Abstract In 2000 the Arizona Propo...

Abstract

In 2000 the Arizona Proposition 203 campaign gained overwhelming public approval by way of claiming that Arizona's bilingual education programs impeded English-language learning of language-minority observers Established within a context of educational and social antipathy, it is necessary to examine at the impetus for language policies like Proposition 203 and by what means they are promoted to the public. This contrive is based on Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) work with metaphor theory to unmask the rhetorical strategies applied in the media by dint of the English for the Children campaign to position Proposition 203 in a favorable light. earthed in Critical Discourse Analysis, Santa Ana's (2002) metaphor analysis gauge is applied here to unveil the greatest in quantity prominent metaphors used to degrade bilingual education in public discourse. While many metaphors were applied in this debate, this work concentrates in succession the multivalent metaphor PROPOSITION 203 AS WAR to strip of disguises [i]or[/i] concealments the underlying ideology of Proposition 203 and its supporters. The metaphor of WAR was intentionally implemented to construct a adjoining matter of violence and heroism. This inquiry exposes the rhetorical strategies used from opponents of bilingual education and highlights the nature of metaphor as a tool of persuasion.

Introduction

According to Ruiz (1984 1990) language(s) can be seen in three ways: (a) language as a point in dispute (b) language as a right, and (c) language as a resource. This application of mind aims to expose the core issues that underpin views of language as a vexed question and how they, in inflect result in the formation of policies that depict social communication patterns. similar issues will be depicted in consequence of a Critical Discourse Analysis of the rhetoric used in the anti-bilingual education campaign in the month leading up to the 2000 voice in Arizona. Furthermore, Baker's (2000) argument that language use must be "studied in relationship to power configurations political systems, and basic social philosophies" (p 153) establishes a conceptual framework for understanding the impetus behind of the like kind ethnically and linguistically insensitive discourses.

During the time period surrounding the 2000 elections, the Phoenix Metro-East Valley area media were saturated with multiple negative metaphors describing the state of bilingual education in Arizona (Johnson 2005) not at home of all the pejorative metaphors that appeared in the local newspapers, PROPOSITION 203 AS WAR surfaced as the chiefly prominent and powerful. The metaphor PROPOSITION 203 AS WAR was strategically implemented by the agency of Ron Unz and the English for the Children organization to establish a combative words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following within the public discourse as a means of limiting language-minority students' access to the chiefly appropriate language services. From this rhetorical platform, advocates of Proposition 203 were characterized in the media as a "heroic" military force sent in to battle "evil" bilingual programs. in the same state [i]or[/i] condition an attack on bilingual education illustrates that opposings of bilingual education view(ed) language (i.e., Spanish) as a question at issue This example demonstrates how controlling the use of language is not just about regulating the way nation speak; it is about subduing the populace who use language.

Through a barrage violent images and negative language, supporters of the English for the Children cause were able to tap into the public's visceral understanding of WAR like that bilingual education was situated in a derogatory words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following Drawing from Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) work onward metaphor theory and Lakoff's (1993) description of inheritance hierarchies, the mixed nature of the WAR metaphor is outlined to provide a clearer understanding of to what end it was so effective. Moreover, dissecting the constituent mappings of the WAR metaphor illuminates the completely entrenched motives of those behind the anti-bilingual education motion Finally, examples of such inherently negative rhetoric warrant a critical discussion of the underlying ideology of subtractive language policies like Proposition 203

This model of critical analysis necessitates a brief outline of the sociopolitical connection to which it is being applied. Caught in a landslide of confusing ordeal scores, patriotic tropes, and ethnocentric lies, Arizona's voting public vot to restrict the educational services that language-minority close examiners receive. At best, voters may not have realized that they were doing away with bilingual education and English as a other Language programs in favor of the propos monolithic methodology. A closer await at the program that was culled to replace traditional methods (see Crawford, 1999) causes single to question the public's understanding of their decision.

Starting in the 2001 place of education year, language-minority students were alone allowed 1 year (180 exercise days) of Sheltered English Immersion (a boundary coined by the English for the Children movement) before being mainstreamed into the regular education classroom. Sheltered English Immersion is defined in Proposition 203 (2000) as: