Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Assimilation via Liberal Individualism: Law and Language Policy in the USA

Abstract

This essay describes and analyzes the legal regime of the United States in relation to language diversity. The article argues that the U.S. case in language law indicates that, under certain conditions, a liberal individualistic legal regime – marked by equal “freedom of choice” in respect to language use – can nevertheless serve as an agency of linguistic assimilation in a multilingual country.

Cite as: Schmidt, JLL 1 (2012), 106–118, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2012.106

صندلی اداری سرور مجازی ایران Decentralized Exchange
PDF

References

  1. Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona. 1989. 716 F.Supp. 1328 (C.D. Cal. 1989).
  2. Baron, Dennis. 1990. The English-Only Question: An Official Language for Americans? (New Haven: Yale University Press).
  3. Crawford, James. 2002. “Obituary: The Bilingual Education Act, 1968 – 2002.” Published on-line at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/T7obit.htm . (downloaded April 2, 2002).
  4. Del Valle, Sandra. 2003. Language Rights and the Law in the United States: Finding Our Voices. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
  5. Friedman, Milton and Rose. Free to Choose. New York: Avon Books. 1981.
  6. Horton, John. 1995. The Politics of Diversity: Immigration, Resistance, and Change in Monterey Park, California (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).
  7. Huntington, Samuel. 2004. Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster
  8. Kloss, Heinz. 1998. The American Bilingual Tradition, second edition (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics).
  9. Latino National Survey. 2006. “Toplines,” Accessed on-line at: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/LNS_toplines_FIP_Dec6.pdf
  10. Latino National Survey. 2007. “Redefining America: Findings from the 2006 Latino National Survey,” a power-point presentation to the Latino Issues Forum, San Francisco Foundation (February 23). Accessed on-line at: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/BayAreaD_2.23.07.ppt
  11. Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 1923. 262 U.S. 390.
  12. Rumbaut, Rubén G., Douglas S. Massey, and Frank D. Bean. 2006. “Linguistic Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language Retention in Southern California,” Population and Development Review (32:3)(December), pp. 1-14.
  13. Schmidt, Ronald Sr. 2000. Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  14. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2009 American Community Survey, “Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2005-2009,” accessed on line (2010-01-10) at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2009_5YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-_caller=geoselect&-format =
  15. Veltman, Calvin. 1983. Language Shift in the United States (Berlin: Mouton, Walter de Gruyter).
  16. Yniguez v Mofford. 1990. 730 Fsupp 309, D Ariz.
فروشگاه اینترنتی صندلی اداری