The following study, through the implementation of a critical discourse analysis, examines the debate concerning English-Only legislation in the state of Ohio. The objective of this study is to explicate the way in which the language produced within the discourse surrounding English-Only legislation negatively reinforces popular attitudes, often discriminatory, and affects the groups to which this type of legislation is targeted.
Through the employment of critical discourse analysis, as defined by Fairclough, Wodak and Van Dijk, this study considers the language used in Ohio newspapers in relation to two particular cases concerning English-Only legislation. The data considered comes not only from professional journalists but also includes the reflections of the general public. In this manner, the investigation offers a thorough representation of both formal and informal language.
An examination of these particular cases reveals a continual association between language and the following three aspects of our modern society: immigration, patriotism and survival. Once these connections are analyzed within the historical context of language development in the United States, their marginalizing nature becomes evident. This data, combined with an understanding of how repetitive language both frames and restricts our understanding, also suggests that both sides of the debate concerning English-Only legislation are equally responsible for this breed of “new racism,” as defined by Van Dijk.
By investigating these associations and their constant repetition within the popular media, we are yielded a better understanding of how language affects personal perception as well as public policy. Given that understanding, this study concludes with an explanation of the importance of ensuring linguistic rights, often infringed upon by English-Only legislation, as well as suggestions to move us toward protecting those rights.