Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hornberger 2012 Translanguaging
Hornberger 2012 Translanguaging
161]
On: 27 June 2013, At: 15:04
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
To cite this article: Nancy H. Hornberger & Holly Link (2012): Translanguaging and transnational
literacies in multilingual classrooms: a biliteracy lens, International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 15:3, 261-278
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016
Introduction
You know, I dont understand when people are going around worrying about, We need
to have English-only. They want to pass a law, We want English-only. Now I agree
that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of
worrying about whether immigrants can learn English theyll learn English you need
to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your
child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.
You know, its embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English,
they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can
say [is], Merci beaucoup. Right? You know, no, Im serious about this. We should
understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool
to get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international
business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an
early age. . . (Barack Obama, 8 July 2008, Powder Springs, GA)
In this pre-election speech on the state of the US economy, Barack Obama conveys a
global perspective and pro-multilingual stance on language policy in education. His
positive outlook on bilingualism and foreign-language learning recognizes not just
*Corresponding author. Email: nancyh@gse.upenn.edu
ISSN 1367-0050 print/ISSN 1747-7522 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016
http://www.tandfonline.com
262
the well-documented fact that children of immigrants residing in the US rapidly learn
English but also that multilingualism provides economic advantages and is a norm
outside of the US (Ferguson and Heath 1981; McKay and Wong 1988; Potowski
2010).
One in five students in the United States is the child of an immigrant (Capps
et al. 2005 as cited in Ga ndara and Hopkins 2010, 7), and between 1995 and 2005,
the EL [English Learner] student population grew 56% (Batalova, Fix, and Murray
2007, as cited in Ga ndara and Hopkins 2010, 7). Yet, educational policy under No
Child Left Behind ignores these changing demographics in schools across the US and
does little to reflect either the pro-bilingual stance in Obamas speech or the large
body of research on the benefits of bilingualism (e.g., Baker 1988; Ben-Zeev 1977;
Bialystok 2001; Garca and Otheguy 1994; Kroll and de Groot 2005; Peal and
Lambert 1962). Even while exemplary bilingual education models such as two-way
immersion programs are growing in number across the country,1 current scholarship
documents the increasingly restrictive language policies in US schools and the
pervading atmosphere of high-stakes testing that serves to undermine bilingual
education and multilingualism (e.g., Escamilla 2006; Gandara and Hopkins 2010;
Hornberger 2006; Menken 2008; Wiley and Wright 2004). As US school populations
shift and represent an increasingly diverse world of linguistic flexibility, we argue that
refusing to acknowledge the language resources of students and their families limits
the possibilities for students educational success and achievement and shuts down
opportunities for the development of multilingualism.
In the Obama administrations Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA)
2010 Reauthorization: Blueprint for Reform, the section on the education of diverse
learners, and more specifically, English Language Learners, states that grant money
will be available to help states and school districts implement high-quality language
instruction programs, including dual-language programs, transitional bilingual
education, sheltered English immersion, newcomer programs for late-entrant English
Learners, or other language instruction programs (ESEA 2010). While this policy
seems to foreground bilingual models over other forms of programming for those
labeled English Learners, it remains to be seen how schools and districts across the
country will work toward developing and implementing bilingual education while
high-stakes testing in English remains the sole measure of student and school
success.
In this paper we present and discuss a vision that both parallels and extends
Obamas global perspective and pro-multilingual stance, one that might re-orient
educational policy to build on students rich and varied language practices to
facilitate successful school experiences and greater academic achievement. In order
to do so, we offer a conceptual framework and scenarios from a number of
educational contexts, in both the US and around the world, that illustrate such
language and learning practices, characterized here as translanguaging and transnational literacy practices. In brief, translanguaging in its original sense refers to the
purposeful pedagogical alternation of languages in spoken and written, receptive and
productive modes (Baker 2001, 2003; Williams 1994), a usage we expand on in what
follows; while transnational literacies are literacy practices that draw on funds of
knowledge, identities, and social relations rooted and extending across national
borders (Warriner 2007b).
263
Consider the following brief scenarios (to which we will return later):
(1) A pair of first graders in Pennsylvania, USA comment to each other in
Spanish and English while they co-read a text written in English (Link 2011).
(2) A fifth grader in California, USA incorporates Spanish words and phrases
into her poem about her grandmother in Mexico (Campano 2007).
(3) At an all school weekly assembly in the UK, the head teacher interweaves
English and Gujarati while addressing students and their families about an
upcoming school event (Blackledge and Creese 2010).
(4) Third-year students in a bilingual BA program in Contemporary English and
Multilingual Studies at the University of Limpopo, South Africa, confer
among themselves in class, freely code-switching in Sepedi and English, as to
which of six child language development paradigms introduced in class this
week best corresponds to a short text they have just read in English
(Hornberger 2010).
In the above scenarios, students and teachers in a range of school settings and
classrooms both in and outside of the US, engage in translanguaging and
transnational literacies, border-crossing communicative practices that are becoming
more prevalent in an increasingly globalized world. If we were to observe the
interactions in the scenarios above, it would become clear that not only are students
and teachers drawing on more than one language or literacy, but they also are using
multiple and dynamic varieties of these different languages and literacies
vernacular, formal, academic, as well as those based on race, ethnicity, affinity or
affiliation, etc. for varying purposes in different contexts. Recognizing, valorizing,
and studying these multiple and mobile linguistic resources are part of what
Blommaert (2010) refers to as a critical sociolinguistics of globalization that focuses
on language-in-motion rather than language-in-place. In this focus on the mobility of
linguistic and communicative resources, linguistic phenomena are viewed from
within the social, cultural, political and historical contexts of which they are a part
(Blommaert 2010, 3).
A sociolinguistics of globalization helps frame the notions of translanguaging
and transnational literacies. Translanguaging, or engaging in bilingual or multilingual discourse practices, is an approach to bilingualism that is centered not on
languages as has often been the case, but on the practices of bilinguals that are
readily observable (Garca 2009, 44). The notion of translanguaging can be seen as a
new approach to understanding long-studied languaging practices of multilinguals,
such as code-switching in which speakers draw on two different grammatical systems
in their utterances (Gumperz 1982). While research on code-switching has tended to
focus on issues of language interference, transfer or borrowing, translanguaging
shifts the lens from cross-linguistic influence to how multilinguals intermingle
linguistic features that have hereto been administratively or linguistically assigned to
a particular language or language variety (Garca 2009, 51). Moreover, the concept
of translanguaging broadens the research lens by focusing not just on spoken
language but on a variety of communicative modes.
This expansion and refocusing of a concept that originated in Welsh-English
bilingual pedagogical practices not only effectively portrays language-in-motion as
referred to by Blommaert (2010), but also helps reframe how researchers and
educators alike might better understand the language and literacy practices of those
264
they study and teach. Recent work such as Blackledge and Creeses (2010) linguistic
ethnography of multilingualism in heritage language schools in the UK shows how
students, their families, and teachers draw on translanguaging, or flexible language
practices that contradict monolingual language policies and ideologies at the
national level and help them negotiate multilingual and multicultural identities
across home and community settings (4).
Similarly, as briefly noted above, transnational literacies refer, in our sociolinguistically mobile times, to literacy practices whose referents and meanings extend
across national borders perhaps most clearly instantiated in the literacies of
transmigrants who move or have moved bodily across national borders while
maintaining and cultivating practices tied in varying degrees to their home
countries (Warriner 2007b). The cross-border movements of bodies, as well as of
goods and information, are the direct result of globalization and specifically the
internationalization of systems of production (Richardson Bruna 2007), processes
which tend to de-territorialize important economic, social and cultural practices
from their traditional boundaries in nation-states (Sua rez-Orozco and Qin-Hillard
2004, 14, cited in McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and Saliani 2007, 84). While
transnationalism refers to the condition of cultural interconnectedness and mobility
across space, (Ong 1999, as cited in Warriner 2007b, 201), transnational literacies
can be seen as literacy practices that reflect the intersection of local and global
contexts (McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and Saliani 2007).
We propose that developing awareness of and an orientation to translanguaging
and transnational literacies in classrooms with students from diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds can provide practitioners, teachers, and researchers with a
fuller understanding of the resources students bring to school and help us identify
ways in which to draw on these resources for successful educational experiences. We
structure our discussion of these practices through a biliteracy or multiliteracy lens
drawing on the Continua of Biliteracy model (Hornberger 1989, 2003; Hornberger and
Skilton-Sylvester 2000). We begin by outlining the Continua model and discussing it
in light of recent scholarship on the sociolinguistics of globalization, translanguaging
and transnational literacies, and then highlight examples of translanguaging and
transnational literacy practices from current research on multilingual classrooms and
students, as exemplified in the scenarios. In our conclusion we return to the current
political climate and educational policy in the US, suggesting how policy-makers at all
levels might benefit from an orientation that values the multiple and mobile
communicative resources and repertoires of students and their families, enabling
greater support for the development of bi(multi)literacy for all students.
The continua of biliteracy: a lens for envisioning multilingual classrooms
Although scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers often characterize dimensions of
bilingualism and literacy in terms of oppositional pairs such as first versus second
languages (L1 vs. L2), monolingual versus bilingual individuals, or oral versus
literate societies, in each case those opposites represent theoretical endpoints on what
is in reality a continuum of features. Furthermore, when we consider biliteracy, the
conjunction of literacy and bilingualism, it becomes clear that these multiple
continua are interrelated dimensions of highly complex and fluid systems; and that it
is in the dynamic, rapidly changing and sometimes contested spaces along and across
multiple and intersecting continua that most biliteracy use and learning occur.
265
Biliteracy can be defined as any and all instances in which communication occurs
in two (or more) languages in or around writing (Hornberger 1990, 213), where these
instances may be events, actors, interactions, practices, activities, classrooms,
programs, situations, societies, sites, or worlds (Hornberger 2000, 362; Hornberger
and Skilton-Sylvester 2000, 98). The continua model of biliteracy offers a lens
through which to see research, teaching, and language planning in bilingual and
multilingual settings. The model uses the heuristic of intersecting and nested
continua to represent the multiple, complex, and fluid interrelationships between
bilingualism and literacy and the contexts, media, and content through which
biliteracy practices and abilities develop. Seen through this lens, it becomes clear that
multilingual learners develop biliteracy along reciprocally intersecting first language
second language, receptiveproductive, and oralwritten language skills continua;
through the medium of two or more languages and literacies ranging along continua
of similar to dissimilar linguistic structures, convergent to divergent scripts, and
simultaneous to successive exposure; in contexts scaled from micro to macro levels
and characterized by varying mixes of monolingualbilingual and oralliterate
language practices; and expressing content encompassing majority to minority
perspectives and experiences, literary to vernacular styles and genres, and decontextualized to contextualized language texts (Hornberger 1989; Hornberger and
Skilton-Sylvester 2000; see Figure 1). Since educational policies and practices often
and overwhelmingly privilege compartmentalized, monolingual, written, decontextualized language, and literacy practices, the continua of biliteracy lens offers a vision
for contesting those weightings by intentionally opening up implementational and
ideological spaces for fluid, multilingual, oral, contextualized practices, and voices at
the local level (Hornberger 2002, 2005, 2006; Hornberger and Johnson 2007;
Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000).
266
Figure 1. Power relations in the continua of biliteracy. Reprinted with permission from
Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000, Multilingual Matters Publishers, Bristol, UK.
267
268
the second language is maximized (Baker and Hornberger 2001, 18). Close on the
heels of this work, bilingualism scholars like Zentella (1981), Grosjean (1982), and
Valde s (1982) provided empirical evidence for bilinguals fluid code-switching as
highly context-sensitive, competent but specific language practice. Decades of
research continue to corroborate, deepen, and extend this understanding.
Just as Grosjean (1985) suggested that a bilingual is not the sum of two
monolinguals any more than a hurdler is simply the sum of a sprinter and a high
jumper; Garca (2009), in her recent tour-de-force on bilingual education in the
twenty-first century, argues that bilingualism is not monolingualism times two (71),
not like a bicycle with two balanced wheels, but more like an all-terrain vehicle,
whose wheels extend and contract, flex and stretch, making possible, over highly
uneven ground, movement forward that is bumpy and irregular but also sustained
and effective (45). She borrows and adapts the term translanguaging to highlight
this bilingual fluidity.
The term translanguaging, as originally proposed by Cen Williams (1994), refers
to WelshEnglish bilingual pedagogical practices where students hear or read a
lesson, a passage in a book or a section of work in one language and develop their
work in another, for example by discussion, writing a passage, completing a work
sheet, conducting an experiment; input and output are deliberately in a different
language and are systematically varied (Baker 2001, 281; 2003, 82). Baker argues that
the continua of biliteracy anticipate and extend the notion of translanguaging,
providing a reminder of the strategic need to consider all the dimensions of the
continua to create full biliteracy in students (Baker 2003, 84).
Translanguaging practices in the classroom have the potential to explicitly
valorize all points along the continua of biliterate context, media, content, and
development. Such practices, also recently and eloquently theorized and documented
as hybrid classroom discourse practices (Gutie rrez, Baquedano-Lo pez, and Tejeda
1999), multilingual classroom ecologies (Creese and Martin 2003), a four-quadrant
pedagogic framework for developing academic excellence in a bilingual program
(Hornberger 2010; Joseph and Ramani 2004, forthcoming), supportive bilingual
scaffolding (Saxena 2010), and flexible bilingual pedagogy (Blackledge and Creese
2010), offer possibilities for teachers and learners to access academic content through
the linguistic resources and communicative repertoires they bring to the classroom
while simultaneously acquiring new ones.
Transnational literacies and the content continua
The continua model posits that what (content) biliterate learners and users read and
write is as important as how (development), where and when (context), or by what
means (media) they do so. Whereas schooling traditionally privileges majority,
literary, and decontextualized contents, the continua lens reveals the importance of
greater curricular attention to minority, vernacular, and contextualized whole
language texts. Note that the term minority here connotes not numerical size, but
observable differences among language varieties in relation to power, status, and
entitlement (May 2003, 118), a meaning better conveyed in todays usage by the term
minoritized (McCarty 2005, 48). Minority texts include those by minoritized authors,
written from minoritized perspectives; vernacular ways of reading and writing include
notes, poems, plays, and stories written at home or in other everyday non-school
contexts; contextualized whole language texts are those read and written in the
269
Scenario 1: Beatriz
A pair of first graders in Pennsylvania, USA comment to each other in Spanish and
English while they co-read a text written in English (Link 2011).
At age three, Beatriz moved from Guerrero, Mexico to a peri-urban town outside
of Philadelphia with her mother and two older siblings to join her father, who had
arrived several years earlier. Her hometown in the US is considered to be a
community of the New Latino Diaspora (NLD) where increasing numbers of
Latinos (many immigrant, and some from elsewhere in the United States) are settling
both temporarily and permanently in areas of the United States that have not
traditionally been home to Latinos (Hamann, Wortham, and Murillo 2002, 1).
Beatriz attends a school with minimal previous exposure to Latino immigrants until
recent years in which growing numbers of Spanish-speaking, and primarily Mexicanorigin or Mexican-heritage children have arrived.3 Although the sole language of
instruction is English at the school, its classrooms are becoming multilingual spaces
as children from both Spanish and non-Spanish speaking households speak and are
learning Spanish for a variety of functions throughout the school day.
During literacy time Beatriz sits on the rug with her first grade classmates, listens
to a story read in English, and then discusses it in both Spanish and English with a
peer. When called on, she offers, in English, a complete sentence about the storys
setting. Shortly after, she and several students leave to attend their daily English as a
Second Language (ESL) class upstairs in the library during which time she
participates in guided, leveled reading in English, and chats with her friends in
Spanish and English while completing spelling work in English. On returning to her
classroom, she joins her Centers group at the computers to practice rhyming words in
English, and then reads and discusses a book written in English with two friends, one
a bilingual SpanishEnglish speaker and the other, an English-speaker. The three
discuss the story and then work together to draw and compose several sentences
about it in English, Beatriz and her Spanish-speaking peer teaching their classmate
vocabulary in Spanish.
270
271
teatro theatre [based on El teatro campesino peasant theatre]) were the norm, and
served to foster literacy in other languages alongside English.4 In light of the
Continua model these practices can be seen as expanding the media through which
literacy is learned and used, and as privileging the minority end of curricular content.
Moreover, they emphasize the life stories of the students and their families, accounts
that are based on transnational literacies.
In a similar vein, the funds of knowledge (Gonza lez, Moll, and Amanti 2005;
Moll and Gonza lez 1994) project highlights what the Continua model refers to as
minoritized identities and perspectives, vernacular genres and styles, and contextualized texts in biliteracy learning contexts. Moll and colleagues argue that community
funds of knowledge (sometimes called household funds of knowledge or local funds of
knowledge), defined as historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of
knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and wellbeing (Moll and Gonza lez 1994, 443), are a resource which can and should be drawn
on in schooling for language minority populations. The centerpiece of their work is
collaboration with teachers in conducting household research, because, as they put
it, it is one thing to identify resources but quite another to use them fruitfully in
classrooms (441). In the words of one teacher collaborator, the teacher mediates by
creating curricula that reflect both the standard curriculum and the themes,
languages, and culture of students lives . . . when teachers incorporate household
funds of knowledge into the curriculum and use dialogic teaching methods, students
are liberated to direct their own learning (Floyd-Tenery 1995, 12).
Other scholars also document how teachers can effectively teach students with
multiple communicative repertoires and linguistic practices in mainstream or ESL
classrooms. For example, Skilton-Sylvester (2003) describes how an ESL instructor
working with Cambodian students in Philadelphia built on their language (Khmer),
which not only made it a legitimate part of whole-class discussion but also made it a
legitimate part of literacy practice in the classroom (16). Walqui (2006) drawing
from a Vygotskyan sociocultural perspective charts how teachers of English
Language Learners (ELLs) promoted linguistic and academic development through
a number of scaffolding strategies such as modeling, bridging, contextualizing,
schema-building, re-presenting text, and developing metacognition. One of the key
premises in the work of both Walqui (2006) and Skilton-Sylvester (2003) is that it is
possible to support additive bilingualism in classrooms even when the teacher does
not speak languages other than English (Skilton-Sylvester 2003, 13). Here again
language and literacy practices are not confined to solely English but involve the rich
and varied cultural and linguistic resources of the students and can be seen as
drawing from the less powerful ends of the biliteracy Continua; in these cases, as in
those of Campano (2007) and Moll and Gonza lez (1994; Gonza lez, Moll, and
Amanti 2005), translanguaging and transnational literacies are the norm and serve to
promote academic achievement.
272
273
achieve higher reading levels in English, commensurate with their reading levels in
Spanish.
274
Conclusion
In contrast to such a view, the continua of biliteracy offers a lens that enables both
government and classroom policy-makers (Menken and Garca 2010) to envision and
incorporate students mobile, multilingual language and literacy repertoires as
resources for learning. Refracting and reinforcing Obamas positive outlook on
bilingualism and his bilingual-friendly ESEA Blueprint, the continua of biliteracy is
in effect a blueprint for innovative and excellent educational reform that might at
last reconcile the schizophrenia of US educational policy that for most of the nations
history has sought with one hand to enhance English speakers foreign language
capacity while with the other to eradicate ELLs language expertise, often in those
very same languages. Such a reform is particularly pressing as schools and
communities across the US experience ever-increasing linguistic and cultural
diversity.
Educators are perpetually poised between what is and what might be, between the
actual and the imagined (Greene 2000, as cited in Garca, Skutnabb-Kangas, and
Torres-Guzma n 2006, 11). As we who are committed to multilingualism continually
seek to open and fill up implementational and ideological spaces for multilingual
education (Hornberger 2006), it may be that Obamas current policies on the one
hand and our schools glaring needs on the other offer new spaces to be exploited for
innovative programs, curricula, and practices that recognize, value, and build on the
multiple, mobile communicative repertoires, translanguaging and transnational
literacy practices of students and their families. Let us hope so.
Notes
1.
2.
The Center for Applied Linguistics online Two-way Immersion Directory lists over 350
programs across the US (see http://www.cal.org/).
This composite portrait reflects data from a growing body of research conducted in a
NLD community led by Stanton Wortham and Kathy Howard, among others. For
3.
4.
5.
275
specific research that documents Beatrizs experience as a first grader, see Link 2011. All
names used are pseudonyms.
Approximately 70% of the schools current lower elementary grades (K-2) are Spanishspeakers.
While policies insist that students will only attain high achievement on standardized
testing if English is the exclusive language of the classroom, Campanos (2007) work
shows otherwise. His students gained in their annual test scores in both math and literacy
by 15 percentile points, and continued to increase over the following two years (120).
This portrait reflects Hornbergers research and collaboration with Dr. Esther Ramani
and Dr. Michael Joseph, founders and directors of the University of Limpopo bilingual
BA program. I am grateful to Esther and Michael for their unstinting generosity and
inspirational scholarship and academic leadership. My thanks also to the Fulbright
Senior Specialist program for sponsoring my 2008 sojourn at the University of Limpopo.
References
Baker, C. 1988. Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 2003. Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh
national curriculum. In Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational
policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings, ed. N.H. Hornberger, 7190.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C., and N.H. Hornberger, eds., 2001. An introductory reader to the writings of Jim
Cummins. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bartlett, L. 2007. Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories.
Linguistics and Education 18: 21531.
Batalova, J., M. Fix, and J. Murray. 2007. Measures of change: The demography and literacy of
adolescent English learners A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Ben-Zeev, S. 1977. The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive
development. Child Development 48: 100918.
Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Blackledge, A., and A. Creese. 2010. Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London, UK:
Continuum.
Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Campano, G. 2007. Immigrant students and literacy: Reading, writing and remembering.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Capps, R., M. Fix, J. Murray, J. Ost, J.S. Passel, and S. Hewantoro. 2005. The new
demography of Americas schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID 311230 (accessed
January 10, 2009).
Cazden, C., B. Cope, N. Fairclough, J. Gee, M. Kalantzis, G. Kress, A. Luke, C. Luke,
S. Michaels, and M. Nakata. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review 66: 6092.
Cortese, G., and D. Hymes, eds., 2001. Languaging in and across human groups: Perspectives
on difference and asymmetry. Genova: Tilgher.
Creese, A., and P. Martin, eds. 2003. Multilingual classroom ecologies: Inter-relationships,
interactions and ideologies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual
children. Educational Research 49: 22251.
Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization (ESEA). 2010. A blueprint for reform.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html (accessed January 9, 2010).
Escamilla, K. 2006. Monolingual assessment and emerging bilinguals: A case study in the US.
In Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and glocalization, ed. O. Garca,
276
277
Hornberger, N.H. 2010. Language and education: A Limpopo lens. In Sociolinguistics and
Language Education, ed. N.H. Hornberger and S.L. McKay, 54964. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N.H., and D.C. Johnson. 2007. Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and
spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly 41: 509
32.
Hornberger, N.H., and E. Skilton-Sylvester. 2000. Revisiting the continua of biliteracy:
International and critical perspectives. Language and Education: An International Journal
14: 96122.
Hymes, D.H. 1980. Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Joseph, M., and E. Ramani. 2004. Cummins four quadrants: A pedagogic framework for
developing academic excellence in the new bilingual degree at the University of the North.
Paper presented at the international Conference of the Southern African Applied
Linguistics Association (SAALA), University of Limpopo.
Joseph, M., and E. Ramani. Forthcoming. Glocalization: Going beyond the dichotomy of
global vs. local through additive multilingualism. International Multilingual Research
Journal.
Kroll, J.F., and A.M.B. de Groot, eds. 2005. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Link, H. 2011. Hola means hello: The intersection of language policy and language
ideology in the early elementary classrooms of a New Latino Diaspora Community.
Working Paper in Educational Linguistics 26, no. 2.
Makoni, S., and A. Pennycook, eds. 2007. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Martnez-Rolda n, C.M., and P. Sayer. 2006. Reading through linguistic borderlands: Latino
students transactions with narrative texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6: 293322.
May, S. 2003. Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Current Issues in Language
Planning 4: 95125.
McCarty, T.L., ed. 2005. Language, literacy, and power in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
McGinnis, T., A. Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and E.C. Saliani. 2007. indnpride: Online spaces
of transnational youth as sites of creative and sophisticated literacy and identity work.
Linguistics and Education 18: 283304.
McKay, S.L., and S.-L.C. Wong, eds. 1988. Language diversity: Problem or resource? New
York, NY: Newbury House.
Menken, K. 2008. English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy.
Cleveland, England: Multilingual Matters.
Menken, K., and O. Garca, eds. 2010. Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as
policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Moll, L., and N. Gonza lez. 1994. Lessons from research with language-minority children.
Journal of Reading Behavior 26: 43956.
Moll, L.C., and S. Diaz. 1985. Ethnographic pedagogy: Promoting effective bilingual
instruction. In Advances in bilingual education research, ed. E. Garcia and R. Padilla,
12749. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Ong, A. 1999. Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Peal, E., and W. Lambert. 1962. The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological
Monographs, 76, 123. [Reprinted 1972 in Gardner, R. and W. Lambert, eds. Attitudes and
motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House].
Potowski, K. 2010. Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Ramani, E. and M. Joseph. 2010. Developing academic biliteracy: A case study of a bilingual
BA degree (in English and Sesotho sa Leboa) at the University of Limpopo.
Ramani, E., T. Kekana, M. Modiba, and M. Joseph. 2007. Terminology development versus
concept development: Insights from a dual-medium BA degree. Southern African
Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 25, no. 2: 20733.
278
Richardson Bruna, K. 2007. Traveling tags: The informal literacies of Mexican newcomers in
and out of the classroom. Linguistics and Education 18: 23257.
Sa nchez, P. 2007. Cultural authenticity and transnational Latina youth: Constructing a metanarrative across borders. Linguistics and Education 18: 25882.
Saxena, M. 2010. Reconceptualising teachers directive and supportive scaffolding in bilingual
classrooms within the neo-Vygotskyan approach. Journal of Applied Linguistics &
Professional Practice 7, no. 2: 16990.
Skilton-Sylvester, E. 2003. Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and the
multilingual classroom: Constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in the
United States. In Multilingual classroom ecologies: Inter-relationships, interactions, and
ideologies, ed. A. Creese and P. Martin, 824. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Street, B. 1995. Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography and
education. London: Longman.
Sua rez-Orozco, M., and D. Qin-Hillard, ed., 2004. Globalization, culture, and education in the
new millenium. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Valde s, G. 1982. Social interaction and code-switching patterns: A case study of Spanish/
English alternation. In Spanish in the United States, ed. J. Amastae and L. Elas-Olivares,
20929. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walqui, A. 2006. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9: 15980.
Warriner, D.S. 2007a. Its just the nature of the beast: Re-imagining the literacies of
schooling in adult ESL education. Linguistics and Education 18: 30524.
Warriner, D.S., ed. 2007b. Transnational literacies: Immigration, language learning, and
identity. Special issue, Linguistics and Education 18.
Wiley, T.G., and W.E. Wright. 2004. Against the undertow: Language-minority education
policy and politics in the Age of Accountability. Educational Policy 18: 14268.
Williams, C. 1994. Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd
ddwyieithog [Evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual
secondary education]. Bangor, Wales: University of Wales.
Zentella, A.C. 1981. Ta bien, you could answer me en cualquier idioma: Puerto
Rican codeswitching in bilingual classrooms. In Latino language and communicative
behavior, ed. R. Dura n, 10931. New Jersey: Ablex.