the soul: Therapeutic discourse in the practice of immigrant absorption of ‘Russian’ adolescents. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Accessed on internet at Researchgate.net, publication 245535264, on July 2, 2016.

  • Population Europe. (2015). Population and policy compact. Policy Brief No. 09.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potowski, K. (2010a). Language diversity in the United States: Dispelling common myths and appreciating advantages. Chapter 1. In K. Potowski (Ed.), Language diversity in the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Potowski, K. (Ed.). (2010b). Linguistic diversity in the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R., Sr. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spolsky, B. (2005). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, J. P. (1994). Ethnicity: Source of strength? Source of conflict? Albany: State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

Bilingual Education and Teaching in Ebonics

  • August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. (1997, January 24). Hooked on ebonics. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B4–B5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. (2015). Private communication of Randee Baron with the author on November 22, 2015, regarding English-language-learners education in schools of Sunny Isles Beach, Fl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice. Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, B. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No child left behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language educational policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4, 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frum, D. (2000). How we got here. The ‘70s. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, G. A. (1999, August 26). Excellence through immersion. Washington Times, p. A13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick.N.B. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, J. L., & Shen, F. X. (2014). Race, ethnicity, and education policy. In Oxford Handbook of Racial and Ethnic Politics in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. (1988). Ref. P115.158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloss, H. (1998). The American bilingual tradition. Rowley: Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., Collins, L., & Ballinger, S. (2009). Linking languages through a bilingual read-aloud project. Language Awareness, 18(3–4), 366–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R. (2013). The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological awareness. Fall 2013 Lecture Series, Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, T., Perez, M., Merickel, A., & Linquanti, R. (2006). Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12, Findings from a 5-Year Evaluation: Final Report. Washington, DC: AIR, and San Francisco: WestEd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulthies, B. (2014, April). The language of instruction or the instruction of language? Reviving official language debates in Morocco. Anthropology News, 55(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. (1997). What is black English? What is ebonics? In T. Perry & L. Delpit (Eds.), The real ebonics debate: Power, language and the education of African-American children (pp. 49–58). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington Post. (2001, September 9). Editorial. Teach English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodson, K. C. (2015). Private internet communication, Nov. 10, 2015 regarding the English- language-learners education program in the public schools of Montgomery County, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yule, G. (1985). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yzaguirre, R. (1998). What’s wrong with bilingual education? Is it ‘lingual’ or is it education?’. Education Week, 72, 46–47.

    Google Scholar 

Voting Rights

  • US Government Accountability Office. (1997, May 9). GAO/GGD-97-81.

    Google Scholar 

Official English and English Only

  • American Civil Liberties Union. (2000, September 8). The Rights of Immigrants. ACLU Position Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunberg, G. (1986, December 28). Resolution: English Only, Linguistic Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schildkraut, D. (2001). Official English and the states: Influences on declaring English as the official language in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Language Resources

  • Eurostat. (2015). Data for 2012: Foreign languages learned per pupil. Eurostat: European Union. Accessed on internet on April 15, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2016). Foreign language learning statistics—Statistics explained. Eurostat: European Union. Accessed on internet on April 15, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feal, R. G. (2011, Spring). “Language study and higher education in a changing world. Can America lead without learning other languages?” The Key Reporter (The Phi Beta Kappa Newsletter), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center/Devlin, K. (2015). Learning a foreign language a ‘must” in Europe, not so in America (pp. 1–20). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. www.PewResearch/.org/author/kldevlin/

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J.R., & Ainsworth, J.W. (2012). Race and socioeconomic status differences in study abroad participation: The role of habitus, social networks, and cultural capital. ISRN Education. Article ID 413896.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Bethesda, MD, USA

    Jacob S. Siegel

Authors
  1. Jacob S. Siegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 18.1: Excerpt from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Title II, Section 203)

A(2) Covered states and political subdivisions.

  1. (A)

    Generally.—A state or political subdivision is a covered state or political subdivision for the purposes of this subsection if the Director of the Census determines , based on census data, that—.

    1. (i)

      (I) more than 5% of the citizens of voting age of such state or political subdivision are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; or.

      (II) more than 10,000 of the citizens of voting age of such political subdivision are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; or

      (III) in the case of a political subdivision that contains all or any part of an Indian reservation, more than 5% of the American Indian or Alaska Native citizens of voting age within the Indian reservation are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient; and

    2. (ii)

      the illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority as a group is higher than the national illiteracy rate .

Whenever any state or political subdivision subject to the prohibition of subsection 2002(b) of this section provides any registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process, including ballots, it shall provide them in the language of the applicable minority group as well as in the English language: Provided, That where the language of the applicable minority group is oral or unwritten or, in the case of the Alaskan natives and American Indians , if the predominant language is historically unwritten, the state or political subdivision is only required to furnish oral instructions, assistance , or other information relating to registration and voting .—

  • A(e) For purposes of this section, the term language minorities or language minority group means persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan natives, or of Spanish heritage.

Appendix 18.2: Excerpt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI, 42 USC Section 2000d)

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin , be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Appendix 18.3: Selected List of Laws and Court Decisions

  1. 1.

    U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, 1868. Guarantees due process and equal protection of the laws.

  2. 2.

    Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI. Bars discrimination on basis of national origin .

  3. 3.

    Meyer v, Nebraska, 1923. U.S. Supreme Court sets aside a Nebraska law that prohibited public and private schools from offering instruction in any language other than English below the eighth grade.

  4. 4.

    U.S. Congress. (1968). Title VII, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended as the Bilingual Education Act . Provides support to state and local school districts to educate LEP students. Reauthorized in 1974, 1978, 1984, 1988, and 2001 (NCLB Act, see below).

  5. 5.

    U.S. ex rel. Negron v. New York (Circuit Court of Appeals, 1970). Rules that the right to a fair trial is compromised if defendant is LEP and interpreter services are not provided.

  6. 6.

    U.S. Congress. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974. States must take appropriate action to overcome language barriers, that is, to take appropriate action to teach English to students who grew up speaking another language.

  7. 7.

    Lau v. Nichols, 1974. U.S. Supreme Court rules that school districts must take appropriate action to overcome language barriers for LEP students. Followed by a series of cases that ended in similar decisions: Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools; Aspira v. New York Board of Education; Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado; Flores v. Arizona; Castaneda v. Pickard.

  8. 8.

    U.S. Congress. Voting Rights Act of 1975 (1965 Act reauthorized). Requires voting materials for persons of Spanish heritage, Asian Americans, American Indians , and Alaska natives (for voting districts where there are 5% + of voting-age citizens or 10,000+ voting age citizens). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was reauthorized in 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. The 1975 Act in effect extended this provision to all language minorities. The Voting Rights Act of 1982 requires non-English voting materials to be limited to voting districts where persons of selected ethnic/racial groups are not proficient in English.

  9. 9.

    U.S. Congress, Hispanic Statistics Act of 1976. Requires compilation of statistics on Hispanics and use of Spanish language questionnaires in the census.

  10. 10.

    U.S. Congress. Court Interpreters Act of 1978. Mandates provision of an interpreter for actions initiated by the federal government for litigants that are LEP.

  11. 11.

    Martin Luther King, Jr., Elementary School Children v. Ann Arbor School District , 1979. Rules that special language (Ebonics/AAVE ) needs of students must be met.

  12. 12.

    Constitutional Amendment, 1981, proposed but not passed. First proposal in the Congress for a Constitutional amendment mandating English as the official language of the United States.

  13. 13.

    U.S. Congress. Native American Languages Act, 1990. Supports teaching of indigenous languages in reservation schools and their preservation.

  14. 14.

    U.S. Congress. Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992. Extends coverage of language provisions to voting districts with more than 10,000 LEP citizens of voting age.

  15. 15.

    U.S. Senate. Language of Government Act of 1995. S. 356. Proposed. Not passed. Declares English to be the official language of the Government of the United States.

  16. 16.

    Proposition 227, a ballot initiative in California in 1998. Ends bilingual education and requires English immersion classes instead.

  17. 17.

    Proposition 203, a ballot initiative in Arizona in 2000. Ends bilingual education.

  18. 18.

    Presidential Executive Order 13166, August 11, 2000. Requires access to federally conducted programs and services for LEP persons, based on Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI.

  19. 19.

    U.S. House of Representatives. 2000 Census Language Barrier Removal Act (HR 929). Not passed. Requires census questionnaires in 33 languages + Braille.

  20. 20.

    U.S. House of Representatives. National Language Act of 2001 (HR 280), proposed. Would establish English as the official language of the U.S. Government and prohibit sponsorship of bilingual programs in voting and education. Not passed.

  21. 21.

    U. S. Congress. Leave No Child Behind Act, 2001. Allocates money for bilingual education programs to states and local school districts. Part renamed English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act, emphasizing that the primary purpose of the Act is English acquisition and requiring focus on achievement in content acquisition in English.

  22. 22.

    U.S. House of Representatives. The English Language Unity Act of 2005 (HR 997). Proposed but not passed. Would require all official functions of federal and state government to be conducted in English and applicants for naturalization to be tested on their ability to read and understand the English language.

  23. 23.

    U.S. Supreme Court . (2009). Horne v. Flores et al. The Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeals, allowing the State of Arizona to determine its own requirements with regard to English-Language-Learner (ELL) instruction without regard to whether the educational funding budget supports the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974 requiring ELL programming in schools.

  24. 24.

    U.S. Congress. English Language Unity Act of 2011. Proposed, but not passed. Requires all official U.S. Government functions to be conducted in English and establishes a uniform language requirement for naturalization.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Siegel, J.S. (2018). Language, Language Planning, and U.S. Public Policy. In: Demographic and Socioeconomic Basis of Ethnolinguistics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61778-7_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61778-7_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61776-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61778-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation