Who Supports the English-Only Movement?: Evidence for Misconceptions about Latino Group Vitality

The considerable growth in language minority populations in the US in recent years has been matched by an increase in language policies encapsulated by the English-only movement. Using vitality theory as a framework, this study investigated if support for English-only policies among Anglo-Americans is related to perceptions about growing Latino group vitality (salience in the population, social institutions, and increased power/status) and the presence of Spanish in the linguistic landscape. The study examined these issues by conducting a telephone survey (n = 389) in Santa Barbara, California. As predicted, Anglo-Americans' perceptions of growing Latino vitality together with decreasing Anglo vitality, and a strong within group language identity, were related to support for English-only policies and (to a lesser extent) social limitations on immigrants. Contrary to expectations, less contact with Spanish in the linguistic landscape was associated with greater support for English-only policies. Older participants were much more likely to support English-only policies, while those with a higher level of education were less likely to support such policies.

[1]  E. Battistella Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement (review) , 2003 .

[2]  Nclr The Hispanic Population , 2003 .

[3]  Mela Sarkar,et al.  At War with Diversity: US Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety. , 2002 .

[4]  Julie M. Duck,et al.  The English-only movement: A communication analysis of changing perceptions of language vitality , 2001 .

[5]  Rupert Brown Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges , 2000 .

[6]  J. Citrin,et al.  Ethnic Context, Race Relations and California Politics , 2000 .

[7]  R. Bayor Nativism Reborn? The Official English Language Movement and the American States , 1997 .

[8]  E. Herman No mercy: How conservative think tanks and foundations changed America's social agenda , 1997 .

[9]  R. Bourhis,et al.  Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality , 1997 .

[10]  Lincoln Quillian Group Threat and Regional Change in Attitudes Toward African-Americans , 1996, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  A. Portes,et al.  Educational progress of children of immigrants: The roles of class, ethnicity, and school context. , 1996 .

[12]  Caroline J. Tolbert,et al.  Race/Ethnicity and Direct Democracy: An Analysis of California's Illegal Immigration Initiative , 1996, The Journal of Politics.

[13]  D. O. Sears,et al.  Opposition to bilingual education : prejudice or the defense of realistic interests ? , 1995 .

[14]  J. Citrin,et al.  Is American Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy , 1994 .

[15]  H. Giles,et al.  Accommodating intergenerational contact: A critique and theoretical model , 1993 .

[16]  Michael W. Giles,et al.  David Duke and Black Threat: An Old Hypothesis Revisited , 1993, The Journal of Politics.

[17]  J. Crocker,et al.  A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One's Social Identity , 1992 .

[18]  D. Green,et al.  The "Official English" Movement and the Symbolic Politics of Language in the United States , 1990 .

[19]  Paul J. Lavrakas,et al.  Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision , 1988 .

[20]  S. Schleifer,et al.  Trends in Attitudes Toward and Participation in Survey Research , 1986 .

[21]  V. O. Key,et al.  Southern Politics In State and Nation , 1984 .

[22]  R. Bourhis,et al.  Vitality Perceptions and Language Attitudes: Some Canadian Data , 1984 .

[23]  W. Lambert,et al.  The English-Only Movement Myths, Reality, and Implications for Psychology , 2001 .

[24]  B. D. Orey,et al.  Symbolic Racism in the 1995 Louisiana Gubernatorial Election , 2000 .

[25]  Ronald Schmidt,et al.  Language policy and identity politics in the United States , 2000 .

[26]  R. Rumberger,et al.  Toward explaining differences in educational achievement among Mexican American language-minority students , 1998 .

[27]  T. Pettigrew Intergroup contact theory. , 1998, Annual review of psychology.

[28]  R. Tatalovich,et al.  Who supports English-only language laws ? Evidence from the 1992 National Election Study , 1997 .

[29]  A. Zentella The Hispanophobia of the Official English movement in the US , 1997 .

[30]  Cindy Gallois,et al.  Accommodating intercultural encounters: Elaborations and extensions , 1995 .

[31]  William D. Gudykunst Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory: Current status. , 1995 .

[32]  R. Landry,et al.  Diglossia, ethnolinguistic vitality, and language behavior , 1994 .

[33]  H. Giles,et al.  The genesis of vitality theory: historical patterns and discoursal dimensions , 1994 .

[34]  Michael Currie,et al.  Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality and social adaptation among Vietnamese refugees in Australia , 1994 .

[35]  J. Pittam,et al.  Perceived Change in Ethnolinguistic Vitality by Dominant and Minority Subgroups. , 1991 .

[36]  R. Bourhis,et al.  Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations , 1991 .

[37]  J. Citrin Language Politics and American Identity. , 1990 .

[38]  J. Fishman ’English only’: its ghosts, myths, and dangers , 1988 .

[39]  Rupert Brown,et al.  Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the 'contact hypothesis.' , 1986 .

[40]  Doreen Rosenthal,et al.  Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality: The Anglo‐ and Greek‐Australian setting , 1985 .

[41]  H. Giles,et al.  Notes on the Construction of a 'Subjective Vitality Questionnaire' for Ethnolinguistic Groups. , 1981 .

[42]  H. Giles Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations , 1977 .

[43]  K. Whittemore,et al.  The United States and Canada , 1966 .