Demographic and sociopolitical predictors of␣American attitudes towards foreign language policy

Abstract

Despite the controversies over the English-only movement, bilingual education, and language and national security, there have been only sporadic studies of the state of representative public opinion on these issues. The year 2000 General Social Survey (GSS) asked seven new questions on language policy of their national probability sample of 1397 respondents aged 18 and older. A factor analysis suggested that public responses to their seven questions clustered around two distinct dimensions, one on issues associated with more restrictive views of the role of languages other than English in the United States, and the other on support for second language acquisition in high school. The five questions that tapped the dimension of the more “restrictive” FL (foreign language) attitudes varied markedly in support – from the 78% who favored making English the “official” American language to the 22% who favored elimination of bilingual education. The other two GSS questions tapped the dimension of basic support for learning a second language in high school (with 64% and 75% support). In other words, support for the two types of issues was essentially independent of each other.

When two scales were constructed to measure each dimension, their appeal was found to come from notably different constituencies in the public. Older, more conservative and Republican respondents were more likely to support restrictive English-only policies, but none of these groups were significantly less favorable to teaching FL in high school. At the same time, both the pro-FL and anti-restrictive dimensions did draw more support from certain similar demographic groups – in particular, from the college-educated, from women, from non-whites, from residents of urban areas and on the coasts – and from that quarter of the GSS sample who said they were able to speak a second language. In other words, these groups were significantly both more opposed to restrictive policies toward use of non-English languages and they were significantly more supportive of taking FL courses in high schools. This held true, and almost as strongly, after statistical regression controls for the other predictors. Although levels of agreement on these questions may have shifted since 2000, a small 2005 national survey was able to replicate the existence of these two separate dimensions and the relative degrees of public support for each policy.

Appendices

Appendix A: GSS Sampling Procedures

Like its predecessors, the year 2000 national probability sample was selected in two major stages, with Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) consisting of one or more counties selected at the first stage and segments comprising one or more blocks selected at the second stage. In a few cases, segments were sub-sampled, a procedure that constituted a third stage of sample selection.

Prior to the PSU selection, the United States was divided into 2489 PSUs; the PSUs were then sorted into strata. The major strata again grouped metropolitan and non-metropolitan PSUs within each of the four census regions. The metropolitan PSUs include Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (or CMSAs, which join the metropolitan area of a very large city with the adjacent metropolitan area of one of its suburbs), and New England County Metropolitan Areas (or NECMAs, which are the whole county counterparts of the New England MSAs). The non-metropolitan PSUs were further sorted by state, then, within state, by the percent of minorities and, finally, within population by those who were minority group members; this encompassed everyone but non-Hispanic whites. Percent minority groupings were formed by classifying each PSU according to percent minority quartiles within its major stratum. The metropolitan PSUs were sorted by census division, minority quartile, and per capita income. The sample PSUs were selected using systematic selection, with the selection probability for a PSU proportional to the number of housing units. This selection procedure ensured proportionate representation along each of the sort variables. Nineteen PSUs (such as Chicago or Boston) were large enough that they had to be included in the sample with certainty. The sample included 100 first stage selections.

The second-stage sampling unit in the year 2000 GSS national sample was again the segment consisting of one or more adjoining blocks. The number of segments selected within a PSU again depended on whether the PSU was a certainty selection. From three to 26 segments were selected in the 19 certainty PSUs; in each of the remaining 81 sample PSUs, three segments were selected. All told, the national sample includes 384 second stage selections.

Prior to selection, the segments within each sample PSU were sorted successively by: (a) whether they were within the central city of a metropolitan area or outside of it (in metropolitan PSUs), (b) state (in those PSUs that crossed state lines), or (c) county, (d) place, (e) percent minority quartile within the PSU, and (f) census tract (CT) or block numbering area (BNA). The sample segments were selected using systematic sampling with probability proportional to size (in housing units). Undersized blocks were linked to adjacent ones to assure that each segment included at least 50 housing units. Similarly, census tracts with fewer than 50 housing units were linked with adjoining CTs.

In the smallest PSUs, it was possible for a segment to be selected more than once. In such cases, and when segments included unexpectedly large numbers of dwellings, a third stage of sampling was carried out. The segment was subdivided into pieces by a field count; based on the field count, one piece of the segment was selected with probability proportional to its estimated size.

Adults: The full-probability GSS samples used since 1975 are designed to give each household an equal probability of inclusion in the sample – call this probability p. Thus for household-level variables, the GSS sample is self-weighing. In households that are selected, selection procedures within the household give each eligible individual equal probability of being interviewed. In a household with n eligible respondents, each has probability p of being in a selected household, and $\frac{1} {n}p$ of actually being interviewed. Persons living in large households are less likely to be interviewed, because one and only one interview is completed at each pre-selected household. The simplest way to compensate would be to weight each interview proportionally to n, the number of eligible respondents in the household where the interview was conducted (n is the number of persons over 18 in the household). The GSS measure is called “ADULTS.” A discussion of the weight as well and a post-stratification variant of weighing by ADULTS appears in GSS Methodological Report No. 3.2.

Post-stratification: In general the GSS samples closely resemble distributions reported in the Census and other authoritative sources. Because of survey non-response, sampling variation and various other factors, the GSS sample deviates from known population figures for some variables. The GSS does not calculate any post-stratification weights to adjust for such differences. For relevant discussion of distribution variation caused by non-response and other factors, see the GSS Methodological Reports located at the following: (http: //www.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/rnd1998/reports/m-reports/index.htm).

Appendix B: GSS Questions on Immigration

Table B1 Attitudes towards Increased Immigration from Latin America.

Table B2 Attitudes towards Increased Immigration from Asia.

Table B3 Attitudes towards Increased Immigration from Europe.

Table B4 Attitudes towards Immigration and Economic Growth.

Table B5 Attitudes towards Immigration and Crime.

Table B6 Attitudes towards Immigration and Openness towards New Ideas and Cultures.

Table B7 Attitudes towards Immigration Job Loss.