Language ideologies in English learner classrooms

This article was downloaded by: [Aria Razfar] On: 28 February 2012, At: 08:46 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language Awareness Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Language ideologies in English learner classrooms: critical reflections and the role of explicit awareness a

Aria Razfar & Joseph C. Rumenapp

a

a

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147, Chicago, Illinois, USA Available online: 28 Feb 2012

To cite this article: Aria Razfar & Joseph C. Rumenapp (2012): Language ideologies in English learner classrooms: critical reflections and the role of explicit awareness, Language Awareness, DOI:10.1080/09658416.2011.616591 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.616591

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Language Awareness 2012, 1–22, iFirst Article

Language ideologies in English learner classrooms: critical reflections and the role of explicit awareness Aria Razfar∗ and Joseph C. Rumenapp Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Downloaded by [Aria Razfar] at 08:46 28 February 2012

(Received 25 January 2011; final version received 2 August 2011) This paper draws on fieldwork conducted over the course of one academic year in two urban high-school English learner (EL) classrooms located in the south-western part of the United States. As part of a larger interest in how language ideologies mediate classroom discourse practices, this paper analyses the role of awareness in language ideological (LI) inquiry, its methodological implications, as well as pedagogy in second language learning. Classroom surveys, observations and teacher interviews were conducted and analysed using content and discourse analysis. When probed for language issues within their classrooms and over their lives, students were able to articulate explicit awareness of how rules of language use mediated their lives. More importantly, they were able to articulate issues of status and difference vis a vis language which points to a critical view of LI inquiry. Teachers also expressed explicit rules regarding language use for instructional purposes. While explicit articulations of language ideologies were rare, especially within everyday classroom practices, they provide a valuable and necessary reference point for understanding the implicit ways in which language ideologies frame interactions within EL classrooms. This dimension enhances the empirical validity of LI inquiry in classroom settings. Keywords: language awareness; language ideology; second language learning

Introduction Over the last two decades, language ideological (LI) inquiry has focused on the implicit ways in which linguistic and discursive uses simultaneously index our beliefs about the nature, function and purpose of language (Kroskrity, 2010). Language ideologies whether explicit or implicit underpin fundamental notions of identity and community (Schieffelin, Woolard, & Kroskrity, 1998). The field of LI originally focused on the explicit talk and awareness of language ideologies; however, in the 1990s, researchers began to attend to a broader continuum of awareness which included more implicit forms. For example, Kroskrity (1998) studied the case of Tewa kiva speech practices that are rarely explicitly stated, but are nonetheless dominant language ideologies. He argues: Successfully ‘naturalized’ beliefs and practices, such as the role of Arizona Tewa kiva speech as a ‘prestige model’ for everyday verbal conduct, are not publically challenged and seldom enter members’ discursive consciousness. Any rethinking of language ideology that would exclude naturalized, dominant ideologies and thus analytically segregate beliefs about language according to the criterion of consciousness seems to me unwise. (Kroskrity, 1998, p. 117)

∗

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0965-8416 print / ISSN 1747-7565 online C 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.616591 http://www.tandfonline.com


2

A. Razfar and J.C. Rumenapp

While most of the recent studies have focused on practices and the more implicit ways in which language ideologies mediate everyday language use, the role of awareness is a significant dimension of LI inquiry, especially in the context of second language instruction. Those drawing on LI perspectives have sometimes been critiqued for presuming the existence of language ideologies without having to explicitly show them. In other words, unless there is an identifiable metalinguistic discourse (i.e. language about language), the presumption of language ideologies is premature. As Spitulnik (1998) points out, metalinguistic practices are essential towards identifying language ideologies. The growing body of work in LI has collectively aimed to empirically show the fallacy of this position by drawing our attention to the intersection of linguistic form and macro issues of power, status and difference. This paper examines the role of explicit language ideologies as they mediate everyday teacher practice. The broader study was guided by an overall interest in classroom practices as an index for language ideologies such as repair, narrative and student challenges (e.g. Razfar, 2005, forthcoming). It was also methodologically and theoretically important to locate these practices within any explicit articulations of language ideologies drawing on multiple sources of data. Explicit ideologies of language, culture and learning were evident from the teacher interviews, student surveys about language, as well as from classroom discourse. While the frequency of explicit articulations of language ideologies was relatively low in actual discourse, this data provided a powerful lens for analysis, and further confirmed the validity of the more implicit and subtle forms in which language ideologies mediate instruction in urban English learner (henceforth EL) contexts. This paper will analyse how explicit ideologies of language mediate the lives of the participants in this case study. The first part of this paper will detail what the students in the advanced and sheltered classrooms have said about language preference at home, history of repair of both primary language and English, the rules of language use both in their homes and in their formal American educational experiences, and their affective stances vis a vis their primary language. The second part of this paper analyses how the participating teachers construct explicit language ideologies during interviews focused on beliefs about language, culture and second language learning. The third part will examine how the sheltered classroom teacher constructs language ideologies in the classroom and how explicit ideologies of language mediate the advanced classroom discourse.

Language ideologies Research on language ideologies finds its roots in the fields of anthropology and sociology. While other traditions, such as language attitude research (Bowie & Bond, 1994; GarciaNevarez, Stafford, & Arias, 2005; Labov, 1968; Mitchell-Kernan, 1972), focus on individual and group reactions to language, language ideologies are the beliefs, ideas and values that exist as systems binding communities together (Baker, 1992; Jeon, 2007). Language attitude studies tend to draw on experimental methods, such as indirect elicitation methods to get to speakers’ underlying language attitudes (e.g. matched-guise technique). Nonethnographic methods overlook how beliefs about language are constructed in moment-tomoment interactions, preferring not to look at actual practice in more naturally occurring contexts. This demonstrates a strong preference for the expert perspective and a continuation of the older linguistic prejudice against considering speakers’ awareness as an important part of the total language system. Labov (1966), for example, studied the social stratification of dialects in New York City, while Lambert and Tucker (1972) studied attitudes towards different languages in bilingual


Language Awareness

3

contexts. These early sociolinguistic studies, however, were based on experimental, not ethnographic, design. They focused more on the structural aspects of language and less on meaning-making in naturalistic, communicative situations. Silverstein’s work has cast language ideologies into the field of anthropology as a powerful lens for understanding the underlying beliefs about language. His classic statement that describes language ideologies as ‘any sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure or use’ (Silverstein, 1979, p. 193) is one commonly used definition of language ideologies and seems to frame this area of study. Silverstein’s formulation of ‘linguistic ideologies’ was indeed metalinguistic and/or explicit in nature. This was the core of the present-day concept to which emphases on awareness, multiplicity, positionality and other dimensions have been added (see Kroskrity, 2000, 2009, 2010). They become revealed through consistent practices as they are embedded in cultural ways of being. Not only are ideologies revealed through practices, but also they are actually reproduced through consistent cultural practices which are not always made explicit (Godley, Carpenter, & Werner, 2007; Gutierrez & Larson, 1994). Language ideologies, or the ideas and beliefs about language held by a group of people, are actively performed in society. It is an effective process in which the beliefs and views held by a group of people underlies the actions and behaviours of that social group. Language ideologies include the ideas society holds towards language and how these beliefs and ideas relate to the way society uses and acts towards language (Godley et al., 2007; Schieffelin et al., 1998). They represent ideas of power and identity as construed by a society (Cummins, 2000). When examining discrimination of minority students in schools, looking at language use through the lens of ideology explains the relationship of identity and power (e.g. Gonzalez & Melis, 2000; Shannon, 1999). Language ideologies, as a societal convention, are seen in ‘common sense’ views and actions (Siegal, 2006). They therefore underpin identities, attitudes, policies, control and power within a society. While linguistic structures once were seen as a unifying bond for a specific language group within the autonomous view of language and literacy, it is recognised, from an ideological view of language, that those very structures are intimately connected with ideologies held by society (Reagan, 2006; Schieffelin et al., 1998). Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) discuss this point: [It] is impossible to elucidate any act of communication within the compass of linguistic analysis alone. Even the simplest linguistic exchange brings into play a complex and ramifying web of historical power relations between the speaker, endowed with a specific social authority, and an audience, which recognizes this authority to varying degrees, as well as between the groups to which they respectively belong. (pp. 142–143)

Power structures are inherent in every instance of language use. This inequality or language hegemony is always present. Any relationship between two different language practices, ideologies or language systems produces some degree of inequality of power or status (Shannon, 1999). The inequality of statuses of language use occurs by both coercion and consent. In some instances, the dominant language or the dominant ideology is imposed on a group of people against their will. This has often been the case during political domination when the ideologies are backed by political power. In other instances, however, people may choose to adopt dominant language practices for personal gain or benefit. To some extent, there is consent in every linguistic choice, even though the subject may have been coerced to conform to the statuses held in society (Gal, 1989). Gutierrez and Larson (1994) and Shannon (1999) argue that this hegemony is not only present at the societal level: it does not just happen with politics and national or elitist policies; it happens even in smaller spaces such as the classroom. More importantly, LI production should not

4


be viewed dichotomously as occurring in either ‘macro’ or ‘micro’ spaces, but rather how they are differentially experienced by multiple social actors and how they are mutually interconnected in the context of everyday settings. Classrooms, of course, are embedded in schools which are a part of communities, but they point out that hegemony can be seen and examined in the spaces of educational contexts.


Language awareness Talking about language ideologies To frame this dialogue of language ideologies, we turn to Silverstein’s (2001) work on awareness. In an attempt to acknowledge the relationship between ‘(meta-) language and action’, Silverstein states that people engage in a metapragmatic discourse at varying degrees. This discourse is situated around how words mean. The ability to discuss the meaning of words in context, or how these words are used in context, is precisely what Silverstein attempts to understand. To what degree are native speakers able to talk about the rules and other culturally defined features of language? In answering this question, Silverstein draws not only on the form of the language, but also its contextual usage. Speakers use language in culturally appropriate ways; however, the ability to talk about and reproduce these language forms out of culturally defined context is pragmatic awareness. However, Silverstein (2001) acknowledges that the referential function of language is at the root of this metapragmatic ability when he states: We can show how the other functions of language are always being assimilated to reference in terms of native speaker awareness, and are in fact subject to conscious metapragmatic testimony only to the extent that they are assimilable to reference, or ‘ride along on’ referential structure. (p. 401)

Thus, the dominant language ideologies, for example, those foregrounding the ‘more objective’ and referential functions of language, make salient certain features of the language which become a part of the metapragmatic discourse about appropriate language uses. This essentially subordinates other functions of language, especially those semiotic aspects grounded in meaning and values that can be best understood through extended, ethnographic relationships built over time. As a result, these metapragmatic discourses are limited to those features of language that are privileged by the dominant language ideologies mediating classroom interactions. While there are always multiple and contested language ideologies, the dominant ones have greater currency and visibility in classroom discourse. Classroom discourse often reflects the policy of dominant educational institutions and mediates dominant patterns of interaction. As we look at language awareness, we look at the ability of students and teachers to talk about explicit language ideologies such as rules about language use in the home and school. This ability to engage in metapragmatic discussion brings to bear the functionality of language ideologies as they are explicitly stated in daily life, in this instance, in the classroom.

Awareness of explicit language ideologies The ideologies of language effectively bond a language group together and play an integral role in the identity of individuals in that group (Reagan, 2006; Schieffelin et al., 1998). Jeon (2007), drawing on Bourdieu (1991) and Fairclough (1989), explains that because language is a symbolic resource of a community, power relationships among speech communities


Language Awareness

5

may be perpetuated as some symbolic resources are held as higher status and more valid. Thus, in Jeon (2007), explicit ideologies were found regarding English and Korean language use. The explicit metalinguistic discussion of the status of Korean and English indicates that the students were aware of the ideologies embedded in the context and how these ideologies mediated the social context. The different resources were not considered as equal status and the proficiency of either language had consequences on the social standings of speakers. Language ideologies intentionally bring to the foreground these conflicts both within groups, such as the case with gender (Briggs, 1998; Silverstein, 1985), and between socially defined groups like race, ethnicity and so forth (Kroskrity, 1993, 1998). Generally, language ideologies can be seen both explicitly and implicitly throughout society. However, the dominant language ideologies, especially those without significant contestation, are likely to be taken for granted and become part of practical consciousness rather than discursive consciousness. As a result, it is often not the case that they emerge explicitly (Godley et al., 2007; Gutierrez & Larson, 1994). However, within language policy, it is often the explicit statements about language that are of interest. Gal and Irvine (1995) acknowledge that explicit ideologies mark much of the nationalist movement in unified nation states. The focus on national unification such as ‘one nation – one language’ lends itself well to explicit statements about language. Similarly, English-only discussions and school language policy are often quite explicit in the American education system (McGroarty, 2008). However, though explicit ideologies do exist and mediate society, implicit ideologies are present as well, and are often the focus of studies in educational research. This study is situated within this context that while language ideologies are often tacit and remain unchallenged, the awareness of language ideologies and their explicit iterations as rules will provide a powerful lens to analyse the mediation of classroom activities. It is also important to locate this analysis within the larger national and local sociopolitical context. The classrooms investigated in this study were situated within a broader climate of restrictive language policies, anti-immigrant legislation, subtractive schooling practices for Latinos/as and a persistent pattern of underachievement for immigrant and non-dominant populations (Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Valenzuela, 1999). Over the last 10 years, the United States has witnessed an erosion of the progressive gains of the Civil Rights era as illustrated by the rise of English-only movements, anti-immigrant and anti-affirmative action legislations, which has lead to a crisis in education for Latinos/as, ELs and other nondominant populations (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). The advent of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) effectively ended the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 and removed the word ‘bilingual’ from all federal documents and the US Department of Education’s lexicon. For educators throughout the United States, a linguistically and culturally restrictive climate emerged over the last decade. The negative effects of this larger restrictive trend have been felt by the teachers as they were pressured to quickly ‘mainstream’ ELs and only use English during instruction (Razfar, 2005, 2010). At Beach High School, teachers in the EL and ESL (English as a second language) programme reported being pressured to mainstream recent immigrants to the sheltered course in the post-Proposition 227 era. In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 227, also known as the ‘Unz Initiative’, and effectively curtailed bilingual education in public schools. This initiative was part of a larger national ‘English-only’ campaign spearheaded by Ron Unz, which was successful in several states (e.g. Arizona, Massachusetts) and defeated in others (e.g. Colorado, Illinois). As a result of this proposition, California standards required that recently arrived ESL students be mainstreamed in less than two years which placed an unreasonable burden on instructors, given it takes five to seven years to develop academic English (Cummins, 1984).

6


We need a critical lens to see how the explicit ideologies, the ideologies of which the participants in certain activity systems are aware, mediate the learning and development process. While the focus of this paper is in the context of ESL and sheltered English classrooms, the implications may be applied more generally. Since language is the primary discourse for socialisation and learning in schools, an analysis of explicit language ideologies will function similarly in other contexts as well.


Talking about language critically In framing awareness, it is also important that we draw on the literature on critical language awareness as we attempt to show that the explicit language ideologies in a classroom and at home perpetuate power relations. Fairclough (1992) makes the distinction between language awareness and critical language awareness in the rationale for such approaches. Language awareness has focused on the knowledge about language, specifically in schools. While it can be used to address social issues, it is limited in scope to the classroom. For instance, students can become aware of linguistic variation and can align their language practices to that valued by different communities. Critical language awareness, Fairclough (1992) explains, is part of a larger critical pedagogy movement in which the awareness of language variation must be approached on a scale far above that of the school. Students become aware of the systemic power relations surrounding language and are encouraged to engage these issues in society at large. Moral and ethical considerations for investigating language ideologies Researchers have specific moral obligations to study the ideologies underlying language use and policy (Halliday, 1993). Gee (2008) points out that there are moral considerations we should address by critiquing our own cultural models. If left unexamined, then our lives carry the potential to harm others. Therefore, a critical analysis of our own cultural models is important because we have the ‘moral obligation to change a cultural model into a primary theory when there is reason to believe that the cultural model advantages oneself or one’s group over other people or groups’ (Gee, 2008, p. 27). While Gee focuses on the moral obligation of the individual to consider cultural assumptions, others have discussed the issue of linguistic justice at the policy level (De Schutter, 2007). In this ongoing debate, there is a call for stronger examination of sociological research on language to inform the conversation of linguistic justice from a policy level. Corson (2000) also discussed language policy as a social justice issue, and Reagan (2006) explains the arguments that language rights, in particular, are an issue of human rights in general. In the post-Proposition 227 era of English language instruction, there is a considerable amount of questioning the ideologies undergirding such policies and the fairness of English-only policies, especially in regard to education (Crawford, 2000; Siegal, 2006). Context of study This study takes place in an urban high school that we will call ‘Beach High School’ (pseudonym). It is located in Southern California in the western part of the United States. The population of the school is mostly Latina/o (over 65%), and over the last decade, restrictive language policies have reduced support for bilingual and EL populations. Nearly one quarter of the entire student population was designated as ‘limited English


Language Awareness

7

proficient’ (LEP). There was another group of students called ‘English as native language’ (ENL). These students grew up in bilingual homes and were either born in the United States or immigrated before the age of five. They were generally orally proficient, but needed some type of language support. Placement into the ESL programme was contingent upon two factors: (1) a placement exam administered by the bilingual coordinator and (2) arrival time into the United States. In other words, the ESL programme was geared towards recently arrived immigrant students, not the ENL students. The bilingual coordinator stated that part of the rationale for never placing ENL students in ESL courses (even if they needed those skills) is the stigmatisation these students may be subject to as ‘ESL students’. Furthermore, she reported that these students have expressed an unwillingness to be in ESL courses. The ESL programme consisted of four levels (early beginning, advanced beginning, intermediate and advanced). In addition, the programme had a ‘sheltered’ course that served as a transition course for regular English courses at this school. Because the school was reluctant to place ENL students in ESL courses, the sheltered course was also reserved for ENL students needing language support. Some of these students may have been formally classified as LEP at some point in their educational lifetime or they simply were receiving remedial support. Thus, the sheltered course had a combination of more recently arriving immigrant ESL students as well as ENL students. This made the sheltered course an ideal context for comparing the different generations of ELs. This paper focuses on Mr Sanders’ (pseudonyms) sheltered course and Ms Arianas’ advanced ESL course. Mr Sanders (Mr S) had more than five years of teaching experience and Ms Arianas (Ms A) over 15 years. These classes were selected because they were the most interactive classrooms in the study of one high-school’s ESL programme (Razfar, forthcoming; Razfar & Rumenapp, 2011).

Methodology Since there is a distinct difference between research on language attitudes and research on the beliefs that undergird these attitudes, it is important to note that this paper is indeed attempting to examine the way that explicit ideologies mediate classroom life. While ideologies are often tacit, they sometimes are made explicit. Therefore, explicit means of data gathering were employed to see whether students were aware of rules about language. The teachers were also asked explicitly about their views on language, and video recordings were coded for instances of explicit acknowledgement of language rules. Because this provides interesting data on how classroom and community language practices are viewed by students and teachers, methods consistent with an ‘ethnography of communication’ (Jeon, 2007; Woolard, 1998) approach were employed to analyse how the students and teachers in this study were thinking about language rules. The methods not only included explicit questions eliciting responses as to whether the students knew of any rules about language, but also provided opportunity for qualitative responses to elaborate. Interviews with teachers and classroom observations were analysed using discourse analysis (Gee, 2008; Gee & Green, 1998) to understand the awareness of explicit language rules. Discourse analysis, as a method of research, assumes that language is a cultural artifact that is used to mark status and identity. As language is used in context, it can be analysed for both the form and how that form relates to function in the discourse. Therefore, as the discourses in this study were analysed, the different forms of language used are tied to the function they possess and what this indicates about the status and identities of the speaker and audience (Gee, 2008). Together these methods were used to observe the awareness of explicit language ideologies. The methods were drawn together as a bundle

8


Table 1. Coding of explicit LI practices. Practices English only Language form


Talk about language

Definition Any invocation of an English-only rule in classroom practice. Any reference to proper/correct English form or rules. Any reference to language form or function.

Metalanguage Participants reflect upon language function and uses collected through surveys and interviews (teachers only).

Advanced Sheltered ESL (N) (N) 0

3

4

6

2

1

2 Int. Survey (N = 16)

2 Int. Survey (N = 21)

Example Mr S: Iselda. English only. This is an English class. Practice your English. See p. 28. Ms A: Oh the past [tense] . . . I love the past! Mr S discusses how to use language to construct an argument and the purpose of symbolism (Transcript 2) See interview/survey data N/A to observations

consistent with an ‘ethnography of communication’ (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Duranti, 1997; Gumperz & Hymes, 1972).

Data collection and coding This case study draws on a corpus of video-recorded classroom discourse collected over one academic year (approximately 36 hours divided into one-hour segments) in the advanced ESL and sheltered English course. Using NVivo qualitative software, a coding scheme was used to select, organise and analyse instances of explicit language ideologies (see Table 1). In the classroom data, each code captured instances of explicit language ideologies through the invocation of ‘English-only’ rule, reference to proper English form or talk about language. The ‘talk about language’ code was also relevant in the analysis of interviews with participating teachers.

ELL student awareness of language ideologies Student language ideologies made explicit The first part of this paper will detail what the students in the advanced and sheltered classrooms have said about language preference at home, the rules of language use both in their homes and in their formal American educational experiences, and their affective stance vis a vis their primary language. When the students in this case study were asked about primary language use at home and at school, their responses displayed a range of awareness. The qualitative commentary that students voiced further illustrated the range of awareness students had with respect to language ideologies, including the rules of appropriate code usage in terms of L1 and English, hybrid language practices and issues of identity. Students in both advanced and sheltered classes were asked about some language use in the home: Did your parents or other relatives have strong feelings about which language should be used at home?

Language Awareness

9

The overwhelming majority (95%; 20/21) of students in the sheltered classroom responded negatively to this question with students offering the following commentary, for example: (a) No they thought it would be good if I spoke both.


The responses indicate that both languages were equally valued and at least three students were given equal choice to select which code they wanted to communicate with. However, the responses in the advanced ESL class, where most of the students are recent immigrants, suggested the opposite trend, where 75% of the students (12/16) responded ‘yes’ to the same question (Figure 1). Several students who responded affirmatively to this question provided commentary that illustrates the strong affective stance that some family members took with respect to English use (a) at home, (b) family tension and (c) communication: (a) My uncle in Mexico gets mad when you speak English. (b) Always Chinese and I tell them to learn some English. (c) My parents at home, they speak only Spanish because they know Spanish.

The students in this case study were also asked to recall any explicit or implicit rules for primary language use in school contexts. Students were asked the following question: Do you remember any rules about using Spanish (or another language) in school?

The majority of students in the sheltered class responded negatively to this question where they did not recall explicit or implicit rules of L1 use in school. Of the five students who recalled specific rules of language use in school, three provided additional commentary to describe the rules. In general, the rules are framed as imperatives and in absolute terms without a rationale such as: ‘Yes. You can’t speak it in class.’ However, one student recalled explicit rules pertaining to language ‘mixing’: Not to mix them in English.

Figure 1. Parents’ feelings about home language use.


10


This response suggests this student’s awareness of ideologies of language that devalue hybrid language practices within school contexts. While the rationale for such rules is not clear from the commentary, the reference to the language practice of ‘mixing’ indexes the ideologies of language that aim to establish clear and distinct boundaries between languages as well as deficit views of bilingualism (e.g. Ferguson, 1959; Fishman, 1972). The debates surrounding the topics of ‘code-switching’ and ‘mixing’ are indeed embedded within issues of status and privilege and have consequences for the identities constructed in relation to bilingual speakers (Myers-Scotton, 1983, 1992). More recently, the notion of translanguaging has been used to reconceptualise the narrow and somewhat deficit stance associated with the terms ‘code-mixing’ or ‘language interference’ (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). The trend in the advanced ESL course was once again different from the responses in the sheltered course. More than half of the students in the advanced course (10/16) remembered rules about using languages other than English in school contexts (Figure 2). Furthermore, the commentary that these students provided reveals vivid recollections of languages other than English being prohibited in classroom contexts. Some of the responses were couched as narratives that recalled specific historical experiences. For example, one student provides a narrative account of a time in middle school, where Spanish was prohibited in the interest of learning English: Yes. One time when I was in middle school a teacher provided the class don’t speak Spanish in class because if we speak more English we learn more English.

Other students provided the communication rationale for the prohibition of L1 use in classroom contexts. If others could not speak and understand L1, then it was not an appropriate language practice in the classroom. Like the sheltered student who voiced a similar position, it was primarily addressing the teachers’ inability to communicate in Spanish: Yes, because sometimes the teachers don’t speak Spanish and they don’t understand.

Figure 2. Non-English rules in school.

Language Awareness

11

However, another student, who is the only Arabic speaker in the classroom, referred to all those present in the classroom in providing the communication rationale:


Yes, I do. Don’t use Arabic because they’s nobody that speaks your language. And we’re not sure what you’re saying.

The communication rationale is perhaps the most ‘common sense’ and naturalistic explanation invoked for the prevalence of language use rules prohibiting the primary languages of students in classroom contexts. In comparing the sheltered and the advanced responses, the observance of increased consciousness of such language use rules among the advanced students raises important questions for further examination. There might be demographic and structuralist explanations that attribute this difference to the advanced ESL students’ predominant status as elective bilinguals who have recently immigrated to the United States. However, such explanations are outside the theoretical and methodological frameworks of this study. Students were also asked to comment on whether or not they were encouraged to use languages other than English in the classroom: Are students encouraged to use Spanish or languages other than English in the classroom?

In the sheltered classroom, two out of three respondents responded negatively and another six students responded positively with one student being uncertain. The responses in the advanced ESL class were evenly split (seven positive and seven negative; Figure 3). These students provided additional commentary to elucidate their positions. One student invoked the role of social identities, as it relates to language uses, and cited the distinction between peers and teachers: Yes, but when you want to speak with the teacher you have to use English.

Furthermore, the use of an absolute modal such as ‘have to’ emphasises the strict and rigid social boundaries of language use rules in ELL (English language learner) contexts. In this context, students were aware that Ms Arianas speaks and understands Spanish, so it was not necessarily an issue of communication and understanding. Nevertheless, some of the

Figure 3. Encouragement of non-English languages.

12


students who responded negatively again cited issues of communication and understanding between students and the teacher and among students. Finally, students in both advanced and sheltered contexts revealed a positive affective alignment with their primary language. How do you feel about your primary language (Spanish, Chinese, etc.)?


Nearly all students who commented on this question expressed feeling ‘proud’ and/or ‘good’ about the languages they speak. One student in the advanced ESL course explains how she likes to speak both Zapotec and Spanish; furthermore, she constructs multilingualism as a positive practice because she can communicate with multiple discourse communities: I felt proud by all my language. I like to speak Zapotec, or Spanish. I love to speak it I speak or respond the language that they spoke to me. For example, if someone spoke to me English I respond to them in English. Or if they speak to me Spanish, I responded Spanish to them or if they spoke Zapotec I responded Zapotec with that person.

In addition to positive affective stances, another theme that emerges from the student responses is the connections between one’s native language and their social identities with respect to origin, family and ethnicity: I feel proud of my language because Spanish is the first language that my family spoke to me.

Several student responses from the sheltered class demonstrated how they valued multilingualism. One student attributed his positive feelings: ‘I like it because I know two languages.’ However, being multilingual also had its challenges as one student states: ‘I like it, but it’s difficult.’ Many first- and second-generation immigrant populations use hybrid language practices to make meaning of their lived experiences. However, language ideologies that view language as having an idealised, homogenous form mediate the low status often ascribed to such discourse practices. One student expressed the dilemma (emphasis added): I like my language but sometimes I don’t know how to explain what I’m trying to say and I have to include English in my speaking I feel fine because I could speak either Spanish or English.

These student responses illustrated the range of consciousness and awareness that students articulated with respect to language use rules, multilingualism, identity and affect. There was also a discernable pattern of language use rules between students who were more recent immigrants (mostly in the advanced ESL course) and students who were in the sheltered context. The participating teachers in this case study also displayed an awareness of the ideologies of language that mediate everyday discourse. An analysis of the explicit articulated language ideologies of the participating teachers is provided in the following section. ELL teachers’ awareness of language ideologies ‘English-only’ rules in teacher interviews One of the clearest representations of explicit language ideologies was the invocation of an ‘English-only’ rule. Before examining examples of this practice in actual classroom discourse, the following interview exchange that deals with the use of languages other than English in the sheltered classroom will provide added insight into what takes place in the classroom discourse. The first author asked Mr Sanders about the role of students’ primary language in his classroom (lines 1–5):

Language Awareness 01 02 03 04 05

A1: Mr S: A1:

13

What is the role of a student’s primary language in terms of learning a second language hmmm [sighs] how do you use that as a tool for learning a second language?

Language ideologies of total immersion and contexts mediated by English-only rules were implicitly discouraged in the upcoming response. Although the question presumed a role for primary languages and culture and preferred a response that assumes a role, Mr Sanders, in his response, began by orienting to the lack of neutrality (in terms of language ideologies) by marking the question as ‘a bit of a tricky question’ (lines 6 and 7):


06 07

Mr S:

Well, that’s a that’s a bit of a tricky question for me.

Later, Mr Sanders asserts an English-only language ideology with respect to his pedagogical practices and the use of languages other than English was minimised: 08 09 10 11 12 13

Mr S:

but uhm I think I like the idea that when you walk into this class its an English class, its English only we’re working on all of our English skills so I try not to allow them to lean on their native languages too much. So, as far as their role, I think it’s a minor role, for me.

Mr Sanders displayed a positive affective alignment with the English-only position in line 8 (‘like’). In contrast to the stance in lines 1–9, Mr Sanders used an inclusive stance in line 10 (‘we’ and ‘our’) with respect to the students when talking about the use of English only. In addition, it appears that the fact that the class is an ‘English’ class was a self-evident explanation for why an English-only position was justified. As a result, Mr Sanders in line 11 invoked the authoritative voice of the teacher to prohibit or ‘not allow them’ to use or ‘lean on’ their native language. Thus, the role of primary languages and cultures was viewed as minor in the learning of English, and language ideologies of full immersion and language as a set of discrete parts become a natural part of the pedagogical practices in Mr Sanders’ English classrooms. In contrast to Mr Sanders, Ms Arianas, who taught advanced ESL, considered herself multilingual and fluent in two languages other than English (Greek and Spanish), and limited fluency in Hebrew (reciting only). During the interview, I asked her questions about the role of primary languages in her classroom instruction, the use of languages other than English in her classroom and the relationship between language, culture and politics. With respect to the role of primary languages (or languages other than English) in her classroom practice, Ms Arianas offered the following response: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Ms A: Ok if I know the language say I know Spanish and there something coming up and it’s a problem, for example, you know that word en, that preposition they in Spanish there is only one preposition, there’s very few prepositions, and English we have in and on, so a student would typically confuse in and on because they only have the single preposition. So it’s really to my advantage to understand why that mistake is occurring and give them a lot of practice to say when you talk to an E in and on, we see a different picture in our mind and then I use a lot of visuals and examples.


14


In her response to this question (lines 1–11), Ms Arianas clearly defined the role of languages other than English in terms of understanding students’ grammatical errors (lines 7 and 8). The example she cites, preposition use of Spanish versus English, indicated that Ms Arianas believed there is a direct link between the grammar of L1 and grammatical errors made in L2. Her conceptualisation of the role of L1 and the use of contrastive analysis to acquire L2 is based on a structuralist view of grammar and harkens back to behaviourist perspectives of language learning. In other words, all languages are based on rules that generate similar linguistic structures, in this case preposition use, and contrastive analysis is a viable tool for making ELs aware of the differences of potential ‘problem areas’. Thus, all native Spanish speakers, as a homogenous speech community, would predictably have this type of problem, given the difference in preposition use between English and Spanish. This reference to transfer was typical of second language acquisition (SLA) discourse in the 1960s and has been reformulated in the more recent SLA literature (e.g. Cummins, 1984). In addition, the following sequence (lines 1–5), which was an elaboration of the question mentioned earlier, suggested that Ms Arianas viewed the primary function of language as making referential meaning. Once a person is fluent in one language, ‘it’s just a matter of learning new vocabulary’ (line 3). 01 02 03 04 05

Ms A: Oh I see, well if a person can already speak another language and read and write it, it’s just a matter of learning new vocabulary and I think I can say that a student who comes to me more literate, the more education it’s just so easy for them to learn English.

In lines 3–5, Ms Arianas equated literacy with formal education (line 4), and made a direct correlation between formal literacy in one’s primary language and the ease with which L2 (English) was acquired. Thus, Ms Arianas essentially articulates the traditional underlying principles of bilingual education (Cummins, 1984) and not a more complicated relationship between languages, such as ‘translanguaging’ (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). There is an important contrast in the two teachers’ stated positions. For Ms Arianas, the L1 is a resource that can be used by teachers and students to aid in the development of L2. While for Mr Sanders, there is no need to draw on or acknowledge the importance of L1 in L2 development, and it seems that L2 development is completely independent from L1. There is though in both a foregrounding of the importance of developing the L2, not bilingualism, and, at best, Ms Arianas’ position might suggest a weak form of bilingualism. In both cases, the exclusive use of English indexes alignment with broader, restrictive ideologies of language and learning that subordinate non-English languages to the mandates of the state, namely to develop ‘academic’ English proficiency, achieve cultural assimilation and loss of indigenous/native languages.

Explicit language ideologies in classroom discourse Thus far, we have shown how teachers and students display their awareness about language use in the home, classroom and other social contexts. Given the participants engaged in a metalanguage activity (survey and interviews), where the questions were explicitly about language, more explicit forms of awareness were to be expected. One of the limitations of this type of data is that the voices of the participant are elicited individually, which constrains our ability to see how language ideologies are multiple and contested in live interactions among participants. Our data show that explicit awareness of language use

Language Awareness

15


and the rules governing it were sometimes made manifest in the context of classroom interactions. This is another important source of data for examining issues of awareness and language ideologies. In classrooms, where teachers and students are co-constructors of meaning, there is more potential to see how language ideologies and teacher/student awareness of these ideologies are manifestly contested in classroom discourse (see Razfar, 2005; Razfar & Rumenapp, 2011). In this section, we highlight how awareness of language ideologies became manifest in both classrooms. Mr Sanders and ‘English-only’ in classroom discourse The only explicit invocations of an English-only rule occurred three times in Mr Sanders’ sheltered classroom. The following discourse segments (Sanders Transcripts 8, 13 and 17) are illustrative of the explicit articulations of English-only language ideologies. Chronologically, these examples occurred between the mid-point and end of the semester. Mr Sanders organised the students into groups to answer questions from the English grammar book on different types of verbs (Transcript 8). The following sequence occurred shortly after Mr Sanders had given the class 12 minutes to complete the questions1: Transcript 8: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

(Iselda speaking Spanish, Mr S standing by desk behind Ismara) Iselda: si yuda dice Ismara: Where? (looking at notebook) Iselda: [laughs (2 seconds) Mr S: Iselda. English (.) o:nly. This is an English cla::ss. Practice your English. [moving away from desk toward Iselda] Ray: That’s right (head nodding, looking at Iselda) Iselda: Well [rising intonation]. Sorry::: my bad Ismara: [makes a mock crying sound, smiles] Iselda: Well, America’s [inaudible] Mr S: [Quiet [louder voice] I don’t want to hear complai:ning (gestures with hand) (.) I want to see you wo::rking (2 seconds) you should already be number two or number three (moves away) all you need to do is write down the verbs.

In lines 1–6, Iselda and Ismara were speaking Spanish with respect to the assignment as Mr Sanders stood behind Ismara outside of the group, which consisted of Ismara, Iselda and Ray (who is a recent immigrant from Poland). Iselda’s use of Spanish was loud enough to be heard across the room. In line 7, Mr Sanders interjected and addressed Iselda exclusively (line 7) and then invoked the English-only rule with its rationale (line 8). The rationale for English only was only presented as self-evident by virtue of the subject discipline that defined the course; therefore, Iselda was told through the use of an imperative to ‘practice your English’. Thus, the use of a language other than English, in this case Spanish, was not legitimate in an English class, even if it was to comprehend the assigned task. As Mr Sanders was moving away from the group, the male, Polish student in the group confirmed Mr Sanders’ position in line 9 through a positive uptake and by directly looking at Iselda and nodding his head (lines 10–13). However, Iselda did not align herself with Ray and countered Ray’s move by providing a mock apology (line 11) that was characterised by rising intonation, vowel elongation and ‘my bad’ signifying ‘my


16


mistake’. Ismara aligned herself with Iselda’s stance by making a mock crying sound (line 12). As Iselda was about to continue her response, she was cut off and silenced by Mr Sanders (lines 14–18). This example emphasised a broader principle in LI inquiry in that language ideologies are not monolithic, but rather multiple and contested. While students were aware of the dominance of English, they could resist through explicit discursive moves. It appears that Iselda was about to provide a rationale that somehow related to the notion of America and national ideologies (line 13), but was immediately interrupted and Mr Sanders took an opposing stance with respect to Iselda’s turn in the discourse by constructing her act as ‘complaining’ and off task as evidenced by lines 16–18. In these lines, Mr Sanders suggested that Iselda was off task and behind and redirected them to the verb activity. The following sequences are further examples of English-only ideologies mediating classroom discourse. The students were engaged in a peer-editing activity where they are reading each other’s essays and making corrections and comments with regard to the organisation and structure of the essays. They were working in small groups as opposed to the typical entire class instruction that takes place in Mr Sanders’ classroom. Initially, the students were working individually and quietly (Transcript 13). Students discussed their work and used Spanish to make meaning of the task; hence, there was a public presence of multiple languages being used to perform classroom-related and sanctioned tasks. Mr Sanders once again interjected (lines 1–7): Transcript 13: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

hurry up, way too much talking, every time I turn around you guys are talking Natasha [but we’re talking about this Mr S: don’t, just read it, and score it, and pass it along, read it score it go along, no complaining. And is there no three and a half, two and a half, its either 4 3 2 or 1 Mr S:

In lines 1 and 2, Mr Sanders once again silenced the talk and began to discipline this particular group. However, there was no uptake of Natasha’s challenge, and Mr Sanders used eight imperatives in lines 4–7, indexing his authority to ratify appropriate talk; in fact, Natasha’s challenge in line 3 was constructed as ‘complaining’ which is a socially undesirable act. Although the students were working in groups, the nature of the participation was constrained. As Mr Sanders moved through the various spaces of the class, monitoring progress, the students in Natasha’s group resumed using Spanish to navigate the peer-editing activity. However, the use of these non-English languages was not sanctioned as it appeared earlier. Mr Sanders moved near Natasha’s group and looked at Natasha and said (Transcript 13, lines 8–15): Transcript 13: 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

[Students speaking Spanish to do peer editing] Mr S: (1 sec) English (1 sec) what class is this? Natasha: English (murmured voice) Mr S: then you sp::eak it [Students begin speaking English] (15 seconds) Mr S: Does he have a topic and a thesis in there? [referring to Faustino as Natasha is editing]

Language Awareness

17

Lines 8–12 exemplify a discourse sequence mediated by explicit English-only language ideologies. Mr Sanders chose to use a question in line 9 rather than possible directives such as ‘don’t speak Spanish’ or ‘speak only English’. The question was directed at Natasha, through eye-gaze, and she responded. The posing of a question assured the co-construction (line 10) of this ideological position while at the same time providing the justification. The following sequences (Transcript 17, lines 1–5) are also examples of explicit English language ideologies mediating classroom discourse. They occurred in the context of group work at two distinct times during the same period. Once Mr Sanders had finished giving procedural instructions, students began to talk in their groups about the questions pertaining to the literature. Four Latino, male students (Angel, Ramiro, Faustino and Gilbert) were speaking Spanish when Mr Sanders approached and said:


Transcript 17: 01 02 03 04 05

English gentlemen, you’re in an English cla:ss practice the English la:nguage Students: [silence] Mr S: Tha::nk you:: (.) Now. Do you any of you have so:me [rising intonation] of the questions answered. Mr S:

This group consisted of three students who were recent immigrants, and one student who has been in the United States his entire life. The subject domain of the class (i.e. English class) once again served as the inherent rationale for why only English should be used within the classroom context. This was further mediated by the ideologies of language learning that make language the target of instruction, and learning a language means using the target language exclusively (immersion). The students’ silence in line 3 followed by Mr Sanders’ receipt token in line 4 served to co-construct the language ideologies that preclude the use of languages other than English, especially in ‘an English class’. In line 2, Mr Sanders used an authoritative voice, as indexed by the imperative ‘practice’ in conjunction with a singular, absolute ‘the English language’, as indexed by the definite article ‘the’. Apparently, Mr Sanders had interpreted the students’ silence in line 3 to mean compliance with the English-only rule as evidenced by the receipt token Mr Sanders offered in line 4, ‘tha::nk you::’. However, as Mr Sanders turned away and walked towards another group of students, Angel and Ramiro resumed speaking to each other in Spanish and continued the assignment in their group. Thus, there was a divergence between the teacher and students with respect to how to appropriately perform the task. Two competing language ideologies emerged in terms of what was considered the appropriate language choice for performing the assigned task. The use of Spanish in an overtly English-only context (at least in the immediate interaction) can also be interpreted as a counter English-hegemonic act, which was invoked through the English-only rule. Nevertheless, for some reason, these students chose not to overtly or directly resist the teacher, but rather wait for the moment when he was no longer oriented to them. While there was no resistance to the class assignment or tasks, there was resistance to the teacher’s English-only stance. With respect to the theories and ideologies of learning, the students’ use of Spanish to perform official classroom tasks also marked the relevance of using non-English meditational tools to engage in classroom literacy activities.

Ms Arianas and students Throughout the data, Ms Arianas did not invoke an English-only rule; however, on occasion (two times), she engaged in explicit talk about language with students, what we called

18



metalanguage. Read-alouds were a regular activity in this classroom and often Ms Arianas corrected students’ pronunciation for the purposes of fluency, comprehension and meaning (Razfar, 2005). While Ms Arianas regularly corrected students’ reading, she rarely commented on language use or the rationale for the correction. The only time she was observed commenting on some aspect of language was when she corrected a student’s incorrect writing of the past tense. As she read Mario’s writing in a worksheet, she corrects his incorrect use of tenses in ‘I stop going’. Ms Arianas upon seeing this responded: ‘You want “stopped. S T O P P E D”, I stopped, E D . . . Oh the past! I love the past.’ This was a clear example of Ms Arianas expressing her views about language form (i.e. ‘past tense’). The following exchange was another rare example of expressions of language ideologies. Ms Arianas and Zhimme, one of the Mandarin-speaking students in the class, were discussing his ‘favorite class’ (lines 1–10): 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

What is your favorite class? My favorite class is Mandarin. Why? Cuz it’s easiest. I like it. If I were a teacher I would like to teach Chinese. Ms A: Why? Zhimme: Because it’s my language. Students: What is Mandarin? Ms A: Chinese. Which classes are important for the future? Zhimme: English and Math.

Ms A: Zhimme: Ms A: Zhimme:

In these lines, Zhimme expresses a clear LI alignment with Mandarin (line 7) ‘it’s my language’ as the rationale for why it is his ‘favorite class’; however, when asked which classes are important for the future, he privileges Math and English (lines 9 and 10). This segment suggests Zhimme’s awareness of Mandarin’s subordinated status in relation to English, especially in instrumental terms (i.e. ‘future’ success). Discussion Teachers and students in this case study demonstrated their awareness of the different language rules that mediated classroom discourse and home lives. They also showed their consciousness of power and status issues. In terms of language rules, they were explicit in the classroom and the teachers, as well as the students, could name them and elaborate their justification. Language ideologies, while mostly implicit in classroom practice, were sometimes made explicit in classroom discourse in the form of invocations of ‘Englishonly’ rules (sheltered English class only) or references to language form and/or proper English rules. However, without consciously designated metalanguage activities where participants discuss language form, function and purpose explicitly, we can expect the explicit manifestations of language ideologies to be minimal. Based on the survey results, students were able to demonstrate their understanding and make explicit their awareness of various language ideologies. Furthermore, they were aware of their implications on issues of status, identity and power. Thus, teachers need to develop ‘metalanguage’ activities and a critical framework to engender student thinking about these issues. This ‘critical consciousness’ of language is an essential tool for language learning and development (Siegal, 2006). This is the next step in classroom pedagogy to critically analyse the explicit language ideologies in the classroom as well as the broader society. Recent research, by H. Samy Alim (2007), for example, seeks to bring language ideologies to the explicit forefront of classroom discourse


Language Awareness

19

through the use of ‘critical hip-hop language pedagogies’. Without intervention of this sort that brings a critical perspective to the classroom, hegemonic language ideologies tend to be implicitly enforced and may even go unchallenged. The examples presented in this paper show that not only students were aware of the dominant position of English vis a vis non-English languages (i.e. Mandarin and Spanish), but they also engaged in contestation of these dominant, explicit LI practices. Furthermore, the survey results showed variation in awareness and stances, and further confirmed language ideologies as multiple, competing and contested. Overall, language ideologies were rarely manifested explicitly compared with the more implicit practices (see Razfar, 2005). Language ideologies often operate as tacit, common sense notions about language and learning that bring cohesiveness to nation states and are deeply embedded in our cultural ways of being (Kroskrity, 2010; Woolard, 1998). Therefore, the study of language ideologies cannot be limited to self-reported attitudes or detached metalanguage activities such as interviews about language. Ethnographic methods, such as discourse analysis of face-to-face interactions, provide an essential lens for understanding language ideologies in situ. Nevertheless, through metalanguage activities both teachers and students become aware of their language ideologies. This awareness or critical consciousness is important both pedagogically and sociopolitically, especially in terms of addressing issues of equity and access for ELs. Pedagogically, student awareness of these explicit language ideologies must be followed up by an in-depth discussion of the underlying assumptions about language. These stances can be juxtaposed with competing language ideologies from both the research community as well as ‘folk theories’ of language, hence the development of a classroom culture that has a ‘metalanguage’ to discuss the intricacies of language use. Teachers, who are explicitly aware of language ideologies and encourage metapragmatic discourse in classroom settings, provide a space for students to challenge the dominant language ideologies. If teachers recognise the inherent issues of status and difference in language use, then they can critically reflect on their own teaching as well. The dominant language ideologies lacking significant contestation are likely to be taken for granted and implicit. The function of critical pedagogies is to create a site for the production of contesting, counter-hegemonic discourses that would presumably provide students with more control of their linguistic resources by enhancing their discursive consciousness and their potential for further agency. Making language ideologies explicit opens the classroom as a site where teachers and students can contest hegemonic symbolic relations and inequitable power structures, and seek transformative change (Alim, 2007). Note 1. Transcription conventions come from CA (conversation analysis; Drew & Heritage, 1992). Bold = emphasis; ‘:’ = vowel elongation, (.) = micropause; [] = overlapping talk.

Notes on contributors Aria Razfar, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His research focuses on English language learning across the lifespan and multiple contexts of development. He draws on sociocultural and critical theories of language and learning. His recent work on language ideologies has appeared in the journals of Human Development, Linguistics and Education, and Anthropology and Education Quarterly. He is the Director of Transforming Literacy, Science, and Math through Action Research (LSciMAct), funded by the US Department of Education, and the Co-director for Center for Mathematics Education of Latinas/os (CEMELA), funded by the National Science Foundation.

20


Joseph C. Rumenapp is a doctoral student in the Literacy, Language, and Culture programme at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is a research assistant for the LSciMAct project as well as the Language Attitudes in Urban Education Project.


References Alim, H.S. (2007). Critical hip-hop language pedagogies: Combat, consciousness, and the cultural politics of communication. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6(2), 161–176. Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bowie, R.L., & Bond, C.L. (1994). Influencing future teachers’ attitudes toward Black English: Are we making a difference? Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 112–118. Briggs, C. (1998). You’re a liar – you’re just like a woman! Constructing dominant ideologies of language in Warao men’s gossip. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, & P.V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 229–255). New York: Oxford University Press. Corson, D. (2000). Social justice, language policy, and English Only. In R.D. Gonzalez & I. Melis (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement (Vol. 2, pp. 95–120). Urbana, IL and Mahwah, NJ: National Council of Teachers of English and L. Erlbaum Associates. Crawford, J. (2000). Proposition 227: A new phase of the English-only movement. In R.D. Gonzalez & I. Melis (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement (Vol. 1, pp. 28–61). Urbana, IL and Mahwah, NJ: National Council of Teachers of English and L. Erlbaum Associates. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. Cummins, J. (1984). Linguistic minorities and multicultural policy in Canada. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Linguistic minorities, policies, and pluralism (pp. 80–105). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Cummins, J. (2000). Foreword. In R.D. González & I. Melis (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement (Vol. 1, pp. ix–xx). Urbana, IL and Mahwah, NJ: National Council of Teachers of English and L. Erlbaum Associates. De Schutter, H. (2007). Language policy and political philosophy: On the emerging linguistic justice debate. Language Problems and Language Planning, 31(1), 1–23. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical language awareness. London and New York: Longman. Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340. Fishman, J. (1972). The sociology of language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gal, S. (1989). Language and political economy. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18, 345–367. Gal, S., & Irvine, J.T. (1995). The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research, 62(4), 967–1001. Gándara, P., & Contreras, P. (2009). The Latino educational crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Garcia-Nevarez, A.G., Stafford, M.E., & Arias, B. (2005). Arizona elementary teachers’ attitudes toward English language learners and the use of Spanish in classroom instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(2), 295–317. Gee, J.P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Gee, J.P., & Green, J.L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. In H. Mehan (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 23, pp. 119–169). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.


Language Awareness

21

Godley, A.J., Carpenter, B.D., & Werner, C.A. (2007). ‘I’ll speak proper slang’: Language ideologies in a daily editing activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 100–130. Gonzalez, R.D., & Melis, I. (2000). Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement. Urbana, IL and Mahwah, NJ: National Council of Teachers of English and L. Erlbaum Associates. Gumperz, J.J., & Hymes, D.H. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics; the ethnography of communication. New York: Holt. Gutierrez, K.D., & Larson, J. (1994). Language borders: Recitation as a hegemonic discourse. International Journal of Educational Reform, 3(1), 22–36. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116. Jeon, M. (2007). Language ideologies and bilingual education: A Korean-American perspective. Language Awareness, 16(2), 114–130. Kroskrity, P.V. (1993). Language, history, and identity: Ethnolinguistic studies of the Arizona Tewa. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Kroskrity, P.V. (1998). Arizona Tewa kiva speech as a manifestation of linguistic ideology. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, & P.V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 103–122). New York: Oxford University Press. Kroskrity, P.V. (2000). Language ideologies in the expression of and representation of Arizona Tewa ethnic identity. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 329–360). Santa Fe: Santa Fe School of American Research Press. Kroskrity, P.V. (2009). Narrative reproductions: Ideologies of storytelling, authoritative words, and generic regimentation in the village of Tewa. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19(1), 40–56. ¨ Kroskrity, P.V. (2010). Language ideologies: Evolving perspectives. In J.-O. Ostman, J. Verschueren, & J. Jaspers (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics highlights: Society and language use (pp. 192–211). Herndon, VA: John Benjamins Publishing. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. (1968). The reflection of social processes in linguistic structures. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp. 240–251). New York: Mouton Publishers. Lambert, W.E., & Tucker, R.G. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. McGroarty, M. (2008). The political matrix of linguistic ideologies. In B. Spolsky & F.M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 98–112). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Mitchell-Kernan, C. (1972). On the status of Black English for native speakers: An assessment of attitudes and values. In C. Cazden, V.P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 195–210). New York: Teacher’s College Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1983). The negotiation of identities in conversation: A theory of markedness and code choice. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 44, 115–136. Myers-Scotton, C. (1992). Comparing codeswitching and borrowing. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13(1–2), 19–39. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). (2001). Public Law 107–110. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf Razfar, A. (2005). Language ideologies in practice: Repair and classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 404–424. Razfar, A. (2010). Repair with confianza: Rethinking the context of corrective feedback for English learners (ELs). English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2), 11–31. Razfar, A. (Forthcoming). Ideological challenges in classroom discourse: A sociocritical perspective of English learning in an urban school. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies. Razfar, A., & Rumenapp, J.C. (2011). Developmental context(s): Mediating learning through language ideologies. Human Development, 54(4), 241–269. Reagan, T. (2006). The explanatory power of critical language studies: Linguistics with an attitude. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 3(1), 1–22. Schieffelin, B.B., Woolard, K.A., & Kroskrity, P.V. (Eds.). (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Shannon, S.M. (1999). The debate on bilingual education in the US: Language ideology as reflected in the practice of bilingual teachers. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp. 171–200). New York: Mouton Publishers.


22


Siegal, J. (2006). Language ideologies and the education of speakers of marginalized language varieties: Adopting a critical awareness approach. Linguistics and Education, 17(1), 157–174. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In R. Cline, W. Hanks, & C. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Silverstein, M. (1985). The functional stratification of language and ontogenesis. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 205–235): New York: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, M. (2001). The limits of awareness. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 382–401). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Spitulnik, D. (1998). Mediating unity and diversity: The production of language ideologies in Zambian broadcasting. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, & P.V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 163–188). New York: Oxford University Press. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New York: State University of New York Press. Woolard, K.A. (1998). Introduction: Language as a field of inquiry. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, & P.V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–50). New York: Oxford University Press.