See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308553884

Sociolinguistics for Heritage Language

Educators and Students A Model for Critical
Translingual Competence
Chapter January 2016
CITATIONS

READS

15

2 authors, including:
Jennifer Leeman
George Mason University
31 PUBLICATIONS 575 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer Leeman on 24 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

3
Sociolinguistics for Heritage
Language Educators and Students
A Model for Critical Translingual Competence

Sociolinguistics for 1-:IL Educators and Students

57

outline an alternative approach grounded in contemporary sociolinguistics

and then analyze the Modern Language Association's (MLA) 2007 proposal
to prioritize students' developtnent of "transcultural and translingual com
petence." Rejecting both the notion that appropriateness and formality are
f
suf icient to understand linguistic variation and the MLA's idea of delimit
able "target languages" associated with distinct cultures or ways of under
- pedagogy
standing the world, we call for both second language (L2) and I IL
to include fundamental sociolinguistic concepts and to explicitly recognize
multilingual experiences and practices. Finally, we offer concrete curricular
and classro om-level examples of pedagogical activities that are designed to
promote lIL students' critical translingual competence.

Jennifer Leeman and Ellen J. Serafini

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY

The field of sociolinguistics-broadly defined as the study of social aspects of

language as well as the interaction of language with socioculturnl and politi
cal structures and phenomena-has much to offer to heritage language (T.IL)
educators. For example, the study of language variation, contact, and change
can provide insights on the formal features of UL students' language-such
as the pa rticnlar language varieties they speak or the ways English j n fluences
certain structures. Socioli.nguistic research can also shed light on questions
of ideology, identity, and language policy-such as how the view of the
United States as a monolingual, English-speaking nation can influence lan
guage shift among HL speakers, or how multilingual students can use their
linguistic knowledge to construct and perform a range of identities.
Until recently, recognition of the utility of sociolinguistics for HL educa
tion had tended to emphasize the importance of sociolinguistics for language
instructors, with far less attention to how I-IL students might benefit from
learning about sociolinguistics. In this chapter we argue that sociolinguistic
topics should be included not only in teacher education and within the under
graduate major but also as content in HL education. 1 Our call for the incor
poration of sociolinguistics reflects a critical approach to HL education, one
that stresses the social, political, and ideological dimensions of language as
well as the need for socially responsive pedagogies that incorporate students'
experiences, promote equity both inside and outside the classroom, and foster
student agency in making linguistic (and other) choices (Leeman 2014).
We begin with a discussion of the sociolinguistic jssues of particular
importance for I-IL educators and learners alike. This is followed by a cri
tique of the conceptualization of sociolinguistic variation in "expansionist"
models of HL education, which seek to promote HL students' acquisition
of language varieties that are "appropriate" for formal settings. Next, we

56

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN SOCIOLINGUISTICS

FOR HL EDUCATION
The Sociopolitica/ Context of HL Education
in the United States
There is a long history of linguistic diversity in the United States, with
num.erous languages having been spoken by Native peoples, immigrants,
enslaved peoples, and residents of conquered territories (Wiley 2005a),
and before the late nineteenth century there was widespread acceptance
and "tolerance" of multilingualism (I-Ieath 1976; Pavlenko 2002). Since
that time, langnages other than Eng.lish have come to be seen as a sign
of potential disloyalty to the United States, a threat to English acquisi
tion, and a marker of racial Otherness (Bonfiglio 2002; Leeman 2013;
Schmidt 2002). This ideological climate, dominated by English monolin
gualism, constrains the implemcntational possibilities for language educa
tion (Hornberger 2002), and it has resulted in the predominance of the
"language-as-problem" orientation in US language policy (Ruiz 1984) as
well ,ls the prevalence of English-only schooling for minority-language
children, despite the documented benefits of providing education in chil
dren's home language(s) (e.g., Collier and Thomas 2013; Thomas and Col
lier 2002). Given the negative portrayal of minority languages as well as
the lack of opportunities for children to develop literacy in their home
language(s), it is not surprising that the United States continues to see high
rates of linguistic assimilation, with the typical pattern consisting of some
degree of bilingu.ilism in the second generation and shift to English domi
nance or monolingualism by the third (Alba 2004; Rivera-Mills 2012).
These language policies and the ideologies that they embody shape stu
dents' linguistic and affective experiences with their heritage languages.
Familiarity with the history of multilingualism in the United States as
well as with patterns and causes of language shift is important not only for

Jcm,ifcr Leeman and l'.llcnJ. Sc.:1lini

Sociolinguistics for I lL F.duc:nors ,md Students

educators and policy; it can help IIL students critically reAect on their own
experiences, ideologies, and understanding of themselves ,IS speakers of the
heritage language.

Contextual variation, or differences in the ways people use language in dif

ferent contexts or situations, is also intrinsic to language. For example, people
tend to speak differently when relaxing with friends at a party, conducting a
business meeting in an office, and praying in a house of worship. Although
there is a great deal of terminological inconsistency in hnw scholars have cat
egorized variation in language use, situationally defined varieties of languagc
and specialized ways of speaking arc often called "registers" (Lee 2001). The
situ.itional features that define registers encompass the activity with which
it is associated, including the subject matter, the communic;itivc mode (e.g.,
written or spoken), and the genre and rhetorical mode as well as the interac
tional roles and relationships among participants (T T:llliday and l fasan 1976).
Registers include spccit1lizccl ways of speaking associ}ltcd not only with spe
ci fie professions such as legalese or the language of business conununication
but also with social situations or specific activities, such as the language asso
ciated with skate-boarding (Matthiessen 1993). TJL speakers :ire sometimes
described as lacking the registers associ,1ted with academic or professional
settings, although recent research by Sanchez-Munoz (2010) has documented
lexical variation in heritage languages in different social contexts.
Another approach to the variability of an individual's language use relics
on the notion of style. William Labov's (1972) original discussions of soci
olinguistic style suggested that an individual's attention to speech (which
Labov linked with formnlity) was the primary determinate of an individu
al's language use in a given situation, but researchers now stress the social
dimensions of style. Specific linguistic features arc associated not only with
the performance of particular identities but also with specific attitudes or
orientations toward interlocutors or the topic at hand; linguistic styles and
style-shifting can alternatively signal distance or intimacy with one's inter
locutor, friendliness or indifference, and enthusiasm or skepticism regarding
what is being snid, among other stances (Coupland 2007; Eckert 2001; Jolnt
stonc 2009; Tannen 2005).
It is important to note that just as a person's membership in a particular
social gToup docs not directly correspond to speaking in a particular way,
the contextual settings in which people find themselves do not detemziue how
they speak. Rather, social and contextual variation reflects speakers' agency
as they choose, sometimes unconsciously, among various alternatives in their
linguistic repertoires in order to portray themselves in particular ":ays or
.
to communicate particular intcractional stances. Understanding social and
contextual variation is particularly relevant for IIL education in part because
HL learners may use language to index hybrid social :111d cultural identities,
a process that reflects belonging to and moving in and out of "simultane
ously-existing multiple groups" (Ile 2006, 17). As such, IIL languages serve
a key sociocultural function (He 2010).
In addition to synchronic vari:ition along the parameters of variation dis
cussed above (geography, social group or identity, context), languages also

58

Language Variation
As most people recognize, language varies from place to place, with speakers
in different locales exhibiting phonological, lexical, syntactic, morphologi
cal, and pragmatic variation. For example, the french commonly spoken in
Montreal, Canada, is different from that spoken in Abidjan, Ivory Coast; and
the Spanish spoken in T:icna, Peru, is different from that spoken in Pucalpa,
also in Peru. Such vari,1tion is particularly rclev,1nt in IIL contexts bccausc
students' home varieties may differ from the one(s) spoken by the instruc
tor or used in the classroom. The failure to recognize :rnd legitimate stu
dents' home varieties can damage their self-esteem as well .is their ,1cademic
achievement and llL mainten.ince (Bartolome and Macedo 1999; Carreira
2007; T lorn berger 2005). For example, Doerr and Lee (2009) describe the
1mirginalization experienced by a IIL speaker of Os:i bn Japanese in a J,tpa
nesc complementary school th.it privileged the 'I <>kyo standard. The case
of Chinese is particularly extreme, given that different "varieties" arc actu
ally mutually unintelligible and are considered by most linguists to be dis
tinct langui1gcs. Jn the United States, 1mny HL speakers of Chinese speak
Cantonese whereas many Chincse-Llnguagc pedagogical materials focus
exclusively on Mandarin (Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014). As Wu and colb1gucs
nrgue, th.is mismatch can negatively impact students' identities and invest
ment in maintaining their IIL language.
ln addition to reAecting particular geographic regions, ccrt:oiin pronuncia
tions, gramm:oitical structures, or lexical items can index social class, educa
tionid attainment, or sexual ickntity. So too, particular linguistic features or
practices may be lin keel to specific social networks or cliques (Eckert 2012;
Mendoza-Denton 2008) or other communities of practice-groups of people
who come together around a shared activity (Lnve and Wenger 1998). HL
students in the United States sometimes speak language va rictics associated
with rural communities of their, or their parents', home countries. \,Vhcreas
carly studies of socird variation sought to identi ry Jifferenccs in the ways
these different groups of people used language, current understanding is that
rather than detennining language use, social identity is constructed anti per
formed through language (Bucholtz and I lall 2005; Eckert 2012). for example,
a study of I TL speakers of Salvadoran and Honduran Spanish found that the
pronoun "vos" (absent in many geographic varieties of Spanish, and associ
ated with low socioeconomic status in some) was nscd to perform solidarity
with Centnil American Spanish-speakcrs or to mark ethnic boundaries with
those ofotbcr backgrounds (Rivera-Mills 2011).

59

Jennifer Leeman and Ellen]. Serafini

Sociolinguistics for [-ll, Educators and Students

exhibit diachronic, or temporal, variation. Understanding that language

change is completely natural and that all living languages undergo change is
important for HL speakers, as their home varieties may include innovative
forms or structures associated with language contact (discussed below).

ignorant, defective, or incorrect (M.ilroy and Milroy 1999; vVoolard 2008). In

addition to having a detrimental impact on the scl '-esteem, identity formation,
IIL maintenance, and academic achievement ofHL students who do not speak
the "standard" variety, these linguistic hien:i rchies curtail educational and pro
fessional opportunities for speakers of "nonstandard" varieties and thus propa
gate socioeconomic and political inequality (Fairclough 1995; Lipp.i-Green
2012; Milroy and Milroy 1999). For example, Arlene Davila (200l) has docu
mented the marginalization of US Latina/os within Spanish-language broad
casting in the United States based in part on the presumed "inauthenticity" of
their Spanish. These ideologies about the relative value of different languages
and language varieties are often reflected and reproduced in language teaching
materials and practices (Leeman 2012).

60

Language Attitudes and Ideologies

Regardless of the type of variation, a key tenet of sociolinguistics is that
all language varieties arc eqnally systematic, grammatical, and expressive.
Nonetheless, people sometimes have strong convictions that certain lan
guage varieties are better or "more correct" than others. for example, many
speakers of French (including many educators) perceive Parisian French as
superior to the African and Caribbean varieties more commonly spoken by
HL students in the United States. Such convictions are not based on objec
tive linguistic criteria; instead, they arc related to language ideologies-the
often implicit beliefs and taken-for-granted notions regarding language,
languag-c varieties, and language practices. Language ideologies are inter
twined with beliefs about other social and political categories (\iVoolard
1989; \Vo olard and Schieffelin 1994). For example, the preference for the
Romance language varieties spoken in European capitals and the perception
of such varieties as more "pure" and less "contaminated" by conuict with
other languages are linked to broader ideologies of nationalism, colonirdism,
modernity, and race. Similarly, subjective evaluations of social varieties, such
as the speech of rural peasants or urban youth, often echo attitudes toward
the social groups with which they are associated (Irvine and Gal 2000). For
example, on the Southwest Texas border, Mariana Achugar and Silvia Pes
soa (2009) found that while members of a bilingual academic community
valued the use of Spanish and being bilingual, they were highly critical of
the local variety, also known as Spanglish, Fronterizo, Border Spanish, or El
Paso Spanish, which they associated with less educated speakers. Subjective
evaluations of language varieties and practices can become so naturalized
such that they seem like common sense, and speakers of disparaged varieties
may share in the negative assessment of their own varieties.
Language ideologies are closely tied to social and political structures, and
they tend to reflect theinterests of dominantgroups, with their power rcinforccd
through their invisibility (Krnskrity 2004). This can be seen in the "standard
language ideology," which holds that linguistic variation can and should be
eliminated, and that everyone can and should speak a uniform standard variety
(Lippi-Green 2012). In reality, because language is inherently variable, no one
actually speaks standard languages, which exist nnly in grammar books and
dictionaries (Penny 2000). Although this ideology portrays national standard
varieties as neutral and equally accessible and available to all speakers, in fact it
is the langmige of elites that is reified as the "universal" norm, while the variet
ies spoken by other groups are often labeled "nonstandard" and portrayed as

61

Language Contact-Related Phenomena

Not surprisingly, HL students often exhibit linguistic manifestations of
contact with English, including lexical borrowing (the incorporation in one
hmgu,1ge of a word from the other), calques (word-for-word translations or
syntactic borrowings), and code-switching (the use of two Janguag-es during
conversation). Another language contact phenomenon is grammatical con
vergence, in which bi linguals demonstrate increasing similarity of the gram
matical or pragmatic systems of the two languages (Montrul 2004; Poplack
1997; Silva-Corvalan 1994).
While the linguistic features of lang-uage contact arc often stigmatized as
"deviant" or "impure," they arc in fact quite natural. For example, numer
ous studies have shown that code-switching is systematic and rule-governed,
just like other language practices. Rather than a hodgepodge or evidence of
the inability to speak either language wcU, code-switching reflects sophis
ticated knowledge of both languages and of the ways in which they can be
combined, and thus it can be considered a sig-n of proficient bilingualism
(Carvalho 2012; Toribio 2001). In addition to showing that code-switching
conforms to complex grammatical constraints, researchers have demon
strated that bilinguals sh.i ft between languages as a conversational strategy,
such as to indic;ite a topic shift or to signal a change in stance (e.g., Gumperz
1982; Zentella 1997). Speakers choose among their languages or combine
them in order to carry out various social functions such as marking identity
and in-group membership (Ile 2006, 2010; Zentella 1997).
Recently researchers have suggested replacing the term "code-switching"
\.vith "translanguaging" in order to recognize that bilinguals perform these
conversational and social functions by drawing on ling-uistic repertoires that
encompass numerous varieties, registers, and styles distributed across lan
guages (e.g., Canagarajah 2011; Creese and Blackledge 201 O; Garcia 2009; Wei
2011). By rejecting the notion of two monolithic and easily delimitable lan
guages, translanguaging emphasizes the flexibility and richness of bilinguals'

62

Jennifer Leeman and Ellen]. Serafini

Sociolinguistics for IlL Ecluctors and Students

discursive practices and thus reflects current sociolinguistic understanding

that "languages" are not clearly defined objects with clear boundaries and
that the classification of different ways of speaking as belonging to distinct
languages is influenced by social, p olitical, and ideological factors (Makoni
and Pennycook 2006), as is the denigration of language contact phenomena.

counterparts (i.e., "isn't"); they are stigmatized as incorrect, ignorant, or

"uneducated." Framing prestigious or standard varieties as more appropriate
for high-status contexts or activities downplays the social, economic, and ideo
logical dimensions oflanguagevariation and erases the fact that the prescribed
linguistic practices are those of powerful groups, thus legitimating their use as
gate-keeping mechanisms for access to positions of social or economic power
(Fairclough 1992; Leeman 2005). Further, appropriateness-based accounts
ignore the interactional and rhetorical intent of the speaker and the possibility
of using varieties, styles, and registers to carry out a broad range of conversa
tional strategies and identity work. Thus, such approaches have been criticized
both for misrepresenting variation and for leg-itimiz,ing and reproducing lin
guistic and social inequ,1lities (Alim 2010; Fairclough 1992).

SOCIOLINGUIS TICS AS CONTENT IN HL EDUCATION

Sociolinguistics in ExpansionOriented Approaches
to Heritage Language
Guadalupe Valdes's (1981) rejection of explicitly "cradicationist" approaches
to IIL instruction, which seek to replace students' "nonstandard" language
varieties with a "standard" variety, and her call for educators to recognize the
legitimacy of all language varieties was one of the first applications of socio
linguistic principles to HL education. Building on this early work, many mod
els of I-IL education now stress the importance of appreciating and validating
the language practices of students, their families, and their communities (e.g.,
Beaudrie, Ducar, and Potowski 2014; Potowski and Carreira 2004) with a focus
on expanding students' linguistic repertoires to include additional registers as
well as standard, prestige, or "global" varieties of the heritage languagc.2 Some
I-IL programs have also incorporated explicit sociolinguistic content within
the curriculum, such as the Spanish I-IL program established by Sara Beaudrie
at the University of Arizona (personal communication, 2015).
In many expansionist models, the discussion of sociolinguistic variation,
and particularly contextual variation, centers on the notion of appropriate
ness (e.g., Beaudrie, Ducar, and Potowski 2014; Gonzalez Pino and Pino
2 000; Gutierrez, 1997). As a way to help students recognize and produce
language that is "appropriate" in particular settings-and especially pro
fessional and academic settings-UL educators sometimes make analogies
between language practices and clothing styles, comparing, for example, the
use of "informal registers," local varieties, or code-switching in professional
settings to wearing pajamas to work or a bathing suit to a wedding. Accord
ing to this analogy, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing pajamas
or a bathing suit, which are acceptable at home and at the pool o.r the beach
but inappropriate in the workplace or at a wedding because a formal context
demands formal attire. Similarly, "nonstandard" language is said to be out of
place in Formal contexts.
One concern with these analogies ;;ind the appropriateness-based models
they exemplify is that they represent social variation as if it were the same as
contextual variation or registers, while also implying that variation is primar
ily a question of formality (Leeman 2005). So-called "nonstandard" linguistic
forms (such as the Eng-lish "ain't") are not simply lessforrnal than the "standard"

63

Critical Language Awareness in Language Education

ln contrast with models of education that socialize students into dominant
socinl hierarchies and ideologies, "critical" approaches seek to engage stu
dents in examining and questioning taken-for-granted understandings of
the world. Such approaches have their roots in both critical pedagogy and
critical theory, both of which seek to uncover the often invisible ways in
which inequality is reproduced and reinforced through ideology and culture
as well as the liberatory possibilities of critical analysis. A key goal of critical
pcclagogy is to promote socially, politically, or educationally marginalized
students' conscient:izac;ao-or coming to critical consciousness, which is seen
as the first step in improving their own conditions as well as developing a
more just society (Freire 1970). Other key elements in critical pedagogy arc
tbe inclusion of students' experiences and knowledge in the curriculum and
the promotion of student agency o.r purposeful engagement w
ith the world.
Researchers and educators who advocate engaging students in the exami
n,1tion of how ideologies, politics, and social hierarchies are embodied, repro
duced, and naturalized through language are often referred to as promoting
students' "critical language awareness" (Fairclough 1995; vVallace 1999).
Originally developed in first language (Ll) educational contexts and subse
quently applied to HL instruction, a central component of critical language
awareness is the consideration of language variation and the mechanisms by
which certain varieties are stigmatized and subordinated (.Fairclough 1992).
Critical language awareness differs from appropriateness-based accounts of
language variation that accept and reinforce the status quo in that the goal is
for students to actively engage in questioning dominant language ideologies
(Alim 201 O; Fairclough 1992). Further, the critical examination of taken-for
gTanted understandings about "good" and "bad" language is designed not
only to promote understanding but also to foster student agency in resisting
language-based discrimination (Leeman 2005).

64

Jem1iler Leeman and EllcnJ. Serafini

Sociolinguistics for J-lL Educators and Students

Transcultural and Translingual Competence

operate between languages" (MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages

2007, 4-5). However, we reject both the MLA's construction of students as
monolingual English speakers and the notion that the goal is for students to
acquire a delimitable "target language." Instead, we emphasize the importance
of including considerations of variation and multilingualism (in the United
States and abroad) as elements of a critical approach to language education,
and we call for language education (including both L2 and HL education) to
incorporate critical considerations of the sociopolitics of language and multi
lingualism in addition to discussions of aesthetic and cultural parameters.
In contrast with expansionist and appropriateness-based approaches to
linguistic variation that focus primarily on acquiring the "standard" mono
lingual varieties, critical translingual competence goes beyond multiple clia
lect acquisition and entails exploration of the principles and social meaning
of variation; the sociolinguistic functions of translanguaging practices, lan
guage attitudes, and ideologies; the relationship between language and iden
tity; and the sociopolitics of language inside and outside the United States.
The language curriculum must aim to develop the fundamental understand
ing that linguistic variation, including bilingual as well as nonstandard prac
tices, constitutes a resource for carrying out a wide array of social and political
functions and communicating a wide range of symbolic meanings. Rather
than imposing any particular language variety (monolingual or otherwise),
language education should seek to prepare students to understand variation
and to interact with speakers of familiar and unfamiliar varieties an<l styles as
well as to explore the political aspects of language while promoting students'
critical consciousness of their own and others' experiences in order to foster
their critical agency in making linguistic and other choices (Leeman 2005,
2014). The goal of including critical exploration of these sociolinguistic phe
nomena is not simply to promote students' understanding of the status quo
but rather to enable students to challenge the status quo.

A general suggestion to include sociolinguistics in L2 education can also be

found in the MLA's 2007 Foreign Language Report, which aimed to revitalize
the study of languages in higher education by realigning curriculum accord
ing to the changing needs and profiles of students (Pratt et al. 2008). The
report's primary recommendation is to orient undergraduate majors toward
students' achievement of "translingual and transcultural competence,"
defined in part as "the ability to operate between languages" and "to function
as informed and capable interlocutors with educated native speakers in the tar
oet language" (MLA Ad I-Ioc Committee on Foreign Languages 2007, 4-5).
achieve this, the MLA recommends integrating the study of language and
"content" and abandoning the almost exclusive focus on literary study in the
upper levels. Suggested disciplinary content includes cultural studies, history,
and politics, with sociolinguistics and bilingualism also mentioned, but spe
cific details are not provided (Schechtman anJ Koser 2008; Wellmon 2008).
Further, the majority of examples oftcred Focus on transwltrtrat knowledge
(e.g., in the analysis of cultural narratives in essays, poetry, political rhetoric,
etc.) rather than u.np}1cking translingwr/ competence.
The MLA's definition of transcultural and translingual competence :is
the ability to operate between languages has been critiqued for reinforcing
the notion of "the strict integrity of individual languages" (Kramsch 2014,
300). In addition, the goals of training students to "reflect on the world and
themselves through the lens of another language and culture," to "com
prehend speakers of the target language as members of foreign societies,"
and to "grasp themselves as Arnericans" (MLA Ad Hoc Committee on For
eign Languages 2007, 4-5) discursively exclude speakers of languag,es other
than English as members of "American" society, thereby erasing the long
standing history of multilingualism in the United States and ignoring the
presence of I-IL speakers in the classroom (Pomerantz and Schwartz 2011).
Thus, even as the report appears to value Jinguistic diversity, like ACTFL's
Str1:ndards for Foreign Language Learning, it continues to reproduce ideolo
gies of monolingualism (see Leeman 2011). The report similarly portrays
speakers of the "target language" as culturally and linguistically mono
lithic, and there is no indication that the revised curriculum recognizes the
political aspects of language or language variation or that it seeks to engage
students in questioning the status quo.

1o

Sociolinguistics for Critical Translingual Competence

Our model for the incorporation of sociolinguistics builds on previous calls for
critical language awareness in Spanish IIL education (e.g., 1\tfartfnez 2003; Lee
man 2005; Leeman and Rabin 2007 ) while also incorporating some elements
of the MLA proposal-in particular, the goal of fostering students' "ability to

65

PROMOTING CRITICAL TRANSLINGUAL COMPETENCE:

EXAMPLES FOR THE CLASSROOM
In this section, we provide concrete examples of how sociolinguistic content
might be incorporated in language education to promote critical translingual
competence. These pedagogical recommendations are informed by diverse
methodological approaches and include activities centered on reading schol
arly research, working with large scale survey data, collecting oral histories
with family or community members, analyzing written and oral texts, and
conducting community-based linguistic landscape research and analysis, to
name a few. The sample activities provided here can be adapted according
to the level of students' abilities and course content. While our focus in this
chapter is on HL education, our proposal applies to both L2 and HL contexts.

66

67

Jennjfer Leemn and Ellen]. Serafini

Sociolinguistics for IIL Educators and Students

Multilingualism

used to convey particular social meanings such as authenticity or exoticism

(see Leeman and Modan 2009) or to reproduce negative stereotypes about
speakers of minority languages, snch as in the case of "A1ock: Spanish" in
the United States (see Hill 2008). Such analyses should i.nclude media from
abroad and linguistic landscape examples drawn from international research
(see, for example, Gorter, Nlarten, and Van Mense! 2012; Shohanry, Ben
Rafael, and Barni 2010; or the journal Linguistic Landsmpe).
Several activities can also be designed to reveal monolingualism as a
global exception. For example, students can collaborate in small groups to
construct a multilingual world map representing the official, national, and
spoken la nguagcs across diffcJent world areas using a site like Ethnologue
.com, which offers statistics about the world's 7,106 living languages. Such an
activity should promote discussion and problematization of definitions of "a
language" and how languages arc constructed and counted as well as critical
analysis of the role of language in nationalism and the construction of the
modern nation-state.
To further engage learners in understanding the political parameters
and social impact of language policy, learners could research language-in
education policies where the heritage language is spoken abroad. For exam
ple, Spanish I-IL students can research the history of intcrcultural bilingual
education initiatives in Latin America designed to comb;it linguistic and cul
tural subordination of speakers of indigenous languages like Quechua and
Aymara (see L6pcz and Khpcr 1999) and can engage in a mock debate about
the potential promise and limitations of its implementation. More broadly,
students might examine UNESCO's Education for All by 2015 initiative
and debate whether monolingual schooling violates the right of minority
lang-uagc speakers to have equal access to quality education.7

In addition to linguistic knowledge, developing critical translingual com

petence requires understanding how the heritage language (or second lan
guage) is situated in a broader sociolinguistic and sociopolitical context. As
part of this objective, students should examine the history of multilingual
ism both in the United States and in countries where the heritage language is
spoken, which can highlight the false rhetoric surrounding imagined notions
of "one nation, one language." Further, studying the history of specific heri
tage languages in the United States is one way to include and validate I-IL
students' experiences.
Resources for research on multilingualism in the United States include
volumes such as Potowski (2010) and \Viley and colleagues (2014), which
include chapters on the most commonly spoken languages in the United
States, and survey data on the home use of minority languages as well as
related data briefs, reports, and maps, which are nvailablc fr om the US Cen
sus Bureau's American Community Survey "Language Use" websitc.3 Addi
tional data, maps, and analyses are available via media outlets such as Slate
(Blatt 2014) and the Pew Research Center's reports on Latina/o and Asian
American communities.+
Students can carry out qualitative activities or research with their peers
and families and in their 1.ocal communities. For example, one approach to
help students recognize and appreciate linguistic diversity as well as learn
about community members' person,il experiences of language discrimi
nation, language maintenance or shift, and language-based identities is
through oral history multimedia projects or digital storytelling. There arc
numerous free software programs that can be used for such projects, includ
ing Audacity, Apple iMovie, Microsoft Photo Story 3, and W indows Live
i\1ovie M.akcr. StL1dcnts c,in conduct video or audio-recorded interviews with
a family member, write a report, and create a final web-based project with
recordings, photos, and other supplemental materials to share with peers,
similar to what US high school students do in documenting the "linguistic
Iife story" of a family elder as part of the SKILLS curriculum (Bucholtz ct
al. 2014, 151).5
1n addition to observing, documenting, and an,ilyzing spoken language,
students can research the use of the heritage languagc in advertising, popu
lar media, and the built environment (such as billboards and public signage).
Students take on the role of languag-c investigators (Sayer 2010) and analyze
the kinds of information provided in different languages and how differences
reflect their sociopolitical status. 6 In the case of Chinese, students might ana
lyze the use of cliffcrent writing systems in the linguistic landscape (i.e., tra
ditional versus simplified characters) in order to sec how different Chineses
are used in local settings (Leung and Wu 2012). Students can also engage
in critic,ll analyses of how different languages and language varieties can be

Language Variation

ln order to enable students to recognize variation as an inherent characteristic

of language, students should stndy the ways languages wry across space, social
groups or communities of practice, context, and time. Historical texts and
corpora are useful for exploring the naturalness of language change (e.g., sec
the 100-million-worcl Spanish corpus or the (nternational Corpus of Arnbic8)
and the linguistic consequences of language contact (see the World Lo::inword
Databasc9). In conjunction with historical data, current examples of language
variation can be drawn from both international and local sources such as lin
guistic landscape, social media, music and song lyrics, students' field notes or
recordings of friends or family (with permission), and print, broadcast, ancl
Internet media from the United States and abroad. For instance, llL speak
ers of Arabic should study not only the many contact situations of spoken
language varieties in the Arab world but also the ethnic and sociopolitical

68

69

Jemufer Leeman and Ellen.]. Serafini

Sociolinguistics for HL Educat0rs and Students

tension surrounding such contact. One way for students to further explore
this topic is to critically examine the choice of language variety in radio, tele
vision, and news broadcasting, along the lines of Mahmoud Al BataJ's (2002)
analysis of the mixing of the formal "standard" variety, fulfa, and the Leba
nese colloquial variety in forty local news broadcasts in Lebanon.
It is crucial that students also study contextual and stylistic variation,
including socially indexed meanings, and the role of variation in identity
performance and ascription. Film and TV clips can be used to explore how
different languages and language varieties are used to portray characters
in different ways (see Lippi-Green 2012 for discussion of the association of
nonstandard varieties of English with villains in Disney movies; sec Fuller
2012 regarding the linking of Spanish to traditional values; and sec Ble
ichenbacher 2008 for a discussion of the discursive functions of multilin
gualism in Hollywood movies). Connections between identity construction
and language variation could also be explored through playing audio snip
pets of a dialogue in a movie and asking students to interpret the characters'
identities basecl solely on their speech. To expose and examine competing
social n1eanings and norms regarding variation, students could administer
surveys or conduct interviews regarding the attitudes held by family, peers,
and community members toward different ways of performing speech acts in
the beritage language (e.g., greetings, farewells, forms of address, thanking,
making requests) in different situational contexts (e.g., home, school, work)
(see Correa 2011; .Martfnez 2003; Rodriguez Pino and Villa 1994). Crucially,
discussion must include a consideration of the social and power dynamics
undergirding the results (Leeman 2005).
Discussions of social variation and identity should also include activities
explicitly highlighting the role of speaker agency in choosing among different
linguistic forms and styles. In this regard, movie dips can be used to show not
only ho,v certain varieties are associated with certain social groups or situ
ations but also how characters style-shift between varieties in their linguis
tic repertoire in the construction and performance of identity (e.g., the Key
and Peele series on Comedy Central). In order to explore this further, students
could carry out analyses of how they use different languages and language
varieties on a daily basis as well as how, when, and under what conditions they
mix languages (NI acGregor-Mendoza 1999). A key element of such activities is
for students to analyze the various factors that shape their language choices and
the (invisible) meanings conveyed by those choices, such as in the activity based
on African American Vernacular English described by H. Samy Alim (2010).
Another activity that can be used to highlight both contextual variation
and the agentive use of different styles to convey different social meanings
involves asking students to brainstorm different HL expressions for a specific
topic, for example, asking about someone's health in a range of settings, such
as friendly conversation among friends and in a consultation with a doctor
in a hospital setting (e.g., "How are you feeling?" versus "Tell me about your

symptoms"). After discussing inherent differences between such settings, stu

dents can consider why a doctor might choose to use an "informal" style, such
as to put a patient at case or to establish rapport.
Multilingual Discourse
'T'ogcther with the analysis of language variation described above, students
should also analyze translanguaging or code-switching as a stylistic resource.
In addition, they should examine how combining languages can serve as
a discursive strategy to add emphasis, mitigate a request, or change topic.
These functions can be studied through discourse analysis of multilingual
data samples (dr:i.wn from sources such as those mentioned above), mini111;1 lly identifying the interlocutor(s), conversational topic, or strategy being
employed along with the linguistic and social context in which switches
occur within and between sentences (Carvalho 2012; Creese and Blackledge
2010; Sayer 2008).
In order to grasp the rule-governed nature of code-switching, students
can complete a pedagogical activity modeled on Almeida Jacqueline Toribio's
(2002) research study in which participants read two fairy tales aloud and
judged which one sounded better. One fai ty tale conformed to structural code
switching constraints while the other violated them (such as by switching Jan
guages between an auxiliary and a main verb). Students could do the same and
th.en try to derive patterns or constraints to account for the difference between
"good" and "bad" switches. This can lead them to realize, in a bottom-up fash
ion, both that there are rules or patterns and that they already implicitly lmow
them. Similar materials could easily be prepared in other languages.
Multilingual discourse in film, literature, and other resources fr om the
United States and ab.road (including conversations recorded by instructors
or students) can also be used both to challenge hegemonic constructions of
monolithic national standard languages and to foster awareness of translan
guaging as a broader phenomenon. Jennifer Leeman and Lisa Rabin (2007)
describe activities based on an early modern Latin American multilingual
text (Guaman Ponrn's Nuevtt coroniw y huen gobierno, 1615), which they used to
promote recognition of Quechua/Spanish bilingualism as well as to engage
students in critically analyzing ideologies and practices of literacy in colonial
and postcolonial contexts.
Language Attitudes and Ideologies
After learning key sociolinguistic concepts, it is essential that students have the
opportunity to apply them in the analysis of systems of values and beliefs about
language, varieties of language, and specific language practices as well as the

70

Jennifer Leeman and Ellen]. Serafini

Sociolin gnisrics for 1i'L Educators and Students

impact of such belief systems on language maintenance. One way to explore

different language ideologies and their impact is by analyzing qualitative data
provided in published studies. Depending on the course, students need not
read the entire study. Instead, the instructor can extract the ch1ta for analysis
and in-class discussion. For example, Mihyon Jeon (2008) and Sarah]. Shin
(2005) provide ample quotes from different generations of Korean immigrants
in both academic and community contexts that students can use to explore the
role of language ideologies in the intergenerational transmission of heritage
languages as well as the connection between language and identity.
To explore and expose attitudes toward different I.IL varieties, one tech
nique is to use a matched-guise activity in which students listen to samples of
speech and ju<lge several personal attributes of speakers of different variet
ies of the heritage language. In a similar activity based on "perceptual dia
lectology" (Preston 1989), students ask friends and family to rank different
national or regional varieties according to pleasantness and correctness and
to provide descriptions of the speakers of those varieties. Responses are then
tabulated and discussed in order to examine the connection between atti
tudes toward speakers and different varieties.
A course blog, wiki, or other online learning environment can also be
used for students to explore ideologies surrounding language and ethnic
identity. Biogs can be used to discuss examples of such ideologies in main
stream media. For example, llL students of Spanish might view "'Fake' Lati
nos," ",1 video-recorded debate on f-/uflPost Live, about whether the abiUty to
speak Spanish is essential for "authentic" Latina/o identity. After w:1tching
the clip, students write a blog post about their own v.iews and react to their
peers' posts. As an in-class follow-up, the teacher might ask students to col
lectively identify and analyt.e recurring themes in the responses and to criti
cally consider the source of negative opinions or evaluations.
As noted earlier, linguistic landscape studies can be used for analyses of the
symbolic meanings of different languages. The analysis of multilingualism
in internation;il linguistic landscapes, such as Aneta Pavlenko's (2008) study
on the visibility and everyday use of Ukrainian and Russian in Ukraine, can
provide an excellent means to explore how language is ticc.l to ideologies of
nationalism. Depending on the class, instructors could assign the reading or
simply use the images for class activities and discussion.
The pervasiveness of the standard language ideology can be explored with
a simple Google-search activity in which students enter phrases like "\,\There
is the best French spoken?" and then collabo.rate to identify the most com
monly used words (e.g., "pure," "correct,'' "proper") and visually represent
them in a word cloud using a program like V\Tordlc.10 Each gToup could then
analyze the i<leologies inherent in the question as well as in word clouds
generated. BL educators might engage students in critical discussions about
which varieties of the heritage language are represented in textbooks and
other teaching materials and why that might be the case. As Jose Del Valle

(2014) notes, the choice of variety used in the classroom is less important
than students' recognition that it involved a choice.
Finally, students should be given tools to grapple with the personal
impact of language ideologies, such as through language shift within their
family or personal experiences with linguistic discrimination. As mentioned
previously, digital storytelling is one pedagogical technique that positions
students as storytellers and cultural experts. Several recent I-IL service
lcarning projects have also sought to empower students as experts and activ
ists combating linguistic discrimination in local communities (see Leeman,
Rabin, and Roman-Mendoza 2011; Lowther Pereira 2015; Martinez and
Schwartz 2012).

71

CONCLUSION

In recent years, numerous factors have contributed to a growing interest

in including sociolinguistics both in I-IL teacher preparation and within
the language curriculum. These include recognition in the humanities and
social sciences of the role of language in the construction of knowledge
and social structures; greater attention to social aspects of language learn
ing and education; and increased globalization and international migra
tion as well as an increased emphasis on intcrdisciplinarity and practicality
in postsecondary education (Krarnsch 2014; MLA Ad Iloc Committee on
Foreign Languages 2007). However, recent proposals to integrate socio
linguistic concepts into L2 and I-IL education have stopped short of using
them as a foundation for building students' critical consciousness. On one
hand, appropriateness-based approaches run the risk of misrepresenting
linguistic variation and unquestioningly reproducing dominant linguistic
and social hierarchies, while on the other hand, the iVlLA report down
plays or ignores the presence of IIL students and reinforces monolingualist
ideologies.
In this chapter, we have presented an alternative critical model for how a
broad range of sociolinguistic topics can be productively incorporated within
the HL curriculum. Because we believe that L2 and HL education must
take into account the broader sociolinguistic context in which the "target
language," its speakers, and students are situated, we argue that sociolinguis
tics should play a fundamental role in curricular <lcsign and implementation.
It must also be incorporatcd at the level of content within the curriculum
as a way to help students develop critical language awareness, including an
understanding of the social, cultural, and political aspects of language, lan
g-uage variation, and multilingualism.
In contrast with other proposals for including sociolinguistics in HL
education, our critical approach seeks to use sociolinguistics to engage stu
dents in questioning the status quo. Rather than seeking to teach students

Jennifer Leem:in and Ellen J. Serafini

Sociolinguistics for I-IT Educators and Students

how they should speak in various situations, our goals include fostering stu
dents' agency and their understanding of linguistic knowledge as a creative
resource for performing identities, negotiating social relationships, and navi
gating political hierarchies. In line with critical pedagogical approaches, our
proposed learner-centered objectives include achieving critical translingual
competence and ensuring students' full participation in shaping and remak
ing the world in which they live.

REFERENCES

72

NOTES
1. A full discussion of the compcting definitions of "heritage language" is beyond
the scope of this chapter, but see Hornberger and Wang (2008), Leeman (2015)
and Van Deusen-Scholl (2003). In this chapter, we are referring primarily to
"foreign" or additional language education designed for learners who have some
home knowledge of that language. It should be noted that while heritage lan
guage education is a growing ticld within "foreign" language education, far too
few 1 IL speakers have access to such programs (Wiley 2005b).
2. Unfortunately, even when paying lip service to the equality of all varieLies,
teaching materials often continue to uphold Eurnpcan or "global" Sp,1nish ,is
the model and to disparage contact varieties (Ducar 2009; Garcfa 2009; Lee
man and Martinez 2007; Lynch and Porowski 2014). There is a similar ueecl for
greater recognition of bilingual practices and regionaI varieties in the te,1ching
of other HLs; asJeffrey Bale (2010) notes, Arabic F-JL progrnrns tend to focus
exclusively on Modern Standard Arabic, while most Chinese textbooks were
developed for either n.1tive speakers (e.g., in China or Taiwan) or foreign-lan
guage learners (e.g., in North America) and neither address HL learners' com
plex needs nor recognize different varieties of oral and written Chinese used by
IIL speakers.
3. "Language Use," US Census Bureau, Dara Integration Division, https://www
.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/.
4. For the Pew Research Center reports, sec http://www.pewhispanic.org/, and
http://www. pcwsociaI trends.org/asianarnericans/.
5. For more digital storytelling applications in the classroom, see Vinogra
clova (20I4a, 20141>) and the online Foreign Lfmgw:r.ge 1h/mology J\llagazine
(FLTMAG).
6. Sec, for example, David Malinowski's (2013) course offered at UC-Berkeley,
"Reading the Multilingual City: Chinese, Kore;rn, and Japanese in Bay Arca
Linguistic Landscapes," and the photo-diary projects reported in Martinez
(2014).
7. "Education for All,'' UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org-/new/en/cducation
/themcs/lcading-thc-international-agenda/cducation-for-all/the-efa-1110vc1ncnt/.
8. "International Corpus of Arabic," Ibrahim Shibata Arabic UNL Center, Bibli.o
th eca Al exandrina , http://wvv w. bibalcx.org/un l/frontend/Project.aspx?id=9.
9. Martin Haspel1rn1th and Uri Tadmor, eds., "World Loanword Darnbasc," Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, http://wold.cllcl.org.
10. Jonathan Feinberg, "VVordle," http://www.worcllc.net/.

73

Achugar, Mariana, and Silvia Pessoa. 2009. "Power and Place: Lanoua"e Artinicles
oward Spanish in a Bilingual Academic Community in SouthwesrTe:as." Sprmish
m Context 6, no. 2: 199-223. http://cLx.doi.org/10.1075/sic.6.2.03ach.
Al Batal, Mahmoud. 2002. "Identity and La11gu,1ge 1cnsion in Lebanon: The Ara
bic of Local News at LBCJ." In Langtwge Contact tmd l.tmgttagc Conflict in A rn
bh: Variations on r1 Sociolingui stic Theme, ed. Alcya Roucbdy, 91-115. New York:
Routledge.
Alha, Richard. 2004. l.rmg11agc Assimi/11tio11 '/()(/11y: Biling11rtli.,w Persi.11s 1'vlore Thrm in th e
Pfl.1't, bf/.t English Still Domintttes. Albany, NY: Lewis Mumford Center for Compara
tive Uri.Jan and Regional Research, University at Albany.
Alim, TI. Samy. 2010. "Critical J ,ang11age Awareness." In Sociolinguistics rmd language
Fdumtion, ed. Nancy IIornbcrger, 205-30. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual i'vlaners.
l3ale,Jeffrey. 2010. "Arabic ;1s a Heritage Language in the United States." lntenmtionnl
M1t!tiling11ttl Re search ]ournal 4, no. 2: 125-51. lmp://clx.doi.org/10.1080/193 l3I 52
.20I 0.499041.
Bartolome, Lilia, and Donaldo Macedo. 1999. "(Mis)Educ;iting ivlexican Amcric,ms
through Language." In S odop olitim! P e npectivc:s 011 l.anwlflge Polhy mul Planning in
the US'/1, ed. Thom Huebner and Kathryn Davis, 223-41. Philadelphia: John 13cn
jamins. hn:p://dx.doi.org/ l 0.107 5/sibil. l 6. J6bar.
l3caudric, Sara, Cynthia Ducar, and Kim Potowski. 2014. "General Sociolingnistic
Considerations." ln Heritrrge l.1mgr/.ffge Teaching: Research find Prrntice, ed. Sa ra
Beaudrie, Cy nthia Ducar, and Kim Potowski, 13-3 t. Boston: McGra w-Hill.
Lllatt, Ben. 2014. "L1g;ilog in California, Cherokee in Arbns,1s: \.\'hat Language Docs
Yonr State Speak?" S!ttte, May 13. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturcbox
/2014/05/langnage_1m1p_what_s_the_most_popuh1r_languagc_in_your_srnte.htJnl.
Blcichenbacher, Lubs. 2008. 1Vlulti!ing;11ali.m1 i11 the Movies: lfoll )' wood Ch amcters and
Theh l.rmgw1-ge Choices. Tiibingen: Francke Verlag.
Bonfiglio, Paul Thomas. 2002. Race mu! the Rise of'Stmulrml Amei-ican. Berlin: Mouton
de Grnyter. http://clx.doi.org/10.1515/9783 l i085 l 99l .
Bucholtz, i\tfary, and Kira Hall. 2005. "Identity and fnteraction: J\ Sociocultural Lin
g11isric Approach." Di.1mm:re Smdie.1 7, no. 4-5: 584-614.
Hucholtz, lvlary, Andrey Lopez., Allina Mojarro, Elena Skf1poulli, Chris Vandcr
Stouwc, and Shawn Warner-Garci;i. 2014. "Sociolinguistic Jnsticc in the Schools:
Strident Researchers as Linguistic Experts." l.rmg1lfrgc and Ungaistifs Cornpnss 8, no.
4: 144-57. http://dx.doi.org/ lO.J JI l /lnc3.J2070.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2011. "Codemeshing in Ac;1demic \Vriting: ldcntifying Teach
able Strategies of 'fhrnslanguaging." Mode rn l.nn,wflge .Jomnnl 95, no. 3: 401-17.
htl'p://dx.doi.org/l 0.111 I./j.1540-478.1 .20I l.01207.x.
Carreira, Marfa. 2007. "Teaching Spanish in the US." ln Spanish in C ontact: P oli cy,
Socirrl ttnd Linguistic lnquiriC's, ed. Kim Potowski and Richard Cameron, 61-79. A .11
st:crdam:John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1075/impact.22.07car.
Carvalho, Ana. 2012. "Code-Switching: From Theoretical to Pedagogical Con
siderations.'' In Spanish 11.f a Ileritttge Langa11.ge in the United Stflte.l', ed. Sara M.
Beaudrie and Marta Fairclough, 139-157. vVashington, DC: Georgetown Uni
versity Press.

Jennifer Leeman and Ellen J. Serafini

Sociolinguistics for }-IL Educators and Students

Collier, Virginia P., and Wayne P. Thomas. 20 l3. La cducacion de los estudiantes de inglis
partt un mundo en cm1sttmte tramfa1Y11llci<fn. Albuquerque, NM: DLENi\1 Fuente Press.
Correa, Maite. 2011. "Advocating for Critical Pedagogical Approaches to Teaching
Spanish as a Heritage Language: Some Considerations." Foreign Language Annffls
44, no. 2: 308-20. btqJ://dx.doi.org/1O. l l l 1/j.1944-9720.2011.0l l 32.x.
Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. St;yle: Language Vrwimion and Identity. Cambridge: Cam
bridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.10[ 7/CB0978051 I755064.
Creese, Angela, and Adrian 131ackledge. 2010. "franslanguaging in the Bilingual
Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and 'leaching'" 1\llotlem LrmgurtgeJournal 94,
no. .l: 103-15. http://dx.doi.org/l 0.1 I l 1/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x.
Davila, Arlene. 2001 . Latinos, Inc. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Del Valle, Jose. 2014. "The Politics of Nonnativity and Globalization: vVhich Span
ish in the Classroom?" lvfodem Lrmgu((.ge Jonmrtl 98, no. 1: 358-72. http://dx.doi
.org/1OJ111/j.J 540-4781.2014.12066.x.
Doerr, Neriko Jvlnsha, and Kiri Lee. 2009. "Cont:esting Heritage: Language, Le
gitimacy, and Schooling ,It a \,Veekend Japanese-Language School in the United
States." Language and Erluwtion: An lntenwtional Jonrrwl 23, no. 5: 425-41. http://
dx.cloi.org/ l 0.1080/09500780802651706.
Ducar, Cynthia. 2009. "The Sound of Silence: Spanish Heritage 1cxtbooks' r[ieat
ment of Language Variation." In E.,p((.ffol m los Estrl(los U1lidos .Y en otros comexto.r:
Cuestiones sociolingiifrticr1s, potiticr1s y ped11g1fgicrrs, ed. Jennifer Leeman and 1'v1ancl
Lacorte, 347-68. Madrid: Iberoamericana Editorial Vervnert.
Eckert, Penelope. 2001. "Style and Social Meaning." In Style and Sociolinguistic Vrnirt
tion, eel. Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford, 119-26. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
---. 2012. "Three 'vVaves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning in the
Study of Sociolinguistic Variation." Annual Review of Antb1opolog)' 41, no. 1: 87100. http://dx.doi.org/l O. l 146/annurev-anrhro-092611-J 45828.
Fairclough, Norman. l 992. Critical L((.nw1rige Awmem:\'. London: Longman.
---. l 995. Crit:im.J Discom:>'e An((.lysis. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. 'J'he Pedagogy ofthe Oppre.1:fed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Fuller, Janet M. 2012. Sp((.nish Spertkers in the USA. Clevedon: MuJtilingual Matters.
Carda, Ofelia. 2009. Bilinguffl Education in the 21st ccntmy: Globrtl Pmpectives. Malden:
W ilcy-l31ackwell.
Gonzalez Pino, Barbara G., and frank Pino. 2000. "Serving the Heritage Speaker
across a Five-year Program." ADFL Hulletin 32:27-35.
Gorter, Durk, Heiko F. Marten, and Luk Van Mensel. 2012. Minority Lrmgur,ges in t:he
f.inguistic Lmulrcape. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Language rmcl Soda/ Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer
sity Press.
Gutierrez, John. 1997. "Teaching Spanish as a Heritage Language: A Case for Lan
guage Awareness." ADFI. Bulletin 29, no. 1: 33-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1632
/adfl.29.1.33.
Halliday, Martin A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in Eugfo-h. London:
Longman.
He, Agnes Weiy1:m. 2006. "Toward an Identity-based Model for the Development of
Chinese as a Heritage Language." Heritage Lrmguage Jorwnrrl 4, no. 1: l-28.

---, 2010. "The Heart of Heritage: Sociocultural Dimensions of Heritage Lan

guage Learning." Annurti Review f Appl.ied Linguistics 30:66-82. http://dx.doi.org
/10. l O 17/S0267190510000073.
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1976. "A National bngllage Academy: Debate in the New
Nation." lntenlfltio1w/]onmr1' of the Sociology of Lrmguage I I :9-44.
Ilill, Jane. II. 2008. The Eve1yday Lrmg;ttage of vVhite Rrtcisrn. Chichester, OK: Wiley
Blackwell. httv://dx.doi.org/ l 0.1002/9781444304732.
I lornberger, N,mcy. 2005. "Language and Education." In Sociolinguistics and Language
'Teaching, eel. Sandra L. McKay and Nancy H. Hornberger, 449-73. New Yc)rk:
Cambridge University Press.
---. 2002. "Multilingual Language Policies and the Continua of Bilitera
cy: An Ecological Approach." Lm1.gur1ge Poli')' 1, no. I: 27-51. http://cLx.doi
.org/10.1023//\:10145486[ 1951.
Hornberger, Nancy H., and Shuban C. Wang. 2008. "Who Are Our Heritage Lan
guage Learners' Identity and Biliteracy in Heritage Language Education in the
United States." In flerit1rge Lrtngu((.ge Educf/.tion: A New Field Emerging, ed. Donna
Brinton, Olg,1 Kagan, and Snsan Bauckus, 3-35. New York: Routledge.
Irvine,) udith 'r., and Susan Gal. 2000. "Language Ideology and Linguistic Differenti
ation." ln Rcghnes ojTangut1ge: Ideologies, Po!itir:s, mu/ [demities, ed. Paul V Kroskrity,
35-84. Sant,\ Fe: School of American Research Press.
Jeon, Mihyon. 2008. "Korean JJeritage Language Maintenance and Language Ideol
ogy." Heritage Lmigll!r.geJourna/ 6, no. 2: 54-71.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2009. "Stance, Style, and the Linguistic Individual." In Stance:
Socioliug11istic Penper:tivcs, ed. Alexandra Jaffe, 29-52. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/l0.1093/acprof:oso/97801953 31646.003 .0002.
Kramscb, Claire. 2014. "Teaching Foreign Languages in an Era of Globaliza
tion: l.ntrodnction." Modern Lrmg!lage Journal 98, no. 1: 296-311. http://dx.doi
.org/10.l l l l/j. l.'i40-4781.2014.J 2057.x.
Kroskrity, Paul V 2004. "Language Ideologies." Tn Companion to Ling;uistic Anthr(Jpot
ogy, eel. Alessandro Duranti, 496-5 .17. Malden: Basil Blackwell.
Labov, ' William. l 972. Sodolingaistic Pflttei-ns. Philadelphia: University of Pem1sylvania
Press.
Lave, Jean, aml Etienne Wenger. 1998. Communities ofPractice: Learning, lvlerming, r1-nd
ldentiy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, David YvV 2001. "Genres, Registers, fb't
.. 1ypes, Domains and Styles: Clarifying
the Concepts and Navig,1ting a Path through die BNC Junglc." Language Learn
ing and 1cchnology 5, no. 3: 37-72. http://ro.uow.edu.auhrtspapers/598/.
Leeman ,Jennifer. 2005. "Engaging Critica IP edagogy: Spanish for Native Speakers." For
eign Lrmg111tgr Am1al.r 38, no. I: 35-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.ll l1/j.l944-9720.2005
.tb024.5 l .x.
---. 201 l . "Standards, Comrnodification, and Critical Service T,earning in Minor
ity Language Communities." Modern Lang11flge ]oit1'/l((./ 95, no. 2: 300-303. http://
Jx.Joi.org/10.11 J l/j.1540-4781.201 l.01184.x.
---. 2012. "Investigating Language Ideologies in Spanish as a Heritage Lan
guage." In Spanish rts rt Ilci-itagc Lmig;uttge in the US: St((.te of the Science, edited by
Sant Beaudrie and Marta Fairclough, 43-59. Washington, DC: (;eorgetown Uni
versit-y Press.

74

75

Je1mifor Leeman and Ellen]. Serafo,i

Sociolinguistics for I-:fL Educators and Students

---. 2013. "Categorizing Latinos in the History of the US Census: The Official
Racialization of Spanish." In II Politfrnl lfoto1y ofSprmi.l'h: The lvlnking ofa Langu age,
eel.Jose Del Valle, 305-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University .Press. http://dx.doi.
org/10.l 017/CB097805 l I 794339.025.
---. 2014. "Critical Approaches ro Teaching Spanish as a Local-foreign Lan
guage." In He llrmdbook ofHispnnic Applied linguisrii:.r, ed. .Mane! Lacorte, 275-92.
New York: Routledge.
---. 2015. "-leritage Lmguage Education an<l Identity in tbe United States." An
m,al Review ofApJ,licd Lingu istics 35: l 00-1 J 9.
Leeman, Jennifer, and Glenn Martinez. 2007. "From ldentity to Commodity: Dis
courses of Spanish in Heritage Language rlcxtbooks." CritimL Inqui1y in Lrmguc1ge
Studies 4, no. 1: 35-65. http:l/dx.doi.org/ l0.1080/15427580701340741.
Leeman, Jennifer, and Gabriella Modan. 2009. "Commodified Language in China
town: A Contextualized Approach to Linguistic L:mdscape."]oumal ofSocioling11is
tiis 13, no. 3: 332-62. htq)://dx.doi.org/1 O. I l l l/j. l 467-9841.2009.00409.x.
Lccman,Jcnnifcr, and Lisa Rabin. 2007. "Reading Language: Critical Perspectives fr>r
the Literature Classroom." llisprmia 90, no. 2: 304-15.
Leeman, Jennifer, Lisa Rabin, and Esperanza Roman-Mendoza. 2011. "Critical Ped
agogy Beyond the Classroom W.11ls: Community Service-Learning and Spanish
ITeritage Language Education." Hcritrrge Lm1g111/.ge ]ournal 8, no. 3: 1-21.
Leung, Genevieve Y., and Ming-Hsuan Wu. 2012. "Linguistic Landscape and l lcri
tage Language Literacy Education: A Case Study of I ,ingnistic Rescaling in Phi la-
delphia Chinatown." fiViitten l,rmguage mu! Literaq L5, no. l: l 14-40. http://dx.doi
.org/10. l 075/wll.15. l .06lc11.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 2012. Hnglish with nn /kcent: Lrmgarrgc, ldeolog )' and Discri111ina
tion in the United States. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Lope%, Luis Enriqne, and vVolgang Kiiper. 1999. "La educaci6n intcrcultun1l biling(ie
en America Latina: Balance y perspectivas." Revista Jbcroamcricana de Educaci6n
20:17-85. http://www.rieoei.org/rie20a02.htm.
Lowther Pereira; Kelly. 2015. "Developing Critical Langnage Awareness via Service
Learni.ng for Spanish Heritage Speakers." lleritage Lm1g11(1,ge .Journal L2, no. 2:
159-85.
Lynch, Andrew, and J(jm Pot:owski. 2014. "La Valoraci6n del J fabla Bilingiie en Esrados
Unidos: Fundamcmos Sociolingufsticosy Pcdag6gicos e11 Hablando Bien sc Enticnde
la Gente.'' Fiispn11i1197, no. 1: 32-46. http://clx.doi.org/10. l 353/hpn.2014.0025.
MacCregor-1v1endoza, Patricia L. 1999. "Looking at Life tbrough Language." fo L11n
gaage Alive in the C!ns.,ro01n, ed. Rebecca S. vVheeler, 81-87. \iVcsrport, CT: Pr,1cger.
Makoni, Sinfree, and Alastair Pcnnycook. 2006. "Disinvcnting a11<I Reconstiruting
Languages." In Disi11vmting ({/Id Reconstitttting La nguttges, ed. Sinfrcc Makoni and
Alastair Pennycook, l-41. Clevcdon: Multilingual Maucrs.
Malinowski, David. 2013. "Reading the 1vlultilingu,1l City: Chinese, Korean, and Japa
nese in Bay Arca Linguistic Landscapes." Lin gaistic Lrmdscape ttt UCBerke!ey (blog).
J\priI 24. http://ucblinguisticlandscapc.cdublogs.org/.
---. 2003. "Classroom Based Dialect Awareness in Heritage L111guage Instruction:
A Critical Applied Linguitic Apprnach." Heritage Lrmgwtge }oumrrl l, no. 1: 1-14.
Martinez, Glenn. 2014. "Vital Signs: A Photovoice Assessment of the Linguistic
Lrndscapc in Spanish in Hcaltbcarc Facilities along the US-Mexico Border." ln
ternational]oumrtl of Cormmmict1tion rmd 1 ]e{llth ': 16-24.

Martinez, Gleim, and Adam Schwartz. 2012. "Elevating "Low" Language for High
Stakes: A Case for Critical, Community-Based Learning in a Medical Spanish for
Heritage Learners Program." Heritage LrrngMge }omwtl 9, no. 2: 3 7-49.
Matthiessen, Christian M. l. M. 1993. "Register in the Round: Diversity in a Unified
Theory of Register Analysis." In Register Anrtl )'Sis: Theory and Pmcti ce , ed. Mohsen
Ghadessy, 221-92. London: Pinter.
.Mendoza-Denton, Nonna. 2008. lfomegidr: Lang11age rmd OulturalPrrtetice anumgLatina
Youth Gangs. Malden, .MA: Blackwell. http://dx.cloi.org/ l 0.1002/9780470693728.
Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. 1999. Authority in Langllage. 3rd ed. London:
Routledge.
MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. 2007. Foreign Languages and
Higher Edncfltion: New StrucL1.ncs for a Changed vVorld. Retrieved from https://
apps.mla.org/pdfi'forlang_news_pdf.pdf.
Montrul, Silvina. 2004. "Subject and Object Expression in Spanish Heritage Speakers:
A Case of .Morphosyntactic Convergence." Bilingualism: Langllrtge mut Cognition 7,
no. 2: 125-42. http://dx.doi.org/10. l017/Sl 366728904001464.
Pavlcnko, Aneta. 2002. "'\Ve Have Room but for One Language Here': Language and
National Identity at the Turn of the 20th Century." J\rluililing ua 21:163-96.
---. 2008. "Linguistic Landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine: A Diachronic Srndy." l n Lin
gui.<-tic Land1cape in tbe City, ed. Elana Sholrnmy, Eliezcr Ben-Rafael, and Monica
Barni, J 33-50. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Penny, Ralph. 2000. 0.trimion mut Chrmge in S{Janish. Camhridgc: Cambridge Univer
sity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10. l 017 /CB09781 l 39164566.
Pomerantz, Anne, and ;\dam Schwartz. 2011. "Border 'Lalk: Narratives of Spanish
Language Encounters in the United States." Languag11 and lntercu!wral C()7rrmuni
cntion l 1, 110. 3: 176-96. http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2010.550923.
Poplack, Shana. 1997. "The Sociolinguistic Dynamics of Apparent Convergence." ln
1owrtrd1 a Socinl Scieru:e of Language: Papers in Ho11or of 'f;Vil!irmr Lr1bov, ed. Greg01y
Guy, John Ba11gh, and Deborah Schiffrin, 285-309. A.rnsterdarn: John Benjamins.
http://clx.doi.org/lO. l 075/cilt.128. l9pop.
Potowski, Kim, eel. 2010. Language Divcr.l'ity in the US'A. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press. http://dx.doi.org/l 0.1017 /CB097805 l I 779855.
Potowski, Kim, and Marfa Carreira. 2004. "Teacher Development and National Stan
dards for Spanish as a Heritage Language." Foreign Language Anna.Lr 37, no. 3:
427-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.I11 l/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02700.x.
Pratt, Mary Louise, Michael Geisler, Claire Kramsch, Scott Mcginnis, Peter Pauik.is,
Karin Ryding, and Haun Saussy. 2008. "The Issue." Modem Language }1mrnr1l 92,
no. 2: 287-92. http://dx.cloi.org/ l 0.111 l/j. I 540-4781.2007.007 l9_2.x.
Preston, Dennis R. 1989. Perceptual Dinlcctology: Nontinguisls' Views ofAreal l,i nguist.ilJ.
D11decht. Foris Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10. l5 l 5/9783110871913.
Rivera-Mills, Susana V 2011. "Use of Voseo and Latino Identity: An J ntcrgenera
tional Study of Hondurans and Salvadorans in the Western Region of the US."
In Selected Proceeding:f of the 13th Hispanic !Jngwistics Symposium, ed. T ,uis A. Ortiz
L6pez, 94-106. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
---. 2012. "Spanish Heritage Language Maintenance: lts Legacy and Its Future."
Jn Spanirh as rt Heritr1,ge Ltmg11age in the United States: 'Ihe State ofthe Field, eel. Sara
NI. Beaudrie and Marta fairclough, 21-42. vVasbingcon, DC: Georgetown Uni
versity Press.

76

77

Jennifer Leeman and Ellen]. Serafini

Sociolinguistics for l:-lL Educarors and St1.1dents

Rodrfguez. Pino, C., and Daniel Villa. 1994. "A Student-centered Spanish for Native
Speakers Program: Theory, Curriculum and Outcome Assessment." In Face.1 in "
Crowd: Individual Leamer.1 i11 lvlaitiscctio n Programs, ed. Carol Klee, 355-73. Boston:
Hein.le and Heinle.
Ruiz, Richard. 1984. "Orientations in Language Planning." NABF.]ournrt! 8: 15-34.
Sanchez-Munoz, Ana. 2010. "Different Words for Different Contexts: Ii.ma-Speaker
Vuiation in Spanish as a Heritage Language." Tn Spanish of the Somhwest: A Lan
g11r1g;c in Tmmition, ed. Susana Rivera-Mills and Daniel Villa, 337-52. Madrid:
Iberoamericana.
Sayer, Peter. 2008. "Demystif)ring Language Mixing: Spanglish in School." ]0111,ud ofl11ti11os rmd Ed11cr1tion 7, no. 2: 94-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/l 5348430701827030.
---.2010. "Using the Linguistic Landscape as a Pedagogical Resource." ELT]our111d 64, no. 2: 143-54. http://dx.doi.org/l0. l093/clt/ccp05 I.
Schechtman, Robert R., and Ju lie Koser. 2008. "foreign Languages and Higher faln
cation: A Pragmatic Approach to Change." tvlodcrn La11g11tige }ournaL 92, no. 2:
309-(2. http://dx.doi.org/l O. I I l l/j. l 540-4781.2007 .00719_9.x.
Schmidt, Ronald Sr. 2002. "Racialization and Language Policy: The Case of the
USA." Multilingurt 21, no. 2-3: 141-62.
Shin, Sarah J. 2005. Di'Ve!oping in Two Lrmgwtp;cs: Korerm Children in America. Clev
edon, UK: Multilingual 1\tfatters.
Shohamy, Ehma, Eliczer Ben-Rafael, and Monica Barni, eds. 2010. U11gai.,tic l.muL.-mpe
in the City. Bristol: M.ultilingm1l Matters.
Silva-Corvalan, Carmen. l 994. l.ang11age Co11.t11ct 11nd ChtTnge: Spmiish in l.os A ngeles.
Los Angeles: Oxford University Press.
'fannen, Deborah. 2005. Convetwttionat Syii': A1wl yzing 'Thlk among Friend,. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Thomas, Wi1y11e P., and Virginia P. Collier. 2002. A Natiomti St,u(y <!f 'Schooi 4'ffectivmcss
Jiw Lrmguage Nlinority Students' Long-tctw /lttulernic Achievement. Santa C rnz, CA:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
rforibio, Almeida Jacqueline. 2001. "On the Emergence of Bilingual Code-switching
Competence." Bilingualism: Lt1ngaage and Cognition 4, no. 3: 203-31. http://dx.doi
.org/10.10 l 7 /S136672890 l 000414.
- -.
- 2002. "Spanish-English Code-Switching among US Latinos." International
.Joumr1l of the Sociology o/Lttngua-ge 158:89-119.
.
V,ldes, Guadalupe. 1981. "Peclagogic,11 Implications of Teaching Spanish to the Spmi
ish-Speaking in the United States." Jn Ie11chingSpttnish to the Hispanic Bilingtfftl, ed.
Guadalupe Valdes, Anthony G. Lozano, and Rodolfo Garcfa-Moya, 3-20. New
fork: leacher's College.
Van Deusen-Scholl, Nelleke. 2003. "1owarcl a Definitio11 of Heritage Language: So
ciopolitic,11 and Pech1gogical Considerations." .Journal f 1.angtl(fge, identity, rmd
Edumtion 2, no. 3: 2 l l -30. htq)://dx.cloi.org/10.1207/S l 5327701JLIE0203_4.
Vinograclova, Polina. 20 I 4a. "Digital Stories in Heritage Lang\iage Education:
Empowering f -foritage Langnage Learners through a Pedagogy of Multilitera
cies." In !Jrmdbook of I-leritflge, Cormmmity and Nritive Americrm l.rmguffges in the
United States, ed. 'Jcrrence G. \i\Tiley, Joy Kreeft J>cyto11, Donna Christian, Sarah
Catherine K. Moore, and Na Liu, 314-23. New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi
.org/10.4324/97802031224 l 9.ch 29.

---. 20141.>. "Digital Stories in a Language Classroom: Engaging Students through

a Meaningful Mnltimodal 'E1sk." The FLTMAG',July l . http://fitmag.com/digiral
stories/.
Wallace, Catherine. 1999. "Critical Language Awareness: Key Principles for a
Course in Critical Reading." l,rmguage Awareness 8 (2): 98-110. http://clx.doi
.org/10.1080/0965841990866712 l .
Wei, Li. 201 l. "Moment Analysis and Translanguaging Space: Discursive Constrnc
tion of Identities by Multilingual Chinese Youth in Britain." ]ournrtL !f Pmgn111tics
43, no. 5: 1222-15. lmp://dx.cloi.org/10.1016/j.prngma.2010.07.035.
Wellmon, Chad. 2008. "Languages, Cult11n1l Studies, and the Futures of Foreign
Language Education." 1vlodern L11ng1mga Journal 92, no. 2: 292-5. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1l l l /j.1540-4781.2007.00719_3 .x.
Wiley, Terrence G. 2005a. Lite1'tll)' 11nd Lrmguflge Diversity in the United States. 2nd eel.
\Vashington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
---. 2005b. "The Reemergence of Heritage and Community Language Policy in
the US National Spotlight." Nlodem Lrmg11t1g e ]o1mu1189, no. 4: 594-60 l.
\Niley, Terrence G .,.Joy Kreeft Peyton, Donna Christian, K. J\foore Sarah Catherine,
and Na Liu. 2014. J-lmulboo!: fl lerit11gc, Cotmmmiy, and Nntive Americrm Lmzg11ngcs
in tbe United States: Rcse1wch, PoLiq, nnd Erf11mtio12tT! Practice. New York: Rourlcdge.
\oolard, Kathryn 1\. I 989. Double Iflik: Bilingy111ii.1111 mul the Politics o}Etlmicity in Cnta
loni11. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
---. 2008. "Language and Identity Choice in Catalonia: The Tntcrplay of Contrast
ing Ideologies of Linguistic Authority." In Leng1/(/, nnci6n e idemidt1d. !.11 reg1iln,i6n def
f!h11'ilingiii.i1110 en {!,jJHtiin y Amirictr. Lminrt, ed. Kirsten Siisdbeek, Ulrike Mi'1hlschle
gcl, and Peter Masson, 302-24. Berlin: Ibero-Amcrikanisches lnstitut P.K.
Woolard, Kathryn i\., and Bambi B. Schieffelin. l 994. "Language ldeology." l/n1w1ti Review of'Anthropology 23, no. l: 55-82. http://dx.cloi.org/l 0.1146/annurev
.an.23. J 00194.000415.
\i\Tu, Ming-I-Isuan, Kathy Lee, and Genevieve Leung.2014. "Heritage Language Edu
cation and Investment among Asian American Middle Schoolers: Insights from a
Charter School." [,m1.g11ffg<' tmd 1!.duwtion 28, no. l: l 9-33. http://clx.doi.org/ l 0. JO
80/09500782.2013.763818.
Zentella, Ana Celia. 1997. Growing Up BiLing1ta!: Pnerto Riwn Children in New ]'(nk
Malden, MA: Blackwe.11.

78

View publication stats

79