Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:20:47.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Measured Multilingualism

Census Language Questions in Canada and the United States

from Part II - The United States Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2019

By
Jennifer Leeman
Edited by
Thomas Ricento
Thomas Ricento
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access

Summary

Since their widespread adoption in the nineteenth century, censuses have played both bureaucratic and ideological roles, as the classification of the population according to social and cultural characteristics facilitated the development of the administrative infrastructure required by emergent nation-states and the definition of national and group identity categories officialized particular ways of understanding difference. This chapter critically analyzes the questions about language asked by Statistics Canada and the US Census Bureau. I examine the relationship of language data to various policies in the two countries, as well as the ways that those policies, and specific ways of asking about language, reflect and reproduce particular ideologies of language. In addition to revealing differing perspectives on individual and societal multilingualism, this analysis demonstrates that census language statistics do not simply serve as "facts" undergirding policy, but instead produce particular representations of linguistic diversity and, thus, constitute official discourses on multilingualism.

Keywords

censuseslanguage ideologieslanguage policylanguage planninglanguage and nationalismmother tongue
Type
Chapter
Information
Language Politics and Policies
Perspectives from Canada and the United States
 , pp. 114 - 134
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (Revised). London: Verso.Google Scholar
Arel, D. (2002). Language categories in censuses: backward- or forward-looking? In Kertzer, D. I. & Arel, D. (eds.), Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–120.Google Scholar
Bilingual Education Act, Pub. L. No. (93-380), 88 Stat. 503 (1974).Google Scholar
Canadian Census Office. (1901). Fourth Census of Canada 1901: Instructions to Chief Officers, Enumerators and Commissioners. Ottawa: Canadian Census Office. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.828375/publication.html [Last accessed March 9, 2019].Google Scholar
Canadian Census Office. (1902). Fourth Census of Canada, 1901 (Vol. 1). Ottawa: S. E. Dawson. Retrieved from http://archive.org/details/fourthcensusofca01canauoft [Last accessed March 9, 2019].Google Scholar
Canadian Census Office. (1911). Fifth Census of Canada 1911: Instructions to Officers, Enumerators and Commissioners. Ottawa: Canadian Census Office. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.828431/publication.html [Last accessed March 9, 2019].Google Scholar
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.Google Scholar
Cardinal, L. (2004). The limits of bilingualism in Canada. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 10(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537110490450782Google Scholar
Cardinal, L. (2005). The ideological limits of linguistic diversity in Canada. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(6), 481–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castonguay, C. (1999). French is on the ropes. Why won’t Ottawa admit it? Policy Options, 20(8), 39–50.Google Scholar
Chase, S. (2010, August 11). Tories make language concession on census. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-make-language-concession-on-census/article1376857/ [Last accessed March 9, 2019].Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbeil, J.-P. (2012). L’information démolinguistique et le recensement Canadien (1969–2009): reflet d’une dualité linguistique en mutation. In Landry, R. & Jedwab, J. (eds.), Life After Forty: Official Languages Policy in Canada/Après quarante ans: les politiques de langue officielle au Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, pp. 29–51.Google Scholar
Court Interpreters Act. (1978). Public Law 95–539 – OCT. 28, 1978 92 STAT. 2040.Google Scholar
deVries, J. (1985). Some methodological aspects of self‐report questions on language and ethnicity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(5), 347–68.Google Scholar
Dominion Bureau of Statistics. (1921). Sixth Census of Canada 1921: Instructions to Officers, Enumerators and Commissioners. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau.Google Scholar
Duchêne, A. & Humbert, P. N. (2018). Surveying languages: The art of governing speakers by numbers. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2018(252), 1–20.Google Scholar
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–380, title II, §204, Aug. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 515).Google Scholar
Executive Order No. 13166. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 159, page 50121 (2000).Google Scholar
Gauthier, J. G. (2002). Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000. Washington DC: US Census Bureau. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/pol02-ma.pdf [Last accessed December 12, 2017].Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (2005). Why race still matters. Daedalus, 134(1), 102–16.Google Scholar
Haque, E. (2012). Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework: Language, Race, and Belonging in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Kertzer, D. I. & Arel, D. (2002). Censuses, identity formation, and the struggle for political power. In Kertzer, D. I. & Arel, D. (eds.), Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Kominski, R. (1989). How good is “how well?”: An examination of the census English-speaking ability question. American Statistical Association 1989 Proceedings of the social statistics section, pp. 333–38.Google Scholar
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2004). Racializing language: A history of linguistic ideologies in the US Census. Journal of Language and Politics, 3, 507–34.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2018a). It’s all about English: The interplay of monolingual ideologies, language policy and the US Census Bureau’s statistics on multilingualism. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2018(252), 21–43.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2018b). Questioning the Language Questions: Federal Policy and the Evaluation of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistics on Language. Research and Methodology Directorate, Center for Survey Measurement Study Series (Survey Methodology #2018–11). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2018/adrm/rsm2018-11.pdf [Last accessed December 12, 2017].Google Scholar
Mervis, J. (2017, January 3). Scientists fear pending attack on federal statistics collection. Science. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-fear-pending-attack-federal-statistics-collection [Last accessed July 16, 2017].Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2002). “We have room but for one language here”: Language and national identity at the turn of the 20th century. Multilingua, 21, 163–96.Google Scholar
Prévost, J.-G. & Beaud, J.-P. (2002). Statistical inquiry and the management of linguistic plurality in Canada, Belgium and Switzerland. Journal of Canadian Studies, 36(4), 88–117.Google Scholar
Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. (1967). Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. General introduction, Book 1. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.699861/publication.html [Last accessed December 12, 2017].Google Scholar
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. Sr. (1998). The politics of language in Canada and the United States: Explaining the differences. In Ricento, T. & Burnaby, B. (eds.), Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 37–70.Google Scholar
Sebba, M. (2017). “English a foreign tongue”: The 2011 Census in England and the misunderstanding of multilingualism. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(2), 264–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2002). 2001 Census Handbook. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2016). 2016 Census questions and reasons why the questions are asked (personal interview version). Retrieved from www.census.gc.ca/ccr16f/ccr16f_001-eng.html [Last accessed August 15, 2017].Google Scholar
Urla, J. (1993). Contesting modernities: Language standardization and the production of an ancient/modern Basque culture. Critique of Anthropology, 13(2), 101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Bureau of the Census. (1913). 13th Census of the United States (1910) (Vol. 1 Population). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Bureau of the Census. (1963). 1960 Census of the Population. Vol. 1. Characteristics of the Population. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Wang, H. L. (2018, January 10). Adding citizenship question risks “bad count” for 2020 census, experts warn. NPR. Retrieved from www.npr.org/2018/01/10/575145554/adding-citizenship-question-risks-bad-count-for-2020-census-experts-warn [Last accessed January 12, 2018].Google Scholar
Wiley, T. G. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States. In Ricento, T. (ed.), Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 67–85.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×