Annotated Sources

Annotated Sources

“The Ebonics Virus.” The Economist. London: Jan. 4, 1997. Vol. 342, Iss. 7998; pg. 26, 2 pgs.

This article will be important to my paper because it is one of main debates that got me interested in this topic. It writes about Oakland, California and the decision that they made about Ebonics and teaching a standard English to black children in the elementary grades. The school board decided that it might help if the slang these children used at home were recognized as a distinct primary language, separate from English.

“Must the Whole World Speak English?” Forbes. New York: Nov 29, 2004. Vol. 174, Iss. 11; pg. 039

When I first stumbled across this article I wasn’t sure if it would benefit me or not. After reading it over I realized that it could be very important in a debate for or against English as the official language. This article actually writes about how the French are making English be taught to all children. It states that English is now the “language of international communication”. The fact that the French feel it is necessary for their citizens to learn English may be a tip that maybe America should feel the same way.

“Nonfluent Fall Behind in English Only States.” Wall Street Journal. (Eastern Edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb 26, 1999. pg. 1

The main points of this article are one that brings up a large part of what I think I will be discussing in my paper. This has to do with the effects of official English by creating an even larger gap between those who speak English better than others. This article has hard evidence to back up my idea which will prove to be detrimental to my paper. This can be proven by the amounts of money made by fluent speakers against non fluent speakers in bout English only and non English only states.

“The effects of official English laws on limited-English-proficient workers.” Journal of