Book contents
- Language Politics and Policies
- Language Politics and Policies
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Contributor Personal Statements
- Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Orientations
- 1 The Liberal Tradition in America
- 2 The Political Ethics of Linguistic In-Betweenness
- 3 Alienation, Language Work, and the So-Called Commodification of Language
- 4 Canadian Language Politics in Global and Theoretical Contexts
- Part II The United States Context
- Part III The Canadian Context
- Index
- References
1 - The Liberal Tradition in America
A Historical-Institutionalist Approach to US Language Policy
from Part I - Theoretical Orientations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2019
Edited by
Book contents
- Language Politics and Policies
- Language Politics and Policies
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Contributor Personal Statements
- Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Orientations
- 1 The Liberal Tradition in America
- 2 The Political Ethics of Linguistic In-Betweenness
- 3 Alienation, Language Work, and the So-Called Commodification of Language
- 4 Canadian Language Politics in Global and Theoretical Contexts
- Part II The United States Context
- Part III The Canadian Context
- Index
- References
Summary
Using a historical institutionalist approach, I demonstrate how institutionalized norms stemming from the liberal tradition in America have informed its language regime by tracing the path dependency of language policy and the critical junctures when changing norms lead to policy shifts. In the early republic, liberal norms enshrined in the Constitution informed a minimalist language regime. At the turn of the 19th century, norms shifted to reflect rapid industrialization and mass immigration, informing attempts at restrictive language policies. At the critical juncture of the civil rights movement, the monolingual language regime was challenged by new norms of what constituted a liberal democratic society. Neoliberal norms of the Reagan presidency facilitated the success of the English-only movement in changing language policies at the state-level. Neoliberal cosmopolitanism of the new millennium re-introduced minimal multilingual policy initiatives. I conclude by suggesting that Trump’s election represents a shift to nationalist, albeit possibly illiberal, norms.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language Politics and PoliciesPerspectives from Canada and the United States, pp. 27 - 44Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Aleinikoff, T. A. & Martin, D. A. (eds.) (1985). Immigration: Process and Policy. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Baron, D. E. (1982). Grammar and Good Taste: Reforming the American Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Cardinal, L. (2015). State tradition and language regime in Canada. In Cardinal, L. & Sonntag, S. K. (eds.), State Traditions and Language Regimes. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, pp. 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinal, L. (2017a). Language regimes and state traditions in context. Paper presented at Language, Nationalism, Nations: Multilingualism Beyond Europe Workshop, September 29–30, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Cardinal, L. (2017b). Multilingualism and the local politics of language regime. Keynote address, The Politics of Multilingualism: Possibilities and Challenges Conference, May 22–25, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Castro Feinberg, R. (1990). Bilingual education in the United States: A summary of Lau compliance requirements. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 3(2), 141–52.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (1986). Comment from “down under.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 60, 139–43.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (1992). Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of “English Only.” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Evans, P., Rueschemeyer, D. & Skocpol, T. (eds.) (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“From the Editor.” (2017). The Hedgehog Review, 19(3). Retrieved from http://iasc-culture.org/THR/index.php [Last accessed February 28, 2018].Google Scholar
Garcia v. Gloor, 625 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
Glazer, N. & Moynihan, D. P. (1975). Introduction. In Glazer, N. & Moynihan, D. P. (eds.), Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Gregory, D. L. (1989). Union leadership and workers’ voices: Meeting the needs of linguistically heterogeneous union members. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 58(1), 115–73.Google Scholar
Hartz, L. (1955). The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (1976). A national language academy? Debate in the new nation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 11, 9–44.Google Scholar
Ives, P. (2014). De-politicizing language: Obstacles to political theory’s engagement with language policy. Language Policy, 13(4), 335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenson, J. & Phillips, S. D. (2001). Redesigning the Canadian citizenship regime: Remaking institutions of representation. In Crouch, C., Eder, K. & Tambini, D. (eds.), Citizenship, Markets, and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Kramer, M. P. (1992). Imagining Language in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Livingston, D. R., Reams, G. Y., Wheeler, C. L. & Goldstein, J. S. (no date). Brief of the Equal Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae, submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Garcia v. Spun Steak. Obtained at EEOC, January 1993, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. (1968). The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Lustig, R. J. (1982). Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political Theory, 1890–1920. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of federal bilingual-education policy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508(1), 66–80.Google Scholar
Meyer v. Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390 (1923).Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1992). Afterword: The official language movement: Reimagining America. In Crawford, J (ed.), Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 479–94.Google Scholar
Oliva, R. R. (1990). English-only rules in the workplace: The ninth circuit attempts to redefine the parameters. Journal of the Human Rights, VII, 99–139.Google Scholar
Patten, A. (2003). Liberal neutrality and language policy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 31(4), 356–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. & King, D. S. (2005). The politics of path dependency: Political conflict in historical institutionalism. Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrovic, J. E. & Kuntz, A. M. (2013). Strategies of reframing language policy in the liberal state. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(1): 126–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the Welfare State?: Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1977). Poor People’s Movements. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).Google Scholar
Ricento, T. (1998a). National language policy in the United States. In Ricento, T. & Burnaby, B. (eds.), Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 85–112.Google Scholar
Ricento, T. (1998b). The courts, the legislature and society: The shaping of federal language policy in the United States. In Kibbee, D. A. (ed.), Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 123–41.Google Scholar
Ricento, T. (ed.) (2015). Language Policy and Political Economy: English in a Global Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ricento, T. & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–27.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–47.Google Scholar
Secada, W. G. (1990). Research, politics, and bilingual education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508(1), 81–106.Google Scholar
Simpson, D. (1986). The Politics of American English, 1776–1850. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sonntag, S. K. (2003). The Local Politics of Global English: Case Studies in Linguistic Globalization. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Sonntag, S. K. (2010). La diversité linguistique et la mondialisation: Les limites des théories libérales. Politique et Sociétés, 29(1), 15–43.Google Scholar
Sonntag, S. K. (2015). State tradition and language regime in the United States: Time for change? In Cardinal, L. & Sonntag, S. K. (eds.), State Traditions and Linguistic Regimes. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, pp. 44–61.Google Scholar
Sonntag, S. K., & Cardinal, L. (2015). Introduction: State traditions and language regimes: Conceptualizing language policy choices. In Cardinal, L. & Sonntag, S. K. (eds.), State Traditions and Linguistic Regimes. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Stein, C. B. Jr. (1986). Sink or Swim: The Politics of Bilingual Education. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Tatalovich, R. (1995). Nativism Reborn? The Official English Language Movement and the American States. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Teitelbaum, H., & Hiller, R. (1977). Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives: The Legal Perspective. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community. New York: Longman.Google Scholar