The Key To Global Understanding

The Key to Global Understanding: World Languages EducationWhy Schools Need to Adapt
Author(s): Francois Victor Tochon

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79, No. 2 (Jun., 2009), pp. 650-681
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40469052 .
Accessed: 28/02/2013 17:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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.
.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Review of Educational Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:47:08 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review
of
Educational Research
June 2009, Vol. 79,
No.
2,
pp.
650-681
DOI: 10.3102/0034654308325898
2009 AERA,
http://rer.aera.net
The
Key
to Global
Understanding:
World
Languages
Education
-
Why
Schools Need to
Adapt
Francois Victor Tochon
University of
Wisconsin-Madison
This review article is a
plea for
the education
community
to reconsider the
place of
world
languages teaching
within the schools. With
globalization,
languages
education should be one
of
the
strategic goals of public
as well as
private
education. The article reviews research on the best
age
level
for
learn-
ing
a
language,
the assets
of bilingualism,
the
problems
that arise
from
lack
of recognition for
other
languages
and
cultures,
the
ways
to
change
current
language
education,
and the
integration of
international
language policies.
The literature reviewed
points
at how the issues discussed can be resolved
to increase
global understanding.
Keywords:
bilingualism, foreign language, globalization, language policy,
linguistic
human
rights,
second
language acquisition.
Our task is not to make societies safe for
globalization
but to make the
global
system
safe for decent societies.
John J.
Sweeney
Languages
other than
English
should no
longer
be considered
"foreign": They
are world
languages,
as well as
English,
at the time of
globalization.
This review
article raises a series of
questions
on the rationale for world
language learning
and
its
integration
into schools as
early
as
possible. Referring
to the
necessary
role of
language learning
and
teaching
in the internationalization
process may
sound akin
to
trying
to break
open
doors;
such is the shared
understanding
that
conversing
with other
peoples
so often entails:
learning
at least
something
about their lan-
guage
and culture. So
far,
languages
were learned for reasons that
were,
in the
main,
humanistic or
utilitarian,
if not for
pleasure: exploring
a new
culture,
trav-
eling,
and
finding
a
job (Sieloff-Magnan
&
Tochon, 2001). Nowadays, learning
languages
other than one's own
may
become a matter of
keeping
one's
job
and
maintaining
one's survival. The
importance
of
languages
for
employment
is such
that the Council of
Europe (2002)
has created
Europass,
a
language passport by
650
World
Languages
Education
which citizens can increase their
mobility
within the
European
Union;
namely,
criteria are such that as a
principle
one must at least
partly
master the
language
of
the
country
in which one intends to work or within which one wants to
negotiate
contracts.1 Citizens describe their
language
skills on a scale based on the Common
European
Framework of Reference for
Languages.
Asia is
multilingual
as well and
is
opening broadly
to
English (Tsui
&
Tollefson, 2007).
Africa is
multilingual,
and
its
populations
have
grown
accustomed to the influx of
overlapping languages
of
power during
and after colonization
(Fishman, 1999;
Maurais &
Morris, 2003).
In
the United
States,
languages
have often been
interpreted
as the sidetrack for other
priorities.
Whereas 52.7% of
Europeans
are fluent in at least one
language
other
than their mother
tongue,
9.3% of Americans can claim such
bilingual fluency
(Trimnell, 2005).
This article
explores
the value of
languages
in the
schooling process,
and it
addresses the stakes of
globalization
from a school
policy perspective:
First,
is
there a rationale
regarding language learning
that
might justify changing
the cur-
rent K-12
priorities?
Second,
why
learn another
language?
What are the advan-
tages
and assets of
becoming proficient
in a second
language,
whatever it
may
be?
Third, why
wouldn't one
language
become the world
language,
and
why
wouldn't
it be an
appropriate
idea?
Fourth,
what are the stakes of not
taking
care of other
languages
in
schooling?
Fifth,
what are the
ways
to do it
right,
and
sixth,
what are
the international criteria? As
such,
this article was written with an
interdisciplinary
perspective.
Indeed,
among
the solutions that
permit
the
integration
of
languages
in current curricula is that of
part-time linguistic
immersion
-
that
is,
teaching
the
usual
disciplines
in another
language
for
part
of the week. The next section
addresses the first
question.
What Is the Best
Age
to Learn Another
Language?
If investments in factories were the most
important
investments in the indus-
trial
age,
the most
important
investments in an information
age
are
surely
investments in the human brain.
Lawrence
Summers,
U.S.
treasury secretary, May
10,
2000
Is there a rationale for
starting languages
earlier than
college?
Here is a
peek:
Research indicates that the
ability
to learn another
language
decreases with
age.
With
regard
to the animal
kingdom,
Lorenz
(1965)
defined a critical
period
in
learning
-
namely,
the
developmental period, during
which
key experiences
have
their
peak
effect on
learning, thereby resulting
in the
optimal
attunement of the
animals to their environment. For
example,
there is a
right
time for
sparrows
to
learn how to
sing, typically
10 to 50
days
after birth. Isolated birds that miss that
critical
period
will not be able to
sing
for life. Penfield and Roberts
(1959) sug-
gested
that there
might
be critical
period
mechanisms in humans as well. The
theory
was made
popular by Lenneberg (1967),
who researched the
biological
foundations of
language.
If the
right
time is
missed,
he
hypothesized, learning may
not
occur,
or it will be defective.
Language acquisition
would be
biologically
restricted to
early
childhood,
up
to
puberty.
He
suggested
that the brain's
ability
to
acquire language
would close down at
puberty,
with brain lateralization.
651
Tochon
Pinker
(1994)
found similar
problems
with one deaf
participant
who had recov-
ered from her
handicap
at the
age
of 3 1 . As
such,
early language acquisition
is
characterized
by
few
grammatical
mistakes,
flawless control over accent and
rhythm,
and full control over
morphosyntactic production (Newport, 1990). Compared
to
children,
adult learners have
poor grammatical performance (J.
S. Johnson &
Newport, 1989).
In
fact,
after 4 to 6
years
old,
a
gradual
decline in
language profi-
ciency
is noticed until adulthood
(J.
S. Johnson &
Newport, 1991).
A confirmation
of these
early
studies can be found in Lantolf and Thorn's
findings (2006), postulat-
ing
that even advanced adult
bilinguals
come back to the structures of their first
language
in situations of
complex problem solving,
which
may require using
over-
arching strategies
learned in
early
childhood. The situation is different for
early
bilinguals
who behave and reflect like native
speakers.
Studies from national sur-
veys,
as well as census data with
immigrants,
indicate a
strong negative
correlation
between the
age
of their arrival and their
ability
to
judge grammaticality.
The
early
conclusion of these
findings by
J. S. Johnson and
Newport (1989, 1991),
as
sup-
ported by
Pinker,
was
that, indeed,
a critical
period
would exist for the
acquisition
of
grammar. Acquisition
would decrease
shortly
after
puberty.
This
theory
has been
widely disputed.
Some
contradicting
evidence was found. Older learners
may
sometimes achieve
native-like
competence
in a second
language (Birdsong
&
Molis, 2001);
as
well,
exceptions
are found for whom no
qualitative change
is evaluated at the close of
the critical
period (Bialystok,
2005;
Bialystok
&
Hakuta, 1999).
The
question
then
became whether the critical
period
would be the same for the
acquisition
of the
mother
language (LI)
and for the
learning
of a second
language (L2).
Does L2
build on LI?
Bialystok
and Hakuta
(1999)
found a noticeable
similarity
across
speakers
of different
languages
for a
given
second
language,
which indicated that
there is more than a
simple
transfer from the mother
tongue
to the second
language.
Lenneberg (1967)
had assumed that the
acquisition
of other
languages
would ben-
efit from this
early
"matrix of
language
skills"
(p. 176)
and the cerebral
organiza-
tion for
language learning developed
in childhood.
According
to his cumulative
model of
language learning,
the critical
period
for the mother
tongue
was irrelevant
to
second-language learning.
No drastic decline in
second-language acquisition
was noticed at the end of the
period, despite
claims
by
J. S. Johnson and
Newport
(1989, 1991)
that the critical
period
had an end
point
at
age
15.
Bialy
stock and
Hakuta revisited these earlier results and indicated a
breaking point
at
age
20,
rather than 15 or
puberty.
However,
the continued decline in
second-language
acquisition
well into adulthood was
statistically significant.
An
analysis
of
the 1990 census
(U.S. Department
of
Commerce, 1995)
led these authors to dem-
onstrate that the
negative
correlation of self-evaluated
language mastery
with
age
was
strong
and
continuous,
but no
breaking point
in this decline was noticeable.
This feature contradicted fundamental conditions of the critical
period hypothesis.
There was no end
point,
no
breaking point.
Second,
there were no
qualitative
dif-
ferences between
acquisition
within and outside the
hypothesized
critical
period:
Adults can learn even
highly
abstract rules that were
supposedly
inaccessible with-
out
specialized language acquisition
mechanisms
typically
learned in
young age.
Last,
census data demonstrate that socioeconomic status influences the critical
period,
which contradict the fundamental condition that such a
period
be robust to
environmental variation.
Notwithstanding,
brain research indicates differences in
652
World
Languages
Education
language
use over
age.
Children with brain
damage
are most often able to
regain
language ability
with
practice,
in contrast to
adults,
who are
rarely
able to achieve
their
prior proficiency.
This
finding supports
the
understanding
that there is a
difference between children and adults in
language learning (Fabbro, 2001).
The
ability
to
speak
a second
language
is activated in different areas of the
brain,
depending
on when in life a
person
learns it.
Early bilinguals
use
similar,
overlap-
ping regions
of Broca's and Wernicke's areas for both
languages.
Late
bilinguals
normally
use different
regions
of Broca's area for each
language (Kim, Relkin,
Lee,
&
Hirsch, 1997),
which
explains why
children can
develop
the
ability
to
speak
two or three
languages
with native
proficiency.
To sum
up,
research on the critical
period
for
language acquisition
has demon-
strated a continuous decline with
age
in one's
ability
to learn a new
language.
However,
it has failed to demonstrate its theoretical
premises:
First,
there is no
specific
end
point;
second,
there is no
drop
after a critical
phase,
no
sharp
decline,
no mean
drop,
nor
any change
in outcomes
slope (i.e.,
decline is
monotonie); third,
there is no
qualitative
difference between children's and adults'
acquisition;
fourth,
the
alleged
critical
period appears highly
influenced
by
environmental and socioeco-
nomic variation.
Nonetheless,
there is a
gradual
decline over
age
in the
ability
to
learn a
language.
Such decline has
many
causes,
among
which
physiological, cogni-
tive,
and social factors
prevail,
such as
working-memory
limitations,
attention defi-
cits,
personal
motivation,
anxiety
and belief in not
being
able to
succeed,
time
commitment,
and the
ability
to free
regular
time for
language learning (Robertson,
2002).
"The standard view is that
neurobiological developments
on a strict matura-
tional timetable create limits on
language learning capacity" (Seidenberg
&
Zevin,
2006,
p.
603).
The sounds of other
languages
are more
precisely reproduced
and
better learned when the sound
patterns
of the first
language
and the
phonological
matrix are still in formation in
early
childhood
(Moyer, 1999). Moreover,
brain
research
explains why
children can
develop
two or three
languages
with native
pro-
ficiency
whereas it is more difficult for adults.
Considering
all these
factors,
it is a
valid stand to
encourage early language learning
for children.
Thus,
the
response
to
the
question
"What is the best
age
to learn another
language?"
is "as
early
as
possi-
ble." At such
early age,
the
language aptitude
is the
highest.
Studies
suggest
that the
child's
brain,
as
compared
to that of the older child or the
adult,
has more
synapses
and
greater plasticity
and is better suited to
learning
world
languages ("Research
Notes," 1996). Thus,
there are sound reasons for
starting language learning very
early.
Why
Learn
Languages?
The
Advantages
of
Learning
Another
Language
Those who know
nothing
of
foreign languages
know
nothing
of their own.
Johann
Wolfgang
von Goethe
Monolingual speakers
often discount the
utility
of world
languages.
But such
disinterest is
usually
uninformed. There are clear benefits in
learning
another lan-
guage.
Structural brain
imaging
shows that
being bilingual produces changes
in the
653
Tochon
anatomy
of the brain:
People
who
speak
two
languages
have more
grey
matter in
the
language region
of the
brain;
the earlier
they
learned the
language,
the
larger
the
grey
area
(Mechelli
et
al., 2004). Bilingual
children
possess
a
1-year advantage
over
monolinguals
for tasks that demand the inhibition of attention to irrelevant
information.
Bilingual
children are
constantly sorting
out extra
perceptual
infor-
mation. For
every object
and
action,
they
have numerous words from which to
choose.
Bialystok
and Martin
(2004)
showed that
bilingual
children have better
inhibitory
control for
ignoring perceptual
information,
which enhances their abil-
ity
to
pay
attention to
appropriate
information and inhibit other
information,
an
ability
of
great
value in other educational tasks as well.
Bilingualism
also has a
positive impact
on
literacy. Bialystok,
Luk,
and Kwan
(2005)
demonstrated that
knowing
one
language
and
writing system helps
the
learning
of another.
Bilingualism
has two effects on
literacy acquisition:
one,
understanding reading
and its
print system
and, two,
transferring reading principles
across
languages.
As
such,
all
bilinguals
show an
advantage
over
monolinguals.
Exposure
to a world
language
has
positive
effects on the
mastery
of the mother
tongue (Archibald, Roy,
Harmel,
&
Jesney, 2006):
It can enhance
syntax, language
skills and narrative
strategies
in
reading
and
writing, vocabulary, cognitive
skills
(e.g., divergent thinking), metalinguistic
skills,
attitudes toward
others,
and math-
ematics scores and skills
(Stewart, 2005). Bilinguals
are better than
monolinguals
in
performing
not
only metalinguistic
tasks but tasks that demand
high
levels of
control
(Bialystok, 2001).
Students who master two
languages
have more
linguistic
space
to search in
memory (Kimbrough
Oiler &
Eilers, 2002). Kormi-Nouri, Moniri,
and Nilsson
(2003) compared
60
bilingual
children and 60
monolingual
children in
three
age groups
on
episodic memory
and semantic
memory
tasks.
They
found
positive
effects of
bilingualism
on both forms of
memory
at all
age
levels. These
findings suggest
that
bilingual
children
integrate
and/or
organize
the information of
two
languages. Learning
another
language
creates
advantages
in terms of
cognitive
abilities,
including memory. Elementary bilingual
students show
greater
academic
achievement in other areas of
study, including reading,
social
studies,
and mathe-
matics,
and
they
earn
higher
SAT and ACT
scores,
especially
in verbal areas
(Curtain
&
Dahlberg, 2004). Compared
to older
students,
they
score
significantly higher
on
the math and
reading parts
of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(Saunders, 1998).
Third
graders being taught Spanish
for 30
min,
three times
per
week,
showed
significant
gains
in the
Metropolitan
Achievement Test scores in math and
language
after one
semester of
study (Armstrong
&
Rogers,
1
997).
Children who have two
languages
tend to do better in the curriculum and show
higher performance
in tests and exam-
inations. Studies indicate
increasing
creative
thinking
and
divergent thinking,
as
well as the
ability
to think more
freely
and
elaborately (Dorny, 2005).
Children
who are
proficient
in two
languages
have two or more words for each
object
and
idea,
and
they
sometimes attach different
meanings
to words via the two
languages,
which means that a
bilingual person may develop
the
ability
to think more
flexibly
not
only
about words but about
everything.
The American Council on the
Teaching
of
Foreign Languages (n.d.)
identifies
three
major
areas of research on
language learning
for which
significant
evidence
was found.
First,
language learning supports
academic achievement: It correlates
with
higher
academic achievement on standardized test
measures,
and it is benefi-
cial to both
monolingual-English
and
English-language
learners.
Second,
654
World
Languages
Education
language learning provides cognitive
benefits to students: Research from around
the world shows that
bilingual people
tend to do better at
IQ
tests when
compared
with
monolingual people
of the same socioeconomic class.
Last,
such
learning
affects attitudes and beliefs about
language learning
and other cultures:
Language
learners
develop
a more
positive
attitude toward the
target language
and/or the
speakers
of that
language.
For each of the three
categories,
the council
provides
annotated
bibliographies
of the studies
providing
the scientific evidence
(see also,
American Council on the
Teaching
of
Foreign Languages, 1999).
Lipton's surveys (2004) comprise
a series of studies that
demonstrate,
among
other
factors,
that children who have studied a world
language develop
a sense of
cultural
pluralism (openness
to and
appreciation
of other
cultures)
and have an
improved self-concept
and sense of achievement in school. The
ability
to
easily
switch between
languages
makes children feel
competent,
and it increases self-
esteem
(Rubio, 2007). Languages
are
good
for all students. In a
study by
Tochon,
Kasperbauer,
and Potter
(2007),
low-income
family
students who had had
early
elementary Spanish
were
significantly
better at
applying comprehension strategies
to books read
aloud,
and
they
were better at
generating
and
organizing
ideas in
writing
than were their control
group peers
who had not been
taught Spanish.
African American students in the
program
used more effective
strategies
for
spell-
ing
words,
and
they generated
and
organized
more ideas
(and
better
so)
than their
matched control
group peers
did.
The assets of
becoming
at least
partly bilingual keep motivating generations
of
college
students.
Reviewing
84
years
of data
published
in The Modern
Language
Journal,
Lantolf and Sunderman
(2001)
found four
goals
for the
study
of lan-
guages:
One,
humanistic
goals
constitute the most robust
justification;
for exam-
ple, reading
literature in other
languages
increases one's
understanding
of other
cultures.
Two,
the
study
of
languages
constitutes
practical
and utilitarian
goals;
that
is,
students believe that
language learning
will
help
them find a
job
and that it
is useful in
business,
as well as
personal
endeavors.
Three,
the
study
of
languages
enhances one's intellectual and
linguistic development; namely, studying
other
languages improves
one's native
language ability,
as well as one's
general
reason-
ing.
Four,
the
study
of
language
can
improve
one's
personal enjoyment
of and
pleasure
from the benefits of
traveling
to and
learning
about other cultures that
have
prestige (Ossipov, 2000).
Other
advantages
of
learning
another
language
can include the
following: pass-
ing
on
part
of one's
heritage
to
children,
bridging generations
and
improving
com-
munication within the
family
and with the extended
family, building
international
links,
experiencing
two
cultures,
being
able to
compare
values and
worldviews,
and
becoming
biliterate
(Marcos, 1998). Furthermore,
such
advantages comprise
developing
a wider
worldview;
understanding
different
traditions, creeds, customs,
and
ways
of
behaving; building
tolerance of difference and
possibly reducing
rac-
ism;
and
raising
one's self-esteem and
strengthening
one's
identity (Noels, Pelletier,
Clment &
Vallerand, 2003; Norton, 2006).
Language
educational economics is a
newly developed
field of
study,
born from
the
understanding
that
language
educational
policies
have economic
implications
(Breton, 1998).
The
study
includes
linguistic
variables with the theoretical con-
cepts
and tools of
economics,
and it indicates other
types
of
advantages
of world
language knowledge (Grin, 1996).
Studies on
advertising
worldwide indicate that
655
Tochon
people
tend to
prefer consumption
and
exchange
when
presented
in their own
language,
which is
clearly
a sound rationale in favor of businesses'
adapting
to the
language
of their customers.
Survey
data indicate a correlation between
self-reported
language
skills and
self-reported earnings,
which matches Bourdieu's
language
and cultural
capital theory (1991; Grin, 2006).
As
such,
language
is considered a
hypercollective good,
which increases value when it is shared. At a time of semi-
globalization (Ghemawat, 2007), monolingual speakers
are at
competitive
disad-
vantage
for a
growing
number of
jobs.
On
average, bilinguals
earn more in the
United States
and,
more
recently,
in the United
Kingdom.
This is the trend in
Europe
and Asia as well.
Technology
is
putting
more
employees
in touch with
suppliers,
customers,
and
colleagues
abroad
(Ghadar
&
Spindler, 2005).
World
language fluency
is an
asset,
even for those who never intend to set foot abroad.
Job seekers find that world
languages
are
required
in a
range
of
professions,
from
tourism to
sales,
marketing
and
transportation,
media,
customer
services,
insur-
ance,
Web site
development
and
graphic design, banking, accountancy,
secretarial
work,
the
law,
and
teaching.
Moreover,
with the
growth
of
Spanish-speaking
resi-
dents,
even the basic
jobs may require bilingual
skills.
Trimnell
(2005) points
at several
social, economic,
professional,
and
personal
reasons
why people
should learn a
language,
which summarize
neatly
in this section.
Increasing global understanding. Language
learners
step
inside the mind and con-
text of another culture. Intercultural
sensitivity
builds
up
trust and
understanding,
can
bridge
the
gap
between
peoples,
and
promote peace
and international trade.
Economic
partnerships, diplomacy,
and international contacts
require strong
com-
prehension
of the cultural values and belief
systems
of the
partners
abroad. Global
citizenship
is characterized
by proficiency
in other
languages.
Improving employment potential. Learning
how to deal with other cultures on their
own terms facilitates
employment.
Areas of the workforce in need of
language-
proficient employees
include
government agencies,
the travel
industry, engineering,
communications, education,
international
law, economics,
public policy, publishing,
advertising,
entertainment,
scientific
research,
and a broad
array
of service sectors
(Camenson, 2001; DeGalan, 2000).
Increasing
native
language ability.
Grammatical
understanding
enables students
to use their mother
tongue
with more
precision.
Enhanced
listening
skills and
memory
correlate with extended world
language study.
Students' scores on
college
entrance exams increase
incrementally
with each additional
year
of world lan-
guage
instruction.
Sharpening cognitive
and
life
skills.
Doing
so enhances
learning
in other areas.
Students demonstrate
greater creativity
and
higher
order
thinking
such as
concep-
tualizing, reasoning
and
problem solving. They
are better
equipped
to
adapt
in a
fast-changing
world.
They
learn to handle new situations and increase tolerance
of different
lifestyles
and worldviews.
Increasing
chances
of entry
into
college
or
graduate
school. World
languages
and
cultures are
part
of what an educated
person
should know.
656
World
Languages
Education
Appreciating
international
literature, music,
and
film.
Translation is
subject
to the
interpretation
of the translator. The world's
literary
and artistic works have been
written in various
languages.
Some elements do not have
equivalents
in other
languages.
Making
travel more
feasible
and
enjoyable. Straying away
from tourist centers and
exploring
the
country requires knowing
the
language.
Increasing understanding of oneself
and one 's culture.
Viewing
one's value
system
through
the
eyes
of others
is,
put simply,
valuable.
Monolingual
views of the world
limit the
perspective.
There are
aspects
of one's life and culture that are
accepted
as universal truths until another
way
of
thinking
has been encountered.
Making lifelong friends. Bilingualism
increases the number of
people
with whom
one can interact. Interest in other cultures
helps
one connect
deeply
with other
people
around the world.
In
sum,
there is a mountain of evidence
supporting
the case for
language learning.
Won't
English
Become the World
Language?
One does not inhabit a
country;
one inhabits a
language.
E. M. Cioran
Nieto
(2002)
describes the
power
of the
English language
and how it is some-
times viewed as the
only
tool
necessary
for success. The CIA World Fact Book
indicates that 4.68% of the world's
population speaks English
as a first
language
(2008 estimates).2
Twice this
percentage
of
speakers (about
an additional
10%)
can
use
English
as their second or third
language,
which
goes along
with the most
opti-
mistic
figures
of
Crystal (2006). If,
as
Crystal
claims,
1 billion
people
are
learning
English
in about 1 20
countries,
then the number of
second/foreign-language speak-
ers of
English
in one
generation may
still account for about 10% of the world
population
at that time
owing
to
attrition,
population
increase in the
non-English-
speaking
countries,
and
poor language acquisition.
Furthermore,
85% of the world's
population
do not
currently speak English.
There are well-documented reasons to
believe that 85% of the world will not
speak English
in 10
years. English teaching
is of
poor quality
in
many
countries,
as
reported
in numerous studies
by
TESOL
(Teachers
of
English
to
Speakers
of Other
Languages;
see
Davidson, 2008),
and it
rarely produces lasting
results,
all of which led TESOL to write Teacher
Quality
in
the Field
of Teaching English
to
Speakers of
Other
Languages
in 2003 and
publish
its Standards
for
Teachers
of
Adult Learners in 2008.
English
is
becoming
one of the international
languages, along
with the
top
oral
languages
above 100 million
speakers:
Chinese,
Spanish,
Hindi/Urdu, Arabic,
Portuguese,
Russian, Turkic,
Bengali, Japanese,
French and German. One of the
implications
of the worldliness of
English (Pennycook, 1994)
is that it is not
anymore
the
property
of
English-native speakers. Consequently,
the
language requirement
on
657
Tochon
the
job
market,
which was once to
possess
an excellent
mastery
of
English,
is now
becoming
wider because
English
does not suffice
anymore: Employers
need bilin-
guals
and
multilinguals,
which makes it more difficult worldwide for
monolinguals
to
find
jobs.
Given the
shortage
of
people
with
language
skills, companies' only option
is
to recruit native
speakers
of other
languages (Nuffield Language Inquiry, 2000).
English
can be
enforced,
as other
languages
have been and are
being imposed
else-
where in
multiple ways.
For
example,
the 101 law aimed to maintain French in
Qubec. However,
this does not mean that such
strategies
are
appropriate
nor that
they
can succeed in
making
one
language
become the
only language
at home and the lan-
guage
of the world. Invasive
language policies
can be overt or
covert,
depending
on
whether
they
are related to official authorities or to
persuasive
economic
promotion
of the status of one
language (Shohamy, 2006).
The former is
expressed by language
boards similar to the French
Academy
or the British
Council,
which
regulate language
and exclude dialectal variation. International institutions and means of communica-
tion
may
be used to
overtly promote
certain
languages.
For
instance,
the Internet
plays
an
important
role in
promoting English. By drawing
on
projects
in India and various
countries that
provide
Internet access to street
children,
Warschauer
(2003)
indicated
what
outstanding
incentive the Internet
represents
for the children to become fluent in
English, thereby increasing
their
linguistic
and social
capital.
The
strategic push
toward
English
as a world
language
is obvious in works such as
Rothkopf
's
(1997):
"It is in the economic and
political
interests of the United States to ensure that if the
world is
moving
toward a common
language,
it be
English" (p. 42).
Globalization and the
spread
of
English
have raised concerns about the eco-
nomic, political,
cultural,
and
linguistic hegemony
of the West over the rest of the
world
(Edge, 2006).
Globalization is connected to neoliberalism and
inequality
across and within nations
(Munck, 2005). Sweeney (2006) argues
that
English
has
by
no means divested itself of a cultural hinterland. On the con-
trary,
it embraces a
huge range
of
messages,
icons and brands that
together
constitute a cultural
hegemony
far
greater
than the British
Empire
ever
achieved,
and
greater
even than that
implied by
Amricanisation. This force
is
globalisation
itself,
(p.
1
)
Cultural
neoimperialism
is an
ideology
that ranks cultures so that dominant cultures
can control or eliminate subordinate cultures
(Phillipson, 2008).
The movement
toward the officialization of
English
in countries such as
Korea,
for
example,
is
rooted in such
neoimperialism (Jung
&
Norton, 2002). Language
status can be
understood as the
perceived
value of the social
utility
of a
language,
which is not
only
determined
by
market forces but
deeply
influenced
by
culture and the
way
that
spe-
cific cultural actors see their
language (Fishman, 2006).
Postcolonial theories
acknowledge
that the colonial continues to
shape
cultures that have cut their ties to
the former rulers
(Bhatt, 2007). Nonetheless,
this is
only
one side of the
story.
The
influence is
reciprocal:
The colonized influences the colonizer
through
its ties
(Friedman, 2005).
This issue is
complicated by
the
adoption
of
English
in
many
countries that were not former colonies and
by
former colonies that no
longer require
resources from the colonies. As
well,
there are voices
expressing
the fall of the
impe-
rial dream and its aftermath
(Schell, 2004).
Such issues are blurred and
complex.
658
World
Languages
Education
Linguistic
assimilationism
(a republican
and universalistic
model)
defines
equal-
ity
for citizens on the basis of the
complete
assimilation of the
migrant speakers
into
the
dominant,
national values and
perceived
shared
identity (Schiffman,
in
press).
France was
exemplary
of this
model,
but it is
moving
toward German
separation-
ism. Assimilationism and
separationism
contrast with the
pluralistic,
multicultural
model based on the
protection
of cultural
diversity,
which
guarantees respect
of the
migrants'
common
identity.
In
Europe,
the Netherlands and Sweden follow the
pluralistic
model. The third
model,
separationism,
is characterized
by
restrictive
immigration policies.
It
implies rigid legal
conditions that must be satisfied if one
is to enter and reside in the
territory.
Policies
artificially
maintain the
temporary
char-
acter of an
immigrant's
settlement, including
that of the seasonal
migrant.
Switzerland, Austria,
and
Belgium
could fall within this
category.
However,
there
are claims that "these traditional models of
integration
no
longer
exist"
(Carrera,
2006,
p. 2)
because
society
is
continuously changing. Notwithstanding, people
who
have an assimilationist orientation tend to see
languages
as a
problem
because lan-
guage diversity prevents straightforward management
of the nation-state. Such atti-
tudes
generate
initiatives such as the
English-only
movement,
even
though English
has not
been,
is
not,
and will not be soon in
danger
of
being superseded by Spanish,
for
example (Crawford, 2008).
One
major argument against
the
possible,
massive
assimilation of the world's
speakers
into one
common,
dominant
language
is its
high
cultural cost. The
variety
of worldviews would be lost.
Languages
define
worldviews and
conceptual
universes. The
disappearance
of one
language
can mean
the deletion of a human's
ability
to think
differently,
an
aspect
of human
reality
constituting
one
epistemic
beam
(Tochon, 2002),
one
ray
from the
prism
of human
life
interpretation.
On
Earth,
there is as much
importance
in
language variety
as
there is in
biological variety. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000)
has demonstrated that biodi-
versity
around the world is
significantly
correlated with
language diversity.
It is
true, though,
that numerous countries move toward
bilingualism
with
English
on their
own,
apparently.
Sometimes,
corruption
seems to
play
a role in
the decisions made
regarding English (May, 2008).
For
many
the term
globalisation
is
crucially
linked with the rise of the
English
language (Salverda, 2002; Yano, 2001).
It is not
surprising
therefore,
in the
light
of the
inseparable
association established between
English
and
globali-
sation,
to hear this
language
referred to as world
English,
international
English
and
global English. (Yildinm
&
Okan, 2007,
p. 32)
In his introduction to the 2005
congress
of the World Association for Education
Research,
the Chilean minister of education
expressed
that he had met with min-
isters from 52
nonaligned
countries.
They
had decided to
implement
common
standards in all education
programs. Bilingualism
with
English
would become a
priority
focus. This
policy
defines a neo-institutionalist
perspective
(Boli
&
Ramirez, 1992;
Oguz, 2005):
It
conceptualizes
a unified world
through
standard
policies.
Neo-institutionalists
emphasize
the exclusive role of states as the
regula-
tory
bodies in
globalization
and
linguistic policies. They
are in favor of the active
intervention of the nation-state in social issues. Such a
top-down
view of educa-
tional
change
seems in
large part incompatible
with 30
years
of research in the field
659
Tochon
of innovation
(Fullan, 2007). Systems
theorists indicate that the
genuine principles
of
emergence, self-organization,
and
complexity
are
antynomic
with such view of
innovation;
they posit
that
entropy
is
inevitable, through
which
multiple
worlds
will continue to exist
(Varela, Thompson,
&
Rosch, 1991).
The
fantasy
of a worldwide culture that would
shape
the
language
of
schooling
must be confronted with evidence issued from
ethnographic
studies on the
variety
of manifestations of school
change
in real
settings (Spring, 2008). Divergence pre-
vails
(Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). Similarly, linguistic
educational
policies
-
and how
they
are determined
by
international institutions such as UNESCO
(1999)
and the
global
market
-
cannot be
interpreted
as
having
a
straightforward impact.
Whereas
scholars such as
Phillipson (2006), Skutnabb-Kangas (2006),
and Grin
(2005)
see
a clear connection between
(a)
the interests of those in
power
at
regional,
national,
and international
levels, (b)
the
language
that is
internationally privileged
across
countries,
and
(c)
the
policies
that
support
these
developments,
a few
analysts ques-
tion the link between these variables because of the relative
autonomy
of educa-
tional
actors, communities,
and
agencies (Block, 2004;
Pennycook,
2006; Ricento,
2006).
The
study
of
global language policies
and how such
policies
are
imple-
mented at the local level is a new and
challenging
endeavor. A
European
economist
has calculated that it is more cost-effective to
adopt pluralistic linguistic policies
than it is to move
unilaterally
toward
English (Grin, 2005).
Even if
English
were
disconnected from the extreme form of
unregulated capitalism
called neoliberalism
and even if this "economic monster" were neutered
(Latouche, 2006),
the
question
of the
appropriateness
of
English
assimilation would remain as a
haunting
doubt
after the death of thousands of
languages,
cultures,
and
ways
of
thinking differently
(Batibo, 2005;
Dalby,
2003;
Hagge, 2000).
The denomination of
"linguistic geno-
cide"
(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000)
would take its full
meaning.
Another
aspect
that makes it
impossible
for
any language
to be
imposed
world-
wide is that
languages
shift with time
(Mesthrie, 2006). English,
the latest in a
line of
lingua
francae,
now "describes a
language serving
as a
regular
means of
communication between different
linguistic groups
in a
multilingual speech
com-
munity" (Holmes, 2001,
p. 86). Linguae
francae are not
neutral,
and these terms
-
used to define the
possible
reification of world
English (Jenkins, 2007; McGroarty,
2006;
Rubdy
and
Saraceni, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004)- may
be
misleading.
Phillipson (2007) suggests
that
English might
be a
lingua
cucula,
like a cuckoo
substituting
its own
eggs
for the native's
ones,
and
inducing
"other
species
to take
on the
feeding
and
learning processes" (p. 3).
The situation of
English
will
change
as it has
changed
in the
past (Canagarajah, 2007).
Written
English
will tend to
get
fossilized in a
simplified
standard
(Rajadurai, 2007),
and it will
give
rise to
many
oral variations.
English
is destined to
split
into a multitude of
postcolonial Englishes
(Trudgill, 2004). English
is destined to die over
time,
as is
any
other
language,
because communication is an
ever-changing phenomenon
-
maybe
not because of
linguicide
or radical attrition but rather the
gradual integration
of a
large variety
of
substrates that will not
only
differentiate local varieties but will
progressively
become
incomprehensible
to one another
(Harrison, 2007). Languages
are valued
because of the
ideologies they carry (Gonzlez, 2003;
Maguire
&
Curdt-Christianse,
2007; Valds, 2003; Wake, 2005). English may
be fashionable
now,
but it
may
be out of fashion tomorrow
(Phillipson, 2003).
The death of one
language
can be
660
World
Languages
Education
the rebirth of a new
language,
as it
happened
when Latin broke into numerous
Romance
language
varieties.
Despite
school
norms, standards,
and
assessment,
languages change through
time. In one
generation, grown-ups
discover that their children are
developing
unusual
ways
of
communicating,
new
languages,
attitudes,
and innovative
writing
(Gogate,
2002; Sebba, 2003).
The
relationships
between sounds and
meanings
are
arbitrary, yet they
define the
world,
and it
may
be
painful
to notice that the
good
old world is
disappearing
with what was earlier considered
good language.
After
generations
of
attempts
at
convincing foreigners
that their
language might
be con-
sidered inferior in
many respects (Lambert, 1992), many
such
foreigners
mastered
the dominant
language
to the
point
that
they
started
transforming
it their
way,
with
their
beliefs, sensitivities,
and
cognitive
and
linguistic
substrates and
pragmatic
influences
(Macedo, 1994);
that
is,
they change
the
rules,
they
make their errors a
fashion. Part of the
youth
loves it and
adopt
it as their
language.
Such is
postverbal
negation (Giacalone Ramat, 2003).
With these
exchanges
come
identity changes
(Park, 2008).
And the academic world follows. Some American
departments spe-
cialize in what was earlier considered bad
French,
with
specialties
in
slang,
socio-
lects,
and noncolonial
varieties,
and French universities
explore
Puerto Rican
English,
Ebonics,
African and South Asian varieties of
English
and their litera-
tures,
not to
speak
of the
English spoken
in comics
(Saraceni, 2003); or,
they may
devote courses to television shows such as
Buffy
the
Vampire Slayer
and The
Sopranos.
There are chairs and
ajournai
of
"buffy ology" (Badman, 2002); "sopra-
nology"
will
certainly change
the standard. Such out-of-borders literatures
may
be
the sound literatures of
tomorrow,
a
very
close tomorrow with
declassifying
crite-
ria that
appear quite
out of control. No valid
linguistic
criteria can be
justified
to
differentiate a
language
from a dialect
(Sebba, 2008).
Postulated
principles
and
criteria that
distinguish language
varieties from others are
ideological
and
politi-
cal,
not scientific
(Kubota, 2004). Linguists
tend to
respond:
A
language
is a dialect
with an
army.
Dialects can become
languages anytime
as soon as
they
are associ-
ated with
power,
values,
and
money.
These issues are
excessively
difficult to eval-
uate because of the various interests involved
and,
in
particular,
because of the
language ideologies
that interfere in
policy making. Defining
a
language
is a form
of
policy,
besides
being
an
ontological
stand
(Clark, 2006).
One last
argument why
one
specific language
cannot be
imposed
worldwide is
that,
paradoxically, languages
are
temporary conceptual
fabrications.
They
do not
exist. Nor does French or Italian or
Chinese,
which covers hundreds of varieties
-
is
Chinese defined
by
its
writing
or
by
the Mandarin
variety?
There is no
"pure"
defi-
nition,
no
straightforward
answer to the
question
"What is a
language?" (Reagan,
2005). Language
is social. It is a reference to
speakers,
contexts,
and communica-
tional situations.
Linguists may
have defined
languages
as communication
systems
for
decades,
specifying
the finite set of
symbols,
sounds,
objects,
and
gestures
ruled
by grammar, yet
their
enterprise
has
recently
been
analyzed
as a
simple justification
for their
profession (Pennycook, 2001). Maybe grammar
would not need to exist if
there weren't
grammarians
and
linguists
who live from it. Grammar
may
not
really
succeed in
defining
the
language dynamics. Languages
do not need
linguists
to
get
organized. Organizing languages
in schools
may
even have a
disorganizing
effect
and a
socially reorganizing
and
classifying impact (Bourdieu, 1991). Languages
might
be but structuralist fictions . . .
just afterthoughts (Canagarajah, 1999).
661
Tochon
Languages
have a social function.
They
are
ways
of
identifying
social
groups
and
strata as much as
they
are
ways
of
communicating.
In the name of
language
com-
plexity
and
subtlety, language
hierarchies are
fabricated,
but
linguists
have realized
that
any system
is worth
any
other
system.
Dialect variations are as subtle and
articulate as
languages. They
are
languages.
African American Vernacular
English
(Ebonics)
is found to have subtle and
complex
tense
aspects
that do not exist in
mainstream
English (Green, 2002;
J. A.
Walker, 2001),
if such standard
English
exists
(Bex
&
Watts, 1999;
Trudgill, 2006).
Classifications often
ignore,
for exam-
ple,
that not all African Americans
speak
Ebonics,
and not all
persons
who
speak
it
are African American.
Imposing
one
language
to the world
equates imposing
a
specific
cultural fiction. One more
political slogan.
To sum
up,
this section describes
why
it is not
possible
for one
language
to
stabilize as a world
language.
Moreover,
such an
objective
-
if it ever could be
reached
-
would
generalize
the role of that
language
as a "killer
language" (term
coined
by Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000),
which would raise the
question
of the
appro-
priateness
for such invasive
policy. Although English may
have numerous cultural
aspects
in the realm of the
positive,
it
is,
for
example,
attached to a cross-national
economic culture that has
devastating
worldwide effects on local
cultures,
local
economies,
and local
ecologies,
and there are no indications that this situation can
be modified soon.
Rothkopf (2008) argues
that the lack of
sustainability
within our
current societal
system
comes from the lack of
morality stemming
from the
corpo-
rate
global superclass,
which is obedient to shareholders
looking
for their own
benefits rather than those of the common
good.
There is no
global
structure
pro-
tecting
citizens from international
corporations
that are
acting
like
psychopaths.
Linguistic
and cultural
diversity
are
among
the treasures of
humanity; they
are our
tools for survival. Each culture has its own solution for
self-sustainability
that
works in
specific
contexts,
the
disappearance
of which would
deprive humanity
of
solutions to future
possible problems.
These
arguments
need to be
softened,
how-
ever,
because
policies
and trends become blurred
by
numerous contexts and com-
plicated by
a
variety
of situations. As a
species,
we have choices to
make,
and
economy
-
as it is
currently
defined in terms of short-term
goals
and benefits
-
may
not be the seat of the
highest
wisdom.
Among
the
arguments
raised are the
following:
First,
English
is and will be
spoken by
at least 15% of the world
population,
and whether it will be the
language
of tomorrow is as
yet
undetermined. The
postulated ubiquity
of
English
is a
myth.
Second,
attrition in the number of
second-language
learners is
important
because in
many
countries,
languages
are
taught by
native
speakers
with no educa-
tion
training
or
by nonproficient speakers
with education
training.
Third,
languages
are
constantly being reshaped
and
redefined;
broadly
shared
languages may
soon
split
in numerous
sublanguages.
The world assimilationist
project
is not
feasible,
nor is it
appropriate.
One of the
great strengths
of the
English language
in achiev-
ing
its
prominence
as an
important
world
language today
has been its
ability
to
borrow and
adapt
words from other
languages
and cultures almost at will.
During
various
periods
of its
development, English massively
borrowed from a
variety
of
Romance
languages, including
French, Latin,
and
Greek,
and
significantly
from
Italian,
Spanish,
German, Danish,
and Dutch
(Ward, 1994).
This
openness opposes
the trend that aims to fix the
English
norm and so
impose
one world standard.
662
Problems
Arising
From the
Neglect
of World
Languages
and Cultures
If
everything
is
perfect, language
is useless.
Jean Baudrillard
We come now to the fourth
question
of the introduction: What are the stakes of not
taking
care of other
languages? Many
elements that have been reviewed so far offer
partial
answers to the
question.
Not
benefiting
from the
advantages
and assets listed
in the second
section,
for
instance,
may
create
problems individually
and
socially.
One
consequence
of the
neglect
for other
languages
is that countries isolate themselves and
lose international contracts and
power by
their
incapacity
to communicate in other
languages
and with other
cultures,
not to
speak
of other issues of
political importance.
This
neglect
has
deep impacts
in various
disciplines,
such as sciences and
engineering.
Internationalizing
education is a
concern,
but few
policy
makers dare address the
thorny
issue of the
apparent
worldwide
inability
of the education
systems
to
integrate
world
languages among
the
young,
with few
exceptions.
Linguicism
-
a term coined
by Skutnabb-Kangas
in the mid-1980s
-
is a
phe-
nomenon that needs to be addressed in schools. It
explains part
of the
neglect
of the
immigrant
children's situation in schools and the attitude toward
foreigners.
It
involves a
priori judgments
about someone's social
status, wealth,
and
education,
on the basis of how one uses
language.
The
vocabulary,
the
accent,
the sentence
structure,
and the
foreignness
to the dominant
language
are all
aspects
related to
social classifications and
discriminatory prejudices.
The world
language
issue must
be considered a
special
case of the broader multicultural reform that is
required
to
address the issues of
racism, sexism,
ageism,
ableism,
linguicism,
and other stereo-
typical prejudices
(Tochon, 2007). Bilingual
children tend to be
rejected by
the
school
systems
instead of
being
considered assets that can
help
their
peers
learn
their
language,
as it is done in India in some schools where children come with five
or six different mother
tongues
in each class
(Mohanty, 2006).
The elective
bilingualism
of children who are
already firmly grounded
in self-
esteem and in their
mastery
of their mother
tongue represents
a different educa-
tional
reality
than the
bilingualism
of the low-income
migrants.
The latter situation
raises
very
different
issues,
which are related to
language
human
rights.
There is a
social class divide between subtractive and additive
bilinguals
that is related to the
absence of measures in the schools to
bridge
the
gap
with the
language spoken
in
the
minority
child's home. Children who are forced to assimilate into the dominant
culture and who are schooled in such a
way
that their
language
is devalued tend to
reject
their mother
tongue,
which is related to
prejudice
and discrimination. Their
mother
tongue
is "subtracted out"
(Lambert, 1992,
p. 533).
Because their
linguistic
system
is not
fully developed
in the first
language, they struggle
to
develop
it in the
dominant
language. They
could be deficient in both
languages
and so
might
become
"semilinguals" (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984).
The
way
to
prevent
this situa-
tion would involve
parents,
friends,
social
workers,
and teachers'
taking
some time
every day
to teach the child his or her mother
tongue,
to
provide
the needed
cogni-
tive structure that will
help bridge
the
gap
with the school
language.
However,
some children for whom the dominant
language
is the second
language
and who
663
Tochon
succeed in the
language
that is
imposed by
the school
might
lose motivation to
develop
an
in-depth intelligence
of their first
language, again
in relation to
preju-
dice and discrimination
(W.
E.
Wright, 2007).
Bloomfield
(1927)
was the first
linguist
to note a case of what would later be
called,
for a
while, semilingualism:
"White
Thunder,
a man around
40,
speaks
less
English
than
Menomini,
and that is a
strong
indictment,
for his Menomini is
atrocious"
(p. 437). Hansegrd (1968,
as cited in
Skutnabb-Kangas,
1984,
p. 253)
was the first one to
develop
a
thorough study
of this
issue,
comparing
the
language
of Finnish
migrant
children
living
in Sweden with that of Swedish
monolinguals.
The
migrant
children's
ability
in both
languages
showed a reduced
repertoire
of
words and
phrases
with
agrammatical
occurrences;
reduced
linguistics
automatism;
the
inability
to create with
language;
lack of
mastery
in the
cognitive,
emotive,
and
volitional functions of
language;
and
poor
individual
meanings.
Poor
performance
seemed
permanent among
the
migrants,
thus
leading
to social
stigmata
and life-
long developmental handicaps.
Bernstein's deficit
hypothesis (1972) may
have
played
a role in the
labeling
of the
problem
in which the class-determined notions
of restricted or elaborated code account for
linguistic development.
Then Cummins
(1976)
introduced the idea that there would be thresholds of
language learning.
Students' level of
language proficiency
determine whether
they
will
experience
cognitive
deficits or benefits from
being
schooled in a second
language. Reaching
the lower threshold
might
be "sufficient to avoid
retardation,
but the attainment of
a
second,
higher
level of
bilingual competence might
be
necessary
to lead to accel-
erated
cognitive growth" (p. 24).
Children with low
proficiency
in both their mother
tongue
and second
language
suffer
negative
effects that can influence their
cognitive
and emotional
growth.
Such
a deficit comes at a
high
social cost because it can be a
contributing
factor to a series
of future
problems,
such as
unemployment, depression,
and illness
(Tochon, 1997).
These issues have stimulated a heated
debate,
with evidence and counterevidence and
massive
criticism,
so much so that Cummins
(1994) partly rejected
the term semilin-
gual
in a
paradoxical encyclopedia
article. One
problem
with this mainstream inter-
pretation
is that it is "deficit based" and so builds a
hierarchy
between the
language
of
the school and the
language spoken
at home.
Indeed,
the
analysis
of
bilingualism
remains within the normative
paradigm
of
prescriptivism,
within which
(a)
the lan-
guage
and
linguistic
rules of the
upper
class are
designated
as the
good
ones and
(b)
the so-called lack of rules of the low-income class is considered in terms of
handicap:
"As with
prescriptivism,
the characteristics of 'better
speech'
are taken to be
precisely
those characteristics that so-called
semilinguals
lack"
(MacSwan, 2000,
p. 16).
Such
terms
may
become
stereotypical
labels considered as
concepts,
whereas the
theory
has been
poorly
substantiated,
mainly
on the basis of school tests.
Hinnenkamp (2005)
builds a
strong
demonstration of this
problem:
The
diagnostic
of
language
deficit has
impairment
connotations and thus induces
therapy.
It becomes
a
fuzzy concept
with
many ingredients
of
deficiency,
but as well useful for an
appeal
to
responsibility
to do
something against
its detrimental
consequences.
Thus,
semilingualism
and double
semilingualism
became also a kind of
weapon,
a
political weapon
to
put pressure
on those institutions and authori-
ties of
society
which left children in this state of low
proficiency
and
linguis-
tic inbetweenness
[In
a
sense]
its first function was not to
explain anything,
but to
explain things away, (n.p.)
664
World
Languages
Education
Language reality
is a
complex phenomenon:
It is
blurred, mixed,
polyphonic,
multi-
glossic;
its norms are
constantly changing
as
society
itself is
changing.
The modern
emancipatory attempts may appear
reductive when
they
clash with
postmodern
deconstructionism. Once
again, linguistic
classifications
may arguably play
a
major
role in
justifying
the salaries of
linguists
rather than
helping
the
poor
and the
needy.
Whatever the
interpretation,
the economic
response
to the subtractive
hypothesis
deserves an
analysis
because the label has been a
major metaphoric
motive for
polit-
ical activism. At first
sight,
it would seem that schools cannot
economically
teach the
language
of
every minority
nor can
they
afford
teaching
all the
disciplines
in
every
minority language.
In troubled economic
times,
it is often
expressed
that districts
cannot afford the
luxury
of
investing
in the
poor.
However,
this
appears
to be a short-
sighted
view for
many
reasons. The rationale
expressed
for not
teaching
children
through
the medium of their mother
tongue
is most often an economical
one;
how-
ever,
such a rationale does not hold an
in-depth
examination of the
long-term
conse-
quences stemming
from a lack of
quality
service in the schools. There are serious
economic reasons for
doing
otherwise. Public
policies,
such as
enhancing
the status
of a
particular language,
have been
analyzed
in terms of benefits and costs.
Linguistic
hegemony
can be detrimental to local identities and
cultures,
consequently having
an
impact
on local economies
(Suarez, 2002)
and
creating
a
dependency
toward
external resources. It
implies
a reduction of
linguistic capital
for the
people
who are
subordinated to the dominant
language imposed
in the school
system.
The subordi-
nated
group
is denied access to the
resources,
knowledge,
and
power
that would
allow self-determination. In
preserving
social balance and
opportunities
for
employ-
ment, protecting
and
promoting
a
minority language appears
to be cost-effective
(Grin
&
Vaillancourt, 1999).
Even
though
studies in the economics of
language
education are at their
beginnings,
it can
already
be
posited
that the cost of
having
no
policy
at all is
higher
than that of
addressing
the issue. "The added
expenditure
entailed
by moving
from a
monolingual
to a
bilingual
education
system
is much
smaller than
commonly
believed. . . .
They point
in the direction of a 3^4-
percent
range" (Grin, 2006,
p. 88).
Assimilation has a cost in terms of
potentially
discrimina-
tory English
enforcement measures that
may paradoxically
block
migrant speakers
from
equal opportunity
to social
mobility (Schmidt, 2006).
In
many
cases,
institutional
policies
create
systemic
barriers to the
integration
of
immigrants
such that
they may
feel as
though they
were in a
"linguistic jail"
(Fennelly,
2005; Ouane, 2003).
The
long-term
economic costs of subtractive
bilingualism
-
or whatever better label one
may
find,
such as
linguicism
-
are
considerable,
given
that it leads to underachievement
(Baker, 2001).
It creates the
perception among
children and
parents
that
they
are
being rejected by society,
which causes
psychological anxiety
and
anger (Ferguson, 1998).
It
may
result in
future
unemployment, poverty,
the
inability
to
integrate
into the middle class
(Miranda
& Whelan Ariza, 2006), resentment,
and
possible
social
violence,
in
response
to what can be considered institutional violence
(Jose-Kampfner
&
Aparicio,
1998),
all of which lead to a
rejection
of the native culture and a denial
of one's
knowledge
of the mother
tongue (Portes
&
Rumbaut, 1996).
The social
costs of such
language policies
-
or lack thereof
-
are
appalling.
Moreover,
monolingual
schools lose one of their most
important
commodities at a time of
globalization
-
namely,
the fertile
ground
for
stimulating cross-linguistic
and
665
Tochon
cross-cultural
learning among
different children. Grin
(2005)
demonstrated that it
is
cheaper
for nation-states to
develop multilingualism
than it is to
impose
one or
two dominant
languages
to their
population.
As
well,
there are
great
human costs
at
doing
otherwise. The
problem
is similar in most countries. When
learning
the
language
of the school interferes with the
acquisition
of the mother
tongue,
the loss
of this firm
grounding
in the first
language
will have detrimental
consequences
for
the child's
ability
to
acquire
the dominant
language,
as well as
develop psycho-
logically (S.
C.
Wright, Taylor,
&
Macarthur, 2000).
Self-esteem and emotional
well-being
cannot
develop
in an environment where the native
culture, traditions,
and worldviews are devalued
(S.
C.
Wright
&
Taylor, 1995).
It is
becoming
a crucial
issue in
America,
but it is also a worldwide
problem
because of
increasing
mass
migrations.
The
language neglect
concerns adult
populations
as well.
To sum a few of the issues raised in this
section, first,
language problems
are
not technical issues that can be
quickly
fixed. Generalized
linguicism
and
language
discrimination hinder the
opportunity
of
growing populations
in each
country
to
succeed in
society.
New
strategies
need to be
developed. Teaching bilingual
learn-
ers in their
language
does not
impede
the
acquisition
of the
majority language
(Pagan, 2005). Language diversity
can be used as a resource in each
country, given
that
migrant bilingual
children
possess
the
language potential (that
is
missing
among many)
to fill
multiple
tasks
required
at this
global
time. We need to
change
the
language ideologies,
as well as the
assumptions
about
languages
and their
speakers
that are enacted in
schools,
and so articulate
new,
balanced
power
rela-
tions
(Freeman, 2004).
The
language-as-problem
orientation must
become,
as
Ruiz
(1984) suggested,
a
language-as-resource
orientation.
Solutions: The
Way
to Do It
Right
We have
strong
evidence
today
that
studying
a
foreign language
has a
ripple
effect,
helping
to
improve
student
performance
in other
subjects.
Richard
Riley,
U.S.
secretary
of education under President Clinton
The last
question
in the introduction
was,
What are the
ways
to do it
right,
and
what are the international criteria for it? UNESCO
(2003)
addressed the
growing
concern for
linguistic
human
rights
and so established fair
principles
for
schooling
regarding
the use of
languages.
If subtractive
schooling
is detrimental to
genera-
tions of children whose
potential
for achievement and
employment
is
preempted
from the
start,
then there are
strong
reasons for
pushing
fair
legislations
to interna-
tionally protect
such
rights (Kymlicka
&
Patten, 2003).
UNESCO
supports
1 . "mother
tongue
instruction as a means of
improving
educational
quality by
building upon
the
knowledge
and
experience
of the learners and
teachers";
2.
"bilingual
and/or
multilingual
education at all levels of education as a means
of
promoting
both social and
gender equality
and as a
key
element of
linguis-
tically
diverse
societies";
and
3.
"language
as an essential
component
of inter-cultural education in order to
encourage understanding
between different
population groups
and ensure
respect
for fundamental
rights." (pp. 28-30)
666
World
Languages
Education
Languages
could be mainstreamed in middle schools and
high
schools,
but this does
not suffice.
"Learning
a second
language
for 95 hours
per year
for six
years
will not
lead to functional
bilingualism
and
fluency
in the second
language" (Archibald
et
al.,
2006,
p. 4).
There are other
ways
to do it
right.
There are
ways
to
give minority
chil-
dren and
elective-language
learners access to the most effective means for additive
bilingualism. Bilingual
education,
English
as a second
language,
and
foreign language
education should
merge
into a broader area named world
language
education.
World
language programs
have been
designed
for a
variety
of school contexts.
These
programs vary
in their
goals,
resources,
intensity,
and outcomes. There is
current
agreement
that after-school
programs
are a
good thing
but are not suffi-
cient,
because world
languages
should be
integrated
within the school curriculum
and submitted to
regular
assessments in order to be taken
seriously by
students and
parents.
Four 30-min sessions in the
language
is considered a minimum for effi-
cient
elementary language
instruction
(Sandrock, 2002).
The best
programs
include
mother
tongue
maintenance,
half- and
full-day
immersion,
dual
language,
and
alternate
days,
if and when
qualified personnel
is available. Such
programs
focus
on
learning
in another
language
rather than
learning
about the
language. Learning
in a
language
other than the mother
tongue
is a different
experience
from
just
learn-
ing
a second
language.
It has its own
justification.
In
second-language acquisition
theory,
children
acquire
a
language
when
they
need to use it in context
(Krashen,
1982). Acquisition
is immersive and
spontaneous,
in
opposition
to
learning,
which
represents
a conscious effort to assimilate
subject
matter.
People
can learn lan-
guages
for
years
and not be able to
acquire
the
language
in a
way
that will make
them fluent. For that
reason,
advocates advised
switching
from a
theory
of medi-
ated and
explicit language learning
to one of immediate
acquisition,
in which the
language
rules are
implicitly acquired through listening
and
practice.
Focus on
form can come
afterward,
but students first need to be
placed
in a situation in
which
they
can
express
themselves in the
target language,
because
output
increases
acquisition (Toth, 2006).
Content-based
language
education
reconceptualizes
world
language teaching:
Students can learn the
target language by being taught
subject
matters in that
language. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000)
differentiates educa-
tional
settings
in terms of their
strength
in
promoting high
levels of bi- or multi-
lingualism
and bi- or
multiliteracy.
Some characteristics of the
strong
forms of
additive
bilingual
education are as follows:
Mother
tongue
maintenance:
Linguistic minority
children with a lower sta-
tus LI receive instruction in their LI with a view to
maintaining
and
develop-
ing
skills in this
language
and
developing pride
in their cultural
identity.
Immersion:
Linguistic minority
children with a
high
status
language
are
instructed
through
the medium of a
world/minority language
in classes
consisting entirely
of L2 learners.
Dual
language:
A mixed
group
of
linguistic minority
and
majority
students
are
taught through
the medium of the learners' LI and
L2,
with the dominant
language taught
as a
subject.
Alternate
days:
A mixed
group
of
linguistic minority
and
majority
students
are
taught using
their LI and L2 on alternate
days.
Plural
multilingual:
Students with different Lis are
taught
the curriculum
through
the medium of their LI with an L2
taught
as a world
language
in
667
Tochon
grade
1. This then
increasingly
becomes the medium of instruction in later
years
when other L2s are also offered as world
languages, (p. 146)
Examples
have also been
provided by
Ellis
(2007).
Here are some core features of immersion curricula
(R.
K. Johnson &
Swain,
1997):
The second
language
is the medium of
instruction;
students enter with
limited and
equivalent
levels of world
language proficiency; support
is
provided
for
the mother
tongue;
the
target
is additive
bilingualism;
world
language exposure
is
confined to the
classroom;
the
program parallels
the local
curriculum;
the teachers
are
bilingual,
but the classroom culture
corresponds
to the local
community.
In
immersion
schools,
the second
language
is introduced
early, starting
in
kindergarten
or first
grade,
or later. Mid-immersion starts in Grade
4,
and late immersion starts
in Grade 6 or 7. All or
part
of the
subject
matters are
taught
in
language
other than
the mother
tongue.
Another
approach,
common in
Europe
and
Canada,
is to format
enriched
programs
in which one
discipline
or one area is
taught
in a world
language
(Cloud, Genesee,
&
Hamayan, 2000).
A
variety
of formats exist. For
example,
all
the
subjects
can be
taught
in the second
language
from
kindergarten
to Grade
3;
from Grade
4,
dual
language
is then
organized
with 50% of the
subjects being
taught
in the mother
tongue. Bilingualism
is additive in such
settings
because the
second
language
is added to a
strong first-language
basis,
which is reinforced in
multiple ways
at
school,
at
home,
on the
playground,
in
games
and
television,
and
in out-of-school activities. Both first and second
languages
are
valued,
which
increases
general cognitive
activities as well as
first-language literacy
skills
(Bournot-Trites
&
Tellowitz, 2002).
Whereas "submersion"
bilingual
education
devalues the
language
that the
migrant
child is
speaking
at home
(which thereby
reduces the chances that the
heritage language
will be
maintained),
immersion edu-
cation increases the
mastery
of both
languages
and so creates
bilinguals.
Immersion
pedagogy requires special training (Cummins, 2000):
Teachers must
build
background
information on the
topics developed,
and
they
must activate their
students'
prior knowledge;
instruction should be redundant
enough
to increase com-
prehension through paraphrase, repetition,
demonstration,
and
gesture; graphic
organizers
should
convey conceptual
information that can be
complemented
with
hands-on activities in the content areas. Immersion
requires
well-trained teachers
because the environment must
target higher-order thinking (C.
L. Walker &
Tedick,
2000). Reciprocal learning, cooperative learning,
and
project pedagogy
will encour-
age
students to
generate knowledge
rather than become
passive recipients
consum-
ing
information.
Technology
must be
creatively
used as an
amplifier
of the world
language
and culture
(Tochon
&
Black, 2007).
Students can use
encyclopedias
on
CD-ROM or the
Internet,
link with a sister class in
pursuit
of nontrivial
projects,
and
use video cameras to communicate about their
projects. Reading
and
writing
must
be
integrated
in a
variety
of
genres. Quality
factors are
key
to the success of dual
language
and immersion. When schools do not take measures to
bridge
the
gap
between the
language spoken
at home and the
language taught
in the
schools,
when
the conditions are not met for successful
immersion,
it
may
lead to mixed or
nega-
tive results as far as other
disciplines
are concerned. In
Hong Kong,
a
longitudinal
study
was carried out
by
Marsh, Hau,
and
Kong (2000)
to
verify
whether immersion
with Chinese as mother
tongue
and
English
as second
language
would increase
668
World
Languages
Education
students' achievement. The students
performed
better in their mother
tongue
and the
second
language,
as
compared
to students who were in the
regular programs.
However,
the
program
did not
provide,
in the
Hong Kong
context,
the benefits
claimed
by
Cummins's model
(2000),
because the results were lower in the nonlin-
guistic disciplines.
Bournot-Trites and Tellowitz
(2002) objected, claiming
that
quality
factors that are common in Canada were not met in this
program
and that
the
study
itself had limitations: The
subject
matter teachers were not all fluent in the
second
language;
there was little
English-as-a-second-language bridging
instruc-
tion;
and the evaluations used
only
written tests.
Moreover,
some students came
with low
language proficiency
and did not
get enough support.
Many
studies have confirmed that immersion is an excellent
approach
for all
children
(de Courcy,
Warren &
Burston, 2002).
Cummins's
interdependence
hypothesis (1989),
which
postulates
that
language
skills are transferred from one
language
to the
other,
has been confirmed in immersion
studies,
as well as in
elementary foreign language programs,
such as FLES
(Foreign Language
in the
Elementary Schools)
and Core French. Bournot-Trites and Tellowitz
(2002)
reviewed research on French immersion
programs
in Canada and their
impact
on
students' achievement in
linguistic
and
nonlinguistic
domains.
They
found that
immersion in another
language
has
positive
effects on
first-language
skills in all
studies.
Devoting
instructional time to the second
language
has never been shown
to have
negative
effects on the achievement of the first
language.
On the
contrary,
several studies have shown that
first-language
skills are
enhanced,
even if instruc-
tion time in the mother
tongue
is reduced in favor of
second-language
instruction.
Teaching
mathematics in French with reduced instruction time in
English
enhances
children's achievement in math tests administered in
English,
as
compared
to that
of children who learn math in their mother
tongue only (Bournot-Trites
&
Reeder,
2001). Thus,
the students who
acquire
their mathematical
knowledge
in French
can retrieve it in
English.
Other studies have confirmed these results
(Turnbull,
Hart,
&
Lapkin,
2003):
Grade 6 students who learned mathematics in French
outperformed
non-immersion
students;
they
also
outperformed
non-immersion
students in
reading
and
writing,
even
though
the tests were administered in
English.
Studies have to be read and
compared carefully regarding
the conditions in which
immersion was
organized. Quality
factors must be met. Such factors have been
developed
in
Canada,
for
example,
which has a
range
of immersion schools for a
variety
of
languages
and thus
performs very high among
world score
comparisons
(Adam, 2006).
It has
probably
become clear
along
this
expos
that
language teaching
involves
more than
just teaching languages. Migrant
children can
help
other children learn
their
language
if
principals
and districts understand the stakes of such action in
terms of
valuing bilingual
children and
building
a better
society,
a
society
that can
communicate
(Schecter
&
Cummins, 2003). English-language
learners can solve
the
second-language problem
of
monolingual
children in
teaching
them their
mother
tongue,
and
they
can be rewarded with
higher
self-esteem and
language
learning (Tochon
&
Hanson, 2003). Dual-language, two-way
immersion schools
offer a solution
(e.g., Spanish
in the
morning, English
in the
afternoon). "Acquiring
knowledge
in a second
language
does not
impede
the
ability
to access that knowl-
edge
in the first
language" (Archibald
et
al., 2006,
p. 5).
669
Conclusion: World
Languages
as the Path for
Balancing Society
No culture can live if it
attempts
to be exclusive.
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Languages play
an
important
role in an ever-smaller world.
Responding
to the
demand in
higher
education is not sufficient for the
types
of needs that the world
is
facing today. Language proficiency
must be
developed during youth. Bilingual
proficiency
is to be
developed
from an
early age.
For that
purpose,
the different
countries need to initiate a new
concept
of
schooling
in which schools
provide
immersive
experiences
in other
languages
and
cultures,
as well as international
exchanges,
which is the
deep way
to
go
and do it
right,
if cross-cultural understand-
ing
is to be
developed.
The use of
English
is one of the factors
accounting
for the
complacency regarding
the lack of
second-language fluency
in
Anglophone
coun-
tries.
However,
investment in short-run
language
courses
appears costly
and inef-
fective. Global executives must be familiar with more than 50 cultures to interact
effectively.
The
only way
to address the demand is to introduce world
languages
-
including languages
less
commonly taught
-
from
early elementary grade
levels.
In the United
States,
language study
is a middle school
requirement
in
very
few
states. Some states
require
schools to make
languages
available,
but such courses
remain an
option
for students who are free to take them or not. The situation in
high
schools is
generally
similar. No schools
require foreign language
credits for
grad-
uation,
although they
do for honors and for
specific diplomas.
Local curricula
may
interfere with world
languages
in that students
may
be excluded
by
criteria related
with
general performance,
schedules,
and lack of
funding.
The situation in
Europe
has been a total contrast since the
early
1990s,
during
which most of the countries
have reinforced their
teaching
of world
languages (Bergentoft,
1
994). Learning
one
or two
languages
is
mandatory
in all the
European
Union countries. Curricula
show similarities thanks to international
cooperation
and a common framework.
The time devoted to
foreign languages
allows most
European
students to achieve
communicative
competency
in two
foreign languages
and sometimes three. World
languages
are
increasingly
used as the medium of instruction in other
subjects.
The
teaching
of
languages begins early enough
that the
acquisition
of nativelike
pro-
nunciation is facilitated.
Continuity
across levels
prevents
students from
having
to
start all over when
accessing
middle or
high
school.
Exchange programs
are
regu-
larly
offered. In some
countries,
the home
languages
and
minority languages
are
taught
in schools. This
right
is
guaranteed by
law,
and it includes
high
school stu-
dents as well. Several countries see
competency
in a
variety
of
languages
as a
national asset.
Now,
any elementary
teacher in
any country,
without much
training,
can be con-
fronted with issues of
linguistic diversity
and so have to deal with a mix of first- and
second-language
students,
with the role of
managing
this
variety
at
best,
to focus on
curricula that
ignore
the situation of these children and their cultural
diversity
and
ownership. Many
educational
policies
tend to
impose
one
language
of
power
to sim-
plify management
and for economic
purpose.
However,
various
linguists
have
pro-
vided
repeated
evidence that
neglecting
the
language
of the child has
deep consequences
670
World
Languages
Education
for his or her achievement in school
(Cazabon, 1996;
S. C.
Wright
et
al., 2000).
The
struggle against linguicism
is
part
of the same set of issues that multicultural and race
education have to face and address. The subtractive
theory
is
part
of the
paradoxical
deficit
theorizing
of
emancipatory modernity.
It considers that students who have
poor
knowledge
of their mother
tongue
tend to have weak
learning
in the second
language.
Their situation is claimed to be different from the one of children who are
firmly
grounded
in the first
language. They
cannot
really develop
in the second
language
and
so
grow
within an environment in which
they
are evaluated and
misjudged
for what
they
are not
-
namely,
unskilled children and lowbrow thinkers
-
because
they
cannot
fully express
themselves in the dominant
language according
to the rules
imposed by
the
upper
class for their own children. This
phenomenon
is
typically imposed
onto
migrant populations
that are
massively
assimilated to
other,
dominant cultures. Unless
the conditions are created for additive
bilingualism,
schools as
they
are
currently
organized may
be detrimental to the
understanding
and
psychocognitive growth
of
more than one third of the
students,
depending
on the
location,
a situation that is a
potential
source of
unemployment
and societal burden. World
language
education and
bilingual
education can be of mutual assistance and enrichment when
reshaped
as
two-way
immersion
programs.
At a time when
interdisciplinarity
is claimed to be the
way
that scientific research should be
done,
the
boundary
raised between additive
foreign-language teaching
and
palliative bilingual
education is but
political.
It seems
fabricated to
separate
social classes: those whom the elites want to see
develop global
thinking
and those who are
marginalized.
World
languages
can
support
social
justice (Osborn, 2006).
World
language
education research aims to shed
light
on one
major challenge
to education
systems
around the world: how to foster
communication,
peace,
and
well-being
across the
community
of nations. With 2008
having
been
designated
as a UN International
Year of
Languages,
the issue of
language rights
and the
support
for
language
vari-
ety
are
front-page.
The
report
of the UN International
Expert Group
on
Indigenous
Languages (2008)
indicates that such
rights
are both collective and individual.
Specifically,
individuals and collectivities have
(a)
the
right
to maintain and to use their own
language;
(b)
the
right
to have
indigenous languages recognized
in constitutions and
laws;
(c)
the
right
to maintain
personal
names,
place
names and the
proper
names
of their
languages;
(d)
the
right
to be educated in the mother
tongue (either
in state schools or
in their own
schools);
(e)
the
right
to use
indigenous languages
in court and administrative
proceedings;
(f)
the
right
to non-discrimination on the
grounds
of
language
in such
domains as
work,
social
security,
health,
family
life, education,
cultural life
and freedom of
speech;
(g)
the
right
to take
part
in
public
affairs and
public
service without dis-
crimination on the
grounds
of
language; [and]
(h)
the
right
to establish
indigenous
media in
indigenous languages
as well
as to have access to mainstream media in
indigenous languages, (p. 1)
World
languages
are the
key
to
global understanding.
671
Notes
I am
grateful
for the feedback
provided by
Gina
Lewandowski,
Elizabeth
Miranda,
Daniella
Molle,
and Jaime Usma that
helped
shorten a
longer
version of this review.
Thank
you
to
Nancy
Kendall for
helpful
comments on an earlier version of this article.
The usual disclaimer
applies.
'See
http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/.
^eehttpsV/www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.
References
Teaching
of
Foreign Languages. (1999).
Standards
for
foreign language learning: Preparing for
the 21st
century. Lawrence,
KS: Allen
Press.
Teaching
of
Foreign Languages, (n.d.).
What does research
show about the
benefits of language learning?
Retrieved
September
19, 2008,
from
http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4524
Adam,
D.
(2006). Official languages
in Canada:
Taking
on the new
challenge.
Ottawa,
Ontario,
Canada: Office of the Commissioner of Official
Languages.
Archibald, J.,
Roy,
S., Harmel, S.,
&
Jesney,
K.
(2006).
A review
of
the literature on
second
language learning (2nd ed.). Calgary,
Alberta,
Canada:
University
of
Calgary,
Language
Research Center.
Armstrong,
P.
W.,
&
Rogers,
J. D.
(1997).
Basic skills revisited: The effects of
foreign
language
instruction on
reading,
math and
language
arts.
Learning Languages,
2(3),
20-31.
Badman,
D. A.
(2002).
Academic
Buffy bibliography. Slayage:
The Online International
Journal
of Buffy
Studies,
7. Retrieved
September
12, 2008,
from
http
://www.
slay
a-
geonline.com/essays/slayage7/Badman.htm
Baker,
C.
(2001).
Foundations
of bilingual
education and
bilingualism (3rd ed.).
Clevedon,
UK:
Multilingual
Matters.
Batibo,
H. M.
(2005). Language
decline and death in
Africa:
Causes,
consequences,
and
challenges. Clevedon,
UK:
Multilingual
Matters.
Bergentoft,
R.
(1994). Foreign language
instruction: A
comparative perspective.
Annals
of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 532, 8-34.
Bernstein,
B.
(1972).
A
critique
of the
concept "compensatory
education." In C. B.
Cazden,
V.
John,
& D.
Hymes (Eds.),
Functions
of language
in the classroom
(pp.
190-201).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Bex, T.,
&
Watts,
R. J.
(1999).
Standard
English:
The
widening
debate. London:
Routledge.
Bhatt,
R.
(2007, November).
Colonial
discourse,
alter-native
ideologies,
and the
politics of linguistic nostalgia. Paper presented
at the annual
meeting
of the
International Association for
Dialogue Analysis,
East Jerusalem.
Bialystok,
E.
(2001). Bilingualism
in
development: Language, literacy
and
cognition.
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge University
Press.
Bialystok,
E.
(2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development.
Oxford,
UK: Oxford
University
Press.
Bialystok, E.,
&
Hakuta,
K.
(1999).
Confounded
age: Linguistic
and
cognitive
factors
in
age
differences for second
In D.
Birdsong (Ed.),
Second
language acquisition
and the critical
period hypothesis (pp. 161-181). Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
672
World
Languages
Education
Bialystok,
E., Luk, G.,
&
Kwan,
E.
(2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy,
and
learning
to
read: Interactions
among languages
and
writing systems. Scientific
Studies
of Reading,
9(1),
43-61.
Bialystok,
E.,
&
Martin,
M. M.
(2004).
Attention and inhibition in
bilingual
children:
Evidence from the dimensional
change
card sort task.
Developmental
Sciences, 7(3),
325-339.
Birdsong,
D.,
&
Molis,
M.
(2001).
On the evidence for maturational constraints in
second-language acquisition.
Journal
of Memory
and
Language,
44,
235-249.
Block,
D.
(2004).
Globalisation and
language teaching.
ELT
Journal, 58('),
75-76.
Bloomfield,
L.
(1927).
Literate and illiterate
speech.
American
Speech,
2,
432-439.
Boli, J.,
&
Ramirez,
F.
(1992). Compulsory schooling
in the Western cultural context:
Essence and variation. In R.
Amove,
P.
Altbach,
& G.
Kelly (Eds.), Emergent
issues
in education:
Comparative perspectives (pp. 25-38). Albany:
State
University
of
New York Press.
Bourdieu,
P.
(1991) Language
and
symbolic power (R. Nice, Trans.).
New York:
Routledge
and
Kegan
Paul.
Bournot-Trites, M,
&
Reeder,
K.
(2001). Interdependence
revisited: Mathematics
achievement in an intensified French immersion
program.
Canadian Modern
Language
Review, 58(1),
27-43.
Bournot-Trites, M.,
&
Tellowitz,
U.
(2002, January). Report of
current research on the
effects of
second
language learning
on
first language literacy
skills.
Halifax,
Nova
Scotia,
Canada: Atlantic Provinces Educational Foundation.
Breton,
A.
(1998).
Economic
approaches
to
language
and
bilingualism.
Ottawa,
Ontario,
Canada: Canadian
Heritage.
Camenson,
B.
(2001).
Careers in
foreign languages.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Canagarajah,
S.
(1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism
in
English teaching. Oxford,
UK: Oxford
University
Press.
Canagarajah,
S.
(2007). Lingua
Franca
English, multilingual
communities,
and lan-
guage acquisition.
Modern
Language
Journal, 97(5),
921-937.
Carrera,
S.
(2006).
A
comparison
of
integration programmes
in the EU. Trends and
weaknesses.
Challenge, Liberty
&
Security.
Brussels: Centre for
European Policy
Studies. Retrieved
September
12, 2008,
from
http://www.libertysecurity.org/
IMG/
pdf/A_Comparison_of_Integration_Programmes_in_the_EU_Trends_and_
Weaknesses.pdf
Cazabon,
R.
(1996, May).
The
challenges
of
teaching
French in a
minority
situation.
In New Canadian
Perspectives:
The Canadian
Experience
in the
Teaching of Official
Languages.
Retrieved
September
12, 2008,
from
http://www.patrimoinecanadien
.gc.ca/progs/lo-ol/perspectives/english/sympo/challe_a.htm
Clark,
T.
(2006). Language
as social
capital. Applied
Semiotics
/Smiotique applique,
18, 30-45.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F.,
&
Hamayan,
E.
(2000). Teaching
content. In Dual
language
instruction: A handbook
for
enriched education
(pp. 113-138).
Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Council of
Europe (2002).
Common
European
Framework
of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching,
assessment.
Cambridge,
UK:
Press.
Crawford,
J.
(2008). Advocating for English
learners: Selected
essays.
Clevedon,
UK:
Multilingual
Matters.
Crystal,
D.
(2006). English
worldwide. In R.
Hogg
& D. Denison
(Eds.),
A
history
of
the
English language (pp. 420-439). Cambridge,
UK:
Press.
673
Tochon
Cummins,
J.
(1976).
The influence of
bilingualism
on
cognitive growth:
A
synthesis
of
research
findings
and
explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers
in
Bilingualism,
9,
1-43.
Cummins,
J.
(1989). Linguistic interdependence
and the educational
development
of
bilingual
children. Review
of
Educational
Research, 49(2),
222-25 1 .
Cummins,
J.
(1994). Semilingualism.
In R. R. Asher
(Ed.),
International
encyclopedia
of language
and
linguistics (2nd ed.,
pp. 3812-3814). Oxford,
UK: Elsevier
Science.
Cummins,
J.
(2000).
Immersion education
for
the millennium: What we have learned
from
30
years of
research on second
language
immersion.
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada:
University
of
Toronto,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Curtain, H.,
&
Dahlberg,
C. A.
(2004). Languages
and children:
Making
the match
(3rd ed.).
Boston: Pearson.
Dalby,
A.
(2003). Language
in
danger:
The loss
of linguistic diversity
and the threat to
our
future.
New York: Columbia
University
Press.
Davidson,
T.
(2008).
TESOL certificates:
Teaching
or
deceiving
the EFL/ESL
teaching
profession?
TESOL Law
Journal, 2,
1 10-1 15.
de
Courcy,
ML, Warren, J.,
&
Burston,
M.
(2002).
Children from diverse
backgrounds
in an immersion
programme. Language
and
Education, 16(2),
1 12-127.
DeGalan,
J.
(2000).
Great
jobs for foreign language majors (2nd ed.).
New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Dorny,
Z.
(2005).
The
psychology of
the
language
learner.
Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Edge,
J.
(2006). (Re-)Locating
TESOL in an
age of empire. Basingstoke,
UK:
Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ellis,
R.
(2007).
Educational
settings
and second
language learning.
Asian EEL
Journal,
9(4).
Retrieved
September
12, 2008,
from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/
Dec_2007_re.php
Fabbro,
F.
(2001).
The
bilingual
brain: Cerebral
representation
of
languages.
Brain &
Language, 79,211-222.
Ferguson,
S.
(1998).
The multicultural child in the monocultural man. In C. J. Diaz
(Ed.), Bilingualism: Building
blocks
for biliteracy (pp. 67-103). Sydney,
Australia:
University
of Western
Sydney
Macarthur.
Fishman,
J. A.
(1999).
Handbook
of language
and ethnic
identity. Oxford,
UK: Oxford
University
Press.
Fishman,
J. A.
(2006). Language policy
and
language
shift. In T. Ricento
(Ed.),
An
introduction to
language policy: Theory
and method
(pp.
31
1-328). Maiden,
MA:
Blackwell.
Fennelly,
K.
(2005, May). Immigration
and
poverty
in the Northwest area states
(JSRI
Working Paper
No.
65).
East
Lansing,
MI:
Michigan
State
University,
Julian Samora
Research Institute.
Freeman,
R.
(2004). Building
on
community bilingualism. Philadelphia:
Caslon.
Friedman,
T. L.
(2005).
The world is
flat:
A
brief history of
the
twenty-first century.
New York:
Farrar,
Strauss and Giroux.
Fullan,
M.
(2007).
The new
meaning of
educational
change (4th ed.).
New York:
Teachers
College
Press.
Ghadar, F.,
&
Spindler,
H.
(2005).
IT:
Ubiquitous
force
(Global
tectonics: Part 3-
Information
technology).
Industrial
Management, 47(4),
14-17.
Ghemawat,
P.
(2007). Redefining global strategy: Crossing
borders in a world where
differences
still matter.
Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
674
World
Languages
Education
Giacalone
Ramat,
A.
(2003). Typology
and second
Berlin:
Mouton de
Gruyter.
Gogate,
M. N.
(2002). Simplified global English.
A
parallel language
for the world.
Journal
of
the
Simplified Spelling Society, 37(2),
1 1-12.
Gonzlez,
N.
(2003). Language Ideologies. Heritage Language
Journal, 7(1),
141-162.
Green,
L.
(2002). African
American
English:
A
linguistic
introduction.
Cambridge,
UK:
Press.
Grin,
F.
(1996).
Economic
approaches
to
language
and
language planning [Special
issue].
International Journal
of
the
Sociology of Language,
121.
Grin,
F.
(2005).
U
enseignement
des
langues trangres
comme
politique publique
[Foreign languages teaching
as
public policy] (Report
No.
19).
Paris: Haut Conseil
de l'valuation de l'cole.
Grin,
F.
(2006).
Economie considerations in
language policy.
In T. Ricento
(Ed.),
An
introduction to
and method
(pp. 77-94). Maiden,
MA:
Blackwell.
Grin, F.,
&
Vaillancourt,
F.
(1999).
The
cost-effectiveness
evaluation
of minority
lan-
guage policies:
Case studies on
Wales, Ireland,
and the
Basque Country. Flensburg,
Germany: European
Centre for
Minority
Issues.
Hagge,
C.
(2000).
Halte la mort des
langues [Stopping languages' death].
Paris:
Editions Odiile Jacob.
Hansegrd,
N. E.
(1968). Tvsprkighet
eller
halvsprkighet [Bilingualism
or semilin-
gualism?].
Stockholm: Aldus/Bonnier.
Harrison,
K. D.
(2007).
When
languages
die: The extinction
of
the world's
languages
and the erosion
of
human
knowledge. Oxford,
UK: Oxford
University
Press.
Hinnenkamp,
V.
(2005). Semilingualism,
double
monolingualism
and blurred
genres
-
On
(not) speaking
a
legitimate language.
Journal
of
Social Science
Education,
1. Retrieved
September
19, 2008,
from
http://www.sowi-online.de/
reader/journal/
2005-
l/semilingualism_hinnenkamp.htm
Holmes,
J.
(2001)
An introduction to
sociolinguistics.
New York:
Longman.
International
Expert Group
on
Indigenous Languages (2008). Report
to the United
Nations
Headquarters from
8-10
January
2008. Retrieved
May
4, 2008,
from
http://
www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfi
i/en/EGM_IL.html
Jenkins,
J.
(2007). English
as a
Lingua
Eranca: Attitude and
identity. Oxford,
UK:
Oxford
University
Press.
Johnson,
J.
S.,
&
Newport,
E. L.
(1989).
Critical
period
effects in second
language
learning:
The influence of maturational state on the
acquisition
of
English
as a
second
language. Cognitive Psychology,
21,
60-99.
Johnson,
J.
S.,
&
Newport,
E. L.
(1991).
Critical
period
effects on universal
properties
of
language:
The status of
subjacency
in the
acquisition
of a second
language.
Cognition,
39,
215-25S.
Johnson,
R.
K.,
&
Swain,
M.
(1997).
Immersion education: International
perspectives.
Cambridge,
UK:
Press.
Jose-
Kampf
ner, C,
&
Aparicio,
F.
(
1
998,
May). Rethinking
violence in the educational
crisis
of
U.S. Latinos
(Working Paper
No.
38).
Ann Arbor:
University
of
Michigan.
Jung,
S.
K.,
&
Norton,
B.
(2002). Language planning
in Korea: The new
elementary
English program.
In J. Tollefson
(Ed.), Language policies
in education: Critical
issues (pp. 245-265). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kim,
K.
H., Relkin,
N.
R., Lee,
K.
M.,
&
Hirsch,
J.
(1997).
Distinct cortical areas
associated with native and second
languages.
Nature, 388,
171-174.
675
Tochon
Kimbrough
Oller, D.,
&
Eilers,
R. E.
(2002). Language
and
literacy
in
bilingual
children.
Clevedon,
UK:
Multilingual
Matters.
Kormi-Nouri, R., Moniri, S.,
&
Nilsson,
L.
(2003). Episodic
and semantic
memory
in
bilingual
and
monolingual
children. Scandinavian Journal
of Psychology, 44{'),
47-54.
Krashen,
S. D.
(1982). Principles
and
practice
in second
Oxford,
UK:
Pergamon
Press.
Kubota,
R.
(2004).
The
politics
of cultural difference in second
language
education.
Critical
Inquiry
in
Language Studies, 7(1),
21-39.
Kymlicka,
W.,
&
Patten,
A.
(2003). Language rights
and
political theory.
Oxford,
UK:
Oxford
University
Press.
Lambert,
W. E.
(1992). Challenging
established views on social issues: The
power
and
limitations of research. American
Psychologist, 47,
533-542.
Lantolf,
J.
P.,
&
Sunderman,
G.
(2001 ).
The
struggle
for a
place
in the sun:
Rationalizing
foreign language study
in the twentieth
century.
Modern
Language
Journal, 85('),
5-25.
Lantolf, J.,
&
Thorn,
S.
(2006).
Sociocultural
theory
and the
genesis of
second
language development. Oxford,
UK: Oxford
University
Press.
Latouche,
S.
(2006).
Le
pari
de la dcroissance
[The challenge
of
decline].
Paris:
Fayard.
Lenneberg,
E. H.
(1967). Biological foundations of language.
New York:
Wiley.
Lipton,
G. C.
(2004).
Practical handbook to
elementary
FLES
(4th ed.). Kensington,
MD:
Blueprints
for
Learning.
Lorenz,
K.
(1965).
Evolution and
modification of
behavior.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Macedo,
D.
(1994).
Literacies
of power:
What Americans are not allowed to know.
Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
MacSwan,
J.
(2000).
The threshold
hypothesis, semilingualism,
and other contribu-
tions to a deficit view of
linguistic
minorities.
Hispanic
Journal
of
Behavioral
Sciences, 22(1),
3-45.
Maguire,
M.
H.,
&
Curdt-Christianse,
X. L.
(2007). Multiple
schools,
languages, experi-
ences and affiliations:
Ideological becomings
and
positionings. Heritage Language
Journal, 5(1),
50-78.
Marcos,
K. M.
(1998).
Second
language learning: Everyone
can benefit. ERIC
Review,
6(1),
2-5.
Marsh,
H.
W, Hau, K.-T.,
&
Kong,
C.-K.
(2000).
Late immersion and
language
instruc-
tion in
Hong Kong high
schools: Achievement
growth
in
language
and
nonlanguage
subjects.
Harvard Educational
Review, 70(3),
303-346.
Maurais, J.,
&
Morris,
M. A.
(2003). Languages
in a
globalising
world.
Cambridge,
UK:
Press.
May,
T.
(2008). Corruption
and other distortions as variables in
language
education.
TESOL Law
Journal, 2,
84-1 10.
McGroarty,
M.
(Ed.). (2006). Lingua
Franca
languages. Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Mechelli, A., Crinion,
J.
T.,
Noppeney,
U.,
O'Doherty,
J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak,
R.
S.,
et al.
(2004). Neurolinguistics:
Structural
plasticity
in the
bilingual
brain.
Nature,
431,
757.
Mesthrie,
R.
(2006). English
in
language shift.
The
history,
structure and
sociolinguis-
tics
of
South
African
Indian
English. Cambridge,
UK:
Press.
676
World
Languages
Education
Miranda,
A.
O.,
& Whelan
Ariza,
E. N.
(2006, June).
Success or failure in
community
college-level
ESL
writing
course: A
comparison
of
demographic,
academic and
acculturation-related variables. Revista ieRed: Revista Electrnica de la Red de
Investigacin
Educativa, 1(4),
1-12. Retrieved
September
19, 2008,
from
http://
revista.iered.org/v
1
n4/pdf/amyew.pdf
Mohanty,
A. K.
(2006). Multilingualism
of the
unequals
and
predicaments
of education
in India: Mother
tongue
or other
tongue?
In O.
Garcia,
T.
Skutnabb-Kangas,
& M.
E. Torres-Guzmn
(2006), Imagining multilingual
schools:
Languages
in education
and
glocalization (pp. 262-283). Buffalo,
NY:
Multilingual
Matters.
Moyer,
A.
(1999).
Ultimate attainment in L2
phonology:
The critical factors of
age,
motivation,
and instruction. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition,
21,
81-108.
Munck,
P.
(2005).
Globalization and social exclusion: A
transformationalist perspec-
tive.
Bloomfield,
CT: Kumarian Press.
Newport,
E. L.
(1990).
Maturational constraints on
language learning. Cognitive
Science, 14,
1 1-28.
Nieto,
S.
(2002). Language,
culture,
and
teaching:
Critical
perspectives for
a new
century.
Mahwah,
Noels,
K.
A., Pelletier,
L.
G., Clment, R.,
&
Vallerand,
R. J.
(2003). Why
are
you
learning
a second
language?
Motivational orientations and self-determination
theory. Language Learning, 53(1),
33-64.
Norton,
B.
(2006). Identity
as a sociocultural construct in second
language
education.
TESOL in Context
(Special issue),
22-33.
Nuffield
Languages Inquiry.
(2000). Languages:
The next
generation.
London: Nuffield
Foundation.
Oguz,
S.
(2005, June). Reconsidering globalization
as the internationalization
of capi-
tal:
Implications for understanding
state
restructuring.
Presentation for the
panel
"State
Restructuring
and Social Transformation:
Confronting
Neoliberalism" at the
annual
meeting
of the Canadian Political Science
Association,
University
of Western
Ontario, London,
Canada.
Osborn,
T. A.
(2006). Teaching
world
languages for
social
justice.
A sourcebook
of
principles
and
practices.
Mahwah,
Ossipov,
H.
(2000).
Who is
taking
French and
why? Foreign Language
Annals, 33,
157-165.
Ouane,
A.
(2003).
Introduction: The view from inside the
linguistic jail.
In A. Ouane
(Ed.),
Towards a
multilingual
culture
of
education
(pp. 1-14). Hamburg, Germany:
UNESCO Institute for Education.
Pagan,
C. R.
(2005). English
learners' academic achievement in a
two-way
versus a
structured
English
immersion
program.
Dissertation Abstracts International,
66(5
A),
1603-1604.
Park,
H.-Y.
(2008, January). Linguistic minority
children 's
heritage language learning
and
identity struggle. Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation, University
of
Wisconsin,
Madison.
Penfield, W.,
&
Roberts,
L.
(1959). Speech
and brain mechanisms.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Pennycook,
A.
(1994).
The cultural
politics of English
as an international
language.
New York: Longman.
Pennycook,
A.
(2001).
Critical
applied linguistics:
A
(critical)
introduction.
Mahwah,
677
Tochon
Pennycook,
A.
(2006).
Postmodernism in
language policy.
In T. Ricento
(Ed.),
An
introduction to
and method
(pp. 60-76). Maiden,
MA:
Blackwell.
Phillipson,
R.
(2003). English only? Challenging language policy.
London:
Routledge.
Phillipson,
R.
and
linguistic imperialism.
In T. Ricento
(Ed.),
An introduction to
and method
(pp. 346-361). Maiden,
MA: Blackwell.
Phillipson,
R.
(2007, May). Lingua
Franca or
lingua frankensteinia? English
in
European integration
and
globalization. Plenary
lecture
given
at the Nordic
Association for
English
Studies
Conference, Bergen, Norway.
Phillipson,
R.
(2008).
The
linguistic imperialism
of neoliberal
empire.
Critical
Inquiry
in
Language
Studies, 5(1),
1-43.
Pinker,
S.
(1994).
The
language
instinct. New York: Morrow.
Portes, A.,
&
Rumbaut,
R. G.
(
1
996). Immigrant
America
(2nd ed.) Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Rajadurai,
J.
(2007). Intelligibility
studies: A consideration of
empirical
and
ideological
issues. World
Englishes, 26(1),
87-98.
Reagan,
T.
(2005).
Does
language really
exist? An introduction to critical
language
study.
In Critical
questions,
critical
perspectives: Language
and the second
language
educator
(pp. 1-16). Greenwich,
CT: Information
Age.
Research notes:
Language learning
and the
developing
brain.
(1996). Learning
Languages, 7(2),
17.
Ricento,
T.
(2006).
Theoretical
perspectives
in
language policy:
An overview. In
T. Ricento
(Ed.),
An introduction to
and method
(pp. 3-9).
Maiden,
MA: Blackwell.
Robertson,
P.
(2002).
The critical
age hypothesis.
Asian EEL Journal. Retrieved
September
12, 2008,
from
httpV/www.asian-efl-journal.com/marcharticles.pr.php
Rothkopf,
D.
(1997).
In
praise
of cultural
imperialism?
Effects of
globalization
on
culture. Foreign Policy, 107, 38-53.
Rothkopf,
D.
(2008). Superclass:
The
global power
elite and the world
they
are
making.
New York:
Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Rubdy,
R.,
&
Saraceni,
M.
(2006). English
in the world. Global
rules,
global
roles.
London: Continuum.
Rubio,
F.
(2007). Self-esteem
and
foreign language learning. Newcastle,
UK:
Cambridge
Scholars
Publishing.
Ruiz,
R.
(1984).
Orientations in
language planning.
NABE
Journal, 8(2),
15-34.
Salverda,
R.
(2002). Language diversity
and international communication.
English
Today, 18(3),
3-11.
Sandrock,
P.
(2002). Planning
curriculum
for learning
world
languages.
Madison,
WI:
Wisconsin
Department
of Public Instruction.
Saraceni,
M.
(2003).
The
language of
comics. New York:
Routledge.
Saunders,
C. M.
(1998).
The
effect of
the
study of
a
foreign language
in the
elementary
school on scores on the Iowa Test
of
Basic Skills and an
analysis of
student-
participant
attitudes and abilities.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation, University
of
Georgia,
Athens.
Schecter, S.,
&
Cummins,
J.
(2003). Multilingual
education in
practice: Using diversity
as a resource.
Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Schell,
J.
(2004).
The
unconquerable
world:
Power, nonviolence,
and the will
of
the
people.
New York: Holt.
678
World
Languages
Education
Schiffman,
H.
(in press). Language, policy,
and
citizenship:
Three views. In J. V.
Ciprut
(Ed.),
The
future of citizenship. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Schmidt,
R.
(2006).
Political
theory
and
language policy.
In T. Ricento
(Ed.),
An
introduction to
and method
(pp.
95-1
10). Maiden,
MA:
Blackwell.
Sebba,
M.
(2003). Spelling
rebellion. In J.
Androutsopoulos
& A.
Georgakopoulou
(Eds.),
Discourse constructions
of youth
identities
(pp. 151-172).
Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Sebba,
M.
(2008).
What is the difference between a
language
and a dialect?
Linguistics
and
English Language. Lancaster,
UK: Lancaster
University, Department
of
Linguistics
and
English Language.
Retrieved
September
12, 2008,
from
http://www
.Iing.lancs.ac.uk/alevel/q2.htm
Seidenberg,
M.
S.,
&
Zevin,
J. D.
(2006).
Connectionist models in
developmental
cognitive
neuroscience: Critical
periods
and the
paradox
of success. In Y. Munakata
& M. Johnson
(Eds.),
Attention and
performance:
Vol. 21. Processes
of change
in
brain and
cognitive development (pp. 585-612). Oxford,
UK: Oxford
University
Press.
Seidlhofer,
B.
(2004).
Research
perspectives
on
teaching English
as a
Lingua
Franca.
Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 24,
209-239.
Shohamy,
E.
(2006). Language policy:
Hidden
agendas
and new
approaches.
New
York:
Routledge.
Sieloff-Magnan,
S.,
&
Tochon,
F. V.
(2001). Reconsidering
French
pedagogy:
The
crucial role of the teacher and
teaching.
French
Review, 74(6),
1092-1 1 12.
Skutnabb-Kangas,
T.
(
1
984). Bilingualism
or not: The education
of
minorities.
Clevedon,
UK:
Multilingual
Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas,
T.
(2000). Linguistic genocide
in education.
Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Skutnabb-Kangas,
T.
and
linguistic
human
rights.
In T. Ricento
(Ed.),
An introduction to
language policy, theory
and method
(pp. 273-291). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Spring,
J.
(2008).
Research on
globalization
and education. Review
of
Educational
Research, 78(2),
330-363.
Steiner-
Khamsi,
G.
(2004).
The
global politics of
educational
borrowing
and
lending.
New York: Teachers
College
Press.
Stewart,
J. H.
(2005). Foreign language study
in
elementary
schools: Benefits and
implications
for achievement in
reading
and math.
Early
Childhood Education
Journal, 33(1),
11-16.
Suarez,
D.
(2002).
The
paradox
of
linguistic hegemony
and the maintenance of
Spanish
as a
heritage language
in the United States. Journal
of Multilingual
and Multicultural
Development, 23(6),
512-530.
Sweeney,
S.
(2006).
The culture of international
English. English Teaching Professional,
47,
4-7.
Teachers of
English
to
Speakers
of Other
Languages. (2008).
Standards
for
teachers
of
adult learners. Alexandria,
VA: Author.
Tochon,
F. V.
(Ed.). (1997). Eduquer
avant l'cole: V intervention
prscolaire
en
milieux
pluriethniques
et
dfavoriss [Educate
before school: Preschool actions in
multiethnic and low-income
setting].
Montreal, Qubec,
Canada: Montreal
University
Press.
Tochon,
F. V.
(2002). Tropics of teaching: Productivity, warfare,
and
priesthood.
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada:
University
of Toronto Press.
679
Tochon
Tochon,
F. V.
(2007).
O Si Estranho
[The foreign self].
In J. M.
Paraskeva,
J. Diniz-
Pereira,
& G.
Ladson-Billings (Eds.), Multiculturalisme*,
Currculo e
Formao
Docent
-
Ideias de Wisconsin
(pp. 88-107). Lisbonne, Portugal:
Didctica Editora.
Tochon,
F.
V.,
&
Black,
N. J.
(2007).
Narrative
analysis
of electronic
portfolios:
Preservice teachers'
struggles
in
researching pedagogically appropriate technology
integration.
CALICO
Monograph Series, 6,
295-320.
Tochon,
F.
V.,
&
Hanson,
D.
(2003).
The
deep approach:
World
language teaching for
community building.
Madison,
WI: Atwood.
Tochon,
F.
V.,
Kasperbauer,
K.,
&
Potter,
T.
(2007). Elementary foreign language for
bilingual
education.
Madison,
WI: Madison
Metropolitan
School District.
Toth,
P.
(2006). Processing
instruction and a role for
output
in second
language acqui-
sition.
Language Learning,
56,
319-385.
Trimnell,
E.
(2005). Why you
need a
foreign language
and how to learn one. New York:
Beechmont Crest.
Trudgill,
P.
(2004).
New -dialect
formation:
The
inevitability of
colonial
Englishes.
Oxford,
UK: Oxford
University
Press.
Trudgill,
P.
(2006).
Standard
English:
What it isn't.
Lausanne,
Switzerland: Universit
de Lausanne.
Tsui,
A. B.
M.,
&
Tollefson,
J. W.
(2007). Language policy,
culture,
and
identity
in
Asian contexts.
Mahwah,
Turnbull, M., Hart, D.,
&
Lapkin,
S.
(2003).
Grade 6 French immersion students'
perfor-
mance on
large-scale reading, writing,
and mathematics tests:
Building explanation.
Alberta Journal
of
Educational
Research, 46(1),
6-23.
UNESCO.
(1999).
30 C / Resolution 12.
Implementation of
a
language policy for
the
world based on
multilingualism.
New York: Author.
UNESCO.
(2003).
Education in a
multilingual
world. UNESCO
guidelines
on
language
and education. New York: Author.
U.S.
Department
of Commerce.
(1995).
1990 census
of population
and
housing:
Detailed cross-tabulations
of
selected
language groups for
states: 1990
[CD-ROM],
Washington,
DC: Bureau of the
Census,
Population
Division,
Decennial
Programs
Coordination Branch.
Valds,
G.
(2003). Language ideologies
and the
teaching
of
heritage languages.
Heritage Language
Journal, 7(1),
21-38.
Varela, F.,
Thompson,
E.,
&
Rosch,
E.
(1991).
The embodied mind.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT Press.
Wake,
D.
(2005). Language ideology
in school
practice.
Retrieved
February
17, 2007,
fromhttpV/www.newfoundations.com/Lineuistic/WakeLanguage.html
Walker,
C.
L.,
&
Tedick,
D. J.
(2000).
The
complexity
of immersion education: Teachers
address the issues. Modern
Language Journal, 84('),
5-27.
Walker,
J. A.
(2001). Using
the
past
to
explain
the
present:
Tense and
temporal
reference in
Early
African American
English. Language
Variation and
Change,
73(1),
1-35.
Ward,
T.
(1994). Africanisms:
A
history of linguistic genocide.
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada:
University
of Toronto.
Warschauer,
M.
(2003). Technology
and social inclusion.
Cambridge,
MA: MIT
Press.
Wright,
S.
C,
&
Taylor,
D. M.
(1995). Identity
and the
language
of the classroom:
Investigating
the
impact
of
heritage
versus second
language
instruction on
personal
and collective self-esteem. Journal
of
Educational
Psychology,
87,
241-252.
680
World
Languages
Education
Wright,
S.
C,
Taylor,
D.
M,
&
Macarthur,
J.
(2000).
Subtractive
bilingualism
and the
survival of the Inuit
language: Heritage-
versus
second-language
education. Journal
of
Educational
Psychology, 92(1),
63-84.
Wright,
W. E.
(2007). Heritage language programs
in the era of
English-only
and No
Child Left Behind.
Heritage Language
Journal, 5(1),
1-25.
Yano,
Y.
(2001).
World
Englishes
in 2000 and
beyond.
World
Englishes, 20(2),
119-132.
Yildinm, R.,
&
Okan,
Z.
(2007).
The
question
of
global English-language teaching:
A Turkish
perspective.
Asian EFL
Journal, 9(4).
Retrieved
September
12, 2008,
fromhttp://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Dec_2007_ry&zo.php
Author
FRANCOIS VICTOR TOCHON is
professor
of world
language
education, UW-Madison,
Department
of Curriculum and
Instruction,
School of
Education,
Teacher Education
Building,
225 North Mills
Street, Madison,
WI
53706;
e-mail:
fiochon
education .wise,
edu. Dr. Tochon shares his affiliation with the
Department
of French & Italian. He has
published
in
English,
French, Italian,
Spanish, Portuguese,
Vietnamese,
and Turkish.
Dr. Tochon trains
language
teachers to solve classroom
problems through
video
feedback,
video
study groups,
and the
analysis
of
practice.
He
proposes
a
deeper approach
to
language
teaching
that
integrates
crosscultural
understanding
and action. He
currently helps
teacher
education institutions introduce standards with electronic
portfolios
and
linguafolios.
681

The Key To Global Understanding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Key To Global Understanding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Key to Global Understanding: World Languages EducationWhy Schools Need to Adapt

Author(s): Francois Victor Tochon

You might also like