Hornberger 2012 Translanguaging

This article was downloaded by: [157.253.25.161]On: 27 June 2013, At: 15:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of BilingualEducation and BilingualismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Translanguaging and transnationalliteracies in multilingual classrooms: abiliteracy lensNancy H. Hornberger a & Holly Link aa Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6216, USAPublished online: 27 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Nancy H. Hornberger & Holly Link (2012): Translanguaging and transnationalliteracies in multilingual classrooms: a biliteracy lens, International Journal of Bilingual Educationand Bilingualism, 15:3, 261-278

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms:a biliteracy lens

Nancy H. Hornberger* and Holly Link

Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6216, USA

(Received 26 October 2011; final version received 12 January 2012)

As US classrooms approach a decade of response to No Child Left Behind, manyquestions and concerns remain around the education of those labeled as ‘Englishlanguage learners,’ in both English as a Second Language and bilingual educationclassrooms. A national policy context where standardized tests dominate curricu-lum and instruction and first language literacy is discouraged and undervaluedposes unusual challenges for learners whose communicative repertoires encompasstranslanguaging practices. Drawing on the critical sociolinguistics of globalizationand on ethnographic data from US and international educational contexts, weargue via a continua of biliteracy lens that the welcoming of translanguaging andtransnational literacies in classrooms is not only necessary but desirable educa-tional practice. We suggest that Obama’s current policies on the one hand and ourschools’ glaring needs on the other offer new spaces to be exploited for innovativeprograms, curricula, and practices that recognize, value, and build on the multiple,mobile communicative repertoires and translanguaging/transnational literacypractices of students and their families.

Keywords: additive bilingualism; biliteracy; bilingual education; code-switching;ELL; communicative competence

Introduction

You know, I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about, ‘‘We needto have English-only.’’ They want to pass a law, ‘‘We want English-only.’’ Now I agreethat immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead ofworrying about whether immigrants can learn English � they’ll learn English � you needto make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can yourchild become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English,they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we cansay [is], ‘‘Merci beaucoup.’’ Right? You know, no, I’m serious about this. We shouldunderstand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful toolto get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of internationalbusiness. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from anearly age. . . (Barack Obama, 8 July 2008, Powder Springs, GA)

In this pre-election speech on the state of the US economy, Barack Obama conveys a

global perspective and pro-multilingual stance on language policy in education. His

positive outlook on bilingualism and foreign-language learning recognizes not just

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Vol. 15, No. 3, May 2012, 261�278

ISSN 1367-0050 print/ISSN 1747-7522 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016

http://www.tandfonline.com

the well-documented fact that children of immigrants residing in the US rapidly learn

English but also that multilingualism provides economic advantages and is a norm

outside of the US (Ferguson and Heath 1981; McKay and Wong 1988; Potowski

2010).

‘One in five students in the United States is the child of an immigrant’ (Capps

et al. 2005 as cited in Gandara and Hopkins 2010, 7), and ‘between 1995 and 2005,

the EL [English Learner] student population grew 56%’ (Batalova, Fix, and Murray

2007, as cited in Gandara and Hopkins 2010, 7). Yet, educational policy under No

Child Left Behind ignores these changing demographics in schools across the US and

does little to reflect either the pro-bilingual stance in Obama’s speech or the large

body of research on the benefits of bilingualism (e.g., Baker 1988; Ben-Zeev 1977;

Bialystok 2001; Garcıa and Otheguy 1994; Kroll and de Groot 2005; Peal and

Lambert 1962). Even while exemplary bilingual education models such as two-way

immersion programs are growing in number across the country,1 current scholarship

documents the increasingly restrictive language policies in US schools and the

pervading atmosphere of high-stakes testing that serves to undermine bilingual

education and multilingualism (e.g., Escamilla 2006; Gandara and Hopkins 2010;

Hornberger 2006; Menken 2008; Wiley and Wright 2004). As US school populations

shift and represent an increasingly diverse world of linguistic flexibility, we argue that

refusing to acknowledge the language resources of students and their families limits

the possibilities for students’ educational success and achievement and shuts down

opportunities for the development of multilingualism.

In the Obama administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA)

2010 Reauthorization: Blueprint for Reform, the section on the education of ‘diverse

learners,’ and more specifically, ‘English Language Learners,’ states that grant money

will be available to help states and school districts implement ‘high-quality language

instruction programs,’ including ‘dual-language programs, transitional bilingual

education, sheltered English immersion, newcomer programs for late-entrant English

Learners, or other language instruction programs’ (ESEA 2010). While this policy

seems to foreground bilingual models over other forms of programming for those

labeled ‘English Learners,’ it remains to be seen how schools and districts across the

country will work toward developing and implementing bilingual education while

high-stakes testing in English remains the sole measure of student and school

success.

In this paper we present and discuss a vision that both parallels and extends

Obama’s global perspective and pro-multilingual stance, one that might re-orient

educational policy to build on students’ rich and varied language practices to

facilitate successful school experiences and greater academic achievement. In order

to do so, we offer a conceptual framework and scenarios from a number of

educational contexts, in both the US and around the world, that illustrate such

language and learning practices, characterized here as translanguaging and transna-

tional literacy practices. In brief, translanguaging in its original sense refers to the

purposeful pedagogical alternation of languages in spoken and written, receptive and

productive modes (Baker 2001, 2003; Williams 1994), a usage we expand on in what

follows; while transnational literacies are literacy practices that draw on funds of

knowledge, identities, and social relations rooted and extending across national

borders (Warriner 2007b).

262 N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

Consider the following brief scenarios (to which we will return later):

(1) A pair of first graders in Pennsylvania, USA comment to each other in

Spanish and English while they co-read a text written in English (Link 2011).

(2) A fifth grader in California, USA incorporates Spanish words and phrases

into her poem about her grandmother in Mexico (Campano 2007).

(3) At an all school weekly assembly in the UK, the head teacher interweaves

English and Gujarati while addressing students and their families about anupcoming school event (Blackledge and Creese 2010).

(4) Third-year students in a bilingual BA program in Contemporary English and

Multilingual Studies at the University of Limpopo, South Africa, confer

among themselves in class, freely code-switching in Sepedi and English, as to

which of six child language development paradigms introduced in class this

week best corresponds to a short text they have just read in English

(Hornberger 2010).

In the above scenarios, students and teachers in a range of school settings and

classrooms both in and outside of the US, engage in translanguaging and

transnational literacies, border-crossing communicative practices that are becoming

more prevalent in an increasingly globalized world. If we were to observe the

interactions in the scenarios above, it would become clear that not only are students

and teachers drawing on more than one language or literacy, but they also are using

multiple and dynamic varieties of these different languages and literacies �vernacular, formal, academic, as well as those based on race, ethnicity, affinity or

affiliation, etc. � for varying purposes in different contexts. Recognizing, valorizing,

and studying these multiple and mobile linguistic resources are part of what

Blommaert (2010) refers to as a critical sociolinguistics of globalization that focuses

on language-in-motion rather than language-in-place. In this focus on the mobility of

linguistic and communicative resources, linguistic phenomena are viewed ‘from

within the social, cultural, political and historical contexts of which they are a part’

(Blommaert 2010, 3).

A sociolinguistics of globalization helps frame the notions of translanguaging

and transnational literacies. ‘Translanguaging, or engaging in bilingual or multi-

lingual discourse practices, is an approach to bilingualism that is centered not on

languages as has often been the case, but on the practices of bilinguals that are

readily observable’ (Garcıa 2009, 44). The notion of translanguaging can be seen as a

new approach to understanding long-studied languaging practices of multilinguals,

such as code-switching in which speakers draw on two different grammatical systems

in their utterances (Gumperz 1982). While research on code-switching has tended to

focus on issues of language interference, transfer or borrowing, translanguaging

‘shifts the lens from cross-linguistic influence’ to how multilinguals ‘intermingle

linguistic features that have hereto been administratively or linguistically assigned to

a particular language or language variety’ (Garcıa 2009, 51). Moreover, the concept

of translanguaging broadens the research lens by focusing not just on spoken

language but on a variety of communicative modes.This expansion and refocusing of a concept that originated in Welsh-English

bilingual pedagogical practices not only effectively portrays language-in-motion as

referred to by Blommaert (2010), but also helps reframe how researchers and

educators alike might better understand the language and literacy practices of those

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 263

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

they study and teach. Recent work such as Blackledge and Creese’s (2010) linguistic

ethnography of multilingualism in heritage language schools in the UK shows how

students, their families, and teachers draw on translanguaging, or flexible language

practices that contradict monolingual language policies and ideologies at the

national level and help them negotiate multilingual and multicultural identities

across home and community settings (4).

Similarly, as briefly noted above, transnational literacies refer, in our socio-

linguistically mobile times, to literacy practices whose referents and meanings extendacross national borders � perhaps most clearly instantiated in the literacies of

transmigrants who move or have moved bodily across national borders while

maintaining and cultivating practices tied � in varying degrees � to their home

countries (Warriner 2007b). The cross-border movements of bodies, as well as of

goods and information, are the direct result of globalization and specifically the

internationalization of systems of production (Richardson Bruna 2007), processes

which ‘tend to de-territorialize important economic, social and cultural practices

from their traditional boundaries in nation-states’ (Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hillard2004, 14, cited in McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and Saliani 2007, 84). While

transnationalism refers to ‘the condition of cultural interconnectedness and mobility

across space,’ (Ong 1999, as cited in Warriner 2007b, 201), transnational literacies

can be seen as literacy practices that reflect the intersection of local and global

contexts (McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and Saliani 2007).

We propose that developing awareness of and an orientation to translanguaging

and transnational literacies in classrooms with students from diverse cultural and

linguistic backgrounds can provide practitioners, teachers, and researchers with afuller understanding of the resources students bring to school and help us identify

ways in which to draw on these resources for successful educational experiences. We

structure our discussion of these practices through a biliteracy or multiliteracy lens

drawing on the Continua of Biliteracy model (Hornberger 1989, 2003; Hornberger and

Skilton-Sylvester 2000). We begin by outlining the Continua model and discussing it

in light of recent scholarship on the sociolinguistics of globalization, translanguaging

and transnational literacies, and then highlight examples of translanguaging and

transnational literacy practices from current research on multilingual classrooms andstudents, as exemplified in the scenarios. In our conclusion we return to the current

political climate and educational policy in the US, suggesting how policy-makers at all

levels might benefit from an orientation that values the multiple and mobile

communicative resources and repertoires of students and their families, enabling

greater support for the development of bi(multi)literacy for all students.

The continua of biliteracy: a lens for envisioning multilingual classrooms

Although scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers often characterize dimensions of

bilingualism and literacy in terms of oppositional pairs such as first versus second

languages (L1 vs. L2), monolingual versus bilingual individuals, or oral versus

literate societies, in each case those opposites represent theoretical endpoints on what

is in reality a continuum of features. Furthermore, when we consider biliteracy, the

conjunction of literacy and bilingualism, it becomes clear that these multiple

continua are interrelated dimensions of highly complex and fluid systems; and that it

is in the dynamic, rapidly changing and sometimes contested spaces along and acrossmultiple and intersecting continua that most biliteracy use and learning occur.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

Biliteracy can be defined as ‘any and all instances in which communication occurs

in two (or more) languages in or around writing’ (Hornberger 1990, 213), where these

instances may be events, actors, interactions, practices, activities, classrooms,

programs, situations, societies, sites, or worlds (Hornberger 2000, 362; Hornberger

and Skilton-Sylvester 2000, 98). The continua model of biliteracy offers a lens

through which to see research, teaching, and language planning in bilingual and

multilingual settings. The model uses the heuristic of intersecting and nested

continua to represent the multiple, complex, and fluid interrelationships between

bilingualism and literacy and the contexts, media, and content through which

biliteracy practices and abilities develop. Seen through this lens, it becomes clear that

multilingual learners develop biliteracy along reciprocally intersecting first language�second language, receptive�productive, and oral�written language skills continua;

through the medium of two or more languages and literacies ranging along continua

of similar to dissimilar linguistic structures, convergent to divergent scripts, and

simultaneous to successive exposure; in contexts scaled from micro to macro levels

and characterized by varying mixes of monolingual�bilingual and oral�literate

language practices; and expressing content encompassing majority to minority

perspectives and experiences, literary to vernacular styles and genres, and decontex-

tualized to contextualized language texts (Hornberger 1989; Hornberger and

Skilton-Sylvester 2000; see Figure 1). Since educational policies and practices often

and overwhelmingly privilege compartmentalized, monolingual, written, decontex-

tualized language, and literacy practices, the continua of biliteracy lens offers a vision

for contesting those weightings by intentionally opening up implementational and

ideological spaces for fluid, multilingual, oral, contextualized practices, and voices at

the local level (Hornberger 2002, 2005, 2006; Hornberger and Johnson 2007;

Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000).

A sociolinguistics of globalization and the context continua

The continua model of biliteracy posits that contexts influence biliteracy develop-

ment and use at every level from two-person interaction (micro) to societal and

global relations of power (macro) and that they comprise a mix of oral-to-literate,

monolingual-to-multilingual varieties of language and literacy (Hornberger 1989).

Recognition of context as an important factor in language use dates back at least to

the 1960s, when sociolinguistics broke new ground by moving the analysis of

language beyond a focus on structure to one on language use in social context. More

recently, Blommaert (2010) proposes and charts a further paradigmatic shift from a

sociolinguistics of variation to a sociolinguistics of mobility befitting today’s

increasingly globalized world and mobile linguistic resources, and he draws on

longstanding conceptual tools such as sociolinguistic scales, indexicality, and

polycentricity to help us think about language in this new sociolinguistics. In this

paradigm, contexts of biliteracy can be understood as scaled spatiotemporal

complexes, indexically ordered and polycentric, in which multilingualism and

literacies develop within mobile multilingual repertoires in spaces that are

simultaneously translocal and global. Framed in this light, the call for opening up

implementational and ideological spaces for fluid, multilingual, oral, contextualized

practices and voices in educational policy and practice becomes an even more

powerful imperative for contesting the social inequalities of language.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

Communicative repertoire and the media continua

Biliteracy is about communication in two or more languages in or around writing;

crucial to this are the media � the languages and scripts � through which biliteracy is

practiced. Media in the continua of biliteracy model refer to the actual commu-

nicative repertoires, that is, the language varieties and scripts through which

multilingual literacies are expressed and the sequences or configurations in which

they are acquired and used. The model defines these in terms of the linguistic

structures of the languages involved (on a continuum from similar to dissimilar),

their orthographic scripts (from convergent to divergent) and the sequence of

exposure to or acquisition of the languages/literacies (ranging from simultaneous to

successive) (Hornberger 1989).

From early formulations of the ethnography of communication to the present,

linguistic anthropological research in sociolinguistics has emphasized a focus not on

Figure 1. Power relations in the continua of biliteracy. Reprinted with permission fromHornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000, Multilingual Matters Publishers, Bristol, UK.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

languages per se but on verbal or communicative repertoires. Gumperz and Hymes

introduced the concept of verbal repertoire in their early writings; Gumperz (1964)

used it to describe multilingualism in India; Hymes referred to a child’s verbal

repertoire as ‘the range of varieties of language, the circumstances, purposes, and

meanings of their use’ (Hymes 1980, 106). More recently, Blommaert (2010)

describes repertoires as the complexes of linguistic, communicative, semiotic

‘resources people actually possess and deploy,’ namely ‘concrete accents, language

varieties, registers, genres, modalities such as writing � ways of using language inparticular communicative settings and spheres of life, including the ideas people have

about such ways of using, their language ideologies’ (102). In like vein, Garcıa (2007,

2009), in recognition of the mobility and fluidity of linguistic resources, the

disinventing and reconstituting of languages (Makoni and Pennycook 2007) calls

for a focus not on language in and of itself but on ‘the multiple discursive practices

that constitute . . . languaging’ (Garcıa 2009, 40). In this view, languages are seen not

as fixed codes, but ‘fluid codes framed within social practices’ (Garcıa 2009, 32;

cf. 2007: xiii; cf. Cortese and Hymes 2001).Assumptions within the continua model about the fluidity of language varieties

and scripts, and the multiple paths and varying degrees of expertise in individuals’

communicative repertoires, are consistent with these theoretical stances of the

ethnography of communication and the sociolinguistics of mobility; but also with

work on multimodal expression and multiliteracies that extends literacy beyond

reading and writing to other domains, such as the visual, audio, spatial, and

behavioral (e.g., Cazden et al. 1996). Consideration of the media of biliteracy entails

attention not just to different languages, dialects, styles, and discourses but alsodifferent communicative modes including technological ones, as they are acquired

and used � not in a dichotomized sequence but more often in criss-crossed, hybrid

mixes, and languaging practices. This is not to suggest that incorporating multiple

varieties, scripts, communicative modes, and criss-crossed paths of acquisition and

use proceeds unproblematically in schools or other biliteracy learning contexts.

Translanguaging and the development continua

The continua model posits that the development of biliteracy may start at any point

on any of three intersecting continua of first language-to-second language (L1�L2),

oral-to-written, and receptive-to-productive language and literacy skills, uses, and

practices; and that individuals’ biliteracy learning may proceed steadily � or just as

easily backtrack, spurt, or criss-cross � in any direction along those intersecting

continua, usually in direct response to the contextual demands placed on them.

There is always potential for transfer of skills across the three development continua,

but, by the same token, understanding or predicting transfer is elusive preciselybecause the three continua are interrelated and furthermore nested within all the

other continua (Hornberger 1989).

Research in bilingualism has consistently suggested an integrated, holistic,

context-sensitive view of bilingual development, a view wherein the bilingual is

much more than the sum of two monolinguals. Cummins’ (1979) groundbreaking

proposal of the developmental interdependence and thresholds hypotheses laid the

theoretical ground for what remains a central tenet in scholarship on bilingualism (if

not, sadly, in educational practice): namely, ‘that a child’s first language skills mustbecome well developed to ensure that their academic and linguistic performance in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

the second language is maximized’ (Baker and Hornberger 2001, 18). Close on the

heels of this work, bilingualism scholars like Zentella (1981), Grosjean (1982), and

Valdes (1982) provided empirical evidence for bilinguals’ fluid code-switching as

highly context-sensitive, competent but specific language practice. Decades of

research continue to corroborate, deepen, and extend this understanding.

Just as Grosjean (1985) suggested that a bilingual is not the sum of two

monolinguals any more than a hurdler is simply the sum of a sprinter and a high

jumper; Garcıa (2009), in her recent tour-de-force on bilingual education in thetwenty-first century, argues that bilingualism is ‘not monolingualism times two’ (71),

‘not like a bicycle with two balanced wheels,’ but ‘more like an all-terrain vehicle,’

whose wheels ‘extend and contract, flex and stretch, making possible, over highly

uneven ground, movement forward that is bumpy and irregular but also sustained

and effective’ (45). She borrows and adapts the term translanguaging to highlight

this bilingual fluidity.

The term translanguaging, as originally proposed by Cen Williams (1994), refers

to Welsh�English bilingual pedagogical practices where students hear or read alesson, a passage in a book or a section of work in one language and develop their

work in another, for example by discussion, writing a passage, completing a work

sheet, conducting an experiment; input and output are deliberately in a different

language and are systematically varied (Baker 2001, 281; 2003, 82). Baker argues that

the continua of biliteracy anticipate and extend the notion of translanguaging,

providing a reminder of the strategic need to consider all the dimensions of the

continua to create full biliteracy in students (Baker 2003, 84).

Translanguaging practices in the classroom have the potential to explicitlyvalorize all points along the continua of biliterate context, media, content, and

development. Such practices, also recently and eloquently theorized and documented

as hybrid classroom discourse practices (Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, and Tejeda

1999), multilingual classroom ecologies (Creese and Martin 2003), a four-quadrant

pedagogic framework for developing academic excellence in a bilingual program

(Hornberger 2010; Joseph and Ramani 2004, forthcoming), supportive bilingual

scaffolding (Saxena 2010), and flexible bilingual pedagogy (Blackledge and Creese

2010), offer possibilities for teachers and learners to access academic content throughthe linguistic resources and communicative repertoires they bring to the classroom

while simultaneously acquiring new ones.

Transnational literacies and the content continua

The continua model posits that what (content) biliterate learners and users read and

write is as important as how (development), where and when (context), or by what

means (media) they do so. Whereas schooling traditionally privileges majority,literary, and decontextualized contents, the continua lens reveals the importance of

greater curricular attention to minority, vernacular, and contextualized whole

language texts. Note that the term minority here connotes not numerical size, but

‘observable differences among language varieties in relation to power, status, and

entitlement’ (May 2003, 118), a meaning better conveyed in today’s usage by the term

minoritized (McCarty 2005, 48). Minority texts include those by minoritized authors,

written from minoritized perspectives; vernacular ways of reading and writing include

notes, poems, plays, and stories written at home or in other everyday non-schoolcontexts; contextualized whole language texts are those read and written in the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

context of biliteracy events, interactions, practices, and activities of biliterate learners’

everyday lives (Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000). Assumptions within the

continua model about the importance of incorporating minoritized identities and

perspectives, vernacular genres and styles, and contextualized texts in biliteracy

learning contexts parallel other developments in research on bilingualism and

multilingualism including the funds of knowledge project and work on transnational

literacies, taken up below in our discussion of the scenarios.

Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms

We return here to the scenarios introduced above, considering them through the

continua of biliteracy lens, illuminating the ways translanguaging and transnational

literacy practices in these scenarios build on students’ communicative repertoires to

facilitate successful school experiences and greater academic achievement. We take

up the scenarios in a sequence moving from a focus on individual repertoires and

home/community funds of knowledge, to the opening of implementational and

ideological spaces in schools through teachers’ and students’ initiative.

Scenario 1: Beatriz � portrait of a multilingual student2

A pair of first graders in Pennsylvania, USA comment to each other in Spanish and

English while they co-read a text written in English (Link 2011).

At age three, Beatriz moved from Guerrero, Mexico to a peri-urban town outside

of Philadelphia with her mother and two older siblings to join her father, who had

arrived several years earlier. Her hometown in the US is considered to be acommunity of the New Latino Diaspora (NLD) where ‘increasing numbers of

Latinos (many immigrant, and some from elsewhere in the United States) are settling

both temporarily and permanently in areas of the United States that have not

traditionally been home to Latinos’ (Hamann, Wortham, and Murillo 2002, 1).

Beatriz attends a school with minimal previous exposure to Latino immigrants until

recent years in which growing numbers of Spanish-speaking, and primarily Mexican-

origin or Mexican-heritage children have arrived.3 Although the sole language of

instruction is English at the school, its classrooms are becoming multilingual spaces

as children from both Spanish and non-Spanish speaking households speak and are

learning Spanish for a variety of functions throughout the school day.

During literacy time Beatriz sits on the rug with her first grade classmates, listens

to a story read in English, and then discusses it in both Spanish and English with a

peer. When called on, she offers, in English, a complete sentence about the story’s

setting. Shortly after, she and several students leave to attend their daily English as a

Second Language (ESL) class upstairs in the library during which time she

participates in guided, leveled reading in English, and chats with her friends in

Spanish and English while completing spelling work in English. On returning to her

classroom, she joins her Centers group at the computers to practice rhyming words in

English, and then reads and discusses a book written in English with two friends, one

a bilingual Spanish�English speaker and the other, an English-speaker. The threediscuss the story and then work together to draw and compose several sentences

about it in English, Beatriz and her Spanish-speaking peer teaching their classmate

vocabulary in Spanish.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

At lunchtime Beatriz accompanies a recently arrived Mexican student to the

lunchroom and interprets from English to Spanish for her as they walk through the

cafeteria line. During recess she joins a small group of girls to sing and play hand

games with lyrics in primarily English and some Spanish, games she continues

playing on the school bus trip home. Once home Beatriz greets her baby sister,

recounts her day in Spanish to her mother, and translates several documents for her

about upcoming school events. She then accompanies her siblings outside to meet up

with neighborhood friends where they set up on the stoop with paper and crayons,chatting and calling out to passersby in English and Spanish. Later they sit at the

dining room table and complete their homework, writing in English and discussing

spelling and math in both languages. As housemates enter and exit the house, Beatriz

greets them in Spanish, and when the landlord comes to check on a leaky faucet,

Beatriz interprets for her mother. When her father returns home from work the

family eats together while watching the news on Telemundo, and then Beatriz and her

siblings entertain each other by telling stories in mostly Spanish and some words and

phrases in English about La Llorona, a character in Mexican folklore.From this portrait we glimpse Beatriz’s communicative repertoires, the wide

range of varieties of Spanish and English that Beatriz uses for different functions

across the many settings and throughout the multiple activities in which she engages

over the course of her day. In spite of the fact that English is the language of

instruction at her school, her teachers’ positive attitude toward students’ use of

Spanish among one another has not only legitimated the linguistic resources she

brings from home but also allowed for their development across school-based

activities, both academic and social. Thus, as the Continua model helps highlight,typical power weightings evident in many school settings that emphasize or accept

only English use in school, in Beatriz’s school are re-balanced toward bilingualism

and students’ own language practices. In this sense there is a developing ideological

and implementational space in which students’ voices are validated and valorized.

At the same time, in Beatriz’ case, the school policy of English as the sole

language of instruction delimits the possibilities for biliteracy development and locks

Spanish use at school primarily into vernacular, oral use. In the following scenarios,

we provide examples of classrooms and schools in which not just translanguagingpractices are valued, but also bi(multi)literacy is encouraged to develop. Important

to note is that the programs discussed below are both English-medium and bilingual

programs with large numbers of students from culturally and linguistically diverse

backgrounds.

Scenario 2: drawing on home translanguaging and transliteracy practices in school

A fifth grader in California, USA incorporates Spanish words and phrases into herpoem about her grandmother in Mexico (Campano 2007). Campano (2007)

conducted research in his own classroom at a school with Lao, Pakistani, Chinese,

Hmong, Filipino, Mexican, and African-American students in a Filipino American

community in California. Students at his school spoke over 14 different home

languages and many were from immigrant families. While his school was English-

medium and his research did not explicitly focus on the development of biliteracy, his

classroom was one in which students’ reading and writing were geared toward their

own experiences, knowledge and family histories. Literacy practices that welcomedand built upon students’ home languages (e.g., intergenerational storytelling and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

teatro ‘theatre’ [based on El teatro campesino ‘peasant theatre’]) were the norm, and

served to foster literacy in other languages alongside English.4 In light of the

Continua model these practices can be seen as expanding the media through which

literacy is learned and used, and as privileging the minority end of curricular content.

Moreover, they emphasize the life stories of the students and their families, accounts

that are based on transnational literacies.

In a similar vein, the funds of knowledge (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti 2005;

Moll and Gonzalez 1994) project highlights what the Continua model refers to as

minoritized identities and perspectives, vernacular genres and styles, and contextua-

lized texts in biliteracy learning contexts. Moll and colleagues argue that ‘community

funds of knowledge’ (sometimes called household funds of knowledge or local funds of

knowledge), defined as ‘historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of

knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-

being’ (Moll and Gonzalez 1994, 443), are a resource which can and should be drawn

on in schooling for language minority populations. The centerpiece of their work is

collaboration with teachers in conducting household research, because, as they put

it, ‘it is one thing to identify resources but quite another to use them fruitfully in

classrooms’ (441). In the words of one teacher collaborator, ‘the teacher mediates by

creating curricula that reflect both the standard curriculum and the themes,

languages, and culture of students’ lives . . . when teachers incorporate household

funds of knowledge into the curriculum and use dialogic teaching methods, students

are liberated to direct their own learning’ (Floyd-Tenery 1995, 12).

Other scholars also document how teachers can effectively teach students with

multiple communicative repertoires and linguistic practices in mainstream or ESL

classrooms. For example, Skilton-Sylvester (2003) describes how an ESL instructor

working with Cambodian students in Philadelphia built on their language (Khmer),

which ‘not only made it a legitimate part of whole-class discussion but also made it a

legitimate part of literacy practice in the classroom’ (16). Walqui (2006) drawing

from a Vygotskyan sociocultural perspective charts how teachers of English

Language Learners (ELLs) promoted linguistic and academic development through

a number of scaffolding strategies such as modeling, bridging, contextualizing,

schema-building, re-presenting text, and developing metacognition. One of the key

premises in the work of both Walqui (2006) and Skilton-Sylvester (2003) is that ‘it is

possible to support additive bilingualism in classrooms even when the teacher does

not speak’ languages other than English (Skilton-Sylvester 2003, 13). Here again

language and literacy practices are not confined to solely English but involve the rich

and varied cultural and linguistic resources of the students and can be seen as

drawing from the less powerful ends of the biliteracy Continua; in these cases, as in

those of Campano (2007) and Moll and Gonzalez (1994; Gonzalez, Moll, and

Amanti 2005), translanguaging and transnational literacies are the norm and serve to

promote academic achievement.

Scenario 3: teachers organizing spaces for translanguaging and transnational literacypractices at school

At an all school weekly assembly in the UK, the head teacher interweaves English

and Gujarati while addressing students and their families about an upcoming school

event (Blackledge and Creese 2010).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

Blackledge and Creese (2010) uncover flexible bilingual, translanguaging

pedagogies through ethnographic team research in UK heritage language education

contexts, by definition sites of transnational literacy practices. The team collaborated

on four interlocking case studies in four cities focusing on complementary schools in

Gujarati, Turkish, Bengali, and Chinese heritage communities, wherein young people

growing up in the UK are engaged in instruction centered on traditional texts,

scripts, and symbols associated with heritage identities beyond UK borders,

identities which they at times participate in and at times resist. The researchers

document specific translanguaging knowledge and skills such as use of bilingual

label quests, repetition, and translation across languages; students’ use of trans-

languaging to establish identity positions both oppositional to and encompassing of

institutional values; and teachers’ endorsement of simultaneous literacies and

languages to keep pedagogic tasks moving. They offer theoretical insight and

empirical evidence to argue for a release from monolingual instructional approaches

and easing of the burden of guilt associated with translanguaging in multilingual

educational contexts. They also emphasize the importance of considering localcircumstances in terms of the socio-political and historical contexts in which

translanguaging is embedded along with the local ecologies of schools and

classrooms. Blackledge, Creese, their co-researchers, and the teachers and students

whose practices they document, demonstrate that schools can be alternative, safe

spaces for multilingualism and transnational literacies, sites where young people

creatively use varieties of language including standard, regional, class, and youth-

oriented varieties as well as parodic language to take up, resist, and negotiate

multiple academic and identity positionings.

There are numerous studies researching how teachers in established bilingual

programs, and in particular two-way immersion models, draw on the linguistic and

cultural backgrounds of their students (e.g., Fortune and Tedick 2008; Freeman

1998; Hornberger 2003), and we discuss only a few here, drawing on a continua of

biliteracy lens to highlight practices of translanguaging and transnational literacies.

Freeman (2004) focuses on student voice and the media of biliteracy in studying how

a bilingual middle-school teacher facilitates the production of a bilingual telenovela

(soap opera) in collaboration with students, drawing on their transnational knowl-

edge, language and literacy practices and communicating with them according to

these practices. In a study on the reading comprehension of bilingual children in

second and third grade, Martinez-Roldan and Sayer (2006) focus on the contexts and

development of biliteracy. In documenting how students use Spanish, English, and

Spanglish to discuss texts written in both languages, they come to see ‘Spanglish [use

of loan words, calques and code-switching]’ as crucial to students’ reading

comprehension and positioning in relation to texts. In highlighting the kinds of

translanguaging and transnational literacy practices that in other contexts tend to be

marginalized, they argue for their valorization and use in the classroom.

In some bilingual classrooms and schools, teachers explicitly design instruction

and plan for interactions that build on translanguaging practices and transnational

literacies. Baker (2003) writes about the strategic use of Welsh (a minority language)

and English (a majority language) in a bilingual high school as teachers design

lessons that incorporate the use of both languages and foster biliteracy and

transliteracy. Such a practice recalls Moll and Diaz’ (1985) classic study showinghow an instructional design allowing bilingual fourth graders the opportunity to

discuss their English reading text in their first language, Spanish, enabled them to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

achieve higher reading levels in English, commensurate with their reading levels in

Spanish.

Scenario 4: students claiming spaces for translanguaging and transnational literacypractices at home and in school5

Third-year students in a bilingual BA program in Contemporary English and

Multilingual Studies at the University of Limpopo in South Africa confer amongthemselves in class, freely code-switching in Sepedi and English, as to which of six

child language development paradigms introduced in class this week best corre-

sponds to a short text they have just read in English (Hornberger 2010; see also

Granville et al. 1998; Joseph and Ramani 2004, forthcoming; Ramani and Joseph

2010; Ramani et al. 2007).

Students in the Limpopo program take coursework through both the medium of

English and the medium of Sepedi, one of nine African languages officially

recognized, alongside English and Afrikaans, in South Africa’s Constitution of1993. Though the program founders, who are also the instructors in the English-

medium modules, are not fluent speakers of Sepedi, they and their students practice

a translanguaging and transnational literacies approach in which students are

encouraged to claim spaces for both spoken and written Sepedi and other local

varieties alongside South African English, other Englishes, and other international

languages. For example, in the class mentioned in the scenario, students are

preparing to engage in a third-year project exploring Sepedi-speaking children’s

private speech in their own communities, following Vygotskyan conceptual andmethodological guidelines, originally written in Russian and here studied and

discussed with their instructor in English, and implemented in their communities in

Sepedi. The program, and the translanguaging and transnational literacies therein,

are a vivid and explicit instantiation of the continua of biliteracy, and even more

importantly, of the ways in which translanguaging and transnational literacy

practices enable a kind of learning that is at once about ‘discovering their culture

and the great ideas in the literature, one unlocking the other’ (Michael Joseph, pers.

comm., 28 July 2009).On the other side of the world in the US, transnational multilingual youth and

adults of diverse origins and communities � New Yorkers of Dominican, Colombian,

Bengali, and Chabad Jewish-American heritage, Mexican immigrants from Guana-

juato and Jalisco in Iowa and California, respectively, and adult women refugees

from Bosnia, Iran, and Sudan now residing in the intermountain west, claim spaces

in and out of school to deploy translanguaging and transnational literacy practices

that maintain and transform identities and social relations as they shift and develop

across time and space (Warriner 2007b). Dominican student Marıa succeeds inpositioning herself and being positioned over time as a ‘good’ student at Luperon

bilingual high school in New York, by drawing on resources provided by the school’s

local model of success, including high status for Spanish language and literacy and

valuation of task-based literacy practices (Bartlett 2007); three young Latinas draw

on transnational funds of knowledge and social relations in developing their retelling

of the ‘return to Mexico’ narrative, a counterstory to deficit portrayals of Mexican

immigrant families (Sanchez 2007); newcomer Mexican students’ informal literacy

practices of tagging, branding, and shouting out at Captainville High are shown tobe ‘literacies of display’ of their transnational identities (Richardson Bruna 2007);


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

three youths engage in online multilingual, multimodal creative exploration and

negotiation of complex multiple identities across race, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic,

and nationalist lines (McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and Saliani 2007); and

women refugee ESL learners struggle to negotiate successful new work identities for

themselves, in spite of, rather than because of, an ESL pedagogy that prioritizes

reading, copying, responding to known-answer questions, filling in the blanks, and

memorizing at the expense of drawing on the first-language literacies and multi-

lingual competencies they brought with them (Warriner 2007a).

Conclusion

The approaches to transnational literacies and translanguaging practices discussed in

the examples above sit in contrast to those embraced through dominant, current

education reforms in the US and elsewhere.

Within current educational reforms in the USA, literacy is approached as somethingtechnical and neutral, an approach that implies a view of education as a process oftransmission of skills, detached from contextual, cultural, or ideological issues,reflecting a perspective that has been described as an autonomous view of literacy.[Street 1995] (Martınez-Roldan and Sayer 2006, 293)

In contrast to such a view, the continua of biliteracy offers a lens that enables both

government and classroom policy-makers (Menken and Garcıa 2010) to envision and

incorporate students’ mobile, multilingual language and literacy repertoires as

resources for learning. Refracting and reinforcing Obama’s positive outlook on

bilingualism and his bilingual-friendly ESEA Blueprint, the continua of biliteracy is

in effect a blueprint for ‘innovative and excellent’ educational reform that might at

last reconcile the schizophrenia of US educational policy that for most of the nation’s

history has sought with one hand to enhance English speakers’ foreign language

capacity while with the other to eradicate ELLs’ language expertise, often in those

very same languages. Such a reform is particularly pressing as schools and

communities across the US experience ever-increasing linguistic and cultural

diversity.

Educators are perpetually poised between what is and what might be, between the

actual and the imagined (Greene 2000, as cited in Garcıa, Skutnabb-Kangas, and

Torres-Guzman 2006, 11). As we who are committed to multilingualism continually

seek to open and fill up implementational and ideological spaces for multilingual

education (Hornberger 2006), it may be that Obama’s current policies on the one

hand and our schools’ glaring needs on the other offer new spaces to be exploited for

innovative programs, curricula, and practices that recognize, value, and build on the

multiple, mobile communicative repertoires, translanguaging and transnational

literacy practices of students and their families. Let us hope so.

Notes

1. The Center for Applied Linguistics online Two-way Immersion Directory lists over 350programs across the US (see http://www.cal.org/).

2. This composite portrait reflects data from a growing body of research conducted in aNLD community led by Stanton Wortham and Kathy Howard, among others. For


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

http://www.cal.org/

specific research that documents Beatriz’s experience as a first grader, see Link 2011. Allnames used are pseudonyms.

3. Approximately 70% of the school’s current lower elementary grades (K-2) are Spanish-speakers.

4. While policies insist that students will only attain high achievement on standardizedtesting if English is the exclusive language of the classroom, Campano’s (2007) workshows otherwise. His students gained in their annual test scores in both math and literacyby 15 percentile points, and continued to increase over the following two years (120).

5. This portrait reflects Hornberger’s research and collaboration with Dr. Esther Ramaniand Dr. Michael Joseph, founders and directors of the University of Limpopo bilingualBA program. I am grateful to Esther and Michael for their unstinting generosity andinspirational scholarship and academic leadership. My thanks also to the FulbrightSenior Specialist program for sponsoring my 2008 sojourn at the University of Limpopo.

References

Baker, C. 1988. Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multi-lingual Matters.

Baker, C. 2003. Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welshnational curriculum. In Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educationalpolicy, research, and practice in multilingual settings, ed. N.H. Hornberger, 71�90.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C., and N.H. Hornberger, eds., 2001. An introductory reader to the writings of JimCummins. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Bartlett, L. 2007. Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories.Linguistics and Education 18: 215�31.

Batalova, J., M. Fix, and J. Murray. 2007. Measures of change: The demography and literacy ofadolescent English learners � A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York.Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Ben-Zeev, S. 1977. The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitivedevelopment. Child Development 48: 1009�18.

Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

Blackledge, A., and A. Creese. 2010. Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London, UK:Continuum.

Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Campano, G. 2007. Immigrant students and literacy: Reading, writing and remembering.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Capps, R., M. Fix, J. Murray, J. Ost, J.S. Passel, and S. Hewantoro. 2005. The newdemography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act.Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID�311230 (accessedJanuary 10, 2009).

Cazden, C., B. Cope, N. Fairclough, J. Gee, M. Kalantzis, G. Kress, A. Luke, C. Luke,S. Michaels, and M. Nakata. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.Harvard Educational Review 66: 60�92.

Cortese, G., and D. Hymes, eds., 2001. ‘‘Languaging’’ in and across human groups: Perspectiveson difference and asymmetry. Genova: Tilgher.

Creese, A., and P. Martin, eds. 2003. Multilingual classroom ecologies: Inter-relationships,interactions and ideologies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingualchildren. Educational Research 49: 222�51.

Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization (ESEA). 2010. A blueprint for reform.http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html (accessed January 9, 2010).

Escamilla, K. 2006. Monolingual assessment and emerging bilinguals: A case study in the US.In Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and glocalization, ed. O. Garcıa,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID&hairsp;=&hairsp;311230





http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html

T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and M.E. Torres-Guzman, 184�99. Cleveland, UK: MultilingualMatters.

Ferguson, C.A., and S.B. Heath, eds. 1981. Language in the USA. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Floyd-Tenery, M. 1995. Teacher as mediator. Practicing Anthropology 17, no. 3: 10�2.Freeman, R.D. 1998. Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters.Freeman, R.D. 2004. Building on community bilingualism. Philadelphia: Caslon.Fortune, T.W., and D.J. Tedick, eds. 2008. Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving pathways on

immersion education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Gandara, P., and M. Hopkins, eds. 2010. Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive

language policies. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Garcıa, O. 2007. Foreword. In Disinventing and reconstituting languages, ed. S. Makoni and A.

Pennycook, xi�v. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Garcıa, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA:

Wiley-Blackwell.Garcıa, O., and R. Otheguy. 1994. The value of speaking a LOTE in U.S. business. Annals of

the American Academy 532: 99�122.Garcıa, O., T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and M.E. Torres-Guzman, eds. 2006. Imagining multilingual

schools: Languages in education and glocalization. Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters.

Gonzalez, N., L. Moll, and C. Amanti, eds. 2005. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices inhouseholds, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Granville, S., H. Janks, M. Mphahlele, Y. Reed, P. Watson, M. Joseph, and E. Ramani. 1998.English with or without g(u)ilt: A position paper on language in education policy forSouth Africa. Language and Education 12, no. 4: 254�72.

Greene, M. 2000. Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Grosjean, F. 1985. The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development 6: 467�77.

Gumperz, J.J. 1964. Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. AmericanAnthropologist 66, no. part 2: 137�53.

Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Gutierrez, K.D., P. Baquedano-Lopez, and C. Tejeda. 1999. Rethinking diversity: Hybridity

and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity: AnInternational Journal 6: 286�303.

Hamann, E.T., S. Wortham, and E.G. Murillo. 2002. Education and policy in the NewLatino Diaspora. In Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics ofidentity, ed. S. Wortham, E.G. Murillo, and E.T. Hamann, 1�16. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Hornberger, N.H. 1989. Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research 59: 271�96.Hornberger, N.H. 1990. Creating successful learning contexts for bilingual literacy. Teachers

College Record 92: 212�29.Hornberger, N.H. 2000. Afterword: Multilingual literacies, literacy practices, and the continua

of biliteracy. In Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds, ed. M. Martin-Jones and K. Jones, 353�67. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hornberger, N.H. 2002. Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: Anecological approach. Language Policy 1, no. 1: 27�51.

Hornberger, N.H., ed., 2003. Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educationalpolicy, research and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Hornberger, N.H. 2005. Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces inheritage language education. Modern Language Journal 89, no. 4: 605�9.

Hornberger, N.H. 2006. Nichols to NCLB: Local and global perspectives on US languageeducation policy. In Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education andGlocalization, ed. O. Garcıa, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and M.E. Torres-Guzman, 223�37.Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

Hornberger, N.H. 2010. Language and education: A Limpopo lens. In Sociolinguistics andLanguage Education, ed. N.H. Hornberger and S.L. McKay, 549�64. Bristol, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Hornberger, N.H., and D.C. Johnson. 2007. Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers andspaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly 41: 509�32.

Hornberger, N.H., and E. Skilton-Sylvester. 2000. Revisiting the continua of biliteracy:International and critical perspectives. Language and Education: An International Journal14: 96�122.

Hymes, D.H. 1980. Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. Washington, DC: Center forApplied Linguistics.

Joseph, M., and E. Ramani. 2004. Cummins’ four quadrants: A pedagogic framework fordeveloping academic excellence in the new bilingual degree at the University of the North.Paper presented at the international Conference of the Southern African AppliedLinguistics Association (SAALA), University of Limpopo.

Joseph, M., and E. Ramani. Forthcoming. ‘Glocalization’: Going beyond the dichotomy ofglobal vs. local through additive multilingualism. International Multilingual ResearchJournal.

Kroll, J.F., and A.M.B. de Groot, eds. 2005. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguisticapproaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Link, H. 2011. ‘‘Hola’’ means ‘‘hello’’: The intersection of language policy and languageideology in the early elementary classrooms of a New Latino Diaspora Community.Working Paper in Educational Linguistics 26, no. 2.

Makoni, S., and A. Pennycook, eds. 2007. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon,UK: Multilingual Matters.

Martınez-Roldan, C.M., and P. Sayer. 2006. Reading through linguistic borderlands: Latinostudents’ transactions with narrative texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6: 293�322.

May, S. 2003. Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Current Issues in LanguagePlanning 4: 95�125.

McCarty, T.L., ed. 2005. Language, literacy, and power in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

McGinnis, T., A. Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and E.C. Saliani. 2007. ‘‘indnpride’’: Online spacesof transnational youth as sites of creative and sophisticated literacy and identity work.Linguistics and Education 18: 283�304.

McKay, S.L., and S.-L.C. Wong, eds. 1988. Language diversity: Problem or resource? NewYork, NY: Newbury House.

Menken, K. 2008. English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy.Cleveland, England: Multilingual Matters.

Menken, K., and O. Garcıa, eds. 2010. Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators aspolicymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Moll, L., and N. Gonzalez. 1994. Lessons from research with language-minority children.Journal of Reading Behavior 26: 439�56.

Moll, L.C., and S. Diaz. 1985. Ethnographic pedagogy: Promoting effective bilingualinstruction. In Advances in bilingual education research, ed. E. Garcia and R. Padilla,127�49. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Ong, A. 1999. Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

Peal, E., and W. Lambert. 1962. The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. PsychologicalMonographs, 76, 1�23. [Reprinted 1972 in Gardner, R. and W. Lambert, eds. Attitudes andmotivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House].

Potowski, K. 2010. Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters.

Ramani, E. and M. Joseph. 2010. Developing academic biliteracy: A case study of a bilingualBA degree (in English and Sesotho sa Leboa) at the University of Limpopo.

Ramani, E., T. Kekana, M. Modiba, and M. Joseph. 2007. Terminology development versusconcept development: Insights from a dual-medium BA degree. Southern AfricanLinguistics and Applied Language Studies 25, no. 2: 207�33.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

Richardson Bruna, K. 2007. Traveling tags: The informal literacies of Mexican newcomers inand out of the classroom. Linguistics and Education 18: 232�57.

Sanchez, P. 2007. Cultural authenticity and transnational Latina youth: Constructing a meta-narrative across borders. Linguistics and Education 18: 258�82.

Saxena, M. 2010. Reconceptualising teachers’ directive and supportive scaffolding in bilingualclassrooms within the neo-Vygotskyan approach. Journal of Applied Linguistics &Professional Practice 7, no. 2: 169�90.

Skilton-Sylvester, E. 2003. Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and themultilingual classroom: Constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in theUnited States. In Multilingual classroom ecologies: Inter-relationships, interactions, andideologies, ed. A. Creese and P. Martin, 8�24. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Street, B. 1995. Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography andeducation. London: Longman.

Suarez-Orozco, M., and D. Qin-Hillard, ed., 2004. Globalization, culture, and education in thenew millenium. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Valdes, G. 1982. Social interaction and code-switching patterns: A case study of Spanish/English alternation. In Spanish in the United States, ed. J. Amastae and L. Elıas-Olivares,209�29. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Walqui, A. 2006. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptualframework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9: 159�80.

Warriner, D.S. 2007a. ‘‘It’s just the nature of the beast’’: Re-imagining the literacies ofschooling in adult ESL education. Linguistics and Education 18: 305�24.

Warriner, D.S., ed. 2007b. Transnational literacies: Immigration, language learning, andidentity. Special issue, Linguistics and Education 18.

Wiley, T.G., and W.E. Wright. 2004. Against the undertow: Language-minority educationpolicy and politics in the ‘‘Age of Accountability’’. Educational Policy 18: 142�68.

Williams, C. 1994. Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchraddddwyieithog [Evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingualsecondary education]. Bangor, Wales: University of Wales.

Zentella, A.C. 1981. Ta bien, you could answer me en cualquier idioma: PuertoRican codeswitching in bilingual classrooms. In Latino language and communicativebehavior, ed. R. Duran, 109�31. New Jersey: Ablex.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

157.

253.

25.1

61]

at 1

5:04

27

June

201

3

Hornberger 2012 Translanguaging

Documents

Transcript of Hornberger 2012 Translanguaging