{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/98149"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/98149","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Local language policy: shifting scales in the English-only movement","abstract":"This dissertation examines how language policymakers in the United States write, discuss, and resist local English-only policies. By tracing the trajectories of four interconnected, local campaigns to make English the official language, I show that such policies are not static texts or abstract impositions, but rather a kind of writing, one that emerges through local action, collaboration, revision, uptake, and other literate activities. As one of the few studies to examine how politicians and other policymakers write, and the first to focus on the writing practices of people in the English-only movement, this dissertation sheds light on the broader question of how people create and change policies, particularly ones that reflect and affect people’s understandings of language and communication. In order to analyze how and why people enact such policies, I conducted audio- and video-recorded interviews with 24 activists, writers, and politicians; analyzed public government records, videos, and digital discourse; and visited the archives of John Tanton (who founded the organizations ProEnglish and U.S. English), former US Senator Paul Simon, and the National Council of Teachers of English. I argue that local policies in schools, workplaces, and, increasingly, governments have played a crucial role in shaping how people learn, use, and view language. At the same time, the local scale is an ideological, discursive concept that is constantly open to further entrenchment or renegotiation, and it is always still connected to other scales. Local language policies thus provide opportunities for people to (re)write not only their stances towards language, but also their definitions of community. The opening chapter, “Local Language Policy,” introduces these arguments; provides a history of such policies in the US; introduces an analytical framework that combines work on language policy, situated studies of writing, and research on local language practices; and describes the stakes of this project for writing studies and related fields. In Chapter 2, I move into the “Methodology and Methods” of the study. Chapter 3, “Networked Localism,” focuses on how people write and circulate local English-only policies, through text histories of four policies that were based on the same template. In Chapter 4, “Upscaling and Downscaling,” I turn from writing practices to language ideologies, in order to show that, rather than adhere to a “one nation-one language” ideal, people in the English-only movement flexibly align across, and distance themselves from, various scales. The fifth chapter, “Resisting and Rewriting,” focuses on the experiences and strategies of people opposed to the English-only movement. Through a case study of a group of participants who successfully repealed their county’s language policy, this analysis offers a model for future language advocacy by showing the possibilities of meshing multilingual, translingual, and raciolinguistic orientations towards language. Ultimately, this dissertation opens up the worlds of policymaking, prescriptivism, and English-only activism to more situated, discursive analysis, and the field of writing studies to a kind of writing that has significantly shaped American identity, education, and citizenship.","abstract_html":"This dissertation examines how language policymakers in the United States write, discuss, and resist local English-only policies. By tracing the trajectories of four interconnected, local campaigns to make English the official language, I show that such policies are not static texts or abstract impositions, but rather a kind of writing, one that emerges through local action, collaboration, revision, uptake, and other literate activities. As one of the few studies to examine how politicians and other policymakers write, and the first to focus on the writing practices of people in the English-only movement, this dissertation sheds light on the broader question of how people create and change policies, particularly ones that reflect and affect people’s understandings of language and communication. In order to analyze how and why people enact such policies, I conducted audio- and video-recorded interviews with 24 activists, writers, and politicians; analyzed public government records, videos, and digital discourse; and visited the archives of John Tanton (who founded the organizations ProEnglish and U.S. English), former US Senator Paul Simon, and the National Council of Teachers of English. I argue that local policies in schools, workplaces, and, increasingly, governments have played a crucial role in shaping how people learn, use, and view language. At the same time, the local scale is an ideological, discursive concept that is constantly open to further entrenchment or renegotiation, and it is always still connected to other scales. Local language policies thus provide opportunities for people to (re)write not only their stances towards language, but also their definitions of community. The opening chapter, “Local Language Policy,” introduces these arguments; provides a history of such policies in the US; introduces an analytical framework that combines work on language policy, situated studies of writing, and research on local language practices; and describes the stakes of this project for writing studies and related fields. In Chapter 2, I move into the “Methodology and Methods” of the study. Chapter 3, “Networked Localism,” focuses on how people write and circulate local English-only policies, through text histories of four policies that were based on the same template. In Chapter 4, “Upscaling and Downscaling,” I turn from writing practices to language ideologies, in order to show that, rather than adhere to a “one nation-one language” ideal, people in the English-only movement flexibly align across, and distance themselves from, various scales. The fifth chapter, “Resisting and Rewriting,” focuses on the experiences and strategies of people opposed to the English-only movement. Through a case study of a group of participants who successfully repealed their county’s language policy, this analysis offers a model for future language advocacy by showing the possibilities of meshing multilingual, translingual, and raciolinguistic orientations towards language. Ultimately, this dissertation opens up the worlds of policymaking, prescriptivism, and English-only activism to more situated, discursive analysis, and the field of writing studies to a kind of writing that has significantly shaped American identity, education, and citizenship.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Flowers, Katherine S"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"English","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Prior, Paul","Baron, Dennis","Schaffner, Spencer","Koven, Michèle"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2017,"date_issued":"2017-09-29T17:45:36Z","date_published":"2017-09-29T17:45:36Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:35Z","subjects":["English","Writing studies","Language policy","Discourse analysis","English-only movement","Scale","Local"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2017 Katherine S. Flowers"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98149","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Prior, Paul","Baron, Dennis","Schaffner, Spencer","Koven, Michèle"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Flowers, Katherine S"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2017-09-29T17:45:36Z","2020-03-03T10:15:22Z","2017-05-01","2017-08"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["English"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["English","Writing studies","Language policy","Discourse analysis","English-only movement","Scale","Local"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2017 Katherine S. Flowers"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98149"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["This dissertation examines how language policymakers in the United States write, discuss, and resist local English-only policies. By tracing the trajectories of four interconnected, local campaigns to make English the official language, I show that such policies are not static texts or abstract impositions, but rather a kind of writing, one that emerges through local action, collaboration, revision, uptake, and other literate activities. As one of the few studies to examine how politicians and other policymakers write, and the first to focus on the writing practices of people in the English-only movement, this dissertation sheds light on the broader question of how people create and change policies, particularly ones that reflect and affect people’s understandings of language and communication. In order to analyze how and why people enact such policies, I conducted audio- and video-recorded interviews with 24 activists, writers, and politicians; analyzed public government records, videos, and digital discourse; and visited the archives of John Tanton (who founded the organizations ProEnglish and U.S. English), former US Senator Paul Simon, and the National Council of Teachers of English. I argue that local policies in schools, workplaces, and, increasingly, governments have played a crucial role in shaping how people learn, use, and view language. At the same time, the local scale is an ideological, discursive concept that is constantly open to further entrenchment or renegotiation, and it is always still connected to other scales. Local language policies thus provide opportunities for people to (re)write not only their stances towards language, but also their definitions of community. The opening chapter, “Local Language Policy,” introduces these arguments; provides a history of such policies in the US; introduces an analytical framework that combines work on language policy, situated studies of writing, and research on local language practices; and describes the stakes of this project for writing studies and related fields. In Chapter 2, I move into the “Methodology and Methods” of the study. Chapter 3, “Networked Localism,” focuses on how people write and circulate local English-only policies, through text histories of four policies that were based on the same template. In Chapter 4, “Upscaling and Downscaling,” I turn from writing practices to language ideologies, in order to show that, rather than adhere to a “one nation-one language” ideal, people in the English-only movement flexibly align across, and distance themselves from, various scales. The fifth chapter, “Resisting and Rewriting,” focuses on the experiences and strategies of people opposed to the English-only movement. Through a case study of a group of participants who successfully repealed their county’s language policy, this analysis offers a model for future language advocacy by showing the possibilities of meshing multilingual, translingual, and raciolinguistic orientations towards language. Ultimately, this dissertation opens up the worlds of policymaking, prescriptivism, and English-only activism to more situated, discursive analysis, and the field of writing studies to a kind of writing that has significantly shaped American identity, education, and citizenship.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2019-08-01","The student, Katherine Flowers, accepted the attached license on 2017-04-24 at 17:21.","The student, Katherine Flowers, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2017-04-24 at 17:37.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2017-05-01 at 15:38.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11026 on 2017-09-29 at 10:45:27","Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-29T17:45:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 FLOWERS-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf: 15463926 bytes, checksum: 5b402d342bbd01274672fe359d0a1c86 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4214 bytes, checksum: 2046fbdc89a7db515a90b7b35e052cee (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4560 bytes, checksum: 77a8035edbf3e51dfe46ae858953fb9e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-05-01","Embargo set by: Colleen Fallaw for item 103482 Lift date: 2019-09-29T17:48:06Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 103482 Lift date: 2020-03-02T19:56:41Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 103482 Lift date: 2020-03-02T19:59:52Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 103482 Lift date: 2020-03-02T20:02:46Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 103482 on 2020-03-03T10:15:22Z."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Local language policy: shifting scales in the English-only movement"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Prior, Paul","Baron, Dennis","Schaffner, Spencer","Koven, Michèle"],"dc:creator":["Flowers, Katherine S"],"dc:date":["2017-09-29T17:45:36Z","2020-03-03T10:15:22Z","2017-05-01","2017-08"],"dc:description":["This dissertation examines how language policymakers in the United States write, discuss, and resist local English-only policies. By tracing the trajectories of four interconnected, local campaigns to make English the official language, I show that such policies are not static texts or abstract impositions, but rather a kind of writing, one that emerges through local action, collaboration, revision, uptake, and other literate activities. As one of the few studies to examine how politicians and other policymakers write, and the first to focus on the writing practices of people in the English-only movement, this dissertation sheds light on the broader question of how people create and change policies, particularly ones that reflect and affect people’s understandings of language and communication. In order to analyze how and why people enact such policies, I conducted audio- and video-recorded interviews with 24 activists, writers, and politicians; analyzed public government records, videos, and digital discourse; and visited the archives of John Tanton (who founded the organizations ProEnglish and U.S. English), former US Senator Paul Simon, and the National Council of Teachers of English. I argue that local policies in schools, workplaces, and, increasingly, governments have played a crucial role in shaping how people learn, use, and view language. At the same time, the local scale is an ideological, discursive concept that is constantly open to further entrenchment or renegotiation, and it is always still connected to other scales. Local language policies thus provide opportunities for people to (re)write not only their stances towards language, but also their definitions of community. The opening chapter, “Local Language Policy,” introduces these arguments; provides a history of such policies in the US; introduces an analytical framework that combines work on language policy, situated studies of writing, and research on local language practices; and describes the stakes of this project for writing studies and related fields. In Chapter 2, I move into the “Methodology and Methods” of the study. Chapter 3, “Networked Localism,” focuses on how people write and circulate local English-only policies, through text histories of four policies that were based on the same template. In Chapter 4, “Upscaling and Downscaling,” I turn from writing practices to language ideologies, in order to show that, rather than adhere to a “one nation-one language” ideal, people in the English-only movement flexibly align across, and distance themselves from, various scales. The fifth chapter, “Resisting and Rewriting,” focuses on the experiences and strategies of people opposed to the English-only movement. Through a case study of a group of participants who successfully repealed their county’s language policy, this analysis offers a model for future language advocacy by showing the possibilities of meshing multilingual, translingual, and raciolinguistic orientations towards language. Ultimately, this dissertation opens up the worlds of policymaking, prescriptivism, and English-only activism to more situated, discursive analysis, and the field of writing studies to a kind of writing that has significantly shaped American identity, education, and citizenship.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2019-08-01","The student, Katherine Flowers, accepted the attached license on 2017-04-24 at 17:21.","The student, Katherine Flowers, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2017-04-24 at 17:37.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2017-05-01 at 15:38.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11026 on 2017-09-29 at 10:45:27","Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-29T17:45:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 FLOWERS-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf: 15463926 bytes, checksum: 5b402d342bbd01274672fe359d0a1c86 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4214 bytes, checksum: 2046fbdc89a7db515a90b7b35e052cee (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4560 bytes, checksum: 77a8035edbf3e51dfe46ae858953fb9e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-05-01","Embargo set by: Colleen Fallaw for item 103482 Lift date: 2019-09-29T17:48:06Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 103482 Lift date: 2020-03-02T19:56:41Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 103482 Lift date: 2020-03-02T19:59:52Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 103482 Lift date: 2020-03-02T20:02:46Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 103482 on 2020-03-03T10:15:22Z."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/98149"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2017 Katherine S. Flowers"],"dc:subject":["English","Writing studies","Language policy","Discourse analysis","English-only movement","Scale","Local"],"dc:title":["Local language policy: shifting scales in the English-only movement"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["English"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:35Z"}