Article published in:
Language Problems and Language Planning
Vol. 41:2 (2017) ► pp. 103–114

Language rights in the constitutions, organic acts, and statutes of the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States

| University of Tulsa
The constitutions, organic acts, and statutes of the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States are given an exhaustive screening to identify legal language defining the linguistic obligations of each territory or associated state and the language rights of individuals and groups dwelling within. The author suggests that the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States are well served by “hands-on” policies declaring provisions that protect the rights of language minority groups, or of all people living in the territory (i.e., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa) and associated states (i.e., the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau). As in many states in the United States, the absence of an explicit language policy in the United States Virgin Islands has not prevented it from practicing implicit language policies that promote the use of English while also allowing minority languages to be used in the territory. Unlike many states in the United States which declare English as the sole official language and/or enact provisions to protect official English, none of the territories and associated states of the United States declares English as the sole official language or establishes provisions that hinder the rights of language minority groups.
Keywords: language legislation, territories, Freely Associated States, United States, language rights, official language, language policy
Published online: 27 October 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.41.2.01fai
References

References

Barreto, A. A.
(2001) The politics of language in Puerto Rico. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Crawford, J.
(2000) At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dookhan, I.
(1994) A history of the Virgin Islands of the United States. Kingston, Jamaica: Canoe Press.Google Scholar
Faingold, E. D.
(2004) Language rights and language justice in the constitutions of the world. Language Problems and Language Planning, 28, 11–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Language rights in the 2004 draft of the European Union Constitution. Language Problems and Language Planning, 31, 25–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012a) Language rights in the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In P. C. Miller, J. L. Watzke and M. Montero (Eds.), Readings in language studies, volume 3: Language and identity (pp. 447–457). Grandville, MI: International Society for Language Studies.Google Scholar
(2012b) Official English in the constitutions and statutes of the fifty states in the United States. Language Problems and Language Planning, 36, 136–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Official English in the constitutions and legislative statutes of the 50 states in the United States. Presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists. Geneva, Switzerland. July 22–27.
(2014) Language rights for Mexican Americans and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In P. C. Miller, J. L. Watzke and M. Montero (Eds.), Readings in language studies, volume 4: Language and social justice (pp. 271–281). Grandville, MI: International Society for Language Studies.Google Scholar
(2015) Language rights in the European Union and the Treaty of Lisbon. Language Problems and Language Planning, 39, 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016a) Language rights for minorities and the right to code-switch in the United States. In P. C. Miller, B. G. Rubrecht, E. A. Mikulec and C. T. McGivern (Eds.), Readings in language studies, volume 6: A critical examination of language and community (pp. 1–13). Grandville, MI: International Society for Language Studies.Google Scholar
(2016b) Language rights in Catalonia and the constitutional right to secede from Spain. Language Problems and Language Planning, 40, 146–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, J. F. & Grabowski, P. A.
(1992) U.S. Territories and Possessions. New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers.Google Scholar
Leibowitz, A. H.
(1989) Defining status: A comprehensive analysis of U.S. territorial policy. Dordrech: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
McKay, S. & Hornberger, N.
(1996) Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R.
(2003) English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. & Skutnabb-Kangas, T.
(1996) English-only worldwide or language ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 429–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, J. R.
(2000) American Sāmoa: 100 years under the United States flag. Honolulu: Island Heritage Publishing.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. G.
(2006) Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tully, J.
(1995) Strange multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turi, G.
(1994) Typology of language legislation. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 111–119). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Varennes, F. de
(1996) Language, minorities and human rights. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Willens, H. P., & Siemer, D. C.
(2002) An honorable accord: The covenant between the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Faingold, Eduardo D.
2018. Language rights in the United States island territory of Guam. Language Problems and Language Planning 42:2 ► pp. 113 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.