Abstract
National policies on language and literacy curricula reinforce standardized language approaches. These not only fail to meet the needs of non-standardized English speakers but also place our monolingual speakers at risk. When national policy does not address language in helpful, effective ways, the United States compromises citizens’ literacies for effective communication, and the country becomes less competitive globally. Non-standardized English speakers’ needs have not been met in literacy instruction, due to privileging only Standardized American English. This approach not only places linguistically diverse speakers as deficient and in need of fixing but also positions their monolingual counterparts (who lack this diversity) as necessarily privileged and proficient. As a way forward, national policy should move from an approach to multilingualism that is dichotomous, based only on standardized monolingual language norms, and instead adopt a translingual language approach that bridges gaps between the monolingual and the multilingual population.
Tweet
National policy can create spaces in literacy curricula for linguistic approaches that position all language speakers more competitively in a globalized world.
Key Points
National policies on language and literacy curricula currently reinforce standardized language approaches that not only fail to meet the needs of non-standardized English speakers, but that also place monolingual standardized speakers at risk.
Many African American students and immigrant-dialect speakers are miscategorized, treated as inferior, and instructed by literacy teachers who cannot address vernacular Englishes.
When national policy does not address language in ways that help both monolingual and multilingual speakers to leverage literacy instruction, the United States produces citizens with compromised literacies.
National policy can bridge the gaps between the monolingual and the multilingual population by creating spaces in the literacy curriculum for language approaches that address transnationalism and multilingualism in ways that position all language speakers more competitively in a globalized world.
Introduction
Migration trends have shifted how language and literacy function globally, requiring changes in our approach to language and literacy instruction (Hornberger, 2007; Lam & Warriner, 2012; National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2011; National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2008). Transnationalism, translingualism, internationalism, and globalization all expand interactions across national and international boundaries; these increasingly require individuals to draw on varied (novel) languages, linguistic contexts, and multiple literacies to communicate effectively across social, geographic, and technological boundaries (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004; Levitt, 2001; Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt, 1999; Spring, 2014). This diaspora—with its fluidity of people, goods, and information—now demands viewing language as a social activity and not as a system: Individuals must communicate in various contexts, as they navigate spaces with many spoken languages and their varieties in the global community (Blommaert, 2013; Canagarajah, 2006; Pennycook, 2008).
As a result, the linguistically diverse who migrate to the United States in the 21st century must develop literate repertoires that allow them to leverage language resources within dominant monolingual and monocultural contexts—as well as across their multilingual and multicultural worlds. Similarly, the linguistically diverse who are natives of the United States must have opportunities to practice literacy, based on hybrid ways of using language across different contexts. The U.S. monolinguals too must be prepared to be grapple with social, economic, and cultural differences, as they interact with linguistically diverse groups within the transnational milieu of an ever more pluralistic world (Canagarajah, 2006; Jacquemet, 2005). Put simply, if the United States intends to remain a player on the global scale, it must prepare all citizens to meet the demands of such a diverse society. This requires ensuring that both monolingual and multilingual K-12 populations have the linguistic and literate capacity, as well as the appropriate “language ideology” 1 for interacting translingually and transnationally in the 21st century (Hornberger, 2007; Lam & Warriner, 2012; Wiley, 2014).
Already, the United States has taken steps that address linguistic diversity in enacting policies focused on bilingual learners (see Abedi, 2004; Menken, 2013). Yet, as a nation, we operate based on dichotomous ways of thinking about language that are steeped in national (Jacquemet, 2005) and variety-based (Pennycook, 2008) language difference. These dichotomous ways of thinking draw on implicit language ideologies that legitimize “Standardized [American] English” as a product central to the “culture of power” and to economic success (Delpit, 1988). As a result, they designate non-standardized Englishes (NSEs; that is, English dialects, English vernaculars, or English Creoles) as inferior, while selectively legitimizing their standardized English counterparts (Lippi-Green, 1997).
As a result, official and restrictive English-only policies reinforce deficit orientations toward multilingualism by
requiring that bilingual learners move primarily toward English proficiency in their designation of students as “English language learners” (as opposed to providing mainstream instruction in literacy that allows them to learn both English and their home languages),
inadvertently perpetuating a cycle of failure for bilingual learners through assessment on K-12 subject matter in languages they do not know, and
insisting on a notion of bilingualism that attends largely to differences between Standardized English and other standardized languages (i.e., interlinguistic differences) but that fails to address variations within standardized languages resulting in language varieties that deviate from the standardized English norms (i.e., intralinguistic difference; for example, African American Vernacular English [AAVE], Caribbean English Creole [CEC], West African Pidgin English [WAPE], Hawai’i Creole English; Abedi, 2004; Menken, 2013; Mitchell, 2013; Nero, 2013).
Addressing linguistic diversity based on “translingual” 2 ways of thinking about language can challenge dichotomous notions about language difference and address language ideology in ways that highlight the benefits for both monolingual and multilingual populations (Jacquemet, 2005; Pennycook, 2008). One of the key ways in which the United States stands poised to achieve this goal is through language policy in the K-12 literacy curriculum that shifts from monolingual to translingual language frameworks, legitimizing the linguistic repertoires of its linguistically diverse student population.
To extend the conversation that questions implicitly imposing official and restrictive English-only policies in K-12 schools (i.e., the dominant national Standard(ized) American English language approach), the article first identifies the contentions concerning language in the major populations of bidialectal or non-standardized English speakers in the United States. Following this is an explanation concerning the language approach that surrounds the use of NSEs in this context. Third, various instructional approaches to literacy that can address NSE literacy instruction are presented. Subsequently, the article identifies obstacles to addressing NSEs in U.S. schools. Finally, the article highlights recommendations.
To demonstrate the needed shift from dichotomies, evidence elucidates how dominant language frameworks have sidelined NSEs in U.S. national policy and curriculum, ultimately proving detrimental to speakers whose variety deviates from the legitimated standardized language (i.e., English). The pervasive impact of current language approaches surrounding NSE speakers requires a broader discourse around literacy curriculum: one that extends beyond the dichotomy of non-standardized versus standardized, native versus non-native, and so on, and that invites instead, discourse around a both-and approach to the literacy curriculum (Smith, 2013), and one that advocates for discourse, across standardized and non-standardized linguistically diverse boundaries and between standardized and non-standardized speakers.
Instructional Literacy and Appropriate Language Approaches for Non-Standardized English Speakers
The research on non-standardized languages highlights, to date, three instructional approaches to NSEs in literacy instruction. These are the instrumental, accommodation, and awareness approaches (Siegel, 1999). Instrumental approaches for NSE speakers use the language variety to enable them to master reading in Standardized English; accommodation approaches do not teach but accept non-standardized vernacular use in the classroom, yet do not focus on NSE competence; and language-awareness approaches insist on Standardized English as the language of instruction, while capitalizing on home language variety as a resource area of study (Nero, 2000).
Students who are part of accommodation (or awareness, acceptance) programs over time benefit from acquiring reading mastery, developing self-confidence, motivation, and cognitive growth in reading (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988; Thomas & Collier, 1997). This thereby inspires teachers to attend to students’ non-standardized varieties, and metalinguistic awareness enables students to use contrastive methods that focus on differences between their non-standardized and standardized language varieties (Rickford, 1999; Winer, 2006).
Empirical efforts have determined the instructional approach used by the four prominent populations of NSE speakers in the United States. For the African American population, research at the elementary level has focused primarily on assessment of students’ English dialects (e.g., Apel & Thomas-Tate, 2009; Charity, Scarborough, & Griffin, 2004; Connor & Craig, 2006; Sligh & Connor, 2003) and at the secondary level has also emphasized assessment, as well as a language-awareness approach to instruction (e.g., Fisher & Lapp, 2013; Godley & Escher, 2012; Godley & Minnici, 2008; Horton-Ikard & Miller, 2004; van Hofwegen & Walt, 2010). Teacher-preparation programs for African American students suggest a prevailing language-awareness approach (Fogel & Ehri, 2006). Teachers favor Standardized American Englishes (SAE) for African American students (Newkirk-Turner, Williams, Harris, & McDaniels, 2013). Furthermore, teacher-preparation courses tend to reinforce language ideologies for how teachers and educators think about Englishes that perpetuate speech patterns associated with standardized languages, in this case, SAE (Razfar, 2012).
For the Hawaiian Creole English population, programs rely primarily on principles of English as a second language (ESL) teaching that implicitly privilege Standardized English and encourage a shift to Standardized English usage in schools. In doing so, they fail to address students’ unique needs using neither the language-awareness, nor instrumental or accommodation approaches (Eades, Jacobs, Hargrove, & Menacker, 2006; Menacker, 2004; Rogers, 2002). Conversely, insights from programs used with the CEC-speaking population reveal that instruction has focused primarily on the language-awareness approach but has disregarded instrumental and accommodation approaches (Pollard, 1993). Many CEC-speaking students share some distinct experience: are more versed in their NSEs; have with low levels of schooling; experience miscommunication with teachers and peers; lack comfort participating in classroom discussion; face challenges with structure, pronunciation, and vocabulary of the SAE language; continue to be placed in mainstream, special education, or ESL programs; and therefore fail to make adequate process in Standardized English when they arrive in the United States (Pratt-Johnson, 1993; Pratt-Johnson & Richards, 1995; West-White, 2003).
For the WAPE population, the research on their literacy and language in the United States is limited (de Kleine, 2006) and therefore fails to reflect a specific instructional approach to NSE instruction. One study—focused on grammatical errors in the writing samples of 851 secondary school English-speaking students from Ghana, Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone—indicates that a majority of students were designated as limited English proficient (LEP) and were therefore placed in ESL programs (de Kleine, 2006).
Overall, these findings from the field suggest that the language-awareness approach, which insists on Standardized English as the language of instruction, while capitalizing on home language variety as an area of study, has been most prominent in addressing the literacy needs of four focal NSE-speaking populations in the United States. By its very nature, this approach privileges Standardized English as the end goal for instruction, focuses on the deficiencies of the NSE speaker in identifying the benefits gained from literacy instruction, and fails to consider the ways in which monolingual speakers stand to benefit from the attention to non-standardized speakers’ literacy needs. Moreover, the pervasive focus on assessment of students’ dialect English use suggests more emphasis on production of the English language and less attention to its communicative competence across varied contexts.
Obstacles to Language and Literacy Instruction of Non-Standardized English Speakers
In response to these challenges, evidence shows that learners best receive literacy instruction that is premised on some of the following:
bidialectal principles for learning dialect varieties (Siegel, 2010),
students’ awareness of linguistic features across non-standardized and standardized languages (Nero, 2006; Rickford, 2006; Siegel, 2010),
an acknowledgment of the cultural backgrounds of students in literacy and language instruction (Delpit, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris, 2012), and
teachers’ receptiveness to the non-standardized language features and cultures of students, or opportunities for these linguistic registers, and the associated cultures to be validated in classrooms—if students are to feel like legitimate participants in the process (Au, 2000).
Moreover, the research acknowledges clearly that NSE speakers have language and literacy needs that differ from those of their standardized monolingual- and bilingual-speaking counterparts. They utilize linguistic varieties that are rule-governed and distinctively different from standardized norms, and therefore legitimate in their own right (Baugh, 1992; Labov, 1969; Smitherman, 2000).
Yet, as the research above shows, we have failed to arrive at policies to transform mainstream literacy curriculum so that it attends to the dialectal differences for K-12 students. Among the supposed reasons for this failure are that NSEs (a) limit time spent on Standardized English and have no impact; (b) pose the probability of interference or negative transfer from the first dialect to the second (Elsasser & Irvine, 1987); (c) ultimately lead to ghettoization, that is, isolating NSE users (Snow, 1990); (d) go contrary to the value of immersion for learning new language varieties; (e) significantly differ from their standardized English counterparts; (f) have no proven positive effects for literacy; and (g) are too impractical specifically with regard to codifying and developing materials for instruction (Siegel, 2006).
Overall, the concerns raised against NSE instruction have been based on standardized-English-language ideology that is powerful enough to limit instrumental approaches utilized in U.S. literacy instruction research. This constraint thereby prevents literacy instruction that prioritizes learning the features of these English varieties. The arguments also help to explain why instructional approaches—introduced intermittently for some populations such as AAVE speakers—remain largely absent from literacy curriculum for others (e.g., WAPE and CEC speakers). Instead, language-awareness approaches prevail.
In the attempts to address literacy for NSE, dialect-speaking students’ linguistic repertoires have been examined in isolation from the linguistic repertoires of their monolingual counterparts. However, when the needs of NSE speakers are not addressed efficiently, it is not only they who suffer. In fact, monolingual speakers too fail to benefit from an ability to navigate cross-linguistic and cross-cultural terrain so adeptly traversed by their dialect-speaking multilingual counterparts (see Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010, for a meta-analysis on cognitive advantages of multilingualism with children; and Hilchey & Klein, 2011, for advantages with adults). Translingual language ideology for literacy instruction provides solutions beneficial to both monolingual and dialect-speaking multilingual populations (Pennycook, 2008, 2009).
Revisiting the Language Ideology Surrounding Non-Standardized Englishes
The translingual model of language frames an understanding of language ideology surrounding NSE versus standardized English speakers in the United States (Pennycook, 2008, 2009). Moving beyond current perspectives that emphasize dichotomies within Englishes, the translingual model describes how individuals communicate across language communities and how transnational groups rely on “different languages and communicative codes simultaneously present in a range of communicative channels, both local and distant” (Pennycook, 2008, p. 30.4). A translingual perspective therefore challenges nation-based connotations of language use and challenges historical disparities among Englishes premised on linguistic dominance, standardized language ideology, 3 marginalization of NSE varieties, and denigration of non-standardized speakers and their uses of English in literacy classrooms (Kachru, 2006). The translingual model questions the superiority of Englishes spoken by groups with power in society and the superiority of those speakers themselves (Pennycook, 2008). Simply put, a translingual approach challenges standardized language ideology that favors standardized spoken language and that denigrates NSEs (Lippi-Green, 1997; Pennycook, 2008).
For NSE speakers, a translingual language ideology legitimizes Englishes based on their social context. Therefore, it questions whether NSEs and their speakers can be covertly or overtly designated inferior due to the superiority of a single standard (in this case, SAEs). This approach directly opposes linguistic profiling based on speakers’ oral cues and challenges the negativity attached to their linguistic repertoires (Baugh, 2003; Tollefson, 2011). Some NSE speakers inadvertently maintain an ongoing shift between the denigration and celebration of their own NSE varieties (i.e., attitudinal schizophrenia). For them, the translingual model provides an avenue for envisioning their linguistic repertoires as legitimate, while learning to engage comfortably with their monolingual counterparts (Kachru & Nelson, 2001). Through a translingual approach, non-standardized speakers of English(es) can recognize how they engage in self-marginalization of their Englishes and subtly reinforce the privileging of Standardized Englishes over their own English language varieties (Gruber, 2006; Jenkins, 2007).
Overall, a translingual approach opposes language approaches that denigrate, marginalize, and discriminate against learners who speak NSEs in U.S. schools. It also counters inadvertently reinforcing to monolingual learners that their privileged use of SAE is warranted regardless of context. Moreover, it questions why the dominant position of those who define SAEs (i.e., those whom the ideology supports as the norm) should be bolstered by the unwitting attitudinal schizophrenia of NSE speakers. Despite the willful adherence of both sides in the current dynamic, a translingual model upends this framework, acknowledging that the language ideologies of one population cannot go unaddressed without the other. By avoiding a dichotomy, translingualism seeks a path toward reconciliation.
A Way Forward
Despite evidence for including NSEs in literacy instruction, a failure to do so has translated into decades of neglect of these languages and inattention to the plight of NSE speakers. Propositions to address NSEs have focused more on the micro-impact and less on the macro implications for the United States as a nation. In this, they have implicitly reinforced dichotomies associated with standard versus non-standard, native versus non-native. As a result, the supposed remedy for speakers of NSEs has been divorced from attention to language approaches that also affect their monolingual counterparts.
Policymakers can approach this concern from a translingual, and by extension, transnational perspective: This invites discourse around a both-and scenario—an approach that brings the NSE speakers into the same space as the standardized. It considers how dialogue across these perspectives can inform efforts to reform literacy curricula (Smith, 2013).
In a both-and scenario, non-standardized as well as standardized learners potentially benefit. Why? Because national policy that addresses language ideology in the literacy curriculum enables all citizens to develop the predispositions to language and the capacity for leveraging literacy that informs their effective use of language across social, linguistic, and cultural boundaries. Recognizing that different language varieties can communicate ability in unanticipated ways and valuing others’ expressions can undermine limited visions and build strengths instead of structures that impoverish and disenfranchise. Only through working toward the greater good, by encouraging and enabling fundamentally democratic communication, will a transnational nexus of talent and human energy flourish.
Policy Implications and Recommendations
To address the needs for attending to language perspectives of non-standardized speakers, in tandem with standardized speakers in the United States, 10 recommendations for policy follow:
Draft a statement that identifies the significance for educational stakeholders of engaging with speakers of NSE and standardized Englishes (and other languages) from various geographical regions and across educational institutions, indicating specific avenues through which the student populace can obtain opportunities to experience these benefits at the state and district levels;
Develop a charge for research that systematically examines how students’ engagement with literacy, language, and culture, across cultural and linguistic boundaries, can result in literacy and language gains for all populations and identify pathways through which parents can be privy to the results of this research (see Naqvi & Pfitscher, 2011);
Encourage universities, schools, districts, and journals focused on cross-linguistic and cross-cultural contexts to conduct research and make the publications available to the general public with regard to various populations of speakers;
Develop a charge for modifying or developing literacy and language curricula to provide teachers with explicit ways of facilitating interactions and translations between cross-linguistic populations (see Jiménez et al., 2015). In doing so, require that the curriculum highlight ways of being and doing associated with the specific languages and cultures of students who speak varieties of English, so teachers are aware of provisions for integration of languages during instruction;
Require that districts and schools comply with mandates to ensure that teachers with specific NSE-speaking students in their classrooms receive hands-on training concerning the specific English spoken by these students, so they can facilitate students as they cross linguistic boundaries and cultures in classrooms. Require that the ways of being and doing associated with the specific cultures of students who speak a particular English be highlighted in the curriculum proposed and be provided as a point of reference for teachers to implement instruction effectively;
Require teacher-preparation programs to ensure that all pre-service teachers be versed with knowledge of the features of at least one additional NSE spoken by a major group of immigrant students in the United States, and to be familiar with methods for their instruction, the ways in which they are predisposed to be reflected in measures of literacy, language and content area assessments, and the language ideologies that govern positive thinking about NSEs. Similarly, require teacher-preparation programs to ensure that ESL and bilingual teachers be versed similarly. Require as well that all teacher-preparation programs familiarize pre-service teachers with the ways of being and doing associated with the specific cultures of students who speak a particular English and that they practice implementing instruction effectively by integrating linguistic, literacy, and cultural considerations;
Require leadership (that is, superintendents, principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches, reading specialists, and reading coaches) to be trained in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural literacy teaching and learning and to be able to facilitate conversations that involve these elements. Alternatively, provide districts with the option to have these school and district personnel master or learn the features of additional NSEs most prevalent in their states. Require also that the ways of being and doing associated with the specific cultures of students who speak various Englishes (standardized and non-standardized) be highlighted in the curriculum proposed and be provided for teachers to implement instruction effectively;
Require state and district assessment measures to integrate elements focused on cross-linguistic and cross-cultural literacy for NSEs. As part of this process, require that teachers taking primary literacy and language certification assessments are able to reflect knowledge of both standardized Englishes and NSEs, methods for their instruction, how they are predisposed to be reflected in measures of literacy and language assessment, and the language ideologies that govern their thinking about various Englishes. Mandate also that teachers obtain certification and teaching literacy to prove incapable of performing adequately on these subsets of their certification examinations;
Require universities, colleges, and institutions that hire teacher educators to ensure that cross-cultural and cross-linguistic training is provided to these educators and that they are adept at navigating standardized Englishes and NSEs and are able to facilitate conversations across linguistic boundaries. As part of this process, require that teacher educators be versed in the features of both standardized Englishes and NSEs, paying particular attention to African American English Vernacular and several additional NSEs spoken by major groups of immigrant students in the United States, methods for their instruction, the ways in which they are predisposed to be reflected in measures of literacy, language, and content area assessments, and the language ideologies that govern positive thinking about NSEs. Require as well as part of the charge that the ways of being and doing associated with the specific cultures of students who speak a particular English be highlighted in the curriculum proposed and be provided as a point of reference for teachers to implement instruction effectively;
Require that states, districts, and schools go beyond adopting an instrumental, accommodation, or awareness approach in literacy instruction for non-standardized speakers of English and that teachers begin to develop the ability to facilitate literacy practice between and across diverse student groups.
Conclusion
Language in the United States (as it can elsewhere) reinforces mainstream cultures within an American education system that continues to be dogmatic about what constitutes acceptable language use. Language policies continue to effectively exclude or diminish those speaking NSE varieties because the dominant language continues to legitimize mainstream American culture while delegitimizing NSEs and their speakers. Dominant language frameworks function, even when they pertain to speakers of “English,” to relegate non-conformist speakers to the margins, while positioning those who speak “acceptably” keep positions of privilege. Major groups of NSE speakers in the United States demonstrate how attention to certain linguistic populations whose language varieties deviate from the norm fails to legitimize variations of a standardized language and inadvertently position linguistic groups along an oppositional spectrum, such that non-dominant speakers continue to be sidelined in national policy and literacy curricula. As shown, literacy instruction and scholarship have tried, unsuccessfully, to address NSEs, given that opposition persists even more markedly against these linguistic groups.
To begin to move away from dichotomous approaches to more translingual solutions, policy must re-envision literacy education in ways advantageous to minority, linguistically diverse (immigrant) multilinguals, as well as in ways useful for dominant monolinguals. The recommendations reiterate a needed shift from dichotomies by encouraging policy makers to revise and develop literacy curricula that open spaces for learning language across student bodies, bringing all individuals into accepting different cultures through literacy. These open spaces that foster cross-national, cross-cultural, and cross-linguistic understandings within and across student–student, student–teacher, and teacher–teacher populations may encourage rethinking of language ideologies based on dichotomy. Moreover, they can result in translingual ways of thinking about language that empower both monolingual and multilingual populations.
In proposing these recommendations, I acknowledge the current efforts of teachers and teacher educators to work toward similar goals for existing standardized language populations (e.g., Spanish, French). Rather than being considered additive to the existing frameworks, these recommendations should be considered in tandem with existing goals and should serve to provide concrete structures for already-established mechanisms designed to address linguistic diversity and culturally sustaining pedagogy in our diverse population.
Overall, a shift in language ideology that deviates from a sole emphasis on standardized language is critical if all individuals, especially those who function as part of the dominant culture, can become competitive in a globalized world. The United States can no longer continue to “lose ground in foreign-language education, . . . restrict bilingual education, . . . and . . . fail to tap and channel the rich linguistic resources among its multilingual population” (Wiley, 2013, p. 28). This call for national policy that bridge the gaps between the monolingual and the multilingual population can create spaces in literacy curriculum for language ideologies surrounding transnationalism and multilingualism to be addressed in ways that position all our nationals more competitively within and beyond the United States.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.