3. Origins and Consequences of the Rejection of
Bilingualism
As we have seen previously when accounting for the context for
the rise of the U.S ENGLISH movement, two major legislative actions that were
taken in the mid 1960s led to the emergence of this lobbying organization. In
this part, our aim will be to show the implications of a rejection of
bilingualism for the American nation.
Before accounting for their rejection of bilingualism it is
interesting to explain what attitude they have been showing towards minority
languages. In 1988, Smolicz and Secombe proposed a typology of the four broad
approaches people have to minority languages48. They distinguished
the negative evaluation of language? from indifference?, that is to say showing
no interest in language maintenance (Smolicz & Secombe 215-216; May 137).
They also distinguished the general positive evaluation?, that is to say when
people consider language as a vital element of ethnicity but are not prepared
to learn it personally, from the personal positive evaluation?, regarding
language as a core value and putting this language commitment into practice
(Smolicz & Secombe 215-216; May 137).. In the light of this
typology, U.S ENGLISH on the one hand can be said to have showed indifference
toward minority languages because they have been supporting the view that
minorities should transfer into English as quickly as possible, and on the
other hand, they have been showing a personal positive evaluation towards the
English speaking population through the proposal of an English language
Amendment to the Constitution. An evidence of their dedication to the English
language can be found in the fact that they have been trying to impose it as
the national language of the nation.
As we have seen previously, U.S ENGLISH has been presenting
the English language as a symbolic unifier but they have also been presenting
linguistic diversity as unhealthy? and even destructive? (Annex IV, l. 364).
They have been justifying their rejection of bilingual education, multilingual
ballots, U.S citizenship ceremonies and driver's license tests in foreign
languages by pointing at the cost and effectiveness of those multilingual
services provided by the U.S government. Indeed, they considered that in order
to become a citizen, one have to master the
48 MAY, Stephen. Language and Minority Rights:
Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, New York: Routledge,
2008. Print. p. 137.
SMOLICZ, J.J; SECOMBE, M.J. On Education and Culture,
Albert Park: James Nicholas Publishers, 1999. Google Book Search. Web.
2 March 2010. p. 215-216.
English language and it was on this basis that they accused
government funded multilingual services of being a waste of money and energy?
(Annex XVI). They have been rejecting bilingual education because they
considered it as a way to maintain immigrants' native language instead of
transferring them into English. For U.S ENGLISH in the United States only
emergency services and foreign language teaching should be conducted in another
language than English.
In order to account of this rejection of bilingualism, a
reference to the typology of language of the Professor Richard Ruiz, specialist
of sociocultural studies, is required. In 1984, in Orientations and
Language Planning, he defined language as a problem, a resource, and a
right?. According to Ruiz, language can be considered as a problem? when it
causes difficulties of communication between the speakers of different
language-communities. U.S ENGLISH has been considering that language diversity
in the United States was a threat to our national unity? (Annex III,
l.86). The movement has been presenting language both as a problem
and as a solution. On the one hand, they have been claiming that only a common
language allows people to unite because it is a way to overcome the cultural
diversity of the nation, hence the concept of language as a solution, and on
the other hand, that language is a barrier that has to be overcome or a problem
that has to be solved in order to achieve unity. U.S ENGLISH has been charging
against language diversity on the basis that it limits integration,
cohesiveness, and even causes segregation? in the American nation (Annex III,
l.15). Their rejection of bilingualism finds its origins in this conception of
language as a problem.
As our analysis of the rhetoric of the U.S ENGLISH movement
has showed, they have been promoting the learning of a second language for
economic reasons or for the tourism but they have been rejecting bilingualism
at a national level. There is a paradox in their rhetoric because they have
been depreciating bilingual education to support minority languages while
appreciating English speakers who learn a second language for the economy or
world politics. On this point, Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Carlos J. Ovando said in 1990 that
the U.S language policy was schizophrenic? because on the one hand, we
encourage and promote the study of foreign languages for English monolinguals,
at great cost and with great inefficiency. At the same time, we destroy the
linguistic gifts that children from non-English language backgrounds bring to
our schools?49. According to Carlos Ovando, the speaking of
different languages is a gift or a resource and national language legislation
would be an economic, social and cultural waste.
At this point of the analysis, it is necessary to keep in mind
that the language diversity U.S ENGLISH has been rejecting in their different
publications is mainly due to the different waves of
49 BAKER, Collin; PRYS JONES, Sylvia. Encyclopedia
of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, Avon (U.K): Clevedon Multilingual
Matters, 1998. Print. p. 276.
immigration to the U.S. In fact, immigrants even after having
accomplished the assimilation process, which consists in adopting the language
and culture of the majority, still spoke their mother tongue when with other
members of their linguistic community. U.S ENGLISH has been denouncing the fact
that since the beginning of the 1980s immigrants were no longer assimilating
the American culture and language. In most of their publications, one can read
that there are millions of people living in America who don't speak English
well enough to dial 911... and who are not on the road to doing so?(Annex VI,
l.37-39). Contrary to what they have been claiming and even if it was true that
not all immigrants ended up speaking English, most of them adopted the majority
language and still used their native language in the private sphere, at home
for instance.
The ability immigrants have in them mastering at least two
languages corresponds to the notion of language as a resource? in Ruiz's
typology of language. For Ruiz, language can be considered as a national
resource? to be exploited (Smolicz & Secombe 215-216; May 137). According
to Ruiz, the language ability of immigrants has to be used for trade or to
promote tourism in the country because it is a free resource. The government
saves money because immigrants do not need to be taught a foreign language as
they are themselves native speakers of another tongue than English. U.S ENGLISH
has always denounced the cost of bilingualism for the Federal government but
has never invited immigrants to take advantage of their language ability.
Instead of put aside, U.S ENGLISH has invited immigrants to
forget? their native tongue in order to become fully American. In April 1981 in
a speech in support for both an amendment to immigration legislation and for an
English Language Amendment Hayakawa said that the United States is a land of
immigration from every corner of the world, that has been strengthened and
unified because its newcomers have historically chosen ultimately to forgot
their native language for the English language? (Annex I, l.63-64). In this
sentence Hayakawa affirmed that immigrants have to abandon their native tongue
in order to transfer into the English language. His rejection of bilingualism
goes beyond what Ruiz described in his typology of language as a problem?. In
Ruiz`s typology, language is described as a problem because of the lack of
communication and understanding brought by the speaking of different tongues
within a given nation. For Hayakawa, it seems that, more than just learning the
language of the majority, forgetting one's native tongue is necessary for the
nation to be unified. In a way, U.S ENGLISH maintained that unity in a nation
was synonymous with uniformity and similarity.
Their rejection of bilingualism can also be found in the fact
that they actively promote monolingualism at a national level. Several times
U.S ENGLISH quoted Theodore Roosevelt`s 1927 speech wartime appeal famous and
controversial words he made in 1927 in his speech entitled Children of the
Crucible? to promote monolingualism at national level. Th. Roosevelt said: We
have room for but one language here, and that is the English language? (Annex
IV, l.514-516). In
this sentence the message is clear: U.S ENGLISH has been
promoting English as the national language of the United States while rejecting
and condemning the use of any other language in the nation.
On this point the views of the movement were not clear cut. On
the one hand they have been claiming that they had no quarrel with immigrants
speaking their native tongue in the private sphere and on the other hand, they
have been defending English as the sole language of the United States. In their
fund raising brochure published in 1984, U.S ENGLISH wrote that U.S ENGLISH
serves as a national center for consultation and cooperation on ways to defend
English as the sole language of the United States?(Annex III, l.75-76). From
this one can understand that there is or there should be only one language in
the United States, namely English, or that only English, and no other language,
should be the official language of the United States. This statement is
ambiguous but it is very likely that the movement was claiming that there has
to be only one language in the United States as their strong rejection of
bilingualism testifies. This kind of affirmation was only published once by the
movement which since that time has always said that they are not suggesting
that people shouldn't hold on to their native languages? (Annex XIX) or that
U.S ENGLISH encourages all to speak their native tongues but not at the expense
of English? (Annex VII). Since the late 1980s, U.S ENGLISH has been under
attack from their opponents on the basis that they were said to promote an
English only? nation. U.S ENGLISH refuted those accusations by publishing
documents in which one can read: We have never been - and no serious person is
suggesting that we become - an 'English only' nation? (Annex VI, l.48) or that
they are not proponents of English Only? as [their] detractors falsely claim?
(Annex XI).
The rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH itself is a rather schizophrenic
because on the one hand they claimed that an English language amendment was
needed because immigrants were not assimilating the American culture as they
used to do and on the other hand, they claimed that this amendment was needed
because immigrants want and need to learn English? (Annex XVII). It seems that
any reason was good to justify the enactment of their English Language
Amendment. But one may wonder why they used such a technique. A partial answer
to this question can be found in the fact that they not only appealed to
English speaking Americans who worried about the fact that immigrants were
resisting assimilation but also to willing immigrants who wanted to be
recognized as trying to learn the English language. Similarly, they have been
generally rejecting bilingual publications made by the government but they
produced an advertising campaign in Spanish in 1989 in the Albany Times- Union
in which we can see a letter written by a Spanish family to the Regents of the
Educational System of the state of New York on which one can read:
We speak to you in Spanish because we don't speak English
enough to write to you in that language. We
have suffered big disadvantages
for not speaking English. ...We've noticed that the Education Department
suggests increasing the teaching in Spanish instead of in
English. We don't want our children to receive their education in Spanish. If
they learn mainly in Spanish, they'll be in the same situation of disadvantage
as we are (Annex IX, l.6-12).
U.S ENGLISH entitled this advertisement as follows: If you
can't read this add, don't feel badly. Our children can't read this book?
(Annex IX). The book in question is Treasure Island from Robert
Stevenson, a famous American book. This title is ironical because they have
been rejecting bilingual education through the publication of a bilingual
advertisement. Similarly, in this advertisement U.S ENGLISH both appealed to
non-English speaking people who want to learn the language of the majority and
to Americans who felt that immigrants were not assimilating anymore.
Now that the origins and consequences of U.S ENGLISH rejection
of language diversity at national level have been highlighted, our analysis
will now turn to the implications of the imposition of a national language
legislation for the American nation in the light of Anderson's definition of
the nation as an imagined political community?(Anderson 6).
| 
