U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

By Camille Ryan

Issued August 2013

ACS-22

American Community Survey Reports

Language Use in the United States: 2011

INTRODUCTION

English is the language spoken by most people in the 

United States. The official language of many states is 

English1 and it is the language used in nearly all governmental functions. Despite this predominance, many 

people in the United States speak languages other 

than English, and there has long been an interest in 

these groups and in how well they are able to participate in civic life and interact with the English-speaking 

majority. Beginning in 1890, the U.S. Census Bureau 

started inquiring about the languages that people 

spoke and, with some interruptions in the middle of 

the twentieth century, similar questions continue to 

this day. 

The primary purpose of the current questions

on language use is to measure the portion of the 

U.S. population that may need help in understanding English. These data are used in a wide variety of 

legislative, policy, and research applications as well as 

for legal, financial, and marketing decisions. People 

who speak a particular language other than English 

and cannot speak English “very well” can be helped 

with translation services, education, or assistance in 

accessing government services. The federal government uses data on language use and English-speaking 

ability to determine which local areas must provide 

language-assistance services under the Voting Rights 

Act. These data are also used to allocate educational 

funds to states to help their schools teach students 

with lower levels of English proficiency. In 2000,

1 Schildkraut, Deborah, 2001, “Official-English and the States:

Influences on Declaring English the Official Language in the United 

States,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 2: pp. 445–457.

President Clinton signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to identify the need for services 

to those with limited English proficiency (LEP) and to 

implement a system to provide meaningful access to 

language-assistance services. Agencies rely on these 

data to determine how and where to provide languageassistance services.2 Many other institutions, organizations, local governments, and private enterprises make 

use of these data in similar ways.

2 See <www.lep.gov>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.

Figure 1.

Reproduction of the Questions on 

Language From the 2011 American 

Community Survey 

Yes

No SKIP to question 15a

b. What is this language?

c. How well does this person speak English?

Very well

Well

Not well

Not at all

For example: Korean, Italian, Spanish, Vietnamese

a. Does this person speak a language other than

English at home?

14
2 U.S. Census Bureau

The Census Bureau collected 

language data in the 1980, 1990, 

and 2000 decennial censuses using 

a series of three questions asked 

of the population 5 years old and 

over. The first question asked if 

the person spoke a language other 

than English at home. Those who 

responded “yes” to this question 

were then asked to report the language that they spoke. The Census 

Bureau coded these responses into 

381 detailed language categories. 

The third question asked how well 

that person spoke English, with 

answer categories of “very well,” 

“well,” “not well,” and “not at all.” 

Beginning in 2010, the questions 

were no longer asked on the decennial census. These same three questions (Figure 1) are now asked each 

year on the American Community 

Survey (ACS), which is the primary 

source of language data.

This report relies primarily on data 

from the 2011 ACS. Language and 

English-speaking ability questions 

that were historically collected once 

every 10 years in the decennial 

census are now captured annually in the ACS. The ACS collects 

information from a large annual 

sample of approximately 3 million housing unit addresses and 

therefore provides more reliable 

statistics. The ACS is administered 

to a sample of the entire resident 

population, including those living in 

group quarters, which makes most 

estimates from the ACS comparable 

with those from earlier censuses.3

Taking advantage of this fact, the 

report also provides a historical look at languages other than 

English spoken in the United States 

since 1980. The report also looks 

at characteristics of the population 

speaking a language other than 

3 A paper comparing ACS data to census 

data was prepared by the Census Bureau in 

2008. See <www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/library/2008/Language

_Comparison_Report_2008-03.pdf>. 

English. The ACS also provides 

reliable estimates for small levels 

of geography, including counties, 

cities, and tracts, allowing exploration of the distribution of language 

use across states and metropolitan 

areas of the United States.

LANGUAGES SPOKEN 

Table 1 provides some basic information from the 2011 ACS about 

speakers of non-English languages 

and their English-speaking ability. 

Of 291.5 million people aged 5 and 

over, 60.6 million people (21 percent of this population) spoke a language other than English at home. 

While the Census Bureau codes 381 

detailed languages, data tabulations 

are not generally available for all of 

these detailed groups. Instead, the 

Census Bureau collapses languages 

into smaller sets of “language 

groups.” The most detail used in 

standard data products separates 

out 39 languages and language 

groups (Table 1). The simplest uses 

four major groups: Spanish, Other 

Indo-European languages, Asian 

and Pacific Island languages, and 

All Other languages. These four 

groups are explained further in the 

text box. 

One question that sometimes arises 

is, “How many languages are spoken in the United States?” To answer 

this question, we have to decide 

what constitutes a unique language. 

To develop its list of languages, the 

Census Bureau consulted reference works such as Ethnologue: 

Languages of the World,

4 which 

lists 6,909 languages. From these 

sources, the Census Bureau created 

a list of 381 languages, with less 

detail provided for languages rarely 

spoken in this country. Accepting 

this list, a second issue is that the 

count of languages is limited to 

those that people report speaking 

4 See <www.ethnologue.com>.

Four Major Language Groups

Spanish includes Spanish, Spanish Creole, and Ladino.

Other Indo-European languages include most languages 

of Europe and the Indic languages of India. These include the 

Germanic languages, such as German, Yiddish, and Dutch; the 

Scandinavian languages, such as Swedish and Norwegian; the 

Romance languages, such as French, Italian, and Portuguese; the 

Slavic languages, such as Russian, Polish, and Serbo-Croatian; 

the Indic languages, such as Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi, and Urdu; 

Celtic languages; Greek; Baltic languages; and Iranian languages.

Asian and Pacific Island languages include Chinese; Korean; 

Japanese; Vietnamese; Hmong; Khmer; Lao; Thai; Tagalog or 

Pilipino; the Dravidian languages of India, such as Telugu, Tamil, 

and Malayalam; and other languages of Asia and the Pacific, 

including the Philippine, Polynesian, and Micronesian languages.

All Other languages include Uralic languages, such as 

Hungarian; the Semitic languages, such as Arabic and Hebrew; 

languages of Africa; native North American languages, 

including the American Indian and Alaska native languages; 

and indigenous languages of Central and South America.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Detailed Languages Spoken at Home by English-Speaking Ability for the Population

5 Years and Over: 2011

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Characteristics Population

5 years

and over

(Number)

Spoke a

language 

other than 

English

at home1

(Percent)

English-speaking ability2

(Percent)

Spoke

English

“very well”

Spoke

English

“well”

Spoke

English

“not well”

Spoke

English

“not at all”

 Population 5 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . 291,524,091 X X X X X

Spoke only English at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230,947,071 X X X X X

Spoke a language other than English at home . . 60,577,020 100.0 58.2 19.4 15.4 7.0

Spanish or Spanish Creole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,579,787 62.0 56.3 17.8 16.9 9.0

Other Indo-European languages:

 French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,301,443 2.1 79.6 13.9 5.9 0.6

 French Creole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753,990 1.2 56.8 23.8 15.2 4.3

 Italian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723,632 1.2 73.5 17.1 8.6 0.8

 Portuguese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673,566 1.1 61.8 20.8 13.5 3.9

 German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,083,637 1.8 82.9 13.1 3.6 0.3

 Yiddish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,968 0.3 68.4 17.7 10.2 3.7

 Other West Germanic languages . . . . . . . . . . . 290,461 0.5 77.6 17.9 3.7 0.8

 Scandinavian languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,025 0.2 90.6 7.7 1.6 0.1

 Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304,928 0.5 75.3 15.5 7.8 1.4

 Russian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,843 1.5 52.3 25.6 16.8 5.3

 Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607,531 1.0 60.0 23.4 13.8 2.8

 Serbo-Croatian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269,624 0.4 61.7 21.9 13.6 2.9

 Other Slavic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336,062 0.6 62.1 22.8 11.9 3.3

 Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246,915 0.4 53.8 22.2 16.5 7.6

 Persian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407,586 0.7 62.7 21.9 12.0 3.4

 Gujarati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358,422 0.6 63.8 20.2 12.2 3.8

 Hindi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648,983 1.1 77.0 16.3 5.3 1.4

 Urdu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373,851 0.6 70.0 19.3 9.2 1.5

 Other Indic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815,345 1.3 60.6 23.7 10.9 4.9

 Other Indo-European languages . . . . . . . . . . . 449,600 0.7 65.1 21.5 9.9 3.4

Asian and Pacific Island languages:

 Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,882,497 4.8 44.3 26.1 19.9 9.7

 Japanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436,110 0.7 57.5 27.4 13.9 1.2

 Korean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,141,277 1.9 44.5 27.0 24.4 4.0

 Mon-Khmer, Cambodian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212,505 0.4 47.1 23.4 22.9 6.6

 Hmong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,227 0.3 56.7 22.2 14.9 6.2

 Thai................................... 163,251 0.3 43.4 34.8 18.9 2.8

 Laotian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,866 0.2 50.9 22.1 22.7 4.3

 Vietnamese............................. 1,419,539 2.3 39.8 27.1 25.8 7.3

 Other Asian languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,303 1.4 69.3 19.6 8.4 2.7

 Tagalog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,594,413 2.6 67.2 25.6 6.7 0.5

 Other Pacific Island languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428,476 0.7 61.6 25.7 11.7 1.1

Other languages:

 Navajo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169,369 0.3 78.8 14.2 4.8 2.2

 Other Native American languages . . . . . . . . . . 195,407 0.3 85.4 11.4 2.9 0.3

 Hungarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,102 0.2 71.0 21.1 7.3 0.7

 Arabic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951,699 1.6 63.3 21.7 11.9 3.1

 Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216,343 0.4 84.7 11.9 2.9 0.5

 African languages........................ 884,660 1.5 68.1 21.1 8.6 2.1

 All other languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,777 0.3 56.3 19.7 14.8 9.3

X Not applicable. 1

 The percentage in this column is calculated as the number of speakers of the specific language divided by the total number of those who spoke a language 

other than English at home (60,577,020). 2

 The percentages for these columns are calculated as the number of those who spoke English “very well,” “well,” “not well,” or “not at all” for a particular language divided by the total number of those who spoke that language.

Note: Margins of error for all estimates can be found in the Appendix Table 1 <www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/Table1.xls>. For more information on the ACS, see <www.census.gov/acs/www/>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

the language at home. Therefore, 

while no definitive answer to the 

question is available, a tabulation 

from the 2006–2008 ACS listed 

over 300 languages spoken in the 

United States.5

Many of the languages spoken in 

the United States are native North 

American languages. The ACS 

provides codes for 169 distinct 

native North American languages, 

and 134 of these languages were 

recorded in the tabulations from 

2006–2008. In 2011, the Census 

Bureau published a brief report on 

native North American languages 

spoken in the United States.6

ENGLISH-SPEAKING ABILITY

Most people who spoke a nonEnglish language at home also 

reported that they spoke English 

“very well” (Table 4). Overall, the 

proportion was 58 percent who 

spoke “very well,” with another

19 percent who spoke English 

“well,” 15 percent who spoke “not 

well,” and 7 percent who spoke 

English “not at all.”

The usefulness of the self-rated 

English-speaking ability question 

was established in the 1980s, 

when research confirmed a strong 

relation between this rating and 

separate tests of ability to perform 

5 See <www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo

/language/data/other/detailed-lang-tables

.xls>. 6 See <www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs

/acsbr10-10.pdf>. 

tasks in English.7 In many of its 

tables, the Census Bureau makes 

a distinction between those who 

speak English only or speak English 

“very well” on the one hand and 

those who speak English less than 

“very well” on the other.

Even among the speakers of

the top ten languages, Englishspeaking ability varied greatly 

(Figure 2). A high proportion

(80 percent or more) of French and 

German speakers spoke English 

“very well.” In contrast, less than 

50 percent of those who spoke 

Korean, Chinese, or Vietnamese 

spoke English “very well.” The 

proportion of those who spoke 

English “very well” among Russian, 

Spanish, French Creole, Arabic, and 

Tagalog speakers ranged from

52 percent to 67 percent. 

Among the most common nonEnglish languages in 2011, Spanish 

experienced growth in the past

several years. Interestingly, while 

the percentage of the total population 5 years and over who spoke 

Spanish increased from 2005 to 

2011, the percentage of the total 

population who spoke Spanish and 

spoke English less than “very well” 

actually decreased (Figure 3). The 

percentage of the total population 

5 years and over who spoke

Spanish grew from 12.0 percent 

7 See Department of Education, Office

of Planning Budget and Evaluation, 1987, 

“Numbers of Limited English Proficient

Children: National, State and LanguageSpecific Estimates” (April) mimeo, which 

examined the school-aged population and 

Kominski, Robert, 1989, “How Good is “How 

Well”? An Examination of the Census EnglishSpeaking Ability Question,” accessed at 

<www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language

/data/census/ASApaper1989.pdf>, presented 

at the Annual meetings of the American 

Statistical Association, which examined the 

general population.

in 2005 to 12.9 percent in 2011, 

while the percentage who spoke 

Spanish and spoke English less 

than “very well” decreased from

5.7 percent in 2005 to 5.6 percent 

in 2011.

Overall, speakers of all languages 

other than English who spoke 

English less than “very well” had 

not changed as a percentage of the 

total population 5 years and over 

from 2007 to 2011 (8.7 percent). 

This percentage had increased from 

8.1 percent in 2000 to 8.7 percent 

in 2007.

LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN 

THE UNITED STATES: 

A HISTORICAL LOOK

Data on language spoken and 

ability to speak English were first 

collected in the census of 1890 

(Appendix A). The form of census 

questions about language has 

varied over the years, as well as 

the population covered. In 1890 

and 1900, all people 10 years old 

and over who did not speak English 

were asked what language they 

spoke. In 1910, 1920, 1930, and 

1960, foreign-born people were 

asked about their “mother tongue” 

(the language spoken in the 

household when the respondent 

was growing up). Finally, in the 

1980 Census, and in data collections since that time, respondents 

were asked the standard set of 

three questions shown in Figure 1. 

These questions are now asked of 

everyone aged 5 and over in the 

household.8

8 See Gillian Stevens, 1999, “A Century

of U.S. Censuses and the Language

Characteristics of Immigrants,” Demography, 

Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 387–397.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 2 provides a detailed list of 

17 of the common languages other 

than English spoken in the home 

for the period 1980 to 2010.9 This 

list provides data for only those 

languages that were available in all 

9 Data from 1980, 1990, and 2000 are 

from decennial censuses, while the data 

from 2010 come from the 2010 ACS. For 

more information about language use and 

English-speaking ability differences between 

the census and the ACS, read “Comparison of 

the Estimates on Language Use and EnglishSpeaking Ability from the ACS, the C2SS, and 

Census 2000 (Report).” This report can be 

accessed at <www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/library/2008/Language

_Comparison_Report_2008-03.pdf>.

four time periods. In 1980, 23.1 

million people spoke a language 

other than English at home, compared with 59.5 million people in 

2010 (a 158 percent increase, during which time the population grew 

38 percent). 

Some languages showed remarkable growth since 1980, while others declined. The largest numeric 

increase was for Spanish speakers 

(25.9 million more in 2010 than in 

1980). Vietnamese speakers had 

the largest percentage increase 

(599 percent). Eight languages 

more than doubled during the 

period, including four that had 

200,000 speakers or fewer in 

1980: Russian, Persian, Armenian, 

and Vietnamese.

While increased immigration led to 

gains for some language groups, 

other groups experienced aging 

populations and dwindling migrant 

flows into the United States. The 

languages that declined in use 

since 1980 include Italian, which 

had a net decline of about 900,000 

Figure 2. 

English-Speaking Ability for the Top Ten Languages: 2011 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.

 

(Population 5 years and over who spoke a language other than English at home)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Vietnamese

Chinese

Korean

Russian

Spanish

French Creole

Arabic

Tagalog

French

German

“Very well” “Well” “Not well” “Not at all”

Percent
6 U.S. Census Bureau

speakers (55 percent decline). Other 

languages, such as Polish, Yiddish, 

German, and Greek, have also seen 

large proportionate decreases. 

The Census Bureau recently examined the future of language use 

in the United States. Two offsetting influences determine the 

number of people in the United 

States who speak a language other 

than English. The first is immigration—if an increased number of 

people enter the country from 

places where English is not the 

main language, the number who 

speak other languages at home will 

increase. A second major influence 

is population aging—as people 

get older and spend time in the 

United States, they are increasingly 

likely to make English their main 

language of communication. The 

research shows that we can expect 

a small increase in the percentage 

who speak a language other than 

English at home in coming years.10

Even looking over the span of a 

little more than a decade, changes 

in language use are evident. 

Several languages or language 

groups experienced major growth 

between 2000 and 2011 (Figure 

4). South Asian languages in particular experienced high levels of 

growth. “Other Asian languages,” 

a group comprised mostly of the 

South Asian languages, Malayalam, 

Telugu, and Tamil, grew by 115 

percent, and Hindi grew by 105 

percent.11 “Other Indic languages” 

(languages such as Punjabi,

Bengali, and Marathi) grew by 86 

percent. The slowest growing South 

Asian languages were Gujarati (52 

percent) and Urdu (42 percent).12

“African languages,” which includes 

languages such as Amharic, Ibo, 

Yoruba, and Swahili, also experienced significant growth of 111 

percent.13 This indicates that the 

number of speakers in this language group more than doubled. In 

comparison, the growth of Spanish 

10 See <www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo

/language/data/acs/Ortman_Shin_ASA2011

_paper.pdf>. 11 The percentage change for “Other Asian 

languages” was not statistically different from 

the percentage change for Hindi. 12 The percentage change for Gujarati was 

not statistically different from the percentage 

change for Urdu. 13 The percentage change for “African 

languages” was not statistically different 

from the percentage change for “Other Asian 

languages” or Hindi.

Figure 3. 

Percentage Who Spoke Spanish and Percentage Who

Spoke Spanish and Spoke English Less Than “Very

Well” of the Population 5 Years and Over: 2005–2011 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

American Community Surveys.

 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Spoke Spanish

Percent

Spoke Spanish and 

spoke English less 

than “very well”
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 2.

Languages Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over: 1980, 1990, 2000,

and 2010

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Characteristics

1980 1990 2000 2010

Percentage 

change

1980–2010

 Population 5 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210,247,455 230,445,777 262,375,152 289,215,746 37.6

Spoke only English at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187,187,415 198,600,798 215,423,557 229,673,150 22.7

Spoke a language other than English at home1 . . . . . 23,060,040 31,844,979 46,951,595 59,542,596 158.2

Spoke a language other than English at home1,2 . . 23,060,040 31,844,979 46,951,595 59,542,596 158.2

Spanish or Spanish Creole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,116,194 17,345,064 28,101,052 36,995,602 232.8

French (incl. Patois, Cajun, Creole) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,550,751 1,930,404 2,097,206 2,069,352 33.4

Italian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,618,344 1,308,648 1,008,370 725,223 –55.2

Portuguese or Portuguese Creole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351,875 430,610 564,630 688,326 95.6

German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,586,593 1,547,987 1,383,442 1,067,651 –32.7

Yiddish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315,953 213,064 178,945 154,763 –51.0

Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401,443 388,260 365,436 307,178 –23.5

Russian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173,226 241,798 706,242 854,955 393.5

Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820,647 723,483 667,414 608,333 –25.9

Serbo-Croatian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,255 70,964 233,865 284,077 89.1

Armenian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,634 149,694 202,708 240,402 138.9

Persian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106,992 201,865 312,085 381,408 256.5

Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630,806 1,319,462 2,022,143 2,808,692 345.3

Japanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336,318 427,657 477,997 443,497 31.9

Korean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266,280 626,478 894,063 1,137,325 327.1

Vietnamese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197,588 507,069 1,009,627 1,381,488 599.2

Tagalog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474,150 843,251 1,224,241 1,573,720 231.9

1

 The languages highlighted in this table are the languages where data were available for the four time periods: 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. 2

 The total does not match the sum of the 17 languages listed in this table because the total includes all the other languages that are not highlighted here.

Note: Margins of error for all estimates can be found in the Appendix Table 2 <www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/Table2.xls>. For more information on the ACS, see <www.census.gov/acs/www/>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and 1990 Census, Census 2000, and the 2010 American Community Survey.

speakers (34 percent) was much 

smaller even though Spanish continued to have the largest number 

of speakers in 2000 and 2011. 

On the other hand, several IndoEuropean languages experienced 

a decline during that same time 

period. The number of Italian 

speakers decreased by 28 percent. 

The number of French, Hungarian, 

and German speakers also declined 

by about 20 percent. 

LANGUAGE AND ENGLISHSPEAKING ABILITY 

BY SELECTED SOCIAL 

AND DEMOGRAPHIC 

CHARACTERISTICS

Age and English-Speaking 

Ability

Table 3 shows language spoken at 

home and English-speaking ability for Spanish and non-Spanish 

speakers for selected demographic 

and social characteristics. Spanish 

speakers were less likely to speak 

English “very well” (56 percent) 

than those who spoke another 

language (61 percent). However, 

both groups’ English-speaking ability varied by demographic characteristics. Those who were young 

and were native born were more 

likely to speak English “very well.” 

Of the population 15 to 19 years 

old, 83 percent of those who spoke 
8 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4. 

Percentage Change in Language Spoken at Home: 

2000–2011

(Population 5 years and over)

*For examples of specific languages within these groups, see Appendix A of the

2011 subject definitions, located at <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/SubjectDefinitions/2011_ACSSubjectDefinitions.pdf>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and 2011 American Community Survey. 

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Italian

German

Hungarian

French (incl Patois, Cajun)

Scandinavian languages*

Greek

Yiddish

Polish

Japanese

Laotian

Navajo

Other Native North American languages*

Other and unspecified languages*

Speaks only English

Hebrew

Other Slavic languages*

Serbo-Croatian

Other West Germanic languages*

Mon-Khmer, Cambodian

Portuguese or Portuguese Creole

Armenian

Hmong

Korean

Russian

Tagalog

Persian

Spanish 

Thai

Other Pacific Island languages*

Other Indo-European languages*

Vietnamese

Urdu

Chinese

Gujarati

Arabic

French Creole

Other Indic languages*

Hindi

African languages*

Other Asian languages*

Percent

Spanish and 81 percent of those 

who spoke a language other than 

Spanish spoke English “very well.” 

Race and Ethnicity and 

English-Speaking Ability

Spanish speakers who were

non-Hispanic White, Black, or

Asian were more likely to speak 

English “very well” compared with 

those who were Hispanic.14 The 

difference between non-Hispanic 

Whites and Hispanics who spoke 

English “very well” was 27 percentage points. There was also 

variation in English-speaking ability 

among those who spoke a language other than Spanish. Among 

those who spoke a language other 

than Spanish, Asians were least 

likely to speak English “very well.” 

However, none of the differences 

between groups was as large as

the difference between Spanishspeaking Hispanics and Spanishspeaking non-Hispanic Whites. 

Differences are also present across 

detailed race and Hispanic-origin 

groups, as examined in a recent 

Census Bureau report.15

14 Federal surveys now give respondents 

the option of reporting more than one race. 

Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race 

group are possible. A group such as Asian 

may be defined as those who reported Asian 

and no other race (the race-alone or singlerace concept) or as those who reported

Asian regardless of whether they also 

reported another race (the race-alone-orin-combination concept). This report shows 

data using the first approach (race alone). 

This report will refer to the White-alone 

population as White, the Black-alone population as Black, the Asian-alone population 

as Asian, and the White-alone-non-Hispanic 

population as non-Hispanic White. Use of 

the single-race population does not imply 

that it is the preferred method of presenting 

or analyzing data. The Census Bureau uses 

a variety of approaches. In this report, the 

term “non-Hispanic White” refers to people 

who are not Hispanic and who reported White 

and no other race. The Census Bureau uses 

non-Hispanic Whites as the comparison group 

for other race groups and Hispanics. Because 

Hispanics may be any race, data in this report 

for Hispanics overlap with data for racial 

groups. 15 See <www.census.gov

/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-19.pdf>.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table 3.

Language Spoken at Home by English-Speaking Ability by Selected Demographic and 

Social Characteristics for the Population 5 Years and Over: 2011

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Characteristics

Population

5 years

and over

(Number)

Spoke a 

langauge 

other 

than 

English

at home

(Percent)

Spoke a language other than English at home

Spoke Spanish Spoke a language other

than Spanish

Population

5 years

and over

(Number)

Spoke 

English

“very well”

(Percent)

Spoke 

English

less than 

“very well”

(Percent)

Population

5 years

and over

(Number)

Spoke 

English

“very well”

(Percent)

Spoke 

English

less than 

“very well”

(Percent)

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291,524,091 20.8 37,579,787 56.3 43.7 22,997,233 61.4 38.6 

Age

5 to 14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,131,310 21.8 6,451,625 76.2 23.8 2,535,007 77.6 22.4 

15 to 19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,822,474 22.3 3,412,795 82.7 17.3 1,449,462 80.6 19.4 

20 to 39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,350,155 25.6 13,853,503 55.3 44.7 7,450,076 68.9 31.1 

40 to 59 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,944,236 19.5 9,795,839 42.9 57.1 6,980,244 53.9 46.1 

60 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,275,916 14.6 4,066,025 38.7 61.3 4,582,444 45.3 54.7 

Sex

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,009,744 20.9 18,914,621 55.6 44.4 10,952,898 63.1 36.9 

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148,514,347 20.7 18,665,166 57.0 43.0 12,044,335 59.8 40.2 

Race and Hispanic Origin

White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217,435,501 15.2 24,469,328 57.4 42.6 8,688,628 69.4 30.6 

Non-Hispanic White alone . . . . . . . 186,989,334 5.8 2,174,426 80.9 19.1 8,588,900 69.4 30.6 

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,354,608 8.3 881,899 68.1 31.9 2,128,247 64.8 35.2 

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,148,367 76.7 77,751 74.3 25.7 10,777,195 53.0 47.0 

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . 46,782,479 74.7 34,745,940 54.3 45.7 203,075 68.6 31.4 

Nativity Status

Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251,380,737 10.6 19,487,953 80.9 19.1 7,185,626 84.8 15.2 

Foreign born:

Naturalized citizen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,094,967 79.0 5,431,946 44.8 55.2 8,856,595 54.4 45.6 

Not a citizen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,048,387 89.0 12,659,888 23.4 76.6 6,955,012 45.9 54.1 

Educational Attainment1

Less than 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,089,305 42.9 9,609,518 21.1 78.9 2,855,281 24.0 76.0 

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,653,211 16.6 6,321,485 48.1 51.9 3,423,791 44.3 55.7 

Some college, or associate’s degree . 59,838,341 14.6 5,029,756 69.8 30.2 3,726,173 61.7 38.3 

Bachelor’s degree or more . . . . . . . . 58,890,813 18.0 3,279,205 73.5 26.5 7,321,209 71.4 28.6 

Employment Status2

In labor force:

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,399,548 21.0 17,955,542 52.2 47.8 11,542,775 63.7 36.3 

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,060,624 22.6 2,452,052 55.8 44.2 952,685 61.1 38.9 

Not in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,717,824 19.6 9,994,210 49.1 50.9 7,418,060 51.3 48.7 

Poverty Status

Below the poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . 43,341,948 29.6 9,377,171 49.3 50.7 3,468,021 49.7 50.3 

At or above poverty level . . . . . . . . . . 240,663,391 19.3 27,482,262 58.5 41.5 19,057,584 63.2 36.8 

Disability Status

With a disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,172,917 14.9 3,586,682 47.2 52.8 2,253,901 45.6 54.4 

No disablility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252,351,174 21.7 33,993,105 57.3 42.7 20,743,332 63.1 36.9 

Health Insurance

With health insurance coverage . . . . 244,706,190 17.5 24,079,286 65.0 35.0 18,715,248 64.0 36.0 

No health insurance coverage . . . . . . 46,817,901 38.0 13,500,501 40.9 59.1 4,281,985 49.9 50.1 

1

 Educational attainment is displayed for the population 25 years and over. 2

 Employment status is shown for the population 16 years and over and does not include those in the Armed Forces.

Note: Margins of error for all estimates can be found in the Appendix Table 3 <www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/Table3.xls>. For more information on the ACS, see <www.census.gov/acs/www/>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

Citizenship and EnglishSpeaking Ability

English-speaking ability varied by 

citizenship status among Spanish 

speakers much more than it did 

among those who spoke other languages. Among Spanish speakers, 

45 percent of foreign-born naturalized citizens spoke English “very 

well” compared with 23 percent of 

foreign-born noncitizens. Among 

those who spoke a foreign language other than Spanish, the gap 

between foreign-born naturalized 

citizens and foreign-born noncitizens was smaller—only 9 percent.

Other Characteristics and 

English-Speaking Ability

Education, employment status, poverty status, disability status, and 

health insurance coverage were 

also correlated with English speaking ability. Seventy-three percent of 

Spanish-speakers with a bachelor’s 

degree or more education spoke 

English “very well,” compared with 

71 percent of those who spoke a 

language other than Spanish for 

this same education level. 

LANGUAGE 

CONCENTRATIONS 

IN STATES

Languages spoken at home are

not evenly distributed throughout 

the nation. Some areas have high 

percentages of speakers of nonEnglish languages, while others 

have lower levels. Table 4 shows 

the proportion of people who 

spoke a language other than

English at home across the 50 

states and the District of Columbia, 

as well as the English-speaking 

ability levels in those states. 

English-speaking ability varied 

across states. In West Virginia, only 

2 percent of people 5 years old and 

over reported speaking a language 

other than English at home, while 

44 percent of people in California 

reported the same. 

Levels of English-speaking ability 

were also different across states. 

In Montana, a large percentage of 

those who spoke a language other 

than English at home (84 percent) 

reported speaking English “very 

well.” In Alabama, this percentage 

was 55 percent. 

Quite often, concentrations of specific language groups were found 

in certain areas of the country. 

An examination of some of these 

patterns is provided in the 2007 

version of this report (Shin and 

Kominski, 2011).16 In the short 

term, the factors creating these 

concentrations include points of 

entry into the United States and 

family connections facilitating 

chain migration (Alberto Palloni 

et al., 2001).17 In the longer term, 

internal migration streams, employment opportunities, and other 

family situations can sometimes 

facilitate the diffusion of language 

groups within the country. 

LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN 

METROPOLITAN AND 

MICROPOLITAN AREAS 

Just as languages are dispersed 

unevenly across states, some

languages are concentrated in 

certain metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Large 

metropolitan areas such as New 

York, Los Angeles, and Chicago 

generally have large proportions 

of people who speak a language 

other than English at home because 

of the economic opportunities in 

these places or because they act 

as gateway points of entry into the 

country. Not all of the high levels 

of language clustering occur in the 

largest metropolitan areas, however. Many smaller metropolitan 

16 See <www.census.gov/hhes

/socdemo/language/data/acs/ACS-12.pdf>. 17 Alberto Palloni et al., 2001, “Social 

Capital and International Migration: A Test 

Using Information on Family Networks,” 

American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 106,

No. 5: 1262–1298.

areas also had high proportions of 

people who spoke a language other 

than English at home.

Figure 5 shows a geographic distribution of the proportion of people 

who spoke a language other than 

English at home across metropolitan and micropolitan areas. In general, metropolitan and micropolitan 

areas within the west, south, and 

northeast tended to have higher 

levels of foreign-language speakers. Metropolitan and micropolitan 

areas located in the midwestern 

states tended to have lower levels 

of foreign-language speakers, with 

the exception of Illinois.

Table 5 presents the distribution

of the languages other than English 

for the 57 metropolitan areas 

where one-fourth or more of

the population 5 years and older 

speak a language other than

English at home. Twenty-two 

of these metropolitan areas are 

located in California, and 12 are 

in Texas. The remaining 23 are in 

various states, such as Florida, New 

Mexico, Arizona, and New Jersey. 

The Laredo, Texas, metropolitan 

area had the highest percentage 

of the population who spoke a 

language other than English. The 

great majority of these non-English 

language speakers spoke Spanish 

(99 percent). Other metropolitan 

areas with at least 90 percent

Spanish speakers among those 

speaking a language other than 

English included several cities 

located on the border with Mexico, 

including Brownsville-Harlingen, 

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, and El 

Paso in Texas; Yuma, Arizona; El 

Centro, California; and Las Cruces, 

New Mexico. Spanish speakers 

were less than 40 percent of all 

non-English language speakers in 

only three of the listed metropolitan areas. This included Honolulu, 

Hawaii, where 88 percent spoke 

Asian and Pacific Island languages, 
U.S. Census Bureau 11

Table 4.

Language Spoken at Home and English-Speaking Ability by State: 2011

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/acs/www/)

State

Population

5 years

and over 

(Number)

Spoke a language other

than English at home

English-speaking ability

(Percent) 

Number Percent

Spoke

English

“very well”

Spoke

English

“well”

Spoke

English

“not well”

Spoke

English

“not at all”

 United States . . . . . . 291,524,091 60,577,020 20.8 58.2 19.4 15.4 7.0

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,504,275 235,830 5.2 55.4 19.0 20.2 5.3

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668,687 111,319 16.6 69.2 20.9 8.6 1.3

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,034,541 1,629,853 27.0 65.5 15.7 12.9 5.9

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,740,313 204,666 7.5 54.7 23.0 17.0 5.2

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,158,257 15,390,211 43.8 55.7 19.4 16.6 8.4

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,775,755 798,923 16.7 62.0 18.1 14.5 5.4

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,384,503 724,026 21.4 61.5 19.2 14.4 5.0

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851,887 115,717 13.6 65.1 17.1 12.5 5.4

District of Columbia . . . . . . . 581,764 87,516 15.0 72.5 16.2 8.6 2.7

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,983,218 4,959,186 27.6 57.0 19.2 15.5 8.3

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,141,183 1,214,783 13.3 57.2 19.3 17.8 5.7

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,286,790 323,915 25.2 52.4 27.5 17.5 2.7

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,466,499 152,712 10.4 62.4 15.6 15.9 6.1

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,042,289 2,730,437 22.7 57.3 20.7 15.9 6.2

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,088,598 501,711 8.2 60.1 21.0 14.7 4.2

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,864,107 208,066 7.3 59.1 19.5 15.6 5.8

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,669,198 304,111 11.4 59.3 19.0 16.2 5.5

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,090,258 197,131 4.8 58.1 21.2 16.7 4.0

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,261,861 371,986 8.7 67.2 16.4 11.5 4.9

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,261,967 83,579 6.6 76.8 13.0 8.3 1.9

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,465,168 914,110 16.7 62.9 19.9 13.6 3.6

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . 6,224,979 1,370,449 22.0 59.6 20.3 13.9 6.2

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,292,794 847,255 9.1 64.8 19.1 12.4 3.7

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,992,262 540,623 10.8 60.6 20.3 13.8 5.2

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,773,115 105,186 3.8 55.7 16.9 19.0 8.4

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,629,071 362,210 6.4 62.0 20.8 12.9 4.3

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937,750 43,660 4.7 83.7 13.2 2.7 0.4

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,711,659 176,008 10.3 54.1 19.4 20.1 6.4

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,538,136 754,531 29.7 57.8 21.3 15.3 5.6

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . 1,250,588 97,479 7.8 70.5 18.8 8.4 2.3

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,285,611 2,520,761 30.4 57.4 20.7 15.4 6.4

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,937,824 707,597 36.5 72.5 13.9 9.1 4.6

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,307,740 5,506,992 30.1 55.3 20.9 16.9 6.9

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 9,029,678 966,322 10.7 56.3 18.7 16.9 8.1

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 637,666 32,380 5.1 71.6 18.4 8.8 1.2

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,836,508 721,796 6.7 64.9 20.8 11.4 2.9

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,527,312 329,017 9.3 58.8 17.4 17.1 6.8

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,633,190 540,456 14.9 57.8 19.0 15.6 7.6

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,021,912 1,237,714 10.3 62.6 19.7 13.3 4.4

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . 995,856 211,150 21.2 58.8 21.0 13.7 6.5

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 4,376,509 289,004 6.6 58.6 20.2 15.2 6.0

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 765,534 50,335 6.6 66.2 16.5 14.7 2.7

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,003,565 414,669 6.9 57.8 20.7 17.0 4.4

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,721,334 8,221,202 34.7 58.1 18.2 14.8 8.9

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,554,924 380,382 14.9 64.4 17.3 14.2 4.1

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595,658 29,402 4.9 71.4 20.1 6.5 2.0

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,588,188 1,132,310 14.9 62.8 20.1 13.4 3.7

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,390,691 1,186,543 18.6 57.1 21.2 15.6 6.0

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,751,216 40,310 2.3 64.7 22.0 12.1 1.3

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,362,567 467,555 8.7 62.1 19.0 14.3 4.6

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529,136 33,934 6.4 72.8 14.0 10.5 2.7

Note: Margins of error for all estimates can be found in the Appendix Table 4 <www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/Table4.xls>. For more information on the ACS, see <www.census.gov/acs/www/>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.
12 U.S. Census Bureau 0 500 Miles 0 90 Miles 0 100 Miles Percent by Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Figure 5. Percentage Of People 5 Years and Over Who Spoke a Language Other Than English At Home: 2011 Note: Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey. 47.5 or more 23.6 to 47.4 9.7 to 23.5 Less than 9.7
U.S. Census Bureau 13

Table 5.

Distribution of Speakers of Non-English Languages for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2011—Con.

(Metro areas where 25 percent or more of the population 5 years and over spoke a language other than English. For information 

on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Metropolitan areas Population 

5 years 

and over 

(Number)

Spoke a 

language other 

than English 

at home

Language spoken of those who speak a language other 

than English at home

Spanish

Other 

Indo-European 

languages

Asian and Pacific 

Island languages

Other 

languages

Number

Percent NumberPercent Number Percent NumberPercent NumberPercent

Laredo, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230,506 212,319 92 .1 209,847 98 .8 581 0 .3 1,832 0 .9 59 0 .0

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX . . . . . 720,446 614,621 85 .3 605,325 98 .5 2,668 0 .4 5,885 1 .0 743 0 .1

El Centro, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,107 118,711 72 .8 116,345 98 .0 366 0 .3 1,705 1 .4 295 0 .2

El Paso, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754,849 547,397 72 .5 532,372 97 .3 7,459 1 .4 6,654 1 .2 912 0 .2

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX . . . . . . . . .

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa 

377,563 263,074 69 .7 260,237 98 .9 1,049 0 .4 1,578 0 .6 210 0 .1

 Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,103,230 6,571,923 54 .3 4,413,269 67 .2 640,467 9 .7 1,398,593 21 .3 119,594 1 .8

Salinas, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388,612 208,721 53 .7 183,699 88 .0 5,929 2 .8 16,365 7 .8 2,728 1 .3

Las Cruces, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197,651 104,655 52 .9 100,672 96 .2 2,470 2 .4 1,068 1 .0 445 0 .4

Yuma, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami 

185,598 96,918 52 .2 93,220 96 .2 1,997 2 .1 994 1 .0 707 0 .7

 Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,342,714 2,740,101 51 .3 2,139,173 78 .1 486,727 17 .8 70,605 2 .6 43,596 1 .6

Visalia-Porterville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa 

407,905 206,897 50 .7 189,574 91 .6 4,774 2 .3 11,603 5 .6 946 0 .5

 Clara, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,737,443 877,451 50 .5 334,549 38 .1 142,287 16 .2 380,937 43 .4 19,678 2 .2

Merced, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237,573 119,028 50 .1 97,433 81 .9 12,157 10 .2 8,660 7 .3 778 0 .7

Fresno, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863,371 382,344 44 .3 291,503 76 .2 26,979 7 .1 59,346 15 .5 4,516 1 .2

Odessa, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,828 55,765 43 .6 53,895 96 .6 984 1 .8 661 1 .2 225 0 .4

Madera, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,380 60,691 42 .9 55,539 91 .5 2,278 3 .8 2,557 4 .2 317 0 .5

Bakersfield, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778,854 327,031 42 .0 289,041 88 .4 15,927 4 .9 17,834 5 .5 4,229 1 .3

Modesto, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479,014 200,726 41 .9 151,626 75 .5 21,636 10 .8 10,649 5 .3 16,815 8 .4

Hanford-Corcoran, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,291 58,722 41 .6 51,884 88 .4 2,568 4 .4 3,581 6 .1 689 1 .2

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA . . . .

Riverside-San Bernardino399,458 162,367 40 .6 136,637 84 .2 11,151 6 .9 12,538 7 .7 2,041 1 .3

 Ontario, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco-Oakland3,983,998 1,615,123 40 .5 1,322,026 81 .9 81,921 5 .1 180,171 11 .2 31,005 1 .9

 Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,130,311 1,670,902 40 .5 678,359 40 .6 269,017 16 .1 685,063 41 .0 38,463 2 .3

Stockton, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641,685 253,878 39 .6 168,367 66 .3 30,977 12 .2 50,263 19 .8 4,271 1 .7

Yakima, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York-Northern New Jersey225,246 88,659 39 .4 84,221 95 .0 1,538 1 .7 2,067 2 .3 833 0 .9

 Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . 17,838,980 6,981,683 39 .1 3,518,126 50 .4 2,025,713 29 .0 1,095,595 15 .7 342,249 4 .9

San Antonio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,035,868 777,946 38 .2 714,314 91 .8 31,512 4 .1 23,358 3 .0 8,762 1 .1

Napa, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego-Carlsbad-San 

130,131 49,664 38 .2 39,493 79 .5 2,820 5 .7 6,973 14 .0 378 0 .8

 Marcos, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,933,575 1,106,849 37 .7 729,347 65 .9 89,904 8 .1 235,773 21 .3 51,825 4 .7

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX . . 5,604,644 2,091,768 37 .3 1,617,957 77 .3 174,242 8 .3 242,529 11 .6 57,040 2 .7

Corpus Christi, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,206 147,850 36 .8 139,200 94 .1 2,994 2 .0 4,807 3 .3 849 0 .6

Santa Fe, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks137,904 50,245 36 .4 45,075 89 .7 2,367 4 .7 1,020 2 .0 1,783 3 .5

 Ventura, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776,660 282,683 36 .4 222,652 78 .8 21,593 7 .6 32,297 11 .4 6,141 2 .2

Farmington, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,861 42,444 36 .0 14,150 33 .3 741 1 .7 372 0 .9 27,181 64 .0

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . . 1,831,695 614,625 33 .6 423,841 69 .0 52,000 8 .5 120,260 19 .6 18,524 3 .0

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA . . . . . . . 249,132 80,238 32 .2 66,016 82 .3 6,350 7 .9 7,111 8 .9 761 0 .9

Naples-Marco Island, FL . . . . . . . . . . 311,342 99,321 31 .9 73,660 74 .2 19,639 19 .8 5,105 5 .1 917 0 .9

Albuquerque, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838,920 263,567 31 .4 214,162 81 .3 14,614 5 .5 8,972 3 .4 25,819 9 .8

Yuba City, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,104 48,278 31 .3 31,649 65 .6 10,586 21 .9 5,830 12 .1 213 0 .4

Midland, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129,109 39,627 30 .7 36,494 92 .1 1,107 2 .8 1,647 4 .2 379 1 .0

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . . . 6,022,507 1,809,206 30 .0 1,381,478 76 .4 156,259 8 .6 207,267 11 .5 64,202 3 .5

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL . . . . . . . . . . . 2,039,583 595,470 29 .2 433,912 72 .9 106,337 17 .9 45,711 7 .7 9,510 1 .6

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI . . 8,876,347 2,580,089 29 .1 1,547,235 60 .0 627,153 24 .3 288,927 11 .2 116,774 4 .5

Tucson, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

See note at end of table .

927,411 264,996 28 .6 218,043 82 .3 18,044 6 .8 16,123 6 .1 12,786 4 .8
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5.

Distribution of Speakers of Non-English Languages for Selected Metropolitan 

Areas: 2011—Con.

(Metro areas where 25 percent or more of the population 5 years and over spoke a language other than English. For information 

on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Metropolitan areas Population 

5 years 

and over 

(Number)

Spoke a 

language other 

than English 

at home

Language spoken of those who speak a language other 

than English at home

Spanish

Other 

Indo-European 

languages

Asian and Pacific 

Island languages

Other 

languages

Number

Percent NumberPercent Number Percent NumberPercent NumberPercent

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT . . . 870,100 247,017 28 .4 127,732 51 .7 88,781 35 .9 22,751 9 .2 7,753 3 .1

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390,169 110,111 28 .2 63,385 57 .6 9,557 8 .7 35,825 32 .5 1,344 1 .2

Austin-Round Rock, TX . . . . . . . . . . . 1,654,442 464,933 28 .1 366,576 78 .8 46,107 9 .9 45,774 9 .8 6,476 1 .4

Sacramento—Arden-Arcade— 

 Roseville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,033,096 568,262 28 .0 262,979 46 .3 128,150 22 .6 167,443 29 .5 9,690 1 .7

Trenton-Ewing, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345,584 96,326 27 .9 44,888 46 .6 29,193 30 .3 19,118 19 .8 3,127 3 .2

Atlantic City, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257,871 70,762 27 .4 42,378 59 .9 14,272 20 .2 11,783 16 .7 2,329 3 .3

Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA . . . . 242,237 66,106 27 .3 55,038 83 .3 6,040 9 .1 4,581 6 .9 447 0 .7

Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901,726 243,991 27 .1 17,736 7 .3 11,328 4 .6 214,043 87 .7 884 0 .4

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, 

 DC-VA-MD-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,319,973 1,420,987 26 .7 638,181 44 .9 333,850 23 .5 300,327 21 .1 148,629 10 .5

Gainesville, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169,018 45,018 26 .6 40,731 90 .5 1,841 4 .1 2,374 5 .3 72 0 .2

Victoria, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106,954 28,441 26 .6 25,185 88 .6 959 3 .4 1,802 6 .3 495 1 .7

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ . . . . . . 3,955,933 1,037,554 26 .2 806,286 77 .7 90,785 8 .7 93,206 9 .0 47,277 4 .6

Dalton, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132,462 34,332 25 .9 32,380 94 .3 560 1 .6 137 0 .4 1,255 3 .7

Wenatchee, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104,787 26,968 25 .7 24,815 92 .0 664 2 .5 727 2 .7 762 2 .8

Note: Margins of error for all estimates can be found in the Appendix Table 5 <www .census .gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/Table5 .xls> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey . For more information on the ACS, see <www .census .gov/acs/www/> .

and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 

California, where Spanish speakers 

were also outnumbered by those 

who spoke Asian and Pacific Island 

languages. The other metropolitan 

area was Farmington, New Mexico. 

In this area, the overwhelming 

majority spoke the Native American 

language of Navajo. 

New York and Los Angeles stand 

out for the large number of speakers of languages other than 

English that reside there—more 

than 6 million in each metropolitan 

area. In the New York metropolitan 

area, about 50 percent of those 

who spoke a language other than 

English spoke Spanish. Another 

29 percent of these people spoke 

Other Indo-European languages. In 

the Los Angeles metropolitan area, 

over two-thirds of those who spoke 

a language other than English 

spoke Spanish.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

SUMMARY

This report provides illustrative evidence of the continuing and growing role of non-English languages 

as part of the national fabric. 

Fueled by both long-term historic 

immigration patterns and more 

recent ones, the language diversity of the country has increased 

over the past few decades. As the 

nation continues to be a destination for people from other lands, 

this pattern of language diversity 

will also likely continue. Given the 

patterns of location and relocation over time, local areas may see 

specific or diverse changes in the 

languages spoken in any given 

locality.

SOURCE OF THE DATA

Estimates in this report are from 

the 2011 American Community 

Survey (ACS). The population represented (the population universe) 

in the 2011 ACS includes both the 

household and the group quarters 

populations (that is, the resident 

population). The group quarters 

population consists of the institutionalized population (such as 

people in correctional institutions 

or nursing homes) and the noninstitutionalized population 

(most of whom are in college 

dormitories).

ACCURACY OF THE 

ESTIMATES

Statistics from sample surveys 

are subject to sampling error and 

nonsampling error. All comparisons 

presented in this report have taken 

sampling error into account and 

are significant at the 90 percent 

confidence level.18 This means the 

90 percent confidence interval for 

the difference between estimates 

being compared does not include 

zero. Nonsampling error in surveys 

may be attributed to a variety of 

sources, such as how the survey 

was designed, how respondents 

interpret questions, how able and 

willing respondents are to provide 

correct answers, and how accurately answers are coded and classified. To minimize these errors, 

the Census Bureau employs quality control procedures in sample 

selection, the wording of questions, 

interviewing, coding, data processing, and data analysis.

The final ACS population estimates 

are adjusted in the weighting procedure for coverage error by controlling specific survey estimates to 

independent population controls by 

sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin. 

This weighting partially corrects for 

18 The tables reporting the margins of 

error for all the tables in this report can be 

accessed at <www.census.gov/hhes

/socdemo/language/data/acs/2011

/appendix.html>.

bias due to over- or undercoverage, 

but biases may still be present, for 

example, when people who were 

missed differ from those interviewed in ways other than sex, age, 

race, and Hispanic origin. How this 

weighting procedure affects other 

variables in the survey is not precisely known. All of these considerations affect comparisons across 

different surveys or data sources. 

For information on sampling and 

estimation methods, confidentiality 

protection, and sampling and nonsampling errors, please see

the “2011 ACS Accuracy of the 

Data” document located at

<www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation

/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of

_Data_2011.pdf>.

MORE INFORMATION

Detailed tabulations, related

information, and historic data

are available on the Internet at

the Language Use page on the

Census Bureau’s Web site at

<www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo

/language/index.html>. For additional questions or comments, 

contact the Education and Social 

Stratification Branch at 301-763-

2464 or e-mail Camille L. Ryan at 

<Camille.L.Ryan@census.gov>.
16 U.S. Census Bureau

APPENDIX A.

LANGUAGE QUESTIONS USED IN DECENNIAL CENSUSES

2000: (Collected for all ages; retained for persons 5 years old and over)

Does this person speak a language other than English at home?

What is this language?

How well does this person speak English (very well, well, not well, not at all)?

1990: (Persons 5 years old and over)

Does this person speak a language other than English at home?

What is this language?

How well does this person speak English (very well, well, not well, not at all)?

1980: (Persons 3 years old and over; tabulated for 5 years old and over)

Does this person speak a language other than English at home?

What is this language?

How well does this person speak English (very well, well, not well, not at all)?

1970: (No age for question, tabulations limited)

What language, other than English, was spoken in this person’s home when he was a child?

(Spanish, French, German, Other (specify)_______, None, English only)

1960: (Foreign-born)

What language was spoken in his home before he came to the United States?

1950: (Not asked)

1940: (For persons of all ages; asked under the category of “Mother Tongue [or Native Language] of Foreign Born”)

Language spoken at home in earliest childhood.

1930: (Foreign born; asked under the category of “Mother Tongue [or Native Language] of Foreign Born”)

Language spoken in home before coming to the United States.

1920: (Foreign born)

Place of birth and mother tongue of person and each parent.

Whether able to speak English.

1910:

Mother tongue was collected for all foreign-born persons, to be written in with place of birth; also collected for 

foreign-born parents. Specific instructions on correct languages to write in and a list of appropriate European languages were provided to the enumerator. Similar instructions may have carried over to 1920.

Whether able to speak English; or, if not, give language spoken.

1900: (All persons 10 years old and over)

“Can speak English” was asked after the two questions “Can read” and “Can write.”

1890: (All persons 10 years old and over)

“Able to speak English. If not, the language or dialect spoken” was asked after the questions “Able to Read” and 

“Able to Write.” 

1790–1880:

No evidence of language questions or English-ability questions.

Note: The universe used for data collection may not be the same as in tabulations. In some cases, data were

tabulated for foreign-born only or White foreign-born only. Consult publications.

www.mla.org/map_main

www.ethnologue.com/