english-only policies: perceived support and social limitation

English-only policies: Perceived Support andSocial Limitation§

Valerie Barkera,*, Howard Gilesb

aSchool of Communication, College of Professional Studies and Fine Arts, San Diego State University,

5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4561, USAbDepartment of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4020, USA

Abstract

The growth in language minorities in the USA is matched by an increase in language poli-

cies encapsulated by the English-only movement and support for policies controlling immi-gration and health/welfare services to immigrants. A re-analysis of data obtained from atelephone survey in Santa Barbara, California (n=389) investigated if support for English-

only policies among Anglo-Americans is related to perceptions about a decreasing gapbetween Anglo-American group vitality and that of Latino group vitality (i.e., relative vital-ity). The influence of Spanish mass media and level of language group identity is also assessed.

A structural equation model summarizing the relationships between these factors is proposed.The final SEM indicates that English-only policies are one form of social limitation. Supportfor English-only policies is positively related to level of language group identity and negativelyrelated to Spanish mass media. Support for social limitation among Anglo-Americans is

negatively related to relative vitality.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: English-only; Ethnolinguistic vitality; Linguistic landscape; Spanish; Mass media; Demo-

graphics; Age; Immigration; Structural equation modeling

1. Introduction

There is no better time for us to take up the challenge of explicating the com-municative antecedents and consequences of English-only and other ethno-

Language & Communication 24 (2004) 77–95

www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

0271-5309/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00030-2

§ A prior version of this paper was competitively selected as a Top Paper in Intercultural Communi-

cation at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego (May 2003).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-619-482-2005.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Barker), [email protected] (H. Giles).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

centric movements. . . It would be hard to find a topic where communication canserve the public interest better than in understanding the impact of language onidentity and its negotiation through communication (Gallois, 2001, p. 4).

In recent years, there have been many attempts in the United States to ensure thatEnglish remains the dominant language in the public sphere (Schmidt, 2000). Todate, 23 English-only or official English state-level initiatives have been introducedas statutes, or passed (often overwhelmingly) by referenda (Crawford, 2000). InCalifornia, standardized tests are given in English to all students, including limitedEnglish proficient students (Cooper, 1999). And there have been numerous exam-ples of personal discrimination based on lack of English proficiency, or use ofother languages at work, and in the provision of services (e.g., Barrett, 1993; Sack,1999; Westphal, 2000; School, EEOC settle English-only suit, 2001). English-onlyinitiatives appear to embody a pattern of concern among Anglo-Americans abouttheir position relative to other ethnic groups—particularly Latinos.In terms of objective indicators, research shows that such fears are largely without

foundation (Barker et al., 2001). However, the belief that Latinos represent a‘‘threat’’ to the dominant Anglo-American majority may account for support forEnglish-only policies. For example, Huddy and Sears (1995) examined attitudestoward bilingual education of Anglo parents living in heavily Latino areas who hadchildren in a bilingual education program, and who believed that learning Spanish isof little use to their child.Results showed that opposition to bilingual education originated with both pre-

judice and the perception of threat. Moreover, the authors discovered an overlapbetween these two concepts that they found difficult to disentangle. Anglo opposi-tion to bilingual education was associated with living in a heavily Latino area,perceiving educational conflict between Latinos and Anglo-Americans in terms ofcompetition for resources, and negative feelings toward Latinos. Interestingly,Anglos who lived in Latino areas and could speak Spanish were as stronglyopposed to bilingual education programs as those who lived in these areas andcould not speak Spanish. The authors speculated that symbolic fears about thespread of Spanish might have fueled some of the opposition to bilingual educationprograms.Huddy and Sears (1995) argue that insecurity about social identity and Eng-

lish language dominance among Whites may be regarded as ‘‘new racism’’ whichmaterializes as resentment about minority language use, competition for resour-ces, and affirmative action. However, dominant groups may feel a sense ofthreat not based on objective fact but upon sheer supposition. Therefore, ifAnglos believe that Spanish is likely to overwhelm English (even if objectiveevidence suggests that it is not likely), they may take steps to limit the promo-tion and use of Spanish.Major demographic shifts provide an explanation for the perceived rise in Latino

social, political, and economic status, especially in states with large Hispanic popu-lations. Cain et al. (2000) contend that: ‘‘What may matter is change in the ethniccomposition of a neighborhood, the nature of the intergroup contacts and the

78 V. Barker, H. Giles / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 77–95

economic status, cultural distinctiveness or political organization of minority groupmembers’’ (p. 58).In this regard, analyses of 2000 Census data indicate that approximately 60% of

US language minorities speak Spanish at home. And half of all Latinos live in twoStates: California and Texas (US Census Bureau, 2000a). Latinos of Mexican originare most numerous (58.5%) with the majority of those living in the South and West.California is the State with the highest Hispanic population in the US (11 million—31.1% of the total Hispanic population), one third of California’s population areLatino, and one quarter being of Mexican ancestry. While California is the mostlinguistically diverse state in the US, with more than 200 languages in evidence(Ferrell and Hotz, 2000), English remains the official language of the state.As a case study of English-only and social limitation policies, California may

provide some insight for other states with high Latino populations. California pos-sesses a telling history of state initiatives affecting language minorities with regard togovernment services and education. In 1986, Proposition 63 introduced officialEnglish, Proposition 187 (1994) attempted to stop public benefits for illegal immi-grants, Proposition 209 (1997) ended affirmative action and, most recently, Propo-sition 227 (1998) banned bilingual education in elementary schools. Thepreponderance of such initiatives suggests that perceptions of Spanish languagegroups’ vitality are fueling uncertainty about Anglo-American group vitality, andtheir economic, and political status. These concerns about language, demographic,or socio-economic changes overlap; thus, proponents of English-only policies suchas US English and English First, for example, are closely associated with anti-immigration organizations (Padilla et al., 1991; Novick, 1995; Stefancic and Del-gado, 1996; Zentella, 1997; Acuna and Rodriguez, 1998). With regard to this over-lap, the English-only issue (and related initiatives) can be explained by vitalitytheory, discussed next.

1.1. Vitality theory

Based on perceptions of changes taking place in relation to other ethnic or lan-guage groups, vitality theory suggests that English-only policies represent strategiesundertaken by the dominant Anglo-American majority to maintain the status quo inlanguage and social status. The concept of ethnolinguistic vitality (Giles et al., 1977)provides the means to investigate socio-structural factors affecting the strength oflanguage groups within diverse group settings, and their language maintenance, orextinction. The level of an ingroup’s vitality contributes to the extent to which itbehaves as a distinct collective. A language group with high vitality is more likely tosurvive and flourish as a collective entity in an intergroup context. By contrast,groups with low vitality are likely to disappear as discrete linguistic entities inintergroup settings. Language becomes a focal point for dissent when dominantgroups feel a sense of insecurity due to the perceived increase in the vitality of otherethnic and social groups.Vitality can be assessed objectively and subjectively (for a review of empirical

studies examining objective and subjective vitality, see Harwood et al., 1994).

V. Barker, H. Giles / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 77–95 79

Vitality theory holds that structural factors, including the demographic salience,status and institutional control of language groups, provide potential indicators ofobjective linguistic vitality. Demographic salience is the number of memberscomprising a language group, their distribution or concentration throughout acommunity or nation, the birth rate and immigration patterns of language groupsvis-a-vis the dominant group or groups. Institutional control comprises the group’spresence and support in political, media, educational institutions such that onegroup is represented disproportionately relative to another; therefore, able to wieldmore power (Sachdev and Bourhis, 1991).Subjective vitality includes language group members’ assessments of their own

and other language groups’ vitality with regard to their relative socio-structuralpositions—demographic salience, institutional power, and status. Giles et al. (1977)argued that language groups provide social identities that contribute to the self-concept; therefore, group members strive for favorable social identities relative toothers. Social identity can emanate from a variety of groups (gender, race, sexuality,age, or language group).

1.1.1. The nature of subjective vitalityGiles et al., (1985) obtained factor-analytic support for representations of sub-

jective vitality along demographic, institutional support/control, and status factorsdescribed by objective vitality. However, other results have been less clear in termsof the three factors. Currie and Hogg (1994) investigated subjective vitality andsocial adaptation among Vietnamese refugees in Australia. Their six-factor struc-ture did not conform to the original three dimensions of vitality. Instead the threemost robust factors reflected political and economic vitality related to increasingnumbers of Vietnamese, language vitality, and cultural/religious vitality. In over-viewing vitality research, Giles (2001) stated that ‘‘vitality is not a static given but,rather, a malleable social construction depending on social group membership andfluctuating sociopolitical circumstances’’ (p. 473). In addition, he contends that‘‘vitality perceptions are a function. . .of which target groups are in the evaluativeframe, whether the context is the very local neighborhood community or a largerprovincial entity.’’ Researchers continue to use the concept creatively, refining mea-sures of vitality that reflect its flexibility. However, the above findings (and others)led Pittam et al. (1991) to conclude that subjective vitality is better measuredunidimensionally.

1.1.2. Linguistic landscapePerceptions of subjective vitality are driven by the everyday experiences of lin-

guistic group members who compare their own group with others. There are severallinguistic contexts in which subjective perceptions of group vitality are cultivated—in schools, the workplace, via the media. One way that language is salient in acommunity and in interpersonal experience is in the linguistic landscape—a visualindicator of language potency in the community. Landry and Bourhis (1997) devel-oped the concept of the ‘‘linguistic landscape’’ as part of people’s interpersonal net-work of linguistic contacts. The language of public signs, symbols, billboards, street


names, mail advertising, government information, and notifications form theaggregate linguistic landscape of any given area. Linguistic landscape serves asinformation about the linguistic characteristics of the region; more importantly,it symbolizes the strength or weakness of competing linguistic groups withregard to language vitality. For dominant language groups, the provision ofsigns, materials, or advertising in languages other than their own may fuel dis-crimination. When linguistic and symbolic markers of demographic change beginto appear in a community traditionally dominated by one social or ethno-linguistic group, such a development may trigger uncertainty among members ofthat group.Interestingly though, the first analysis of these data (Barker and Giles, 2002)

revealed a negative relationship between Spanish in the linguistic landscape andsupport for English-only policies. In other words, those participants who perceived ahigh level of Spanish in the linguistic landscape were less likely to support English-only policies. This was counter to expectations. The authors speculated that thismight have been an artifact of the research because they asked about perceptions ofcurrent levels of Spanish in the linguistic landscape rather than perceptions ofchange in the level of Spanish in the linguistic landscape. Alternatively, it may havebeen that those participants living in an area with high levels of Spanish in the lin-guistic landscape were more tolerant of other language use.

1.2. The study

In the original research, a telephone survey (n=389) examined Anglo-Americans’subjective perceptions of their own and Latino group members’ vitality in SantaBarbara, California where a significant proportion of the population speaks Span-ish. Recent census data revealed that 30% of the Santa Barbara population areSpanish speakers (US Census Bureau, 2000c). One goal of the study was to deter-mine if perceptions about both Anglo-American and Latino group vitality wererelated to support for English-only policies and social limitation on immigrants andminorities (e.g., tighter immigration controls, an end to affirmative action, or denialof social and health services to illegal immigrants). For comparison, relevantdemographic data for Santa Barbara, California and the US are summarized inTable 1.Six predictors of support for English-only policies were identified in the sample:

Age (negative relationship), language group identity, incidence of Spanish in thelinguistic landscape (negative relationship), the belief that Latinos are increasing innumber, level of education (negative relationship), and Latino vitality.Also, there were positive relationships between perceptions of growing Latino

vitality and social limitation policies (i.e., disapproval of affirmative action; thedesire for stricter immigration controls; the denial of health and education servicesto illegal immigrants; and disagreement with legal immigrants being allowed to settlerelatives in the US). With regard to perceptions about Anglo vitality, there werenegative relationships with such limitations of immigrants and minorities. There-fore, not surprisingly, there were positive associations between support for English-


only policies and support for social limitation of immigrants and minorities. (For adetailed description of these findings, see Barker and Giles, 2002).The original investigation looked at the relationship between perceptions about

Latino group vitality and Anglo group vitality and support for English-only andrelated policies. The emphasis was primarily on perceptions of Latino vitality;however, the data showed that perceptions about Anglo-American vitality to beinfluential. Barker and Giles (2002) suggested that it is likely that the dis-crepancy between perceptions concerning levels of Latino vitality and Anglovitality maybe more telling than the level of Latino vitality per se. In otherwords, if Anglo-Americans perceive that that the gap between Anglo groupvitality and Latino group vitality is growing smaller then they are more likely tosupport English-only policies and social limitation on immigrants and minorities.This discrepancy is described here as ‘‘relative vitality,’’ and its influence (althoughdiscussed) had never been empirically assessed. Therefore, the following hypothesesposit that:

H1.

a. Among Anglo-Americans, perceptions of relative vitality will be negatively
related to support for English-only policies.
b. Among Anglo-Americans, perceptions of relative vitality will be negatively
related to support for social limitation for immigrants and minorities.
Also, based on previous findings:

H2. Language group identity will be positively related to support for English onlypolicies.

Miller (2000) contends that ‘‘What seems inescapable is the understanding that ouridentities are shaped by and through our use of language. And so the question ofwhich language is in use is an important one in the identity stakes’’ (p. 74). Therefore,if the gap between Anglo-American group vitality and Latino group vitality is per-ceived to be growing smaller then it is logical to expect that this may relate to ingroupallegiance in terms of language. Therefore, the third hypothesis posits:

Table 1

Language and US census data 2000a

Location
%
Hispanic

% English-

only speakers

% Spanish

speakers

%

Professional

Mean

income

(dollars)

% Bachelor’s

degree plus

%

Over

60

Santa Barbara
35 64 30 40 62,937 40 17
California
32 61 26 36 64,725 27 14
United States
13 82 11 34 56,604 24 16
a Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. Source: US Census Bureau, 2000b–d.


H3. Perceptions about relative vitality will negatively covary with language groupidentity.The Landry and Bourhis (1997) findings indicated that a minority language in the

mass media (e.g., television, radio, magazines, music) loaded onto the linguisticlandscape factor in addition to signs/symbols in the community. And therefore,Barker and Giles (2002) incorporated mass media into their Spanish in the linguisticlandscape measure. However, Landry and Bourhis (1997) found that a minoritylanguage in the mass media also loaded as a distinct factor in their study. Thereforethe following hypothesis is posited:

H4.

a. The level of Spanish in the mass media will be negatively related to support
for English-only policies.
b. The level of Spanish in the mass media will be negatively related to support
for social limitation of immigrants and minorities.
Barker and Giles (2002) found a relatively strong correlation between support forEnglish-only policies and support for social limitation. Therefore a final hypothesisis proposed:

H5. Support for English-only policies is a form of support for social limitation ofimmigrants and minorities.

Fig. 1. The hypothesized model.


The proposed structural equation model (Fig. 1) tests the hypotheses describedabove. Based on theory, structural equation modeling provides the means to test‘‘causal’’ relations between multiple variables. As a pictorial representation, theresulting model offers a clearer conceptualization of the theory. This process is animprovement on alternative statistical methods (e.g., regression models) becauseSEM is a confirmatory (hypothesis-testing) process rather than a descriptive one,and also it provides explicit estimates of error variance. Additionally, while othermethods are based upon observed variables only, SEM has the power to includeunobserved (i.e., latent variables) in the equation (Byrne, 2001).

2. Method

2.1. Population

Using random digit dialing (RDD) (Lavrakas, 1993), a sample of households withtelephones was drawn from nine zip codes in Santa Barbara, California [provided byScientific Telephone Samples (STS)]. The sample was weighted so that the RDDnumbers were created from telephone blocks in proportion to the number of esti-mated household listings in each working block. An estimated 1.8% of householdsresiding in these zip codes were without telephones.Participants (over the age of 18) were interviewed for approximately 20 min by

undergraduate research assistants (n=22) between October 2000, and May 2001.(No statistical differences were found in variables of interest between earlier andlater participants.) The research assistants received in-class briefing and training(three sessions of 2 h each), and were required to pilot interview five respondents(not included in the final sample) before beginning study interviews. Interviewerswere instructed to call between the hours of 4–9 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday,and late morning at weekends. Interviewers were provided an interview protocolthat detailed exactly how they were to conduct interviews, and how they shouldrecord the outcomes.Out of a total of 1123 telephone contacts, 512 respondents (response rate=46%)

were interviewed, but for the purposes of this investigation, only the responses ofAnglo-Americans (n=389; 76% of participants) were analyzed. This subset included157 males and 232 females with a mean age of 48 years (age range=18–91 years),and with an average level of education of associate degree or higher.

2.1.1. InstrumentAll items (except the demographic questions) were closed-ended and asked parti-

cipants to respond on a five-point Likert-like measure (e.g., 1=very strongly dis-agree; 5=very strongly agree). The questionnaire included items asking for age, sex,level of schooling, ethnicity, work-status. Additionally, there were several indicesmeasuring variables of interest. Initially, these items and indices were constructedbased on vitality theory and allied research. Subsequent to data collection, the rele-vant items were subjected to reliability analysis and also to factor analysis. To be


included in the data analysis, items had to show internal reliability and/or also loadon one factor in the factor analysis.

2.1.2. The English-only indexThis index contained a battery of seven questions measuring beliefs about the

current status of the English language, beliefs about immigrants learning English,and support for English-only. The score from these summed items was used to assessparticipants’ beliefs about English and support for English-only policies. The ratio-nale for retaining items is detailed in the description of the data analysis.

2.1.3. Social limitation indexFive items assessed support for affirmative action, immigration control, limitation

of health, education, welfare services to immigrants, and immigrants’ rights andresponsibilities. The summed score was intended to assess participants’ beliefs aboutsocial limitations on immigrants and minorities.

2.1.4. Perceptions of group vitalityTo measure subjective vitality, an abbreviated version of the subjective vitality

questionnaire (Bourhis et al., 1981) was used. These items comprise measures of thethree components of vitality—demography, status and control, and institutionalsupport. However, the number of items included were weighed against concern forresponse rate, given the length of the total questionnaire. Participants answeredquestions relating to perceived Anglo (four items) and Latino (four items) economicand political status, power, and wealth. These items pertaining to perceived groupvitality were summed to construct a composite score for each participant formingvitality indices for both Latinos and Anglo-Americans (to compare perceived levelsof same). The outcome was a unidimensional measure of group vitality.

2.1.5. Linguistic and group identityFour amended items from the collective self-esteem scale (Luhtanen and Crocker,

1992) were used to measure beliefs about group-belonging, and allegiance to lan-guage. Summed scores from the items were computed for each participant on thislanguage identity index. Additionally, participants were asked to identify howAmerican they felt on a measure of 1–5 (5=completely American).

2.1.6. Spanish mass mediaAs an indicator of perceptions about growing linguistic presence, the incidence of

Spanish in the mass media was assessed. Participants’ responses to the six massmedia items were summed to compute scores on the linguistic landscape index.

3. Data analysis

All items (apart from demographic data) were coded positively; therefore, a highscore indicated strong support for English-only, high language/ethnic group vitality,


strong support for social limitation of immigrants and minorities, etc. Missingvalues were replaced with the mean score for the item (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996).Items intended for inclusion in the indices described above were subjected to testsfor internal reliability. Reliability coefficients were computed for each of the indicesusing Cronbach’s alpha. Nunnally (1967) established a pre-set level of 0.60, asacceptable for exploratory work. The English-only index (measuring support forEnglish-only) consisted of only four items (three items dropped), and posted areliability coefficient of 0.65. The social limitation index, (with one item removed)posted reliability score of 0.60. The Anglo vitality index (comprising four items)posted a reliability score of 0.84, the Latino vitality index, also comprising fouritems, posted a score of 0.80. The relative vitality measure was computed by sub-tracting the participants’ scores on each indicator of perceived Latino vitality fromthe respective indicator of Anglo group vitality and by summing these to form acomposite score (alpha=0.84).The language group identity index, with one item removed for a total of three

items, posted a score of 0.63. And the Spanish mass media index (six items) posted ascore of 0.89. The indices and items are summarized in Table 2.

4. Findings

To test the model in Fig. 2, we used structural equation modeling. This is a pro-cedure whereby the predicted covariance matrix is compared with the obtainedcovariance matrix. The match between the two is assessed by means of a w2 test. Anonsignificant w2 indicates that the model fits the data well. However, this is not areliable indicator. ‘‘With small samples, the computed �2 actually may not be dis-tributed as �2, leading to inaccurate probability levels’’ (Tabachnick and Fidell,1996, p. 748). A good fit may be indicated by a ratio of �2 to the degrees of freedomin the range of 2:1 or 3:1 (Carmines and McIver, 1981). There are also a variety ofmeasures of model fit. One of the most widely used is the root mean squareapproximation (RMSEA). A RMSEA of about .05 or less indicates a close fit of themodel in relation to the degrees of freedom (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). And also,the comparative fit index (CFI) is a statistic that falls between 0 and 1. CFI valuesclose to 1 indicate a very good model fit to data (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999). Asimilar interpretation is made when using the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI).The hypothesized model illustrated in Fig. 1 is non-recursive. This means that it

contains two structural equation models where the dependent variable of one equa-tion features as a predictor variable of the other equation. In such models, the exis-tence of feedback loops means that there is a possibility of infinite sequences oflinear dependencies. A measure of the stability of these linear dependencies is thestability index. If the stability index falls between �1 and 1 then the model is stable.An unstable model is impossible; that is, wrong or based on a sample size too smallto provide reliable estimates (Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999).These data were analyzed using the Analysis of Moment Structures program

(AMOS, 4.0) (Arbuckle, 1999). Typically, testing a model is a two-step process. First,


the measurement model is tested and then the structural model (i.e., relationshipsbetween latent factors). The measurement model is the set of connections betweenobserved and unobserved (factors or latent) variables. Observed variables form indi-cators of the factors or latent variables unobserved in the process of data collection.

4.1. The measurement model

The measurement model was evaluated in two stages. First, confirmatory factoranalysis assessed the presence of the latent variables in the data (i.e., Latino vitality,Anglo vitality, support for English-only, support for social limitation, languagegroup identity, Spanish in media). After seven iterations, principal componentsanalysis, with Varimax rotation, extracted seven factors accounting for 62% of the

Table 2

Indices and items

English-only Support (five-point response range: strongly disagree to strongly agree). I believe:

in bilingual education in elementary schools. (reversed)

that the government should provide information in different languages. (reversed)

that everyone has the right to use his or her language at any time. (reversed)

that everyone should speak English at work.

that English will become a minority language in the US.

that English is a part of the American identity.

that most immigrants learn to speak English quickly.

Social Limitation Support (five-point response range: strongly disagree to strongly agree). I believe:

that affirmative action unfairly favors one group over another

that the government should enforce immigration controls more strictly

that legal immigrants should be allowed to settle relatives here.(reversed)

in the denial of education and welfare services to illegal immigrants

that all legal immigrants should become American citizens.

Anglo Vitality and Latino Vitality (five-point response range: none to all)

How much Economic and business control do Anglos/Latinos have?

How much political control do Anglos/Latinos have?

How much power do Anglos/Latinos have?

How much wealth do Anglos/Latinos have?

Language Group Identity (five-point response range: strongly disagree to strongly agree)

I feel good about my first language as a sign of my social group.

My language has very little to do with how I feel about myself. (reversed)

My first language is an important reflection of who I am.

I often regret that I belong to a group that speaks my first language

Spanish Mass Media (five-point response range: none to all Spanish)

Please indicate the language used in your neighborhood in the following media and information sources:

Music, Television, Magazines, Movies, Video Rentals, Radio

NB: Only items in bold comprise indices. Remaining items were dropped.


88

Fig. 2. The final model. All relationships statistically significant at >0.05 or better except for the path from English-only to Social Limitation as hypothesized.

V.Barker,

H.Giles

/Language&

Communica

tion24(2004)77–95

variance. The results of the factor analysis broadly conformed to expectations withobserved variables loading on factors—Spanish in the mass media, Anglo groupvitality, Latino group vitality, and language identity. However, items intended asindicators of support for English only policies and support for social limitationloaded inconsistently. These findings are summarized in Table 3.Because of these inconsistencies, three variables were removed from the model (‘‘I

believe that legal immigrants should be allowed to settle relatives here.’’[reversed]; ‘‘Ibelieve that everyone should speak English at work’’; ‘‘I believe that everyone hasthe right to use his or her language at any time’’ [reversed]). The pattern of resultsfrom the second test of the measurement model indicated that it was a good fit to thedata [�2(127)=246.3, P<0.0001, �2/df=1.94, TLI=0.94, CFI=0.95,RMSEA=0.49, stability index=0.089]. The standardized path coefficients for eachof the items are presented in Table 4. All the indicator variables showed relativelyhigh path coefficients from their latent factor.

Table 3

Factor analysis of measurement model 1

Rotated factor matrices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Eigenvalue
4.44 4.21 2.30 1.66 1.42 1.08 1.03
Percent of variance explained
17.8 16.8 9.2 6.7 5.7 4.3 4.1
Level of Spanish on television
0.84
Level of Spanish in video rentals
0.83
Level of Spanish in magazines
0.81
Level of Spanish on radio
0.80
Level of Spanish in music
0.79
Level of Spanish in movies
0.75
Level of power (Anglos)
0.82
Level of political control (Anglos)
0.80
Level of economic and business control (Anglos)
0.79
Level of wealth (Anglos)
0.76
Level of political control (Latinos)
0.78
Level of economic and business control (Latino)
0.77
Level of power (Latinos)
0.76
Level of wealth (Latinos)
0.73
Believe affirmative action unfairly favors one group
0.67
Believe that everyone should speak English at work
0.67
Believe in denial of education and welfare services
0.65
Believe in strong enforcement of immigration controls
0.85
My language is an important reflection of who I am
0.76
My language has a lot to do with how I feel about myself
0.60
I feel good about my language as a sign of my social group
0.64
I believe immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to settle relatives in US
0.76
I don’t believe everyone has the right to speak their language
0.60
Do not believe in bilingual education
0.51
Believe that government info should not be in other languages
0.59

4.2. Test of the structural model

The first test of the structural model indicated that the path coefficients betweenSpanish in the mass media and support for social limitation of immigrants andminorities, as well as relative vitality and support for English-only were not statisti-cally significant. Therefore, these paths were removed to form a secondmodel (Fig. 2).This model showed a good overall fit to the covariance matrix [�2(129)=246.8,

P<0.0001, �2/df=1.91, TLI=0.94, CFI=0.95, RMSEA=0.49, stabilityindex=0.101]; therefore, this model was accepted as the final model. All paths werestatistically significant in the hypothesized direction.

5. Discussion

The findings indicated that, among Anglo-Americans, perceptions of a decreasinggap between Anglo group vitality and Latino group vitality is related to support forsocial limitation of immigrants and minorities. Additionally, high language group

Table 4

Standardized path coefficients and r2 of measurement model 2

b
r2
Spanish in Media

Level of Spanish on television
0.81 0.65
Level of Spanish in video Rentals
0.79 0.63
Level of Spanish in magazines
0.78 0.61
Level of Spanish on radio
0.76 0.58
Level of Spanish in music
0.74 0.55
Level of Spanish in movies
0.71 0.50
Relative Vitality

Level of power
0.81 0.67
Level of economic and business control
0.75 0.57
Level of political control
0.74 0.55
Level of wealth
0.72 0.51
Support for Social Limitation Policies

Believe in denial of education and welfare services
0.65 0.42
Believe affirmative action unfairly favors one group
0.52 0.27
Believe in strong enforcement of immigration controls
0.46 0.21
Support for English-only Policies

Believe that government info should not be in other languages
0.73 0.53
Do not believe in bilingual education
0.57 0.32
Language Group Identity

My language is an important reflection of who I am
0.93 0.86
I feel good about my language as a sign of my social group
0.52 0.27
My language has a lot to do with how I feel about myself
0.47 0.22

identity was associated with support for English-only policies, but not with support forsocial limitation of immigrants and minorities. Spanish language media were asso-ciated with low support for English-only policies, but their presence was not associatedwith support for social limitation. As expected, relative vitality and language groupidentity were co-variants. While the path from support for social limitation was sta-tistically significant, the non-significant path from support for English-only policies tosupport for social limitation in the model indicates that support for English-only isreally one facet of support for social limitation of immigrants and minorities.The negative finding concerning the incidence of Spanish in media is, perhaps, the

most potentially ‘‘optimistic’’ finding. It may be that contact with Spanish in themass media makes it appear less ‘‘threatening’’ to Anglo-Americans. As Spanishlanguage media appear to be on the increase (Barker et al., 2001), this may bode wellfor intergroup relations. However, social psychological research investigating thetheory that contact breeds tolerance shows that it takes more than just contactbetween social groups. Other necessary factors are interdependence, common goals,equal status, encouragement by authorities, and maintenance of group salience (e.g.,Hewstone and Brown, 1986; Pettigrew, 1988; Fox and Giles, 1993; Brown, 2000).As mentioned earlier, the instrument did not ask about change. The items simply

asked for perceptions regarding the status-quo in the linguistic landscape. If per-ceptions of change had been measured, then the findings may have been different.Anglo-Americans accustomed to living in geographic areas where English has typi-cally been the only language in the media may feel uncertainty when that begins tochange.With regard to other potential limitations associated with this research, telephone

interviewing is becoming increasingly difficult due to the prevalence of telemarket-ing. This is reflected in the low response rate (46%). However, the expected ‘‘coop-eration rate’’ among telemarketers varies between 30 and 40% (STS, 2000);therefore, by that standard, the response rate for this study was acceptable. It isimpossible to say though if individuals who refused to participate were significantlydifferent from those who agreed. This may have compromised the findings in termsof representation of the population under study.Also, there was a considerable gender imbalance in favor of female participants in

the sample. One reason may be that women tend to answer the telephone more thanmen (DM Dozier, personal communication, 4 October 2001). In a study of trends inattitudes toward participation in survey research, Schleifer (1986) noted that womenare much more willing than men to participate in surveys. In this study there wereno gender effects relating to support for English-only policies or social limitation ofimmigrants; therefore, the gender imbalance presents less of a threat to validity thanmight appear.Unfortunately, there may have been an element of social desirability with regard

to answers relating to social limitation of immigrants. Interviewers reported reluc-tance by some participants to respond to these items even though anonymity wasassured. Proposition 227 had already limited bilingual education, and so respon-dents may have felt less inhibited about responding to the support for English-onlyitems.


Whereas Barker and Giles (2002) highlighted the importance of group vitality inthis arena, the findings here revealed that perceptions of relative group vitality ismost influential in driving support for social limitation polices. If Anglo-Americanssupport social limitation of immigrants and minorities because of perceptions abouttheir position relative to Latinos (as appears), then this has implications for the futureof the Latino population in California. It may be that as the Latino and Spanish-speaking population grows the tendency to adopt social change strategies to main-tain Anglo-American dominance may also grow. And as Portes and MacLeod(1996) discovered in their study of second generation immigrant children, the waysuch children are educated, and the socio-economic situation in which they areraised, is highly influential in their achievement. Already there exists an underclassof Latino youth embroiled in gangs (Belitz and Valdez, 1997), and dropping out ofschool (Rumberger and Larson, 1998).Our findings from this investigation point to a real need to elevate group vitality,

linguistic landscape, and increased diversity of language in relation to their impacton intercultural communication competence. Up to now, intercultural communi-cation theories in this area have not incorporated these concepts [e.g., see Wiseman’s(1995) collection]. The part played by perceptions of group vitality, and awarenessof or contact with the topography of the linguistic landscape in cueing or alleviatinganxiety and uncertainty requires consideration. These issues must impact the ways inwhich members of language groups communicate with each other on a daily basis(in addition to influencing potential change or maintenance strategies). How indivi-duals from differing ethnic, and language groups communicatively accommodatemay be influenced by their subjective perceptions of each other’s relative vitality andpresence in the linguistic landscape.Our research looked at the influence of Spanish in the linguistic landscape and

with regard to Anglo-Americans’ perceptions of outgroup vitality. Clearly, we needto include in the empirical frame Hispanic populations and other ethnic groupsincorporating them into suggestions that follow. Ethnographic research in organi-zational and institutional settings could be devised to reveal the ways that peoplefrom differing language groups communicate about and function in English-onlyenvironments. Discursive (and other) analyses of representations of English-onlyand related issues in the media could be conducted to garner more evidence abouthow such media messages are framed and discussed as well as determine ways inwhich the media influences groups’ perceptions of subjective vitality.Moves to restrict the linguistic (and other) rights of minority groups are ubiqui-

tous in countries other than the US Gallois (2001, p. 2) recently commented that‘‘there are analogous movements in the United Kingdom and in some other Eur-opean countries, and Asia is not immune from ethnolinguistic prejudice either.These political movements show how sensitive majority groups can be, and howpowerfully they can react, to perceived increases in the vitality of ethnic minorities’’.Because the relationship between restriction of linguistic rights and other forms oflimitation are underscored here, these findings have relevance for all countries andcontexts where such limitations take place. The role of subjective perceptions aboutchanging group vitality, linguistic landscape, and the concomitant relationships to


group identity all appear to be part of the equation when it comes to intolerance andlanguage restriction.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant to the authors from the LinguisticMinorities Research Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

References

Acuna, R.F., Rodriquez, G., 1998. June 29. Who killed bilingual education? (pro and con arguments

concerning what led to the end of bilingual education in California). Nation 2–4.

Arbuckle, J.L., 1999. Amos 4.0 (computer software). Smallwaters, Chicago.

Arbuckle, J.L., Wothke, W., 1999. Amos 4.0 User’s Guide. SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago, IL.

Barker, V., Giles, H., 2002. Who supports the English-only movement?: evidence for misconceptions

about Latino group vitality. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23, 353–370.

Barker, V., Giles, H., Noels, K., Duck, J., Hecht, M., Clement, R., 2001. The English-only movement:

a communication analysis of changing perceptions of language vitality. Journal of Communication 51,

3–37.

Barrett, P.M., 1993. English-only rule upheld (court upholds on-the-job language rule of Spun Steak Co.).

Wall Street Journal, pp. B2, B8.

Belitz, J., Valdez, D.M., 1997. A sociocultural context for understanding gang involvement among

Mexican-American male youth. In: Garcia, J.G., Zea, M.C. (Eds.), Psychological Interventions and

Research with Latino Populations. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, pp. 56–72.

Bourhis, R., Giles, H., Rosenthal, D., 1981. Notes on the construction of a ‘‘subjective vitality

questionnaire’’ for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development 2,

145–155.

Brown, R.J., 2000. Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges.

European Journal of Social Psychology 30, 745–778.

Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S.

(Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136–162.

Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and

Programming. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Cain, B., Citrin, J., Wong, C., 2000. Ethnic Context, Race Relations, and California Politics. Public

Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA.

Carmines, E.G., McIver, J.P., 1981. Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In: Bohrnstedt, G.W.,

Borgetta, E.F. (Eds.), Social Measurement: Current Issues. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 63–116.

Cooper, R.T., 1999. Inquiry into English-only tests ordered (by the President’s Advisory Commission on

Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans). Los Angeles Times, p. A3.

Crawford, J., 2000. At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Currie, M., Hogg, M.A., 1994. Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality and social adaptation among Vietnamese

refugees in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108, 97–115.

Ferrell, D., Hotz, R.L., 2000. Ethnic pockets amid a vast fabric of English. Los Angeles Times, pp. A1,

A16–18.

Fox, S.A., Giles, H., 1993. Accommodating intergenerational contact: a critique and theoretical model.

Journal of Aging Studies 7, 423–451.

Gallois, C., 2001. Communication and identity-the English-only movement. ICA Newsletter 29 (7), 2–4.

Giles, H., 2001. Ethnolinguistic vitality. In: Mesthrie, R. (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics.

Elsevier, Oxford, p. 473.


Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y., Taylor, D.M., 1977. Towards a theory of language in ethnic group

relations. In: Giles, H. (Ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Academic Press,

London, pp. 307–348.

Giles, H., Rosenthal, D., Young, L., 1985. Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality: the Anglo and Greek-

Australian setting. Journal of Multilingual and multicultural Development 6, 253–269.

Harwood, J., Giles, G., Bourhis, R.Y., 1994. The genesis of vitality theory: historical patterns and

discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108, 167–206.

Hewstone, M.R.C., Brown, R.J., 1986. Contact is not enough: an intergroup perspective on the contact

hypothesis. In: Hewsone, M.R.C., Brown, R.J. (Eds.), Contact and Conflict in Iintergroup Encounters.

Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–44.

Huddy, L., Sears, D.O., 1995. Opposition to bilingual education: prejudice or the defense of realistic

interests? Social Psychology Quarterly 58, 133–143.

Landry, R., Bourhis, R.Y., 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: an empirical study.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16, 23–49.

Lavrakas, P.J., 1993. Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling Selection, and Supervision, 2nd ed. Sage,

Newbury Park, CA.

Luhtanen, R., Crocker, J., 1992. A collective self-esteem scale: self-evaluation of one’s social identity.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, 302–318.

Miller, J.M., 2000. Language use, identity, and social interaction: migrant students in Australia. Research

on Language and Social Interaction 33, 69–100.

Novick, M., 1995. White Lies White Power: The Fight against White Supremacy and Reactionary

Violence. Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME.

Nunnally, J., 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill, New York.

Padilla, A.M., Lindholm, K.J., Chen, A., Duran, R., Hakuta, K., Lambert, W., Tucker, R.G., 1991. The

English-only movement: myths, reality, and implications for psychology. American Psychologist 46,

120–130.

Pettigrew, T.F., 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49, 65–85.

Pittam, J., Gallois, C., Willemyns, M., 1991. Perceived change in ethnolinguistic vitality by dominant and

minority groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 12, 449–457.

Portes, A., MacLeod, D., 1996. Educational progress of children of immigrants: the roles of class,

ethnicity, and school context. Sociology of Education 69, 255–275.

Rumberger, R.W., Larson, K.A., 1998. Toward explaining differences in educational achievement among

Mexican American language-minority students. Sociology of Education 71, 68–92.

Sachdev, I., Bourhis, R.Y., 1991. Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations.

European Journal of Social Psychology 21, 1–24.

Sack, K., 1999. Don’t speak English? No tax break, Alabama official declares. New York Times, pp. A19,

A24.

School, EEOC settle English-only suit. 2001. Los Angeles Times, p. A16.

Schleifer, S., 1986. Trends in attitudes toward participation in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly

50, 17–27.

Schmidt, R., 2000. Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States. Temple University Press,

Philadelphia.

Scientific Telephone Samples. 2000. User Manual. (Brochure).

Stefancic, J., Delgado, R., 1996. No Mercy: How Conservative Think Tanks and Foundations Changed

America’s Social Agenda. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics, third ed. HarperCollins College

Publishers, New York.

US Census Bureau, 2000a. The Hispanic Population. Census 2000 Brief. United States Department of

Commerce, Washington, DC.

US Census Bureau, 2000c. Profile of General Characteristics: 2000. Geographic Area: Santa Barbara City,

California. United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

US Census Bureau, 2000b. Profile of General Characteristics: 2000. Geographic Area: California. United

States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.


US Census Bureau, 2000d. Profile of General Characteristics: 2000. Geographic Area: United States.

United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Westphal, S.P., 2000. Language-based denial of insurance triggers suit. Los Angeles Times, pp. B1, B5.

Wiseman, R. (Ed.), 1995. Theories of Intercultural Communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zentella, A.C., 1997. The hispanophobia of the official English movement in the US. International

Journal of the Sociology of Language 127, 71–86.


english-only policies: perceived support and social limitation

Documents