The lobbying of the u.s english movement since 1983: a campaign via the media in quest of national unity

THE LOBBYING OF THE U.S ENGLISH MOVEMENT SINCE 1983:
A CAMPAIGN VIA THE MEDIA IN QUEST OF NATIONAL UNITY

MEMOIRE DE RECHERCHE DE MASTER 1
PRESENTE PAR VICTORIA RIPOSSEAU
SESSION MAI 2010

DIRECTEUR DE RECHERCHE: MONSIEUR XAVIER LEMOINE MEMBRE DU JURY: MADAME FRANÇOISE LEJEUNE

THE LOBBYING OF THE U.S ENGLISH MOVEMENT SINCE 1983:
A CAMPAIGN VIA THE MEDIA IN QUEST OF NATIONAL UNITY

MEMOIRE DE RECHERCHE DE MASTER 1
PRESENTE PAR VICTORIA RIPOSSEAU
SESSION MAI 2010

DIRECTEUR DE RECHERCHE: MONSIEUR XAVIER LEMOINE MEMBRE DU JURY: MADAME FRANÇOISE LEJEUNE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research paper would not have been possible without the cooperation of U.S ENGLISH and more particularly Rob Toonkel, Director of Communications, who searched the registers of the organization for me.

It is an honor for me to thank particularly James Crawford, former executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education and author of several books on bilingualism and language policy in the United States.

I would like to thank, Xavier Lemoine, who supervised this research.

I sincerely thank my teachers, Anne Marie Thiec, Paul Lees and Sylvie Nail, for their support and the different seminaries they gave on Nationalism and National identity in the English-speaking world.

I also offer my regards and blessings to my friends, parents, and colleagues who supported me in every way during the completion of the project.

Last but not least, I would like to show my gratitude to Catherine and Philip Hymas for their help and support in the preparation of this research paper.

OUTLINE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i

INTRODUCTION 1

PART I U.S ENGLISH AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NATION OF AN ENGLISH

LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 4

A. THE STATUS OF ENGLISH AND THE CONTEXT FOR THE RISE OF THE MOVEMENT 5

B. QUESTIONING THE UNIFYING ROLE OF LANGUAGE IN THE AMERICAN NATION 21

C. PROPOSITION OF AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 35

PART II DECODING THE MESSAGE SENT BY U.S ENGLISH 47

A. THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES OF U.S ENGLISH 48

B. QUESTIONING THE PRO-IMMIGRATION IMAGE OF THE MOVEMENT 60

C. REASONS AND ENDS OF THE U.S ENGLISH ANTI-HISPANIC ATTITUDE 68

PART III TOWARDS A NEW CONCEPT OF AMERICAN IDENTITY 80

A. U.S ENGLISH OR A NEW FORM OF NATIVISM? 81

B. THE PORTRAYAL OF AMERICAN NATIONAL IDENTITY 93

CONCLUSION 108

BIBLIOGRAPHY 111

ANNEXES 126

DETAILED OUTLINE 178

INDEX 180

INTRODUCTION

The English language had 1.5 billion speakers in 2000, which makes it the most widely spoken language in the world¹. In the United States, there is great linguistic and cultural diversity as for more than two centuries, immigrants came from all over the world to settle there, bringing with them their own culture, values and language. But during the 1960s, there was a shift in the national origin of immigrants to the United States. In the 1960s, contrary to the first two waves of immigration, immigrants who came to settle in America were mainly from Asia and Latin America. Under the influence of the Civil Rights movements of the early 1960s, not only Black people, but also ethnic minorities felt the need to assert their identity and protect their culture. This ethnic revival coupled with the new wave of immigration created fears of linguistic and cultural division in the nation. Those fears gave rise to various new organizations and movements who struggled to protect the foundations of the American nation.

One of those organizations is U.S ENGLISH. It was created in 1983 by the educator and linguist Samuel I Hayakawa in collaboration with the ophthalmologist Dr. John Tanton. Nowadays, U.S ENGLISH is the largest and oldest organization that has been actively fighting to protect the status and role of the English language in the American nation. Since the 1980s, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to pass an amendment to the U.S Constitution aiming at declaring English the official language of the United States. Indeed, since the American nation came into being with the Declaration of Independence in 1776, no political action has ever been undertaken to declare English the official language of the United States. It was only in 1981 when the then Senator of California, S.I Hayakawa, introduced the amendment to the U.S Congress that the question was raised. This proposal marked the beginning of a movement called Official English? and since the 1980s, other organizations like Pro-English? or English-First? have been created with a view to declaring English the official language of the United States. U.S ENGLISH was the starting point of a debate that has lasted for more than twenty years and that is still ongoing, concerning the role of an official language and the way in which foreign language speakers should be taught in schools. Considering U.S ENGLISH has been advocating the enactment of an official language for the United States mainly through the media, our task will therefore be to focus on the different documents published by the movement since the early 1980s.

This research project is based on Benedict Andersen's definition of the nation. Indeed, B. Anderson, Professor of International Studies known for his work on nationalism, identified the nation as an imagined political community? so that the fellow members of even the smallest

¹ CRYSTAL, David. English as a global language?, 2^nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Web. 1 March 2010. p.10.

nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion?². Language is central to the national culture and political organizations of a nation and that is why individuals usually tend to define themselves as being of a certain nationality, because of the language they speak. The role of language in the creation and maintenance of nations will be examined in the light of the works of Ernest Gellner, Joseph Stalin, Hans Kohn, Michael Billig as well as Anthony D. Smith and other commentators on nationalism and national identity. Through the analysis of the promotional material of U.S ENGLISH, our concern will be to determine to what extent this movement re-imagines the American nation.

The English language is spoken by a quarter of the world's population and we may wonder why some consider that it is threatened in the United States. References to different subjects such as sociology, linguistics, politics, history, and anthropology are required in order to measure and interpret the full implications of the proposal for official language legislation for the United States. This would raise several questions about citizenship and naturalization, the impact of immigration on the nation, the way the nation should integrate immigrants and their culture, the role of school in the identity-forming process, the aim of bilingual education, but first and foremost the importance of a common language to create and maintain unity in a vast nation like the United States.

In an attempt to determine to what extent U.S ENGLISH has been re-imagining the American nation through the media, this research paper will be based on selected documents such as speeches and advertisements, published by U.S ENGLISH. In this analysis of U.S ENGLISH, our task will be first to analyze and explain the status of English in the United States and the implications of an English language amendment for the nation. The relation between language, culture, and identity will be explained with regard to different definitions of the nation. An attempt will be made at answering questions such as: Why is official language legislation needed in the nation? What is the importance of language ability in defining one's identity? How did the different laws concerning ethnic minorities affect U.S ENGLISH's views and their rhetoric? We will see why the views promoted by U.S ENGLISH have been more popular at State than at Federal level.

In the second part, our focus will be on the different communication strategies that U.S ENGLISH has been using to promote their cause and gain members since the 1980s. Through the study of the role of the media in society, an attempt will be made to decode the message sent by U.S ENGLISH. We will also question the pro-immigration image projected by the movement with regard to their response to the high rates of immigration from Latin America. Throughout this analysis, we will try to determine what lies beneath the surface of this lobbying organization: Does

2 ANDERSON, Benedict. Imagined Communities, revised edition, London and New York: Verso, 2006 . Print. p.6.

U.S ENGLISH aim at social control or social integration?

Finally, in the light of our analysis of the views of U.S ENGLISH, our intention will be to explore the different concepts of the American nation. We will determine how U.S ENGLISH has been redefining American identity and the impact this redefinition has on public opinion and American society in general. In conclusion, we will observe what the support for this movement tells us about American identity.

PART I
U.S ENGLISH AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
NATION OF AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AMENDMENT

A. THE STATUS OF ENGLISH AND THE CONTEXT FOR THE RISE OF THE MOVEMENT

1. The Status of English in the United States

Since 1983, the ultimate aim of U.S ENGLISH has been to pass official language legislation for the American nation. In this part, we will consider the status of English in the United States as described by anthropologists or commentators on nationalism and as presented by the organization itself. Then, our task will be to depict the circumstances that gave rise to this movement in the 1980s. Finally, this analysis will focus on the evolution of their views since the creation of the movement before questioning the unifying role of language.

It may be surprising at first to discover that there is no official language legislation in the United States: a survey showed that as late as 1987, two thirds of respondents to a national survey assumed that the Constitution already designated English as the official language of the United States³. In a 1985 monograph in support for his English Language Amendment, S.I Hayakawa, founder and Chairman of the movement at that time, wrote:

For the first time in our history, our nation is faced with the possibility of the kind of linguistic division that has torn apart Canada in recent years; that has been a major feature of the unhappy history of Belgium, split into speakers of French and Flemish; that is at this very moment a bloody division between the Sinhalese and Tamil populations of Sri Lanka (Annex IV, l.386- 391).

In this monograph, S.I Hayakawa considered that in the 1980s, it was the first time that the nation faced the possibility of a linguistic division. It is relevant to question this affirmation in the light of U.S history. First, there has always been a huge linguistic diversity in the United States as linguists estimated that 1.500 native languages existed in America when Europeans arrived on America's shores?⁴. The gradual elimination of native languages was mainly due to the Civilization Act of 1819, which imposed obligations for the education of Native Americans leading to the death of their language and culture. Furthermore, the very first settlers to what was going to become the United States were Spanish, French, German, Dutch or English speaking people. The linguist and anthropologist Shirley Brice Heath noted that it is quite obvious that this nation was born multilingual and multicultural, despite the indisputable fact that English became accepted as a

³ CRAWFORD, James, ed. Language Loyalties: A source Book on the Official English Controversy, The Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Print. p. 1.

⁴ SCOTT, Ellis Ferrin. Reasserting Language Rights of Native American students in the face of Proposition 227 and other Language-based referendum?, J.L& EDUC., DEL VALLE, Sandra, Language rights and the law in the United States: Finding your voices, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1999. Web. 4 April 2010. p. 286.

lingua franca?⁵. This statement emphasizes the multilingual aspect of the American society even though English is the de facto national language. Considering the historical presence of multiple languages in the American nation, it is very unlikely that only in the 1980s would the possibility of a linguistic division be envisioned for the first time.

In fact, the linguistic diversity of the American nation has already been problematic in the past. In the early 1900s, fears that the new immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe were resisting assimilation gave rise to an Americanization? movement. It consisted in educational programs to replace immigrants' languages and cultures with those of the United States as quickly as possible. In 1906, Congress enacted a legislation which made acquisition of U.S Citizenship for the first time based on the ability to speak English. When the United States entered the First World War in 1917, anti-German feelings emerged and thirty four states passed legislation to declare English the sole language of instruction in all public and private schools. In a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, in 1918 Theodore Roosevelt said that this is a nation - not a polyglot boarding house. There is not room in this country for any 50-50 American, nor can there be but one loyalty- to the Stars and Stripes⁶?. For the first time in U.S history, the link was made between language ability and political loyalties. The English language became a unifying symbol. This form of opposition to immigration, also called nativism was based on fears that the immigrants will distort or spoil the existing American cultural values. The historian John Higham noted that Anglo-Saxon nativism emerged as a way of explaining why incendiary immigrants threatened the stability of the republic⁷?. Worrying about the presence of immigrants in the American nation, Theodore Roosevelt called for monolingualism in a letter written in 1919 just after the Armistice: We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people as Americans ... No more hyphenated Americans⁸?. The First World War and the presence of Germans on the American soil reinforced the belief in the relationship between language and loyalty to the nation. In this letter, Th. Roosevelt expressed his anger towards the non-English speaking people in the nation because in the war context, he considered that speaking English was a proof of one's commitment to the American nation. The idea of the crucible? will be explained when accounting for U.S ENGLISH views on the melting-pot in the third part of this analysis.

This analysis of U.S history shows that what S.I Hayakawa affirmed in his monograph is the

⁵ CRAWFORD, James. Op.Cit. p. 18. A lingua franca is a medium of communication between peoples of different languages.

⁶ HIGGINS, John. Sole Loyalty: Theodore Roosevelt's words regarding the assimilation of immigrants into American culture?, Feb. 2008, Mail. Web. 4 March 2010, The Washington Post, "Use Only English, Roosevelt Urges", 28 May 1918. p.2.

⁷ HIGHAM, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925, 2^nd edition, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Google Book Search. Web. 5 May 2010. p. 138.

⁸ DICKER, Susan. J. Languages in America: a pluralist view, 2^nd ed. Clevedon (UK): Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2003. Google Book Search. Web. 20 February 2010. p. 26.

result of historical inaccuracy. As we have seen the United States has never been monolingual and there has always been linguistic and cultural diversity in the American nation. It was in the 1900s, under the impulse of a nativist vision of American national identity, that the nation truly faced its first linguistic division. The Americanization? programs elaborated at that time were the first attempt to counter the linguistic diversity of the nation. It was in the 1900s that language turned out to be a symbol of commitment and loyalty to the nation.

In his monograph S.I Hayakawa suggested that as the result of a voluntary neglect by the Founding Fathers there was no official language legislation in the United States. He said that the Amendment he proposed intended «to correct this omission» (Annex IV, l.301). We will see whether what Hayakawa presented as a fact is perfectly true. There is an ambiguity around this question because no decision was taken to declare a national language when the nation came into being. In order to account for the reasons of this ambiguity, we have to explain the origins of the nation. The American nation was first imagined or invented as a political community. The sociologist, Anthony D. Smith defined a nation as a named human population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members⁹?. According to Smith, there are two types of nations: the civic or territorial? nation and the ethnic? nation. The ethnic type is a community of birth and native culture? (Smith 11). It is associated with the Germans and linked to ethnic identity and thus to the language and the culture of the given ethnic group. In this conception of the nation, there is no room for multiethnic or multilingual states. Although it has a native population, the American nation is not an ethnic nation. This is due to the fact that Americans do not share a common descent as it is an old colonial territory. As a matter of fact it is meaningful to note that America being not an ethnic nation, it is very likely that the presence of different languages in the nation would not be incompatible with the nature of the nation itself.

If America is not an ethnic nation, it has to be a civic nation. Smith defined the civic type of nation on the basis of historic territory, legal political community, legal-political equality of members and common civic culture and ideology? (Smith 11). This type of nation was designed on the French model of nation and shaped by the democratic state that guarantees freedom and equality for all under the Constitution. It consists in the precedence of the state on the nation in order to create a common cultural identity. It requires the suppression of ethnic group identity in order to make room for a universal individualism, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, or nationality. In the civic type of nation, it is the culture of the political institutions that allow the bidding of all nationals together. The American nation is not an ethnic type of nation because the requirements to

⁹ SMITH, Anthony. D. National Identity, Reno and Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press, 1991, 227pages. Print. p.14.

become a national are not based on blood criterion but rather on commitment. In America, nationals are citizens, so that they are all equally protected by the State because of the allegiance they owe to it. The United States being a legal and political community, newcomers can become nationals. A civic nation seeks to bring together and integrate into new political community often disparate ethnic populations and to create a new 'territorial nation' out of the old colonial state? (Smith 82). In the light of that definition, the USA, often referred to as a land of immigrants? mainly because of its historic settlement and its power of assimilation, is a multiethnic nation where ethnic differences have been relegated to the background to allow the democratic state to emerge. The universality of the American state made the gathering of individuals in a broad and comprehensive manner possible, allowing the American nation to be both a political and multicultural state. Further on in this analysis, we will examine whether or not a common language is required to achieve national unity in this particular type of nation as U.S ENGLISH has been pretending since the early 1980s.

In view of the fact that the United States is a civic nation, it is relevant to study the language of the texts around which it was invented. Our task will be to measure the importance of the English language when the nation came into being in order to demonstrate whether English is the historical language of the land as U.S ENGLISH has been pretending in their fund raising brochure. At the end of the 18th century, the Declaration of Independence marked the political independence of the thirteen colonies from the British Empire and set symbolic promises of liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness for each individual. On the 4^th of July 1776, what is today known as the United States was not under colonial rule anymore and this left the door open for the creation of a union between the different states which was ratified with the Article of Confederation on March 1781. It is relevant to note that the Articles of Confederation were published in English, German and French because the Continental Congress explicitly recognized the linguistic and cultural pluralism within the new American realm and the need to communicate with linguistically different populations in the languages they understood?¹⁰. The choice of those three languages was linked to the history of settlement to the land and to the colonial history of the nation. In fact, the French colonized a large part of North America between 1534 and 1763, the British established several colonies on the east coast since 1600s and the German settled by thousands primarily in New York and Pennsylvania around the 1680s. The transcription of this founding text in those three languages was necessary for the union of those states to be possible and effective.

But it is with the adoption of the Constitution on September 17th, 1787 that the newly independent states officially formed a single nation. The Constitution started as follows: We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure

¹⁰ PEREA, Juan. F. Demography and Distrust: An Essay on American Languages, Cultural Pluralism, and Official English?, 77 MINN L Rev 269, 1992, Washington College of Law, April 1996 , Web, 5 March 2010. p. 286.

domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America?¹¹. The Constitution established the foundations of the national political project: it defined the relationship between the federal government, the different states and the people of the United States of America. It is important to note that the country is a union of fifty independent States governed by a Federal state as defined by the Constitution.

For practical reasons, the Constitution was written in the English language. But that founding text did not specify any official language for the nation. The English language was regarded as a practical instrument, not as a symbolic unifier otherwise the Constitution would have defined an official language for the nation. At that time, we can consider that language was not regarded as symbol of the nation because of the political nature of the union. In this light, it can be said that when the Founding Fathers first imagined the nation, English was regarded as a practical instrument rather than a symbolic unifier. Since the United States are a civic nation, the framers of the Constitution believed that democracy should leave language choices up to individuals¹²: the emphasis was on political liberty, not on cultural homogeneity. Foreigners were free to join and become nationals as long as they accepted to become citizens, that is to say to show some commitment and loyalty to the nation. The newly formed nation needed immigration because of the westward expansion between 1789 and 1849. The territorial expansion of the United States was due to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the Oregon treaty with Great Britain of 1846, and the Mexican Cession of 1848. The United States having become a vast territory, the framers of the Constitution recognized and to a certain extent even promoted the plural nature of American society. Individual rights and liberty is at the heart of the American project and in a way language was one of the choices individuals could make. As Professor Lejeune explained, in Myth and Symbols of the American Nation?, the Founding Fathers imagined the waves of immigrants would adhere to the principles of the American Republic and political ideals of 'unalienable rights'¹³?. What is important to note is the belief the Founding Fathers had in the unifying power of the principles and values of the American nation. They considered that the incorporation of newcomers was made possible because of the rights and duties defined under the Constitution.

In the light of our analysis of the U.S history, it turns out that this was not an omission? but a deliberate choice on the part of the Founding Fathers when they decided not to declare an official

¹¹ TINDALL, George. B and David E. SHI. America: A narrative History, 6^th ed, New York-London: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc, 2004. Print. Annex p. 56.

¹² HEATH, Shirley B. A National Language Academy? Debate in the New Nation?. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Issue 11, pp. 9-44, 1976. Web. 4 March 2010.p. 10.

¹³ LE JEUNE, Françoise. Myths and Symbols of the American nation (1776-1809)?, pp. 81-162, ARLEO, Andy; LEES, Paul; LE JEUNE, Françoise; SELLIN, Bernard. Myths and Symbols of the Nation, Volume 1: England, Scotland and the United States, Nantes: CRINI, 2006. Print. p. 82.

language. By pretending to correct an omission?, U.S ENGLISH has been presenting its cause as necessary. This technique was a way to give weight to their movement: they have been presenting themselves as strong protectors of the American nation. This hero-like figure projected by U.S ENGLISH will be studied in the second part of this analysis.

U.S ENGLISH has been pretending that English was the historical language of the United States. In their fund raising brochure, they explained that:

Throughout its history, the United States has been enriched by cultural contributions of immigrants... but blessed with one common language that has united a diverse nation and fostered harmony among its people (Annex III).

This conception of the U.S history is also somewhat inaccurate because as our analysis of U.S history has shown, the first colons that came to settle to America were from diverse European nations. Furthermore, we will see whether it is really one common language? that fostered unity in the American nation further on in this analysis.

The reasons for the deliberate ambiguity around a national language in the Constitution being highlighted it is relevant to consider the two attempts that were made to declare American English the language of the United States. Since America is a former British colony, the question was rather whether or not setting official standards for American English. This proposition was first voiced by John Adams in 1780 when he called for an American Language Academy. Shirley Brice Heath explained, in A National Language Academy? Debate in the New Nation?, that in rejecting a national language academy, the founding fathers made clear their choice not to designate a national tongue. ... Instead, national political leaders and state and local agencies promoted respect for diversity of languages?¹⁴. This need to distinguish the English language from the American language was perpetuated and in 1923 John. McCornick, a Montana Congressman, failed to pass an Amendment to declare American English the official language of the United States. Those two attempts at distancing the American from the British English are interesting when accounting for the status of English in the United States because it highlights the fact that it was driven by the need to affirm the characteristics of the American way of life from the British culture. The aim of those two proposals was not to declare American English the official language of the United States but simply to break from the former British domination.

As U.S ENGLISH has been presenting English as the historical language of the land, it is interesting to consider U.S ENGLISH views about the presence of huge language diversity in the world. U.S ENGLISH considered that the language diversity of the world is the result of God's punishment upon men. Indeed on several occasions¹⁵, the movement referred to the Tower of Babel

¹⁴ HEATH, Shirley B. Op. Cit. p.10.

¹⁵ References to the Tower of Babel can be found in Annex III and IV and on their official website.

to account for the presence of different languages in the world. On their fund raising brochure, they quoted an extract from Genesis on which one can read:

Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all. ... Come now! Let us down

there and confuse their language that they may not listen to one another's language (Annex III).

The Tower of Babel is a tale in Genesis about the origin of language diversity. Einar Haugen, Professor of linguistics at Harvard University, explained in The Curse of Babel? that at the beginning the earth was of ?one language and one speech¹⁶? but as pride fills the heart of men¹⁷? , they tried to build a tower, the Tower of Babel, and failed. Lord Jehovah punished men by creating different languages so that men could not communicate anymore. The Tower of Babel refers to the famous seventy-two languages into which the human race was split¹⁸?. Referring to the Bible to promote national language legislation was a way to account for the language diversity of the American nation while rejecting diversity on the basis that it is at the origin of the division of men. Contrary to U.S ENGLISH, Michael Billig, Professor of Social Science, explained that nationalists tend to present language as a natural fact in the nation-building process but it has also been invented: nations may be 'imagined communities', but the pattern of the imaginings cannot be explained in terms of difference of languages, for languages themselves have to be imagined as distinct entities?¹⁹. In this sentence, M. Billig explained that contrary to what U.S ENGLISH has been pretending, languages are invented and it is not relevant to consider that a nation was built around a particular language. According to Michael Billig, the modern imagining of different languages is not a fantasy, but it reflects that the world of nations is also a world of formally constituted languages?²⁰. In the light of our analysis of the tale of the Tower of Babel, we can consider that in this sentence, M. Billig has been rejecting the biblical conception of language diversity promoted by U.S ENGLISH.

Furthermore, Einar Haugen observed that "America's profusion of tongues has made her a modern Babel, but a Babel in reverse"²¹. For E. Haugen, globalization imposed the hegemony of the English language in the world and even though the United States is a culturally heterogeneous nation, it is still the most linguistically homogeneous nation in the world. According to James Crawford, executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education, the hegemony of the English language is not threatened in the United States. James Crawford analyzed the

¹⁶ CRAWFORD, James, ed. Language Loyalties: A source Book on the Official English Controversy. Op. Cit. p. 399.

¹⁷ Ibid. p. 399.

¹⁸ HOBSBAWM, E.J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Program, Myth, Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print. p. 58.

¹⁹ BILLIG, Michael. Banal Nationalism, London: Sage Publications, 1995. Print. p. 35.

²⁰ Ibid. p. 31.

²¹ CRAWFORD, James. At War with Diversity: U.S Languages Policy in an Age of Anxiety, Avon (U.K): Clevedon Multilingual Matters, 2000. Print. p. 1.

population census of the U.S Census Bureau in order to support his views and he proved that, in 1980, English was spoken by all but 2% of the population above 5. This analysis of population censuses tend to confirm what E. Haugen said about the United States: if there has to be a Babel in the United States, it is a Babel in reverse? because almost all Americans do speak English. In fact, the political nature of the American nation has proved to be efficient in creating certain homogeneity without declaring English the official language of the nation because almost every American did speak English in the 1980s. Further on in this analysis an attempt will be made at explaining why U.S ENGLISH has been presenting language diversity of the United States as the major cause of division in the nation in the light of those figures.

We have seen that the nation was first imagined as a political community based on individual rights and freedom. The history of settlement of the United States is relevant for accounting for the huge number of English speaking people in the nation. Similarly, the colonial past of the U.S has to be taken into account when explaining the presence of multiple languages on the American soil. The English language, first considered as a practical tool, became symbolic of one's commitment and loyalty to the American nation in the 1900s. Since that time, language became a patriotic symbol and immigrants had to learn the language of the majority to be part of the nation.

In the next part, in order to determine the context for the push for restrictive language policies initiated by S.I Hayakawa in 1981, our task will be to analyze the views promoted by U.S ENGLSIH in the light of this historical analysis of the status of English in the United States.

2. Context for the Rise of the Movement

Since the mid 1980s, many US voters have reacted defensively against racial, cultural and language diversity brought by increasing levels of immigration. In that context, various organizations were created to protect and defend American values.

In 1983, Hayakawa founded U.S ENGLISH in collaboration with Dr John Tanton. Hayakawa, Republican Senator of California between 1977 and 1983, created U.S ENGLISH when he retired from Senate because he considered that bilingualism at an individual level was fine but not at a national level. In 1981, he introduced an English Language Amendment to the US Constitution to declare English the official language of the United States. More than a national, non-partisan, and non-profit citizen's funded action group?, U.S ENGLISH can be considered as a lobbying organization²². U.S ENGLISH is an advocacy group with the intention of influencing

²² In the United States, lobbying is authorized by the First Amendment of the Constitution. According to the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, a lobby is a group of people who try to persuade the government or an

decisions made by legislators at both state and federal level. This movement has been fighting to defend and protect the unifying role of the English language in America. The amendment proposed by U.S ENGLISH since 1981 is described by Hayakawa as follows:

Section 1. The English language shall be the official language of the United States.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation (Annex IV, l.282-284).

This amendment failed to be enacted by the 97^th Congress and was then resubmitted to each Congress since 1981 but over 50 bills were proposed by the movement to declare English the official language of the United States. Since its creation in 1983, the movement has gathered more than 1.7 million supporters and five measures passed one chamber of the US Congress but the second chamber never acted upon it. Between 1981 and 2009, under the influence of U.S ENGLISH, 30 out of the 50 American states passed Official English laws²³. The reasons for the failure of this amendment to be enacted at a national level will be explained later on in this analysis when accounting for the State and Federal division created by this movement.

In order to better account of the reasons at the core of the U.S ENGLISH movement, it is interesting to consider the evolution of the language ability of Americans. According to the population census of the U.S Census Bureau, English was spoken by all but 2% of the population above 5 in 1980. Between 1990 and 2000, this percentage shifted from 2.9% to 4.2 % (Crawford 2002). In other words, between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of non-English speakers in the United States more than doubled. In this section, we will analyze the roots of the organization in the light of U.S history. We will wonder to what extent the language ability of Americans threatens a possible disuniting of America? ²⁴ as pictured by U.S ENGLISH since the beginning of the 1980s.

Many consider that immigration is part of the American character because the United States was build and maintained by the constant flux of immigrants. This popular conception of the nation finds its origins in the fact that on the one hand, America needed to build a nation out of a varied population and thus had to have a positive attitude towards multilingualism. On the other hand, in order to achieve unity as defined by the national objective 'E Pluribis Unum', America had to militate in favor of monolingualism. The contradiction between those two driving force is at the heart of the U.S ENGLISH movement. In fact, the organization has been defending the unifying role of the English language while promoting the teaching of foreign languages in schools as our analysis will show further on.

Our task being to explain the circumstances that lead to the creation of the U.S ENGLISH

official group to do something?.

²³ Informations gathered from the official website of U.S ENGLISH at < http://www.us-english.org/view/13 >

²⁴ Expression borrowed from the work of Arthur Schlesinger entitled The Disuniting of America. (L'Amérique Balkanisée: une société multiculturelle désunie), 2^nd edition, Paris: Economica, 1999. Print.

movement, it is interesting to consider how the movement has been describing the reasons for its emergence. In a speech entitled The Purpose and Effect of an Official English Constitutional Amendment? given on April 27, 1981 in front of Congress, Hayakawa explained the reasons for the need of a national language legislation in the United States. He said:

Language is a powerful tool. A common language can unify, separate languages can fracture and fragment a society. ... Learning English has been the primary task of every immigrant group for two centuries. ... This amendment is needed to clarify the confusing signals we have given in recent years to immigrant groups. ... I am proposing this amendment because I thing that we are being dishonest with the linguistic minority groups if we tell them they can take full part in American life without learning the English language(Annex IV, l.1-2; 5; 12-13; 23-25).

This quotation is very significant of the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH since 1983. The unifying

role of language will be questioned later on in this analysis but in this part we will focus on what

Hayakawa defined as the confusing signals we have been given in recent years to immigrant

groups?. It is interesting to wonder to what extent the government has been dishonest with the

linguistic minority groups?. In their fund raising brochure of 1984, one can read that: The erosion of English and the rise of other languages in public life have several causes:

-New civil rights assertions have yielded bilingual and multilingual ballots, voting instructions, election site counselors, and government-funded registration campaigns aimed solely at speakers of foreign languages.

-Record immigration, concentrated in fewer language groups, is reinforcing language segregation and retarding language assimilation (Annex III, l. 29-33).

The reasons enunciated by U.S ENGLISH directly recall two legislative actions passed in the mid 1960s. What U.S ENGLISH has been conceiving as new civil rights assertions? was a direct reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, as a consequence of the Black consciousness movement, the Civil Rights Act was proposed by President John. F. Kennedy and then passed under Lyndon. B. Johnson's presidency. It made racial discrimination in public places illegal and required employers to provide equal employment opportunities. It marked the end of discriminations based on color, race or national origin.

The record immigration? noticed by U.S ENGLISH is also a direct allusion to a landmark legislation of the mid 1960s. The enactment of the Hart-Celler Act of 1964 abolished the national origin quotas that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924. As it gave priority to skilled-workers and unlimited visas for family reunification, this act marked a change in the immigration policy of the country. After almost forty years of restriction in immigration, foreigners came in their thousands to settle in the United States. Immigration rate

almost doubled between 1960 and 1970 and doubled between 1970 and 1990²⁵, increasing the cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity of the nation at that time. Between 1924 and 1964, no legislation was passed concerning language policy in the United States because of the strict restrictions in immigration passed in 1924 under President J. Calvin Coolidge. But the repeal of those restrictions and the huge and sudden diversity of the newly opened nation raised the question of the way the nation should help immigrants to integrate the American nation. This new wave of immigration was characterized by the shift from European to non-European immigrants, and especially immigrants from Latin America and Asia which represented respectively 14 and 35 percent of the US immigration between 1971 and 1980²⁶. The Hart-Cellar Act of 1964 is at the origin of the linguistic diversity at the heart of the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH. New patterns of immigration and the expansion of constitutional equality and the Civil Rights legislation lead to an ethnic revival in the United States. The year 1964 marked the beginning of a new era in the nation as ethnic groups affirmed their previously repressed or undervalued self-identities. The U.S ENGLISH movement finds its origins in the legislative actions passed in the mid 1960s. As a matter of fact, U.S ENGLISH has been considering that the division that threatens the nations' unity is a direct consequence of the arrival of non-English speakers in the nation. The roots of this official language movement can also be found in the political actions that were taken as a response to this new diversity.

In order to grasp the circumstances that lead to the rise of U.S ENGLISH, we need to study their action program in the context of the different legislative actions that were passed in order to cope with this new diversity. In the fund raising brochure of U.S ENGLISH, one can read:

U.S ENGLISH actively works to reverse the spread of foreign language usage in the nation's

official life. Our program calls for:

-Repeal of laws mandating multilingual ballots and voting materials.

-Restriction of government funding for bilingual education to short-term transitional programs only.

-Universal enforcement of the English language and civics requirement for naturalization (Annex III, l. 65-75).

First of all, U.S ENGLISH rejection of multilingual ballots was a reaction to the bilingual ballot mandated in 1975 in an amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965²⁷. Congress passed this amendment to secure the rights to vote of ethnic and racial minorities in the nation. It is a protection from voting discrimination for language minority citizens. We will analyze U.S ENGLISH attitude

²⁵ U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, various years, COHN, Raymond. L. Immigration to the United States?, EH.Net Encyclopedia, Robert Whaples ed. August 14, 2001. Web. 3 April 2010.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ The Voting Rights Act of 1965,U.S Department of Justice: Civil Rights Section. Web. 5 Dec. 2009.

towards this particular legislation at the end of this part when accounting for the implications of an English Language Amendment in America. What is important to bear in mind for now is that this amendment was passed in order to ensure that every American citizen regardless of his/her language ability should have the right to participate in democracy.

The second aim of U.S ENGLISH has been to suppress bilingual educational programs and replace them by short-term transitional program?. This rejection of bilingual education finds its origins in the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 and the Equal Opportunity Act of 1974. Those two legislations were passed in response to the new diversity due to the recent upsurge of immigrants in the nation at that time. The U.S Government passed the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 in order to facilitate the access and integration of newcomers into the nation. Those two legislative actions were strongly criticized by U.S ENGLISH as we will see when accounting for their rejection of bilingualism. The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was a legislation regarding minority language speakers²⁸. Federal funds were given to school districts to establish educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability. The enactment of this law raised the question of the role of school in the integration of newcomers but also the role of the government to maintain or promote the instruction of ethnic minorities' languages and culture. The act encouraged instruction in English but did not require bilingual programs: it only gave school districts the opportunity to provide bilingual education programs for non-English speaking children where it was the most needed.

The new rights that were given to non-English speakers under this act led to the enactment of other legislative actions. In 1974, civil rights activists claiming that the rights of minority languages were violated under this act encourage non-English speaking Chinese students living in California to bring a civil right case to the U.S Supreme court known as the Lau v. Nichols case. The Supreme Court stated that the lack of linguistically-appropriate accommodations effectively denied the Chinese students equal educational opportunities on the basis of their ethnicity. The Supreme Court recognized that language-based discrimination is a proxy for national origin discrimination and decided that language barriers be overcome by instructional programming²⁹. This decision led to the enactment of the Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974 that prohibited discrimination against faculty, staff and students, including racial segregation of students, and required schools districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation³⁰.

As under the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, not enough funds were devoted to the

²⁸ BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT , No. 33, Vol. 64, p. 8447-8461, U.S Department of Education. Web. 5 Dec. 2009.
²⁹ LAU V. NICHOLS, No. 72 - 6520, Supreme Court of the United States, 414 U.S. 56, Jan. 21, 1974. U.S Department of Education. Web. 5 Dec. 2009.

³⁰ EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ACT, 20 USC Sec. 1703, 1974. U.S Department of Education. Web. 5 Dec 2009.

instruction of non-English speakers, Congress passed an amendment to this act in 1988. It established a "bilingual education program" to provide instruction in English and in a native language for limited English-speakers. The aim was to prepare students to transfer to an English classroom as soon as possible while maintaining their mother tongue. Those legislative actions aroused the interest of the U.S ENGLISH movement because more Federal and State money was devoted to instruction in a foreign language. U.S ENGLISH has been rejecting those laws because they consider that it does not encourage the transition to the English language. The message of their fund raising brochure is a good illustration of their views: they questioned both the cost and the efficiency of bilingual education. A detailed analysis of the attitude of the movement towards government programs will be explained further on in this analysis.

In this part we have seen that U.S ENGLISH emerged in reaction to the new rights that were given to newcomers as a consequence of the repeal of immigration restrictions. The linguistic diversity presented as the cause of this organization can be considered as a pretext because in the 1980s, the United States was mainly English speaking. In this light, we can conclude that the four legislative actions which aimed at facilitating the integration of immigrants into the nation were at the origin of the rise of this lobbying organization. U.S ENGLISH emerged as a response to the new rights and accommodations put in place by the U.S government in response to the new cultural diversity of the nation. Before questioning the unifying role of language, it is important to show the evolution of the views promoted by U.S ENGLISH since its creation in 1983.

3. Evolution of the Views of U.S ENGLISH between 1983 and 2009

Considering that for more than twenty five years, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to pass an English Language Amendment our analysis needs to take into account the evolution of the rhetoric of the movement since its creation in 1983. U.S ENGLISH projects an image of the nation as a monolingual, English-speaking country threatened by the rise of multilingualism due to the new wave of immigration.

Even though U.S ENGLISH has been willing to pass an English Language Amendment to the U.S Constitution since its creation, their views and the content of the amendment they want to pass have changed. In 1981, when the first amendment to declare English the official language of the nation was proposed by Hayakawa, it would not prevent the use of second languages for the purpose of public safety, for example on signs in public places. Hayakawa explained that street signs in any other languages [are] perfectly acceptable, because they are also accompanied by street signs in English? and that in Washington, Los Angeles, and San Francisco... [those signs] are also perfectly acceptable because they give a cosmopolitan flavor to those cities... and we are proud

of the fact that we are a cosmopolitan culture?(Annex I, l. 63-66). In 1996, U.S ENGLISH published an advertisement entitled Stop the Madness? on which one can see a stop sign translated in four different languages, namely Chinese, Spanish, Arab and English(Annex XIV). The movement clearly denounced and condemned the use of bilingual road signs in the country in this advertising campaign: they considered multilingual road signs as mad? and dangerous. The dichotomy between the views promoted by Hayakawa in 1981 and the attitude of Mujica in 1996 testifies of the evolution of the rhetoric of the movement. What was considered as perfectly acceptable? in 1981(Annex I) has been described as mad? and armful in 1996(Annex XIV).

Similarly, precisions about the aim and the implementations of their proposed amendment were needed. In 1981, the amendment said nothing about the teaching of foreign languages in schools and did not make any provision for the use of foreign languages in the private sphere. In January 1985, U.S ENGLISH made their views explicit when they presented their English Language Amendment for the third time. Since then, the movement has always specified that it would not refrain the use of any other language in the public sphere and that the teaching of other languages than English was acceptable for trade and international affairs. This clarification about the teaching of foreign languages came as a response to attacks from their opponents, the National Association for Bilingual Education. Indeed, few years before the movement came into being, this advocacy group which fights to promote bilingual education for non-English speakers was created in 1976 in reaction to the huge linguistic and cultural diversity in the American nation. When U.S ENGLISH emerged in the 1980s, NABE immediately considered the proposal made by U.S ENGLISH and decided to stand against it because they considered that U.S ENGLISH was a political attack on language-minority communities?³¹ because of their rejection of bilingual educational programs. Promoting the teaching of foreign languages for trade or tourism was a way to counter the attacks of their main opponent, the National Association for Bilingual Education. In fact, by acknowledging the legitimacy of foreign languages teaching in schools, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to present their English language amendment as a natural development: they have been presenting it as having no impact on the situation of non-English speakers in the nation as they authorize the speaking of foreign languages in the private sphere and the teaching of foreign languages in schools.

Already in 1985, Hayakawa started to denounce the cost of multilingual services offered by the government when he showed his rejection of the publishing of the Yellow Pages? in Spanish in Los Angeles but did not condemned the multilingual assistance given to immigrants for public services(Annex IV, l. 266-267). Before 1997, the amendment was intended to make English the only language for official proceedings of governments at all levels but it was not clear whether

³¹ National Association for Bilingual Education, Advocacy?, NABE. Web 4 Dec. 2009.

multilingual services for immigrants or limited English-speakers would be available or not under this amendment. It is only in 1993, when Mauro E. Mujica replaced S.I Hayakawa after he died in 1992, that U.S ENGLISH officially rejected government services in multiple foreign languages. It is interesting to note that with the death of S.I Hayakawa in 1992, no more linguists or educators were enrolled in the movement. This shift will have to be taken into account when considering their views about immigration in the second part of this analysis. We may wonder how it is possible that a movement aiming at passing official language legislation had no more language specialist in its Advisory Board after 1992. For now what is essential is that 1993 marked the beginning of a new approach to this language legislation. On U.S ENGLISH official website one can read that:

As part of his efforts to increase the visibility of U.S. ENGLISH, Mr. Mujica has appeared on

hundreds of television and radio programs including, "Good Morning America," "60 Minutes,"

"Lou Dobbs Tonight" and various shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, BBC, Telemundo and

Univision. He has spoken on the importance of English at numerous college campuses and in

front of several state legislatures. Mr. Mujica's leadership has increased the organization's

membership from 165,000 in 1993 to over 1.8 million members today. ³²

According to U.S ENGLISH the support for the organization was revitalized by the arrival of Mauro Mujica because contrary to Hayakawa, Mauro Mujica actively promoted the aim and importance of an English language amendment for the nation through the media. We can then consider that with the arrival of Mujica the views of U.S ENGLISH were made more explicit and their rejection of multilingual services was made more visible and even became a priority because this issue involved government money and it is very likely that this kind of arguments may appeal more to the general public opinion than the cost of bilingual educational programs.

In 1993, one can read in their advertising campaign that if passed this legislation will not restrict in any way the use of foreign languages in private homes or conversations, business, health and emergency services, schools and courts?(Annex XVI). But lately, the movement has only acknowledged the use of other languages than English only for emergency services, foreign language teaching and private use. For instance, when taking a close look at the bills proposed by U.S ENGLISH for the years 2007-2009, one can deduce that the movement clearly aimed at making illegal the use of other languages than English at the work place or for federal founded services.

For instance, in December 2007, they proposed the Protecting English in the Workplace Act (S. 2453) as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It said that ?it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require an employee to speak, or an applicant for

³² Biography of Mauro Mujica available on U.S ENGLISH official website at < http://www.us-english.org/view/4>

employment to agree to speak, English while engaged in work?³³. In March 2009, they reintroduced the bill and proposed the Common Sense English Act (H. R. 1588) to ensure that an employer has the freedom to implement English in the workplace policies?³⁴. In other words the act would allow employers to make the speaking of the English language compulsory in the work place because when a group of employees speaks a language other than English in the workplace, it may cause misunderstandings, create dangerous circumstances, and undermine morale?³⁵. The use of the word morale? here is interesting because U.S ENGLISH considered that it was not morally acceptable to speak another language than English at the workplace on the basis that it may weaken the self-confidence of some employees at work or create divisions within the team work. Even though both bills failed to be enacted, those proposals are significant of the evolution of the views of this lobbying organization. Since 1983, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to pass loads of legislation and thus widened the scope of the movement.

After having tried to pass a legislation imposing the speaking of the English language on the work place, U.S ENGLISH tried to outlaw government multilingual assistance for non-English speakers. In August 11, 2000, Bill Clinton passed the Executive Order 13166 requiring any entity receiving federal monies to provide services in any language. U.S ENGLISH opposed and rejected this decision, considering it as the official recognition of the multilingual character of the U.S government. In reaction to that, in January 2007 U.S ENGLISH proposed a bill to repeal Executive Order 13166 (HR 768) in which one can read that No funds appropriated pursuant to any provision of law may be used to promulgate or enforce any executive order that creates an entitlement to services provided in any language other than English?³⁶. In February 2009, U.S ENGLISH reintroduced this bill but it failed to be enacted. This proposal is another example accounting for the widening of the scope of the organization since the 1990s.

Since 2000, U.S ENGLISH has tolerated multilingualism only for emergency services, foreign language teaching and private conversations. The evolution of the views and the rhetoric of the movement shows a gradual move towards 'English Only' more than 'Official English' legislation as they claim in their different publications (Annex VI).

As we have seen earlier in this chapter, the push for language restrictions led by U.S ENGLISH has been taking different forms since 1983. U.S ENGLISH has been justifying the enactment of an English Language Amendment on the basis that language is the unifying force of the American nation.

In this context, it is relevant to wonder to what extent language diversity challenges national

³³ U.S ENGLISH official website. Legislation S. 2453?. Web. 4 Dec 2010.

³⁴ U.S ENGLISH official website. Legislation H.R 1588?. Web. 4 Dec 2010.

³⁵ Ibid .

³⁶ U.S ENGLISH official website. ?Legislation H.R 768?. Web. 4 Dec 2010.

unity? In other words, language is a key element in the nation-building process and more particularly in the maintenance of unity within the national territory? Our analysis will now turn to the study of the relationship between language, culture and identity in the light of the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH as well as different thinkers and sociologists.

B. QUESTIONING THE UNIFYING ROLE OF LANGUAGE IN THE AMERICAN NATION

1. The Role of Language in the Nation-building Process

In this part, our aim will be to measure the unifying role of language in the American nation. As we have seen previously, the English language did play a role in the building or the American nation but we have seen that the union of what was going to become the United States also used the German, the French and the Spanish language. In a speech given by Hayakawa in 1981, U.S ENSGLISH stated that it was the sharing of a common language that allowed people to create societies. When justifying the need of their amendment, he wrote that when people speak one language they become as one, they become a society?(Annex I, l.17-18). According to U.S ENGLISH, a society is based on agreements and agreements are only achievable with the sharing of a common language. It has been proved that the American nation is the result of an agreement between the different states that composed the nation but it has also been demonstrated that more than one language has been needed to draw up the social contract on which the nation was based. Hayakawa wrote:

We may disagree when we argue, but at least we understand each other when we argue. Because we can argue with each other, we can also come to agreements and we can create societies. That is how societies work (Annex I, l. 18-21).

According to Hayakawa, the nation came into being thanks to the sharing of the English language so that it was the political use of the English language that made it an instrument of national union. U.S ENGLISH has been presenting language as the main element at the origin of the creation and the maintenance of the American nation. In his monograph, Hayakawa wrote that language has drawn up the understandings and agreements and social contracts that make a society possible? (Annex IV, l.129-130). Hayakawa has been justifying the presence of the English language as obvious because he has been considering that English is the basis on which the political institutions at the origin of the nation were set up. Having previously explained that U.S ENGLISH has been inaccurately presenting English as the historical language of the nation, it is interesting in this part to question the role of language in the nation-building process. Did the emergence of the American nation rely on the English language?

First of all, we need to define the concept of the nation itself in order to determine the role of language in the creation and maintenance of nations. Joseph Stalin, in Marxism and the National Question (1913), defined a nation as a historically constituted, stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture?³⁷. Like Joseph Stalin, most commentators acknowledged the need of a common territory, a common history, a common economy and a common culture in the emergence of nations. In Stalin`s definition of the nation, it seems that language played a role in the formation of nations. Contrary to Stalin, A.D Smith defined the concept of nation as a named human population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members? (Smith 14). In this definition, it seems that the nation? means the nation-state?. A nation-state implies the congruence of the nation and the state, in other words, the political culture of the state has to be in agreement with the cultural tradition of the nation. In this definition of the nation, it seems that even though A. D. Smith decided not to clearly explicit the need of a common language, the term mass public culture? referred to language. It is important to keep in mind the fact that there can be nations without states but any state without nations and similarly there can be several nations in a given state. When considering the conception of the American nation of the philosopher and historian Hans Kohn, the fact that there can be nations without states is at the origin of his conception of the American nation as a nation of nations?³⁸. This conception of the nation will be explained in the third part of this analysis when accounting for the way U.S ENGLISH has been revisiting American identity.

In order to grasp the role of language in the nation-building process, we need to explicit the difference between the concept of state and nation. In his book National Identity, A. D Smith contrasted the concept of the state to the concept of the nation as follows: a state refers exclusively to public institutions, differentiated from, and autonomous of, other social institutions and exercising a monopoly of coercion and extraction within a given territory? (Smith 14). He defined the nation as a cultural and political bound, uniting in a single political community all who share an historic culture and homeland? (Smith 15). Contrary to J. Stalin, Smith included the notion of political community in the concept of the nation. For the purpose of our analysis, we will work on both conceptions of the nation because as we have seen previously America is a civic nation based on the political union of several independent states and thus the national culture was the result of the culture of the political institutions at the origin of the creation of the nation. Therefore

³⁷ HUTCHINSON, John; SMITH, Anthony. D (ed). Nationalism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print. p. 18.

³⁸ KOHN, Hans. American Nationalism: An Interpretative Essay, New York: Collier Books, 1961. Print. p. 133-171.

considering the nation as both a political and cultural entity is interesting when dealing with American identity and nationalism as we will see in the third part of this analysis.

Another important aspect that has to be taken into account when measuring the unifying role of language in the creation of nations is the idea of sharing and belonging. Ernest Gellner explained in Nations and Nationalism, that:

1. Two men are of the same nation if and only if they share the same culture, where culture in turn means a system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communicating.

2. Two men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to the same nation. In other words, nations maketh man; nations are the artifacts of men's convictions and loyalties and solidarities. A mere category of persons (say, occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example) becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership of it. It is their recognition of each other as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation, and not the other shared attributes, whatever they might be, which separate that category from non-members.³⁹

According to E. Gellner, it is possible to recognize two members of a given nation according to their culture because he considered that culture is a defining characteristic of nations. Like A.D Smith, E. Gellner acknowledged the political dimension of the nation because the rights and duties? directly referred to the political culture of the state. In this definition what is important is the idea of recognition, belonging and sharing. We will see that at some point U.S ENGLSIH has been denying the presence of some immigrant groups in the nation because of their culture and language ability. In the second part of this analysis, we will wonder whether this denial has been a way to rethink the American nation. In the light of E. Gellner's definition of the nation, it seems that culture and thus language plays an important role in the nation-building process because it is the basis on which it is possible to distinguish two separate nations.

Having explained the role of language in the nation-building process, we need to draw a parallel between the views promoted by U.S ENGLISH and the opinion of commentators about nations and nationalism previously exposed.

As we have seen previously, a nation can be defined as a shared territory, history, economy and culture. Thus, in order to become a nation, a given community needs to share a common history. According to the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, a language is a system of conventional spoken or written symbols used by people in a shared culture to communicate with each other?⁴⁰. It is the sharing of a common language that allows the different members of a community to

³⁹ GELLNER, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism, New York: Cornell University Press, 1983. Print. p. 7.

⁴⁰ "language" Encyclopedia Britanica Online at < http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/329791/language>

communicate thus to share a common history. The history of a nation is closely linked to its language as it is accessed and described through a given language. Hence a first element justifying the importance of the sharing of a common language in the nation-building process as described by U.S ENGLISH.

Similarly, language can be referred to as a 'bridge' that makes communication possible in a given group. A language is a cultural element as it both reflects and affects a culture's way of thinking⁴¹?. B. Anderson explained in Imagined Communities that it is the sharing with the metropole of a common language (and common religion and common culture) that had made the first national imaginings possible? ( Anderson 197). Hence the need of a common culture and therefore a common language for nations to emerge. This idea is well summed-up in Karl W. Deutsch`s Nationalism and Social Communication in which he explains that:

The community which permits a common history to be experienced as common, is a community of complementary habits and facilities of communication... The communicative facilities of a society include a socially standardized system of symbols which is a language. ... [What is essential in a nation is] the presence of sufficient communication facilities with enough complementarity to produce the overall result? ( Hutchinson and Smith 26-29).

According to K. W. Deutsch, the sharing of a given language among the different members of a given community is essential to the building of a common history. We can conclude that language is not just a tool for communication that allows the creation of cohesion, shared meanings and understandings within a group, it is also a symbol of heritage and continuity with the past. A nation needs a common past to emerge and history is accessible and expressed through language. All those elements justify the affirmation made by Hayakawa on the need of a common language in the nation-building process. But one may wonder to what extent the sharing of a common language was needed for the American nation to emerge.

If we recall E. Gellner's definition of the nation, membership to the nation implies rights and duties, and thus citizenship. According to E. Gellner, the minimal requirement for full citizenship ... is literacy. But only a nation-size educational system can produce such full citizens... An educational system must operate in some medium... and the language it employs will stamp its products? (Hutchinson and Smith 55). Gellner justified the need of a common language in a nation on the basis that it is the medium through which members of a given community become citizens. For Gellner, it is the sharing of a common culture that allowed people to form a nation and the sharing of a common language through a centralized educational system was required in order to achieve those ends. We will consider the role of schools as identity providers in the third part of this analysis.

41 "language" Encyclopedia Britanica Online at < http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/329791/language>

Contrary to Gellner, Joseph Stalin distinguished between the state and the nation in order to account for the importance of a common language.

What distinguishes a national community from a state community? The fact among others that a national community inconceivable without a common language, while a state need not to have a common language (Hutchinson and Smith 18).

For J. Stalin it seems that the State does not need a common language to function but the national community cannot exist without a common language. It is true to say that language is central to national culture because many countries tend to be officially monolingual. But some writers, like the French philosopher Ernest Renan, considered that the sharing of a common language is not a determining feature of a nation. In his well-known essay entitled What is a nation?» E. Renan wrote:

Language invites people to unite, but it does not force them to do so. The United States and England, Latin America and Spain, speak the same languages yet do not form single nations. There is something in man which is superior to language, namely, the will.⁴²

In 1882, E. Renan pointed at a very important element in the concept of the nation: the willingness. Language is not the main force that binds people together, will can be considered as a major driving force that invites people to unite in a nation. E. Renan considered the nation as a soul?, a ?spiritual principle? so that it was necessary to have common glories in the past and to have a common will in the present; to have performed great deeds together, to wish to perform still more?(Renan 41-55). Hence the notion of continuity, willingness, and the need of a common past in order to build a common future.

As we have seen previously, even though authors differed on the importance of language in the nation-building process, they all acknowledged the role played by language in this process: some considered it as a compulsory requirement, others as an option. In the light of those conclusions, it is debatable whether U.S ENGLISH was right when affirming that it was the sharing of the English language that allowed the creation of the American nation. America being a civic nation invented around political texts that were not exclusively written in the English language, it is very likely that Renan's conception of the role of language in the nation-building process may apply to the American nation. The hypothesis that the American nation emerged as the result of the willingness and commitment to the principles and values defined by the Constitution seems to be the most suitable explanation for the rise and maintenance of the nation.

In this light, we may wonder why U.S ENGLISH once again has been trying to manipulate history in order to promote their cause. A first element of answer can be found in the hypothesis that most of the time the battle for nationhood is a battle for linguistic or cultural hegemony. Language

⁴² RENAN, Ernest. What is a nation??, 1982, in ELEY, Geoff and SUNY, Ronald Grigor, ed. 1996. Becoming National: A Reader. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: pp. 41-55.

is more than a mere cultural element, it also has a political dimension. At this point, our task will be to show to what extent U.S ENGLISH has been manipulating U.S history in order to justify the hegemonic status of the English language in the American nation. The political dimension of language is present in Max Weinreich's famous statement a language is a dialect with an army and a navy?.⁴³ This statement, originally made to highlight the difference between a dialect and a language, is relevant to this analysis because it accounts for the power relationship between the different languages in presence in a nation. Hegemony is the arbitrary political, economic, ideological or cultural dominance of one group over another group. This concept was first developed by the philosopher and political theorist Antonio Gramsci in the 1970s. It is the ability in certain historical periods of the dominant classes to exercise social and cultural leadership and by these means maintain their power over the economic, political, and cultural direction of the nation?.⁴⁴ For A. Gramsci, the dominant classes exercise their leadership by imposing their culture as the norm in order to maintain their power over the nation. This dominance can be considered an arbitrary one, to the extent that the choice of the hegemonic leadership is not based on any objective criteria. It is a kind of cultural imperialism. It consists in the imposition of a given group's way of life, its language and bureaucracies, to make formal its dominance in order to transform external domination into an abstraction, because power is not in any leader?.⁴⁵ Hegemony can be considered the arbitrary hidden dominance of one group over others. U.S ENGLISH may have been trying to reinforce and confirm the hegemony of the English language in the American nation by presenting English as the historical language of the land and by declaring that it was the basis on which the nation emerged because of its strong unifying power.

In the United States, the common belief that English is the de facto national language of the nation is the result of the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon culture. As the definition of 'hegemony' highlights, it is an arbitrary dominance. The American nation turned out to be an English speaking country because of this phenomenon. U.S ENGLISH acknowledged the hegemony of English in the United States by referring to the English language as the language of the majority? (Annex XVIII). In fact, the use of the word majority? to characterize the status of English is very significant of the views of the organization on this hegemonic relation. In their fund raising brochure, even though U.S ENGLISH explained that the choice of the English language was arbitrary, they seemed to be satisfied with this state of affair as they stated that:

As much by accident as by design, that language is English. Given our country's history of

⁴³ BLOOM, Paul, Explaining Language Diversity?, Review, American Scientists: The Scientific Research society, July-August 2002, Web. 3 March 2010. n.p.

⁴⁴ O'SULIVAN, Tim; HARTLY, John; SAUNDERS, Danny; FISKE, John, Key Concepts in Communication, London, New York: Routledge, 1993 (5^th edition), 270 pages. Print. p. 102-103.

⁴⁵ Ibid.

immigration and the geography of immigrant settlements, it might have been Dutch, or Spanish, or German; or it might have been two languages, as is the case in Canada... But English prevailed, and has served us well. ... English is a world language which we share with many other nations. It is the most popular medium of international communication. Its eloquence shines in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution. It is the living carrier or our democratic ideals (Annex III).

The hegemony of English in the United States is presented as both an accident? as well as the result of a particular purpose. The dichotomy between those two terms highlights the unwillingness of the movement to recognize that state of affair. But still, U.S English has been presenting the English language as an eloquent?, a high language? that shines?. Furthermore they have also been recalling their audience that English is a powerful language by saying that it is a world language?. Similarly, as we have seen previously, U.S ENGLISH considered that it was historic forces [that] made English the language of all Americans?.

Before moving to the analysis of the relationship between language culture and identity, it is

important to note that even though U.S ENGLISH has been fighting to protect the English language

for more than twenty five years, they have been supporting the view that any particular form of

English should prevail. On their official website, on October 2009 they declared that:

English remains an evolving language, and while it may take us a moment to understand sneakers vs. tennis shoes, or bubbler vs. water fountain, or trunk vs. boot, we believe that these national and regional variances do little to hinder communication, and are much preferred to a standardizing board or academy.⁴⁶

Their rejection of a standardizing board or academy? may find its origin in John Adams' failure to create a National Language Academy in 1780 as we have seen at the beginning of this part.

Our analysis will now turn to the rhetoric of the movement. The relation between language, culture, and national identity will be demonstrated in the light of the documents published by the movement between 1981 and 2009 as well as the views of anthropologists and sociologists. In this part, our focus will be on their views about language: the visual message of their advertisements as well as their views about immigration will be studied in the next part of this paper.

2. Rhetoric Analysis: the Interaction between Language, Culture, and Identity

U.S English has been pretending that a common language can unify; separate languages can fracture and fragment a society? (Annex I, l.1-2). Furthermore, U.S ENGLISH referred to the English language as a patriotic symbol as it has dissolved distrust and fears? in the past (Annex IV, l.128). In other words, U.S ENGLISH strategy has been to present language as a symbolic unifier.

46 U.S ENGLISH official website at < http://www.usenglish.org/view/715>

In this part, we will attempt at describing the rhetoric of the movement as well as the relationship between language culture, and identity.

First of all, it is important to note that U.S ENGLISH has been overemphasizing the unifying force of language in their different publications since 1983. In fact, in almost all their publications one can read that language is a unifying instrument which binds people together? (Annex II, l.17-18), or that one language is one of the most important things we have tying us together?(Annex II, l.39-40). Language has also been described as our common heritage? (Annex III, l.21) or as our strongest national bond? (Annex III, l.95-96) or as the tie that binds together our nation of immigrants?(Annex XI). Thus, U.S ENGLISH has been considering language as central to American national identity as our analysis of their views will show in the third part of this analysis. The movement has been using metaphors like a tie?, a bond? or a unifying instrument? to define the English language in order to justify the need for the amendment they have been proposing. Language is determinant to our identity because we define ourselves through it and also because we tend to identify with the other members of our language community. A. D Smith explained that:

The members of a particular group are alike in just those respects in which they differ from nonmembers outside the group. Members dress, and eat in similar ways, and thus speak the same language; in all these respects they differ from the non members, who dress, eat and, speak in different ways. This pattern of similarity-cum-dissimilarity is one meaning of national 'identity'(Smith 75).

In other words, people tend to define themselves by emphasizing what differentiate them from others. In A.D Smith's definition, identity means 'sameness' and language can be an element on which people can base their identity. Thus, language is a marker of cultural identity that allows people to distinguish members from outsiders of a given community. In this light, U.S ENGLISH by overemphasizing the unifying role of language in their different publications established the link between one's language and one's identity. We will see further on that this technique was also a way to reject or to refrain non-members from entering the national community.

By stressing the power language had in the creation and maintenance of national cohesion and unity, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to convince his audience of the vital need the nation has to protect this cultural characteristic. U.S ENGLISH has been claiming that a common language is absolutely vital for keeping this nation of some 150 different languages together? (Annex VII) and that it is one common language that has united a diverse nation and fostered harmony among its people? (Annex III, l.4). By describing American identity as based on the speaking of the English language, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to recall the link between one's language and one's identity so that those who do not speak English will be considered as only 'half-Americans'. By

overemphasizing the role of language in the identity-building process, U.S ENGLISH has been elevating English as a national symbol. But it has been proved previously that there are no official language legislation in the U.S because the Founding Fathers thought that what mattered was individual freedom and liberty. Those considerations will have to be taken into account when defining to what extent U.S ENGLISH has been re-imagining the nation through the media.

The centrality of language at the heart of the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH allowed them to pretend that, contrary to what J. Stalin considered and similarly to what Ernest Gellner thought, a common language is essential for democracy to function because they have been considering that democracy, more than any other system of government, requires the people and their elected representatives communicate with each other? (Annex VIII). For U.S ENGLISH, the speaking and understanding of English language should be a condition for naturalization. They wrote in 1985 that English should be a condition of statehood incumbent upon all territories aspiring to that status? (Annex IV, l.347-349). The mastering of English language as a condition for naturalization and the implications of an English Language Amendment for citizenship and minority rights will be studied later on in this analysis. Language being characteristic of a particular culture, there is a close relationship between the language one speaks and his identity. But more than one ethnic or cultural group shares the same language. The speaking of a particular language is not the main distinctive feature to group membership. E. Renan asked: Can one not have the same sentiments and the same thoughts, and love the same things in different languages?? (Renan 41-55). At a national level, language alone cannot determine the identity of a nation because as Renan pointed out the United States and England, Latin America and Spain, speak the same languages yet do not form single nations? (Renan 41-55).

Different nations have different cultures even if they share the same language and, as we have seen previously, language invites people to unite but does not force them to do so? (Renan 41-55). What allows different nations who speak the same language to differentiate one from another is the fact that each nation has a unique culture. In anthropology, a culture is the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another? (Smith 75). The ways of living? of a given culture derives from the traditions, beliefs, ideas, customs, and language of a particular group. The traditions, beliefs, ideas, and customs of a given nation, which Herder calls national genius ⁴⁷, is what allowed different nations to emerge out of a common language.

As we have seen before U.S ENGLISH has been proposing an official language legislation

47 According to Herder, every nation has its peculiar genius, its own ways of thinking, acting and communicating....? quoted in SMITH, Anthony D. National Identity, Reno and Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press, 1991. Print. p. 75.

for the American nation on the basis that language is central to American identity and because democracy requires a common language to function. But they have also been presenting official language legislation as a way to insure equal access to the power and resources of the nation as well as equal opportunity for all.

The motto of U.S ENGLISH is the language of equal opportunity?. At first sight, this motto directly recalls the Affirmative Action laws that were passed in the 1960s for African Americans under President J.F. Kennedy. Those laws marked the end of discriminations based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The choice of the motto of U.S ENGLISH certainly aimed at giving a positive image to the amendment they have been promoting because as it recalls Affirmative Action, one may think that this organization advocated Civil Rights. In one of their publications they wrote that a common language leads to increased racial and ethnic understanding and acceptance? (Annex VIII & XI). This pro-Civil Rights image was a communication strategy used by U.S ENGLISH to give weight to their cause because it was on this basis that they have been pretending that bilingual ballots and multilingual services provided by the U.S government were wasteful.

Furthermore, another element at the heart of the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH is that they have been describing official language legislation as a key for the advancement of immigrants. On this point, Hayakawa explained that:

Participation in the common language has rapidly made available to each new group the political and economic benefits of the American society. Those who have mastered English have overcome the major hurdle to full participation in our democracy? (Annex I, l.6-8).

U.S ENGLISH has been claiming that the knowledge of English is the key to social advancement in order to present the knowledge of English as a requirement for all those who want to fulfill the promise made to immigrants by the American Dream. Language is described as the tool that allows the advancement and empowerment of immigrants, the only way to progress in the socio-economic ladder. Similarly, U.S ENGLISH has been overemphasizing the role of language in the assimilation process by describing it as the key to successful assimilation. Both Hayakawa and Mujica personally acknowledged the key role of language in the assimilation process as, in 1985, Hayakawa wrote : I learned more about what studying English meant to many Japanese houseboys in San Francisco in the early 1900s?(Annex IV, l.299-300). Mujica wrote in 1994: I knew that to succeed I would have to adopt the language of my new home?(Annex XII, l.2-3). This last aspect at the core of the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH will be analyzed when accounting for their views on immigration in the second part of this analysis. Similarly the role of the occupational status in defining ones' identity will be studied in the third part of this analysis.

We have seen that U.S ENGLISH has been using language both as a symbol and as a

practical tool for the advancement of immigrants in the nation. Our analysis will now turn to the question of bilingualism. In the next part, we will explain to what extent U.S ENGLISH has been considering multilingualism as destructive and unhealthy?.

3. Origins and Consequences of the Rejection of Bilingualism

As we have seen previously when accounting for the context for the rise of the U.S ENGLISH movement, two major legislative actions that were taken in the mid 1960s led to the emergence of this lobbying organization. In this part, our aim will be to show the implications of a rejection of bilingualism for the American nation.

Before accounting for their rejection of bilingualism it is interesting to explain what attitude they have been showing towards minority languages. In 1988, Smolicz and Secombe proposed a typology of the four broad approaches people have to minority languages⁴⁸. They distinguished the negative evaluation of language? from indifference?, that is to say showing no interest in language maintenance (Smolicz & Secombe 215-216; May 137). They also distinguished the general positive evaluation?, that is to say when people consider language as a vital element of ethnicity but are not prepared to learn it personally, from the personal positive evaluation?, regarding language as a core value and putting this language commitment into practice (Smolicz & Secombe 215-216; May 137)^.. In the light of this typology, U.S ENGLISH on the one hand can be said to have showed indifference toward minority languages because they have been supporting the view that minorities should transfer into English as quickly as possible, and on the other hand, they have been showing a personal positive evaluation towards the English speaking population through the proposal of an English language Amendment to the Constitution. An evidence of their dedication to the English language can be found in the fact that they have been trying to impose it as the national language of the nation.

As we have seen previously, U.S ENGLISH has been presenting the English language as a symbolic unifier but they have also been presenting linguistic diversity as unhealthy? and even destructive? (Annex IV, l. 364). They have been justifying their rejection of bilingual education, multilingual ballots, U.S citizenship ceremonies and driver's license tests in foreign languages by pointing at the cost and effectiveness of those multilingual services provided by the U.S government. Indeed, they considered that in order to become a citizen, one have to master the

⁴⁸ MAY, Stephen. Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, New York: Routledge, 2008. Print. p. 137.

SMOLICZ, J.J; SECOMBE, M.J. On Education and Culture, Albert Park: James Nicholas Publishers, 1999. Google Book Search. Web. 2 March 2010. p. 215-216.

English language and it was on this basis that they accused government funded multilingual services of being a waste of money and energy? (Annex XVI). They have been rejecting bilingual education because they considered it as a way to maintain immigrants' native language instead of transferring them into English. For U.S ENGLISH in the United States only emergency services and foreign language teaching should be conducted in another language than English.

In order to account of this rejection of bilingualism, a reference to the typology of language of the Professor Richard Ruiz, specialist of sociocultural studies, is required. In 1984, in Orientations and Language Planning, he defined language as a problem, a resource, and a right?. According to Ruiz, language can be considered as a problem? when it causes difficulties of communication between the speakers of different language-communities. U.S ENGLISH has been considering that language diversity in the United States was a threat to our national unity? (Annex III, l.86)^. The movement has been presenting language both as a problem and as a solution. On the one hand, they have been claiming that only a common language allows people to unite because it is a way to overcome the cultural diversity of the nation, hence the concept of language as a solution, and on the other hand, that language is a barrier that has to be overcome or a problem that has to be solved in order to achieve unity. U.S ENGLISH has been charging against language diversity on the basis that it limits integration, cohesiveness, and even causes segregation? in the American nation (Annex III, l.15). Their rejection of bilingualism finds its origins in this conception of language as a problem.

As our analysis of the rhetoric of the U.S ENGLISH movement has showed, they have been promoting the learning of a second language for economic reasons or for the tourism but they have been rejecting bilingualism at a national level. There is a paradox in their rhetoric because they have been depreciating bilingual education to support minority languages while appreciating English speakers who learn a second language for the economy or world politics. On this point, Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Carlos J. Ovando said in 1990 that the U.S language policy was schizophrenic? because on the one hand, we encourage and promote the study of foreign languages for English monolinguals, at great cost and with great inefficiency. At the same time, we destroy the linguistic gifts that children from non-English language backgrounds bring to our schools?⁴⁹. According to Carlos Ovando, the speaking of different languages is a gift or a resource and national language legislation would be an economic, social and cultural waste.

At this point of the analysis, it is necessary to keep in mind that the language diversity U.S ENGLISH has been rejecting in their different publications is mainly due to the different waves of

⁴⁹ BAKER, Collin; PRYS JONES, Sylvia. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, Avon (U.K): Clevedon Multilingual Matters, 1998. Print. p. 276.

immigration to the U.S. In fact, immigrants even after having accomplished the assimilation process, which consists in adopting the language and culture of the majority, still spoke their mother tongue when with other members of their linguistic community. U.S ENGLISH has been denouncing the fact that since the beginning of the 1980s immigrants were no longer assimilating the American culture and language. In most of their publications, one can read that there are millions of people living in America who don't speak English well enough to dial 911... and who are not on the road to doing so?(Annex VI, l.37-39). Contrary to what they have been claiming and even if it was true that not all immigrants ended up speaking English, most of them adopted the majority language and still used their native language in the private sphere, at home for instance.

The ability immigrants have in them mastering at least two languages corresponds to the notion of language as a resource? in Ruiz's typology of language. For Ruiz, language can be considered as a national resource? to be exploited (Smolicz & Secombe 215-216; May 137). According to Ruiz, the language ability of immigrants has to be used for trade or to promote tourism in the country because it is a free resource. The government saves money because immigrants do not need to be taught a foreign language as they are themselves native speakers of another tongue than English. U.S ENGLISH has always denounced the cost of bilingualism for the Federal government but has never invited immigrants to take advantage of their language ability.

Instead of put aside, U.S ENGLISH has invited immigrants to forget? their native tongue in order to become fully American. In April 1981 in a speech in support for both an amendment to immigration legislation and for an English Language Amendment Hayakawa said that the United States is a land of immigration from every corner of the world, that has been strengthened and unified because its newcomers have historically chosen ultimately to forgot their native language for the English language? (Annex I, l.63-64). In this sentence Hayakawa affirmed that immigrants have to abandon their native tongue in order to transfer into the English language. His rejection of bilingualism goes beyond what Ruiz described in his typology of language as a problem?. In Ruiz`s typology, language is described as a problem because of the lack of communication and understanding brought by the speaking of different tongues within a given nation. For Hayakawa, it seems that, more than just learning the language of the majority, forgetting one's native tongue is necessary for the nation to be unified. In a way, U.S ENGLISH maintained that unity in a nation was synonymous with uniformity and similarity.

Their rejection of bilingualism can also be found in the fact that they actively promote monolingualism at a national level. Several times U.S ENGLISH quoted Theodore Roosevelt`s 1927 speech wartime appeal famous and controversial words he made in 1927 in his speech entitled Children of the Crucible? to promote monolingualism at national level. Th. Roosevelt said: We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language? (Annex IV, l.514-516). In

this sentence the message is clear: U.S ENGLISH has been promoting English as the national language of the United States while rejecting and condemning the use of any other language in the nation.

On this point the views of the movement were not clear cut. On the one hand they have been claiming that they had no quarrel with immigrants speaking their native tongue in the private sphere and on the other hand, they have been defending English as the sole language of the United States. In their fund raising brochure published in 1984, U.S ENGLISH wrote that U.S ENGLISH serves as a national center for consultation and cooperation on ways to defend English as the sole language of the United States?(Annex III, l.75-76). From this one can understand that there is or there should be only one language in the United States, namely English, or that only English, and no other language, should be the official language of the United States. This statement is ambiguous but it is very likely that the movement was claiming that there has to be only one language in the United States as their strong rejection of bilingualism testifies. This kind of affirmation was only published once by the movement which since that time has always said that they are not suggesting that people shouldn't hold on to their native languages? (Annex XIX) or that U.S ENGLISH encourages all to speak their native tongues but not at the expense of English? (Annex VII). Since the late 1980s, U.S ENGLISH has been under attack from their opponents on the basis that they were said to promote an English only? nation. U.S ENGLISH refuted those accusations by publishing documents in which one can read: We have never been - and no serious person is suggesting that we become - an 'English only' nation? (Annex VI, l.48) or that they are not proponents of English Only? as [their] detractors falsely claim? (Annex XI).

The rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH itself is a rather schizophrenic because on the one hand they claimed that an English language amendment was needed because immigrants were not assimilating the American culture as they used to do and on the other hand, they claimed that this amendment was needed because immigrants want and need to learn English? (Annex XVII). It seems that any reason was good to justify the enactment of their English Language Amendment. But one may wonder why they used such a technique. A partial answer to this question can be found in the fact that they not only appealed to English speaking Americans who worried about the fact that immigrants were resisting assimilation but also to willing immigrants who wanted to be recognized as trying to learn the English language. Similarly, they have been generally rejecting bilingual publications made by the government but they produced an advertising campaign in Spanish in 1989 in the Albany Times- Union in which we can see a letter written by a Spanish family to the Regents of the Educational System of the state of New York on which one can read:

We speak to you in Spanish because we don't speak English enough to write to you in that language. We
have suffered big disadvantages for not speaking English. ...We've noticed that the Education Department

suggests increasing the teaching in Spanish instead of in English. We don't want our children to receive their education in Spanish. If they learn mainly in Spanish, they'll be in the same situation of disadvantage as we are (Annex IX, l.6-12).

U.S ENGLISH entitled this advertisement as follows: If you can't read this add, don't feel badly. Our children can't read this book? (Annex IX). The book in question is Treasure Island from Robert Stevenson, a famous American book. This title is ironical because they have been rejecting bilingual education through the publication of a bilingual advertisement. Similarly, in this advertisement U.S ENGLISH both appealed to non-English speaking people who want to learn the language of the majority and to Americans who felt that immigrants were not assimilating anymore.

Now that the origins and consequences of U.S ENGLISH rejection of language diversity at national level have been highlighted, our analysis will now turn to the implications of the imposition of a national language legislation for the American nation in the light of Anderson's definition of the nation as an imagined political community?(Anderson 6).

C. PROPOSITION OF AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE AMENDMENT

1. Amending the Constitution: a New Conception of the Nation

U.S ENGLISH has been trying to pass an Official English Amendment to the U.S Constitution for more than twenty five years and this section of the analysis aims at exploring to what extent the organization has been re-imagining the American nation by doing so. In other words, what are the implications of the enactment of official language legislation for the nation?

As the beginning of our analysis has proved, the Founding Fathers deliberately did not want to impose an official language in the nation because of the right the American nation gave to individuals to decide for themselves and also because of the plural dimension of the nation. But the Founding Fathers were also aware that in the founding texts some changes may be necessary in the future as the nation would grow. The American nation has the possibility to reinvent itself around the constant values defined by the Constitution and this is essential for a nation to survive in front of the rise globalization or supra-nationalism.

Modifying the Constitution is not an easy task. Amending the Constitution requires two stages. First the amendment needs be proposed, then it has to be ratified. In order to propose an amendment, two thirds of the votes in each house are required and it then has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states before becoming an Amendment to the US Constitution. Over 10,000 constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789 and for several decades,

between 100 and 200 have been offered in a typical congressional year⁵⁰. Those figures highlight the fact that amending the Constitution is and has always been a long and complicated process. It is through this process that U.S ENGLISH has been trying to amend the Constitution and proposed an amendment to the Constitution. In the last sub-section of this part, an analysis will account for the failure to pass the said amendment.

In 1983, Benedict Anderson, Professor of International Studies, was the author of Imagined Communities, a book in which he studied the process that lead to the creation and spread of nations. According to Anderson, the nation is an imagined political community - and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign? (Anderson 6). He explained that it is an imagined community because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear from them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion? (Anderson 6). He considered that communities are to be distinguished not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined? (Anderson 6). In other words, for B. Anderson, each nation has a particular style, some unique characteristics that allow the distinction between the several nations of the world.

In the case of the American nation, that particular trait is the civic nationalism. In the United States, it was the sharing of civic institutions that led to the creation of the American nation. The civic institutions of the nation derive from the American Constitution. It was under the Constitution that America as a political community was born. America found its cohesion in that founding text that went beyond ethnic, racial or religious consideration allowing anybody who wanted to be part of the nation to become an American citizen because as we have seen at the beginning of this part, the United States of America is a civic nation. The unique trait of the American nation lied in the idea of individual freedom and the image of [this] communion? is its Constitution.

Even though more than one hundred and fifty foreign languages? were spoken in the United States as U.S ENGLISH pointed out in their advertising campaign of the late 1980s(Annex VII), the American nation was mainly English-speaking as only 1.3 % of the population did not speak English at all in 2000 according to the US Census Bureau (Crawford 2002). America can be said to be an English-speaking country, even without the enactment of official language legislation, because 82.1% of its population only speaks English (Crawford 2002).

The question raised by this analysis is what the consequences of the imposition of official language legislation would be if passed more than two hundred years after the nation was first imagined. We may wonder to what extent an amendment to the US Constitution can be considered as a direct modification of the style? in which the nation was first invented or imagined. In other

⁵⁰ KRUSCH, Barry. The 21^st Century Constitution: new America for a New Millennium, New York: Stanhope Press, 1992. Web. 7 April 2010. p. 243.

words, the question is whether the enactment of this amendment would dramatically change the American character or not. We may wonder if America will still be a political community beyond ethnic, racial and religious considerations with the enactment of official language legislation.

A modification of the American Constitution involves the modification of both the image? described by Anderson in his definition of the nation and the style? in which the nation was first imagined (Anderson 6). Such an amendment would transform America in an officially monolingual and English-speaking nation.

We may ask ourselves if such an amendment would not have consequences on the ethnic composition of the American nation. In order to answer this question, we need to explain the link between one's ethnicity and one's language. It has been explained previously that there is a close link between one's culture and one's language as language is one among other elements that allow the distinction between different cultures. The link between culture, language and ethnicity can be found in the definition of the word ethnic group?. The term "ethnic group" is derived from the Greek word ethnos, which means "nation" or people of the same race that share a distinctive culture⁵¹. An ethnic group can be defined as a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage?⁵². It can also refer to a particular group belonging to a national group by heritage or culture but residing outside its national boundaries?⁵³. In the light of those definitions, it is clear that one's ethnicity is characterized by one's culture thus one's language.

The enactment of official language legislation to the U.S Constitution would then certainly jeopardize the American character. It seems that the relationship between one's language and one's ethnicity is quite strong and the imposition of a national language may have consequences on the ethnic composition of the nation. But one has to be cautious because, as we saw previously, it is possible to learn a new language even though it takes a certain amount of time as Anderson implied when he said that ?language is not an instrument of exclusion: in principle, anyone can learn any language. On the contrary it is fundamentally inclusive, limited only by the fatality of Babel: no one lives long enough to learn all languages(Anderson 134). But an amendment that would declare English the official language of the United States would certainly refrain some non-English speaking people to come and settle in America. The plural dimension of the nation would certainly be affected by the enactment of official language legislation.

Similarly, the individual rights and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, main

⁵¹ Ethnic?, Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Ask Oxford. Web 4 March 2010

⁵² "Ethnic group", Encycloepdia Britanica, Encyclopedia Britanica. Inc, 2010. Encyclopedia Britanica Online. Web. 5 February 2010.

⁵³ Ibid .

characteristic of the American nation, would also be under threat. Up to now, people had the choice to speak any language on the American soil but this amendment would deprive them from this right and it may even lead to the total rejection of non-English speaking people of the nation. It would put an end to multilingual government services such as multilingual ballots and driving license tests in foreign languages and it would also certainly entail the loss of the right to bilingual education for non-English speaking people. Even though immigrants took the step to learn English, there will still be some of them who cannot succeed to speak, write or understand the English language and the removal of multilingual services would be an assault to their right to participate in the democracy.

The American nation would also be re-imagined by an English Language amendment because according to the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, a language both reflects and affects a culture's way of thinking⁵⁴?. The language we speak structures what we see and how we see it. Language can be said to influence thoughts and behavior and thus culture. This theory is at the heart of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. According to Sapir and Whorf, people see the world through a given language. Since all languages have their structural and semantic characteristics, people speaking different languages have different views and thoughts of the world. Sapir and Whorf assume that the particular structure of each language results in a culturally specific structuring of reality?⁵⁵. In other words, speakers of different languages will have different cultural outlooks. Furthermore, the imposition of a national language on a nation that was created two hundred years ago on the basis of individual rights and without any official language may be a way to impose one's culture over other cultures.

On this point, one has to be cautious because the fact that people experience the world through a language and that there are different languages and thus different cultures, does not mean that intercultural communication is impossible. It does not mean either that such an amendment would change anything to the cultural outlook of people. But what is relevant to bear in mind for the purpose of this analysis is that declaring English the national language of the United States would certainly affect the status of minority cultures manifested in a foreign language. It is important to keep in mind what Renan said about races and languages: man is a slave neither of his race, nor his language?(Renan 41-55). According to E. Renan, it is not appropriate to discriminate against someone on the basis of his/her race or his/her language and the enactment of an official language amendment may to a certain extent lead to such discriminations.

It is essential, however, to keep in mind that this amendment has never been enacted by

54 "language", Encycloepdia Britanica, Encyclopedia Britanica. Inc, 2010. Encyclopedia Britanica Online. Web. 5 February 2010.

55 DEVITO, Joseph. A, Human Communication, The Basic Course, (Fifth Edition), New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 1991. Print. p. 438. and MAY, Stephen, Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, New York: Routledge, 2008. Print. p. 133.

Congress and that it is impossible to plan what the consequences of the imposition of English as the national language of the United States would be. It may only be a symbolic amendment enforced by no particular measure or it can have a huge political impact. This aspect will be debated in the last section of this part when accounting for the division it has created between the different states which passed official English legislation to their Constitution and the Federal government which has been rejecting such a proposal for more than twenty years.

2. Implications of an Official Language Legislation for Democracy

As our analysis has just shown, amending the Constitution can be considered a way to re-imagine the nation. Our analysis will now turn to the implications of an English Language Amendment for democracy.

First of all, democracy was defined by Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) in a speech entitled the Gettysburg Address, given on the 19^th of November 1863, as government of the people, by the people, for the people?⁵⁶. Democracy is a form of government under which a constitution guarantees basic personal and political rights, fair and free elections, and independent courts of law?⁵⁷. Thus, what is implied by the word democracy in its modern sense, is the separation of powers, basic civil rights and human rights, religious liberty and separation of the church and the state. Democracy in America was protected under the Constitution. The Constitution guaranteed every American citizen the right to vote as well as free speech and other liberties. Furthermore, the concept of democracy implies the participation of the people in the government and this is made possible through the right to vote.

As language can be a way to differentiate members from non-members, it can also be used as a tool for exclusion. Language can be a barrier? when speakers of different languages are in contact. U.S English has been trying to exclude non-English speakers from the American nation on the basis that they should not have access to citizenship because of their lack of English proficiency. In a testimony made in front of Congress in 2006, M. Mujica said that our national aspiration is that these immigrants learn English and become Americans? (Annex VI, l. 34-35). In this statement, Mujica implied that immigrants become Americans only after having learned the English language. The learning of English is described as a civic duty? by Mujica in this testimony. In this light, it is relevant to conclude that language has been used by U.S English as a tool for exclusion. But Anderson stated that language is not an instrument of exclusion: in principle, anyone can learn any

⁵⁶ LINCOLN, Abraham. ?Nicolas Copy of the Gettysburg Address?, 1863, Transcription, Library of Congress. Web. 4 March 2010. n.p.

⁵⁷ Democracy Building. A short Definition of Democracy?, 2004. Web. 4 March 2010. n.p.

language. On the contrary it is fundamentally inclusive, limited only by the fatality of Babel: no one lives long enough to learn all languages? (Anderson 134). In this light, language should not be a pretext for refraining someone to participate in democracy. But as we will see, in order to become a U.S citizen, one has to pass a test of English proficiency.

It is then necessary to look at the requirements to become a U.S citizen in order to account of the implications of official language legislation for the American democracy. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1886, people born in the United States are legally citizens. In other words, a birth certificate is a proof of citizenship. Similarly, one can have U.S citizenship through parents: someone born outside the US can have the status of U.S citizen if one's parents were U.S citizens themselves at the time of birth. Another process is through naturalization because as we have seen previously the United States is a civic nation and birth is not the only way to become a citizen. According to the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services, in order to be a naturalized U.S citizen, one have to be 18 or older, being a permanent resident for at least five years, residing permanently in the United States and be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government as well as being a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law?⁵⁸.

As far as the English language requirement is concerned, it is possible to be exempted from this test under certain circumstances. The U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services stated that:

You Are Exempt From The English Language Requirement, But Are Still Required To Take The

Civics Test If You Are:

- Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (green card holder) in the United States for 20 years (commonly referred to as the 50/20? exception).

- Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the United States for 15 years (commonly referred to as the 55/15? exception).

- ... if you are unable to comply with these requirements because of a physical or developmental disability or a mental impairment⁵⁹.

In fact, under the 50/20? exception or the 55/15? exception or if the applicant suffers from physical or mental disabilities, it is possible to become a naturalized American citizen without mastering the English language. Once the process to become a legal US citizen has been explained, we have to account for the views of the movement on this point. U.S ENGLISH has been considering that in order to vote you have to be a citizen, and in order to become a citizen, you need to speak and understand the English language fully. In 1985, Hayakawa wrote:

⁵⁸ U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services, General Path to Citizenship?, 2009. Web. 4 March 2010. n.p.

⁵⁹ Ibid.

The English language amendment is intended to stop the practice of voting in foreign languages ... it is intended to make English the only language for official proceedings of governments at all levels. ... it is intended to make the acceptance of English a condition of statehood incumbent upon all territories aspiring to that status (Annex IV, l.414-415).

In other words, U.S ENGLISH proposal to declare English the official language of the United States can be considered as a way to put an end to bilingual ballots and any other multilingual services offered by the government as our analysis has demonstrated previously. Furthermore, while recalling the requirements to become a US citizen, Hayakawa considered bilingual ballots as contradictory? and confusing? on the basis that one needs to speak English to be a naturalized U.S citizen:

This amendment is needed to clarify the confusing signals we have given in recent years to immigrant groups. The requirements to become a naturalized citizen say you must be able to speak, read and write words in the English language. And though you must be a citizen to vote, some recent legislation has required bilingual ballots in some areas. This amendment would end that contradictory and logically conflicting situation (Annex IV, l.382-387).

But as our analysis of US Citizenship and Immigration Services has put forward, anybody can become a US citizen by birth and there is nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act that states that you have to be born from English-speaking parents. In fact, it is possible to be a U.S citizen by birth without speaking or understanding the English language and this is partly why the government put in place multilingual services. Besides, it is possible to be exempted from the English Language Requirement under various circumstances. Thereby, the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH can be considered as ill-informed and the result of a popularization. If the enactment of an English Language Amendment implies the suppression of those services offered to non-English people as U.S ENGLISH has intended to do, it would deprive them from their very basic right to participate in the democracy.

U.S ENGLISH regarded bilingual ballots as conflicting? and contradictory?, but our analysis of the requirements to become a U.S citizen brought out that the existence of those services can be legitimated. More than just castigating the multilingual services offered to the non-English speaking population, U.S ENGLISH went further when they accused the U.S government of being racist? and wasteful?. In 1985, Hayakawa attacked two of the three branches of the US government in his monograph to promote the English Language Amendment (Annex IV).

First, he attacked the legislative branch of the government when he qualified the bilingual ballots? passed in 1975 in an amendment to the Voting Rights Act as being the expression of a profound racism?(Annex IV, l.284). Hayakawa interpreted this law as a way to favor non-white speakers. This law is assumed to favor non-white foreign-language groups at the expense of white foreign-language speakers of French Canadians or Yiddish. The author explained that those people

were presumed to be able to learn English without difficulty? (Annex IV, l.288-289) whereas the non-white speakers were assumed not to be smart enough to learn English?(Annex IV, l.287). The government was charged for the failure of incorporation of all nationals in the nation. The U.S government was accused of favoring non-white-foreign-language speakers, responsible for the disuniting of the nation as described by the author. In other words, Hayakawa accused the government of having segregationist views.

But a thorough analysis of this law highlights the fact that there is no racial considerations in this law. Under Section 203(c) and 4(f) (4) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, bilingual services are available to non-English speakers only if they represent more than five percent of the jurisdiction's total voting age citizens and are members of one language minority group or if more than ten thousand people of the jurisdiction's voting age citizens are members of a language minority group. In fact, if speakers of Yiddish or French Canadian did not have access to bilingual ballots, it was certainly not because of their skin color but only because they did not meet those criteria. Once again, the movement had an ill-informed interpretation of the law. One may wonder if it was due to a lack of research in the texts of the law or if it was a way to influence their readers by trying to convince them that the laws passed by the government were inappropriate and thus needed to be modified.

Then, Hayakawa attacked the judiciary branch of the government when he qualified the Lau decision of the US Supreme Court of 1974 as being a go-ahead for amazing educational developments?(Annex IV, l.309). The Supreme Court was accused of having not mentionned the way English should be taught to the non-English speaking students (Annex IV, l. 308). This was clearly an inaccurate criticism of the government as this law did not make bilingual education as a legal requirement for schools but simply ruled on the illegality of excluding minority-language students from such programs. The Lau decision allowed the possibility of some funding for bilingual education in order to insure equal treatment for all children in the school system. It is clear that for the author, the aim of bilingual education should be the transfer into English and clearly not the maintenance of a native language. It is important to remember that this monograph was published during the Reagan administration and at that time the President tried to reduce the government spending to reduce inflation. Hayakawa used this economic situation to justify the need of an English Language Amendment: it would reduce the Department of Education and States spending.

As we have seen previously, the enactment of an English Language Amendment would have strong implications for democracy as it may lead to the rejection of non-English speakers. But it is very unlikely that such an amendment would led to the suppression of multilingual services as under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the states and municipal governments are prohibited

from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, religion, gender or ethnicity. Similarly, under section one of the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude?^60. The enactment of official language legislation would not be in agreement with the Fifteenth amendment because as we have seen it appears that the language is clearly linked to one's national origin, and thus one's race?.

3. Accounting for the Division between State and Federal Government

First of all, at national level over 50 bills were introduced supporting English as the official language of the United States and since 1981those bills have gathered more than 2,000 co-sponsors. Among them, sixteen gathered more than fifty co-sponsors, eight exceeded a hundred, and only five passed one chamber of the U.S. Congress and most recently in May 2006, one has passed Senate with a 62-35 margin. ⁶¹

At state level, 623 different members of Congress representing each of the fifteen states had sponsored, co-sponsored or voted in favor of official English legislation both in the House and in Senate.⁶² Under U.S ENGLISH lobbying activities, twenty five states passed official English laws. ⁶³ Before the creation of U.S ENGLISH, Louisiana (1812), Nebraska (1920), Illinois (1969), Massachusetts (1975), and Hawaii (1978) have passed official English legislation at State level. Out of fifty American states thirty actually passed official English measures because Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Nebraska passed legislation declaring English the official language of the State prior to the creation of U.S ENGLISH.

One may wonder how U.S ENGLISH managed to influence half of the fifty American States to pass this kind of legislation considering that since 1981at national level, only five bills passed one house. A partial answer to this question can be given in the fact that almost all the states which passed official English laws did not really act upon them. Furthermore, it is a mistake to think that only States with the highest percentage of immigrants or foreign-language speakers passed this kind

⁶⁰ ?The House Joint Resolution proposing the 15th amendment to the Constitution?, 7 December 1868, Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999, General Records of the United States Government, Record Group 11, National Archives Web. 4 March 2010.

⁶¹ Informations gathered from U.S ENGLISH

⁶² Full list available on the official website of U.S ENGLISH at < http://www.us-english.org/view/396 >

⁶³ Alabama (1990), Alaska (1998), Arizona (2006), Arkansas (1987), California (1986), Colorado (1988), Florida (1988), Georgia (1986 & 1996), Idaho (2007), Indiana (1984), Iowa (2002), Kansas (2007), Kentucky (1984), Mississippi (1987), Missouri (1998 & 2008), Montana (1995), New Hampshire (1995), North Carolina (1987), North Dakota (1987), South Carolina (1987), South Dakota (1995), Tennessee (1984), Utah (2000), Virginia (1981 & 1996), Wyoming (1996).

of laws because among those who decided to pass an official English legislation only California, Florida, Arizona and Colorado had a large immigrant population. We may then wonder why so many States passed Official English laws. In fact, the U.S ENGLISH movement appeals to Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Moderates, whites and non-whites, and immigrants as well as native-born Americans. In this light, it seems that at State level, language legislation was passed because the proposition voiced by U.S ENGLISH was considered a symbolic measure.

At national level, public opinion generally favored the enactment of an English Language Amendment to the U.S Constitution because according to the GSS survey of 2000, 77.5% of the respondents said to be in favor of a law making English the official language of the United States (Annex XXI, Fig. 3.). But, to the question do you think that English will be threatened if other languages are frequently used in large immigrant communities in the U.S??, 51.4% of the respondents disagreed, 16.1% strongly disagreed whereas 23.6% of respondents agreed and 8.9% strongly agreed (Annex XXI, Fig.4.). When asked if speaking English as the common national language is what unites all Americans?, 26.3% of the respondents strongly agreed and 49.8% agreed whereas 21.2% disagreed and 2.7% strongly disagreed (Annex XXI, Fig. 5.). According to this survey, it seems that language was seen as a marker of national identity and the linguistic diversity brought by the successive waves of immigration to the U.S was not generally considered as a threat. Similarly, when asking if they agree on the fact that bilingual education should be abolished, 49.5% disagreed and 28.3% strongly disagreed whereas 6% strongly agreed and 16.2% agreed (Annex XXI, Fig. 2.). One may conclude that the respondents did not oppose bilingual education even though they tended to favor the enactment of national language legislation.

The implications of national language legislation, that is to say the suppression of bilingual services such as bilingual education, seem to be problematic. Public opinion which would generally tend to favor such an amendment may only do so because they considered that language ability was linked to one's nationality, and thus to one's national identity. To a certain extent, those considerations may account for the failure of the enactment of such an amendment at Federal level.

But a last aspect needs to be taken into consideration when accounting for the failure of this amendment. The United Nations, UNESCO and the Council of Europe all have declared that minority language groups had the right to maintain their language. In other words, they believed that in democratic society each individual should have the right of choice of language. This conception of language is the last aspect of Ruiz's typology of language.

Language as a right? is guaranteed in the United States under the 1992 United Nations Declaration of Rights (Baker and Prys Jones 279), signed by the United States, imposing to States to recognize some fundamental rights to people belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. In this declaration, Article 1 stated the duty States have towards minorities to

protect and encourage conditions for the promotion of their identity. Article 2 dealt with the right minorities have to use their own language, in private and in public as well as their right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live.? Article 4 considered that States should take appropriate measures so that persons belonging to minorities have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or have instruction in their mother tongue? and that minorities should have the right to participate fully in the economic progress and development of their country.

According to this declaration, minorities do have inalienable rights that need to be protected by States. Among those rights, the right to participate in the economy and the right to speak one's own language freely both in public and in private sphere has to be insured by the various States which signed this declaration. More generally, the US government signed agreements with UNESCO, the League of Nations and the Helsinki Accord to protect both freedom from discrimination on the basis of language and the right to mother-tongue schooling.

In the United States, as it was demonstrated previously, the rights of individuals were central to U.S democracy but U.S ENGLISH did not take those considerations into account as they have equaled the enactment of an English language amendment with the suppression of multilingual services. The English language Amendment as it is presented by U.S ENGLISH may deprive minorities from such protected rights.

For instance, the right minorities should have to be educated in their mother tongue has already been under threat with the enactment of anti-bilingual education legislation in California under the influence of U.S ENGLISH. The law under the name of Proposition 227, was voted in June 1998. It reduced bilingual education available to non-English speaking children to a year. After this period, English learners are transferred into mainstream classes where all lessons are given in the English language. Under the parental waiver conditions defined by this law, parents can ask for extra time of bilingual education if there are twenty pupils or more asking for the same program. This decision came as a surprise as in California, there is a huge percentage of an English learner. According to Denis Baron, minority languages are badges of ethnicity?⁶⁴, and the maintenance of one's ethnic language is essential to one's ethnic identity. Under such programs, children may be reluctant to promote their ethnic identity and as students have less time to learn the English language, it may also limit their educational opportunities as all lessons are given in a language they do not necessarily master after only a few years of instruction. Similar legislation were passed under the lobbying of U.S ENGLISH in Arizona in November 2000 and Massachusetts in 2002.

Even though U.S ENGLISH had no problem with the maintenance of one's native tongue by

64 BARON, Denis, The English-Only Question: an official language for Americans?, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990. Print. p. 4.

private organizations, under the United Nations Declaration of Rights, minorities should have the right to maintain their native tongue at public expense through state programs.

In the light of this analysis, it seems that in the United States the need for official language legislation is questionable because people tend to agree with the symbolic dimension of this proposal but are not ready to assume the political implications of such a decision yet.

Our analysis will now turn to the communication strategies of the movement before accounting for what the support for this movement lets on about American national identity.

PART II
DECODING THE MESSAGE SEND BY U.S ENGLISH

A. THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES OF U.S ENGLISH

1. The Scope of the U.S ENGLISH Campaign

Since its creation in the mid 1980s, U.S ENGLISH has been using advertising both to remind the public of the existence of their movement but also to leave a generally favorable image in the receiver's mind of the cause they have been defending. Advertising is a form of mass communication that consists in sending a homogeneous message to a large heterogeneous audience through the media. It is a one-way communication process because the receiver does not have the possibility to answer the message sent by the adman. U.S ENGLISH has been making a political use of advertising because they produced noncommercial type of advertisements and also because the lobbying character of this organization. Their aim is to introduce their name, promote their cause and solicit a vote or a contribution, not a purchase in the same way as commercial advertising.

Political advertising can be considered a form of propaganda because it promotes certain opinions and attitudes. Propaganda can be defined as the intentional control, manipulation and communication of information and imagery in order to achieve certain political objectives?⁶⁵ . In the case of U.S ENGLISH, the aim is to pass an Official English Amendment to the US Constitution as we have seen in part one. Even though an English Language Amendment has a symbolic dimension, the lobbying of U.S ENGLISH has political objectives. Historically, propaganda is a specific form of mass persuasion (involving the product and transmission of specifically structured texts and messages) designed to produce or encourage certain responses in the mass audience?⁶⁶. We will see in the next sub-section what U.S ENGLISH has been expecting from their audience when advertising.

Furthermore, advertising works on each reader's need for identity?⁶⁷. It has been proved that each individual needs to expose himself to the lifestyles and values of the society he/she lives in order to make sense of the world and his/her place in it. It is a way of seeking confirmation of the validity of one's lifestyle in a given society.

⁶⁵ O'SULIVAN, Tim; HARTLY, John; SAUNDERS, Danny, FISKE, John, Key Concepts in Communication, London, New York: Routledge, 5^th edition, 1993. Print. p. 185.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ VESTERGAARD, Torben ; SCHRODER, Kim, The language of advertising, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1985. Print. p. 73.

First of all, in order to analyze the communication strategies of U.S ENGLISH, one needs to look at the different mediums to which they had recourse to in order to promote their cause. Thanks to the Director of Communication of U.S ENGLISH, Rob Toonkel, who searched the records of the organization on our request, the corpus on which this analysis will be about is fairly representative of all the publications made by the movement since its creation.

Before the 1990s, U.S ENGLISH used mainly fund raising brochures, mailing, advertisements, monographs, and public addresses. With the arrival of Mauro Mujica in 1993, the movement started to use more modern medium such as television, internet with Facebook and an official website but also bumper stickers. In 1993, they started to use photographs of the Honorary Chairman, Mauro Mujica, in their advertisements so that people could identify the representative of the movement. It was a way to give transparency to the movement and thus to appeal for more supporters. Before 1993, the movement used mainly pictures and drawings staging symbolic items standing for the American nation such as the flag, the country but also well-known American books, and even ballot boxes to recall the democratic ideals characterizing the nation.

As the communication strategies used in their television addresses are not very different from the ones they used for their other publications, our focus will be on the different printed-documents published by the movement since 1983 as well as their official website. We will analyze both the visual message and the title of their publications. When needed we will also analyze the script of those documents.

As advertisements are meant to be seen in different kinds of publications, we need to explain at what audience their publications are targeted. As far as their advertisements were concerned, according to the Director of Communication of U.S ENGLISH, they were published on a regular basis in both local and national newspapers according to their content. Joseph Devito, Professor Emeritus of Communication and author of several communication textbook, explained that the primary readers of newspapers are more likely to be educated and older people, and that only about fifty percent of the people between the age of twenty-one and thirty-five read newspaper regularly⁶⁸. In this light, one has to bear in mind for the study of print-advertisements that the readership is more likely to be educated and middle-aged. Generally speaking their publications were made to appeal to a large audience even though, for instance, the monograph, published by Hayakawa in 1985, was for sale and mainly

⁶⁸ DEVITO, Joseph. A, Human Communication, The Basic Course, (Fifth Edition), New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 1991. Print. p. 454.

reserved for members of U.S ENGLISH as well as decision makers. Similarly, the movement has been using mail techniques to raise money for their cause and those documents were only addressed to their supporters, contrary to their fund raising brochure that was used both to promote the movement and raise money from the general public.

Before analyzing the different techniques used by U.S ENGLISH to foster their activity, our analysis will attempt to account for the part of the budget of U.S ENGLISH dedicated to advertising. Advertising is as much a social phenomenon as it is an economic one. In 2000, U.S ENGLISH declared to the U.S Department of Treasury that they devoted 63,110 $ of their annual budget to fundraising. ⁶⁹ This sum represented around 20% of their total expenses in 2000. In 2006, they devoted 146,265 $ to fundraising, representing more than 30% of their total expenses. ⁷⁰ Similarly, in 2007, they spent 145,609 $ for fund raising, representing 30% of their total expenses. ⁷¹ In this light, we can consider that advertising being part of their fund raising activities represented a large part of their annual budget.

At this point, one needs to recall the general characteristics of a good advertising campaign. According to Lund (1947), the task of the adman? can be described in five steps. ⁷² First of all, the adman has to attract the reader?⁷³ in order to make sure that the advertisement is noticed. In order to achieve those ends, U.S ENGLISH used both catchy titles and images in their publications. For instance, in their 1996 advertising campaign, they used the picture of a stop sign translated into four different languages under which one can read Stop the madness? (Annex XIV). In this advertisement, U.S ENGLISH attracted the viewer's attention by using an unexpected picture and an appealing title. In this advert, U.S ENGLISH denounced the use of multilingual traffic signs in the United States by using the lexical field of war (under attack?, survive?, danger?, and fight?). All their publications were carefully made up to meet particular ends. In this advertisement, the use of the lexical field of war added to the symbolic dimension of a stop sign and emphasized by the word Madness? in the title, leaved a strong mental imprint, but also contributed to create fears in the receiver's mind. They have also been playing on the size of their advertisements as in October 1992 when they

⁶⁹ Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax?, U.S ENGLISH Foundation, 2000, Form 990, U.S Department of Treasury, Media Matters Action. Web. 1 May 2010.

⁷⁰ Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax?, U.S ENGLISH Foundation, 2006, Form 990, U.S Department of Treasury, Media Matters Action. Web. 1 May 2010

⁷¹ Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax?, U.S ENGLISH Foundation, 2007, Form 990, U.S Department of Treasury, Media Matters Action. Web. 1 May 2010

⁷² VESTERGAARD, Torben ; SCHRODER, Kim. The Language of Advertising, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1985. Print. p. 49.

⁷³ Ibid. p. 49.

published a large-framed advertisement in USA Today (Annex X).

The second target of the adman is to arouse interest?⁷⁴ in his advertisement. U.S ENGLISH has been using this technique in most of their publications. In their advertising campaign of 1997 staging the picture of a helpless child, U.S ENGLISH used an emotional appeal to arouse the interest of their viewers. Propaganda often uses emotional appeals to promote certain opinions and attitudes with regard to particular issues (Vestergaard and Schroder 186). In another advertising campaign, they used humor. One of their advertisements is entitled One more way the Federal government is making doctors sick? (Annex XX). This technique allowed them to stimulate the receiver who will certainly want to know more about the topic. Another technique has been to use bilingual advertisements such as their publication in the Albany Times-Union in 1989 (Annex IX). The use of a foreign language to promote the enactment of an official language has a double impact. First, it appealed to native speakers of this foreign language: it is a way to introduce the organization and explain their cause. It was also a way to comfort their supporters that official language legislation was needed in order to outlaw such publications. Those who support U.S ENGLISH are likely to consider that in the US, to speak English and that advertising in a foreign language is wasteful, useless, and provocative. This dimension can be found in the English title If you can't read this add don't feel badly. Our children can't read this book? (Annex IX).

The third target of the adman is to stimulate desire?⁷⁵. U.S ENGLISH used several methods to achieve those ends. In January 1993, they published an advertisement entitled It is time to focus on what unites us as a people, as opposed to what divides us? (Annex XI). As we will see in the last part of this sub-section, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to foster a desire for unity in the receiver's mind. Similarly, U.S ENGLISH also used testimonies to stimulate desire. For instance, in 1995 they published an advertisement based on the testimony of a successful immigrant due to his knowledge of the English language (Annex XIII). This was a way among others to stimulate other immigrants' desire to learn the language of the majority and join their cause.

Then, the advertisers have to create conviction in the receiver's mind?⁷⁶. To do so, U.S ENGLISH used statistics as in their advertising campaign of October 1992 when they justified the need for an English Language Amendment by affirming that 78% of Americans? and 14 members of Congress? supported their cause (Annex X). Another strategy was to use

⁷⁴ VESTERGAARD & SCHRODER, Op. Cit. p. 49.

⁷⁵ VESTERGAARD & SCHRODER, Op. Cit. p. 49.

⁷⁶ Ibid. p.49.

hypothetical statements as in their advertising campaign of the late 1980s entitled it can't happen here (Or can it?)? staging a map of the United States on which some states seem to fall apart from the rest of the country (Annex VIII).

The last task of the adman is of course to get to action?.⁷⁷ In most of their publication, U.S ENGLISH used sentences like Join us, support us, fight with us? (Annex XIV). Similarly, they used reply coupon for those who were willing to send some money or join the organization. They also invited people to contact their local representative and ask them to support their cause⁷⁸. On their official website, people can find several ways to invite other people to join U.S ENGLISH : petitions, invitations to contact their local representatives or even sample letters to send to political candidates.

As we have seen previously, U.S ENGLISH has been using both verbal and non-verbal communication in order to persuade or influence their potential target audience. They have been using pictures in order to create a strong visual and mental imprint in their receiver's mind⁷⁹.

But contrary to what we might expect, U.S ENGLISH did not necessarily want the reader to notice their advertisements. In fact, they sometimes used, what Leech called in 1966, a role borrowing technique? (Vestergaard and Schroder 95). It consists in publishing an advertisement that pretends to be part of the editorial material of the newspaper. This technique is used by advertisers both to give weight to their arguments and eventually to invite the reader to carefully read the script of their advertisement thinking that it is editorial material (Annex VII).

Once the general communication strategies of the movement have been explained, our analysis will turn to the way U.S ENGLISH has been promoting its cause through the promotion of some symbols of the American nation.

2. Promoting the Movement by Celebrating National Symbols

According to Genevieve Cornu, French Professor of Communication, associating a brand or an organization to some of the fundamental values of society is a technique

⁷⁷ VESTERGAARD & SCHRODER, Op. Cit. p. 49.

⁷⁸ Section?Get involved? of U.S ENGLISH official website available at < http://www.us-english.org/view/38>

⁷⁹ CORNU, Geneviève. Sémiologie de l'image dans la publicité, Paris: Editions d' Organisation Université, 1992. Print. p. 76.

commonly used by advertisers. ⁸⁰ In this part, we will see to what extent U.S ENGLISH used this technique to promote their organization. More particularly, it is interesting to analyze which symbols of the American nation the movement referred to in their different publications.

First of all, our focus will be on the name and the logo of the organization itself. At first sight, U.S ENGLISH? directly refers to the name and the language spoken in the country. This symbolic choice highlights the movement's willingness to stand for the American nation as well as their willingness to see the nation becoming officially English-speaking. U.S ENGLISH? may also echo the variety of English spoken in the U.S in opposition to the Australian, Canadian or British variety of English. Furthermore, their logo directly recalls the American nation as it delineates the shape of the United States, even though they choose not to represent the separations between the different States that compose the country. This choice is part of their strategy to project a unified image of the nation as we will see later on in this part. Similarly, the fact that their logo is underlined by a blue stripe followed by a red stripe, recalls the colors of the American flag. Considering that their logo is present on all their publications, the movement is straightaway linked to a pro-American organization in the receiver's mind.

The pro-American image associated with the movement also finds it origins in the way they have constantly been recalling the foundations and the symbols of the American nation. This communication strategy allowed U.S ENGLISH to present itself as a patriotic movement. Patriotism can be defined as the persistence of love and attachment to a country?⁸¹ or as the attachment of group members towards their group and the country in which they reside?.⁸² In the light of those definitions, we can consider that U.S ENGLISH is a patriotic movement as one of their communication strategies has been to constantly show their love and attachment to the nation and its values.

Ernest Renan said that the United States was the home of the cult of the flag?⁸³ and as we will see, U.S ENGLISH used it on several occasions to introduce their image and promote their cause. In the corpus on which this analysis is based, several references to the symbols of the nation can be noted. First of all, in the background of their bumper sticker, the American flag is to be found. Michael Billig saw in flags banal reminders of nationhood'?⁸⁴. According

⁸⁰ Ibid. p. 76.

⁸¹ BILLIG, Michael. Banal Nationalism, London: Sage Publications, 1995. Print. p. 48.

⁸² Ibid. p.48.

⁸³ Ibid. p. 39.

⁸⁴ Ibid. p. 41.

to him, flags have a symbolic and a signalization function. The use of the flag on their promotional stickers implies two things. First, as we have seen before, U.S ENGLISH being a patriotic movement, it is predictable that they would pay tribute to some of the symbols of the nation and as we have seen the flag is a banal carrier of the nation's identity. On the other hand, using the U.S flag as the background of a bumper sticker can be a way to attract supporters because of the legitimacy this symbol gives to the movement. The U.S national flag is one of the nation's most widely recognized symbol. It refers both to the nation, the government and the ideals of the nation. It symbolizes both unity and independence as it was made of 50 stripes recalling the fifty States that compose the nation and thirteen stars recalling the thirteen colonies that rebelled against Britain.

One can also find direct references to the flag of the United States in other publications. U.S ENGLISH referred twice to the pledge of allegiance to the United States in their promotional material. A first reference to this oath can be found in the monograph published by Hayakawa in 1985 entitled One nation... Indivisible?? (Annex IV). On the original document this title was written in bold and capital letters. This title is a parody of the pledge of allegiance of the United States. Similarly, the pledge of allegiance to the United States has also been used by U.S ENGLISH in a more recent advertising campaign entitled Will it come to this?? (Annex XIX). This advertisement staged children with their right hand on their heart, looking up in front of the U.S flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance. Only the first two lines are in English, the following lines are respectively in Spanish and in German. The reasons for the use of parody will be explained further on when dealing with another communication strategy that consisted in preaching unity.

The pledge of allegiance⁸⁵ was recognized the official national pledge of the United States in 1942 by Congress. More than just a way to catch the reader's attention, a reference to this oath has a strong symbolical value. This pledge that symbolizes national solidarity is an oath of loyalty to the nation. It is usually sworn by children at school and read at the opening of each Congressional session. It symbolizes the commitment to the flag and to the republic of the nation.

But U.S ENGLISH did not only use the symbol of the flag or the ceremony attached to it, they also referred to the Statue of Liberty with intent to prove that U.S ENGLISH is not isolationist or racist(Annex IV, l.439). Hayakawa choose to quote a passage of the poem from

⁸⁵ I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? from the U.S Flag Code composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892.

Emma Lazarur inscribed on it, on which one can read: the Mother of Exile? sent worldwide welcomes? and lift [her] lamp beside the golden door?(Annex IV, l. 440-449).

The Statue of Liberty, given by France in 1886, is a monument commemorating the centenary of the signing of the U.S Declaration of Independence. It is situated on Liberty Island in New York Harbor and it welcomes visitors, immigrants and returning Americans. It is one of the most recognizable icons of the United States. There are two strong symbols underlying this reference: the 100^th anniversary of the signing of the U.S Declaration of Independence signaling the birth of the nation and American immigration history. One of the communication strategies of the movement being to present itself as patriotic and pro-American, a reference to this well-known symbol of the nation was another way to pay tribute to the nation but also to recall the welcoming tradition of the land and assimilate the movement with those views.

Another technique used by U.S ENGLISH was to pay tribute to the diversity of the nation by using symbolical pictures. In their advertising campaign of January 1993, they staged a huge variety of people from different backgrounds, both male and female, native born and immigrants, young and older people, and they managed to arrange them in order to delineate the shape of the country (Annex XI). The power of assimilation of the nation can also be considered as a symbol of the United States. The most striking element that symbolizes America's tolerance and assimilation power is concept of the melting-pot present in most of their publications. We will explain this concept when accounting for their nativist attitude later on in this analysis.

The technique used by U.S ENGLISH consisted in constantly reminding their audience of their nationality and thus of their national identity. This is what Michael Billig called banal nationalism?. M. Billig wrote that:

In the established nations there is a continual 'flagging' or reminding of nationhood. Nationhood provides a continual background for political discourses, for cultural products and even for structuring the newspapers. The citizenry are daily reminded of their national place in a world of nations. However this reminding is so familiar, so continual, that it is not consciously registered as reminding. The metonymic image of banal nationalism is not a flag which is being consciously waved with fervent passion; it is the flag hanging unnoticed on the public building. National Identity embraces all these forgotten reminders (Billig 8).

So considered, one of the communication strategies of U.S ENGLISH is to flag? the nation in order to remind their audience of their patriotic and nationalist feelings. For M.

Billig, this banal nationalism? can also be found in small words such as we?, our?, this? and here?, people?, nation?. Micheal Billig considered that small words, rather than grand memorable phrases, offer constant, but barely conscious, reminders of the homeland, making 'our' national identity unforgettable? (Billig 93). U.S ENGLISH used the mass media to daily bring the flags home to the citizenry? (Billig 93).This every day celebration of the nation is also an element of Ernest Renan's definition of the nation. He stated that a nation existence is a daily plebiscite? (Renan 41-55). Assimilating the nation to their cause was a way to present themselves as national heroes in order to enhance people's involvement in their organization. Implicitly, by showing their attachment to the values and symbols of the nation, U.S ENGLISH wanted people to express their love for the nation by joining them.

At this point, we can consider that more than just being a patriotic movement, U.S ENGLISH showed a nationalist attitude. Nationalism is both a sentiment and a movement. According to E. Gellner, nationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent?(Gellner 1). The constant flagging? of the nation in the publications of U.S ENGLISH aimed at unifying the national and the political unit. They wanted American citizens to feel American? so that they will want to fight to protect their country. For the sociologist and political scientist, Morris Janowitz, contrary to patriotism which is a positive attachment, nationalism is an aggressive feeling against out groups (Billig 51). Gellner considered that nationalism as a sentiment is the feeling of anger aroused by the violation of the principle, or the feeling of satisfaction aroused by its fulfillment? (Gellner 1). This aspect of the concept of nationalism will be associated with the ideology of the movement when accounting for their views about immigration and more particularly Hispanics.

As we have seen advertising is used by U.S ENGLISH as a way to awake nationalist and patriotic feelings. In the next part we will wonder whether the disuniting of America?⁸⁶ is a fear or a reality and how U.S ENGLISH has been using division as a communication strategy to give weight to their cause.

⁸⁶ Expression borrowed from SCHLESINGER,Arthur. i, L'Amérique Balkanisée: une société multiculturelle désunie, 2^nd edition, Paris: Economica, 1999. Print.

3. U.S ENGLISH Strategy: Projecting Disunity while Advocating Unity

First of all, the advertisements published by U.S ENGLISH can be considered as adverts of the problem-perspective category? because it provides a genuine concern with the worries and fears of public opinion (Vestergaard and Schroder 162). This technique is used to attract the viewer's attention: if the topic of the advertising affects the personal fears and desires of the audience, it is more likely that the receiver will feel involved and take the information presented in the document for granted. As we will see, more than just appealing to the fears of public opinion, U.S ENGLISH managed to create new ones through the use of media.

As we have seen previously, advertising plays on people's need for an identity and U.S ENGLISH has been using some of the symbols of the nation to reinforce their national identity. Another strategy used by U.S ENGLISH was to point at a supposed division within the American nation to show the unifying power of a national language and to gain support for their cause.

This strategy consisted in embezzling from its original use a symbol of the nation. As we have seen previously, U.S ENGLISH used the pledge of allegiance to the United States in two of their publications. In the monograph, they parodied it by adding a question mark at the end of a quotation of this pledge (Annex IV). This technique allowed them to question the indivisibility of the nation. By pointing at the potential disuniting of the nation due to the linguistic diversity, they manage to create fears of a national division. Similarly, when they choose to quote the pledge of allegiance in three different languages, they projected the image of a multilingual nation. As we have seen in part one, language tends to be associated with the commitment and the loyalty people feel for a country. By adding the rhetorical question Will it come to this?? underneath this picture, U.S ENGLISH tried to create fear in the viewer's mind (Annex XIX). They want their audience to believe that such a situation is possible. In the script of this advertisement, U.S ENGLISH answered their own question by saying we hope not. But it doesn't look good?. Projecting their audience in a hypothetical future allowed U.S ENGLISH to reinforce the idea that such a division was actually possible and on the verge of happening and that unity in the nation could only be achieved through national language legislation.

In those two documents, U.S ENGLISH choose to parody a symbol of national unity in order to create fears of a potential division. To a certain extent we can consider that they

have been revisiting this national symbol by embezzling it from its original symbolic function.

This analysis will now attempt to study the different publications published by the movement in the light of selected concepts of mass communication. First, it is necessary to consider how mass media works and how it exerts its influence. On this point, there are several theories but we will only consider two of them. The first theory that dates back from the beginning of the 1980s is called the silver bullet theory? (Devito 471). It holds that the mass media works like a bullet aiming at a target, the message sent being the bullet and the target penetrated by the bullet being the audience. It considers that receivers are passive and that whatever the message that is being sent, the receiver will absorb it. This concept has been strongly criticized as being inadequate and too simplistic. The second theory that needs to be explained is the multiple step theory?. This theory is more recent and involves a back-andforth process between public opinion and the media? (Devito 472-473). According to this theory, discussion with friends and family might lead to reconsidering our original beliefs about certain issues presented in the media, not the media itself. But it also holds that the media influences people's attitude towards certain issues by for instance emphasizing a certain aspect of an issue. So considered, one has to be cautious when accounting for the influence of those advertisements on public opinion.

In order to account for the potential effect advertisements could have on the receiver, one needs to explain the relationship between the media and reality. Some commentators like Joseph Devito considered that the media are not reality (Devito 467). For Devito, the media influences the social context and the social context influences the media. In other words, the media influences the personal reality of many people but it is also influenced by the reality it creates. So considered, U.S ENGLISH advertising campaign of late 1980s in which they have been projecting the United States as a crumbling nation can be interpreted as an attempt to convince people of the potential division that threatens the nation in the next few years (Annex VII). This advertisement is the perfect example of the hypothesis that advertising is not reality because it is unlikely that, at some point, some states like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida or California, could detach themselves from the rest of the country. In this advertisement, the social context clearly influenced the choice of the states that threaten to fall apart from the rest of the nation. They are the states with the highest percentage of non-English speakers. Similarly, those states all have a border with a foreign nation, except New York but it is the city where all the immigrants who traveled to the East coast have historically landed. One may expect this add to have an effect on the personal reality of the viewer. U.S

ENGLISH aimed at creating fears of a division based on both immigration and language-ability in the United States. It may also stimulate the desire the viewers have for a united nation and invite them to act before it is too late. The fact that this add is future-oriented tends to validate this hypothesis. To the question It can't happen here. (Or can it?)?, U.S ENGLISH answered: Yes, it can? (Annex VII). This advertisment is a good example of how the movement tried to creates division and fears while preaching unity.

Other commentators of communication studies claimed that advertisements are a true mirror of life, a sort of fossil history from which the future chronicler, if all other historical monuments were to be lost, might fully and graphically rewrite the history of our time?⁸⁷. In other words, advertising would be a way to obtain clues about society at a given time. In the light of this concept of the relationship between the media and reality, their advertising campaign of 1989 can be analyzed as a picture? of its time (Annex IX). So considered, the use of a bilingual publication may attest to the linguistic diversity of the nation at that time. The choice of English and Spanish illustrates the linguistic situation of the country at that time as Spanish was and still is the second language spoken in the United States. Pointing to the real linguistic diversity of the country was a way to create division between English and Spanish speakers. In fact, as the aggressive title of this advertisement was written in English, it was almost impossible for the Spanish population to catch the meaning of this title: if you can't read this add, don't feel badly. Our children can't read this book?(Annex IX). Similarly, as the script of this advertisement was published in Spanish, it was impossible for the English speaking population to understand the topic of this advertisement. This technique was a way to both encourage the English-speaking viewer to preserve national unity through the enactment of official English legislation and to arouse his anger towards the foreign language speakers of the nation. If advertising pictures reality, the United States was portrayed as a bilingual country by the movement to make their audience realize the implications of bilingualism at a national level and encourage them to act against it by for instance rejecting foreign-language speakers. It is important to note that this add appeared as a neutral promotional material to Spanish speaking people and as a denunciation of the size of the Spanish-speaking community for English speakers. The division around the comprehension of this advertisement was another technique used by U.S ENGLISH to create division while preaching unity.

Another concept of the relationship the media has with reality can be found in The

⁸⁷ POPE, Daniel. Making Sense of Advertisements?, from Making Sense of Evidence. History Matters: The U.S. Survey on the Web. Web. 7 Feb. 2010. p. 1.

Language of Advertising. It is explained that advertising is based on a subconscious desire for a better world?(Vestergaard and Schroder 124). For Verstergaard and Schroder, advertising implies dissatisfaction with the real world expressed through imaginary representations of the future as it might be. In this concept of the media, advertising is a way of picturing people as they may become, in a kind of reversed mirror, to show what people are not at the present? (Vestergaard and Schroder 127). This concept of the media is particularly true in their advertising campaign of the late 1980s studied previously. If we consider that U.S ENGLISH projected an image of a disunited nation as an imaginary projection of the future as it might become, we can consider that they point out at the fact that the nation is still united. This advertisement would then be the expression of their dissatisfaction with this situation. In fact, it is not to their advantage to present the nation as a unified body because they have been aiming at passing official language legislation on the grounds that only it was the only way to achieve national unity. Their strategy was to project a divided future in order to justify the enactment of the amendment they support as if the unity achieved without this official language legislation was fragile and needed to be strengthened.

Having explained the different communication strategies used by U.S ENGLISH to gain support for their cause, it is time to question the pro-immigration image of the organization.

B. QUESTIONING THE PRO-IMMIGRATION IMAGE OF THE MOVEMENT

1. To What Extent does U.S ENGLISH Foster Immigration?

In this part, our focus will be on the pro-immigration image projected by U.S ENGLISH in their different publications.

On the official website of U.S ENGLISH, one can read Official English is proimmigrant?⁸⁸. In order to determine to what extent U.S ENGLISH is pro-immigrant, we need to examine both the rhetoric and the communication strategies of the movement.

First, the choice of the successive Chairmen has been part of U.S ENGLISH strategy to introduce themselves as a pro-immigrant organization. Since its creation in 1983, the movement has always been headed by a man of immigrant origins. Between 1983 and 1993, the movement was headed by S.I Hayakawa. Hayakawa, son of a Japanese immigrant, was

⁸⁸ Talking Points?on the official website of U.S ENGLISH at < http://www.us-english.org>

brought up in Canada before his father had to come back to Japan for business leaving him to one of his American friend. Hayakawa proudly shared his experience as an immigrant in the monograph he wrote in 1985 in support for an English Language Amendment. The document started as follow: many have wondered how it is that a movement aimed at making English the official language of the United States is being headed by a man with a Japanese name?? (Annex IV, l.2-3). This rhetorical question is certainly not an innocent question. The author emphasized his immigrant origins to make the cause he was fighting for more transparent. This strategy allowed the author to clear himself from any anti-immigrant feelings as he is himself an immigrant. It can also be understood as a kind of appeal that would say: if you are also an immigrant who took the step to learn English, be sure that other immigrants will have to do the same by joining our organization.

The same communication strategy has been used in 1994 by Mauro Mujica. A year after he became the Chairman of U.S ENGLISH, Mujica published an advertising campaign entitled: Why a Hispanic Heads an organization called U.S ENGLISH??(Annex XII). Mujica is an immigrant from Chile who became a naturalized US citizen in 1970. On the very first line of the body of this advertisement one can read: I am very proud of my heritage?(Annex XII). This statement deviously suggested that this movement is pro-immigrant and that immigrants have to be proud of their heritage. Like Hayakawa, Mujica put forward his past to clear the organization's image from any anti-immigration accusations from the public opinion and Congress.

Another technique used by U.S ENGLISH consisted in presenting the nation as a nation of immigrants. Both Mujica and Hayakawa have been paying tribute to the linguistic and cultural diversity of the nation while promoting official language legislation for the nation. In their different advertising campaigns, U.S ENGLISH has been referring to the United States as our nation of immigrants?. Similarly, in his speech to introduce an amendment to immigration legislation in support of English as the official language of the nation, Hayakawa considered the United States as a land of immigrants from every corner of the world? (Annex II, l.62) and had a welcoming and enthusiastic attitude towards immigrants when he said that we have all benefited from the sharing of ideas, of cultures and beliefs ... We have all enriched each other. ... All around, we are better Americans because we have all melded our cultures together into this wonderful cultural symphony which is the United States of America? (Annex II, l. 65-69). Further on, he described the United States as being a multiracial, multicultural democratic society? (Annex II, l.86). Moreover, in the 1985 monograph by Hayakawa, one can observe that the nation is referred to as a hodge-podge of

nationalities, races and colors? (Annex IV, l.118). In all their publications, U.S ENGLISH systematically acknowledged the role that immigration has played in the creation of the American culture. To do so, they have constantly pointed at the plural dimension of the nation as being a positive characteristic. On several occasions, they have been overemphasizing the power the nation has to assimilate immigrants by always referring to the ethnic, racial, linguistic and cultural diversity of the US.

But on the bumper stickers for sale on their official website, one can read: The United States of America built, powered and made great by immigrants who learned English? ^89. In other words, they acknowledged the role of immigration in the building of the American nation but they considered that only immigrants with knowledge of the English language played a role in the nation-building process. So considered, it seems that according to U.S ENGLSIH, the language ability of immigrants is of the utmost importance when acknowledging the role they played in the creation of the nation. The tolerance the movement showed for immigrants' influence on the American culture can then be questioned. The ambiguity between their celebration of diversity and their attitude towards foreign language speakers conveys an impression that their admiration for the plural dimension of the American society is simply high-words. Paying tribute to the multicultural character of the nation was a communication strategy to introduce their organization as pro-American and pro-immigration but as our analysis showed, this was only a cover.

Furthermore, even a detailed analysis of the documents produced by the organization fails to account of their pro-immigration views. On their website, they justified that they were pro-immigrant with the following argument:

A department of Education study showed that those who do not know English earn only half as much as those who do. Moreover, knowledge of English is essential to the assimilation process.⁹⁰

In fact, those arguments account of the link between social mobility and language ability but do not encourage immigration in any ways. In a testimony made in front of Congress in 2006, Mujica said that H.R 997 is a pro-immigration bill? (Annex VI). But like on their website, the movement failed to justify those views. In this speech, one can read that in a country whose residents speak 322 languages, multilingual government should be the exception, not the rule? (Annex VI, l.22-3), and that if we are to successfully remain a 'nation of immigrants' the government cannot see immigrants as mere customers, to be served

⁸⁹ Bumper sticker on U.S ENGLISH official website at < http://www.us-english.org/bumpersticker>

⁹⁰ Talking Points?, U.S ENGLISH official website at < http://www.us-english.org/view /40>

in whatever languages they happen to speak? (Annex VI, l.52). This testimony was made in order to explain why the government should stop providing multilingual services on the basis that it was wasteful and that it actually discouraged immigrants to learn the language of the majority. Once again, there is nothing pro-immigrant about those arguments. In fact those multilingual services that U.S ENGLISH has been rejecting, aimed at encouraging immigration and helping newcomers to participate in society. In this light, the suppression of those services can be understood as an attempt to encourage only a selected immigration to the US.

As we have seen in part one, both Mujica and Hayakawa linked their successful immigration experience to the learning of the English language. In their different publications, evidence shows that they have been trying to present their own experience as the rule. The idea that only a certain type of immigration should be promoted was omnipresent in the monograph written by Hayakawa in 1985. Hayakawa, who had been a professor and a writer, then the president of San Francisco State College, and finally the Senator of California in 1976 before being Honorary Chairman of U.S ENGLISH, saw in his own story, the story of one immigrant?(Annex IV, l.112). He assumed later that each immigrant had a parallel experience and thus a remarkable story? to tell (Annex IV, l.113). Throughout the narrative of his own success story, Hayakawa presented immigration as a moving and inspiring? experience (Annex IV, l.116). He even went further when he generalized his own successful experience to all immigrants by explaining that there was a huge number of former immigrants in the composition of Congress: I continue to be impressed by the fact that so many of my colleagues in the House and Senate have the same kind of story?(Annex IV, l.118-119). Moreover, Hayakawa purposely overemphasized the positive aspects of his own experience by sharing his feelings with the reader: much to my delight? (Annex IV, l.54), I was very happy? (Annex IV, l.55), what excitement for a nineteen year old!? (Annex IV, l.61), it was a thoroughly gratifying experience? (Annex IV, l.66), we had never regretted our move? (Annex IV, l.80), I was overjoyed? (Annex IV, l.96).

Similarly to Hayakawa, Mujica used his own experience as an immigrant to clear the movement's image from any anti-immigration accusations. In a testimony made in front of Congress in 2006, Mujica said: As an immigrant and naturalized citizen, the issues we are discussing today are of great personal importance... Mr. Chairman, one third of U.S ENGLISH members are either immigrants or the children of immigrants? (Annex VI, l.8-12). In this speech Mujica also justified the pro-immigrant image of the movement by putting the emphasis on the number of immigrants or children of immigrants that support the movement.

Another strategy to give a pro-immigration image to U.S ENGLISH has been to select lots of immigrants or children of immigrants to represent the movement in its Advisory Board⁹¹. In fact, research about the national origin of the different members that composed their Advisory Board in 2009 revealed that sixteen out of the thirty two members of the Advisory Board of U.S ENGLISH were immigrants or son/daughter of immigrants: Mauro E. Mujica and his sister Barbara Mujica are immigrants from Chile, Harvey Meyerhoff is the son of an immigrant from Ukraine, Nathan Glazer is the son of Polish immigrants, Andre Emmerich was born in Frankfurt in 1924, Dinesh Desai is a naturalized citizen born in India, Jorge Delgado is a Uruguayan footballer, Jacques Barzun, is an immigrant from France, Alex Trebek is an immigrant from Canada, Togo W. Tanaka is an immigrant from Japan, Alex Olmedo comes from Peru, Norman Podhoretz is the son of Jewish immigrants from the Central Europe, James Schlesinger is the son of a Russian mother, and an Austrian father, Rosalyn Yalow is the daughter of German immigrants, and finally, Arnold Schwarzenegger is an Austrian immigrant.

U.S ENGLISH has been using several strategies to be considered as a pro-immigration movement. But as our analysis has shown, this is only a cover because it seems that they tend to promote only a certain type of immigration. Furthermore, one may wonder if their aim was really social integration through a language legislation as they have been pretending because none of the members of its the Advisory Board is specialized in education.

In the next part we will see through the analysis of their 2008 advertising campaign that official language legislation may be a cover for more extreme views on immigration.

2. Analysis of the 2008 Advertising Campaign: the 'Unwanted' Immigrants

U.S ENGLISH has not always been presenting immigration as a success story as the analysis of their 2008 advertising campaign will show in this part. This advertisement was entitled Immigrants who don't want to learn English can really clean up in America? and staged a man of supposed Hispanic or Latin origins sweeping. In order to decode the message U.S ENGLISH wanted to send through this advertising campaign, we need to analyze the different techniques used in the making of this advertisement (Annex XVIII).

First of all, the picture showing a man sweeping directly reminds of the traditional

⁹¹ Full list of the Advisory Board of U.S ENGLISH available at < http://www.us-english.org/view/309>

image of the immigrant from earlier generations performing unskilled and low-paid jobs in America. Indeed, the first wave of immigrants of the 1880s and the second wave of immigrants of the 1900s mainly from Southern and Eastern Europe, East Asia and Mexico were a response for a demand of laborers who could perform heavy physical and thus low paid jobs. This old fashioned image of the immigrant performing low paid and menial jobs is reminded by the movement to pretend that nothing has changed since the 1880s: there has been no advancement in the status of immigrants in the United States. Actually, as we have seen, the MacCarren-Walter Act of 1952 and the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 gave preference to immigrants with technical or professional job expertise as well as for family reunification purposes.

Then, we need to focus on the visual effects used in the making of this advertisement. U.S ENGLISH choses to use a high-angle shot, placing the camera above eye-level in order to look down on the subject, which consequently appears insignificant, weak, and helpless. Furthermore, the man seemed to be envious of the viewer as he was looking up to him. It gives the movement an almighty position on that man. In this advertisement the cleaner was presented as the victim of his low status and it tells a lot about the views of the movement on immigration. U.S ENGLISH used those visual techniques to put pressure on immigrants event though this advertisement was not only addressed to them but also to any other American reading the newspaper in which this add was published.

As we have seen, advertising is a way to create strong mental imprints in the viewer's mind through the use of pictures with a strong visual impact. This advertisement can have a double effect on the receiver: it may invite him to stigmatize that kind? of immigrants, themselves presented as being only half-American? because of their lack of English proficiency. Or, on the contrary, since the viewer can actually feel the immigrant`s helplessness due to the close-up which allows the viewer to get "into the head" of the character, this can actually invite him to take pity on the immigrant pictured thus encouraging him to act and change the way things are, for instance by joining U.S ENGLISH.

Not only the picture but also the message of this advertisement caught the viewer's attention. One can read: immigrants who don't learn English can really clean up in America?. In this sentence immigrants who do not learn English were seen as only worth doing the cleaning job? like the man pictured in this advertisement. There is black humor? in the advertisement if we consider that to clean up? means to make money. The use of the present time gave an eternal truth characteristic to the message: U.S ENGLISH wanted the viewer to believe that what is written on this advertisement is true. They are suggesting that immigrants

came to America because they wanted to make money, but there is a double entendre because it also suggests that they can only get cleaning jobs. Symbolically, immigrants are accused of being responsible for their low position in the society.

This kind of immigration was seen as unwanted because it did not illustrate the American Dream as the dream of a promise land of freedom and opportunity. In 1931 in his book The Epic of America ,James Trustow Adams wrote:

American dream of a better, richer, and happier life for all our citizens of every rank, which is the greatest contribution we have made to the thought and welfare of the world. That dream or hope has been present from the start. Ever since we became an independent nation, each generation has seen an uprising of ordinary Americans to save that dream from the forces which appeared to be overwhelming it. ⁹²

The idea of the Promise Land, present in Adams' definition of the American Dream considered America as an asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty?.⁹³ The revolutionary idea of this concept lied in the fact that anybody could fulfill this dream for a better, successful and prosperous life in the United States. In the light of this definition, U.S ENGLISH presented the man staged in this advertisement with no chance to fulfill the American Dream because of his incapacity to speak the English language.

But the man in the advertisement is working, so he is fully integrated in the American society as he participates in the American economy. Working is a form of integration but the movement focused on language as being the only tool for advancement in America, the way to benefit from the many economic opportunities this land has to offer?. The link between language proficiency and social mobility can also be found in their motto the language of equal opportunity?: English is described as instrumental tool for advancement, social mobility and progress as we saw in part one. Immigrants with little or no knowledge of English are rejected by U.S ENGLISH because of their low position on the socio-economic ladder.

At this point of our analysis, it is necessary to keep in mind that those menial jobs performed by the immigrants are essential to the US economy: if nobody accepted to perform those jobs the economy of the whole country would collapse. Immigration allows the country to have a stable and dynamic economy. There cannot only be lawyers, architects, doctors, successful businessmen or any other high position in a society. U.S ENGLISH has been encouraging skilled immigrants or at least immigrants with knowledge of the English

⁹² CULLEN, Jim. The American Dream: a short history that shaped a nation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Google Book Search. Web. 7 March 2010. p.4.

⁹³ PAINE, Thomas. Common Sense: Addressed to the inhabitants of America, 1776, ICON Group International Inc (2005). Google Book Search. Web. 6 Feb. 2010. p. 22.

language before coming to the United States but it seems that they have a low esteem for those who perform menial, unskilled or low payed jobs.

This advertisement expressed a form of racism because it stages the helplessness of a man of Hispanic origins. In this advertisement, immigrants were stigmatized and doomed to have a low position in society. The underlying meaning of this advertisement is that unskilled workers of foreign origins are not welcomed or even rejected. A deep analysis of this advertisement points out that there is a clear cut contrast between the views the movement claims to have on immigration on their website and in their 2008 advertising campaign.

It is interesting to compare the message of this advertisement with the one conveyed by their advertising campaign of 1995 (Annex XIII). In their advertising campaign of 1995, U.S ENGLISH used the image of the good and willing immigrant to promote their cause and to introduce the organization. This advertisement staged a man of Hispanic origins exactly like their 2008 advertising campaign and was entitled to make it in America, you need to learn my language? (Annex XIII). In this advertisement, the movement once again used the role borrowing technique? of Leech explained when accounting for the communication strategies of the movement. This advertisement staged a man, Fernando Mateo, immigrant from the Dominican Republic, testifying of his own success story thanks to the learning of the English language. He said: the secret to any immigrant's success is to learn English before anything else. I know, I speak from experience? (Annex XIII). Later on, he is described as a highly successful carpet businessman in New York City? who had a Points of Light? from the White House for his voluntary work with non-violent first offenders. The use of this testimony allowed U.S ENGLISH to illustrate their motto which is The Language of Equal Opportunity?.

A mass communication theory elaborated by Albert Bandura specified that massmedia messages give audience members an opportunity to identify with attractive characters that demonstrate behavior, engage emotions, and allow mental rehearsal and modeling of new behavior. The behavior of models in the mass media also offers vicarious reinforcement to motivate audience members' adoption of the behavior?⁹⁴. In the light of this concept known as the social learning theory?, we can conclude that U.S ENGLISH tried to set an example for the other immigrants of the nation by telling the success story of this carpet businessman.

There is a clear-cut contrast between those two advertising campaign published by the movement. On the one hand, they have been projecting an ideal embodied by the image of the

⁹⁴ SURESH, Kalyani, Theories of Communication?, 2003, Professional Educational Organization International, Web. 3 Apr. 2010. n.p.

successful immigrant who fulfilled the American Dream and, on the other hand, they have been breaking up the promise made to immigrants by pointing at an immigrant at the other end of the social ladder. The dichotomy between those two faces of immigration projected by the movement reveals a certain contradiction in the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH. From the contrast between the good alien success story embodiment of the American Dream presented in the monograph and the advertising campaign of 1995 and the underlying half-citizenship allocated to some immigrants in the United States by the movement in the advertisement of 2008, we can conclude that the pro-immigration image of the movement was clearly a cover hiding a profound disregard towards for certain type of immigrants, namely foreign language speakers.

In the light of this analysis, we may wonder whether the movement aimed at social control or at social integration and whether or not an English Language Amendment can be considered as a cover for immigration restrictions.

C. REASONS AND ENDS OF THE U.S ENGLISH ANTI-HISPANIC ATTITUDE

1. Documenting U.S ENGLISH's Hispanophobia

As we have now determined U.S ENGLISH has been considering that the culture and language brought by the different immigrant groups who came to settle in America are a threat to the national unity. For U.S ENGLISH, some cultures were less compatible with the American culture than others. In this part, we will see to what extent U.S ENGLISH has been charging and blaming Hispanics for this division in the nation. The roots of this anti-Hispanic attitude will be explained further on when highlighting the relationship U.S ENGLISH had with some anti-immigration groups.

In this part, by the use of the word Hispanics? we will suggest the persons of Latin origin living in the United States, people of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican or South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race as defined by the United States Federal Bureau.

Before analyzing the evidences of U.S ENGLISH`s anti-Hispanic attitude, it is necessary to recall Gellner's definition of nationalism: nationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent. ... Nationalist sentiment is the feeling of anger aroused by the violation of the principle, or the

feeling of satisfaction aroused by its fulfillment?(Gellner 1). As we mentioned previously, U.S ENGLISH is more than just a patriotic movement aiming at language legislation but can be considered a strong nationalist organization. In the light of Gellner's definition of nationalist sentiment, it seems that in the United States it was the presence of Hispanics, and more particularly their leaders, that U.S ENGLISH has been considering as a problem.

In his monograph written in 1985, Hayakawa expressed his worries about the increasing size of the Spanish-speaking population in our nation?( Annex IV, l.194). The fact that the word Hispanic? appeared twenty six times in this ten pages length monograph whereas the word Asian or Chinese appeared only nine times is another evidence of the concern Hayakawa had for the Hispanic community of America. But more than the size of this community, Hayakawa worried about their political influence on the nation. He wrote:

The ethnic chauvinism of the present Hispanic leadership is an unhealthy trend in the

present-day America. It threatens a division perhaps more ominous than the division

between Blacks and Whites. ... The present politically ambitious 'Hispanic Caucus' looks

forward to a destiny for Spanish-speaking Americans separate from that of Anglo-,

Italian-, ... Americans.(Annex IV, l.275-277)

In those lines Hispanic leaders were blamed for having separatist views and a chauvinist attitude. Chauvinism can be defined as fanatical patriotism, the belief of the superiority of one's group, that is to say the hatred of other nations. Often associated with racism, chauvinism is the exaggerated belief in the supremacy of one's nation?⁹⁵. It is true that some Hispanic leaders have had political ambition like the National Council of La Raza, the US largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization. But there are no evidences that they aimed at a political takeover of the nation as Hayakawa explained in his monograph. Their goal was to defend and protect the rights of Hispanics in the nation. Hayakawa said that those political organizations led by Hispanic leaders threaten a division perhaps more ominous than the division between Blacks and Whites?. In this sentence the political ambition of Hispanic leaders was overstated. In his monograph, Hayakawa also talked about heavy pressures from Hispanic organizations? and explained that none of these divisions is simply a quarrel about language?(Annex IV, l.369;392).

One may wonder why Hayakawa declared war to Hispanic leaders and not to Chinese or Italian leaders. He himself explained that:

It is not without significance that pressure against English as the official language

⁹⁵ "chauvinism." Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition. Philip Lief Group 2009. Thesaurus.com. Web. 11 May 2010.

legislation does not come from any immigrant group other than Hispanic: not from the Chinese or Koreans or Filipinos or Vietnamese; nor from immigrants Iranians, Turks, Greeks, East Indians, Ghanians, Ethiopians, Italians or Swedes. The only people who have any quarrel with the English language are the Hispanics... The aggressive movement on the part of Hispanics to reject assimilation and to seek to maintain - and give official status to- a foreign language within our borders is an unhealthy development(Annex IV, l.393-397).

In fact, Hayakawa considered that Hispanics represented a threat to the nation because of their language ability and especially because they had been trying to maintain and protect their native tongue in front of the hegemony of the English language in the nation. Considering that they have been claiming that Hispanics children should have the right to be taught in the language of their heritage, at public expense?(Annex IV, l.329-333), Hayakawa accused Hispanic leaders to try to pass an official bilingual legislation for the United States declaring both Spanish and English the national tongues of the nation. But we must differentiate between trying to protect one's native language and giving it an official status. As we demonstrated in part one, under the United Nations Declaration of Rights, ethnic minorities should have the possibility to maintain and promote their ethnic identity through State programs. Furthermore, ethnic pride and belonging to the American nation are not incompatible because people do have multiple identities. In his monograph Hayakawa himself showed his pride for his Japanese heritage and later Mujica put the emphasis on his Hispanic origins which was not considered as a chauvinistic attitude by U.S ENGLISH. In fact, we can consider that it was U.S ENGLISH itself that showed a chauvinistic attitude by claiming to protect the American nation from, what they described as, the Hispanic invasion?. This attitude is better described by the concept of cultural nationalism. It consists in overemphasizing the aspects and values of a particular culture in front of other cultures. It is the establishment of the primacy of one's culture upon others.

In most of their publications, they have been idealizing American culture. Their goal being to protect and promote American culture, they tended to present other cultures, and more particularly the Hispanic one as inferior. This communication strategy is known as the Rank's model of persuasion ⁹⁶(Suresh n.p). It consists in intensifying the strong points of the organization they support and downplaying their weak points while intensifying the weak point of their opponents. Evidences of this attitude can be found in the monograph written by Hayakawa. He has been presenting Hispanics as the least educated minority in the United

⁹⁶ This theory was developed by the theorist Hugh Rank in 1976.

States? (Annex IV, l.254). Putting forward the rate of drop outs in schools and their lack of academic achievements was a strategy to justify the necessity of an English Language Amendment. He used the results of a report by the American Council of Education published in the Washington Times in July 3, 1984 to justify his views:

The report says 50 percent of all Hispanics youths in America drop out of high school, and only 7percent finish college. Twelve percent of black youths and 23 percent of whites finish college.? Eighteen percent of Hispanics in America who are 25 or older are classified as functional illiterates, compared to 10 percent for blacks and 3 percent for whites(Annex IV, l.257-261).

Hayakawa compared Hispanics to Blacks and Whites but not to other ethnic minorities. It seems that the author wanted his readers to think that not only Hispanics are the worst educated minorities but also that other minorities are not to blame. The emphasis was clearly on the weak points of what he presented in this document as his enemies?. Raul Yzaguirre, a Hispanic civil rights activist, president of the National Council of La RAZA said in the 1990s that U.S ENGLISH is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to Blacks?(Crawford 1992). This comparison highlights the pressure U.S ENGLISH put on Hispanic leaders and the Spanish-speaking community in the United States.

It seems that the presence of foreign-language speakers in the nation worried the author to the point that he accused them of disuniting the nation. This was purely a nationalist attitude: the author accepted foreigners in the nation but as long as they were not too numerous. His strategy was to present the Spanish-speaking population of the United States as victims of their own leaders. Hayakawa accused Hispanic leaders of gaining power and fame? on behalf of the Spanish-speaking community (Annex IV, l.394-395). Hayakawa even made a direct appeal to the Spanish-speaking community when he wrote: One wonders about the Hispanic rank-and-file. Are they all in agreement with their leadership??(Annex IV, l.382). Denouncing the abuses and the misguided attitude of Hispanic leaders was a strategy to attract Spanish-speaking people`s support for U.S ENGLISH.

Similarly, we can consider that U.S ENGLISH has separatist views in this document. I welcome the Hispanic... influence on our culture?(Annex IV, l.245). In this sentence, the author implied that our? culture was under their? influence and that their? culture was not part of ours?. In other words, Hispanics were presented as remaining outside national culture and their influence was considered unwanted. According to Gellner, two men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to the same nation. In other words, nations maketh man?(Gellner 7). In the light of this definition, we can conclude that

by marking a distance between us? and them?, Hayakawa excluded Hispanics from the American nation.

As we previously showed, U.S ENGLISH used other techniques to stigmatize or charge Hispanics for the supposed linguistic division in the nation. In 1989 in the Albany Times-Union, the movement produced an advertisement in Spanish to gain support from the non-English speaking Hispanics in the state of New York. In this advertisement you can read If you cant' read this ad don't feel badly?, suggesting that if you can read it you have to feel guilty(Annex IX). It is yet another technique used to blame immigrants of Hispanic origins. This advertisement clearly expressed a kind of 'Hispanophobia'. Similarly, in the light of this anti-Hispanic attitude, one can consider that their 2008 advertising campaign was another attempt at stigmatizing Hispanics and it was not without significance that U.S ENGLISH chose to associate a man of Latin or Hispanic origins with unwanted? immigrants because anybody else could have been chosen, a man of Asian origins for instance.

One needs to be cautious because in the late 1980s U.S ENGLISH were accused of 'Hispanophobia'. The movement then changed its attitude towards the said ethnic group having since 1993a Hispanic Chairman. This change of attitude can be understood as a change in the communication strategy on the part of the movement to gain support for their cause. Under M. Mujica`s leadership U.S ENGLISH`s members increased from 165,000 in 1993 to over 1.8 million today. The fact that U.S ENGLISH is no longer associated with anti-immigration and hate groups can explain the increasing support people show for this movement. The choice of Hispanic Chairman allowed U.S ENGLISH to clear itself from any form of anti-immigrant feelings. Since 1993, the movement has not been overtly attacking Hispanics like it did in the past. As demonstrated in this analysis, they imply their opinion by the use of the dichotomy between the successful Hispanic embodied by Mujica and the low-skilled immigrant with a cleaning job in the 2008 campaign.

Some evidence of U.S ENGLISH`s anti-Hispanic attitude has been demonstrated, and now we need to analyze the roots of such a 'Hispanophobia'.

2. Roots of the Organization Railing against Hispanics

In order to account for the roots of the Hispanophobia of U.S ENGLISH, one needs to keep in mind several factors.

Since 1965 thousands of Mexican immigrated to the US when the Hart-Celler Act ended the national origin quotas established in 1924 and gave preference to family reunification as well as skilled workers. In the 1970s, it is said that 640,000 Mexicans entered the United States legally. ⁹⁷ In the 1980s, they were 1, 656,000 to legally cross the border and in the 1990s, the number of reached 2, 249, 000. By 2000, Mexicans represented one half of all immigrants entering the United States⁹⁸.

Contrary to pre-WW1 immigration that was highly linguistically diversified because immigrants came from all over the world speaking Italian, German, French, Polish, Russian or Yiddish, since the 1990s half of those entering the United States spoke a single non-English language, namely Spanish. We have seen that for those like U.S ENGLISH who fight to protect the status of English in the United States, the presence of Hispanics has been considered a dominance.

Before accounting for what characterized immigration from Mexico, one needs to put forward the reasons for the high number of people of Hispanic origins in the US.

First of all, the historical presence of Hispanics in the South of the United States is a determining factor accounting for their presence in such areas. Before the 1846-1848 Mexican-American war almost all of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, California and Utah were part of Mexico. One may wonder if the strong presence of Hispanic immigrants in the South West of the country was not seen as a re-conquest by some anti-immigration organizations.

The contiguity and closeness to their homeland with the American soil and the size of the border may be a factor accounting for the huge presence of Hispanics in America. This contiguity allowed the immigrants to remain in close contact with their family and friends at home. The two thousand mile border between the United States and Mexico made the crossing quite easy for illegal immigrants and it also allowed them to keep in touch with their friends and family. The cost of travel between the US and Mexico was very cheap compared to the cost of travel between China and the US.

Another element to take into consideration is the regional or sometimes urban concentration that characterizes Hispanic immigration. It is a common belief that dispersion is essential to the assimilation process because the more concentrated immigrants are, the slower and less complete their assimilation. In the US, the largest concentration of Hispanics is

⁹⁷ HUNTINGTON, Samuel, The Hispanic Challenge?, March-April 2004, 16 pages, Foreign Policy. Web. 4 March 2010. p. 3.

⁹⁸ Ibid.

situated in the South West, more particularly California. In 2000, nearly two thirds of Mexican immigrants were living in the West and half of them in California (Huntington 3).

Furthermore, the economic differences between Mexico and the United States were also a determining factor. It is likely that immigration from Mexico will decline when the economic situation of Mexico approximates that of the US.

Hispanic immigration, and particularly from Mexico, is also characterized by its illegal character. It is estimated that during the 1990s the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S each year ranged from 105 000 (according to a binational Mexican American commission) to 350 000 (according to the US Immigration and Naturalization Service). In reaction to this massive number of illegal immigrants, the government passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This act contained provisions to legalize the status of existing illegal immigrants and to reduce future illegal immigration through employer sanction. But as the figures showed, this act failed to reduce illegal immigration.

Having explained the major reasons for the huge number of Hispanics on American soil, our analysis can now turn to the relations U.S ENGLISH has been accused of having with anti-immigration or hates groups in the 1980s.

To account for those connections, one needs to look at the history of the movement itself. In 1983, Hayakawa founded U.S ENGLISH in collaboration with Dr. John Tanton. In 1979, believing that the volume of newcomers had overloaded the nation's assimilative mechanism? (Crawford 1992), Tanton founded the Federal Association for Immigration Restriction (F.A.I.R) and served as its Chairman until 1987. F.A.I.R calls for reduction in immigration and a closer control of US borders.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, J. Tanton is said to have funded several hate groups like the Population-Environment Balance in 1973, the American Immigration Control Foundation in 1983, the American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together in 1992, the California Coalition for Immigration Reform in 1994, the Californians for Population Stabilization in 1996, and Project USA in 1999⁹⁹.

In a 2009 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled The Nativist Lobby: Three Faces of Intolerance?, Tanton was accused of having connections with White Supremacists, neo-Nazi and pro-eugenics leaders. The report mentionned in its introduction that Tanton has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were

⁹⁹ POTOK, Mark, The Nativist Lobby, Three Faces of Intolerance?, Intelligence Report, Spring 2004, pp. 59- 63. Web. 5 Feb. 2010.n.p.

out breeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that, to maintain American culture, a European-American majority? is required? (Potok n.p). In February 2009, a few days after this report was published, Tanton accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of wanting to shut up or shut down any group that supports border security and enforcement of our nation's immigration laws?¹⁰⁰. Tanton said that this report is a textbook example of special interest groups, driven by the need to scare donors into shelling out more money, resorting to repeated, vicious smears and ad hominem attacks. They seek to stifle legitimate debate over a pressing public policy issue: mass immigration?(Potok n.p).

Mark Potok wrote in a report that FAIR, under Tanton's leadership, was criticized for having been partially funded by the Pioneer Found, a foundation dedicated to improving the character of the American people? by, among other things, promoting the practice of eugenics or selective breeding(Potok n.p). Tanton also joined the Zero Population Growth, and became its national president in the mid 1970s. On its official website, Zero Population Growth advocates progressive action to stabilize world population at a level that can be sustained by Earth's resources?¹⁰¹.

It is important to note that the connections the movement had with some White Supremacists, Neo-Nazi and the Zero Population Growth organizations are not assumed by the movement itself but as we have seen a huge number of reports pointed out their participation in this network.

J. Tanton formed a secretive strategy group called WITAN¹⁰² in order to write a report about the non-economic consequences of immigration in California and in the rest of United States?. In this analysis, we choose to analyze an email send by J. Tanton in which he gave recommendations to his attendees on the points he wanted to talk about in the confidential memo that was then published in 1986, two years before he resigned from U.S ENGLISH.

In that e-mail, one can read: those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!? and "a region of low-native fertility combined with high immigration of high-fertility people does not make for compatible trend lines!"(Annex V). Tanton referred to Hispanics as those with their pants down?. He was worried that the high-fertility rates of the Hispanics would lead to the end of America as a white majority. Those fears were based on the population projection made by the US Census Bureau in the 1980s that said that non-

100 TANTON, John, ?Press Release: John Tanton challenges Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to Debate over 'Lies'?, 3 Feb. 2009, Web. 5 March 2010. n.p.

101 Population Connection, Goals and Mission?, 2010, Official Website, Web. 3 April 2010.

102 WITAN? from the Old English term witenagemot, or council of wise men to advise the king.

whites such as Asians, Blacks and Hispanics will outnumber whites in the United States by 2050(U.S Census Bureau 2000 n.p). Hispanic immigrants have high fertility rates compared to other ethnic minority in the United States hence a high number of children of Hispanic origins in American schools. Similarly in his monograph Hayakawa expressed his concern about the increasing size of the Spanish-speaking population of the nation.

The Hispanophobia expressed by Tanton finds its origin in this population projection but in his memo, Tanton went further when he asked: How will we make the transition from a dominant non-Hispanic society with a Spanish influence to a dominant Spanish society with a non-Hispanic influence? ... As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? ... We're building in a deadly disunity. All great empires disintegrate, we want stability?(Annex V). In his statements, Tanton warned of a Hispanic political takeover of the United States through immigration and high birth rates. In fact, since the mid 1980s, many US voters have been reacting defensively against racial, cultural and language diversity brought by rising levels of immigration. Once again, we can draw a parallel between Tanton's memo and Hayakawa's monograph because we have now demonstrated that Hayakawa expressed his fears of an Hispanic political takeover in America.

Tanton even rounded on Hispanics in the memo when he asked: What in fact are the characteristics of Latin American culture, versus that of the United States?^? and Will Latin American migrants bring with them the tradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, etc.??(Annex V). He criticized and insulted Hispanics by giving them a bad reputation. He also questioned their capacity to be educated when he asked: What are the differences in educability between Hispanics (with their 50% dropout rate) and Asiatics (with their excellent school records and long tradition of scholarship)??(Annex V). As we know Hayakawa used exactly the same technique in his 1985 monograph to promote U.S ENGLISH.

A comparison between the ideas defended by Tanton in his memo and the views expressed by Hayakawa in his monograph highlights the ideological connections between U.S ENGLISH and anti-immigration groups. It is important to note that J. Tanton resigned from U.S ENGLISH in 1988 after the publication of this confidential and controversial memo about the potential impact of the high level of the Hispanic immigration. The publication of the memo created a division among the members of U.S ENGLISH which led some of them to resign. Research about the relations U.S ENGLISH were said to have with some anti-immigration, racist, pro-eugenic and even xenophobic organizations, confirms the hypothesis

that the movement may not encourage or promote immigration to the United States. In this light, we can conclude that in the late 1980s U.S ENGLISH aimed more at social control than social integration.

This network along U.S ENGLISH tends to prove that the language movement emerged from the anti-immigration movement that was headed by John Tanton. It is said that in the 1980s, much of U.S ENGLISH`s funding was funneled through John Tanton's` anti-immigration movement but this is impossible to demonstrate because U.S ENGLISH refused to disclose its funding sources between 1983 and 1998.

Over the past 15 years U.S ENGLISH has been downplaying their connections with anti-immigration groups and has adopted the rhetoric of 'English as an official language' in order to expand opportunities for immigrants to learn and speak English. They have sought to portray themselves as moderate and have avoided language that could be considered racist or nativist.

Last but not least, it may be significantly noted the Naked Truth? or Nudas Veritas? officially supports U.S ENGLISH on their official website on which you may find a monograph written by M. Mujica in 2006, entitled Politically Incorrect but the Naked truth^? in the subsection the spoiling of America?. In this monograph, one can read our battle is for our way of life in America?. Nudas Veritas¹⁰³ is dedicated to fighting for America's life?. On their website, one can read the following affirmations: We must restore our constitutional republic?, America has been stolen from its American citizen?, English is our language, accept American culture or leave? or I want you to speak English or get out? (parody of Uncle's Sam war appeal). One has to be cautious because U.S ENGLISH may not acknowledge those connections but the fact that they do not refute them can also be understood as a possible relationship between the two organizations.

3. Impact of the Media Coverage of the Ethnic Composition of the Nation

In the previous section we saw that U.S ENGLISH has not truly been promoting immigration to the United States but instead has been aiming at empowering immigrants that were already in the country by inviting them to adopt the language and culture of the majority. In part one, it has been proved that an official language amendment as proposed by U.S

103 Official Website of 'Nudas Veritas' available at < http://www.nudasveritas.us>

ENGLISH went beyond the symbolic recognition of an official language and had clear political implications such as citizenship, naturalization or immigration. As their anti-immigration attitude and their connections with hate groups tended to show, U.S ENGLISH may be considered as a chauvinistic and cultural nationalist lobbying organization.

Our analysis will now demonstrate to what extent U.S ENGLISH re-imagined the American nation via the media.

As mentioned at the beginning of this part, advertising plays on the individual need for identity. The Professor of Politics Collin Seymoure-Ure explained in his book The Political Impact of Mass Media that mass media may have different effects on the viewer¹⁰⁴. The information displayed through mass media may or may not modify or confirm individuals` attitudes towards an issue. He explained that if it does, change consists in the change in the relationship between the individual and some others individuals?. ¹⁰⁵ According to Seymour- Ure, both the affected person and the receiver knowing more about the others, may feel differently about them and may even behave differently towards them as a result of the communication process?¹⁰⁶.

As we now know, one of U.S ENGLISH communication strategy is to exaggerate the size of the Spanish-speaking community in the nation. In the light of Seymoure-Ure's conception of mass media effect, their different advertising campaigns may have influenced some individuals' perception of Hispanics. To a certain extent it may have invited some of them to act differently towards Hispanics and it may have invited some individuals to discriminate against them.

For Anderson, newspapers and other mass media helped to develop a national consciousness. He wrote about newspapers that:

Particular morning and evening editions will overwhelmingly be consumed between this hour and that, only on this day, no that. ... Hegel observed that newspapers serve modern man as a substitute for morning prayers (Anderson 35).

Benedict Anderson considered newspaper a mass ceremony? that allowed the different members of a nation to think about themselves and to relate to the others (Anderson 35). In the context of our analysis, the media have the power to show Americans? to one another. In a way, due to the rise of mass media, communities are imagined with more

104 SEYMOUR-URE, Collin, The Political Impact of Mass Media, London: Constable and Co LTD, 1974. Print. p. 21.

105 Ibid. p.21.

106 Ibid. p.21.

immediacy than ever because the interaction of the different members of the nation through TV programs or morning papers has never been so quick. Anderson explained that print-capitalism, the increase in geographical mobility and mass media helped to create a shared national experience.

According to Benedict Anderson the nation is an imagined political community because:

The fellow members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear from them, yet in the mind of each lives the image of their communion. ... Communities are to be distinguished not by their falsity or genuineness, but in the style they are imagined(Anderson 15).

Overemphasizing the size of the Spanish-speaking community allowed U.S ENGLISH to re-imagine the way the American nation was invented in the first place. In the light of Anderson's definition, U.S ENGLISH strategy was to point at Hispanics in the nation so that people can imagine the nation in a different way: by making people aware of the presence of Hispanics in the nation, U.S ENGLISH re-imagined the ethnic composition of the nation turning what was perceived as diversity into domination.

Furthermore presenting America as a divided nation as U.S ENGLISH has been doing for more than twenty years was also a way of re-imagining the nation. Advertising being a form of mass media, U.S ENGLISH used it to create a reality. As we have seen, the way the media influence reality is still being debated over, but we can estimate that through the use of media, U.S ENGLISH re-imagined the American nation because they managed to create the impression of a division even for people who were not actually in contact with foreign language speakers. Advertising is a way to project a widespread impression of linguistic diversity in the nation.

Last but not least, Anderson explained that multilingual broadcasting can conjure up the imagined community to illiterates and populations with different mother tongues... nations can now be imagined without linguistic communality?(Anderson 135). In this light, it seems that multilingual publications facilitate the incorporation of foreign-language speakers in the nation. Moreover, with mass media it seems that nowadays, the nation does not necessarily need to be monolingual to be imagined and for its unity to be maintained.

PART III
TOWARDS A NEW CONCEPT OF AMERICAN IDENTITY

A. U.S ENGLISH OR A NEW FORM OF NATIVISM?

1. The Promotion of the Melting-pot as a 'National Ideal'

In this part, the focus of our analysis will be on American national identity and our task will be to determine to what extent U.S ENGLISH re-imagined American identity in the light of their different publications. To do so, we will first consider why the melting-pot has been presented as a national ideal?, and then we will explain to what extent U.S ENGLISH can be considered a new form of nativism called symbol nativism?. Finally, we will account for the way they have been playing with different conceptions of American identity in order to re-imagine American national identity before trying to decode what the support for this movement tells us about American national identity.

We understood in part two that U.S ENGLISH presented themselves as pro-immigrant but evidence have shown that it was only a cover hiding more extreme views on immigration. At this point of our analysis, it is necessary to ask why they have been elevating the concept of the melting-pot as a national ideal? even though this concept has been strongly criticized since the 1960s(Annex IV , l. 191).

First of all, before explaining the different criticisms that aroused from the concept of the melting-pot, one needs to define it and trace its origins in the U.S history. The melting-pot was a concept of assimilation in the United States first defined by Hector St. Jean Crèvecoeur in 1782. The melting-pot consisted in the melting? of immigrants into the American mold?. Acculturation was then seen as the only way to turn immigrants into nationals. Acculturation implied the renunciation of one's ethnic culture and language in order to embrace the American culture. When J. Crevecoeur first defined the concept of the melting-pot, immigrants to the United States were mainly Europeans who crossed the Pacific Ocean to reach the American coast. On this point, J. Crevecoeur wrote:

What, then, is the American, this new man? He is neither an European nor the descendant of an European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American... leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has

embraced, [the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world]... (Annex IV, l.141-149).

The first illustration of this concept can be found in the famous play of 1908 from Israel Zangwill called The Melting-Pot. In his play, one can read:

Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming! A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians -- into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American (Annex IV, l.160-165).

Both I. Zangwill and J. Crévecoeur considered that acculturation was at the heart of the concept of the melting-pot and that it was the only way to turn European immigrants into nationals. In America this concept is still ringing strong as the inscription on coins is still E Pluribus Unum?, meaning out of many, one?.

Criticisms of this concept appeared with the second and third wave of immigration to the United States. The nation had to incorporate more culturally heterogeneous people than in the past when this concept emerged for the first time and the melting-pot was then considered a myth and obsolete.

In the 1910s, Horace Kallen, wanting to promote cultural diversity and the right to be different, invented the concept of the salad-bowl. This concept consisted in thinking of America as a bowl? in which immigrants, the ingredients? are mixed but not melted? so that they keep their particular taste?, that is to say their culture, language, values, and customs¹⁰⁷. For H. Kallen, unity did not have to be synonymous with homogeneity. Contrary to the melting-pot that promoted assimilation through acculturation, the salad-bowl promoted diversity and considered that integration was not incompatible with the preservation of immigrants' cultural heritage and values. The salad-bowl is a two-way process: on the one hand, immigrants integrate the American culture and on the other hand, the American culture is influenced and strengthened by the culture brought by the different immigrant groups. This concept gave rise to other similar concepts like the mosaic and the kaleidoscope in the late 1960s.

The melting-pot was strongly criticized in the 1960s by ethnic leaders who complained that it was the result of an Anglo-American? conspiracy to destroy their

107 CHAMETZKY, Jules. Beyond Melting Pots, Cultural Pluralism, Ethnicity: Or, Déjà Vu All over Again?, Vol. 16, No. 4, Winter 1989 - Winter 1990, pp. 3- 17, The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States (MELUS), JSTOR. Web. 4 March 2010. p. 6.

culture¹⁰⁸. For instance, Antonia Hermandez, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Fund considered that:

Unity is the completed puzzle, diversity the pieces of the puzzle. And until we recognize every piece, we cannot have true unity. That's the debate that is going on today, or that is where the debate should be aimed. By acknowledging the contributions made to our country by Native Americans and by Hispanics, and Blacks and Asians, we're really strengthening our unity(Chandler and Ledru 114).

In this speech, A. Hermandez indirectly denounced old concepts such as the melting-pot considering that it failed to acknowledge immigrants' contribution to the American nation. Instead, she supported the view that each immigrant was a piece of the big puzzle? that was America and that immigrants made America rather than America turned immigrants into nationals.

Contrary to A. Hermandez, in their different publications U.S ENGLISH has always presented the melting-pot as a national ideal and considered that the melting-pot is still a valid concept allowing to justify for the way immigrants became Americans. Their constant use of the word assimilation? and the way they have been elevating the concept of the melting-pot referring to it with the use of positive adjectives such as great, as well as their appeal to the protection of this concept when they say that the whole notion of a melting-pot is threatened? (Annex XIX) and our melting-pot society is in danger of boiling over?(Annex XIV), reveal something about their conception of the American culture and history.

A reference to the myth of the melting-pot in publications to promote national language legislation is not surprising because assimilation consists in achieving unity through uniformity. An analysis of the role of myths in society is necessary to reveal the implications of the elevation of the melting-pot as a national ideal? by U.S ENGLISH.

According to the French philosopher, Roland Barthes, a myth is a culture's way of thinking about something, a way of conceptualizing or understanding the world around us. He argued that the main way myths work is to naturalize history?(Fiske 88-89). In other words, for Barthes, myth is not a false idea, it allows the understanding of some aspects of reality: it is a way of accounting for the history of a nation. For the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, myths act as anxiety reducers? (Fiske 121). In this light, the myth of the melting-pot can be considered the human justification of the way immigrants were incorporated into the American nation. It was a way to reassure people that immigrants were actually assimilating the American culture.

108 CHAMETZKY, Jules. Op. Cit. p.14.

Roland Barthes added that myths are the product of a social class that has achieved dominance by a particular history?(Fiske 121). In other words, it is to justify the hegemony of English and the British influence on the American culture that the myth of the melting-pot was first invented. Furthermore, the questioning of this myth caused by the rise of new concepts such as the salad-bowl can be considered a reconsideration of U.S history itself thus a reconsideration of the justification of the hegemony of English and British culture in the U.S.

We can consider that it was to protect the hegemony of the English language in the United States that in their different publications U.S ENGLISH has been elevating the melting-pot as a national ideal?. The promotion of the melting-pot as a valid and efficient way to integrate newcomers is a way to manipulate history. As for U.S ENGLISH, it was the English language that has made this great melting-pot work?, it seems natural to protect the unifying role of the historic language for the nation. It is important to note that U.S ENGLISH did not reject ethnic but cultural diversity. Their concern was not about the color or the race but really about the culture brought by the different immigrant groups to the American nation. As the study of their bumper sticker highlighted, U.S ENGLISH acknowledged the role played by immigrants in the building of the nation but refused to acknowledge the role played by non-English speaking immigrants.

By doing so, U.S ENGLISH re-imagined the history of the nation. On this point, we previously saw that U.S ENGLISH tended to manipulate history when they pretended that it was the first time in history that the nation suffered a linguistic division. Similarly, when retracing the history of the nation, Hayakawa overemphasized the tolerance and the inclusive character of the American nation. By explaining that despite the exclusion of the Chinese after 1882, the idea of immigration as a thousand noble currents all pouring into one? continued to haunt the American imagination?, once again Hayakawa was being historically inaccurate(Annex IV, l. 64-67). In this monograph, he has overemphasized the inclusive character of the nation towards Asian immigrants in order to show that things have changed and that the U.S is now a more tolerant and inclusive nation than it ever was. He tried to prove that as an immigrant from Japan, he himself was welcome and integrated into the American nation because the nation reconsidered its views on people of Asian origins. He wrote:

Despite the almost hundred years of anti-Oriental fervor that has marked the history of

California, despite the heightened distrust of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor that resulted

in their removal from the West Coast to desert camps for the duration of the war, despite

the agonies of the Pacific War that had left thousands upon thousands of California

families bereft of sons, brothers and husbands, it seemed that by 1976 anti-Japanese hostility had all but disappeared (Annex IV, L.100-105).

It is true that what characterized the United States since its creation is this gradual shift from exclusion to inclusion but in U.S history not only Chinese were once rejected. As we have seen, U.S ENGLISH tends to present itself as pro-American by always recalling American myths and symbols to promote their cause. Having succeeded in establishing a link between the nation and the movement in the public opinion, U.S ENGLISH reinterpreted U.S history. Downplaying some important aspects of U.S history was a strategy to give a tolerant and inclusive character to U.S ENGLISH. Similarly, overemphasizing immigrants' rejection of the American culture while presenting America as an inclusive and tolerant nation was part of their strategy to justify their cause and create fears of an immigrant political takeover in the nation.

Promoting the melting-pot as a national ideal? was the only way to promote the enactment of official language legislation without showing any anti-immigrant feelings. The melting-pot is the sole concept that implies acculturation of the immigrant through the loss of his native language and culture. U.S ENGLISH presented the melting-pot as the only way to forge unity from diversity? and this is how they justify their rejection of other concepts such as the salad-bowl (Annex I and IV). The melting-pot is then very useful when trying to make the immigrants transfer to the language of the majority, because contrary to the concept of the salad-bowl that allows immigrants to maintain and promote their ethnic identity, the melting-pot makes one's native tongue sinking into oblivion a condition for citizenship.

U.S ENGLISH justified the setting up of an official language in the U.S because immigrants were said to not assimilate American culture anymore. As we have seen, U.S ENGLISH has manipulated the past in order to justify their cause and in this light, one may then wonder whether the real question is on some immigrant's incapacity to assimilate the mainstream culture or on the unwillingness of some nationalists representing the dominant group, such as U.S ENGLISH, to enable assimilation. We may wonder if the protection of American culture was not a pretence to limit and control immigration in the U.S.

Despite the several critics that aroused from the concept of the melting-pot, U.S ENGLISH still uses it as a communication strategy to justify their cause and by doing so expose themselves to criticism. One may wonder if by rejecting new concepts like the salad-bowl and promoting the role of language in the nation, U.S ENGLISH did not seek to protect and preserve the hegemonic order of the nation.

In the next part, we will consider the proposal made in 1985 by Hayakawa to set up a

National English Language Foundation in the light of the identity-forming and identity-providing function of the school system in the American nation.

2. A 'National English Language Foundation' and the Role of School in the Identity-forming Process

As we studied in part one, U.S ENGLISH strongly rejects bilingual education on the basis that it does not encourage non-English speakers to learn the language of the majority. In this part we now will consider that schools may be the target of political campaigns such as the lobbying organization U.S ENGLISH. On this point, Diana Ravitch, historian of Education, explained that:

In our history, schools have been not only an institution in which to teach young people skills and knowledge, but an arena where interest groups fight to preserve their values, or to revise the judgment of history, or to bring fundamental social change¹⁰⁹.

We will see that more than just declaring English the official language of the United States, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to dramatically change American identity by attempting to make the speaking of the English language indispensable in American identity in particular through the manipulation of school programs and the setting up of a National English Language Foundation in the nation.

In order to grasp the full implications of an English Language Amendment as proposed by U.S ENGLISH, we need to go back to their rejection of bilingual programs in schools in the light of the role of the school system in the identity-building process.

Schools can be said to have a huge integrative power in the United States. In his book, American Nationalism: An interpretative Essay, Hans Kohn who considered the American nation both a nation of nations and a nation among nations, quoted William Yandell Elliott. Elliott wrote about the strong unifying force of schools in America stating that this cohesion of a nation of many nations is largely due to the educational system of the US which has succeeded in integrating the produce of many lands into a basic sense of 'belonging'(Khon 168). For W. Y Elliott, it was the school system that inculcated a sense of belonging? to the children of immigrants as well as nationals. For sure, this sense of belonging has been inculcated by the teaching of the English language to the non-English speaking pupils. The English language being shared by all school children, it allows them to recognize each other

109 STEINBERG, Stephen, Race and Ethnicity in the US: issues and debates, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd ,2000. Print. p.267.

as being part of the wider community that is the American nation.

Similarly, in his book Nation and Nationalism, E. Gellner asserted that school through the transmission of a universal high culture? was an indispensable element to national integration and cohesion. He distinguished between two types of cultures: the school-transmitted and the folk-transmitted culture. For E. Gellner, the educational system guarantees social achievement because of the shared and standardized linguistic and cultural medium that it provides.

Furthermore, school is also a provider of civic identity as it is mainly there that children learn the rules and values of the society they live in. On this point, J.J Smolicz and M.J Secombe considered that school is the most effective instrument of achieving the cultural assimilation of ethnic children?(Smolicz & Secombe 52).

Joshua Fishman, American linguist who specialized in the sociology of language, said about American schools that they must be recognized as filling an important identity-forming and identity-providing function for millions of Americans?(Baker, Prys-Jones 562) . For instance, at school in the United States, every morning children pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States. This act imposed by the American school system is one among other compulsory civic duties that may function as an identity-provider for children. In other words, in America the school system plays an important role in the identity-forming process. On this point, H. Kohn considered that America had become almost a school of [foreign] nationality?(Kohn 161)

But the school-transmitted culture should not be incompatible with the folk-transmitted culture of children. As we saw in part one, ethnic minorities should have the right to maintain and promote their ethnic identity and language is a salient element when defining one's ethnicity. On this point, Samuel Betances wrote:

Not only these newcomers learn English, it might be good if we didn't move in too quickly and tell them to forget Spanish or Vietnamese or Chamorro, or Togalo. Maybe we can come of age and realize that we cannot, in the name of turning out good Americans limit the freedom of speech of those new to our shores and or tell people to forget what they know. In the name of education we cannot argue that it is better to know less than more. Bilingual eduction enriches our best hopes for a democratic society, making it safe for differences as well -powerful, practical reasons why we need it today even though such programs did not exist for yesterday's arrival (Baker, Prys-Jones 514).

By elevating the melting-pot as a national ideal?, it seems that in addition to what we demonstrated in part one, U.S ENGLISH has been rejecting bilingual education on the basis

that it challenges the hegemony of English and thus American identity which they consider being reliant on it. It then seems that their denunciation of the cost and pretended inefficiency of those programs was only a pretence to protect the hegemony of the English language in the United States.

U.S ENGLISH has then diverted language from its instrumental to its symbolic use. They have been trying to present their amendment as an empowerment of immigrants pretending that the learning of the English language would allow them to fulfill the American dream when in fact this was only a cover. In this part we will consider to what extent presenting language as a civic duty can be considered a diverted way to impose restrictions in immigration.

At this point of our analysis, we need to consider Hayakawa's proposal for a National English Language Foundation in the mid 1980s compared with our analysis of the American school system as an identity-provider.

First of all, we have to consider the reasons that drove Hayakawa in the late 1980s to make this proposal. In his monograph written in support for an English Language Amendment to the Constitution, he proposed a National English Language Amendment in reaction to the aggressive movement on the part of Hispanics to reject assimilation and to seek to maintain ... a foreign language within our borders? and also because of the energetic lobbying of the National Association for Bilingual Education and the congressional Hispanic Caucus? which was said to have diverted from its original purpose? the directives of the Lau decision(Annex IV, l.396; 401).

A parallel can be drawn between the reasons enunciated by Hayakawa in order to justify his proposal and the arguments used during the 1900s to impose the learning of the English language to all non-English speaking immigrants, also known as Americanization educational programs?. It seems that Hayakawa recreated the same conditions than those that led to the nativist impulse of the 1900s as he tried to create a widespread indignation over the fact that immigrants were rejecting assimilation. As we studied in part one, Theodore Roosevelt was worrying about the size of the German speaking community in the American nation when in 1917 he said that we have room for but one language and that is the English language?. As Hayakawa put the emphasis on the fact that what is at stake is our unity as a nation?, it seems that similarly to the Americanization? campaigns of 1900s, Hayakawa considered language ability a proof of one's commitment and loyalty to the American nation like Roosevelt did in 1917. Furthermore, U.S ENGLISH have always worried about the record immigration? or the unprecedented immigration? in the United States since the 1960s.

Similarly, the solution proposed by Hayakawa was not so different from the educational programs created in the 1900s to transfer immigrants into the English language as quickly as possible. At first glance, a National English Language Foundation as proposed by Hayakawa would not be entirely similar to the educational programs of the huge Americanization campaign of the 1900s. By making the instruction in the English language more available to all who need it?(Annex IV, l. 411). Haykawa presented this foundation as an option for those who want to learn English, not as the compulsory requirement of the 1900s. But a well-documented analysis of this proposal tends to prove otherwise. In fact in this monograph, Hayakawa explained that the pupils will have to pass a final English-language competency test? that will allow them to have a diploma certifying their ability to speak English(Annex IV, l.430). By stating that it would ease up the learning of the English language for those who need it?, Hayakawa indirectly imposed on all non-English speakers to take lessons from the National English Language Foundation? he was actually proposing. Indeed, as we saw in part one, Hayakawa wanted to make the speaking, writing and understanding of the English language compulsory to naturalization in the U.S. It was not without significance that Hayakawa proposed such English classes. In fact, as shown in our analysis, it is very likely that the diploma that immigrants would be given at the end of their curriculum would replace the English-requirement test of the naturalization process. In this light, this proposal would definitely not ease the assimilation of immigrants into the mainstream language but indirectly force them to do so.

Furthermore, Hayakawa explained that successful students would see their tuition fees refunded with their diploma. It implies that those who would not manage to pass the test would not get their money back and this might be a way to keep the poorest applicants from becoming naturalized U.S Citizens. Up to now, taking lessons in community colleges or school districts when wanting to learn English has always been free for immigrants. The Foundation proposed by Hayakawa would certainly make immigrants feel disheartened to learn English. The proposal is therefore completely opposed to U.S ENGLISH motto The Language of Equal Opportunity?. If immigrants would be charged to access the classes proposed by the Foundation, it is very likely that some would not have enough money to participate in the national program. The fact that the conditions of access to classes might be based on the financial situation of the applicant makes it unequal and arbitrary. Instead of encouraging immigrants to learn the language of the majority, this proposal would force them to transfer as soon as possible into English, and only the most fortunate would have the

possibility to take lessons and hopefully succeed in this new test.

In this light, we can conclude that similarly to the Americanization? campaign of the 1900s, Hayakawa has been trying to make the learning of the English language compulsory for any immigrant who wants to become an American even though he took great care in presenting things this way. It is very likely that the enactment of the English Language Amendment to the Constitution as proposed by Hayakawa would lead to selected immigration based on the language ability of the applicants. Their proposal for a National English Language Foundation is an element among others accounting for their anti-immigration feelings. By making the learning of the English language a civic duty, U.S ENGLISH has been diverting from the original aim of this amendment.

At this point of our analysis and in the light of the elements explained in part one and two as well as what we have just demonstrated, we will see to what extent U.S ENGLISH can be considered a new form of nativism.

3. U.S ENGLSIH 36\PEI4 NItivisP'

Before dealing with the modern form of nativism showed by U.S ENGLISH, one needs to make a deeper analysis of the National English Language Foundation that they proposed in the mid 1980s.

In support for his proposal, Hayakawa explained that such a foundation would devise improved programs for language instruction by television or radio- and broadcast them. It can open English-language centers in communities where none exist, offering day and evening classes to all who wish them. Unfettered by the conventional requirements of credentials and diplomas, such a Foundation can use novel methods, find teaching talent in unlikely people, and explore new approaches to the great problems involved? (Annex IV, l. 421-426).

In other words, Hayakawa proposed to use the media and even to find new teaching methods to educate non-English speakers. The use of broadcast can be considered a large scale educational program. But, contrary to institutional programs such as those proposed by schools, such a proposal makes the learning of the majority language less formal, more indirect and available to all. Television and radio are mediums through which the English language is omnipresent in America and broadcast lessons can be a way to indirectly educate those who feel the need to improve their English proficiency but it is clear that it can not force them to do so. Such programs would be symbolic invitations to learn the language of the

majority.

As we have seen in part two, the media plays on each individual need for an identity. Furthermore, the media can create a sense of national community because it projects an image of the norm and thus allows individuals to determine their status and role in society. The broadcast of English language lessons on television or on the radio can also put pressure on the non-English speaking part of the U.S population. U.S ENGLISH has been trying to use the integrating power of the media to both makes immigrant feel the need to conform to the reality and to convince English speaking Americans that everything is actually made for immigrants to transfer into English. In fact, the speaking of the English language being the norm projected by those media, those who are not fluent in this language may feel isolated or even rejected from the national community projected by the media. In this light, the broadcasting of English lessons may lead to discrimination from English-speaking people towards non-English speaking people on the basis that those who really want to learn can do it because of this free and large scale broadcast that makes English lessons available to all. It is very likely that those who are illiterate, young children or those who did not manage to learn through those programs will be pointed at and rejected by the national community because of their incapacity to conform to the norm that would then be interpreted as as a lack of involvement in the nation or as a voluntary attempt to impose their culture on the American culture or simply as unwillingness. In addition to this, Hayakawa proposed to create day and evening classes in English-language centers where these kind of institutions did not exist. In fact, those English-language centers can be considered as nationwide educational programs to transfer as soon as possible non-English speakers into the mainstream language exactly like the nativists of the 1900s proposed earlier.

Since the mid 1990s, U.S ENGLISH created a partnership with Mingoville, a website dedicated to the learning of the English language. Once again, by offering free and unlimited English lessons, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to put pressure on immigrants who have trouble learning the majority language. An overemphasis on the huge number of classes and other programs to learn the English language available for immigrants was another strategy to discriminate against them.

One of U.S ENGLISH communication strategies has been to pretend to make the learning of the majority language accessible to everyone, but in fact this technique resulted in the stigmatization of those who cannot, for any reason, join the mainstream culture. They have been trying to use the television, the radio and even the internet as large scale educational programs but instead of encouraging immigrants to learn the English language, it

is very likely those large scale programs may increase discrimination against that part of the US population.

At this point it is necessary to define the term nativism. Nativism is a type of revitalization movement aimed at perpetuating, restoring, or reviving traditional? cultural practices or characteristics, which are thought to be the source of the group`s strength and to be threatened or lost?.¹¹⁰ In the American context, nativism was a 19^th century concept of the nation that favored the interest of Americans over immigrants. In 1882, considering that Chinese immigrants were both physically and culturally incompatible with the Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, an act that outlawed immigration from China until 1952. Similarly, during the First World War, the German's attachment to their native tongue and the war led to the enactment of anti-German laws and English-only legislation in several States. Nativism is thus an extreme form of Americanism based on the fear that new immigrants threaten the norms and values of the American society. Nativists can then be said to act as guardians of the American culture? from an alien invasion.

By presenting English as the only way to achieve unity in the nation, U.S ENGLISH has been overemphasizing the historical role of the English language in the American nation and even rejecting non-English speakers in the name of public good. Through a manipulation of the national symbols of unity, they have been presenting their English Language Amendment to the U.S Constitution as a symbolic protection of the American culture, but in fact they have been using language to discriminate against minorities, presenting ethnicity as a social and economical handicap to overcome if one want to take part in the American nation. U.S ENGLISH had had a reductionist attitude towards minority languages because they have been discouraging the maintenance and promotion of immigrants' ethnic identity and language. For all those reasons, we can consider that U.S ENGLISH is a nativist organization that fights to protect and defend the hegemony of the American culture in the nation. In his essay The 'American Creed' and American identity: the limits of liberal citizenship in the United States?, Robert Smith considered this attitude as symbol nativism?.¹¹¹ According to Robert Smith, symbol nativism? is a modern and indirect way to express anti-immigrant feelings.

110 ELLER, Jack. D. Cultural Anthropology: Global Forces, Local Lives, New York: Routlegde, 2009, Web. 5 March 2010. n.p.

111 SCHILDKRAUT, Deborah. J. American Identity and Attitudes toward Official-English Policies?, Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3, International Society of Political Psychology, September 2003, pp. 469-499 , JSTOR. Web. 14 March 2010. p.497.

In the last part of this analysis, we will first consider how U.S ENGLISH has been playing with different concepts of American national identity before trying to determine to what extent U.S ENGLISH re-imagined American identity. Then, we will attempt to determine what the support for this organization tells us about American identity.

B. THE PORTRAYAL OF AMERICAN NATIONAL IDENTITY

1. Characterizing U.S ENGLISH's Conception of the Nation

First, as we have seen in part one when considering the status of English in the United States, America is a civic nation. Indeed, American identity is first and foremost defined in more political than cultural terms. The American nation is thus an ideas nation?¹¹² as Professor Edward Ashbee termed it. In his article about American national identity, E. Ashbee explained that being American meant adhering to particular beliefs and principles. The American sociologist Nathan Glazer considered the American nation as being a nation based not on a common ethnic stock linked by mystic chords of memory, connection, kinship, but rather by common universal ideas? (Ashbee 1). On the same point, the historian Richard Hofstadter considered that in America, it has been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies but to be one? (Ashbee 1).

Both N. Glazer and R. Hofstadter have a liberal concept of the American nation. They both saw America as an open and inclusive nation. For liberals, individual freedom should be protected under the law and people have to be treated equally. This dimension of individual freedom is well-illustrated in the definition of liberal nationalism of the sociologist Jack Citrin. He wrote:

A common identity is a lubricant that helps a nation achieves collective goals. Liberal nationalism is a formula for fusing individual members of American society into a system that assures equality of status and a measure of commonality to all while, at the same time, allowing the maintenance of their cultural traditions (Ashbee 12).

In this part, our focus will be on the way U.S ENGLISH has been playing with the different concept of American identity. Having defined the concept of liberal nationalism, we need to prove whether U.S ENGLISH did or did not use liberal nationalist arguments to support their cause since 1983.

112 ASHBEE, Edward, "Being American: Representation of National Identity", Edward Ashbee, 2002. Web. 23 Oct. 2009. p.1.

First, U.S ENGLISH has tended to define American identity in liberal nationalist terms as their vindication of the right individuals should have to maintain and promote their ethnic identity. For instance, in their fund raising brochure of 1984, they wrote that the rights of individuals and groups to use other languages and to establish privately funded institutions for the maintenance of diverse languages and cultures must be respected in a pluralistic society?(Annex III, l.59-61). Liberal nationalism being based on individual freedom and laissez-faire policy, we can consider that U.S ENGLISH acceptance of the maintenance of one's culture and language is a proof of their liberal nationalist idea of the nation. On this point, one has to be cautious because there is a dichotomy between what they have been projecting and what they actually been supporting. Indeed, as we have demonstrated in part two, at some point U.S ENGLISH has been vindicating the need of forgetting one's ethnic culture and language to assimilate the American culture.

In this light, even though there are some elements in their rhetoric that tend to prove that they have been defining American national identity in liberal terms, this concept does not reflect their general attitude. For instance, they have been rejecting bilingual education programs that aimed at maintaining and promoting immigrants' native tongue. They wrote in their fund raising brochure that U.S ENGLISH actively works to reverse the spread of foreign language usage in the nation's official life?(Annex III, l.65). This demand for governmental intervention to outlaw the speaking of foreign languages is an evidence of their non-liberal conception of the American nation: in general, liberals consider that language choice is a private matter and that the State does not have the right to impose a national language on individual. Between 1984-1988, U.S ENGLISH has been calling for the repeal of laws mandating multilingual ballots and voting materials... restriction of government funding for bilingual education to short-term transitional programs only [and] ... universal enforcement of the English language and civics requirement for naturalization?(Annex III, l.72) In addition to what we have seen in part one, the system proposed by U.S ENGLISH, namely the exclusion of non-English speakers from the national community because of their language ability is clearly not compatible with a liberal conception of the nation that put the emphasis on equal status and individual freedom. It can be argued that a national language legislation, as proposed by U.S ENGLISH, would violate the freedom of speech and other rights and liberties guaranteed under the American Constitution and promoted by a liberal concept of the nation.

Similarly, at first sight, the motto of U.S ENGLISH the language of equal opportunity? seems to promote equality for all but, as we have demonstrated previously,

instead of encouraging diversity, U.S ENGLISH has been presenting ethnicity as a social and economical handicap making access to the power and resources of the nation more difficult for ethnic minorities. What was presented as inclusive in theory ended up being mostly exclusive and separatist in practice.

As we have seen, U.S ENGLISH has tended to project a liberal nationalist concept of the nation through the media, but a close analysis of their rhetoric tend to show that in practice their proposals do not meet the criteria of liberal nationalism. In this light, we can conclude that U.S ENGLISH has not been favoring individual freedom and equal access to society at the core of liberal nationalism. As far as American identity is concerned it implies that U.S ENGLISH has been very likely to encourage cultural uniformity.

Civic republicanism is another concept of the American nation that contrary to liberalism tends to favor the collective good over personal interest. This concept considers that only a socially homogeneous population can create the conditions for equal participation in the nation. Civic republicanism focuses on the importance of participating in democracy. It consists in government of the people, by the people, for the people?¹¹³ as inscribed in the American Creed. This concept of American identity tends to prioritize one's political identity over one's cultural identity in the name of public good.

This concept of American identity may imply the renunciation of one's ethnic culture and language in order to achieve unity. As we have seen at the beginning of this part, U.S ENGLISH has been amalgamating equality and unity with uniformity and homogeneity. Since the mid 1980s, U.S ENGLISH has been proposing a national language for the nation on the basis that cultural homogeneity was the only way to achieve unity at a national level. In this light, we can deduce that U.S ENGLISH has also been using civic republicanism to promote their cause and gain members. By doing so, they have been presenting the English language as being a primary determinant of American identity

But on the other hand, considering the importance given to democracy and equal participation, we can consider that civic republicanism may defend the right of everyone to freely participate in democracy regardless of their language ability. As we have just seen U.S

113 William Tyler Page, The American's Creed, I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.?

ENGLISH has been wanting to impose language as a civic duty and thus ban the access to democracy to all non-English speakers. We can then conclude that U.S ENGLISH has been trying to define American identity in both political and cultural terms. For U.S ENGLISH, both U.S citizenship and the English language are at the core of American identity.

A last concept of the American nation is multiculturalism or cultural pluralism. This conception of American identity emphasizes the value of diversity. A multiculturalist concepti of American identity tends to accept linguistic pluralism at a national level because it considers language as a non-exclusive aspect of a nation's culture. Hans Kohn who described the American nation as a nation of nations? referred to Sir Alfred E. Zimmern who said about America that it was not one nation but a congeries of nations such as the world has never seen before within the limit of a self-governing state?(Kohn 139). On the other hand, other commentators like Arthur Schlesinger considered that cultural pluralism would led to the disuniting of America'?. He wrote that the national ideal had once been E Pluribus Unum. Are we now to be little Unum and glorify Pluribus? Will the center hold? Or will the melting pot give way to 'the Tower of Babel??(Schlesinger 2).

Throughout our analysis of U.S ENGLISH we have demonstrated that, even though they have been promoting diversity in their different publications, they have also tended to reject cultural diversity on several occasions. It is important to note that U.S ENGLISH has been accepting multiculturalism as a fact, that is to say that they acknowledge the presence of people of diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds within the nation, but not as an ideology. Multiculturalism as an ideology challenges the symbolic hegemony of English in the U.S in order to safeguard ethnic traditions. Their rejection of bilingualism and their urge for the enactment of national language legislation are two major elements accounting for their monocultural vision of American identity. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that U.S ENGLISH has been willing to protect and promote the Anglo-American?culture as their nativist conception of the nation has shown. By doing so, they have been trying to reinforce the hegemonic order in the nation.

Those three forms of nationalism have been used by the movement to promote their cause and gain membership since the 1980s. But we will see that U.S ENGLISH has also been promoting a more extreme and less inclusive form of nationalism.

In fact, as their attitude towards unsuccessful immigrants has pointed out, at some point, U.S ENGLISH has had an ethnoculturalist attitude. Ethnoculturalism consists in delineating American identity to certain ascriptive and immuable characteristics. Traditionally, ethnoculturalists try to protect and promote the dominance of White-English speaking

protestants of Northern European ancestry in the nation. Often associated with the White Supremacists, this conception of American national identity implies hostility towards immigrants and support for immigration restrictions as well as restrictive language policies. U.S ENGLISH can be said to have shown some ethnoculturalism because they have been considering that only people with a certain cultural background can be American. In fact, the speaking of the English language has been a cultural element that allowed U.S ENGLISH to determine who was and who was not American¹¹⁴. This attitude is a form of chauvinism as we have seen in part two. But at this point, it is interesting to contrast what they actually have been doing compared to what they have been projecting. On their fund raising brochure, one can read that U.S ENGLISH operates squarely within the American political mainstream, and rejects all manifestations of cultural and linguistic chauvinism? (Annex III, l. 44). It is relevant to note that they have been manifesting some cultural and linguistic chauvinism? while claiming to reject it.

Another extreme form of nationalism is incorporationism. It is a conception of American national identity that considers America as a nation of immigrants. Incorporationism celebrates ethnic diversity and pleads for the maintenance of cultural traditions while supporting assimilation and the emergence of a new American identity. This concept of American national identity has been highly used by U.S ENGLISH to promote their movement and justify their views as we have seen when considering their description of the melting-pot as a national ideal.

In this part we have seen that U.S ENGLISH has been playing on liberal, civic republican, ethnocultural and incorporationist conceptions of the nation in their different publications. This technique allowed them to gather support from a larger political spectrum so that liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats, radicals and moderates would feel concerned by the cause they have been fighting for since the mid 1980s.

Having determined to what extent U.S has been playing with those different concept of American identity, our task will be to gauge the extent to which they have been re-imagining American identity.

114 We are not pretending that U.S ENGLISH had any racial or religious considerations when determining who is and who is not American.

2. To what Extent does U.S ENGLISH Re-imagine American Identity?

First, in order to determine to what extent U.S ENGLISH has been re-imagining American national identity, it is necessary to recall the evolution of American identity. In addition to what we said previously it is important to note that the American nation has historically tended to go from exclusion to inclusion, allowing more and more diverse people to participate in the life of the nation. Evidence of this attitude can be found in the evolution of the criteria for population censuses of the U.S Census Bureau since 1790.

In fact, only in the 1930s, censuses started to include other non-white racial? categories such as Asians? and Mexicans? proof that the American nation has gradually acknowledged the presence of more and more races? on its soil and in its core. Furthermore, only since the 1970s, under the influence of the Civil Rights Movement, identity was officially recognized as a voluntary choice: self-identification of people's ethnic or racial identity was introduced for the first time in the 1970 census (Sowell 56). This change in the conception of one's identity was also part of the Ethnic Heritage Studies Program Act of 1974 that asserted the right of individuals to choose their ethnic identity. In addition to this, the possibility to have more than one racial or ethnic identity appeared only in the 2000 Census.

Similarly, American identity has evolved from an individual and difference blind conception like liberalism, to a community-centered conception of identity illustrated by the recent upsurge for multicuturalism as our analysis of they different conceptions of American nationalism has showed.

Defining American national identity is not an easy task because as we have seen previously in this analysis, there is a battle between two normative visions of American society. First, those who defend the concept of the melting-pot like U.S ENGLISH tend to consider the nation as the result of an Anglo-conformity. On the other hand, those like H. Kohn who pay tribute to the linguistic and cultural diversity of the American nation tend to consider America as a nation of nations? and thus promote a cultural pluralist vision of the nation.

As we have seen previously, U.S ENGLISH can be considered as a strong nationalist movement in the light of E. Gellner's definition of nationalism. Gellner explained that those who want the state and the nation to be congruent can be said to be nationalists (Gellner 7). But in the United States, it is very difficult to determine whether the state culture, that is to say the culture imposed by the political institutions, has ever been in total agreement with the

national culture. To be sure, it is very likely that belonging to the state strongly influences the way people identify with the nation. But it is debatable whether one has to be a citizen to identify oneself with the American nation. Similarly, it is relevant to wonder if being an American citizen implies full identification with the American nation. In this light, being of American nationality certainly has an impact on the feeling of belonging one has to the American nation. For the purpose of this analysis, we will consider that both visions of the American society have to be taken into account. Both Anglo-conformity and cultural pluralism are complementary when describing the American society but to be sure neither of those two visions are fully representative of American society. However, the influence of the political culture on the national culture of the U.S is acknowledged by both conceptions of the American society because for Anglo-conformists, the culture carried by the State is the basis on which one can built his/her national identity and for cultural pluralist, it is the political culture of the State that allows the cohabitation of many nations within the American nation. We can then consider that both State and national culture influence each other.

Attempts at finding an official definition of American identity are in vain because identities are subjective and created over time. According to Arthur Schlesinger, American identity will never be fixed and final; it always be in the making?(Schlesinger 138). Considering the difficulty to find any official definition of American national identity, we will work on a definition of American nationality. The 1997 U.S Commission on Immigration Reform stated that:

These truths constitute the distinctive characteristics of American nationality... the principles and values embodied in the American Constitution and their fulfillment in practice: equal protection and justice under the law; freedom of speech and religion; representative government; lawfully-admitted newcomers of any ancestral nationality- without regard to race, ethnicity, or religion- truly become Americans when they give allegiance to these principles and values (Ashbee 9).

In other words, the U.S Commission on Immigration Reform considered that American nationality lies in the principles and values defined under the U.S Constitution. America is described as a tolerant, inclusive and open land to immigration from all over the world. It seems that for the U.S Commission on Immigration Reform, American identity is first and foremost based on political rather than cultural criterion.

This attitude can be explained by the fact that people do have multiple identities and that the identification someone has with an ethnic group is not incompatible with national identity. On this point, E.F. Isin and P.K. Wood wrote that identities are fragmented and

fractured, never singular but multiply constructed across different, often intersecting and antagonistic, discourses, practices and positions?(Ashbee 1). For Virginia Cyrius, being a member of an ethnic group in the United States is synonymous with having at least two identities to which can be added religion, gender or class identity. She explained that:

When we identify someone as a member of an ethnic group, we mean that she or he

belongs to some identifiable group within American society. This is the most important

component of ethnicity: membership in a subgroup within an environment dominated by

another culture¹¹⁵.

Those two types of identities are well explained by Michael Billig in his book Banal Nationalism:

As far as nationalism is concerned, a distinction should be made between those social movements which are mobilizing 'identities' in the cause of securing homeland territory and those which are mobilizing 'identities' within an existing polity(Billig 146).

For M. Billig, voluntary identification to an ethnic community does not challenge the

nation but the nature of the nation. He stated that:

Identity politics in the US is not directed towards creating separate national homelands. In fact, identity politics appears, at first sight, to transcend place. Feminists, Gays, Hispanics and so on are not localized within the US. To be sure, there are ethnic and racial ghettos within cities; but there is no African American or Italian American state, with its own bordered territory and with its claim for national independence. On the contrary, the politics of identity, unlike that of nationalist movements, gathers together those who are geographically scattered in to an imagined unity of identification: a placeless community of interests is to be imagined(Billig 146).

According to M. Billig, ethnic pride and the maintenance of one's ethnic identity should not be considered as a source of division within the nation because ethnic identity like gender identity does not function as nationalism because this kind of identities function as placeless community of interest?. Cultural identity, contrary to political identity does not seek statehood and this is why ethnic consciousness and the maintenance and promotion of cultural identities should not be considered as a threat for the national community. In addtion tot hids M.Billig wrote:

If identity politics is based on the vision of the 'multicultural society', this politics takes
for granted that there is a 'society', which is to be multicultural and which is to be
represented by a greater variety of faces than on a Rockwell canvas. When the

115 FONG, Mary; CHUANG, Ruelying, Communicating Ethnic and Cultural Identity,Oxford: Rowman and Little Field Publisher Inc, 2004. Print. p.5.

multicultural ideal is tied to the notion of the nation, then 'identity politics' is situated within the nation's tradition of argument: identities within the nation are contested but not the identity of the nation itself (Billig 148).

In the light of M.Billig conception of identity we can conclude that, in a multicultural context like the United States, the presence of culturally heterogeneous people is not incompatible with identification to the nation. On this point, M.Walzer considered that we have come to regard American nationality as an addition to rather than a replacement for ethnic consciousness?(Ashbee 7).

Once those conceptions of identity and the American society have been explained, it is important to determine to what extent U.S ENGLISH has been re-imagining American identity.

First, throughout this analysis we have demonstrated that U.S ENGLISH has tended to present language as an exclusive cultural element because they have been trying to make the speaking of the English language compulsory to the naturalization process. A national language legislation, as presented by U.S ENGLISH, considers language as a civic duty, closing the door to citizenship to all non-English speaking people. As we have previously demonstrated, language is a salient element of one's ethnicity or one's identity. Even though we have seen that it is not easy to measure to what extent does being a citizen influences the feeling of belonging to the nation, what is certain is that by making the access to citizenship dependent on a cultural element, U.S ENGLISH has been reinventing American identity. As a result, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to define who is and who is not American on the basis of one's language ability. By doing so, U.S ENGLISH clearly expressed their wish to see the political and national culture become congruent as their nationalist attitude as well as their conception of the melting-pot as a national ideal has shown. The presence of culturally diverse people in the nation has always been a fact in the U.S history and as Michael Billig genuinely explained in his book Banal Nationalism, it is not incompatible with the idea of a unified nation. But their rejection of cultural pluralism on the basis that it threatens a division within the nation indicates that their conception of the nation is highly different from the current trend. At some point, they have been presenting American identity as exclusive when they said that in order to become American one has to forget his/her ethnic culture and language. This conception of American identity as being restrictive, exclusive and based on language ability is a proof of the way they has been re-imagining American identity.

Finally, we have seen that they have been playing with national symbols to create patriotic and nationalist feelings. We have also demonstrated that they have tended to project

a pro-American and pro-Immigration image of the movement by promoting the movement through the promotion of the nation. In addition to this, we have explained to what extent U.S ENGLISH can be considered as a nativist organization with a view to make the speaking of the English language compulsory for naturalization. We have also studied the way they have been re-imagining the composition of the nation by overemphasizing the presence of ethnic minorities and in particular Hispanics in the nation. The media has been a way to carry all those ideas and, as we have seen when accounting for the role of the media in society, even though it is debatable, the media has an influence on reality or at least on the individual and personal evaluation people have of reality. However it is not sure whether all those publications had an impact on the nation itself but the presence of lobbying organizations such as U.S ENGLISH is the sign that American identity and the American nation in general will always be in the making?. The questions that arise around the American nation is a sign that America still is a strong and unified nation because the genius of a nation lies in its capacity to constantly reinvent and re-imagine itself.

In the last part of this analysis, it is important to put things in perspective and study what is the general opinion towards the views promoted by U.S ENGLISH. To finish with, we will try to account for what the support for this movement tells about American identity.

3. What does the Support for This Movement Tell about American Identity?

In 2009, U.S ENGLISH had 1.8 million supporters. Proportionally their supporters represent 0.93% of all the U.S citizens above 18 (U.S Census Bureau 2000). One may think that after all, less than one percent of the U.S population above 18 is not that much but we also have to consider that there must be people who share those views and who did not choose to adhere to U.S ENGLISH. It is important to note that all the elements demonstrated previously in this analysis are relevant but people who actually support U.S ENGLISH do not necessarily share the same views. It would be a mistake to consider that among their 1.8 million supporters in 2009, everybody has been considering that English should be a civic duty or that a nativist conception of the nation is acceptable or even that Hispanic immigrants represent a threat to national unity.

In this part, we will first attempt at showing the attitude people have towards the different issues at the heart of the rhetoric of U.S ENGLISH. In those ends, we will use the 1972-2008 GSS Cumulative Dataset as well as others surveys to show the general trend and

the general attitude people have towards some important questions raised by U.S ENGLISH. Then, we will try to draw a parallel between the views defended by U.S ENGLISH and the results of a study conducted on The 'Official-English' movement and the symbolic politics of language in the United States»by Citrin, Reingold, Walters and Green.

First, we need to analyze the popular conception of the American identity and the general attitude people have towards immigrants.

Edward Ashbee in an article entilted Being American: representations of national identity? one can find data adapted from the 1998 Ittil "il " P This was a survey conducted in twenty-four countries across the world and the aim was to determine what the popular conceptions of American and other countries identity were. When respondents were asked about how important it is to be able to speak English in the United States, 71. 3% said that it was very important, 21.6% fairly important and 5.1% not very important and 1.9% not important at all(Ashbee 9).

When a similar question was put to Americans, 76.1%of the respondents considered that speaking English as the common national language is what unites all Americans?(Annex XXI, Fig. 5.). Similarly, 77.5%of the respondents were in favor of a law making English the official language of the United States? (Annex XXI, Fig. 3). In this light, we can consider that most people, both in America and abroad, consider that the knowledge of the English language is very important when considering American national identity. In addition to this, a study conducted in June 2005 on Americans' attitude about being American?, found that sixty-seven percent of respondents believe that immigrants should adopt America`s culture, language, and heritage,? while only seventeen percent believe that they should maintain the culture of their home country?.¹¹⁶ Seventy-nine percent felt that immigrants should be required to learn English before they are allowed to become citizens (Rasmussen Reports). These polls show that Americans are very attached to the symbols of their nation and generally tend to protect them by considering that immigrants should adopt the American culture. Furthermore, it seems that, for Americans, language ability is one element that has to be taken into consideration when asserting their American identity. In this regard, the need for national language legislation is very likely to be supported by the general public opinion in America.

Americans tend to have a liberal vision of America as they generally oppose government intervention in cultural matters. In fact, when asked if the government should

116 RASSMUSSEN Reports. Americans' Attitudes About Being American?, June 2005, American Demographics. Web. 5 March 2010.

help racial and ethnic groups to change so that they blend into the larger society, 78.5% of the respondents disagreed and considered that this should be left up to groups (AnnexXXI, Fig. 11). An official English language amendment as proposed by U.S ENGLISH clearly asks for governmental intervention for the integration of immigrants within the American society. There is a dichotomy between the fact that people tend to oppose government intervention while integrating newcomers to the American nation, and the fact that they generally acknowledge that English is what unites all Americans and consider that English should be the official language of the United States. This dichotomy may be a sign that Americans, very attached to their language, seek to protect it, but on the other hand, they are also very attached to the inclusive and tolerant character of their country.

In a way, Americans consider that the speaking of the English language is, and should remain assimilated with American identity, but should not become a compulsory requirement for participation in the life of the nation. We have seen that U.S ENGLISH has been playing with different conceptions of American identity when promoting their cause and in the light of this analysis of the general opinion, we can consider that the claim for governmental intervention in what people consider as private matters may discourage and refrain some people to join U.S ENGLISH.

Throughout this analysis, we have seen that U.S ENGLISH has been playing on the pride Americans feel for their nation when they recalled national symbols to promote their cause. U.S ENGLISH has tended to project the image of a disunited nation because of the pride some may have for their ethnic heritage. Indeed, to the question when you think of social and political issues, do you think of yourself mainly as being as a member of a particular ethnic, racial, or national group or do you think of yourself as just an American??, 90.1% of the respondent felt Just an American? and 7.5% felt as some part of an ethnic or racial group? (Annex XXI, Fig. 10.). The figures highlight the previously demonstrated argument that the pride some may feel for their ethnic heritage is not incompatible with loyalty and feeling of belonging to the nation. Americans when asked to choose between the two tend to generally favor their national identity over their ethnic identity. In America national identity is not at all being challenged by ethnic consciousness in America unlike what U.S ENGLISH has been trying to project.

However, Americans generally do not prioritize their national identity when defining who they are because when asked what is most important to you in describing who you are??, 15.5% of the respondents mention their current occupation, 48.4% mention their family or marital status, 11% religion, 8.6 % gender. Nationality comes only at the 8^th rank with

2.4%¹¹⁷. But even though American tends to define themselves in more practical ways than identifying with the nation, they are still proud of being American. To the question, ?are you proud to be an American??, 47% of the respondents said that they were extremely proud?, 38.8 percent that they were very proud?, 12.7 % were somewhat proud? and only 1.4 percent were not very proud?¹¹⁸.

Those figures show that the communication strategies used by U.S ENGLISH when advertising, namely referring to national symbols, may echo in people's mind as they are generally proud and attached to their national identity. In addition to this, we can consider that the motto of U.S ENGLISH the language of equal opportunity? may also catch their reader's attention as we have seen that people tend to define themselves through their current occupational status. In other words, the social position defined by the occupational status is important for Americans and it is very likely that they might favor the enactment of official language legislation if it allows immigrants to have a good position on the socio-economic ladder. Lawrence Auste considered that it makes no difference whether a person can participate in the culture of this country or even if he speaks English; holding a job and paying taxes become the sole criterion of being a good and useful citizen?(Ashbee 3). This definition of a useful and good citizen? tends to demonstrate that participation in the economic life of the nation is very important.

As far as immigration to the United States is concerned, more than half of the respondents felt that immigrants will affect national unity and are demanding too many rights (Annex XXI, Fig.1.). But on the other hand, when asked if immigrants improve American society, more than half of the respondents agreed (Annex XXI, Fig.8.). Similarly, half of the respondents considered that more immigrants somewhat open the country to new ideas and cultures (Annex XXI, Fig. 6). In addition to this, it is important to note that the public opinion seems to be divided on the question of whether legal immigrants should have the same rights as Americans because 11.7% strongly agreed, 26.8% agreed, 15.6 % neither agreed nor disagreed and 35.1% disagreed and 10.8 percent strongly disagreed (Annex XXI, Fig. 9). Similarly, to the question how important is it to have American ancestry to be truly American, 32.7 % of the respondents found it very important, 22.5% found it fairly important, 31% found it not very important and 13.8% found it not important at all(Annex XXI, Fig. 7).

An analysis of those figures tend to prove that Americans generally have a positive attitude to immigration but still many consider that it might be a threat to the national unity.

117 GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset

118 Ibid.

Furthermore, still a lot of people consider that having American ancestry is important when determining who is a true American. This element may account for the attitude some people have towards the rights that should be given to legal immigrants.

When asked if English is threatened by the language spoken by immigrants, more than half of the respondents disagreed(Annex XXI, Fig. 4) and as we have seen there is more than 70% of the respondents who favored a law declaring English the official language of the United States(Annex XXI, Fig.3). In this light, we can consider that people see in official language legislation a symbolic and instrumental unifier.

However, as we saw in part one, more than 70% of respondents favored bilingual education (Annex XXI, Fig. 2). In addition to this, when asked about the way children who don't speak English when entering public schools, should be taught, 36% of the respondents thought that all classes should be taught in English, 48.3% thought that they should have a year or two of instruction in their native language and 15.7% thought that they should have only native language instruction during high school¹¹⁹. In this light, we can conclude that American public opinion tend to favor bilingual education but also consider that the aim of bilingual education is to transfer into the mainstream language as only 15.7 %of the respondents considered that they should be taught only in their native language. To a certain extent, this attitude is somewhat contradictory but it informs us that Americans are very attached to the freedom of speech and individual freedom but as they consider that the speaking of the English language is essential to American identity they tend to favor transitional instead of true bilingual programs.

An analysis of the opinion polls tends to reflect the battle between the two normative visions of the American nation explained previously. It would have been interesting to conduct research among the members of U.S ENGLISH in order to determine what drove them to join the movement. Such a survey would have helped to determine what the support for U.S ENGLISH tells about American identity.

Last but not least, it is necessary to quote the results of a research on The 'Official-English' movement and the symbolic politics of language in the United States»conducted by J. Citrin, B. Reingold, E. Walters and D.P Green in September 1990. In an article published in the Southern Political Quarterly, they concluded that:

We identified feelings of nationalism as a principal source of the mass appeal of 'official
English'. ... Patriotism is a key symbolic issue raised by language policy. Learning
English figures prominently in an image of American experience in which successive

119 GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset.

waves of immigrants become full-fledged citizens by their own efforts at assimilation. Among those who believe that being American means speaking English, 'official English' is likely to be a codeword for nationalism. ... In this conception of national identity, moreover, bilingualism easily becomes a symbol of civic disunity. When nationalistic sentiments are engaged, therefore, people are likely to evaluate specific bilingual programs according to whether they facilitate the diffusion of English-speaking skills.

We have also confirmed that attitudes toward racially and culturally distinct ethnic groups shape opinions on language issues. ... Polls suggest that the public generally endorses the abstract value of 'maintaining one's ethnic heritage'. Disagreement centers on the extent to which government policy should actively promote the use of languages other than English and on whether "official English" discriminates against minority groups. ...

Popular reactions to language policy thus depend significantly on how these issues are framed. To the mass public, English remains an important symbol of national identity. Regardless of ethnicity, most Americans take for granted that English is the national language. ... By limiting the goals of language policy to providing linguistic minorities adequate opportunities to learn English while tolerating the use of their native languages in the private realm, elites can diminish the salience of the movement for 'official English'(Citrin, Reingold, Walters, Green 545).

This research conducted on the sources of public opinion on language issues was based on J. Citrin and D.P Green hypothesis that while objective changes in the ethnic composition of a community may alter the salience of language policy, symbolic attitudes rather than material concerns are the predominant influence on mass preferences?(Citrin, Reingold, Walters, Green 536). The research also demonstrated that people tend to favor bilingual programs aiming at transferring into the mainstream language, but on the other hand, public opinion acknowledges the right ethnic minorities should have to maintain their native language. The emphasis was on the fact that the support for Official-English legislation strongly depended on the way the issues are framed: people tend to support the enactment of official-English legislation as a symbolic measure.

The results of this research verify the different hypothesis made throughout the analysis of the lobbying organization U.S ENGLISH. Thanks to this research, we can conclude that the efficiency of the communication strategies of U.S ENGLISH is due to the fact they have been using the positive attachment people have for the symbols of their nation. U.S ENGLISH chose to appeal to the nationalism and patriotism people may feel for the nation to reach a larger audience. According to this research, their strategy has been to elevate English to a role as the primary guardian of the American culture and way of life.

CONCLUSION

Throughout this case study of the U.S ENGLISH movement, we have demonstrated that this advocacy group which sprang up from an upsurge for minority rights coupled with high immigration rate has aspired to declare English the official language of the nation. Lobbying plays an important role in the United States because not only U.S ENGLISH but also Pro-English? and English-First? put pressure on decision makers and public opinion. The duality between unity and diversity, nationality and national identity, citizenship and ethnic consciousness, and majority and minority cultures and languages in U.S ENGLISH`s rhetoric has been explained and documented. It has been said that those lobbying organizations have been more successful at State than at Federal level. In November 2010, it will be the turn of Oklahoma to decide whether or not they will become the thirty-first State to pass official language legislation. In April 2009, this legislation passed Senate with a 44-2 margin and on 6^th May 2009, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 89-8 on a measure that provides for a public referendum on whether or not to make English the official language of the state.

It is not without significance that since the 1980s U.S ENGLISH has been using the media to promote their official language legislation because both the media and language play on people`s need for an identity and had an important role in the nation-building process. A detailed analysis of their rhetoric and communication strategies in the light of U.S history and the latest population censuses rendered false the eminent linguistic division that they have been presenting in their different publications. U.S ENGLISH has been introducing itself as pro-immigrant and pro-America using both logical and emotional appeals as our investigation of their promotional material has pointed out. On several occasions they have been using national symbols of unity both as banal reminders of people`s identity and as patriotic and nationalist feeling enhancers.

U.S ENGLISH has been proved to be a strong nationalist movement aiming more at social control than social integration. Throughout this analysis we have measured to what extent U.S ENGLISH has been re-imagining the American nation in their different publications. First, their willingness to amend the Constitution was an undisguised way to modify and redefine the American nation. It has been demonstrated that the imposition of a national language would dramatically alter the style in which the nation was first conceived by the Founding Fathers and would have a strong impact on democracy and minority rights.

U.S ENGLISH has also re-imagined the nation by overemphasizing the size and influence of the Hispanic community in the U.S. Another element accounting for the way they have been re-imagining the American nation via the media is their rejection of Hispanics and unskilled immigrants. The organization has been turning language into a civic duty by trying to make the learning of English a compulsory requirement for naturalization and identification with the nation. The latent redefinition of American identity at the heart of U.S ENGLISH`s rhetoric can be assimilated to a modern form of nativism as their rejection of multiculturalism as an ideology and their praise for incorporationism through the celebration of the melting-pot as a national ideal testified.

In their promotional material U.S ENGLISH has been comparing the linguistic situation in Canada, Sri Lanka or Belgium to that of the United States. However, it is more accurate to compare the status of English in the United States and in the United Kingdom. In fact, English is likewise the de facto official language of those two countries. Similarly, both the UK and the US have huge linguistic and cultural diversity due to immigration and in the case of the UK, a colonial past. But in the United Kingdom contrary to the United States, there have never been any lobbying organizations that aim at declaring English the official language. In fact, the United Kingdom is the result of the political union of Wales and England with a series of parliamentary measures between 1536-1543, known under the name of the Laws in Wales Acts, and the political union of the kingdom of England and the kingdom of Scotland with the Acts of Union of 1707, and finally Ireland with the Act of Union of 1801.The United Kingdom is thus a state governed by a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system: England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are nations through devolution with a certain independence but British by their common loyalty to the crown. In the United Kingdom, the monarchy symbolized by the Queen is a strong identity-provider for British people because of the power of the former British Empire and the symbolical role the Queen plays on the political institutions. It is important to note that the size and influence of the British Empire is at the origin of the hegemony of English in the United States but also in the world. During the colonial period, Britain colonized most of the South and East of Africa, Australia, India, and Northern America including Canada. Colons brought with them their language and culture, and most of the time, English became the dominant language of the land even after decolonization and independence. In this light, one may wonder why there is no official language legislation in the United Kingdom. An element of answer can be found in the fact that the UK is composed of four distinct nations in which official recognition was given to regional languages such as Irish, Ulster Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Scots, Welsh and

Cornish. The recognition of official regional languages and the strong identity-providing role of those nations may be the reasons why no similar organizations as U.S ENGLISH were formed to declare English the official language of the UK. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution and this is why there is no official legislation for the British nation. Even though the nature of the British and the American state is different because the United States is a federation like Germany and the United Kingdom is a unitary state, the comparison between those two types of states is interesting because both the US and the UK have to deal with the huge linguistic and cultural diversity brought by immigrants. In this light, a comparative study of those two countries would be interesting for further research.

In addition to what we have demonstrated throughout this analysis, it would have been interesting to conduct surveys to determine what drove the members of U.S ENGLISH to this movement in order to better account for what the support for this movement tells us about American identity. The question of the best way to integrate immigrants raised by this analysis is also very difficult to answer but the analysis of this official English movement has proved that the two normative visions of the American nation have limits and are not appropriate to account for the way immigrants become Americans. Both cultural pluralism and Anglo-conformity fail to provide an answer to this question.

In conclusion, we can assert that language legislation was a pretext for restrictions in immigration and the re-imagining of the nation. For sure, linguistic homogeneity would certainly strengthen national unity but it would also profoundly modify the American character because of the political implications that lie beneath U.S ENGLISH`s proposal. The hegemony of English in the United States is not under threat as they have been pretending in their different publications. According to Eric J. Hobsbawm the questioning of the hegemony of English in the United States is political paranoia?¹²⁰. Contrary to E. J. Hobsbawm, Arthur Schlesinger considered that the idea that English needs a legislative protection in the United States is the sign of a lack of faith in the future of this language¹²¹.

120 HOBSBAWM, E.J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Program, Myth, Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print. p.171.

121 SCHLESINGER, Arthur. i. L'Amérique Balkanisée: une société multiculturelle désunie, 2^nd edition, Paris: Economica, 1999. Print. p. 127.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES 111

SECONDARY SOURCES 114

General Works 114

Specialized Works 115

Immigration 115

Nationalism and National Identity 117

Bilingualism and Language Policy 120

Media and Communication 124

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias 125

PRIMARY SOURCES

Speeches, Addresses, Hearings, Monograph

HAYAKAWA, S.I. "One Nation, Indivisible . . . ?", Monograph. Washington: The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, 1985. Print.

. Proposed Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1982?, S. 2222, 97th Congr., 2d Session, 13 August 1982. Speech. U.S English. Web. 5 Dec. 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/26>

---. «The Purpose and Effect of an Official English Constitutional Amendment», Congressional Record, U.S Senate, 27 April 1981. Speech. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

MUJICA, Mauro. Examining Views on English as the Official Language?, Subcommittee on Education Reform, 26 July 2006. Hearing. Committee on Education and Labor, U.S House of Rep. Web. 5 Dec 2009.

< http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/109th/edr/officiallang072606/m ujica.htm >

TANTON, John. Mail from John Tanton to Witan Attendees?, 10 Oct 1986, Witan Memo III Intelligence Report, Issue Number: 106, Summer 2002. Mail. The Southern Poverty Law Center. Web. 5 March 2010.

< http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-allissues/2002/summer/the-puppeteer/witan-memo-iii>

U.S ENGLISH. In Defense of Our Common Language...?, in CRAWFORD, James ed, Language Loyalties: A source Book on the Official English Controversy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 143-147. Print.

Advertisements

U.S ENGLISH. It can't Happen Here.(Or can it?)?. Advertisement. Late 1980s. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

. 14 Nations call English their national language. We're not one of them?. Advertisement. Late 1980s. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

---. If you can't read this ad don't feel badly. Our children can't read this book?.
Advertisement. Albany Times-Union. 1989. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

. On Tuesday you can tell Congress where to go?. Advertisement. USA Today. 30 Oct 1992. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

---. It's time to focus on what unites us as a people, as opposed to what divides us?. Advertisement. Jan 1993. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

. Why a Hispanic heads an organization called U.S English?. Advertisement. 1994. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

---. To make it in America you need to speak my language?. Advertisement. 1995. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

---. Stop the madness?. Advertisement. 1996. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

---. I need to learn English?. Advertisement. 1997. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

---. Should our government operate in a foreign language??. Advertisement. 1994. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/30 >

. Immigrants want and need to learn English. It's time politicians got the message?. Advertisement. 1994. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/31 >

----. Immigrants who don't learn English can really clean up in America?. Advertisement. 2008. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/32 >

. Will it come to this?? Advertisement. 1999. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/33 >

---. One more way the federal government is making doctors sick?. Advertisement. 2007. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/34 >

Financial reports

Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax?, U.S ENGLISH Foundation, 2000, Form

990, U.S Department of Treasury, Media Matters Action. Web. 1 May 2010. < http://mediamattersaction.org/static/pdfs/990/U.S.%20English%20Foundation%20.2000.pdf

>

Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax?, U.S ENGLISH Foundation, 2006, Form

990, U.S Department of Treasury, Media Matters Action. Web. 1 May 2010. < http://mediamattersaction.org/static/pdfs/990/U.S.%20English%20Foundation%20.2006.pdf

>

Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax?, U.S ENGLISH Foundation, 2007, Form

990, U.S Department of Treasury, Media Matters Action. Web. 1 May 2010. < http://mediamattersaction.org/static/pdfs/990/U.S.%20English%20Foundation%20.2007.pdf

>

Website

U.S ENGLISH. Official website. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org>

SECONDARY SOURCES

General Works

BRINKLEY, Alan; DYER, Davis. The American Presidency, New York: Houghton Mufflin Company, 2004. Print.

CHANDLER, John; LEDRU, Raymond. The Civilization of the United States: Manuel de Civilisation Américaine (3ème edition), Paris: Bréal. Print.

CULLEN, Jim. The American Dream: A Short History that Shaped a Nation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962, Google Book Search. Web. 7 March 2010. < http://books.google.fr/books?id=yM96DK4ELZkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Americ an+dream&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false>

ELLER, Jack. D. Cultural Anthropology: Global Forces, Local Lives, New York: Routlegde, 2009. Web. 5 March 2010.

< http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485395/glossary.asp#n>

KRUSCH, Barry. The 21^st Century Constitution: A new America for a New Millennium, New York: Stanhope Press, 1992. Web. 7 April 2010. < http://www.krusch.com/books/21st.pdf>

LEVY, Claude. Les Minorités Ethniques aux Etats-Unis ,2 ème édition, Paris: Ellipses, 2007. Print.

LHERETE, Annie ; LHERETE, Jean-François. Chronologie Thématique des Etats-Unis, 2 nd édition, Paris: Nathan Université, 1994. Print.

PAINE, Thomas. Common Sense: Addressed to the inhabitants of America, 1776, ICON Group International Inc (2005), Google Book Search. Web. 6 Feb. 2010 < http://books.google.fr/books?id=PE8UAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Comm on+sense&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false>

RICE, Arnold. S; KROUT, John. A. United States History from 186, 20^th Edition, New York: Harper Perennial, 1977. Print.

TIMS, Melinda. Perspectives in the Making of America: An introduction to U.S Civilization, Paris: Ellipses, 2002. Print.

TINDALL, George. B and David E. SHI. America: A narrative History, 6^th ed, New York-London: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc, 2004. Print.

Articles

CHAMETZKY, Jules. Beyond Melting Pots, Cultural Pluralism, Ethnicity: Or, Déjà Vu All over Again?, Vol. 16, No. 4, Winter 1989 - Winter 1990, pp. 3- 17, The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States (MELUS), JSTOR. Web. 4 March 2010. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/467098>

Democracy Building. A short Definition of Democracy?, 2004. Web. 4 March 2010. < http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html>

Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress. The House Joint Resolution proposing the 15th amendment to the Constitution?, 7 December 1868, 1789-1999, General Records of the United States Government, Record Group 11, National Archives, Web. 4 March 2010. < http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=44>

LINCOLN, Abraham. Nicolas Copy of the Gettysburg Address?, 1863, Transcription, Library of Congress. Web. 4 March 2010. < http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/gettysburgaddress/exhibitionitems/Pages/Transcription.as px?ex=1@d6db09e6-d424-4113-8bd2-c89bd42b1fad@1&asset=d6db09e6-d424-4113- 8bd2-c89bd42b1fad:4ab8a6e6-eb9e-40f8-9144-6a417c034a17:13>

U.S Flag Code, Pledge of Allegiance?, Francis Bellamy, 1892, Web. 7 March 2010. < http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html>

SPECIALIZED WORKS

Immigration

Books

PORTES, Alejandro; RUMBAUT, Ruben. G. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Print.

SOWELL, Thomas. Ethnic America. A History, New York: Basic Books,1981. Print.

STEINBERG, Stephen. Race and Ethnicity in the US. issues and debates, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000. Print.

WATERS, Mary C; UEDA, Reed; MARROW Helen B, ALBA, Richard.D; ECK, Diana. L. The New Americans. A Guide To Immigration Since 1965, London: Harvard University Press, 2007. Print.

Articles and Essays

ESPENSHADE, T; HEMPSTEAD, K. Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. Immigration?, International Migration Review, Vol. 30, pp. 535-570, 1996. JSTOR. Web. 4 Jan 2010. < http://www.jstor.org/pss/2547393>

HIGGINS, John. Sole Loyalty: Theodore Roosevelt's words regarding the assimilation of immigrants into American culture?, Feb. 2008, Mail. Web. 4 March 2010, < http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.retirement/2008- 02/msg00939.pdf>

HIGHAM, John. Strangers in the Land. Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925, 2nd edition, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Google Book Search. Web. 5 May 2010. p. 138.

< http://books.google.com/books?id=UzVhOx7WuMMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepa ge&q&f=false>

HUNTINGTON, Samuel. The Hispanic Challenge?, March-April 2004, 16 pages, Foreign Policy. Web. 4 March 2010. < http://www.foreignpolicy.com>

MILLET, Joice. "Understanding American Culture, From melting pot to salad bowl", Cultural Savy, 1999-2009. Cultural Savvy. Web. 25 Oct 2009. < http://www.culturalsavvy.com/ understanding americanculture.htm>

POTOK, Mark. The Nativist Lobby, Three Faces of Intolerance?, Intelligence Report, Spring 2004, pp. 59-63. SPLC. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. < http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-allissues/2002/summer/the-puppeteer/john-tantons-network>

TANTON, John. Press Release: John Tanton challenges Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to Debate over 'Lies'?, 3 Feb. 2009, SPLC. Web. 5 March 2010. < http://www.johntanton.org/answering_my_critics/press_release_2009feb03.html>

Official Sources

U.S Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 4, Table PCT 44. Web. 5 Apr. 2010. < http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t31/tables/tab01-01.pdf>

U.S Census Bureau, Resident population, by Hispanic Origin Status, and Projections?, U.S Census 2000, All Countries. Web. 3 March 2010. < http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/16_resident_population_by_hispanic_origin_stat us.html >

U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services. General Path to Citizenship?, 2009. Web. 4 March 2010.

< http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1 a/?vgnextoid=86bd6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=86 bd6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD>

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, various years, COHN, Raymond. L, Immigration to the United States?, EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. August 14, 2001. Web. 3 April 2010. < http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us>

Nationalism and National Identity

Books

ANDERSON, Benedict. Imagined Communities, revised edition, London and New York: Verso, 2006 . Print.

BILLIG, Michael. Banal Nationalism, London: Sage Publications, 1995. Print.

CONNOR, Walker. Ethnonationalism, The Quest for understanding, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Print.

FONG, Mary; CHUANG, Ruelying. Communicating Ethnic and Cultural Identity, Oxford: Rowman and Little Field Publisher Inc, 2004. Print.

GELLNER, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism, New York: Cornell University Press, 1983. Print.

GILBERT, PAUL. The Philosophy of Nationalism, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 1998. Print.

HOBSBAWM, E.J. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Program, Myth, Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print.

HOLLINGER, David A. Post Ethnic America: beyond multiculturalism, New York: Basic Books, 2000. Print.

HUTCHINSON, John; SMITH, Anthony. D ed. Nationalism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.

KOHN, Hans. American Nationalism: An Interpretative Essay, New York: Collier Books, 1961. Print.

PRESTON, P.W. Political and Cultural Identity: Citizens and Nations in a Global Era, London: SAGE Publications, 1997. Print.

SCHLESINGER, Arthur. Jr. L'Amérique Balkanisée: une société multiculturelle désunie, 2nd edition, Paris: Economica, 1999. Print.

SMITH, Anthony. D. National Identity, Reno and Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press, 1991. Print.

Articles

ASHBEE, Edward. "Being American: Representation of National Identity", Edward Ashbee, 2002. Web. 23 Oct. 2009.

< http://www.edwardashbee.com/USERIMAGES/beingamerican.pdf>

CITRIN, J, REINGOLD, B, & GREEN, D. American identity and the politics of ethnic change?, Journal of Politics, Vol. 52, pp 1124-1154, 1990. JSTOR . Web. 5 Feb 2010. < http://www.jstor.org/pss/2131685>

CITRIN, J., SEARS, D., MUSTE, C., & WONG, C. Multiculturalism in American public opinion?, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 31, pp 247-275, 2001. JSTOR.Web. 7 February 2010. < http://www.jstor.org/pss/3593264>

LE JEUNE, Françoise. Myths and Symbols of the American nation (1776-1809)?, p81-162, ARLEO, Andy; LEES, Paul; LE JEUNE, Françoise; SELLIN, Bernard, Myths and Symbols of the Nation, Volume 1: England, Scotland and the United States, Nantes: CRINI, 2006. Print.

MERELMAN, R. M; STREICH, G; Martin, P. Unity and diversity in American political culture: An exploratory study of the National Conversation on American Pluralism and Identity?, Political Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 781-807, 1998. JSTOR. Web 3 Apr. 2010 . < http://www.jstor.org/pss/3791875>

PAGE, William Tyler. The American's Creed?, 1917, U.S History. Web. 7 Feb. 2010. < http://www.ushistory.org/documents/creed.htm >

Population Connection. Goals and Mission?, 2010, Official Website, Web. 3 April 2010. < http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_goalsandmiss ion>

RASSMUSSEN Reports. Americans' Attitudes About Being American?, June 2005, American Demographics. Web. 5 March 2010. < http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLEID=4493 >

RENAN, Ernest. What is a nation??, 1982, in ELEY, Geoff and SUNY, Ronald Grigor, ed. 1996. Becoming National: A Reader. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: pp. 41-55. Web. 20 Dec 2010

< http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/e_renan.html>

SCHILDKRAUT, Deborah. J. American Identity and Attitudes toward Official-English Policies?, Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3, International Society of Political Psychology, September 2003, pp. 469-499, JSTOR. Web. 14 March 2010. < http://www.jstor.org/pss/3792322 >

SMITH, R. The "American Creed" and American identity: The limits of liberal citizenship in the United States?, Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 225-251, 1988. JSTOR. Web. 3 Feb 2010. < http://www.jstor.org/pss/448536>

. Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The multiple traditions in America?, American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, pp. 549-566, 1993. JSTOR. Web. 4 March 2010. < http://www.jstor.org/pss/2938735>

Statistics

GSS Cumulative Dataset 1972-2008, General Social Survey. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss08>

Bilingualism and Language Policy

Books

BAKER, Collin; PRYS JONES, Sylvia. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, Avon (U.K): Clevedon Multilingual Matters, 1998. Print.

BARON, Denis. The English-Only Question: an official language for Americans?, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990. Print.

CRAWFORD, James. At War with Diversity: US languages policy in an age of anxiety, Avon (U.K): Clevedon Multilingual matters, 2000. Print.

--- ed. Language Loyalties: A source Book on the Official English Controversy, The Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Print.

DICKER, Susan. J. Languages in America: a pluralist view,2^nd ed. Clevedon (UK): Mulitlingual Matters Ltd, 2003. Google Book Search. Web. 20 February 2010. < http://books.google.fr/booksid=7__Bg6IM6RcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=lan,guages +in+America&hl=fr&ei=0PjeS5_GJ8jj-QaE9LijBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=bookthumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CEAQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false>

GONZALES, Roseann Duenas, ed. Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives on the Official English Movement, Vol. 2: History, Theory and Policy, 2001, ERIC Document. Web. 4 Dec. 2009.

< http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80 /17/25/69.pdf>

HAKUTA, Kenji. Mirror of Language: The debate on Bilingualism, New York: Basic Books, 1986. Print.

MAY, Stephen. Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.

PORTER, Rosalie Pedalino. Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education, 2^nd edition, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1999. Print.

SMOLICZ, J.J; SECOMBE, M.J. On Education and Culture, Albert Park: James Nicholas Publishers, 1999, Google Book Search. Web. 2 March 2010. < http://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=7kdA8x2XFUAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq= %22on+education+and+culture%22+Smolicz&ots=e9w07n6- 10&sig=XfQpT22AbDwPfVzPwP8KlCp9zKQ#v=onepage&q&f=false>

Articles

BLOOM, Paul. Explaining Language Diversity?, Review, American Scientists: The Scientific Research society, July-August 2002, Web. 3 March 2010. < http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/explaining-linguistic-diversity>

CITRIN, Jack; REINGOLD, Beth; WALTERS, Evelyn; GREEN, Donald. P. The "Official English" Movement and the Symbolic Politics of Language in the United States?, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 3, Utah: University of Utah, Sept. 1990, pp. 535-559. JSTOR. Web. 14 March 2010. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/448703 >

CRAWFORD, James. Census 2000, A Guide for the Perplexed?, Language Policy, n. p, 2002, Web, 12 January 2010, < http://www.languagepolicy.net/articles/census02.htm>

---. Chapter 6: Hispanophobia?, Hold your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of 'English Only', 1992, Language Policy, Web. 10 Jan. 2010. < http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/HYTCH6.htm>

CRYSTAL, David. English as a global language?, 2^nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Web. 1 March 2010.

< http://www.sprachshop.com/sixcms/media.php/811/English_as_a_grobal_lang_sample _ch.pdf>

FISHMAN, Joshua. "What Do You Lose When You Lose Your Language?", 1996, ERIC Document. Web. 27 Oct 2009.

< http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/contentstorage01/000 0019b/80/14/89/fb.pdf>

HEATH, Shirley B. A National Language Academy? Debate in the New Nation?. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Issue 11, Pages 9-44, 1976. Web. 4 March 2010 < http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/ijsl.1976.11.9>

LO BIANCO, Joseph. "What is the Problem? Official English in the USA", 2001, ERIC Document, Web. 16 Dec 2009. < http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sq l/contentstorage01/0000019b/80/19/cf/e1.pdf >

MAY, Stephen.The Politics of Homogeneity: A Critical Exploration of the Anti-bilingual Education Movement?, 2005, Lingref. Web. 3 Feb. 2010.

< http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/121ISB4.PDF>

MUJICA, Mauro. Politically Incorrect but the Naked Truth?, Monograph, 2006, Nudas Veritas. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.

< http://www.nudasveritas.us/Articles/TheSpoiling/monograph0706.pdf>

National Association for Bilingual Education, Advocacy?, NABE. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://www.nabe.org/advocacy.html>

PEREA, Juan. F. Demography and Distrust: An Essay on American Languages, Cultural Pluralism, and Official English?, 77 MINN L Rev 269, 1992, p. 286, Washington College of Law, April 1996 , Web, 5 March 2010. < http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/45/bender.cfm>

RICENTO, Thomas. "A biref history of Language Restrictionism in the United States", 1995, ERIC Document. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

< http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80 /17/39/e7.pdf >

SCHMIDT, Ronald. Defending English in an English-dominant world: The ideology of the =Official English` movement in the United States?, 2006. Web. 16 Dec 2009. < http://www.csulb.edu/~rschmidt/Schmidt-Proofs_Endangerment_ch10.pdf>

SCOTT, Ellis Ferrin. Reasserting Language Rights of Native American students in the face of Proposition 227 and other Language-based referendum?, J.L& EDUC., DEL VALLE, Sandra, Language rights and the law in the United States: Finding your voices, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, p. 1 , 1999. Web. 4 April 2010. < http://books.google.com/books?id=9-8nUaEdpFMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=del+

valle&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false>

Legislations

EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ACT, Supreme Court of the United States, 20 USC Sec. 1703, 1974. U.S Department of Education. Web. 5 Dec 2009. < http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/eeolep/index.html>

LAU V. NICHOLS, No. 72 - 6520, Supreme Court of the United States, 414 U.S. 56, Jan. 21, 1974. U.S Department of Education . Web. 5 Dec. 2009. < http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html>

BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT , No. 33, Vol. 64, p. 8447-8461, U.S Department of Education, Federal Register Online via GPO Access, Web. 5 Dec. 2009. < http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/1999-1/021999a.html>

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, U.S Department of Justice: Civil Rights Section. Web. 5 Dec. 2009. < http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.php>

Media and Communication

Books

CORNU, Geneviève. Sémiologie de l'image dans la publicité, Paris: Editions d' Organisation Université, 1992. Print.

DEFLEUR, Melvin. L; BALL-ROKEACH, Sandra. Theories of Mass Communication, 5th edition, Reading (MA):Addison-Wesley 1989. Print.

DEVITO, Joseph. A. Human Communication, The Basic Course, (Fifth Edition), New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 1991. Print.

FISKE, John. Introduction to Communication Studies, London and New York: Routledge, 1990. Print.

GERSTLE, Jacques. La Communication Politique, Paris: Presse Universitaire de France, 1992. Print.

O'SULIVAN, Tim; HARTLY, John; SAUNDERS, Danny, FISKE, John. Key Concepts in Communication, 5^th edition, London, New York: Routledge, 1993. Print.

SEYMOUR-URE, Collin. The Political Impact of Mass Media, London: Constable and Co LTD, 1974. Print.

VESTERGAARD, Torben ; SCHRODER, Ki., The Language of Advertising, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1985. Print.

Articles

POPE, Daniel. Making Sense of Advertisements?, Making Sense of Evidence. History Matters: The U.S. Survey on the Web. Web. 7 Feb. 2010. < http://historymatters.gmu.edu>

SURESH, Kalyani. Theories of Communication?, Professional Educational Organization International, 2003. Web. 3 Apr. 2010.

< http://www.peoi.org/Courses/Coursesen/mass/fram2.html>

Dictionaries, Encyclopedias

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Cambridge Dictionary. Web 6 April 2010. < http://dictionary.cambridge.org>

Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Ask Oxford. Web 4 March 2010 < http://www.askoxford.com>

Encycloepdia Britanica. Encyclopedia Britanica. Inc, 2010. Encyclopedia Britanica Online. Web. 5 February 2010. < http://www.britannica.com>

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus. Third Edition. Philip Lief Group, 2009. Thesaurus.com. Web. 11 May 2010. < http://www.thesaurus.com>

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010, Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 13 May 2010 < http://www.merriam-webster.com>

ANNEXES

Annex I- "The Purpose and Effect of an Official English Constitutional Amendment. 27 April 1981. 127

Annex II- Proposed Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1982?. 13 August 1982. 130

Annex III- In Defense of Our Common Language...?. 1984-1988. 133

Annex IV- One Nation, Indivisible . . . ??. 1985. 136

Annex V- Mail from John Tanton to Witan Attendees?. 10 Oct 1986. 148

Annex VI- Examining Views on English as the Official Language?.26 July 2006. 155

Annex VII- It can't Happen Here.(Or can it?)?. Late 1980s. 157

Annex VIII- 14 Nations call English their national language. We're not one of them?. Late 1980s. 158

Annex IX- If you can't read this ad don't feel badly. Our children can't read this book?. Albany Times-Union.
1989. 159

Annex X- On Tuesday you can tell Congress where to go?. USA Today. 30 Oct1992. 161

Annex XI- It's time to focus on what unites us as a people, as opposed to what divides us?. January 1993. 162

Annex XII- Why a Hispanic heads an organization called U.S English?. 1994. 163

Annex XIII- To make it in America you need to speak my language?. 1995. 164

Annex XIV- Stop the madness?. 1996. 165

Annex XV- I need to learn English?. 1997. 166

Annex XVI- Should our government operate in a foreign language??. 1994. 167

Annex XVII- U.S English. Immigrants want and need to learn English. It's time politicians got
themessage?.1994. 168

Annex XVIII- Immigrants who don't learn English can really clean up in America?. 2008. 169

Annex XIX- Will it come to this??. 1999. 170

Annex XX- One more way the federal government is making doctors sick?. 2007. 171

Annex XXI- GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Data 172

ANNEX I
Senator S.I. Hayakawa
The Purpose and Effect of an Official English Constitutional Amendment
Congressional Record - U.S. Senate - April 27, 1981

Language is a powerful tool. A common language can unify; separate languages can fracture and fragment a society. The American melting pot? has succeeded in creating a vibrant new culture among peoples of many different cultural backgrounds largely because of the widespread use of a common language, English.

5 Learning English has been the primary task of every immigrant group for two centuries. Participation in the common language has rapidly made available to each new group the political and economic benefits of American society. Those who have mastered English have overcome the major hurdle to full participation in our democracy.

Today I am introducing a constitutional amendment declaring as the law of the land what is 10 already a political and social reality: That English is the official language of the United States.

This amendment is needed to clarify the confusing signals we have given in recent years to immigrant groups. For example, the requirements for naturalization as a U.S. citizen say you must be able to read, write and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language.? And though you must be a citizen to vote, some recent legislation has required bilingual ballots in

15 some areas. This amendment would end that contradictory, logically conflicting, situation.

Bilingual education programs were originally designed to help non-English-speaking children learn English quickly so they could join the mainstream of education and of our society. The Carter administration attempted to substantially broaden this mandate by proposing requirements for schools to teach other academic subjects entirely in students` native

20 language.

I am proposing this amendment because I believe that we are being dishonest with the
linguistic minority groups if we tell them they can take full part in American life without
learning the English language. We may wish it were otherwise, but it simply is not so. As the
son of an immigrant to an English-speaking country, I know this from personal experience. If
25 I spoke no English, my world would be limited to the Japanese-speaking community, and no

matter how talented I was, I could never do business, seek employment, or take part in public affairs outside that community.

Let me explain what the amendment will do, upon its passage by Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states:

30 -It will establish English as the official language of State, Federal, and local government

business;

-It will abolish requirements for bilingual election materials;

-It will allow transitional instruction in English for non-English speaking students, but do away with requirements for foreign language instruction in other academic subjects;

35 -It will end the false promise being made to new immigrants that English is unnecessary

for them.

On the other hand, and this is important, there are things the amendment will not do:

-It will not prevent the use of any other language within communities, churches or cultural schools.

40 That is, Yiddish schools, Hispanic schools, Japanese and Chinese schools are perfectly all

right insofar as their support by local communities, but not by the taxpayer.

-It will not prevent the use of second languages for the purpose of public convenience and safety, for example on signs in public places, but it will not allow governments to require multilingual postings on publications.

45 I am thinking, Mr. President, of such signs as you see in the street sometimes, Danger,

construction area.? If this sign is put up in a building lot in Chinatown, let us say, there is certainly no objection whatsoever to putting signs to that effect in Chinese or any other language that is appropriate for the passerby. So, for the purposes of public convenience and safety, other languages may be used wherever necessary. I think that what we have, in

50 Washington, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, street signs in Chinese or Japanese, are perfectly acceptable, because they are also accompanied by street signs in English. They are also acceptable because they give a cosmopolitan flavor to those cities that have them and we are proud of the fact that we are a cosmopolitan culture.

My amendment, Mr. President, will not prevent public schools from offering instruction in 55 other languages, nor will it prevent schools and college from requiring some study of a
foreign language.

Incidentally, Mr. President, we are crippled in international relations because of our imperfect
command not only of the well known languages like Spanish, French, German, or Italian, but
we have very few speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Hungarian, Arabic, Thai - some

60 languages some people here ought to know so they can serve our Nation intelligently in diplomatic service or in trade. If we have a huge trade deficit vis-à-vis Japan, for example, it is because they have some Japanese salesmen speaking English in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere, but we have very, very few Japanese-speaking Americans doing a selling job in Tokyo or Osaka.

65 So, at the same time that I declare English to be the official language of the United States, I

am not trying to discourage foreign language studies.

The ability to forge unity from diversity makes our society strong. We need all the elements,
Germans, Hispanics, Hellenes, Italians, Chinese, all the cultures that make our Nation unique.
Unless we have a common basis for communicating and sharing ideas, we all lose. The

70 purpose of this proposal is to ensure that American democracy always strives to include in its mainstream everyone who aspires to citizenship, to ensure that no one gets locked out by permanent language barriers.?

Source: HAYAKAWA, S.I. «The Purpose and Effect of an Official English Constitutional Amendment»
Congressional Record, U.S Senate, 27 April 1981. Speech. U.S English, Washington D.C. Print.

ANNEX II

On August 13, 1982, Sen. S.I. Hayakawa (R-CA) introduced an amendment to immigration legislation (S. 2222) in support of English as the official language of the United States.

Language is a unifying instrument which binds people together. When people speak one language they become as one, they become a society.

"In the Book of Genesis, it says when the Lord saw that mankind spoke one universal language, He said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language * * * 5 and nothing which they propose to do will be impossible for them."

If you will recall the Bible story, God destroyed this power by giving mankind many languages rather than the one. So you had proliferation of language breaking up human pride and, therefore, human power.

But there are more recent political lessons to be drawn on the subject of language when you

10 think that right here in this U.S. Senate and the Congress we have descendants of speakers of at least 250 to 350 languages. If you go back to the grandparents of just the Members of Congress, you have speakers of, I would say, at least 350 languages. But we meet here as speakers of one language. We may disagree when we argue, but at least we understand each other when we argue. Because we can argue with each other, we can also come to agreements

15 and we can create societies. That is how societies work.

Take in contrast to this the situation in, for example, Belgium, where a small country is sharply divided because half of the population speaks French and the other half Flemish. Those who speak Flemish do not like the people who speak French and those who speak French do not want to speak Flemish.

20 Think of Canada, just to the north of us, where the French-speaking people feel paranoid about the fact that they are a minority and feel that they are being picked upon and abused by the English-speaking majority.

Think about Ceylon, right now, of course, known as Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is sharply divided
right to this day because the speakers of Sinhalese, which is the language of Sri Lanka, and

25 the speakers of Tamil, which as the language of India. A number of people moved from India into Sri Lanka, and they created a language bloc thus the two are fighting each other.

Think of the recent history of India. Between 1957 and 1968, something like 1 million were killed in what were essentially language riots. They were riots about other things as well, about cultural difference, but essentially those cultural difference could not be resolved

30 because there were a hundred languages dividing those people. So they could not understand each other and they could not come to the resolutions we arrive at daily in a Chamber like this or in the House of Representatives.

So, Mr. President, the fact that we have a common language, one language, is one of the most
important things we have tying us together. Now we live in a time of unprecedented

35 immigration. Not only speakers of Spanish, but speakers of Cantonese, speakers of Thai, speakers of Vietnamese, speakers of a variety of European languages, speakers of Mandarin - they are coming from all over the world and joining us in our society.

From the Philippines, we have speakers of Tagalog and other Filipino languages. Somehow or
other, within a generation or two, we have to get them all together, talking to each other,

40 electing each other to city councils, doing business with each other, buying and selling from each other, creating governments, creating societies. We can only have this unified society if we ultimately agree on a common language.

This is not to say Mr. President, that I oppose the study of other languages. We are very backward as a nation in our study of other languages. I think more of us should study Spanish.

45 I am very proud of the fact that two of my children speak Spanish very well. I do not. One of them speaks Japanese. I do not.

"I have told my students for many, many years, in the coming world that they will grow up in,
certain languages are going to be important in world history that they will have to know. They
ought to choose, as we go into the 21st century, at least one of these languages - Spanish,

50 Russian, Chinese, Japanese, or Arabic. There are very few of my students who ever bothered studying any one of these languages. We are very poor at languages because we are linguistically provincial. Nothing I say in this amendment encouraging the use of an official language in the United States is intended to discourage the study of all languages around the world so we, in business and diplomacy, will be better represented around the world.

55 Mr. President, when you think there are 20,000 Japanese businessmen in New York speaking English and about 2,000 American businessmen in Tokyo not able to speak Japanese, you can see why there is a trade imbalance between Japan and the United States. I say in all seriousness, we ought to be linguistically more sophisticated than we are. At the same time, I believe we should unite as speakers of English insofar as we have a society in common.

60 Mr. President, the United States, a land of immigrants from every corner of the world, has been strengthened and unified because its newcomers have historically chosen ultimately to forgot their native language for the English language. We have all benefited from the sharing

of ideas, of cultures and beliefs, made possible by a common language. We have all enriched each other.

65 The Italians are better for having lived next door to the Jews; the Jews are better for having

socialized with the Chinese; the Chinese are better for having mixed with the Italians, and so on. All around, we are better Americans because we have all melded our cultures together into this wonderful cultural symphony which is the United States of America.

There are those who want separatism, who want bilingual balance, who want bilingual

70 education. I am all in favor of bilingual education only insofar as it accelerates the learning of English. I do not believe that the taxpayer should be taxed to promote an enclave of speakers of Yiddish, speakers of Japanese, speakers of Spanish, speakers of Bulgarian, speakers of Russian, of Tibetan, or any other language. Essentially, the taxpayers` responsibility is to see it that we all speak English together no matter where we come from. That cultural unity which

75 we ultimately achieve - that is the United States.

If you think of the culture that we have, you think, as I said a little earlier, of the melding of cultures right here in Congress. You look at the lineup of any American professional baseball team or football team. You see all foreign names there, all English-speaking, all managing to get along, and you see what a miracle this is. The wonderful thing about the United States is

80 that kind of cultural intermixing, that cultural melding is possible.

When you go to other parts of the world, you find to your amazement that China is full of Chinese; that Russia is full of Russians and practically nobody else. Italy is full of Italians and Korea is full of Koreans, and so on around the world. But we are full of people from all parts of the world having learned one language and ultimately having learned to get along with

85 each other to create institutions of a multiracial, multicultural democratic society.

Mr. President, that is what I want to preserve when I say I want an amendment that says the English language shall be the official language of the United States. "I thank the Chair."

Source: HAYAKAWA, S.I. Proposed Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1982?, S. 2222, 97th Congr., 2d Session, 13 August 1982. Speech. U.S English. Web. 5 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/26>

ANNEX III

In Defense of Our Common Language ... English, Our Common Bond

Throughout history, the United States has been enriched by the cultural contributions of immigrants from many traditions, but blessed with one common language that has untied a diverse nation and fostered harmony among its people.

5 As much as by accident as by design, that language is English. Given our country's history of immigration and the geography of immigrant settlements, it might have been Dutch, or Spanish, or German; or it might have been two languages, as is the case in Canada, our neighbor to the North.

But English prevailed, and it has served us well. It eloquence shines in our Declaration of 10 Independence and in our Constitution. It is the living carrier of our democratic ideals.

English is a world language which we share with many other nations. It is the most popular medium of international communication.

The Spread of Language Segregation

The United States has been spared the bitter conflicts that plague so many countries whose 15 citizens do not share a common tongue. Historic forces made English the language of all Americans, though nothing in our laws designated it the official language of the nation.

But now English is under attack, and we must take affirmative steps to guarantee that it continue to be our common heritage. Failure to do so may well lead to institutionalized language segregation and a gradual loss of national unity.

20 The erosion of English and the rise of other languages in public life have several causes:

· Some spokesmen for ethnic groups reject the melting-pot? ideal; they label assimilation a betrayal of their native cultures and demand government funding to remain separate ethnic institutions.

· Well-intentioned but unproven theories have led to extensive government-funded 25 bilingual education programs, raising from preschool to college.

· New civil rights assertions have yielded bilingual and multilingual ballots, voting instructions, election site counselors, and government-funded registration campaigns aimed solely at speakers of foreign languages.

· Record immigration, concentrated in fewer language groups, is reinforcing language 30 segregation and retarding language assimilation.

· The availability of foreign language electronic media, with a full range of news and entertainment, is a new disincentive to the learning of English.

U.S. English: A Timely Response

In 1981, Senator S. I Hayakawa, himself an immigrant and distinguished scholar of 35 semantics, proposed a constitutional amendment designating as the English the official

language of the United States. Senator Hayakawa helped found U.S. English in 1983 to

organize and support a citizens' movement to maintain our common linguistic heritage.

U.S. English is committed to promoting the use of English in the political, economic, and intellectual life of the nation. It operates squarely within the American political mainstream, 40 and rejects all manifestations of cultural and linguistic chauvinism.

Our Guiding Principles

Our goal is to maintain the blessing of our common language - English - for the people of the Untied States. These principles guide us:

· In a pluralistic nation such as ours, government should foster the similarities that untie 45 us rather than the differences that separate us.

· The nation's public schools have a special responsibility to help students who don't speak English to learn the language as quickly as possible.

· Quality teaching of English should be part of every student's curriculum, at every academic level.

50
· The study of foreign languages should be strongly encouraged, both as an academic

discipline and for practical, economic, and foreign policy considerations.

· All candidates for U.S citizenship should be required to demonstrate the ability to understand, speak, read, and write simple English, and demonstrate basic understanding of our system of government.

55
· The rights of individuals and groups to use other languages and to establish privately

funded institutions for the maintenance of diverse languages and cultures must be respected in a pluralistic society.

Our Action Program

U.S English actively works to reverse the spread of foreign language usage in the nation's 60 official life. Our program calls for:

· Adoption of a constitutional amendment to establish English as the official language of the United States.

· Repeal of laws mandating multilingual ballots and voting materials.

· Restriction of government funding for bilingual education to short-term transitional 65 programs only.

· Universal enforcement of the English language and civics requirement for naturalization.

· Expansion of opportunities for learning English.

Towards these ends, U.S English serves as a national center for consultation and cooperation

70 on ways to defend English as the sole language of the United States. It directs its effort to leading a public discussion on the best language policies for our multiethnic society; educating opinion leaders on the long-term implications of language segregation; encouraging research on improved methods of teaching English, and promoting effective programs of English language instruction.

75 We Need Your Help

U.S English welcomes to membership all who are concerned about the prospect of entrenched language segregation and the possibility of loosing our strongest national bond.

We hope that you will join us and defend our common language against misguided policies that threaten our national unity.

80 U.S English is a project of U.S., a voluntary association of public interest groups sharing

overhead and organizational skills for greater cost effectiveness. All contributions to U.S English are fully tax deductible.

What Others are saying

We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to 85 see the crucible turns our people out as American, of American nationality, and not as
dwellers in a polyglot boarding house?.

Theodore Roosevelt

[...]

90

Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all. ... Come now! Let us down there and confuse their language that they may not listen to one another's language?.

Tower of Babel, Genesis 11:6-7

Source: U.S ENGLISH. In Defense of Our Common Language...?, CRAWFORD, James ed. Language Loyalties: A source Book on the Official English Controversy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 143-147. Print.

ANNEX IV

The English Language Amendment One Nation . . . Indivisible ?

S. I. Hayakawa

The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy

The Washington Institute sponsors research that helps provide the information and fresh insights necessary for formulating policy in a democratic society. Founded in 1982, Thee Institute is an independent, non profit educational and research organization which examines current and upcoming issues with particular attention to ethical implications.

(c)1985 by The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, Inc., 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 910, Washington, D0036.

All rights reserved. Except for use in reviews, no part of this monograph may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage ad retrieval system.

Printed in the United States of America. ISBN: 0-88702-007-0

The views expressed in this monograph are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the officers, staff and trustees of The Washington Institute. The views expressed in this book should not be construed to represent the position of any agency of the United States government.

This paper was first presented on March 12, 1985 as part of the Bicentennial Forum Series on «Constitutional Values and Contemporary Policy», sponsored by the Washington Institute and moderated by Dr. Nicholas N. Kittrie, Edwin A. Mooers Scholar and Professor of Law at American University. Dr. Samuel I. Hayakawa is currently Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. The former U.S Senator form California is Honorary Chairman of U.S English, whose purpose is to make English the official language of the United States.

May I start by telling you a little about myself, since many have wondered how it is that a

movement aimed at making English the official language of the United States is being headed by a man with a Japanese name?

My father, Ichiro Hayakawa, was born in 1884 in Yamanashi Prefecture in Japan. Like many

5 thousands of young people born in the wake of the Meiji Restoration, which ended almost two hundred and fifty years of the rigid isolationism of the Tokugawa Shogunate, he wanted to be part of the great movement toward the westernization of Japan. Having prepared himself by studying English earnestly in high school, he took off for San Francisco at the age of eighteen to work, like many Japanese youths of that time, as a houseboy while continuing his studies.

10 The high point of his career in this period was when he joined the navy to become a mess attendant on a training ship, the USS Pensacola, which was moored at Goat Island, now known as Yerba Buena Island. Father has told me that on his days off he would go to San Francisco to call on the office of the Japanese language newspaper, Shin Sekai (New World), to offer for publication his translations into Japanese of English and American poetry --

15 Tennyson, Wordsworth, Longfellow. Many of his translations were published.

For years, father remained proud in after years of his Japanese translation of an English version of Heine's Die Lorelei. The files of Shin Sekai were destroyed, however, in the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906, leaving me unable to prove that my father was a poet.

Decades later, I learned more about what studying English meant to many Japanese

20 houseboys in San Francisco in the early 1900s. In 1943, I visited the War Relocation Center at Colorado, where a friend of my father's from student days, a Mr. Kodama, was living as a guest of the U. S. Government. I really didn't know him, because his friendship with father dated back to their bachelor days. However, he gave me a royal welcome, having bought a new used car (it was still wartime) to pick me up at the University of Denver, where I was

25 teaching that summer.

Back at the camp, Mr. Kodama told me about how proud he was that I had become a professor and had written a couple of books. He told me of the long talks about English literature he and my father had had, discussing especially the writing of John Ruskin and Thomas Carlyle. He said, glowing with pride, that I had achieved every ambition he and my

30 father had had back in San Francisco before I was born.

Father must have been twenty-one when he went to Japan to fetch his bride, bringing her back on a ship bound for San Francisco, but scheduled to stop en route in Vancouver. During the stopover, Father found a business opportunity, so the young couple decided to stay there. I was born not long thereafter, destined not to see San Francisco until more than forty years

35 later.

Thus it was that I was brought up in Canada, being moved from city to city as my father went from one enterprise to another. But there were always books in English at home: Edgar Allan Poe, Alexander Dumas, Charles Dickens, as well as popular books of the day such as the short stories of O. Henry.

40 My mother was the daughter of a physician of the generation that introduced Western medicine into Japan, whose study was full of German medical textbooks. She understood the bookish habit of mine and encouraged my reading and my studies.

I finished high school in Winnipeg, and it was natural that when enrolled in the University of
Manitoba I should major in English while continuing my high school study of French and

45 Latin. Then, while I was in my junior year, my father decided that he had to move the headquarters of his import/export business to Osaka. This meant that my mother and two younger sisters also had to move to Japan, leaving my brother, two years my junior, and me to fend for ourselves. My brother went to Montreal, to go into father's branch office and to live with our uncle.

50 My best friends at the university were Gerard and Carlyle, sons of William Talbot Allison, professor of English at the University of Manitoba. When my family left for Japan, the Allisons invited me to stay with them, much to my delight.

I was very happy at the Allison home with my two friends, the wonderfully kind Mrs. Allison and Mary Jo as my new little sister. Furthermore, I learned much that I wanted to learn, living 55 in the home of a professor, a literary scholar and critic.

At the time, Professor Allison was writing book reviews which were syndicated in Canadian newspapers. After a while Professor Allison invited me to try my hand at reviewing. Soon a few of my reviews, with some editing by the professor, began to be sent out for publication by his syndicate over my by-line! What excitement for a nineteen-year-old! It was then that I

60 strengthened my resolve to become a professor and writer.

And that, after several more years, is what I became.

After teaching eight or nine years at Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, I was invited
to teach in the summer session of 1952 at San Francisco State College. It was a thoroughly
gratifying experience. The English department must have been pleased with me, because I

65 was invited to return the following year as a regular faculty member. Remembering the long history of anti-Oriental politics in California - The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Japanese Exclusion Act of 1924, and the long history of anti-Oriental discrimination - I said, "Nothing doing!"

However, Professor Caroline Shrodes, then head of the English Department, said, "Perhaps 70 you'd like to try us out. Why don't you come again next summer, bringing the whole family, to see how you like it?"

We all came the following summer - Marge and I and the three children. Then still another summer. After that, our move to California was a foregone conclusion. I became a member of the regular faculty of San Francisco State in 1955.

75 That year we bought a house in Mill Valley, where we still live. And Marge, having escaped Chicago's asphalt jungle which had been our home, plunged into action to beautify the hillside garden which surrounded our house - and became a horticulturist. We have never regretted our move.

The student revolution, begun in Berkeley in 1964, hit San Francisco State in 1966. By 1968

80 the college was in such uncontrollable turmoil that in May the president fled to what he hoped was a quieter job - in Ethiopia. A successor was chosen - a brave man, who expended his courage in defying the trustees rather then the radical students. He was fired in November.

I was appointed as Acting President during Thanksgiving week, the third president in 1968, much to my surprise and everyone else' s.

85 Thanks to guidance from the office of Dr. Glenn Dumke, Chancellor of the State College system, the experience and wisdom of Thomas Cahill, then Chief of Police of San Francisco, the courage and restraint of the police officers of San Francisco and a dozen other neighboring cities, and thanks too to the professors and students who bravely carried on their academic duties in the midst of the turmoil, order was restored to the campus in the early months of

90 1969 - and I was suddenly a hero, "the tough little guy who faced down the radicals and
hoodlums at State."

I left the college presidency in 1973, having reached retirement age. In 1976 I ran on the
Republican ticket for the U. S. Senate and won. Of course I was overjoyed. Many throughout
the state and nation were surprised. In a tactical sense, however, I was not entirely surprised.

95 Things had gone as my able campaign managers and I had planned.

In a deeper sense, however, I was surprised - and remain so. Despite the almost hundred years of anti-Oriental fervor that has marked the history of California, despite the heightened distrust of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor that resulted in their removal from the West Coast to desert camps for the duration of the war, despite the agonies of the Pacific War that had left

100 thousands upon thousands of California families bereft of sons, brothers and husbands, it seemed that by 1976 anti-Japanese hostility had all but disappeared.

In a vigorous re-election campaign waged against me by Senator John Tunney, not one racist epithet was used against me - certainly not by the Senator and not, to my knowledge, by any of his supporters.

105 In sum, I have every reason to be proud and happy to be a Californian. The only thing that bothers me now is when people I meet for the first time ask, "Aren't you the Senator from Hawaii?"

The foregoing, then, is the story of one immigrant. Far more remarkable stories have been
told of other immigrants who have come to these shores to find self-realization in agriculture

110 and trade; in science and technology; in music and the arts; in business and finance; in politics and diplomacy; in research and scholarship; in public service and philanthropy. Each of them, I am sure, has a moving and inspiring story to tell.

Having served in the Congress of the United States, I continue to be impressed by the fact that
so many of my colleagues in the House and Senate have the same kind of story. Let me cite

115 the names of members of Congress with whom I had the honor to serve: Abourezk, Addabbo, Biaggi, Boschwitz, Cohen, de la Garza, Domenici, Fuqua, Gonzales, Hammerschmidt, Javits, Laxalt, Matsunaga, Oberstar, Rostenkowski, Solarz, Tsongas, Vander Jagt, Zablocki, Zorinsky.

When I reel off this list of names in the course of a luncheon speech, people laugh as if to say, 120 "That's us, all right!"

What is it that has made a society out of the hodge-podge of nationalities, races and colors represented in the immigrant hordes that people our nation? It is language, of course, that has made communication among all these elements possible. It is with a common language that we have dissolved distrust and fear. It is with language that we have drawn up the

125 understandings and agreements and social contracts that make a society possible.

But while language is a necessary cause of our oneness as a society, it is not a sufficient cause. A foreigner cannot, by speaking faultless English, become an Englishman. Paul Theroux, a contemporary novelist and travel writer, has commented on this fact: "Foreigners are always aliens in England. No one becomes English. It's a very tribal society . . . No one

130 becomes Japanese . . . . No one becomes Nigerian. But Nigerians, Japanese and English become Americans."^I

One need not speak faultless American English to become an American. Indeed, one may
continue to speak English with an appalling foreign accent. This is true of some of my friends,
but they are seen as fully American because of the warmth and enthusiasm with which they

135 enter into the life of the communities in which they live.

Even as the American nation was coming into being, it had become obvious that the American
Experience was creating a new kind of human being. Among the first to comment on this fact
was Thomas Paine, who wrote:?If there is a country in the world where concord, according to

140 common calculation, would be least expected, it is America. Made up, as it is, of people from different nations... speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable. But by the simple operation of constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, and the parts are brought into cordial unison.? II

145 Hector St. Jean Crevecoeur, in Letters from an American Farmer, wrote in 1782: What is the American, this new man? ... I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have four wives of different nations. He is an American who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has

150 embraced. The Americans were once scattered all over Europe, here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared. The American ought therefore to love his country much better than that wherein he or his forebears were born. Here the rewards of his industry follow with equal steps in the progress of his labor.? III

Herman Melville, in Redburn, published in 1849, wrote, you cannot spill a drop of American

155 blood without spilling the blood of the whole world ... We are not a narrow tribe of men. No: our blood is the flood of the Amazon, made up of a thousand noble currents all pouring into one. We are not a nation, so much as a world.? IV

Despite the exclusion of the Chinese after 1882, the idea of immigration as a thousand noble
currents all pouring into one? continued to haunt the American imagination: Israel Zangwill's

160 play, The Melting Pot, opened in New York in 1908 to enthusiastic popular acclaim, and its tittle, as Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan remark, was seized upon as a concise evocation of a profoundly significant American fact.? In the play, David Quixano, the Russian Jewish immigrant - a pogrom orphan? - has escaped to New York, and exclaims:

Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island... in your fifty

165 groups with your fifty languages and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries, but you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to... A fig for your feuds and vendettas! German and Frenchman, Irishman and Englishman, Jews and Russians - into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American. ^V

170 A generation later came the Pacific War, followed by the American occupation of Japan, followed by the influx into the United States of thousands of Japanese war brides. Then came the Korean War- and more war brides- and the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Acct of 1952 (the McCarren-Walter Act), which made all races eligible for naturalization and eliminated races as a bar to naturalization.?^VI Then came the war in Vietnam - and more

175 thousands of Asian war brides.

Even more than Herman Melville dreamed our blood is indeed the flood of the American, made up of a thousand noble currents all pouring into one.?

When President Reagan, in the course of his Inaugural Address in January of this year,
introduced in the balcony of the House chamber a Vietnamese girl, who a few short years ago

180 had arrived in America as a war refugee and was now graduating with honors from West Point, the huge audience greeted her with a roar of applause.

In the past several years strong resistance to the "melting pot" idea has arisen, especially from
those who claim to speak for the Hispanic peoples. Instead of a "melting pot," they say, the
national ideal should be a "salad bowl," in which different elements are thrown together but

185 not "melted," so that the original ingredients retain their distinctive character.

In addition to the increasing size of the Spanish-speaking population in our nation, two legislative actions have released this outburst of effort on behalf of the Spanish language - and Hispanic culture.

First, there was the so-called "bilingual ballot" mandated in 1975 in an amendment to the

190 Voting Rights Act, which required foreign-language ballots when voters of any foreign-language groups reached five percent or more of any voting district. The groups chosen to be so favored were Asian-Americans (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean), American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and peoples of Spanish heritage,? that is Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Mexican-Americans.

195 Sensitive as Americans have been to racism, especially since the days of the Civil Rights

Movement, no one seems to have noticed the profound racism expressed in the amendment that created the bilingual ballot?. Brown people, like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, red people, like American Indians, and yellow people, like Japanese and Chinese, are assumed not to be smart enough to learn English. No provision is made, however, for non-English-

200 speaking French-Canadians in Maine or Vermont, nor for the Yiddish-speaking Hassidic Jews
in Brooklyn, who are white and presumed to be able to learn English without difficulty.

Voters in San Francisco encountered ballots in Spanish and Chinese for the first time in the
elections of 1980, much to their surprise, since authorizing legislation had been passed by
Congress with almost no debate, no roll-call vote, and no public awareness. Naturalized

205 Americans, who had taken the trouble to learn English to become citizens, were especially angry and remain so.

Furthermore there was the Lau decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, in response to a suit brought by the Chinese of San Francisco who complained that their children were not being taught English adequately in the public schools they were attending.

210 Justice William O. Douglas, delivering the opinion of the Court (Lau et al. v. Nichols et al,

January 21, 1974), wrote:

This class suit brought by non-English-speaking Chinese students against . . . the
San Francisco Unified School District seeks relief against the unequal educational
opportunities which are alleged to violate, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment. No

215 specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak the language is one choice. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is another. There may be others. Petitioners ask only that the Board of Education be directed to apply its expertise to the problem and rectify the situation.

220 Justice Douglas's decision, concurred in by the entire Court, granted the Lau petition.

Because the Lau decision did not specify the method by which English was to be taught, it turned out to be a go-ahead for amazing educational developments, not so much for the Chinese as for Hispanics, who appropriated the decision and took it to apply especially to themselves.

225 The new Department of Education, established during the Carter administration, was eager to make its presence known by expanding its bureaucracy and its influence. The Department quickly announced a vast program with federal funding for bilingual education, which led to the hiring of Spanish-speaking teachers by the thousands.

The Department furthermore issued what were known as the "Lau regulations," which

230 required under threat of withdrawal of federal funds that (1) non-English-speaking pupils be taught English, and that (2) academic subjects be taught in the pupils' own language. The contradiction between these two regulations seems not to have occurred to the educational theorists in the Department of Education. Nor does it seem to trouble to this day the huge membership of the National Association for Bilingual Education.

235 "Bilingual education," rapidly became a growth industry, required more and more teachers.

Complaints began to arise from citizens that "bilingual education" was not bilingual at all, since many Spanish-speaking teachers hired for the program were found not be be able to speak English. But the Department of Education decreed that teachers in the "bilingual" program do not need to know English!

240 Despite the ministrations of the Department of Education, or perhaps because of them, Hispanic students to a shocking degree, drop out of school, educated neither in Hispanic nor in American language and culture.

Hispanics are the least educated minority in America, according to a report by the American Council of Education,? writes Earl Byrd in The Washington Times (July 3, 245 1984).

The report says 50 percent of all Hispanics youths in America drop out of high school, and only 7percent finish college. Twelve percent of black youths and 23 percent of whites finish college.?

Eighteen percent of Hispanics in America who are 25 or older are classified as 250 functional illiterates, compared to 10 percent for blacks and 3 percent for whites.?

I welcome the Hispanic - and as a Californian, I welcome especially the Mexican - influence on our culture. My wife was wise enough to insist that both our son and daughter learn Spanish as children and to keep reading Spanish as they were growing up. Consequently, my son, a newspaper man, was able to work for six months as an exchange writer for a newspaper

255 in Costa Rica, while a Costa Rican reporter took my son's place in Oregon. My daughter, a graduate of the University of California at Santa Cruz, speaks Spanish, French, and after a year in Monterey Language School, Japanese.

The ethnic chauvinism of the present Hispanic leadership is an unhealthy trend in
present-day America. It threatens a division perhaps more ominous in the long run than
260 the division between blacks and whites. Blacks and whites have problems enough with
each other, to be sure, but they quarrel with each other in one language. Even Malcolm

X, in his fiery denunciations of the racial situation in America, wrote faultless and eloquent English.

But the present politically ambitious "Hispanic Caucus" looks forward to a destiny for

265 Spanish-speaking Americans separate from that of Anglo-, Italian-, Polish-, Greek-, Lebanese, Chinese-, Afro-Americans and all the rest of us who rejoice in our ethnic diversity, which gives us our richness as a culture, and the English language, which keeps us in communication with each other to create a unique and vibrant culture.

The advocates of Spanish language and Hispanic culture are not at all unhappy about the fact

270 that "bilingual education," originally instituted as the best way to teach English, often results in no English being taught at all. Nor does Hispanic leadership seem to be alarmed that large populations of Mexican-Americans, Cubans and Puerto Ricans do not speak English and have no intention of learning.

Hispanic spokesmen rejoice when still another concession is made to the Spanish-speaking 275 public, such as the Spanish-language "Yellow Pages" telephone directory now available in Los Angeles.

"Let's face it. We are not going to be a totally English-speaking country any more," says Aurora Helton of the Governor of Oklahoma's Hispanic Advisory Committee.

"Spanish should be included in commercials shown throughout America. Every American

280 child ought to be taught both English and Spanish," says Mario Obledo, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which was founded more than a half-century ago to help Hispanics learn English and enter the American mainstream.

"Citizenship is what makes us all American. Language is not necessary to the system. Nowhere does the Constitution say that English is our language," say Maurice Ferre, 285 Mayor of Miami, Florida.

"Nowhere does the Constitution say that English is our language," says Mayor Ferre.

It was to correct this omission that I introduced in April 1981 a constitutional amendment which read as follows:

"Article -

290 "Section 1. The English language shall be the official language of the United States.

"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."^VII

The quarterly record of legislative activities for the period describes the proposed legislation as follows:

Senator Hayakawa introduced S.J. Res. 72 . . . . . The emphasis of SIH's floor

295 statement was that a common language can unify, separate languages can fracture and fragment a society. Senator Hayakawa believes that this amendment is needed to clarify the confusing signals we have given in recent years to immigrant groups. The requirements to become a naturalized citizen say you must be able to speak, read and write words in the English language. And though you must be a citizen to vote,

300 some recent legislation has required bilingual ballots in some areas. This amendment
would end that contradictory and logically conflicting situation.

Although there were ten cosponsors to this resolution, and some speeches were given on the Senate floor, it died without being acted upon in the 97th Congress.

In the 98th Congress, in September 1983, the English Language Amendment was re-305 submitted (S.J. Res.167) by Senator Walter Huddleston (Dem.,Ky.). In his introductory speech
he said:

As a nation of immigrants, our great strength has been drawn from our ability to
assimilate. . . . people from many different cultures. . . . But for the last fifteen years,
we have experienced a growing resistance to the acceptance of our historic

310 language, an antagonistic questioning of the melting pot philosophy. . . . VIII

Senator Huddleston goes on to quote Theodore H. White's book, America in Search of Itself:

Some Hispanics have. . . . made a demand never voiced before: that the United
States, in effect, officially recognize itself as a bicultural, bilingual nation. . . .
(They) demand that the United States become a bilingual country, with all children

315 entitled to be taught in the language of their heritage, at public expense.^IX

On June 12, 1984, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, with Senator Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) presiding, held a hearing on Senator Huddleston's amendment, at which several witnesses presented their views. I was among those witnesses. However, no further action was taken by the 98th Congress.

320 In January of this year, the English Language Amendment was introduced again, this time by Senator Steve Symms (R.,ID), in his introductory remarks, stated two points not previously made explicit, although certainly implied; first, that the amendment is not intended to regulate language usage between private parties, and secondly that it is not intended to discourage that use of foreign languages in diplomacy or trade. As he said at

325 the time:

The English language amendment is intended to stop the practice of voting in foreign languages; it is intended to teach children who don't know English through appropriate programs. . . . ; it is intended to make English the only language for official proceedings of governments at all levels. . . . ; it is intended to make the

330 acceptance of English a condition of statehood incumbent upon all territories
aspiring to that status.^X

In the House of Representatives the English Language Amendment was offered by Robert K.
Dornan (R., Los Angeles) in the 97th Congress, and by Norman Shumway (R.,Stockton, Ca)
in both the 98th Congress and the present 99th. Congressman Shumway early this month had

335 25 co-sponsors.

So much for the action in Congress. In the following states, English has been declared by law to be the state's official language: Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska and Virginia.

340 As for other legislation pending as of April 10, 1985, the people of the State of Florida are at present circulating petitions to put on the ballot in the 1986 election a clause in the state constitution that will declare English to be the official language of state. Other states having

this or similar measures before their legislature include California, Idaho, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Texas.

345 A measure making English the official language of Nevada has passed both houses of the legislature and awaits the signature of the Governor. English language maws are being drafted or actively considered in Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota and North Carolina.

On the other hand, English language measures have failed: in the state of Washington because
of the legislation was not reported out of committee in time to be considered by the present

350 session, and in Maryland and Arizona because of heavy pressures form Hispanic organizations.

But the movement to make English the official language of the nation is clearly gaining
momentum. It is likely to suffer an occasional setback in state legislatures because of the
doctrinaire liberal's assumptions that every demand made by an ethnic minority must be

355 yielded to. But whenever the question of English as the official language has been submitted
to a popular referendum or ballot initiative, it has won by a majority of 70% or better.

It is not without significance that pressure against English as the official language legislation
does not come from any immigrant group other than Hispanic: not from the Chinese or
Koreans or Filipinos or Vietnamese; nor from immigrants Iranians, Turks, Greeks, East

360 Indians, Ghananians, Ethiopians, Italians or Swedes. The only people who have any quarrel with the English language are the Hispanics- at least the Hispanic politicians and bilingual? teachers and lobbying organizations.

One wonders about the Hispanic rank-and-file. Are they all in agreement with their leadership?

365 And what does it profit the Hispanic leadership if it is gains powers and fame, while 50% of the boys and girls of their communities, speaking little or no English, cannot make it through high school?

For the first time in our history, our nation is faced with the possibility of the kind of linguistic
division that has torn apart Canada in recent years; that has been a major feature of the

370 unhappy history of Belgium, split into speakers of French and Flemish; that is at this very
moment a bloody division between the Sinhalese and Tamil populations of Sri Lanka.

None of these divisions is simply a quarrel about language. But in each case political differences become hardened and made immeasurably more difficult to resolve when they are accompanied by differences of language - and therefore conflicts of ethnic pride.

375 The aggressive movement on the part of Hispanics to reject assimilation and to seek to maintain- and give official status to- a foreign language within our borders is an unhealthy development. This foreign language and culture are to be maintained not through private endeavors such as those of the Alliance Française, which tries to preserve French language and culture, but by federal and state legislation and funding.

380 The energetic lobbying of the National Association for Bilingual Education and the congressional Hispanic Caucus has led to sizable allocations for bilingual education in the Department of Education; $142 million in fiscal 1985, of which the lion's share goes

to Hispanic programs. The purpose of this allocation at the federal level is to prepare administrators and teachers for bilingual education at the state level -- which means 385 additional large sums of money allocated for this purpose by state governments.

In brief, the basic directive of the Lau decision of the Supreme Court has been, for all intents and purposes, diverted from its original purpose of teaching English.

In the light of the foregoing, I would like to suggest a national program to make instruction in the English language more available to all who need it.

390 My suggestion is to create a well-endowed National English Language Foundation to help our non-English-speaking population become more proficient in our common language.

I repeat: What is at stake in the long run is our unity as a nation. The dangers come not from outside forces, but from the rulings of our own government. Would it not be appropriate, then, for the private sector to step in to untangle the mess that government has created?

395 A foundation such as I envision can strengthen adult-education programs for English language instruction now available in high schools and community colleges throughout the nation. It can devise improved programs for language instruction by television or radio -- and broadcast them. It can open English-language centers in communities where none exist, offering day and evening classes to all who wish them. Unfettered by the

400 conventional requirements of credentials and diplomas, such a Foundation can use novel methods, find teaching talent in unlikely people, and explore new approaches to the great problems involved.

The Foundation would be open to non-English-speaking American citizens as well as to non-
English-speaking aliens who hope to become citizens. A modest tuition fee should be charged,

405 and the pupil given a diploma on passing the final English-language competency test. At that time, the tuition fee might well be refunded.

I call on thoughtful citizens of both political parties, on service clubs such as Kiwanis and
Rotary and Lions, and Soroptimists, on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the League of
Women Voters, and all other organizations that have our national well-being at heart, to unite

410 to form a National English Language Foundation as a step towards getting the education of our non-English-speaking children and adults on the right track.

As I draw these remarks to a close, let me submit a few short quotations in support of my
argument. First in reply to those who say that our campaign for English language is
isolationist, even racist, let me quote from Emma Lazarur's famous poem inscribed on the

415 Statue of Liberty:

A mighty woman with a torch, whose fame

Is the imprisoned lightning and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beaconhand Glows world-wide welcomes . . . . Send these, the homeless, the tempest-tost to me,

420 I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Secondly, in reply to those who say that there is nothing wrong with having two
languages nationally, I quote some remarks made by one who is a fellow-Canadian, and

who has had a successful career in the United States, Fred L. Hartley, president of the Union Oil Company of California:

425 My native Canada is a land of two official languages, a circumstance that has proved

more and more disastrous to Canada's progress and unity. At this moment (November 21, 1983) there is not a single member of the party in power in the federal capital at Ottawa who represents the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

430 Let us learn from this example and formally establish and maintain one official

English language so that all can fully participate and communicate in our society with one tongue. ^XI

One official language and one only, so that we can unite as a nation. This is what President Theodore Roosevelt also perceived when he said:

435 We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we

intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans . . . . No more hyphenated Americans.

Let me quote in conclusion a remark from the distinguished American novelist, Saul Bellow, when he agreed to serve on the advisory board of our national organization, U.S. English:

440 Melting pot, yes. Tower of Babel, no!

Footnotes

I. In an interview conducted by James T. Yenchel in The Washington Times, December 30, 1984.

II. Quoted by J.A Parker and Allan C. Brownfeld in the Jackson Campaign and The Myth of a Black-Jewish Split,? Lincoln Review, Summer 1984, pp.21-22

III. Quoted by J.A Parker and Allan C. Brownfeld in the Jackson Campaign and The Myth of a Black- Jewish Split,? Lincoln Review, Summer 1984, pp.21-22

IV. Quoted by J.A Parker and Allan C. Brownfeld in the Jackson Campaign and The Myth of a Black- Jewish Split,? Lincoln Review, Summer 1984, pp.21-22

V. Quoted in Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot (M.I.T and HarvardUniversity Press, 1963), p.289.

VI. Frank F. Chuman, The Bamboo People: The Law and Japanese-Americans (Del Mar, California: Publisher's Inc. , 1976), p.309.

VII. Congressional Record - Senate, April 27, 1981.Congressional Record - Senate, September 21, 1983

VIII. Congressional Record - Senate, September 21, 1983Congressional Record - Senate, February 19, 1985

IX. Congressional Record - Senate, February 19, 1985

Source: HAYAKAWA, S.I. "One Nation, Indivisible . . . ?". Monograph. Washington: The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, 1985, 19 pages. Print. U.S English, Wash. D.C.

ANNEX V

TO: WITAN IV Attendees FROM: John Tanton

DATE: October 10, 1986

Here is a set of questions and statements that I hope will help guide our discussion of the noneconomic consequences of immigration to California, and by extension, to the rest of the United States. These are not highly polished; I ask your indulgence.

5 These notes are based on reading Bouvier`s and related papers, on the WITAN III Meeting, and my own thinking over several years on the topic of assimilation and the character of American society. The assignment of subtopics to the main categories is a bit arbitrary; many of them could be moved around.

I. Political Consequences.

10 1. The political power between the states will change, owing to differential migration six

immigrant-receiving states. The heartland will lose more political power (see appended Table I).

2. Will the newcomers vote democratic or republican, liberal or conservative, and what difference does it make? A lot, if you`re one or the other.

15 3. Gobernar es poplar translates "to govern is to populate," (Parsons` [Thomas Malthus] paper,

p. 10, packet sent May 8). In this society where the majority rules, does this hold? Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile?

4. Does the fact that there will be no ethnic majority, in California early in the next century 20 mean that we will have minority coalition-type governments, with third parties? Is this good or bad, in view of the European and other experiences?

5. Shall illegal aliens be counted in the census and used to apportion congressional and state house seats, thereby granting them political power?

6. Is apartheid in Southern California`s future? The democraphic picture in South Africa now

25 is startlingly similar to what we`ll see in California in 2030. In Southern Africa, a White minority owns the property, has the best jobs and education, has the political power, and speaks one language. A non-White majority has poor education, jobs and income, owns little

property, is on its way to political power and speaks a different language. (The official language policy in South Africa is bilingualism -- the Blacks are taught in Zulu and related 30 tongues.)

In California of 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and "other." The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly catholic. Will there be strength in this diversity? Or will

35 this prove a social and political San Andreas Fault?

7. Illegal aliens will pay taxes to the Federal Government; their costs will mostly be local.

8. The politicians are way behind the people on these issues. This brings to mind the story told of Gandhi: he was sitting by the side of the road when a crowd went by. He said, "There go my people. I must get up and follow them, for I am their leader!"

40 9. Griffin Smith`s point from the Federalist Papers: It was argued that the colonies would make a good nation, as they shared a common culture and language. Nineteen eighty seven is the celebration of the adoption of the Constitution, 1988 its ratification, and 1989 the setting up of the first Federal Government. Can we tie into these discussions?

II. Cultural.

45 1. Will Latin American migrants bring with them thetradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack

of involvement in public affairs, etc.? What in fact are the characteristics of Latin American culture, versus that of the United States? See Harrison`s Washington Post article in the September 3 packet.

2. When does diversity grade over into division?

50 3. Will Blacks be able to improve (or even maintain) their position in the face of the Latin onslaught? (See Graph 3)

4. How will we make the transition from a dominant non-Hispanic society with a Spanish influence to a dominant Spanish society with non-Hispanic influence?

5. Do ethnic enclaves (Bouvier, p. 18) constitute resegregation? As Whites see their power

55 and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? Why don`t non-Hispanic Whites have a group identity, as do Blacks, Jews, Hispanics?

6. Note that Graph 2 shows virtually all the population growth will come from immigrants and their descendants.

60 7. Is there a difference in the rates of assimilation between Asians and Latins?

8. Should something be said about the competing metaphors of the salad bowl and the melting pot?

9. What exactly is it that holds a diverse society together? Gerda`s paper said that in our case, it was a common language.

65 10. Is assimilation a function of the educational and economic level of immigrants? If so,

what are the consequences of having so many ill-educated people coming in to low paying jobs?

11. We`re building in a deadly disunity. All great empires disintegrate, we want stability. (Lamm)

70 12. Enclaves lead to rigidity. (Hardin)

13. The theory of a moratorium: the pause in immigration between 1930-1950, combined with the assimilating experience of fighting side-by-side in the trenches in World War II, gave us a needed pause so that we could assimilate the mass of people who came in the early years of the century. Do we again need such a pause?

75 14. Concerning the moratorium, here are some phrases that could be used: "The pause that

refreshes." "A seventh inning stretch." "Take a break, catch-up, eliminate a backlog, take a breather."

15. Perhaps mention should be made of Pacific Bell`s move to install completely separate Spanish and Chinese language phone systems in California (see May 27 packet).

80 16. Novak`s term "unmeltable ethnics" is probably better than some of the others that have been suggested. Similarly, ethnicity is a more acceptable term than race. It should also be noted that 50% of all Hispanic surname people on the census forms designate themselves as White. So perhaps we should speak of Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Whites, to further diffuse the issue. Is Anglo a better term that White? LANGUAGE IS VERY important here.

85 III. Conservation and Demography

1. What will be the effect on the conservation movement, which has drawn its support in the past from other than the minorities, and which has relied on the political power of the majority to pass legislative measures? As the people that groups like the Sierra Club represent go into opposition (minority political status), will many of the things they`ve worked for be

90 lost because the new majority holds other values?

2. Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva if borders aren`t controlled? Or is advice to limit ones family simply advice to move over and let someone else with greater reproductive powers occupy the space?

3. What are the consequences to California of the raw population growth that is coming, the
95 ethnic change aside (see Graph 1)?

4. What is the conservation ethnic [sic] of the Asian and Latin American newcomers? Will they adopt ours or keep theirs?

5. The Sierra Club may not want to touch the immigration issue, but the immigration issue is going to touch the Sierra Club! (To mention just one group.)

100 6. On the demographic point: perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants

up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!

7. Do you agree with Teitelbaum`s statement, "International migration has now become an important point of intersection between the different demographic profiles of developing and developed countries"? (Fear of Population Decline, p. 134--see also pp. 111-115.)

105 IV. Jurisprudence

1. What are the consequences for affirmative action of the ethnic change coming along? Will the non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) have a limited number of spots in professional schools, etc. proportionate to their numbers? Or will affirmative action go beyond this (as it does now in Malaysia) to cut spots to below their proportionate share, to enable other groups to "catch-

110 up?"

2. Anything to be said about drugs and the border?

3. Will we get more of the Napoleonic Code influence, and does it make a difference?

4. What do we demand of immigrants--or more correctly, what should we demand of them: a. Learn our language.

115 b. Adopt our political ideals.

c. Assimilate and add their flavoring to our stew.

V. Education

1. What are the differences in educability between Hispanics (with their 50% dropout rate) and Asiatics (with their excellent school records and long tradition of scholarship)?

120 2. Where does bussing fit into the picture? Keep in mind that by 1990, over 50% of all the people under 15 years of age will be of minority status. They will also be heavily concentrated in certain geographic areas.

3. The whole bilingual education question needs to be mentioned.

VI. Race/Class Relations.

125 1. What will be the fate of Blacks as their numbers decline in relationship to Hispanics? As

they lose political power, will they get along with the Hispanics? Relations are already heavily strained in many places.

2. What happens when we develop a new underclass, or a two-tiered economic system? Especially if the two groups can`t speak the same language! (See Bouvier and Martin Chapter 130 5)

3. Is resegregation taking place, in the Southern part of the state in particular?

4. Phil Martin`s point: In agriculture, the Whites and Asiatics will own and manage, but will not be able to speak to the Hispanic field workers. They will need bilingual foremen. Does this sound like social peace? Or like South Africa? Keep in mind the poor educational level of

135 the field hands.

VII. The Economy.

I don`t think we should dwell much on the economy: I think we should try to make our contribution by talking about the non-economic consequences of immigration. Nonetheless:

1. Do high levels of immigration cut back on innovation (Bouvier, p. 27)?

140 2. Does it reduce the tendency and need of employers to hire current minority teens (Bouvier, p. 27)?

3. Is there a downward pressure on labor standards in general (Bouvier, p. 28)?

4. Phil Martin`s point on the colonization of the labor market. (Chapter 5).

VIII. Retirement

145 1. Since the majority of the retirees will be NHW, but the workers will be minorities, will the

latter be willing to pay for the care of the former? They will also have to provide the direct care: How will they get along, especially through a language barrier (Bouvier, p. 40)?

2. On the other hand, will the older and NHW groups be willing to pay the school taxes necessary to educate the burgeoning minorities?

150 3. The Federal Government may have to pay for the care of the elderly in schools--will it? XI. Religious Consequences.

This is the most difficult of all to tackle, and perhaps should be left out. Nonetheless:

1. What are the implications of the changes shown on Graphs 2 and 3 for the separation of church and state? The Catholic Church has never been reticent on this point. If they get a 155 majority of the voters, will they pitch out this concept?

2. Same question for parochial schools versus public schools.

3. Same question for the topic of abortion/choice, birth control, population control.

4. Same question for the role of women.

5. Will Catholicism bought in from Mexico be in the American or the European model? The 160 latter is much more casual.

6. Keep in mind that many of the Vietnamese coming in are also Catholic.

7. Is there anything to be said about the Eastern religions that will come along with the Asiatics?

X. Mexico and Latin America (Chapter 7, Bouvier & Martin).

165 Perhaps the main thing to be addressed here is whether or not shutting off the escape valve will lead to revolution, or whether keeping it open can avert it.

XI. Additional Demographic Items.

Teitelbaum`s phrase, "A region of low-native fertility combined with high immigration of high-fertility people does not make for compatible trend lines!"

170 Finally, this is all obviously dangerous territory, but the problem is not going to go away. Who can open it up? The question is analogous to Nixon`s opening of China: he could do it, Hubert Humphrey could not have. Similarly, the issues we`re touching on here must be broached by liberals. The conservatives simply cannot do it without tainting the whole subject.

I think the answers to many of these questions depend on how well people assimilate. This, in

175 turn, depends heavily on whether the parent society has made up its mind that assimilation is a good thing (we`re confused on this point now), whether it works at assimilating newcomers (as Canada and Australia do by following them longitudinally), whether the people coming want to assimilate (not all of them do), and, even if all the factors are favorable, whether the numbers are small enough so as not to overwhelm the assimilative process.

Source: TANTON, John. Mail from John Tanton to Witan Attendees?, 10 Oct 1986, Witan Memo III Intelligence Report, Summer 2002, Issue Number: 106, The Southern Poverty Law Center, Web. 5 March 2010.

< http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2002/summer/thepuppeteer/witan-memo-iii>

ANNEX VI
Testimony of Mr. Mauro Mujica
Before the Subcommittee on Education Reform
Hearing on "Examining Views on English as the Official Language"
July 26, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 997, legislation that would make English the official language of the United States. My name is Mauro E. Mujica, and I am Chairman of the Board of U.S. English, Inc., a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC.

5 U.S. English was founded in 1983 by then-Senator S.I. Hayakawa, and we have now grown to over 1.8 million members. Our organization focuses on public policy issues that involve language and national identity, particularly official English laws.

As an immigrant and naturalized citizen, the issues we are discussing today are of great personal importance. When I came to the United States from Chile in 1965, there was no 10 doubt in my mind that I had civic duty to learn the common language of this country.

Mr. Chairman, one third of U.S. English members are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. A Rasmussen poll this June found that 84 percent of Americans favor a law to make English our nation`s official language, and a Zogby poll last summer found that support for Official English is higher among first and second generation immigrants than it is among

15 native born Americans. In both its motivations and content, H.R. 997 is a pro-immigrant bill.

While there is certainly a need for government to occasionally operate in other languages, that need must be balanced by a legitimate insistence that immigrants are on the road to learning English. That balance is embodied in H.R. 997, which requires that routine government operations be in English, while listing a number of exceptions where multilingual operations

20 make sense.

In a country whose residents speak 322 languages, multilingual government should be the exception, not the rule. Unfortunate, instead of promoting English learning, government agencies increasingly seek to cater to immigrants in as many languages as possible. The result is that I-- a 35 year resident of the United States-- can walk into virtually any government

25 office and demand services in my native language...and I`ll receive them, no questions asked
(!) My frustration is shared by Hispanic immigrant Alicia Colon, who wrote in the June 28^th

New York Sun: What made us different from other immigrants who were forced to conquer the language gap to succeed...? Do all Italian-Americans speak Italian??

Mr. Chairman, we are faced with two undeniable facts: first, there are millions of people

30 living in America who don`t speak English well enough to dial 911 or read a voter guide, and who are not on the road to doing so. Second, our national aspiration is that these immigrants learn English and become Americans. There is a gap between our aspirations and reality, and I respectfully suggest that we need a policy to close that gap. I highly recommend the recent time magazine essay by Canadian born commentator Charles Krauthammer, who argues that

35 while Canada is a decent place,? America is at risk of facing Canadian-style linguistic divisions unless we change our assimilation norms. And making English the official language is the first step to establishing those norms.?

Mr. Chairman, I`m proud to be fluent in four languages, including my native Spanish. We
have never been-- and no serious person is suggesting that we become-- an English Only?

40 nation. But the American people decidedly do not want us to become an English Optional? nation.

If we are to successfully remain a Nation of Immigrants? the government cannot see
immigrants as mere customers, to be served in whatever languages they happen to speak. As
your former colleague Lindsey Graham noted in the recent Senate floor debate on a similar

45 measure, from a national perspective, we need to promote assimilation in our society.? H.R. 997 is consistent with this policy goal and with the values of the American people, and I respectfully urge this committee to pass this legislation.

Source: MUJICA, Mauro. Examining Views on English as the Official Language?, Subcommittee on Education Reform. 26 July 2006. Hearing. Committee on Education and Labor, U.S House of Rep. Web. 5 Dec. 2009. < http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/109th/edr/officiallang072606/mujica.htm >

Source: U.S English. It can't Happen Here.(Or can it?)?. Advertisement. Late 1980s. Print. U.S English. Wash. D.C.

Source: U.S English. 14 Nations call English their national language. We're not one of them?. Advertisement. Late 1980s. Print. U.S English, Wash. D.C.

Source: U.S English. If you can't read this ad don't feel badly. Our children can't read this book?. Advertisement. Albany Times-Union. 1989. Print. U.S English. Wash. D.C.

TRANSLATION

November 13 of 1989

Regents of the Educational System of the state of New York Albany....

Dear Regents:

We speak to you in Spanish because we don't speak English enough to write to you in that language.

We have suffered big disadvantages for not speaking English.

Our occupations don't let us spend the time required for the lessons we would like to take. But we don't want our children to have the same disadvantages.

We've noticed that the Education Department suggests to increase the teaching in Spanish instead of in English. We don't want our children to receive their education in Spanish. If they learn mainly in Spanish, they'll be in the same situation of disadvantage as we are.

For our children and grandchildren to have success, they need to be able to "speak" in English (it actually says to "operate in English"... but that's a South American way to express). Thus, we ask you to approve the program of instruction in English. We'll take care of our families to learn the Spanish that we consider appropriated.

Sincerely

Source: U.S English. On Tuesday you can tell Congress where to go?. Advertisement. USA Today. 30 Oct 1992. Print. U.S English. Wash. D.C.

Source: U.S English. It's time to focus on what unites us as a people, as opposed to what divides us?. Advertisement. Jan. 1993. Print. U.S English. Wash. D.C.

Source: U.S English. Why a Hispanic heads an organization called U.S English?. Advertisement. 1994. Print. U.S English. Wash. D.C.

Source: U.S English. To make it in America you need to speak my language?. Advertisement. 1995. Print. U.S English. Wash. D.C.

Source: U.S English. Stop the madness?. Advertisement. 1996. Print. U.S English. Wash. D.C.

Source: U.S English. I need to learn English?. Advertisement. 1997. Print. Wash. D.C. U.S English.

Source: U.S English. Should our government operate in a foreign language??. Advertisement.1994 .Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/30 >

Source: U.S English. Immigrants want and need to learn English. It's time politicians got the message?. Advertisement.1994 .Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/31 >

Source: U.S English. Immigrants who don't learn English can really clean up in America?. 2008. Advertisement. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/32 >

Source: U.S English. Will it come to this?? Advertisement. 1999. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/33 >

Source: U.S English. One more way the federal government is making doctors sick?. Advertisement.2007 .Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://www.usenglish.org/view/34 >

Fig.1. Attitude towards the Demand for Immigrants` Rights 122

Fig.2. Attitude towards Bilingual Education¹²³

¹²² Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset? Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-- bin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=IMMPUSH&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2 FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2F TMPDIR >

¹²³ Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset?. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-

bin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=NOBILING&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fht

ml%2FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fht ml%2FTMPDIR>

Fig.3. Attitude towards an Official Language Legislation¹²⁴

Fig.4. Attitude towards the Status of English in the U.S¹²⁵

¹²⁴ Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset?. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgibin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=ENGOFF1&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2 FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2F TMPDIR>

¹²⁵ Source:?Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset?. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgibin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=ENGTH RTN&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml% 2FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2 FTMPDIR>

Fig.5. The Role of English in the United States¹²⁶

Fig.6. Attitude towards Ethnic Change in 25 years¹²⁷

126 Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset . Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-

bin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=ENGUNITE&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml% 2FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2 FTMPDIR >

¹²⁷ Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset?. Web. 4 Dec 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgibirVhsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=ETH CHNG&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2 FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2F TMPDIR>

Fig.7. The Importance of Ancestry in Defining American Identity¹²⁸

Fig.8. American Society and Immigration¹²⁹

128 Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset . Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgibin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=AMANCSTR&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml %2FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml% 2FTMPDIR>

¹²⁹ Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset . Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-

bin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=IMMIMP&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2F D3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FT MPDIR>

Fig.9. Attitude towards the Rights and Status of Immigrants¹³⁰

Fig.10. Primary Identity: Ethnic or American?¹³¹

¹³⁰ Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset . Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgibin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=IMMRGHTS&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml %2FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml% 2FTMPDIR>

¹³¹ Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset . Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi- - bin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=ETHID1&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FD 3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FTM PDIR>

Fig.11. The Role of Government in the Blending of Cultures¹³²

Fig.12. Immigration and National Unity¹³³

132 Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset . Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgibin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=GVTMELT&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2 FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2F TMPDIR>

¹³³ Source: Selected Study: GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset . Web. 4 Dec. 2009. < http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgibin/hsda3?sdaprog=describe&var=IM MUNITE&sdapath=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fsdaprogs%2Fsda&study=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtm l% 2FD3%2FGSS08%20%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2FNpubvars%2FGSS08&varcase=upper&subtmpdir=%2Fvar%2Fwww%2Fhtml%2 FTMPDIR>

DETAILED OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION 1

PART I U.S ENGLISH AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NATION OF AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 4

A. THE STATUS OF ENGLISH AND THE CONTEXT FOR THE RISE OF THE MOVEMENT 5

1. The Status of English in the United States 5

2. Context for the Rise of the Movement 12

3. Evolution of U.S ENGLISH Views between 1983 and 2009 17

B. QUESTIONING THE UNIFYING ROLE OF LANGUAGE IN THE AMERICAN NATION 21

1. The Role of Language in the Nation-building Process 21

2. Rhetoric Analysis: the Interaction between Language, Culture, and Identity 27

3. Origins and Consequences of the Rejection of Bilingualism 31

C. PROPOSITION OF AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE AMENDMENT 35

1. Amending the Constitution: a New Conception of the Nation 35

2. Implications of an Official Language Legislation for Democracy 39

3. Accounting for the Division between State and Federal Government 43

PART II DECODING THE MESSAGE SENT BY U.S ENGLISH 47

A. THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES OF U.S ENGLISH 48

1. The Scope of the U.S ENGLISH Campaign 48

2. Promoting the Movement by Celebrating National Symbols 52

3. U.S ENGLISH Strategy: Projecting Disunity while Advocating Unity 57

B. QUESTIONING THE PRO-IMMIGRATION IMAGE OF THE MOVEMENT 60

1. To What Extent does U.S ENGLISH Foster Immigration? 60

2. Analysis of the 2008 Advertising Campaign: the 'Unwanted' Immigrants 64

C. REASONS AND ENDS OF THE U.S ENGLISH ANTI-HISPANIC ATTITUDE 68

1. Documenting U.S ENGLISH`s Hispanophobia . 68

2. Roots of the Organization Railing against Hispanics 72

3. Impact of the Media Coverage of the Ethnic Composition of the Nation 77

PART III TOWARDS A NEW CONCEPT OF AMERICAN IDENTITY 80

A. U.S ENGLISH OR A NEW FORM OF NATIVISM? 81

1. The Promotion of the Melting-pot as a 'National Ideal' 81

2. A 'National English Language Foundation' and the Role of School in the Identity-

forming Process 86

3. U.S ENGLSIH Symbol Nativism? 90

B. THE PORTRAYAL OF AMERICAN NATIONAL IDENTITY 93

1. Characterizing U.S ENGLISH's Conception of the Nation 93

2. To what Extent does U.S ENGLISH Re-imagine American Identity? 98

3. What does the Support for This Movement Tell about American Identity? 102

CONCLUSION 108

BIBLIOGRAPHY 111

ANNEXES 126

DETAILED OUTLINE 178

INDEX 180

INDEX

A

Advertising18, 19, 34, 36, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56,

57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 78, 105

American Dream 66, 88, 114

Americanization 6, 7, 88, 89, 90

Anderson, Benedict 1, 24, 35, 36, 37, 39, 78, 79

Assimilation6, 8, 14, 30, 33, 34, 55, 62, 70, 73, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 97, 107, 116, 133, 145, 148, 150, 153, 156

B

Barthes, Roland 83, 84

Billig, Michael 2, 11, 53, 55, 56, 100, 101

C

Chauvinism 69, 97, 134, 142

Civic Republicanism 95

Civil Rights 14, 16, 39, 66, 69, 71, 133

D

Democracy9, 16, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 95, 108, 115, 127, 129

E
Ethnoculturalism 97

G

Gellner, Ernest .. 2, 23, 24, 25, 29, 56, 68, 71, 87, 98
Gramsci, Antonio 26

H

Hegemony .... 11, 25, 26, 27, 70, 84, 88, 92, 96, 109,

110

I
Incorporationism 97, 109

Integration3, 16, 17, 32, 64, 66, 68, 77, 82, 87, 104, 108

K
Khon, Hans 86

L

Lau.v Nichols 123

Liberal Nationalism92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 103, 120, 145, 148

Lincoln, Abraham 39, 147

Lobby 12

M

Melting-pot 6, 55, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 97, 98,

101, 109, 133 Multiculturalism 96, 109, 118

N

Nationalism1, 5, 23, 35, 36, 55, 56, 68, 70, 93, 94,

95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 106, 107 Nativism 6, 81, 90, 92, 109

P
Patriotism 56, 69, 107

R

Renan, Ernest 25, 29, 38, 53, 56, 119

Roosevelt, Theodore 6, 33, 88, 116

Ruiz, Richard 32, 33, 44

S

Salad-Bowl 82, 84, 85, 116, 141, 150

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis 38

Smith, A.D 2, 7, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 92

T
Tower of Babel 10, 11, 37, 40, 96