!"#$%$"&$&'()*+$%,'*(-,&'.,'*#($&(%/*(0&$%*1(2%,%*#3.%/"+4#56(78*9$,(:,+;

Perspectives

Ryon, D. (2002). Cajun French, sociolinguistic knowl- edge, and language loss in Louisiana. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1, 279-293.

Toth, C. R. (1990). German-English bilingual schools in America: The Cincinnati tradition in historical con- text. NewYork: Lang.

Vald6s, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 391-429.

Valdes, G. (2000). Introduction. In N. Anderson (Ed.), AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16: Vol 1. Spanishfor native speakers (pp. 1-20). Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

Valdes, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 37-78). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.

Wang, S., & Green, N. (2001). Heritage language stu- dents in the K-12 educational system. In J. Pey- ton, D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 167-196). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.

Weinberg, M. (1995). A chance to learn: A history of race and education in the United States (2nd ed.). Long Beach, CA: California State University Press.

Wiley, T. G. (1998). The imposition of World War I era English-only policies and the fate of German in North America. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and politics in the United States and Canada (pp. 211-241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiley, T. G. (2001a). On defining heritage languages and their speakers. In J. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 29-36). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.

Wiley, T. G. (2001b). Policy formation and implemen- tation. In J. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis

Perspectives

Ryon, D. (2002). Cajun French, sociolinguistic knowl- edge, and language loss in Louisiana. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1, 279-293.

Toth, C. R. (1990). German-English bilingual schools in America: The Cincinnati tradition in historical con- text. NewYork: Lang.

Vald6s, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 391-429.

Valdes, G. (2000). Introduction. In N. Anderson (Ed.), AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16: Vol 1. Spanishfor native speakers (pp. 1-20). Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

Valdes, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 37-78). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.

Wang, S., & Green, N. (2001). Heritage language stu- dents in the K-12 educational system. In J. Pey- ton, D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 167-196). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.

Weinberg, M. (1995). A chance to learn: A history of race and education in the United States (2nd ed.). Long Beach, CA: California State University Press.

Wiley, T. G. (1998). The imposition of World War I era English-only policies and the fate of German in North America. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and politics in the United States and Canada (pp. 211-241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiley, T. G. (2001a). On defining heritage languages and their speakers. In J. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 29-36). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.

Wiley, T. G. (2001b). Policy formation and implemen- tation. In J. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis

601

(Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 99-108). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.

Wiley, T. G. (2002). Accessing language rights in ed- ucation: A brief history of the U.S. context. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Crit- ical readings (pp. 39-64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiley, T. G. (2005a). Discontinuities in heritage and community language education: Challenges for educational language policies. InternationalJour- nal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8 (2 & 3), 222-229.

Wiley, T. G. (2005b). Literacy and language diversity in the United States (2nd ed.) Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Wiley, T. G. (in press-a). Dialect speakers as heritage lan- guage learners: A Chinese case study. In D. Brin- ton & 0. Kagan (Eds.) Heritage language: A new field emerging. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiley, T. G. (in press-b). Immigrant minorities: USA. In M. Hellinger & A. Pauwels (Eds.), Handbooks of applied linguistics: Vol. 9. Language and commu- nication: Diversity and change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wiley, T. G., & Valdes, G. (Eds.). (2000). Heritage lan- guage instruction in the United States: A time for renewal [Special issue]. Bilingual ResearchJournal, 24(4).

Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education and politics in the age of accountability. Educational Policy, 18, 142- 168.

Wright, W. E. (2005). Evolution of federal policy and implications of No Child Left Behind for lan- guage minority students. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from from from the Arizona State University Language Policy Research Unit, Educational Policy Studies Laboratory Web site: http:// www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL- 0501-101-LPRU.pdf

601

(Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 99-108). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.

Wiley, T. G. (2002). Accessing language rights in ed- ucation: A brief history of the U.S. context. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Crit- ical readings (pp. 39-64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiley, T. G. (2005a). Discontinuities in heritage and community language education: Challenges for educational language policies. InternationalJour- nal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8 (2 & 3), 222-229.

Wiley, T. G. (2005b). Literacy and language diversity in the United States (2nd ed.) Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Wiley, T. G. (in press-a). Dialect speakers as heritage lan- guage learners: A Chinese case study. In D. Brin- ton & 0. Kagan (Eds.) Heritage language: A new field emerging. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiley, T. G. (in press-b). Immigrant minorities: USA. In M. Hellinger & A. Pauwels (Eds.), Handbooks of applied linguistics: Vol. 9. Language and commu- nication: Diversity and change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wiley, T. G., & Valdes, G. (Eds.). (2000). Heritage lan- guage instruction in the United States: A time for renewal [Special issue]. Bilingual ResearchJournal, 24(4).

Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education and politics in the age of accountability. Educational Policy, 18, 142- 168.

Wright, W. E. (2005). Evolution of federal policy and implications of No Child Left Behind for lan- guage minority students. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from from from the Arizona State University Language Policy Research Unit, Educational Policy Studies Laboratory Web site: http:// www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL- 0501-101-LPRU.pdf

Positioning Heritage Languages in the United States OFELIA GARCIA, Teachers College, Columbia University

i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Positioning Heritage Languages in the United States OFELIA GARCIA, Teachers College, Columbia University

i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lengua de herencia ?... Como algo viejo, mi

bisabuela. Heritage language?... As if something old,

my great-grandmother. Sonia, a 17 year-old Dominican recently arrived

in New York City, May 10, 2005

What does the term heritage language mean to Sonia, the newly arrived Latina adolescent whose words appear above? It means "something old, her great-grandmother." And how does this differ from Spanish? Well, she tells me, Spanish is what

Lengua de herencia ?... Como algo viejo, mi bisabuela.

Heritage language?... As if something old, my great-grandmother.

Sonia, a 17 year-old Dominican recently arrived in New York City, May 10, 2005

What does the term heritage language mean to Sonia, the newly arrived Latina adolescent whose words appear above? It means "something old, her great-grandmother." And how does this differ from Spanish? Well, she tells me, Spanish is what

she speaks every day not only in her home, but also in the streets of Washington Heights, a Latino neighborhood in upper Manhattan.

I agree with Sonia. Positioning languages other than English in the United States as heritage lan- guages clearly is rear-viewing. It speaks to what was left behind in remote lands, what is in one's past. By leaving the languages in the past, the term heritage languages connotes something that one holds onto vaguely as one's remembrances, but certainly not something that is used in the present or that can be projected into the future. The use

she speaks every day not only in her home, but also in the streets of Washington Heights, a Latino neighborhood in upper Manhattan.

I agree with Sonia. Positioning languages other than English in the United States as heritage lan- guages clearly is rear-viewing. It speaks to what was left behind in remote lands, what is in one's past. By leaving the languages in the past, the term heritage languages connotes something that one holds onto vaguely as one's remembrances, but certainly not something that is used in the present or that can be projected into the future. The use

602

of the term heritage languages in the United States is, as Cummins so aptly notices, recent. This short reflection offers insights into why U.S. academics might have adopted the term, 20 years after the Canadians popularized it. Why, we must ask, has the term heritage languages caught on recently in the United States? Does it represent new lan- guages? New language ideologies? New language policy or planning? What terms were used previ- ously and what has happened to those terms?

These questions form the basis for my reflec- tions. I believe the use of the term heritage lan- guages in the United States signals a losing of ground for language minorities that was gained during the civil rights era. And yet, I agree with Cummins that the use of the term heritage languages in education in speaking with teach- ers, parents, schools, administrators, and children provides a way to "crack" today's homogenous monolingual schooling of very different children in the United States, providing a space for the use of languages other than English in educating children.

THE LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE OF THE UNITED STATES

The United States has had a long bilin- gual tradition that was aptly described in the 1960s and 1970s especially by Heinz Kloss (1963, 1977), Einar Haugen (1953), andJoshua Fishman (1966). As Table 1 makes clear, the foreign-born population in the United States has been approx- imately 10% since 1850, with the exception of the period of immigration restriction surround- ing World War II, a restriction that was lifted as a result of the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

It is instructive to link passage in 1968 of the Bilingual Education Act with the histori- cal period of lowest immigration. Those people who originally benefited from bilingual education were ethnolinguistic groups who were not immigrants-Mexican Americans who had long lived in the Southwest, Puerto Ricans who were U.S. citizens by virtue of the Jones Act of 1917, and the indigenous peoples of the United States, Native Americans. By 1974, when the Bilingual Education Act was reauthorized, immigration was on the increase and the transitional definition of bilingual education came into being. But with this rise in immigration, which returned the lev- els of the foreign-born to their long-term histori- cal trends, came another change, which affected how the country viewed its bilingual tradition. Ta- ble 2 makes evident that, not only was the num-

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

TABLE 1 Nativity of the Population: 1850 to 1930 and 1940 to 2000

Native-Born Foreign-Born Decade Population Population

1850 90.3 9.7 1860 86.0 13.2 1870 85.6 14.4 1880 86.7 13.3 1890 85.2 14.8 1900 86.4 13.6 1910 85.3 14.7 1920 86.8 13.2 1930 88.4 11.6 1940 91.2 8.8 1950 93.1 6.9 1960 94.6 5.4 1970 95.3 4.7 1980 93.8 6.2 1990 92.1 7.9 2000 88.9 11.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Pop Division No. 29 and Summary File 3.

ber of immigrants rising, their countries of origin were shifting dramatically. By 1980, immigration, especially from Latin America and Asia, was on the increase while immigration from Europe was declining rapidly. In 2000, over 50% of the im- migrants to the United States were from Latin America.

For the most part, Latin American immigrants speak Spanish. The number of Spanish speak- ers, combined with second and third generation Latinos who live in Spanish-speaking homes or who claim Spanish as the language of their an- cestors, has simply led to a shift in U.S. language ideology, with the language tolerance of its his- torical past and the language promotion of its civil rights era being replaced by the language restriction of the English Only movement. As in its historical beginnings, the United States has to contend particularly with Spanish, despite the re- cent growth of Asian and African languages in the country.

SPANISH AS A HERITAGE LANGUAGE?

Kloss (1977) attributed the greatest language rights to languages spoken by original settlers. Spanish was present in the continental United States before English. In 1513, Ponce de Leon discovered Florida, and soon afterwards, Panfilo de Narvaez established the first colony of Eu- ropeans near present-day Pensacola. Then, in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded

Perspectives TABLE 2 Region of Birth of the Foreign Born Population: 1850 to 1970 and 1980 to 2000

603

Decade Europe Asia Africa Oceania Latin America

1850 92.2% 0.1% - - 0.9% 1870 88.8% 1.2% - 0.1% 1.0% 1890 86.9% 1.2% - 0.1% 1.2% 1910 87.4% 1.4% - 0.1% 2.1% 1930 83.0% 1.9% 0.1% 0.1% 5.5% 1960 75.0% 5.1% 0.4% 0.4% 9.4% 1970 61.7% 8.9% 0.9% 0.4% 19.4% 1980 39.0% 19.3% 1.5% 0.6% 33.1% 1990 22.9% 26.3% 1.9% 0.5% 44.3% 2000 15.8% 26.4% 2.8% 0.5% 51.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Pop Division No. 29 and Summary File 3.

half of the Mexican territory to the United States. Spanish could be considered an original language in the United States, albeit with different histories and fortunes depending on the area in which it was spoken.

Besides being an original language, Spanish is widely spoken today in most of the United States. In July, 2004, Latinos numbered 41.3 million, accounting for one out of seven people in the country (Jelinek, 2005). According to the U.S. 2000 census, there were 35 million Latinos in the United States, comprising 13% of the pop- ulation. Of those, 21 million or 59% were of Mex- ican descent, 10% were Puerto Ricans, and 4% were Cubans. Of the total population, 27 million people, or 10%, claimed in the 2000 U.S. census that Spanish was spoken in their homes. Although these figures suggest that over one third of U.S. Latinos do not speak Spanish in the home and may have shifted to English, they also indicate that approximately two thirds of U.S. Latinos continue to speak Spanish in the home, even when they are fully bilingual. In fact, only 11% of those Latinos who speak Spanish at home do so because they do not speak English at all.

With 27 million speakers of Spanish in 2000, the United States is the fifth largest Spanish-speaking country in the world and is only short a million speakers to be on a par with Spain, a multilin- gual country where Spanish is spoken only by 28 million (Garcia, in press). Spanish in the United States is clearly not simply a heritage language, but: one that is spoken, most of the time along- side English, by millions of people who are U.S. citizens. In fact, for many of us, Spanish is no more our heritage language than English is. Both languages form part of our bilingual and transcul- tural identities, and perhaps it is our bilingualism that is our heritage, a heritage important in our

globalized world, but increasingly denied to U.S. citizens in U.S. global politics.

In describing the vicissitudes of globalization, especially as it relates to language policy and lan- guage planning, Wright (2004) explained:

Some of the most robust resistance to globalisation comes from within the United States itself.... The U.S. government is able to guard its sovereignty and autonomy in the classic manner of the nation state.... We appear to be witnessing asymmetric developments within globalisation: loss of economic autonomy and political sovereignty for many states; continuing eco- nomic autonomy and political sovereignty together with the survival of some elements of traditional "one nation, one territory, one language nationalism" for the United States. (pp. 163, 165)

I agree with Wright. Perhaps it is in the distanc- ing of the United States from the globalization that it has spearheaded for other countries that we find the meaning of the shift in calling lan- guages other than English heritage languages. As the languages of the world transcend their tradi- tional territories and English spreads, languages other than English in the United States are be- ing controlled through a shift in discourse. This shift is perhaps best exemplified by the silencing of the word bilingual and replacing it with heritage languages.

CLOSING UP THE BILINGUAL SPACE

It is obvious that the word bilingual has disap- peared from the national discourse and that bilin- gual education has undergone a successful slan- dering campaign that has left it unable to name itself. As heritage languages came into our national use in the 1990s, the term bilingual was being phased out. Table 3 shows some of the changes in naming that have silenced the words bilingual

The Modern Language Journal 89 (2005)

TABLE 3 Changes in Names

Office of Bilingual Education and Minority - Office of English Language Acquisition, Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) Language Enhancement and Academic

Achievement for LEP students (OELA) National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education - National Clearinghouse for English Language

(NCBE) Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA)

Title VII of Elementary and Secondary - Title III of The No Child Left Behind, Public Education Act: The Bilingual Education Act Law 107-110: Language Instruction for

Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students

education and minority languages, replacing them with language instruction and acquisition and En- glish language.

As these official name changes were taking place, the bilingual education enterprise moved to support programs that did not call themselves bilingual but dual language, another way of refer- ring to bilingual education without naming our country's bilingualism. In theory, dual language education programs, the great majority of them in English and Spanish, integrate English language learners with Spanish language learners. In real- ity, however, these programs are more what Herv6 Varenne (2005) called examples of"unauthorized education" or instances of the "centrifugal, hid- den and playful activity of all human beings, even under oppression." That is, as bilingual educa- tion programs, even those of the transitional kind, have come under attack, committed educators have found ways to continue to educate Latino students using their bilingualism as a resource. As a consequence one finds mostly Latino students in dual language classrooms; at least in New York City, they are Latino students who for the most part speak Spanish, but who are also bilingual.

In a recent article (Garcia, 2004), I referred to bilingual education in New York City as "lost in transculturation," as I decried the loss of the "safe spaces" that bilingual education programs, even of the transitional kind, provided for lan- guage minorities. As I reflect on what is happen- ing in dual language classrooms today, however, I can also speak of what has been found-a way, "a crack" in the educational homogenization that surrounds the No Child Left Behind Act, that en- ables bilingual instruction to continue in an era of restrictions and attacks on language rights. The same may be said of the use of the term heritage languages in education-it is a way of continuing to operate even a small modicum of professional bilingual activity in times of an increasingly bilin- gual U.S. reality but strict English monolingual imposition.

HERITAGE LANGUAGE AS OPENING UP NEW SPACE

Despite what has been lost, that is, the potential for full bilingualism and biliteracy of U.S. citizens, the introduction of the term heritage language in U.S. education discourse has opened up some new educational possibilities within the public schools. On the one hand, in opposition to foreign lan- guage education, heritage language education, mostly at the secondary and tertiary level, makes it possible to have classes for those students who have some measure of proficiency in the language because they speak it at home or in the commu- nity. On the other hand, in elementary and sec- ondary school, heritage language education pro- vides the possibility of using languages other than English for instructing those students who are in English as a second language, Sheltered English, or monolingual English-only programs. The use of heritage languages in children's learning even when instruction is in English has been shown to be highly effective (Cummins, in press; Fu, 2003). These heritage languages are used for their cross- linguistic transfer potential in educating children. They are different from the language awareness programs that make children cognizant of other languages. Heritage languages in education are good for language minority children who are re- ceiving no mother-tongue support in schools. But they are a far cry from what we should be do- ing with the nation's bilingualism and biliteracy potential.

TWO SOLITUDES VERSUS ENGLISH SOLITUDE

I agree fully with Cummins that the two soli- tudes of the languages in second language im- mersion and bilingual/dual language programs are no longer useful in a globalizing world where different degrees of multilingual abilities are needed for different purposes and where

604

Perspectives

monolingual spaces are seldom isolated. Schools need to calibrate their expectations to meet the world's plurilingual reality, and new instructional arrangements must be developed to benefit from the linguistic hybridity of the 21st century and its attendant technology. The use of heritage lan- guages in every child's education may be one way to develop a well-protected space for this activity.

It is important to understand that, despite its promise, recognition of heritage languages in ed- ucation has only come about as a fall-back po- sition, when the potential for bilingualism and biliteracy became restricted. In the United States, we have gone from the two solitudes of our two languages in bilingualism, to our sole soli- tude in English, with whispers in other languages. Our multiple identities have been silenced, with one language identity reduced to that of a heritage.

Those of us who work with language know that our use of language has the power to change re- alities. It is important to acknowledge the shift in the sociopolitical context and in our democratic process of giving voice to language minorities, in- digenous peoples, immigrants, and refugees that is indexed by the silencing of the words bilingual and mother tongue. The recognition and use of the term heritage languages harks back to a mythical era when English only reigned supreme in the nation's public schools, an era before bilingual- ism, before the recognition of two solitudes. It relegates languages other than English to a pow- erless position-backward and unimportant. But the term heritage language also keeps feeding the possibility of expressing our multiple identities- plural transcultural identities that refuse to dis- appear even when the solitude of U.S. English spreads throughout the globe.

Perspectives

monolingual spaces are seldom isolated. Schools need to calibrate their expectations to meet the world's plurilingual reality, and new instructional arrangements must be developed to benefit from the linguistic hybridity of the 21st century and its attendant technology. The use of heritage lan- guages in every child's education may be one way to develop a well-protected space for this activity.

It is important to understand that, despite its promise, recognition of heritage languages in ed- ucation has only come about as a fall-back po- sition, when the potential for bilingualism and biliteracy became restricted. In the United States, we have gone from the two solitudes of our two languages in bilingualism, to our sole soli- tude in English, with whispers in other languages. Our multiple identities have been silenced, with one language identity reduced to that of a heritage.

Those of us who work with language know that our use of language has the power to change re- alities. It is important to acknowledge the shift in the sociopolitical context and in our democratic process of giving voice to language minorities, in- digenous peoples, immigrants, and refugees that is indexed by the silencing of the words bilingual and mother tongue. The recognition and use of the term heritage languages harks back to a mythical era when English only reigned supreme in the nation's public schools, an era before bilingual- ism, before the recognition of two solitudes. It relegates languages other than English to a pow- erless position-backward and unimportant. But the term heritage language also keeps feeding the possibility of expressing our multiple identities- plural transcultural identities that refuse to dis- appear even when the solitude of U.S. English spreads throughout the globe.

605 605

REFERENCES REFERENCES

Cummins, J. (in press). Identity texts: The imagina- tive construction of self through multiliteracies pedagogy. In O. Garcia, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Torres-Guzman (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (1966). Language loyalty in the United States. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mou- ton.

Fu, D. (2003). An island of English: Teaching ESL in Chi- natown. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Garcia, O. (in press). Lenguas e identidades en mun- dos hispanohablantes: Desde una posici6n pluril- ingie y minoritaria [Languages and identities in Hispanophone countries: From a plurilingual and minority perspective]. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), Lingiiistica aplicada del espanol [Spanish Applied Linguistics]. Madrid: Arcos Publishers.

Garcia, 0. (2004). Lost in transculturation: The case of bilingual education in New York City (Series A, Paper No. 624). Universitat Duisburg-Essen, Linguistic LAUD Agency.

Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian language in America: A study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jelinek, P. (2005, June 9). Hispanics are fastest growing minority. Washington Post. RetrievedJune 9, 2005, from http://www.washingtonpost.com

Kloss, H. (1963). Das Nationalititenrecht der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Vienna, Austria: Braumuller.

Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition. Row- ley, MA: Newbury House.

Varenne, H. (2005, June). Education as theory. Paper pre- sented at the Conference on Anthropology and Education, Teachers College, Columbia Univer- sity, New York City.

Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language plan- ning: From nationalism to globalisation. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cummins, J. (in press). Identity texts: The imagina- tive construction of self through multiliteracies pedagogy. In O. Garcia, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. Torres-Guzman (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (1966). Language loyalty in the United States. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mou- ton.

Fu, D. (2003). An island of English: Teaching ESL in Chi- natown. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Garcia, O. (in press). Lenguas e identidades en mun- dos hispanohablantes: Desde una posici6n pluril- ingie y minoritaria [Languages and identities in Hispanophone countries: From a plurilingual and minority perspective]. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), Lingiiistica aplicada del espanol [Spanish Applied Linguistics]. Madrid: Arcos Publishers.

Garcia, 0. (2004). Lost in transculturation: The case of bilingual education in New York City (Series A, Paper No. 624). Universitat Duisburg-Essen, Linguistic LAUD Agency.

Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian language in America: A study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jelinek, P. (2005, June 9). Hispanics are fastest growing minority. Washington Post. RetrievedJune 9, 2005, from http://www.washingtonpost.com

Kloss, H. (1963). Das Nationalititenrecht der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Vienna, Austria: Braumuller.

Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition. Row- ley, MA: Newbury House.

Varenne, H. (2005, June). Education as theory. Paper pre- sented at the Conference on Anthropology and Education, Teachers College, Columbia Univer- sity, New York City.

Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language plan- ning: From nationalism to globalisation. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Opening and Filling Up Implementational and Ideological Spaces in Heritage Language Education NANCY H. HORNBERGER, The University of Pennsylvania

Opening and Filling Up Implementational and Ideological Spaces in Heritage Language Education NANCY H. HORNBERGER, The University of Pennsylvania

Wonderfully and characteristically, Jim Cum- mins has written a startlingly clear and practi- cal piece on a topic both theoretically and po- litically complex. I agree with everything he has to say-from his definitions of what we mean by heritage languages to his classroom-level strategies of what to do to consolidate and affirm them. There is nothing for me to add there. What I can do, though, is reinforce and extend some of his points, with particular attention to international,

Wonderfully and characteristically, Jim Cum- mins has written a startlingly clear and practi- cal piece on a topic both theoretically and po- litically complex. I agree with everything he has to say-from his definitions of what we mean by heritage languages to his classroom-level strategies of what to do to consolidate and affirm them. There is nothing for me to add there. What I can do, though, is reinforce and extend some of his points, with particular attention to international,

indigenous, and policy perspectives. In the com- ments that follow, I take up three such extensions: (a) the notion of opening and filling up ideo- logical and implementational spaces in order to advance heritage language education, (b) the sig- nificance of bottom-up language planning in re- lation to heritage language resources, and (c) the value of working (at both policy and classroom lev- els) from a conception ofbiliteracy in developing learners' heritage language talents and identities.

indigenous, and policy perspectives. In the com- ments that follow, I take up three such extensions: (a) the notion of opening and filling up ideo- logical and implementational spaces in order to advance heritage language education, (b) the sig- nificance of bottom-up language planning in re- lation to heritage language resources, and (c) the value of working (at both policy and classroom lev- els) from a conception ofbiliteracy in developing learners' heritage language talents and identities.

Article Contentsp. 601p. 602p. 603p. 604p. 605

Issue Table of ContentsThe Modern Language Journal, Vol. 89, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 489-653Volume Information [pp. 651 - 653]Front Matter [pp. 489 - 489]Toward an Understanding of the Role of Applied Linguists in Foreign Language Departments [pp. 490 - 502]Foreign Language Reading and Study Abroad: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Questions [pp. 503 - 528]Understanding Second Language Teacher Practice Using Microanalysis and Self-Reflection: A Collaborative Case Study [pp. 529 - 542]Comprehending Implied Meaning in English as a Foreign Language [pp. 543 - 562]Differences in Language Skills: Heritage Language Learner Subgroups and Foreign Language Learners [pp. 563 - 581]PerspectivesIntroduction to Perspectives [pp. 582 - 585]

The Issue: A Proposal for Action: Strategies for Recognizing Heritage Language Competence as a Learning Resource within the Mainstream ClassroomA Proposal for Action: Strategies for Recognizing Heritage Language Competence as a Learning Resource within the Mainstream Classroom [pp. 585 - 592]

The CommentariesMore than a Silver Bullet: The Role of Chinese as a Heritage Language in the United States [pp. 592 - 594]The Reemergence of Heritage and Community Language Policy in the U.S. National Spotlight [pp. 594 - 601]Positioning Heritage Languages in the United States [pp. 601 - 605]Opening and Filling up Implementational and Ideological Spaces in Heritage Language Education [pp. 605 - 609]The Use of Heritage Language: An African Perspective [pp. 609 - 612]A European Perspective on Heritage Languages [pp. 612 - 616]

MLJ News & Notes of the Profession [pp. 617 - 625]MLJ ReviewsAuthors Responduntitled [pp. 626 - 627]untitled [pp. 627 - 628]

Theory and Practiceuntitled [pp. 628 - 629]untitled [pp. 629 - 630]untitled [pp. 630 - 631]untitled [pp. 631 - 633]untitled [pp. 633 - 634]untitled [pp. 634 - 635]untitled [pp. 635 - 636]untitled [pp. 637 - 638]untitled [pp. 638 - 639]

Chineseuntitled [pp. 639 - 640]untitled [pp. 640 - 641]

Frenchuntitled [pp. 641 - 642]

Germanuntitled [pp. 642 - 643]

Japaneseuntitled [pp. 643 - 644]untitled [pp. 645 - 646]

Russianuntitled [pp. 646 - 647]

Technologyuntitled [pp. 647 - 648]untitled [pp. 648 - 649]

From the Editor: In Recognition and with Appreciation [p. 650]Back Matter