Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zkb6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T09:53:09.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Plus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2008

Mary Carol Combs and
Lynn M. Lynch
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The debate continues over whether the primacy of English should be enshrined in the U.S. constitution. Here, it takes the form of ‘language restrictionism’ versus ‘English plus at least one other language’ for every citizen who so chooses.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1988, pp. 36 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Notes

1 ‘Nationwide Debate Grows Over English Language Amendments,’ EPIC Events, Vol. I, No. 1 (03/04 1988).Google Scholar
2 Hearst Corp. Survey on the Constitution reported in ‘Survey: Most Think English is Official U.S. Language,’ Associated Press, 02 14, 1987.Google Scholar
3 Study cited by Keyser, Lucy, ‘Bikales Battles Bilingualism,’ The Washington Times, 09 23, 1986.Google Scholar
4 The Retention of Minority Languages in the United States: A Seminar on the Analytic Work of Calvin J. Veltman, National Center for Education Statistics, May 13, 1980.Google Scholar
5Veltman, Calvin, Language Shift in the United States, Berlin: Mouton, 1983Google Scholar
Veltman, Calvin ‘Comment,’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language, No. 60 (1986).Google Scholar
6McCarthy, Kevin S. and Valdez, R. Burciaga, Study Commissioned by the California Roundtable: ‘Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in California,’ May 1986.Google Scholar
7Nakao, Annie, ‘Battle of Words Heats Up Over English Only,’ San Francisco Examiner, September 21, 1986.Google Scholar
8Woo, Elaine, ‘Immigrants – A Rush to Classrooms,’ Los Angeles Times, September 24, 1986.Google Scholar
9 William Trombley, ‘Norman Cousins Drops His Support of Prop. 63,’ Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1986.Google Scholar
10 National Education Association, ‘English Language Amendment’ Fact Sheet, November 1987.Google Scholar
11Geoffrey, Nunberg, ‘An Official Language For California?,’ New York Times, October 2, 1986.Google Scholar
12Francois, Grosjean, Life With Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
13 Linguistic Society of America, Resolution Opposing the Official English movement, December 1986.Google Scholar
14Calvin, Veltman, Language Shift in the United States, Berlin: Mouton, 1983.Google Scholar
15Combs, Mary Carol and Trasvina, John, ‘Legal Implications of the English Language Amendment,’ The English Plus Project, League of United Latin American Citizens, June 1986.Google Scholar
16James, Crawford, ‘The English Language Amendment: Hazardous to Language- Minority Children,’ Unpublished Speech, Institute on Bilingual Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education, December 11, 1987.Google Scholar
17 Congressman Solarz, Stephen J.Testimony, before the Subcommiittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, May 11, 1988.Google Scholar
18 Crawford, op. cit.Google Scholar
19Bennett, William, Speech, Association for a Better New York, New York City, September 26, 1985.Google Scholar
20 Spanish-American League Against Discrimination (SALAD) Education Committee, ‘Not English Only, English Plus!: Bilingual Education Issue Analysis,’ October 15, 1985.Google Scholar
21 Statement of Purpose, English Plus Information Clearinghouse, October 20, 1987.Google Scholar
22 Statement of Purpose, English Plus Information Clearinghouse, October 20, 1987.Google Scholar
23 Arizona English brochure, October 1987.Google Scholar
24 Brochure: ‘Conference on Language Rights and Public Policy: Perspectives on the English Only Movement’.Google Scholar