Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
English-Only and Standard English Ideologies in the U.S.
Author(s): Terrence G. Wiley and Marguerite Lukes
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3, Language Planning and Policy (Autumn, 1996), pp.
511-535
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3587696
Accessed: 27-11-2018 23:24 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
English-Only and Standard English
Ideologies in the U.S.
TERRENCE G. WILEY and MARGUERITE LUKES
California State University, Long Beach
This article probes assumptions underlying dominant U.S. id
regarding language diversity (both between English and oth
guages and among varieties of English) and their impact on l
planning and policy from a historical-structural perspective by
ing and synthesizing a broad base of literature. It compare
contrasts two popularly accepted ideologies. The first is the ideo
English monolingualism, which frames policy issues in an immi
paradigm in order to portray language diversity as an alien and
force; the second involves a standard language ideology that is u
position speakers of different varieties of the same language wi
social hierarchy. The article discusses the connection between as
tions underlying linguistic ideologies and other social ideolo
lated to individualism and social mobility through education
cusses limitations in the immigrant paradigm and consider
instrumental role that schools play in positioning students b
language assessment and classification schemes. Dilemmas and
tunities for contesting these ideologies are addressed.
Dominant attitudes toward language in the U.S. are r
contradictions. Bilingualism, for example, has tended to b
either a curse or a blessing. This contradiction is evident in t
between two drastically different policies toward bilingualism.
a policy toward language minority students that is intended
rapid transition out of LI instruction into English-only in
often resulting in the eventual loss of the L1. The second
toward monolingual English-speaking students that is inten
mote learning a foreign language. In terms of resource a
bilingual programs are mandated to develop languages
English-only to a minimum level-whereas foreign languag
spend millions attempting to develop them further (see
1992a; Simon, 1988). However, on closer inspection, the r
contradiction becomes clear: These policies are designed for tw
ent populations. Transitional bilingual education, devel
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 30, No. 3, Autumn 1996
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
511
congressional mandate in the late 1960s, was originally intended for
students who had historically been discriminated against, that is, for a
language minority underclass that had been denied an equal chance to
learn. Foreign language instruction, on the other hand, has historically
been intended for an educational elite who are expected to pursue
higher education (Wiley, 1996b).
In explaining the underlying influences on language policy formation, a growing number of scholars have focused on language as an
instrument of political, social, and economic control and on language
planning as an instrument of social stratification.' Nevertheless, popular
and scholarly understanding of language diversity in the U.S. continues
to be shaped largely by two dominant language ideologies. The first is
the monolingual ideology manifested as a monolingual English ideology
in the U.S. (Macfas, 1992, in press), and it is easily identifiable in the
rhetoric of the English Only movement. The second is the ideology of
standard language, or, more specifically in the context of the U.S., the
ideology of standard English.2 Both of these linguistic ideologies are tied
to other ideological assumptions related to beliefs about the relationship
between language and national unity and between language and social
mobility. Taken as a whole, these beliefs constitute the ideological
context in which language policy is formed and in which language
teachers work. To illustrate, consider the following catalog description:
01A. Basic English Writing Skills: Mandatory for students who have scored
below the minimum score required for freshman composition. Does not
count toward graduation but may as part of total course load. This course in
writing reviews basic mechanics including spelling, punctuation, grammar,
word choice, sentence structure and paragraph development and guides
students through the writing process. Grading: Pass/Fail only.
See, for example, Grillo (1989) and Leibowitz (1969, 1971, 1974). The role of language
and social reproduction has been addressed in the controversial work of Bernstein (1975) as
well as by Bourdieu (1977, 1982). The communication and reproduction of racism through
discourse has been investigated by van Dijk (1984, 1986, 1989) and Wetherell and Potter
(1992). Gender bias has been investigated by Corson (1993) and Frank and Anshen (1983),
among many others. Fairclough (1989) has pursued the ideological dimensions of language
and power, and more recently Phillipson (1988, 1992) and Tollefson (1989, 1991) have
addressed and challenged the notion that English language teaching is a politically neutral
professional activity by calling attention to its association with structured inequality and
imperialism.
2 The notion of a standard imposes a normative status on one variety of language. Typically,
the standard is given the status of a language, and all other varieties are commonly considered
dialects and, thereby, deemed substandard (Roy, 1987). As Crystal (1987) notes, although the
notion of dialect is technically problematic, it can also be used to describe any variety of a
language, including the standard. Regardless of whether the standard is seen as the language, or
merely as one of its dialects, the designation of a standard has great significance for its speakers
and nonspeakers because command of the standard becomes a form of social capital facilitating
access to higher education, employment, status, and privilege.
512
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
This course is the kind that some language professionals may teach, or
have taught-or may have even taken once upon a time. Several aspects
of the catalog description are noteworthy. First, the course is not offered
for credit. It carries less status than for-credit courses. It is considered
remedial rather than developmental. English O1A is thus intended
"correct" or "remediate" a deficiency in English. Entrance to the cours
is mandated based on scores on a measure of standard English proficienc
Next, consider who the students in such a course are likely to be. In
answering this question it is important to be aware of the operatio
labels that practitioners often apply to their students. Some faculty an
students may refer to such a course as "bonehead English" or "dumbbe
English. Courses such as these are intended as gatekeepers for students
who are considered "underprepared" or, less euphemistically, those who
"don't belong" in the university. In professional jargon, many of t
students are likely to be "nonnative" speakers of English or students o
"limited" English proficiency. Some are likely to be foreign born, a
others are "dialect" speakers of American English or of other Wor
Englishes, or monolingual speakers of English "who just never learned
write." Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the composition of suc
courses is that students are assigned to them based solely on thei
English test scores without consideration of their diverse individu
linguistic backgrounds.
Now, consider who the teachers of such courses are likely to be a
what their professional training has been. Typically, the academi
preparation of the instructors is often as diverse as the linguisti
characteristics of their students. The instructors' academic rank and
experience may range from teaching assistant to full professor. Th
academic fields of expertise may include English composition, Engl
literature, TESL, linguistics, applied linguistics, and other fields m
remote from language teaching. Despite the presence of many nat
speakers of languages other than English, many of the teachers may n
have had any special training-other than on-the-job experience-in
TESL, language minority instruction, or language diversity. Fewer stil
have studied nondominant varieties of language in any systematic way
been trained to consider their implications for instruction.
The point here is not to fault the efforts of teachers or studen
brought together under the umbrella of catalog descriptions such as th
one above. Neither is it intended to argue that there is no need for som
standards of performance. Rather, it is to reflect on why students fr
such linguistically diverse and rich linguistic backgrounds are corralled
together in English courses that are considered remedial and why t
courses either completely ignore their linguistic backgrounds and abili
ties in their native languages and varieties of language or perceive the
only as deficiencies, when students who enroll in foreign langua
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
513
classes usually receive credit for instruction that requires far less target
language proficiency than the 01A course does.
To understand why basic English courses and the students who take
them are considered remedial, it is necessary to reflect on the ideologies
of English monolingualism and standard English in the U.S. The former
sees English monolingualism as a normal-if not ideal-condition. The
latter stresses the importance and superiority of the standard, "literate,"
or "unaccented" variety of English. Taken together, these ideologies are
hegemonic; that is, their assumptions are widely accepted in popular
perceptions about language diversity. Moreover, they provide the ideological context for both official and institutional policies.
These ideologies also help frame the direction of much of the ESL
teacher education literature (see Kachru & Nelson, 1996; Sridhar, 1996)
and the scholarly research on language diversity (Kachru, 1994; Sridhar,
1994)-particularly as it relates to English language acquisition, language shift, and English language teaching (ELT). For example, much of
the notable work in language demography proceeds from the assumption that language minorities will acquire English and lose their native
languages (e.g., Veltman, 1983, 1988). Thus that work has focused more
on language shift to English than on the process of developing bilingualism (Macias, in press). Similarly, second language acquisition (SLA)
research-true to its name-tends to concentrate only on the L2, that is,
English, with little concern for the fate of the maintenance or development of the L1. At the level of policy, bilingual education in the U.S.,
when and where it is actually practiced, is usually based on a transitional
(or weak) model (see Baker, 1993; Rufz, 1995) rather than on a
maintenance model, even though the latter has been demonstrated to
better promote educational achievement (Ramirez, 1992).
Standard language ideology likewise exerts a strong influence on
research, policies, and practices directed at speakers of nondominant
varieties of English. For decades, linguists have been asserting the
equality of all languages and varieties as codes of communication that
allow their speakers to attribute meaning, represent logical thought, and
communicate within a community of speakers. However, language is
more than just a code because it also involves social behavior. As social
behavior, language becomes subject to normative expectations for behavior. These norms can either be based on a consensus regarding what
constitutes appropriate behavior or be imposed by dominant groups.
Those who have the power to impose their variety of a language as
normative may appeal to its alleged superiority over other varieties. Such
appeals, however, mask the issue of differential power between groups by
confusing grammar with language etiquette. Nevertheless, the dominant
groups succeed in attributing the status of language to their own variety
514
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
while ascribing the status of dialect to those of others (Wiley, 1996a; see
also Labov, 1973; Wolfram & Fasold, 1974).
Once standards for expected linguistic behavior have been imposed,
privileged varieties of language become a kind of social capital facilitat-
ing access to education, good grades, competitive test scores, employment, public office, and economic advantages for those who have
mastered the standard language. Thus, the linguistic notion of the
equality of codes does not carry over into the power relationships of a
hierarchical society. In this regard, A. E. Sledd (1994) concludes that the
concept of democracy through language, or the equality of all language
varieties, is the wishful thinking of researchers and scholars who speak,
write, and publish in standard English. He suggests that, by denying that
a linguistic power imbalance exists, they only strengthen it more. Sledd
notes that merely asserting democracy through language-in articles
written in standard English, no less-cannot achieve it. His point is well
taken. Nevertheless, teachers face the dilemma of challenging detrimen-
tal institutional language policies while simultaneously trying to help
their students attain enough proficiency in standard English that they
are not barred by the gatekeeping mechanisms. In view of this dilemma,
Sledd's critique can be dismissed as a merciless rebuke of those trying to
cope, or it can be seen as pointing to the inherent contradictions that
policymakers and teachers of English to speakers of other languages or
other varieties of language cannot easily avoid, even as they attempt to
validate the linguistic heritages of their students on the one hand while
instructing them in the "power dialect" (or the language of power) on
the other (Lukes, 1995).
Given the contradictions that language teachers and planners face, it
is appropriate to ask why researchers and practitioners have not been
more concerned about the role of dominant ideologies. One reason
relates to the assumption that language acquisition and SLA research
and ELT are, for the most part, nonpolitical activities. According to
Phillipson (1992), this assumption "serves to disconnect culture from
structure. It assumes that educational concerns can be divorced from
social, political, and economic realities" (p. 67). More directly, Tol
(1991) concludes that the failure to relate language planning and
to broader sociopolitical concerns results in a research orient
which ideologies and implicit political values pass for theoretical
works. These concerns underscore the need to consider the role of the
dominant language ideologies in the formation and implementat
language policies as well as in language minority research and educa
More importantly, they point to the need to consider the imp
policies derived from dominant ideologies on linguistically div
populations.
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
515
Language-in-education planners usually analyze issues related to official English and standard English policies separately; thus, the similarities between the ideological assumptions underlying both positions are
rarely discussed. Arguments for English-only policies tend to be framed
more in terms of status planning between languages. Standard language
policies tend to be submerged within corpus planning but also to involve
status planning between varieties.
Exploring these relationships raises a number of questions. What are
the assumptions of these ideologies about language, language varieties,
and the relative statuses of their speakers? Why are policies implemented, and how are they maintained? What is their impact on various
language minority populations? These questions are significant because
the work of a number of scholars indicates that the dominant ideologies
(Fairclough, 1989; Tollefson, 1991) and the language policies influenced
by them tend to be used as instruments of social control (Leibowitz,
1974) that result in the reproduction of unequal social boundaries
among groups (Bourdieu, 1977, 1982). Last, one may ask: What roles can
language professionals, researchers, policy planners, and teachers play in
promoting more equitable policies and instructional practices? To begin
answering these questions, it is first necessary to analyze the relationship
between the dominant ideologies underlying individualism and social
mobility and those involving language.
LANGUAGE AND THE IDEOLOGY
OF INDIVIDUALISM
Linguistic ideologies are not autonomous. They are l
social ideologies, the most prevalent of which is the id
mobility through individual ability and effort, in ot
ideology of individualism. In this regard, Tollefson (1991)
underlying assumption of research and programmatic
causal variables in SLA are located within the individua
there has been considerable interest in how to change lea
toward the target language (i.e., English) and culture
means cultures of English-dominant countries) (see T
1991). This concern for learners' attitudes frequently ign
affect them, such as how the dominant group treats
particular linguistic and ethnic group as they attemp
dominant language (Perdue, 1984) or how the learner
dominant group ascribes status to them (Gibson & Og
1978; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986).
516
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Preoccupation with individual factors is also manifested in assumptions about the relationship between social mobility and educational
achievement, which is likewise seen as largely an artifact of individual
motivation and aptitude. The dominance of this view means that
educational failure and failure to master standard English are seen as
individual problems rather than as a result of systematic, institutional
inequity between groups.
Lewis (1978) argues that common explanations for success and failure
in the U.S. are based on an ideology that both justifies a "culture of
inequality" and "mandates the existence of visible failure" (p. 192). In
this culture of inequality, he notes, the undereducated and the poor are
caught in a perpetual cycle of failure and blame. Lewis has predicted that
the need to blame the victim will increase as the disparity between rich
and poor widens. He observes that low educational achievement is
blamed on the backgrounds of those who fail rather than on the
programs in which the failure occurs. In other words, there is an attempt
to correct individual deficiencies rather than to reform the educational
system. In a culture of inequality, Lewis concludes, success comes to
seen as a function of individual ability and "the match of education
job" (Collins, 1991, p. 235). (See also Lankshear, 1987, for a discussi
the role of ideology in English-dominant countries and Wiley, 1996b
a more detailed discussion.)
In the U.S., immigrant and native-born language minorities have b
particularly vulnerable to the ideology of blame, and language di
ences have been used as one of the principal means of ascribing a def
status to them. Because educational deficiencies relative to Englis
seen as individual problems, and because English education progr
are designed to correct or remedy those problems (Brodkey, 19
there is little attempt to analyze the impact of educational langu
policies on the populations being served. In this regard, Lippi-Gr
(1994) contends that an important assumption underlying the ide
of standard English is that the communicative burden rests mostly
the individual speaker. In a critique of this view, she notes that comm
cation is a two-way street that involves not only communicative com
tence on the part of the speaker but also goodwill on the part o
listener. It follows that "prejudiced listeners cannot hear what a pers
has to say because accent, as a mirror of social identity, and a litmus
for exclusion, is more important" (p. 166). When the communica
burden is seen as residing solely with the speaker, it is easy to blam
victim.
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
517
THE IMPACT OF DOMINANT IDEOLOGIES:
STATUS ASCRIPTION AND DISCRIMINATION
ON THE BASIS OF LANGUAGE
As specialists in narrowly defined domains of academic
expertise, scholars and practitioners are sometimes und
reluctant to pursue issues outside their immediate area of ex
example, Kloss (1977), in his now-classic analysis of langua
the U.S., was careful to exclude what he considered polic
racial laws (Macias, 1992). That is, he attempted to separ
policies from the muddier waters of ethnic and racial politic
this approach lends itself to conceptual neatness, it leads
from a possible source of, or motive for, many language polic
the use of language policies as instruments of racial and e
(Leibowitz, 1974). Language, like race and ethnicity, can
marker of social and political status. Similarly, language pre
unlike other forms of prejudice and may work in conjunctio
Weinberg (1990) defines racism as a systematic, institut
dure for excluding some while privileging others; thus it in
than simple prejudice because it has the power to advan
disadvantage. Racism is premised on the belief that some are
superior to others. Similarly, Phillipson (1988) defines lingui
ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, ef
reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (b
and non-material) between groups which are in turn de
basis of language (i.e., the mother tongue)" (p. 339). H
linguicistic ideologies have affinities with racism because th
dominant language group to present "an idealized ima
stigmatizing the dominated group/language and rationali
tionship between the two, always to the advantage of t
group" (p. 341). (See also Attinasi, 1994.)
Schmidt (1995) contends that historically language has
important role in both the ideology and practice of the syst
domination that held sway in the U.S. prior to the Second
tion of the 1960s" (p. 4). He notes that in the 19th centur
more important aspects of "Anglo-Saxon racialist thought fo
superiority of the English language as a derivative of Germa
4). English language and literacy requirements have
discriminatory ways to prohibit individuals from immigrat
and seeking employment (Haas, 1992; Leibowitz, 1969, 1
1993; McKay & Weinstein-Shr, 1993; Schmidt, 1995). Thu
has been functionally parallel to racial exclusion and in so
functioned in cultural genocide (Hernandez-Chavez, 1994)
518
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
For speakers of creolized and-allegedly-less "literate" varieties of
English, the lack of proficiency in the standard becomes a means by
which others can use language as an instrument to maintain boundaries
of social stratification. For example, the labels for course descriptions,
student assessment, and program placement in English language programs can ascribe a lower or deficit status to such students. In public
schools, community colleges, and universities, it is not uncommon to
find immigrant language minority and international students who wish
to avoid ESL classes, because they frequently do not count toward
graduation credit and because the students feel stigmatized as "ESL"
students in courses that are considered remedial.
Status ascription on the basis of English proficiency is particu
evident in the use of labels such as limited English proficient (LEP). LE
first used in the bilingual education legislation of 1968. Initial
referred only to oral abilities in English, but in 1978 it was expande
include reading and writing. According to Macias (1994) it was "d
mined that English proficiency would be the exclusive criterion for
LEP population, irrespective of the person's proficiency in the
English language" (p. 35). The LEP label is based solely on the lan
skills that the students lack (i.e., English) rather than what the stud
have (i.e., ability in their native languages). Such educational lab
thereby renders abilities in other languages invisible. Macias adds
"programs and policies that were developed to address a stud
limited English proficiency often ignore or de-emphasize race
ethnicity in general" (p. 231). At the same time, however, he n
"debates over bilingual education and cultural literacy are as much a
race" (p. 231) as they are about language. Thus, status ascription
on language can be a surrogate for status ascription based on r
ethnicity, and social class (Wiley, 1996b; see also Crawford, 1992a; Ly
1990).
THE IDEOLOGY OF ENGLISH MONOLINGUALISM
Monolingual Ideology and the Immigrant Parad
The ideology of monolingualism sees language dive
consequence of immigration. In other words, langu
viewed as imported. English Only, as a specific example
of monolingualism, equates the acquisition of Englis
and Americanization (i.e., with what it means to become an "American"). This linkage became hegemonic during the World War I era with
the rise of the Americanization movement and the widespread persecution
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
519
of speakers of German and was quickly extended to speakers of other
languages (Wiley, in press; see also Crawford, 1992a; Leibowitz, 1971;
Ricento, in press).
In the immigrant view of language diversity, language-much like an
alien form of dress-is something to be changed and not worn again,
except perhaps on special ethnic holidays when it is considered appropriate to celebrate diversity. Kloss (1971) offers a useful critique of the
assumptions of monolingual language ideology about why immigrant
language minorities should be expected to surrender their native
languages. In immigrant countries,3 he notes, the dominant group
usually assumes that it is natural for incoming language minorities to
give up their native languages as quickly as possible. He identifies four
theories, or what we will consider four4 ideological arguments, in support
of that expectation.5 We outline these below and then summarize Kloss's
(1971) critique.
1. The Tacit Compact Argument
Assumption: Minority languages and minority language rights should be
surrendered as a kind of payment for the right of passage to the
receiving society.
Critique: Historically, many language minority immigrants were allowed
to maintain their native languages. Some groups immigrated to escape
linguistic persecution. Therefore, they did not expect to have to surrender their ancestral languages as a condition of immigration.
2. Take-and-Give Argument
Assumption: Language minority immigrants prosper more in their new
country than in their countries of origin; therefore, they should waive
any claims to linguistic minority rights and be required to shift to the
dominant language.
3 Kloss (1971) emphasizes dominant languages generally more than the ideology of English
monolingualism specifically. Thus, he cites Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and the U.S. as examples of
immigrant countries.
4 Phillipson, Rannut, and Skutnabb-Kangas (1994) have added what may be considered a
fifth category, "the myth that monolingualism is desirable for economic growth" (p. 4). They
note that "in many nation states the (uneven) distribution of power and resources is partly
along linguistic lines, with majority groups taking a larger share than their numbers would
justify" (p. 4).
5 Grin (1994) provides a useful critique of the principles of territorial multilingualism (see
especially pp. 41-43).
520
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Critique: The notion of benefit is not a one-way street. The receiving
society also benefits from language minority immigrants in many ways.
Immigrant workers contribute their labor, some develop new sectors of
the economy, and those of the educated elite contribute their technical
expertise, which sometimes results in "brain drain" for their countries of
origin.
3. Antighettoization Argument
Assumption: Language and cultural maintenance is predicated on a selfimposed isolation from the dominant mainstream language and society.
This isolation results in a social and cultural lag for the minority group.
Critique: The assumption of self-imposed isolation often distorts the
historical reality. "The apparent lagging behind is frequently due to a
language policy that disregards the elementary needs of the minority"
(Kloss, 1971, p. 256). By disallowing the use and cultivation of the native
language while not allowing contact with the majority and equal educational access, the minority group is rendered functionally illiterate in
both its native language and the majority language.
4. The National Unity Argument6
Assumption: The perpetuation of a minority language is a potentially
divisive factor in maintaining national unity. Therefore, the host/
receiving society should require linguistic assimilation and a surrender
of language minority rights.
Critique: In many instances in which language minorities have been
accused of lack of national loyalty, their perceived disloyalty has been
caused by overt discrimination and a denial of language minority rights.
"In other words: the majority, by dealing unfairly with the minority,
created among it the very unrest, dissatisfaction and centrifugal tendency which in turn provided governmental authorities with arguments
(sometimes not unwelcome) to bolster their restrictive policies" (Kloss,
1971, p. 257).
Kloss's (1971) categorization scheme and critique, while not exhaustive, remain comprehensive enough to encompass recent assumptions of
the monolingual English ideology. Advocates of English-only policies
echo variants of these arguments. For example, they often claim that
English should be promoted because it is an equal opportunity language
6 Phillipson, Rannut, and Skutnabb-Kangas (1994) have recently made a related case.
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
521
(Bennett, 1992). This claim is a variant of the antighettoization argument. Similarly, the national unity argument remains a persistent theme
of contemporary English Only proponents.
In developing his critique of the immigrant paradigm, Kloss (1971)
attempts to deal with this assumption by distinguishing between the
historical and political categorization of immigrant language minorities.
In this regard, he notes,
A discussion of the language rights of present-day immigrant groups must
start by redefining . . . the concept of "immigrants." Normally we call
immigrant a person who leaves one country and takes up his abode in
another, in other words: who has crossed some international boundary.
(p. 252)
Kloss then notes that there are internal migrations:
But when we speak of language rights, a second category of migrants has to be
taken into consideration: persons who while remaining within the boundaries
of their country have left areas where their mother tongue is in general use,
and have moved into an area where the indigenous population consists of
native speakers of some "other tongue." Migrations of this type have at times
assumed large proportions. (p. 252)
As one of several examples of internal migrations, Kloss cites the mass
migration of Spanish-speaking Puerto Ricans to the U.S. mainland,
primarily into New York City.
Kloss's (1971) distinction between external and internal migrations
begins to probe the limited adequacy of the immigrant paradigm in
dealing with language diversity. However, the distinction between inter-
nal and external immigrants, though useful, is still inadequate to deal
with groups such as the Puerto Ricans. Puerto Rico had been ruled by
Spain since it was conquered and first colonized in the 16th century. The
island was ceded to the U.S. in 1898. It was thus initially free, then a
colony of Spain, and later a colony of the U.S. until 1952, when its status
was upgraded to that of a commonwealth. Its ethnic, racial, and linguistic
heritage is complex. Thus, to appreciate and accurately describe the
ethnic, racial, and linguistic characteristics of Puerto Ricans, additional
categories (besides internal immigrants) are needed.
Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm:
Immigrant and Indigenous
In his critique of the immigrant paradigm, Kloss (1971) was also aware
of the importance of distinguishing between immigrant and indigenous
language minorities. He concluded, "It seems reasonable to consider as
an 'immigrant group' every linguistic minority a majority of whose adult
522
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
members are foreign born or the children of foreign born, and as
'indigenous' every group a majority of whose adult members are natives
of native parentage" (p. 253). Without specifying a context, this distinc-
tion seems self-evident. However, placed within a historical-political
context, such as the national expansion of the U.S. between 1783 and
1898, the notion of indigenous peoples becomes more problematic. In
this context, Macias (in press) offers a more complex definition of U.S.
indigenous groups: "Indigenous groups are those who occupied an area
that is now the U.S. prior to the national expansion into that area, and
those groups who have a historical/cultural tie to the 'Americas' prior to
European colonization."
Macias's (in press) distinction is important in view of the lands and
peoples that have been conquered, annexed, and otherwise acquired
since the rebellion of the 13 original colonies: (a) lands west of the
Appalachians and east of the Mississippi, ceded in the Treaty of Paris
(1783); (b) the Louisiana Purchase, which included a vast territory
adjacent to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers (1803); (c) Florida,
including parts of what is now southern Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana (1810-1820); (d) Texas and territories north of the Rio
Grande (1845-1848); (e) Oregon Country, which included present-day
Washington and Idaho (1846); (f) the Mexican Cession, including
California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of what is now Arizona, New Mexico,
and Colorado (1848); (g) the Gadsden Purchase, which included what is
now southern Arizona and New Mexico (1853); (h) Alaska (1867); (i)
Hawaii (1896); (j) Puerto Rico (1898); and (k) for a time the Philip-
pines, not to mention Guam (1945) and other island territories.
As this list indicates, there is more to the story of the linguistic
dominance of English than merely its hegemony during the colonial
period and its continued dominance over immigrant languages into the
national period. In its first century as a nation-state, the U.S. was not
merely a fixed territory into which immigrants flowed. Rather, it was an
aggressive, emerging power adding to its territory and population
through an expansive nationalism. With each successive territorial
conquest, annexation, and acquisition, indigenous language minorities
were incorporated into the U.S. polity. Thus, Macias (in press) notes that
the mode of incorporation and subsequent treatment of acquired
groups by the dominant majority were significant factors in determining
their linguistic and sociopolitical standing. Language differences fre-
quently became markers of status differences between the conquerors or
annexers and those that they incorporated.
In summary, in analyzing the ideology of English monolingualism and
its relationship to the historical development of language policies in the
U.S., it is necessary to understand language diversity in terms of both an
immigrant paradigm and an indigenous paradigm. Moreover, it is
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
523
necessary to consider how groups were incorporated and subsequently
positioned by the dominant monolingual English ideology.
STANDARD LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY
Standard language ideology has been defined as "a bias t
abstracted, idealized, homogeneous spoken language which
from above ... which takes as its model the written language"
has as its goal the "suppression of variation" (Lippi-Green, 199
Because norms for standard language are based on written,
varieties rather than oral varieties of language (Milroy & Milr
notions of a formal standard of language (Wolfram & Fasold, 1
been based on a "taught," that is, school-based, variety of
(Illich, 1979; Wright, 1980). This explains why one must go to
learn one's "native" language. Again, the issue of whose langua
is taken as the standard has a direct bearing on which gro
advantaged or disadvantaged in the acquisition of literacy
Language assessments and most language tests are designed
standardized language. Thus, an implicit literate, or schoo
underlies most notions of language proficiency, including the
of so-called general language proficiency. These notions are
by specific types of language or by what Collins (1991) ref
indexical fixing of literacy. This process results in an implicit
oral varieties of language. Varieties of language that lack writ
are treated as deviant and substandard and are therefore called
which implies a lower status than language (Romaine, 199
connection, Wolfram (1994) concludes that
It is quite clear that vernacular dialects have been defined in our own society
as inappropriate vehicles for literacy, and it is apparent that children are
socialized regarding this functional differentiation from the onset of their
socialization regarding literacy. In this respect, the U.S. situation is akin to
some third-world situations, in which unwritten minority languages are
considered inappropriate for literacy vis-a-vis official state languages even
when knowledge of the official language is minimal or nonexistent. (p. 74)
The current view has not always been hegemonic. According to Illich
(1979), vernacular literacies were flourishing in late 15th-century Spain
until they were eclipsed by the promotion of Castilian as the school
standard. He contends that the promotion of standardized languages
through formal schooling arose as a means of social control. By prescribing an officially sanctioned mode of discourse, the content of discourse
could be controlled as well as its form (Donald, 1991). Illich argues that
the imposition of standard language policies diminished the vernacular
524
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
values associated with local languages. He concludes that the ideological
impact of this change from the use of vernaculars to the use of
standardized mother tongues sanctioned the schools as the only legitimate medium for promoting literacy so that "there would be no reading,
no writing-if possible, no speaking, outside the educational sphere"
(p. 55).
To be promoted as instruments of wider communication, standard
languages are necessarily the products of corpus planning and regularization that have a dual potential to either open or bar doors of access
and opportunity (see Hornberger, 1994). Dominant standard languages
(Grillo, 1989) are products of the dominant groups whose standards
"come to be seen as 'universal,' that is natural and self-evident" (Collins,
1991, p. 236). According to Collins, school-taught standard language
achieves a "social magic" of definition and deception. It uses yet disguises
biases of text, curriculum, and classroom practice by evoking the literate
tradition in ways that discriminate against those who have the least exposure
to that tradition. It does so by treating aspects of the tradition which are the
most tied to particular class-based varieties of language as symptomatic
indices of skill, ability, or proficiency in general. (p. 236)
For language minorities, whose languages or regional and social
varieties are not reflected in the written language models of schools, the
relevance of these observations should not be lost, as groups that can
impose their language and literacy practices as normative have a strategic
advantage over those who cannot. In this regard, Bhatia (1984) notes
that "there is a systematic correlation between the rate of literacy and the
distance between local dialects and the standard language" (p. 28). This
is also the case for speakers of African American Language in the U.S.
Again, although linguists have asserted the equality of languages as
communicative codes, differential educational outcomes across groups
indicate an implicit bias against speakers of certain varieties of English.
African American Language (variously referred to as Black Vernacular
English, BVE, or Black English) has the largest number of speakers
among "nonstandard" varieties of English. Other varieties include Appalachian English and Hawaii English Creole, just to mention a few.
In the U.S., the imposition of elite expectations for standard English
achieved hegemony during the final decade of the 19th century, according to Wright (1980), when college and high school education took on a
greater importance in the "ideology of upward mobility through perse-
verance in school" (p. 327), and the influence of this ideology has
persisted throughout the 20th century. In 1893, the prestigious, elite
Committee of Ten, led by Harvard president Charles Eliot, made its
recommendations for college entrance requirements. Then, as now,
there was a widespread perception that too many students lacked a
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
525
sufficient knowledge of English to attend college. Even though only a
small minority of students went on to college at that time, the legacy of
the Committee's top-down approach established a precedent for curriculum planning.
Some knowledge of the Committee's class background is useful in
understanding its recommendations. A number of the Committee's
members had received an elite education and had studied Latin. Based
on the perception that college entrants' knowledge of Englis
inadequate, the Committee outlined a school language arts cur
for English that was modeled on formal grammar instruction. In
words, the English language would be taught to native speak
English much as Latin would be taught. The curriculum presc
high level of correctness in speech, creating a marked dic
between "good" and "bad" language (Wright, 1980, p. 328). As t
methodology was modernized in the 20th century, the term correc
referring to grammar and vocabulary, was replaced by preferable
still "teaching materials are replete with exemplary lessons in
rhetorical choices are represented as being right or wrong . .
basis of grammatical rules" (p. 335). Language policies initiated
Committee of Ten were developed further by the Conference on
(1893-1925) and have been used as a basis for academic trac
Recommendations of the Conference included holding some ch
back in school (or testing them out) because their English us
considered "unclear" or "incorrect" (p. 337). Thus, at a tim
education was becoming more universally accessible, elitist sch
glish policies devised by upper-class policymakers became gate
mechanisms imposed on those who spoke other varieties of Englis
other languages. According to Wright,
In order to control the effects of universally accessible elementary sch
the high school and college enrollments, they put a mantle of sc
respectability on the discriminatory mores and customs of society, wh
expressed in popular linguistic prejudice, on the increase, after
(p. 337)
Thus, although literacy in the standard was held out as universally
accessible, it has been "controlled by elites, held out as a universal ideal
yet stratified and unequally available" (Collins, 1991, p. 233). The
longevity and persistence of English testing policies through the educational system as mechanisms for tracking and gatekeeping are evidence
for the hegemony and centrality of the standard English ideology in
education. Echoing Illich's (1979) concerns, Collins contends that the
result has been
a universalistic literacy, context-independent and functionally general, eva
ated by tests under prior assumptions of differential achievement. Th
526
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
literacy has slowly become the norm for all literacy. Encompassing and
redefining, it has turned a prior diversity of literate practices into a stratified
literacy, driving a series of wedges into popular cultural practices. (pp. 232233)
Collins (1991) offers three reasons why the standard English ideology
has hegemonic capacity: (a) It serves a political ideological function by
promoting national integration, (b) it serves an economic ideological
function by seeing the attainment of standard English as the means to
social mobility, and (c) it presents particular kinds of class- and culturally
based literacy practices as if they were universal and thereby discrimi-
nates against those who have the least exposure to those practices (see
pp. 233-237 for elaboration).
Schools are the principal instruments of this stratification because
they are supposed to maintain standards. Although the family endows
children with linguistic and cultural knowledge, "the school establishes
the authority and legitimacy of the scarcest, and therefore most highly
valued linguistic and cultural forms and secures universal recognition of
this legitimacy" (Woolard, 1985, pp. 740-741). According to Woolard,
linguistic hegemony has two components: (a) a group that has knowledge or control of the standard and (b) groups that have a recognition
or acceptance of it-even if they do not have knowledge or control of it.
She concludes that the
test of legitimacy is the extent to which the population that does not co
that variety acknowledges and endorses its authority, its correctness, its
to convince, and its right to be obeyed, that is, the extent to which auth
is ceded to those who do not control that variety. (p. 741)
Access to an elite language education is an essential compone
social mobility. Thus educational language policies, such as c
entrance requirements, are significant gatekeeping mechanism
other social, economic, and political domains. Early in their educ
students are "tracked" based on their language proficiencies relat
the literate standard. Schools stratify students based on their abilit
use the standard by assigning those who speak English as an L
nondominant varieties of English to "remedial" educational tra
(Wiley, 1996b).
Lippi-Green (1994) also underscores the importance of the ed
tional system in perpetuating standard language ideology and th
status differentiation. However, she notes that additional factors con
ute to the hegemony of standard English: (a) the mass media, w
promote hegemonic ideas about acceptable accent and dialect as w
false perceptions about the "neutrality" of certain speech patter
the Civil Rights Act, which leaves room for discrimination base
accent or dialect; (c) the legal process, which gives employers ro
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
527
(legally and successfully) argue in court that accent stands in the way of
job performance; and (d) the courtroom, in which hegemonic media
standards are upheld and can be used against defendants to legally
discriminate against them based on accent or dialect.
The hegemony of the standard language ideology, however, has not
gone without challenge and critique. Over the past 30 years, the work of
a number of scholars has added to the understanding of language
variation. Despite this knowledge, Adger (1995) notes, schools rarely
have met the needs of speakers of indigenous varieties of American
English. Moreover, given recent demographic changes in immigration,
schools now also face the challenge of attempting to serve speakers of
other varieties of World Englishes. Adger analyzes the historical response
of professional educational organizations in meeting the needs of
speakers of other varieties of English and notes that organizations such
as TESOL, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the
American Speech-Hearing-Language Association have adopted enlightened policy positions that call for appropriate responses to language
diversity. She concludes that these position statements have had little
impact on practitioners and that reform efforts aimed at professional
training and instructional materials development have been separated
from policy, with the consequence that policy statements are largely
ceremonial.
Professional organizations have made three types of policy recomm
dations in order to promote more equitable instruction for speaker
nondominant varieties of English. The first calls for dialect (or langu
variation) awareness for teachers. Years ago, Labov (1969) noted
reciprocal ignorance among teachers and children who were unaware o
their mutual linguistic systems and, thus, the need for teacher educa
in these areas (see also Berdan, 1980). Although some model progr
exist in this area and although some materials have been developed th
can be used in teacher preparation (e.g., Wolfram & Christian, 1
Wolfram & Fasold, 1974), what passes for language diversity training
teacher education is still insufficient (Adger, 1995; see also Wolfr
1993).
Teacher preparation in teaching standard English as a second dia
has also received attention by professional organizations in po
statements; however, it has likewise not been implemented on a b
scale (Adger, 1995). There is also disagreement on what specific
proaches to employ. Delpit (1995) contends that teachers must str
"correct" forms through skill-based approaches in conjunction w
whole language and process approaches to ensure that language mi
ity children obtain the skills that middle-class White children typical
acquire from their environments. Because achievement tests are g
keepers that prevent many African American children from acces
528
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
institutions of the dominant culture, she argues, such children must be
taught test skills explicitly. Thus, Delpit (1992, 1995) calls for a combina-
tion of pedagogical approaches, including explicit skills-based instruction that some whole language specialists oppose (see Edelsky, 1991).
The third area where there is general agreement on the need for
reform relates to training in language assessment. Language assessment
has often been misused as an instrument for gatekeeping and status
ascription (Hakuta, 1986). Mattes and Omark (1991) and Stockman
(1986) note many of the difficulties inherent in assessing bilinguals and
speakers of nondominant varieties of English. Assessments that measure
language proficiency solely in standard English and do not take into
account L1 proficiency have led to results that have been inappropriately
interpreted as indicating that language minorities are less intelligent and
need remedial or special education courses (Adler, 1990; see also
Wolfram & Christian, 1980).
CONCLUSION
In analyzing the hegemony of the dominant linguistic id
tempting to drift into a kind of fatalism predicated
determinism. In this regard, Phillipson (1988) offers
insight:
It is of the essence of hegemony that injustices are internalized by both the
dominant group and the dominated groups as being natural and legitimate.
However, neither the structures nor the ideologies are static. Hegemony is
lived experience which is in a constant process of negotiation, recreation and
adjustment. It is therefore open to contestation. (p. 343)
Consistent with Phillipson's viewpoint, policy issues related to effective
language minority education continue to be contested, recreated, and
renegotiated. For years, a bitter debate has raged over the most appropri-
ate and equitable ways to educate speakers of languages other than
English (particularly Spanish). The debate over "official English" and
bilingual education has been well chronicled by Baron (1990), Crawford
(1991, 1992a, 1992b), and others. The scholarly contribution to the
debate over the effectiveness of bilingual education has resulted in a
preponderance of research that has demonstrated its efficacy. Neverthe-
less, as the media portray the controversy, polemical reports such as
those put out by conservative think tanks, such as the Little Hoover
Commission, are presented as if they were the scholarly equivalent to
research studies, and an underinformed public is not the wiser.
Similarly, over 30 years ago a bitter debate began over the most
appropriate and equitable ways to educate speakers of nondominant
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
529
varieties of English, particularly African American Language. Adding to
the dispute has been the fact that many of the recommendations for the
education of speakers of African American Language have been put
forth by White social scientists (see Baratz, 1973; Stewart, 1964; Wolfram
& Fasold, 1974), whose intentions (see J. Sledd, 1969, 1973) and
recommendations for bidialectal instruction (see O'Neil, 1973) have
been strongly criticized and questioned by some writers (see also Shuy,
1980; Wolfram, 1994, for thoughtful reflections on the controversy;
Wiley, 1996a, 1996b).
In recent years, old themes have been repeated and several new issues
have emerged. The controversy, though less rancorous than before,
remains polarized around the contention that students must receive
instruction in standard English and the opposite viewpoint that sees such
an attempt as stifling students' voices (Heller, 1988). Williams (1991), for
example, has reiterated the call for instruction in African American
Language, whereby the former social "weapon" becomes an effective
"tool" of instruction. Others (e.g., Delpit, 1995; Jordan, 1985) have
advocated a dual approach in which students learn to value and assert
their native voices while receiving explicit instruction in the dominant
language.
Wiggins (1976) has argued that the real issue has never been
language, literacy, or education but power and a fear of heterogeneity, be
it through language, behavior, or values. He has noted that, for all too
many African Americans, the fact that mastery of the language does not
ensure economic mobility or political access makes manifest the fallacy
of standard English as the language of equal opportunity. His conclusions parallel those of a host of authorities who draw similar conclusions
about the impact of dominant language ideologies and the policies that
result from them on other language minority groups.
As debates over language policy have continued, generations of
students have come and gone, and a substantial number of studentswhether labeled as immigrant or indigenous language minorities or as
speakers of nonstandard English-continue to receive instruction amid
conditions of "savage inequalities" (Kozol, 1991; McDermott, 1987a,
1987b; McDonnell & Hill, 1993). Given the historical legacy of the
ideologies of English only and standard English and their continuing
differential impact across racial and ethnic groups, language profession-
als need to consider their implications for contemporary policy and
practice and to contest policies and practices that perpetuate social
inequities.
530
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Nancy Hornberger, Sandra McKay, T
Roger Shuy for their helpful comments. Terrence Wiley is appre
Scholarly and Creative Activities Award he received from California S
Long Beach, in support of his work on this article.
THE AUTHORS
Terrence G. Wiley is Joint Professor of Education and Linguisti
University, Long Beach. He is the author of books and articles on
language planning and policy, and multicultural education. His
Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States (Center for A
Delta Systems, 1996).
Marguerite Lukes is a Community Training Specialist for the C
Minority Education and Research at California State Universit
specializes in antibias education, school-community programs, a
REFERENCES
Adger, C. (1995). Issues and implications of English dialects for TESOL
manuscript.
Adler, S. (1990). Multicultural clients: Implications for the SLP. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 135-139.
Attinasi, J. J. (1994). Racism, language variety, and urban U.S. minorities: Issues in
bilingualism and bidialectism. In S. Gregory & R. Sanjek (Eds.), Race (pp. 320347). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Baratz, J. C. (1973). Teaching reading in a urban Negro school system. In R. H.
Bentley & S. D. Crawford (Eds.), Black language reader (pp. 154-171). Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman.
Baron, D. (1990). The English-only question: An official language for Americans?
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bennett, W. J. (1992). The Bilingual Education Act: A failed path. In J. Cra
(Ed.), Language loyalties: A sourcebook on the official English controversy (pp. 358
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berdan, R. (1980). Knowledge into practice: Delivering research to teachers. In
White (Ed.), Reactions to Ann Arbor: Vernacular Black English and education (p
84). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Bernstein, B. (1975). On the classification and framing of educational knowled
B. Bernstein (Ed.), Class, codes, and control: Vol. 3. Towards a theory of educat
transmissions (pp. 85-115). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bhatia, T. K. (1984). Literacy in monolingual societies. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), A
Review of Applied Linguistics (pp. 23-38). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Info
tion, 16, 645-668.
Bourdieu, P. (1982). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London: Sage
Brodkey, L. (1991). Tropics of literacy. In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewr
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
531
literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 161-168). New York: Bergin &
Garvey.
Collins, J. (1991). Hegemonic practice: Literacy and standard language in public
education. In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the
discourse of the other (pp. 229-253). New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Corson, D. (1993). Language, minority education, and gender: Linking social justice and
power. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice (2nd ed.).
Trenton, NJ: Crane.
Crawford, J. (1992a). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of "English Only."
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Crawford, J. (1992b). Language loyalties: A sourcebook on the official English controversy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Delpit, L. (1992, March/April). Teachers, culture, and power. Rethinking Schools, 1416.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the curriculum. New York:
New Press.
Donald, J. (1991). How illiteracy became a problem (and literacy stopped being
one). In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discours
the other (pp. 211-227). New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Edelsky, C. (1991). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language
education. London: Falmer Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.
Frank, F., & Anshen, F. (1983). Language and the sexes. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Gibson, M. A., & Ogbu,J. U. (Eds.). (1991). Minority status and schooling: A compara
study of immigrant and involuntary minorities. New York: Garland.
Grillo, R. D. (1989). Dominant languages: Language and hierarchy in Britain and Fran
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grin, F. (1994). Combining immigrant and autochthonous language rights
T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcomi
linguistic discrimination (pp. 31-48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haas, M. (1992). Institutional racism: The case of Hawai'i. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Ba
Books.
Heller, P. (1988). The future life of Willie Jordan in Benicia. Quarterly of the Nation
Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 15(3), 1-5.
Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1994). Language policy in the United States: A history of
cultural genocide. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic hum
rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 141-158). Berlin: Mouton d
Gruyter.
Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education,
8, 75-86.
Illich, I. (1979, Fall). Vernacular values and education. Teacher's College Record, 31-75.
Jordan, J. (1985). Nobody mean more to me than you and the future life of Willie
Jordan. In On call: Political essays. Boston: Southend Press.
Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes. In S. L. McKay & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71-102). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 795-800.
Kloss, H. (1971). Language rights of immigrant groups. International Migration
Review, 5, 250-268.
532
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown.
Labov, W. (1969). Some sources of reading problems for Negro speakers of
nonstandard English. InJ. Baratz & R. Shuy (Eds.), Teaching Black children to read
(pp. 29-67). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. (1973). The logic of non-standard English. In N. Keddie (Ed.), Tinker,
tailor: The myth of cultural deprivation (pp. 21-66). Harmondsworth, England:
Penguin Books.
Lankshear, C. (with Lawler, M.). (1987). Literacy, schooling and revolution. New York:
Falmer Press.
Leibowitz, A. H. (1969). English literacy: Legal sanction for discrimination. N
Dame Lawyer, 25, 7-66.
Leibowitz, A. H. (1971). Educational policy and political acceptance: The impositio
English as the language of instruction in American schools. (ERIC Document Reprodu
tion Service No. ED 047 321)
Leibowitz, A. H. (1974, August). Language as a means of social control. Paper presen
at the 8th World Congress of Sociology, University of Toronto, Canada.
Lewis, M. (1978). The culture of inequality. Amherst: University of Massachusetts P
Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminator
pretext in courts. Language in Society, 23, 163-198.
Lukes, M. (1995). Black Vernacular English in the United States: An analysis of imp
educational language policies. Unpublished manuscript, California State Universi
Long Beach, Center for Language Minority Education and Research.
Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of federal bilingual educa
policy. In C. B. Cazden & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Annals of the American Academy
Political and Social Science: Vol. 508. English plus: Issues in bilingual education (pp
80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Macias, R. F. (1992). "Cauldron-boil & bubble"-United States language policy tow
indigenous language indigenous language groups. Unpublished manuscript, Unive
sity of California, Santa Barbara, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Macias, R. F. (1993). Language and ethnic classification of language minorities
Chicano and Latino students in the 1990s. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science
15, 230-257.
Macias, R. F. (1994). Inheriting sins while seeking absolution: Language diversity and
national statistical data sets. In D. Spener (Ed.), Adult biliteracy in the United States
(pp. 15-45). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.
Macias, R. F. (in press). Language politics and the historiography of Spanish in the
United States. In P. Griffin,J. K. Peyton, W. Wolfram, & R. Fasold (Eds.), Language
in Action: New Studies of Language in Society.
Mattes, L. J., & Omark, D. P. (1991). Speech and language assessment for the bilingual
handicapped. Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.
McDermott, R. (1987a). Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach to
illiteracy and social stratification. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural
process: Anthropological approaches (2nd ed., pp. 173-209). Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.
McDermott, R. (1987b). The explanation of minority school failure, again. Anthro
ogy and Education Review, 56, 355-378.
McDonnell, L. M., & Hill, P. T. (1993). Newcomers in American schools: Meeting
educational needs of immigrant youth. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
McKay, S. L. (1993). Agendas for second language literacy. Cambridge: Cambr
University Press.
McKay, S. L., & Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). English literacy in the U.S.: Nation
policies, personal consequences. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 399-419.
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
533
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription
and standardization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ogbu, J. u. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural
perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Ogbu, J. U., & Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors:
Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. In Beyond language: Social and cultural
factors in schooling for language minority students (pp. 73-142). Los Angeles:
California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
O'Neil, W. (1973). The politics of bidialectism. In R. H. Bentley & S. D. Crawford
(Eds.), Black language reader (pp. 184-191). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1984). Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: Afield manual.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Phillipson, R. (1988). Linguicism: Structures and ideologies in linguistic imperialism.
In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority education: From shame to
struggle (pp. 339-358). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R., Rannut, M., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1994). Introduction. In
T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming
linguistic discrimination (pp. 1-22). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ramirez, J. D. (1992). Executive summary [Special issue.]. Bilingual Research Journal,
16(1-2).
Ricento, T. (in press). Language policy in the United States: An overvie
M. Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policy in English dominant countrie
case studies. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Romaine, S. (1994). Hawai'i Creole English as a literacy language. Language in So
23, 527-554.
Roy, J. D. (1987). The linguistic and sociolinguistic position of black English an
issue of bidialectism in education. In P. Homel, M. Palij, & D. Aaronson (Ed
Childhood bilingualism: Aspects of linguistic, cognitive, and social development (pp
242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ruiz, R. (1995). Language planning considerations in indigenous commun
Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 71-81.
Schmidt, R. (1995, March). Language policy and racial domination: Exploring the lin
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association f
Applied Linguistics, Long Beach, CA.
Shuy, R. (1980). Vernacular Black English: Setting the issues in time. In M. F
Whiteman (Ed.), Reactions to Ann Arbor: Vernacular Black English and education
1-9). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Simon, P. (1988). The tongue tied American. New York: Continuum.
Sledd, A. E. (1994). Pigs, squeals, and cow manure; or power, language
multicultural democracy. Journal of Advanced Composition, 14, 547-558.
Sledd, J. (1969). Bi-dialectism: The linguistics of white supremacy. EnglishJourna
1307-1315, 1329.
Sledd, J. (1973). Doublespeak: Dialectology in the service of Big Brother. In R. H.
Bentley & S. D. Crawford (Eds.), Black language reader (pp. 191-214). Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman.
Sridhar, S. L. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly, 28
Sridhar, S. L. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Ho
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 47-70). Cambridge: Ca
University Press.
Stewart, W. (1964). Foreign language teaching methods in quasi-foreign
situations. In W. Stewart (Ed.), Non-standard speech and the teaching of En
1-15). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
534
TESOL QUARTERLY
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stockman, I.J. (1986). Language acquisition in culturally diverse populations: The
Black child as a case study. In O. Taylor (Ed.), The nature of communication disorders
in culturally and linguistically diverse populations (pp. 117-155). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Tollefson, J. W. (1989). Alien winds: The reeducation of America's Indochinese refugees.
New York: Praeger.
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the
community. New York: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice and discourse: An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition
and conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Dijk, T. A. (1986). Ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. In M. L.
McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 9, pp. 57-82). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (1989). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Veltman, C. (1983). Language shift in the United States. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Veltman, C. (1988). The future of the Spanish language in the United States. New York:
Hispanic Policy Development Project.
Weinberg, M. (1990). Racism in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the
legitimization of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wiggins, M. E. (1976). The cognitive deficit difference controversy: A Black
sociopolitical perspective. In D. Harrison & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Black English: A
seminar (pp. 241-254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wiley, T. G. (1996a). Language planning and language policy. In S. L. McKay & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiley, T. G. (1996b). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington,
DC: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.
Wiley, T. G. (in press). World War I era English-only policies and the fate of Germans
in North America. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and politics in the
United States and Canada: Myths and realities.
Williams, S. W. (1991). Classroom use of African American Language: Educational
tool or social weapon? In C. E. Sleeter (Ed.), Empowerment through multicultural
education (pp. 199-215). New York: SUNY Press.
Wolfram, W. (1993). Ethical considerations in language awareness programs. Issues
in Applied Linguistics, 4, 225-255.
Wolfram, W. (1994). Bidialectal literacy in the United States. In D. Spener (Ed.),
Adult biliteracy in the United States (pp. 71-88). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied
Linguistics & Delta Systems.
Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1980). On the application of sociolinguistic information: Test evaluation and dialect differences in Appalachian English. In T. Shopen
&J. M. Williams (Eds.), Standards and dialects in English (pp. 177-204). Cambridge,
MA: Winthrop.
Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1989). Dialects and education: Issues and answers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wolfram, W., & Fasold, R. W. (1974). The study of social dialects in American English.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Woolard, K. A. (1985). Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an
integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. American Ethnologist, 12, 738-748.
Wright, E. (1980). School English and public policy. College English, 42, 327-342.
ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
535
Purchase answer to see full
attachment