People often think of language as just a tool for the exchange and storage of information, a very powerful tool that has made human civilization possible (Burling, 1992). It is, however, also a tool for social structuring. Linguistic boundaries unite us and divide us from them. Linguists point out that our ability to use languages is what makes us human in the psychological sense and separates us from all other animals (see Hockett, 1960). Languages and dialects are probably the most conspicuous markers of our cultures and of cultural distances. Within any given language, social dialects further separate us by age, race, gender, and socio-economic class. The way we speak often validates, or even defines, who we are. Thus it is not surprising to find linguistic issues become political, or even, institutionalized in government policy.

"[T]he national language of the United States is English." (Soberal-Perez v. Schweiker, 1982, 1175)

        The language policy of the United States is conspicuously absent from the Constitution and has only recently appeared deep in the shadows of our laws and regulations. The quote above is a pronouncement not of Congress nor of any part of the executive branch of government, but of the courts. Despite America's traditional policy of laissez-faire towards linguistic diversity (Sagarin & Kelly, 1985), the judicial branch is now finding it necessary to step into the void and provide some sort of legal structure.
        Language policy has not often flared up as a national political issue in the United States, and when it has, it has done so in conjunction with other issues, such as immigration (Leibowitz, 1978). Early immigrants found tolerance for their languages, even for the native language schools that they established. They tended to settle in groups and in locations where there was little contact with English speakers. Perhaps their presence went unnoticed. Not until the last two decades of the nineteenth century did this attitude begin to change, in response to the large number of immigrants, particularly Catholic immigrants.
        In the twentieth century, two periods stand out for the extent to which popular attitudes towards minority languages became polarized: the years after World War I and the present period beginning in the early 1980s. A substantial number of books and articles describe and analyze the politics involved in the growing debate concerning the choice of language (see Baron, 1990 and Crawford, 1992). The topic of language politics has been covered exhaustively. What this focus misses, however, is the language policy itself and the legal process whereby it has been formulated. The present paper will try to remedy this deficiency by concentrating on de jure national language policy, government decisions that are written into federal law--the United States Constitution, the United States Code (U.S.C.), and the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.)--and into the federal judicial decisions which are contained in United States Reports (U.S.), the Federal Reporter (F.2d and F.3d), and the Federal Supplement (F. Supp.).
        Language policy involves a range of language choices: choices of vocabulary, grammar, and accent. But these micro-choices are imbedded in the macro-choice of which language or dialect to use and constrained by the linguistic abilities of the individuals involved. The scope of this paper will be restricted to language policy concerning this most fundamental choice, the choice of which language to use.
        Governments have three basic domestic functions: (a) the primary function of establishing and enforcing rules of conduct, (b) the recently enhanced function of service provider, and (c) the corollary function of employer. Choice of language issues have permeated all three functions. In this very brief paper, however, I will be discussing three federal cases in the first category, where state or local government attempted to control the linguistic behavior of private individuals or businesses. This was not control through the subtle political or economic pressure that seems to characterize post-colonialist linguistic imperialism (see Phillipson 1988 and 1992). Certain choices of language were simply repressed legally, thus creating language crimes and linguistic violations.
        A handful of journal articles (see Lippi-Green, 1994 and Matsuda, 1991) and a single book by Bill Piatt (1990) cite the relevant statutes and court cases. Their analyses, however, lack a grounding in the factual contexts of the cases and a focus on the courts' rationales and on the judicial process itself. Thus, in this paper, we will examine (a) the judicial decisions on national language policy, (b) the rationale behind them, (c) the judicial process that is continuing to mold this policy, and (d) the limits of that judicial process.

        My understanding of federal case law and court procedures comes in large part from observing Judge Martin Pence [1905-2000] and my co-counsel James Blanchfield [1938-1982] interact in court (United States vs Richard Jeffrey Blair, D. Haw. 1972-13,032) and from listening to their views and advice. Twenty years later Professor Charlene Sato [1951-1996] introduced me to the application of legal concepts to language issues. This paper is gratefully dedicated to their memories.
        Next I would like to express special thanks to the Department of Second Language Studies (formerly ESL) at the University of Hawaii, where this paper originated, particularly to two professors--Dick Schmidt and Kathy Davis.
        Sincere thanks also to Steve Bachmann (private attorney), Russell Blair (state district court judge, Hawaii), Dave Brin (author), Rob Britt (University of Washington, Gallagher Law Library), James Crawford (writer/lecturer), and David Kluge (Kinjo University) for valuable critical comments on earlier drafts. Not all of the advice received was necessarily heeded, however, and I retain full responsibility for the final product.

        Any comments on this article will be welcomed and should be mailed to the author at Aichi Gakuin University, General Education Division, 12 Araike, Iwasaki-cho, Nisshin, Japan 470-0195 or e-mailed to him. Other papers and works in progress may be accessed at http:// www3.aichi-gakuin.ac.jp/ ~jeffreyb/ research/ index.html .

Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona, 716 F. Supp. 1328 (C.D. Cal. 1989).

Baron, D. (1990). The English Only Question. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Baron, D. (1992). Federal English. In J. Crawford (Ed.) Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burling, R. (1992). Patterns of Language. San Diego, Cal.: Harcourt Brace Jocanovich, Publishers.

Crawford, J. (1992). Hold Your Tongue. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Crawford, J. (2000). Language Policy Web Site & Emporium. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/

Farb, P. (1973). Man at the Mercy of Language. The Ecology of Language, Chap. 4. Tokyo: Eihosha, pp. 56-80.

Fill, A. (1998). Ecolinguistics--State of the art 1998. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Americakanistik [Papers in English and American Studies], 23(1), pp. 3-16.

Gleason, H. (1961). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Heller, M. (Ed., 1988). Introduction. Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Prespectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hockett, C. (1960). Logical considerations in the study of animal communication. Reprinted from W. Lanyon and W. Tavolga (Eds.). Animal Sounds and Communication. Wash., D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences. In C. Hockett (1977). The View from Language. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Leibowitz, A. (1978). Language policy in the United States. In LaFontaine, H., B. Persky, & L. Golubchick (Eds.). Bilingual Education. Wayne, N.J.: Avery Publishing Group.

Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society, 23, 163-198.

Matsuda, M. (1991). Voices of America: Accent, antidiscrimination law, and a jurisprudence for the last reconstruction. Yale Law Journal, 100, 1329-1407.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1922).

Nebraska Laws (1919).

Phillipson, R. (1988). Linguicism: Structures and ideologies in linguistic imperialism. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle, Chap. 16. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Theoretical foundations. Linguistic Imperialism, Chap. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 38-77.

Piatt, B. (1990). Only English? Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Sagarin, E. & Kelly, R. (1985). Polylingualism in the United States of America: A multitude of tongues amid a monolingual majority. In Beer, W. and J. Jacobs (Eds., 1985). Language Policy and National Unity. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Sato, C. (1991). Sociolinguistic variation and language attitudes in Hawaii. In J. Cheshire (Ed.) English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scotton, C. (1988). Code switching as indexical of social negotiations. In M. Heller (Ed.) Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(3).

Shepard's United States citations, case edition : A compilation of citations to decisions of the United States Supreme Court. 7th Ed. Colorado Springs, CO: Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, (1994).

Soberal-Perez v. Schweiker, 549 F. Supp. 1164 (E.D. N.Y. 1982), aff'd, 717 F.2d 36 (2nd Cir. 1983).

Whorf, B. (1939). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In J. Carroll (Ed., 1959). Language, Thought, and Reality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.