19
and typically do not have institutionally complete cultural structures or territories in which they
dominate numerically. While Kymlicka advises a pluralistic multilingual language policy for
multi-ethnic countries as well, on grounds that such a policy is more efficient at helping
immigrant groups adapt to and integrate into their new society, he asserts that voluntary ethnic
groups do not have the same claim to an “equal right” to state support for their cultural
structures. Thus, if Puerto Ricans and Mexicans (as well as a multitude of indigenous groups)
became part of the U.S. population through the forcible annexation of their territories, they
would seem to fit Kymlicka’s definition of “national” rather than “ethnic” groups, and therefore
the U.S. is obligated to provide support for their cultural structures in order to ensure fair
equality of opportunity to members of these communities.
As noted, Kymlicka’s analysis has become widely cited and discussed by political
theorists and other scholars, but it remains quite controversial (see, e.g., Barry, 2001, for an in-
depth critique). Once again, unfortunately, there is not space to pursue this controversy here, or
to discuss its further implications for language policy in any particular country. Rather, it is
hoped that this brief discussion has served to illustrate again the potential utility of the literature
of political theory for the study of language policy. Kymlicka’s analysis is rich in insight and
provides multiple opportunities for critical thinking about the meaning and significance of the
claims made on behalf of various language policy proposals in the name of “equality.”
V. CONCLUSION.
This essay has argued that the literature of political theory, with its characteristic methods
of seeing the political, is a potentially valuable resource for students of language policy conflict.
The paper has argued that many language policy conflicts center on issues of meaning and
significance that are inherently contestable, and therefore subject to multiple interpretations. In
Convention