DOCSLIB.ORG

English-Only Policy and Belief in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
English-Only Policy and Belief in the United States University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Honors Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2012 English-Only policy and belief in the United States Lauren E. White University of New Hampshire - Main Campus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/honors Part of the Linguistics Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation White, Lauren E., "English-Only policy and belief in the United States" (2012). Honors Theses and Capstones. 21. https://scholars.unh.edu/honors/21 This Senior Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE English-Only Policy and Belief in the United States A study of the Northeastern United States Lauren E White 5/14/2012 English-Only initiatives are commonplace in the United States. Proponents of Official English would like to make the official language of the United States English despite the prestige English already has in the United States. The motivations behind this movement are varied and have substantial effects on the opinion of the American population. This paper examines a group of American residents in the Northeast, aged 18 and older. States considered Northeastern in this study are Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. The survey distributed contains questions on the topic of English- only issues, languages in general, and the role of language in participant’s personal lives. This survey tested assumptions about English-only attitudes and language use against the data contributed by participants. The findings confirm that English- only attitudes are pervasive in American society, that education is necessary to further compete against prevailing negative ideologies and beliefs, and that continued survey can accomplish more work and research in this area of study. Contents TABLE OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 HISTORY OF LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................. 4 2.2 XENOPHOBIA............................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 ENGLISH-ONLY MOVEMENT ...................................................................................................... 5 2.4 CURRENT LANGUAGE AND POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 ENGLISH ONLY REPRESENTATION IN THE NORTHEAST ..................................................... 7 3.0 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 SURVEY STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................ 8 4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 10 4.1 INITIAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ................................................................................. 10 4.2 LINGUISTIC AFFILIATIONS OF PARTICIPANTS ..................................................................... 11 4.3 GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ........................................................................................................... 11 4.4 YES/NO QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................ 12 4.5 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................ 20 5.0 COMMON LANGUAGE BELIEFS PRESENT IN SURVEY ............................................................ 26 5.1 ENGLISH IS THE LANGUAGE OF PRESTIGE AND SUCCESS .............................................. 26 5.2 ENGLISH AS UNIFIER ............................................................................................................... 26 5.3 AMERICANS SPEAK ENGLISH ................................................................................................. 26 5.4 LACK OF ENGLISH MAKES YOU IGNORANT ......................................................................... 27 5.5 FOREIGN LANGUAGES ARE ACADEMIC PURSUITS............................................................. 27 6.0 DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................... 29 7.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF DATA .............................................................................................................. 31 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 31 8.0 FINAL THOUGHTS AND CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX A – SURVEY QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................... 33 WORKS CITED ........................................................................................................................................... 35 1 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Distribution of Survey Participants by State ................................................................................ 10 Figure 2: Question 16, Reasons for "Yes" Response ................................................................................. 13 Figure 3: Question 16, Reasons for "No" Response.................................................................................. 13 Figure 4 : Question 17, Reasons for "Yes" Response ................................................................................ 14 Figure 5: Question 17, Reasons for "No" Response.................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Question 18, Locations of Conversation in Foreign Languages .................................................. 15 Figure 7: Question 19, Reasons for "Yes" Response ................................................................................. 16 Figure 8: Question 19, Reasons for "No" Response .................................................................................. 16 Figure 9: Question 20, Reasons for "Yes" Response ................................................................................. 17 Figure 10: Question 20, Reasons for "No" Response ................................................................................ 17 Figure 11: Question 21, Reasons for "Yes" Response ............................................................................... 18 Figure 12: Question 22, Reasons for "Yes" Response ............................................................................... 19 Figure 13: Question 22, Reasons for "No" Response ................................................................................ 19 Figure 14: Question 23, Why English Should be the Official Language ..................................................... 21 Figure 15: Question 23, Why There Should be No Official Language ........................................................ 21 Figure 16: Question 24, Assistance for Non-Native English Speaking Students ....................................... 22 Figure 17: Question 25, Languages That Should be Taught in the U.S. .................................................... 23 Figure 18: Question 26, Age to Begin Foreign Language Instruction in Schools ....................................... 24 Figure 19: Question 27, Reasons for "No" Responses ............................................................................... 25 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION The United States is traditionally a linguistically and ethnically diverse nation. While there are more than 300 languages spoken nationwide, the de facto “lingua franca” is English. Half of “American” languages are indigenous to the area (Rhein, 1). The United States has no official language. A vast majority of the population is not aware of this fact because of the prominence of English. The problem in the United States is reconciling sociolinguistic prejudices. Multilingualism and language diversity in the United States are valued as an intellectual and social benefit in the modern world. As a “melting pot” nation, it is hard reconcile the desire for a unified culture, because the United States was built on the tenets of multilingualism and cultural diversity. The United States uniquely displays resistance to the permeation of languages other than English in the form of English-only initiatives and “anti-accent” activists. These activists currently preach in many states, attempting to gain support through survey and election. These initiatives are talked about extensively in schools and in the news in order
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Language Projections: 2010 to 2020 Presented at the Federal Forecasters Conference, Washington, DC, April 21, 2011 Hyon B
    Language Projections: 2010 to 2020 Presented at the Federal Forecasters Conference, Washington, DC, April 21, 2011 Hyon B. Shin, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau Jennifer M. Ortman, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau This paper is released to inform interested parties of BACKGROUND ongoing research and to encourage discussion of work in progress. Any views expressed on statistical, The United States has always been a country noted for methodological, technical, or operational issues are its linguistic diversity. Information on language use and those of the authors and not necessarily those of the proficiency collected from decennial censuses shows U.S. Census Bureau. that there have been striking changes in the linguistic landscape. These changes have been driven in large ABSTRACT part by a shift in the origins of immigration to the United States. During the late 19th and early 20th Language diversity in the United States has changed centuries, the majority of U.S. immigrants spoke either rapidly over the past three decades. The use of a English or a European language such as German, Polish, language other than English at home increased by 148 or Italian (Stevens, 1999). Beginning in the middle of percent between 1980 and 2009 and this increase was the 20th century, patterns of immigration shifted to not evenly distributed among languages. Polish, countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia German, and Italian actually had fewer speakers in 2009 (Bean and Stevens, 2005). As a result, the use of compared to 1980. Other languages, such as Spanish, Spanish and Asian or Pacific Island languages began to Vietnamese, and Russian, had considerable increases in grow.
    [Show full text]
  • Gaytan to Marin Donald Cutter the Spanish Legend, That
    The Spanish in Hawaii: Gaytan to Marin Donald Cutter The Spanish legend, that somehow Spain anticipated all other Europeans in its discovery and presence in most every part of the New World, extends even to the Pacific Ocean area. Spain's early activity in Alaska, Canada, Washington, Oregon, and California reinforces the idea that Spain was also the early explorer of the Pacific Islands. The vast Pacific, from its European discovery in Panama by Vasco Nunez de Balboa, until almost the end of the 18th Century, was part of the Spanish overseas empire. Generous Papal recognition of Spain's early discoveries and an attempt to avert an open conflict between Spain and Portugal resulted in a division of the non-Christian world between those Iberian powers. Though north European nations were not in accord and the King of France even suggested that he would like to see the clause in Adam's will giving the Pope such sweeping jurisdiction, Spain was convinced of its exclusive sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean all the way to the Philippine Islands. Spain strengthened both the Papal decree and the treaty signed with Portugal at Tordasillas by observing the niceties of international law. In 1513, Nunez de Balboa waded into the Pacific, banner in hand, and in a single grandiose act of sovereignty claimed the ocean and all of its islands for Spain. It was a majestic moment in time—nearly one third of the world was staked out for exclusive Spanish control by this single imperial act. And Spain was able to parlay this act of sovereignty into the creation of a huge Spanish lake of hundreds of thousands of square miles, a body of water in which no other European nation could sail in peaceful commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Assimilation Today: Bilingualism Persists More Than in the Past, but English Still Dominates
    Language Assimilation Today: Bilingualism Persists More Than in the Past, But English Still Dominates Richard Alba Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research University at Albany December, 2004 Research Assistants Karen Marotz and Jacob Stowell contributed toward the preparation and analysis of the data reported here. Summary Because of renewed immigration, fears about the status of English as the linguistic glue holding America together are common today. In a very different vein, multiculturalists have expressed hopes of profound change to American culture brought on by the persistence across generations of the mother tongues of contemporary immigrants. In either case, the underlying claim is that the past pattern of rapid acceptance of English by the children and grandchildren of the immigrants may be breaking down. Using 2000 Census data, the Mumford Center has undertaken an analysis of the languages spoken at home by school-age children in newcomer families in order to examine the validity of the claim. We find that, although some changes have occurred, it greatly exaggerates them. English is almost universally accepted by the children and grandchildren of the immigrants who have come to the U.S. in great numbers since the 1960s. Moreover, by the third generation, i.e., the grandchildren of immigrants, bilingualism is maintained only by minorities of almost all groups. Among Asian groups, these minorities are so small that the levels of linguistic assimilation are scarcely different from those of the past. Among the Spanish-speaking groups, the bilingual minorities are larger than was the case among most European immigrant groups. Nevertheless, English monolingualism is the predominant pattern by the third generation, except for Dominicans, a group known to maintain levels of back-and-forth travel to its homeland.
    [Show full text]
  • Underrepresented Communities Historic Resource Survey Report
    City of Madison, Wisconsin Underrepresented Communities Historic Resource Survey Report By Jennifer L. Lehrke, AIA, NCARB, Rowan Davidson, Associate AIA and Robert Short, Associate AIA Legacy Architecture, Inc. 605 Erie Avenue, Suite 101 Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081 and Jason Tish Archetype Historic Property Consultants 2714 Lafollette Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53704 Project Sponsoring Agency City of Madison Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Madison, Wisconsin 53703 2017-2020 Acknowledgments The activity that is the subject of this survey report has been financed with local funds from the City of Madison Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development. The contents and opinions contained in this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the city, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the City of Madison. The authors would like to thank the following persons or organizations for their assistance in completing this project: City of Madison Richard B. Arnesen Satya Rhodes-Conway, Mayor Patrick W. Heck, Alder Heather Stouder, Planning Division Director Joy W. Huntington Bill Fruhling, AICP, Principal Planner Jason N. Ilstrup Heather Bailey, Preservation Planner Eli B. Judge Amy L. Scanlon, Former Preservation Planner Arvina Martin, Alder Oscar Mireles Marsha A. Rummel, Alder (former member) City of Madison Muriel Simms Landmarks Commission Christina Slattery Anna Andrzejewski, Chair May Choua Thao Richard B. Arnesen Sheri Carter, Alder (former member) Elizabeth Banks Sergio Gonzalez (former member) Katie Kaliszewski Ledell Zellers, Alder (former member) Arvina Martin, Alder David W.J. McLean Maurice D. Taylor Others Lon Hill (former member) Tanika Apaloo Stuart Levitan (former member) Andrea Arenas Marsha A.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Comprehensive Model For
    Toward a Comprehensive Model for Nahuatl Language Research and Revitalization JUSTYNA OLKO,a JOHN SULLIVANa, b, c University of Warsaw;a Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas;b Universidad Autonóma de Zacatecasc 1 Introduction Nahuatl, a Uto-Aztecan language, enjoyed great political and cultural importance in the pre-Hispanic and colonial world over a long stretch of time and has survived to the present day.1 With an estimated 1.376 million speakers currently inhabiting several regions of Mexico,2 it would not seem to be in danger of extinction, but in fact it is. Formerly the language of the Aztec empire and a lingua franca across Mesoamerica, after the Spanish conquest Nahuatl thrived in the new colonial contexts and was widely used for administrative and religious purposes across New Spain, including areas where other native languages prevailed. Although the colonial language policy and prolonged Hispanicization are often blamed today as the main cause of language shift and the gradual displacement of Nahuatl, legal steps reinforced its importance in Spanish Mesoamerica; these include the decision by the king Philip II in 1570 to make Nahuatl the linguistic medium for religious conversion and for the training of ecclesiastics working with the native people in different regions. Members of the nobility belonging to other ethnic groups, as well as numerous non-elite figures of different backgrounds, including Spaniards, and especially friars and priests, used spoken and written Nahuatl to facilitate communication in different aspects of colonial life and religious instruction (Yannanakis 2012:669-670; Nesvig 2012:739-758; Schwaller 2012:678-687).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3-‐1 Historic Resources Evaluation
    Appendix 3-1 Historic Resources Evaluation HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION SEAWALL LOT 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Development Project San Francisco, California April 11, 2016 Prepared by San Francisco, California Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall Lot 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project, San Francisco, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 3 IV. Property Description ................................................................................................... ….....6 V. Historical Context ....................................................................................................... ….....24 VI. Determination of Eligibility.................................................................................... ……....44 VII. Evaluation of the Project for Compliance with the Standards ............................. 45 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 58 IX. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 59 April 11, 2016 Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall
    [Show full text]
  • Language Planning and Education of Adult Immigrants in Canada
    London Review of Education DOI:10.18546/LRE.14.2.10 Volume14,Number2,September2016 Language planning and education of adult immigrants in Canada: Contrasting the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, and the cities of Montreal and Vancouver CatherineEllyson Bem & Co. CarolineAndrewandRichardClément* University of Ottawa Combiningpolicyanalysiswithlanguagepolicyandplanninganalysis,ourarticlecomparatively assessestwomodelsofadultimmigrants’languageeducationintwoverydifferentprovinces ofthesamefederalcountry.Inordertodoso,wefocusspecificallyontwoquestions:‘Whydo governmentsprovidelanguageeducationtoadults?’and‘Howisitprovidedintheconcrete settingoftwoofthebiggestcitiesinCanada?’Beyonddescribingthetwomodelsofadult immigrants’ language education in Quebec, British Columbia, and their respective largest cities,ourarticleponderswhetherandinwhatsensedemography,languagehistory,andthe commonfederalframeworkcanexplainthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthetwo.These contextualelementscanexplainwhycitiescontinuetohavesofewresponsibilitiesregarding thesettlement,integration,andlanguageeducationofnewcomers.Onlysuchunderstandingwill eventuallyallowforproperreformsintermsofcities’responsibilitiesregardingimmigration. Keywords: multilingualcities;multiculturalism;adulteducation;immigration;languagelaws Introduction Canada is a very large country with much variation between provinces and cities in many dimensions.Onesuchaspect,whichremainsacurrenthottopicfordemographicandhistorical reasons,islanguage;morespecifically,whyandhowlanguageplanningandpolicyareenacted
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Monolingualism Within a Language/Race Cartography: Reflections and Lessons Learned from ‘World Languages and Cultures Day’
    L2 Journal, Volume 9 Issue 1 (2017), pp. 1-20 http://repositories.cdlib.org/uccllt/l2/vol9/iss1/art1 Mapping Monolingualism within a Language/Race Cartography: Reflections and Lessons Learned from ‘World Languages and Cultures Day’ ADAM SCHWARTZ Oregon State University E-mail: [email protected] BRADLEY BOOVY Oregon State University E-mail: [email protected] An interactive exhibit at a university’s ‘World Language Day’ challenges systems of privilege that organize the study of ‘foreign’ and ‘world’ languages. Through discursive framing, participants’ written responses reveal an alignment with hegemonic ideologies of race and nation that elevate English monolingualism as a proxy for a White, virtuous cultural order within which ‘World language’ education safely—and additively—finds its place. _______________ INTRODUCTION In her seminal paper “Language and Borders,” anthropologist Bonnie Urciuoli (1995) introduces the semiotic complexity, fluidity, and interconnectedness of the title’s two key terms: “Border-making elements take on their social reality as ‘languages,’ ‘accents,’ ‘mixing,’ or ‘words’” (p. 525). Similarly, when languages act as borders, they “… take on sharp edges… they are mapped onto people and therefore onto ethnic nationality (which may or may not map onto a nation-state).” Considering that, as Urciuoli writes, “ethnicity has become nonlocalized as people move into ‘global ethnoscapes,’ much of what the ‘border’ represents is in effect deterritorialized, as is, for example, the case with foreign languages, especially Spanish in the United States” (p. 533). Over a decade later, anthropolitical linguist Ana Celia Zentella (2007) applied Urciuoli’s words to the role ‘linguistic capital’ plays in locating linguistic insecurity among Latin@ populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Christopher Newell Williams 2008
    Copyright by Christopher Newell Williams 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Christopher Newell Williams certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: CAUGHT IN THE WEB OF SCAPEGOATING: NATIONAL PRESS COVERAGE OF CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 187 Committee: ________________________________ Robert Jensen, Supervisor ________________________________ D. Charles Whitney, Co-Supervisor ________________________________ Gene Burd ________________________________ Dustin Harp ________________________________ S. Craig Watkins CAUGHT IN THE WEB OF SCAPEGOATING: NATIONAL COVERAGE OF CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 187 by Christopher Newell Williams, BA; MS Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2008 Dedication To Sue, my wife and the love of my life, whose unwavering friendship, love and commitment made this long road incalculably easier to travel. Acknowledgments Many thanks to the faculty and staff of the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, who, in countless ways, offered a helping hand on this journey. More specifically, I’d like to thank my dissertation committee, whose guidance and wise counsel were essential in shaping this project. The original members were Chuck Whitney, Bob Jensen, Don Heider, David Montejano and Craig Watkins. After Don and David were no longer able to serve on the committee, Gene Burd and Dustin Harp graciously agreed to replace them. Many thanks to all of you for your work on my behalf. I’m especially grateful for the support of Chuck Whitney, the original chairman of my committee, whose wide-ranging knowledge and high standards enriched every chapter of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Monolingualism and Its Meaning in Two Kwazulu-Natal High Schools
    Monolingualism and its Meaning in Two KwaZulu-Natal High Schools A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts of Rhodes University by Jacqui Carlyle May 2016 Abstract This study reports on the identity and attitudes of monolingual English speakers (MES) at two high schools in Durban, South Africa, in relation particularly to the role and meaning of monolingualism. Two bodies of data are used to investigate the attitudes of MES and are oriented towards four variables: English, African languages (particularly Zulu), monolingualism and plurilingualism. The attitudes to these variables reveal the impact on identity of language usage in Durban, and negotiations of the participants in trying to mitigate or justify attitudes that are counter to the embracing of diversity encouraged in modern South Africa. First, an attitude questionnaire provides quantitative data that is subjected to analysis, including a chi-squared test. Second, a narrative elicitation interview provides qualitative narrative data that is analysed in relation to APPRAISAL theory. Both analysis types are used to ascertain the presence of a monolingual mindset in the scholars’ responses, as well as to capture the ideological forces to which they are subjected as monolingual English speakers in the unique multilingual setting of Durban. In essence, the data points to a discourse of compromise and unease on the part of the participants - as they juggle with the effects of an English-centric monolingual mindset, and a more pervasive pluralism that embraces the Rainbowism of ‘the new South Africa’. This discourse of compromise is characterized on one side by insecurity and dissatisfaction with the language in education policy, and well as the monolingual upbringing of MES in Durban, and a lack of Language other than English (LOTE), in particular, Zulu.
    [Show full text]
  • Separated by a Common Language? the Complicated Relationship Between American & British English
    Separated by a Common Language? The complicated relationship between American & British English Lynne Murphy University of Sussex Sponsored by the Department of Linguistics, Department of Communication, and Department of English 4:00-6:00 April 16, 2018 Hellems 199 Refreshments will Be served When faced with British English, Americans are apt to Be impressed and are often made a Bit insecure aBout their own linguistic aBilities. When thinKing aBout American English, Britons often express dismissiveness or fear. This has Been going on for nearly 300 years, developing into a complex mythology of British–American linguistic relations. This talK looKs into the current state of the “special relationship” between the two national standards. How did we get to the point that the BBC publishes headlines like “How Americanisms are Killing the English language” while Americans tweet “Everything sounds Better in a British accent”? The answer is in a Broad set of proBlematic Beliefs. We’ll looK at how different the two national Englishes are (and why they’re not more different), why neither has claim to Being older than the other, and why technology isn’t maKing us all speaK or write the same English. About the speaKer: Lynne Murphy is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sussex in Brighton, England. Since 2006, her alter ego Lynneguist has written the Separated by a Common Language blog. There, she reflects on UK–US linguistic differences from the perspective of an American linguist in England, while fighting the good fight against linguistic myths and prejudice. She continues that fight in The Prodigal Tongue: The Love–Hate Relationship between American and British English (Penguin, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Official Monolingualism: the Idiosyncrasies of Minority Language Rights in Israel and the United States
    THE CASE AGAINST OFFICIAL MONOLINGUALISM: THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF MINORITY LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES Yuval Merin * I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1 H. THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES ....................... 3 III. THE LEGAL STATUS OF LANGUAGES IN ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES ................................... 9 A. The Status of English and the Absence of an Official Language in the United States ........................ 9 B. FormalBilingualism and the Status of Hebrew, Arabic, and English in Israel .............................. 11 1. The Legal Status of Hebrew ...................... 14 2. The Legal Status of English ...................... 15 3. The Legal Status ofArabic ...................... 15 C. Comparative Observations ......................... 18 IV. "OFFICIAL LANGUAGE:" IMPLICATIONS AND MOVEMENTS .... 20 A. The Implications of "Official Language " .............. 22 B. "Hebrew-Only" Trends in Israel in Comparisonto the "English-Only" Movement in the United States ...... 25 C. Linguistic Requirements and Practicesin the Field of Education ..................................... 30 V. LINGUISTIC MINORITIES AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS AS CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ................... 34 VI. CONCLUSION ........................................ 48 I. INTRODUCTION Both Israel and the United States are multi-ethnic societies with a large percentage of linguistic minorities. Hebrew and Arabic are the two official languages of Israel whereas the United States lacks an official language at the J.S.D. Candidate, New York University School of Law; LL.M., New York University School of Law, 1997; LL.B., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem School of Law, 1993. The author would like to thank Prof. Rachel Moran of Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, for her insightful and helpful comments on previous drafts of this Article.
    [Show full text]