Language Ideologies and Policies: Multilingualism and Education

Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language Ideologies and Policies: Multilingualism and Education Marcia Farr1* and Juyoung Song2 1 School of Teaching and Learning & Department of English, Ohio State University and 2Department of English and Philosophy, Murray State University Abstract Educating multilingual students is a great challenge for both teachers and parents in a society in which English is the medium of schooling and of wider communication. Top-down language policies often overpower teachers’ individual intentions and practices. In this paper, we point out that language ideologies in ‘commonsense’ beliefs and political orientations, rather than pedagogical considerations or research evidence, motivate language policies. We particularly discuss the language ideologies of standardization and monolingualism that underlie bilingual education and English-only policies in the U.S. and how these policies conflict with the reality of multilingual students’ linguistic and identity practices. We also examine research on bilingual, bidialectal, and plurilingual practices in which multiple languages or varieties within a language co-exist and are used creatively by speakers for significant social and pragmatic functions, and we highlight the critical gap between top-down language policies and such ground-level plurilingualism. Teachers’ knowledge of such plurilingual practices by their students and their deeper understanding of and critical perspective toward language policies can empower them to negotiate top-down language polices in their classrooms in order to facilitate language and literacy development among their multilingual students. 1. Introduction Increasingly, researchers view language ideologies as central to language policies (Ricento 2006). Language policy itself is comprised not only of ‘the explicit, written, overt, de jure, official and ‘top-down’ decision-making about language, but also the implicit, unwritten, covert, de facto, grass-roots and unofficial ideas and assumptions’ about language in a particular culture (Schiffman 2006:11), or linguistic culture (Schiffman 1996). Whether theorized as linguistic culture or as language ideologies, beliefs about language are inseparable from education for at least two reasons. First, language policy often is carried out through mass education, and, second, education itself is conducted through language. It thus seems crucial to clarify the educational ecology of language ideologies, so that educators who ‘appreciate the power, scope, and latent contradictions’ of this ecology can ‘take up the challenge of deconstructing and reconstructing the linguistic ideologies that surround [and mitigate] their efforts’ (McGroarty 2010:30). That is, in order to deal most effectively with the multiplicity of language ideologies in education, we must first understand them. This article aims to inform language teachers and other educators about the language ideologies that underlie current educational language policies in the U.S. and how these ideologies and policies conflict with the multilingual realities of linguistic practices both in the U.S. and around the world. We first explore European-origin language ideologies in historical context, particularly those that valorize standard languages and monolingualism, ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Language Ideologies, Policies and Education 651 showing how these combined to yield contemporary U.S. language policies that treat monolingualism in Standard English as a desirable goal. Then we discuss the sociolinguistic realities of multilingualism in practice, recently intensified by globalization, both within and beyond the U.S. Inasmuch as worldwide sociolinguistic realities challenge European-origin language ideologies, they illuminate the ideological, rather than pragmatic, basis of language policies. Our goal is to raise awareness of the conflict between language ideologies as they inform policies and pragmatic sociolinguistic realities. Such awareness on the part of teachers can help them better understand learners’ multilingual practices and develop a critical perspective toward language policies and norms that deem these practices deficient. Ultimately we hope a critical perspective will enable teachers to negotiate language polices in their local contexts in ways that best serve their multilingual learners. 2. Language Ideologies Woolard and Schieffelin’s (1994) critical framework for research on language ideology honed the concept for the diverse field that emerged out of linguistic anthropology’s focus on relativity: ‘Representations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language and human beings in a social world are what we mean by ‘‘language ideology’’ ’ (Woolard 1998:3). Language ideologies, then, connect the linguistic with the social, and they do so in the interest of a particular, usually powerful, social position (Kroskrity 2000; Schieffelin et al. 1998). Since language ideologies are not simply about language, but also involve social and cultural conceptions of personhood, citizenship, morality, quality and value, etc., they have material effects in the world and thus are particularly important to understand. Two language ideologies in particular are relevant for education: the belief in language standardization (Milroy and Milroy 1999; Silverstein 1996) and in monolingualism (Blommaert 2006; Clyne 2005; Heller 2007). Although often discussed as separate language ideologies, these notions function together and emerged together historically, as part of modernization and the rise of European nation-states in the 17th and 18th centuries (Anderson 1983). Modernization included the expansion of the middle classes and the diffusion of literacy, so these factors as well are embedded in these language ideologies. Milroy and Milroy (1999) provides a history of Standard English, linking standardization to the advent of printing and thus to increased uniformity in written English, which then became the model for the standard language. They contrast the continuing change and variation in spoken English with the relative lack of change over the centuries in conventions for written English, noting that pressures toward standardization in Britain did not begin until about 1700, when English was firmly established (over French) as the national language. Over the course of the 18th century, advances in technology, literacy, communication, and education yielded ‘a much more widespread consciousness of relatively uniform ‘‘correct’’ English than had been possible before’ (Milroy and Milroy 1999:29). As English became dominant over French in Britain, the minority languages of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland fared less well (Schiffman 1996:214), indicating that an ideology of monolingualism, or one language-one nation, was gaining in predominance. Toward the end of the 18th century, the French Revolution vividly promoted the notion that ‘language makes the nation’ (Schiffman 1996:105). Although this notion emerged during the ancien régime, it was put into practice more efficiently after the Revolution: only Standard French could express the ideals of the Revolution; regional dialects and languages (all ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 652 Marcia Farr and Juyoung Song referred to as patois) were not up to the task. With the spread of universal education in France, this language policy became educational policy as well. Patois were viewed ‘as barriers to communication, as obstacles to the spread of the ideas of the Revolution, which, once made available to every citizen, would enlighten and liberate them’ (Schiffman 1996:95). Since both the monarchy and the Church had promoted regional dialects and languages (for different reasons), the anticlericalism of the Revolution doubly reinforced the policy of francisation, or enforcing the use of the ‘national’ language. Note here the close alignment of an ideology of standardization with an ideology of monolingualism, as exemplified in both England and France. The rise of nation-states in Europe, especially in the cases of England and France, was accompanied by standardization processes that promoted a national language over subordinate dialects and languages (Auer 2007). Dorian argues that the pairing of nationalization and language standardization yielded an ‘ideology of contempt’ toward minority languages and dialects, which in turn contributed to the disappearance of ‘small languages’ worldwide. Clearly, wherever Europeans colonized or otherwise dominated, this ideology was established, along with a belief in a ‘survival of the fittest’ social Darwinism of language, and that bilingualism is ‘onerous’ (Dorian 1998:9–11). Thus monolingualism in a standard language became the desirable norm and a widespread, deeply rooted language ideology. Such a belief even underlies much linguistic scholarship, which primarily investigates language as a discrete system; until recently even research on bilingualism assumed the existence of two autonomous language codes (Heller 2007). The empirical reality of bilingual language practices, however, shows speakers mixing resources from various languages and dialects dynamically and creatively, as we discuss below. Nevertheless, a belief in monolingualism in a standardized national language persists, explaining both the widespread criticism of vernacular usage (e.g., in the Ebonics controversy of the mid-1990s in the U.S.) and of code-mixing (either as code-switching or in mixed languages such as Creoles), as well as the fervor of the English-Only movement in the U.S. Bauman and Briggs (2003) elaborate the history of these powerful European-origin ideologies, tracing them to John Locke’s (and Francis Bacon’s) emphasis on language purification in the 17th century and Johann Gottfried Herder’s (and Jacob Grimm’s) subsequent romanticizing of vernacular language traditions in the late 18th and mid-19th centuries, respectively. Language purification practices emphasized the referential truth value of language to convey knowledge without the elaborate ‘rhetorical’ uses of language that influenced and misled people. Ideal language was autonomous, stripped of indexical connections to ‘social locations and situated interests’ (Bauman and Briggs 2003:300), and thus contributed to universal rationality and social order. Moreover, purification practices made language itself a modern object of knowledge, which emerged as modern linguistics. Herder’s ‘rescuing’ of the folk language traditions discarded by Locke (in his quest to purify language) then hybridized language by linking certain kinds of language use to social categories of people: By making language seem faceless, decontextualized, abstract, and socially and historically disembodied, practices of purification could imagine Others by virtue of their … failure to speak this language of the modern subject. Particular discursive failures thus implicitly identified classes of subaltern subjects. The Herderian-Grimmsian alternative was to imagine specific discursive practices and then attach them directly and explicitly to particular social categories [such as ‘‘the folk’’]. (Bauman and Briggs 2003:314) Since only aristocratic and bourgeois men were endowed with the type of consciousness and language (and literacy) practices for participation in the public sphere, the language ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Language Ideologies, Policies and Education 653 practices of women and other subaltern groups were of lesser value. Bauman and Briggs argue that the dynamic, complex combination of purification practices and hybridization practices over time resulted in the powerful language ideologies still widely promoted today. Silverstein encapsulates these ideologies in the ‘culture of monoglot Standard’ (Silverstein 1996:284), which combines the ideology of standardization and the ideology of monolingualism. Like others, Silverstein notes an apparent paradox for the U.S.: ‘The evidence of societal plurilingualism is everywhere about us’ (Silverstein 1996:284), yet a persistent belief that everyone should acquire and use an ideal Standard English is widely shared, even across the political spectrum. Thus both liberals and conservatives share a belief in the culture of monoglot Standard: everyone should (learn to) speak Standard English. But what is Standard English? It is not an empirical reality, but an abstraction, an ideal use of what is deemed ‘best’ linguistic practice. In the U.S., what is considered Standard varies regionally, and what distinguishes any particular language use as ‘Standard’ is actually the absence of stigmatized linguistic forms, not the presence of particular forms (Farr and Daniels 1986). That is, English in practice shows continuous variation in linguistic form across contexts, genres, and users. In this stream of language-in-use, however, particular linguistic forms become salient and stigmatized because of the social categories of people they index, not because of their own characteristics. For example, the use of habitual (non-conjugated) be indexes African American working class speakers, and multiple negation indexes working class (English) speakers in general (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes 2006). Yet in the culture of monoglot Standard such features represent ‘not best’ linguistic practice, which is usually erroneously described as a lack of precision or clarity at the level of words (Silverstein 1996). (In fact, habitual be is more semantically precise than is or are, since it indicates habitual aspect in addition to the usual stative meaning of a copula, or linking verb.) Thus the features that distinguish vernacular dialects from what is considered Standard become deficits rather than neutral linguistic differences. In addition to rationalizing the use of vernacular linguistic features as involving unclear or imprecise use of words, the culture of monoglot Standard naturalizes the indexical links between linguistic features and social categories of people (as in our examples of habitual be and multiple negation): rather than speaking according to the rule-governed patterns of their own dialects (and indexing social identities), speakers are described as imprecise and inaccurate (‘sloppy’) in their language use. Finally, the culture of monoglot Standard rationalizes institutions that promote language standardization (such as schools) as enhancing individual achievement and growth toward ‘best’ linguistic practice, rather than recognizing such institutions as favoring and disfavoring students based on the linguistic features they use. Such school-taught ‘best’ linguistic practices then provide access to enhanced social, economic, and political opportunities. Thus the abstract notion of Standard English becomes objectified as something people can possess or lack: it is an asset that can be acquired, and then, as an object, it is commoditized, ‘swept up into the brisk commerce of personal socio-economic identity…[,] a brisk commerce of goods and services for which experts make themselves available’ (Silverstein 1996:290–1). Since every individual is believed to have the freedom to ‘achieve professionally, personally, and, as expressed by a number of speech consultants, psychologically’ (Silverstein 1996:296), those who do not acquire this commodity are viewed as choosing not to. Standard English thus becomes a cultural emblem via social processes cast in individualistic terms. Such processes underlie the promotion of English (only) in the U.S. and elsewhere (e.g., Clyne 2005) and are promoted through particular language policies, as discussed in the next section. ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 654 Marcia Farr and Juyoung Song 3. Language Policy Language policy involves not only the macro level of national language planning, including determining what language is to be used and learned in school; it also affects language choices at home and in other community sites. Moreover, language policy not only concerns what languages are to be used where, when, and by whom, but also what choices in grammar, vocabulary, genre, and style are appropriate in particular contexts. These decisions grant certain language varieties high prestige, determining which ones are official, standard and national (Shohamy 2006). Thus language policy has social and political consequences, e.g., in (re)constructing national identity (Blommaert 2006; David and Govindasamy 2007), delimiting or promoting linguistic human rights (Skutnabb-Kangas 2006), directing the education of linguistic minorities (Farr 2011; McCarty et al. 2010; Paulston and Heidemam 2006; Wiley 2000), and promoting language revitalization (Fishman 1991, 2006), as well as legitimizing linguistic practices and cultures of particular groups while imperializing others (Philipson 1992). The relationship between language ideologies and language policy is inseparable; that is, language ideology inevitably informs policy. Nevertheless, the former never determines the latter, nor can the latter be derived from the former (Sonntag 2000). In other words, language ideology is not a predictor of specific language policies; rather, language polices are contingent on sociopolitical and socioeconomic conditions of time and place, whereas ideologies are more persistent (Sonntag 2000). Often multiple, contrasting ideologies underlie the same policy, and the same sort of ideology guides seemingly different policies. Wiley (2000) argues that the ideology of English monolingualism in the U.S. served two distinct goals of assimilationist policies: deculturation and acculturation: the policy for Native Americans was based on deculturation to subordinate them by removing their languages and cultures, whereas the policy for European immigrants was based on acculturation for their structural incorporation into the dominant society. Although some researchers (e.g., Philipson 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000) support the right to education in the mother tongue, others argue that policies favoring mother-tongue education can function to maintain the social, economic, and political advantages of dominant groups (Ricento and Wiley 2002). In South Africa, mother-tongue education was a central policy of segregation and discrimination, preventing upward mobility among the lower social classes (Blommaert 1996; de Klerk 2002; both cited in Tollefson 2006). Thus the relation between language policy and language ideologies is complex, multiple, and often not straightforward. Such complexity is partly because language policies vary in terms of degree of formality and orientation. Whereas language policy can be stated explicitly in official documents, such as laws, educational curriculum, and standardized tests, sometimes it can only be derived implicitly by observing de facto practices, e.g., in the status and uses of the English language in the U.S. (Shohamy 2006). Unstated, implicit, covert policies (Schiffman 1996) broaden the notion of language policy by showing such policies as an integral part of a culture at the grass-roots level. Wiley (2002) and Macias and Wiley (1998) categorize educational language policies regarding minority language rights according to the purpose or orientation of a language policy, expanding Kloss’s (1998[1977]) schema: (1) Promotion-Oriented Polices (the support of community languages by the government ⁄ state ⁄ agency, such as Welsh in the UK), (2) Expediency-Oriented Laws (U.S. Title VII bilingual education programs to accommodate perceived English deficiencies of speakers of languages other than English), (3) Tolerance-Oriented Policies (the absence of state intervention for minority languages, which are maintained through private ⁄ religious schools), (4) Restrictive-Oriented Policies (legal prohibitions or curtailments on the use of ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Language Ideologies, Policies and Education 655 minority languages, such as California’s Proposition 227, Arizona’s proposition 203, and federal restrictions on Native American languages in boarding schools), (5) Null Policies (the absence of policy recognizing minority languages or varieties), and (6) Repressionoriented Policies (active efforts to eradicate minority languages) (Wiley 2002:48–9). It is worth noting that both tolerance-oriented and null policies are implicit ⁄ covert polices, and a null policy, or having no explicit ⁄ overt language policy at all, is actually a type of language policy, one which results from ignoring the language differences and needs of minority language speakers (Wiley 2002). Thus, language policy, whether explicit or implicit (including the lack of any policy), always impacts language use and education. The extent to which language policies actually are implemented and adopted by a population varies across societies, time periods, and different groups within a particular society. Various strategies to ensure the implementation of language policies include the use of language tests and the design of language education (Shohamy 2006). Often, however, bottom-up forces in society have their own language ideologies, so often ignore or resist top-down policies (Farr 2011). The negotiation between top-down and bottom-up processes in the implementation of language policy, in fact, is both common and necessary in adjusting policies for different parts of society and groups of people. Some scholars have noted the danger of over-emphasizing the hegemonic power of language policy, which underestimates the agency of local educators in interpreting and applying such policy (Canagarajah 2005). These researchers have shifted their focus onto the national, institutional, and interpersonal layers of language policy processes (Hornberger and Johnson 2007; Ricento and Hornberger 1996), exploring the micro ‘agentive space’ (Hornberger and Johnson 2007) in which local actors implement, interpret, and perhaps resist policy initiatives. Hornberger and Johnson (2007) emphasize the local level of language policy implementation by examining two different interpretations of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation by two chief executive officers in the School District of Philadelphia. The interpretations differed based on the knowledge, experiences, and beliefs of each administrator: Emily’s interpretation of NCLB as ‘flexible’, based on her research-based understanding of the value of bilingual education, created ‘ideological and implementational spaces for additive bilingualism’ in the language program, whereas Lucia’s interpretation of it as ‘rigidly English only’ engendered ‘a shift toward transitional programs’ (Hornberger and Johnson 2007:520). Romero-Little et al. (2007) and Harper et al. (2007) report teachers’ critical perspectives toward their instructional practices in Native American communities and a Florida K-12 classroom, respectively under the NCLB legislation. Teachers in both studies note that the policy confines and oppresses their teaching practices significantly and criticize the mandated artificially scripted instruction, described as ‘not real teaching’ (Romero-Little et al. 2007:612). Teachers in both contexts expressed concerns regarding the reformed curriculum that may limit their ESL learners’ language development. Both studies illuminate teachers’ awareness of the gap between reforms based on current policy and their students’ actual needs, which potentially provides them with agency in policy interpretation and implementation. These studies show that the language ideologies of current policies conflict not only with pedagogical goals, but also with the reality of multilingual practices within and outside school. The sociolinguistic reality of these practices is discussed in the next two sections. 4. Multilingualism in Practice: Languages in Contact When local agents negotiate or challenge the hegemony of language policies in their interpretation and implementation of them, they contest the ideologies that underlie the ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 656 Marcia Farr and Juyoung Song language policies, and they acknowledge the sociolinguistic reality of language use within multilingual contexts, including classrooms. In such contexts actual linguistic practices involve the creative and emergent mixing of different languages and dialects, and sometimes these mixtures become named languages themselves. Such mixed languages include ‘substantial amounts of morpho-syntactic and ⁄ or lexical material from at least two different languages’ (Muysken 2009:315), e.g., Media Lengua, a mixture of Quechua and Spanish in Ecuador; Michif, a mixture of French and Cree in Western Canada and the U.S.; and trade jargons such as Russe-norsk, a mixture of Russian and Norwegian. Such mixed languages are distinguished from bilingual practices in which people use more than one language in conversation, switching languages across and within sentences (codeswitching and code-mixing, respectively). Clyne uses plurilingualism to capture this more general phenomenon, defining it as ‘the use of more than one language by individuals, whether bilinguals or multilinguals’ (Clyne 2005:26). Hence plurilingualism refers to the linguistic practices of individuals in interaction, not society-level descriptions of multilingualism, as with mixed languages. Plurilingualism also implies varying competence in each language, rejecting the traditional notion that bilinguals are simply ‘double monolinguals’, with ideally equal competence in each language. Moreover, the actual varieties of languages used by plurilinguals may include vernacular dialects, e.g., the Spanish and English used by many U.S. Latino students (Farr 2006; Garcia 2010; Zentella 1997). Heller (2007) also critiques the traditional notion of bilingualism as ‘the coexistence of two linguistic systems’ and even the conception of a language itself as a ‘whole, bounded’ entity (Heller 2007:1). Moving beyond ideal notions of language and bilingualism toward ‘a more processual and materialist approach’ that views language boundaries as social constructs (Heller 2007:1), recent research on bilingualism is consonant with analyses that show the historical influences (e.g., Locke’s notion of language purification) that helped form modern linguistics as a discipline. Even studies of vernacular dialects, while showing linguistic differences from the presumed Standard, originally assumed a whole, bounded code, albeit one with inherent (systematic) variation (Labov 1969). Similar assumptions guided early studies of Creole languages, which emerge through the mixing of two or more languages in the context of language contact (Hymes 1971; Labov 1971), a ‘superstrate’ language that provides the lexicon and ‘substrate’ language(s) that provide(s) the grammar. In spite of prevailing linguistic notions of languages as systematic, bounded codes, however, the empirical reality of extensive variation in the use of Creole languages led to their documentation as part of a continuum, in which varieties within the language ranged from the basolect that is most distant from the superstrate, through mesolects, to the acrolect that is closest to the superstrate (Siegel 2010). A notable and now-classic study of Caribbean creoles (LePage and Tabouret-Keller 1985), moreover, showed speakers creating linguistic systems to construct varying social identities that changed over time, anticipating the more recent approach to theorizing bilingualism in practice. Research on code-switching between languages (see Garafanga 2009; Kamwangamalu 2010) also shows that mixing languages, either within sentences or from sentence to sentence, is not random, but functionally motivated, with a switch occurring along with a change in topic, participants, or setting (situational switching), or for a particular communicative effect (a stylistic or textural function), for example to mark a quotation, to indicate emphasis, to specify an addressee, etc. (Gumperz 1982). Gumperz (1982) noted the use of a code switch as a contextualization cue, or the strategic use by speakers in interaction of a signal indexing social meaning. Bilinguals, then, make choices from among their multiple linguistic resources to convey particular meanings, refuting conventional (and ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Language Ideologies, Policies and Education 657 ideological) assumptions that code-switching indicates a lack of competence in one language or both. Bilingualism researchers thus now theorize the empirical reality of language in use as speakers drawing on resources from English, Spanish, Jamaican Creole, etc. in the construction of varying, and sometimes hybrid, identities. Style is the key analytical concept in much of this work, which identifies ‘the principles and processes of styling’ as a way of constructing self (and others) within a conventional range of social meanings (Jaspers 2010). That is, rather than taking social categories such as gender and ethnicity for granted, studies of style now aim to understand how these categories are emergent in speech, e.g., how speech is gendered or construed as ethnic in practice (Bucholtz 1999; Rampton 1995). Thus, as Rickford and Eckert note, [t]he view of variation [in sociolinguistics] is expanding,…from marking categories to constituting a more fluid landscape of meaning; from a view of language as reflecting the social to a view of language as also creating the social. (Rickford and Eckert 2001:6) 5. Multilingualism in Practice: Globalization and English as a Global Language Globalization, by circulating ideas, goods, people, and languages, has spread and intensified multilingual practices, further contesting the link between one language-one nation and thus the ideologies of monolingualism and standardization. Some scholars argue that while globalization has diminished the traditional role of the nation, especially regarding national identity processes, political states continue to exert control in globalization processes (Blommaert 2006). Stroud (2007) and Jaffe (2007) discuss the contemporary disruption of the link between nation and language due to post-colonialism and minority language movements, respectively. Pujolar (2007) similarly maintains that both globalization and the new centrality of language within the global economy challenge the notion of the nation-state, and Moyer and Rojo (2007) claim that such a notion is no longer viable at all, given the intense nature of contemporary migration in which ‘1 in every 35 people is an international migrant’ (Moyer and Rojo 2007:137). Under such conditions, they argue that monolingualism no longer sustainable as a condition for citizenship and that multiple identities and citizenships prevail, pushing changes even in the persisting language ideologies already discussed. The global spread of English is regarded partly as the promotion of monolingualism in English, contributing to the loss of other languages (Nettle and Romaine 2000). Yet world varieties of English are nativized, underscoring the agency of L2 speakers (BruttGriffler 2002), thus promoting, rather than reducing, linguistic diversity. English has symbolic power in many countries, and people adopt English for various reasons, but they make it their own (McKay 2010). As already noted, in globalized multilingual contexts, people mix language resources to create styles that construct social meanings. Such emergent and creative linguistic styling is particularly evident in the globalized flow of popular culture in which language styles are not simply the medium but the message itself. Pennycook (2010) discusses rap circuits worldwide based on various language mixtures; mixing, in fact, is the key characteristic of these music and lyric circuits, as rappers draw on resources from French, English and Haitian Creole in Montreal; Yoruba, Pidgin, English, and Igbo in Nigeria; vernacular Cantonese (including a vulgar, largely taboo register) and English in Hong Kong, etc. By including worldwide sources of working class language, hip hop is ‘resistant or oppositional not merely in terms of the lyrics but also in terms of language choice’ (Pennycook 2010:75). ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 658 Marcia Farr and Juyoung Song Another example of the global spread of English is the phenomenon of Asian families with young children who move to English-speaking countries, including Expanding Circle countries (Kachru 1982) in which a local variety of English and local language(s) coexist, so that their children will learn English and thus enter an imagined cosmopolitan community (Chew 2009; Song 2010, forthcoming; Yeoh et al. 2005). While clearly setting their children’s English learning as the goal of the family’s transnational migration, their native languages still symbolize the children’s ethno-national identities, which leads to an ‘elite’ bilingualism and cosmopolitanism in which English does not replace but is added to a national language and identity. These families’ adoption of English as a key for cosmopolitan membership then generates multilingual practices and multiple memberships. Many Asian countries also promote English in order to strengthen their economic and political positions in the world, adopting or keeping English as the medium of instruction (Malaysia, Cambodia, India, Nepal, Brunei, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Singapore) or proposing English as an official second language (Japan and South Korea). Such national movements emphasize a model of Standard English for learning, legitimizing the hegemony of the Western variety of English spoken by the upper middle class in North America and Britain (Tsui and Tollefson 2007). Local English varieties nevertheless emerge in each country, coexisting with the Western variety, playing unique roles in different contexts. In Singapore an emergent campaign in 2000 promoted the shift from British Standard English to a local variety of Standard English (LSE) which, it is argued, is internationally intelligible (Chew 2007). Chew’s (2007) survey revealed that the LSE was favored over the foreign variety by most Singaporeans; Singlish, another local variety that is only intelligible among Singaporeans, was also used by more than half of the respondents for social interaction and was a marker of Singaporean identity. Thus while many Asian countries use English as a medium for internationalization, they simultaneously resist its hegemonic influence on their own cultures and national identities. In Japan a national movement gained momentum for ‘ ‘‘deconstructing’’ English, a process in which English is adopted only as a tool so that the values and traditions embedded in the Japanese culture will be retained’ (Hashimoto 2007:27). Such countries, then, promote English as a global language while maintaining local languages and cultures, often yielding multiple languages and cultures within one political state. In North America and Europe the multiplicity of languages and cultures has other origins. Some languages are indigenous and existed prior to the state (e.g., Welsh and Gaelic in Britain; Catalan and Basque in Spain; and Native American languages in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico). Other languages result from transnational migration, an aspect of both globalization processes and post-colonialism (e.g., Turkish in Germany, Algerian Arabic in France, and Spanish in the U.S.). Finally, in much of Europe, the adoption of English, as in Asia, followed from its dominance as an international language. The existence of multilingualism in a state, regardless of its origins, implies a hierarchy among languages. As already discussed, standard languages generally are favored over local dialects and languages, yet this depends on context and perspective, as is clear from the way global Hip Hop language, minority language movements, and the indigenization of English function as counter-discourses to the traditional power of states and elites. The tension between vernacular usage and the standard taught by schools is of central importance to education generally and to literacy in particular (Farr et al. 2010a). In the next section we explore the implications of this tension for education, including the possibilities for building on existing plurilingual practices to improve it. ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Language Ideologies, Policies and Education 659 6. Implications for Educational Practice and Theory Language policies, then, are ideological constructs that reflect and reproduce power differentials within a society (McCarty 2004). For example, a (standard) English-only policy adopted for the schooling of students whose multilingual realities challenge the notion of a monolingual standard not only deprives such students of learning opportunities, including developing (and becoming literate in) their home languages, but it also furthers an ideology of contempt toward subordinate languages and dialects – and their speakers. Such speakers of non-English languages and ‘accented’ varieties of English (whether, e.g., Indian English, Jamaican Creole, or African American Vernacular English) are categorized as linguistically deficient. Moreover, such a policy promotes not only the higher status of (standard) English over other languages, but also the cultural practices associated with its use, for example in the ‘predominant Anglo-centric discourse on pedagogical practices in the teaching of English or other subjects’ (Tsui and Tollefson 2007:8), making classroom practices based on those typical of North American or British schools the norm. Against this norm immigrant students from Asian countries often are described as passive and uncritical, or as employing minimal cognitive strategies (Tsui 2005; cited in Tsui and Tollefson 2007), reinforcing stereotypic views of immigrant students and speakers of other English varieties. Regarding literacy, the writing produced by immigrant students can follow rhetorical styles different from those in more powerful societies (see, e.g., SpicerEscalante 2005), so it is often perceived as inadequate, with no or poor logical development, and lacking in critical ideas and arguments. Finally, Standard English-only language policies further impact instructional content and methods, and student achievement, through assessment processes that favor certain groups of students (Charity Hudley 2010). Even though a particular language policy’s effect on instruction can be quite significant and even overpowering, there is nevertheless room for intervention and ‘creative’ practices. When language education polices conflict with research findings on language learning, bottom-up initiatives sometimes pressure to alter the policy. For example, current bilingual education policy in Chicago that limits it to 3 years conflicts with research findings that show 5–7 years are needed for non-English speakers to acquire academic English (Cummins 1979, 1981). Multilingual Chicago, a recent grass-roots initiative, in opposition to this and other policies based on monolingual ideology, publicly proposed a language policy that supports rather than ignores or restricts non-English languages in Chicago (Multilingual Chicago Initiative, ‘About Us’). On 14 March 2007, the Chicago City Council unanimously approved the Multilingual Chicago resolution (Multilingual Chicago Initiative, ‘Resolution’) illustrating the possibilities for citizen-led changes in language policies. Additionally, although the advocates of restrictive English-only policies frequently depict advocates of bilingual education as being against children’ acquisition of English, research shows the opposite (Ricento 2000). Advocates of bilingual education and of linguistic human rights are not against children’s acquisition of English; rather, they promote the notion of ‘English Plus’ (Combs 1992), arguing that mother-tongue education is a valuable resource rather than a hindrance in the acquisition of English as a second language. Such efforts have resulted in the maintenance and use in education of minority languages in some communities (Fishman 2001; McCarty 2002). As with bilingual education, schools, and policy makers generally, have not accepted vernacular varieties of English as legitimate and rule-governed, yet research provides ample evidence that ‘non-standard’ varieties of language such as African American Vernacular English, Appalachian English, and Hawai’i Creole English are systematic language systems (e.g., Nero 2006, 2010; Rickford 1999; Wolfram and Schilling-Estes 2006). ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 660 Marcia Farr and Juyoung Song Again, as in English Plus arguments, researchers urge educators to adopt pedagogical practices that build on vernacular linguistic resources to teach academic English (Farr et al. 2010b; Rickford and Rickford 2000; Wolfram et al. 1999). Such research aims to reduce the gap between students’ plurilingual realities and the monoglot standard ideology underlying language education policies. Thus for both bilingual and vernacular dialect speaking students, research must continue to document plurilingual acquisition and development processes, as well as the systematic nature of all varieties of English (see, e.g., Language Varieties; North Carolina Language and Life Project). Such research should attend to the role of home languages and varieties of English in children’s cognitive and social development, both in and out of school. Regarding education, it is critical that teachers feel empowered as agents in interpreting and implementing language policies affecting their teaching practices. Recognizing their own roles in implementing language policy in the classroom is the first step for this. Teachers produce, affirm and ⁄ or disconfirm language policies every day – when they allow or disallow the use of one language or variety rather than another, when they choose to use a particular variety of a language to communicate with their students, when they prefer a certain structure over another in the curriculum, when they show their lack of knowledge about certain languages or varieties, etc. Classroom teachers must become aware of this moment-by-moment engagement in language policy, as well as the consequences of these practices. Thus language policy is as important in teacher education programs as teaching methods, since it so centrally influences teaching and learning. Beyond education, the notions of citizenship and bilingualism are evolving with globalization toward broader definitions. Globalization processes have increased dramatically the intensity and velocity of transnational migration worldwide. Migrant populations build transnational communities that shuttle back and forth and communicate intensely between community sites situated across national borders (e.g., Farr 2006). A simple ‘yes ⁄ no’ dichotomous notion of cultural citizenship does not fit such transmigrants, since their identities are multiple and fluid according to time and place (McGroarty 2002). Moreover, linking ‘citizenship’ with a particular language variety also must be reconsidered, since languages and dialects cross borders with people, often resulting in some bilingualism at both ends of the transnational migrant circuit. Furthermore, through the acquisition of English as a global language, people attempt to earn cosmopolitan membership, or flexible citizenship (Ong 1999) that also transcends national borders. Thus the idea of equating, e.g., English acquisition and U.S. citizenship, or speaking a standard (literate) form of a language as a pre-condition for citizenship, is questionable. Finally, the large number of bilingual speakers in the U.S. (and elsewhere) demands a broader and more flexible view of proficiency. Approximately 55 million people in the U.S. who are over 5 years old speak languages other than English in their homes (U.S. Census 2008), i.e., one-fifth of the total U.S. population speaks languages other than English (and for most of this population, these languages are in addition to English). This number will increase in the future, since immigrant children are the fastest growing sector of the U.S. child population (Suarez-Orozco 2001). Because many of those who speak additional languages have an English proficiency that does not match that of monolingual English speakers, they often are placed in the broad category of ‘English learners’, another echo of the ideology of monolingualism. Bilinguals, however, seldom develop the same level of proficiency in both languages. In fact, as we have noted, even those with advanced competence in each language often mix their languages as they speak, calling into question the very notion of clear-cut boundaries between language systems. Thus bilingual proficiency should not be defined by how accurately speakers can produce each ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Language Ideologies, Policies and Education 661 language according to monolingual norms, but rather by how appropriately speakers can choose to use a language according to context (Canagarajah 2010). Even so, however, over half the people who reported that they speak a language other than English in the U.S. also responded that they speak English either ‘very well’ or ‘well’, indicating a very large population who are advanced bilinguals1 (U.S. Census 2008). The reality, then, that the U.S. is a multilingual, multicultural society that includes many people with multiple citizenships and identities should be the starting point for considering any language education policy. Short Biographies Marcia Farr is Professor of Language, Literacy & Culture in the College of Education & Human Ecology and Professor of English at the Ohio State University, as well as Professor Emerita of English and Linguistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is a sociolinguist and linguistic anthropologist whose research focuses on oral language and literacy in various social and cultural contexts. Her early work explored the relationship between vernacular dialects and academic literacy. More recent work includes a longterm ethnographic study of a Mexican transnational community living in Chicago and in their village-of-origin in northwest Michoacán, Mexico. This study, supported during the 1990s by the Spencer Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the Fulbright Foundation, focuses on one social network of families, their history as rancheros within Mexico, and how they construct ranchero Mexican personhood and identity in their daily speech (Rancheros in Chicagoacán: Language and Identity in a Transnational Community, University of Texas Press, 2006). Other recent publications include several edited books on ethnolinguistic diversity in language and literacy practices, and many articles and book chapters on these topics. Juyoung Song is an assistant professor in the department of English and Philosophy at Murray State University, where she teaches graduate TESOL courses. She obtained her PhD in Language, Literacy and Culture at Ohio State University, and has taught in the U.S. and South Korea. Her research interests include globalization and English learning, children’s early study abroad, language ideology and identity, heritage language learning, and language teacher education. She is a co-editor of the book, Ethnolinguistic Diversity and Education: Language, Literacy, and Culture (2010, Routledge) and has published a number of articles on language ideology and identity and on globalization and the learning of English. Notes * Correspondence address: Marcia Farr, School of Teaching and Learning & Department of English, Ohio State University, 200 Ramseyer Hall, 29 W. Woodruff Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 1 There is no way to determine a respondent’s proficiency in other languages, since the Census does not request this information. This is a clear reflection of monolingual ideology, in that it documents respondents’ English proficiency only, ignoring their bilingual skills (Graham and Zentella 2010). Works Cited Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 662 Marcia Farr and Juyoung Song Auer, Peter. 2007. The monolingual bias in bilingualism research, or: why bilingual talk is (still) a challenge for linguistics. Bilingualism: a social approach, ed. by M. Heller, 319–39. New York: Palgrave ⁄ Macmillan. Bauman, Richard, and Charles Briggs. 2003. Voices of modernity: language ideologies and the politics of inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, Jan. 1996. Language planning as a discourse on language and society: the linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems and Language Planning 20. 199–222. ——. 2006. Language policy and national identity. An introduction to language policy: theory and method, ed. by T. Ricento, 238–54. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. World English: a study of its development. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. You da man. Narrating the racial other in the production of white masculinity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3. 443–60. Canagarajah, Suresh A. 2005. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ——. 2010. New definitions of English proficiency and changing pedagogical priorities. Plenary speech at the annual meeting of Korean Association of English Teachers. Seoul, South Korea. Charity Hudley, Anne. 2010. Standardized assessment of African-American children: a sociolinguistic approach. Ethnolinguistic diversity and education: language, literacy, and culture, ed. by M. Farr, L. Seloni and J. Song, 167–92. New York: Routledge. Chew, Phyllis G. 2007. Remaking Singapore: language, culture, and identity in a globalized world. Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts, ed. by A. B. M. Tsui and J. W. Tollefson, 73–93. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ——. 2009. In pursuit of linguistic gold: mothering in a globalized world. English Today 25. 33–9. Clyne, Michael. 2005. Australia’s language potential. Sydney: UNSW Press. Combs, Mary C. 1992. English plus: responding to English only. Language loyalties: a source book on the official English controversy, ed. by J. Crawford, 216–24. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cummins, Jim. 1979. Cognitive ⁄ academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19. 121–9. ——. 1981. Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: a reassessment. Applied Linguistics 2. 132–49. David, Maya K., and Subramaniam Govindasamy. 2007. The construction of national identity and globalization in multilingual Malaysia. Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts, ed. by A. B. M. Tsui and J. W. Tollefson, 55–72. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dorian, Nancy C. 1998. Western language ideologies and small-language prospects. Endangered languages: language loss and community response, ed. by L. A. Grenoble and L. J. Whaley, 3–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farr, Marcia. 2006. Rancheros in Chicagoacán: language and identity in a transnational Mexican community. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ——. 2011. Urban plurilingualism: language practices, policies, and ideologies in Chicago. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1161–72. ——, and Harvey Daniels. 1986. Language diversity and writing instruction. Urbana, IL: Teachers College ⁄ Columbia University and National Council of Teachers of English. ——, Lisya Seloni, and Juyoung Song. 2010a. Ethnolinguistic diversity in language and literacy education. Ethnolinguistic diversity and education: language, literacy, and culture, ed. by M. Farr, L. Seloni and J. Song, 1–20. New York: Routledge. ——, ——, and —— (eds). 2010b. Ethnolinguistic diversity and education: language, literacy, and culture. New York: Routledge. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift: theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. ——. 2001. Can threatened languages be saved?. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. ——. 2006. Language policy and language shift. An introduction to language policy: theory and method, ed. by T. Ricento, 311–28. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Garafanga, Joseph. 2009. Code-switching as a conversational strategy. Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication, ed. by P. Auer and L. Wei, 279–313. Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter. Garcia, Ofelia. 2010. Latino language practices and literacy education in the U.S. Ethnolinguistic diversity and education: language, literacy, and culture, ed. by M. Farr, L. Seloni and J. Song, 193–211. New York: Routledge. Graham, Laura R., and Ana Celia Zentella. 2010. Language in the U.S. census. Anthropology News 51. 6. Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harper, Candace, Elizabeth Platt, Cindy Naranjo, and Sylvia Boynton. 2007. Marching in unison: Florida ESL teachers and No Child Left Behind. TESOL Quarterly 41. 642–51. Hashimoto, Kayoko. 2007. Japan’s language policy and the ‘‘Lost Decade’’. Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts, ed. by A. B. M. Tsui and J. W. Tollefson, 25–36. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Language Ideologies, Policies and Education 663 Heller, Monica (ed). 2007. Bilingualism: a social approach. New York: Palgrave ⁄ Macmillan. Hornberger, Nancy H., and David C. Johnson. 2007. Slicing the onion ethnographically: layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly 41. 509–32. Hymes, Dell (ed). 1971. Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jaffe, Alexandra. 2007. Minority language movements. Bilingualism: a social approach, ed. by M. Heller, 50–70. New York: Palgrave ⁄ Macmillan. Jaspers, Jürgen. 2010. Style and styling. Sociolinguistics and language education, ed. by N. Hornberger and S. McKay, 177–204. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kachru, Braj B. 1982. The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kamwangamalu, Nkonko M. 2010. Multilingualism and code-switching in education. Sociolinguistics and language education, ed. by N. Hornberger and S. McKay, 116–42. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. de Klerk, Gerda. 2002. Mother tongue education in South Africa: the weight of history. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 154. 29–46. Kloss, Heinz. 1998 [1977]. The American bilingual tradition. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed). 2000. Regimes of language: ideologies, polities, identities. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press. Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45. 715–62. ——. 1971. The notion of system in Creole languages. Pidginization and creolization of languages, ed. by D. Hymes, 447–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Language Varieties. [Online]. Retrieved on 13 March 2011 from: http://www.hawaii.edu/satocenter/langnet/. LePage, Robert B., and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macias, Reynaldo, and Terrence G. Wiley. 1998. Introduction. The American bilingual tradition, Heinz Kloss, vii-xiv. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. McCarty, Teresa L. 2002. A place to be Navajo: rough rock and the struggle for self-determination in indigenous schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ——. 2004. Dangerous difference: a critical-historical analysis of language education policies in the United States. Medium of instruction policies, ed. by J. W. Tollefson and A. B. M. Tsui, 71–93. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ——, Mary Eunice Romero-Little, Larisa Warhol, and Ofelia Zepeda. 2010. ‘‘I’m speaking English instead of my culture’’: portraits of language use and change among Native American youth. Ethnolinguistic diversity and education: language, literacy, and culture, ed. by M. Farr, L. Seloni and J. Song, 69–98. New York: Routledge. McGroarty, Mary. 2002. Evolving influence on educational language policies. Language policies in education, ed. by J. W. Tollefson, 17–36. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ——. 2010. Language and ideologies. Sociolinguistics and language education, ed. by N. Hornberger and S. McKay, 3–39. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McKay, Sandra. 2010. English as an international language. Sociolinguistics and language education, ed. by N. Hornberger and S. McKay, 89–115. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. 1999. Authority in language: investigating Standard English. New York: Routledge. Moyer, Melissa, and Luisa Martin Rojo. 2007. Language, migration and citizenship: new challenges in the regulation of bilingualism. Bilingualism: a social approach, ed. by M. Heller. 137–60. New York: Palgrave ⁄ Macmillan. Multilingual Chicago Initiative. About Us. [Online]. Retrieved on 2 February 2010 from: http://multilingualchicago.org/About. Multilingual Chicago Initiative. Resolution. [Online]. Retrieved on 2 February 2010 from: http://multilingualchicago.org/resolution. Muysken, Pieter. 2009. Mixed codes. Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication, ed. by P. Auer and L. Wei, 315–39. Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter. Nero, Shondel J. (ed). 2006. Dialects, Englishes, creoles, and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ——. 2010. Language, literacy, and pedagogy of Caribbean Creole English speakers. Ethnolinguistic diversity and education: language, literacy, and culture, ed. by M. Farr, L. Seloni and J. Song, 212–40. New York: Routledge. Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: the extinction of the World’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. North Carolina Language and Life Project. [Online]. Retrieved on 13 March 2011 from: http://www.ncsu.edu/ linguistics/ncllp/. Ong, Aihwa. 1999. Flexible citizenship: the cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, SC: Duke University Press. Paulston, Christina B., and Kai Heidemam. 2006. Language policies and the education of linguistic minorities. An introduction to language policy: theory and method, ed. by T. Ricento, 292–310. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Nationalism, identity and popular culture. Sociolinguistics and language education, ed. by N. Hornberger and S. McKay, 62–88. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 664 Marcia Farr and Juyoung Song Philipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. —— (ed). 2000. Rights to language: equity, power, and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pujolar, Joan. 2007. Bilingualism and the nation-state in the post-national era. Bilingualism: a social approach, ed. by M. Heller. 71–95. New York: Palgrave ⁄ Macmillan. Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. Ricento, Thomas. 2000. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Ideology, politics and language policies: focus on English, ed. by T. Ricento, 9–24. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. —— (ed). 2006. An introduction to language policy: theory and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ——, and Nancy H. Hornberger. 1996. Unpeeling the onion: language planning and policy and the ESL professional. TESOL Quarterly 30. 401–27. ——, and Terrence G. Wiley (eds). 2002. Revisiting the mother tongue question in language policy, planning, and politics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 154. Rickford, John, and Penelope Eckert (eds). 2001. Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rickford, John R. 1999. Using the vernacular to teach the standard. Ebonics in the urban debate, ed. by J. David Ramirez, T. G. Wiley, G. de Klerk and E. Lee, 23–41. Long beach, CA: Center for Language Minority Education and Research. ——, and Russell J. Rickford. 2000. Spoken soul: the story of Black English. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Romero-Little, Mary E., Teresa L. McCarty, Larisa Warhol, and Ofelia Zepeda. 2007. Language policies in practice: preliminary findings from a large-scale national study of Native American language shift. TESOL Quarterly 41. 607–18. Schieffelin, Bambi B., Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul. V. Kroskrity (eds). 1998. Language ideologies: practice and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schiffman, Harold F. 1996. Linguistic culture and language policy. New York: Routledge. ——. 2006. Language policy and linguistic culture. An introduction to language policy: theory and method, ed. by T. Ricento, 111–25. Oxford: Blackwell. Shohamy, Elana. 2006. Language policy: hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge. Siegel, Jeff. 2010. Pidgins and creoles. Sociolinguistics and language education, ed. by N. Hornberger and S. McKay, 232–64. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Silverstein, Michael. 1996. Monoglot ‘‘Standard’’ in America: standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. Matrix of language: contemporary linguistic anthropology, ed. by D. Brenneis and R. K. S. Macaulay, 284–306. Boulder: Westview. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Language genocide in education–or worldwide diversity and human right?. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ——. 2006. Language policy and linguistic human rights. An introduction to language policy: theory and method, ed. by T. Ricento, 273–91. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Song, Juyoung. 2010. Language ideology and identity in transnational space: globalization, migration, and bilingualism among Korean families in the United States of America. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 31. 23–42. ——. forthcoming. Imagined communities and language socialization practices in transnational space: a case study of two Korean ‘‘study abroad’’ families in the U.S. The Modern Language Journal. Sonntag, Selma K. 2000. Ideology and policy in the politics of the English language in North India. Ideology, politics and language policies: focus on English, ed. by T. Ricento, 133–50. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Spicer-Escalante, Maria. 2005. Writing in two languages ⁄ living in two worlds: a rhetorical analysis of MexicanAmerican written discourse. Latino language and literacy in ethnolinguistic Chicago, ed. by M. Farr, 217–44. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stroud, Christopher. 2007. Bilingualism: colonialism and postcolonialism. Bilingualism: a social approach, ed. by M. Heller, 25–49. New York: Palgrave ⁄ Macmillan. Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo. 2001. Globalization, immigration, and education: the research agenda. Harvard Educational Review 71. 345–64. Tollefson, James W. 2006. Critical theory in language policy. An introduction to language policy: theory and method, ed. by T. Ricento, 42–59. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Tsui, Amy B. M. 2005. Plenary: language policy, culture and identity in the era of globalization. IATEEF 2005 Conference Selection, ed. by B. Beaven, 41–51. Enysham: Information Press. ——, and James W. Tollefson. 2007. Language policy and the construction of national cultural identity. Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts, ed. by A. B. M. Tsui and J. W. Tollefson, 1–21. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wiley, Terrence G. 2000. Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States. Ideology, politics and language policies: focus on English, ed. by T. Ricento, 67–86. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Language Ideologies, Policies and Education 665 ——. 2002. Assessing language rights in education: a brief history of the U.S. context. Language policies in education: critical issues, ed. by J. W. Tollefson, 39–64. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wolfram, Walt, Carolyn Adger, and Donna Christian. 1999. Dialects in schools and communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ——, and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 2006. American English, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Woolard, Kathryn, and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23. 55– 82. Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. Introduction: language ideology as a field of inquiry. Language ideologies: practice and theory, ed. by B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard and P. V. Kroskrity, 3–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yeoh, Brenda S., A. Shirlena Huang, and Theodora Lam. 2005. Transnationalizing the ‘Asian’ family: imaginaries, intimacies and strategic intents. Global Networks 5. 307–15. Zentella, Ana Celia. 1997. Growing up bilingual: puerto Rican children in New York. Oxford: Blackwell. ª 2011 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 5/9 (2011): 650–665, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00298.x Language and Linguistics Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd