| Abstract: | This US study tested the validity of assumptions made regarding multilingual electoral ballot provisions. Rationale for language assistance was found to exist on the basis of number and proportion of recent immigrants, proportion of foreign born, lag of biliterate skill behind bilingual ability, linguistic differences between the Chinese language and English, and the discriminatory structure of the labor market. In California, where close to 1/2 the population is an ethnic minority, the issue is particularly relevant. Bilingual advocates view English-only advocates as "un-American" on legal and ideological grounds, while English-only advocates consider it "un-American" to be non-English speaking. In addition to census data and the existing literature, this study relies on the structured interview survey data of a representative sample of the Chinese adult population of San Francisco's Chinatown. 2/3 of the immigrants believed an immigrant should make some cultural changes, and 1/2 of the immigrants had done so. Data failed to support the claim that immigrants are uninformed that English is necessary for sociopolitical participation. Their more recent pattern of immigration, the linguistic differences between Asian languages and the English language, and structural constraints of US society make successive language acquisition difficult for Chinese migrant adults. Policy recommendations include: 1) changing language assistance criteria in the electoral process, 2) adding Vietnamese as a single language minority, 3) not considering Asian language minorities as 1 generic category, 4) justifying electoral assistance on several grounds, 5) disseminating data bearing directly on misguided assumptions related to language and cultural shift factors, and 6) renaming the "bilingual ballots" to "biliterate ballots." |
