english only and standard english

User Generated

fuebht

Humanities

Description

Elementary school teachers in multilingual classrooms sometimes discourage non-English parents from speaking their heritage language to their children at home or in the community.They also discourage parents from helping their children with homework in the heritage language, insisting instead that such help, if given, be given in English.What is the teachers’ motivation in doing so? What kind of language ideology do you think underlies this motivation? What might be the consequences of this ideological stance for both the children and their families? Call on the information in both Van Herk and Wiley & Lukes (1996) to support your position.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) English-Only and Standard English Ideologies in the U.S. Author(s): Terrence G. Wiley and Marguerite Lukes Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3, Language Planning and Policy (Autumn, 1996), pp. 511-535 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3587696 Accessed: 27-11-2018 23:24 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms English-Only and Standard English Ideologies in the U.S. TERRENCE G. WILEY and MARGUERITE LUKES California State University, Long Beach This article probes assumptions underlying dominant U.S. id regarding language diversity (both between English and oth guages and among varieties of English) and their impact on l planning and policy from a historical-structural perspective by ing and synthesizing a broad base of literature. It compare contrasts two popularly accepted ideologies. The first is the ideo English monolingualism, which frames policy issues in an immi paradigm in order to portray language diversity as an alien and force; the second involves a standard language ideology that is u position speakers of different varieties of the same language wi social hierarchy. The article discusses the connection between as tions underlying linguistic ideologies and other social ideolo lated to individualism and social mobility through education cusses limitations in the immigrant paradigm and consider instrumental role that schools play in positioning students b language assessment and classification schemes. Dilemmas and tunities for contesting these ideologies are addressed. Dominant attitudes toward language in the U.S. are r contradictions. Bilingualism, for example, has tended to b either a curse or a blessing. This contradiction is evident in t between two drastically different policies toward bilingualism. a policy toward language minority students that is intended rapid transition out of LI instruction into English-only in often resulting in the eventual loss of the L1. The second toward monolingual English-speaking students that is inten mote learning a foreign language. In terms of resource a bilingual programs are mandated to develop languages English-only to a minimum level-whereas foreign languag spend millions attempting to develop them further (see 1992a; Simon, 1988). However, on closer inspection, the r contradiction becomes clear: These policies are designed for tw ent populations. Transitional bilingual education, devel TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 30, No. 3, Autumn 1996 This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 511 congressional mandate in the late 1960s, was originally intended for students who had historically been discriminated against, that is, for a language minority underclass that had been denied an equal chance to learn. Foreign language instruction, on the other hand, has historically been intended for an educational elite who are expected to pursue higher education (Wiley, 1996b). In explaining the underlying influences on language policy formation, a growing number of scholars have focused on language as an instrument of political, social, and economic control and on language planning as an instrument of social stratification.' Nevertheless, popular and scholarly understanding of language diversity in the U.S. continues to be shaped largely by two dominant language ideologies. The first is the monolingual ideology manifested as a monolingual English ideology in the U.S. (Macfas, 1992, in press), and it is easily identifiable in the rhetoric of the English Only movement. The second is the ideology of standard language, or, more specifically in the context of the U.S., the ideology of standard English.2 Both of these linguistic ideologies are tied to other ideological assumptions related to beliefs about the relationship between language and national unity and between language and social mobility. Taken as a whole, these beliefs constitute the ideological context in which language policy is formed and in which language teachers work. To illustrate, consider the following catalog description: 01A. Basic English Writing Skills: Mandatory for students who have scored below the minimum score required for freshman composition. Does not count toward graduation but may as part of total course load. This course in writing reviews basic mechanics including spelling, punctuation, grammar, word choice, sentence structure and paragraph development and guides students through the writing process. Grading: Pass/Fail only. See, for example, Grillo (1989) and Leibowitz (1969, 1971, 1974). The role of language and social reproduction has been addressed in the controversial work of Bernstein (1975) as well as by Bourdieu (1977, 1982). The communication and reproduction of racism through discourse has been investigated by van Dijk (1984, 1986, 1989) and Wetherell and Potter (1992). Gender bias has been investigated by Corson (1993) and Frank and Anshen (1983), among many others. Fairclough (1989) has pursued the ideological dimensions of language and power, and more recently Phillipson (1988, 1992) and Tollefson (1989, 1991) have addressed and challenged the notion that English language teaching is a politically neutral professional activity by calling attention to its association with structured inequality and imperialism. 2 The notion of a standard imposes a normative status on one variety of language. Typically, the standard is given the status of a language, and all other varieties are commonly considered dialects and, thereby, deemed substandard (Roy, 1987). As Crystal (1987) notes, although the notion of dialect is technically problematic, it can also be used to describe any variety of a language, including the standard. Regardless of whether the standard is seen as the language, or merely as one of its dialects, the designation of a standard has great significance for its speakers and nonspeakers because command of the standard becomes a form of social capital facilitating access to higher education, employment, status, and privilege. 512 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms This course is the kind that some language professionals may teach, or have taught-or may have even taken once upon a time. Several aspects of the catalog description are noteworthy. First, the course is not offered for credit. It carries less status than for-credit courses. It is considered remedial rather than developmental. English O1A is thus intended "correct" or "remediate" a deficiency in English. Entrance to the cours is mandated based on scores on a measure of standard English proficienc Next, consider who the students in such a course are likely to be. In answering this question it is important to be aware of the operatio labels that practitioners often apply to their students. Some faculty an students may refer to such a course as "bonehead English" or "dumbbe English. Courses such as these are intended as gatekeepers for students who are considered "underprepared" or, less euphemistically, those who "don't belong" in the university. In professional jargon, many of t students are likely to be "nonnative" speakers of English or students o "limited" English proficiency. Some are likely to be foreign born, a others are "dialect" speakers of American English or of other Wor Englishes, or monolingual speakers of English "who just never learned write." Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the composition of suc courses is that students are assigned to them based solely on thei English test scores without consideration of their diverse individu linguistic backgrounds. Now, consider who the teachers of such courses are likely to be a what their professional training has been. Typically, the academi preparation of the instructors is often as diverse as the linguisti characteristics of their students. The instructors' academic rank and experience may range from teaching assistant to full professor. Th academic fields of expertise may include English composition, Engl literature, TESL, linguistics, applied linguistics, and other fields m remote from language teaching. Despite the presence of many nat speakers of languages other than English, many of the teachers may n have had any special training-other than on-the-job experience-in TESL, language minority instruction, or language diversity. Fewer stil have studied nondominant varieties of language in any systematic way been trained to consider their implications for instruction. The point here is not to fault the efforts of teachers or studen brought together under the umbrella of catalog descriptions such as th one above. Neither is it intended to argue that there is no need for som standards of performance. Rather, it is to reflect on why students fr such linguistically diverse and rich linguistic backgrounds are corralled together in English courses that are considered remedial and why t courses either completely ignore their linguistic backgrounds and abili ties in their native languages and varieties of language or perceive the only as deficiencies, when students who enroll in foreign langua ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 513 classes usually receive credit for instruction that requires far less target language proficiency than the 01A course does. To understand why basic English courses and the students who take them are considered remedial, it is necessary to reflect on the ideologies of English monolingualism and standard English in the U.S. The former sees English monolingualism as a normal-if not ideal-condition. The latter stresses the importance and superiority of the standard, "literate," or "unaccented" variety of English. Taken together, these ideologies are hegemonic; that is, their assumptions are widely accepted in popular perceptions about language diversity. Moreover, they provide the ideological context for both official and institutional policies. These ideologies also help frame the direction of much of the ESL teacher education literature (see Kachru & Nelson, 1996; Sridhar, 1996) and the scholarly research on language diversity (Kachru, 1994; Sridhar, 1994)-particularly as it relates to English language acquisition, language shift, and English language teaching (ELT). For example, much of the notable work in language demography proceeds from the assumption that language minorities will acquire English and lose their native languages (e.g., Veltman, 1983, 1988). Thus that work has focused more on language shift to English than on the process of developing bilingualism (Macias, in press). Similarly, second language acquisition (SLA) research-true to its name-tends to concentrate only on the L2, that is, English, with little concern for the fate of the maintenance or development of the L1. At the level of policy, bilingual education in the U.S., when and where it is actually practiced, is usually based on a transitional (or weak) model (see Baker, 1993; Rufz, 1995) rather than on a maintenance model, even though the latter has been demonstrated to better promote educational achievement (Ramirez, 1992). Standard language ideology likewise exerts a strong influence on research, policies, and practices directed at speakers of nondominant varieties of English. For decades, linguists have been asserting the equality of all languages and varieties as codes of communication that allow their speakers to attribute meaning, represent logical thought, and communicate within a community of speakers. However, language is more than just a code because it also involves social behavior. As social behavior, language becomes subject to normative expectations for behavior. These norms can either be based on a consensus regarding what constitutes appropriate behavior or be imposed by dominant groups. Those who have the power to impose their variety of a language as normative may appeal to its alleged superiority over other varieties. Such appeals, however, mask the issue of differential power between groups by confusing grammar with language etiquette. Nevertheless, the dominant groups succeed in attributing the status of language to their own variety 514 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms while ascribing the status of dialect to those of others (Wiley, 1996a; see also Labov, 1973; Wolfram & Fasold, 1974). Once standards for expected linguistic behavior have been imposed, privileged varieties of language become a kind of social capital facilitat- ing access to education, good grades, competitive test scores, employment, public office, and economic advantages for those who have mastered the standard language. Thus, the linguistic notion of the equality of codes does not carry over into the power relationships of a hierarchical society. In this regard, A. E. Sledd (1994) concludes that the concept of democracy through language, or the equality of all language varieties, is the wishful thinking of researchers and scholars who speak, write, and publish in standard English. He suggests that, by denying that a linguistic power imbalance exists, they only strengthen it more. Sledd notes that merely asserting democracy through language-in articles written in standard English, no less-cannot achieve it. His point is well taken. Nevertheless, teachers face the dilemma of challenging detrimen- tal institutional language policies while simultaneously trying to help their students attain enough proficiency in standard English that they are not barred by the gatekeeping mechanisms. In view of this dilemma, Sledd's critique can be dismissed as a merciless rebuke of those trying to cope, or it can be seen as pointing to the inherent contradictions that policymakers and teachers of English to speakers of other languages or other varieties of language cannot easily avoid, even as they attempt to validate the linguistic heritages of their students on the one hand while instructing them in the "power dialect" (or the language of power) on the other (Lukes, 1995). Given the contradictions that language teachers and planners face, it is appropriate to ask why researchers and practitioners have not been more concerned about the role of dominant ideologies. One reason relates to the assumption that language acquisition and SLA research and ELT are, for the most part, nonpolitical activities. According to Phillipson (1992), this assumption "serves to disconnect culture from structure. It assumes that educational concerns can be divorced from social, political, and economic realities" (p. 67). More directly, Tol (1991) concludes that the failure to relate language planning and to broader sociopolitical concerns results in a research orient which ideologies and implicit political values pass for theoretical works. These concerns underscore the need to consider the role of the dominant language ideologies in the formation and implementat language policies as well as in language minority research and educa More importantly, they point to the need to consider the imp policies derived from dominant ideologies on linguistically div populations. ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 515 Language-in-education planners usually analyze issues related to official English and standard English policies separately; thus, the similarities between the ideological assumptions underlying both positions are rarely discussed. Arguments for English-only policies tend to be framed more in terms of status planning between languages. Standard language policies tend to be submerged within corpus planning but also to involve status planning between varieties. Exploring these relationships raises a number of questions. What are the assumptions of these ideologies about language, language varieties, and the relative statuses of their speakers? Why are policies implemented, and how are they maintained? What is their impact on various language minority populations? These questions are significant because the work of a number of scholars indicates that the dominant ideologies (Fairclough, 1989; Tollefson, 1991) and the language policies influenced by them tend to be used as instruments of social control (Leibowitz, 1974) that result in the reproduction of unequal social boundaries among groups (Bourdieu, 1977, 1982). Last, one may ask: What roles can language professionals, researchers, policy planners, and teachers play in promoting more equitable policies and instructional practices? To begin answering these questions, it is first necessary to analyze the relationship between the dominant ideologies underlying individualism and social mobility and those involving language. LANGUAGE AND THE IDEOLOGY OF INDIVIDUALISM Linguistic ideologies are not autonomous. They are l social ideologies, the most prevalent of which is the id mobility through individual ability and effort, in ot ideology of individualism. In this regard, Tollefson (1991) underlying assumption of research and programmatic causal variables in SLA are located within the individua there has been considerable interest in how to change lea toward the target language (i.e., English) and culture means cultures of English-dominant countries) (see T 1991). This concern for learners' attitudes frequently ign affect them, such as how the dominant group treats particular linguistic and ethnic group as they attemp dominant language (Perdue, 1984) or how the learner dominant group ascribes status to them (Gibson & Og 1978; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986). 516 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Preoccupation with individual factors is also manifested in assumptions about the relationship between social mobility and educational achievement, which is likewise seen as largely an artifact of individual motivation and aptitude. The dominance of this view means that educational failure and failure to master standard English are seen as individual problems rather than as a result of systematic, institutional inequity between groups. Lewis (1978) argues that common explanations for success and failure in the U.S. are based on an ideology that both justifies a "culture of inequality" and "mandates the existence of visible failure" (p. 192). In this culture of inequality, he notes, the undereducated and the poor are caught in a perpetual cycle of failure and blame. Lewis has predicted that the need to blame the victim will increase as the disparity between rich and poor widens. He observes that low educational achievement is blamed on the backgrounds of those who fail rather than on the programs in which the failure occurs. In other words, there is an attempt to correct individual deficiencies rather than to reform the educational system. In a culture of inequality, Lewis concludes, success comes to seen as a function of individual ability and "the match of education job" (Collins, 1991, p. 235). (See also Lankshear, 1987, for a discussi the role of ideology in English-dominant countries and Wiley, 1996b a more detailed discussion.) In the U.S., immigrant and native-born language minorities have b particularly vulnerable to the ideology of blame, and language di ences have been used as one of the principal means of ascribing a def status to them. Because educational deficiencies relative to Englis seen as individual problems, and because English education progr are designed to correct or remedy those problems (Brodkey, 19 there is little attempt to analyze the impact of educational langu policies on the populations being served. In this regard, Lippi-Gr (1994) contends that an important assumption underlying the ide of standard English is that the communicative burden rests mostly the individual speaker. In a critique of this view, she notes that comm cation is a two-way street that involves not only communicative com tence on the part of the speaker but also goodwill on the part o listener. It follows that "prejudiced listeners cannot hear what a pers has to say because accent, as a mirror of social identity, and a litmus for exclusion, is more important" (p. 166). When the communica burden is seen as residing solely with the speaker, it is easy to blam victim. ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 517 THE IMPACT OF DOMINANT IDEOLOGIES: STATUS ASCRIPTION AND DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF LANGUAGE As specialists in narrowly defined domains of academic expertise, scholars and practitioners are sometimes und reluctant to pursue issues outside their immediate area of ex example, Kloss (1977), in his now-classic analysis of langua the U.S., was careful to exclude what he considered polic racial laws (Macias, 1992). That is, he attempted to separ policies from the muddier waters of ethnic and racial politic this approach lends itself to conceptual neatness, it leads from a possible source of, or motive for, many language polic the use of language policies as instruments of racial and e (Leibowitz, 1974). Language, like race and ethnicity, can marker of social and political status. Similarly, language pre unlike other forms of prejudice and may work in conjunctio Weinberg (1990) defines racism as a systematic, institut dure for excluding some while privileging others; thus it in than simple prejudice because it has the power to advan disadvantage. Racism is premised on the belief that some are superior to others. Similarly, Phillipson (1988) defines lingui ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, ef reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (b and non-material) between groups which are in turn de basis of language (i.e., the mother tongue)" (p. 339). H linguicistic ideologies have affinities with racism because th dominant language group to present "an idealized ima stigmatizing the dominated group/language and rationali tionship between the two, always to the advantage of t group" (p. 341). (See also Attinasi, 1994.) Schmidt (1995) contends that historically language has important role in both the ideology and practice of the syst domination that held sway in the U.S. prior to the Second tion of the 1960s" (p. 4). He notes that in the 19th centur more important aspects of "Anglo-Saxon racialist thought fo superiority of the English language as a derivative of Germa 4). English language and literacy requirements have discriminatory ways to prohibit individuals from immigrat and seeking employment (Haas, 1992; Leibowitz, 1969, 1 1993; McKay & Weinstein-Shr, 1993; Schmidt, 1995). Thu has been functionally parallel to racial exclusion and in so functioned in cultural genocide (Hernandez-Chavez, 1994) 518 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms For speakers of creolized and-allegedly-less "literate" varieties of English, the lack of proficiency in the standard becomes a means by which others can use language as an instrument to maintain boundaries of social stratification. For example, the labels for course descriptions, student assessment, and program placement in English language programs can ascribe a lower or deficit status to such students. In public schools, community colleges, and universities, it is not uncommon to find immigrant language minority and international students who wish to avoid ESL classes, because they frequently do not count toward graduation credit and because the students feel stigmatized as "ESL" students in courses that are considered remedial. Status ascription on the basis of English proficiency is particu evident in the use of labels such as limited English proficient (LEP). LE first used in the bilingual education legislation of 1968. Initial referred only to oral abilities in English, but in 1978 it was expande include reading and writing. According to Macias (1994) it was "d mined that English proficiency would be the exclusive criterion for LEP population, irrespective of the person's proficiency in the English language" (p. 35). The LEP label is based solely on the lan skills that the students lack (i.e., English) rather than what the stud have (i.e., ability in their native languages). Such educational lab thereby renders abilities in other languages invisible. Macias adds "programs and policies that were developed to address a stud limited English proficiency often ignore or de-emphasize race ethnicity in general" (p. 231). At the same time, however, he n "debates over bilingual education and cultural literacy are as much a race" (p. 231) as they are about language. Thus, status ascription on language can be a surrogate for status ascription based on r ethnicity, and social class (Wiley, 1996b; see also Crawford, 1992a; Ly 1990). THE IDEOLOGY OF ENGLISH MONOLINGUALISM Monolingual Ideology and the Immigrant Parad The ideology of monolingualism sees language dive consequence of immigration. In other words, langu viewed as imported. English Only, as a specific example of monolingualism, equates the acquisition of Englis and Americanization (i.e., with what it means to become an "American"). This linkage became hegemonic during the World War I era with the rise of the Americanization movement and the widespread persecution ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 519 of speakers of German and was quickly extended to speakers of other languages (Wiley, in press; see also Crawford, 1992a; Leibowitz, 1971; Ricento, in press). In the immigrant view of language diversity, language-much like an alien form of dress-is something to be changed and not worn again, except perhaps on special ethnic holidays when it is considered appropriate to celebrate diversity. Kloss (1971) offers a useful critique of the assumptions of monolingual language ideology about why immigrant language minorities should be expected to surrender their native languages. In immigrant countries,3 he notes, the dominant group usually assumes that it is natural for incoming language minorities to give up their native languages as quickly as possible. He identifies four theories, or what we will consider four4 ideological arguments, in support of that expectation.5 We outline these below and then summarize Kloss's (1971) critique. 1. The Tacit Compact Argument Assumption: Minority languages and minority language rights should be surrendered as a kind of payment for the right of passage to the receiving society. Critique: Historically, many language minority immigrants were allowed to maintain their native languages. Some groups immigrated to escape linguistic persecution. Therefore, they did not expect to have to surrender their ancestral languages as a condition of immigration. 2. Take-and-Give Argument Assumption: Language minority immigrants prosper more in their new country than in their countries of origin; therefore, they should waive any claims to linguistic minority rights and be required to shift to the dominant language. 3 Kloss (1971) emphasizes dominant languages generally more than the ideology of English monolingualism specifically. Thus, he cites Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and the U.S. as examples of immigrant countries. 4 Phillipson, Rannut, and Skutnabb-Kangas (1994) have added what may be considered a fifth category, "the myth that monolingualism is desirable for economic growth" (p. 4). They note that "in many nation states the (uneven) distribution of power and resources is partly along linguistic lines, with majority groups taking a larger share than their numbers would justify" (p. 4). 5 Grin (1994) provides a useful critique of the principles of territorial multilingualism (see especially pp. 41-43). 520 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Critique: The notion of benefit is not a one-way street. The receiving society also benefits from language minority immigrants in many ways. Immigrant workers contribute their labor, some develop new sectors of the economy, and those of the educated elite contribute their technical expertise, which sometimes results in "brain drain" for their countries of origin. 3. Antighettoization Argument Assumption: Language and cultural maintenance is predicated on a selfimposed isolation from the dominant mainstream language and society. This isolation results in a social and cultural lag for the minority group. Critique: The assumption of self-imposed isolation often distorts the historical reality. "The apparent lagging behind is frequently due to a language policy that disregards the elementary needs of the minority" (Kloss, 1971, p. 256). By disallowing the use and cultivation of the native language while not allowing contact with the majority and equal educational access, the minority group is rendered functionally illiterate in both its native language and the majority language. 4. The National Unity Argument6 Assumption: The perpetuation of a minority language is a potentially divisive factor in maintaining national unity. Therefore, the host/ receiving society should require linguistic assimilation and a surrender of language minority rights. Critique: In many instances in which language minorities have been accused of lack of national loyalty, their perceived disloyalty has been caused by overt discrimination and a denial of language minority rights. "In other words: the majority, by dealing unfairly with the minority, created among it the very unrest, dissatisfaction and centrifugal tendency which in turn provided governmental authorities with arguments (sometimes not unwelcome) to bolster their restrictive policies" (Kloss, 1971, p. 257). Kloss's (1971) categorization scheme and critique, while not exhaustive, remain comprehensive enough to encompass recent assumptions of the monolingual English ideology. Advocates of English-only policies echo variants of these arguments. For example, they often claim that English should be promoted because it is an equal opportunity language 6 Phillipson, Rannut, and Skutnabb-Kangas (1994) have recently made a related case. ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 521 (Bennett, 1992). This claim is a variant of the antighettoization argument. Similarly, the national unity argument remains a persistent theme of contemporary English Only proponents. In developing his critique of the immigrant paradigm, Kloss (1971) attempts to deal with this assumption by distinguishing between the historical and political categorization of immigrant language minorities. In this regard, he notes, A discussion of the language rights of present-day immigrant groups must start by redefining . . . the concept of "immigrants." Normally we call immigrant a person who leaves one country and takes up his abode in another, in other words: who has crossed some international boundary. (p. 252) Kloss then notes that there are internal migrations: But when we speak of language rights, a second category of migrants has to be taken into consideration: persons who while remaining within the boundaries of their country have left areas where their mother tongue is in general use, and have moved into an area where the indigenous population consists of native speakers of some "other tongue." Migrations of this type have at times assumed large proportions. (p. 252) As one of several examples of internal migrations, Kloss cites the mass migration of Spanish-speaking Puerto Ricans to the U.S. mainland, primarily into New York City. Kloss's (1971) distinction between external and internal migrations begins to probe the limited adequacy of the immigrant paradigm in dealing with language diversity. However, the distinction between inter- nal and external immigrants, though useful, is still inadequate to deal with groups such as the Puerto Ricans. Puerto Rico had been ruled by Spain since it was conquered and first colonized in the 16th century. The island was ceded to the U.S. in 1898. It was thus initially free, then a colony of Spain, and later a colony of the U.S. until 1952, when its status was upgraded to that of a commonwealth. Its ethnic, racial, and linguistic heritage is complex. Thus, to appreciate and accurately describe the ethnic, racial, and linguistic characteristics of Puerto Ricans, additional categories (besides internal immigrants) are needed. Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm: Immigrant and Indigenous In his critique of the immigrant paradigm, Kloss (1971) was also aware of the importance of distinguishing between immigrant and indigenous language minorities. He concluded, "It seems reasonable to consider as an 'immigrant group' every linguistic minority a majority of whose adult 522 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms members are foreign born or the children of foreign born, and as 'indigenous' every group a majority of whose adult members are natives of native parentage" (p. 253). Without specifying a context, this distinc- tion seems self-evident. However, placed within a historical-political context, such as the national expansion of the U.S. between 1783 and 1898, the notion of indigenous peoples becomes more problematic. In this context, Macias (in press) offers a more complex definition of U.S. indigenous groups: "Indigenous groups are those who occupied an area that is now the U.S. prior to the national expansion into that area, and those groups who have a historical/cultural tie to the 'Americas' prior to European colonization." Macias's (in press) distinction is important in view of the lands and peoples that have been conquered, annexed, and otherwise acquired since the rebellion of the 13 original colonies: (a) lands west of the Appalachians and east of the Mississippi, ceded in the Treaty of Paris (1783); (b) the Louisiana Purchase, which included a vast territory adjacent to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers (1803); (c) Florida, including parts of what is now southern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana (1810-1820); (d) Texas and territories north of the Rio Grande (1845-1848); (e) Oregon Country, which included present-day Washington and Idaho (1846); (f) the Mexican Cession, including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of what is now Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado (1848); (g) the Gadsden Purchase, which included what is now southern Arizona and New Mexico (1853); (h) Alaska (1867); (i) Hawaii (1896); (j) Puerto Rico (1898); and (k) for a time the Philip- pines, not to mention Guam (1945) and other island territories. As this list indicates, there is more to the story of the linguistic dominance of English than merely its hegemony during the colonial period and its continued dominance over immigrant languages into the national period. In its first century as a nation-state, the U.S. was not merely a fixed territory into which immigrants flowed. Rather, it was an aggressive, emerging power adding to its territory and population through an expansive nationalism. With each successive territorial conquest, annexation, and acquisition, indigenous language minorities were incorporated into the U.S. polity. Thus, Macias (in press) notes that the mode of incorporation and subsequent treatment of acquired groups by the dominant majority were significant factors in determining their linguistic and sociopolitical standing. Language differences fre- quently became markers of status differences between the conquerors or annexers and those that they incorporated. In summary, in analyzing the ideology of English monolingualism and its relationship to the historical development of language policies in the U.S., it is necessary to understand language diversity in terms of both an immigrant paradigm and an indigenous paradigm. Moreover, it is ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 523 necessary to consider how groups were incorporated and subsequently positioned by the dominant monolingual English ideology. STANDARD LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY Standard language ideology has been defined as "a bias t abstracted, idealized, homogeneous spoken language which from above ... which takes as its model the written language" has as its goal the "suppression of variation" (Lippi-Green, 199 Because norms for standard language are based on written, varieties rather than oral varieties of language (Milroy & Milr notions of a formal standard of language (Wolfram & Fasold, 1 been based on a "taught," that is, school-based, variety of (Illich, 1979; Wright, 1980). This explains why one must go to learn one's "native" language. Again, the issue of whose langua is taken as the standard has a direct bearing on which gro advantaged or disadvantaged in the acquisition of literacy Language assessments and most language tests are designed standardized language. Thus, an implicit literate, or schoo underlies most notions of language proficiency, including the of so-called general language proficiency. These notions are by specific types of language or by what Collins (1991) ref indexical fixing of literacy. This process results in an implicit oral varieties of language. Varieties of language that lack writ are treated as deviant and substandard and are therefore called which implies a lower status than language (Romaine, 199 connection, Wolfram (1994) concludes that It is quite clear that vernacular dialects have been defined in our own society as inappropriate vehicles for literacy, and it is apparent that children are socialized regarding this functional differentiation from the onset of their socialization regarding literacy. In this respect, the U.S. situation is akin to some third-world situations, in which unwritten minority languages are considered inappropriate for literacy vis-a-vis official state languages even when knowledge of the official language is minimal or nonexistent. (p. 74) The current view has not always been hegemonic. According to Illich (1979), vernacular literacies were flourishing in late 15th-century Spain until they were eclipsed by the promotion of Castilian as the school standard. He contends that the promotion of standardized languages through formal schooling arose as a means of social control. By prescribing an officially sanctioned mode of discourse, the content of discourse could be controlled as well as its form (Donald, 1991). Illich argues that the imposition of standard language policies diminished the vernacular 524 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms values associated with local languages. He concludes that the ideological impact of this change from the use of vernaculars to the use of standardized mother tongues sanctioned the schools as the only legitimate medium for promoting literacy so that "there would be no reading, no writing-if possible, no speaking, outside the educational sphere" (p. 55). To be promoted as instruments of wider communication, standard languages are necessarily the products of corpus planning and regularization that have a dual potential to either open or bar doors of access and opportunity (see Hornberger, 1994). Dominant standard languages (Grillo, 1989) are products of the dominant groups whose standards "come to be seen as 'universal,' that is natural and self-evident" (Collins, 1991, p. 236). According to Collins, school-taught standard language achieves a "social magic" of definition and deception. It uses yet disguises biases of text, curriculum, and classroom practice by evoking the literate tradition in ways that discriminate against those who have the least exposure to that tradition. It does so by treating aspects of the tradition which are the most tied to particular class-based varieties of language as symptomatic indices of skill, ability, or proficiency in general. (p. 236) For language minorities, whose languages or regional and social varieties are not reflected in the written language models of schools, the relevance of these observations should not be lost, as groups that can impose their language and literacy practices as normative have a strategic advantage over those who cannot. In this regard, Bhatia (1984) notes that "there is a systematic correlation between the rate of literacy and the distance between local dialects and the standard language" (p. 28). This is also the case for speakers of African American Language in the U.S. Again, although linguists have asserted the equality of languages as communicative codes, differential educational outcomes across groups indicate an implicit bias against speakers of certain varieties of English. African American Language (variously referred to as Black Vernacular English, BVE, or Black English) has the largest number of speakers among "nonstandard" varieties of English. Other varieties include Appalachian English and Hawaii English Creole, just to mention a few. In the U.S., the imposition of elite expectations for standard English achieved hegemony during the final decade of the 19th century, according to Wright (1980), when college and high school education took on a greater importance in the "ideology of upward mobility through perse- verance in school" (p. 327), and the influence of this ideology has persisted throughout the 20th century. In 1893, the prestigious, elite Committee of Ten, led by Harvard president Charles Eliot, made its recommendations for college entrance requirements. Then, as now, there was a widespread perception that too many students lacked a ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 525 sufficient knowledge of English to attend college. Even though only a small minority of students went on to college at that time, the legacy of the Committee's top-down approach established a precedent for curriculum planning. Some knowledge of the Committee's class background is useful in understanding its recommendations. A number of the Committee's members had received an elite education and had studied Latin. Based on the perception that college entrants' knowledge of Englis inadequate, the Committee outlined a school language arts cur for English that was modeled on formal grammar instruction. In words, the English language would be taught to native speak English much as Latin would be taught. The curriculum presc high level of correctness in speech, creating a marked dic between "good" and "bad" language (Wright, 1980, p. 328). As t methodology was modernized in the 20th century, the term correc referring to grammar and vocabulary, was replaced by preferable still "teaching materials are replete with exemplary lessons in rhetorical choices are represented as being right or wrong . . basis of grammatical rules" (p. 335). Language policies initiated Committee of Ten were developed further by the Conference on (1893-1925) and have been used as a basis for academic trac Recommendations of the Conference included holding some ch back in school (or testing them out) because their English us considered "unclear" or "incorrect" (p. 337). Thus, at a tim education was becoming more universally accessible, elitist sch glish policies devised by upper-class policymakers became gate mechanisms imposed on those who spoke other varieties of Englis other languages. According to Wright, In order to control the effects of universally accessible elementary sch the high school and college enrollments, they put a mantle of sc respectability on the discriminatory mores and customs of society, wh expressed in popular linguistic prejudice, on the increase, after (p. 337) Thus, although literacy in the standard was held out as universally accessible, it has been "controlled by elites, held out as a universal ideal yet stratified and unequally available" (Collins, 1991, p. 233). The longevity and persistence of English testing policies through the educational system as mechanisms for tracking and gatekeeping are evidence for the hegemony and centrality of the standard English ideology in education. Echoing Illich's (1979) concerns, Collins contends that the result has been a universalistic literacy, context-independent and functionally general, eva ated by tests under prior assumptions of differential achievement. Th 526 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms literacy has slowly become the norm for all literacy. Encompassing and redefining, it has turned a prior diversity of literate practices into a stratified literacy, driving a series of wedges into popular cultural practices. (pp. 232233) Collins (1991) offers three reasons why the standard English ideology has hegemonic capacity: (a) It serves a political ideological function by promoting national integration, (b) it serves an economic ideological function by seeing the attainment of standard English as the means to social mobility, and (c) it presents particular kinds of class- and culturally based literacy practices as if they were universal and thereby discrimi- nates against those who have the least exposure to those practices (see pp. 233-237 for elaboration). Schools are the principal instruments of this stratification because they are supposed to maintain standards. Although the family endows children with linguistic and cultural knowledge, "the school establishes the authority and legitimacy of the scarcest, and therefore most highly valued linguistic and cultural forms and secures universal recognition of this legitimacy" (Woolard, 1985, pp. 740-741). According to Woolard, linguistic hegemony has two components: (a) a group that has knowledge or control of the standard and (b) groups that have a recognition or acceptance of it-even if they do not have knowledge or control of it. She concludes that the test of legitimacy is the extent to which the population that does not co that variety acknowledges and endorses its authority, its correctness, its to convince, and its right to be obeyed, that is, the extent to which auth is ceded to those who do not control that variety. (p. 741) Access to an elite language education is an essential compone social mobility. Thus educational language policies, such as c entrance requirements, are significant gatekeeping mechanism other social, economic, and political domains. Early in their educ students are "tracked" based on their language proficiencies relat the literate standard. Schools stratify students based on their abilit use the standard by assigning those who speak English as an L nondominant varieties of English to "remedial" educational tra (Wiley, 1996b). Lippi-Green (1994) also underscores the importance of the ed tional system in perpetuating standard language ideology and th status differentiation. However, she notes that additional factors con ute to the hegemony of standard English: (a) the mass media, w promote hegemonic ideas about acceptable accent and dialect as w false perceptions about the "neutrality" of certain speech patter the Civil Rights Act, which leaves room for discrimination base accent or dialect; (c) the legal process, which gives employers ro ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 527 (legally and successfully) argue in court that accent stands in the way of job performance; and (d) the courtroom, in which hegemonic media standards are upheld and can be used against defendants to legally discriminate against them based on accent or dialect. The hegemony of the standard language ideology, however, has not gone without challenge and critique. Over the past 30 years, the work of a number of scholars has added to the understanding of language variation. Despite this knowledge, Adger (1995) notes, schools rarely have met the needs of speakers of indigenous varieties of American English. Moreover, given recent demographic changes in immigration, schools now also face the challenge of attempting to serve speakers of other varieties of World Englishes. Adger analyzes the historical response of professional educational organizations in meeting the needs of speakers of other varieties of English and notes that organizations such as TESOL, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the American Speech-Hearing-Language Association have adopted enlightened policy positions that call for appropriate responses to language diversity. She concludes that these position statements have had little impact on practitioners and that reform efforts aimed at professional training and instructional materials development have been separated from policy, with the consequence that policy statements are largely ceremonial. Professional organizations have made three types of policy recomm dations in order to promote more equitable instruction for speaker nondominant varieties of English. The first calls for dialect (or langu variation) awareness for teachers. Years ago, Labov (1969) noted reciprocal ignorance among teachers and children who were unaware o their mutual linguistic systems and, thus, the need for teacher educa in these areas (see also Berdan, 1980). Although some model progr exist in this area and although some materials have been developed th can be used in teacher preparation (e.g., Wolfram & Christian, 1 Wolfram & Fasold, 1974), what passes for language diversity training teacher education is still insufficient (Adger, 1995; see also Wolfr 1993). Teacher preparation in teaching standard English as a second dia has also received attention by professional organizations in po statements; however, it has likewise not been implemented on a b scale (Adger, 1995). There is also disagreement on what specific proaches to employ. Delpit (1995) contends that teachers must str "correct" forms through skill-based approaches in conjunction w whole language and process approaches to ensure that language mi ity children obtain the skills that middle-class White children typical acquire from their environments. Because achievement tests are g keepers that prevent many African American children from acces 528 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms institutions of the dominant culture, she argues, such children must be taught test skills explicitly. Thus, Delpit (1992, 1995) calls for a combina- tion of pedagogical approaches, including explicit skills-based instruction that some whole language specialists oppose (see Edelsky, 1991). The third area where there is general agreement on the need for reform relates to training in language assessment. Language assessment has often been misused as an instrument for gatekeeping and status ascription (Hakuta, 1986). Mattes and Omark (1991) and Stockman (1986) note many of the difficulties inherent in assessing bilinguals and speakers of nondominant varieties of English. Assessments that measure language proficiency solely in standard English and do not take into account L1 proficiency have led to results that have been inappropriately interpreted as indicating that language minorities are less intelligent and need remedial or special education courses (Adler, 1990; see also Wolfram & Christian, 1980). CONCLUSION In analyzing the hegemony of the dominant linguistic id tempting to drift into a kind of fatalism predicated determinism. In this regard, Phillipson (1988) offers insight: It is of the essence of hegemony that injustices are internalized by both the dominant group and the dominated groups as being natural and legitimate. However, neither the structures nor the ideologies are static. Hegemony is lived experience which is in a constant process of negotiation, recreation and adjustment. It is therefore open to contestation. (p. 343) Consistent with Phillipson's viewpoint, policy issues related to effective language minority education continue to be contested, recreated, and renegotiated. For years, a bitter debate has raged over the most appropri- ate and equitable ways to educate speakers of languages other than English (particularly Spanish). The debate over "official English" and bilingual education has been well chronicled by Baron (1990), Crawford (1991, 1992a, 1992b), and others. The scholarly contribution to the debate over the effectiveness of bilingual education has resulted in a preponderance of research that has demonstrated its efficacy. Neverthe- less, as the media portray the controversy, polemical reports such as those put out by conservative think tanks, such as the Little Hoover Commission, are presented as if they were the scholarly equivalent to research studies, and an underinformed public is not the wiser. Similarly, over 30 years ago a bitter debate began over the most appropriate and equitable ways to educate speakers of nondominant ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 529 varieties of English, particularly African American Language. Adding to the dispute has been the fact that many of the recommendations for the education of speakers of African American Language have been put forth by White social scientists (see Baratz, 1973; Stewart, 1964; Wolfram & Fasold, 1974), whose intentions (see J. Sledd, 1969, 1973) and recommendations for bidialectal instruction (see O'Neil, 1973) have been strongly criticized and questioned by some writers (see also Shuy, 1980; Wolfram, 1994, for thoughtful reflections on the controversy; Wiley, 1996a, 1996b). In recent years, old themes have been repeated and several new issues have emerged. The controversy, though less rancorous than before, remains polarized around the contention that students must receive instruction in standard English and the opposite viewpoint that sees such an attempt as stifling students' voices (Heller, 1988). Williams (1991), for example, has reiterated the call for instruction in African American Language, whereby the former social "weapon" becomes an effective "tool" of instruction. Others (e.g., Delpit, 1995; Jordan, 1985) have advocated a dual approach in which students learn to value and assert their native voices while receiving explicit instruction in the dominant language. Wiggins (1976) has argued that the real issue has never been language, literacy, or education but power and a fear of heterogeneity, be it through language, behavior, or values. He has noted that, for all too many African Americans, the fact that mastery of the language does not ensure economic mobility or political access makes manifest the fallacy of standard English as the language of equal opportunity. His conclusions parallel those of a host of authorities who draw similar conclusions about the impact of dominant language ideologies and the policies that result from them on other language minority groups. As debates over language policy have continued, generations of students have come and gone, and a substantial number of studentswhether labeled as immigrant or indigenous language minorities or as speakers of nonstandard English-continue to receive instruction amid conditions of "savage inequalities" (Kozol, 1991; McDermott, 1987a, 1987b; McDonnell & Hill, 1993). Given the historical legacy of the ideologies of English only and standard English and their continuing differential impact across racial and ethnic groups, language profession- als need to consider their implications for contemporary policy and practice and to contest policies and practices that perpetuate social inequities. 530 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful to Nancy Hornberger, Sandra McKay, T Roger Shuy for their helpful comments. Terrence Wiley is appre Scholarly and Creative Activities Award he received from California S Long Beach, in support of his work on this article. THE AUTHORS Terrence G. Wiley is Joint Professor of Education and Linguisti University, Long Beach. He is the author of books and articles on language planning and policy, and multicultural education. His Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States (Center for A Delta Systems, 1996). Marguerite Lukes is a Community Training Specialist for the C Minority Education and Research at California State Universit specializes in antibias education, school-community programs, a REFERENCES Adger, C. (1995). Issues and implications of English dialects for TESOL manuscript. Adler, S. (1990). Multicultural clients: Implications for the SLP. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 135-139. Attinasi, J. J. (1994). Racism, language variety, and urban U.S. minorities: Issues in bilingualism and bidialectism. In S. Gregory & R. Sanjek (Eds.), Race (pp. 320347). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Baker, C. (1993). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Baratz, J. C. (1973). Teaching reading in a urban Negro school system. In R. H. Bentley & S. D. Crawford (Eds.), Black language reader (pp. 154-171). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Baron, D. (1990). The English-only question: An official language for Americans? Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bennett, W. J. (1992). The Bilingual Education Act: A failed path. In J. Cra (Ed.), Language loyalties: A sourcebook on the official English controversy (pp. 358 Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berdan, R. (1980). Knowledge into practice: Delivering research to teachers. In White (Ed.), Reactions to Ann Arbor: Vernacular Black English and education (p 84). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Bernstein, B. (1975). On the classification and framing of educational knowled B. Bernstein (Ed.), Class, codes, and control: Vol. 3. Towards a theory of educat transmissions (pp. 85-115). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bhatia, T. K. (1984). Literacy in monolingual societies. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), A Review of Applied Linguistics (pp. 23-38). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Info tion, 16, 645-668. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London: Sage Brodkey, L. (1991). Tropics of literacy. In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewr ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 531 literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 161-168). New York: Bergin & Garvey. Collins, J. (1991). Hegemonic practice: Literacy and standard language in public education. In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 229-253). New York: Bergin & Garvey. Corson, D. (1993). Language, minority education, and gender: Linking social justice and power. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice (2nd ed.). Trenton, NJ: Crane. Crawford, J. (1992a). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of "English Only." Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Crawford, J. (1992b). Language loyalties: A sourcebook on the official English controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Delpit, L. (1992, March/April). Teachers, culture, and power. Rethinking Schools, 1416. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the curriculum. New York: New Press. Donald, J. (1991). How illiteracy became a problem (and literacy stopped being one). In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discours the other (pp. 211-227). New York: Bergin & Garvey. Edelsky, C. (1991). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language education. London: Falmer Press. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman. Frank, F., & Anshen, F. (1983). Language and the sexes. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Gibson, M. A., & Ogbu,J. U. (Eds.). (1991). Minority status and schooling: A compara study of immigrant and involuntary minorities. New York: Garland. Grillo, R. D. (1989). Dominant languages: Language and hierarchy in Britain and Fran Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grin, F. (1994). Combining immigrant and autochthonous language rights T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcomi linguistic discrimination (pp. 31-48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haas, M. (1992). Institutional racism: The case of Hawai'i. Westport, CT: Praeger. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Ba Books. Heller, P. (1988). The future life of Willie Jordan in Benicia. Quarterly of the Nation Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 15(3), 1-5. Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1994). Language policy in the United States: A history of cultural genocide. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic hum rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 141-158). Berlin: Mouton d Gruyter. Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education, 8, 75-86. Illich, I. (1979, Fall). Vernacular values and education. Teacher's College Record, 31-75. Jordan, J. (1985). Nobody mean more to me than you and the future life of Willie Jordan. In On call: Political essays. Boston: Southend Press. Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 795-800. Kloss, H. (1971). Language rights of immigrant groups. International Migration Review, 5, 250-268. 532 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Kloss, H. (1977). The American bilingual tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown. Labov, W. (1969). Some sources of reading problems for Negro speakers of nonstandard English. InJ. Baratz & R. Shuy (Eds.), Teaching Black children to read (pp. 29-67). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. (1973). The logic of non-standard English. In N. Keddie (Ed.), Tinker, tailor: The myth of cultural deprivation (pp. 21-66). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Lankshear, C. (with Lawler, M.). (1987). Literacy, schooling and revolution. New York: Falmer Press. Leibowitz, A. H. (1969). English literacy: Legal sanction for discrimination. N Dame Lawyer, 25, 7-66. Leibowitz, A. H. (1971). Educational policy and political acceptance: The impositio English as the language of instruction in American schools. (ERIC Document Reprodu tion Service No. ED 047 321) Leibowitz, A. H. (1974, August). Language as a means of social control. Paper presen at the 8th World Congress of Sociology, University of Toronto, Canada. Lewis, M. (1978). The culture of inequality. Amherst: University of Massachusetts P Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminator pretext in courts. Language in Society, 23, 163-198. Lukes, M. (1995). Black Vernacular English in the United States: An analysis of imp educational language policies. Unpublished manuscript, California State Universi Long Beach, Center for Language Minority Education and Research. Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of federal bilingual educa policy. In C. B. Cazden & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Annals of the American Academy Political and Social Science: Vol. 508. English plus: Issues in bilingual education (pp 80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Macias, R. F. (1992). "Cauldron-boil & bubble"-United States language policy tow indigenous language indigenous language groups. Unpublished manuscript, Unive sity of California, Santa Barbara, Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Macias, R. F. (1993). Language and ethnic classification of language minorities Chicano and Latino students in the 1990s. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science 15, 230-257. Macias, R. F. (1994). Inheriting sins while seeking absolution: Language diversity and national statistical data sets. In D. Spener (Ed.), Adult biliteracy in the United States (pp. 15-45). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems. Macias, R. F. (in press). Language politics and the historiography of Spanish in the United States. In P. Griffin,J. K. Peyton, W. Wolfram, & R. Fasold (Eds.), Language in Action: New Studies of Language in Society. Mattes, L. J., & Omark, D. P. (1991). Speech and language assessment for the bilingual handicapped. Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates. McDermott, R. (1987a). Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach to illiteracy and social stratification. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches (2nd ed., pp. 173-209). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. McDermott, R. (1987b). The explanation of minority school failure, again. Anthro ogy and Education Review, 56, 355-378. McDonnell, L. M., & Hill, P. T. (1993). Newcomers in American schools: Meeting educational needs of immigrant youth. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. McKay, S. L. (1993). Agendas for second language literacy. Cambridge: Cambr University Press. McKay, S. L., & Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). English literacy in the U.S.: Nation policies, personal consequences. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 399-419. ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 533 Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Ogbu, J. u. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press. Ogbu, J. U., & Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling for language minority students (pp. 73-142). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. O'Neil, W. (1973). The politics of bidialectism. In R. H. Bentley & S. D. Crawford (Eds.), Black language reader (pp. 184-191). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1984). Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: Afield manual. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Phillipson, R. (1988). Linguicism: Structures and ideologies in linguistic imperialism. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority education: From shame to struggle (pp. 339-358). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R., Rannut, M., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1994). Introduction. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 1-22). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ramirez, J. D. (1992). Executive summary [Special issue.]. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2). Ricento, T. (in press). Language policy in the United States: An overvie M. Herriman & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language policy in English dominant countrie case studies. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Romaine, S. (1994). Hawai'i Creole English as a literacy language. Language in So 23, 527-554. Roy, J. D. (1987). The linguistic and sociolinguistic position of black English an issue of bidialectism in education. In P. Homel, M. Palij, & D. Aaronson (Ed Childhood bilingualism: Aspects of linguistic, cognitive, and social development (pp 242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ruiz, R. (1995). Language planning considerations in indigenous commun Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 71-81. Schmidt, R. (1995, March). Language policy and racial domination: Exploring the lin Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association f Applied Linguistics, Long Beach, CA. Shuy, R. (1980). Vernacular Black English: Setting the issues in time. In M. F Whiteman (Ed.), Reactions to Ann Arbor: Vernacular Black English and education 1-9). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Simon, P. (1988). The tongue tied American. New York: Continuum. Sledd, A. E. (1994). Pigs, squeals, and cow manure; or power, language multicultural democracy. Journal of Advanced Composition, 14, 547-558. Sledd, J. (1969). Bi-dialectism: The linguistics of white supremacy. EnglishJourna 1307-1315, 1329. Sledd, J. (1973). Doublespeak: Dialectology in the service of Big Brother. In R. H. Bentley & S. D. Crawford (Eds.), Black language reader (pp. 191-214). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Sridhar, S. L. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly, 28 Sridhar, S. L. (1996). Societal multilingualism. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Ho (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 47-70). Cambridge: Ca University Press. Stewart, W. (1964). Foreign language teaching methods in quasi-foreign situations. In W. Stewart (Ed.), Non-standard speech and the teaching of En 1-15). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 534 TESOL QUARTERLY This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Stockman, I.J. (1986). Language acquisition in culturally diverse populations: The Black child as a case study. In O. Taylor (Ed.), The nature of communication disorders in culturally and linguistically diverse populations (pp. 117-155). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Tollefson, J. W. (1989). Alien winds: The reeducation of America's Indochinese refugees. New York: Praeger. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. New York: Longman. van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice and discourse: An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Dijk, T. A. (1986). Ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 9, pp. 57-82). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (1989). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Veltman, C. (1983). Language shift in the United States. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Veltman, C. (1988). The future of the Spanish language in the United States. New York: Hispanic Policy Development Project. Weinberg, M. (1990). Racism in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimization of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press. Wiggins, M. E. (1976). The cognitive deficit difference controversy: A Black sociopolitical perspective. In D. Harrison & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Black English: A seminar (pp. 241-254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wiley, T. G. (1996a). Language planning and language policy. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiley, T. G. (1996b). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems. Wiley, T. G. (in press). World War I era English-only policies and the fate of Germans in North America. In T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities. Williams, S. W. (1991). Classroom use of African American Language: Educational tool or social weapon? In C. E. Sleeter (Ed.), Empowerment through multicultural education (pp. 199-215). New York: SUNY Press. Wolfram, W. (1993). Ethical considerations in language awareness programs. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 4, 225-255. Wolfram, W. (1994). Bidialectal literacy in the United States. In D. Spener (Ed.), Adult biliteracy in the United States (pp. 71-88). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems. Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1980). On the application of sociolinguistic information: Test evaluation and dialect differences in Appalachian English. In T. Shopen &J. M. Williams (Eds.), Standards and dialects in English (pp. 177-204). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (1989). Dialects and education: Issues and answers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wolfram, W., & Fasold, R. W. (1974). The study of social dialects in American English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Woolard, K. A. (1985). Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. American Ethnologist, 12, 738-748. Wright, E. (1980). School English and public policy. College English, 42, 327-342. ENGLISH-ONLY AND STANDARD IDEOLOGIES IN THE U.S. This content downloaded from 134.71.247.199 on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:24:24 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 535
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

The file below contains complete work of your assignment. Kindly check it and let me know in case you need any clarification. I am much available.

Running Head: HEREDITARY LANGUAGE

Hereditary Language
Institutional affiliation:
Date:

1

HEREDITARY LANGUAGE

2

Hereditary Language
Motivation
Teachers discourage parents for using hereditary language on children especially talking
to them at home and assisting them with their homework.

This is because children end up

learning a hereditary language and accepting it than the English language. This causes a lot of
grammatical errors and thus affecting the skills in English. Children also start writing their
hereditary language since they tend to believe their parents are right. The teachers’ motivation in
making sure that parents help children in English is very important. This is becau...


Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags