¿Only English? Law and Language Policy in the United States by Bill Piatt (review)

110Rocky Mountain Review considered it as a "traumatic birth" of a modern nation state. Morgan notes in Hermann und Dorothea the "apparent contradictions between ancient form and modern problems, revolutionary upheaval and idyllic German identity" (4). Morgan discusses the changes in traditional values—for example, the concept ofthe idyllic and safe home town—and shows how these changes affect the characters in the poem. He refers in detail to the comments and actions ofHermann, his father, his mother, the apothecary, and particularly Dorothea. Hermann is confronted with the misery of the refugees, and through his empathy for them and his love for Dorothea he rejects the old values, which his father upholds, and becomes the symbol for the new developments. A major portion ofthe study is devoted to Dorothea and her relationship with her former fiancé, the Jacobin who became a victim of the revolution in Paris. Morgan identifies her as the strongest character and as the only one who faces reality. The male characters continue to hope for an idyllic, Utopian future. The study is divided into an introduction, eight chapters, and an excursus on Revolutionary Enlightenment, the German Jacobins, and Dorothea's first fiancé. The appendix consists of a welcome and thoughtful twenty-page critical and analytic history of the reception of Hermann und Dorothea, starting at Goethe's time and ending with contemporary scholarship. The bibliography is extensive and very useful. The entire study is well documented and reflects Morgan's excellent scholarship. While Morgan generally holds the reader's interest, he does digress at times and risks losing track of the main theme through interludes and diversions. An example is the extensive discussion ofthe revolution in Mainz and Georg Forster's role in it. This does not diminish, however, the noteworthy contribution of The Critical Idyll to modern scholarship on Goethe's popular verse epic. HANS-WILHELM KELLING Brigham Young University BILL PIATT. ¿ Only English? Law and Language Policy in the United States. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1990. 199 p. Commencing with an inverted Spanish question mark in the book's title, and continuing through the dedication ("Dedicado a Rosanne, Seana, Bob y Alicia"), Piatt leaves no doubt about his perspective: he strongly opposes the current English-only movement in the United States. The author is a professor of law at Texas Tech University, but grew up in long-time Hispanic northern New Mexico. "This personal experience will inevitably be reflected in [my] analysis .. . it makes it difficult for me to consider Spanish a foreign language. It makes it difficult for me to see the ability to communicate in more than one language as a disadvantage" (xi). This simple, honest-about-biases, straight-forward approach is characteristic of the entire book. Despite a legal background and profession, the author's style is easy to follow, almost chatty, fast-flowing, and devoid of legalistic jargon. The ten chapters are very short and move from a fine historical review Book Reviews111 of language rights in the United States, through legal cases relating to education, employment, the courts, social services, and, surprisingly, even broadcasting. The book ends with a section on the possible formulation of an equitable language rights policy for the country. Piatt notes that "the United States has never had an official language" (3), that we have never been truly monolingual. There were, and continue to exist, many native languages spoken long before English. Spanish was the first European language ofthe Americas, and the 1980 census identified 13.2 million native speakers ofthis rapidly increasing language. He notes that the Articles of Confederation and many other official documents were printed in French as well as English, and in 1980 there were still 1.5 million Americans who spoke French in their homes. German, Laotian, Chinese, and scores of other languages persist across the United States. Yet despite this historical and ethnic diversity, and in spite of "official constitutional linguistic neutrality" (22), 17 states (from Arizona to Virginia) have enacted some form of "official English" laws. Piatt points to the resultant inconsistencies that exist between regulations of one state and the federal Constitution, and within states themselves. In one case, for example, a person is guaranteed...