Language Policy

, 8:377 | Cite as

Is public discourse about language policy really public discourse about immigration? A corpus-based study

Original Paper

Abstract

The pluralist narrative of language policies suggests that language policies are influenced by public perceptions of immigrants (Darder 2004; González 2000; Pavlenko 2002; Valdés 1997). This paper investigates the relationship between newspaper discourse about language policies and newspaper discourse about immigration. It asks how much key, lexical overlap exists between the discourses. This study compared Arizona newspaper corpora representing discourse about language policies and discourse about immigration to evaluate the degree of similarity in discourses. Keyword analysis, identifying unusually frequent words, was used to assess the degree of important semantic overlap across topic-based corpora. Four topic-based corpora were constructed from the newspapers published between January 1999 and October 2007. Surprisingly, little key, lexical overlap was found between language policy corpora and immigration corpora. In light of the findings, advantages and limitations of various methodologies for language policy questions are discussed—corpus-based methods in particular.

Keywords

Language policy Arizona Corpus Keyword analysis Immigration Pluralist 

Abbreviations

U.S.

United States

AZ

Arizona

ELLs

English language learners

References

  1. Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, P. (2004). ‘Unnatural acts’: Discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debates on gay male law reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(1), 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, G., & Giles, H. (2002). Who supports the English only movement?: Evidence for misconceptions about Latino group vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(5), 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker, G., & Giles, H. (2004). English-only policies: Perceived support and social limitation. Language and Communication, 24(1), 77–95.Google Scholar
  6. Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawford, J. (2000). Proposition 227: A new phase of the English only movement. In R. D. González & I. Melis (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement: Vol. 1. Education and the social implications of official language (pp. 28–61). Urbana, IL and Mahwah, NJ: National Council of Teachers of English and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Darder, A. (2004). The politics of language: An introduction. Latino Studies 2(2), 231–236.Google Scholar
  9. Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistic of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
  10. Enslinn, A., & Johnson, S. (2006). Language is the news: Investigating representations of “Englishness” using WordSmith Tools. Corpora, 1(2), 153–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabrielatos, C., & Baker, P. (2008). Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the U.K. Press, 1996–2005. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(1), 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. González, R. D. (2000). Introduction. In R. D. González & I. Melis (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement: Vol. 1. Education and the social implications of official Language (pp. xxvii–xlvii). National Council of Teachers of English and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: Urbana, IL and Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Gutierriez, K. D., Asato, J., Pacheco, M., Moll, L., Olson, K., Horng, E. L., et al. (2002). Sounding American: The consequences of new reforms on English language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(3), 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, J. (2001). The racializing function of language panics. In R. D. González & I. Melis (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement: Vol. 2. History, theory, and policy (pp. 245–267). Urbana, IL and Mahwah, NJ: National Council of Teachers of English and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Honig, B. (2003). Democracy and the foreigner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kemppanen, H. (2004). Keywords and ideology in translated history texts: A corpus based analysis. Across Language and Cultures, 5(1), 86–106.Google Scholar
  17. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. McGroarty, M. (2006). Neoliberal collusion or strategic simultaneity: On multiple rationales for language in education policies. Language Policy, 5(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Migration Policy Institute. (2009). 2007 American community survey and census data on the foreign born by state. http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/acscensus.cfm. Accessed 26 Apr 2009.
  20. Oberhuber, F., Barenreuter, C., Krzyanowski, M., Schonbauer, H., & Wodak, R. (2005). Debating the European constitution: On representations of Europe/the EU in the press. Journal of Language and Politics, 4(2), 227–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olsen, L. (1998). The Unz/Tuchman “English for children” initiative: A new attack on immigrant children and the schools. Multicultural Education, 5(3), 11–13.Google Scholar
  22. Palozzi, V. (2005). Assessing voter attitude toward language policy issues in the United States. Language Policy, 5, 15–39.Google Scholar
  23. Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2009). A portrait of unauthorized immigrants in the United States, Report. Pew Hispanic Center. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf. Accessed 26 Apr 2009.
  24. Pavlenko, A. (2002). We have room but for one language here: Language and national identity in the US at the turn of the 20th century. Multilingua, 21, 163–196.Google Scholar
  25. Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the “language as resource” discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  27. Schmidt, R. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schmidt, R. (2002). Racialization and language policy: The case of the U.S.A. Multilingua, 21, 141–161.Google Scholar
  29. Schmidt, R. (2006). Political theory and language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 95–110). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Scott, M. (1997). PC analysis of key words—and key keywords. System, 25(2), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scott, M. (1998). WordSmith tools manual. Version 2.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools manual. Version 5.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Scott, M., & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual patterns: Key words and corpus linguistics in language education. Studies in corpus linguistics (22). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  34. Seale, C., Boden, S., Williams, S., Lowe, P., & Steinberg, D. (2007). Media constructions of sleep and sleep disorders: A study of UK national newspapers. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 418–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shiffman, H. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stritikus, T., & Garcia, E. (2005). Revisiting the bilingual education debate from the perspectives of parents: Policy, practice, and matches or mismatches. Educational Policy, 19(5), 729–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Toolan, M. (2006). Top keyword abridgements of short stories: A corpus linguistic resource? Journal of Literary Semantics, 35(2), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valdés, G. (1997). Bilinguals and bilingualism: Language policy in an anti-immigrant age. International Journal of Society and Language, 127, 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  43. Wright, W. (2005a). English language learners left behind in Arizona: The nullification of accommodations in the intersection of federal and state policies. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  44. Wright, W. (2005b). The political spectacle of Arizona’s Proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19(5), 662–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.English Department, Applied Linguistics ProgramNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations