Assessing Voter Attitude Toward Language Policy Issues in the USA
The raging debate on the language policy in the United States of America has always been revolving around strict assimilation against the use of English alongside other languages for purposes of public use. The debate has attracted mixed reactions from various quarters of the American registered voters, with each group strongly justifying their stance. The deep American values have played a significant role in influencing positions that are held by various voter groups where some voters cite the values for supporting assimilation. In contrast, others use the same values to help multicultural, bilingual approaches to language policies. However, many scholars affirm that deep values form a strong basis for the development of assimilationists’ attitudes towards issues of language policy in the country (Palozzi, 2005). This paper examines the factors that influence voters’ reactions to either a multicultural support approach in policies regarding the use of language or strict assimilation to English as well as considering the popular opinion among the voters’ attitudes towards language policy issues.
The English language has been routinely used in several locations in the United States of America both for public and private transactions and healthy life. The government has not had any significant restrictions on language use both at federal and state levels except for the ban that was imposed on the teaching of the German language in public schools as a result of World War I (Palozzi, 2005). Before the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act that established bilingual education programs at state levels, the assimilation to English was promoted through public education. This move prompted several legislative attempts to establish English at both levels of government as the official language and eliminate or restrict bilingual education. Arizona, Massachusetts, and the California States have successfully used ballot initiatives to end bilingual education (Palozzi, 2005). The attempt in the State of Colorado, however, failed to garner enough support to effect the change.
Substantive research is required to provide adequate insights into the attitudes of voters on language policy issues. Arizona State Supreme Court noted that it was impossible to understand if the voters had a full understanding of ramifications of all the provisions of the law they had adopted through a popular initiative (Palozzi, 2005). Public opinion polls that are randomly sampled, such as general Social Surveys (GSS), are therefore very significant in reflecting voters’ attitudes. Surveys that had been done in the past have revealed different trends with others, indicating a majority of respondents favoring bilingual education to a certain degree. Whereas some show respondents were supporting only transitional programs, others are portrayed to have the opinion that native languages of children should form part of the content classes to assist them in learning. Other surveys have also indicated that respondents prefer English to the country’s official language. All these approaches should be taken into consideration by the studies conducted by Language Planning and Policy.
The idea that US citizens should learn to speak other languages has been a central area of concern in the formulation of language policies in the country. The proponents of the assimilationists’ approach view the English language as a unifier that, in turn, creates national unity and stability (Palozzi, 2005). Linguistic assimilation to English is very significant in the maintenance of political and social solidarity as it reinforces the traditional American values of language culture and national identity. On the contrary, the opponents of this view opine that the government should introduce language education programs. The approach adopted by the multiculturalists favors the development and maintenance of the country’s minority language. Many American voters agree that it is essential for US citizens to be able to speak other languages. It is suitable for citizens to learn other languages in addition to English. The implication is that education programs should be designed to allow learners to access avenues for learning preferred languages. American registered voters view the multiplicity of languages as a big part of American culture since learning and promoting a different language gives the speakers of that language a sense of belonging.
Language across the globe has been used as a tool for national unity and cohesiveness. American voters believe that a common language is significant to national unity (Palozzi, 2005). Majority of the voters that have been sampled actively support the adoption of English as the official language. Many citizens expect that the government will take the responsibility of assisting those who are not able to communicate in English effectively. The concern that speaking English is ‘un-American’ also forms a significant portion of the views of the voters with several people feeling that American citizens should talk in English. Contrary to the assertion by the majority of voters that citizens should learn and speak other languages, those were proposing this notion supports strict assimilation to the English language in all education programs (Palozzi, 2005). The view of English as a universal unifier and national identity is different from the medium of expression propagated by those seeking to entrench it as the only language and safeguard the English language in the United States of America.
Another area in which the American voters hold a divergent opinion is language maintenance and education. While some believe that children should know the native language of their parents, others have a feeling that children should learn to speak and write in English (Gorter & Cenoz, 2017). A significant number of voters favor the idea that parents are free to maintain non-English language use in private settings. This merges the different notions of public and private life since what happens in private dramatically influences the public sphere. Many voters believe that home language has a considerable impact on the child’s learning process in school. Academic success hinges on how effectively the child can learn and communicate in their home language (Genesee, N.d). Children with strong abilities in home language find it easy to learn a second language or even perform better in other subjects at school. This argument informs the perspective that is held by many voters on promoting native language in private settings.
In the promotion of bilingual education programs, voters have always raised concerns about the efficacy of pedagogical methods and the upholding of deep values. The two issues have stood out as the most salient concerns among voters alongside the perceived cost of bilingual education. The notion that it will cost the taxpayers more money to implement such education programs has influenced a lot of choices that they make (Palozzi, 2005). In consideration of language policies, issues of fairness have also lingered in the minds of many voters. The general feeling has been that what is expected of a particular group should be expected of all the groups (Palozzi, 2005). If bilingual education is to be introduced, then it should be introduced in all languages. For example, many voters question the sense of equity in providing bilingual education to Spanish-speaking children, while the same is not offered for children speaking other languages.
References
Genesee, F. (n.d). The Home Language: An English Language Learner’s Most Valuable Resource. Teaching ELLs. Accessed from https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/home-language-English-language-learners-most-valuable-resource
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Language Education Policy and Multilingual Assessment. Language and Education, 31(3), 231-248, Doi:10.1080/09500782.2016.126182
Palozzi, V.J. (2005). Assessing Voter Attitude Toward Language Policy Issues in the United States of America. Language Policy, 5, 15-29, DOI:10.1007/s10993-005-5624-8