This article was downloaded by: [157.253.25.

161] On: 27 June 2013, At: 15:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: a biliteracy lens

Nancy H. Hornberger & Holly Link
a a a

Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6216, USA Published online: 27 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Nancy H. Hornberger & Holly Link (2012): Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: a biliteracy lens, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15:3, 261-278 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016

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

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Vol. 15, No. 3, May 2012, 261 278

Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: a biliteracy lens

Nancy H. Hornberger* and Holly Link
Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6216, USA (Received 26 October 2011; nal version received 12 January 2012) As US classrooms approach a decade of response to No Child Left Behind, many questions and concerns remain around the education of those labeled as English language learners, in both English as a Second Language and bilingual education classrooms. A national policy context where standardized tests dominate curriculum and instruction and first language literacy is discouraged and undervalued poses unusual challenges for learners whose communicative repertoires encompass translanguaging practices. Drawing on the critical sociolinguistics of globalization and on ethnographic data from US and international educational contexts, we argue via a continua of biliteracy lens that the welcoming of translanguaging and transnational literacies in classrooms is not only necessary but desirable educational practice. We suggest that Obamas current policies on the one hand and our schools glaring needs on the other offer new spaces to be exploited for innovative programs, curricula, and practices that recognize, value, and build on the multiple, mobile communicative repertoires and translanguaging/transnational literacy practices of students and their families. Keywords: additive bilingualism; biliteracy; bilingual education; code-switching; ELL; communicative competence

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

Introduction
You know, I dont understand when people are going around worrying about, We need to have English-only. They want to pass a law, We want English-only. Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English theyll learn English you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language. You know, its embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], Merci beaucoup. Right? You know, no, Im serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age. . . (Barack Obama, 8 July 2008, Powder Springs, GA)

In this pre-election speech on the state of the US economy, Barack Obama conveys a global perspective and pro-multilingual stance on language policy in education. His positive outlook on bilingualism and foreign-language learning recognizes not just
*Corresponding author. Email: nancyh@gse.upenn.edu
ISSN 1367-0050 print/ISSN 1747-7522 online # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.658016 http://www.tandfonline.com

262

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

the well-documented fact that children of immigrants residing in the US rapidly learn English but also that multilingualism provides economic advantages and is a norm outside of the US (Ferguson and Heath 1981; McKay and Wong 1988; Potowski 2010). One in five students in the United States is the child of an immigrant (Capps et al. 2005 as cited in Ga ndara and Hopkins 2010, 7), and between 1995 and 2005, the EL [English Learner] student population grew 56% (Batalova, Fix, and Murray 2007, as cited in Ga ndara and Hopkins 2010, 7). Yet, educational policy under No Child Left Behind ignores these changing demographics in schools across the US and does little to reflect either the pro-bilingual stance in Obamas speech or the large body of research on the benefits of bilingualism (e.g., Baker 1988; Ben-Zeev 1977; Bialystok 2001; Garc a and Otheguy 1994; Kroll and de Groot 2005; Peal and Lambert 1962). Even while exemplary bilingual education models such as two-way immersion programs are growing in number across the country,1 current scholarship documents the increasingly restrictive language policies in US schools and the pervading atmosphere of high-stakes testing that serves to undermine bilingual education and multilingualism (e.g., Escamilla 2006; Ga ndara and Hopkins 2010; Hornberger 2006; Menken 2008; Wiley and Wright 2004). As US school populations shift and represent an increasingly diverse world of linguistic flexibility, we argue that refusing to acknowledge the language resources of students and their families limits the possibilities for students educational success and achievement and shuts down opportunities for the development of multilingualism. In the Obama administrations Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) 2010 Reauthorization: Blueprint for Reform, the section on the education of diverse learners, and more specifically, English Language Learners, states that grant money will be available to help states and school districts implement high-quality language instruction programs, including dual-language programs, transitional bilingual education, sheltered English immersion, newcomer programs for late-entrant English Learners, or other language instruction programs (ESEA 2010). While this policy seems to foreground bilingual models over other forms of programming for those labeled English Learners, it remains to be seen how schools and districts across the country will work toward developing and implementing bilingual education while high-stakes testing in English remains the sole measure of student and school success. In this paper we present and discuss a vision that both parallels and extends Obamas global perspective and pro-multilingual stance, one that might re-orient educational policy to build on students rich and varied language practices to facilitate successful school experiences and greater academic achievement. In order to do so, we offer a conceptual framework and scenarios from a number of educational contexts, in both the US and around the world, that illustrate such language and learning practices, characterized here as translanguaging and transnational literacy practices. In brief, translanguaging in its original sense refers to the purposeful pedagogical alternation of languages in spoken and written, receptive and productive modes (Baker 2001, 2003; Williams 1994), a usage we expand on in what follows; while transnational literacies are literacy practices that draw on funds of knowledge, identities, and social relations rooted and extending across national borders (Warriner 2007b).

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Consider the following brief scenarios (to which we will return later):

263

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

(1) A pair of first graders in Pennsylvania, USA comment to each other in Spanish and English while they co-read a text written in English (Link 2011). (2) A fifth grader in California, USA incorporates Spanish words and phrases into her poem about her grandmother in Mexico (Campano 2007). (3) At an all school weekly assembly in the UK, the head teacher interweaves English and Gujarati while addressing students and their families about an upcoming school event (Blackledge and Creese 2010). (4) Third-year students in a bilingual BA program in Contemporary English and Multilingual Studies at the University of Limpopo, South Africa, confer among themselves in class, freely code-switching in Sepedi and English, as to which of six child language development paradigms introduced in class this week best corresponds to a short text they have just read in English (Hornberger 2010). In the above scenarios, students and teachers in a range of school settings and classrooms both in and outside of the US, engage in translanguaging and transnational literacies, border-crossing communicative practices that are becoming more prevalent in an increasingly globalized world. If we were to observe the interactions in the scenarios above, it would become clear that not only are students and teachers drawing on more than one language or literacy, but they also are using multiple and dynamic varieties of these different languages and literacies vernacular, formal, academic, as well as those based on race, ethnicity, affinity or affiliation, etc. for varying purposes in different contexts. Recognizing, valorizing, and studying these multiple and mobile linguistic resources are part of what Blommaert (2010) refers to as a critical sociolinguistics of globalization that focuses on language-in-motion rather than language-in-place. In this focus on the mobility of linguistic and communicative resources, linguistic phenomena are viewed from within the social, cultural, political and historical contexts of which they are a part (Blommaert 2010, 3). A sociolinguistics of globalization helps frame the notions of translanguaging and transnational literacies. Translanguaging, or engaging in bilingual or multilingual discourse practices, is an approach to bilingualism that is centered not on languages as has often been the case, but on the practices of bilinguals that are readily observable (Garc a 2009, 44). The notion of translanguaging can be seen as a new approach to understanding long-studied languaging practices of multilinguals, such as code-switching in which speakers draw on two different grammatical systems in their utterances (Gumperz 1982). While research on code-switching has tended to focus on issues of language interference, transfer or borrowing, translanguaging shifts the lens from cross-linguistic influence to how multilinguals intermingle linguistic features that have hereto been administratively or linguistically assigned to a particular language or language variety (Garc a 2009, 51). Moreover, the concept of translanguaging broadens the research lens by focusing not just on spoken language but on a variety of communicative modes. This expansion and refocusing of a concept that originated in Welsh-English bilingual pedagogical practices not only effectively portrays language-in-motion as referred to by Blommaert (2010), but also helps reframe how researchers and educators alike might better understand the language and literacy practices of those

264

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

they study and teach. Recent work such as Blackledge and Creeses (2010) linguistic ethnography of multilingualism in heritage language schools in the UK shows how students, their families, and teachers draw on translanguaging, or flexible language practices that contradict monolingual language policies and ideologies at the national level and help them negotiate multilingual and multicultural identities across home and community settings (4). Similarly, as briefly noted above, transnational literacies refer, in our sociolinguistically mobile times, to literacy practices whose referents and meanings extend across national borders perhaps most clearly instantiated in the literacies of transmigrants who move or have moved bodily across national borders while maintaining and cultivating practices tied in varying degrees to their home countries (Warriner 2007b). The cross-border movements of bodies, as well as of goods and information, are the direct result of globalization and specifically the internationalization of systems of production (Richardson Bruna 2007), processes which tend to de-territorialize important economic, social and cultural practices from their traditional boundaries in nation-states (Sua rez-Orozco and Qin-Hillard 2004, 14, cited in McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and Saliani 2007, 84). While transnationalism refers to the condition of cultural interconnectedness and mobility across space, (Ong 1999, as cited in Warriner 2007b, 201), transnational literacies can be seen as literacy practices that reflect the intersection of local and global contexts (McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and Saliani 2007). We propose that developing awareness of and an orientation to translanguaging and transnational literacies in classrooms with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds can provide practitioners, teachers, and researchers with a fuller understanding of the resources students bring to school and help us identify ways in which to draw on these resources for successful educational experiences. We structure our discussion of these practices through a biliteracy or multiliteracy lens drawing on the Continua of Biliteracy model (Hornberger 1989, 2003; Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000). We begin by outlining the Continua model and discussing it in light of recent scholarship on the sociolinguistics of globalization, translanguaging and transnational literacies, and then highlight examples of translanguaging and transnational literacy practices from current research on multilingual classrooms and students, as exemplified in the scenarios. In our conclusion we return to the current political climate and educational policy in the US, suggesting how policy-makers at all levels might benefit from an orientation that values the multiple and mobile communicative resources and repertoires of students and their families, enabling greater support for the development of bi(multi)literacy for all students. The continua of biliteracy: a lens for envisioning multilingual classrooms Although scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers often characterize dimensions of bilingualism and literacy in terms of oppositional pairs such as first versus second languages (L1 vs. L2), monolingual versus bilingual individuals, or oral versus literate societies, in each case those opposites represent theoretical endpoints on what is in reality a continuum of features. Furthermore, when we consider biliteracy, the conjunction of literacy and bilingualism, it becomes clear that these multiple continua are interrelated dimensions of highly complex and fluid systems; and that it is in the dynamic, rapidly changing and sometimes contested spaces along and across multiple and intersecting continua that most biliteracy use and learning occur.

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

265

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

Biliteracy can be defined as any and all instances in which communication occurs in two (or more) languages in or around writing (Hornberger 1990, 213), where these instances may be events, actors, interactions, practices, activities, classrooms, programs, situations, societies, sites, or worlds (Hornberger 2000, 362; Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000, 98). The continua model of biliteracy offers a lens through which to see research, teaching, and language planning in bilingual and multilingual settings. The model uses the heuristic of intersecting and nested continua to represent the multiple, complex, and fluid interrelationships between bilingualism and literacy and the contexts, media, and content through which biliteracy practices and abilities develop. Seen through this lens, it becomes clear that multilingual learners develop biliteracy along reciprocally intersecting first language second language, receptive productive, and oral written language skills continua; through the medium of two or more languages and literacies ranging along continua of similar to dissimilar linguistic structures, convergent to divergent scripts, and simultaneous to successive exposure; in contexts scaled from micro to macro levels and characterized by varying mixes of monolingual bilingual and oral literate language practices; and expressing content encompassing majority to minority perspectives and experiences, literary to vernacular styles and genres, and decontextualized to contextualized language texts (Hornberger 1989; Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000; see Figure 1). Since educational policies and practices often and overwhelmingly privilege compartmentalized, monolingual, written, decontextualized language, and literacy practices, the continua of biliteracy lens offers a vision for contesting those weightings by intentionally opening up implementational and ideological spaces for fluid, multilingual, oral, contextualized practices, and voices at the local level (Hornberger 2002, 2005, 2006; Hornberger and Johnson 2007; Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000).

A sociolinguistics of globalization and the context continua The continua model of biliteracy posits that contexts influence biliteracy development and use at every level from two-person interaction (micro) to societal and global relations of power (macro) and that they comprise a mix of oral-to-literate, monolingual-to-multilingual varieties of language and literacy (Hornberger 1989). Recognition of context as an important factor in language use dates back at least to the 1960s, when sociolinguistics broke new ground by moving the analysis of language beyond a focus on structure to one on language use in social context. More recently, Blommaert (2010) proposes and charts a further paradigmatic shift from a sociolinguistics of variation to a sociolinguistics of mobility befitting todays increasingly globalized world and mobile linguistic resources, and he draws on longstanding conceptual tools such as sociolinguistic scales, indexicality, and polycentricity to help us think about language in this new sociolinguistics. In this paradigm, contexts of biliteracy can be understood as scaled spatiotemporal complexes, indexically ordered and polycentric, in which multilingualism and literacies develop within mobile multilingual repertoires in spaces that are simultaneously translocal and global. Framed in this light, the call for opening up implementational and ideological spaces for fluid, multilingual, oral, contextualized practices and voices in educational policy and practice becomes an even more powerful imperative for contesting the social inequalities of language.

266

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

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

Communicative repertoire and the media continua Biliteracy is about communication in two or more languages in or around writing; crucial to this are the media the languages and scripts through which biliteracy is practiced. Media in the continua of biliteracy model refer to the actual communicative repertoires, that is, the language varieties and scripts through which multilingual literacies are expressed and the sequences or configurations in which they are acquired and used. The model defines these in terms of the linguistic structures of the languages involved (on a continuum from similar to dissimilar), their orthographic scripts (from convergent to divergent) and the sequence of exposure to or acquisition of the languages/literacies (ranging from simultaneous to successive) (Hornberger 1989). From early formulations of the ethnography of communication to the present, linguistic anthropological research in sociolinguistics has emphasized a focus not on

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

267

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

languages per se but on verbal or communicative repertoires. Gumperz and Hymes introduced the concept of verbal repertoire in their early writings; Gumperz (1964) used it to describe multilingualism in India; Hymes referred to a childs verbal repertoire as the range of varieties of language, the circumstances, purposes, and meanings of their use (Hymes 1980, 106). More recently, Blommaert (2010) describes repertoires as the complexes of linguistic, communicative, semiotic resources people actually possess and deploy, namely concrete accents, language varieties, registers, genres, modalities such as writing ways of using language in particular communicative settings and spheres of life, including the ideas people have about such ways of using, their language ideologies (102). In like vein, Garc a (2007, 2009), in recognition of the mobility and fluidity of linguistic resources, the disinventing and reconstituting of languages (Makoni and Pennycook 2007) calls for a focus not on language in and of itself but on the multiple discursive practices that constitute . . . languaging (Garc a 2009, 40). In this view, languages are seen not as fixed codes, but fluid codes framed within social practices (Garc a 2009, 32; cf. 2007: xiii; cf. Cortese and Hymes 2001). Assumptions within the continua model about the fluidity of language varieties and scripts, and the multiple paths and varying degrees of expertise in individuals communicative repertoires, are consistent with these theoretical stances of the ethnography of communication and the sociolinguistics of mobility; but also with work on multimodal expression and multiliteracies that extends literacy beyond reading and writing to other domains, such as the visual, audio, spatial, and behavioral (e.g., Cazden et al. 1996). Consideration of the media of biliteracy entails attention not just to different languages, dialects, styles, and discourses but also different communicative modes including technological ones, as they are acquired and used not in a dichotomized sequence but more often in criss-crossed, hybrid mixes, and languaging practices. This is not to suggest that incorporating multiple varieties, scripts, communicative modes, and criss-crossed paths of acquisition and use proceeds unproblematically in schools or other biliteracy learning contexts. Translanguaging and the development continua The continua model posits that the development of biliteracy may start at any point on any of three intersecting continua of first language-to-second language (L1 L2), oral-to-written, and receptive-to-productive language and literacy skills, uses, and practices; and that individuals biliteracy learning may proceed steadily or just as easily backtrack, spurt, or criss-cross in any direction along those intersecting continua, usually in direct response to the contextual demands placed on them. There is always potential for transfer of skills across the three development continua, but, by the same token, understanding or predicting transfer is elusive precisely because the three continua are interrelated and furthermore nested within all the other continua (Hornberger 1989). Research in bilingualism has consistently suggested an integrated, holistic, context-sensitive view of bilingual development, a view wherein the bilingual is much more than the sum of two monolinguals. Cummins (1979) groundbreaking proposal of the developmental interdependence and thresholds hypotheses laid the theoretical ground for what remains a central tenet in scholarship on bilingualism (if not, sadly, in educational practice): namely, that a childs first language skills must become well developed to ensure that their academic and linguistic performance in

268

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

the second language is maximized (Baker and Hornberger 2001, 18). Close on the heels of this work, bilingualism scholars like Zentella (1981), Grosjean (1982), and Valde s (1982) provided empirical evidence for bilinguals fluid code-switching as highly context-sensitive, competent but specific language practice. Decades of research continue to corroborate, deepen, and extend this understanding. Just as Grosjean (1985) suggested that a bilingual is not the sum of two monolinguals any more than a hurdler is simply the sum of a sprinter and a high jumper; Garc a (2009), in her recent tour-de-force on bilingual education in the twenty-first century, argues that bilingualism is not monolingualism times two (71), not like a bicycle with two balanced wheels, but more like an all-terrain vehicle, whose wheels extend and contract, flex and stretch, making possible, over highly uneven ground, movement forward that is bumpy and irregular but also sustained and effective (45). She borrows and adapts the term translanguaging to highlight this bilingual fluidity. The term translanguaging, as originally proposed by Cen Williams (1994), refers to Welsh English bilingual pedagogical practices where students hear or read a lesson, a passage in a book or a section of work in one language and develop their work in another, for example by discussion, writing a passage, completing a work sheet, conducting an experiment; input and output are deliberately in a different language and are systematically varied (Baker 2001, 281; 2003, 82). Baker argues that the continua of biliteracy anticipate and extend the notion of translanguaging, providing a reminder of the strategic need to consider all the dimensions of the continua to create full biliteracy in students (Baker 2003, 84). Translanguaging practices in the classroom have the potential to explicitly valorize all points along the continua of biliterate context, media, content, and development. Such practices, also recently and eloquently theorized and documented as hybrid classroom discourse practices (Gutie rrez, Baquedano-Lo pez, and Tejeda 1999), multilingual classroom ecologies (Creese and Martin 2003), a four-quadrant pedagogic framework for developing academic excellence in a bilingual program (Hornberger 2010; Joseph and Ramani 2004, forthcoming), supportive bilingual scaffolding (Saxena 2010), and flexible bilingual pedagogy (Blackledge and Creese 2010), offer possibilities for teachers and learners to access academic content through the linguistic resources and communicative repertoires they bring to the classroom while simultaneously acquiring new ones. Transnational literacies and the content continua The continua model posits that what (content) biliterate learners and users read and write is as important as how (development), where and when (context), or by what means (media) they do so. Whereas schooling traditionally privileges majority, literary, and decontextualized contents, the continua lens reveals the importance of greater curricular attention to minority, vernacular, and contextualized whole language texts. Note that the term minority here connotes not numerical size, but observable differences among language varieties in relation to power, status, and entitlement (May 2003, 118), a meaning better conveyed in todays usage by the term minoritized (McCarty 2005, 48). Minority texts include those by minoritized authors, written from minoritized perspectives; vernacular ways of reading and writing include notes, poems, plays, and stories written at home or in other everyday non-school contexts; contextualized whole language texts are those read and written in the

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

269

context of biliteracy events, interactions, practices, and activities of biliterate learners everyday lives (Hornberger and Skilton-Sylvester 2000). Assumptions within the continua model about the importance of incorporating minoritized identities and perspectives, vernacular genres and styles, and contextualized texts in biliteracy learning contexts parallel other developments in research on bilingualism and multilingualism including the funds of knowledge project and work on transnational literacies, taken up below in our discussion of the scenarios.

Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms We return here to the scenarios introduced above, considering them through the continua of biliteracy lens, illuminating the ways translanguaging and transnational literacy practices in these scenarios build on students communicative repertoires to facilitate successful school experiences and greater academic achievement. We take up the scenarios in a sequence moving from a focus on individual repertoires and home/community funds of knowledge, to the opening of implementational and ideological spaces in schools through teachers and students initiative.

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

Scenario 1: Beatriz

A pair of first graders in Pennsylvania, USA comment to each other in Spanish and English while they co-read a text written in English (Link 2011). At age three, Beatriz moved from Guerrero, Mexico to a peri-urban town outside of Philadelphia with her mother and two older siblings to join her father, who had arrived several years earlier. Her hometown in the US is considered to be a community of the New Latino Diaspora (NLD) where increasing numbers of Latinos (many immigrant, and some from elsewhere in the United States) are settling both temporarily and permanently in areas of the United States that have not traditionally been home to Latinos (Hamann, Wortham, and Murillo 2002, 1). Beatriz attends a school with minimal previous exposure to Latino immigrants until recent years in which growing numbers of Spanish-speaking, and primarily Mexicanorigin or Mexican-heritage children have arrived.3 Although the sole language of instruction is English at the school, its classrooms are becoming multilingual spaces as children from both Spanish and non-Spanish speaking households speak and are learning Spanish for a variety of functions throughout the school day. During literacy time Beatriz sits on the rug with her first grade classmates, listens to a story read in English, and then discusses it in both Spanish and English with a peer. When called on, she offers, in English, a complete sentence about the storys setting. Shortly after, she and several students leave to attend their daily English as a Second Language (ESL) class upstairs in the library during which time she participates in guided, leveled reading in English, and chats with her friends in Spanish and English while completing spelling work in English. On returning to her classroom, she joins her Centers group at the computers to practice rhyming words in English, and then reads and discusses a book written in English with two friends, one a bilingual Spanish English speaker and the other, an English-speaker. The three discuss the story and then work together to draw and compose several sentences about it in English, Beatriz and her Spanish-speaking peer teaching their classmate vocabulary in Spanish.

portrait of a multilingual student2

270

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

At lunchtime Beatriz accompanies a recently arrived Mexican student to the lunchroom and interprets from English to Spanish for her as they walk through the cafeteria line. During recess she joins a small group of girls to sing and play hand games with lyrics in primarily English and some Spanish, games she continues playing on the school bus trip home. Once home Beatriz greets her baby sister, recounts her day in Spanish to her mother, and translates several documents for her about upcoming school events. She then accompanies her siblings outside to meet up with neighborhood friends where they set up on the stoop with paper and crayons, chatting and calling out to passersby in English and Spanish. Later they sit at the dining room table and complete their homework, writing in English and discussing spelling and math in both languages. As housemates enter and exit the house, Beatriz greets them in Spanish, and when the landlord comes to check on a leaky faucet, Beatriz interprets for her mother. When her father returns home from work the family eats together while watching the news on Telemundo, and then Beatriz and her siblings entertain each other by telling stories in mostly Spanish and some words and phrases in English about La Llorona, a character in Mexican folklore. From this portrait we glimpse Beatrizs communicative repertoires, the wide range of varieties of Spanish and English that Beatriz uses for different functions across the many settings and throughout the multiple activities in which she engages over the course of her day. In spite of the fact that English is the language of instruction at her school, her teachers positive attitude toward students use of Spanish among one another has not only legitimated the linguistic resources she brings from home but also allowed for their development across school-based activities, both academic and social. Thus, as the Continua model helps highlight, typical power weightings evident in many school settings that emphasize or accept only English use in school, in Beatrizs school are re-balanced toward bilingualism and students own language practices. In this sense there is a developing ideological and implementational space in which students voices are validated and valorized. At the same time, in Beatriz case, the school policy of English as the sole language of instruction delimits the possibilities for biliteracy development and locks Spanish use at school primarily into vernacular, oral use. In the following scenarios, we provide examples of classrooms and schools in which not just translanguaging practices are valued, but also bi(multi)literacy is encouraged to develop. Important to note is that the programs discussed below are both English-medium and bilingual programs with large numbers of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Scenario 2: drawing on home translanguaging and transliteracy practices in school A fifth grader in California, USA incorporates Spanish words and phrases into her poem about her grandmother in Mexico (Campano 2007). Campano (2007) conducted research in his own classroom at a school with Lao, Pakistani, Chinese, Hmong, Filipino, Mexican, and African-American students in a Filipino American community in California. Students at his school spoke over 14 different home languages and many were from immigrant families. While his school was Englishmedium and his research did not explicitly focus on the development of biliteracy, his classroom was one in which students reading and writing were geared toward their own experiences, knowledge and family histories. Literacy practices that welcomed and built upon students home languages (e.g., intergenerational storytelling and

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

271

teatro theatre [based on El teatro campesino peasant theatre]) were the norm, and served to foster literacy in other languages alongside English.4 In light of the Continua model these practices can be seen as expanding the media through which literacy is learned and used, and as privileging the minority end of curricular content. Moreover, they emphasize the life stories of the students and their families, accounts that are based on transnational literacies. In a similar vein, the funds of knowledge (Gonza lez, Moll, and Amanti 2005; Moll and Gonza lez 1994) project highlights what the Continua model refers to as minoritized identities and perspectives, vernacular genres and styles, and contextualized texts in biliteracy learning contexts. Moll and colleagues argue that community funds of knowledge (sometimes called household funds of knowledge or local funds of knowledge), defined as historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and wellbeing (Moll and Gonza lez 1994, 443), are a resource which can and should be drawn on in schooling for language minority populations. The centerpiece of their work is collaboration with teachers in conducting household research, because, as they put it, it is one thing to identify resources but quite another to use them fruitfully in classrooms (441). In the words of one teacher collaborator, the teacher mediates by creating curricula that reflect both the standard curriculum and the themes, languages, and culture of students lives . . . when teachers incorporate household funds of knowledge into the curriculum and use dialogic teaching methods, students are liberated to direct their own learning (Floyd-Tenery 1995, 12). Other scholars also document how teachers can effectively teach students with multiple communicative repertoires and linguistic practices in mainstream or ESL classrooms. For example, Skilton-Sylvester (2003) describes how an ESL instructor working with Cambodian students in Philadelphia built on their language (Khmer), which not only made it a legitimate part of whole-class discussion but also made it a legitimate part of literacy practice in the classroom (16). Walqui (2006) drawing from a Vygotskyan sociocultural perspective charts how teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) promoted linguistic and academic development through a number of scaffolding strategies such as modeling, bridging, contextualizing, schema-building, re-presenting text, and developing metacognition. One of the key premises in the work of both Walqui (2006) and Skilton-Sylvester (2003) is that it is possible to support additive bilingualism in classrooms even when the teacher does not speak languages other than English (Skilton-Sylvester 2003, 13). Here again language and literacy practices are not confined to solely English but involve the rich and varied cultural and linguistic resources of the students and can be seen as drawing from the less powerful ends of the biliteracy Continua; in these cases, as in those of Campano (2007) and Moll and Gonza lez (1994; Gonza lez, Moll, and Amanti 2005), translanguaging and transnational literacies are the norm and serve to promote academic achievement.

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

Scenario 3: teachers organizing spaces for translanguaging and transnational literacy practices at school At an all school weekly assembly in the UK, the head teacher interweaves English and Gujarati while addressing students and their families about an upcoming school event (Blackledge and Creese 2010).

272

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

Blackledge and Creese (2010) uncover flexible bilingual, translanguaging pedagogies through ethnographic team research in UK heritage language education contexts, by definition sites of transnational literacy practices. The team collaborated on four interlocking case studies in four cities focusing on complementary schools in Gujarati, Turkish, Bengali, and Chinese heritage communities, wherein young people growing up in the UK are engaged in instruction centered on traditional texts, scripts, and symbols associated with heritage identities beyond UK borders, identities which they at times participate in and at times resist. The researchers document specific translanguaging knowledge and skills such as use of bilingual label quests, repetition, and translation across languages; students use of translanguaging to establish identity positions both oppositional to and encompassing of institutional values; and teachers endorsement of simultaneous literacies and languages to keep pedagogic tasks moving. They offer theoretical insight and empirical evidence to argue for a release from monolingual instructional approaches and easing of the burden of guilt associated with translanguaging in multilingual educational contexts. They also emphasize the importance of considering local circumstances in terms of the socio-political and historical contexts in which translanguaging is embedded along with the local ecologies of schools and classrooms. Blackledge, Creese, their co-researchers, and the teachers and students whose practices they document, demonstrate that schools can be alternative, safe spaces for multilingualism and transnational literacies, sites where young people creatively use varieties of language including standard, regional, class, and youthoriented varieties as well as parodic language to take up, resist, and negotiate multiple academic and identity positionings. There are numerous studies researching how teachers in established bilingual programs, and in particular two-way immersion models, draw on the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of their students (e.g., Fortune and Tedick 2008; Freeman 1998; Hornberger 2003), and we discuss only a few here, drawing on a continua of biliteracy lens to highlight practices of translanguaging and transnational literacies. Freeman (2004) focuses on student voice and the media of biliteracy in studying how a bilingual middle-school teacher facilitates the production of a bilingual telenovela (soap opera) in collaboration with students, drawing on their transnational knowledge, language and literacy practices and communicating with them according to these practices. In a study on the reading comprehension of bilingual children in second and third grade, Martinez-Rolda n and Sayer (2006) focus on the contexts and development of biliteracy. In documenting how students use Spanish, English, and Spanglish to discuss texts written in both languages, they come to see Spanglish [use of loan words, calques and code-switching] as crucial to students reading comprehension and positioning in relation to texts. In highlighting the kinds of translanguaging and transnational literacy practices that in other contexts tend to be marginalized, they argue for their valorization and use in the classroom. In some bilingual classrooms and schools, teachers explicitly design instruction and plan for interactions that build on translanguaging practices and transnational literacies. Baker (2003) writes about the strategic use of Welsh (a minority language) and English (a majority language) in a bilingual high school as teachers design lessons that incorporate the use of both languages and foster biliteracy and transliteracy. Such a practice recalls Moll and Diaz (1985) classic study showing how an instructional design allowing bilingual fourth graders the opportunity to discuss their English reading text in their first language, Spanish, enabled them to

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

273

achieve higher reading levels in English, commensurate with their reading levels in Spanish. Scenario 4: students claiming spaces for translanguaging and transnational literacy practices at home and in school5 Third-year students in a bilingual BA program in Contemporary English and Multilingual Studies at the University of Limpopo in South Africa confer among themselves in class, freely code-switching in Sepedi and English, as to which of six child language development paradigms introduced in class this week best corresponds to a short text they have just read in English (Hornberger 2010; see also Granville et al. 1998; Joseph and Ramani 2004, forthcoming; Ramani and Joseph 2010; Ramani et al. 2007). Students in the Limpopo program take coursework through both the medium of English and the medium of Sepedi, one of nine African languages officially recognized, alongside English and Afrikaans, in South Africas Constitution of 1993. Though the program founders, who are also the instructors in the Englishmedium modules, are not fluent speakers of Sepedi, they and their students practice a translanguaging and transnational literacies approach in which students are encouraged to claim spaces for both spoken and written Sepedi and other local varieties alongside South African English, other Englishes, and other international languages. For example, in the class mentioned in the scenario, students are preparing to engage in a third-year project exploring Sepedi-speaking childrens private speech in their own communities, following Vygotskyan conceptual and methodological guidelines, originally written in Russian and here studied and discussed with their instructor in English, and implemented in their communities in Sepedi. The program, and the translanguaging and transnational literacies therein, are a vivid and explicit instantiation of the continua of biliteracy, and even more importantly, of the ways in which translanguaging and transnational literacy practices enable a kind of learning that is at once about discovering their culture and the great ideas in the literature, one unlocking the other (Michael Joseph, pers. comm., 28 July 2009). On the other side of the world in the US, transnational multilingual youth and adults of diverse origins and communities New Yorkers of Dominican, Colombian, Bengali, and Chabad Jewish-American heritage, Mexican immigrants from Guanajuato and Jalisco in Iowa and California, respectively, and adult women refugees from Bosnia, Iran, and Sudan now residing in the intermountain west, claim spaces in and out of school to deploy translanguaging and transnational literacy practices that maintain and transform identities and social relations as they shift and develop across time and space (Warriner 2007b). Dominican student Mar a succeeds in positioning herself and being positioned over time as a good student at Lupero n bilingual high school in New York, by drawing on resources provided by the schools local model of success, including high status for Spanish language and literacy and valuation of task-based literacy practices (Bartlett 2007); three young Latinas draw on transnational funds of knowledge and social relations in developing their retelling of the return to Mexico narrative, a counterstory to deficit portrayals of Mexican immigrant families (Sa nchez 2007); newcomer Mexican students informal literacy practices of tagging, branding, and shouting out at Captainville High are shown to be literacies of display of their transnational identities (Richardson Bruna 2007);

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

274

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

three youths engage in online multilingual, multimodal creative exploration and negotiation of complex multiple identities across race, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic, and nationalist lines (McGinnis, Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and Saliani 2007); and women refugee ESL learners struggle to negotiate successful new work identities for themselves, in spite of, rather than because of, an ESL pedagogy that prioritizes reading, copying, responding to known-answer questions, filling in the blanks, and memorizing at the expense of drawing on the first-language literacies and multilingual competencies they brought with them (Warriner 2007a).

Conclusion The approaches to transnational literacies and translanguaging practices discussed in the examples above sit in contrast to those embraced through dominant, current education reforms in the US and elsewhere.

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

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

In contrast to such a view, the continua of biliteracy offers a lens that enables both government and classroom policy-makers (Menken and Garc a 2010) to envision and incorporate students mobile, multilingual language and literacy repertoires as resources for learning. Refracting and reinforcing Obamas positive outlook on bilingualism and his bilingual-friendly ESEA Blueprint, the continua of biliteracy is in effect a blueprint for innovative and excellent educational reform that might at last reconcile the schizophrenia of US educational policy that for most of the nations history has sought with one hand to enhance English speakers foreign language capacity while with the other to eradicate ELLs language expertise, often in those very same languages. Such a reform is particularly pressing as schools and communities across the US experience ever-increasing linguistic and cultural diversity. Educators are perpetually poised between what is and what might be, between the actual and the imagined (Greene 2000, as cited in Garc a, Skutnabb-Kangas, and Torres-Guzma n 2006, 11). As we who are committed to multilingualism continually seek to open and fill up implementational and ideological spaces for multilingual education (Hornberger 2006), it may be that Obamas current policies on the one hand and our schools glaring needs on the other offer new spaces to be exploited for innovative programs, curricula, and practices that recognize, value, and build on the multiple, mobile communicative repertoires, translanguaging and transnational literacy practices of students and their families. Let us hope so. Notes
1. 2. The Center for Applied Linguistics online Two-way Immersion Directory lists over 350 programs across the US (see http://www.cal.org/). This composite portrait reects data from a growing body of research conducted in a NLD community led by Stanton Wortham and Kathy Howard, among others. For

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

275

3. 4.

5.

specic research that documents Beatrizs experience as a rst grader, see Link 2011. All names used are pseudonyms. Approximately 70% of the schools current lower elementary grades (K-2) are Spanishspeakers. While policies insist that students will only attain high achievement on standardized testing if English is the exclusive language of the classroom, Campanos (2007) work shows otherwise. His students gained in their annual test scores in both math and literacy by 15 percentile points, and continued to increase over the following two years (120). This portrait reects Hornbergers research and collaboration with Dr. Esther Ramani and Dr. Michael Joseph, founders and directors of the University of Limpopo bilingual BA program. I am grateful to Esther and Michael for their unstinting generosity and inspirational scholarship and academic leadership. My thanks also to the Fulbright Senior Specialist program for sponsoring my 2008 sojourn at the University of Limpopo.

References
Baker, C. 1988. Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. 2001. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. 2003. Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh national curriculum. In Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings, ed. N.H. Hornberger, 71 90. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C., and N.H. Hornberger, eds., 2001. An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bartlett, L. 2007. Bilingual literacies, social identication, and educational trajectories. Linguistics and Education 18: 215 31. Batalova, J., M. Fix, and J. Murray. 2007. Measures of change: The demography and literacy of adolescent English learners A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Ben-Zeev, S. 1977. The inuence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development 48: 1009 18. Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Blackledge, A., and A. Creese. 2010. Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London, UK: Continuum. Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Campano, G. 2007. Immigrant students and literacy: Reading, writing and remembering. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Capps, R., M. Fix, J. Murray, J. Ost, J.S. Passel, and S. Hewantoro. 2005. The new demography of Americas schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID 0311230 (accessed January 10, 2009). Cazden, C., B. Cope, N. Fairclough, J. Gee, M. Kalantzis, G. Kress, A. Luke, C. Luke, S. Michaels, and M. Nakata. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66: 60 92. Cortese, G., and D. Hymes, eds., 2001. Languaging in and across human groups: Perspectives on difference and asymmetry. Genova: Tilgher. Creese, A., and P. Martin, eds. 2003. Multilingual classroom ecologies: Inter-relationships, interactions and ideologies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Educational Research 49: 222 51. Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization (ESEA). 2010. A blueprint for reform. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html (accessed January 9, 2010). Escamilla, K. 2006. Monolingual assessment and emerging bilinguals: A case study in the US. In Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and glocalization, ed. O. Garc a,

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

276

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and M.E. Torres-Guzma n, 184 99. Cleveland, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ferguson, C.A., and S.B. Heath, eds. 1981. Language in the USA. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Floyd-Tenery, M. 1995. Teacher as mediator. Practicing Anthropology 17, no. 3: 10 2. Freeman, R.D. 1998. Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Freeman, R.D. 2004. Building on community bilingualism. Philadelphia: Caslon. Fortune, T.W., and D.J. Tedick, eds. 2008. Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving pathways on immersion education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Ga ndara, P., and M. Hopkins, eds. 2010. Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Garc a, O. 2007. Foreword. In Disinventing and reconstituting languages, ed. S. Makoni and A. Pennycook, xi v. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Garc a, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Garc a, O., and R. Otheguy. 1994. The value of speaking a LOTE in U.S. business. Annals of the American Academy 532: 99 122. Garc a, O., T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and M.E. Torres-Guzma n, eds. 2006. Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and glocalization. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Gonza lez, N., L. Moll, and C. Amanti, eds. 2005. Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Granville, S., H. Janks, M. Mphahlele, Y. Reed, P. Watson, M. Joseph, and E. Ramani. 1998. English with or without g(u)ilt: A position paper on language in education policy for South Africa. Language and Education 12, no. 4: 254 72. Greene, M. 2000. Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grosjean, F. 1985. The bilingual as a competent but specic speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6: 467 77. Gumperz, J.J. 1964. Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist 66, no. part 2: 137 53. Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gutie rrez, K.D., P. Baquedano-Lo pez, and C. Tejeda. 1999. Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal 6: 286 303. Hamann, E.T., S. Wortham, and E.G. Murillo. 2002. Education and policy in the New Latino Diaspora. In Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of identity, ed. S. Wortham, E.G. Murillo, and E.T. Hamann, 1 16. Westport, CT: Ablex. Hornberger, N.H. 1989. Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research 59: 271 96. Hornberger, N.H. 1990. Creating successful learning contexts for bilingual literacy. Teachers College Record 92: 212 29. Hornberger, N.H. 2000. Afterword: Multilingual literacies, literacy practices, and the continua of biliteracy. In Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds, ed. M. MartinJones and K. Jones, 353 67. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hornberger, N.H. 2002. Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy 1, no. 1: 27 51. Hornberger, N.H., ed., 2003. Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hornberger, N.H. 2005. Opening and lling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. Modern Language Journal 89, no. 4: 605 9. Hornberger, N.H. 2006. Nichols to NCLB: Local and global perspectives on US language education policy. In Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and Glocalization, ed. O. Garc a, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and M.E. Torres-Guzma n, 223 37. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

277

Hornberger, N.H. 2010. Language and education: A Limpopo lens. In Sociolinguistics and Language Education, ed. N.H. Hornberger and S.L. McKay, 549 64. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hornberger, N.H., and D.C. Johnson. 2007. Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly 41: 509 32. Hornberger, N.H., and E. Skilton-Sylvester. 2000. Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International and critical perspectives. Language and Education: An International Journal 14: 96 122. Hymes, D.H. 1980. Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Joseph, M., and E. Ramani. 2004. Cummins four quadrants: A pedagogic framework for developing academic excellence in the new bilingual degree at the University of the North. Paper presented at the international Conference of the Southern African Applied Linguistics Association (SAALA), University of Limpopo. Joseph, M., and E. Ramani. Forthcoming. Glocalization: Going beyond the dichotomy of global vs. local through additive multilingualism. International Multilingual Research Journal. Kroll, J.F., and A.M.B. de Groot, eds. 2005. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Link, H. 2011. Hola means hello: The intersection of language policy and language ideology in the early elementary classrooms of a New Latino Diaspora Community. Working Paper in Educational Linguistics 26, no. 2. Makoni, S., and A. Pennycook, eds. 2007. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mart nez-Rolda n, C.M., and P. Sayer. 2006. Reading through linguistic borderlands: Latino students transactions with narrative texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6: 293 322. May, S. 2003. Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Current Issues in Language Planning 4: 95 125. McCarty, T.L., ed. 2005. Language, literacy, and power in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McGinnis, T., A. Goodstein-Stolzenberg, and E.C. Saliani. 2007. indnpride: Online spaces of transnational youth as sites of creative and sophisticated literacy and identity work. Linguistics and Education 18: 283 304. McKay, S.L., and S.-L.C. Wong, eds. 1988. Language diversity: Problem or resource? New York, NY: Newbury House. Menken, K. 2008. English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Cleveland, England: Multilingual Matters. Menken, K., and O. Garc a, eds. 2010. Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge. Moll, L., and N. Gonza lez. 1994. Lessons from research with language-minority children. Journal of Reading Behavior 26: 439 56. Moll, L.C., and S. Diaz. 1985. Ethnographic pedagogy: Promoting effective bilingual instruction. In Advances in bilingual education research, ed. E. Garcia and R. Padilla, 127 49. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Ong, A. 1999. Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Peal, E., and W. Lambert. 1962. The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1 23. [Reprinted 1972 in Gardner, R. and W. Lambert, eds. Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House]. Potowski, K. 2010. Language and identity in a dual immersion school. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Ramani, E. and M. Joseph. 2010. Developing academic biliteracy: A case study of a bilingual BA degree (in English and Sesotho sa Leboa) at the University of Limpopo. Ramani, E., T. Kekana, M. Modiba, and M. Joseph. 2007. Terminology development versus concept development: Insights from a dual-medium BA degree. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 25, no. 2: 207 33.

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

278

N.H. Hornberger and H. Link

Downloaded by [157.253.25.161] at 15:04 27 June 2013

Richardson Bruna, K. 2007. Traveling tags: The informal literacies of Mexican newcomers in and out of the classroom. Linguistics and Education 18: 232 57. Sa nchez, P. 2007. Cultural authenticity and transnational Latina youth: Constructing a metanarrative across borders. Linguistics and Education 18: 258 82. Saxena, M. 2010. Reconceptualising teachers directive and supportive scaffolding in bilingual classrooms within the neo-Vygotskyan approach. Journal of Applied Linguistics & Professional Practice 7, no. 2: 169 90. Skilton-Sylvester, E. 2003. Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and the multilingual classroom: Constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in the United States. In Multilingual classroom ecologies: Inter-relationships, interactions, and ideologies, ed. A. Creese and P. Martin, 8 24. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Street, B. 1995. Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography and education. London: Longman. Sua rez-Orozco, M., and D. Qin-Hillard, ed., 2004. Globalization, culture, and education in the new millenium. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Valde s, G. 1982. Social interaction and code-switching patterns: A case study of Spanish/ English alternation. In Spanish in the United States, ed. J. Amastae and L. El as-Olivares, 209 29. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Walqui, A. 2006. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9: 159 80. Warriner, D.S. 2007a. Its just the nature of the beast: Re-imagining the literacies of schooling in adult ESL education. Linguistics and Education 18: 305 24. Warriner, D.S., ed. 2007b. Transnational literacies: Immigration, language learning, and identity. Special issue, Linguistics and Education 18. Wiley, T.G., and W.E. Wright. 2004. Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the Age of Accountability. Educational Policy 18: 142 68. Williams, C. 1994. Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog [Evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education]. Bangor, Wales: University of Wales. Zentella, A.C. 1981. Ta bien, you could answer me en cualquier idioma: Puerto Rican codeswitching in bilingual classrooms. In Latino language and communicative behavior, ed. R. Dura n, 109 31. New Jersey: Ablex.