There are no official policies concerning an official language within the confines of the Constitution or federal laws. Still, some unofficial language policies have been enforced in the general communities. Analysis of language history, sociolinguistic research, and legal scholars’ insights indicates the existence of de facto linguistic hierarchies that tell stories that dice and serve as non-written language ideologies that put English above other languages. It is safe to say that these unspoken language policies manifest in many different areas of American life. In schools, kids who move to a new country must be taught English as early as they begin schooling, which diminishes the native languages. The fascinating part is that English-language TV, films, magazines, and websites rule the media landscape. In business, workers are often put to the ‘conventional’ English standard by unspoken rules. To name a few things, public signage and government operations also default to English; thus, language recognition and accommodation of other cultures become an exception instead of a norm. Although with a formal commitment to principles of multilingualism, the very way of life of increasing assimilation of minority languages with the English language as a common international language is a reality. This results from prevailing cultural attitudes and practices that an individual internalizes and ultimately results in their reinforcement.
By reflecting on the history of language use, going through sociolinguistic research, and getting to know the legal scholar perspectives, we can put forth the theory of de facto linguistic hierarchies and ideological positions that are similar to existing unwritten language policies where the English language is given a higher value than the other languages.
Historical Privileging of English
Being a typical English heritage shared by some of the nation’s early settlers, the English language implicitly became the working language of governance, education, and public life, even though no formal law was passed to declare it the official language. The Naturalization Act of 1906 prescribed the naturalization of immigrants through intensive English learning, which denotes that immigrants would be able to become citizens of the United States if they completed their education in English. This is the fact that nationwide public schools were taught only in the English language and made immigration one-sided. According to the sociolinguist Bernard Spolsky, “There has been no formal official language policy establishing English as the official language of the United States at the federal level…However, English has been established nationally through practice and inertia as the main language” (Spolsky 2004). From the historical origins of English, the societal realities of having one’s life dependent on learning the English language and having the necessary linguistic tools to participate fully in American society emerged. The supremacy of English kept on growing throughout the twentieth century, the main instrument of which was the policies aimed to prevent the process of cultural assimilation of immigrants from speeding up even more. For example, the Nationality Act of 1940 stipulated that possessing English language skills was one of the criteria for developing into a citizen of that period. The “English-only” privately led movement lobbied at the state level for state laws that designated English as the official language, and eventually, at the end of the 1980s, the movement was successful in at least half of US states, Even though the stance of English emerging as the official language of the federation has crawled, the legacy of these attempts had installed the monolingual English education, and English became a “language of opportunity” by default in public life.
Furthermore, negative social opinions influencing conversations in the community associated with language diversity made minority languages even less functional. The exquisitely known “American identity” (please see my explanation) resulted from a process of culture construction by which immigrants were expected and required to speak English only and use other languages deemed un-American or antagonistic to assimilation. This thus perpetuated a vicious circle that pushed people to different languages to obtain qualifications for knowing their native language before the passage of time. This meant that the newcomers would find themselves more socially monolinguistic in English than ever after leaving their own country. While explicitly banning other languages outright may not have been the central policies, the accumulated pressures that only occurred in English instruction, citizenship and institution access requirements, and cultural coding of other languages as foreign and unloyal have been working as power indirect ones limiting the multilingualism.
Sociolinguistic Evidence of Language Hierarchies
The sociologists studying American intralingual patterns and attitudes recognize the following contradictory patterns as evident in speech, written speech, and the language of media: the policy of superiority of English, and especially the high-prestige dialects of English. It was the result of William Labov’s study “The Social Stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores,” published in 1966, that modifications of the accents and the way the consonant /r/ was pronounced, depending on the expected social class of the customer, was the practice of salesmen who would use the more prestigious rhotic pronunciation with higher-class customers(Labov, 1966). This made clear that the English dialects that were sometimes thought of as not the best of those in use were viewed as such by the speakers, who might need to be made aware of the fact.
Multiple studies that have followed see the same results as Macaulay, who, in his research on “pure grammaticalization,” that “Americans associate linguistic variables with several different stereotypes, including class, educational level, gender, and race” (Macaulay 2006). The dissemination through research of the stereotypes and the misguided attitudes towards non-prestige English dialects and other languages by scholars attest to a language policy that is comfortable with elevating Standard English above the other linguistic varieties. As Marc Hauser and colleagues describe in their overview of the “faculty of language,” the human ability to acquire and use language leads to the establishment of linguistic hierarchies: As Marc Hauser and colleagues describe in their overview of the “faculty of language,” the human ability to acquire and use language leads to the establishment of linguistic hierarchies:
“Not only do humans acquire language, but they constantly explore and extend the expressive capacity of their language through conscious manipulation, creating new linguistic structures that push outward the boundaries of what was thought possible. Throughout history, some human groups have imbued the languages they speak or create with socio-cultural values.” (Hauser et al., 2002). Although there is no law to impute and differentiate language varieties anybody within American society, the cultural values behind one being favored over others through this act can cause a de facto language policy emphasizing English.
These undemocratically elevated languages, which imply real-world discrimination in the education and employment field, prove this matter. Research in the learning laboratory has taught us that students from English language minorities get overlooked by teachers of standard English who show their prejudice toward the language ability of these students based on language ideology instead of the actual language competency of the students. The office is no exception to this issue, where speakers of foreign tongues in the interaction process may be considered unintelligent or not skillful. Just like some institutions/ corporations that inwardly preach/ profess diversity, the social evaluation system of official communications and employees is still biased. Applying ideological favoritism through a standard English norm is the usual approach.
The media and popular culture may have a pole position in embracing linguistic chauvinism that regards particular English dialects as “proper” or “correct,” with other varieties of English being inferior, uneducated, or improper. Situation comedies mocking ethnic accents and journalists forwarding very concerned thoughts about the “corruption of English” perpetuate this idea by favoring the consumption of mass media that promotes. Consequently, funding English norms could contribute to linguistic minorities keeping to the security norms as their first communication option.
The dominance of political English ideology and code goes beyond just language deficiency. It tagged the languages and communities not adopting political English as abnormal and marginalized. Whether from the boarding school programs designed to erase the native American languages of indigenous children or the contemporary Latinx resistance against the “anti-Hispanic undertones” of “English Only” initiatives, the fixation on a specific linguistic variety hadn’t only just stratified the society sociolinguistically, Still, it also kept active language suppression running through. Sociolinguistic clues are beneath the unearthing hidden policies that run against the social order, creating the veritable suppressing environment for linguistic diversification.
Legal Perspectives: Language as a Civil Rights Issue
However, a situation presents itself where these two aspects of societal justice (anti-discrimination laws) enter into a legal paradox about linguistic rights, given the confiscation of an official language stance at the federal law. Rules, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination based on national origin (which includes language as one of the determining factors), in the absence of affirmative policies concerning linguistic diversity and its protection, give way to English to remain the de facto privileged languages across all environments of American life.
The notion of a “faculty of language” proposed by linguists such as Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch explained that groups commonly use a particular language style and attribute extra weight to it over others because of the social-cultural values. These authors see that “throughout history, some human groups have imbued the languages they speak or create with socio-cultural values” (Hauser et al., 2002).Despite legal commitments to non-discrimination, this deep-rooted tendency towards establishing linguistic hierarchies creates an “unstated language policy” elevating English over other languages, as sociolinguist Bernard Spolsky notes: Despite legal commitments to non-discrimination, this deep-rooted tendency towards establishing linguistic hierarchies creates an “unstated language policy” elevating English over other languages, as sociolinguist Bernard Spolsky notes: “While there remains a legal commitment not to establish any single language as the official national language, in practice the linguistic situation in the United States has not been a completely free choice of language, with English having an overt pragmatic privileged status in practically all aspects of American life” (Spolky,2004).
However, while anti-discrimination laws somewhat protect language rights, the unspoken hierarchy that places English at the summit constitutes the de facto language policy. It is the most widely used language in all public, professional, and daily life spheres. The federal government’s powerlessness in creating firm policies that promote language diversity is behind the in-group deference that English is the default operating notion.
This uncertainty is one of the most severe bottlenecks for those who defend inherently Latin languages. The ruling of courts such as Lau v. Nichols (1974) envisioned exclusionary practices undertaken by the schools that had no accommodations for non-English speakers. Moreover, later Supreme Court rulings stated that the onus lies on the proof of an intent to discriminate rather than the mere impact of the policy. Where the standard expectation is that they use English, people who are not comfortable with it have to almost always go through the banal obstacle of pushing back against a system that has deep roots in old ways.
The judiciary’s reluctance to question power and authority is woven into a pattern that values British English above other languages. So, many other language users must repeatedly keep casting aside their linguistic titling rights. For example, policies that require the use of only the English language in the workplace or voting forms that are not translated into the languages of multiple cultures can get the status of the neutral norm unless it is proven that these practices involve discrimination towards minority groups. For this reason, the judiciary, which also has provided only English, has the same ideological model as the English privilege throughout American life.
This inherently English-based unspoken language policy brings about the need for solid language rights protections for which an endless struggle for slight advancements is fought. Rather than being the rest of the endangered minority languages that enforce an active legal system promoting linguistic diversity, speakers of those languages have to repeatedly bring cases into court to counter the language hegemony of English, which remains static. No statutory measures will anchor multilingualism as a national ideal and ensure that it supersedes the characteristics previously set in place by the language policies already in our institutional framework.
Conclusion
In conclusion, easily recognizable in the historical documents, sociolinguistic studies, and legal justice insights are the brilliant unwritten language policies implanted in American society that prioritize the English language and, more so, the standard variants of English, which is believed to be chiefly spoken by the white upper class. Because there is no specific enactment of a national language with rights for official usage, the widespread use of English and the negative attitude within the society towards foreign languages imply that the implicit and covert policies of the dominance of the English language are accepted in the society though not specified in the law. Yet, whatever it is to be said about language extinction, real effects either play out in keeping the existing linguistic power relations or conversely discount multilingualism. Although the US is widely regarded as a land of immigrants, the existing “English-only” language ideology rather than English being the only official language acts as the working language policy.
REFERENCES
Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky, and W. Tecumseh Fitch. “The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?.” science 298.5598 (2002): 1569-1579.
Labov, William. “The social stratification of (r) in New York city department stores.” Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics (1966): 63-115.
Macaulay, Ronald. “Pure grammaticalization: The development of a teenage intensifier.” Language Variation and Change 18.3 (2006): 267-286.
Spolsky, Bernard. “Language policy.” Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
write