Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Holly R. Cashman
To cite this article: Holly R. Cashman (2006) Who Wins in Research on Bilingualism in an
Anti-bilingual State?, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27:1, 42-60, DOI:
10.1080/17447140608668537
Download by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] Date: 04 June 2016, At: 22:28
Who Wins in Research on Bilingualism in
an Anti-bilingual State?
Holly R. Cashman
Department of Languages & Literatures, Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ, USA
Despite its multilingual heritage, the USA has a history of linguistic intolerance.
Arizona, in the countrys desert Southwest, is decidedly anti-bilingual although
it has significant non-English-speaking groups, especially Spanish-speaking
Mexicans/Mexican Americans and indigenous groups such as the Navajo, Hopi and
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016
Yaqui tribes, among many others. This anti-bilingual ideology has resulted in the
passage of legislation restricting residents linguistic rights, such as Proposition 106 to
make English the sole official language of all state business and Proposition 203 to
eliminate bilingual education in state-funded schools. Several explanations have been
put forth to account for this anti-bilingual ideology, from racism to ignorance to fear. In
this paper I argue that researchers of bilingualism in a state ideologically opposed to
language minority groups bilingualism have certain responsibilities vis-a`-vis the
members of language minority groups who are the participants in their research. I
suggest that each explanation, were it true, would require a different approach from
researchers working to protect and advance language minority groups rights. I
conclude that it is crucial for sociolinguists to take their responsibilities to the
communities they research seriously due to the pressing political situation engendered
by the latest wave of linguistic intolerance and repression.
Introduction
Languages may alternatively be seen as a problem, a right or a resource
(Ruz, 1984). The choice of which metaphor to apply is related to the value
placed on its speakers by the hegemonic group. In the case of language
minorities in the USA, language diversity is most often seen by those in power
as a problem to be solved rather than as a right to be protected or as a resource
to be conserved. Differential bilingualism (Aparicio, 1998) describes the
unequal value accorded by the English monolingual majority to the bilingual
skills of Anglo1 members of the language majority, which tend to be seen as a
resource and an achievement, and those of Latinos and other language
minority or immigrant groups, which tend to be seen as a problem and a
deficiency. The bilingualism of members of language minority or immigrant
groups tends to be underappreciated or disparaged outright while the
(sometimes quite limited) bilingual skills of Anglo language majorities are
generally held in high esteem. While the bilingual skills of Anglo language
majorities are seen as a resource and often rewarded economically, the
bilingual skills of language minorities are perceived at best as a barrier to
full participation in the democracy and at worse as a sign of divided loyalty or
42
Bilingualism in an Anti-bilingual State 43
the latest wave of linguistic repression in the form of social limitation and take
backs of civil rights gains.
Historical Context
The territory that currently comprises the USA has never been monolingual.
Hundreds of indigenous languages were spoken by Native American tribes
throughout the territory before European colonisation (Leap, 1981). Spanish-
speaking settlements in the Southwest not only preceded English settlements
on the East Coast, but they thrived throughout the Southwest, from California
to Texas and as far north as Wyoming until the US invasion of Mexico in 1846
that resulted in that country ceding the territory that now forms the US
Southwest in 1848. Even in the 13 original colonies that would later form the
USA, German was spoken as early as 1683 when Germantown, Pennsylvania
was founded by religious refugees. By the late 1700s, over 8.5% of the
countrys European population was German American. From the 1800s,
German was used as the language of instruction in schools throughout the
states of the Midwest where a new generation of German immigrants settled
seeking farmland (Wiley, 1998: 213216). Although French speakers made up
less than 1% of the population in the 1790 census, the acquisition of Louisiana
in 1803 added substantially to that figure including speakers of Cajun French
and French creole (Gilbert, 1981). In addition to the indigenous languages of
the territory and the languages of European colonists and immigrants, the
linguistic diversity of African slaves also contributed to the countrys diverse
linguistic heritage. While there are over twice the number of speakers of
languages other than English in the USA now than in the past, the percentage
of the total population that speaks languages other than English is actually
smaller 17.9% now, as compared to 24% in 1910 and 25% in 1790 (Wiley &
Wright, 2004). Today, however, the diversity of languages other than English
spoken in the USA is greater (McKay & Wong, 2000).
Despite this multilingual, multicultural heritage, languages other than
English in the USA have continuously been viewed as a problem or threat to
national unity. On plantations, enslaved Africans were linguistically isolated
in order to facilitate acquisition of English (as well as to forestall communica-
tion other than that related to work). Speakers of Native American languages
faced assimilation (cultural, linguistic and religious) through an educational
44 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
system established in the late 19th century that forcibly removed children from
their families on reservations and sent them to boarding schools with a
curriculum of coercive assimilation (Crawford, 2000a). WWI and II led to a
backlash against German, Japanese and Chinese Americans specifically and
speakers of other immigrant languages more generally. Many states during
this period passed laws making English the sole language of instruction in
schools (Heath, 1981). The Americanisation campaign of the early to mid-20th
century endeavoured to acculturate and linguistically assimilate millions of
recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries (Wiley, 1996).
The civil rights movements in the 1960s impacted the general tendency
against languages other than English in the USA at the level of language
policy, and perhaps popularly somewhat as well. The protection of speakers of
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016
languages other than English in the workplace came about as a result of the
passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Through this legislation,
members of linguistic minorities were protected in so far as that their language
variety related to a protected category (for example, race, religion or national
origin). This protection was made more explicit in 1980 when the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission specified that physical, cultural or
linguistic characteristics of a national origin group are protected (Lippi-Green,
1997: 153). Another gain made during this era was in the education of children
from language minority groups whose educational needs were neglected and
whose native language skills were considered irrelevant at best and brutally
repressed at worst. The mistreatment of language minority children in
educational settings resulted in, for example, elevated dropout rates (Wiley
& Wright, 2004: 153), lower academic achievement, and fewer college-bound
students and college graduates. Civil rights groups and parents pressured
school systems to reconsider the sink-or-swim approach that dominated the
educational experience of students with limited English proficiency through
lawsuits, student boycotts and increased involvement in the political process.
In response to this situation, the Bilingual Education Act (or Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act) was passed unanimously by the US
Congress in 1968. This act made public funding available to schools for the
design and implementation of programmes that used language minority
students native language as a language of instruction to some extent. Schools
participation was purely voluntary; the Bilingual Education Act did not
require schools with language minority children to create bilingual education
programmes. In 1974, the US Supreme Court decided in Lau v. Nichols that
providing language minority children with the same learning materials and
curricula as provided to language majority children did not constitute equality
of treatment. While the Lau decision did not require schools to implement
bilingual education programmes, it was widely interpreted as a mandate for
bilingual education, and the US Office of Education strictly enforced
compliance with guidelines known as the Lau Remedies set up to ensure
language minority students civil rights (Crawford, 2000b: 109115).
The advancements made during the 1960s and 1970s, however, soon came
under attack. A principle target for linguistic repression has been the use of
languages other than English in the public sphere, specifically in interactions
with agencies of the government. The availability of government documents in
Bilingualism in an Anti-bilingual State 45
languages other than English (including voting material and ballots, citizen-
ship information and tests for drivers licenses) and the provision of
translation and interpretation services for government services (such as police,
the court system and social service agencies) were characterised both as a
drain on the countrys economy and a crutch for immigrants who refused to
learn English. The movement to make English the only language used in all
levels of government in the USA began in 1981 with a proposed amendment to
the countrys constitution. An organisation, US English, was founded to
support adoption of the amendment. The English Language Amendment,
which would have prohibited the use of languages other than English for
nearly all government business received wide support, although, to date, it has
not been adopted. Over half of the states, however, have adopted English-only
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016
legislation, thus banning the use of languages other than English for
governmental business at the state level (Crawford, 2000c).
In addition to the language of governmental business, the backlash against
linguistic civil rights has also targeted the language of instruction in publicly
funded schools. Both Cummins (2000: 128) and Crawford (2000b: 115) attribute
this to the imposition of the Lau Remedies and subsequent regulations on local
school systems. Crawford (2000b) also traces the current debate about
bilingual education in the USA back to the unclear goals of the Bilingual
Education Act at its inception in 1968. According to Crawford, the supporters
of the legislation allowed for lawmakers different orientations for language
planning (e.g. Ruz, 1984), and did not attempt to specify whether the policy
would orient to language as a problem, right or resource. This ambiguity
became problematic when bilingual education, which is an umbrella term
covering a wide array of pedagogical practices with distinct methods and
goals, was in effect mandated as a result of the Lau decision. Over time, the
definition of bilingual education became more and more restricted to
transitional programmes rather than maintenance-oriented ones, evidencing
a shift toward the language-as-problem orientation exclusively (Crawford,
2000b: 110113). Rather than attempt a broad repeal of the Bilingual Education
Act at the national level, anti-bilingual education activists used the ballot
initiative. Recent decades have seen the reversal of many civil rights gains
through public referenda or ballot propositions that bypass the traditional
legislative process and appeal directly to voters. As Wiley and Wright (2004:
150) explain, the initiative process originally intended to provide a popular
alternative to the power of special interests is vulnerable if voters are poorly
informed about complex issues or when a majority is hostile to minorities.
Examples of ballot initiatives used to take back civil rights gains for minority
groups in the USA include Californias Proposition 63, which made English
the states sole official language, Proposition 187, which prevented undocu-
mented immigrants from receiving social services, and Proposition 209, which
eliminated affirmative action programmes designed to ensure members of
minority groups equal access to educational and employment opportunities
(Wiley & Wright, 2004: 50).
Despite the lip service given to multilingualism and opportunity by
advocates of the new linguistic repression, the goal of English-only move-
ments is not to create a unified, English monolingual state with equal
46 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
opportunity for all. Rather, it is to take goods, services and opportunities away
from people who are not English monolinguals. Just as outlawing murder
allows the state to punish people who break the law, outlawing languages
other than English allows the state to punish those who do not or cannot
assimilate linguistically. We know that, for members of language minority
groups, linguistic discrimination does not stop with the acquisition of the
majority language; rather speakers are still othered by means of linguistic
and nonlinguistic characteristics such as non-native-like accents (Lippi-Green,
1997), religious practices, skin colour, hair texture, hairstyle, ways of dress, etc.
Language use and accent stand in for other characteristics that are still
protected categories as a target for discrimination against language, ethnic or
racial minority group members. Zentella (1994: 74) explains that:
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016
in the state were born outside of the USA, with over one-third of a million
people (373,063) having entered the USA after 1990. Out of a population 5
years and older of nearly 5 million,2 over 1.2 million people (1,270,001) report
speaking a language other than English at home. Nearly 1 million people
report speaking Spanish at home (982,283) and 429,057 of those who speak
Spanish at home report speaking English less than very well.
While other racial and ethnic groups make up smaller percentages of the
total population, several have long, significant histories in the state. Arizonas
Chinese community, for example, while dwarfed by that of neighbouring
California, is an important and long-standing immigrant community.
removal from public service of school officials who refuse to comply with the
law for a period of five years. The effects of the passage of Proposition 203 on
Arizona schools were dramatic. Children who were unable to prove
proficiency in English on a standardised test were removed from bilingual
education programmes and placed in English immersion classrooms. Many
parents, not aware that the statute allows for parents or legal guardians of
children to apply for a waiver of English language immersion if their child
already knows English, did not apply for such waivers. Prior to the passage,
over a third of Arizonas English language learners were in bilingual
education programmes; in the year following passage this figure dropped to
11% (Hispanic Heritage, 2002). In the 20022003 academic year, bilingual
education continued for that smaller group of English language learners due
to the use of parental waivers.
Although bilingual education continued in 20022003 even if on a more
limited basis, the states overt sanctioning of the anti-bilingual ideology led to
new restrictions not specifically mandated by the law. For example, while the
legislation only specifies the language of instruction, one principal in a
Phoenix-area school banned Spanish at school completely, not allowing
students or teachers to speak Spanish on the playground, cafeteria or school
bus (Bustamante, 2002). Similarly, a technical school in a suburb of Phoenix
claimed to be embracing the spirit of Proposition 203 when it ordered bilingual
cosmetology students not to speak to each other in Spanish during class lest
other students think they are being talked about or the instructor feel that he or
she has lost control of the class (Melendez, 2003). A Spanish-language spelling
bee in a majority Mexican and Chicano school in Phoenix was criticised for not
complying with Proposition 203 (Wingett, 2004). Most recently, a teacher in
Scottsdale, Arizona claimed to be enforcing English immersion policy when
she slapped and hit students for speaking Spanish in class (Ryman & Madrid,
2004).
The situation for language minorities in Arizona schools became signifi-
cantly worse in the following academic year, 20032004, due to the narrow
election of Tom Horne, a wealthy lawyer, as Arizonas State Superintendent of
Public Instruction. Interestingly, he defeated Jay Blanchard, a professor of
education at Arizona State University. Mr Horne won the election on a
platform of a renewed focus on high-stakes testing (usually referred to as
accountability) and the elimination of bilingual education, two elements of
Bilingualism in an Anti-bilingual State 51
education schools can be quite negative and harmful for their development.
The exclusion of childrens native or heritage language from the school
curriculum not only impacts childrens language acquisition, but also impacts
the overall climate of the school. Soto (2002) relates the experiences of
bilingual, biliterate Puerto Rican children in Steeltown, Pennsylvania after
the superintendent and school board eliminated the bilingual education
programme (Soto, 1997). Soto (2002: 607) finds that issues of power in the
existing sociocultural political context continue to affect childrens daily lived
reality. She quotes eight-year-old Yazmin who says the school took away my
language. . . I dont like the school. Im sad when I think about what they did to
me (Soto, 2002: 600). Jimenez (2004) and Combs (2004) report similar reactions
from children in a Tucson elementary school after the passage of Proposition
203 in Arizona. They report that while parents are frustrated by a lack of
choice, they are also deeply concerned about changes in their English-
language-learning childrens behaviour at school and at home since the
elimination of bilingual education. They report, for example, an increase in
fear of school, crying, bed wetting, habitual vomiting, acting out and
depression all indications of psychological trauma in Spanish-dominant
and Spanish monolingual children switched from bilingual education to
English immersion. The principal of a predominantly Chicano/Mexican,
Tucson, Arizona middle school reported that after the passage of Proposition
203 and the implementation of English immersion he began to notice a rise in
tensions between Chicanos, students of Mexican origin born in the USA, and
Mexican immigrant students (Corella, 2002b).
Native American languages have generally been exempted from English-
only legislation in the USA due to their endangered status and to the
protection offered them by the Native American Languages Act, a federal
statute. After the passage of Proposition 203 in Arizona, the states highest
legal authority, the Attorney General, interpreted the law as not applying to
Native American languages, thus allowing indigenous languages to be used as
the language of instruction in publicly funded schools. In Gutierrez et al . (2002:
332), McCarty points out that, even though the Native American languages of
Arizona were exempted from the regulations of Proposition 203, the new law
has had a chilling effect on Native American language maintenance and
revitalisation programmes. McCarty (2003: 159) specifies that the mounting
pressure for standardisation caused by mandatory high-stakes testing in
52 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Researchers Responsibilities
Since the early days of sociolinguistics, researchers have been preoccupied
with the problem of how to manage their relationship with the communities
they study in a responsible and ethical way. First, Labov (1982: 172173)
famously proposed two central principles to guide sociolinguists commitment
to the communities they study: the principle of error correction and the
principle of debt incurred. The former states that a scientist who becomes
aware of a widespread idea or social practice with important consequences
that is invalidated by his own data is obligated to bring this error to the
attention of the widest possible audience and the latter, in its more active
form, states that an investigator who has obtained linguistic data from
members of a speech community has an obligation to use the knowledge based
on that data for benefit of the community, when it has need of it. Wolfram
(1993, 1998, 2000a,b), finding Labovs principle of debt incurred too passive,
suggested the principle of linguistic gratuity, which puts more onus on the
researcher to actively seek out opportunities to repay the debt incurred; or, in
Wolframs (1993: 227) words investigators who have obtained linguistic data
from members of a speech community should actively pursue positive ways in
which they can return linguistic favors to the community. In his response to
Cameron et al . (1993), Rickford (1993) questions whether it is the researchers
alone who have power, and that the community would necessarily be
54 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
profoundly the process of research itself, its methods and its objectives.
Cameron et al . (1993) highlight the power imbalance between the researcher
and the researched within the traditional ethical framework of research, and
they find two main faults with the advocacy framework (as represented by
Labovs 1982 two principles): first, that the researcher retains power over the
researched due to their access to specialist knowledge, which, although he or
she might use on the behalf of community members, he or she does not make
available to community members; and second, that the change in personnel
effected by the involvement of linguists of the same racial/ethnic background
is not sufficient to alter the balance of power in the research process. Cameron
et al . suggest that the process of research itself needs to be changed, and they
suggest the implementation of an empowerment framework in which the
community plays a role in setting the research agenda, the researcher uses
interactive research methods and the researcher shares the results of the
research with the community.
Zentella (1994: 115), a linguistic anthropologist, argues for the adoption of
what she calls anthropolitical linguistics, a paradigm within which to carry out
research to discuss the language and politics connection and to make it clear
that, whether we choose to discuss it or not, there is no language without
politics (p. 15). The principle objectives of anthropolitical linguistics are (1) to
understand and facilitate stigmatized groups attempts to construct positive
selves within an economic and political context that relegates its members to
static and disparaged ethnic, racial, and class identities, and that identifies
them with static and disparaged linguistic codes (p. 12) and (2) To participate
in communities challenges of the policies and institutions that circumscribe
the linguistic and cultural capital of their members (p. 13). Zentella rejects the
notion of anthropolitical linguistics as a form of alms for oppressed language
minorities (p. 15), but rather asserts that it is a call for new research goals and
methods.
countrys Northern, industrial rust belt and now in Arizona, a state which
today borders Mexico, but which until 1848 formed part of that countrys
territory. The issue has become particularly urgent in Arizona due to the recent
political changes described above. My most recent data collection project
involves long-term participant observation and recording of spontaneous talk-
in-interaction during collaborative classroom activities in a second-grade
classroom at a dual-language immersion elementary school in central Phoenix,
Arizona. According to the school districts 20012002 data, the schools
student population of roughly 850 students was predominantly Mexican
and MexicanAmerican: 90% of the students identified as Hispanic, 6.5%
Anglo, 2.5% African American, 1% Native American and less than 1% Asian.
In addition, 78% of the elementary schools students in 20012002 were
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016
Regarding racism
First, disempower those striving to take away equal opportunity from
members of language minority groups, or as Muhlhausler (1993: 121) puts it,
reduce the absolute amount of power in existence by disempowering the most
powerful. In the case of Arizona, this would mean actively supporting
candidates opposing those politicians who have acted to restrict language
minority group members linguistic rights.
Second, work with community members striving to protect language rights,
civil rights and human rights (e.g. Zentella, 1994). For example, I worked on
the (unfortunately unsuccessful) campaign for governor of Arizona of Alfredo
Gutierrez, a Chicano civil rights activist with a long record for supporting the
rights (linguistic and otherwise) of Chicanos/Latinos, immigrants and other
members of minority groups.
Third, recruit more Chicano and Latino students into university education,
graduate school and sociolinguistics. While Cameron et al . (1993) point out
that the recruitment of members of minority language communities into the
field is not sufficient to effect change in the power imbalance between the
researcher and the researched, working to protect equal opportunity and
access is key to fighting racism.
Regarding ignorance
Seek out every opportunity to educate both members of language minority
groups and the general public about disparaged language varieties. For
example, I have received a grant to fund the creation of a website about
Spanish in Arizona that will examine the linguistic characteristics of Arizona
Spanish as well as the communities efforts to challenge linguistic oppression
(Zentella, 1994). It is hoped that this site will serve not only academics but also
teachers at all levels, community organisers and others.
To this end I am also developing a language awareness programme to be
used in the late elementary school or early middle school classroom in
predominantly Mexican/MexicanAmerican schools in Arizona. The goals of
this programme include to educate both language majority and language
minority teachers as well as students about variations in Spanish in the
Southwest, to increase linguistic tolerance in a multilingual environment and
to inspire children to maintain their Spanish language skills.
Bilingualism in an Anti-bilingual State 57
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to emphasise that, while these suggestions might
seem simple or obvious, these actions are often de-prioritised in the hectic
schedules of our daily lives and in the face of pressing concerns such as the
need to publish and teach well and get tenure. As researchers we are
required by our academic institutions to create publishable papers and
chapters from fieldwork in order to be granted tenure and we are re-
quired by the funding agencies to write final reports. The researchers
responsibilities toward the community he or she researches, however,
depends on the individual researcher. The shocking experience, however,
of not having a research site to return to due to the passage of an anti-
bilingual ballot proposition and the election of an anti-bilingual Super-
intendent of Public Instruction makes one realise that if everyone does not
benefit from sociolinguistic research on language minority groups, then no
one does.
58 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Notes
1. I use Anglo as it is used in the USA as a synonym of white or European American.
2. Language use is not counted for people under five years in the US Census.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Holly Cashman, Department of
Languages & Literatures, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 870202, Tempe,
AZ 85287-0202, USA (holly.cashman@asu.edu).
References
Aparicio, F. (1998) Whose Spanish, whose language, whose power?: An ethnographic
inquiry into differential bilingualism. Indiana Journal of Hispanic Literatures 12, 525.
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016
Barker, V. and Giles, H. (2002) Who supports the English-only movement?: Evidence for
misconceptions about Latino group vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 23 (5), 353370.
Barker, V. and Giles, H. (2004) English-only policies: Perceived support and social
limitation. Language and Communication 24 (1), 7795.
Bustamante, M. (2002) Playing en espanol. Tucson Citizen August 26, 1C.
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, B. and Richardson, K. (1993) Ethics,
advocacy and empowerment: Issues of method in researching language. Language
and Communication 13 (2), 8194.
Combs, M.C. (1999) Public perceptions of Official English/English Only: Framing the
debate in Arizona. In T. Huebner and K.A. Davis (eds) Sociopolitical Perspectives on
Language Policy and Planning in the USA (pp. 131154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Combs, M.C. (2004) Civil rights and simple justice: Proposition 203 and English Only
education in Arizona. Language Minority Education Research Roundtable of
Arizona (LMERRA). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
Corella, H. (2002a) Horne raises AIMS, bilingual ed issues in commercial. The Arizona
Daily Star September 2, A20.
Corella, H. (2002b) A different kind of racism. The Arizona Daily Star April 14, A1.
Crawford, J. (1992) Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of English Only .
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Crawford, J. (2000a) Endangered Native American languages: What is to be done and
why? In J. Crawford (ed.) At War with Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in an Age of
Anxiety (pp. 5265). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (2000b) Language politics in the United States: The paradox of bilingual
education. In C. Ovando and P. McLaren (eds) The Politics of Multiculturalism and
Bilingual Education (pp. 106125). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Crawford, J. (2000c) Anatomy of the English-only movement. In J. Crawford (ed.) At
War with Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety (pp. 430). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (2003) Hard Sell: Why is Bilingual Education so Unpopular with the American
Public? Tempe, AZ: Language Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. On
WWW at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/brief8.htm. Accessed
29.5.03.
Cummins, J. (2000) Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the
education of bilingual students. In C. Ovando and P. McLaren (eds) The Politics of
Multiculturalism and Bilingual Education (pp. 126147). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Davis, L. (2004) Our language is English: Learn it. The Arizona Republic January 23: B10.
Donovan, B. (2004) AG: Public schools not exempt from Prop. 203. Navajo Times .
On WWW at http://www.navajotimes.com/20041902/News/public_schools.html.
Accessed 23.2.04.
Escamilla, K., Shannon, S., Carlos, S. and Garca, J. (2003) Breaking the code: Colorados
defeat of the Anti-Bilingual Education Initiative (Amendment 31). Bilingual Research
Journal 27 (3), 357382.
Bilingualism in an Anti-bilingual State 59
Gilbert, G. (1981) French and German: A comparative study. In C. Ferguson and S. Brice
Heath (eds) Language in the USA (pp. 257272). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gutierrez, K., Asato, J., Pacheco, M., Moll, L., Olson, K., Lai Horng, E., Ruiz, R., Garca,
E. and McCarty, T. (2002) Sounding American: The consequences of new reforms
on English language learners. Reading Research Quarterly 37 (3), 328343.
Heard Museum (2004) Arizonas 21 federally recognized Tribal Communities. On
WWW at http://www.heard.org/visit-tribal.php. Accessed 23.2.04.
Heath, S.B. (1981) English in our language heritage. In C. Ferguson and S.B. Heath (eds)
Language in the USA (pp. 620). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hispanic Heritage (2002) Proposition 203 The struggle continues . On WWW at http://
www.hispanicheritage.com/education/prop203_11_02.htm. Accessed 23.2.04.
Jimenez, A. (2004) Conditions for students within post-Proposition 203 classrooms in a
Tucson elementary school: Are schools prepared? Is this right for children?
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016
Wolfram, W. (1998) Scrutinizing linguistic gratuity: Issues from the field. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 2 (2), 271279.
Wolfram, W. (2000a) Endangered dialects and social commitment. In J. Kreeft Peyton, P.
Griffin, W. Wolfram and R. Fasold (eds) Language in Action: New Studies of Language
in Society (pp. 1939). Cresskill, NY: Hampton Press.
Wolfram, W. (2000b) Linguistic diversity and the public interest. American Speech 75 (3),
278280.
Zentella, A.C. (1994) The chiquitafication of U.S. Latinos and their languages, or Why
we need an anthropolitical linguistics. In R. Ide, R. Parker and Y. Sunaoshi (eds)
Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium About Language and Society Austin, Texas
Linguistics Forum 36, 118.
Zentella, A.C. (1997) The hispanophobia of the Official English movement in the US.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 127, 7186.
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 22:28 04 June 2016