(AAUSC)Coordinators,American Association and Directors of University of Foreign Supervisors, Language Programs SeriesA IssuesSeries Editor inof LanguageAnnual Volumes Program Direction Redefining the ManagingSallyCharles Sieloff J.Editor James,Magnan, University University of ofWisconsinMadison WisconsinMadison BoundariesLanguage of Study DavidEditorialVirginia I? Benseler, Board Benmaman, Case CollegeWestern ofReserve Charleston University CarolCharlesDianeTheodoreYukiko A.W Hancock, Klee,Birckbichler, Hatasa, V Higgs,University OhioPurdue San OhioState UniversityofDiego MinnesotaStateUniversity State University University EditorClaire Kramsch JudithJohn ClaireE E. TimothyLalande Liskin-Gasparro, Kramsch, II,Light, University University Western University of Michigan ofIllinois CaliforniaBerkeley of Iowa University JayAliceJudith Siskin,BenjaminWilga Omaggio Muyskens, Brandeis M Rifkin, Rivers, Hadley, University University Harvard University of University ofCincinnati ofWisconsinMadison Illinois JoelMaryAlbert C.Richard Walz, Wildner-Bassett, Valdman, V University Teschner, Indiana ofUniversity GeorgiaUniversity of TexasArizona at El Paso submission.SeeThisStyle pages publication for 341-347the AAUSC follows in this Series the volume Chicago for Manual of Styledetails (Reference about preparing Style B). articles for AnHeinleBoston, International & Heinle Massachusetts Publishers Thomson 02116, Publishing Company U.S.A. AcknowkdgmentsContentsClaireIntroduction: Kramsch Making the Invisible Visible vii ix WakingMarkTheI. Theoretical Metamorphosis WebberUp to Theory Boundaries of the Foreign Language Director, or: 3 LindaPsychoanalytic,Subjects-in-Process:II. Educational M von Hoene Feminist, Revisioning Boundaries and Postcolonial TA Development Theory Through 39 RichardRedefiningHung-ninPoetics Kern to the Pedagogy: Samuel Boundaries Cheung The of Imagistic Foreign PowerLanguage of Language Literacy 9961 andmechanical,beCopyright reproduced retrieval © including system,1995 or transmitted by without Heinlephotocopy, permission &in Heinle. recording, inNo writing from the publisher. any form or by any means electronic, or parts of this publicationor any information may storage TowardIII.Celeste Linguistic a ReflectiveKinginger Boundaries Practice of TA Education 123 company.HeinleManufactured & Heinle in the Publishers United States is of America. an International Thomson Publishing ALanguageRedefining CarlFramework Blyth Classroom the for Boundaries Investigating as a Multilingual of Language the Effectiveness Speech Use: The Community of Foreign Study 145 ISBN10 0-8384-6029-1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 AbroadThom Programs Huebner 185 TheLanguageRedefining Foreign Use: Languagethe Boundaries Classroom of as a CarlMultilingualUniversity Blyth of Texas atSpeech Austin Community Redefining the "boundaries" of foreign languagetheCommunities study style impliesin which are distinguished,they are imagined. not by Benedict their falsity/genuineness, Anderson (1991, but by p. 6) a redefini- usetoguagestudytion redefine of of ofclassrooms.languages the how boundariescurricular language in So our boundaries? what of classrooms? is language useddoes insociolinguistics What socialuse) What are Sociolinguistics contextsincludingare the thesocial have attitudes rules to tell is, thatof usof foreignforeign governas we seeklan- the course, the multilinguallingualpellingandguage outside teachers speechquestions the speech community. towardclassroom? can community be patterns found "Imagining" I believe inof reveals thelanguage thatsociolinguistic thethe foreignusepolyvalent and language language classroom choice inside part of the answer to these com- concept of the multi-nature of our disci- as a cultural/multilingualitspeechgeopolitical,plinary highlights community boundaries, theand dissonance affective. is societiesgermanewhich In between intersect particular, andto discussions the the prevailingwith realitythe othermetaphor of ofcurricular monolingual boundarieslinguistic, of the reform multilingual bias because of for- our postmodern multi- ideologybiaseign oflanguage the and language socialeducators teachingpractice (Cook profession,(Fraga 1992). I will et al. 1994; Romaine 1989), pro-a bias inherent in most Western argue that the monolingual 145 146 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 147 framedershipment.foundly Inand in affectsshort, terms language I foreignof will multilingualism. usership attempt language into theshow methodology foreign that our language debate and curriculum classroomover language shoulddevelop- own- be munityThesemakespeech itproblems communities,membershipimpossible aside, for with where mostoutsiders language definitions speakers to follow use, oftenof including speech even mix the communitylanguages thesimplest patterns in speechequate ways of verbal com-acts. that olinguisticRecentSociolinguistics models concepts, of andlanguage in Foreign particular pedagogy Language by communicative have Pedagogy been greatly competence, influenced a byconcept soci- ferencescommunitynitionsinteraction emphasize between membership and thenative shared frequency and(Dorian attitudes near-native of 1982).interactions and self-perceptions Inspeakers his (Gumperz study of French,of competence as1962). indicators Coppieters Other dif- defi-of knowledgewasChomskythat sociolinguistsessential (1965) of tothe distinguishargued linguistic devised that system,in competence,for reaction theoretical from to performance, anChomskyan linguistics idealized to thespeaker'slinguistic make actual progress, produc-abstracttheory. it primarily(p.whosuch(1987) 565) byis endowed the(my concludesinterested community emphasis).2 with thatin the areferred "a specificTherefore, way speaker "communication to formalas of ethnographersthat French ofunderlying French is someone within speakers,and linguistic [asociolinguists who speech not is acceptedsystem" someonecommu- are as competence/performancecharacterizedtionguistsimperfect of language reflection by in dysfluencies specific of a distinction, speaker'scontexts. and grammatical underlyingPerformance, they generally competence. error Chomsky agreedand as Whileclaimed,thatsuch compe- was sociolin- was an were equivocal about the theoretical necessity of the Troikethenity] ways is 1989,patterned in which p. 3). and these organized interact withas systems all other of systemscommunicativeForeign of language culture" events, educators(Saville- and and second language acquisition special- grammaticalcontextnamelytence so (Campbellthedefined knowledge competence overlooked and Walesof was the the butappropriateness1970). significance a single Hymes component of (1972) sociolinguisticof an contended utteranceof a broader knowledge, in that abase given such of guistsseconddiscussionguisticists, on agree thelanguagerather concerningother that than hand, communicativeacquisition). sociolinguistic thehave roles generally Whileof competencepsycholinguistics paradigms drawnboth sociolinguists more is (seecontext-specific, heavily and Preston sociolinguistics fromand psycholin-1989psycholin- in for that in a speechgainedknowledge,1993 wide communityfor anwhich currency overview he has namedamong garneredof research "communicativelanguage little relating recognitionteachers, communicative competence."While the (see related the Omaggio sociolinguistic concept competence Hadley of the conceptto of communicative competence has asorientation,textcommunication individual manifests second speaker/learners different always and occursforeignemphases. rather in language a Inparticular than keeping asteachers members context, with typically their of their a psycholinguistic particular notionview students of social con- communicationSaville-Troikeconceptsforeign language are intimately (1989)describes instruction). in linked hercommunicative introductory in This sociolinguistic is unfortunate competence text on theory. the because asethnography Forthe skillsexample, the twoand of faceinteraction.municativegroup.1983) communication: For says example,Instead,competence comparatively she in "Communicative her emphasizesin foreigninfluential little aboutlanguage a speaker's studies the instruction,larger concerning ability social to negotiateSavignon the norms role governing offace-to- (1972, com- knowledgeguistics,appropriately it a is speaker difficult within possesses, a to particular define withthat speech allowmuch community" precision.him orEven her Speech(p.though "to 2). communicate communities,the speech community is a central concept to sociolin- locutors"exchangeabilityinformation to (Savignon functionin which input, in linguistic1972, both a truly linguistic communicative competence and paralinguistic, settingthat of is, in p. 8). competence may be defined as the must adapt itself to the total one or more inter- a dynamic justisthenotlike asthe boundary statictherelanguages, blurring isand no between discreteof clear are linguistic hard demarcation speechbut to ratherboundariespin communities down; betweendynamic theymore genetically andisrepresent apparent often gradient. blurred. relatedphenomenathan In in And other languages,multilingual nowhere thatwords, are roundingbeSavignon's more likely context definition to ofemphasize events, of communicative the what goals McLaughlin of the Sociolinguists(1985) has called and the anthropological "sur- linguists would not disagree with competence. Rather, theyprogram would and of the teacher, or the148 interrelationship of nonverbal Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study to verbal behavior" (p. 149). encounter a book with the title Monolingualism" (p. 1). If you Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 149 studiesMcLaughlin in second advocates language the researchinclusion which, of more he ethnographicallyargues, would allow oriented for . . a withBritish, such aAmerican, statement. or Why Australian go to the English-speaker, trouble of writing you are likely to agree are a influencefiedthe`more classroom."3 in contextual the the work success Understandingof Cazden or failure (1988) of the classroom social who examineslife interactional of the classroomhow routines: cultural is exempli- factors perspective . needed to understand the social life of moreanyoneinationnormal than stateandwho multilingualism, explanation? ofhas affairs? grown Isn't up Romaine's initalthough thea society unusual itcomment holds where special monolingualismis generally importance applicable isfor valued theo- or abnormal that requires exam- a book about the to ourJustnaturalAll humanownas allto until speechone behavior we group travelhas is arean culturallysomewhere accent,experienced even based. where though as Waysculturally there we of isare talkinga strange differentnot made that to norm, seemawareanother. so of (1965)mostretical theoretical who linguists. defined linguists, the "boundaries" the most ofnotable the "scientific" exemplarRomaine study contendsbeing of Chomsky that monolingualism is the frame of reference language for Monolingual Bias and Foreign Language Pedagogyculturalpatterns phenomena,of teacher-student not 'natural' interactions in any in sense typical either. classroom (p. 67) lessons are wasinlanguagelistener,as one.afollows: perfectly Romaine in perfectly" a"Linguistic completely monolingual (1989) (p. theory3). homogeneouspoints Inspeech otheris concernedout community,words, that speech-community, linguistic primarily theory with an does who ideal knows speaker- a perfectly monolingual speaker an abstraction if ever there not fall its ForandingIt example,researcherswould methodology be current incorrect have emphasize paidtextbooks to scant claim, attentiononthe however, second importance to language social that of foreign factors social acquisition languageinand the affective classroom.and educators teach- vari- from the sky but originates within ideologyIt is . of western Europe and the major Anglophone. . no accident that linguistic theory has its origins in the cultural a particular cultural context: countries, educationalthe011erables metaphor in1993; language literature.Omaggio of the learning classroom Hadley Two (Ellis decades 1993; as1985; community Shrum ago, Larsen-Freeman Curran and isGlisan proposednot uncommon 1994). and aLong methodMoreover, 1991;in the of andsiontheseofwhich their of'one the nations attachlanguage. stateone state some andhave (p.language.' havespecial felt6) thereforethat significance minorityAt various tried groupsto weremonolingualism threats to the and cohe- thestages ethosto eradicate in their historyboth the most speakers of new(Richardslanguage to foreign 1986).teaching language Yet, that while educators, he thecalled general the Community idea idea of theof communityclassroom Language as may Learninga multilin- not be fromFraga Western et al. (1994) ideology claim in whichthat the the individual . one stateone language ethos derives standableremainssuigual generis speech largely since naturecommunity foreignunexplored of multilingualism, language most by certainly foreign education language is.the Or, inPandora's the even educators. United more box States to ofThis the linguistics, (and point,is under- west- the monolithicfiedwhole"fied subjects" subject (p. 8).national wereDuring castidentity. the development In of the . . an autonomous, coherent, consistent, and definable as "unified citizens" who were seen as sharing a a sense, citizens were embodiments of "the Western nation state,is conceived "uni- of as a "uni- identityproblematicdistinctionnativeern Europe) speaker of thebetween has nowadays: nativenorm. always native speaker,But been "Not as speaker Kramschpredicated onlybut recent have and (forthcoming) on non-nativescholars a rather started idealized speaker points questioning out,monolingualhas evenbecome the years have also seen a slow but Frenchstateone(Fraganational population languageet language,al., p. 8). ethos.did the not Whennational speak a Frenchsurvey culture, discovered andFrench often that history two-thirds provides of a particularly good example of the one at the time of the revolution, the the national religion" the booknativesure on erosion bilingualismspeaker of hisis the unquestioned with modus this operandi sentence: authority" of "ItRomaine wouldQuestioning (1989)certainly whothe be identity begins odd herand authority of the idealized monolingual to Frenchguisticicypolitical aimed empiresdiversity left, at eliminatingwhich and in had monarchiesthe recently all regional of the languages.4 name of national unity continued during the come to power formulated a ruthless pol- nineteenth century and lasted well The elimination of lin- placeinto1501972, the pour democraticFrench les langues President republics minoritaires Pompidou of the dans openlytwentieth une declaredFrance century. destinée thatRedefining Even "11 a n'yas marquer thelatea pas Boundaries as de of Language Study ButbetterIf you if atyouhave the have learnt Sorbonne, learnt French Frenchthen at university,bilingualism from your preferably isold something grandmother in France very in andpositive. Maine even Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 151 consciousFrancel'Europetion ofdestined de politicalpolicy son to sceau.'of make andlinguistic social (Thereits mark hegemony centralization, is on no Europe)" room is consonant for the(Ager minority primary 1990,with languages France'sgoalp. 30). being Such tradi- in "`to a ificationtivelyIt is only or veryof natural bilingual negatively for Americansspeakers given inthe tothe minority evaluate United status States.bilingualismthen and Thebilingualism socioeconomic irony, either of is very course,something strat-posi- is rather to be ashamed of. (p. 96) towardsusage.beingensure less Nevertheless,that multilingualism. concernedpolitical boundaries the with United Fraga issues also Stateset of al. become language (1994) has itsCompared affective argue ownstandardization history that to English the French, and monolin- correct Americans are generally acknowledged as boundaries" (p. 30). of ambivalence exceptionthearethat unaware normAmericans throughoutto ofthe thewho rule.6 global perceive most Given sociolinguistic of monolingualismthat the multilingualworld, facts. and as monolingualism non-nativeIt theis multilingualism natural speakers state that of areaffairs thatis the is gualism has always been the ideal accepted by activelyBilingualism,mostlanguage Americans: discouraged. otherexcept than for The the English story brief of study punishment of foreign at languagesschool for in speaking school, isa is shared by many generations of eigningguage4`makemajority, species language use, the Kramsch andmultilingualor a the nationalisticteachers monolingual (forthcoming) speaker and myth." SLA monocultural calls Cookresearchers on (1992) foreign speaker similarlywould language a slowly do argues well teachers disappear- thatto take for- to the unmarked form, the infinitive of lan- Americanseuphemismsion.languagehere has Today, been ofhas all to been andthe ethnic speak continues termconsidered backgrounds.about bilingual to the fundamentalbe poor,English, is The often the de and uneducated,tousedfacto thethe innationalnation'sexclusive this countryor sociallanguage theuse ofnewly cohe- asthis a as thecourseing:multilingualCameroon 285 "It of wouldnative a day, incommunities belanguages" which taken salutary froma person for(p.as the the579).SLA 2 may modelofficial research use for languages, four second/foreignif it or started five the languages from4 lingua language countries francas, in learn-the such or Thetogualism mostgain momentum,recent is the manifestationofficial especially English of orin American statesEnglish with onlyambivalencearrived. large movement, Spanish-speaking(p. 12) toward which multilin- continues popu- IfClassrooms we take the as advice Multilingual of Kramsch Speech and CommunitiesCook seriously and make Cameroon forEnglishlations,speaking English such First, inpopulationsas the theFlorida, major United California, political willStates, lead organizationsargue and to disunityTexas. that the Leaders advocatingand increase eventual of U.S. in official non-English Englishsocial status unrestand standingrooms?Whatwouldor some shouldit Tosuchofmean howanswer themultilingual to multilingual "imagine"role these of thequestions, country ourspeakersLl andclassrooms our itthe useis model, L2necessary their beas multilingualvariousinwhat foreign to would gain languages. language ahappen?communities? better under-class- What viewatelythetionincluding use that successfulbilingualism of would separatismother languagestomandate date.5 or (Adams multilingualism This thein American officialandis not Brinks to statussay publicwith 1990). that ofscorn discourseall English Initiatives monolingual and suspicion.haveand to thereby beenpass Americans legisla-moder-On limit the studyOneLanguage of of the why Useprimary speakers in Foreign areas choose of Language sociolinguistic one language and Bilingual inquiryrather than is Educationlanguage another choice,in different the contrary,tiallypositive evaluations many orif somewhatnegative monolingual of a evaluations person's idealized Americans social light. of aclass, speaker's Skuttnab-Kangassee ethnicity,bilingualism bilingual or educational in (1981)ability an extremely arenotes level: essen- that pedagogicalgivenguageilysocial reworded contexts learningstudents/teachers effectsfor (Fasoldsituation? foreign of language1984, language choose(Faltis p. 180).7 choice 1990).educationone languageThis for Or foreignsociolinguisticresearch: rather language Why than questiondo anotherstudy? foreign is Such lan-in a put differently, what are the eas- 152 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 153 praxis.becausequestions teachers are rarely do askednot perceive by foreign the relevancelanguage professionals,of such questions presumably to their exclusivedentsimmersion as it use were. ofis thethe Yet targetbest beginning approach. language students raises In fact, their are they "affectivenot frequently always filter." convinced Zephir thatand report that the Forotherthe next.example, communities, In some in so-called communities, speakers diglossic maintain speakers communities, a strictpermitNorms separation language of language mixing, use differ greatly from one multilingual society to different languages are of the languages. while in datedwithEnglish.FrenchChirol beginning technique (1993)that Cook 80 foundpercent(1992) usedforeign inby notespreferred their teacherslanguage that classroomtheof students deaf exclusive children. instructionis reminiscent use In of a the misguidedin bothtarget of aFrench nowlanguage effort out- and to survey of 300 students enrolled in beginning orreserved foreignpartmentalizationdomains, for language specifice.g., education, classrooms linguisticof languages business, functions in Americanin a religion,diglossic and specific community universities where teachers and etc.8 The functional com- institutional contexts resembles many Milk fromemphasizestoprevent sit theon deaf theirclassroom, thatstudents hands while theythereby from teachers can using forcingnever may sign banish banish themlanguage, itto thefrom use teachersstudents' spokentheir students' required nativelanguage. minds.language children Cook Americanstudentsstudent'smixing(1990) are ofreferssecond nativecarefullanguages to language tothe keepis strictimpossible English teachersis separationinterdicted. andin as foreign the"an Whethertarget article language language the methodology separate. of the LI and the L2 among of faith" (p. 41).classrooms The where the is the toconclusionsabout uncover their ownpatterns about language actual of natural language choice language in use the based classroom, use onandWhile the it ispossible surveys impossible motivations are tointeresting draw in that they uncover teachers' beliefs survey data alone. In order today'sdirectshouldguage method, language in be used the teacher exclusively audiolingual often in views method, the classroom or the communicativedomain,On the otherthey hand, approach, while many teachers feelthe thatclassroom the target as a languagesine qua non for language learning. the exclusive use of the target lan- do not always ogyparticipanttogistsinterestedbehind another have language inbeen occur classroom observation. able andchoice, to indocumentinteraction) what By using ways if generallyand such the when languagesa methodology, rely switches on a may different from or anthropolo- one may methodol- language not be anthropologists (including ethnographers andFrenchlanguagepractice French courses what use were amongthey at thereportedly preach. Universitygraduate Zéphir used student of forMissouri different teaching and topics discovered in the and Chirol (1993) surveyed classroom assistants in beginning whilethat French English classroom. Fallisenon,Gumperzbetweenmixed. commonly(1978) 1972,In two multilingualas "theorGal referred more alternating1978, languages to communities1979, as code-switching use Myers-Scotton ofin twodaily throughout languages discourse (CS), I993a,b). is on the definedis the typical world, This word, by phenom- (Blom Valdés-phrase, and switching wasEnglishtorsdepended issues,chosen switched was e.g.,largelyforoften communicative gradingto selected Englishon discourse procedures, for when explicit topic speaking changes grammaror to explanations the syllabus, exam activities. In other words, code choice communicative task. Many instruc- about classroom management schedule. plesintegrityticclause, interference from or of sentencenaturally both languages. and level"occurring integration (p. Valdes-Fallis 1). Chicano Most in scholars thatSpanish/English (1978) CS distinguish maintains gives the discourse: CSfollowing the from structural linguis- exam- eignTheroomEnglish resultslanguage use with of the teachingtheir targetsurvey students language. profession: indicate while a professing common Many contradictiona teachers continuebelief to in speakthe exclusive class- with the for- (1) then'Well,ya Well,dejo. I I LastIkeep keep week, starting starting empece some. otra ComoFor vez. about a month I write stop. Last week, I started again.' (p. 1) por un mes, todos los &as escribo y every day and studentsroomsmizeoutside would their have of class. students'seem few ifItto anywould makeexposure opportunities eminentappear to the that sense, target toteachers encounterparticularly language,The are exclusive simplythe to target immerse trying use language of to the target language in foreign language in contexts where the stu- maxi-class- processtentialIn (1), CSand of occurs borrowingintrasentential between which switching).sentences Valdes-Fallis CS (1978)is usually illustrates distinguished in (2). from the as well as within a sentence (intersen- 154 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 155 thenIn(2) (2) adapted the verb phonologically "push" has been and borrowed morphologically from'TheLos the muchachostoEnglishboys conform were language pushingestin to the puchando lin-and the truck.' la troca. (Valdes-Fallis 1978, p. 2) butmother,membersThe the exchange children a nativeof an in who Italian speaker(4) ishave an "guest of excerptlived Italian, worker"most from asks of atheirherfamily bilingual children lives living in conversation aGermany questionin Germany. respond in between Italian, The in guisticfromassimilation.English systemCS word"where ofValdes-Fallis "truck," Spanish. all items has Likewise,are (1978)undergone used exactlyemphasizes the phonologicalword as they "troca," that are such found andderived borrowings morphological in the from original" differthe DespitenotmultilingualGerman. remarked its Notice widespread communities upon that theas usage, longmother (Myers-Scotton ashowever, switches it occurs CS to in isGerman1993b); analmostCS "appropriate is too ofteninalways other("Ja?"). the stigmatized, words, unmarkedcontext." it is or normal way to communicate in many rizeever,(p.(3) 2). as since inThe the theredistinction following exist intermediate examplebetween fromCS phenomena and Cajun borrowing FrenchJ'ai that draw discourse.are is mon problematic,difficult security, to catego-',eche how- des ecrevisses . et on a enjoy ca tu sais. teachersguage(Fasoldeven by teaching 1984; thoseare bilingual, Romainemultilingual profession they 1989). asoftenspeakers well. This subscribe stigmaEven who though frequently isto prevalentnorms most of switch inforeignmonolingual the themselvesforeign language dis-lan- The "enjoy"problem which that presents sound like itself English in (3) but is lacksingle y'know.'Ithe withdrew word correct (Blyth,switches pastmy pension, tenseforthcoming) such inflection fishedas some crawfish . . . and we enjoyed it, inevitablyclassrooms.course, which to Indeed,half-breed denigrate the codes"franglais" mixingthe mixing of languages of languagesinside or "Spanglish."°While is often the assumedissues or outside of tolanguage lead the choice and CS have received relatively CD theyfollow(e.g., appear enjoy+ed). Valdes-Fallis' in the Such original CS structures criterion language with that (Picone their all lexical anomalous 1994).9In items(1), (2), morphology be andused (3), exactly CS do is not aslimited to a single speaker; however, in con- bygualcontroversylittle1990; teachers educatorsattention Ramirez would in in supportedbilingual foreign 1980). confuse languageJacobsonmethodologythe the common students methodology,(1990) sense and(Durin claims lead view 1981; tothey that "cross-contamination." Jacobsonhaveforlanguage many been and switchingyearscenters Faltis bilin- of (4)toforversation, respond parents CS in to another isaddress quite languagecommon their children betweenas in (4). in onespeakers. languageAdult: For example,and for the it ischildren typical Cosa vuoi fare Lukas? thatSuch it conventionalneeded no empirical wisdom, proof: he points out, wasAsof language felt either to language,be separation so self-evident the would concurrent lead to use the of uncontaminated both languages acquisitionwould lead to Francesca 'goausgehe'What out' do you want to do, Lukas?' shouldconfusion,researchlanguage. have projectmixing Whetherbeen in andsupported the this highlypast latter has accentedby ever argumenthard explored dataspeech could but,this patterns issue.unfortunately, actually (p. in 4) the be targetupheld, no AdultLuca Ja?in de WaldIn the forest Accordingsion/immersion,language todistribution Jacobson, separation, orthere choice andare approximatelyinconcurrent. bilingual Ineducation submersion three basic classes: orpatterns immersion submer- of Luca Ahhh,'Yeah?'(Auer`Ohh, in 1984,inder the Wald p.forest.' 14) dentsentotherteacher,programs, ways. twomay approaches, Inaspend time separationonly theof the day, morning targetboth approaches, languages language speaking languages areis English permitted used inareand instruction restricted inthe the afternoons classroom. butto a in specific speak-differ- In the a place, or a particular content. For example, stu- 156 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 157 teachersseparationSpanishing Spanish; indecide otherapproach or the contentstudents appropriate resembles areas, may such domainsonly a kind as speak mathematics of for pedagogical theEnglish different and in diglossialanguage science.languages. Thus, inarts which andthe aprendimos acerca del aire y el espacio?(Jacobson 1990, p. 12) view/review,thesewhich approaches allow both and respectivelylanguagesnew concurrent to asbe flipflopping, usedapproach in the (NCA). classroom. concurrentThe concurrentFlipflopping Jacobson translation, category isrefers essen- pre- to is reserved for four different approaches, mainteachergetpreviewing points. language switches And a lesson for finally, back the in toheartthe the the child's New ofchild's the Concurrent vernacular lesson.dominant At andApproachThe language the then preview/review end switching (NCA),forof the lesson, approach the refers to the instructional practice of a review of the to the tar- a teach- (5)discourseswitches.tially unrestricted asIn well(5), anas betweenexampleCS, which speakers.of flipflopping, may or may CS not"Flipflopping" occurs include within intrasentential the teacher's learningstudent'sclassrooming method environment. Ll CS. pioneeredfrom The the basic classroom Moreover,by premise Jacobson, of issuch NCAlikely is aa practiceishighly to that result any structured is in approach attemptseen as to aexclude waste of a aa highly artificial to T:S1: Muy Que elbien. aire And pesa. what have we learnedaprendimos about airabout and air space? and weight? recuerdan Uds. de lo que aprendimos about air? Qutf es lo que 2.givespotentially1. four criteria important on which pedagogical language choice resourcethe shouldTheBoth teaching beLI. languages based. Jacobson of content are (1983)to beis notused to for be equalinterrupted; amounts of time; T:S2: Excelente.'Do Que you el aire remember ocupa espacio. what we learned about air? What did we learn CS4.3. is constrained by two further requirements: Theconsciously1) all switchdecision switches mustidentified to switch relate cue; tobetween a specific the learningtwo languages objective. is in (p. 120) response to aare teacher- T: Sl:'Good. 'That And air haswhat weight.' have we learned about air and weight?'space?' troca")kindisinitiated; meant found and toand safeguardCajun in 2) Chicano all French switches against Spanish ("On must highly a enjoy be("Los intersentential.stigmatized ca") muchachos and thereby language This estin insure last mixingpuchando requirement the of the la struc- (JacobsonT:S2: 'Excellent' 'That air 1990, takes p. up11) space.' accordancelikelyCS.complicatedtural Foreign find integrity withit proposition languagedifficult ofthe the sixteen differentindeedteachers since CS it tocues codes.whoinvolves monitor prescribed may It shouldlearning betheir unfamiliar by languagebe specificJacobson with proceduresalternation (1981). CS would Faltis forin apparent that NCA is a Thisbutevery the approach sentence. teacher alwaysamountsThe students uses to bothsaying may languages choose the same either in thingaConcurrent languagehighly twiceonce redundant to translation communicate, in manner.English requires the teacher to give two versions of sonal(1990)1: classroom relationships. groups Jacobson's strategies, sixteen curriculum, CS languageIn development, essence, the cues and serve interper- as a teacher's criteria for deciding the appro- cues into the four categories of Table and(6) then "Concurrent in Spanishas translation" exemplified in (6). T: We learned yesterday that air haspesa. weight. And Ayer what dijirnos have quewe learnedel aire about air and space? Qué. teacherwhenmaypriateness listening bemay used feeland to to aeffectiveness long breakswitch stretches the to Englishfatigue of of CS the isandduring foreignin monotonyorder language because that the(4d, students often feel a given lesson. For example, CS text is writtenfatigue). The 158 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 159 TheMble New 1 Concurrent Approach Cue System T:S3:mos.con Muy Pusimosel vaso bien, y una laLorenzo. toallita toallita de encima papel? de Lorenzo, un vaso yjme no puedense mojd decir el papel. lo que hici- c.b.a. 1.conceptualcapturingreview Classroom of reinforcement strategiesattention C.b.a.2. languageCurriculumtopictext appropriateness S4:T: .paper(la, .. Conceptual didn't get wet? Reinforcement) Whobecause can tell the me air now in the why cup the didn't let the water into the napkin. a.3.d. variableLanguagepraise/reprimand language development dominance a.4. Interpersonalintimacy/formality relationships T:T: porque(2c,(1d, el Praise)aireText) ocupa Now,Muy espacio bien. I want yTü no si youpermite pusiste to turnque atencidn. entre to page el Elagua. 18apapel one no seand mojd an c.b. translatabilitylexical enrichment c.b. freecourtesy choice eightHere you will see. another experiment.. (Faltis 1990, p. 50) f.e.d. rapportself-awarenessfatigue T: SI:'Very good. Isela, what have we learnedRobert, about what air andhave space?' we learned about air and weight?'that air Dohas youweight.' remember what we have been learning about air? Thus,life/culturein English CS is and viewed (2c, therefore text) as aor valuable lends because itself technique, the to topic discussion isthat closely teachers in English related (26, to American topic). are encouraged T:S2: `Do'Very you good.' remember the experiment we did yesterday with the cup that air takes up space.' lationsuchto listeningmaster an that, approach and they skills use claim, emphasizein strategically their does less not that dominant encourage throughout CS should language. students nottheir be lessons. usedto NCA develop simply Proponents appropriate for of proponents also trans- T:S3: 'Who'Good, 'We putcan Lorenzo.' thetell napkin me now around why the the paper cupand and didn't paper it didn't get napkin, wet?' get wet.'Lorenzo? Can you tell me what we did?' cificemphasize(7) objective that as teacher-initiated exemplified in (7). CS should alwaysT:"New Do be Concurrentyou motivated remember byApproach what we (NCA)" have been learning about air? Robert, a spe- T:S4: 'Very`. good. You certainly paid attention.through.'wet because The thenapkin air. took didn't up get space. and didn'tbecause let the the water air in getthe cup didn't let the water into the napkin.' T:Sl: Very good. Isela, what have we learned.what abouthave weair learned.and space? about. air and weight?that air has weight. T: 'Now, I want you to turn to pageyou will18a see another experiment.' one and an eightHere T: S2:Very good. (16,. .. Review) Se recuerdan del experimentothat air takes up space. que hicimos el otro dia SpanishIn (7) the to teacherreview the begins main thepoints day's of the lesson previous in English day's lesson. but switches After elicit- (Faltis 1990, pp. 50-53) to reinforcesing160 the main and points, refines she the switches basic concepts. back to English When theto ask correct a questionRedefining answer that the is Boundaries of Language Study (8) this'Your learning explication activité. is elifficile The information to comprendre. is insuffisante.' Je am having (Giauquedifficulté withand Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 161 analysisspecifiesreferringemphasizegiven, ofthe classroomher toteacher the andmotives praise. reading chooses behavior for And all anto finally,CS. thepraiseEnglish Faltisteacher thethe (1990)text. teacherstudent views In claims herselfthisinswitches Spanish, kind that on tosuchofvideotape presumablyEnglish postmortem a method andwhen tois language teachers and most bilingual educatorsIronically,Ely take 1990, great p. it pains 178)is this to kindavoid. of stigmatized admixture that most foreign room.wishalsouseful notes to in understand training that such teachers the a procedure interactive to use the might nature sixteen prove of CS decision valuable cues more making to successfully.researchers in the class- who He thatthemixingbilingualIn fact, first this theof monthkind approaches this kind of sort or hybridof so ismixing ofshort-livedto languageCS.beginning exemplified But Giauque andis foreigna isstage intendedin and(8) languagein isstudents'Ely strictly to point be classes. used language forbiddenout exclusivelythat They languagedevelop- in claim most in level(1990)approachgogical of have foreignpotential taken proposed languagefrom of CS bilingual a proceduredo study not education. thatnecessarily for is basedimplementing For followon Foreignexample, the useNCA CS languageof Giauqueat orcognates. the any beginning educatorsspecificand They Ely who have experimented with the peda- French.definiterealizeducedment that in that Pronoun andthe will the targetindefinite quicklyteacher subjects language: giveis articles alsovery way begin". serious beginto tostretches appearabout to appear, theasof Frenchextendeduse not of in'Frenglish.'words, English, discourse as do Soon,but somepro- in . . after a few class periods, the students inargue the foreignthat CS language is a useful classroom: procedure that actuallyguagesThe increases basic is that principle communication the teacher of using speaks code-switching the foreign language in teaching using foreign many cog-lan- 50%"amount(i.e.,cognate one (p. words,of 179).French French and word increasescertain for approximatelyconjugations to 10%, then of two the 20%, verblines and 'toof soon be'.English . it is text) 33% the to . . From 5% verythatwhichnatetaught, it earlywords, isare possible notindirectly,stage and cognates in usesto their understand tocode-switchingin learning listenthe target fora experience. great language.cognate dealto communicate of words;AsFrom the a result, targetthe the outset, studentsteacher'slanguagethose they words learn useatare a of priorintervalsUniversitypilot studyknowledge throughout ofwith Northern 30of studentsnor the Arizona.experience semester. enrolled The Not with studentsin surprisingly, aCS beginning and wereTo therefore examine interviewed mostFrench studentsfound reactions course at its regularhad initialat to the the procedure, Giauque and Ely conducted a no additionaltime,bothEnglish1990, worlds:the contextualwords pp.teacher 174-75) students when uses clues cognates Englishcomprehend for understanding. do only not aquiteexist large insparingly. amount, Wethe thustarget whilehave(Giauque languge the at thebest providesand same of Ely whousesuch were ofin a CStheteaching skeptical inclassroom class method atand the highly soon beginning would reported unusual. lead of positiveto theIn "bad fact,year feelingshabits." mostgradually students aboutHowever, increased the worried effective- students their that ductivebeginning capacity of foreign in the language target language. study when The studentsprocedureGiauque have encourages and virtually Ely emphasize students no pro- that CS should be used only in the very eignusefulnesstowardingness language of of their CS.the oftechnique. Instudyprofessionals theterms CSwas of procedure" Giauque thisfurther should significant research, and "makein Elyorder positive state thean to unbiasedauthors that change the suggest examinationmost in studentimportant that ofattitude thefind- uncover the effects of CS on more for- EnglishguageFrenchguage,targetto communicate language. they grammar are cognatesfree Whateverusingmatrix to communicateany as (mostly instudentswords (8). or nouns cannot inexpressions English. and say orverbs)The they write result can plugged in isproducethe a hybridtarget into in lan- lan- thean student achievement (p. 183). 162 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 163 WhileTranslationLI in L2 the Learning: literature Scaffolding,on CS in the foreignPrivate languageSpeech, andclassroom Mental may be lim- maynomenapotentially provide such give important as important CS or, insights more clues generally, into to a thelearner's development the use consciousness. of the of Llsecond in interactionThus, language phe- guagecross-linguistictheited, LI there acquisition,in second is a large influence language contact and growing has acquisition.linguistics, long body been andForof central research example,historical to thethat thelinguistics. fields explores study of ofsecond the However,so-called role lan- of competence.is closely associated This discursive, with the socioculturalRussian psychologist approachdimensionFor VygotskyVygotsky. to humanof consciousness (1986), cognition consciousness is derivatory is co-knowledge;and secondary. Tothe account individual for tural,contrastiveguisticsdevelopment.these linguisticfields as wellanalysis have In factsas other beenthe and with earlywords, limitederror little methods analysisin reference the comparativepast of shared applied toto posthocsocial a common linguistics, method and studies psychological reliance of suchhistorical of linguistic onfields struc- fac-lin- as thatchangeddynamicthis1985). maintainsphenomenon byfeatures This the thatperspectiveconcrete of social requiresinteraction particulars interactions differs studies that fundamentally ofallow thattheirprovide individuals capturesocial opportunities context from the to evolvingthechange (Rommetveit current co supplyand and viewbe theandotherreviewstors. LIsocial hand, toRecent the -.warenessseveral haveL2. approaches studiesmade can roomaffectthat to transfer show forthe transfernonstructuralthat in seconda speaker's of grammatical language factors. metalinguistic acquisition, structuresOdlin (1989) fromon the awareness inputImplicit and in acquisition. such an approach In the strong is the version rejection of oftheinternallinguistic the input causal language hypothesis,input link to processing learners between com- whomechanisms. develop (Donatosolely on 1994, the basisp. 38) of their attentionapproach toto learningsecond language as "situated acquisition, activity" (LaveresearchersIn and a furtherWenger have paidattempt 1991): increasing to move beyond a purely structural or linguistic modelreductionist.takesion,prehensible issue comprehensible of communicationwith input They such bringsclaim an input input that aboutbased facilitates model the languageon input informationof acquisition. language hypothesis acquisition; learningprocessing Platt perpetuates inand asthe Brooks simplisticwhich weaker a spurious (1994)is itself ver-and skillinmeanisticLearning communities arequires toprocess drawviewed newcomers thatattention of as wepractitioners situated call to to legitimatethe activitymove point and toward has thatperipheral as thelearners fullits mastery centralparticipation participation. inevitably defining of knowledge in participate Bycharacter-the thissocio- and we information,tion.metaphorfounded In this on equates theconception a message, questionable linguistic ofto communication,the messagesmetaphor listener who toof packageslanguage thepromptly speaker asthat unwraps asends container.contain a the package informa- package Such of a takespyscholinguisticThis new place perspective in a paradigmsparticipation seeks wherein an framework, integration learning notis ofcultural viewed inthe sociolinguistic practices as of a community. and (p. 29) an individual mind" a "process that transmissionmetaphorsometimesand takes outof directsend languagefrom the packages theirinformation. speaker commentssuggests toto themselves).listener. Platt that to themselves andmeaning Recent Brooks More work remains and important,point innot discourse outtoinvariant others thatthe containerspeakers analysis (people during analysis."thisproduct,(Hanks vein, 1991, the DonatoHe so-called definesp. 15). (1994) microgenesisacquired describes structures, Researchers who adopt this perspective shift their focus from the a research practice called "microgenetic to the process of acquisition. In capturetionrathercharacterizes of the meaning" this result new meaning of andview a dynamic "co-construction notof communicationas andthe staticcollaborative of product meaning" within effort. of an theare individualThe fieldfrequently terms of discourse "negotia-mind used but to tions,tionmicrogenetic toduring gestures, all details a analysistraining etc. of anNone of session,interaction: learner of these experiment, behavior, detailsintonational the researcher as "the gradual course of skill acquisi- can be ignored since theyor interaction"may (p. 38). In acontours, eye gaze, hesita- pays close atten- emphasizedmodelinganalysis ignores of (Schiffrin communicationin theVygotskian role 1994). speech approaches Finally, is playsthe conventional communication in to mediating second languagePredicatedbelief cognitive as information of acquisition."foreign onfunctioning the language process-input hypothesis and an information processing as moreteachers164 language that the they more will studentsacquire. This are exposedprevalent to belief the targetelevates language, theRedefining quantity the the Boundaries of Language Study 6.5. demonstratingcontrolling frustration an idealized during version problem of the solving, act to andbe performed. (p. 41) Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 165 isacquisition.of used,language,ininput the and classroomabove Milkwhat but all rather kindsargues other should "inof (1990)possible interactions whatnot bethat manner qualitativeframed the students question and in interms factors are what of involved whichof contextin 'how second language inmuch' each when language languageof tousing whichuse certainlearners(Donato conditions, who 1994; are Platt engagedlearners and willBrooks in group engage 1994). work in "dialogicallyDonato withoutIn recent (1994) the constituted studies,aid claims of an thethat guidedexpert concept under of scaffolding has been extended to discoursethe language" have proposed (p. 38). theResearchers metaphor whoof scaffolding study first to and describe second the language inter- (9)collectivesupport, or scaffolding collective in scaffolding" (9). (p. 53). HeSpeaker gives an 1 example of such . scaffoldingactionstive and between nativefrom everydaylearners speakers). and life: Cazden teachers (1988) (or more provides generally, a helpful between illustration nonna- of Speaker 2 marMge. ..Tu as and then I'll say...... or should I say mon anniversaire? . tu as souvenu notre anniversaire de withImagine the caption, a picture "Everyone of an adult needs holding a helping the handhand." of a very young toddler . .. The child does Speaker 13 Tu as souvenu ...... you remembered? on)offeringgraduallyoccurswhat as hethe in onlyor child'sthe withdrawn she acontext finger, cancompetence and of(fromand the then full grows.adultholding withdrawing performance; does (p. two 102) the hands rest;that and atothe fewthe just child's adult'sinches, one, practice then helpand tosois Speaker 123 Ah,Oh,Yea, tu t'asit's but tusouvenu. isn't es that reflexive? Tu t'as Hatch (1978, 1983) was one of the first researchers to note that L2 Speaker 13 tu Tues, estu es, tu . . . addinginglearnersmetaphorresulting from on rely theirto discourse oftheon scaffoldingrepertoire. "experts"linguistic is therefore toscaffolding Inis supply aessence, powerful described them supplied learners onewith andas L2by build"jointly thehasstructures nativebeen their constructed." used speakers.sentencesthat areto describe miss- The byThe Speaker 13 tu t'esTuT'es, t'es tu souvenu. t'es extend,describetermlearner originated behaviorcurrent the "conditions inskills in the various fieldand inknowledgeof fields whichcognitive other the to psychology thannovice higher Ll and canlevels where L2 participate ofacquisition. itcompetence" was usedin, Theand to correctcourse atFrench an American translation university, of "you remembered" the students collaborate(TuIn(p. thist'es44) souvenu).interaction to arrive Speaker between at the three students in a third-semester French (Donatotions:(1976)1. 1994,who characterize p. 40). Donato scaffolding (1994) ascites performing Wood,recruiting Bruner, six interestimportant and in Ross thefunc- task, thecorrectbut3 contributes twothen formpieces selects of the of thethe grammaticalimportant auxiliarywrong auxiliary information (Oh, information, it's (*Tu tu es). that t'as). i.e., Finally, the Speaker reflexive verb Speaker souvenir 2 verbsnext 1 provides requiresynthesizesis reflexive etre the 4.3.2. simplifyingproducedmarkingmaintaining critical theand pursuittask, the features ideal of the solution, andgoal, discrepancies between what has been thecharacterizedtionlearnersas auxiliary. literature: of subsequent seek According outbymarking many information utterances. ofcritical to the Donato, functions from features He othernotesthis typicallyof brief learners thatdiscrepancies interactionthe ascribed forlearners' between is interactionevidence what that has is use in the construc- to scaffolding in tionbeen166 and produced risk by and relying the perceived on the collective ideal solution, resources and of minimizing the group.Redefining Donatofrustra- the Boundaries of Language Study 10c K: yes si Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 167 appearsofnegotiationemphasizes scaffolding then that of that form thesimilar scaffolding LI and constitutes tomeaning (9) occurs in iswhichan required. essential during the nonstructuredLIHe part isprovides ofused collective by several thetasks learners.scaffold- exampleswhen the It K: y umcuatrotostengo quince uno uhcien dos uh ytres (todiez self)cuarto geez cientos how mrnrn do I say cuatro this cientocuarto cientocientos diez urn &tares cuar- Spanishstudentstheiring in analysis L2studentsare discourse.faced of engaged withthe language a demanding in an informationproduced task that by gap university-levelrequires activity,Platt problemand Platt Brooks third-semester and solving. (1994)Brooks In state that the Ll is frequently used when L2 J:K: 'yes'I have yes' uh uh (to self) geez how 'What?'cuatrodo I say this four hundred urn incalledgivendiscovered the properinteraction."private that sense speech" students In Vygotskian and frequently is considered theory, talk to to this themselves be kind"an instrument of thinkingin the LI of aloud duringthought is . .. as it aids the individual in seeking and planning the a J:(PlattK: 'four' and Brooks 1994, p. 507) 'fourtenfour dollars onehundred two and threeand um ten'fifteen' four hundreds nimm four hundred hundred speechtions.concludesthesolution major from Platt of their findingsthata andproblem" itdata. Brooksperforms of (Vygotskystudies (1994) important on give1986,private cognitive, the speech following social, in adult example and L2 affective learners of private func- and p. 31). McCafferty (1994) reviews pointfor her out interlocutor that private but speech rather doesserves not to fit regulate into anPlatt her information-processing and Brooks claim that K's frequent whispering is not intended own cognition. They 10a(10) J:Private Speech K: (whispertienen unqué to[vi] tienes? self) urn howque condo you con- say con- that tina above contina para un espacio tonamelybe Brooksmodel the"processed" LI "situation ofwhen also communication findattempting by definition" otherthe interlocutor. uses to since define and of thethe "metatalk." for message, LIBesides themselves embedded inLearners private this ain learningcase, L2 speech, frequently learneris not task Plattintended discourse, or switch situ-and to lOb j: K: si'They'What havedo(whisper you [vi] have?' urnto self) that how"con do con- you con- say tainthat contains"above' for a space calledattentionsaymentation this."). on("Whatcommunicative theirto Plattthe areown ways andwe speech supposedstudentsactivities:Brooks production concludeuse to belanguage doing ("Let that here?")while meteachers think performing and shouldof when another variouspaythey way closer to com- so- 1: K: y segundo(totressay self)that en[linea]hm en it's la es nottiempo a amaking la trees (incomprehensible)tres sense tres urn (to self) es how la tres would you lemsespeciallyhaveThis weisseen, especially have atis the reallyseen lower incrucial the these proficiencyonly withvarious mediational respect exampleslevels, to tool for the of fullysolving talk.(p. available the 509) kinds of prob- use of L1, which, as we to learners, J:K:J:K: (to 'and self) second `lim it's [line] not makingis is three sense''three''yes' at the time is (incomprehensible) it's three' urn (to self) how would you say that contendstranslationabout the that role wheneverforeign of the language native beginning language teachers students in realize read the ResearchersL2 inevitability in ofL2 mental reading have recently been asking similar questions text comprehension. Kern (1994) texts. And yet, despite 168 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 169 the ubiquity of mental translation, both teachers and students alike view it the texbooks .examined. In. theaddition, majority no oftext Spanish-speaking contains significant countries are underrepresented in repre- Frenchwho"think-aloud"translationas an were "undesirable text. asked in He theprotocol foundto process verbalizecrutch". that on of beginningfifty-one Intheir L2 an text thoughtsattempt intermediate-levelL2comprehension, readers towhile uncover makesimultaneously strategictheKern French uses performed ofuse readingstudents mental of the aa veryAllsentationsthe but small middle a few ofpercentage the ofto theSpanish-speakingupper photographs of classes, the Spanish-speaking a ofsegment groups all five living which textbooks population. in represents, the Unitedexamined (p. 63)inStates. reality, depict . a . atgestsLl hensionallwhenever "thatcosts, processes"translation but cognitive rather, (p. is anor not442). importantmemory always limitsan developmental undesirable are exceeded. habit aspect Heto be oftherefore L2discouraged compre- sug- ismostmayFrench-speakingIt isthe obviousperpetuate insidiousmyth of that cultural butabsurd such and least textsSpanish-speaking Americanand recognized leavelinguistic studentsmyths myths homogeneity, about worldswith that foreign such and thetextbooks that cultures. myth such that perpetuateOnedistortion foreign of the a distorted reflection of the whetherRecognizingMonolingual it is in classthe Norms potential discussions, vs. Multilingual benefit in ofcommunicative the Norms Ll in foreign activities, language or evenlearning, in ingtextbooksoflanguage a resemblancemulticultural speakers depict foreign to aretrend Chomsky's "unified in personagesreal textbook subjects." "ideal publication, speaker-listener"; While there they inhabit or imaginedas bearing a strik- most foreign languageare encouraging signs a long-standingof theytialreading,foreign cognitive will language will probably teaching likelybenefits methodology. remainnot methods of find the difficult suchLl founded Evenas benefitsdemonstrated for if on teachersteachers the compelling principle do weddedin recognizethe of researchenough tolanguage the the orthodoxy toliterature, poten- foregosep- monolinguallingualInhomogeneous other nativewords, Madrilerios. speech-communityspeakersmonolingual the people To populating most andforeign Parisians,textbooksthey language know monolingual the teachers language and Berliners,perfectly. students are almost always mono- teachersmetaphorpurity.aration, In a must principleotherof the understand words,classroom based before onCazden's as Western athey multicultural/multilingual importantcan ideologies embrace observation of the linguistic seemingly that community, and arl culturalradical class- theallyeigntionsuch rulesassume language between a ofpractice thethat education nativelearning seems speaker,speaker "has"natural";a foreign traditionally and "the language nonnativeKramsch been is (forthcoming) speaker."nothing predicated Most claims people that for- norm against which the [nonnative] more than learning on the distinc- gener- American.room practiceincluding universities"are. culturalforeign phenomena,language. methodology not 'natural' asin practicedany sense in (Cazden 1988, p. 67). Next, they must understand that the theirspeaker's students performance as incipient is measured" bilinguals (p. belonging 2). But if teachers to a multilingual speech were to imagine Unfortunately,themmetaphor present of thea more itclassroom is furtherrealistic as complicated picture a multilingual of the by foreign communitycurrentPresenting culture. textbooks may a realistic actually that repre- picturehelp of any culture is a difficult challenge. goals.guagenormscommunity, studentsThisof language is could not for to use?athey verydeny reasonably simple the possibility reason: ask students They of native-like areMonolingual impossible, native unattainable speaker norms are inappropriate for foreign lan- to adhere to monolingual or ultimate attain- companiesunderstandableHeilenmansentforcesthe an idealized (typically(1993) authors, given andversion American), thethat Kramsch Americantextbooks of the etc.(1987) foreign Inareeducational an boththe examination cultureproduct point market, out, andof ofmanyinaccuracies language.twelve the competing publishing current Asare It isioralment obvious1992). modelsby secondRather, to forstudents students languagethe point that striving islearnersthey that will monolingualto as reported speakers in the literature make curious (Birdsong behav- overcome their own monolingualism.never be those mythical monolin- 495).othercollegereview thanRamirez textbooks of France" five andSpanish for constitutedHall first secondary (1990)year French, a found meretexts: Wieczorek virtually5% of a given(1994)the same text's found situation content that "areas in (p. a speakers.French/Englishagual Parisians By makingor speakers, Berliners bilingual German/Englishor Madrilerios.vastly A speakers, and Spanish/English more complicated competenceone) would the yardstick be against which more suitable norm (although based on bilingual bookstudentsteachers170 authors thatmeasure partial and theirpublishers) competence students' continue is progress, also of to virtue. teachersunderestimate Teachers could demonstrate(asthe wellprofoundlyRedefining the Boundaries ofLanguage Study as text- to eigncurriculum language programs classrooms, (Allen, I attemptedAnderson, toand merge NarviezIntrigued the 1992).two, by to the create parallels such betweena multilingual communities and for- Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 171 dobyAmerican,language.beneficial a thousandFrench who journalistAimpact Parisians Cambodian,speaks of sends Frenchhearingwhose a Senegalese,moreflawless,well the voicesenough encouraging monolingual of ato Tunisiannonnative be interviewedmessage French or, speakers forto isstudents onthat simply televisionof matter, a foreignthantheir an "importfocusingLouisianacommunity theon DepartmentState inthereal a state's University.courseworld" French of oninto Education the The the heritage.13 ethnography courseclassroom for wasthe The bydevelopmentofthe grant Francophoneinviting result monies of a avarietyof grant allowed aLouisiana curriculum from of meguest the atto monolingualencouragehavebirthright. a felicitous Instudents other norms effect words, to makesee on adoptingtheir our them 'competencestudents' asee different their motivation: glass"glasses set of aslanguage half-fullBilingual whereas as half-empty.12 norms can norms scribed.tapedtellers,lecturers: interviews etc. Cajun As a culminatingand of local Creole francophone writers, exercise, musicians, students residents, were cooks, which required educators, they laterto conduct story-tran- onproficienciesdentsMoreover, language to realize the learning(Wieczorek inclusion that languages by of1991,embracing nonnative are1994). spoken multilingual speakers in a Studentswideis essentialnorms. are Such in not helping normsthe only can ones, however, who gain array of dialects and a new perspective stu- groups:groundsenrolledconsequence, Frenchandin the linguistic coursemany majors studentsrepresented proficiencies.who understood chose a staggering Init general,asstandard an elective. diversityI thehad French students not Theof specifiedbut academic studentsfellnot theinto any Cajunback- threewho prerequisite in the course catalogue and, as a guageuniqueteachers)be empowering teachers contributions not toin forseeterms thenonnative to of nonnativea theirmulticultural shortcomings,speakers teacher world. (whether as well. but Examining rather Kramschthey arein the students writings or of terms of theirentreats lan- guisticwasdialect,thatunderstood extremely thediversity nonmajors course Cajun limited,of proposed theof French Cajun classroom and to origin butthree examine, notwas whoseexchange Cajun an Iexample decided proficiency English. students ofto theacceptReasoning in fromvery standard all phenomenon France students that French thewho who lin- doesstorya nonnativemoreprominent itis needthey,not speakerone tomultilingualnot be of monolinguals, onelaborious is "aof prerogative, lossauthors, approximation of are linguistic Kramsch becoming a right, or (forthcoming) andto thecultural someone evennorm a identity.of privilege": else'slanguage asserts norm,More that "Theiruse." and norbeing conscioustapeshowhad of enrolled. meaning conversations effort Itowas began switch negotiatedbetween the languages course French/English in byboth myself: having languages. I spokebilingualsthe students inDuring English so theyexamine class whenever could I made video- see a TheCurriculumnity metaphor takes Development:on of special the foreign significance Anlanguage Anecdote asclassroom foreign language educators seek as a multilingual commu- dentslessingtaking hadaconscious Cajun an not anglophone understood.perspective. of my own American AsI linguistic also the switched weeks perspective behavior. passed whenever and however, in I thoughtFrench I became wheneverthat some much tak-stu- classroomsstudents.opentence up of theA ethnic aredistinguishing study characterized and of linguisticlanguages feature by diversity. tremendous and of multilingualcultures In similar linguistic to acommunities morefashion, diversity. diverse foreign is The groupthe language exis- of con- to anotherinsionsmouths; English. later, student and a When visiblywhen answeredin theyI frustratedgranted did, French.they her nonmajor permission,invariably And finally so Atspoke itshe first,asked went askedin only permissionFrench. throughout a the question Amost few to the speakfluent ses-that French speakers dared to open their examplelanguageCreatingcommunity,stant challenge ina programs sensecontent-based despite facing of communityvery that teachers real attemptlanguage differences is in to theto programscreate classroom in atheir sense and students' is inof further languages-across-the-belonging, L2 complicated proficiencies. a sense inof cross disciplinary boundaries, for bilingualswitchingneedsentire andsemester, community. indesires. order the Onto students illustrate aOtherwise, few rareswitching a communicativeoccasions, I never languages commented I drew pattern according attention on prevalent the to practice theirour incode- own the of dentsmaintained172 commented throughout that the bilingualismthe semester. was On an course essential evaluations, ingredientRedefining most of bilingualism,"the stu- the Boundaries which of Language we had Study tacitly adopted at the beginning and communitybelongingproblems. toIt do. acould social Their be groupallegiance argued in thethat to same theirstudents waychosen dothat notlanguage members see themselves is of frequently a speech Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 173 as nonmajorsclass.createdMorecourse, important,In justespecially the like enough words me nonmajors since to ofof stay aone "scaffold"it reflectedafloat." student,wrote thatHowever,for the"using themthe speech occasional toEnglish differences participate community as use support insuccessfullyof theunder English students' allowed study. had in guals,isn'tchemistryofsuperficial; a student'sdownright even lab inwhen schedulefact,so ludicrous I qualified switchedthe choice ("I to signed referasto of Spanish.")."incipient." a to languageup beginning for German Teachers Andis often language finally, but due may it to conflictsstudentsforeign also the arbitrarinesswonder language with ifmy it as bilin- sions,byneutralized.proficiency their it intimateturned levelsThe out nonmajorsbackground did to not be magicallythe compensated knowledgenonmajors disappear, ofwhofor the their "explained" ratherculture. linguistic they On were severalthe deficiencies assignedpartially occa- Cazdenspeakereducators category,(1988) could who easily a category advises take exception onteachers which to torests understandthe many "deconstruction"A response long-held the limits to assumptions. these ofand the reasonable native counter-arguments comes from assump- Frenchmajorsculturalreadings (standard alikeallusions to the agreed linguistically andwere thatdialect) lost. their And had moreability surprisingly, increased proficient to speak asThis botha resultandmajors anecdoteFrench comprehend of the majors is not and spoken offered as a general model for other foreign on whom many course. non- roomcautionscompletelyouttions that when of metaphors,educators any disregardinvoking metaphor that by ormetaphors. they ignorenature,used must to important describeserve notThus, forget to the classroomdifferences.highlight themetaphor particularities similaritiespractice. Forof community this Cazdenof thebut class- may pointsas it reason, she out,howlanguage quiteteachersmetaphors rightly, teachers may that change theyto thisfollow. teach coursetheir Rather,by." curriculum is Be based itthat is intendedonas and itan practiceexperience as by changingoccurring the in may, skeptical teachers may point a specific example of nitysupport"ing,applies andmetaphor to whose (p. the 198). classroom changemust Furthermore, be the referstaken environment toin the "a the classroom-as-a-multilingual-commu-community spirit should in bewhich of specifically people it is who used designed hereas to are chang- a Hispanic,Unitedthecircumstancean area other ofStates hand, Portuguese,the that countrythat there is are unusual, areHaitian,where readily many ifthere Italian,availablenot immigrant areextraordinary, Pennsylvaniaa great to communitiesforeign many in German,thespeakerslanguage United throughout of educators:States. French, theOn a etc. Foreign literaryrecentlyholdsheuristic, curricular discourseargued a tool that to boundariesbut help metaphor rather educators an isin essential nottheir explore simply places. building the Cognitiveconventional block of scientists human wisdom cogni- have that a figurative device restricted to (1992)aboutlargelylanguage exposing acknowledgeuntapped teachers students resources.will that have while to to Manysuch decide contact nonstandard teachers for with themselves these dialects. immigrant how bestFrye speech and Garza are likely to have misgivings to use these com- "aspiringeducatorstheirtion (Lakoffclassroom monolinguals," use tell and practice.much Johnson aboutto use 1980). howKramsch's theyThus, conceive aptlythe Asmetaphors caustic forof their the phrase, problem foreignprofession I think language of anditseeing is students as bilinguals rather than as understandingrichlyopportunitiesmunities(p. 232). rewarding poses such some and and as appreciation problems, theseought provide to bethe exploited rewardsofa level these of greatly communities authentic outweigh in the risks: ". to the maximum, to increase contact that can be our midst" . . establishmenthavecludednativetime thatthe speaker that same foreign there and agrammatical simple is languagenonnative no simple metric educatorsspeaker. methodfor determining byreevaluate which native the speakershipreceived categories (Davies competence. Neither has the sociolinguistic . The linguistic establishment has con- to prove that two speakers educatorsWhileConclusion the redefinemetaphor the of boundaries the multilingual of language community study, isit isuseful in helping not without its sincecepts(Lakoff1991). itas is fuzzy, human 1987).It seems their inclination One thatboundaries may we haveaskto prefer as what no blurred. choice categories the point Thisbut isofwith a most discrete difficult boundaries choice to accept our most basic con- a boundary is if not to 174 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 175 cionTheitydemonstrate metaphorand of beingeven derisionofboth unequivocally the in multilingual anddirected out atwhatat thespeechspeakers thingssame community whotime. are instraddle It andalso emphasizes what indicatesthe linguistic things thethe are real- suspi-and out. 3. whoMcLaughlinactuallylinguistic say they closer criteria).are (1985) Frenchto Creole Theand speakers Cazden(Tentchoffconverse when (1988) has 1975; in been factinclude Valdman, their reported several language forthcoming). tooinformants classic variety ethno- is toteacherscultural construct line. and a learners context offor a creativesecond language,and meaningful fromBialystok a discourse cultural and perspective,Hakuta by taking (1994) full is state that "the exciting challenge for 4. secondusefulnessgraphic language studies of research.ethnographic of classroom methodsinteraction. in herJohnson survey (1992) of approaches discusses the to teachersmethodologicaltheadvantage participants" from of thetaking rich"boundaries" (p. full 203).personal, advantage It is cultural, ofunfortunate foreignof this and richness. language linguistic that current At education present,backgrounds curricular the prohibit foreign of and all 5. EnglishstoodThethree survey French milliononly conducted (Ageradvocates of the 1990, twenty-six by have p. Abbe 16) claimed Grégoiremillion that French thereported English population that language in 1789 fully isonlyunder- in wayscoursesandlanguage a tomultilingual increasinglyaddress teaching the professionreality. growingirrelevant Students culturalis and caught anachronistic are and between likely linguistic to aunless findmonolingual diversity foreign teachers inside language ideologycan findand Spanish-speakingEnglishunlikeneed of previousmonolingual protection populationsgenerations from norms. immigrants ofwho The immigrants insist claim onwho specialwho refuse assimilated language to learn quicklyservices English to is leveled primarily at thatspeakersandnities.outside is the Ittheir ishallmark time classrooms. to encourage to of see multilingualism. students It is in time them as to theythe"reimagine" unique areas multilingual linguistic our classroom adaptability nonnative commu- TinkerconductedSurvey.arelike at bilingual odds Foundations. The under with survey,education thethe facts auspicesundertaken According and uncovered bilingual of the in to 1990 Ford,in theballots. the survey, andRockefeller, Latino Such released Spanish-speaking Nationalclaims, inSpencer, 1992, however, Political wasand Notes1. totheThis Claire ACTFL/AAUSC article Kramsch is a longer and meeting version two anonymous inof Atlanta,a paper readers byNovember a similar for their 1994.title helpfulpresented My thanks sug- at Americanshowp.alreadyIn 13)fact, Latinos point considersthe overwhelmingly survey out,claim monolingual itself toshows support to bethatfeel English-speaking.the theAmericansthat learning majority it is important of simply English,of the As to doLatinoFraga whilelearn not et understandpopulation English.simultane- al. (1994, aretiallyBenedictgestions. mine. products ThanksAnderson's of alsothe human importantto Keith imagination. Walters insight forthat Any bringing communities remaining to my are problemsattention essen- Latinos,ouslyforditure supportingtheir however,of taxchildren dollars the there useto to belongis ofprovide no two contradiction. tolanguages public both culturesservices in Latino education inand parentsSpanish. and simply theTo bilingual wish to speak both lan- expen- 2. self-perceptionsAttemptsnitiesFor example, speakers to determine in ormove francophone the perceptionswhoback belongsand Louisiana forth of to betweenothers a speech as runin Cajun many communityinto French,difficultiesbilingual based Louisiana commu- too. on 6. today,theseFragaguages, terms: et5,000-8,000 in al. other (1994) "In words, the describe ethnic approximately to inhabit groups the world-wide the and same160 nationbilingual multilingual world situationas they. in more than 4,000 distinct lan- states in the world Creole,guagetoshipUnder identify are and varietysuch often Americanthemselves fluid isin more conflict. conditions, Englishappropriately as CreoleFor self- example,according speakers and classified other-perceptions it to iswhen communicativenot as unusualinFrench fact their (according forof member- speakersfirstneed. lan- to whonationalspeakmono-ethnic.guages interact the exist. language" societal in Obviously, Eachother language,(p. has languages 11). groupsfew nationswho livingin mayaddition indeed within speak are its it either withborders monolinguallimitations, who do or to or instead of the not or 7.176 SpeakersThe notion may of also choice chooseRedefining is betweennot the limited Boundaries dialects to ofthe or Language even category registers Study "language." of a single 11. For an overview of Vygotskian socioculturalond language theory as acquisition, it applies to see sec- Frawley and Lantolf 1985; Lantolf and Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 177 8. FergusontheThedialect.rounding Frenchterm Indeed, diglossia (1959). linguisticlinguist speaker comesFishman Marcais.variation. choice from (1967) Thethe is Frenchat seminal laterthe heart wordexpanded article of diglossie all on questionsand diglossia asmodified used byis sur- 12. My point in invoking the container metaphorguageAppelfull glasslearner1994. of the is attitudes.half-empty/half-simply to Ishow am aware how different that much norms has been lead writtento different about lan- diglossicdiglossiatheFerguson's concept doessociety, originalof notdiglossia onlyimply ideas. a (Fergusonbilingualismsmall Ferguson, percentage 1990). forper hisse. Itof part, isForthe important example,population continues to in notetois Haiti, profi-refine that a 13. The proposal was entitled "Teaching LanguagethroughLocalgualthe competence inappropriatenessResources: a andgrant Culture from (cf.A Curriculum Romaine theThrough of Quality the 1989). containeron EducationFrench metaphor Louisiana" Fund asof and appliedthe was Louisiana funded to bilin- 9. AtonexcludedHaitianscient present, phonological in bothitfromwho is unclear Haitianactivitiesare and monolingual if morphosyntactic borrowingCreole that require and Creole and French.French. CS criteria speakersare Thedistinguishable (see large find Myers-Scotton themselvesmajority based of Adams,Works Cited Karen, and Daniel Brink, eds. 1990.State Perspectives Department on ofOfficial Education (1991-1992). whichphenomenacode-switching.switching).1993a grammatical for fromPiconean in-depth He Louisianastructures gives(1994) treatment many French:mayargues examplesshare of forIl the aproperties anretire grammatical ofintermediate such('He of retired');code-intermediate borrowing aspects category J'ai of anddrive code- in Ager, Dennis. 1990. Sociolinguistics and Contemporary(UK):NewEnglish: York: Cambridge TheFrench. Mouton Campaign Cambridge University de Gruyter.for English Press. as the Official Language of the USA. 10. Given this widespread negative attitudeen towardsurprising(p. ville 323). ('I language drove to find to mixing, intrasententialtown'); itFai is ride code-switching sur le bike ('I rodein a recent on the first-year bike') Anderson,Allen, Wendy, Benedict. Keith 1991. Anderson, Imagined and Communities: LeonComponent. Narviez.OriginLanguages Reflections and 1992. Foreign SpreadAcross Foreign Languageof the Nationalism. Curriculum: Annals Revised 25:The 11-19. Applied Edition. Foreign London Language and New on the modelsaddressandswitchingFrench Gigi, andtextbookthe inwho studentexplanations the introduce text entitled directly are restrictedthat themselves«rveux through we hope tobienlo. thetwo willto text: cartoonthe Examplesanswer "We'llreader characters, many beas of offeringguides ofsuch the Gaston code- ques-who you Auer,Bialystok, J. C. P. Ellen, 1984. and Bilingual Kenji Hakuta.Conversation. 1994. InAmsterdam/Philadelphia: OtherBenjamins.York: Words: Verso Publishers. The Science John and Biennizablecode-switchingtions entenduyou as maybelonging (Of have is course),always about to an set allFrench"informal Frenchoff by (Braggerquotation oralhouses register: are and marks not Rice the and 1994,same. clearly p.Chez 2). The recog- Blom,Birdsong, Jan Peter, David. and 1992. John UltimateGumperz. Attainment1972. SocialAcquisition.Psychology inMeaning Second of Language Secondin LanguageLinguistic Language 68: 706-755. Acquisition. New York: Basic Books. study),times.conscavemoi, andaparoff (Braggeryin thethere'sexemple, (wine second and alsocellar) Ricewe storyune havein 1994, chambre thewindows, une basement.p. 95) terrasse d'ami, her Chez parents wherebehind Gigi, I've havethe there stayed house un are bureau lots anddes of bal-une (a Rinehart,editedStructure: by andCode-Switching J. Gumperz Winston. and in Norway.D. Hymes, In Directions 407-34. Newin Sociolinguistics, York: Holt, 178 Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 179 Bragger,Blyth, Carl. Jeannette, Forthcoming. and Donald The Rice. Sociolinguistic 1994. ofveux SituationThe bien.foCreole Effects inManuelof Louisiana, Cajunof Language de French: classe. edited Shift by A.and Valdman. Language New Loss. York: In Plenum French Press. and Fishman, Joshua. 1967. Bilingualism WithDiglossiaof Linguistics With 10: and 214-34. Without Bilingualism.. 1990. Diglossia Revisited. Studies in Diglossia. Southwest Journal Journal andof Social Without Issues Diglossia; 32: Campbell, R., and R. Wales. 1970. The Study NewBoston:of(UK): Language Horizons Heinle Penguin Acquisition. ifk in Books. HeinleLinguistics, Publishers. edited by J. Lyons. Harmondsworth Fraga, Luis, Herman Gallegos, Gerald P. Lopez,StillRosaldo,29-52. Looking Jose For Saldivar, America: RamOn Beyond Saldivar, The Latino Nationaland Political Guadalupe Valdés. 1994.Mary Louise Pratt, Renato Chomsky,Cazden, Courtney. Noam. 1965. 1988. Aspects Classroom of the Discourse: Theory of MITandThe Syntax. Learning. LanguagePress. Cambridge, Portsmouth,of Teaching MA: NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc. Frawley, William, and James Lantolf. A VygotskyanUniversity,Survey. A Perspective. reportPalo Alto, prepared AppliedCA. by Linguistics the Public 1985. Second Language Discourse: Outreach Project, Stanford 6: 143-59. Coppieters,Cook, Vivian. Rene. 1992. 1987. Evidence Competence for Multicompetence. DifferencesNear-Native42: 576-91. Between Language Speakers. Native Learning Languageand 63: 544-73. Frye, Robert, and Thomas Garza. Lincolnwood,SpeechCollege: and Curriculum Culture IL: National and Textbook Content, edited at Home and Abroad. In Teaching Languages in 1992. Authentic Contact With Native Co. by Wilga Rivers, 225-44. Donato,Davies, Alan. Richard. 1991. 1994.The Native Collective Speaker Scaffolding in AppliedEdinburghLearning. Linguistics. in Second University In Vygotskian Edinburgh:Language Press. Approaches to Second Language Research, Gal, Susan. 1978. Peasant Men Can't BilingualSex Roles Austria. in a Bilingual New York: Community. Academic. 1979. Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Get Wives: Language ChangeLanguage and in Socieo,Press. 7: 1-16. Dorian, Nancy. 1982. Defining the Speech CommunityWorkingPublishingedited by Margins. J.Corporation. toLantolf Include Sociolinguistic and Its G. Appel, Patterns 33-56. in Norwood,Speech Communities, NJ: Ablex Giauque, G., and C. Ely. 1990. Code-switching(UK):Schooling,Language Multilingual Teaching.edited by Matters. R. In Jacobson Language and Distribution C. Faltis, 174-184. Clevedon in Beginning Foreign Issues in Bilingual Durin, Richard P. 1981. Latino Language andedited Norwood,Communicative by Suzanne NJ: Ablex Romaine,Behavior. Publishing 25-33. Corporation. London: Edward Arnold. Hanks,Gumperz, William John. 1962. Types of LinguisticPeripheralLinguistics Participation, 4: 28-40. by J. Lave F. 1991. Foreword. Situated Learning: Legitimate and E. Wenger, 13-24. Cambridge Communities. Anthropological Ellis,Faltis, Rod. Christian. 1985. Understanding 1990. New Directions Second inLanguage BilingualOxfordinStudy BilingualAcquisition. ResearchUniversity of Interactive Schooling, Design: Press.Oxford: Decision The edited Making. by R. InJacobson Language and Distribution C. Faltis, 45-57.Issues Hatch, 401-35.Acquisition.(UK): Rowley,Cambridge Second MA: University Language Newbury Press. Evelyn. 1978. Discourse Analysis and Second Language House.Acquisition, edited by E. Hatch, Ferguson,Fasold, Ralph. Charles. 1984. 1959. The Diglossia. Sociolinguistics Word 15: 325-40.ofClevedon Society.Blackwell (UK): London: Ltd. Multilingual Basil Matters. Heilenman, L. Kathy. 1993. Of Textbooks,MA: Newbury and the House. Academy. . 1983. Psycholinguistics : A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, Cultures andPublishing Compromises: Research Publishers, Quarterly 9: 55-67. Hymes,180 Dell. 1972. On Communicative Competence.edited by In J.Sociolinguistics, B. PrideRedefining and J. the Holmes. Boundaries Harmondsworth of Language Study (UK): Penguin Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. SituatedPeripheral Learning: Participation. Legitimate Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 181 Jacobson, Rodolfo. 1981. The Implementation of editedBilingualModel:Books.a Bilingual by The Education R.Instructional New Padilla, Concurrent Research, 14-29. vol. Approach.Ypsilanti, 3: Bilingual InMI: EducationEthnoperspectives Eastern Technology, Michigan in McLaughlin,McCafferty, StevenBarry. G.1985. 1994. Second Adult Language Second421-36.Private Language AcquisitionPress. Speech: Learners' in A Childhood: Review Use of Studies. Modern Language Journal 78: DevelopmentsUnivers'82, editediry, by in H.Bilingual Altman Methodology. and. M. McClure, In Dimension:1983. 110-31. Can Two LanguageLouisville: Languages Be Developed Concurrently? Recent Milk, Robert D. 1990. Integrating Language andforAssociates. LanguageContent:Volume 2.Implications Distribution School-Age inChildren. Bilingual Hillsdale, Classrooms. NJ: Lawrence In Language Erlbaum JacobsonInUniversity Language and of C. Louisville.Distribution Faltis, 3-17. Issues Clevedon. 1990. in Bilingual (UK): Multilingual Schooling, edited Matters. by R. Allocating Two Languages as a Key Feature of a Bilingual. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993a. Duelling Languages:inC.Distribution Codeswitching.Faltis. Grammatical 32-44. Issues Clevedon StructureOxford: in Bilingual Clarendon (UK): Schooling, Multilingual Press. edited Matters. by R. Jacobson and Johnson,Jacobson, DonnaRodolfo, M. and 1992. Christian Approaches Faltis, toeds. Research 1990.Learning.Issues Language inin SecondBilingual New DistributionYork: Language Schooling. Longman. Clevedon (UK): Multilingual Matters. Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language Transfer: Cross-linguisticLanguageOxford: Clarendon Learning. Influence Press. Cambridge in (UK): Cambridge199313. University Social Press. Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Kern, Richard G. 1994. The Role of Mental441-61.Language Translation Reading. in SecondStudies in Second Language Acquisition 16: Omaggio011er, John Hadley, W. 1993. Alice. Methods 1993. That Teaching Work. Ideas Language HeinleForTeachers. Literacy in & Context. Heinle Boston: and Publishers.Language Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Kramsch, Claire. 1987. Foreign Language Textbooks'Foreign Reality. Construction Canadian of Modern. Language ReviewForthcoming. 44: 95-119. The Privilege of the Intercultural Speaker. In Picone, Michael D. 1994. Code-intermediateFrench. Phenomena Chicago in LinguisticLouisiana Society 30: 320-34. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, andForeign DangerousPress.Byram Language and Things:M. Fleming.Learning What inCambridge Intercultural (UK): Perspective, Cambridge edited University by M. Preston,Platt, Elizabeth, Dennis. 1989. and FrankSociolinguistics B. Brooks. and 1994. SecondNew TheEnvironment' LanguageYork: 'Acquisition-Rich Basil Acquisition. Revisited.Blackwell, ModernInc. Language Journal 78: 497-511. Lantolf, James P, and Gabriela Appel. 1994. VygotskianUniversityCategories of Approaches RevealChicago About Press. to the Mind., Chicago: Chicagoand University Mark Johnson. Press. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Ramirez, Arnulfo,Arnulfo. and 1980. Joan Language Kelly Hall. in 1990.BilingualJournalSecondary Language Classrooms.4: 61-79. Leveland Culture Spanish NABE in Textbooks. The Modern Language Journal Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Michael H. Long.SecondCorporation. 1991. LanguageAnLanguage Introduction Acquisition to Research. New York: Longman. Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Richards, James. 1986. Approaches and MethodsCambridge74: in 48-65. Language (UK): Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Rommetveit,Romaine,182 Suzanne. R. 1985. 1989. Language Bilingualism. Acquisition Oxford: Basil Blackwell, RedefiningLtd. the Boundaries of Language Study as Increasing Linguistic Wood, D., J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976.Problem The Role Solving. of Tutoring Journal in of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: Redefining the Boundaries of Language Use 183 Savignon, Sandra. 1972. Communicative Competence:Structuring183-204.Culture, An Communication,Cambridge Experiment of Experience (UK): andCambridge Cognition,Symbolic University Behavioredited byPress J.Control. V. Wertsch, In Zéphir, Fiore, and Marie-Magdelaine Chirol.Assistants 1993.Language89-100. Attitudes and in Beginning Studentsof Teaching FrenchToward Classes. the Exclusive In The Dynamics Use of the of LanguageTarget MA:ForeignDevelopment. Addison-Welsey Language Teaching. Publishing Philadelphia: .Company. 1983. Communicative Center for Competence: Curriculum Theory and Practice. Reading, in Publishers.editedProgram by Direction. David P. AAUSC Benseler, Issues 241-63. in Language Boston: Program Heinle Direction,& Heinle ShrumSchiffrin,Saville-Troike, Judith Deborah. L., Muriel. and Eileen 1989. TheW. Glisan.Ethnography 1994.Blackwell,Introduction. of Teacher's Communication: Ltd. Oxford: Handbook: Basil Blackwell, Ltd. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. London: Basil An Skuttnab-Kangas, T. Minorities.Publishers.Contextualized Clevedon Language (UK): Multilingual Instruction. Matters. Boston: Heinle & Heinle 1981. Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Tentchoff, D. 1975. Cajun French and French Creole:87-109.ChangeQuestions Their Lafayette:in ofSouthSpeakers Identity. Louisiana, University and In The ofedited Culture Southwestern by ofS. Acadiana:Del Louisiana. Sesto Traditionsand J. Gibson, and Valdman,Valc16-Fallis, Albert. Guadalupe. Forthcoming. 1978. Code Le francais Switching andClearinghouseCenter the Classroom on Teacher. Language and Linguistics. for Applied Linguistics. Washington,en Louisiane. In Le franfais DC: ERIC Wieczorek,Vygotsky, Lev Joseph S. 1986. A. 1991. Thought Spanish and Dialects Language. dansandPress. Cambridge, therespace Foreign francophone, MA:Language MIT edited by A. Valdman. ForeignTextbook: Language A Sound Annals Perspective. 27: 487-97. Hispania. 74: 175-81.1994. The Concept of 'French' in Foreign Language Texts.