Cash Man 2006

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20
Who Wins in Research on Bilingualism in an Anti-

bilingual State?
Holly R. Cashman
To cite this article: Holly R. Cashman (2006) Who Wins in Research on Bilingualism in an
Anti-bilingual State?, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27:1, 42-60, DOI:
10.1080/17447140608668537
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17447140608668537
Published online: 22 Dec 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 202
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20
Download by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] Date: 04 June 2016, At: 22:28
Who Wins in Research on Bilingualism in
an Anti-bilingual State?
Holly R. Cashman
Department of Languages & Literatures, Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ, USA
Despite its multilingual heritage, the USA has a history of linguistic intolerance.
Arizona, in the countrys desert Southwest, is decidedly anti-bilingual although
it has significant non-English-speaking groups, especially Spanish-speaking

Mexicans/Mexican Americans and indigenous groups such as the Navajo, Hopi and
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016
Yaqui tribes, among many others. This anti-bilingual ideology has resulted in the
passage of legislation restricting residents linguistic rights, such as Proposition 106 to
make English the sole official language of all state business and Proposition 203 to
eliminate bilingual education in state-funded schools. Several explanations have been
put forth to account for this anti-bilingual ideology, from racism to ignorance to fear. In
this paper I argue that researchers of bilingualism in a state ideologically opposed to
language minority groups bilingualism have certain responsibilities vis-a`-vis the
members of language minority groups who are the participants in their research. I
suggest that each explanation, were it true, would require a different approach from
researchers working to protect and advance language minority groups rights. I
conclude that it is crucial for sociolinguists to take their responsibilities to the
communities they research seriously due to the pressing political situation engendered
by the latest wave of linguistic intolerance and repression.
Keywords: Arizona, bilingualism, politics of language, research ethics, Spanish
Introduction
Languages may alternatively be seen as a problem, a right or a resource
(Ruz, 1984). The choice of which metaphor to apply is related to the value
placed on its speakers by the hegemonic group. In the case of language
minorities in the USA, language diversity is most often seen by those in power
as a problem to be solved rather than as a right to be protected or as a resource
to be conserved. Differential bilingualism (Aparicio, 1998) describes the
unequal value accorded by the English monolingual majority to the bilingual
skills of Anglo1 members of the language majority, which tend to be seen as a
resource and an achievement, and those of Latinos and other language
minority or immigrant groups, which tend to be seen as a problem and a
deficiency. The bilingualism of members of language minority or immigrant
groups tends to be underappreciated or disparaged outright while the
(sometimes quite limited) bilingual skills of Anglo language majorities are
generally held in high esteem. While the bilingual skills of Anglo language
majorities are seen as a resource and often rewarded economically, the
bilingual skills of language minorities are perceived at best as a barrier to
full participation in the democracy and at worse as a sign of divided loyalty or
0143-4632/06/01 042-19 $20.00/0 2006 H.R. Cashman

J. OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Vol. 27, No. 1, 2006
42
Bilingualism in an Anti-bilingual State 43
disloyalty. Members of language minority groups may internalise this

hierarchy and undervalue their own bilingual skills.
In this paper I argue that researchers of bilingualism in a state ideologically
opposed to language minority groups bilingualism have certain responsi-
bilities vis-a`-vis the members of language minority groups who are the
participants in their research. I review several explanations put forth in the
literature for the US publics anti-bilingual stance and I suggest that each
explanation, were it true, would require a different approach from researchers
working to protect and advance language minority groups rights. I conclude
that it is crucial for sociolinguistic researchers of language minority groups to
take their responsibilities to the communities they research as seriously as they
do other responsibilities due to the pressing political situation engendered by
the latest wave of linguistic repression in the form of social limitation and take
backs of civil rights gains.
Historical Context
The territory that currently comprises the USA has never been monolingual.
Hundreds of indigenous languages were spoken by Native American tribes
throughout the territory before European colonisation (Leap, 1981). Spanish-
speaking settlements in the Southwest not only preceded English settlements
on the East Coast, but they thrived throughout the Southwest, from California
to Texas and as far north as Wyoming until the US invasion of Mexico in 1846
that resulted in that country ceding the territory that now forms the US
Southwest in 1848. Even in the 13 original colonies that would later form the
USA, German was spoken as early as 1683 when Germantown, Pennsylvania
was founded by religious refugees. By the late 1700s, over 8.5% of the
countrys European population was German American. From the 1800s,
German was used as the language of instruction in schools throughout the
states of the Midwest where a new generation of German immigrants settled
seeking farmland (Wiley, 1998: 213216). Although French speakers made up
less than 1% of the population in the 1790 census, the acquisition of Louisiana
in 1803 added substantially to that figure including speakers of Cajun French
and French creole (Gilbert, 1981). In addition to the indigenous languages of
the territory and the languages of European colonists and immigrants, the
linguistic diversity of African slaves also contributed to the countrys diverse
linguistic heritage. While there are over twice the number of speakers of
languages other than English in the USA now than in the past, the percentage
of the total population that speaks languages other than English is actually
smaller 17.9% now, as compared to 24% in 1910 and 25% in 1790 (Wiley &
Wright, 2004). Today, however, the diversity of languages other than English
spoken in the USA is greater (McKay & Wong, 2000).
Despite this multilingual, multicultural heritage, languages other than
English in the USA have continuously been viewed as a problem or threat to
national unity. On plantations, enslaved Africans were linguistically isolated
in order to facilitate acquisition of English (as well as to forestall communica-
tion other than that related to work). Speakers of Native American languages
faced assimilation (cultural, linguistic and religious) through an educational
44 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
system established in the late 19th century that forcibly removed children from
their families on reservations and sent them to boarding schools with a
curriculum of coercive assimilation (Crawford, 2000a). WWI and II led to a
backlash against German, Japanese and Chinese Americans specifically and
speakers of other immigrant languages more generally. Many states during
this period passed laws making English the sole language of instruction in
schools (Heath, 1981). The Americanisation campaign of the early to mid-20th
century endeavoured to acculturate and linguistically assimilate millions of
recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries (Wiley, 1996).
The civil rights movements in the 1960s impacted the general tendency
against languages other than English in the USA at the level of language
policy, and perhaps popularly somewhat as well. The protection of speakers of
languages other than English in the workplace came about as a result of the
passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Through this legislation,
members of linguistic minorities were protected in so far as that their language
variety related to a protected category (for example, race, religion or national
origin). This protection was made more explicit in 1980 when the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission specified that physical, cultural or
linguistic characteristics of a national origin group are protected (Lippi-Green,
1997: 153). Another gain made during this era was in the education of children
from language minority groups whose educational needs were neglected and
whose native language skills were considered irrelevant at best and brutally
repressed at worst. The mistreatment of language minority children in
educational settings resulted in, for example, elevated dropout rates (Wiley
& Wright, 2004: 153), lower academic achievement, and fewer college-bound
students and college graduates. Civil rights groups and parents pressured
school systems to reconsider the sink-or-swim approach that dominated the
educational experience of students with limited English proficiency through
lawsuits, student boycotts and increased involvement in the political process.
In response to this situation, the Bilingual Education Act (or Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act) was passed unanimously by the US
Congress in 1968. This act made public funding available to schools for the
design and implementation of programmes that used language minority
students native language as a language of instruction to some extent. Schools
participation was purely voluntary; the Bilingual Education Act did not
require schools with language minority children to create bilingual education
programmes. In 1974, the US Supreme Court decided in Lau v. Nichols that
providing language minority children with the same learning materials and
curricula as provided to language majority children did not constitute equality
of treatment. While the Lau decision did not require schools to implement
bilingual education programmes, it was widely interpreted as a mandate for
bilingual education, and the US Office of Education strictly enforced
compliance with guidelines known as the Lau Remedies set up to ensure
language minority students civil rights (Crawford, 2000b: 109115).
The advancements made during the 1960s and 1970s, however, soon came
under attack. A principle target for linguistic repression has been the use of
languages other than English in the public sphere, specifically in interactions
with agencies of the government. The availability of government documents in
languages other than English (including voting material and ballots, citizen-
ship information and tests for drivers licenses) and the provision of
translation and interpretation services for government services (such as police,
the court system and social service agencies) were characterised both as a
drain on the countrys economy and a crutch for immigrants who refused to
learn English. The movement to make English the only language used in all
levels of government in the USA began in 1981 with a proposed amendment to
the countrys constitution. An organisation, US English, was founded to
support adoption of the amendment. The English Language Amendment,
which would have prohibited the use of languages other than English for
nearly all government business received wide support, although, to date, it has
not been adopted. Over half of the states, however, have adopted English-only
legislation, thus banning the use of languages other than English for
governmental business at the state level (Crawford, 2000c).
In addition to the language of governmental business, the backlash against
linguistic civil rights has also targeted the language of instruction in publicly
funded schools. Both Cummins (2000: 128) and Crawford (2000b: 115) attribute
this to the imposition of the Lau Remedies and subsequent regulations on local
school systems. Crawford (2000b) also traces the current debate about
bilingual education in the USA back to the unclear goals of the Bilingual
Education Act at its inception in 1968. According to Crawford, the supporters
of the legislation allowed for lawmakers different orientations for language
planning (e.g. Ruz, 1984), and did not attempt to specify whether the policy
would orient to language as a problem, right or resource. This ambiguity
became problematic when bilingual education, which is an umbrella term
covering a wide array of pedagogical practices with distinct methods and
goals, was in effect mandated as a result of the Lau decision. Over time, the
definition of bilingual education became more and more restricted to
transitional programmes rather than maintenance-oriented ones, evidencing
a shift toward the language-as-problem orientation exclusively (Crawford,
2000b: 110113). Rather than attempt a broad repeal of the Bilingual Education
Act at the national level, anti-bilingual education activists used the ballot
initiative. Recent decades have seen the reversal of many civil rights gains
through public referenda or ballot propositions that bypass the traditional
legislative process and appeal directly to voters. As Wiley and Wright (2004:
150) explain, the initiative process originally intended to provide a popular
alternative to the power of special interests is vulnerable if voters are poorly
informed about complex issues or when a majority is hostile to minorities.
Examples of ballot initiatives used to take back civil rights gains for minority
groups in the USA include Californias Proposition 63, which made English
the states sole official language, Proposition 187, which prevented undocu-
mented immigrants from receiving social services, and Proposition 209, which
eliminated affirmative action programmes designed to ensure members of
minority groups equal access to educational and employment opportunities
(Wiley & Wright, 2004: 50).
Despite the lip service given to multilingualism and opportunity by
advocates of the new linguistic repression, the goal of English-only move-
ments is not to create a unified, English monolingual state with equal
opportunity for all. Rather, it is to take goods, services and opportunities away
from people who are not English monolinguals. Just as outlawing murder
allows the state to punish people who break the law, outlawing languages
other than English allows the state to punish those who do not or cannot
assimilate linguistically. We know that, for members of language minority
groups, linguistic discrimination does not stop with the acquisition of the
majority language; rather speakers are still othered by means of linguistic
and nonlinguistic characteristics such as non-native-like accents (Lippi-Green,
1997), religious practices, skin colour, hair texture, hairstyle, ways of dress, etc.
Language use and accent stand in for other characteristics that are still
protected categories as a target for discrimination against language, ethnic or
racial minority group members. Zentella (1994: 74) explains that:
English-only laws do not ensure unity, overcome differences, or safe-

guard national security, and as 50 years of English-only in Puerto Rico
proved, they dont even teach English. They do, sadly, hinder the
linguistic competence of the nation, the education of language minority
children, the delivery of adequate medical and social services, and
participation in the electoral process. Most important, they foster
linguistic and cultural intolerance. . .While stressing equality, advocates
of English-only play on fears of difference and avoid addressing the
fundamental problems of economic and social inequality in the United
States.
Likewise, despite its purported goal of increased social and economic
opportunities through English acquisition, the anti-bilingual education in-
itiative seeks to take back civil rights gained by language minorities in the
1960s. Wiley and Wright (2004) agree, claiming that throughout US history
linguistic intolerance has been linked with racial/ethnic intolerance, and that
language policy has been used as a tool of social control over language
minority groups, both immigrant and Native American.
Perhaps as insidious as playing on the Anglo-American majoritys fear of
the linguistic, racial and national other is the anti-bilingual activist appro-
priation of civil rights discourse to deceive the well intentioned majority and
minority voting public. Anti-affirmative action activists have used the reverse
discrimination argument in which Anglo males claim to be victims of the
programmes allegedly discriminatory practices (despite the fact that affirma-
tive action seeks to provide equal not special treatment for minority group
members) and anti-bilingual activists have used the language-as-right argu-
ment, but warped it to refer to language minority childrens right to learn
English rather than a language minority groups right to speak and maintain
their heritage language.
Sociolinguistic Context of Arizona

In the title of this paper, I describe Arizona as an anti-bilingual state. This
description reflects the predominate ideology in the state and is not an
indication of the linguistic situation on the ground, historically or at present. In
fact, Arizona is and has always been a multilingual and ethnically diverse
state. Arizona is home to 21 federally recognised Native American tribal

communities, including the Navajo Nation with almost one quarter of a
million members in 27,000 square miles of territory in parts of Arizona, New
Mexico and Utah, and the Hopi people, who trace their history in Arizona to
more than 2,000 years (Heard, 2004). When race is considered alone as a
census category, roughly one quarter of a million people identified as Native
American in Arizona in 2000. In addition to the Native American commu-
nities, there is also a large Chicano/Latino population in Arizona. According
to the US Census Bureaus 2002 American Community Survey, the states
population is approximately five and one third million people (5,346,616). The
Hispanic/Latino population is nearly 1.5 million (1,452,233), of which 1.3
million is of Mexican origin. More than two-thirds of a million people (706,508)
in the state were born outside of the USA, with over one-third of a million
people (373,063) having entered the USA after 1990. Out of a population 5
years and older of nearly 5 million,2 over 1.2 million people (1,270,001) report
speaking a language other than English at home. Nearly 1 million people
report speaking Spanish at home (982,283) and 429,057 of those who speak
Spanish at home report speaking English less than very well.
While other racial and ethnic groups make up smaller percentages of the
total population, several have long, significant histories in the state. Arizonas
Chinese community, for example, while dwarfed by that of neighbouring
California, is an important and long-standing immigrant community.
Arizona: An Anti-bilingual State

While languages other than English, and especially Spanish, are spoken in
Arizona, the states predominant ideology is anti-bilingual. In this section, the
anti-bilingual ideology in Arizona will be briefly explored through the
examination of two initiatives to limit the use of languages other than English
and the opportunities for language minorities the English-only amendment
and anti-bilingual education initiative as well as public opinion from letters
to the editor of Arizona newspapers.
Table 1 Racial diversity in Arizona (US Census, 2002)
One race 5,159,072

White 4,004,911
Black or African American 148,723
American Indian or Alaskan Native 243,121
Asian 103,651
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2,477
Some other race 656,189
Two or more races 187,544
Table 2 Hispanic origin population of Arizona (US Census, 2002)
Total population 5,346,616

Hispanic/Latino 1,452,233
Mexican 1,303,400
Not Hispanic/Latino 3,894,393
Table 3 Spanish in Arizona (US Census, 2002)
Total population 5 years and over 4,929,931

Speak English only 3,659,930

Speak a language other than English at home 1,270,001
Speakers of languages other than English who speak 504,312
English less than very well
Speak Spanish 982,283
Speakers of Spanish who speak English less than very well 429,057
According to Milroy and Milroy (1999: 30), the superiority of a single,

prestige language variety (i.e. the standard language ideology) is promoted in
classrooms through explicit instruction and in the media via the complaint
tradition. Similarly, in Arizona, the superiority of a single, prestige language
variety (educated, Anglo English) is promoted in classrooms and in the media.
The complaint tradition against languages other than English in Arizona is
long-lived, dating back to the Anglo colonisation of the state after the end of
the MexicanAmerican War. Although the linguistic rights of the territorys
inhabitants were protected in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the
war, they were ignored along with property rights and human rights more
generally.
Four main arguments dominate the complaint tradition against Spanish
(and bilingualism more generally) in letters published in the letters to the
editor feature of The Arizona Republic : (1) the perceived contrast between non-
English-speaking immigrants today and those from previous generations, (2)
the cost of supporting languages other than English, (3) the discomfort to
English monolingual Anglos caused by the presence of Spanish in the public
sphere and (4) a country should have only one language and English is the de
facto official language of the US. One letter entitled Our Language is English:
Learn It (Davis, 2004) exemplifies all four arguments and is representative of
the active complaint tradition against Spanish in Arizona:
Everywhere I go I see signs in Spanish.
I cannot make a telephone call to a business without being asked
what language I want (Spanish or English). I have only one thing to
say to this:
Enough already!
My parents came to this country from Ireland as indentured slaves.

Yes, other people came to this country as slaves, too. They spoke
Gaelic. No one changed the voting ballots to Gaelic. No one on the
telephone asked if they wanted English or Gaelic. No one put up
billboards in Gaelic. Not once!
So why do we have to pander to Spanish-speaking people who are
too lazy to learn the language of this country? My folks did it and
didnt whine or expect handouts. They didnt expect the school the
school system to be changed to accommodate them. They did not
expect to be catered to in any way. They made sure they got a piece of
the American pie by doing what had to be done, just as millions of
other people (who came here legally) have done over the decades.
If people from Mexico want to come to this country legally, I am all

for them. Let them become productive members of society. Tax-
payers.
But most of all, let them learn the language. They are no better than
the tens of millions of immigrants who came to this country from all
over the world. They do not deserve any special treatment.
This is America. The language is English. Learn it!
Leslie Davis, Tolleson
The first four lines obviously exemplify the third argument; the author
expresses his/her discomfort and frustration at Spanish being part of the
linguistic landscape of Arizona. Using a very common strategy, the writer, in
the following two paragraphs, provides readers with anecdotal evidence from
his/her own family to contrast his/her perception of the difference between
(Spanish-speaking) immigrants today and (British and European) immigrants
of previous eras. In the following paragraph, the author, referring to
productive members of society and taxpayers, implicitly draws in the
second, economic argument. Finally, in the last paragraph, the author invokes
the fourth argument in a rather straightforward manner.
The perceived need to protect English from what was considered the
encroachment of Spanish, to return to a mythical monolingual time, to spare
the states economy from the expense of supporting languages other than
English, and to enforce the one nationone language led to the widespread
support of English-only policies in Arizona. Despite this public support,
several attempts to establish English as the only official language of Arizona
failed in the state legislature. In the late 1980s, however, the ballot initiative
process described above provided English-only activists in Arizona a new
method. In 1988, through a ballot initiative, the Arizona voters narrowly
passed an amendment to the states constitution, enforcing English as the only
official language of Arizona (Combs, 1999). According to Combs (1999: 133),
supporters of the English-only amendment in Arizona invoked the arguments
that Hispanics were not assimilating into the Anglo mainstream, that
bilingualism and bilingual education in particular were creating cultural
fragmentation, and that English was under attack. The amendment was not
only pro-English, but decidedly anti-bilingual: it sought to completely
eliminate the use of any language other than English in governmental
business. The amendment was later found in Yniguez v. Mofford to be

unconstitutional based on its violation of the First Amendment (Free Speech)
rather than the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) of the Constitution
(Crawford, 1992: 182).
In November 2000, Arizona voters passed Proposition 203, a ballot
proposition that effectively eliminated bilingual education in the state. The
proposition, which identifies English as the language of economic opportu-
nity in Arizona, the USA and, in fact, the world, requires that all public school
instruction be conducted in English. For English language learners, a one-year
intensive English immersion followed by integration into classes with native
English speakers is mandated. Proposition 203, now Arizona law, allows
parents to sue school personnel who violate its provisions and allows for the
removal from public service of school officials who refuse to comply with the
law for a period of five years. The effects of the passage of Proposition 203 on
Arizona schools were dramatic. Children who were unable to prove
proficiency in English on a standardised test were removed from bilingual
education programmes and placed in English immersion classrooms. Many
parents, not aware that the statute allows for parents or legal guardians of
children to apply for a waiver of English language immersion if their child
already knows English, did not apply for such waivers. Prior to the passage,
over a third of Arizonas English language learners were in bilingual
education programmes; in the year following passage this figure dropped to
11% (Hispanic Heritage, 2002). In the 20022003 academic year, bilingual
education continued for that smaller group of English language learners due
to the use of parental waivers.
Although bilingual education continued in 20022003 even if on a more
limited basis, the states overt sanctioning of the anti-bilingual ideology led to
new restrictions not specifically mandated by the law. For example, while the
legislation only specifies the language of instruction, one principal in a
Phoenix-area school banned Spanish at school completely, not allowing
students or teachers to speak Spanish on the playground, cafeteria or school
bus (Bustamante, 2002). Similarly, a technical school in a suburb of Phoenix
claimed to be embracing the spirit of Proposition 203 when it ordered bilingual
cosmetology students not to speak to each other in Spanish during class lest
other students think they are being talked about or the instructor feel that he or
she has lost control of the class (Melendez, 2003). A Spanish-language spelling
bee in a majority Mexican and Chicano school in Phoenix was criticised for not
complying with Proposition 203 (Wingett, 2004). Most recently, a teacher in
Scottsdale, Arizona claimed to be enforcing English immersion policy when
she slapped and hit students for speaking Spanish in class (Ryman & Madrid,
2004).
The situation for language minorities in Arizona schools became signifi-
cantly worse in the following academic year, 20032004, due to the narrow
election of Tom Horne, a wealthy lawyer, as Arizonas State Superintendent of
Public Instruction. Interestingly, he defeated Jay Blanchard, a professor of
education at Arizona State University. Mr Horne won the election on a
platform of a renewed focus on high-stakes testing (usually referred to as
accountability) and the elimination of bilingual education, two elements of
what Gutierrez et al . (2002) describe as the backlash pedagogies because they

aim to reverse the achievements of the civil rights movement in education.
Horne specifically charged his predecessor Jaime Molera with flouting the
anti-bilingual legislation by refusing to punish schools that continued to
operate under a bilingual education framework through what he considered
the liberal granting of parental waivers (Corella, 2002a). Effective academic
year 20032004, Horne required students to achieve a score of 4 out of 5 on the
standardised Language Acquisition Survey as evidence of good English skills
required by Proposition 203 (Sterba et al ., 2003). This new interpretation of the
law resulted in a dramatic decrease of students allowed to enrol in bilingual
education programmes.
The literature indicates that the experience of children in postbilingual
education schools can be quite negative and harmful for their development.
The exclusion of childrens native or heritage language from the school
curriculum not only impacts childrens language acquisition, but also impacts
the overall climate of the school. Soto (2002) relates the experiences of
bilingual, biliterate Puerto Rican children in Steeltown, Pennsylvania after
the superintendent and school board eliminated the bilingual education
programme (Soto, 1997). Soto (2002: 607) finds that issues of power in the
existing sociocultural political context continue to affect childrens daily lived
reality. She quotes eight-year-old Yazmin who says the school took away my
language. . . I dont like the school. Im sad when I think about what they did to
me (Soto, 2002: 600). Jimenez (2004) and Combs (2004) report similar reactions
from children in a Tucson elementary school after the passage of Proposition
203 in Arizona. They report that while parents are frustrated by a lack of
choice, they are also deeply concerned about changes in their English-
language-learning childrens behaviour at school and at home since the
elimination of bilingual education. They report, for example, an increase in
fear of school, crying, bed wetting, habitual vomiting, acting out and
depression all indications of psychological trauma in Spanish-dominant
and Spanish monolingual children switched from bilingual education to
English immersion. The principal of a predominantly Chicano/Mexican,
Tucson, Arizona middle school reported that after the passage of Proposition
203 and the implementation of English immersion he began to notice a rise in
tensions between Chicanos, students of Mexican origin born in the USA, and
Mexican immigrant students (Corella, 2002b).
Native American languages have generally been exempted from English-
only legislation in the USA due to their endangered status and to the
protection offered them by the Native American Languages Act, a federal
statute. After the passage of Proposition 203 in Arizona, the states highest
legal authority, the Attorney General, interpreted the law as not applying to
Native American languages, thus allowing indigenous languages to be used as
the language of instruction in publicly funded schools. In Gutierrez et al . (2002:
332), McCarty points out that, even though the Native American languages of
Arizona were exempted from the regulations of Proposition 203, the new law
has had a chilling effect on Native American language maintenance and
revitalisation programmes. McCarty (2003: 159) specifies that the mounting
pressure for standardisation caused by mandatory high-stakes testing in
English is impacting reservation schools and indigenous language main-

tenance/revival programmes. Subsequently, however, the situation became
even more grim for indigenous languages in Arizona when the states
Attorney General issued an opinion stating that public schools on reservations
have to comply with Proposition 203, and that only schools run by the Federal
Bureau of Indian Affairs are exempt from English immersion (Donovan, 2004).
Explaining the Anti-bilingual Ideology

The sociohistorical context of the research on language minority commu-
nities is crucial to the question posed by the editors of this special issue, or at
least to the resolution of the question of how to extend the benefits of

sociolinguistic research on minority language groups to the subjects of said
research and, more generally, the members of said groups. That is, the context
of the anti-bilingual state necessarily impacts the possible ways and means
for extending the benefits of research to the researched. More specifically, it is
necessary to understand WHY the anti-bilingual state is anti-bilingual in order
to determine how to best share the benefits of the production of knowledge
with all of those involved in the process. To this end, three hypotheses about
the origin of the anti-bilingual ideology will be reviewed briefly: the Ignorance
Hypothesis, the Racism Hypothesis and the Subjective Linguistic Vitality
(Gap) Hypothesis.
Crawford (2003) describes two possible explanations for the fact that voters
in three US states (California, Arizona and Massachusetts) have all rejected
bilingual education: the Ignorance Hypothesis and the Racism Hypothesis. As
the name implies, proponents of the Ignorance Hypothesis believe that
misunderstandings about the nature of bilingual education programmes,
language acquisition and school dropout led voters to eliminate bilingual
education. In contrast, proponents of the Racism Hypothesis allege that it is
racism, not ignorance, that leads voters to eliminate a programme primarily
aimed at providing immigrant children and the children of immigrants with
equal opportunity to educational and economic resources. According to
Crawford, supporters of bilingual education in Colorado (the only state to
date that has defeated the anti-bilingual education initiative) subscribed to the
Racism Hypothesis, and they successfully defeated a ballot initiative almost
identical to the one passed in Arizona, Massachusetts and Colorado by
appealing to Anglo voters racism rather than their sense of justice through
commercials which suggested that Anglo students would suffer from the
chaos in the classroom that would result from the mainstreaming of students
not yet proficient in English. Supporters of bilingual education in Colorado
would likely take issue with this characterisation and, in fact, Escamilla et al .
(2003) provides an alternative account. Despite the success of the appeal to
voters racism in Colorado, however, Crawford nevertheless subscribes to the
Ignorance Hypothesis and he implores researchers to become advocates, to
contest discreditors claims, and to try to change public opinion and to
mobilise grassroots support for bilingual education through an equal
opportunity paradigm.
An alternative explanation for the rejection of bilingual education and the

support of English-only legislation is offered by Barker and Giles (2002) and
Barker and Giles (2004), subjective linguistic vitality; that is, subjects
assessment of their own and other language groups vitality with regard to
their relative socio-structural positions demographic salience, institutional
power, and status (Barker & Giles, 2002: 355). They find that Anglo-
Americans perceptions of high or growing Latino vitality is related to support
of English-only (and anti-immigrant) initiatives while their perceptions of
decreasing Anglo vitality is related to support of English-only (and anti-
immigrant) initiatives (Barker & Giles, 2002: 364365). They also find that
Anglo-Americans perception of a decreasing gap between their groups
linguistic vitality and Latinos linguistic vitality is related to a support for
social limitation of immigrants and minorities (Barker & Giles, 2004). As

Barker and Giles (2002: 353) note, English-only initiatives appear to embody a
pattern of concern among largely white, middle-class individuals about their
position relative to other ethnic groups particularly Latinos. Barker and
Giles work lends support to Zentellas (1997) conclusions about the
Hispanophobia that fuelled the fire of the English-only movement.
Which of these explanations is correct in the case of Arizona, and the USA
more generally? While the answer is no doubt of great interest to linguists and
nonlinguists alike, those who care about the linguistic rights, educational and
economic opportunity, and overall life chances of linguistic minorities do not
have time to wait and find out. Rather, I would argue, we need to assume that
all hypotheses might be correct and we need to work on all fronts (or from all
three perspectives) simultaneously.
Researchers Responsibilities
Since the early days of sociolinguistics, researchers have been preoccupied
with the problem of how to manage their relationship with the communities
they study in a responsible and ethical way. First, Labov (1982: 172173)
famously proposed two central principles to guide sociolinguists commitment
to the communities they study: the principle of error correction and the
principle of debt incurred. The former states that a scientist who becomes
aware of a widespread idea or social practice with important consequences
that is invalidated by his own data is obligated to bring this error to the
attention of the widest possible audience and the latter, in its more active
form, states that an investigator who has obtained linguistic data from
members of a speech community has an obligation to use the knowledge based
on that data for benefit of the community, when it has need of it. Wolfram
(1993, 1998, 2000a,b), finding Labovs principle of debt incurred too passive,
suggested the principle of linguistic gratuity, which puts more onus on the
researcher to actively seek out opportunities to repay the debt incurred; or, in
Wolframs (1993: 227) words investigators who have obtained linguistic data
from members of a speech community should actively pursue positive ways in
which they can return linguistic favors to the community. In his response to
Cameron et al . (1993), Rickford (1993) questions whether it is the researchers
alone who have power, and that the community would necessarily be
interested in the product of our research; he suggests that in some cases it is

the community members who might be willing to empower or allow US to
carry out our research in return for services which THEY need (Rickford,
1993: 130). Rickford (1997) suggests three specific ways in which sociolinguists
can repay the debt incurred to the African American communities, from whom
the field has benefited enormously: the induction of African American
linguists; the nonexploitative representation of African Americans in our
writings; and the increased involvement of sociolinguists in the courts,
workplaces and schools.
Finally, while Labov, Wolfram and Rickford outline the responsibilities of
researchers to give back to the communities they research and explain how
they might best do so, Cameron et al . (1993) and Zentella (1994) question more
profoundly the process of research itself, its methods and its objectives.
Cameron et al . (1993) highlight the power imbalance between the researcher
and the researched within the traditional ethical framework of research, and
they find two main faults with the advocacy framework (as represented by
Labovs 1982 two principles): first, that the researcher retains power over the
researched due to their access to specialist knowledge, which, although he or
she might use on the behalf of community members, he or she does not make
available to community members; and second, that the change in personnel
effected by the involvement of linguists of the same racial/ethnic background
is not sufficient to alter the balance of power in the research process. Cameron
et al . suggest that the process of research itself needs to be changed, and they
suggest the implementation of an empowerment framework in which the
community plays a role in setting the research agenda, the researcher uses
interactive research methods and the researcher shares the results of the
research with the community.
Zentella (1994: 115), a linguistic anthropologist, argues for the adoption of
what she calls anthropolitical linguistics, a paradigm within which to carry out
research to discuss the language and politics connection and to make it clear
that, whether we choose to discuss it or not, there is no language without
politics (p. 15). The principle objectives of anthropolitical linguistics are (1) to
understand and facilitate stigmatized groups attempts to construct positive
selves within an economic and political context that relegates its members to
static and disparaged ethnic, racial, and class identities, and that identifies
them with static and disparaged linguistic codes (p. 12) and (2) To participate
in communities challenges of the policies and institutions that circumscribe
the linguistic and cultural capital of their members (p. 13). Zentella rejects the
notion of anthropolitical linguistics as a form of alms for oppressed language
minorities (p. 15), but rather asserts that it is a call for new research goals and
methods.
Researchers Responsibilities in an Anti-bilingual State

The question of who benefits from sociolinguistic research on language
minority communities is a topic that is very important to me and one that I
have struggled with regarding my research on bilingual language practices of
Spanish/English bilinguals in the USA, first in Detroit, Michigan in the
countrys Northern, industrial rust belt and now in Arizona, a state which
today borders Mexico, but which until 1848 formed part of that countrys
territory. The issue has become particularly urgent in Arizona due to the recent
political changes described above. My most recent data collection project
involves long-term participant observation and recording of spontaneous talk-
in-interaction during collaborative classroom activities in a second-grade
classroom at a dual-language immersion elementary school in central Phoenix,
Arizona. According to the school districts 20012002 data, the schools
student population of roughly 850 students was predominantly Mexican
and MexicanAmerican: 90% of the students identified as Hispanic, 6.5%
Anglo, 2.5% African American, 1% Native American and less than 1% Asian.
In addition, 78% of the elementary schools students in 20012002 were
characterised as having limited English proficiency. The student population is

drawn primarily from the poor, urban neighbourhood in which the school is
located; an indication of the economic profile of the community is that 94% of
the students qualified for the government-subsidised free or reduced-cost
lunch programme.
After a period of participant observation and data collection, the students,
teachers and I parted ways for the summer vacation. In the Fall, new teaching
responsibilities and analysis of my collected data became a priority, and I lost
touch with the teachers and students. Over the past academic year, I have had
little contact with the teachers, students or staff with whom I had been in
frequent contact for a year and from whom I collected data that I continue to
use and benefit from. I have used grant money to pay research assistants to
transcribe, but no money was able to be given to the underfunded school or
the underpaid teachers and staff without whose support I would have been
unable to collect data. While it is true that I logged hours upon hours as a
classroom assistant, doing the teachers bidding as other classroom assistants
did, I have not been able to share my research with those educators who made
it possible in any way that is meaningful to them or improves their chances at
being able to educate children the way they believe is right (in a dual-language
immersion framework). In fact, the dedicated, talented bilingual teacher I
observed during my fieldwork in central Phoenix has left not just the school
but the profession in general due to her disgust with the recent legislation, the
administration and the effect on childrens education. I am painfully aware as I
sit and review recordings and transcriptions that the bilingual classroom
exchanges I listen to on the minidiscs I co-produced with the students and
teachers during my fieldwork are no longer taking place in the classroom. I am
outraged that the proficient bilingual, bicultural students I am privileged to
listen to are now forbidden to develop skills in (one of) their native
language(s). When I talk to the schools principal and I hear that students
have already begun to show signs of internalising the superiority of English
implied in the newly imposed policies, I am overwhelmed with a sense of
failure and powerlessness to effect any change.
What would it take for both the researcher and the community to benefit
from sociolinguistic research on minority language groups? Or, more
specifically, what can I do as a researcher of bilingual language practices in
an anti-bilingual state in order to benefit the community? As I mentioned
above, I believe that the researchers of bilingualism in anti-bilingual states

need to work simultaneously from all three perspectives that is, assuming
the Racism Hypothesis, the Ignorance Hypothesis and the Subjective Linguis-
tic Vitality (Gap)/Hispanophobia. In practice, this would mean (1) working to
expose the racism behind the anti-bilingual policies; (2) working to educate the
public about bilingualism and bilingual education; and (3) working to improve
communication and understanding between members of language minority
groups and speakers of the majority language. I therefore suggest the
following priorities for researchers of bilingualism in anti-bilingual states
who wish to extend the benefits of their research to the communities whose
language practices they study.
Regarding racism
First, disempower those striving to take away equal opportunity from
members of language minority groups, or as Muhlhausler (1993: 121) puts it,
reduce the absolute amount of power in existence by disempowering the most
powerful. In the case of Arizona, this would mean actively supporting
candidates opposing those politicians who have acted to restrict language
minority group members linguistic rights.
Second, work with community members striving to protect language rights,
civil rights and human rights (e.g. Zentella, 1994). For example, I worked on
the (unfortunately unsuccessful) campaign for governor of Arizona of Alfredo
Gutierrez, a Chicano civil rights activist with a long record for supporting the
rights (linguistic and otherwise) of Chicanos/Latinos, immigrants and other
members of minority groups.
Third, recruit more Chicano and Latino students into university education,
graduate school and sociolinguistics. While Cameron et al . (1993) point out
that the recruitment of members of minority language communities into the
field is not sufficient to effect change in the power imbalance between the
researcher and the researched, working to protect equal opportunity and
access is key to fighting racism.
Regarding ignorance
Seek out every opportunity to educate both members of language minority
groups and the general public about disparaged language varieties. For
example, I have received a grant to fund the creation of a website about
Spanish in Arizona that will examine the linguistic characteristics of Arizona
Spanish as well as the communities efforts to challenge linguistic oppression
(Zentella, 1994). It is hoped that this site will serve not only academics but also
teachers at all levels, community organisers and others.
To this end I am also developing a language awareness programme to be
used in the late elementary school or early middle school classroom in
predominantly Mexican/MexicanAmerican schools in Arizona. The goals of
this programme include to educate both language majority and language
minority teachers as well as students about variations in Spanish in the
Southwest, to increase linguistic tolerance in a multilingual environment and
to inspire children to maintain their Spanish language skills.
Regarding improvement of communication and understanding

First, become involved in the training of professionals who will work with
members of language minority communities. For the past two years I have
contributed to a course on bilingualism for speech language pathologists who
hope to work with bilingual clients. In this capacity, I engage in a kind of error
correction through a review of research on bilingualism, bilingual acquisition,
bilingual education and bilingual language practices (e.g. codeswitching), and
strive to counter the effects of what Zentella (1994: 1) termed chiquitafication,
that is the construction of a homogeneous Hispanic community that refuses
to learn English, the belittling of non-Castilian varieties of Spanish, and the
labeling of second-generation bilinguals as semi- or a-lingual. It is hoped that
this will impact speech language pathologists future practice with Mexican,
MexicanAmerican and Latino children.

Second, seek out ways to mitigate the negative effects of the standard
language ideology (Lippi-Green, 1997) on the lives of members of linguistic
minority groups. Like many researchers in language minority communities, I
have often been involved informally in this endeavour, brokering for non-
English-speaking friends and acquaintances in everything from real estate
transactions to disputes with employers. In the future, I hope to formalise this
work through the establishment of a link with a non-profit organisation in the
community. My goal is to form a programme to train bilingual, language
majority and language minority volunteers to facilitate communication and
understanding in interactions between monolingual speakers from both
communities.
Finally, seek out opportunities to educate speakers of the majority language
and members of the majority culture, such as English monolingual employers,
about intercultural communication and language minority groups in an effort
to reduce negative attitudes and help those in power to listen better. This will
be a second goal of the alliance with the nonprofit organisation described
above.
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to emphasise that, while these suggestions might
seem simple or obvious, these actions are often de-prioritised in the hectic
schedules of our daily lives and in the face of pressing concerns such as the
need to publish and teach well and get tenure. As researchers we are
required by our academic institutions to create publishable papers and
chapters from fieldwork in order to be granted tenure and we are re-
quired by the funding agencies to write final reports. The researchers
responsibilities toward the community he or she researches, however,
depends on the individual researcher. The shocking experience, however,
of not having a research site to return to due to the passage of an anti-
bilingual ballot proposition and the election of an anti-bilingual Super-
intendent of Public Instruction makes one realise that if everyone does not
benefit from sociolinguistic research on language minority groups, then no
one does.
Notes
1. I use Anglo as it is used in the USA as a synonym of white or European American.
2. Language use is not counted for people under five years in the US Census.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Holly Cashman, Department of
Languages & Literatures, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 870202, Tempe,
AZ 85287-0202, USA (holly.cashman@asu.edu).
References
Aparicio, F. (1998) Whose Spanish, whose language, whose power?: An ethnographic
inquiry into differential bilingualism. Indiana Journal of Hispanic Literatures 12, 525.
Barker, V. and Giles, H. (2002) Who supports the English-only movement?: Evidence for
misconceptions about Latino group vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 23 (5), 353370.
Barker, V. and Giles, H. (2004) English-only policies: Perceived support and social
limitation. Language and Communication 24 (1), 7795.
Bustamante, M. (2002) Playing en espanol. Tucson Citizen August 26, 1C.
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, B. and Richardson, K. (1993) Ethics,
advocacy and empowerment: Issues of method in researching language. Language
and Communication 13 (2), 8194.
Combs, M.C. (1999) Public perceptions of Official English/English Only: Framing the
debate in Arizona. In T. Huebner and K.A. Davis (eds) Sociopolitical Perspectives on
Language Policy and Planning in the USA (pp. 131154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Combs, M.C. (2004) Civil rights and simple justice: Proposition 203 and English Only
education in Arizona. Language Minority Education Research Roundtable of
Arizona (LMERRA). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
Corella, H. (2002a) Horne raises AIMS, bilingual ed issues in commercial. The Arizona
Daily Star September 2, A20.
Corella, H. (2002b) A different kind of racism. The Arizona Daily Star April 14, A1.
Crawford, J. (1992) Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of English Only .
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Crawford, J. (2000a) Endangered Native American languages: What is to be done and
why? In J. Crawford (ed.) At War with Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in an Age of
Anxiety (pp. 5265). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (2000b) Language politics in the United States: The paradox of bilingual
education. In C. Ovando and P. McLaren (eds) The Politics of Multiculturalism and
Bilingual Education (pp. 106125). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Crawford, J. (2000c) Anatomy of the English-only movement. In J. Crawford (ed.) At
War with Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety (pp. 430). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (2003) Hard Sell: Why is Bilingual Education so Unpopular with the American
Public? Tempe, AZ: Language Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. On
WWW at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/brief8.htm. Accessed
29.5.03.
Cummins, J. (2000) Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the
education of bilingual students. In C. Ovando and P. McLaren (eds) The Politics of
Multiculturalism and Bilingual Education (pp. 126147). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Davis, L. (2004) Our language is English: Learn it. The Arizona Republic January 23: B10.
Donovan, B. (2004) AG: Public schools not exempt from Prop. 203. Navajo Times .
On WWW at http://www.navajotimes.com/20041902/News/public_schools.html.
Accessed 23.2.04.
Escamilla, K., Shannon, S., Carlos, S. and Garca, J. (2003) Breaking the code: Colorados
defeat of the Anti-Bilingual Education Initiative (Amendment 31). Bilingual Research
Journal 27 (3), 357382.
Gilbert, G. (1981) French and German: A comparative study. In C. Ferguson and S. Brice
Heath (eds) Language in the USA (pp. 257272). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gutierrez, K., Asato, J., Pacheco, M., Moll, L., Olson, K., Lai Horng, E., Ruiz, R., Garca,
E. and McCarty, T. (2002) Sounding American: The consequences of new reforms
on English language learners. Reading Research Quarterly 37 (3), 328343.
Heard Museum (2004) Arizonas 21 federally recognized Tribal Communities. On
WWW at http://www.heard.org/visit-tribal.php. Accessed 23.2.04.
Heath, S.B. (1981) English in our language heritage. In C. Ferguson and S.B. Heath (eds)
Language in the USA (pp. 620). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hispanic Heritage (2002) Proposition 203 The struggle continues . On WWW at http://
www.hispanicheritage.com/education/prop203_11_02.htm. Accessed 23.2.04.
Jimenez, A. (2004) Conditions for students within post-Proposition 203 classrooms in a
Tucson elementary school: Are schools prepared? Is this right for children?
Language Minority Education Research Roundtable of Arizona (LMERRA). Tempe,

AZ: Arizona State University.
Labov, W. (1982) Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: The case of the Black
English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society 11, 165201.
Leap, W. (1981) American Indian languages. In C. Ferguson and S. Brice Heath (eds)
Language in the USA (pp. 116144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997) English with an Accent . London: Routledge.
McCarty, T. (2003) Revitalising indigenous languages in homogenising times. Compara-
tive Education 39 (2), 147163.
McKay, S. and Wong, S-L.C. (eds) (2000) New Immigrants in the United States: Readings for
Second Language Educators . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melendez, M. (2003) East Valley tech school may face civil-rights complaint. The Arizona
Republic October 18, B3.
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1999) Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English .
London/New York: Routledge.
Muhlhausler, P. (1993) Comment. Language and Communication 13 (2), 121123.
Rickford, J. (1993) Comments on Ethics, Advocacy and Empowerment. Language and
Communication 13 (2), 129131.
Rickford, J. (1997) Unequal partnership: Sociolinguistics and the African American
speech community. Language in Society 26, 161197.
Ruz, R. (1984) Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal 8 (2), 1534.
Ryman, A. and Madrid, O. (2004) Hispanics upset by teachers discipline. The Arizona
Republic January 17, B1.
Soto, L.D. (1997) Language, Culture and Power: Bilingual Families Struggle for Quality
Education . New York: SUNY Press.
Soto, L.D. (2002) Young bilingual childrens perceptions of bilingualism and biliteracy:
Altruistic possibilities. Bilingual Research Journal 26 (3), 599610.
Sterba, J., Higuera, J. and Marson, B. (2003) Bilingual waivers restricted. The Arizona
Daily Star February 14, A1.
US Census (2002) American Community Survey Profile 2002: Arizona . http://www.
census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2002/ACS/Tabular/040/04000
US044.htm. Accessed 23.2.04.
Wiley, T. (1996) Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States . Washington, D.C.:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wiley, T. (1998) The imposition of World War I era English-only policies and the fate of
German in North America. In T. Ricento and B. Burnaby (eds) Language and Politics
in the United States and Canada (pp. 211241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wiley, T. and Wright, W. (2004) Against the undertow: Language-minority education
policy and politics in the age of accountability. Educational Policy 18 (1), 142168.
Wingett, Y. (2004) Spanish spelling bee criticized by state school aide. The Arizona
Republic April 16, 1.
Wolfram, W. (1993) Ethical considerations in language awareness programs. Issues in
Applied Linguistics 4 (2), 225255.
Wolfram, W. (1998) Scrutinizing linguistic gratuity: Issues from the field. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 2 (2), 271279.
Wolfram, W. (2000a) Endangered dialects and social commitment. In J. Kreeft Peyton, P.
Griffin, W. Wolfram and R. Fasold (eds) Language in Action: New Studies of Language
in Society (pp. 1939). Cresskill, NY: Hampton Press.
Wolfram, W. (2000b) Linguistic diversity and the public interest. American Speech 75 (3),
278280.
Zentella, A.C. (1994) The chiquitafication of U.S. Latinos and their languages, or Why
we need an anthropolitical linguistics. In R. Ide, R. Parker and Y. Sunaoshi (eds)
Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium About Language and Society Austin, Texas
Linguistics Forum 36, 118.
Zentella, A.C. (1997) The hispanophobia of the Official English movement in the US.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 127, 7186.

Cash Man 2006

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cash Man 2006

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Who Wins in Research on Bilingualism in an Anti-

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17447140608668537

Published online: 22 Dec 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 202

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Keywords: Arizona, bilingualism, politics of language, research ethics, Spanish

0143-4632/06/01 042-19 $20.00/0 2006 H.R. Cashman

disloyalty. Members of language minority groups may internalise this

English-only laws do not ensure unity, overcome differences, or safe-

Sociolinguistic Context of Arizona

state. Arizona is home to 21 federally recognised Native American tribal

Arizona: An Anti-bilingual State

Table 1 Racial diversity in Arizona (US Census, 2002)

One race 5,159,072

Total population 5,346,616

Table 3 Spanish in Arizona (US Census, 2002)

Total population 5 years and over 4,929,931

Speak English only 3,659,930

According to Milroy and Milroy (1999: 30), the superiority of a single,

My parents came to this country from Ireland as indentured slaves.

If people from Mexico want to come to this country legally, I am all

business. The amendment was later found in Yniguez v. Mofford to be

what Gutierrez et al . (2002) describe as the backlash pedagogies because they

English is impacting reservation schools and indigenous language main-

Explaining the Anti-bilingual Ideology

least to the resolution of the question of how to extend the benefits of

An alternative explanation for the rejection of bilingual education and the

social limitation of immigrants and minorities (Barker & Giles, 2004). As

interested in the product of our research; he suggests that in some cases it is

Researchers Responsibilities in an Anti-bilingual State

characterised as having limited English proficiency. The student population is

above, I believe that the researchers of bilingualism in anti-bilingual states

Regarding improvement of communication and understanding

MexicanAmerican and Latino children.

Language Minority Education Research Roundtable of Arizona (LMERRA). Tempe,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen