Masako Masuda

17

論文“E Pluribus Unum”: The Language Policy in the United States
Masako Masuda(Waseda University)
1. Introduction
In the United States, English has represented the predominant language since thecolonial period and has functioned as the de facto official language. However, English
has never been designated a formal official language by the Constitution or any otherlaws. In contrast, 63 nations in the world name an official language in theirConstitution. i Even when the Constitution does not define an official language, many
countries have language laws outside of their Constitution that designate official
languages. ii
This absence of a formal official language reflects the United States approach to its
language policy. Rather than establishing an explicit language policy that chooses
between language unity with a single official language and language diversity which
accepts more than one language, the U.S. government has shifted its language policy
flexibly to meet the demands of the ever-changing dynamics of the country, as if tobalance “unity” and “diversity” represented in the country’s motto “E Pluribus Unum”.
In general, co-existence of multiple languages has been accepted with tolerance.
However, since the 1980s, there has been an increase in pressure to make English theofficial language. This movement has been pushed mainly by citizens’ action groups
such as U.S. English, Inc. and U.S. English Foundation. As of April 2014, 31 states
have passed legislations to make English their official language, and several otherstates are considering similar steps. iii
This paper reviews the linguistic landscape of the United States and looks at thedevelopment of the U.S. language policy over time. It focuses on how linguistic
tolerance and intolerance have alternated throughout history, and what factors
influenced each period. It also examines the factors that prevent the designation ofEnglish as an official language at the national level despite increasing pressures inrecent years, and whether this situation will continue.
Section 2 explores the current linguistic landscape of the United States, based on
the data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Census. The number of people who speak
languages other than English at home and their self-rated English-speaking ability
are used as measures of analysis. Most importantly, this section brings to light theuneven geographical distribution of people who speak languages other than English athome, which results in the existence of

pockets of heavy non-English language

18“E Pluribus Unum”: The Language Policy in the United Statesconcentration in certain parts of the country.
Section 3 reviews the historical development of national sentiments and policies on
language issues. It describes four different periods of distinct attitudes on the issue of
language unity and diversity and shows how historical and social factors shape such
attitudes. Throughout the history of the United States, a period of linguistic tolerance
occurred most notably in the country’s founding years through most of the 19 th century
and in the mid-1960s to the 1970s. In contrast, the late 19 th century to the mid- 20 th
century and the 1980s to present mark periods of linguistic intolerance.
Section 4 examines the factors that influence the direction and the distance of theswing of the pendulum between linguistic tolerance and linguistic intolerance, or,between diversity and unity. Three factors are analyzed: the impact of immigration,
adherence to the U.S. Constitution, and the development of national values.
Finally, the paper considers the prospects for the future: whether the United States’
current lack of explicit language policy will remain viable in the future or not. Whatfactors could force change in such a situation?
2. Current Linguistic Landscape
The United States has become a multi-linguistic country where 381 languages are
spoken, according to the 2011 statistics published by the U.S. Bureau of Census in
August 2013. iv The U.S. Bureau of Census employs two measures to analyze thecountry’s linguistic landscape. One is the number of people who speak languages otherthan English at home, and the other is their self-rated English-speaking ability.
2.1 Language spoken at home
Of the United States’ population of 291.5 million aged 5 years or above, 21%, or60.6 million people speak languages other than English at home. This percentage hasrisen from 19.3% in 2005. Compared to 1980, the number of people who speak
languages other than English at home has risen by 262% from 23.1 million to 60.6
million, its proportion among the total population almost doubling from 11% to 21%.
Spanish is by far the most spoken language spoken at home besides English,
accounting for 62% of foreign languages spoken at home, and showing a rapid increase
from 48% in 1980. In fact, the number of Spanish speakers more than tripled between
1980 and 2011 from 11.1 million to 37.6 million people.
2.2 English-speaking ability
As for self-rated English-speaking ability, 58.2% of those who speak languages
other than English at home responded that they speak English “very well”, 19.4%“well”, 15.4% “not well”, and 7.0% “not at all”. The proportion of those speaking
English “very well” varies among language groups, the highest being French or
German speakers at over 80%, and the lowest being Korean, Chinese, or VietnameseMasako Masuda

19

speakers at less than 50%. Among Spanish speakers, 56.3% speak English “very well”
and 9.0% “not at all”.
The U.S. Bureau of Census confirms that the proportion of speakers of languages
other than English who speak English less than “very well” as a percentage of the total
population remained the same at 8.7% between 2007 and 2011. However, there had
been an increase between 2000 and 2007 from 8.1% to 8.7%. As the total population
during this period showed a large increase from 210.2 million in 1980 to 291.5 million
in 2011, the actual number of people who speak English less than “very well” hasincreased substantially.
2.3 Language concentration
The number of speakers of languages other than English at home varies greatly
among different states. The states with the highest percentages of people speaking
languages other than English at home include California (43.8%), New Mexico (36.5%),
Texas (34.7%), New Jersey (30.4%), New York (30.1%), Florida (27.6%), and Arizona(27.0%). Most of these states are located in the Southwest. In contrast, the states withthe lowest percentages include West Virginia (2.3 %), Mississippi (3.8%), Montana(4.7%), Kentucky (4.8%), Vermont (4.9%), North Dakota (5.1%), and Alabama (5.2%).
These are mainly mid-Western and Southern states.
There appears to be a general but not conclusive correlation between the
proportion of people who speak languages other than English at home and the average
English-ability found in the state. Among the seven states with the highest
percentages of people speaking languages other than English at home, while New
Mexico and Arizona exceeded the national average of 58.2% of people speaking English“very well” by a significant margin (72.5% and 65.5%, respectively), California (54.7%),
Texas (58.1%), New Jersey (57.4%), and New York (55.2%) lagged behind the national
average. Among those with the lowest percentages of people speaking languages otherthan English at home, Montana (83.7%), North Dakota (71.6%), Vermont (71.4%), andWest Virginia (64.7%) showed figures well above the national average, while Kentucky(58.1%), Mississippi (55.7%), and Alabama (55.4%) remained behind the national
average.
According to The Washington Post , in over 25% of all counties in the United States,
at least 10% of people speak a language other than English at home. The most common
such language is Spanish, which is spoken by at least 10% of people in 708 counties,
accounting for 23% of all counties. The map provides a vivid visual representation of
the non-English language concentration in the United States.

20“E Pluribus Unum”: The Language Policy in the United States

Map 1: Where English is not the language at home

Source: Dan Keating and Darla Cameron for The Washington Post (August 20, 2013)
The concentration is even starker when analyzed on the level of metropolitan areas.
According to the analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Census, in 57 metropolitan areas, 25%
or more of the population speak languages other than English at home. 22 of theseareas are located in California and twelve in Texas. In thirteen metropolitan areas,
50% or more of the population speak languages other than English at home, and in four
metropolitan areas, three in Texas and one in California, the proportion exceeds 70%.
For example, in Laredo, Texas, 92.8% of its 230,506 residents speak languages otherthan English at home and 91% speak Spanish at home.
3. Historical Development
Throughout the history of the United States, national sentiment on language issues
and the government’s language policy have shifted between tolerating multiple
languages and demanding use of English only. In addition, as time progressed, theintensity of such sentiments grew and the policy became more formalized, thus making
the shift wider and more divisive.
3 . 1 T h e b e g i n n i n g w i t h d i v e r s i t y : f r o m t h e c o l o n i a l p e r i o d t o t h e 1 9 th
century
During the colonial period, multiple languages were in use, reflecting the large

Masako Masuda

21

number of Native American tribes and diverse origins of settlers coming to the New
World. For example, 18 languages were spoken on Manhattan Island alone in 1664,
when England bought it from the Dutch and New Amsterdam was renamed New York. v
While English was the chosen common language at the Continental Congress
during the Independence War and the nation’s founding years, important documents
were translated into German and French to garner support for the war from theGerman and French colonists. Translation into German was particularly important, asa large number of German people lived in Pennsylvania but kept to their own separate
communities without assimilating to the rest of the colony.
Despite having strong feelings about establishing American English as thelanguage of their new nation, distinct from the English spoken in England, vi theFounding Fathers did not designate English as an official language. Two reasonsappear likely for this refrain. First, designating English as an official language by law
was thought to be unnecessary because the Founding Fathers “considered it
self-evident that English would be the language of the government.” vii It had alreadybeen in use in the government, and English speakers formed a strong majority in the
1780s with 25 per cent of the population having English or Irish origin.
Second, the Founding Fathers “felt language to be a matter of ‘individual
choice’” viii and a democratic government should not interfere with the matter oflanguage. In fact, the Congress did not approve a proposal made by John Adams in1780 to establish an official language institution called the American Academy “forrefining, improving, and ascertaining the English language.” ix The issue of language
thus was not to be under government jurisdiction.
The use of languages other than English in government continued during the 19 th
century on the state level, though not on the federal level. As new states joined theunion one after another, many state governments retained the practice of using morethan one language in their official documents. In some states, government documents
were written in two languages, and in others, the state constitution was printed in
more than two languages. Table 1 below shows the variety of languages used officiallyby various state governments.

This was a period when de facto official languages

reflected the linguistic needs of the various populations in each state.

22“E Pluribus Unum”: The Language Policy in the United States

Table 1: Use of languages other than English by state governments in the 19 th century
Year

State(s)Official documents

Languages

1812

Louisiana

All state government

Frenchdocuments
1830s

Ohio, Illinois, Iowa,

State legislations,Wisconsin, Missouri

Governor’s message

1849

California

All legislations

Spanish1857

Minnesota

new State

German, Swedish,Constitution

Norwegian, French

new State

German, Spanish, Czech

1875

Texas

GermanConstitution
3 . 2 T h e s h i f t t o u n i t y : t h e l a t e 1 9 th c e n t u r y t o t h e 1 9 2 0 s
The sentiments changed significantly in the late 19 th century and the early 20 th
century away from tolerance of multiple languages to insistence on English as the only
acceptable language. This shift occurred primarily due to a large inflow of “newimmigrants” from Southern and Eastern Europe at the turn of the century and from
China and Japan in the early 20 th century, which caused apprehension among theAmerican people. Furthermore, the beginning of World War I in 1914 stirred jingoism
and anti-German feelings. As a result, between 1880 and 1924, “an ideological shift
occurred with regard to language,” x and led to two policy directions that madeAmerican ideology firmly monolingual by the 1930s. xi
First, in response to large-scale immigration and to push “Americanization” ofthese new immigrants, English language ability was made a legal requirement for
immigrants for the first time. In 1906, the Amendment to Naturalization Act madeEnglish language ability a condition for naturalization. In 1917, another step was
taken when the Immigration Act of 1917 made English literacy a precondition for
application for immigration itself, thereby making it impossible for non-English
speakers even to file for immigration to the United States.
Second, also in line with the “Americanization movement” but more strongly due tofeelings of suspicions against German people, legislations were passed in fifteen statesin 1919 prohibiting the use of languages other than English in public or private
gatherings. These states were mostly mid-Western states such as Ohio and Nebraska
with large concentrations of German people. Furthermore, only English was allowed as
the language of instruction in public schools. xii
Despite the unprecedented rise in pressure to use only English and exclude otherlanguages during this period, English was not designated by law to be an official
language. The single most important reason for this was the significant decline ofimmigration that had taken place before discussions of official language materialized.

Masako Masuda

23

In 1921 and 1924, as culmination of the Americanization movement, the New
Immigration Act created the national origins quota system. xiii Under this quota
system, the fear for continuation of a large influx of new immigrants from undesirable
countries dissipated. In fact, inflow of immigrants stagnated until 1965 when thenational origins quota was abolished, and foreign born people as a percentage of thetotal population declined from 19% in 1910 to 4.7% in 1970.
3.3 The return to diversity and the rise of bilingualism: late 1960s to the
1970s
The 1960s marked another major shift in national sentiments on the language
issue and the language policy from single language to diversity. This was largely due
to the liberal ideology brought about by the Civil Rights movement in the early 1960s
as well as the resumption of immigration following the abolishment of the national
origins quota system in 1965. Unlike in the late 19 th century, this new influx of
immigrants did not lead to jingoism in the 1960s and 1970s, perhaps because thenumber of foreign born people as a percentage of the total population remained low at
4.7% in 1970 compared to 19% in 1910 as discussed above. Rather, this wave ofimmigration promoted linguistic diversity in education and in political areas to meetthe needs of those with limited English.
In education, bilingual and bicultural education was promoted by new legislations
and court rulings. In 1968, the Bilingual Education Act, introduced by Texas Senator
Ralph Yarborough the previous year, was signed by President Lyndon Johnson andmade into federal law. The Bilingual Education Act was the first federal recognition
that students with limited English speaking ability have special educational needs andthat the needs of limited English speakers must be addressed in order to provide equal
educational opportunities for all. As if to support this legislation, in 1974, when agroup of Chinese schoolchildren sued the San Francisco school district in Lau vs.
Nichols, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Civil Rights Act requires the school district
to take affirmative steps to rectify ‘language deficiency of non-English speaking
children.’” xiv The Court also noted that failure to take affirmative steps takes away
equal educational opportunities and thus violates equal protection under the law
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This decision had
a large impact on promoting bilingual education.
In the political realm, a bilingual provision to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 waspassed in 1975. It required “election ballots and other voter information to be printed
in languages spoken either by 10,000 people or by 5 per cent of the population in a
voting jurisdiction.” xv
In short, during the 1960s and 1970s, the influx of new immigrants led to demands
that the “government provide education, election ballots, emergency services and otherinformation in languages other than English.” xvi These demands were met through the

24“E Pluribus Unum”: The Language Policy in the United States

promotion of bilingualism by legislations as well as court decisions, especially in theareas of education and politics.
3.4 The resumption of unity and the push for official language: the 1980s topresent
The increase in the use of other languages and the promotion of bilingualism andlanguage tolerance triggered a backlash in the 1980s, and the conflict on the language
issue continues to this day. This conflict is largely due to the increase of illegal
immigrants, the population of which is estimated to be over 10 million today, and the
support of President Ronald Reagan who is believed to be the most conservative
President in the history of the United States. xvii Turbak wrote in 1994 that according
to various polls, “more than three-fourths of all Americans believe English should be
the official language of government.” xviii
For the first time in history, an organized movement to designate English as an
official language has been activated on both the federal and state levels. This
movement, termed English Only, is promoted largely by citizens’ action groups like
U.S. English, Inc. U.S. English is the largest English Only organization in the UnitedStates with a membership of 1.8 million people. It was established in 1983 by former
Senator S. I. Hayakawa with twin objectives to designate English as an official
language and to reform bilingual education.
The English Only movement has actively promoted the designation of English as
an official language on the federal and state levels. Most notably, on the federal level,
formal discussions on the subject have commenced in Congress for the first time inhistory. Specifically, three laws have been submitted in an attempt to make English
the official language. First, the English Language Amendment, the first legislation to
make English official language was submitted in 1981 by California Senator S. I.
Hayakawa and has been resubmitted every year since. Public hearings were held in
the Committees in the Senate in 1984 and in the House of Representatives in 1988.
However, no deliberation has taken place on the Congressional floor itself.
Second, in 1996, the English Language Empowerment Act, submitted byRepresentative Bill Emerson from Missouri, passed the House of Representatives by avote of 259 to 169. The Act declares English the official language of the federal
government and requires that only English be used in the federal government, withthe exception of diplomacy, public health, public safety, and foreign language
education. The Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate chose not to deliberate
and let the Act expire. However, more importantly, President Bill Clinton indicated hewould exercise veto power, should the Act pass the Senate as well.
Third, in 2006, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe submitted two Amendments to theComprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The first amendment, to designate
English as the “national language” to be used in government affairs, passed the Senate

Masako Masuda

25

by a vote of 63 to 34. The other amendment, to designate English as “the common andunifying language of the United States” with no restriction on use of language, also
passed with a vote of 58 to 39. However, neither Amendment became a law, as theComprehensive Immigration Reform Act itself did not pass Congress. This was theclosest that English has come to being made into the official language by law.
Nonetheless, various laws and amendments have been submitted to Congress every
year in an effort to make English the official language.
On the state level, the English Only movement has had more success. As of April
2014, 31 states have designated English as the state’s official language by law. The
content ranges from merely symbolic to restriction on languages other than English. In
particular, Proposition 63 in California has given the state government the right toimplement all possible measures toward making English the official language andgives residents the right to sue when faced with a situation that violates the use ofEnglish as an official language.
Against this backdrop, even bilingual education has lost its once strong support. On
the federal level, the Bilingual Education Act was quietly let to expire in 2002. On thestate level, Proposition 227 abolished bilingual education in California in 1998,
banning the use of languages other than English for instruction in public schools,
followed by the similar Proposition 203 in Arizona which imposed the English Only
requirement for public schools. xix
4.

Swing of a Pendulum
As discussed in Section 3 above, the pendulum of national sentiments on thelanguage has swung between tolerance of non-English languages on the one hand andinsistence on English only on the other, reflecting political and social developments
throughout history. Three factors play a particularly influential role in determining
the direction and the distance of the pendulum’s swing. These are: the impact ofimmigration, the principles of the U.S. Constitution, and the development of certain
national values. While the first factor is a tangible factor that has visible
manifestations, the latter two are intangible factors that work in a subtle manner. It isof particular interest how these factors have converged in recent years in a mannerthat encourages language tolerance.
4.1 Immigration
A large influx of immigrants has generally led to “an increase in various strains of
xenophobia and a crusade to ‘Americanize’ the new immigrants.” xx This was the casein the late 19 th to early 20 th century when a large number of non-English speaking
immigrants arrived from Southern and Eastern Europe. The increasing success of the
English Only movement in recent years also shows how a large increase of an
immigrant population can intensify intolerance on the use of language other than26

“E Pluribus Unum”: The Language Policy in the United States

English. During both periods, the pressure to require immigrants to assimilate andaccept the American way, including English, increased markedly.
However, the national response in recent years appears more complex due to theformation of political critical mass by Hispanics, based on two reasons. One is afundamental change in the racial composition that the United States has been and will
be facing during the first half of the 21 st century. While the white population is
expected to decline from 69.1% of the total population in 2000 to 46.6% in 2050 andlose its majority position, the Hispanic population is expected to increase from 12.6%
in 2000 to 27.9% in 2050. Another reason is the regional concentrations of the Hispanic
population, as described in Section 2 above. Such concentration of the population
endows the Hispanics with decisive voting power in certain regions which cannot beignored by politicians. The critical mass already exists not only in local elections but
also in the Presidential election, in which Hispanic votes can sway the outcome of key
swing states such as Florida and Texas. This fact carries significant political leverage.
The need for politicians to court the Hispanic vote is likely to encourage use oflanguages other than English, namely Spanish, in political activities. As reported by

The Washington Post on August 19, 2014, even the conservative Republicans are“increasingly eager to get the word out – en Española” xxi and Republican politicians
frequently make appearances on Spanish-language TV programs.
Thus, the impact of immigration can work in two different directions, one towards
intolerance of multiple languages and pressures to assimilate, and another towards
more inclusiveness through language diversity. While both forces are at work today
and making progress, overall, however, the growing presence of Hispanics and theircritical mass will continue to favor language diversity over the English only approach.
4.2 The U.S. Constitution
Consistency with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution has carried heavy weight
throughout history. In general, the very fact that the Constitution remains silent on
the issue of an official language can be interpreted as an expression of tolerance on thelanguage. Specifically, in language policy, the two particularly relevant concepts are
freedom of speech under the First Amendment and equal protection under the law
under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the past, courts have ruled in favor of language diversity on the federal andstate levels. Even before its 1974 ruling on Lau vs. Nichols described above, theSupreme Court ruled in Meyer vs. Nebraska in 1923 that the state’s English Only law
prohibiting

foreignlanguageeducation

below

the

eighth

grade

violatestheConstitution, as the Constitution protects the rights of “those who speak otherlanguages as well as those born with English on the tongue” xxii On the state level,
Arizona State Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that the Arizona constitutional
amendment that requires all state government employees to use only English during

27

Masako Masuda

working hours is unconstitutional, because it violates employees’ free speech rights
under the First Amendment.
Accordingly, adherence to the principles of the U.S. Constitution poses a
significant hurdle for the designation of English as the official language, if it is to
exclude use of other languages.

4.3 National values
National values change over time, usually following a historical event that works
as a turning point. From the Declaration of Independence to Emancipation
Proclamation to women’s suffrage to the Civil Rights movement to same-sex marriages,
the national values of the United States have progressed steadily towards greater
equality and greater tolerance of racial and sexual differences.
Another factor that changes national values is the change of generations. As people
born and raised in the post-Civil Rights movement era have come to form the backboneof the society, the more liberal values that respect diversity have become moreprevalent in recent years.
However, it should be remembered that conservatism not only remains strong incertain segments of the society, but can also spread during times of economic difficultyor national crisis. One recent example is the nationalistic and conservative response to
the 911 attack in 2001 that targeted Moslems in the United States. Unless diversity
becomes recognized and firmly grounded as an integral part of the national identity by
all segments of the society, the pressure to force Americanization will not disappear
completely. Thus, language diversity cannot yet be securely considered part of the“new” U.S. identity, which can work to deter the movement to designate English as the
single official language. Over history, however, national values have made asignificant stride towards liberalism which accepts diversity in general and multiple
languages in particular.
4.4 Summary
Table 2 shows how each of the three factors discussed in this section can impact
both language tolerance and language intolerance. These factors are at work
simultaneously, and it is their combined effect that determines the direction anddistance of the swing of the pendulum of national sentiments. The general direction inrecent

years

has

been

towards

languagetolerance

based

on

the

de

facto

multilingualism that exists in the US society, but opposition to such direction
continues to be prominent.
Table 2: Factors that influence language tolerance and language intolerance

28“E Pluribus Unum”: The Language Policy in the United States

Language tolerance

Language intolerance

Increase of

Political leverage

Xenophobia

immigrants

Needs to cater to immigrants

Pressures for assimilation

Constitution

Freedom of speech
Equal protection under law

National values

Liberalism

Conservatism

Civil rights

Nationalism

5. Conclusion: Future Prospects
Two questions about the future are presented. First, can the U.S. continue its
language policy of not having an explicit language policy? Second, if the answer to thefirst question is a no, then will English be designated the official language?
It should be noted that the current debate on designating English as the official
language symbolizes the bipolar divide of the United States which has widened inrecent years. This divide separates the conservatives from the liberals, the rich fromthe poor, and the traditional white Americans from the new immigrants. As such, theconflict reaches beyond a mere language issue. Rather, it encompasses a wide range ofissues such as immigration policy, social welfare, and income distribution on the one
hand, and a wide variety of stakeholders, on the other. Therefore, it is difficult for thisissue to reach a simple conclusion.
Two recent developments could have a direct impact on the direction of thelanguage policy issue. One is the government’s review of its immigration policy, partly
triggered by the large increase in the number of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants
in effect create a sub-class below legal immigrants as a target for exclusion. If theillegal immigrant population, estimated to exceed 10 million people, xxiii is legalized
and given votes, the illegal immigrants living in the United States could gainsignificant political leverage which could influence language policy as well.
Another critical development is the outcome of Puerto Rico’s potential application
for statehood in the United States. After holding a national referendum on statehood
on four occasions, with approval increasing each time, the application was approved in
November 2012 in Puerto Rico. There still remain hurdles that will need to be cleared,
such as approval by the legislature, but it appears likely that Puerto Rico will apply forstatehood in the near future. Puerto Rico represents a sphere of Hispanic culture andthe Spanish language. If it becomes a state, Puerto Rico will become the 27 th highly
populated state. With a population of 4 million people, it would send four
representatives to the House of Representatives. Whether to let Puerto Rico retain
Spanish as its official language or force the use of English may present the first realtest of the status of English beyond de facto official language.
Changes in the country’s demographic composition and a shift in the politicalbalance can not only reinforce language tolerance and preclude designation of English

Masako Masuda

29

as an official language but also jeopardize even the status of English as the common
language of the United States. In some communities with a heavy concentration of
non-English speakers, such as Miami, Florida, utility of English has already declined
significantly as Spanish has become the primary language. xxiv Despite efforts made by
the English Only movement, the inflow and growth of languages other than English
appear unstoppable. Outcomes of the two pending issues of illegal immigrants andPuerto Rican statehood may work to further strengthen this trend. Whether the trend
can be changed with the introduction of English as the official language remains
unknown, as such designation itself appears difficult. In any case, demographic,
political, and social changes will likely reduce the government’s option to keep its
policy on language implicit and flexible.

Endnotesi Spolsky, Bernard. (2011). “Does the United States Need a Language Policy?” CAL
digest March 2011, p. 1.
ii Ibid.
iii U.S. English, Inc. homepage
iv U.S. Census Bureau. (August 2013). “Language Use in the United States: 2011”. The
data in Section 2 are taken from this document unless otherwise noted.
v Crawford, James. (2008). “Frequently Asked Questions about Official English”. p. 3.
Retrieved from www.elladvocates.org
vi For example, in 1789, Noah Webster wrote in his Dissertations on the English
language , “As an independent nation, our honor requires us to have a system of ourown, in language as well as government.” Thomas Jefferson, too, declared in 1812, “An
American dialect will therefore be formed.”vii Tiersma, Peter M. “Language Policy in the United States”. Loyola Law School Legal
Studies Paper No 2010-52 for Oxford Handbook on Language and Law (forthcoming),
Tiersma, Peter M. and Lawrence M. Solan,(eds.) p.6. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1710224.
viii Spolsky, Ibid. p. 1.
ix Knutson, Cody L. (1996). “National Language Policy in the United States: A Holistic
Perspective”. Nebraska Anthropologist. Paper 96. p.8.
x Lawton, Rachele. (2008). “Language policy and ideology in the United States: A
critical analysis of ‘English Only’ discourse.” Papers for the Lancaster University
Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching, Vol. 2, p. 2.
xi Spolsky, Ibid. p.2.
xii Ibid. p. 1.
xiii Schmidt, Carol. “The Politics of English Only in the United States: Historical,
Social, and Legal Aspects”, p. 62. Retrieved from www.ncte.org/library/nctefiles/
resources/Books/Sale/26677Cha03.pdf
xiv Tiersma, Ibid. p. 18.
xv Turbak, Gary. (1994). “The Campaign Against English” The Social Contract, Volume
4, number 3
xvi Schmidt, Ibid. p. 69.
xvii President Reagan said, “my support of declaring English language to be the official
language of the Federal Government is based on two simple principles: unity andopportunity.”
xviii Turbak, Ibid.,
xix Lawton, Ibid. p. 84.

30“E Pluribus Unum”: The Language Policy in the United States

Schmidt, Ibid. p. 62.
O’Keefe, Ed. (August 19, 2014) “Republicans increasingly eager to get the word out– en Española,” The Washington Post . Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/
politics
xxii Crawford, Ibid. p. 9.
xxiii Nishiyama, Takayuki. “Direction of reform of the Immigration Act in the UnitedStates.” NHK. Retrieved from http://www.nhk.or.jp/kaisetsu-blog/400/164824.html(original in Japanese).
xxiv “In Miami, Spanish becoming primary language.” (May 29 2008). Associated Press.
Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24871558/
xx

xxi