At the macro level of social activity are large-scale, society-wide ideologies about languages. These ideologies are highly significant to L2 learning as they mediate decision making in educational institutions, and thereby shape the types of language education approaches that are offered, the languages of instruction and even the terms used to refer to L2 learners. They also influence people’s decisions to study additional languages, their choices for which languages they want to learn and the degree of agency they have in making those choices, and their investments in and motivations for seeking out opportunities to use the target languages and develop relationships with speakers of the languages (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). In this chapter, we examine more closely the role that language ideologies play in mediating L2 learning.
We all hold beliefs about language in general and about specific languages in particular. Beliefs are assumptions or suppositions about ideas, concepts, people, things, events, and so on that we take to be true. We may think that a particular language sounds more sophisticated than others, or that one language is more complicated or difficult to learn than another. We also hold beliefs about individuals and social groups who are users of those languages. For example, we may think that some people’s ways of using what we consider to be “our language” are inappropriate or lazy or that a language spoken by people we believe to be cultured is itself a cultured entity.
Such normative beliefs constitute language ideologies (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Kroskrity, 2004; Piller, 2015; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994). Language ideologies are explicit and implicit “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (Silverstein, 1979, p. 193). We construct and share our ideologies with members of our social groups, communities, and institutions. We use them to justify or rationalize decisions about language behavior and the social value of people and social groups who are linked to different varieties of language.
While to some, ideologies may appear to be commonsense, unbiased views of the relative value of languages, in fact they are rooted in and responsive to the interests of social groups with high levels of power and prestige (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011; Wiley, 2014; Woolard, 1990). There is nothing inherent in a language that gives it a certain standing, makes it better, more linguistically correct, or more able to express social or intellectual ideas than other languages. Languages acquire their prestige when their speakers have prestige (Milroy, 2001). Language ideologies, then, are social constructs that serve moral and political ends. Like all social constructs, language ideologies are not monolithic but are multiple and contested (Piller, 2015). A number of language ideologies are of particular relevance to L2 learning. We examine these in the next sections.
The standard language ideology is the belief that one variety of a language is superior to other coexisting ones. This variety is the language used by the most powerful groups in society. It is the variety that is used in governments, taught in schools, and codified in dictionaries and prescriptive grammar books that set out rules governing how a language variety should and should not be used. It is predicated on an ideology of language as an objective and stable entity. Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook (2007) explain further in Quote 9.1.
Quote 9.1 The Ideology of Language
The concept of language, and indeed the ‘metadiscursive regimes’ used to describe languages are firmly located in Western linguistic and cultural suppositions. They do not describe any real state of affairs in the world, i.e. they are not natural kinds (Danzinger, 1997): they are convenient fictions only to the extent that they provide a useful way of understanding the world and shaping language users, and they are very inconvenient fictions to the extent that they produce particular and limiting views on how language operates in the world.
Makoni and Pennycook (2007, p. 27)
A component of the standard language ideology is the belief in uniformity of use across speakers of the standard variety. In the case of English, for example, each separate world variety of it, such as American English, British English, and Australian English, is considered to be a standard variety of English and, thus, to be stable and uniform. Uses of it and the people who use it are judged to be correct and proper. Variation in the use of the standard is considered to be deviant, “the contingent and deplorable result of some users’ carelessness, idleness or incompetence” (Cameron, 1995, p. 39). Uses of other varieties and their users are judged against the standard and stigmatized as improper and even unintelligent. In this way, the standard language ideology serves to justify social inequalities.
The standard language ideology is a feature of national political discourse; in many nations, their standard languages are considered to be the only appropriate medium for use in education, the workplace, government, and the media (Simpson & Whiteside, 2015). An example of the standard language ideology is the widespread belief in the United States in Standard American English (SAE) as the ideal version of American English. Many other varieties of American English exist including African American English, Southern English, and Southwestern English. These varieties are recognized as dialects. Dialects are language varieties that are associated with groups of people from particular geographic regions, particular ethnic groups, and particular socioeconomic groups. It is not that the structural properties of SAE are inherently better than those of other varieties of American English. Rather, it is SAE’s association with the dominant social groups of the US that gives it its privileged status. The ideology of a standard language shapes the practices of social institutions and their members’ beliefs and attitudes about the use of the standard. For example, it is used to restrict the use of learners’ home languages in educational systems (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012). In L2 classrooms it is used to exclude L2 learners’ use of their L1s and to justify preoccupations with error correction and attributions of identities to L2 learners as deficient communicators (Gorter & Cenoz, 2017).
An equally pervasive ideology is the ideology of monolingualism (Farr & Song, 2011; Flores, 2013). Monolingualism refers to the condition of being able to speak only one standard language. Despite the fact that most of the world’s inhabitants are bilingual, monolingualism is often regarded as the natural human condition, and bilingualism and multilingualism as deviations. This ideology has its roots in the development of the Western European nation-state, which presented “one nation – one language” as the political ideal. This ideology is connected to other beliefs about national identity, such as the belief that “the nation state should be as homogeneous as possible, and that a dimension of that homogeneity is monolingualism (Simpson & Whiteside, 2015, p. 371).
The ideology of monolingualism is a common belief in the United States, and in fact is considered to be a chief characteristic of American citizenship, despite “ongoing multilingual and multicultural ‘super-diversity’” (Wiley, 2014, p. 28, emphasis in original). While monolingualism is celebrated, language diversity is often seen as an unfortunate result of immigration, and thus not well tolerated, “except perhaps on special ethnic holidays when it is considered appropriate to celebrate diversity” (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, p. 520). The consequences of such an ideology at the national level include the insistence of linguistic assimilation for all groups and the development of standard language policies at local and state levels that preclude the use of other varieties. In schools, the ideology leads to a devaluation of the language varieties that students bring with them and, in many cases, of the students themselves (Rojo, 2015).
Alongside the belief in monolingualism is the ideology of the monolingual native speaker. The term “native speaker” refers to a language user who is a member of a monolingual community of standard language users and who is imaged to possess an ideal state of linguistic competence (Ortega, 2013). In the case of English, “native English speakers” are those who learn English as their first language in countries that are associated with the standard varieties of their countries (Shuck, 2006). The term “nonnative English speaker” is used to refer to everyone else regardless of how they learned English or how extensive their repertoires are. A component of this ideology is the belief that multilingualism is plural monolingualism, with the languages existing in the minds of individuals as distinct and autonomous systems (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012).
The ideology of a monolingual native speaker has had a particularly negative influence on the agendas of SLA research around the world. Despite substantial evidence revealing the dynamic, diverse, and adaptable nature of individual language knowledge, much SLA research continues to rely on “the monolingual native speaker’s idealized competence as a benchmark for defining and evaluating L2 learning” (Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 35). The same ideology has had a negative effective on language education programs as they continue to rely on the construct of a monolingual native speaker in designing curriculum, instruction, and assessment tools (ibid.). The native speaker fallacy (Phillipson, 1992), which suggests that the ideal language teacher is a native speaker of the target language, also remains prominent in language teacher preparation programs and hiring practices.
Language ideologies influence language policy and planning on all levels of social activity. Language planning refers to measures taken “to influence the behaviors of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes” (Cooper, 1989, p. 45). Language planning can take place in any social group in any social institution, such as schools, workplaces, religious centers, community organizations, and even families.
Language policies establish and regulate the rights of individuals and groups to use and maintain particular language varieties. They involve decision making, formally and informally, at the national, state, community, and individual levels. Decisions include determining which language variety or varieties are standard and official, how they are to be used in community settings, and the types of educational opportunities individuals have to learn, use, and maintain them (Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Farr & Song, 2011).
Language policies vary in terms of degree of explicitness. They can be stated explicitly in official documents, government documents, laws, and educational guidelines. They can also be displayed on public and commercial signs. One example of an explicit language policy for a small business was created by a business owner of a restaurant in a city located in the northeastern part of the United States. The sign read in part This is AMERICA, when ordering “SPEAK ENGLISH”. The sign adorned the window of the business for at least ten years, until 2016 when the business changed hands and the new owner removed it.
Language policies can also be implicit, embedded and observed in institutional practices. For example, although there is no official national policy making English the language of government in the United States, all official government activities are conducted in English. As another example, while there is no official policy about language use in schools at the state or national levels, nonstandard varieties of English are often excluded from use as medium of instruction. This is despite clear evidence that use of nonstandard varieties has a positive effect not only on students’ acquisition of standard varieties, but also on their participation, performance on standardized tests, and overall academic achievement (Tollefson, 2017). As a final example, while there is no explicit language policy for families, family members choose to use specific language varieties with their children and other family members. In some families it may be the variety that they believe holds the greatest value for their children; other families may decide to use two languages: a heritage language and a standard variety of their community language.
Implicit language policies can become hegemonic. Hegemony refers to the “ability of dominant groups to maintain and exercise power either through coercion or by the manufacture of consent” (Wiley, 1996, p. 113). Linguistic hegemony occurs when those in power are able to get those with less power to accept their language norms as standard. Schools are principal instruments in “promoting a consensus regarding the alleged superiority of standardized languages” (ibid.)
Language policies serve as a central gatekeeper to education (McCarty, 2003; Tollefson & Tsui, 2014). They impact curricula decisions, instructional practices, and even teaching materials. One of the more significant policies related to L2 learning has to do with the medium of instruction. Choices about languages of instruction are not simply about the efficiency of one language variety over another. Choices have to do with equitable access to educational opportunities and, more generally, with “struggles for political and economic participation, democracy, and human rights” (McCarty, 2003, p. 72). Tsui and Tollefson (2003) elaborate on the power embodied in the medium of instruction in Quote 9.2.
Quote 9.2 Medium of Instruction
Medium of instruction is the most powerful means of maintaining and revitalizing a language and a culture; it is the most important form of intergenerational transmission (Fishman & Fishman, 2000). It is also the most direct agent of linguistic genocide (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, 2002). Medium-of-instruction policy determines which social and linguistic groups have access to political and economic opportunities, and which groups are disenfranchised. It is therefore a key means of power (re)distribution and social (re)construction, as well as a key arena in which political conflicts among countries and ethnolinguistic, social and political groups are realized.
Tsui & Tollefson (2003, p. 2)
Choices of languages of instruction are complex. We know that the use of learners’ language varieties in learning, especially in the primary years has long-term benefits for learners’ academic performance. We also know that learners must have opportunities to learn the languages that are necessary for higher education and employment. Even with policies that support equity and access to these learning opportunities, there is often a gap between official policies and everyday practices (Tollefson & Tsui, 2003). Some of the challenges that local programs face include lack of resources, such as teaching materials and trained teachers, and inadequate funds. Further complicating the issue of equitable access to educational opportunities are social changes brought about by globalization. According to Tollefson and Tsui (2014), two changes have been the significant migration of labor from rural areas to cities and the creation of new types of work in, for example, business and finance, service industries, and government agencies, many of which require command of dominant languages such as English and Chinese. These changes have resulted in increased demand for workers with at least secondary education and with literacy skills in one or more of the dominant languages. The new types of work and their language demands have major consequences for educational language policies, and in particular for decisions about the languages of instruction in schools, resulting in ever-increasing pressure to use the dominant languages in schools to teach the basic curriculum.
Bilingual education programs are a standard means of providing equity and access to learning opportunities for linguistically diverse groups around the world. Bilingual education involves using two languages to teach school subjects. One is the learners’ native language and the other language is typically a dominant language such as English, with varying amounts of each language used in accordance with the program model. The Council of Europe, an international organization whose aim is to uphold democracy and protect human rights, undertook a major effort with respect to bilingual/multilingual education in Europe shortly after the turn into the twenty-first century. One implementation of its language education policies (see Quote 9.2) has been the development of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL) (Council of Europe, 2001). Created to facilitate clarity and comparability in language education programs, CEFRL is a set of standards and guidelines for language programs that are specifically for the development of language curricula, the design of teaching and learning materials, and the assessment of language proficiency.
CEFRL is widely used in many education systems as a tool for language policy and language assessment, not only in Europe but in countries around the world as well (Gorter & Cenoz, 2016). This acceptance notwithstanding, the resource is not without its critics. Perhaps the most significant criticism has to do with the traditional views of language and learning that undergird the framework. According to Blommaert and Backus (2011, p. 4), the concern is this:
In spite of significant advances in the field of language knowledge, and in spite of the increasing complexity of superdiverse sociolinguistic environments, dominant discourses on this topic seem to increasingly turn to entirely obsolete and conclusively discredited models of language knowledge. The European Common Framework for Languages [sic] is naturally the most outspoken case, but language and literacy testing methods predicated on linear and uniform ‘levels’ of knowledge and developmental progression are back in force.
(emphasis added)
Quote 9.3 The Council of Europe Language Education Policies
Council of Europe language education policies aim to promote:
PLURILINGUALISM: all are entitled to develop a degree of communicative ability in a number of languages over their lifetime in accordance with their needsLINGUISTIC DIVERSITY: Europe is multilingual and all its languages are equally valuable modes of communication and expressions of identity; the right to use and to learn one’s language(s) is protected in Council of Europe ConventionsMUTUAL UNDERSTANDING: the opportunity to learn other languages is an essential condition for intercultural communication and acceptance of cultural differencesDEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP: participation in democratic and social processes in multilingual societies is facilitated by the plurilingual competence of individualsSOCIAL COHESION: equality of opportunity for personal development, education, employment, mobility, access to information and cultural enrichment depends on access to language learning throughout life.
Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Division_EN.asp January 22, 2018
The United States has a long history of bilingual education programs in different forms. Transitional bilingual education programs are meant to transition learners who do not speak American English into English academic language development. Students begin taking a few subjects in their first languages and others in American English. Over time, they move to instruction in English for all subjects. In dual language or two-way bilingual education programs L2 learners and American English-speaking students are integrated with the goal of developing academic language skills in both languages in both groups of learners. However, explicit language education policies such as those of the Council of Europe do not exist at the national level. Decisions about types of programs, curricular and instructional practices, teaching materials, and assessment practices are made at the local and state levels.
Regardless of the type, traditional bilingual education programs have been similarly criticized for treating language knowledge as static and homogeneous, and keeping the two languages separate, independent from each other so as not to “‘contaminate’ the other named language” (Otheguy, García & Reid, 2015, p. 302; Flores & García, 2017; García & Sylvan, 2011). Cummins and Swain (1986, p. 108) have referred to this implicit language policy as “bilingualism through monolingualism”. Gorter and Cenoz (2017) argue that these same views on language continue to be strong in other bilingual education contexts such as Canadian immersion programs, the programs of the Basque country of Spain, and elsewhere.
As we have discussed in earlier chapters, usage-based understandings of language and learning have significantly undercut such views on language and the ideologies of standard language and the monolingual native speaker underpinning them. Also undercutting them is a growing number of studies documenting how people make use of the various multilingual resources of their repertoires in their everyday practices. These efforts have given rise to spaces for the investigation and development of approaches to teaching that are “more suited to the realities of [L2 learners’] lives in superdiverse, multilingual neighborhoods and workplaces” (Simpson & Whiteside, 2015, p. 377), and thus reflect shifting language ideologies.
One example of an emerging pedagogy is the translanguaging approach. Translanguaging has become a common term to refer to people’s flexible, fluid use of their multilingual resources to communicate with others in specific contexts of action (see Chapter 2; Creese & Blackledge, 2010, 2014; García & Leiva, 2014; García & Li, 2014; Otheguy, García & Reid, 2015). Its conceptualization of language marks an ideological shift away from a focus on languages as fixed, discrete systems, and bilingualism and multilingualism as knowledge of separate language systems. It is grounded on a view of language as ever-evolving constellations of social constructions (re)created for the purpose of making meaning. A translanguaging pedagogy is a new type of bilingual education program that seeks to recruit all of the learners’ linguistic and other semiotic resources at their disposal such that they are able to engage actively and critically in the contexts of action comprising their classroom communities and thereby maximize their academic achievements (Creese & Blackledge, 2010, 2015; García & Li, 2014; García & Kano, 2014). García and Kanno (2014, p. 275) explain further:
In a translanguaging classroom, by rejecting the subjugation of one language to the other and giving agency to bilingual students to self-regulate their language practices in learning, diverse linguistic and cultural repertoires are harnessed to their fullest extent. Through those experiences, bilingual students can construct truly bilingual identities and enrich their languaging and academic experiences.
The goals of a translanguaging pedagogy as set out by Ofelia García and Li Wei are stated in Quote 9.4. What makes the translanguaging approach different from other bilingual education approaches is that it is meant to be transformative, that is, to position L2 learners as creative and competent, able to bring different dimensions of their life experiences together to create new voices, new identities, and new social realities.
Quote 9.4 Goals of Translanguaging Pedagogy
To differentiate among students’ levels and adapt instruction to different types of students in multilingual classrooms.
To build background knowledge so that students can make meaning of the content being taught and of the ways of languaging in the lesson.
To deepen understandings and sociopolitical engagement, develop and extend new knowledge, and develop critical thinking and critical consciousness.
For cross-linguistic metalinguistic awareness so as to strengthen the students’ ability to meet the communicative exigencies of the socioeducational situation.
For cross-linguistic flexibility so as to use language practices competently. For identity investment and positionality; that is, to engage learners.
To interrogate linguistic inequality and disrupt linguistic hierarchies and social structures.
Garcia & Li (2014, p. 121)
Whether we are conscious of them or not, we all hold beliefs about language, about learning, and about ourselves and others as language users and learners. Our ideologies permeate every action we take, “enacted as common sense rationality that is actively practiced and ongoingly reconstituted in social interaction … as practical discursive methods for sense-making, rationalizing … providing evidence among many others” (Miller, 2014, p. 122).
Three ideologies in particular are especially influential to L2 teaching and learning experiences, shaping decision making at all levels of social activity: the standard language ideology, the ideology of monolingualism, and the native speaker ideology. These ideologies are inextricably connected to not only explicit, overt language and language education policies but also to implicit, unofficial, grassroots policies. While the ideologies may present some challenges to designing and implementing L2 teaching practices that provide relevant language learning experiences, they are not static or monolithic; they can be contested and changed. Recent advances in pedagogical approaches based on concepts such as translanguaging that reflect current understandings of language and learning are a case in point; they hold great promise for transforming language education policies at all levels of social activity.
From an understanding of L2 learning as mediated by language ideologies, we can derive three implications for understanding L2 teaching.
Our beliefs about language and learning mediate every decision we make as language teachers. The decisions we make and the actions we take regarding curricular content, resources, instructional activities, and assessment measures as well as regarding the language(s) we use in the classroom and allow the students to use are all are informed by our ideologies, no matter how unaware we may be of our beliefs. Also affecting our decisions and actions are the language ideologies expressed in the policies of our educational institutions. To be agentive in our work as L2 teachers requires at the minimum developing a critical awareness of our beliefs and those of the larger institutional contexts in which we teach and of how they influence our actions as teachers, the kinds of learning environments we create in our classrooms, and the relationships we develop with students, colleagues, and administrators. Such enhanced understandings will facilitate our crafting of actions that respond strategically to the possibilities and limitations of our particular teaching contexts in light of our past experiences and future goals (Haneda & Sherman, 2016).
L2 teachers play an instrumental role in (re)creating language policies in our professional practices. A significant means by which we do this is through the words we use to refer to L2 learners in our interactions, both oral and written, with colleagues and administrators. Words are powerful resources. Words may not change reality, but they can change how people perceive reality. Labels and terms such as nonnative, deficient, and remedial mark L2 learners as incomplete, lacking something. They render invisible the knowledge and skills that L2 learners have already accumulated in their life experiences and can even lead to unwanted or harmful consequences. Even the term language calls to mind an objective, static system. Together, these and other similar terms reinforce language ideologies of the native speaker and monolingualism.
One way to counteract these ideologies is to create a “personal” language policy to be mindful of the words we use and to encourage others in our schools to do the same in both official and unofficial interactions. Actions we can take include omitting words such as deficient and remedial in descriptions of courses or programs at our schools; trading out nonnative for multilingual in our descriptions of our learners and exchanging language for the term semiotic repertoires to describe course content, the focus of our instructional practices, and the objects of L2 learning. Providing explanations for our word choices to our students, colleagues, and administrators and to parents and other stakeholders can help to create more informed understandings of the multilingual worlds in which we live and the need for pedagogical approaches like the translanguaging approach.
In addition to generating change through the words we use, we need to be mindful of the learning environments we create in our classrooms. We can begin by imagining learning environments where translanguaging is the norm, where our students’ semiotic resources and skills are not erased, but are explored and drawn on, where learning opportunities allow for a range of modalities in meaning making, opening up new “expressive potentials” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 188) for learners; where learning experiences involve a variety of knowledge processes and a variety of learning spaces; where learners are able to imagine, refashion or take on new identities; and where learners as meaning-makers are acknowledged as designers of their social futures (Cope & Kalantzis, 2002).
This series of pedagogical activities will assist you in relating to and making sense of the concepts that inform our understanding of L2 learning as mediated by language ideologies.
With a partner or small group, consider the following questions:
What are your beliefs about language in general? About the languages you speak? About languages spoken by others in your community?
Do you feel that some languages are privileged over other languages in your community? If yes, how so? If no, support your response with a few examples from your own experiences.
Have your beliefs changed as you have progressed through your preparation to become an L2 teacher? If yes, how so? If no, please explain.
Should L2 teachers play an active role in promoting ideologies of linguistic diversity and translanguaging versus ideologies of monolingualism and a standard language? If yes, how? If no, please explain.
With a partner or small group, consider the following: rightly or wrongly, the ideal of a native speaking L2 teacher continues to thrive as “a model, a norm and a goal” (Creese, Blackledge, & Takhi, 2014, p. 938) in the L2 teaching profession. Reflect on the identities of teachers of the languages you studied in your educational program over the years. Were they native or nonnative speakers of the target languages? Do you feel that these identities made a difference in how they taught? In how you learned? Now that you are or are becoming an L2 teacher, consider the advantages and disadvantages of learning from monolingual speakers of the target language and from multilingual speakers of the target language. What implications can you derive from your considerations for your own teaching practices?
Select two of the concepts listed in Box 9.1. Craft a definition of each of the two concepts in your own words. Create one or two concrete examples of the concept that you have either experienced first-hand or can imagine. Pose one or two questions that you still have about the concept and develop a way to gather more information.
Box 9.1 Concepts: L2 learning is mediated by language ideologies
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
dual language education programs
ideologies
language education policies
language policies
medium of instruction
monolingualism ideology
monolingual native speaker ideology
standard language ideology
translanguaging pedagogy
transitional bilingual education programs
Choose one of the concepts you selected from the list on which to gather additional information. Using the internet, search for information on the concept. Create a list of five or so facts about it. These can include names of scholars who study the concept, studies that have been done on the concept along with their findings, visual images depicting the concept, and so on. Create a concept web that visually records the information you gathered from your explorations.
Linguistic landscape refers to the “visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory or region” (Landry & Bourhis, 1997, p. 23). Conducting a study of a linguistic landscape of a particular public space indicates which language(s) are prominent and valued. Conduct a linguistic landscape of your community by collecting representative samples of the language(s) that appear in public places, taking photographs of the representations, and noting where each is located. Consider street signs, billboards, graffiti, posters on poles, lampposts and hanging on walls, commercial signs, shop windows, posted menus, street names, place names, and so on.
Once you have collected your data, create a table indicating a. whether the representation is top-down (government-related, official signs) or bottom-up (non-official, related to businesses, private organizations or persons), b. type of representation (e.g., graffiti, menu), and 3. the language(s) featured. Then, consider the following questions:
What patterns in use of languages and types of representation can you detect within and across top-down and bottom-up signs?
For top-down signs, what policies on language do they appear to support?
For bottom-up signs, what views on language do they appear to support?
What can you conclude about the relationship between language policies, language ideologies, and linguistic landscapes?
Find two articles on national language education policies, each of which reports on a particular geographical area in which you have interest. For some background information, you may wish to consult the website of the International Network for Language Education Policy Studies (INLEPS), an association of scholars and researchers, at educationpolicy.org. Write a paper in which you a. summarize each study’s findings, b. compare findings across contexts, and c. discuss what you consider to be the significance of your comparative analysis to you in your role as an L2 teacher.
Drawing on what you learned from your study of the linguistic landscape of your community, create an imagined linguistic landscape for your community or neighborhood. Once completed, construct a narrative (written or digital) that explains your choices of the types of representation and language(s) used in terms of their connections to your beliefs about language.
Create a set of explicit language policies for your classroom or the classroom in which you aspire to teach. Begin with a mission statement that clearly expresses your professional position toward language use in the classroom. In drafting your policies, consider the language(s) of instruction, including the language(s) that students are allowed to use during instruction, whether the policy will distinguish between the language(s) used between you and your students and those used among students and between official instructional times and non-instructional times. Once completed, share and compare with your classmates, and, together, consider the following questions:
How similar/different are your policies?
What accounts for the similarities/differences?
How challenging was the process of constructing a set of policies?
What implications can you derive from the process for your own teaching? For L2 teacher preparation?
Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2011). Repertoires revisited: “Knowing language” in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, 67. Accessed 23 July 2012 at www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/ldc/publications/workingpapers/67.pdf.
Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity, in Diversities, 13, Accessed 9 February 2014 at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002147/214772e.pdf#214780.
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. New York: Routledge.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2002). Introduction. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 3–8). London: Routledge.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). A grammar of multimodality. International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 361–425.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Retrieved from www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages.
Council of Europe Language Education Policy. (2006) Council of Europe, Education and Languages, Language Policy, Council of Europe, www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Division_EN.asp.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2014). Researching bilingual and multilingual education. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 157–174). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Bilingual translanguaging: A pedagogy for learning classroom and teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.
Creese, A., Blackledge, A., & Takhi, J. K. (2014). The ideal “Native Speaker” teacher: Negotiating authenticity and legitimacy in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 937–951.
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and practice. London; New York: Longman.
Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.
Farr, M., & Song, J. (2011). Language ideologies and policies: Multilingualism and education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 650–665.
Flores, N. (2013). Silencing the subaltern: Nation-state/colonial governmentality and bilingual education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(4), 263–287.
Flores, N., & García, O. (2017). A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From basements and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 124–29.
García, O., & Kano, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English writing of Japanese students in the US. In J. Conteh & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 258–277). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
García, O., & Leiva, C. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for social justice. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 199–216). London: Springer.
García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400.
García O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Language and Education, 31(3), 231–248.
Haneda, M., & Sherman, B. (2016). A job-crafting perspective on teacher agentive action. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 745–754.
Irvine, J. T. & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistics differentiation. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35–84). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Kroskrity, P. (2004). Language ideology. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496–517). Oxford: Blackwell.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reinventing languages. Multilingual Matters.
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2012). From monological multilingualism to multilingua francas. The Routledge handbook of multilingualism, 439.
McCarty, T. L. (2003). Revitalising indigenous languages in homogenising times. Comparative Education, 39(2), 147–163.
Miller, E.R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555.
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63 (Supplement 2013), 1–24.
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In K. Tracy, C. Illie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The International encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1– 10). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rojo, L. M. (2015). The social construction of inequality in and through interaction in multilingual classrooms. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 490–505). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shuck, G. (2006). Racializing the nonnative English speaker. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 5(4), 259–276.
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Simpson, J., & Whiteside, A. (Eds.) (2015). Adult language education and migration: Challenging agendas in policy and practice. London: Routledge.
Tollefson, J. W. (2017). Language planning in education. In T. L. McCarty & S. May (Eds.), Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 17–29). London: Springer.
Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. (2014). Language diversity and language policy in educational access and equity. Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 189–214.
Tsui, A. & Tollefson, J. (2003). The centrality of medium- of-instruction policy in sociopolitical processes. In J. Tollefson & A. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Taylor and Francis.
Wiley, T. G. (1996). Language planning and policy. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103–147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wiley, T. G. (2014). Diversity, super-diversity, and monolingual language ideology in the United States: Tolerance or intolerance? Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 1–32.
Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the US. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511–535.
Woolard, K. A. (1990). Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Pragmatics, 2(3), 235–249.
Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–82.